Major Historiographic Views on Feudalism

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Critique of the major historiographic views
Conclusion
Bibliography
Footnotes

Introduction

The history of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance continues to attract the attention of many contemporary historians. Much attention is paid to such a concept as feudalism and its major peculiarities. Researchers focus on such questions as the evolution of this socio-political system, conflicts between various interest groups as well as the reasons why it eventually fell into oblivion.

This paper is aimed at discussing the major historiographic views on this system. In particular, one should mention that feudalism can be interpreted from a political and legal perspective. This research paradigm is supposed to examine the relations between the main stakeholders such as lords and vassals. From this viewpoint, the main characteristic of feudalism is the decentralization of authority.

In turn, some scholars prefer socio-economic analysis of this phenomenon. In particular, they regard feudalism as a system that legitimized the exploitations of peasants by the aristocracy. One should keep in mind that contemporary researchers such as Marc Bloch tend to combine these historiographic views. These two interpretations form the basis of their discussions.

This is why it is necessary to analyze these approaches in great detail. Furthermore, one should mention that some historians such as Susan Reynolds believe that the concept of feudalism is rather contradictory and it may not fit various societies which existed at that time.

Overall, it is possible to argue that current historiographic views on this period can supplement each other. Yet, none of them can fully explain the complexities of this political, economic, and legal system which could vary across regions and evolve with time passing. This is one of the main arguments that should be examined more closely.

Critique of the major historiographic views

Political and legal interpretation

One should mention that some historians such as François-Louis Ganshof concentrate primarily on the legal and political foundations of feudalism. Researchers, who accept this approach, regard feudalism as a body of institutions that regulated the relationship between the landowners who provided tenure and knights offering military service¹.

Therefore, one can say that feudalism is primarily aimed at facilitating the exchange between stakeholders. This historiographic view can be important for understanding the work of institutions which were supposed to re-enforce the rights of these stakeholders; for instance, François-Louis Ganshof examines the institution of vassalage which was supposed to reconcile the interests of landlords and knights².

Moreover, according to political and legal interpretations, feudalism has several important characteristics. In particular, one should speak about the decentralization of authority which means that kings could not impose their will on landowners. Additionally, much attention should be paid to land as the main source of authority.

This approach implies that during the period, states in the modern sense of that word were only at the stage of formation. Furthermore, according to this approach, feudalism can be viewed as a system for recruiting military professionals who were critical for the sustainability of the communities which existed at that time. This view of feudalism is one of the major research paradigms that can used for examining medieval societies.

Overall, this approach is helpful for analyzing the main political and legal norms of the society. Moreover, this framework can be useful for analyzing the way in which the empowered interest groups regulated their relations. Nevertheless, there are several important limitations of this approach. In particular, this historiographic view completely excludes peasants who had no political or legal representation.

It should be noted that these stakeholders also played a critical role for the sustainability of feudal societies. Furthermore, this historiagraphic approach does not show how these people could oppose to the existing hierarchy. For instance, one can speak about anti-feudal rebellions that took place in England and France³ in the twelfth century.

Therefore, this particular approach can lead to the exclusion of many narratives that are important for understanding the peculiarities of this historical period. This framework can certainly explain the behavior of people who set the legal and political norms of feudal societies.

However, one should pay more attention to people who were underrepresented due to existing social, political, and legal norms. The voices of these people could be almost completely silenced. This is one of the limitations that should be considered by people who study the development of feudal societies.

Socio-economic interpretation

Additionally, it is possible to focus on the economic interpretation of feudalism. This approach is aimed at discussing the experiences of various social groups. Therefore, feudalism can be defined as the political and legal system which was supposed to subordinate peasantry to the interests of the landowning aristocracy⁴.

Therefore, this approach implies that this socio-political system can be regarded primarily as the system of exploitation. Thus, this view of feudalism was often adopted by Marxist historians who attached much importance to the concept of class struggle.

Although, this particular concept may not be applicable to feudal societies, social and economic interpretations are not fully rejected by the modern scholars. Historians who adopt this approach pay attention to the experiences of the most underprivileged classes.

One can distinguish the following characteristics of the feudal system:

the use of coercion to subdue underrepresented groups;
social stratification;
unequal bargaining power of different stakeholders⁵.

Admittedly, this approach should not be disregarded because it is important for understanding the experiences of different social groups. Nevertheless, this interpretation does not fully explain the conflicts between the most powerful stakeholders in the feudal society. In particular, one should speak about monarchs and landlords. It should be mentioned that sometimes, vassals could have conflicting obligations to monarchs and land owners⁶.

In other words, one cannot examine this period only from an economic viewpoint because this approach cannot fully the power struggles which existed at that period. This is one of the drawbacks that should not be disregarded.

This historiographic continued to be used by historians because it is more inclusive, especially in comparison with the paradigm developed by François-Louis Ganshof who examines primarily the interactions between stakeholders who could better protect their interests.

Marc Bloch’s views on feudalism

It should be mentioned that some historians attempt to combine legal and socio-economic views on fuedalism. For instance, one can speak about the works of Marc Bloch. He focuses on the following characteristics of feudalism:

the subordinate position of peasantry
the decentralization of authority;
the use of service tenement instead salary;
regular conflicts between kings and landlords⁷.

To some degree, this method lays stress on the legal and political structures of feudalism, but at the same time, it can throw light on the experiences of different social groups. It is important to remember that Mark Bloch distinguishes two stages of feudalism.

In particular, this historian believes that economic transformation of feudal societies led to the eventual centralization of power and formation of more powerful monarchies. Overall, Marc Bloc believes that the economic perspective should not be excluded because the intensification of trade and commerce strengthened the bargaining power of monarchs⁸.

Overall, Marc Bloch’s approach is more beneficial because it enables the author to examine the experiences of different stakeholders who represented the medieval society. Additionally, this historiographic view is advantageous because it shows how feudal system evolved and why it eventually disappeared.

In this case, one should mention that technological and economical development diminished the role of agriculture and land ownership⁹. In turn, growing trade could lead in the strengthening of the centralized power. In particular, this paradigm demonstrates the connections between economy, law, and politics.

These are the main strengths of this framework. Nevertheless, this approach may not show how feudalism evolved in various in various cultural environments that could profoundly influence the interactions between different groups. Additionally, this approach does not show how individual decisions of monarchs or landlords could have shaped the development of feudalism.

This is one of the limitations that should be considered because researchers should not assume that the development of this socio-political system could be predetermined. To a great extent, this perception reduces the role of a separate individual who could also shape the way in which a certain community could evolve.

Re-evaluation of feudalism as a concept

These approaches that have been described are based on the premise that feudalism as a system existed in various regions or countries. Furthermore, they imply that there are certain common principles which are inherent to the nature of this political and legal system.

Therefore, the experiences of people could be similar in such countries as England, France, Germany, and so forth. Nevertheless, one should also keep in mind that some researchers do not believe that feudalism was a universal and consistent phenomenon.

This opinion is expressed by different historians such as Susan Reynolds¹⁰. This approach implies that it is not permissible to generalize the experiences of different countries. For instance, the institution of vassalage was not the same in different medieval societies. The customs adopted in different countries could differ dramatically. This is one of the points that should be considered.

This is why even researchers such as Marc Bloch focus on different lands and regions while discussing feudalism. Apart from that, researchers may examine the distinctions between feudalism in England and Scotland¹¹. Overall, it is important to examine local customs that were not similar to one another. Furthermore, these customs could evolve significantly with time passing.

This is one of the reasons why researchers speak about the existence of pre-feudal and post-feudal societies¹². In many cases, these societies had the main characteristics identified by Ganshof and Bloc. Moreover, researchers argue that the relations between various groups were not always the same because they could be influenced by the cultural norms established in various feudal societies.

This approach implies that historians should not try to twist historical evidence so that it could match historical constructs or concepts such as feudalism. Instead, they need to concentrate on primary evidence which can throw light on the diversity of feudal societies. Thus, one can say that feudalism can be depicted as a changing and diverse phenomenon that cannot be described with the help of a single model.

These are the main peculiarities of this historiographic view. The main advantage of this approach is that it urges researchers to focuses on the particularities of the feudal system in different countries. In this way, historians can gain better insights into various aspects of feudalism. This historiographic view is also popular since modern researchers examine the cultural peculiarities of feudalism.

Conclusion

These examples demonstrate historians do not have the same perception of feudalism. The differences can be explained by the fact that researchers focus on different aspects of this historical period. In particular, it is possible to speak about the distribution of power in the society and the norms regulating the relations between the main stakeholders.

In turn, scholars can focus on the study of economic development and the way in which some social groups could be marginalized. Apart from that, many researchers such as Marc Bloch tend use each of these paradigms. Apart from that historians may discard the ideas that feudalism was a universal construct that existed in different countries.

In particular, it is important to mention that feudalism could take different paths, and one cannot say that it could always fit the models constructed by historians. Overall, none of the historiographic views discussed in this paper can be dismissed because each of them can throw light on the experience of different social groups.

Furthermore, the use of these paradigms is important for understanding the evolution of this socio-political system. These are the main aspects that can be distinguished because they can be helpful for understanding the main peculiarities of feudalism.

Bibliography

Bloch, Marc. Feudal Society. Translated by Leonard Manyon. London: Routledge. 1962.

Braun, Jerome. Democratic Culture and Moral Character: A Study in Culture and Personality. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

Ganshof, François-Louis. “Benefice and Vassalage in the Age of Charlemagne.” Cambridge Historical Journal 6, no. 2 (1939): 147-175.

Hammond, Matthew, New Perspectives on Medieval Scotland, 1093-1286. New York, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2013.

McKitterick, Rosamond, and Michael Jones. The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6, C.1300-c.1415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Murray, Mary. The Law of the Father?: Patriarchy in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Reynolds, Susan. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted. New York, Clarendon Press. 1994.

Sanderson, Stephen. Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Tendler, Joseph. Opponents of the Annales School. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

White, Lynn. Medieval technology and social change. Oxford University Press. 1962.

Footnotes

¹ Joseph Tendler, Opponents of the Annales School (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 158.

² François-Louis Ganshof, “Benefice and Vassalage in the Age of Charlemagne,” Cambridge Historical Journal 6, no. 2 (1939): 147.

³ Rosamond McKitterick and Michael Jones, The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 6, C.1300-c.1415 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 457.

⁴ Stephen Sanderson, Social Transformations: A General Theory of Historical Development (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 157.

⁵ Mary Murray, The Law of the Father?: Patriarchy in the transition from feudalism to Capitalism (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 10.

⁶ François-Louis Ganshof, “Benefice and Vassalage in the Age of Charlemagne,” Cambridge Historical Journal 6, no. 2 (1939): 175

⁷ Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, trans. Leonard Manyon (London: Routledge. 1962), 13

⁸ Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, trans. Leonard Manyon (London: Routledge. 1962), 69.

⁹ Lynn White, Medieval technology and social change (Oxford University Press. 1962), 63.

¹⁰ Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals : The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (New York: Clarendon Press, 1994), 32.

¹¹ Matthew Hammond, New Perspectives on Medieval Scotland, 1093-1286 (New York, Boydell & Brewer Ltd, 2013), 10.

¹² Jerome Braun, Democratic Culture and Moral Character: A Study in Culture and Personality (New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013), 119.

Click Here To Order Now!