- This topic has 4 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
It seems that feudalism began as an after-effect of the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century. Centralized control greatly weakened after Louis the Pious and counts emerged to become regional powerhouses, and under them castellans had even more localized power. These castellans began to run the courts for local areas, collect money from citizens, and have their own armies/security forces. However, the fragmentation of West Francia was much greater than in East Francia; in East (Germany), power fell to the hands of dukes, which were fewer in number than counts. From this I theorize that culture, too, would have been more fragmented in France beginning around the 10th century than it would have been in Germany. I don't mean to say that some common culture did not prevail throughout France (religious was, after all, a common thread), but it would not have been as unified as in the east where unified political power prevailed. I will potentially be able to verify this as I begin my more intense studies in this time/area over the next few months.
I didn't know what “Salic law” was, so I looked it up. Since it pre-dates Charlemagne, going back to Clovis, I would say that it does not have to do with what I was talking about. It sounds like Salic law may have been passed down through the Frankish legal system and so it would probably would have continued to exist in one form or another within the smaller entities ruled by counts and dukes in the 10th century. Actually, you do make an interesting point about how culture within these fragmented entities would have remained somewhat constant. But at the same time, my question is about how distinct these entities became from a cultural standpoint.
Feudalism was a pragmatic answer to the general lawlessness in Europe attendant on the gradual breakup of the Roman Empire. Many of the earliest feudal or pseudo-feudal obligations date to before the accepted formal end of the Empire. They were an outgrowth of the roman garrison commander?s responsibilities to protect his area of responsibility. It was after the Empire was overrun by the Lombards and Goths that the leadership of regions became hereditary and even in the early days gifts of lordship were not hereditary but rather only granted for life and kept in the gift of the regional overlord. Hereditary lordship was a late outgrowth of feudalism.In the final analysis, feudalism was really no more than a highly ritualized protection racket. Often, the lords themselves would raid the lands of their neighbors.Lastly, I believe the Salic Law only applied in Frankish lands. That is one reason why Edward III was barred from the French Succession at the outbreak of the 100 Year?s War.
Well, I would more agree about feudalism origin through ancient Roman social relationship where a client (mostly a plebeian) was sponsored by a patron benefactor. The patron assisted his client with his protection and regular gifts; the client dedicated his vote whenever the patron or his associate was up for election. By degrees, the custom extended itself beyond Rome; and not only families, but cities, and entire provinces.However, the difference between the relation of vassal and his lord, and that of clients and his patron, is fairly considerable and not only because of a Germanic background but in addition to the respect a client showed his patron, and the vote he gave him, a vassal was also obliged to assist his lord in all affairs; and even pay his ransom, if he should be taken prisoner of war, in the case that the lord was not able to provide it himself. As Phidippides said, the emergence of feudalism during the High Middle Ages was greatly favoured by the weakness of a strong centralized power.And as Scout said, Salic law was probably more about inheritance than political regime and the roots of feudalism are to be searched in ancient Rome. 🙂
Notice I did not make the comparison between patrician and plebeian patronage but the similarity between garrison commander and local area and the lord and vassal relationship. I am fairly certain that the patrician-plebeian relationship had been for the part abandoned by the late imperial period and only scholars would have been aware of it. The garrison commander-local relationship would have been common and known to many however. Nobody flicked a switch and killed the Empire, it took hundreds of years to fade and the Romans influence is still felt today.
The client-patron system was a major institution in ancient Roman society and was used for centuries throughout Rome history.Even if the foederati system which identified one of the tribes bound by treaty (foedus), and were expected to provide a contingent of fighting men when trouble arose and thus were allies; the loyalty of these tribes and their leaders was not reliable (eg the Wisigoths). The foederati delivered the fatal blow to the dying Roman Empire in 476 when their commander Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus. Therefore the importance of garrisons in the birth of feudalism seems to be doubtful !At the contrary, feudalism seems to have been instituted when Vikings raids were threatening the new Frankish kingdoms, already weakened by the partition following the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD. A good example, I think, is when Charles the Simple allowed the viking chieftain Rollo to settle in what would be known as Normandy at the conditions to protect West Francia against further Vikings raids, to convert into Christianity and to swear fealty to the king.
Are you linking the client-patron relationship of ancient Rome with feudalism? If so, I had not heard of that argument being made before, though I suppose it would correspond with the passing on of other Roman customs into the early Middle Ages. I do think that the basic concept is very simple, though, and that we can probably see variations of it throughout time and cultures.
To Phidippides, I agree with your first statement about the weakness of Frankish kingdoms after the Treaty of Verdun as a cause of feudalism. 🙂
At the contrary, feudalism seems to have been instituted when Vikings raids were threatening the new Frankish kingdoms, already weakened by the partition following the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.
Aetheling,You brought up the treaty of Verdun and not Phid so I find it hard to see how you can agree with him when you are agreeing with your own statement.Isn't it kind of hard to contradict yourself in the same statement? You first claim that the client-patron relationship persisted for centuries and then jump to claiming that feudalism resulted from the Treaty of Verdun. As to the Foederati, I am simply pointing out the similarity between it and vassalage not claiming a causal relationship between the two although it is at least feasible.PS. I like your choice of alias, you are not perhaps descended from nobility are you?
Let's try to make it clear: This forum is about the birth of feudalismFirst Phiddipedes stated that feudalism ?began as an after-effect of the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century? , short after the death of Charlemagne through a weakening centralized power and the emergence of castellans.I stated that the origin of feudalism might be seen through ancient Roman social relationship where a client was sponsored by a patron benefactor where the patron assisted his client with his protection and regular gifts; the client dedicated his vote whenever the patron or his associate was up for election. Then Scout stated that ?I am fairly certain that the patrician-plebeian relationship had been for the part abandoned by the late imperial period and only scholars would have been aware of it. The garrison commander-local relationship would have been common and known to many however.?As I stated previously: ?by degrees, the custom extended itself beyond Rome; and not only families, but cities, and entire provinces.? Provinces where several Germanic tribes had settled and, therefore, were aware of that particular client-patron relationship. About the role of garrisons in the origin of feudalism, I expressed much reserves about this by citing the failure of the foederati system. And stated that the institution of feudalism could be seen with the agreement between Charles the Simple and Rollo when the latest had to swear fealty to the king of France in order to receive lands (Normandy) ?At the contrary, feudalism seems to have been instituted when Vikings raids were threatening the new Frankish kingdoms, already weakened by the partition following the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.?Scout stated that ?You brought up the treaty of Verdun and not Phid so I find it hard to see how you can agree with him when you are agreeing with your own statement.?Well if you have a closer look over that period, Louis the Pious was the son of Charlemagne and in 840 AD his three sons, Lothair, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, became kings of the Charlemagne's empire after its partition according to the Salic Law and the Oath of Strasbourg in 842 AD. Partition better known under the name Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.In Conclusion, I reached the starting point of Phiddipides about ?the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century? (hope you still remember that the Treaty of Verdun happened in 843 AD)I don't see any contradiction with what I stated about the origin of feudalism (Rome) and the institution of feudalism (Early Middle Ages). Moreover I agree with Phiddipides first statement.PS. About my alias, I didn't want to choose Mr. KIA and it was already used
Let's try to make it clear: This forum is about the birth of feudalismFirst Phiddipedes stated that feudalism ?began as an after-effect of the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century? , short after the death of Charlemagne through a weakening centralized power and the emergence of castellans.I stated that the origin of feudalism might be seen through ancient Roman social relationship where a client was sponsored by a patron benefactor where the patron assisted his client with his protection and regular gifts; the client dedicated his vote whenever the patron or his associate was up for election. Then Scout stated that ?I am fairly certain that the patrician-plebeian relationship had been for the part abandoned by the late imperial period and only scholars would have been aware of it. The garrison commander-local relationship would have been common and known to many however.?As I stated previously: ?by degrees, the custom extended itself beyond Rome; and not only families, but cities, and entire provinces.? Provinces where several Germanic tribes had settled and, therefore, were aware of that particular client-patron relationship. About the role of garrisons in the origin of feudalism, I expressed much reserves about this by citing the failure of the foederati system. And stated that the institution of feudalism could be seen with the agreement between Charles the Simple and Rollo when the latest had to swear fealty to the king of France in order to receive lands (Normandy) ?At the contrary, feudalism seems to have been instituted when Vikings raids were threatening the new Frankish kingdoms, already weakened by the partition following the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.?Scout stated that ?You brought up the treaty of Verdun and not Phid so I find it hard to see how you can agree with him when you are agreeing with your own statement.?Well if you have a closer look over that period, Louis the Pious was the son of Charlemagne and in 840 AD his three sons, Lothair, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, became kings of the Charlemagne's empire after its partition according to the Salic Law and the Oath of Strasbourg in 842 AD. Partition better known under the name Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD.In Conclusion, I reached the starting point of Phiddipides about ?the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century? (hope you still remember that the Treaty of Verdun happened in 843 AD)I don't see any contradiction with what I stated about the origin of feudalism (Rome) and the institution of feudalism (Early Middle Ages). Moreover I agree with Phiddipides first statement.
Noted 🙂
It seems that feudalism began as an after-effect of the break up of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century.
Couldn't one say that feudalism caused the break up of the Carolingian empire?
