Today, I learned the details of something I first learned the general idea of two and an half years ago, namely the reality of feudalism in the European Middle Ages.
Traditionally — that is, in the tradition of the Brunner Thesis — Feudalism has been perceived and presented as a system where a material reward (the so-called beneficium , usually land) was connected to military service in a relation of vassality. A knight or minor lord gave his service, allegiance and loyalty to a great lord, in exchange for protection and rewards, usually land. This model has been used to explain just about everything (and thereby nothing, really), and in this model, the decline of the Frankish Empire becomes a function of Carolingian power being based on the supply of new land to distribute to supporters in exchange for military service and suchlike, and the supply of new land drying up after the end of the conquests around 820.
However, while beneficium indeed was a way of distributing land, the rarely revealed fact is that military service was mandatory for everyone who could afford to purchase the necessary equipment. (An importent point which I’ll come back to in a second.) This was a hard, almost impossible system to enforce, so the king would give powerful lords estates in exchange for their devotion to the enforcement of this law. As we can see from this, the various elements of the Brunner kind of Feudalism is kept intact, they’re just disconnected from each other and applied less rigidly.
As for the Carolingian armies, Bachrach did extensive — indeed, close to comprehensive — studies on these, and one of his conclusions was that the Carolingians as good as never based their tactics on heavy cavalery — excepting the times when they lost miserably. Any theses about them adopting the stirrup from the Arabs in this period seems to be wrong, too, as the Arabs hardly ever fought mounted in their westernmost campaigns in these days. Cavalery played a role, of course, but it was never the deceicive factor.
Simply put, the Carolingians were the largest landowners in the Frankish kingdom, and could use the soldiers raised from this base to pressure others into helping them in times of war. But every landowners of a certain calibre, including monasteries, have been found to have had entire villages inhabited by as good as nothing but soldiers — infanterymen.
This system was quite decentralised, but could be effective under a strong, capable ruler. However, it fared less well after the abdication of Louis the Pious in 840, when his sons divided the realm between them (Verdun, 843), and then proceeded to wage war on each other from 848 and onwards. In this situation, where the core areas of the Carolingians had been split in two while most of the other lords and families still had their lands pretty much intact, each king had less land from which to raise troops, but about the same area to suppress with these soldiers.

Posts
Interesting. Though I didn’t quite catch how the heavy cavalry-paragraph fit into your reasoning.
25. January 2008 @ 03:18 ( Permalink )
My understanding is that Feudalism is too nonspecific a term and is widely falling out of use due to its overly vague application to various societies at widely disparite periods of history.
The more specific socioeconomic designators are now being used such as manorialism or serfdom to determine specific relationships.
28. January 2008 @ 15:59 ( Permalink )
That seems to sound a lot like what they said in the Ancient History Overview-course I took a year or two ago, yeah. Though I think they used the term as a broad general description and then used “manorialism” and similar to specify how, when and where.
28. January 2008 @ 17:33 ( Permalink )
“Though I didn’t quite catch how the heavy cavalry-paragraph fit into your reasoning.”
I can see how that was unclear, so here’s an attempt at clearifying.
It’s simply that it has been believed (and is still widely believed) that the Frankish armies won as many victories as they did because of their superior heavy cavalery, and that the prerequisites of a heavy cavalery man put certain restrictions, so to say on the social structure, e.g. in that only the richest could serve properly in the army. However, with the “discovery” that the Carolingians based their armies predominantly on infantery (reasonably enough), and that these were basically conscripts, the connection between beneficum and military service — traditionally the staple of feudalism theories — becomes moot.
“My understanding is that Feudalism is too nonspecific a term and is widely falling out of use due to its overly vague application to various societies at widely disparite periods of history.”
Yeah, that’s another reason why it’s falling out of grace. When the same term is applied to pre-Chin (or was it Han? I suck at Chinese dynasties) China, 5th century Persia, 10th century Frankia and 17th century Austria, it’s not a good one. Especially when it in its original conception turns out not to fit very well with the era for which it was basically reinvented as a technical term in the 1920s and ’30s.
“The more specific socioeconomic designators are now being used such as manorialism or serfdom to determine specific relationships.”
That’s pretty much what I’ve heard, too, now that I come to think of it. Didn’t hear that this year, though, even though the course I’m taking this term is on the level above the one where we were first taught this…
7. March 2008 @ 01:13 ( Permalink )