The Feud Over Feudalism

Historian Ramblings: Some incoherent rants and random thoughts I'm chewing on...

Last week I wrote a post on false medieval constructs that I’ve learned over the past few years. Because of the structure of the post being just a list, I didn’t go into much detail on each construct. Several people have reached out with questions about feudalism. So I thought it deserved a little more time in the spotlight. I don’t want people to walk away with yet another misunderstanding of medieval history. Feudalism wasn’t a thing. But that doesn’t mean those types of hierarchical relational dynamics between the landowning aristocracy, knights, vassals, serfs, and so on weren’t there.

It’s important in most aspects of life to define your terms. For example, you and your partner need to have the same definition of what the term “relationship” means so that you’re on the same page. So you can set expectations and understanding. The same applies to history. Especially to history. Because the same term can mean different things to different people, but also in different places and different times! So when entering into a historical argument, you must define your terms. And sadly, sometimes a term gets used and misused so often that the meaning of it gets muddled and then using the term becomes more of a hindrance than a help.

This is the case with feudalism. The term “feudalism” is so convoluted, lacking any consensus on what exactly it means or entails, that it is argued to be counterproductive when describing medieval systems. It’s also important to note that having said this, the term feudalism is still used and scholars continually try to define it. It is not dead in the water. Some argue against its use, while others see its benefits. Thus, the ongoing feud over feudalism. Well…the term “feud” might be a bit strong, but I like the alliteration.

In my list, I recommended the two sources which enlightened me about all of this. They’re essential reading if you want to better understand this ongoing debate in academia. Please read them, because they’re the experts. But I’ll do my best to explain how I’ve understood things…so here’s my novice rendering of the situation.

The Term “Feudalism”

Elizabeth Brown goes into great detail showing how historians have debated the merits of the term “feudalism” for centuries. As people used the term, their intentions were good. They were trying to find some type of unifying, codifying system that could allow the comparison of different hierarchical medieval systems. Isn’t that what -isms are good for? They help us generalize, see patterns, parse out themes and make sense of things. But over time, more and more people began using it, but with wider range use, applying it to different fields of study: legal, political, social, and so on. It became one of the “dominant medieval constructs used to study and try to understand the Middle Ages,” (Brown, 1066). Brown was essentially cautioning against this habit of using oversimplified ambiguous terms, models, and labels when investigating history.

Scholars were aware of this issue, admitting the problems with using the term, but continued to use it nonetheless. To ameliorate the situation, they would express the need to define exactly what they meant by the term…even though nobody’s definition aligned with each other. Others took the argument that even though it is a simplified abstraction, it has its benefits, specifically in teaching students at the introductory level. Brown quotes Michael Postan who says it helps “to evaluate, analyze, and categorize the past…generalized concepts…help us to distinguish one historical situation from another and to align similar situations in different countries and even in different periods,” (Brown, 1068). Only after one is familiar with the Middle Ages and wants to go deeper in their study do you then correct this incorrect teaching. Seems silly and a waste of everyone’s time and resources…to teach false constructs and then unteach those false constructs. And what about all of those who don’t go on to graduate study, they walk away from their education with a false construct embedded in their understanding of medieval history!

Brown also highlights how using a simplified convoluted term also harms the scholar, not just the student. For scholars, it narrows their vision, skews their perspective, and leaves them less receptive to any divergent data (Brown, 1078-79). She argues we can do better than all of this. We can use “multi factor models and descriptive, narrative accounts, which emphasize complexity and the unique,” which can “encourage fuller, less distorted, and hence more acceptable understanding of the past,” (Brown, 1079).

These ongoing debates within academia have prompted many to continue to study and analyze “the actual function of society in different areas” as they try to grasp the complexities of these relational dynamics. But “in general, however, and certainly in works directed at a popular rather than a scholarly audience, the situation remains much the same as it has been, and there is virtually universal resistance and opposition to abandoning the term “feudalism” and to confining the word “feudal” to its narrow sense—“relating to fiefs,”” (Brown, 1084). Christopher Brooke states that “few historical labels are more ambiguous than “feudal” and “it is doubtful whether [strict feudalism] ever existed outside the imaginations of historians,” (Brown, 1086).

So for Dr. Elizabeth Brown, her argument is that the term “feudal” is a tyranny of a construct, it isn’t helpful, but alas, continues to be used. “The tyrant feudalism must be declared once and for all deposed and its influence over students of the Middle Ages finally ended,” (Brown, 1088).

So what are people referring to when using the term Feudalism?

This is the next question…if the term doesn’t mean what we’ve always thought it means, then what are people referring to when they employ it and if there wasn’t feudalism in the Middle Ages, then what was there? What about those hierarchical systems we’ve been taught? What about that quintessential idea of a knight owing service to a lord in exchange for land? Or wealthy landowning nobility having their land tended to by peasants who were generationally bound to the land, but in exchange for hard labor, they received their lord’s protection? At least, as a novice, this is what I thought of when I thought of feudalism. This is where Susan Reynolds’ book Fiefs and Vassals come in.

As I previously mentioned, just because we’re saying feudalism wasn’t a thing, that doesn’t mean those relational dynamics between the landowners, nobles, knights, vassals, serfs, and so on weren’t there. They were, obviously. But there were myriad varieties, complexities, and nuances across the map and time. It restricts our understanding of medieval societies to try to fit them all into a single label.

Reynolds decided to take the customary understanding of feudalism, that of the “relations between lords and vassals within the noble class,” and ask “how far vassalage and fiefs, as they are generally understood, constituted institutions which are definable, comprehensible, and helpful to the understanding of medieval history,” (Reynolds, 2). She shows even those terms—fiefs and vassals—are themselves post-medieval constructs and have been used in such a way that they distort the very relations of the property and politics they’re being used to make sense of (Reynolds, 2). We’re trying too hard to use these preconceived terms by applying them evenly across the course of a millennia of history. We are “gravely hindered by a tendency to bring fiefs and vassals into the discussion in ‘the Cinderella’s slipper strategy’ of trying to fit one whole society into a conceptual model derived from a quite different one,” (Reynolds, 3).

By using this one single term to describe all of the different medieval systems and societies we are deluding ourselves into thinking they were the same thing. In her conclusion, Reynolds states that “almost all, if not all, medieval societies were extremely unequal and authoritarian, but they were divided by many gradations rather than by a single gulf between nobles and peasants,” (Reynolds, 476). The relations differed considerably. The “political conditions and legal systems differed and the rights and obligations” attached to those agreements differed (479).

As Far As I Can Tell…

So by looking at both Brown and Reynolds, it seems to me that the medieval construct of feudalism is a big hot mess. The term isn’t helpful because it means different things to different people. In addition, it does us a disservice when we’re trying to take so many varied and dynamic societal structures and systems and fit them all into a single label. The property and political dynamics of twelfth century “feudal” France looked vastly different to the societal fabric of say fourteenth century “feudal” England. Can we say they both were feudal systems? But hey, I’m a novice over here. I’m learning as I go and I hope you are too. Please take the time to read Reynolds’ book and Brown’s article. They were the seasoned and experienced medieval scholars. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Recommended Reading

1. Fiefs and Vassals by Susan Reynolds

2. “Tyranny of a Construct” by Elizabeth A.R. Brown