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  <1 456
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Tribal states vs feudal states in 10-11th century
    Posted: 23-Oct-2010 at 08:44
Originally posted by Athena

 
About the honor system societies.  I am thinking, when hard times hit and the parents seem to powerless because they can not pay the taxes and do what must be done for the family, the family is destroyed, and so too the human relationships essential to the honor society. 
I think good times and bad times impact honor societies.  As you stated, te family is the most important part of an honor society.
 
Too much good times give individuals alternatives to the family for support. For example, economic development gives many employment possibilities besides family based farms and small businesses. Economic development increases governmental structure (or vis versa). For example, courts, police, social security, hospitals give alternatives to family based justice and family based care.
 
 
Originally posted by Athena

 Can't we see this around us today? I think we are dealing with mostly a young population, dependent on a landlord, not parents, because it isn't their parents who own the property or have the power.
 
And also because the their parents (family) no longer supply the benefits.  Justice, education, employment and health care are either provided by the state or by non family employers.
 
In earlier times, some benefits were provided by the church (health care, povery relief, education). Today there is no viable alternative to the state.  In addition, the Christian teachings that promote obediance to the state carry less weight.  Perhaps this is a receipe for social chaos.
Originally posted by Athena


What I am learning of developing Roman rule and know of the church drove tails into oppression, that would be intolerable for people accustomed to being self sufficient. 
Oppresion is a pretty narrow view.  The role of the church was more complex than that. Honor societies that value self sufficiency  tend to value religious systems. Southeren Italy and Sicily, Ireland, Corscica, southeren USA  kept their religious systems far longer than nearby legalistic societies.  Also the church had a role for a far longer time in justice in honor societies than in legalistic societies (clergy mediated disputes, gave weighty opinions whether a dispute was valid or not)
 
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 23-Oct-2010 at 09:43
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: 23-Oct-2010 at 11:29
Cryptic, may I add to what you said how slave labor, or technolocial development can reduce the value of the wife and husband.  Aristotle said the 3 things a man must have are a wife, ox and slave.  When the wife grew, perserved and cooked food, made the clothes, did the laundry, took care of everyone, she was very valuable.  In reading what you wrote, I was thinking of how we rely on the police.  Our lives have gotten so easy, a woman can manage without a husband, and he without a wife.   For sure by old standards we are soft and decadent.   And we have gotten so legalist, a man can't even defend himself and his property without risking being charge with a crime or sued.  I think we have taken this way too far! 
 
You have made me question the legal system of Islam.  I sure wish someone who can compare the west legal system with Islams legal system would start a thread for this and let me know.  I gather some Muslims condone a father killing his child if the child disgraces the family.  Usually it is a female killed.  While this is very harsh, it also greatly reduces the problems we seem incapable of keeping under control.   And Japan- hey how about a thread for discussing honor societies, and PM me? 
 
To get back on topic, the Romes began protecting women, children and slaves.  So as their evolved system of holding people to the land, moves through Europe, you have serfs instead of slaves.  That is a slave with some protected rights. 
 
Rome became more legalistic.  Becoming more legalistic and technological go hand in hand.  You begin having schools preparing people for jobs or to participate in a democracy.   Now it is the educated person who advances, not necessarily the family member.   People don't just war, but are trianed for war, and then are especially equipped for war, and this is very important in feudal society, right?  A man who owned a horse and was well armed could become a knight.  This is explained in two of my old text books.  Instead of Dad teaching the son and Mom teaching the daughter, at least the son is sent off to be taught.   As populations increase, these relationships become less personal, and society becomes more legalistic and "technologically" correct. 
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: 23-Oct-2010 at 21:48
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Athena

But Rome was loosing its tax base, and tried to force people to stay with the land.  This attached the slaves to the land as well, as they were part of the property.  So here is the beginning of the fuedal system.  Rome enforced this to secure its tax base.  
 
If the goal of feudalism was to preserve the agricultural based wealth of the ruling class, I am somewhat surprised that a more systematic effort was not made by the ruling class to apply the feudal concept to the industrial revolution.  Instead of being tied to the land, the ruling class could have protected their wealth by making the laborers tied to the factories through coerced  "contracts", contrived debts, endless apprentinceships etc.
 
Perhaps after the rennasiance, society developed a concept of humans rights to the extent that "Feudal Factories" were no longer possible in Europe.  I doubt that it was because the ruling classes had a change of heart.


The 1897 book I bought to answer our questions, contains perhaps all the information anyone could want, including names of tribes, the place of origin and routes they traveled if they were nomadic, and who fought whom.  It explains the monetary system in detail.  I will begin with the explanation of serfs as this originated with Rome.

"The slave of the early Empire had been changed into serfdom.   The slaves had become attached to the soil which they tilled.  They were no longer sold.  They were allowed to marry, and in accordance with the prevailing feudal customs received a bit of land.  At first the lord could tax his serfs at will, but gradually limits were set to the demands which he might make.  The serf paid an annual poll-tax, and if he married someone belonging to another domain he also paid a certain sum for the privilege of doing so.  He could neither be taken from his land, nor might he leave it; yet many of them ran away from their lords, and, passing themselves off for freemen, took service  with other lords.  If caught, however, they could be restored to their former lord; but if they could secure admission to the ranks of the clergy they thereby beccme free men.  They might also become free in other ways.  They might, if their master were willing, formally renounce him, surrender all their goods, and quit the domain.  On the other hand, the lord might set a serf free on the payment of a certain sum.  This became, indeed, a favorite way of raising money.  The lord would set free all the serfs of his domain and demand the payment of the fee.  Since they became his free tenants and must remain and till his land, he really lost nothing by setting them free, but rather gained.  On the other hand, people might be reduced to serfdom by force.  The conceptions of free and servile had become attached to soil.  Certain parts of a domain were called free, probably because they had always been occupied by free peasants, while other parts were called servile, probably because they had always been tilled by slaves who gradually became serfs.  If a free peasant occupied this servile land he thereby lost his free character and became a serf.  The free peasants were more nearly like renters who pay so much each year for the use of their lands either in money or in produce.  Their lands were also hereditary.  Being independent of their lord they could dispose of their possessions.  There was nothing to prevent them from amassing a considerable amount of property. "

History of Mediaval Europe 


Now Cryptic I can answer your question with the explanation of Citizens and cities that brought feudalism down.   But are we ready for that yet?    Should more be said about how the tribes became feudal states?  There is still quite a bit to say about this.

 


Edited by Athena - 23-Oct-2010 at 21:51
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456

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.