Medieval Europe spanned from the fall of the Roman Empire to the rise of absolute monarchies, bridging the gap between the ancient and the modern world. After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Europe fell into political disarray. The Germanic tribes which overran the empire had little interest in unifying the land, with the notable exception of Charlemagne, and the people under one rule. What few attempts were made were limited by the lack of resources available. Instead, the territory of former empire was divided into several smaller kingdoms which were governed by personal ties. Military warfare reigned, and violence was rampant. In order to secure protection, people turned to wealthy lords and offered their military services in exchange for land.
All forms of state administration and government centralization eroded away as communication between the populous broke down. Roads became unused; forests grew wild and trade became localized, relying mostly on the barter system. A cohesive sense of political identity which typically accompanies the state vanished; thus, power of the kings was limited by the physical distance between the ruler and the ruled. A decline in royal power ensued; the ‘state,’ or lack thereof as some scholars would argue, became fragmented as the growing dependence of man upon man strengthened. Historians and political theorists alike have coined the term feudalism to describe this transition of state power into private hands.
The definition of feudalism is derived from the Latin root feodum, meaning fief which within historical context refers to the land granted by a lord to his vassal;[1] this evolved into the French term feodalite, in reference of property ownership and land tenure, which in turn would later translate into the English word feudalism.[2] Yet, it should be noted, in accordance to Susan Reynolds’ thesis, that the terminology of feudalism originated solely in regards to property law, namely characteristics regarding the fief, and has been expanded, possibly inaccurately, to include all social and political attributes of Medieval Europe.[3] The expansion of the terminology mistakenly implies that all western European societies within the middle ages followed a clear trajectory whereby all royalty, nobility, and peasantry in common social and political practices, ignoring the vast differences of feudal culture throughout the western European kingdoms.[4]
Within Germany and Italy, for example, the feudal entanglement of power developed slower than their French and English counterparts.[5] In England, feudalism became correlated with strengthening of royal power under William the Conquer while in France, feudal power represented the escalating strength of nobility and the weakening of central authority.[6] Thus, the term feudalism, itself, is a nebulous one, applied only retrospectively, through the eighteenth century lens of the enlightenment, in scholars’ attempt to explain the common practices during an era marked by political, social, and intellectual chaos.[7] However, under the reign of Charlemagne, and the Carolingian dynasty, three distinct attributes of feudalism emerge: the importance of fealty and homage, military conquest and vassalage.
Scholars have spilled gallons of ink tracing the origins of feudalism, a term which was not used until the seventeenth century to describe a system of practices which were dying out. In 1941, Carl Stephenson wrote upon feudalism’s origins and significance.[8] Building off of the premise started by Paul Roth in 1850, Stephenson claimed that the subject of feudalism had largely been misrepresented in academia.[9] Like Roth, Stephenson rebuts the previously held notions of feudalism, which were colored by nationalistic sentiments, being strictly of “barbarian invasions.”[10] Stephenson asserts that the practices which characterized the feudal state in medieval Europe as a fusion of the Germanic and Roman traditions.
The tradition of Commitatus, as described by Tacitus, established the bond between a Germanic warrior and his lord, describing a primitive from of interdependence between men that carried over into the practice of vassalage. “Among the war-band [comitatus],”[11] soldiers align themselves with a chief who provides them with “a war horse and weapons;” the chief also provides the soldiers with food as the basis for their service, yet it is the allure of wealth through conquest which serves as soldiers’ the primary motivation for battle. The Roman Precaria establishes contracts of land tenure whereby “the owner gained a regular rent and the dependent gained the protection of the lord and some land to cultivate.”[12]
These contracts granted the right to use church property for a specified amount of time, usually the duration of the grantee’s life, in exchange for “services rendered for the church.”[13] Though the Precaria focuses on church property of the king, the concept of benefices was carried over into feudal society.[14]However, these benefices were not hereditary and thus, the lord did not run the risk of losing any power the land tenure offered him.[15] Benefices and oaths of fealty, drawn from the warrior allegiance of Germanic tradition, were combined under Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire to give rise to the ‘feudal state’ of medieval France.[16]
According to Opello and Roscow , the feudal state in the strictest political sense was not an actual state but was a series of politico-military arrangements left over from the “fragmented successors of Germanic kingdoms lumped together under the term feudalism due to their apparent connection to the medieval institution of the fief.”[17] “Feudal politico military rule lacked key features of a state such as permanent structures for decision making, a standing army, and extensive administration that operated according to codified law.”[18] Centralization of power, crumbled with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire; feudal society fell into a hierarchical order where individuals were bond to one another through oats of loyalty.[19] Authority of kings was limited by the absence of the standing army[20] and increasing power of the aristocrats. Other than the control of land, the nobility asserted their power through military leadership[21] which according to Bruce Porter and Perry Anderson was a fundamental aspect of feudal culture. “Charlemagne was, above all else a warrior king.”[22] Following in the tradition of his grandfather whose infamous defeat of the Muslims at the Battle of Tours which aided in winning the support of the papacy, Charlemagne’s greatest achievement was the expansion of his kingdom.
Through the superior utilization of the armed horsemen, Charlemagne conquered the neighboring Avar and Slav territories and gained Rome back from the Lombards, essentially succeeding in re-creating the Western Roman Empire. Charlemagne’s success of conquest relied heavily on his trusted lords whose influence was bought through land gifts and the treasures of plunder; ultimately this practice of rewarding the lords gave rise to the French aristocracy whose greed only continued to increase as did their hunger for war. Due to the personal nature of medieval politics, the aristocrats established themselves as warriors and thus, war became their prime reason for existing. Both scholars, Porter and Anderson, claim that war led to the conquering of land which nobles accurately identified as the “source of all wealth.”[23]
Indeed, most forms of taxation were practically non-existent.[24] Also because Charlemagne failed to secure the Mediterranean, trade was severely hindered, the kingdom remained largely rural, and the barter system remained largely intact despite the Charlemagne’s attempt at silver coinage. Therefore, revenue was largely cultivated through the pillaging of private lands.[25] Therefore, Charlemagne’s lords and appointed officials were only as loyal as long as they continued to reap the financial benefits of his conquest; once Charlemagne ceased territorial expansion, the nobles grew restless and, since there were no permanent institutions to secure royal power, ultimately resisted the ruling efforts of his sons and grandsons.
Whether the practices found in feudalism originate in the traditions of ancient Rome, Germanic tribes, or the Frankish kingdom remain a contested subject of debate. Scholars reach consensus, however, that feudalism in the form which characterized medieval Europe emerges in the Frankish Kingdom, beginning with Charlemagne and his predecessors.[26] Charles Martel and his son, Pepin, bought the allegiance of their nobles through granting them land; this ultimately served to strengthen royal power within the Carolingian Empire which was capitalized upon and increased by Charlemagne.[27] This centralization of authority remained brief within the history of the Carolingian monarchy as the rulers failed to create permanent institutions of government in place. The continuation of land grants in exchange for the services, usually military, from Frankish nobility, weakened the structure of royal power after Charlemagne’s death. Beginning with Martel’s despoiling of the church in which he hoped to gain secondary fiefs, the phenomenon of “subinfeudation,”[28] where fiefs became hereditary, created the most direct causation of royal authority.[29] Freemen became beholden to their individual lords rather than their king and the Charlemagne’s successors had no way of removing power from the individual lords as it was custom for the emperor to create separate dukedoms to govern his vast empire. This resulted in a fragmentation in the French feudal state where principalities and dukedoms existed almost “independent of the king.”[30]
Essential to the understanding of feudalism, is the concept of vassalage whereby a man is tied to his lord in a system of mutual obligation; the lord protected his vassal and the vassal served his lord.[31] Traditionally, nobles were given gifts of land, known as fiefs, by the king in exchange for military services and counsel. These nobles, in turn, took oaths of allegiance to the king. However, a noble’s loyalty to the king was tenuous at best, extending only as far as the king served the best interest of their vassals. These fiefs eventually became hereditary which restricted social mobility. Furthermore the trickle-down effect of feudalism, where vassals of kings became lords in of themselves with their own vassals, limited the reach of the king. State’ fragmentation increased because each man’s allegiance fell to his feudal lord not to the king himself.[32]
In 1939, Marc Bloch’s Feudal Society was translated from its original French into English; split, into two volumes, Bloch’s ground breaking work focused exclusively on the political and social implications of feudalism, whereby man became completely dependent upon man; the superiority party was termed lord and the subordinate party eventually undertook the term vassal.[33] The emphasis of Bloch’s work is largely concentrated on three estates of feudalism, stressing not only the impact of vassalage on the warrior class but also on the clergy and the peasants. Bloch asserts, in opposition to Porter, that society in its entirety from peasant to king was bound by vassalage.[34] The bonds of vassalage, which Bloch terms “the strongest social bonds known of feudal era,” were cemented by homage.[35] Pierre Gouber in his survey of French History continues the work started by Bloch, focusing on the impact of vassalage of the three estates which compose feudal society.[36] Goubert narrows the scope of his research to the localized region of the Frankish kingdom, emphasizing the decline in royal authority and rise of the feudal aristocracy over controlling the three orders of society: 1) those who pray; 2) those that fight, and 3) those who labor. Goubert defines feudalism as the “links between man and man”[37] and focuses much of his description of medieval France on the ceremony homage and the mutual duties between lord and vassal concerning counsel and military aid.[38]
Until the age of the Carolingians, homage originally had almost no ties to Christianity; the Carolingian dynasty added a second feature in which the vassal would lays his hand on the gospel or a sacred relic while swearing loyalty to his new master.[39] This process of rooting loyalty within the Christian tradition reinforced the power of the church and reinforced the legitimacy of the king- namely Charlemagne.[40] As demonstrated in the Double Capitulary of Thoinville, Charlemagne required oaths of fealty from all of his subjects whereby his rule was superior to every lord; the document states “concerning the swearing of oaths, that fealty should not be worn to anyone except us.”[41] By 708, all men be they peasant or nobility were meant to undergo oaths of fealty by the age of twelve.[42] Despite Charlemagne’s emphasis of oaths of loyalty, the truth remained that most of his subjects had loyalty to other lords whose protection and alliance took priority over the king due to the physical distance of the king.
Indeed, as discussed by Reynolds regarding the Charlemagne’s Vassi (roughly translated into royal subjects), some subjects only even laid eyes on the king when undergoing the oath of fealty whereby afterwards they never saw the king again.[43] Thus, the fealty oaths held little merit. Most of Charlemagne’s Vassi, had been appointed by counts and owed allegiance to them first and foremost.[44] Thus oaths of fealty were taken before the king simply because he was king and for no other reason; once the fealty oath was fulfilled most subject continued allegiance to their respective lord. Feudalism’s fragmentation of Europe created an opening for Charlemagne to exploit the weaknesses of the interpersonal bonds of vassalage and concentrate power with a reunited empire.
However, as Hegel and other political theorists have argued the consolidation of royal power was only temporary and focused only on increasing the prestige of Charlemagne’s reign rather than creating political institutions that would survive the transfer of authority.[45] Power passed into the hands of his lords, giving rise to the feudal nobility who continued the practice of vassalage and the act of fealty. The combination of homage and fealty emphasized the duality of dependence and protection inherent in vassalage. Charlemagne’s empire crumbled when the man who created it died.[46]
References
Anderson, Perry. Passages of Antiquity to Feudalism. London: New Left Books, 2006.
Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939.
Goubert, Pierre. The Course of French History. London: Routledge Books, 1988.
Hollister, Warren. C. Medieval Europe: A Short History. 7th ed. McGraw Inc: New York, 1994.
Nederman, Cary. “Sovereignty, War and the Cooperation: Hegel on the Medieval Foundations of the Modern State.” Journal of Politics, Vol. 49. No 2. (May, 1987) pp. 500-520. Accessed 18/10/2012 by jstor. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2131311.
Opello W. and S. Rosow. Politics of the Modern State. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004.
Porter, Bruce. War and the Modern State: A Historical Perspective of Elizabethan Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007.
Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence reinterpreted. Claredon Press: Oxford, 1994.
Roscow, Stephen. “Echoes of Commercial Society: Liberal Political Theory in Mainstream IPE,” Inkurt Burch and Bob Denmark (edo.), constituting IPE (Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997).
Stephenson, Carl. “The Origin and Significance of Feudalism.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 46. No. 4 (Jul. 1941) pp. 788-812. Accessed by Jstor 15/10/2012.
Strayer, Joseph. Feudalism. Ed, Louis L. Snyder. Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, Florida, 1965.
[1] Strayer, Joseph. Feudalism. Ed, Louis L. Snyder. Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, Florida, 1965. Pg. 12.
[2] Ibid
[3] Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence reinterpreted. Claredon Press: Oxford, 1994.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7]Ibid
[8] Stephenson, Carl. “The Origin and Significance of Feudalism.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 46. No. 4 (Jul. 1941) pp. 788-812. Accessed by Jstor 15/10/2012.
[9] Stephenson, Carl. The Origin and Significance of Feudalism, pg. 4-5.
[10] Ibid
[11] From Tacitus, Germania, ch. 13. Translated by Strayer.
[12] Strayer, Joseph. Feudalism. Ed, Louis L. Snyder. Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, Florida, 1965. Pg. 83.
[13] Stephenson, Carl. The Origin and Significance of Feudalism, pg. 8-9.
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Stephenson, Carl. “The Origin and Significance of Feudalism.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 46. No. 4 (Jul. 1941) pp. 788-812. Accessed by Jstor 15/10/2012; Hollister, Warren, C. Medieval Europe: A Short History. 7th ed. McGraw Inc: New York, 1994.
[17] Opello W. and S. Rosow. Politics of the Modern State. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. Pg. 41.
[18] Opello W. and S. Rosow. Politics of the Modern State, 42.
[19] Opello W. and S. Rosow. Politics of the Modern State, 41.
[20] Porter, Bruce. War and the Modern State: A Historical Perspective of Elizabethan Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Pg. 25.
[21] Roscow, Stephen. “Echoes of Commercial Society: Liberal Political Theory in Mainstream IPE,” Inkurt Burch and Bob Denmark (edo.), constituting IPE (Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997).
[22] Hollister, Warren, C. Medieval Europe: A Short History. 7th ed. McGraw Inc: New York, 1994. Pg. 102
[23] Anderson, Perry. Passages of Antiquity to Feudalism. London: New Left Books, 2006. Pg. 155; Porter, Bruce. War and the Modern State: A Historical Perspective of Elizabethan Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007.pg. 25.
[24] Porter, Bruce. War and the Modern State: A Historical Perspective of Elizabethan Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007. Pg. 25.
[25] Ibid
[26] Anderson, Perry. Passages of Antiquity to Feudalism. London: New Left Books, 2006. Pg. 147
[27] Anderson, Perry. Passages to Feudalism, 148.
[28] Hollister, Warren, C. Medieval Europe: A Short History. 7th ed. McGraw Inc: New York, 1994.
[29] Stephenson, Carl. “The Origin and Significance of Feudalism.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 46. No. 4 (Jul. 1941) pp. 788-812
[30] Anderson, Perry. Passages to Feudalism, 155.
[31] Goubert, Pierre. The Course of French History. London: Routledge Books, 1988; Anderson, Perry. Passages of Antiquity to Feudalism. London: New Left Books, 2006. Pg. 47; Stephenson, Carl. “The Origin and Significance of Feudalism.” The American Historical Review. Vol. 46. No. 4 (Jul. 1941) pp. 788-812; Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence reinterpreted. Claredon Press: Oxford, 1994; Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939.
[32] Goubert, Pierre. The Course of French History. London: Routeledge Books, 1988; Hollister, Warren, C. Medieval Europe: A Short History. 7th ed. McGraw Inc: New York, 1994.
[33] Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939.
[34] Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939: Porter, Bruce. War and the Modern State: A Historical Perspective of Elizabethan Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007.pg. 25.
[35] Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939.
[36] Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939; Goubert, Pierre. The Course of French History. London: Routledge Books, 1988.
[37] Goubert, Pierre. The Course of French History. London: Routledge Books, 1988.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society: Growing Ties of Dependence. Vol 1. Translated by L. A. Mayon. London: Routledge, 1939.
[40] Hollister, Warren, C. Medieval Europe: A Short History. 7th ed. McGraw Inc: New York, 1994.
[41] Double Capitulary of Thoinville. Reading the Middle Ages, sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World. Barbara Rosenwein ed. Broadview press: New York, 2006.
[42] Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence reinterpreted. Claredon Press: Oxford, 1994
[43]Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence reinterpreted. Claredon Press: Oxford, 1994; Strayer, Joseph. Feudalism. Ed, Louis L. Snyder. Krieger Publishing Company: Malabar, Florida, 1965
[44] Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: Medieval Evidence reinterpreted. Claredon Press: Oxford, 1994.
[45] Nederman, Cary. “Sovereignty, War and the Cooperation: Hegel on the Medieval Foundations of the Modern State.” Journal of Politics, Vol. 49. No 2. (May 1987) pp. 500-520. Accessed 18/10/2012 by jstor. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2131311.
[46] Nederman, Cary. Sovereignty, War and the Cooperation: Hegel on the Medieval Foundations of the Modern State, pg 4.
It's 3 A.M. Again 