Quote:
Quote:
|
Returning to Beleriand, by the First Age things would be a lot more variable, but probably generally the Kings would be-and would need to be-extremely powerful. They after all kept large enough armies in the field to keep Morgoth locked in for some time. That needs unquestioned obedience.
|
I'm not sure whether you are still referring to the alpha-Elvenkings here. If so, then I disagree. Prior to the Bragollach, Fingolfin made up his mind and wanted to attack Morgoth with all power of Elves and Men. Maedhros liked the cushions of his couch better, and that was it. And prior to the Nirnaeth, Fingon's power was obviously not enough to get Orodreth to move. Even in Beleriand, the power of the High Kings was few more than ceremonial, I think. Fingolfin and Fingon ruled Mithrim - farther their influence did not spread. The siege of Angband only worked because the leaders of the three houses of the Noldor agreed to it, not because Maedhros and Finrod obeyed.
I don't think that the High Kingship of the Noldor held a lot of power, or if it did, it at least wasn't used to be exercised. Turgon, the High King's son, completely vanished with a lot of the King's folk from one day to the other without leaving an address and without asking for leave. Later, Turgon himself becomes King, but he is in no position to effectively rule anything but his own realm.
If you're referring to beta-kings like the early Turgon etc., then you might be right.
|
I'd assumed he was referring to the kings in their own realms.
What I wonder about is the structure of said monarchies. I'm not sure that any of them really answer to the description of
feudal with vassals and fiefs, etc. Elven monarchies might be closer to absolutism, in the sense that the king maintains a centralized government without a whole lot of delegation of power (maybe that should be "permanent delegation of power" but that gets tangled up with the Elven lifespan).