Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tribal states vs feudal states in 10-11th century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Tribal states vs feudal states in 10-11th century
    Posted: 07-Oct-2010 at 12:28
Cryptic, agreed, the envioronment and amount food available does determine human behavior.  Perhaps in keeping with the subject of the thread, we should talk about the farming technology the Christian missionaries brought with them, and how this changed some people's relationship with the land?  For example, the Roman technology for growing grapes and making wine made a difference in where some people settled and who was willing to be friendly with these people.   France is known as good wine country and it was also Romanized, which was not so for the forested region of the barbarians who continually invaded Rome. 
 
The thread is about the transition from tribal organization to feudal organization.  It is agreed this is about a changing relationship with the land.  It is also about coins and the ability to pay for soldiers, and this ties the transition to access to gold and silver and the ability to make coins.  How would a barbarian get coins?  How would anyone get coins enough to pay for an army? 
 
If you all want to discuss human nature, what is normal and what is not, and the impact of environment and food supply on human behavior, I would gladly do so, but let us keep this within the context of the thread, or start another for thread to discuss human behavior,  okay?   I strongly believe we should study animal behavior to understand human behavior, and what I say of human behavior is based on what I know of animal behavior.  Humans are social animals, as are baboons and chimps.  I do not think knowledge of animal behavior has lead me to romanticize about humans.  LOL  however, I guess we are talking about Romanizing barbarians in this thread.  You do get the word "romanticizing" means "making like Romans" don't you? 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2010 at 16:02
Originally posted by Athena

.  When a group is larger than 500 hundred, we start loosing the ability to have intimate relationships with all the members of the group.  This results is forming subgroups.  We may or may not recognize members in the subgroup to be humans equal to ourselves.  They are perhaps the lazy laborers who need to whipped to make them work our lands. 
A valid point
Originally posted by Athena

The thread is about the transition from tribal organization to feudal organization.  It is agreed this is about a changing relationship with the land.  It is also about coins and the ability to pay for soldiers, and this ties the transition to access to gold and silver and the ability to make coins.  How would a barbarian get coins?  How would anyone get coins enough to pay for an army? 
The european tribal peoples in question were not like the pre contact amerindians.   Rather, they had been in contact with settled peoples, monetary systems, advanced economies etc. for a long time.  The Celts, for instance, issued their own coins or used modified roman coins.  
 
I am hoping that Mosquito can provide more information.....   


Edited by Cryptic - 07-Oct-2010 at 16:11
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2010 at 21:42
N. Amerindians fit into a lot of catagories! Some were settled, some were nomadic, some where herders, and some merely followed their game!

I just don't know how you plan to segregate them all?

For instance, I have been told or read, that most of modern day Tennessee and Kentucky were common hunting lands where by no tribe took a permanent residence!

Is that true?
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2010 at 21:13

Thank you Cryptic, with your information I could get more.  I knew the Celts were known for their iron works and supplied Romans with weapons, but not of their coins nor that they made plows and turned forest land into farm land.  It is only obvious it would be desirable to settle by the source of metal, but I wasn't aware how advanced this would be.   The mines and communities would surely be something to defend. 

http://www.ancientimports.com/introtopotinsofgaul.html 

Can anyone find something about how they understood property rights?  Who would own the mine?  How much was labor diivided?  Was there a hierarchy of power?
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2010 at 21:20
Yes, Opuslola, that is the goal to separate the tribes and then figure out how they tranzitioned to a fuedal organization.  We really need good maps and geological information to we can know who had good farm land and climate and who did not.  Mongols didn't have good farm land, so they were nomadic hunters, and this is a completely different conscious from agrarian. 
 
Ever since I was a kid I wanted a fliud map that would show the migrations of people and the changes when someone invaded.  Each group represented in the different color, so history could be more visual.   
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2010 at 23:17
Originally posted by Athena

We really need good maps and geological information to we can know who had good farm land and climate and who did not. 
 
I know that Germany generally has poor quality sandy soil.  Low farm yields coupled with a labor intensive farming and food processing system really hurt the German war effort in WWI and WWII (German agricultural policy discouraged mechanization and consolidation to keep family farms and small rural businesses viable).
 
Back on topic....
 
In regards to maps, this publication routinely has beautiful, survey quality maps of specific archaeological sites and other types of maps.  One of their back issues might have maps with some of the information that you are looking for. 
 
 
You will probably like the name of the magazineWink


Edited by Cryptic - 09-Oct-2010 at 23:21
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2010 at 10:35

I'm back

 

A couple of points just because some one is from a place (I.e. when Mosq said well some people from Scandinavia said blah, blah, blah) doesn't mean they are right. I know plenty of people who are ignorant of their countries history or view it thr/ rose colored glasses.

 

Second- I may be wrong on this but I recall that the world Barbarians came from the fact that the Greeks thought the language of the "Barbarians sounded like "bar, Bar, bar" to them

Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 11:14
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2010 at 20:17
 
This makes sense to me. Though it would be interesting to see if the Christianization of the area accelerated the development of feudalism.  I have a sneaking suspision that Germanic paganism allowed for more individual independence and autonomy than Christianity.
 
But then maybe it is the reverse. Perhaps Christianity was structurally altered and changed into a hierarchal system becaue the various lords rapidly decided that:
a. Christiantity was the wave of the future
b. conversions to Christianity would be permitted, or even encouraged so long as Christianity never challenged the social system.
c. a hiearchial style of Christianity would mirror and support feudalism.
 
The Christians wanted converts and the feudal lords did not want challenges to their growing feudal social system.  Maybe it was a good "marriage" to advance both Christianity and feudalism. Over time, the two almost merged.   
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 02:45
Bingo!   Clap
 
I just googled "Christian and feudalism" and there are so many explanations of feudalism and the church I figure I'll just let everyone know where to look, and I am going to bed.  I am spending way too much time reading these post and searching information, and I am just loving it.  But I really some sleep.  Sleepy 
 
King James for sure thought kings were chosen by God, and as a father to the his subjects.  John Locke argues the goal of parents is prepare their children for adulthood, not to keep them as children forever.  However, the bible does give us this father and child imagery.  The bible was written in a time of kings and slavery, and the bible supports both.   No one saw democracy in the bible, until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. 
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 08:33
Both christianity and feudalism were introduced by force because the biggest part of the society was forced to work and give big part of their income for church and feudal lords. The church was taking 1/10 of everything what paesant produced and the feudals even more. In some countries it lead to pagan - anti christian and anti feudal revolts. For example Poland was officially christianised in year 966 AD but in years 1030-1040 the great rebellion almost collapsed the church and feudalism in Poland. In fact Casimir the Restorer, duke of Poland had to ask german emperor (who fortunatelly for him was his relative) for military help to reintroduce both christianity and feudalism. Similar situation took place earlier in Bohemia where the rulers also had to ask the German neighbours for military help against revolted pagan subjects.
 
In both cases Poland and Bohemia - the churches were burn, the monasteries plundered and the monks and priests murdered. When people stopped paying to church they also have stopped paying to their feudal lords. In case of Poland the pagans were also reciving help from other pagan people in the area, from Veletii-Luticii in northern Germany, from Pomeranians who revolted earlier and destroyed the bishoprick of Kolberg which was erected by king Boleslav the Brave, and from the pagan Prussians.
 
 
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 08:46
I have also found that there was a pagan reaction in Scandinavia, especially in 11th century Sweden, where christianity was finally firmly established in the 12th century.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 09:36
Have you ever read how the Norse were converted. Anyway In norse mythology mankind is destroyed as are the Gods and most everything at the Ragnorak. After the Ragnorak the Tree of life (you know the tree that supports Hel, Misgard and Asgard)--survives, as do two people. Well Christian missionaries preached to the Norse, that thier relgion was perfectly, true, thier Gods exisited but the Ragnorak had already ready happened, they then pointed them to the creation story in Genisis, and said see, Adam and Eve the tree of life they are all there, they survived Ragnorack and the world had been reborn with one God.
 
Then there was also the chopping down of Thors Oak in the land of the Chatti--Thats what started the German conversion.


Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 12-Oct-2010 at 09:37
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 10:42
 
I would hope most  know Christianity was spread by intentionally blending with paganism.  Who could not know this is why we have the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg, and Christmas Tree?  But, Maximus Germanicus I,  the details of how the Norse were converted, is very appreciated.  And Mosquito, I had no idea so many were rebelling against the church.   Our account of history, has pretty much ignored all the countries of which you speak, so our understanding of history and the world in general,  is rather distorted.  No wonder the Protestant Reformation Movement was so successful.   And my interest in Germany is heightened.  What is with these cats?  Like it isn't just Hitler and his New World Order- the Germans have been major players in history.  They lead the Holy Roman Empire when Rome was too weak to do so.   I think I need to know more about the Holy Roman Empire.  Does this fit in the subject of this thread, or should it be a separate thread?  
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 10:58
Originally posted by Mosquito

Both christianity and feudalism were introduced by force because the biggest part of the society was forced to work and give big part of their income for church and feudal lords. The church was taking 1/10 of everything what paesant produced and the feudals even more. 
Stating that Christanity was introduced by force seems to be an over simplification.   Religous coversions through force simply do not work.  That is doubly so for near 100% conversions of entire populations.
 
Christianity must of had some genuine popular support to be so successful.  Of course, not everyone was satisfied as the revolts indicate. Though the Polish revoilt also had political aspects.  In all probablity, conversion was done through the combination of approaches.  Thanks fo the information about anti Christian revolts.


Edited by Cryptic - 12-Oct-2010 at 11:20
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 11:18
Oh yeah, info about the Holy Roman Empire belongs here. 

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa35

Holy Roman Emperor: AD 800

In 799, for the third time in half a century, a pope is in need of help from the Frankish king. After being physically attacked by his enemies in the streets of Rome (their stated intention is to blind him and cut out his tongue, to make him incapable of office), Leo III makes his way through the Alps to visit Charlemagne at Paderborn.

It is not known what is agreed, but Charlemagne travels to Rome in 800 to support the pope. In a ceremony in St Peter's, on Christmas Day, Leo is due to anoint Charlemagne's son as his heir. But unexpectedly (it is maintained), as Charlemagne rises from prayer, the pope places a crown on his head and acclaims him emperor.
         
Charlemagne expresses displeasure but accepts the honour. The displeasure is probably diplomatic, for the legal emperor is undoubtedly the one in Constantinople. Nevertheless this public alliance between the pope and the ruler of a confederation of Germanic tribes now reflects the reality of political power in the west. And it launches the concept of the new Holy Roman Empire which will play an important role throughout the Middle Ages.

The Holy Roman Empire only becomes formally established in the next century. But it is implicit in the title adopted by Charlemagne in 800: 'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.'
         
Emperors and popes: AD 962-1250

The imperial role accorded by the pope to Charlemagne in 800 is handed on in increasingly desultory fashion during the 9th century. From 924 it falls into abeyance. But in 962 a pope once again needs help against his Italian enemies. Again he appeals to a strong German ruler.

The coronation of Otto I by pope John XII in 962 marks a revival of the concept of a Christian emperor in the west. It is also the beginning of an unbroken line of Holy Roman emperors lasting for more than eight centuries. Otto I does not call himself Roman emperor, but his son Otto II uses the title - as a clear statement of western and papal independence from the other Christian emperor in Constantinople....
   
Otto and his son and grandson (Otto II and Otto III) regard the imperial crown as a mandate to control the papacy. They dismiss popes at their will and instal replacements more to their liking (sometimes even changing their mind and repeating the process). This power, together with territories covering much of central Europe, gives the German empire and the imperial title great prestige in the late 10th century.

But subservience was not the papal intention in reinstating the Holy Roman Empire. A clash is inevitable. 

         
Cryptic, the power of the church and the power of king or empire, went hand in hand and religious freedom is not a hallmark of Christianity.  When the church split into Catholic and Protestant, there were terrible bloody wars, and the persecution of Jews was intolerable.  Martin Luther hated Jews and Germany carried on this hatred of Jews.  Honestly Christian hands are as bloody as Muslim hands.  It goes with a religion that has a God who has favorites, and that God is a war God, equal to all other war Gods, until all opposition to this God is brought to an end.  Only then does this God shift from the jealous, revengeful and fearsome of God of the old testament, to the loving and forgiving God of the New Testament.   The God of Abraham is the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  War is good for this God and the God is good for war. 





 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 11:22
Originally posted by Athena

         
Cryptic, the power of the church and the power of king or empire, went hand in hand and religious freedom is not a hallmark of Christianity.  When the church split into Catholic and Protestant, there were terrible bloody wars, and the persecution of Jews was intolerable.  Martin Luther hated Jews and Germany carried on this hatred of Jews.  Honestly Christian hands are as bloody as Muslim hands.  
 
Agreed
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403
  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 11:56
Here is more detained information of what Mosquito was saying.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa20

It takes Charlemagne thirty years to subdue the Saxons; not until 804 are they finally transformed into settled Christians within his empire. It has been a brutal process. Charlemagne's method is military conquest followed by forced conversion and the planting of missionary outposts, usually in the form of bishoprics. In his book of rules, the official punishment for refusing to be baptized is death.

The chronicles record that on one day some 4500 reluctant Saxons are executed for not worshipping the right god. 


Now I seriously need to know about the Franks, because they are the ones doing all the fighting.  The Germans had a somewhat working relationship with Rome, until the Franks came in.  Then the Germans side with them, and they take down Rome, and the Frank leader Charlemagne takes control of the church and uses it to spread his empire.  And Cryptic, this is a become Christian or die conversion.  

I know this off topic and please go to the Muslim thread if you want to reply to this thought, but would we be escalating a conflict with the Muslims, if we knew Christian history?  Like the blood is dripping off our pointed finger.
          






 
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 14:20
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Mosquito

Both christianity and feudalism were introduced by force because the biggest part of the society was forced to work and give big part of their income for church and feudal lords. The church was taking 1/10 of everything what paesant produced and the feudals even more. 
Stating that Christanity was introduced by force seems to be an over simplification.   Religous coversions through force simply do not work.  That is doubly so for near 100% conversions of entire populations.
 
Christianity must of had some genuine popular support to be so successful.  Of course, not everyone was satisfied as the revolts indicate. Though the Polish revoilt also had political aspects.  In all probablity, conversion was done through the combination of approaches.  Thanks fo the information about anti Christian revolts.
 
I think you are right and not right. Will you convert to islam if your goverment will decide that your country must be islamic republic like Iran? Or someone will have to force you to do it. In the pagan countries in Europe, like in Poland, Denmark, Bohemia, Hungary, Sweden and Norway, it were the rulers who decided to convert themselves, their countries and their people to christianity, refusal was not an option. From those times till today it is remembered that king of Poland Bolesław I the Brave (967-1025) ordered to knock out teeth of those, who didn't refrain oneself from eating the meat in Fast days.  The church, its organisation and ideology was giving benefits only to the rulers. The kings were no longer kings because people elected them or they won a crown in a civil war or inherrited it after ancestros but they were rulers by "the God's grace". So disobeying the king or revolting against him was not only a crime but also a sin, the church gave also the administrative organisation which was helping ruling the country and it provinces which were the same as the church provinces, the church brought also the skill of writting and the people who could use it. Feudal social order  was backed by the church and its ideology. These were the benefits which convinced the pagan rulers to christianise their states and to forget the traditions and beliefs of their ancestors including destroying their old temples and killing their pagan priests. In fact the church helped to strenghten the power of the rulers and ruling class in the old tribal pagan countries.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Mosquito - 12-Oct-2010 at 14:31
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2010 at 15:27
Originally posted by Mosquito

Will you convert to islam if your goverment will decide that your country must be islamic republic like Iran? Or someone will have to force you to do it.
The king would need people willing to enforce that order.  That would mean some, or perhaps many people were pre disposed to the new religion.  The top down conversion of Indonesians from Hinduism to Islam was more complex than the Hindu ruler waking up one morning, converting to Islam while eating breakfast, and telling his people to "convert or die".
 
-Charismatic and effective Islamic missionaries had been active in Indonesia for many generations
-Many locals had already accepted some Islamic teachings and were no longer fully Hindu. 
-Local Hindu rulers were weakened by internal feuds
 
Then consider econnomic advantages for converts. I do not see why the situation in Europe would have been different than Indonesia. I am not saying that no forced conversions occured.  Rather, I am saying that it was more complex than "convert or die".
 
Originally posted by Mosquito

The kings were no longer kings because people elected them or they won a crown in a civil war or inherrited it after ancestros but they were rulers by "the God's grace".
Such concepts are not unique to Christianity. They are common in almost all religous systems. For example in Confucian China, the Emeperor only had authority if he followed the confucian "Mandate of Heaven".
 
In all probablity, pagan and societies followed a similar concept (you are only "free" if you follow pagan religous and social norms of your tribe). If so, many pagans probably concluded that Christianity and paganism could both be equally coercive and then they picked Christianity for a variety of reasons (genuine spiritual reasons, economic advantages, political rivalry, clan rivalries etc).
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 12-Oct-2010 at 15:36
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.