the problematic modelThe subject of Feudalism or the Feudal system has been a subject debate among historians since at least 1974, when The American Historical Review published a seminal article by Elizabeth Brown that refuted the accepted construct of Feudalism. Conventional wisdom told this story: : After the decline of the [Carolingian Empire]?, Europe was beset by both fighting amongst regional nobles and invasions from the Vikings in the North and Magyars (Huns) from the East. To combat these threats and ensure protection for the weak and ensure the existence of the remnants of the Carolingian Empire as the separate entities they had become, the feudal system came into being. People who needed protection pledged to serve the local lord and provide him with the fruits of their labors, while he ensured that he would protect them from maurauding bands. Each lord would in turn make the same kind of deal with the lard above him, e.g., knight-lord, lord-count, count-duke, duke-king. At the non-noble level, we called the system Manorialism?, because it revolved around the Manor, or estate. |
The problematic modelThe subject of Feudalism or the Feudal system has been a subject of debate among historians since at least 1974, when The American Historical Review published a seminal article by Elizabeth Brown that refuted the accepted construct of Feudalism. Conventional wisdom told this story: : After the decline of the [Carolingian Empire]?, Europe was beset by both fighting amongst regional nobles and invasions from the Vikings in the North and Magyars (Huns) from the East. To combat these threats and ensure protection for the weak and ensure the existence of the remnants of the Carolingian Empire as the separate entities they had become, the feudal system came into being. People who needed protection pledged to serve the local lord and provide him with the fruits of their labors, while he ensured that he would protect them from maurauding bands. Each lord would in turn make the same kind of deal with the lord above him, e.g., knight-lord, lord-count, count-duke, duke-king. At the non-noble level, we called the system Manorialism?, because it revolved around the Manor, or estate. |
|
Unfortunately this construct did not account for variations over time and region, nor for the fact that the feudal relationship was really a relationship between people, and could vary with one person to the next. Nor did it allow for one person's vowing allegiance to more than one other person. It was a nice model, but was only that. It bore no strong resemblance to historical reality. As such, Brown advocated throwing the entire terminology out. |
|
The most reductionist version of this model is the "feudal pyramid", often seen diagrammed in grammar school history texts, wherein serfs were vassals of knights, knights were vassals of counts, counts of dukes, and dukes of the king, in a neat symmetrical structure from bottom to top. Unfortunately this construct, and blanket statements like "medieval Europe was a feudal society," imparted a false sense of regularity to "feudalism". It did not account for variations over time and region, nor for the fact that the feudal relationship was really a relationship between people, and could vary with one person to the next. Nor did it allow for one person's vowing allegiance to more than one other person. It was a nice model, but was only that. It bore no strong resemblance to historical reality. As such, Brown advocated throwing the entire terminology out. |
the late 20th century model of feudalism |
The late 20th century model of feudalism |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)