The Feudal States of Europe : Church and
Churchills of the then Society (8th-14th Century)
Harleen’s Presentation
Good Morning Sir , I am , Harleen , here to present the then
contemporary conditions of the medieval Feudal Europe
Escalations from the tenth century
The tenth century brought a new development in social formation, a
development of transition from slave social formation towards feudal
social formation , this transition started with the agglomeration of the
Roman and Germanic societies , it was like a alchemic reaction with the
traits of both the Roman and Germanic society , it however happened
when both the societies were at its decline and disintegration , thus
many components were of initial origins or of new progeny , well this
synthesis was also fastened with the reinforcements of both the roman
and germanic societies.
Collapse of Roman empire and fluttered authorities
The roman empire had been collapsed and the landed aristocracy
along with the Germanic military leaders had already seized the states
and then , the semi independent elites , according to Amar Farooqi ,
were incorporated within administrative structures , this incorporation
begins in Visigothic Spain , after the germanic invasions . its indeed a
fact that the Visigoths warriors developed a structure under which the
chieftains were assigned with a territory , in which , then they were
dominant , the adoption thai practice was furthered by the
Merovingians and was then extended by Carolingians
Feudal mechanics and Dispersed Society
A hierarchical structure was developed where big lords got their
authority issued by kings and further sanctioned authority to lower or
lesser lords , every lord being supreme at their own level (the
government) , he held political and judicial authority along with military
power and control on land. Every lord lesser or higher holded their
loyalty towards their superior lord. Perry Anderson , as Amar Farooqi
mentions , calls it ‘parcelization of sovereignty’, which means a
dispersed society. However this phenomenon was not chosen to exist , it
was situations which shaped it , the then situations were too weathered
for a aristocracy and feudal lords were perfect for this time , they were
not to be easily overthrown , with this , we can say that the feudal lords ,
backed by considerable armed support to suppress local peasantry ,
defend localities and also challenged the states , the lesser lords were
however most of the times were not able to win over the higher
authority and were subjected top their overlordship , the prior was far
less powerful than the latter , thus military competency was an impetus
of concept for the feudal lordship.
Problem of Centralized Authority : Beginning of Warfare
There was not centralized revenue system in order for the state to
recruit a standing army , an absence of superior force meant a free for
all battlefield of the lords , in fact this was a major problem in the fifth
century , some systems was developed to tackle this problem , the early
Merovingians tried to enforce the central government , but it failed
miserably , the era of Charlemagne , the king of Franks and the later
ruler of the Holy Roman empire , the system designed by the same was
so fragile that it collapsed within 50 years of his death.
We see a decentralized , hierarchical distribution of power , where the
subordinate or the lesser lords sworn the moment of loyalty to their
superior lords , their relation was somehow personal and not based on
kinship ties. The ‘vassal’ pledged for a lifelong loyalty towards their
superior , which was based on the agreement of protection towards the
prior from the latter; women however were excluded.
This bond was built on certain rituals , in order to sanctify their ties , a
ceremony took place to make the vassal; serve the superior for lifelong ,
this was known as ‘homage’ , vassal was then imported as a lord's men.
Actually March Bloc states that it was usually common to be a man of a
man in the then times. We can say that it was an interconnected web of
lordship where one lord was someone else's vassal. The top of the
pyramid was the apex authority , the king , the king however had
limited powers but was important for the legitimization of the
contemporary authorities. We say that the king was the overlord of the
nobles.
From here I would like to call Shreya to present about the concept of
protection to vassals and military relationships of vassals and kings.
