The Medievalists' "F-Word": Feudalism
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- 'tis but a scratch: fact and fiction about the Middle Ages - Episode 30
“Feudalism” was once accepted by academic and popular historians alike as a defining, if not the defining, feature of medieval society. For military historians, the High Middle Ages, the period from around 1050 to 1300, was once the Age of the Feudal Knight. This is no longer the case. If academic historians use it at all in their writings or classrooms, it is usually to dismiss it. For most medieval historians, feudalism has joined Viking horned helmets and “the right of the first night” in the ranks of myths about the Middle Ages.
Richard, however, isn't most historians. In this episode, Richard and Ellen talk about the meanings of "feudalism" and why Richard is reluctant to throw it upon the cart of dead historical constructs.
The host of 'tis but a scratch is Richard Abels, a professor emeritus of history at the United States Naval Academy, Richard is a specialist in the military and political institutions of Anglo-Saxon England. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America.
You can listen to more episodes of 'tis but a scratch: fact and fiction about the Middle Ages on:
Buzzsprout - feeds.buzzspro...
Apple Podcasts - podcasts.apple...
Spotify - open.spotify.c...
Podbay - podbay.fm/p/ti...
Their own CZcams Channel - / @factandfictionaboutth...
Intro and exit music are by Alexander Nakarada - Zábava
You guys deserve a heap of superlatives for this podcast. When students are taught that constructs such as capitalism and communism are devoid of real meaning the words attain equivalence, and pernicious brainwashing ensues.
The complexity and variety of feudalism is manifest in Professor Cheyette's superb "Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadors." In one passage he describes a man who greets his lord as to one parcel of land he works, and soon afterward is greeted as lord as to another parcel he owns. At many times and places the peasants lived in virtual slavery, while in others they enjoyed considerable comfort and security. Despite this apparent contradiction, it is fair to characterize the entire spectrum as feudal because of key common elements.
I agree with you completely about Fred Cheyette's superb book. He was one of the best medievalists of my generation. His work was consistently interesting and insightful. I found similar "anomalies" in Domesday Book, where greater men held land from a social and economic inferior. Landholding was complex, as were the varieties of lordship.
@@factandfictionaboutthemidd7043 Very nicely said.
Interesting,really interesting. Thank you so much 🙏🙏🙏👵🇦🇺
I enjoyed this immensely.
Yeah, Ive always thought the high medieval era seems pretty goddamned feudal to me lol, idk what these academics are smoking. So where did early medieval aristocrats derive their power from?
Everyone is convinced the middle ages were feudal, except for the middle ages themselves. They were all super convinced that they were the second or third or sixth coming of Rome, or were the king of all Franks, or church of all Christians, or righftul freeholders or tenured men of such and such place, or the rightful ploughers of this or that field from ancient times immemorial--whenever that was.
From possession of land, rents, and customary rights over agricultural laborers, supplemented in the High Middle Ages by revenues drawn from towns and commerce. This translated into wealth, and wealth translated into castles and armed retainers. War was also a source of wealth and power for aristocrats throughout the Middle Ages. (And I don't deny that the High Middle Ages was "feudal," depending, of course, how you define that term.
Not from a mandate derived from the masses, I'll tell you that.
This is super helpful
That was interesting, I knew very little about it. Was the lord and vassal feudal system seen as a useful way to collect taxes, like after military obligations became less important.
Not taxes but fiscal renders arising from the holding of fiefs. The main ones were relief, a sum paid by the heir of a deceased fief-holder to the lord in the recognition of the lord's continued ownership of the property; aid, money payments to the lord in times of the lord's need; wardship and marriage, the lord's right to choose a guardian for the underage heir to a deceased fief-holder, or to choose the husband of a female heir; and scutage, money payment in lieu of obligatory knight service Traditionally historians have termed these as "feudal incidents," but they were anything but incidental, especially when paid and voluntary military service became more important than obligatory feudal knight service in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Well, if we have to reread a standard historical textbook regarding the timeline of the world, 🌎 the first epic monstrosities began in Egypt 🇪🇬 Greece, 🇬🇷 Italy, 🇮🇹 and continuing throughout the Holy Roman Empire... Five hundred years of debating feudalism, starting with the conquering of inland countries, i.e., Belgium, Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Liechtenstein, Bosnia, Hertzgovenia, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Spain, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Macedonia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Each of those colonized kingdoms has, have, and had imperialism....up until World War II. Many of the nations had serfs, still owing portions of properties to the palace protolerats! Yes, that also includes today's political European figureheads: Wiliemina, Albert, Anne, Charles, Frederick, William, Catherine, Stephan, Stephanie, Andrew, Richard, and other surviving dominant royals, indeed!! Ok, now you're just getting a snippet of whereupon they owned...how about their Commonwealths of countries, whichever are still paying out now, that they couldn't repair after decimated warfare, or reform any personal reparations, during that particular durations of those times...!?😮
Arguing about words is important, but I just want to know what was going on at X or Y time. If I were Bob Blois at X place at X time for example, what relationships would I have with other ranks or professions of people?
And that is why microhistory is really valuable. Surveys of the Middle Ages must take a bird's eye view. But what actually was happening in any one time and place requires a closer study. For the early Middle Ages, the problem is the paucity of sources. This becomes less of a problem through time.
While there are genuine criticisms worth making about certain words and how they have been used, I very much dislike the iconolasm that seems to have swept into academia in the past 50 years or so. Not every word needs to be replaced with another which means the exact same thing or done away with entirely. Brown also clearly has an agenda to tear down all generalising words in history which unfortunately taints her book.
There is nothing wrong with being critical of concepts from time to time at all in my honest opinion. Is not like the concept of "feudal" is something sacred that can't be questioned or something.
@@HidalgodeAndalucia And I acknowledge that in my comment. What I dislike is that this is a trend that seems to target all terms at one point or another, often to little positive result.
Honestly Sounds Like bored historians making stuff Up to Sound smart ,Like for example you could argue that ancient greece wasnt full of City states but actually very different societies then Break down every single one but you still have broad General Trends.
"actually the people who specialize in this subject have no idea about that subject, but i, a YT commenter, do!" :v