History 311: Medieval European History

Kaydee Mueller

History 311: Medieval European History

Professor Weber

November 27, 2007

Feudalism: To Be or Not to Be

It is easy to imagine Medieval Europe in the sense presented by Monty Python in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” with peasants tilling the fields below a local lord’s castle, completely unaware of any authority (in this case Kind Arthur) above their feudal lord. For centuries this idea simply existed within history books and discourse –but recently historians have begun to question the development of feudalism from its very basis. How and when did the actual term emerge? Where feudal lords aware of the “institution’s” existence and did they attempt to spread it throughout all of Europe? Many seem to suggest that, in actuality, feudalism was simply a term developed by eighteenth and nineteenth century academics and before the ism was created no such institution existed. Despite a lack of primary sources it is still clear that the disappearance of central authority and a desperate desire for protection created a vacuum of power which was quickly filled by local lords and counts, and just as capitalism has a name, so too should the system that existed within some parts of Norman England, France and Germany. It is clear that this system was not universal, and even where feudal-like societies did exist, each was different. But, the recent argument that feudalism in its entirety did not exist seems simply a reaction against a name, and not the more important institution itself.

As early as 1887, historians realized that feudalism was a modern idea. Elizabeth Brown quickly cites Frederic Maitland “When did the feudal system attain its most perfect development? I should answer, about the middle of the last century” (1064). But this does not mean that the system itself did not exist. We must quickly recognize that the problem is not “did feudalism exist”; it is, in fact, “what does feudalism mean”?Like capitalism or communism, a one true definition of feudalism does not exist. Instead, historians seem to have simply created a term to describe the commonalities or differences that dominate most of Europe for over 1,000 years. Before we can decide if it existed, we must first develop a working definition. In Susan Reynolds Fiefs and Vassals she suggests that one of the major holes within the argument for feudalism is the idea of a vassal. In Marc Bloch’sFeudal Society he dedicates an entire chapter to vassal homage, but never seems to offer an actual definition as to what type of people become vassals, instead he most commonly refers to “freeman” tying themselves to a lord. Despite his detailed explanation of a typical ceremony in which one man offers his service to another vassal, he does not cite specific examples of such an event and therefore quickly creates a hole within his own argument. As Reynolds suggests “The concept of vassalage conceals at least half a dozen different types of relation[ships] that need to be distinguished” (33). Here, stated quite simply, is the problem within the argument for feudalism—it attempts to describe the economic and social lifestyles of over a thousand years of history and the many kingdoms and cultures throughout Europe.

The arguments made by both those who believe that feudalism did exist, and by those who don’t share one commonality—a lack of evidence. Susan Reynolds is able to use this lack of concrete evidence to her advantage by suggesting that previous articles lacks any solidarity and that neither Bloch nor Ganshof are able to cite more than a scattering of primary sources. But it is actually Elizabeth Brown who takes the lack of evidence too far, suggesting that feudalism within itself did not exist, and is instead a term created simply as an educational tool. It is truly hard to believe that historical scholars would create a word with only the interest in simplifying an idea. By suggesting this Brown seems to be missing what could be an earth shattering argument. Did feudalism, as it is currently defined actually exist? Instead she suggests that feudalism itself is a term coined hundreds of years later, and therefore, can not be accurate.Evolution as a term was coined thousands of years after animals stated evolving, but that does not mean Darwin made it up. In addition to this poorly constructed argument, Brown simply seems to conclude with a lecture on what proper historical research is, rather than even attempting to define what types of cultural societies might have existed. Although she presents an interesting argument against the generally accepted idea of medieval feudalism, Brown lacks coherence in her argument and does not suggest and actual alternative. Despite Reynolds attempt to provide support with actual research relevant to the topic, their collective attempt to disprove feudalism seems incomplete.

The idea of feudalism, like many other institutions that now end in ism, is a popularly debated topic among scholars. As of yet, there is no universally accepted conclusion as to how the people of medieval Europe lived, mostly from a lack of valuable primary sources. Butthe fact that an economic and social system unlike any other existed in some European kingdoms can not be ignored. Itdoes seem that feudalism existed in many places and forms throughout Europe, but because the term was developed in the eighteenth century it is too broad to successfully apply or disprove, and until historianssettle on a concrete definition and defining characteristics, it will always be open for criticism and critique.