Feudalism question

[Zim]

Hello everybody. Over in the Throne Room we have a tradition of RPGs where players take the part of nobles in whichever kingdom we are playing in game (represented as the in game family members and generals). Generally in these games realism takes a bit of a back seat to a mix of having a fun game and verisimilitude.

In the latest such game there's been a bit of a discussion about the power of a king and feudalism. For context we are talking about Hungary circa 1222. In our "court room" there's some heated in character discussion about decisions pertinent to the kingdom's future and one player made an out of character statement on royal authority (you can find the whole post here ).

The rules of the game state that the nobles own their land because otherwise it would be very dull to play in a game where one guy acts all high and mighty and everyone else does his bidding. Historically however the King owned all the land that was not part of the Church's property and in turn gave it out to the nobles in return for allegiance and knights. They in turn split their lands in smaller portions, leaving some for their private estates and granting the rest to their knights in exchange for service and so that the knights may pay for their destriers, mail and weapons. The knights in turn leased the land to serfs who toiled and gave a large portion of the produced goods back to the knight or just paid him a tax in gold form the sales they made. The rest they used to feed themselves and make a living. However ultimately the King still owed all of the land in the Kingdom and could revoke titles, confiscate lands and promote new nobles on a whim. Doing this in a game will suck however, but this was the reality back then.

My first thought (and that of at least one player) was that this seemed very far off from how we thoguht of feudalism. All through university and the books I've read the theme seemed to be that feudalism was both a cause of decentralization and sometimes a cause of it, with feudal societies only slowly (at different times in different places) moving towards greater centralization of power in the hands of a monarch.

After being challenged to provide sources for my opinion I realized at best I might be able to have a bar room or typical internet forum debate on the subject. From me at least there'd likely be a lot of "I read or was told this", a few dubious internet sources, intermingled with whatever I can find quickly on the books I do own that touch on the subject (most of which are hopefully at least well sources but addressed towards the laymen).

So I thought I'd bring the discussion here where there are much more knowledgeable posters. Would anybody be able to address the subject, or suggest a book (if possible one available on Kindle)? I have a degree in Political Science, so I'm well able to slog through dry books on government if need be (in fact if we were talking something 500 years more recent or 700 years further in the past I'd likely be able to speak more authoritatively).

[Myth]

I too await this discussion eagerly but also with the humble admission that I am ultimately just an enthusiast and not a scholar. The real scholar was my late grandfather, a professor in History, specializing in economics throughout the ages (can't really translate this to English very accurately). He was one of the founders of the University of Veliko Tarnovo and a pretty well known History professor here in Bulgaria. It is from him that I got some of my knowledge or the thirst for it, and I am willing to listen and learn If I am in the wrong.

[Conradus]

As far as I know, Myth's vision is correct though of course it's much simplified. The King theoretically held all the land and had granted this to numerous nobles, but more often than not these were far too powerful to respect a King who hardly controlled his capital. I do not know the specifics of the situation in Hungary though, but this was common in France.

[Beskar]

You can even go one step further and say all the land belongs to the Church (on God's behalf) who then allowed a King to rule it, but I think that is even earlier in history...

But yes, the King had the ultimate authority, but if he has no way to enforce that loyalty then the vassals did as they please, vested interests and all. It is this which led to different government styles such as constitutional monarchy (Magna Carter) when the vassals rebelled against the King and limited his legal power.

[Arjos]

The real issue was the hereditary aspect of feudalism: at first those appointed were trusted and loyal men, but in time their families expanded or married, gaining great wealth and influence...
So in the end, the King had to spend more energies, keeping his vassals in check or making sure not to offend them...

In certain regions, the fief was also split among male descendants, this esclated in internal strife or weakened the once large possession...

[Zim]

You can even go one step further and say all the land belongs to the Church (on God's behalf) who then allowed a King to rule it, but I think that is even earlier in history...

But yes, the King had the ultimate authority, but if he has no way to enforce that loyalty then the vassals did as they please, vested interests and all. It is this which led to different government styles such as constitutional monarchy (Magna Carter) when the vassals rebelled against the King and limited his legal power.

I think this is the point we had disagreed on in the game thread. It had always been my impression that kings of most feudal kings were not nearly as powerful in fact as in theory, at least in the period in which we're playing (early 13th century). Would a king indeed be able to confiscate land from powerful hereditary lands on a whim?

[Sarmatian]

I think this is the point we had disagreed on in the game thread. It had always been my impression that kings of most feudal kings were not nearly as powerful in fact as in theory, at least in the period in which we're playing (early 13th century). Would a king indeed be able to confiscate land from powerful hereditary lands on a whim?

That depends on a lot of things - strength of the king, strength of the noble, does he have a valid reason (like rebellion or similar stuff).

[Kagemusha]

I think this is the point we had disagreed on in the game thread. It had always been my impression that kings of most feudal kings were not nearly as powerful in fact as in theory, at least in the period in which we're playing (early 13th century). Would a king indeed be able to confiscate land from powerful hereditary lands on a whim?

That would depend completely on the power of the King, not legal authority, but actual power. During medieval times in Europe.You can easily see how most countries shifted from strong central authority to practical chaos, depending on the strength of the Monarch. So in practice it was up to the ability of ruler if he could effectively control his Vassal´s or not.

[Myth]

Aye that's what I said further in our other discussion. A strong King means more centralized form of rule, a weak king means the nobles did what they wanted and he was a figurehead if nothing else.

But strong Kings who (mostly) were also good generals and had the majority of the nobility behind them (and subsequently, their knights and levy) would crush rebellious nobles. See Barbarossa and Henry the Lion for example. A rebelling noble risks his title and lands, for if the King wins he then can exile or execute him and strip him of his title and lands, and delegate them to a a more loyal subject. The King still has a saying on who is Baron and who is Duke, even if these titles are mostly hereditary. He could also create new noble titles for lands that had been part of a larger area.

Civil wars and revolts did happen yes, though not nearly as many actual battles were fought. Most of it was manoeuvring, sieges, parleying, ransoms and diplomacy. The King still issued edicts and ultimately had a saying of what happens in the Realm. There was no such thing as voting - a noble either followed or defied his leader, with consequences stemming from either choice of course.

[The Lurker Below]

counties, baronies, and duchies occur prior to kingdoms. sorry, but addressing the legal issue of land ownership, those lands belong to family who came under the influence of a king.

a king can claim a vassal land using many diplomatic tools, military conquest being only the most expensive of diplomatic solutions.

were there nobles who committed treason or other wrong to their rightful liege lord and therefore surrendered their holdings? certainly.

but in the strictest legal sense of the term fuedalism, there have been numerous noble families that held far more land and influence in their own country than did their own lord.