[Kuruharan]

There is no indication that Dwarves are bnond-servants to their kings, it is simply unthinkable that Dain could have blocked Balin and co. for any reason other than treason or abandonong a post during war or somesuch.

I hate to keep beating this horse, and I don't mean to sound patronizing, but what exactly do you think a king's authority was? Kings were in charge, they were The Man. This was not a democracy where people had specific protections from the authority of their leaders. They probably had customary duties to the king that in return the king performed specific responsibilities. However, the people owed obedience to the king as part of the deal. This is how monarchy worked. And this is assuming that the Dwarven monarchy was something along the lines of a tribal structure. If the king ruled by something akin to divine right (which is a possibility because of the fact that the king was the physically present deputy of Durin) then the matter would be slightly different. Then the subjects would have to be obedient just because.

Surely lords of the race of Durin as Balin was couild come and go at their own wish as long as there was no War or danger to the community.

I'm not entirely convinced that Dwarves operated along the feudal lines of having a hierarchy of great lords who could do whatever they wanted.

Well, at least inside specific kingdoms. The conglomeration of kings of all the various realms of the Longbeards obviously had a great deal of autonomy. What I meant is that inside the individual kingdoms there is just not really room for there to be a bunch of fiefs holding from the king. Given the rather limited space I have to believe that (politically at least) the king was in charge.

but there is no sign that Dain had any more authority to order people of his realm around [ other than his household /guard of course] than the kings of the noldor did.

Umm...you are going to have to provide specific examples of the lack of authority kings of the Noldor had inside their own realms. From what I remember, and admittedly I am pressed for time and don't have my books handy, the kings could give orders and be obeyed by their people. I doubt that Turgon's will was flouted very much in Gondolin.

Do we see Fingon ordering Nargothrond to war? No the order would have been scoffed at.

But that is not the same thing. This was inside Dain's own personal kingdom, not a matter of dealing with an under-king. Balin was not set up on his own yet. He was in Dain's kingdom, and king's will have their own way in their own hall you know.

Just as Noldorin Kings rule by suufferance, I see no sign Dwarven kings were different.

As I said above, there are indications that Dwarven kings might be different.

I fail to see how Dain would be responsible for any Dwarf that leaves his kingdom intent on setting up another.

Because this was a political matter. Whatever else, you have to see that kings were the political authority of a people/nation/state or whatever word you want to use. The establishment of a new kingdom is very much a political matter. And Dain would still have been the over-king. Balin's colonists would still in some sense be Dain's people. Remember Dain's words to Thrain about how he (Thrain) was the father of their folk. The tie would still have been there. If Dain had found out about the desperate trouble that Balin had gotten themselves in he would have been obligated to do something to help them.

I'm out of time and must go to class. I'll be back to finish up later.

-----

Okay, it's later.

Basically the one final point I wanted to make was that the way that Gloin said gave leave to go implied, to my mind at least, that Dain's consent was necessary for the colonists departure.

[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]