Feudal lords and feudalism - Knowledge Hypermarket. What is the feudal ladder

Feudal lords and feudalism.

Questions

1. What are the differences between the plot from the “Novel about Kis” and the famous fable by I. A. Krylov “The Crow and the Fox”?

2. What are your assumptions about the common roots of the above scene from “The Romance of the Fox” and Krylov’s fable?

3. Which “social group” does the author include the Fox and the Crow? Why do you think?

4. Is it possible to guess what class the poet belonged to, who worked on the plot of the Fox and Tjeslin for his poem?

Who are the feudal lords?

The peasants worked for their masters, who could be secular lords, the church (individual monasteries, parish churches, bishops) and the king himself. All these large landowners, who ultimately live thanks to the labor of dependent peasants, are united by historians under one concept - feudal lords. Relatively speaking, the entire population medieval Europe Until the cities became stronger, they could be divided into two very unequal parts. The vast majority were peasants, and from 2 to 5% would be among all feudal lords. We already understand that the feudal lords were not a layer at all, only sucking the last juice out of the peasants. Both were necessary for medieval society.

Feudal lords occupied a dominant position in medieval society, and in connection with this, the entire system of life of that time is often called feudalism. Accordingly, they talk about feudal states, feudal culture, feudal Europe...

The very word “feudal lords” seems to suggest that, in addition to the clergy, its most important part were warriors who received land holdings with dependent peasants for their service, i.e. the feuds already known to us. It is about this main part of the ruling layer of medieval Europe that the further story will go.

As you know, there was a strict hierarchy in the church, that is, a kind of pyramid of positions. At the very bottom of such a pyramid are tens and hundreds of thousands of parish priests and monks, and at the top is the Pope. A similar hierarchy existed among secular feudal lords. At the very top stood the king. He was considered the supreme owner of all land in the state. The king received his power from God himself through the rite of anointing and coronation. The king could reward his faithful comrades with vast possessions. But this is not a gift. The fief that received it from the king became his vassal. The main duty of any vassal is to serve his overlord, or lord (ʼʼseniorʼʼ) faithfully, in deed and with advice. Receiving a fief from the lord, the vassal swore an oath of allegiance to him. In some countries, the vassal was obliged to kneel before the lord, place his hands in his palms, thereby expressing his devotion, and then receive from him some object, for example, a banner, staff or glove, as a sign of acquiring a fief.

The king hands the vassal a banner as a sign of the transfer of large land holdings to him. Miniature (XIII century)

Each of the king's vassals also transferred part of his possessions to his people of lower rank. Οʜᴎ became vassals in relation to him, and he became their lord. One step down, everything was repeated again. However, it turned out to be something like a ladder, where almost everyone could be both a vassal and a lord at the same time. The king was the lord of everyone, but he was also considered a vassal of God. (It happened that some kings recognized themselves as vassals of the Pope.) The direct vassals of the king were most often dukes, the vassals of dukes were marquises, and the vassals of marquises were counts. The counts were the lords of the barons, and ordinary knights served as their vassals. Knights were most often accompanied on a campaign by squires - young men from the families of knights, but who themselves had not yet received the knighthood.

The picture became more complicated if a count received an additional fief directly from the king or from the bishop, or from a neighboring count. The matter sometimes became so complicated that it was difficult to understand who was whose vassal.

ʼʼThe vassal of my vassal is my vassalʼʼ?

In some countries, for example Germany, it was believed that everyone who stands on the steps of this “feudal ladder” is obliged to obey the king. In other countries, primarily in France, the rule was in force: the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal. This meant that any count would not carry out the will of his supreme lord - the king, if it contradicted the wishes of the immediate lord of the count - the marquis or the duke. So in this case, the king could only deal directly with the dukes. But if the count once received land from the king, then he had to choose which of his two (or several) overlords to support.

As soon as the war began, the vassals, at the call of the lord, began to gather under his banner. Having gathered his vassals, the lord went to his lord to carry out his orders. However, the feudal army consisted, as a rule, of separate detachments of large feudal lords. There was no firm unity of command - at best, important decisions were made at a military council in the presence of the king and all the main lords. At worst, each detachment acted at its own peril and risk, obeying only the commands of “their” count or duke.

Dispute between lord and vassal. Miniature (XII century)

The same is true in peaceful affairs. Some vassals were richer than their own lords, incl. and the king. They treated him with respect, but nothing more. No oath of allegiance prevented proud counts and dukes from even rebelling against their king if they suddenly felt his rights were a threat. Taking away his fief from an unfaithful vassal was not at all so easy. Ultimately, everything was decided by the balance of forces. If the lord was powerful, then the vassals were in awe of him. If the lord was weak, then turmoil reigned in his possessions: vassals attacked each other, neighbors, the possessions of their lord, robbed other people's peasants, and sometimes even destroyed churches. Endless rebellions and civil strife were commonplace during times of feudal fragmentation. Naturally, the peasants suffered the most from the quarrels of the masters among themselves. They did not have fortified castles where they could take refuge during an attack...

WHO ARE THE FEUDALS? Feudal lords are large land owners who ultimately live thanks to the labor of dependent peasants.

The feudal ladder is the order of mutual subordination of feudal lords. The king was the overlord of the large feudal lords, the large ones of the medium ones, and those, in turn, of the small ones. Vassals - feudal lords who received land from other feudal lords (military servant) Senior (suzerain) - owner of the land (senior)

As you know, there was a strict hierarchy in the church, that is, a kind of pyramid of positions. At the very bottom of such a pyramid are tens and hundreds of thousands of parish priests and monks, and at the top is the Pope. A similar hierarchy existed among secular feudal lords. At the very top stood the king. He was considered the supreme owner of all land in the state. The king received his power from God himself through the rite of anointing and coronation. The king could reward his faithful comrades with vast possessions. But this is not a gift. The fief that received it from the king became his vassal. The main duty of any vassal is to serve his overlord, or seigneur (“senior”) faithfully, in deed and with advice. Receiving a fief from the lord, the vassal swore an oath of allegiance to him. In some countries, the vassal was obliged to kneel before the lord, place his hands in his palms, thereby expressing his devotion, and then receive from him some object, such as a banner, staff or glove, as a sign of acquiring a fief.

Each of the king's vassals also transferred part of his possessions to his people of lower rank. They became vassals in relation to him, and he became their lord. One step down, everything was repeated again. Thus, it was like a ladder, where almost everyone could be both a vassal and a lord at the same time. The king was the lord of all, but he was also considered a vassal of God. (It happened that some kings recognized themselves as vassals of the Pope.) The direct vassals of the king were most often dukes, the vassals of dukes were marquises, and the vassals of marquises were counts. The counts were the lords of the barons, and ordinary knights served as their vassals. Knights were most often accompanied on a campaign by squires - young men from the families of knights, but who themselves had not yet received the knighthood. The picture became more complicated if a count received an additional fief directly from the king or from the bishop, or from a neighboring count. The matter sometimes became so complicated that it was difficult to understand who was whose vassal.

“MY VASSAL’S VASSAL IS MY VASSAL” In some countries, for example Germany, it was believed that everyone who stands on the steps of this “feudal ladder” is obliged to obey the king. In other countries, primarily in France, the rule was: the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal. This meant that any count would not carry out the will of his supreme lord - the king, if it contradicts the wishes of the immediate lord of the count - the marquis or the duke. So in this case the king could only deal directly with the dukes. But if the count once received land from the king, then he had to choose which of his two (or several) overlords to support. As soon as the war began, the vassals, at the call of the lord, began to gather under his banner. Having gathered his vassals, the lord went to his lord to carry out his orders. Thus, the feudal army consisted, as a rule, of separate detachments of large feudal lords. There was no firm unity of command - at best, important decisions were made at a military council in the presence of the king and all the main lords. At worst, each detachment acted at its own peril and risk, obeying only the orders of “their” count or duke.

The same is true in peaceful affairs. Some vassals were richer than their own lords, including the king. They treated him with respect, but nothing more. No oath of allegiance prevented proud counts and dukes from even rebelling against their king if they suddenly felt a threat to their rights from him. Taking away his fief from an unfaithful vassal was not at all so easy. Ultimately, everything was decided by the balance of forces. If the lord was powerful, then the vassals trembled before him. If the lord was weak, then turmoil reigned in his possessions: the vassals attacked each other, their neighbors, the possessions of their lord, robbed other people's peasants, and it happened that they destroyed churches. Endless rebellions and civil strife were commonplace during times of feudal fragmentation. Naturally, the peasants suffered the most from the quarrels of the masters among themselves. They did not have fortified castles where they could take refuge during an attack. . .

As you know, there was a strict hierarchy in the church, that is, a kind of pyramid of positions. At the very bottom of such a pyramid are tens and hundreds of thousands of parish priests and monks, and at the top is the Pope. A similar hierarchy existed among secular feudal lords. At the very top stood the king. He was considered the supreme owner of all land in the state. The king received his power from God himself through the rite of anointing and coronation. The king could reward his faithful comrades with vast possessions. But this is not a gift. The fief that received it from the king became his vassal. The main duty of any vassal is to serve his overlord, or seigneur (“senior”) faithfully, in deed and with advice. Receiving a fief from the lord, the vassal swore an oath of allegiance to him. In some countries, the vassal was obliged to kneel before the lord, place his hands in his palms, thereby expressing his devotion, and then receive from him some object, such as a banner, staff or glove, as a sign of acquiring a fief.

The king hands the vassal a banner as a sign of the transfer of large land holdings to him. Miniature (XIII century)

Each of the king's vassals also transferred part of his possessions to his people of lower rank. They became vassals in relation to him, and he became their lord. One step down, everything was repeated again. Thus, it was like a ladder, where almost everyone could be both a vassal and a lord at the same time. The king was the lord of all, but he was also considered a vassal of God. (It happened that some kings recognized themselves as vassals of the Pope.) The direct vassals of the king were most often dukes, the vassals of dukes were marquises, and the vassals of marquises were counts. The counts were the lords of the barons, and ordinary knights served as their vassals. Knights were most often accompanied on a campaign by squires - young men from the families of knights, but who themselves had not yet received the knighthood.

The picture became more complicated if a count received an additional fief directly from the king or from the bishop, or from a neighboring count. The matter sometimes became so complicated that it was difficult to understand who was whose vassal.

“My vassal’s vassal is my vassal”?

In some countries, such as Germany, it was believed that everyone who stood on the steps of this “feudal ladder” was obliged to obey the king. In other countries, primarily in France, the rule was: the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal. This meant that any count would not carry out the will of his supreme lord - the king, if it contradicts the wishes of the immediate lord of the count - the marquis or the duke. So in this case the king could only deal directly with the dukes. But if the count once received land from the king, then he had to choose which of his two (or several) overlords to support.

As soon as the war began, the vassals, at the call of the lord, began to gather under his banner. Having gathered his vassals, the lord went to his lord to carry out his orders. Thus, the feudal army consisted, as a rule, of separate detachments of large feudal lords. There was no firm unity of command - at best, important decisions were made at a military council in the presence of the king and all the main lords. At worst, each detachment acted at its own peril and risk, obeying only the orders of “their” count or duke.

Dispute between lord and vassal. Miniature (XII century)

The same is true in peaceful affairs. Some vassals were richer than their own lords, including the king. They treated him with respect, but nothing more. No oath of allegiance prevented proud counts and dukes from even rebelling against their king if they suddenly felt a threat to their rights from him. Taking away his fief from an unfaithful vassal was not at all so easy. Ultimately, everything was decided by the balance of forces. If the lord was powerful, then the vassals trembled before him. If the lord was weak, then turmoil reigned in his possessions: the vassals attacked each other, their neighbors, the possessions of their lord, robbed other people's peasants, and it happened that they destroyed churches. Endless rebellions and civil strife were commonplace during times of feudal fragmentation. Naturally, the peasants suffered the most from the quarrels of the masters among themselves. They did not have fortified castles where they could take refuge during an attack...

God's peace

The church sought to limit the scope of civil strife. From the end of the 10th century. she persistently called for “God’s peace” or “God’s truce” and declared an attack committed, for example, on major Christian holidays or on the eve of them, a grave sin. Christmas Eve and Lent were sometimes considered the time of “God’s peace.” Sometimes during each week, the days from Saturday evening (and sometimes from Wednesday evening) until Monday morning were proclaimed “peaceful”. Violators of “God’s peace” faced church punishment. The Church declared it sinful on other days to attack unarmed pilgrims, priests, peasants, and women. A fugitive who took refuge from his pursuers in a temple could neither be killed nor subjected to violence. Anyone who violated this right of refuge insulted both God and the church. The traveler could have saved himself at the nearest roadside cross. Such crosses can still be seen in many Catholic countries.

Subsequently, restrictions on military action began to be introduced by royal decrees. And the feudal lords themselves began to agree among themselves: no matter how they quarreled, they should not touch either the churches, or the plowman in the field, or the mill in each other’s possessions. A set of “rules of war” gradually emerged, which became part of a kind of “code of chivalric behavior.”

Questions

1. Is it possible to equate the concepts of “feudalism” and “Middle Ages”?

2. Explain who owned the village if the knight received it as a fief from the baron, and he, in turn, from his lord - the count, the count - from the duke, and the duke - from the king?

3. Why did the church take upon itself the trouble of introducing “God’s peace”?

4. What is common between the church’s demands for “God’s peace” and its calls for lords to go liberate the Holy Sepulcher?

From the “Song of Roland” (XII century) about the knightly duel between Charlemagne and the Arab emir

The day has passed, the evening hour is approaching, But the enemies do not sheathe the sword. Brave are those who brought together the army for battle. Their battle cry sounds, as before, menacingly “Precioz!” - the Arab emir shouts proudly. Karl "Montjoie!" in response, he throws out loudly. By the voice, one recognized the other. They met in the middle of the field. They both use spears, strike the enemy on the patterned shield, pierce him under the thick pommel, rip open the hems of their chain mail, but both remain unharmed. Their saddle girths burst. The fighters fell sideways from their horses, but immediately jumped to their feet deftly, throwing away their damask swords to continue the combat again. Only death will put an end to it. Aoi! The ruler of dear France is brave, But even he will not frighten the emir. The enemies have drawn their steel swords, They hit each other’s shields with all their strength. The tops, leather, double hoops - Everything was torn, shattered, splintered, Now the fighters are covered with one armor. Blades from helmets strike sparks. This fight will not stop until the emir or Karl obeys. Aoi! The emir exclaimed: “Karl, heed the advice: Repent of your guilt and ask for forgiveness. My son was killed by you - I know that. You unlawfully invaded this land, but if you recognize me as overlord, you will receive it as fief" ( Flax ownership, or flax, is the same as a fief.) - “This does not suit me,” Karl replied. “I will not reconcile myself with an infidel forever.” But I will be your friend until death, if you agree to be baptized and convert to our holy faith.” The emir replied: “Your speech is absurd.” And again the swords rang against the armor. Aoi! The Emir is endowed with great power. He hits Karl on the head with a sword. The king's helmet was cut by a blade, passing through his hair. Causes a palm-wide wound, tears off the skin, exposes the bone. Karl staggered and almost fell off his feet, but the Lord did not let him overcome. He sent Gabriel to him again, And the angel said: “What is the matter with you, king?” The king heard what the angel said. He forgot about death, forgot about fear. His strength and memory returned to him at once. With a French sword he struck the enemy, pierced a richly decorated cone, crushed his forehead and splashed the Arab's brain, and cut the emir down to his beard with steel. The pagan fell and was gone. Cry: "Montjoie!" throws the emperor.

From “Songs of Guillaume Orange” (12th century) about a quarrel between a vassal and a lord

Count Guillaume is brave, powerful and growing. He restrained his horse only in front of the palace, There, under the olive tree, the thick one dismounted, Walking along the marble stairs, Stepping so that the greaves fly off the good Cordovan boots. He plunged the court into confusion and fear. The king stood up, pointing to the throne: “Guillaume, if you please sit next to me.” “No, sir,” said the dashing baron. “I just need to tell you something.” The king answered him: “I am ready to listen.” “Ready or not,” cried the dashing baron, “And you will listen, friend Louis, to everything. To please you, I was not a flatterer, I did not deprive orphans and widows of their inheritance, But I served you with a sword more than once, I won the upper hand for you in more than one battle, I killed many young brave men, And this sin is now on me to the grave: Whoever they were , God created them. He will exact from me for his sons.” “Sir Guillaume,” said the valiant king, “I ask you to be patient a little longer. Spring will pass, the summer heat will strike, and then one of my peers ( Peer (“equal”) is an honorary title for a representative of the highest nobility in England and medieval France.) will die, and I will hand over his inheritance to you, as well as the widow, if you are not averse to it.” Guillaume's anger almost drove him crazy. The count exclaimed: “I swear by the Holy Cross, The knight is unable to wait for such a long time, Since he is not yet old, but poor in the treasury, My good horse needs food, And I don’t know where I will get food. No, both the rise and the slope are too steep for those who secretly await someone’s death And covet someone else’s good.” “King Louis,” the count said proudly, “All peers will confirm my words. In the year when I left your land, in a letter to Gefier Spoletsky promised that he would give me half the state if I agreed to become his son-in-law. But it would be easy, if I did this, for me to move troops against France.” This is what the king said out of malice, which Guillaume had better not hear. But this only aggravated the discord: They went even stronger... “I swear, Senor Guillaume,” the king said, “by the Apostle who watches over Nero’s meadow,( This refers to the Apostle Peter. Nero once laid out a park in that part of Rome where the papal residence was later located.) There are sixty peers, your peers, to whom I also gave nothing.” Guillaume replied: “Sir, you are lying, I have no equal among baptized people. You don't count: you're wearing a crown. I do not place myself above the crown bearer. Let those whom you were talking about with me approach the palace one by one on dashing horses, in good armor, and if I don’t finish them all off in a fight, and at the same time you, if you wish, I will no longer lay claim to fief.” . The worthy king bowed his head, Then again he raised his eyes to the count. “Senor Guillaume,” exclaimed the sovereign, “I see that you are harboring evil against us!” “That’s my breed,” said the count. “Whoever serves evil people is always like this: The more energy he wastes on them, the less he wishes them good.”

1. How to divide?

Why couldn't the king take all the lands into his sole possession? With whom and why did he always have to share it?

Because the king needed support and support to maintain power, so he shared the land with the barons who fought for him, as well as with the church, which had to support the king for this.

2. For a while or forever?

What are the two signs of a feud? How could land, once granted to a baron, remain in his family forever?

1st sign of a feud - he complains about his service;

The 2nd sign of a feud is that it could be inherited.

The land, once granted to the baron, could remain in his family forever, provided that his children, and then grandchildren, would perform the same service to the king as their father.

4. Vassal of my vassal.

Why did the norm “The vassal of my vassal is my vassal” operate in England and vassals of all levels equally had to obey the king?

Because in England, after the capture by the Normans, every landowner took an oath to the king and was considered a subject of the king. Therefore, the king was the supreme owner of all the land.

5. Warriors-gentlemen.

Why do you think the medieval nobility considered military affairs more honorable than arable farming? Who could disagree with this opinion?

Because warfare brought wealth, lands and titles, while agriculture could not provide this. Therefore, it was believed that fighting enemies and defending one’s land was more honorable than working on the land. The peasants themselves, who worked on the lands of the rich day and night and fed them, might not agree with this opinion.

6. Land of the Church.

Suggest why the secular nobility lost their lands much more often than the Church?

Because going against the church in the Middle Ages meant going against God and sinning. The church, on the contrary, only acquired land, since every rich man wanted to “appease” God through the prayers of the monks and paid them with land for this.

Questions at the end of the paragraph.

1. Name at least three reasons why land was the main wealth in the Middle Ages. What significance did the size of this wealth have for the position of people in society?

Land was the main wealth, as it was

Source of life and food;

Method of payment for the service or services;

A reflection of a person's social status.

How big amount the land a person owned, the higher his position was.

2. Determine who owns the land, if the king gave it as a fief to the duke, he gave one third of it as a fief to his baron, he gave it in the same way to his knight, and the knight to his squire. Why was such a complex ownership system needed?

All this land still belonged to the king. And such a complex system was necessary in order to gather its subjects to conduct military operations in case of danger. Each vassal had to report to the service of his lord and eventually the king would gather them all as the supreme lord.

Questions for additional material.

1. Why did they prefer to formalize vassal relations in the Middle Ages not through written contracts with signatures and seals, but through ritual actions?

Because adherence to traditions in the Middle Ages was more important than written contracts and was a matter of honor.

2. Why was the vassal oath taken publicly?

In order for as many people as possible to witness the established relationship and to break the oath it became increasingly difficult. And if the vassal nevertheless breaks the oath, he would not be able to avoid public reproach.

1. List what actions of a vassal can be considered as betrayal of his lord.

The betrayal of a vassal was: leaving his lord on the battlefield, and saving himself, attacking the castle of his lord, killing his relatives.

2. Do you think the compiler of this document “invented” possible crimes of vassals or relied on the actual experience of relations between lords and vassals?

I believe that the author of the document relied on actual experience.

In medieval studies, since the time of F. Engels, France has been assigned the definition of the country of classical feudalism, which emphasizes the completeness and expressiveness of its forms. But this definition is valid only for the northern and central parts of the country, in which the symbiosis of Roman and barbarian principles was most fully developed. These same territories also had the most favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, mainly grain.

The lands in the basins of the Seine and Loire rivers, in the areas adjacent to Paris and Orleans, were distinguished by favorable geographical conditions, there were fertile lands, a developed network of roads and navigable rivers was inherited from the Roman Empire, and the population density was relatively high.

Formation of the feudal class

Note 1

At the end of the 11th century. There is an increase in the number of feudal lords and its disintegration into several groups. From the large lords, who, as a rule, traced their ancestry to the Carolingian nobility, numerous side branches were separated, from which a significant group of middle feudal lords was formed.

In quantitative terms, the predominant category was small feudal lords, people who came from vassals and servants of the king and secular magnates. Another important source of replenishment for the lower strata of the feudal ladder was the rural community, or rather, free members of the community who became professional warriors.

By the 11th century. the feudal class as a whole had already separated from other classes, becoming a closed privileged group, membership to which was determined by birth. By that time, the feudal lords had monopolized almost all land ownership, which became a reflection of the legal norm that had developed in society “there is no land without a lord.”

The allods of free community members became an exception even in the southern regions, where their numbers were greater than in the north. Communal lands also fell under the authority of the lords, the use of which by the peasants was now accompanied by the payment of certain duties.

Gradually, banal rights of lords were formed, monopolizing the rights to the oven, mill and grape press, which had previously been the collective property of the community.

Feudal staircase

The completeness of the process of forming the feudal estate is also indicated by the fact that a consistent hierarchy (feudal ladder) has developed among it:

1. the lowest level was represented by a group of “single-shield” knights who had no vassals;

2. After 3-4 intermediate steps, on which the wealthier feudal lords were located, there were the highest layers of the hierarchy - the rulers of significant territories:

   • Dukes of Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Aquitaine,
   • Counts of Champagne.

Specifics of feudal relations in France

The hierarchy of French feudal lords was characterized by the norm: “The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal,” which preserved the privileges of large feudal lords from the encroachments of the central government, but at the same time ensured the internal cohesion of this class.

The implementation of a monopoly on land allowed the feudal lords in France to acquire significant political power. The main political prerogative was the right of legal proceedings, court fines from which were a significant source of income for the lords. Large feudal lords also had the right of supreme justice.

The process of formation of the ruling class in France was faster than in most Western European countries and was more complete. The formation of the feudal-dependent peasantry was a slower process, which also generally ended in the 11th century.

Note 2