Talk:Feudalism/Archive 1
Good start! Now we need at least 2 paragraphs on the later legal adaptations and 'invention' of feudalism and then at least one paragraph decrying all careless modern usages! --MichaelTinkler, fellow-medievalist of the estimable JHK
You should also have a paragraph or two explaining how the Medieval kingdoms, commonly understood to be ruled by an all-encompassing feudal hierarchy, were actually administered. I understand this is a broad topic with a great deal of variety, but it wouldn't hurt to spread some information to take the place of the misinformation being stamped out. I for one had no fun trying to find out how why there what counts and dukes did in pre-Carolingian Europe, and look forward to anything you decide to add.
Btw, when feudalism is used to describe things like the Persian empire (and it has been), I suspect it stems not so much from misunderstanding of how such systems worked as from using the term in a much broader sense than Medievalists do. --Josh Grosse
Josh -- it's even worse than you think...
for example, what to counts and dukes do, and how do their titles relate? Well, in the 5th through 9th centuries, the titles were always in Latin, and so we had comes (pl. comites and dux (duces). These were Roman military titles that had survived the Gallo-Roman period and carried on as that society became kinda synthesized with the new Frankish inhabitants of Gaul ("Roman" was a prestigious thing, so the titles stayed on as office cum fashion statement, in a way).
In the 8th and 9th centuries, we see dux used more often in conjunction with military appointments to border regions, but not exclusively. As for counts, there were cases of particular comites who seemed to be connected to particular comitati, now translated as counties. We can even see that many of these known pairings occured where the comes belonged to a Frankish leading family that had been in power for a long period and may have been occasional rivals of the Carolingians for over two hundred years. But sometimes, they weren't. We even have a source that talks about one of Charlemagne's comites -- he was also a servus which can mean slave or serf (different types of unfree people).
THEN, if you talk about England, where conventional Western Civ wisdom will tell you that a comes was known as a jarl -- Anglo-Saxon for Earl (today, counts and earls ar the same rank, pretty much -- you see Earls/Countesses in Britain, and Counts/Countesses in other places -- except where the German Graf fell into use. Which leads us to the Counts of the March, like Roland...or the Markengraf/Margrave...except that, like I said, often the person in charge of a March/Mark, at least in eastern Francia, was a dux.
Where was I? Oh ...and if you want to talk about better feudal models, there is also Japan from about the 16th century (more or less...I think it began before the Battle of Shimenoseki in (maybe, this is off the top of my head) 1621) where, at least under the Tokugawa shoguns, you see something that looks much more like what we expect feudalism to look like.
So Josh, I guess I'll be going there, but it's going to be one confusing chunk at a time. Actually, I think some of that stuff might better go under Carolingian administration?? JHK
Probably, and then we can have a pointer to it here. The stuff about duces and comites I had already figured out, but only after much laborious searching, which I think we should save people whenenver possible (and much of what I put into wikipedia is for that purpose). We should make things as simple as possible while still being true. Maybe only the pseudofeudal system of the Carolingians should be discussed, and then deviations from it (i.e., other countries) can be discussed on separate pages. But I can't help, since I know very little in this field.
This article focuses on what different historians say about feudalism, which is interesting, but it never answers the fundamental questions lay people have: What is feudalism? What are the basic facts about feudalism historians agree on? Without that, I'm utterly lost. --DanKeshet
Hi Dan -- the basic facts are the ones presented in the article as the middle of the road approach. It's a society/system/ism that revolves around a personal contract, and usually includes fiefs, fealty, homage, and possibly other binding oaths. Other than that, it's all pretty much up to the people involved and local custom. JHK
Contractuality yes, but neither the article nor the discussion seem to extend the concept below the level of knightly vassal: what about the bond of peasant to lord & land which underlay the others? Now it may not have been quite so voluntary, nor was it considered so honourable by those above, but I'd contend that the relationship was fundamentally the same - service and supply in return for protection and tenure - and that this rather than the form of undertakings was the essence of the "feudal" order. That said, the "-ism" I can live without. David Parker
David, you are understandably under a common misconception, i.e., that the feudal system had something to do with "common people." It didn't and then again, it did. That is, only free people could enter into such a contractual bond. In the Middle Ages, especially up through about the 11th c., Germanic peoples (which is most of Western Europe) had several legal categories of people, ranging from free to slave -- there were actually people who weren't considered free, but were also not slaves (actually owned by others). Legal status didn't always affect rank, either -- one of Charlemagne's comites(loosely translated as counts) was unfree!
Medieval society was also somewhat fluid, in that a peasant might be sent to fight in place of his ecclesiastic landlord (after bishops were finally banned from fighting themselves, which was relatively late), and could conceivably be rewarded with some kind of wealth or honor for his fighting. The whole formal knighthood and chivalry thing is also pretty late -- didn't start till at least the 11th c.
What you are talking about is generally called manorialism and you're right in that its existence was in many ways fundamental -- but it really should have its own article. I haven't tackled it because it's a very big and complex topic, and I believe that one shouldn't write an article on something that complex unless one is prepared to do the research first -- and I need to focus a bit more on later periods at the moment. If you want to try it, I'd suggest reading at least Georges Duby and (Dooernhard? or maybe van Cayynegun -- something like that -- can't remember the Dutch economic historians off the top of my head)on the early Medieval economy, and Blum on peasants. The Blum book will show you why the system is so complex -- Central and Eastern Europe developed in a dramatically different way than the west, and England was very different from the Continent. Your average history text is a bad general picture that is usually very misleading. I hope that any wiki article on the subject is not just a repetition of generally held mistruths --- and would really be annoyed to see the infamous droit de seigneur mentioned in anything but an incredibly comprehensive article that makes it clear that this was a rarity and hardly the rule. Sorry to talk so much, but I figure a few good reasons makes for fewer battles in the long run. Anyway, manorialism should only get a very small mention in the feudalism article, precisely because one of the points of the article is to clarify, not perpetuate the popular misconception! JHK, who prefers her Middle Ages warts and all!
- yep, manorialism needs an article, and no, I'm not volunteering to write it - I'm going to plead art-historianism for that. Doehaard, I think. - Rene? Renee? It's available in English, at least. -- MichaelTinkler
Not wishing to be argumentative, JHK, I don't honestly see it as a misconception, rather a legitimate variation of definition which should be included: you youself described feudalism as a "society/system/ism" two messages back, and while a system may be confined to a small section of society, society itself is something much bigger.
I think a big part of the problem is perhaps that while one can speek of "manorial" economic organisation it's only "feudal" that conveys the contractuality (sometimes wholly voluntary, usually less so) common to the organisation of obligations from top to bottom. That's why I don't think "manorialism" is sufficient, though that doesn't necessarily make the broader definition of feudalism ideal.
The best social sciences dictionary I found when doing a comparison gave IIRC seven(!) definitions covering two pages: I can't remember the title, though I'll recognise the authors when I find it (it was published in the 1960s with Unesco funding, and has since been replaced with a new and to my mind inferior edition - I'll try to track it down). David Parker
David -- Michael is right it's Rene Doehaard I was thinking of. I think that a social sciences dictionary is probably not the best place to look for info -- and since the entry is on Feudalism, and was written particularly to clarify common misconceptions and describe the debate around the term -- specifically for non-historians who were taught about this beautiful, clean-cut social pyramid, with interesting diagrams of subinfeudation, etc. Honestly, the kind of system you are looking for did not exist in that form. Nor should manorialism be discussed in this article, because it is such a big can of worms -- contracts did not exist, nor was the situation ever regularized. Placing manorialism in this article as anything more than a minor reference with its own article would only serve to perpetuate a myth. JHK
But I don't think it does clarify that debate - that is, the debate over the term's broader interprestation. It isn't clarification to state that different interpretations are merely misconceptions, and the reason given - that the notion of "feudal society" straitjackets a variety of irregular phenomena into a rigid model (how? - doesn't that depend on the definition itself?) isn't satisfactory: for it to "impart a false sense of regularity" presupposes that one assumes regularity when defining the term. What I have in mind certainly isn't a "beautiful, clean-cut social system" (neither, for that matter, is the one presented in the article), but rather an order largely defined by its unsystematic character (we had a slave burgess in Ipswich, too). Now such an inclusive notion of "feudal" may be considered unhelpful, but I fail to see how it is invalidated by the breadth of local variation or the phenomenon of allegiance to more than one person any more than the narrower concept of feudalism discussed in the article. David Parker
David, here's a link to a pair of online reviews of one of the most important books in the 'feudalism is not a useful term' debate:
The book is Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals (1994) ISBN: 0198206488
The question is not settled, but the use of the term 'feudalism' is certainly unsettled. 'Manorialism' is the standard term (since the mid? late 70s?) used to describe the top-to-bottom system, with 'feudal' retreating into more and more precisely delimited contexts.
--MichaelTinkler
Hi again David (and sorry that ipswich town is not doing as well this season as last)-- I think part of the problem here is that I worked this article up to deal with what we know (i.e. the wiki human knowledge thing) rather than what we think we know -- which may be slightly different in England than the US. The impetus was a response to a series of incorrect usages of 'feudal' and 'feudalism' in other articles -- usage which (although used by people from very different backgrounds) was based more on the mythology of feudalism than the reality. I absolutely agree that the situation was more complex, and can see (some distant time from now) sections on regional variations. For the time being, though, I would like to see what I think is a very solid article, in that it represents both past and present human knowledge in a fairly concise manner, stay that way, perhaps with a link to manorialism. As someone who has taught this (you may have, too), I find that, when I give the bare-bones explanation as given here, people will then extrapolate and see the kind of connections you mention, but in a more realistic context. They also ask more questions about mediaeval society that way. Giving them the same old, superinclusive content may be easier and seem more beneficial, but the just end up continuing the same old misconceptions about society in the middle ages -- focus on the same old movie version in their heads... JHK de-mystifying the MA, because the truth is much more interesting!
Thanks for the background, JHK: I think you're right that the narrow feudal/broad manorial perspective is probably more entrenched in the U.S. than on this side of the water, which perhaps raises an NPOV-related issue of whether U.S. practice should predominate when articles touch on such semantic divergence.
More fundamentally, though, I still think the article fails in seeking to disprove the "superinclusive" conception without defining its content in a way that permits its refutation: I can understand that you don't want it to be mired in a vast discussion of the whole "feudal + manorial" complex, but I can honestly see no alternative to presenting the elements of "feudalism +" in a systematic manner that allows their shortcomings to be addressed.
I'm unconvinced by your suggestion that readers will be empowered to extrapolate from the narrow model: I feel that the selection of one approach is likely to carry a connotation of finality and exclusivity in the context of an encyclopedia, which is another reason to include others, even if only to point out their inconsistencies (though I don't think any model is problem-free - which to me is all the more reason to open the concept up rather than to abandon it or to narrow it to a dwindling remnant of core phenomena).
Lastly, I think the "-ism" may be a part of the problem (redolent as it is of the accursed "system"): would entries on "feudal"/"feudal relations" or "manorial"/"manorial organisation"/"manorial economy" be more helpful? I'm not a stickler for "feudalism" by any means, but I find "manorialism" no more inspiring as a label for the prevailing character of social and economic organisation. David Parker
- Lord -- David, please trust me on this, at least for now. "-ism" is better than system. The argument is on both sides of the pond, since Susan Reynolds is still English, as far as I know. Wikipedians misusing and abusing "feudal" in just about every form are from pretty much every English-speaking country represented, as well as central and eastern Europe. If you want to expand the article in a way that includes EVERYTHING else, then I suggest you write the expanded version off-line and do a brilliant job of including everything, and then post it. THis is an outline of the high points, and could be expanded.
- You could also follow Duby and talk about "feudal society," if you must included the manorial stuff in more than a passing reference to an outside article. What I see you wanting though, is some way of legitimizing a feudal system that includes talking about manorialism, an economic system as something integral to it. It was not, because the economies that existed in different parts of Europe were vastly different. The article reads as it does precisely because it talks about the things that were common on a widespread basis, without going into the subcategories of "West Francia pre-900," "East Francia pre-900," "Lotharingia" "Normandy" "Post conquest England" "England after Henry I" "England after Henry II", etc. Marc Bloch was not able to do the topic justice -- I doubt you or I could, either. The problem is, though, that unless you give all the variants, you end up affecting the way people understand the whole F-word.
- I get the feeling that you are approaching this from a social science-economic POV. What kinds of sources are you working from? Have you read the stuff by Brown and Reynolds? i'm asking because, while your intent seems to want to be helpful, I can't see how your suggestions could do anything but continue the muddied view that people have. THe F-relationship was not systematic, it was rather based on personal bonds -- at least up until the later MA. It could be simultaneously very important and not at all-- depending on the people involved and their personal wealth, power, and feeling towards oaths. Its effect on those uninvolved in the agreement was arguably minimal -- reference to underlying economies should also be. Oh -- and I've taught this stuff in England and given presentations in Germany. You may not buy it, but my personal experience tells me that people can and do extrapolate -- in the wikipedia, links to other related articles make this more possible -- I can't see where spoonfeeding incorrect, fuzzier definitions, could be an improvement. JHK
"System" is horrible and the most grossly misleading term available - I think we're agreed on that! I'm genuinely puzzled, though, that you seem to suggest manorial organisation is non-feudal because "the economies that existed in different parts of Europe were vastly different": wasn't this also the case with the arrangements covered by the stricter definition of "feudalism"? Surely both "F"- and "M"-relationships were highly variable in their character and in the importance of undertakings for each party - and I certainly wouldn't want to entertain a conception that didn't incorporate such diversity. I agree that the effect of the "F"-relationship on third parties was "arguably minimal", but I don't think that the converse necessarily applies, which is as you say coming at the issue from a socio-economic rather than legalistic standpoint.
You're quite right, I'm indeed planning to revise the article without, I hope, doing undue violence to the existing content or withholding criticism of the other uses of the term: I wanted to discuss it first, and I'm grateful for your points, which I shall of course strive to take on board - then it can of course be changed again. But at least by discussing it here first I hope to be able to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls and unnecessary repeated disturbance of the text. Please note that I'm not proposing to reject your definition as the preferred one for the "-ism"; rather I think the others have to be treated more fully before they can be invalidated (if that is to be the outcome), though I see rather different arguments against them.
- David -- have you read the articles that Michael Tinkler and I cited? One of the purposes here is to outline the most recent scholarship, which the article does. Also, the article concludes with such a narrow definition precisely because it breaks down varying relationships to their least common denominator. Were Manorialism to be added as more than a link to another article, how would you suggest rewriting the definition of the F-word in a way that reflected that the relationship was often sans land or property, especially in the early middle ages? The fact that one is a legal relationship between people, and the other is an occasionally-regulated-by-law-depending-on-where-and-when economic structure that could and did exist without the landlord being bound to anyone else's overlordship, cannot be overlooked. I also doubt that this suggested addition of yours would do anything more than corrupt the views of the F-word that are so carefully delineated here. You would only be perpetuating a view that has been challenged and, some would argue (not me...I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater), demolished, over the last 30 years. I think that, when a case for dividing the two has been made by such notables as Brown, Reynolds, Duby & Bloch (to some extent), and in the case of the Church, Prinz and Felten, it might be wise not to ignore them, unless you can cite recent sources that uphold your approach ;-)JHK
While I accept that the article should incorporate recent scholarship, I don't see recency as a measure of authority; nor do I think that older perspectives should be rejected so lightly in an encyclopedia article when they still exert such a powerful influence today, as in the very fact that we still talk of "feudal society" as a comprehensive order (though one incoprporating elements that are not of themselves specifically feudal or manorial). I've absolutly no objection to the article ending with a narrow definition and saying why that might be the more useful: it's its beginning with a not properly validated "define-it-in-such-a-way-as-to-demolish-it" treatment of the alternative concept that I find insufficient.
It isn't the incorporation of alternative definitions in an encyclopedia that might "corrupt" others' reading: the scope for confusion already exists aplenty in the form of continuing divergence of meaning among historians and social scientists, and it won't go away by representing it as something it isn't or by hoping it will be assisted to a quick death by the mortal blows of the latest scholarship (how far did Brown get?). Rather, it's our job to offer a resolution, which we can't do by using one mechanistic model (the "feudal pyramid") to stand in for a range of conceptions incorporating between them diversity (and even outright contrariness) of allegiances, property forms and institutions over time and space.
Which as you say, still leaves the nightmare task of seeking a definition that can incorporate all of the above. I've done my best, and I'm sure it can be improved. I'd additionally recommend moving some of the more technical description of the ceremony itself to a more specific article (Vassalage? Commendation?), but I'll leave that to your judgment. David Parker
David -- I note that you haven't bothered to discuss whether you've read or considered the viewpoints of ANY of the more recent historiography I've cited. They changes you've made create an implication that the the mishmashed viewpoint of feudal="everything in that type of society" is still considered valid by a huge number of historians and, moreover, that Marxist historians make up a significant percentage of the medieval historians out there. Last time I looked, Marxist history was on the wane.
As for your sources, I had to read Maitland once upon a time, and he's a great source for England, but Anglo-Saxon-Norman is not the only history to consider. The article as previously written took into consideration that the Middle Ages happened in all of Europe. The kind of feudal society you describe is much more easy to accept when looking only at the world west of Paris (although Reynolds might not agree). Something intended to clarify and define has now been changed to that fuzzy, relativist, "Well, I guess feudalism just depends on your definition" kind of thing -- as if current scholarship is just a passing fancy.
For your info, Brown got a long way (and the fact that you don't seem to be aware of the entire controversy makes me wonder about your approach and background -- it's a fairly large controversy and journal debate) -- most historians don't agree with eliminating the term, but the trend since the 1980s at least is to take the middle of the road approach and narrow definition I used for precisely that reason. Feudalism is not an economic -ism. Period. It is social, and to that extent, affects our view of medieval society, but it's only at the upper strata. I also take exception to the "define it to destroy it" approach you say the article was written in -- the only valid difference to be made there is to cite older proponents of the feudal system -- and still to say that that is not the theory currently held by the majority of producing scholars. That's not knocking down a straw man -- it's called historiography, last I heard. The only reason that people still talk about the old F-word in the way you describe is that a huge proportion of people out there were taught the older theory and have not learned anything more since they left the realm of formal education. It certainly doesn't make it true. There are also a lot of people still teaching that theory -- at least in part because Medieval History is often taught by non-specialists who have been using the same lecture notes that they got from college! (And I know this is done -- I'm speaking from personal experience!)
If you felt so compelled to add in Manorialism, why didn't you add a link? Or, if you wanted to add to the debate (which is a good thing -- more historiography is always good), why not discuss proponents of the various approaches? You cite Maitland, but don't tell us what he said. I don't mind more exposition -- the article needed expansion, but I think that your additions and manner of inserting them reduce the fact that the definition provided is the one on which the most historians can agree without bloodshed to a "here's what most of us believe (F includes M), and here's a neat and novel way of looking at F." Good intentions, weak execution. JHK
I don't think I was crediting any view with overwhelming adherence: but equally, I don't accept that medieval historians' view (even if they were unanimous on it, which they're clearly not) alone defines a term still used by others in different senses. To end up with a situation where the "professionals" (and they're not the only professionals studying the phenomenon) present findings in a vocabulary understood quite differently by others without acknowledging the existence of other definitions would be ludicrous. As for Marxist historiography, it may be on the wane, but its influence survives, however indirectly, on reading lists and among other schools: it can't be shrugged off so easily just yet.
I cited Maitland just to show that uncertainty as to what defines "feudal" goes back a long way: I don't know enough of the controversies of his day in Continental medieval studies to identify contemporaneous (or earlier) disagreements relating to other societies, and would welcome any expansion of that point.
I wasn't belittling Brown's impact by any means, just pointing out that 27 years later we're still discussing an article on "feudalism" as an actual medieval phenomenon (even if we can't quite agree on the permissible range of meaning that should be dicussed), which certainly wasn't in line with what she was proposing. I have to disagree too with your characterisation of the "narrow" view as the "middle-of-the-road" one: I think it and the broad view are rather the two extremes, and the centrist position was paradoxically Brown's, though her recommendations for alternative future research headings aligned her fairly explicitly with the "feudalists of the straiter sort".
I must decline too the charge of fuzzy relativism: I'm afraid that what people mean by feudalism does depend on their definition, like it or not, and an encyclopedia article has to represent that fact faithfully, which doesn't rule out finding for one particular preferred approach in a given context. That said, if you find my treatment inadequate, I've revised your text, so now you're at liberty to revise mine in turn. I'm honestly trying to arrive at a mutually acceptable NPOV here, and I'm sorry you felt that my revision relegated your analysis to the realm of interesting speculation - that certainly wasn't my intention, and I'll look at it again and try to improve it.
I'd be happy to add more on Maitland (I didn't because I'm aware that England is just a small part of the controversy, and I thought undue emphasis on individual writers wasn't necessarily appropriate in such a broad survey, hence my downsizing too of Brown), and a Manorialism entry is on its way if no-one beats me to it. But one thing at a time please! David Parker
- Actually, I think it's really good to add something about exponents of various views -- one of the most interesting courses I had my second year of grad school was an economic history course -- early modern, and really a historiography course. I think with a subject so controversial, it might help to link to short bios of the seminal debators, and a characterization of their work (e.g., Marxist historian, specialist in social relations...). I'm still totally unconvinced that this is not a historical question -- I think that the terminology first used by historians (and I think of myself as being Arts or Humanities, Not Social Science) may have been co-opted by social scientists, but the work that has gone to redefining the term more accurately in History has not been followed by those same social scientists -- precisely because many of those fields actually encourage a narrower, single discipline approach. JHK
No. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be conciliatory. David, please let us in on your background and the research you have done on this concept. I've re-read what I have on Brown and Reynolds, as well as Ganshof (whom Reynolds mostly rejects, but I kind of like), Bloch and Duby. I stand by what I said earlier -- this is a historian's topic, because historians created the term and have since almost entirely discredited the common usages of the term. THe fact that it has been coopted by academics in other social sciences needs to be explained in the context of common- and commonly perpetuated misconceptions. If you want to discuss the history of the concept, then do so honestly and with historiographical references. If you can point to how the concept is currently (or in the past, but currently accepted) by those communities, then do so. I've bloody well read most (if not all) of the seminal historical works on this subject -- works that are written from Annalistes, legal and administrative, and pure socio-economic approaches.
There is no denying that arguments can be made on pretty much every side, but when some of the greatest medievalists of our age begin to back away from the concept and instead, discuss the F word in the very narrow sense and Feudal Society as something more all-encompassing, then I see no reason that this particular article should not reflect the prevailing view. The kinds of changes you intend to make (and have begun to make) belong, as both Michael Tinkler and I mentioned above, in articles on Manorialism and perhaps Feudal Society. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise with clear and valid references and citations, I will remain unconvinced of the need for the types of changes you seem bent upon. There is much can be added to the article, but not at the expense of allowing its demonstration of the prevalent academic thought to be relegated to a "one of" position. JHK, who tries not to make such changes without being able to back them up first.
And I'm not prepared to be unconciliatory. Or re-reading my sources I accept that your position (even, perhaps, Brown's - many seem to avoid the term entirely) has a far longer pedigree as the majority view than I assumed. I'm accordingly quite happy to restore the "strict" definition to the beginning as the one prevailing in medieval history, and others as disputed variations best avoided. But I still don't agree that other approaches are best discussed as "misconceptions": history itself co-opted the term to some extent from legal argument (and a bit of French politicking), and I don't think one can undo the broader approaches of other disciplines or of the past or usefully characterise them as erroneous when they weren't necessarily so in the context of the dicussion within which they were framed. I'm all for including the broader F+M in an article on "feudal society" (where I think the "pyramid" caveat belongs) with cross-references to and from Feudalism and Manorialism - watch those spaces. David Parker
I'm going to go over this carefully when I have time, but it's already clear that either people are imposing modern concepts (despite their best efforts not to fall in the trap), or else they are using some modern concepts just as loosely as many people use concepts from feudalism in describing other times and places. Case in point: the feudal bond wasn't one of the same sort as today's contracts. If today A contracts with B, and B does not comply, no obligation remains on A. But under feudalism A and B exchanged promises, as it were; if B didn't keep his promise, that didn't excuse A his - unless the promise itself expressly or impliedly allowed this (in which case it remained in force as a promise, applying its non-performance side). It had to be so, to have an enforcement mechanism ("honour") that didn't rest on an existing framework. So also, feudalism isn't really about the framework itself, until you realise that the only framework was emergent from the feudal stuff, meaningless as a thing in itself. But I have to get all this sorted out and presented as other than a mere mind dump, so it may be a while. Meanwhile, have a look at Anarchism for some useful comparative stuff. PML.
Oh my. Coming across this page as I'm reworking the Holy Roman Empire, I am reluctant to even touch this article, as there seems to have been so much discussion about it. If you want my € 0.02, the article is very interesting, but too hard to understand for non-historians, IMO. While many valid points are made, I believe there should be a separation between 1) feudalism as actually described and performed in the Middle Ages, especially the Holy Roman Empire and 2) discussion about the term as such. -- Feudal Law (Lehensrecht) was actually laid down in 1220's Sachsenspiegel, and it is quite impossible to understand the strange beast that the Empire was without the delicate relationship between the German King and the Reichsstände, which was influenced by a great degree by such conflicts. But then maybe "Feudalism" is not the correct translation (and thus article) for Lehensrecht in the first place... anyway, I would love to add some information about the basic structures such as the Lehenspyramide, which was an accepted theory at the time and for which Wikipedia has no information so far, but do not want to step on anyone's toes. I would not want to take anything away from this article, but only add the basics and restructure things a bit. Request for comments. Djmutex 09:11 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
I have seen in Chinese texts (those from the Foreign Languages Press?) "Feudalism" used to describe the system of the countryside before the Revolution (People being accused of being evil feudalists). There should be a mention or a link about this in the article -- Error
I added a paragraph that tells a tiny bit about the Feudal system in Europe. Its mainly about the North though becuase the South (Italy, Spain etc) didn't really need any Feudal system. Maybe I should've actually written that in the paragraph...
Error -- the use of feudalism to which you refer is covered in the bit on Marx -- or is to anyone who understands the connection between Mao and Marx. As for the removed bit, The entire article as written is about Europe. And it's clear in the article that the entire concept of a feudal system is something that is not entirely accepted. I'm sorry, but the little that you wrote show that you are not only unfamiliar witht he historiography (not uncommon) but that you are also not really on top of the facts. The feudal system (or, as many people call it because of the problematic nature, the "F" word) was not planned, nor instituted, nor consciously used in any way. It was a set of obligations that rose out of Germanic tradition and the Roman Patron-client relationship, as far as anyone knows.
Oh -- and Djmutex -- the stuff about the Sachsenspiegal is right on the mark, but I didn't want to get into the entire imperial thing when I wrote the article, because it would have been far too complex. That said, perhaps it would be a good thing to add a couple of lines about it in the section where Norman England is mentioned as a model? Boots
My goodness. I come to this page hoping for a simple, straightforward definition, something to work forward from, and the best I get is "the exchange of reciprocal undertakings of protection and loyalty" - you're not getting the average reader engaged with that kind of opening.
Could we please have an introduction that eases the average reader into the subject, hopefully with a basic definition (even if it has to be further explained)? I'm very lost in what is there currently. Radagast 04:42, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Terms such as feudalism, manorialism, serfdom and seignorialism all refer to socio-economic systems with obligations to landowners. These systems varied thru time periods and across different locations. Each term is appropriate to a specific location within a specific time period. And none of these terms covers all such situations. I use the (slightly clumsy) term land-duty to refer to all forms of society based on landownership. Nathan K Davis
"Rejection"
"Although some of her contemporaries questioned Reynolds' methodology, her thesis has received widespread support, in particular with women historians, baby boomer historians and historians not from the elite institutions, all of whom gain advantage by shaking up the status quo traditional views of feudalism." Posturing like this doesn't tell the reader what the essence of this revision actually is. "Baby-boomers" are most unexpected in an entry on Feudalism. Wetman 07:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)