How exactly did feudalism work? I've heard many explanations over the years but I still can't get my head around this concept.
Feudal Economy
- Thread starter PrabhatShukla
- Start date
Joined Jan 2016
1,209 Posts | 429+
Canada
It depends on which kingdom you're talking about, but I'll try to give a generalization. Feudal systems evolved from the chaotic period following the fall of the western roman empire, though they were somewhat shaped by preexisting barbarian systems.
Feudalism started out as a simple contract between a powerful warlord or rich landowner and peasantry. The peasants would be allowed to live on and work the land of their lord and would be protected by them, but they would have to give payment in kind, taxes, or military service (this varied a ton depending on which kingdom you look at). There was a similar system already in place past the roman frontier, but the huge amount of former citizens without anyone to protect them lead to it being much more important and the lords much more powerful.
Feudal relations once you get past the lowest level of lord are more complicated. In order to protect themselves from stronger warlords, smaller lords would swear oaths of fealty to one of the more powerful among them, leading to what were normally called "dukes" (keep in mind while reading this that kingdoms were already established for the most part, it wasn't some sort of primordial anarchy). The dukes received payment from the lower lords the same way the lower lords received payment from the serfs, mostly in taxes and men. Finally there were the kings, who were pretty much what the dukes were to the lower nobles, except that as the sole representative of a realm they normally had more power.
There are many more variations, ranks, and titles, but this is just a generalization based mostly off of france. I hope I managed to clear up your understanding somewhat.
Feudalism started out as a simple contract between a powerful warlord or rich landowner and peasantry. The peasants would be allowed to live on and work the land of their lord and would be protected by them, but they would have to give payment in kind, taxes, or military service (this varied a ton depending on which kingdom you look at). There was a similar system already in place past the roman frontier, but the huge amount of former citizens without anyone to protect them lead to it being much more important and the lords much more powerful.
Feudal relations once you get past the lowest level of lord are more complicated. In order to protect themselves from stronger warlords, smaller lords would swear oaths of fealty to one of the more powerful among them, leading to what were normally called "dukes" (keep in mind while reading this that kingdoms were already established for the most part, it wasn't some sort of primordial anarchy). The dukes received payment from the lower lords the same way the lower lords received payment from the serfs, mostly in taxes and men. Finally there were the kings, who were pretty much what the dukes were to the lower nobles, except that as the sole representative of a realm they normally had more power.
There are many more variations, ranks, and titles, but this is just a generalization based mostly off of france. I hope I managed to clear up your understanding somewhat.
Joined Jun 2014
6,170 Posts | 607+
US
Last edited:
Feudal systems worked best in agrarian societies. Labor and/ or in kind goods were usually given by the peasant. In some places the peasant had a small piece of land, or access to a common plot for his own garden. Others were called day laborers or cottagers. They were at the bottom, completely dependent upon the lord. The only resource they could offer was their labor.
To understand serfdom, one must think in terms of property law. There are two kinds of property - moveable property also called chattels, and immovable property also called messuages. Think about when you sell a home and move to a new one. You take your chattels - your clothes, furniture, car, etc - with you, but you leave the messuages - the land, the house, the sidewalks, the trees and bushes, the fences, etc. - behind. A slave was a chattel but a serf was a messuage. In the eyes of the law the serf was legally bound to the soil just as if he or she was a tree or a building. If land transferred from one landlord to another, the serfs also transferred to the new lord.
There were certainly barbarian antecedents to this practice, like Jean said, but there were also Roman antecedents. In the late empire landlords often found it difficult to retain farm labor. City life was much too alluring. So laws were made that tied peasants to the land. Land became valuable not only for its own productive capacity but also because it came with a labor force already in place.
Many first-generation serfs had perhaps been slaves so becoming a serf was actually an improvement. Other first-time serfs had perhaps been dispossessed of their land so again, becoming legally bound to the soil meant that one could not be dispossessed again. Landlords preferred serfdom over slavery because slaves have to be supervised and driven to maximize their productivity, but serfs were self motivated since the serf got to keep everything over and above the rent that he paid to the landlord.
There were at least two kinds of rent. As Jean said, it was usually paid in kind, not cash. The lord usually took a portion of the serf's harvest, similar to sharecropping. Fixed rate was to the advantage of the landlord. It provided the lord with a steady income regardless of the quantity of the harvest. Percentage rate was usually to the advantage of the serf since in bad years he paid a lower rent and in good years he could afford to pay higher rent.
There were certainly barbarian antecedents to this practice, like Jean said, but there were also Roman antecedents. In the late empire landlords often found it difficult to retain farm labor. City life was much too alluring. So laws were made that tied peasants to the land. Land became valuable not only for its own productive capacity but also because it came with a labor force already in place.
Many first-generation serfs had perhaps been slaves so becoming a serf was actually an improvement. Other first-time serfs had perhaps been dispossessed of their land so again, becoming legally bound to the soil meant that one could not be dispossessed again. Landlords preferred serfdom over slavery because slaves have to be supervised and driven to maximize their productivity, but serfs were self motivated since the serf got to keep everything over and above the rent that he paid to the landlord.
There were at least two kinds of rent. As Jean said, it was usually paid in kind, not cash. The lord usually took a portion of the serf's harvest, similar to sharecropping. Fixed rate was to the advantage of the landlord. It provided the lord with a steady income regardless of the quantity of the harvest. Percentage rate was usually to the advantage of the serf since in bad years he paid a lower rent and in good years he could afford to pay higher rent.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-