How to avoid / lessen feudalism (a more progressive Europe?).

[rcduggan]

While doing random research, I had a few ideas on how to avert / avoid the spread of feudalism in Europe.


One thing I learned: most of the Viking raids in Europe after the 870s were done by warriors and their followers who had previously been a part of the Great Heathen Army which was destroyed by the Anglo-Saxons at Edington in 878. While there had been Viking attacks in Frisia and along the Seine, Somme, and Loire in the first half of the 9th century, they had begun to peter out by the 870s. But the remnants of the Great Heathen Army began to ravage Frisia, Neustria, Brittany, and Spain. This culminated with Viking settlement in Frisia, the establishment of Normandy and devastation of France, and the destruction of the Kingdom of Brittany all in the early 10th century, all instigated by the Heathen Army remnants.

However, the Vikings had already began to raid in West Francia before 870, and feudalism was already beginning to take hold. So IMO with a POD after 815, feudalism is all but inevitable in West Francia. Also, don't bother telling me that feudalism had its origins in the decaying Roman structure and nobility... because it did not really begin to take hold until the 9th and 10th century, so the causes were more immediate than the Romans.


The major cause of feudalism in Italy was not what you expect: [according to Encyclopaedia Britannica at least] the Magyars. They raided Italy for sixty years, from 890-955. This devastated Italy and made central rule only de jure in most of the country. The Magyar raids caused Berengar and later kings to delegate power to the local counts and bishops. Up until that point the Carolingian and post-Carolingian kings had managed to keep the power of the feudal rulers in check and Italy was one of the more centralized and powerful European kingdoms. Of course, the Magyar invasion shattered central authority and encouraged encastellation (petty rulers building a castle to protect their land originally from the Magyars in Italy).

The Magyars probably had an effect on Germany too, although I don't know enough of their history to speculate.

So here's my idea: have the Great Heathen Army be victorious at Ashdown in 871. All the Vikings who didn't go to Britain in OTL do, instead of going to Europe. As a second POD, the Magyars never invade to conduct sixty years of devastating raids in Europe.

IMO this would prevent feudalism from spreading int Italy and possibly Germany, and it would be in France to a much lesser extent than in OTL. What effects would this have on the future of Europe, do you think? Would this Europe progress faster without a patchwork of bickering states? Or would something else completely different happen?

 

[King Thomas]

It could cause far stronger monarchies leading to no democracy in Europe.

 

[Michael B]

One reason for feudalism was the lack of a money supply. European kings needed armies and unlike their Roman predecessors, they did not have enough coinage in circulation to pay them. So rather than tax peasants and receive money to pay the troops, they enserfed them. The troops are now supported by dues such as a portion of the harvest rather than coins in their pockets. When the amount of coinage in circulation increased during the Middle Ages, kings were able to convert feudal obligations to supply troops into money and hire mercenaries instead of relying on feudal levies.

(Incidentally, Islamic realms used a similar system except that the fiefs were not hereditary.)

One answer then would be to have more coinage in circulation.

 

[Flocculencio]

It could cause far stronger monarchies leading to no democracy in Europe.

Umm...democracy in Europe only really took form long after feudalism ended. It developed due to various factors in various countries- through the expansion of the power of the landed gentry (as opposed to the great nobles) in England, through the expansion of the power of the urban mercantile class in the Netherlands and as a reaction against despotism in France.

 

[Faeelin]

Umm...democracy in Europe only really took form long after feudalism ended. It developed due to various factors in various countries- through the expansion of the power of the landed gentry (as opposed to the great nobles) in England, through the expansion of the power of the urban mercantile class in the Netherlands and as a reaction against despotism in France.

Eh.

This is pretty vague, ain't it?

I mean, were the free cities democratic? The Most Serene Republic of Venice?



I tend to agree; feudalism, or something like it, is inevitable in this period.

 

[mtg999]

It could cause far stronger monarchies leading to no democracy in Europe.

Yes I agree to some extent that the creation of a hereditary aristocracy did promote political pluralism, to the extent that the monarch didn't have the power to appoint local fiefs, unlike in the Islamic world.

However I don't think that a lack of feudalism necessarily leads to a lack of democracy. Much of the Nordic region (from my understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong) at this time did not have much in the way of feudalism, but was already some of the most democratic and least autocratic (by the standards of the time) regions in Europe at the time.

 

[rcduggan]

One answer then would be to have more coinage in circulation.

How do you think this could be accomplished?

I tend to agree; feudalism, or something like it, is inevitable in this period.

So do I, but I was postulating that feudalism may not become as pervasive almost everywhere in Europe. Or did you mean its spread throughout all of Europe is inevitable?

Here's another thought: without the Viking and Magyar raids, would the West Frankish and Italian kings be able to keep the fiefs of their kingdoms from becoming hereditary?

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Umm...democracy in Europe only really took form long after feudalism ended. It developed due to various factors in various countries- through the expansion of the power of the landed gentry (as opposed to the great nobles) in England, through the expansion of the power of the urban mercantile class in the Netherlands and as a reaction against despotism in France.

The political freedoms that eventually spread to other classes were originally obtained by the feudal nobility. The Magna Carta in England was basically the feudal nobility holding the King to some kind of accountability. This idea of rule of law binding on all stake-holders in the system (the feudal nobility being the first group of stakeholders) continued, and the economic changes wrought by expanding trade created new classes who could claim to also be stakeholders in the system.

This whole concept however was based on the idea that the King was not really divine, that he was the first among equals, a leader but not above the law. In China or the Ottoman Empire, the concept of the Emperor or Sultan being subject to the law was never really there.

So basically, I think that the unique political system that developed in Western Europe following the end of the Rome-based part of the Empire (feudalism) was directly responsible for the current liberal democratic government model that the West now uses.

 

[Susano]

Eh. Was that really feudalism anymore, though? Feudalism isnt "There is a King and theres nobility", but includes a specific relation between those. There never was a strong feudalism in England to begin with, as I understand, with a very flat feudal pyramid.

Flocc is right. Between Feudalism in its classi focm and democracy we still have the period of strong estates (not really classical feudalism anymore) and absolutism. England is also in that a special case in that it just skipped absolutism, so to say. So, really, you cant take it as examplary case. In most of continental Europe it were the rise of the bourgeoisie, revolutions and the delegation of power by monarchs to professional politicans which ended absolutism in favour of increasingly democratic systems.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Eh. Was that really feudalism anymore, though? Feudalism isnt "There is a King and theres nobility", but includes a specific relation between those. There never was a strong feudalism in England to begin with, as I understand, with a very flat feudal pyramid.

All the European kingdoms had large feudal landowners who were nearly as (at times more) powerful than the Kings of those respective Kingdoms. For instance the Dukes of Burgundy were so powerful as to be de facto independent of the French King. In Germany the feudal lords didn't have to deal with a long-living royal family (as in France) and were able to keep the state from centralizing.

Flocc is right. Between Feudalism in its classi focm and democracy we still have the period of strong estates (not really classical feudalism anymore) and absolutism. England is also in that a special case in that it just skipped absolutism, so to say. So, really, you cant take it as examplary case. In most of continental Europe it were the rise of the bourgeoisie, revolutions and the delegation of power by monarchs to professional politicans which ended absolutism in favour of increasingly democratic systems.

Wouldn't you say that basically there was feudalism until the Protestant Reformation? At that point there had been enough growth of the urban middle class that the urban middle class was strong enough to challenge the feudal lords. So the middle class embraced Protestantism in its various forms and fought against the mostly Catholic nobility and their allies in the Church (which was dominated by members of the landed nobility).

The middle class was really fighting for political power, something that in France ended up being turned into middle class support for the absolute monarchy. But that support withered as the monarchy continued very unpopular policies, and when the middle class finally turned on the monarchy, then you had the very bloodiest episodes of the French Revolution.

 

[strangeland]

To avoid or mitigate feudalism, you need to have centralized, powerful monarchies earlier. IOTL, the monarchs were able to ally with the mercantile class to overtake the titled nobility. To get that to happen, you need trade to take off earlier, as well as for roman infrastructure not be not quite so degraded.

 

[Riain]

I've never really understood how the Anglo Saxon system was radically different to the Norman system of fuedalism which replaced it in 1066. The AS had nobility of varying levels with estates, military retainers, peasant tennants and slaves. That it wasn't codified as hereditary serfdom or whatever doesn't seem to be overly important. Differences in degree rather than major concepts.

Byzantium managed to retani a centralised govt, cash economy and didn't equate elite fighting with the highest classes, so it's not impossible.

 

[Gladi]

Flocc is right. Between Feudalism in its classi focm and democracy we still have the period of strong estates (not really classical feudalism anymore) and absolutism. England is also in that a special case in that it just skipped absolutism, so to say. So, really, you cant take it as examplary case. In most of continental Europe it were the rise of the bourgeoisie, revolutions and the delegation of power by monarchs to professional politicans which ended absolutism in favour of increasingly democratic systems.

Bright day
Feudalism also brought us independent cities and with the bourgeios as an estate with their own rights.

 

[arctic warrior]

Yes I agree to some extent that the creation of a hereditary aristocracy did promote political pluralism, to the extent that the monarch didn't have the power to appoint local fiefs, unlike in the Islamic world.

I don't see Magna Carta or the nobility opposition to the King in Sweden and Denmark during the Kalmar Union as a source of democracy - rather as the efforts of one estate to gain control.

However I don't think that a lack of feudalism necessarily leads to a lack of democracy. Much of the Nordic region (from my understanding, but correct me if I'm wrong) at this time did not have much in the way of feudalism, but was already some of the most democratic and least autocratic (by the standards of the time) regions in Europe at the time.

Why would we have to adhere to Karl Marx? No I don't think so either.

In Denmark at least the nobility grew partly from an indignious class of chieftains and great landowners partly from a migration of German nobility into Denmark due to gaining estates because of loans giving to the King or to become part of the Kings service.

During Viking times the raids occured when there was a strong King leading to nobility having to go overseas to pillage. At times the King himself took the lead.

Following the conquest of England, it is widely adhered to that the system of Shires were introduced in Denmark in the 11-12. century making for every Shire to supply ships and men according to specified rules.

It is believed that the nobility was apart from this system supplying their own troops (Hird) to the King. Some nobility like the Hvide-clan of Sjaelland was able to raise the Shire levy to go crusading in Rügen!

As cities grew they would be able to gain a contract with the King - købstadsrettigheder - rights of market towns which gave them certain rights but also requested their supplying ships and troops for levy as in the case of Shires.
This way cities was able to wrest themselves off the grips of nobility.

I'm not really sure you could call this somekind of democracy; its more like grab whats possible to keep anybody off your back and give the one who you owns his dues.

 

[Susano]

All the European kingdoms had large feudal landowners who were nearly as (at times more) powerful than the Kings of those respective Kingdoms. For instance the Dukes of Burgundy were so powerful as to be de facto independent of the French King. In Germany the feudal lords didn't have to deal with a long-living royal family (as in France) and were able to keep the state from centralizing.

I wouldnt exactly pin it on those factors, but yes, feudalism in Europe meant a very strong nobility abnd a very weak central monarch. Hence, England always has been an exception, not the rule.

Wouldn't you say that basically there was feudalism until the Protestant Reformation? At that point there had been enough growth of the urban middle class that the urban middle class was strong enough to challenge the feudal lords. So the middle class embraced Protestantism in its various forms and fought against the mostly Catholic nobility and their allies in the Church (which was dominated by members of the landed nobility).

The middle class? The middle class wouldve been the craftmen and wealgthier peasants, hardly a large class, and hardly any influential. Proetstantism was brought about by nobles or monarchs who wanted to end the chruchs influence, and maybe snap the churchs lands while theyre at it. In the cities (and that only counts for Germany were there were free cities) it was brought about by a progressive urban upper class, but not near everywhere - just as likely the urban upper class would remain catholic.

In any case, no, at the time of the Reformation classical feudalism had died. the feudal pyramid, the specific rules for military service and other feudal duties, the whole attitude about it had changed, had been dissolving since High Middle Ages. During classic feudalism the Monarch would struggle with unruly vasalls in their own territories. Now, the monarch (including the by then factually independant German princes) would struggle with their lands nobility organised in a diet or other form of parliament. In most territories (inclkuding most German territories, even though Germany itself remained disunited) the monarch won, leading to the phase of absolutism.

And only from THAT phase came democracy then. Or, not even directly, first came a phase of a strengthened (upper) bourgeoisie and proffessional politicans to whom monarchas delegated power (Metternich, Bismarck and the Count of Cavour would the most prominent examples), as said.

 

[Flocculencio]

I've never really understood how the Anglo Saxon system was radically different to the Norman system of fuedalism which replaced it in 1066. The AS had nobility of varying levels with estates, military retainers, peasant tennants and slaves. That it wasn't codified as hereditary serfdom or whatever doesn't seem to be overly important. Differences in degree rather than major concepts.

There were some salient differences, though. Firstly, providing troops wasn't simply a thane's feudal responsibility- every freeman was liable for service in the fyrd, nominally at his own expense.

Secondly, birth wasn't quite as important- you could be born a noble but you could also gain rank on the basis of your assets. A ceorl farmer or merchant could qualify for thanehood if he had five hides of land (a hide being a plot of land sufficient for supporting a single family) or other wealth of the equivalent value.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Also, don't bother telling me that feudalism had its origins in the decaying Roman structure and nobility... because it did not really begin to take hold until the 9th and 10th century, so the causes were more immediate than the Romans.

But...it's true. The Feudal Contract (Land in exchange for military service) was ultimately based on the foederati relationship between the Roman Empire and the early Germanic immigrants who moved into it. The Romans would grant a given German tribe what was essentially an independent vassal kingdom in exchange for the Germans fighting for the Romans. Likewise, the manorial economy has its roots in late-Roman conditions, although Roman manorialism did die out before it arose once more in Carolingian Francia.

There's a reason comes and dux are Roman military titles and also feudal titles of large fief holders.

To avoid feudalism, or at least something recognizable as such (it's not like feudalism was the same everywhere, anyway), you need to completely change the fall of the Roman Empire. Charlemagne may have codified and solidified the feudal system in Francia proper, but it's economic and social beginning trace all the way back to Diocletian and his dictate that no one may change profession and that the son would inherit the profession of the father.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

The middle class? The middle class wouldve been the craftmen and wealgthier peasants, hardly a large class, and hardly any influential. Proetstantism was brought about by nobles or monarchs who wanted to end the chruchs influence, and maybe snap the churchs lands while theyre at it. In the cities (and that only counts for Germany were there were free cities) it was brought about by a progressive urban upper class, but not near everywhere - just as likely the urban upper class would remain catholic.

Except that in places where Protestantism won out, that urban upper class became much more important and involved in the government of their countries. In the Netherlands the urban merchant class became the government, while in England the urban merchant class and the country gentry alliance became the ruling class post-Civil War (simplified but still true).

This is true to a more limited extent across Protestant Europe. Basically, Protestantism represented change in the status quo, a rearrangement of the clearly outdated feudal power structure, while Catholicism represented continuing the feudal status quo.

In any case, no, at the time of the Reformation classical feudalism had died. The feudal pyramid, the specific rules for military service and other feudal duties, the whole attitude about it had changed, had been dissolving since High Middle Ages. During classic feudalism the Monarch would struggle with unruly vasalls in their own territories. Now, the monarch (including the by then factually independant German princes) would struggle with their lands nobility organised in a diet or other form of parliament. In most territories (inclkuding most German territories, even though Germany itself remained disunited) the monarch won, leading to the phase of absolutism.

The feudal pyramid's rules and expectations may have been dissolving, but they were still largely in effect. Thus, it was that dissolving power structure that Protestantism was striking out against. In trying to "reform" the Church the various strains of Protestantism were trying to reform the whole society. I think this is why Protestantism appealed to the rising urban classes so much. Also remember that Protestantism cut quite a wide swath across Europe before the Catholic establishment reacted and started burning it out of Spain, Italy, France and Catholic Germany. It demonstrated a very wide appeal, far beyond the self-serving nobles and monarchs who embraced it to secularize the Church's wealth.

And only from THAT phase came democracy then. Or, not even directly, first came a phase of a strengthened (upper) bourgeoisie and proffessional politicans to whom monarchas delegated power (Metternich, Bismarck and the Count of Cavour would the most prominent examples), as said.

And even where the Monarchs won, it was only through giving in to the implicit demands for more power (that Protestantism represented) in the rising urban classes (Louis XIV's monarchy for instance). Where these demands were only partially met (eg France and Spain) the result was violent revolution, as the middle class eventually decided to throw its lot in with the dissatisfied masses rather than the clearly incompetent ruling class.

The end result of all this is that I don't think the Western liberal democratic model is possible without Europe's feudalism as a starting point. Despite the feudal nobility's opposition to other classes demands for more power it later centuries, it was the feudal nobility's rights vis a vis the monarchy that these demands were based on. Without feudalism's tradition of weak monarchs recognizing nobles rights' there would be no basis for later attempts to expand those rights to other classes.

 

[stevep]

Susano

I note a couple of things your said.

a) "feudalism in Europe meant a very strong nobility abnd a very weak central monarch. Hence, England always has been an exception, not the rule"

b) "England is also in that a special case in that it just skipped absolutism, so to say."

If by a) do you mean England never had a very weak central monarch doesn't this contradict b)? Or do you mean feudalism in England was different from that on the continent?

I would say there were times, such as much of the Norman period, after William the Foul died, when the monarchy was pretty weak and the nobles pretty strong. It flip-flopped frequently, with often such periods of weakness being replaced by very strong monarchs. Would also say that the Tudors were pretty much absolute monarchs in many ways. They never totally destroyed the power of other institutions but pretty much that of the nobles as a separate group.

Steve

Steve

 

[Riain]

Thanks Flocc. No time for more questions now, later.