In this essay we will discuss about Feudalism. After reading this essay you will learn about:- 1. Meaning of Feudalism 2. Features of Feudalism 3. Origin 4. Factors 5. Feudal Theory and Obligations 6. Contribution 7. Causes of the Decay of Feudalism 8. Disintegration 9. Defects.
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Meaning of Feudalism
- Essay on the Features of Feudalism
- Essay on the Origin of Feudalism
- Essay on the Factors Leading to the Growth of Feudalism
- Essay on the Feudal Theory and Obligations of Feudalism
- Essay on the Contribution of Feudalism
- Essay on the Causes of the Decay of Feudalism
- Essay on the Disintegration of Feudalism
- Essay on the Defects of Feudalism
Essay # 1. Meaning of Feudalism:
It is difficult to define ‘Feudalism’ in a precise manner for the enormous complexities the term indicated. But a near approach to a more or less good definition may be made by calling it a system of economic, political and social relationship that subsisted in Europe between the ninth or tenth and the thirteenth centuries.
Myers defines ‘Feudalism’ as ‘a special form of society and government, based upon a peculiar tenure of land which prevailed in Europe during the latter part of the Middle Ages, attaining, however, its most perfect development in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries.’
Indeed it was typically ‘a medieval system of government whose chief characteristic was the exercise by large landowners of sovereign rights formerly exercised by the monarch; the inseparable association, in other words, of landownership with powers of government.’ To sum up, Feudalism as a whole was a ‘combination of private government, a particular system of land-holding, and a personal dependence the last two also entailing a military system.’
Essay # 2. Essential Features of Feudalism:
The most characteristic feature of Feudalism was the private, personal government by the local landowners who had assumed sovereign rights in their areas after the break-up of Charlemagne’s Empire. Even weak kings unable to set up or control an efficient government during the period of general dislocation that followed the break-up of the Empire entrusted political rights to private individuals who were able to exercise them.
The situation was that each petty lord though theoretically subject overload and ultimately to the king, was master over his own acres, with the result that for all practical purposes Europe was made up of thousands of loosely associated little lordships.
Second characteristic of Feudalism was the system of land tenure on which the entire system was based. The socio-economic status of an individual would go with the particular piece and size of land he would occupy. His official position would also be inseparably connected with the plot of land he occupied. An individual would hold and use land belonging to another on a contractual basis which would oblige him to assist his lord in performing his duties of government.
Such assistance would mean attending the Lord’s court for the administration of justice, police functions of maintaining law and order, to serve him as a soldier or supply him with soldiers. The last obligation of the vassal to his overlord made the Feudal system a military system as well.
The third characteristic of Feudalism was the division of the social classes into two strata: the rulers and the ruled. The rulers were the individuals who possessed land, and the ruled—the people who tilled the soil. Land determined the structure of society.
The fourth characteristic was the personal bond that governed the relationship that bound the lord and the vassal. The mutual obligations were cemented by a ceremony called oath of loyalty sworn by the vassal to the lord. The land tenure and the relationship between the vassal and the overlord were guided by the personal relationship established as a result of the oath-taking ceremony and not by any laws of the state.
The above characteristics of Feudalism have been summed up by Myers in what he calls the beneficiary nature of the property in land, close personal bond between the grantor and the receiver of it, full or partial rights of sovereignty of the lord over his land.
Essay # 3. Origin and Development of Feudalism:
Although Feudalism did not take its final shape before the ninth or the tenth century yet its beginnings can be traced from the late Roman Empire. Even under the Carolingians there was a general tendency towards Feudalism which the Carolingian kings were unable to stop.
In the century following the death of Charlemagne, Feudal system resumed its growth with tremendous acceleration. Thus Feudalism took about five hundred years before it developed into any well-defined form or manifested its characteristic features.
It is worthwhile to mention here that Feudalism derived its elements from both Roman and Teutonic customs and expedients. When entrance into knighthood took the character of a Christian sacrament and the life of the knight became a specialized type of Christian life, Feudalism became an aspect of medieval Christianity. Thompson and Johnson rightly observe that Feudalism was “a compound of Roman, Christian and German elements, moulded into a new form by contemporary conditions of life.”
The sources of the elements of Feudalism may be traced back to the ancient Roman institution of Patrocinium or Patronage whereby wealthy and influential persons would keep themselves surrounded by followers called clients who were dependents of the patrons and enjoyed their aid and support.
In the time of confusion this system extended considerably. The landless, the impoverished landowners, the weak landlords, etc., would offer their services to a powerful landlord in return for shelter and support.
The Celtic Vassus and the German Comitatus were institutions almost similar to that of the Roman Patrocinium. The German Comitatus was a sort of personal dependence of warriors on their lords. The weaker men would hold themselves in personal dependence on the stronger, and would render service, often military, in return for protection and support.
The systems of Precarium, Commendation, Beneficium, etc., were the other similar institutions which supplied the early elements of Feudalism. It was under Charles Martel that the military side of Feudalism received particular stimulus as he had to meet the repeated raids of the Arab horse-men into Southern Gaul.
Charles Martel appropriated the Church lands and by granting the same as fiefs created a cavalry force to cope with the in-roading Arab horse-men. This system of obtaining military service in lieu of the grants of land became henceforth so general that the former method of occasional levy of foot soldiers was given up.
The internal disorders as well as the external invasion of the Holy Roman Empire after the death of Charlemagne all the more accelerated the growth of this defensive system. This naturally strengthened the military character of feudalism. The partition of Charlemagne’s Empire on his death between his feeble successors, served as an extra-inducement to chaos.
The struggle between the Saracens and the Christians, the attack by the Scandinavian pirates from the north, the Hungarians from the east, hastened the disturbed state of the society everywhere within the Holy Roman Empire and it was this anarchical state of things that caused the rapid development of Feudalism. All classes of society hastened to enter the system in order to secure the protection which it alone could afford.
As the system became universal, the rights and obligations of the tenant were being recognized in law. No longer was the position of the tenant precarious in the face of threatened eviction; his status and his rights were now legally recognized. The urgent need of security compelled the kings, princes, the church and the wealthy persons who had not yet parceled out their lands into fiefs, to do so.
Most lands which were even now allodial in character were transformed into fiefs under vassals who were bound to protect them by all sacred obligations of homage and fealty. Small-holders of land under the alloidal system, on the other hand, surrendered their rights to the neighboring lords and received them back as fiefs.
For the same reason the churches and monasteries, etc., also entered into the feudal system. Even the churchmen had to render military service, although occasionally there were instances of church service in lieu of military service.
In the above ways the state, church and all classes of the society were feudalized and were bound up by feudal ties from the highest feudal suzerain to the humblest vassal. Needless to point out that when feudalism thus brought the entire society, the state and the church within its pale, of necessity Feudalism became a political system besides being a social and economic one.
The political rights and obligations of the tenants were determined with reference to the position they occupied in the feudal structure. The Tenant-in-Chief now began to enjoy the rights of private jurisdiction, of building castles and filling them with armed supporters, of striking coins, etc.
They also had a right and an obligation to assist the king with their counsel and to render military service. The mutual relations of the different strata of the feudal structure were now well defined and Feudalism became a perfect system.
Essay # 4. Factors Leading to the Growth of Feudalism:
The conflict between the church and the state cannot be called the only characteristic of the Middle Ages. It’s another and very important feature is the growth and predominance of feudalism.
Taking the opportunity of long-drawn controversy between the church and the state the feudal landlords strengthened their power and position. In other words, feudalism thrived surpassing all the previous records. It would not be irrelevant to investigate the causes of its growth.
The medieval economy was mainly buttressed by agriculture. Village communities and large agricultural holdings were formed. Absence of industrial development facilitated agriculture to play the vital role in the economy.
Agricultural land came to be concentrated in the hands of few persons and they became landlords who ultimately dominated both economy and politics. Agricultural labourers were closely tied with land and, as they had no alternative source of livelihood, they were forced to offer maximum loyalty to the landlords.
The medieval society was divided into two great classes—landlords and serfs or agricultural labourers. But the lack of well-knit organisation and political consciousness helped the subjugation of serfs to landlords which ultimately resulted in the enhancement of the powers and position of the landlords.
The agricultural workers were scattered throughout the country which made coordination among them difficult and the landlords utilized this.
The medieval period was full of disorders short of anarchy. The reality of the nation-state was a far cry.
Even large political and economic units did not develop. This enabled the feudal lords to accumulate power and to be sovereign in their own fields. Their activities went unchallenged.
The incessant fighting between the church and the state also encouraged them to go ahead in fulfilling their political ambition. The emperor had neither the man-power nor the resources to cut them to size.
Again, many priests were also owners of large amounts of land. An unholy alliance developed between the church’s priests and the feudal lords. This curtailed the power of the king and augmented that of the feudal lords.
Lack of transport and communication facilities may be regarded as another cause responsible for the growth of feudalism. In the Middle Ages people used the primitive types of transport and communication.
It was not possible for the Central Government to come to the aid of the common people, particularly small landholders and property owners when they were in great need.
For obvious reasons these persons were inclined to seek help of some other stronger persons having property, arms and other facilities. A type of property and other relations grew in this way.
Ultimately, the small property owners surrendered their property to big owners. Landlordism was the natural result. Side by side there emerged tenant system. Originally there was some sort of good relation; afterwards it assumed the shape of tenant and landlord. With the rise of amount of property the power, wealth and influence of landlords began to increase.
Gettel and Sabine have pointed out another factor. The Teutonic invaders had two important characteristics which helped feudalism. They at first formed large organisations and later on they were decentralised. Every organisation had leaders and they owned large amounts of land. The leaders were also locally independent.
In this way feudalism developed. Again, the Teutonic invaders were not interested in trade and commerce. And that is why they focused their attention on agriculture. Naturally, their attachment to land was high.
Disintegration of Western Empire and decline in power inspired the local leaders to be independent and exercise political and other influences. Local officials and great landowners became law unto themselves, and, in the anarchy that followed, bonds other than political had to be found to hold the society together and to maintain order and protection.
In the medieval period, the kings were the owners of almost the entire amount of land. The nobles and other members of the royal families were also owners. The lands were leased to their followers and relatives. This created landlordism.
In exchange of it, the landlords committed to provide military services and, when required, lump-sum amount of money. The original owners had no connection with the peasants who cultivated the land.
The intermediaries became ultimately independent and exerted tremendous coercive influence upon the peasants. Economically and politically, they were the sovereigns. Since the kings were involved in the struggle with the church, they had no time to control the landlords.
Essay # 5. Feudal Theory and Obligations of Feudalism:
Feudalism had practically destroyed the power of the fang, yet it saved a place for the king whose power yet had destroyed. Although all real political power was in the hands of the local lords, the feudal theory made the king the fountain-head of law and justice.
The king was also, in theory, the final source of all political rights and all land tenures. Further, the king’s person, according to the feudal theory was sacrosanct and therefore inviolable.
Thus in theory the feudal king possessed all the rights, a practical application of which by the king himself would destroy Feudalism itself. “Feudal theory, therefore, in it’s very of fundamentals provided for the destruction of feudalism.”
Further, according to the explanation of the later feudal lawyers the legal fiction was that the king had parceled out his kingdom into fiefs which were held from him by his vassals variously called princes, dukes, margraves, earls and counts.
These lords in their turn let out their portions to their vassals by the practice called sub-infeudation. These lesser vassals were called sub-tenants or mesne lords who distributed their lands to the serfs.
The vassal was bound to his lord by (i) ceremony of homage and (ii) oath of fealty. Ceremony of homage meant an expression of willingness on the part of the vassal to be completely the lord’s man, and fealty meant a promise to be faithful to the lord.
The lord would in return invest the vassal with his fief. As a result of the contractual relation struck between the lord and his vassal, the latter had the right of protection and of justice from his lord.
On his part, there was the obligation:
(i) To render military service,
(ii) To provide his lord with food and lodging while he would travel through his fief,
(iii) To attend his lord’s court and assist in the administration of justice,
(iv) To pay money which was, however, not regarded as tax but as aid such as scutage, payment at the time of the knighting of the king’s eldest son, marriage of his eldest daughter, ransoming the king himself, to pay relief or heriot which was more or less an inheritance tax, to pay warship, i.e., the fee of guardianship when the king or the lord looked after the minor son of the dead vassal.
In the event of the failure of the line of the vassal the fief would escheat, that is, revert to the lord. The lord might forfeit the fief if the vassal violated the contract.
Essay # 6. Contributions Made by Feudalism:
In spite of the many dangerous potentialities that the feudal system always possessed and the many evils that it brought in, it had its own importance:
(i) The greatest contribution of feudalism to the medieval society was the protection it gave to it after the breakup of Charlemagne’s empire. “Arising spontaneously to meet the need of law and order in a disorderly age, it served roughly the purpose of that rough age.”
It has, therefore, been regarded as the ‘protest of barbarism against barbarism’. Feudalism saved the society from the marauding Danes, Saracens and the Hungarians. “Under its auspices slowly some order came out of anarchy, some justice out of force, some law out of custom, some honour out of fealty.”
(ii) Feudalism fostered among the lords who enjoyed a considerable amount of local independence, a spirit of individualism and personal independence. The Teutonic character also had this love of personal independence. The feudal lords, who were naturally turbulent, violent and refractory, kept the spirit of liberty alive during the later medieval period.
They were very much sensitive about their rights and would not hesitate to stand against an arrogant king. This prevented monarchy from becoming despotic. King John of England was held in check by the feudal lords and the Magna Carta was essentially a feudal document.
Thompson and Johnson rightly observe that feudalism “nourished a colorful, live, eager, intellectually curious civilization, moreover of great significance for the future, inasmuch as it contained many of the seeds of modern principles of democratic institutions. The feudal courts of kings and nobles developed trial by jury and such fundamental concepts of common lav. as the right to be deprived of neither life nor property without due process of law.”
(iii) Feudalism also gave an impulse to certain forms of polite literature. Philosophy and learning were fostered in the cloister of the church and poetry and romance fostered by the open, joyous hospitalities of the baronial hall. Wandering singers and story-tellers always found the doors of the feudal halls open to them.
(iv) The code of honour and the exalted consideration for women, which chivalry had given rise to, were also the contributions of feudalism. Chivalry was, in fact, the flower of feudalism. Chivalry brought about an excellent moral effect on the civilization and social life of Europe.
(v) Feudalism also gave rise to numerous sovereign territorial states, as in Germany. The king having been looked upon as the owner of all land in the country and the fountain head of law and justice, in fact, all powers exercised by the lords, gave a legitimate ground to the kings having enough strength, intelligence and ability to create national states.
(vi) The architectural contribution of the feudal society was the castle. The castle was however not extraordinary in its refinement but certainly massive and elaborate. Later, the feudal castle began to incorporate somewhat refined architectural shapes.
Essay # 7. Causes of the Decay of Feudalism:
The decline and the extinction of feudalism had been due to different causes in different countries. Yet it is possible to point out certain factors which may be considered as the common causes.
First, the feudal system was hated by the people Hatred of and disliked by the kings. It was never liked by any the people section of the society except the lords and nobles who enjoyed various privileges that the feudal system had ensured them.
The artificial distinction between the common man and a lord, which made the former no better than games, in the lords hunting park made struggle between the privileged and the non-privileged classes inevitable. This struggle continued through decades till the French Revolution wherein feudalism found its burial ground.
Secondly, the kings opposed the system and were eager to break it down. It was only natural with the kings to seek to break the system which had reduced them into the position of puppets.
Thirdly, the Crusades which had agitated the whole of Europe during the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries had taken a huge toll from among the lords who joined it in large numbers. Those who returned from the Crusades were impoverished both in health and wealth. All this had weakened the feudal aristocracy.
It was almost common among the lords to raise money by selling or mortgaging their estates to meet the expenses of the Holy War. This gave opportunities to the kings and the wealthy merchants to acquire their estates. One cause which was most responsible for the decline and extinction of feudalism was the Crusades.
Fourthly, the improvement and change in the method of warfare with the invention of gunpowder and the monopoly that the king exercised over its manufacture made the king militarily-more powerful than the feudal lords. A musketeer was surely more powerful than a feudal lord with his armour and sword.
Fifthly, various forces reduced the number of the serfs and villains, such as constant private warfare, crusades, etc. Feudal lords were naturally left without sufficient number of tenants to do their work. Further, there was increasing demand for labourers who worked on wages.
Many serfs left their landed slavery to join these free labourers. In the fifteenth century feudalism as a system broke up although it had left its annoyances, particularly in France, till the French Revolution.
Essay # 8. Disintegration of Feudalism:
The last one hundred and fifty years of the medieval period saw several important political, economic and social changes and the most important of them was the disintegration or decline of feudalism.
Throughout the medieval period the monarchy was in insignificant position. It could not ensure its power and authority either on public or feudal lords. Feudal nobles and the clergy were the determining factors of everything that counted. But towards the closing decades of this period these two institutions were relegated to insignificance.
The most important factor that contributed to the decline of feudalism was the gradual and steady rise of monarchy. Gettel says, “The Hundred Years’ War, the War of Roses, the use of gunpowder and the rise of national taxation and of standing armies strengthened the royal power at the expense of the great nobles, especially in England, France and Spainâ€. In big wars the feudal lords, in fact, had no part to play.
The kings were the main actors. Victory or defeat, whatever might be the result, the power of the king ultimately proliferated. This happened towards the end of the Middle Ages. Previously the kings had to depend upon the feudal lords for the supply of armies. But when they came to realize the difficulties of this system they started to build up personal armies for security purposes. This considerably enhanced their power.
The status and power of the nobles declined remarkably. The development of transport, communication, trade, commerce and, above all, the rise of the bourgeoisie contributed much to the disintegration of feudalism. Towards the end of the medieval period kings, lords and even the church took active interest in building up roads and bridges which were completely neglected in the earlier centuries.
The cities and urban areas were connected by road and other means of communication. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries saw old trade routes changed and new ones opened old monopolies broken and new ones secured. This great revival of commerce and industry spread throughout the length and breadth of different countries.
This again stimulated all Central and Western Europe with new life even down to local manorial and monastic markets. Development of industry, commerce and transport took place simultaneously. With these arose a new class—bourgeoisie—composed of manufacturers, merchants and small traders.
For the furtherance of trade and commerce and the progress of economy as a whole this new class wanted a strong and centralised government, which the feudal lords did not want. The importance and influence of landlords as the most dominating class in the society came down considerably. Now the bourgeoisie occupied that coveted position.
The economy of the Middle Ages was agriculture-based and, in such an economy, the feudal lords had an important part to play.
The entire economy with the sources of production and production relation was under the strong grip of the feudal lords. But the advent of commerce and growth of manufacturing industry completely changed the infrastructure.
The agriculture-based economy was turned to an industry-based economy and its control went to the hands of the new class. Capitalist or bourgeois class became the primary class and the landlords the secondary class. Besides the bourgeoisie, the proletariat class also emerged. Proletarians were also in opposition to the capitalist class.
In the earlier centuries of the medieval period the privileged classes joined the feudal lords. At the close of this period they were found to support the monarchy and also its enhancement of power.
Feudalism no longer remained as a rival of monarchy, its position declined. The smaller feudal states were combined to form a larger one. Previously people sought the help of feudal lords for safety and protection, now they sought it from the king. This again cut feudalism to size.
Essay # 9. Defects of Feudalism:
Every shield has two sides and feudalism had its defects also. In the first place, it hindered the growth of strong national monarchy by dividing the country into a vast number of practically independent principalities. France, for example, was divided into 150 fiefs in the tenth century.
The fact that many of these fief-holders were stronger and richer than the king himself would in itself by a challenge to the exercise of full sovereignty by the king. It was difficult for the king to make himself obeyed and revolt of the overgrown lords against a weak king was almost chronic in feudal kingdoms.
William the Conqueror made himself independent of the French king when he was the Duke of Normandy. The weakness of the central authority in comparison to the strength of the local lords produced widespread disorder and wretchedness.
In the second place, the feudal society in its rigid Rigidity of structure did not leave any scope for the growth of social individualism among the lowest stratum of the structure society. The society with the feudal aristocracy at the top was exclusive, proud and oppressive.
It was precisely for this exclusive and repressive conduct of the feudal aristocracy that in every revolt during the medieval times attempts were made to burn the manor houses and kill the lords.