The Feudal Transformation

[RevolverNo9]

In studying the Crusades I have in the past examined the transformation of Western Europe into feudal society, specifically as to how it created the crusading movement.

I know this is a bit more obscure but do people have any thoughts on the specifics of feudalism's growth and its relevance to, for example, dialectical materialism?

(I've included an essay that I wrote on the motivation of the First Crusade and in particular its origin in feudal transformation if people want to see my analysis and offer their points of view on it.)

[Hate Is Art]

The industrial revolution, which created large cities, put an end to fuedalism.

Quantity to Quality or Industrial Revolution created large cities. Because of these large cities fuedalism was rendered redundant.

[Wurkwurk]

European feudalism ended, in most part, during the Reformation. It was then that Europe was thrown into turmoil and Kings forced to resort to greater control over their rebellious subjects: the birth of the Absolute Monarchy. The Absolute Monarchy was more of a dictatorship than anything, yet it proved effective especially in Louis XIV's time (prolly the most famous Absolute monarch ever). In Feudalism, subjects serve the king and the king serves only himself. In an Absolute monarchy, more often than not, the King directly served God and that was enough justification back then for his wide-ranging control (coming into being in the tumult of the Reformation). From there, France began a new Republican movement which sowed the seeds of today's Democracies. They began the revolution because of a very bad Absolute Monarch who couldn't control a thing in his hands: Louis XVI. So in a sense, the Absolute Monarchy came into being by strong individual kings and fell because of a radical new idea.

In Britian, however, the parliment arose in the bloody English Civil War. This had nothing to do with religon, just crazy Englishmen :lol:

Cheers,
Wurkwurk

[RevolverNo9]

I was actually referring to the beginning of feudalism, the arisal of political and economical atomisation, but of course this discussion is useful too.


European feudalism ended, in most part, during the Reformation.
Mmm... the system begain to giveway after the reformation but it certainly didn't end then. Remember that aswell as the Reformation there was the Counter-Reformation in the South of Europe. Intellectual freedom ofcourse in Reformed states increased and did help pave the way for the English Civil War, arugably the first bourgeois revolution.


The birth of the Absolute Monarchy.

I don't think so. The Monarch had always been absolute and had Divine Right, ie he was God's prince on Earth. These ideas were challenged in Europe which provoked a reaction, like in England Charles I abolished parliament because of such contentions from the commons' representatives. The king was always, theoretically, serving God and the people as their master.



From there, France began a new Republican movement which sowed the seeds of today's Democracies.

Modern parliamentarianism was an English innovaton. The English Civil War took place over a hundred years before the French Revolution and had much to do with religion. Charles was a High-Church man, with even Catholic sentiments. The puritan movements wished for religious freedom as well as a fairer society. It wasn't 'just a bunch of crazy Englishmen!' it was the bourgoisie coming to control coiety, the victory of parliament over royalty. This time also gave rise to the radical movements such as the levellers who are widely considered to be the first spark of socialism. (See Marxist historian Christopher Hill.)

France was much more backward and her aristocracy much more powerful and callous than in England. As a result when their middle-classes overthrew them the event was much more bloody, while the English were always extremely fearful of unrest after the horrors of the Civil War.

Anyone still wanna talk about the feudal transformation, feel free. ;)

[Wurkwurk]

Wow, I feel like an idiot now :(
Jk :)

You got the points down in all your statements, but the one about Absolute Monarchy. The Feudal kings 'officially' served God, but everyone knew this was BS. But after the reformation, where religious fervor was rife, people actually began to [i]believe[i] in that.

Anyways, don't know too much 'bout the start of feudalism mate, sorry!

[Kaan]

As far as I know, the transformation of open slavery to feudalism came out of the barbarian invasions wiping away all the remnants of the Roman empire and creating largely decentralized governments of there own. Because of decentralized governments and increasing "private" warfare, it became easier to simply grant land to lords, complete with serfs, to build armaments then to build them yourself. The large estates would become very nearly self sufficient (also including weaponry) and the king would tax them, and the estates would have to pledge arms, and militiamen to the king in times of war.

Also, the barbarian groups were largely oppressed by the Romans, so you could go so far as to say they were "feudal revolutionaries" if you wished.

[RevolverNo9]

The Feudal kings 'officially' served God, but everyone knew this was BS. But after the reformation, where religious fervor was rife, people actually began to [i]believe[i] in that.

I'm still not convinced. (What does BS mean by the way?) Religious belief in every respect was far more potent in the Medieval ages (I won't go into much detail 'cos there's a whole load in the essay :D) Religious fervour didn't become right, it's just that politics, catholicism and protestantism collided. On the contrary people started to disbelieve in Divine Right. Charles I claimed Divine Right, the parliamentarians, 'said err... hang on mate...' and then begain the dialectic of the English Civil War.


As far as I know, the transformation of open slavery to feudalism came out of the barbarian invasions wiping away all the remnants of the Roman empire and creating largely decentralized governments of there own.

Yeah. First with the collapse of the Roman empire and then with the Carolingian empire the polities atomised as brutalised 'milites' (who becaome knights) were relied on for political and economic stability in the the time of anarchy at their dissolution.


Also, the barbarian groups were largely oppressed by the Romans, so you could go so far as to say they were "feudal revolutionaries" if you wished.

I like this. But I have a feeling that most of the barbarians were actually invaders (Huns, Goths, Visi-Goths etc...) I have a slight problem with straight orthodox dialectical evolution here. Feudalism was a regression from classical antiquity. Well let's think this through... medieval Europe was created by the barbarians who overthrew Roman imperialism... did a mercantile civilisaion need to be deomolished before further social progress could be made?

[Severian]

A transition from serfdom to slavery began to happen before the barbarian invasions - and it seems to have happened in the Eastern Roman Empire too - some of the major landowners began to settle "colons" on their lands, essentially they had a serflike status of land and protection in exchange for tribute. The barbarian invasions completed this transformation - the German tribes particularly preferred to have serfs rather than slaves. This paralleled the move towards decentralized governmental structures that Kaan talks about.

A couple links about this: history of the late Roman Empire; scroll down to p48 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/BURLAT/2*.html)

history of serfdom (http://10.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SE/SERFDOM.htm)

It's been suggested that the rise of Christianity to official religion of the Roman Empire paralleled the increasing power of this class of landowners...that official Christianity reflected the interests of this new ruling class. I got that out of "The Jewish Question: a Marxist Interpretation" by Abram Leon which contains in passing a brilliant examination of the late Roman period.

***

Was the fall of the Roman empire a regression or progressive? Maybe both.

It clearly involved a decline in civilization by most measures - trade, learning, etc. But feudalism is generally considered more progressive than slavery, and civilization had reached a dead end in terms of the slave system.

Basic productivity on the land was stagnant. New technologies for working weren't being developed, probably because of the deep contempt for manual labor characteristic of slave societies. Nobody with education was going to really get down in the mud and muck around with new agricultural methods.

Meanwhile, the exactions of the Roman state were getting worse and worse...the Roman Empire exploited by plunder and tribute, not by trade and investment. The tax burden strangled the whole of society, laws forbade many classes from switching jobs...it got so bad that, according to some writers of the time, much of the population welcomed barbarian invaders.

While during the feudal period there was a gradual recovery and increase in basic productivity which eventually made it possible for civilization to reach new heights.

***

The absolute monarchy was definitely an early modern - post-Reformation is you will - development. In earlier periods the king was usually more dependent on the nobles.

I'd suggest that this is not primarily due to ideological justifications like the divine right of kings, though. Rather, it's due to the growing bourgeois class which provided a new source of support and revenue to the monarchy, strengthening it against the nobles. As briefly mentioned in the Manifesto. The absolute monarchy was often one of the stages towards the political domination of the bourgeoisie.