Warrior aristocracy = Feudalism?

Not necessarily, I don't think Sparta was feudalistic

Feudalism at its core is largely "you can have this land to govern, and in return you provide me with money or troops". A decentralised system of government brought about by power having to be locally present to assert itself.

You can easily have a warrior aristocracy without it, just as the guy given land to rule here doesn't need to be personally part of the troops made available in exchange, those could in theory be any dregs.

>>52513486
Feudalism has been debunked though. It never existed and is just something historians made up for convenience

>>52513542
Sauce?

>>52513542
That is hugely innaccurate and you know it.


What we think of as feudalism might not have existed but the intrinsic idea of a warlord (read: king / emperor) letting a lieutenant (read: knight, baron, duke, etc) act as his local representative and enforcer with troops (read: grunts / thugs) under his command in order to extract resources from the population while maintaining "order"?

That existed, of this there is no doubt. As it is one of the simplest and most robust forms of government. Since all it requires is that there are some greedy people, willing to obey the orders of another individual and able to wield a weapon somewhat effectively.


The thing that changes this from a syndicate, protection racket or other such criminal or economic union into a nation state and government is their "divine right to rule" and their absolute authority. As passed onto them by Islam, Christianity, Judaism or in the case of the Chinese, the holy imperial seal. and by their nature as the controlling force in a region.

>>52513378
Kinda.
There are several ingridients of it, tho

>>52513378
No.

>>52513542
>>52513969
>>52515098

The issue with the term feudalism and why historians have distanced themselves from it (when I was an undergraduate feudalism was called 'the f word') is that the way it has been traditionally conceived, think the feudal pyramid or feudal ladder, never really existed anywhere except maybe a certain part of modern day France in the 10th century. It was an idea that was moreover fed into by contemporary writers who imagined society as comprised of ordos (bellatores, oratores and laboratores), those who fought, prayed and worked. These rather neat ideas of course were not really how 'feudal' society worked at all. Relations between land owners, be they aristocratic or otherwise were much more complex, involved extended ties of family loyalties as well as ties of service or in some instances sworn associations (the forerunners to the medieval guild).

>What we think of as feudalism might not have existed but the intrinsic idea of a warlord (read: king / emperor) letting a lieutenant (read: knight, baron, duke, etc) act as his local representative and enforcer with troops (read: grunts / thugs) under his command in order to extract resources from the population while maintaining "order"?

>That existed, of this there is no doubt. As it is one of the simplest and most robust forms of government. Since all it requires is that there are some greedy people, willing to obey the orders of another individual and able to wield a weapon somewhat effectively.

This is pretty much all wrong. Or at the very least very uncharitable. The organised crime analogy is one I have seen a lot and certainly fits, albeit poorly, periods where centralized authority collapsed or struggled to assert itself, but this again is a matter of specific cases. The effective governance of the Carolingians, the later Anglo-Saxons as well as smaller scale evidence form for example local Peace and Truce movements all resist this idea.

Source: Am a medieval historian.

>>52523067
Nice Source Faggot

>>52523067
With this form of Argumentation Democracy has never existed

File: 1486876850670.jpg (97KB, 736x1040px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 736x1040px

>>52523067
Would you care to elaborate?
Would you consider the broad conception of a King as the "head" of a state, supported to varying degrees by various lesser land owners (who might effectively be more powerful than their King in some instances, and with whom he would have to play a careful balancing act) is more or less accurate?
Also, I've heard the relationships between peasants and their lords varied wildly, do you have any insight into cross-class relations you'd like to share?

>>52523432

In what sense?

File: Duke of Fuckinghamshire.jpg (31KB, 194x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 194x310px

>>52523584

>Would you consider the broad conception of a King as the "head" of a state, supported to varying degrees by various lesser land owners (who might effectively be more powerful than their King in some instances, and with whom he would have to play a careful balancing act) is more or less accurate?

Again it is complicated. Very broadly that description might fit some parts of the western European medieval world. The notion of a state for example is a tricky thing to talk about before say the 13th century. In the early Middle Ages kings were often understood to be kings over 'peoples' rather than 'states'. Before he was the Emperor of the Romans, Charlemagne was King of the Franks.

The whole land owners supporting a monarch again fits loosely. But like you say if vassals were able to project power more effectively than a monarch, which was certainly the case for the early Capetian kings, then I think the idea that the king could 'balance' opposing power to any effect is questionable. Also the Church, as well as monastic institutions were great landholders in the Middle Ages and of course fit weirdly into the picture. A big power struggle between the HRE and the papacy in the Middle Ages was over the right to appoint priests to important ecclesiastical offices. And issues like that were not just pissing contests or based on abstract daft theology, but was about the ability of an institution to govern effectively.

Relations between landholders and tenants, serfs or peasants did vary but I think if you are looking for historical examples of cross class interaction in a medieval context you should look into medieval cities. This is a bit of a tough subject because the medieval western world had pretty tiny 'cities' before the later Middle Ages when compared with places like Constantinople or the Egyptian cities. Best place to look would be in the Low Countries and Italian cities, Venice, Pisa, Genoa etc.

>>52523067
>a cute historian was posting near me

Keep being yourself, Anon. I think you're great!

>>52513378
They generally started that way. The first pick for land tenants were the companions of the overlord.

The development of early Germanic kingship in late antiquity was based on increasing social influence of warrior band leaders during peacetime. The most successful leaders were most generous with those that assisted in plunder. When Roman territories became governed by Germanic warlords, they would parcel out land as the biggest gift, but it wasn't always hereditary.

As the economy of Europe changed through the mid to late Middle ages, rather than "calling on their companions" to wage war, they'd excise a scutage tax and just hire mercenaries.

>>52523067
>>52513542
>The simple 'idea' form of a government wasn't implemented precisely as it's imagined
>therefore it never existed
That's so fucking stupid and is the type of analysis of history that real historians, as in those that truly study history rather than push their own ideologies and misconceptions into it, hate.
It's the same thing as saying there has never been a communist government.
How can feudalism be 'debunked' when the manorial economic system was factual and the tiered vassal system was as well?

File: 1332578787392.jpg (52KB, 472x800px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 472x800px

>>52513445
Precisely. But OP is a moron. It happens.

File: 1342047985667s.jpg (15KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x187px

>>52523067
So, just talking out your ass and assigning it to a nameless historian... sure I believe you.

>Get a load of this faggot.

>>52523067
do you think people will take you seriously without posting a proper journal or scholarly article to back it up? because telling yourself that you are a "medieval historian" on an anoymous imageboard is hardly any proof worth of merit