- This topic has 5 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
Was it really all that bad? Looking at the bad first, I guess if the lord was oppressive, then it would be a horrible life for the vassals and peasants. But what if the lord was generous and just? The feudal system provided security for everyone involved and it was also the "industry" of the Middle Ages. It was an orderly and self-sufficient form of local government.
Where did you get the opinion that it was bad? From what I recall the system was in place to benefit both parties involved. If the norm was that the lord was oppressive, one would think the vassal would not come to the lord's aid, and eventually the system would break.
Eventually the system did break, but only after the Monarchists had asserted absolutism and so diluted the system that the aristocracy had no effective authority anymore. The result we got was ::) representative ::) democracy.
Where did you get the opinion that it was bad?
I was debating with someone from the Left about this and the Middle Ages in general and this is yet another of the myths from the Left about the Middle Ages that they blame on religion. I told him wealthy landownership wasn't anything new.
Feudalism met a genuine need when it was developed and benefited all involved. Of course it was not an association of equality but then, equality is a rare component of any society. I guess it depends on what you think is bad if you want to make that judgment call. Feudalism was an imperfect solution to the growth of lawlessness and banditry in the wake of the fall of Rome and before the establishment of strong monarchies that could maintain a semblance of order.
I also think that Feudalism was more practiced in West Francia than in other parts of Europe (though probably in East Francia as well). I'm not sure that it was a governing model in parts such as Spain, Italy, or England. As Scout said it was about a relationship of convenience which benefited the parties involved, because each side had rights (benefits) and duties. I don't know what religion had to do with this as your classmate suggested.
I also do not understand where Religion fits into a purely secular relationship such as the Feudal system. Religion was all pervading in the middle ages but it was not determinative in the feudal relationship between lord and vassal. For examples look at feudal relationships in Outremer in the 11th and 12th centuries or Eastern Europe under the Ottoman's there was still a form of feudalism practiced between Muslim and Christian in the Ottoman and Byzantine Empires although it was not formally feudal as practiced in the west.
I think it's just a Leftist obsession with religion. To them, anything that's bad is the fault of religion, especially Christianity. The conversation actually started when he said it was called the Dark Ages because of the church and that most people thought the earth was flat. I corrected him on the Dark Age mistake and then asked him to provide primary or secondary historical sources to back up his claim that most people thought the earth was flat (then I wished him the best of luck, because he won't find any such claim to support his nonsense). I provided evidence from Aristotle, Eratosthenes, the Bible, and Galileo. I also showed him that the Flat Earth Myth was a lie made up by the darwinists and anti-religionists of the 19th century. The conversation then morphed into his claim of how bad the Catholic Church was and how they brought about the "evil" feudal system. That gave me pause and I had to check it out. The book "Early European History" by Hutton Webster (available for free on google books) has a good section on feudalism. I do have a quesation though. The author claims the church was actually against feudalism. If true, why? Is it because the church wanted a monarchy? I think (if true) perhaps the church wanted to be known as the protectors of the populace and when they witnessed how effective feudalism was at protecting the people, it took away some of the church's prestige with this. That's just a guess though.
What in the world. I'd love for you to keep questioning the guy to provide support for his claims…some people obviously like to approach their studies with a verdict in hand. I looked at Webster. First, I'm not sure that feudalism was that good at protecting the people in the first place. It may have been more effective than the alternative, but maybe not. Second, I don't think that the Catholic Church was concerned with who got credit for protecting the people since that wasn't the Church's role anyway. If people were safe, they could practice their faith and go to church; if churches were getting burned and pillaged, they could not. Also, see this: "The Church to its great honor lifted a protesting voice against this evil It proclaimed a Peace of God and forbade attacks on all defenseless people including priests, monks pilgrims merchants peasants and women. But it was found impossible to prevent the feudal lords from warring with each other even though they were threatened with the eternal torments of Hell and so the Church tried to restrict what it could not altogether abolish A Truce of God was established All men were to cease fighting from Wednesday evening to Monday morning of each week during Lent and on various holy days The truce would have given Christendom peace for about two hundred and forty days each year but it seems never to have been strictly observed except in limited areas." P. 423http://books.google.com/books?id=gQiGAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Early+European+History&ei=LWYLSpTdF43MM5a2iesB&client=firefox-a#PPA423,M1And I finally did see the section you were referring to about the Church being opposed to feudalism. The answer Webster give starts on pg. 457. The reason he gives is that secular lords to vassals who were clergy could withhold the granting of fiefs such as monasteries if they so chose. Basically, the Church didn't want secular rulers to be able to tell who could or could not hold ecclesiastical office.
Basically, the Church didn't want secular rulers to be able to tell who could or could not hold ecclesiastical office.
I believe that this was the root of the churches opposition to feudalism. It actually makes sense if you think about it. The church was an entirely separate entity from secular government in the Middle Ages, the church also jealously guarded what it saw as its prerogatives. The church was largely exempt from taxation, clerics were not required to fight in the feudal host, the church vigorously opposed any attempts for lay rulers to appoint prelates, and lastly the final moral arbiter was the church.If abused, the feudal system could be seen to have provided an alternative to obedience to the church. There were adamant arguments that religious duties took primacy over secular duties. Don?t forget that the church struggled for several hundred years to maintain the ability to promote its own interests and was largely successful at it. There were also popes such as Gregory that claimed the church?s supremacy in everything because the church was the representative of God on earth.The church eventually lost in all these struggles but it is remarkable the degree to which it was successful in introducing a religious element in the secular lord-vassal relationship.
Feudalism is probably good for you if you are on top of the social pyramid. However I doubt that a serf would agree about this. I don't think that was the case for most of the people who had just to struggle for life …
Feudalism is probably good for you if you are on top of the social pyramid. However I doubt that a serf would agree about this. I don't think that was the case for most of the people who had just to struggle for life ...
And what was the VIABLE alternative to feudalism in the early Middle Ages? Remember that the concept of natural rights is an eighteenth century invention. As far as the serfs were concerned their life was their appointed station and everything they knew and were taught told them so.
Add that the Church was backing whichever lord would do the most for it and that sealed it. The peasant had little to look forward to except an afterlife that would be better only if he did what the Church spec'd out. Obeying the load of the manor was on the list of things to do… honoring the lord was (in its way) honoring the Lord.
The church eventually lost in all these struggles but it is remarkable the degree to which it was successful in introducing a religious element in the secular lord-vassal relationship.
I'd like to remind that the Church acted like any lords in the feudal system: the Church was granted lands by the king and were also using the fealty-oath with their own vassals. The power was not only spiritual but also secular, villeins had to produce on these lands and were taxed through the tithe and for the rich to buy their way to heaven by a special pardon. These pardons were known as Indulgences.The Church made a lot of money this way.Moreover, the Church controlled people?s beliefs. The Church told people that when they died, their souls lived on either in Heaven or in Hell, a place of great pain and suffering. The people were understandably frightened of going there. So, the Church gave them hope. It said that after you die your soul goes first to a place called Purgatory, where it would stay until any sins had been burnt away.The Church was Roman Catholic and therefore was lead by the Pope. This meant that the King could not tell anyone from the Church what to do. Even if a churchman committed a crime, they could not be tried by a normal court, but instead were tried by fellow churchmen, who were often very lenient.The organisation of the Church was a kind of a centralized administration through its network of bishops.Let's remember that the most popular English saint in the Middle Ages was Archbishop Thomas Becket. He became a saint after he was murdered in 1170 in Canterbury Cathedral. When you have a closer look at how Becket became Archbishop, you shall understand how tight was the relationship between the Church and the secular power, in this case Henry II of England .Finally, it's under Henri VIII and the French Revolution that the importance of the Church was significantly reduced to a spiritual field only. The XIXth and XXth centuries eventually established a more or less complete separation of power between the Church and the secular power.My first intention was only to remind you about the context of that time: you may admire such a system for its efficiency and the probably best response to a given situation but except if you belong to the nobility or the church, I don't think that your ancestors would share your feudal enthusiasm ... 😉
....My first intention was only to remind you about the context of that time: you may admire such a system for its efficiency and the probably best response to a given situation but except if you belong to the nobility or the church, I don't think that your ancestors would share your feudal enthusiasm ... 😉
All considered I'm in agreement; so too, though, by the time of the French Rev there was enough failed nobility and lower clergy that even those two estates were ready for a change. 🙂
