Case Study: Feudalism
Medieval narrative sources often focus on kings and their nobles; lords and their peasants; popes and their priests. It is easy to think that social groups were always defined in terms of those above and those below. This is true in part, but it is potentially misleading and certainly depressing. Membership of a village, town, province, guild, and, above all, kingdom were equally powerful, and in these ways community was at least as important as hierarchy.
The term "feudalism" is today used to refer to almost any oppressive or hierarchical system. When applied to the Middle Ages, the most common analogy is a pyramid: the king or emperor is at the very top with high-ranking nobles below him. They in turn are on top of a larger number of petty nobles and bureaucrats, all resting on a huge mass of impoverished peasants. Feudalism is sometimes used in the more specific sense of relations between nobles: one man might become the vassal of another by paying homage to him, swearing fidelity, and undertaking to provide him with soldiers if needed, in exchange for a piece of land (known as a "fief") and promises of good lordship. This constituted a feudal relationship and could only exist between freemen. Feudalism is some-times extended to governmental systems: in Norman England, all land was held ultimately by the king, who granted it to his nobles on condition that they contribute a designated number of soldiers to the feudal host. These nobles might in turn grant a portion of their lands to their own men under a similar arrangement. It is easy to see how this concept can be used to explain the social structure of medieval Europe.
The reality was less clear cut, and there was a number of less formal relations in which men and women might enter into. The words "vassal" and "fief" are less common in medieval documents than might be expected, and, even when they do appear, they probably conceal a variety of different relationships: ruler and subject; patron and client; landlord and tenant; employer and employee; general and soldier; bully and victim. How one stood in relation to one's peers was far more important than how one stood in relation to distant social inferiors or superiors. Concepts of nobility and freedom were not concrete. Among the most highly respected knights of the German kings were the minisiteriales. These skilled warriors and bureaucrats held considerable lands of the king, but they were not freemen in the eyes of the law. The case of the ministeriales is instructive. They formed part of a movement in which, as collective activity became more organized, bureaucracy developed. Literacy increased the range and power of propaganda, governments came to rely less on direct interpersonal relations, and feudal stereotypes become less applicable.
The term "feudalism" is today used to refer to almost any oppressive or hierarchical system. When applied to the Middle Ages, the most common analogy is a pyramid: the king or emperor is at the very top with high-ranking nobles below him. They in turn are on top of a larger number of petty nobles and bureaucrats, all resting on a huge mass of impoverished peasants. Feudalism is sometimes used in the more specific sense of relations between nobles: one man might become the vassal of another by paying homage to him, swearing fidelity, and undertaking to provide him with soldiers if needed, in exchange for a piece of land (known as a "fief") and promises of good lordship. This constituted a feudal relationship and could only exist between freemen. Feudalism is some-times extended to governmental systems: in Norman England, all land was held ultimately by the king, who granted it to his nobles on condition that they contribute a designated number of soldiers to the feudal host. These nobles might in turn grant a portion of their lands to their own men under a similar arrangement. It is easy to see how this concept can be used to explain the social structure of medieval Europe.
The reality was less clear cut, and there was a number of less formal relations in which men and women might enter into. The words "vassal" and "fief" are less common in medieval documents than might be expected, and, even when they do appear, they probably conceal a variety of different relationships: ruler and subject; patron and client; landlord and tenant; employer and employee; general and soldier; bully and victim. How one stood in relation to one's peers was far more important than how one stood in relation to distant social inferiors or superiors. Concepts of nobility and freedom were not concrete. Among the most highly respected knights of the German kings were the minisiteriales. These skilled warriors and bureaucrats held considerable lands of the king, but they were not freemen in the eyes of the law. The case of the ministeriales is instructive. They formed part of a movement in which, as collective activity became more organized, bureaucracy developed. Literacy increased the range and power of propaganda, governments came to rely less on direct interpersonal relations, and feudal stereotypes become less applicable.
Guiding Question:
|
Why did feudalism begin and what process brought it to an end?
|
Directions:
|
Using your textbook (pgs. 308 - 313) cite specific evidence to answer the following questions. Write your answers in your notebook.
|
1. What events led to the creation of feudalism?
2. How did the distinct groups in society benefit from this arrangement? Did any group not benefit?
3. How was this society organized? (politically, socially, economically, etc.)
4. What was chivalry and how did if function?
5. What was the role of women in this society?
2. How did the distinct groups in society benefit from this arrangement? Did any group not benefit?
3. How was this society organized? (politically, socially, economically, etc.)
4. What was chivalry and how did if function?
5. What was the role of women in this society?