Talk:Feudalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feudalism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

'

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Feudalism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1 2


Contents

[edit] Fix page

hello, if there , the feudalism page needs fixing, someones incorrectly tried to insert a picture, i'm not quite skilled enough to fix it myself.

It also lacks the infobox "Forms of Government." I don't know how to make it. Vegfarandi 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Feudalism is controversial if it even existed, much less it was a form of government. It's just so widely defined I don't think we should lend any weight to one view. Categories would be better. If anything feudalism could have its own infobox, although I'm not promoting that either, as again, categories do it better. -- Stbalbach 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you report vandalism on Meta? There is some vandalism in this article, and I just wanted to know because I'm kind of new around here. Steptrip 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted a broken external link. I do what I can to help. Haggarduser 21:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] etymology inconsistency

There is an inconsistency in the etymology section: it claims the word feudalism (as opposed to the word feudal) wasn't coined until the french revolution (which began in 1789), but then proceed to give an example of use of the word by the english novelist Tobias Smollett in a novel written in 1771. This is a non-trivial amount of time and should be reconciled or corrected. I don't know myself which one is actually right, but clearly they cannot both be correct. {{subst:unsigned:66.45.15.247 }}

Yeah true.. feudal is older, feudalism is newer .. same idea though .. I edited the quote to reflect what he was talking about. -- Stbalbach 14:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western bais.

This article was far to eurocentric. so i edited to contain a broader definition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.10.60.191 (talk • contribs) .

It's not a "western bias", the lead section describes the historiography of the term. This article is about European feudalism, others are in the Examples of feudalism article. If you want an article on Japanese feudalism than create one, although it appears Tokugawa shogunate pretty much has it covered. -- Stbalbach 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam contribution?

Islam made many contributions to Western Civilization Could there be any connection between Islam and the Frankish development of the feudal system? Jim Bart 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

When did feudalism end? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.240.66 (talk • contribs) .

Feudalism is still in power. However, it is cleverly masked. Feudalism is no different than elitism and bureaudemocracy. North Korea is a feudalist state. YellowRedBlackWhite 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

24.x.x.x, there is no general agreement on what feudalism is (or if it even existed), so depending on who you talk to, depends on what they will say. It also matters in what place your talking about. Examples of feudalism shows examples in Europe where feudal laws still exist today, but are those countries considered Feudal? You'll also find some people (like YellowRedBlackWhite) who see Feudalism everywhere with no clear definition and who use the term to disparage any system they consider backwards (which is in the spirit of the terms original pejorative meaning). So I guess to answer your question "when did it end", you have to be more clear what "it" is. This article talk about the many ways of looking at it. -- Stbalbach 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feudelism Today?

Judging from some other people's comments, this article strongly needs a section on Feudalism today. Are there any remnants of feudal ideas and institutions in the Western World today? Why might some people argue that the special qualities of semi-feudal Japan or other countries are still useful? Signor Pastrini 18:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See Examples of feudalism. Because of the difficulty and problematic nature of feudalism (as explained in the article), this is a general overview of the classic definition and historiography and some history - specific cases are in the Examples article plus across many other articles on Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies?

As a non-historian, it seems to me a bit inconsistent that the introduction correctly refers to feudalism as a reciprocal relationship, whereas later, power of the vassal is cited as a reason to question the justification of the concept. If I accept that the relationship is one of mutual obligations, then this implies that the vassal also has some degree of "power" -he obviously has something that the liege wants to pay for anyway, and depending on the specifics, the liege enters additional obligations for getting it (such as sending support in the case of external invasion). In any case, the vassal providing something the liege needs or wants, he has by definition some degree of power over the liege. Conversely, while the King of the Regnum Teutonicorum was elected, until the decline of the Hohenstauffen, he very much HAD the power to revoke even fiefs of the most powerful lords, as Barbarossa did with Henry "the Lion". In later days, the emperors lacked the political clout to get away with such actions, but that could equally be seen in line with the decline of the concept. Nonetheless, I think that the notion in the article that feudalism has to be seen in a larger context is correct. I have myself had trouble to explain to others that the free imperial cities are in fact more of a type of special form of vassal, less of early independent "democracy". --OliverH 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Feudalism is anything but consistent. That is one reason some critics believe it is an unworkable concept layered on the past that breaks down when looked at in specific cases. No one at the time had ever heard of a "feudal system". -- Stbalbach 22:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change Name?

I at first looked up Fuedalism, but theres was no article on Fuedalism, rather Fuedal Age. I think the article should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGamerDude (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Actual History

This article talks too much about the actual term and meaning of feudalism and not enough about the actual history, layout, origins, and development of feudalism throughout Europe during the middle ages.--J intela 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with "too much about the term" given how controversial the term is and how many definitions and usages it has. But I agree the actual history is not strong. Part of the problem how to approach it like Ganshoft, Bloch or Brown? One could write three separate articles that take very different approaches and be "correct" in all three. Or pick one approach and be POV. So we have the Manorialism article which deals with the Block approach. I suppose this article could stick with a Ganshoft approach since it says up-front that is what is being used. Although currently the "Origins" section is right out of Brown. -- Stbalbach 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
--J intela is quite correct, the article should address the layout, origins, etc of feudalism. Not only should this article address the downside of fedalism, it should also honor it with the positive aspects of a feudal society. I understand that democratic societies are bias against older forms of government, however it is the up to editors not to be against such a form of government. --Margrave1206 19:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that historians are not agreed upon what, if any, were the "layout, origins, etc of feudalism", so there is no consensus to document in this article, whether positive or negative. So the article must necessarily qualify itself quite a lot, and perhaps point to other articles for a particular viewpoint. As noted, Manorialism gives one such viewpoint. --Delirium 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Six months later the article still isn't about feudalism. Atropos 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the vast majority of the article should focus on the original historiography and then make modifications to it via exegesis on the changing history and continued debate about the term. I also hope for greater clarification on some things, e.g., both the nature of Reynolds's extension of Brown's thesis and any opposition to their views. I'd also like to suggest that the section and subsection headings themselves be used much more as transitions; the article will benefit from much less repetition in terms of points repeated over and over in a well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful effort to make the article cohere and flow.
Feudalism is a gargantuan subject, though, so I compliment everyone here who is trying to contribute to this article. I know I myself must approach it with humility; if I'm lucky, I can get my brother and sister-in-law to work on this, since they majored in it! All the best to everyone....Scrawlspacer 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been a year now and the article is still off-course. Somebody get a jr. high school social studies textbook for goodness sake. I'm not sure it matters if the article reflects every obscure viewpoint on feudalism but it can at least treat the subject with more than "Feudalism is a word, but some people disagree." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.115 (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we got a junior high school text book, the article would reflect history as understood by junior high school students. Would that really be desirable? Sometimes history is more complicated than we'd like, but what can you do? The article may have problems but dumbing it down won't help. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article describes mainly the history and controversies about the word "Feudalism" and not the concept itself. This is just plain wrong. Adding details is not "dumbing it down". Reflecting something about feudalism ("as it is described by those who use the term", of course), even if at a junior high level, would be better than giving the reader *nothing at all* about the concept. If the history is complicated, then why does this article try to make it so uselessly simple?
For a complicated subject one would expect a complicated discussion encompassing the individual historical points and all the different views of those points. Instead we have simplicity itself: an article that says "this is a word that some people use about stuff that happened that we can't tell you about because there's more than one viewpoint" which is about as good as saying "this is a word that describes something, be we're not telling what it is". How can the reader be expected to understand the controversy without even understanding what the hell the controversy is about?!
Imagine if we applied the same philosophy to the article "Jesus Christ". As everyone in the West knows, most Christians will say that most people claiming to be Christians aren't Christians, and a lot of people debate whether he really existed and what he really said. The "real" qualities of "Jesus Christ" are very hotly debated, as is his history and relevance. Virtually every single point about the subject is debated by someone. So let's go replace the entire page with a discussion of the origins and use of the word "Christ" in ancient Greece and Rome and all the ancient and modern controversies over what "Christ" and "Christian" really mean, and say nothing about the practices adhered to by *most* of the people claiming to be Christ's followers and the history of events in his life that *most* believers claim happened. No, that would be a stupid thing to do. The encyclopedic thing to do is to give all that info from every popular point of view and discuss how certain individuals and groups disagree on each point. DUH. Xezlec (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torin

Some person has erased all of the feudalism article and changed it to torin was here. I don't know enough about it to change it.

[edit] The Tyranny of a Construct

I tried researching the book cited - it exists in name but I've found no excerpts, no one seems to sell it or have a copy. Does anyone have a way to verify its contents or for those interested in further research to establish that the author is not some contra-marxian extremist? I'm concerned about historical revisionism and I believe that attempting to cast a shadow on the historicity of the existence of feudalism is serious enough that any references cited should be easily obtainable by the public for evaluation. Most of the material disputing the accepted understanding of historical feudalism seems to originate with individuals who elsewhere express a desire to counter Marxist thinking, discourage the use of terms such as "neo-feudalism," and so forth. Not all, but many. Historical revision can be dangerously effective and subtle; it's only responsible to thoroughly examine revisionists with an eye to their personal affiliations and biases. I'd appreciate it if someone could provide more information about the author or her work. Kholtyn 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a book, it's an article in the American Historical Review. If you can access JSTOR, it's in there...for some reason I can't access it right now. Any university library should have back copies of it though. Brown, and the article, are quite famous, and she is not an extremist kook (unless, I suppose, one is oneself an extreme Marxist). Adam Bishop 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feudalism=police state

feudalism is basically a Romanticized primitive Communism

Hardly, as does the King do as much work as a peasent or slave? NOLord Laos 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. In both systems, he who possesses political power possesses everything and everyone. I know Communism is supposed to share, but in reality everything and even the people are considered government property, same with feudalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.177.7 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Feudalism

There should be a date near the top of the page easily accessable at a glance. 66.68.208.245 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (JazzFrog66)

A date for what? Adam Bishop 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does a feud seem to break out between the second and third paragraphs of this article?

I believe the third paragraph, or some of the information therein, to be too early placed. And I believe it not simple enough for the average wikipedia reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.166.229.214 (talk) 19:36, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I don't know enough about the subject to fix it, but the introduction is terrible, and only annoys the reader enough that they don't want to read the rest of the article. 65.185.185.164 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


131.230.155.204 (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)james i actualley think that all if not most of tis information is wrong. one of the main things about this era is that the heirchy went kings--lord--pheasent. The use of a peasent was large it was there form of a slave in essence. The use of a peasent turned into a vassel after the main fall of the feudal age.

you have it close, first of all the word is peasant, not pheasant(a bird) second, a peasant, or serf, had freedom, in theory. he could always move to a different fief. The rights of serfs varied, mainly based on the principles of supply and demand. Rds865 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless citation

I've removed the following footnote since (1) it's unclear what part of this article it refers to; & (2) rather than a book, this is an audio recording of ... I haven't the faintest idea.

*Note 1: Philip Daileader (2001). "Feudalism". The High Middle Ages. The Teaching Company. ISBN 1-56585-827-1

Anyone can record their ideas onto a CD & try to persuade other people to listen to them, & anyone can restore this to the article. However, I'd like some idea where this fits into the article when/if it is restored. -- llywrch 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

The following is written like a personal essay and is full of grammatical errors, but I don't think that it's all bad and put it here. Fishal (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feudalism

Feudalism is a social system based on the obligations and relations between Lord, Vassal and fief i.e. the land held under fee. Today’s historians considered feudalism to be the result of complex interaction between various forces of social existence – economic, political, cultural, institutional and so forth – at all levels of society. Feudalism was a gradual process of transaction from system of slavery and the slave mode of production. Slavery exists in the human societies in some form or the other. In ancient civilization the classic Greece and Rome which first transformed slavery into a systematic mode of production. Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian and Indus civilization were not slave economies as they had no clear idea of chattel property. War and trade supplied Greece and Rome with slaves. When large scale conquests stopped the slaves began to settle down on farms as serf and retain in households. The system gives way to feudalism. Slavery Slavery is generally defined as a system in which one is subjected to the power of the other contrary to nature. In slave system, slave is a property of his master. The slave was paid no wages for his labour and had no formal right over any part of the produce of his master. Slave did not even have a family of his own, his wife and children could be sold apart from him.

Greaco-Roman world the slavery attained its greatest functional significance and numeral strength. It was the slave mode of production which provides the ultimate basis for the rise of these civilizations. These societies were known as slave societies due to their large scale dependence on slave labour. Slavery developed into the most oppressive form of labour extraction. There the human being was not selling his labour but he himself was a sealable commodity. He was sold and purchased in the market and put to various form of labour by his master. Mainly slave labour was used in transport, mining, construction and agricultural operation. Slave mode of production led to large scale generation of surplus. It provided the slave’s master a life of luxury, but the slave led a life of misery.

[edit] Transition to Feudalism

When the conquests stopped in Greaco-Rome the fresh supply of slaves also stopped, so the condition of existing slaves in the society improved and internal sales of slave stopped because each slave-owner tried to preserve its own hereditary slaves. The distance between master and the slave reduced and slowly the latter together with free domestic servants and workshop labourer etc, passed into the common condition of Serfdom, where slaves get into an intermediate stage between the slavery in ancient society and the free wage labour of industrial capitalism. Serfdom society transits into Peasant society where agricultural as the main source of living for majority of the people, where landholdings are generally small and family provides both the necessary labour as well as the consumer of surplus. Historian’s put several theories about the transition of feudalism from the Peasant society. Brunner a German historian traced the genesis of feudalism on military aspects
. He argued that the war between The Emperor of France, Charles Martel and Arabs at Poitiers near Paris at 733 AD, Arabs defeated by Martel, but can’t catch them because of their cavalry system. So Martel tries to introduce a cavalry segment in his defense force. Maintaining that segment Martel needed more resources, so he acquires land from those who had a great deal. Due to the scarce of cash he alienates land to his cavalrymen in fief. According to Brunner this was the origin of Feudalism.

           Henry Pirenne a Belgian historian visualized feudal system in terms of nature of its economy. Europe developed urban economy based on long distance trade, but in late 7th and early 8th century Arabs invaded parts of Europe and occupied control points of the Mediterranean, Gibraltar, the point of entry from the west and Sardinia, the eastern entry point. This disrupted the navigation of long distance trade resulting localization and ruralization of the economy. In 11th century Christian Crusaders drove the Arab from Gibraltar and Sardinia, long distance trade revive again, as that happened feudalism declined.

The great French historian Marc Bloch pointing the origin of feudalism lies in the series of invasion to Western Europe. So in the search of security, all society entered into ties of interdependence. Peasants cultivate the lord land without being paid wages, in turn lord bring them security. Same time lord sought security from the one more powerful than him by surrendering his land, to be given back as fief on condition of rendering military service to the bigger lord. The process went on until everyone become the lord of some and the vassal of others except the king who was the vassal of none and the peasant who the lord of none.
Perry Anderson looked at the rise of feudalism as a consequence of mighty clash between two social systems, each in a process of transition. The European society and the ancient Graeco-Roman society based on slave labour, was increasingly facing problems of productivity due to slaves not interested to adopting new productivity rising devices. The tribal Social organization of Germanic people also because its tribal egalitarian social structure was under stain partly due to the growth of stratification within and partly owing to contact with the highly developed Roman Civilization. Their clash in the 5th century results in the collapse of both, giving rise to a new social economical system, named Feudalism.

you should also note, that the slavery of Christians was outlawed, and this limited slaves, and replaced them with serfs. Rds865 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Growth and Dynamism of Feudal System.

Historically Feudalism stands mid-way between slave society of ancient Greece and Rome and the modern day capitalist society. In feudalism the serf or peasant neither completely separated from the means of production nor was he absolute owner of these. Serf or peasant could not be sold apart from the land he worked on. If the lord sold the land to another lord automatically serf or peasant transferred to the new owner. Serf or peasant could not leave the land he worked on, on other side the lord only got limited right to evict the peasant or serf from the land. Until the 10th century, due to low fertility and inefficient technology like the process of agriculture is Europe was extremely labour intensive. The climate of Western Europe last only for 4 months so the entire activities of agricultural operations have to be completed in 3 to 4 months. This fact resulted in a concentration of the demand for labour during the four month. Fact that early feudalism placed the heaviest burden on those with least resource.

   From the 11th century agricultural practice has been changed, some new crops such as beans, lentils came to Europe. The growing knowledge of yoke made the cultivators to use ox more efficiently. So the cultivator can use the deep fertilized land. This development raises the food storage and also reduced the demand for labour. More and better food raised the population also. The technology and socio-economic changes which took place in the 11th – 12th centuries altered the face of Western Europe. Growing population and labour demand declining led to the release of serf from being tied to land. In return for this relief serf need to pay a fee to lord. Lord uses this money to buy labour from labour market. Paid labour was also far more productive than unpaid labour. This alienated a new type of economy to the feudal economy, where the land-less agricultural worker who would freely move to place where he got better wages.


== Decline of Feudalism ==

The fastest growing population had cut down forests and done away with pasture at a place that create imbalance in ecology. The elimination of pastures affected the health and numbers of cattle and that turn reduced the animal manure, chief source of fertilizer for the field. This led to affect of human health also. The Black Death of 1348 – 1351 was only one. Calculating with lower figure of death, the population of Europe had declined by 40% at the end of the 14th century than at the beginning. The immediate result was labour shortage and consequent rise in wages. Due to the falling demand agricultural product’s price declined. The wage labourers gained more from this trend, while the lord was the big loser. Due to scarce of cash lord need to choose, whether they need to cut down their luxury life or they squeeze the peasants. They choose to squeeze the peasants through the institutional efforts of the state. Lords passed the laws to restrict peasant’s mobility and fix their wages at the pre-black death levels. The peasant responded by fleeing and rising rebellions of truly continental dimensions. The conditions where favorable for peasant and the state failed to enforce feudal regulation on pageants. The crises in the Feudal economy in Europe contribute the decline of feudalism and prepared the ground for capitalism.

[edit] China

I'm pretty sure that feudalism was present in early ancient China. I don't know whether this is very exact but I think it should be included. -Divya da animal Lvr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.163.234 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


_131.230.155.204 (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC) it was but they call it dyanstys

[edit] Odd sentence in Overview section

I found the following sentence odd. It is located toward the end of the Overview section.

"Introduced to England in 1066 by William the Conqueror, who substantially curbed the powers of all feudal vassals while retaining considerable central authority, feudalism incorporated three elements: personal, poetry, and governmental."

I went back through the revision history to see if "poetry" is vandalism, but the amount of vandalism I had to wade through quickly became tiring. Are there any subject matter experts here who can clarify what on earth is meant by "personal, poetry, and governmental"? Even if it did make any sense, it is not gramatical to have 2 nouns and then an adjective. CosineKitty (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Dictionary" article

This article is more like a dictionary for defining the word 'Feudalism' rather than stating the concepts and history behind feudalism. WinterSpw (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)