Medieval age - when ?

[Krautman]

I'd agree with the overlap thought. You could possibly say the medieval era spanned roughly from 500 to 1500. It would be difficult to set an exact date due to local differences like urbanization rate etc. You can, of course, choose an exact date to the beginning of the renaissance in italy, but does that count for some eastern pomeranian peasant village?

Brutus, are differences in french and german feudalism important to the matter at hand? It is, no matter which degree of access the respective king had to his vassals, both feudalism.

[Brutus]

I'd agree with the overlap thought. You could possibly say the medieval era spanned roughly from 500 to 1500. It would be difficult to set an exact date due to local differences like urbanization rate etc. You can, of course, choose an exact date to the beginning of the renaissance in italy, but does that count for some eastern pomeranian peasant village?

Brutus, are differences in french and german feudalism important to the matter at hand? It is, no matter which degree of access the respective king had to his vassals, both feudalism.

If you use feudalism as a determinative factor, it is. However, I'm not an expert on the theories of feudalism, so I'm not capable of given good examples about the differences. Anyway, you're probably right that it doesn't matter very much for the question at hand, as I already made my point: period dating has severe limitations and should only be used to simplify historical overviews.

[Hurin_Rules]

The word 'feudalism' is falling out of fashion with medievalists, especially since the work of Susan Reynolds and Dominique Barthelemy. It is not a very secure basis for periodization, and never really was. It might well go the way of the 'Dark Ages'.

[Hurin_Rules]

Fair enough GC. But if you're going to say that it did exist, you'll have to at least define what you mean. What was 'feudalism'?

[Soulforged]

That's not true. In fact if you think on mind constructions (ideal constructions, see Adam Smith or Macpherson) this type of mind construction exists until today, it's just a little shadowed behind a cortain of idealism and liberty & equalty (also ideal not real). The feudalism is named after the organization of people in terrains called feuds (it has nothing to do with rigid social structure). The thing is that if you look at this period (Feudal) you will see not a single moment when legitimity of an government or feudal lord was unmatched or even unquestioned. You are right about the fact that most of the high class people idealized it like a rigid scheme of lord-vassals, but the truth is that of the little that is known about the life of the common people of that time you can't infer anything that can make you think that it was the common way of those days (it just was an way of thinking imposed by the reach an conquerors). Besides that you're right, but keep in mind that ideal structures (like the "Constitution") are nothing if unsupported by real material behind (like an army) is just a matter of creating an excuse for an unexcusable opresor state. But talking about the begining of the medieval time, i cannot see any reason to believe that it has to be other than the fall of the West Roman Empire. This brings up all the changes needed to talk about another time, it was like erase all and write again. The social structure changed a lot just because there was little law on Europe to mantain the old structure (Roma and Greece fell, the laws of the "Pagans" were so irrational that it can make you laugh, even an imprudent crime was punished with death) conquerors an despots (not to different from the old time friends!!!) ruled things with an iron hand but with little intelligence, but the real factor here was personal glory, it still is today for many corrupt gentlement. That way of thinking (nor more glory for the empire), harsh and direct, was what changed the face of Europe forever, that formed the first feuds and the first vassals that followed them. The economy changed too, the agriculture still was the most important, but some first evidence of mercantilism is noted passing the dark age (the moment when politics, discussion and diplomacy pop up to the light again), i mean accumulation of treasure (you can't talk about real mercantilism because there wasn't a nation wich accumulates) specially precious stones (gold and silver) that eventually will create the first banks. But to not make it large (there are hundreds of sources to consult, much better than my writting) i think that the fall of the roman law an the continous spreading of catolicism, with it's inherent irracionality and intolerance formed the beggining of the middle ages, also the return of those laws (adapted of course) was aprox. the time of the begining of modern age, in a few words i think that law respalded by religion, and an strong army (or at least a real power that keeps the rebels in place) were the principals (and still are like US is showing without mercy) parts of the engine that moves story, and are also the best way to determine when one period finishes and another begins. So my date will be 476 b.C. and finishing when Colón (or Columbus) reaches America in 1492 b.C. Also keep in mind that this distinction of the periods are only for the western culture, the eastern have their own distinction, also the jews, an so on.

[Hurin_Rules]

It was a pretty simple concept, actually. You have a Heirarchy of lords. In return for allegiange to a lord that was "Higher up", the lesser ranking lords would recieve lands, but they would be expected to provide armies for the higher-ups when the time came.

That's putting it very simply, but it was a system based on a rigid social heirarchy, and a firm belief that your place in society is where you belong. It was more than a system, it was a mindset. A peasant was a peasant, a lord was a lord. Breaking that would throw the whole system away.

This system became unnecesarry when professional armies became the standard, and when the various aspects of the rennesaince challenged the idea of that Social Heirarchy.

Ok lets push a little deeper.

You're saying that a rigid social hierarchy is an essential element of feudalism. But where did the knights themselves come from? Most historians point to the fact that the first knights were from relatively low classes. Many of them might actually have been peasants. These made it up the social scale and in fact at one point their superiors began calling themselves knights as well. So how rigid was this social hierarchy?

Also, there are many other societies that have rigid social hierarchies that clearly were not feudal. A Roman patrician and a Roman slave had very different social status. The best a slave could hope for was to make it up the next rung and be a freeman. That was pretty rigid, no?

Finally, where do the townspeople and free farmers of Europe fit into the 'age of feudalism'? The communes in italy became independent states. Were they then not part of the system? How about the free people who owned allodial lands?

[Soulforged]

Well then we don't disagree, i never sayed that you can touch the structure, but wich is important is the real thing behind (politics, economy, military, etc) and without missing the point here that's what matters to determine such another mental structure like a change of period.

[Brutus]

One might say that true Medieval Fuedalism didn't occur until the Knight Social class had already been established.

The thing that makes this heirarchy unique is the religion. There's never been any other example of such an elaborate system of existence, and Christianity is, IMO, the prime ingredient. It was the church that instilled in people the faith to go along with the system, it was the church that proclaimed knights were a valid persuit (despite Thou Shalt Not Kill) if they would go on crusade, it was the church who permeated all social classes and was the glue that held it together.

Still, the hierarchy as you present it was largely an ideal. For example: a middle age village in Holland, Rijswijk, consited in the later middle ages for more then 50% out of people who were legally 'nobles'. The same was true for many other places. However, these people were not all knights, neither did they all own a castle; they led the very same lives as their 'peasant' neighbours, only trying to get tax-exemption from their noble status. At the very same time, more and more 'real nobles' seased to be called knight, simply because they didn't get trough their 'knightly exam' (they didn't fulfill all necessary requirements). You can also see that in this period, still very medieval, more and more nobles go to university (like many burghers) to reach a degree and get accepted into their government, along with these same commoners.
As for the role of feudalism and religion in defining the Middle Ages, I would like to point out that Catholic France before the revolution of 1789 was in many ways still a 'feudal' society.

[caesar44]

So , by any standard , Chivalry TW is not the only medieval mod for RTW ...
I thought so

[Hurin_Rules]

One might say that true Medieval Fuedalism didn't occur until the Knight Social class had already been established.

Then it surely didn't start with Charlemagne, right?

It probably didn't start before c. 1100 then too.

The thing that makes this heirarchy unique is the religion. There's never been any other example of such an elaborate system of existence, and Christianity is, IMO, the prime ingredient. It was the church that instilled in people the faith to go along with the system, it was the church that proclaimed knights were a valid persuit (despite Thou Shalt Not Kill) if they would go on crusade, it was the church who permeated all social classes and was the glue that held it together.

You don't consider Japan to have developed a feudal system?

[Aenlic]

GelatinousCube, I think you're confusing Buddhism with something else, possibly Confucianism or Hinduism. Neither Theravada Buddhism nor Mahayana Buddhism teach anything about a rigid class structure. The rigid caste system in India might be blamed on the Hindu concept of dharma, which is fulfilling one's duty; but Hinduism certainly wouldn't apply to Japan. Confucianism emphasizes an adherence to social structures and civic duty; but again doesn't really apply to Japan. Shinto is a shamanistic/ancestor based belief system which really contains nothing which deals with the idea of rigid social structures and subservience. The feudal structure in Japan wasn't the result of religion.

[Steppe Merc]

"Feudalism" was used far before the medieval era. The Parthians had a feudal like society, and many ideas used by steppe nomads (the raising of troops, knights, etc.) became bases for the Medieval knights. Of course, it wasn't as conected to the land as the Medieval Feudalism was.

[Watchman]

Feudalism, in the meaning I've generally seen it used, is a way to organize social power structures (usually tied to land ownership) in a "militarized" society (ie. one where there is no real difference between social and military elites). It is based on personal loyalty, normally in the form of the underling holding, taxing, adminstering, defending etc. a given area of land for his superior in exchange of military and political support as needed. It is, in practice, a system of "subcontracting" adminstrative and military duties in a pyramid-like fashion - feudal subjects usually can and will enfeoff their holding into even smaller units to their own vassals, who can then do the same and so on and so on as long as it makes sense to further split the area.

Throw in such little details as political marriages, land and titular inheritance, conquest, the fact that most vassals could hold allegiance to more than one superior at once etc. etc. and you very soon end up with a horribly complicated mess of power, ownership, vassalage and obligation relations that in practice tended to give individual lordlings in the web a whole lot of leeway in their actions. Very often a higher lord simply could not count on the obedience of a vassal unless he was personally present with sufficient military power to enforce his requests and orders with straight threat of violence, and it was not in the least unusual for a vassal and a lord to go to war as their interests dictated (William the Conqueror, for example, warred against his nominal overlord the King of France...).

Put short, in a full-blown feudal system "central authority" was bit of a joke unless it referred to the local feudal lord whose authority in turn ultimately rested on his control of fighting men and fortifications. As might be apparent it tended to make kings rather weak.

I've read the European type of feudalism developed from a combination of factors, among them the old Germanic personal loyalty ties, late-Roman manoralism and a pressing need to have networks of fortifications and hard-hitting, standing cavalry to curb the predations of Vikings, Hungarians and Moors, all of them fast-moving and far-ranging raiders and a major pain in the arse for Carolingian Europe.

Other regions used their own versions of the same basic idea, although it should be noted that the hallmark of true feudalism was always a weak or nonexistent (literally or virtually) central governement that has to divide its power and authority among its "barons" to maintain some semblance of statehood. Strong empires and states were almost never actually feudal, although they might well retain or otherwise have landowning hereditary elites more often than not providing military service, for the simple reason that they didn't need to. The kings, emperors or whoever were always keen on wresting the reins of real power from the hands of their unruly vassals whenever they could.

The museum I work in uses a periodization roughly as follows:
Late Roman period 200-400 AD
Migration period 300-500 AD
Merovingian period 500-600 AD (after the ruling dynasty of the Franks if I recall correctly, the same from which Charlemagne was born)
Carolingian period 600-900 AD
Viking period 700-1000 AD
As you can see the periods partially overlap. 'Course, the transitions are very vague anyway and different regions "shifted" at different times...

And then the Middle Ages, which depending on what one counts as a suitably impressive milestone event end in either 1453 (Constantinopole falls to the Ottomans) or 1493(?; not positive of the exact year here) (Grenada falls to the Reconquista and Columbus finds the New World). I think there was also something about a future Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor and King of Castilie-Aragon -Philip IV?- being born around that time - a man whose influence would be felt for most of the next century and of a dynasty that would shape the political landscape of the entire subcontinent for centuries to come (AFAIK the last Habsburg monarch to lose his throne was actually the King of Spain in the 1930s...).

[Watchman]

Well, I *do* read up on this stuff for fun, and study PolSci. Being able to define things relatively clearly is sort of a prequisite to get that far to begin with.

[Incongruous]

Look all yous fullas, middle ages starts at Norman conquest of England and ends wiv da def of da last Plantaganet king awight. Now if any ones wansa dispute dis, den weeza a gonna av a big, big problem, aint wee!
God, bloody non-english types, always trying to get everything your own way arent you, go on piss off!