Tribal states vs feudal states in 10-11th century

I like the argument, "yes and no". 

Edited by Athena - 14-Oct-2010 at 18:41

I think what we are arguing here is the nature of human nature, just as John Locke and his peers might have done. 

Both option A and B indicate civilizations, because the populations are too large for personal relationships.  This requires some sort of religion that unites people who are not united by family ties.

Hey, hey we might look at the subject of this thread through a study of marriage.  The population of a fief would be too small for healthy breeding, wouldn't it?  When people moved around they could mix and have healthy breeding.  If they aren't moving around, breeding can become a problem.  Marriage law or custom, makes someone who isn't one of us, one of us, or can excommunicate the son or daughter who married outside of the social group.  Marriage defines a person's social position, rights and duties.  These laws or customs are what we impose on human nature. 

So Cryptic, if I understand you correctly, the tribe and feudal state would both have intimate personal relationships, however the tribe could be nomadic and the feudal fief obviously is not.   I think John Locke would argue the social positions imposed by the fief are man made and not natural.  Can we argue this is the same for tribes?   I don't think so.  May be should we clarifying the size of these populations, because size makes a big difference.  Always small social organizations will operate on a personal level.  Large social organizations become impersonal and operate by laws and customs.  People must have a sense of history to have a sense of custom.

It also seems tribes took on the character of strong leaders.  One tribe might be tolerant and another intolerant, depending on the leader.  The preferences of such leadership may be passed on for generations, so that they become a tribal identity.  That is, the characteristics of powerful leaders become the characteristics of the whole tribe.  I am quite sure what happens depends on external pressures.  If a tribe is settled at a mine, it will have to fight for it, or if the right people come by, the tribe will learn trading.   A pasture can be found somewhere else, so these people might move instead of fight.   Or if people experience a 7 year draught,  defending the food supply becomes vital, and a leader who fails to do this will be replaced by one who does.  I think we need to be more specific about what we are talking about, because right now the subject is too broad to develop a clear picture of what happened and why? 

Originally posted by opuslola Dear Mosquito, in the above quotation, taken from page one of this discussion thread, and in one particualar part of the above quote, you wrote; "The Danes were invading all the European shores, conquering Normandy and England, parts of the civilised and christianised feudal Europe. Not to mention less civilised Ireland. Denmark was also able to keep its independence from the Empire. Around the year 960 AD Denmark begins its christianisation and slowly starts to follow feudal pattern." But, you words above tend to obscure or deny the following, at least concerning Ireland! Thus; From Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland "On the arrival of Saint Patrick and other Christian missionaries in the early to mid-5th century AD, Christianity began to subsume the indigenous Celtic religion, a process that was completed by the year 600. From around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various regional dynasties, yet both of these institutions proved strong enough to survive and assimilate the invaders. The coming of Cambro-Norman mercenaries under Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, nicknamed Strongbow, in 1169 marked the beginning of more than 700 years of direct Norman and, later, English involvement in Ireland. The English crown did not begin asserting full control of the island until after the English Reformation, when questions over the loyalty of Irish vassals provided the initial impetus for a series of military campaigns between 1534 and 1691." So you will see that our consensual history has determined that it was Ireland, and only Ireland, that was first converted to Christianity in the Isles we now call those of Great Britain! And this conversion supposedly started in the "mid-5th century AD!", and supposedly ended with the total conversion of the isle about "600" A.D.! Yet you refer to Ireland, in your own words above as considering that Ireland was "less civilized" than the rest of Europe! How do you defend your position? Do you consider the Christianism of Ireland as a less than civiliziationism than those other areas of Europe who were just hearing of it hundreds of years later? My regards,

Edited by Mosquito - 18-Oct-2010 at 08:09

Cryptic, it is such a pleasure to discuss things with you. . 

Originally posted by Athena As for Irland and civilization, people on islands have the advantage of a degree of protection.  They also have a disadvantage of isolation. .  So we have civilization, but not the feudal order of Europe, right?  This was the advantage of trade and isolation.

Thank you so much Opuslola.  I did not find an account of Irish monks resisting a new wave of monks, but I found information that could be life transforming for me.  The site melded together Celtic paganism with Christianity and this has spiritual significance to me. 

In the effort to find the desired information, it occurred to me, these people did not have bibles to read.  Christianity was spread without bibles.  This would make it much easier to convert people who already had similar beliefs and carried their stories verbally.  Like the game telephone, we tend to hear what makes sense to us, and this distorts the original message.  So "their" story can sound like  "our" story.  We all like confirmation of what we believe, so Christianity can be a confirmation of what we might call pagan ideas. 

It was also made clear, that the conditions of more primitive times, encouraged a faith in supernatural powers that we do not experience today.  We just are not putting our faith in God, and this dove tails into what Cryptic said.   I love Cryptic's explanation of the honor society verses feudalism.  Man, I did not expect this thread to turn into a religious debate, but it is unavoidable.   

http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/celtic/celtic.s
This site explains how Celtic influenced Christianity is different form say early German Christianity.

Let us jump right to the Franks, who understood power.  How to get it and how to use it.  Germany had been militarized, and the Franks organized this region, using the sword to convert people to Christianity, and their power structure. 

The guardians of truth are confusion and paradox.  Come on Cryptic.  Carry on your from explanation of honor societies.  Chivalry spread over what countries?  Where did it origiiniate?  How does it work with the feudal order?  To whom are we loyal and why?   Does perhaps concepts of spirituality play an important role in our understanding of honor and human rights?  Is spirituality only a belief in ghost , angles and demons, or is it a sense that earth is sacred and spirit is in everything, so when we are honorable, we are in harmony with earth spirits?  I have a sense of an important different relationship with nature and spirituality.  This difference is manifest politically and both sides of this difference can be Christian. 


Edited by Athena - 20-Oct-2010 at 12:45

But, Athena, mining seems to have approached it!

A company man that "owes his soul to the company store!"

Concerning the conflicts between Irish Catholic Monks and later Monks trying to convert England proper, please see, as a start;

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Early_Christian_Britain.htm

Holding people to the land, began with the down fall of Rome.  A similiar thing happened in LA. California.  When industry began leaving LA, so did the people with money, so the city had a terrible time getting enough revenue to pay city expenses.  They tried to hold people in the city, by insisting people who had city jobs, had to live in the city limits.  I left the area and don't know how that worked them, but Rome had the same problem.  Let's say people with a small pot of land were the middle class.  Those below them and those above them, didn't pay taxes.  Rome lost control of its spending and had to tax the people more and more, so the folks with the small plots just walked away.  They went into the city to get jobs, or even became slaves.  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.  

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by opuslola Yes, it is easy to disregard Ireland, since later sources, (sorry I don't have them to display) show that those monks/priests that converted Ireland, actually "fought" with later day monks/priests that were trying to converrt England! However, Vatican history mentions that the Irish priests were in almost constant contact with the POPE, etc.! I am also not aware of any  early Christian feuds between Irish and other monks attemting to convert england.  I know that in general terms the Irish focused on their fellow Celts (alot of the effort in Great Britain was centered on Scotland) Likewise, there were Irish missions to celtic cultural areas of France (Britanny) and Spain (Galicia).     I dont know whether the Irish prefered other celtic peoples for cultural reasons or if there was a dispute /  territory split with rival monks. Originally posted by Athena I love Cryptic's explanation of the honor society verses feudalism.  Man, I did not expect this thread to turn into a religious debate, but it is unavoidable.    Thanks for the compliment.  I think it is very interesting that honor society fringes were not heavily feudalized. Even in the USA, Appalachian mountaineers in the south retained an honor society and family based loyalty system to an even higher degree than other southerners.  The share cropper system (vaguely similar to feudalism) never developed in Appalachia. Of course, living in mountain areas with poor farm land also helped avoid share cropping as well.

My recent reading makes it clear the Celts were divided.  Those in the out laying areas, such as the Irish and Scotts were the most opposed to Roman rule.  But then the problem with the Romans grew as it began to fall.  Things were so bad, Romans were turned against Rome.  The more I read of Roman history, the better I understand the concern for our own governments.   The drive to spread civilization is one thing, and the struggle to maintain the economy and provide necessary defense and services is another, counterproductive reality. 

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.  So there is not only a east/west division in the church, that is sort of Roman-Greek division, but also this Celtic liberal division. 

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.  If one can do better serving the king, than the parents are no longer so important.  If the king says burn your neighbors down, and what you get comes through the king, you burn your neighbors down, right?  Can't we see this around us today?  At least for the young, and by the time the young might get smart, the parents would be dead.  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.