Back from the dead.
Sorry for the massive gap between posts, but it's mostly because I haven't had too much to post that's too noteworthy. I have a very boring existence, I guess. However, I have a bunch of nice essays and such to bolster my post count, though and start getting me back into the rhythm of LJ. I'll start with a short essay I wrote last term for one of my history courses.
One of the defining features of the middle ages would be the distinctive economic, political, and social constructs surrounding the institution known as “Feudalism”. Although it is now known as sort of a political 'swear word' in modern speech, it was quite effective in its intentions. For instance, it was better at providing for the economies it needed than the Roman system, and it was most certainly superior in social conditions for the common people than the Roman system was before it. In most regards, it was simply a better system. Superior systems (when compared to the systems that preceded them) are usually born of necessity. There is usually some deficiency in the previous system, and so people look for better solutions. In the case of Feudalism, the biggest deficiencies of the previous system were in food supply and defense.
Around the time of the fall of Rome, people had retreated into the countryside so that they could actually feed themselves. Countrysides are however infinitely more difficult to defend than a city, so the already weakened military system was weakened even further. What was needed was a localized defense force that would be able to easily deal with bandits, raiders, and still be able to administer justice effectively. Many people in the countryside recognized these needs, and so they were increasingly willing to give up the private farms that they had managed to attain since the collapse of Rome in exchange for the protection of what would become feudal Lords.
The Lord would offer protection and justice, but in order to this he would take rights to certain dues. For instance, serfs, as the people under his protection were known, were required to grant the Lord a certain percentage of their harvests as well as owing a certain amount of labor on the Lord's own field. Of course, there was no typical set of rules governing a serf's duties. However, customs did create a sort of “check” on rampant abuse of the serfs by the Lord. This economic part of Feudalism is known as “manorialism” and is the economic form that took up much of the economic background of Europe during the Middle Ages. From a certain point of view, you would have to agree that there's a certain justice to this system. The Lord brings order, but he can only do this if he has the means to bring order. Then the serfs enjoy the order, and are allowed to live fulfilling lives.
At the heart of the feudal system, the overlying current of methodology would have to be the relationships of mutual obligation. These relationships are not limited to simply serf and lord, as there is another aspect entirely. This other aspect revolves around relationships between free men of differing noble (usually) social stature. In order to help establish order even further, sometimes a Lord will pledge allegiance to a person at a higher status of power than himself. He then becomes that person's “vassal” and he himself owes duties to his Liege, for instance military service. However, his Liege then subsequently owes certain obligations to his vassal, such as his own military service in case his vassal were to be attacked.
By modern standards one would have to say that Feudalism would represent an unacceptable level of governmental control on its subjects. However, in my opinion this is a privileged viewpoint. In the modern world, we typically are not concerned with when we're going to eat next, and we are typically not concerned with whether or not we're going to be ransacked by raiders. These are conditions created by the governmental systems that were only allowed because of the order established by Feudalism so many years ago and as such Feudalism must be looked upon as a solution that was chosen because it really was the best choice at the time. Would I prefer to live under Feudalism than in a modern nation? No, of course not, but if presented with the choice my ancestors made, I probably would have chosen the same thing. Freedom is only useful if there is a degree of order as well, and if there is freedom without order, then you simply have chaos.
One of the defining features of the middle ages would be the distinctive economic, political, and social constructs surrounding the institution known as “Feudalism”. Although it is now known as sort of a political 'swear word' in modern speech, it was quite effective in its intentions. For instance, it was better at providing for the economies it needed than the Roman system, and it was most certainly superior in social conditions for the common people than the Roman system was before it. In most regards, it was simply a better system. Superior systems (when compared to the systems that preceded them) are usually born of necessity. There is usually some deficiency in the previous system, and so people look for better solutions. In the case of Feudalism, the biggest deficiencies of the previous system were in food supply and defense.
Around the time of the fall of Rome, people had retreated into the countryside so that they could actually feed themselves. Countrysides are however infinitely more difficult to defend than a city, so the already weakened military system was weakened even further. What was needed was a localized defense force that would be able to easily deal with bandits, raiders, and still be able to administer justice effectively. Many people in the countryside recognized these needs, and so they were increasingly willing to give up the private farms that they had managed to attain since the collapse of Rome in exchange for the protection of what would become feudal Lords.
The Lord would offer protection and justice, but in order to this he would take rights to certain dues. For instance, serfs, as the people under his protection were known, were required to grant the Lord a certain percentage of their harvests as well as owing a certain amount of labor on the Lord's own field. Of course, there was no typical set of rules governing a serf's duties. However, customs did create a sort of “check” on rampant abuse of the serfs by the Lord. This economic part of Feudalism is known as “manorialism” and is the economic form that took up much of the economic background of Europe during the Middle Ages. From a certain point of view, you would have to agree that there's a certain justice to this system. The Lord brings order, but he can only do this if he has the means to bring order. Then the serfs enjoy the order, and are allowed to live fulfilling lives.
At the heart of the feudal system, the overlying current of methodology would have to be the relationships of mutual obligation. These relationships are not limited to simply serf and lord, as there is another aspect entirely. This other aspect revolves around relationships between free men of differing noble (usually) social stature. In order to help establish order even further, sometimes a Lord will pledge allegiance to a person at a higher status of power than himself. He then becomes that person's “vassal” and he himself owes duties to his Liege, for instance military service. However, his Liege then subsequently owes certain obligations to his vassal, such as his own military service in case his vassal were to be attacked.
By modern standards one would have to say that Feudalism would represent an unacceptable level of governmental control on its subjects. However, in my opinion this is a privileged viewpoint. In the modern world, we typically are not concerned with when we're going to eat next, and we are typically not concerned with whether or not we're going to be ransacked by raiders. These are conditions created by the governmental systems that were only allowed because of the order established by Feudalism so many years ago and as such Feudalism must be looked upon as a solution that was chosen because it really was the best choice at the time. Would I prefer to live under Feudalism than in a modern nation? No, of course not, but if presented with the choice my ancestors made, I probably would have chosen the same thing. Freedom is only useful if there is a degree of order as well, and if there is freedom without order, then you simply have chaos.