Talk:Feudalism/Archive 1

Feudalism vs. Primogeniture vs. Handing down of power
Maybe I've got this wrong, but this says feudalism has more to do with military benefit than power.. this seems wrong..
 * (the feudal system by with a person was born into ruling families and came to power as part of their family inheritance) (source) --Cyberman 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Original outline and purpose of article
Good start! Now we need at least 2 paragraphs on the later legal adaptations and 'invention' of feudalism and then at least one paragraph decrying all careless modern usages! --MichaelTinkler, fellow-medievalist of the estimable JHK

You should also have a paragraph or two explaining how the Medieval kingdoms, commonly understood to be ruled by an all-encompassing feudal hierarchy, were actually administered. I understand this is a broad topic with a great deal of variety, but it wouldn't hurt to spread some information to take the place of the misinformation being stamped out. I for one had no fun trying to find out how why there what counts and dukes did in pre-Carolingian Europe, and look forward to anything you decide to add.

Btw, when feudalism is used to describe things like the Persian empire (and it has been), I suspect it stems not so much from misunderstanding of how such systems worked as from using the term in a much broader sense than Medievalists do. --Josh Grosse

Josh -- it's even worse than you think...

for example, what to counts and dukes do, and how do their titles relate? Well, in the 5th through 9th centuries, the titles were always in Latin, and so we had comes (pl. comites and dux (duces). These were Roman military titles that had survived the Gallo-Roman period and carried on as that society became kinda synthesized with the new Frankish inhabitants of Gaul ("Roman" was a prestigious thing, so the titles stayed on as office cum fashion statement, in a way).

In the 8th and 9th centuries, we see dux used more often in conjunction with military appointments to border regions, but not exclusively. As for counts, there were cases of particular comites who seemed to be connected to particular comitati, now translated as counties. We can even see that many of these known pairings occured where the comes belonged to a Frankish leading family that had been in power for a long period and may have been occasional rivals of the Carolingians for over two hundred years. But sometimes, they weren't. We even have a source that talks about one of Charlemagne's comites -- he was also a servus which can mean slave or serf (different types of unfree people).

THEN, if you talk about England, where conventional Western Civ wisdom will tell you that a comes was known as a jarl -- Anglo-Saxon for Earl (today, counts and earls ar the same rank, pretty much -- you see Earls/Countesses in Britain, and Counts/Countesses in other places -- except where the German Graf fell into use. Which leads us to the Counts of the March, like Roland...or the Markengraf/Margrave...except that, like I said, often the person in charge of a March/Mark, at least in eastern Francia, was a dux.

Where was I? Oh ...and if you want to talk about better feudal models, there is also Japan from about the 16th century (more or less...I think it began before the Battle of Shimenoseki in (maybe, this is off the top of my head) 1621) where, at least under the Tokugawa shoguns, you see something that looks much more like what we expect feudalism to look like.

So Josh, I guess I'll be going there, but it's going to be one confusing chunk at a time. Actually, I think some of that stuff might better go under Carolingian administration?? JHK

Probably, and then we can have a pointer to it here. The stuff about duces and comites I had already figured out, but only after much laborious searching, which I think we should save people whenenver possible (and much of what I put into wikipedia is for that purpose). We should make things as simple as possible while still being true. Maybe only the pseudofeudal system of the Carolingians should be discussed, and then deviations from it (i.e., other countries) can be discussed on separate pages. But I can't help, since I know very little in this field.

Early Requests for Clarification
This article focuses on what different historians say about feudalism, which is interesting, but it never answers the fundamental questions lay people have: What is feudalism? What are the basic facts about feudalism historians agree on? Without that, I'm utterly lost. --DanKeshet

Hi Dan -- the basic facts are the ones presented in the article as the middle of the road approach. It's a society/system/ism that revolves around a personal contract, and usually includes fiefs, fealty, homage, and possibly other binding oaths. Other than that, it's all pretty much up to the people involved and local custom. JHK

the -ism question
Contractuality yes, but neither the article nor the discussion seem to extend the concept below the level of knightly vassal: what about the bond of peasant to lord & land which underlay the others? Now it may not have been quite so voluntary, nor was it considered so honourable by those above, but I'd contend that the relationship was fundamentally the same - service and supply in return for protection and tenure - and that this rather than the form of undertakings was the essence of the "feudal" order. That said, the "-ism" I can live without. David Parker

David, you are understandably under a common misconception, i.e., that the feudal system had something to do with "common people." It didn't and then again, it did. That is, only free people could enter into such a contractual bond. In the Middle Ages, especially up through about the 11th c., Germanic peoples (which is most of Western Europe) had several legal categories of people, ranging from free to slave -- there were actually people who weren't considered free, but were also not slaves (actually owned by others). Legal status didn't always affect rank, either -- one of Charlemagne's comites(loosely translated as counts) was unfree!

Medieval society was also somewhat fluid, in that a peasant might be sent to fight in place of his ecclesiastic landlord (after bishops were finally banned from fighting themselves, which was relatively late), and could conceivably be rewarded with some kind of wealth or honor for his fighting. The whole formal knighthood and chivalry thing is also pretty late -- didn't start till at least the 11th c.

What you are talking about is generally called manorialism and you're right in that its existence was in many ways fundamental -- but it really should have its own article. I haven't tackled it because it's a very big and complex topic, and I believe that one shouldn't write an article on something that complex unless one is prepared to do the research first -- and I need to focus a bit more on later periods at the moment. If you want to try it, I'd suggest reading at least Georges Duby and (Dooernhard? or maybe van Cayynegun -- something like that -- can't remember the Dutch economic historians off the top of my head)on the early Medieval economy, and Blum on peasants. The Blum book will show you why the system is so complex -- Central and Eastern Europe developed in a dramatically different way than the west, and England was very different from the Continent. Your average history text is a bad general picture that is usually very misleading. I hope that any wiki article on the subject is not just a repetition of generally held mistruths --- and would really be annoyed to see the infamous droit de seigneur mentioned in anything but an incredibly comprehensive article that makes it clear that this was a rarity and hardly the rule. Sorry to talk so much, but I figure a few good reasons makes for fewer battles in the long run. Anyway, manorialism should only get a very small mention in the feudalism article, precisely because one of the points of the article is to clarify, not perpetuate the popular misconception! JHK, who prefers her Middle Ages warts and all!
 * yep, manorialism needs an article, and no, I'm not volunteering to write it - I'm going to plead art-historianism for that. Doehaard, I think. - Rene? Renee? It's available in English, at least. -- MichaelTinkler

Not wishing to be argumentative, JHK, I don't honestly see it as a misconception, rather a legitimate variation of definition which should be included: you youself described feudalism as a "society/system/ism" two messages back, and while a system may be confined to a small section of society, society itself is something much bigger.

I think a big part of the problem is perhaps that while one can speek of "manorial" economic organisation it's only "feudal" that conveys the contractuality (sometimes wholly voluntary, usually less so) common to the organisation of obligations from top to bottom. That's why I don't think "manorialism" is sufficient, though that doesn't necessarily make the broader definition of feudalism ideal.

The best social sciences dictionary I found when doing a comparison gave IIRC seven(!) definitions covering two pages: I can't remember the title, though I'll recognise the authors when I find it (it was published in the 1960s with Unesco funding, and has since been replaced with a new and to my mind inferior edition - I'll try to track it down). David Parker

David -- Michael is right it's Rene Doehaard I was thinking of. I think that a social sciences dictionary is probably not the best place to look for info -- and since the entry is on Feudalism, and was written particularly to clarify common misconceptions and describe the debate around the term -- specifically for non-historians who were taught about this beautiful, clean-cut social pyramid, with interesting diagrams of subinfeudation, etc. Honestly, the kind of system you are looking for did not exist in that form. Nor should manorialism be discussed in this article, because it is such a big can of worms -- contracts did not exist, nor was the situation ever regularized. Placing manorialism in this article as anything more than a minor reference with its own article would only serve to perpetuate a myth. JHK But I don't think it does clarify that debate - that is, the debate over the term's broader interprestation. It isn't clarification to state that different interpretations are merely misconceptions, and the reason given - that the notion of "feudal society" straitjackets a variety of irregular phenomena into a rigid model (how? - doesn't that depend on the definition itself?) isn't satisfactory: for it to "impart a false sense of regularity" presupposes that one assumes regularity when defining the term. What I have in mind certainly isn't a "beautiful, clean-cut social system" (neither, for that matter, is the one presented in the article), but rather an order largely defined by its unsystematic character (we had a slave burgess in Ipswich, too). Now such an inclusive notion of "feudal" may be considered unhelpful, but I fail to see how it is invalidated by the breadth of local variation or the phenomenon of allegiance to more than one person any more than the narrower concept of feudalism discussed in the article. David Parker

feudalism vs. manorialism
David, here's a link to a pair of online reviews of one of the most important books in the 'feudalism is not a useful term' debate:
 * http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/reynolds-2%20reviews.html

The book is Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals (1994) ISBN: 0198206488

The question is not settled, but the use of the term 'feudalism' is certainly unsettled. 'Manorialism' is the standard term (since the mid? late 70s?) used to describe the top-to-bottom system, with 'feudal' retreating into more and more precisely delimited contexts.

--MichaelTinkler Hi again David (and sorry that ipswich town is not doing as well this season as last)-- I think part of the problem here is that I worked this article up to deal with what we know (i.e. the wiki human knowledge thing) rather than what we think we know -- which may be slightly different in England than the US. The impetus was a response to a series of incorrect usages of 'feudal' and 'feudalism' in other articles -- usage which (although used by people from very different backgrounds) was based more on the mythology of feudalism than the reality. I absolutely agree that the situation was more complex, and can see (some distant time from now) sections on regional variations. For the time being, though, I would like to see what I think is a very solid article, in that it represents both past and present human knowledge in a fairly concise manner, stay that way, perhaps with a link to manorialism. As someone who has taught this (you may have, too), I find that, when I give the bare-bones explanation as given here, people will then extrapolate and see the kind of connections you mention, but in a more realistic context. They also ask more questions about mediaeval society that way. Giving them the same old, superinclusive content may be easier and seem more beneficial, but the just end up continuing the same old misconceptions about society in the middle ages -- focus on the same old movie version in their heads... JHK de-mystifying the MA, because the truth is much more interesting! Thanks for the background, JHK: I think you're right that the narrow feudal/broad manorial perspective is probably more entrenched in the U.S. than on this side of the water, which perhaps raises an NPOV-related issue of whether U.S. practice should predominate when articles touch on such semantic divergence.

More fundamentally, though, I still think the article fails in seeking to disprove the "superinclusive" conception without defining its content in a way that permits its refutation: I can understand that you don't want it to be mired in a vast discussion of the whole "feudal + manorial" complex, but I can honestly see no alternative to presenting the elements of "feudalism +" in a systematic manner that allows their shortcomings to be addressed.

I'm unconvinced by your suggestion that readers will be empowered to extrapolate from the narrow model: I feel that the selection of one approach is likely to carry a connotation of finality and exclusivity in the context of an encyclopedia, which is another reason to include others, even if only to point out their inconsistencies (though I don't think any model is problem-free - which to me is all the more reason to open the concept up rather than to abandon it or to narrow it to a dwindling remnant of core phenomena).

Lastly, I think the "-ism" may be a part of the problem (redolent as it is of the accursed "system"): would entries on "feudal"/"feudal relations" or "manorial"/"manorial organisation"/"manorial economy" be more helpful? I'm not a stickler for "feudalism" by any means, but I find "manorialism" no more inspiring as a label for the prevailing character of social and economic organisation. David Parker

Historiography, pt. 1

 * Lord -- David, please trust me on this, at least for now. "-ism" is better than system. The argument is on both sides of the pond, since Susan Reynolds is still English, as far as I know. Wikipedians misusing and abusing "feudal" in just about every form are from pretty much every English-speaking country represented, as well as central and eastern Europe. If you want to expand the article in a way that includes EVERYTHING else, then I suggest you write the expanded version off-line and do a brilliant job of including everything, and then post it. THis is an outline of the high points, and could be expanded.


 * You could also follow Bloch and Duby and talk about "feudal society," if you must included the manorial stuff in more than a passing reference to an outside article. What I see you wanting though, is some way of legitimizing a feudal system that includes talking about manorialism, an economic system as something integral to it. It was not, because the economies that existed in different parts of Europe were vastly different. The article reads as it does precisely because it talks about the things that were common on a widespread basis, without going into the subcategories of "West Francia pre-900," "East Francia pre-900," "Lotharingia" "Normandy" "Post conquest England" "England after Henry I" "England after Henry II", etc. Marc Bloch was not able to do the topic justice -- I doubt you or I could, either. The problem is, though, that unless you give all the variants, you end up affecting the way people understand the whole F-word.


 * I get the feeling that you are approaching this from a social science-economic POV. What kinds of sources are you working from? Have you read the stuff by Brown and Reynolds? i'm asking because, while your intent seems to want to be helpful, I can't see how your suggestions could do anything but continue the muddied view that people have. THe F-relationship was not systematic, it was rather based on personal bonds -- at least up until the later MA. It could be simultaneously very important and not at all-- depending on the people involved and their personal wealth, power, and feeling towards oaths. Its effect on those uninvolved in the agreement was arguably minimal -- reference to underlying economies should also be. Oh -- and I've taught this stuff in England and given presentations in Germany. You may not buy it, but my personal experience tells me that people can and do extrapolate -- in the wikipedia, links to other related articles make this more possible -- I can't see where spoonfeeding incorrect, fuzzier definitions, could be an improvement. JHK

"System" is horrible and the most grossly misleading term available - I think we're agreed on that! I'm genuinely puzzled, though, that you seem to suggest manorial organisation is non-feudal because "the economies that existed in different parts of Europe were vastly different": wasn't this also the case with the arrangements covered by the stricter definition of "feudalism"? Surely both "F"- and "M"-relationships were highly variable in their character and in the importance of undertakings for each party - and I certainly wouldn't want to entertain a conception that didn't incorporate such diversity. I agree that the effect of the "F"-relationship on third parties was "arguably minimal", but I don't think that the converse necessarily applies, which is as you say coming at the issue from a socio-economic rather than legalistic standpoint.

You're quite right, I'm indeed planning to revise the article without, I hope, doing undue violence to the existing content or withholding criticism of the other uses of the term: I wanted to discuss it first, and I'm grateful for your points, which I shall of course strive to take on board - then it can of course be changed again. But at least by discussing it here first I hope to be able to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls and unnecessary repeated disturbance of the text. Please note that I'm not proposing to reject your definition as the preferred one for the "-ism"; rather I think the others have to be treated more fully before they can be invalidated (if that is to be the outcome), though I see rather different arguments against them.
 * David -- have you read the articles that Michael Tinkler and I cited? One of the purposes here is to outline the most recent scholarship, which the article does. Also, the article concludes with such a narrow definition precisely because it breaks down varying relationships to their least common denominator. Were Manorialism to be added as more than a link to another article, how would you suggest rewriting the definition of the F-word in a way that reflected that the relationship was often sans land or property, especially in the early middle ages? The fact that one is a legal relationship between people, and the other is an occasionally-regulated-by-law-depending-on-where-and-when economic structure that could and did exist without the landlord being bound to anyone else's overlordship, cannot be overlooked. I also doubt that this suggested addition of yours would do anything more than corrupt the views of the F-word that are so carefully delineated here. You would only be perpetuating a view that has been challenged and, some would argue (not me...I'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater), demolished, over the last 30 years. I think that, when a case for dividing the two has been made by such notables as Brown, Reynolds, Duby & Bloch (to some extent), and in the case of the Church, Prinz and Felten, it might be wise not to ignore them, unless you can cite recent sources that uphold your approach ;-)JHK

While I accept that the article should incorporate recent scholarship, I don't see recency as a measure of authority; nor do I think that older perspectives should be rejected so lightly in an encyclopedia article when they still exert such a powerful influence today, as in the very fact that we still talk of "feudal society" as a comprehensive order (though one incoprporating elements that are not of themselves specifically feudal or manorial). I've absolutly no objection to the article ending with a narrow definition and saying why that might be the more useful: it's its beginning with a not properly validated "define-it-in-such-a-way-as-to-demolish-it" treatment of the alternative concept that I find insufficient.

It isn't the incorporation of alternative definitions in an encyclopedia that might "corrupt" others' reading: the scope for confusion already exists aplenty in the form of continuing divergence of meaning among historians and social scientists, and it won't go away by representing it as something it isn't or by hoping it will be assisted to a quick death by the mortal blows of the latest scholarship (how far did Brown get?). Rather, it's our job to offer a resolution, which we can't do by using one mechanistic model (the "feudal pyramid") to stand in for a range of conceptions incorporating between them diversity (and even outright contrariness) of allegiances, property forms and institutions over time and space.

Which as you say, still leaves the nightmare task of seeking a definition that can incorporate all of the above. I've done my best, and I'm sure it can be improved. I'd additionally recommend moving some of the more technical description of the ceremony itself to a more specific article (Vassalage? Commendation?), but I'll leave that to your judgment. David Parker David -- I note that you haven't bothered to discuss whether you've read or considered the viewpoints of ANY of the more recent historiography I've cited. They changes you've made create an implication that the the mishmashed viewpoint of feudal="everything in that type of society" is still considered valid by a huge number of historians and, moreover, that Marxist historians make up a significant percentage of the medieval historians out there. Last time I looked, Marxist history was on the wane.

As for your sources, I had to read Maitland once upon a time, and he's a great source for England, but Anglo-Saxon-Norman is not the only history to consider. The article as previously written took into consideration that the Middle Ages happened in all of Europe. The kind of feudal society you describe is much more easy to accept when looking only at the world west of Paris (although Reynolds might not agree). Something intended to clarify and define has now been changed to that fuzzy, relativist, "Well, I guess feudalism just depends on your definition" kind of thing -- as if current scholarship is just a passing fancy.

For your info, Brown got a long way (and the fact that you don't seem to be aware of the entire controversy makes me wonder about your approach and background -- it's a fairly large controversy and journal debate) -- most historians don't agree with eliminating the term, but the trend since the 1980s at least is to take the middle of the road approach and narrow definition I used for precisely that reason. Feudalism is not an economic -ism. Period. It is social, and to that extent, affects our view of medieval society, but it's only at the upper strata. I also take exception to the "define it to destroy it" approach you say the article was written in -- the only valid difference to be made there is to cite older proponents of the feudal system -- and still to say that that is not the theory currently held by the majority of producing scholars. That's not knocking down a straw man -- it's called historiography, last I heard. The only reason that people still talk about the old F-word in the way you describe is that a huge proportion of people out there were taught the older theory and have not learned anything more since they left the realm of formal education. It certainly doesn't make it true. There are also a lot of people still teaching that theory -- at least in part because Medieval History is often taught by non-specialists who have been using the same lecture notes that they got from college! (And I know this is done -- I'm speaking from personal experience!)

If you felt so compelled to add in Manorialism, why didn't you add a link? Or, if you wanted to add to the debate (which is a good thing -- more historiography is always good), why not discuss proponents of the various approaches? You cite Maitland, but don't tell us what he said. I don't mind more exposition -- the article needed expansion, but I think that your additions and manner of inserting them reduce the fact that the definition provided is the one on which the most historians can agree without bloodshed to a "here's what most of us believe (F includes M), and here's a neat and novel way of looking at F." Good intentions, weak execution. JHK

Historiography, pt. 2
I don't think I was crediting any view with overwhelming adherence: but equally, I don't accept that medieval historians' view (even if they were unanimous on it, which they're clearly not) alone defines a term still used by others in different senses. To end up with a situation where the "professionals" (and they're not the only professionals studying the phenomenon) present findings in a vocabulary understood quite differently by others without acknowledging the existence of other definitions would be ludicrous. As for Marxist historiography, it may be on the wane, but its influence survives, however indirectly, on reading lists and among other schools: it can't be shrugged off so easily just yet.

I cited Maitland just to show that uncertainty as to what defines "feudal" goes back a long way: I don't know enough of the controversies of his day in Continental medieval studies to identify contemporaneous (or earlier) disagreements relating to other societies, and would welcome any expansion of that point.

I wasn't belittling Brown's impact by any means, just pointing out that 27 years later we're still discussing an article on "feudalism" as an actual medieval phenomenon (even if we can't quite agree on the permissible range of meaning that should be dicussed), which certainly wasn't in line with what she was proposing. I have to disagree too with your characterisation of the "narrow" view as the "middle-of-the-road" one: I think it and the broad view are rather the two extremes, and the centrist position was paradoxically Brown's, though her recommendations for alternative future research headings aligned her fairly explicitly with the "feudalists of the straiter sort".

I must decline too the charge of fuzzy relativism: I'm afraid that what people mean by feudalism does depend on their definition, like it or not, and an encyclopedia article has to represent that fact faithfully, which doesn't rule out finding for one particular preferred approach in a given context. That said, if you find my treatment inadequate, I've revised your text, so now you're at liberty to revise mine in turn. I'm honestly trying to arrive at a mutually acceptable NPOV here, and I'm sorry you felt that my revision relegated your analysis to the realm of interesting speculation - that certainly wasn't my intention, and I'll look at it again and try to improve it.

I'd be happy to add more on Maitland (I didn't because I'm aware that England is just a small part of the controversy, and I thought undue emphasis on individual writers wasn't necessarily appropriate in such a broad survey, hence my downsizing too of Brown), and a Manorialism entry is on its way if no-one beats me to it. But one thing at a time please! David Parker
 * Actually, I think it's really good to add something about exponents of various views -- one of the most interesting courses I had my second year of grad school was an economic history course -- early modern, and really a historiography course. I think with a subject so controversial, it might help to link to short bios of the seminal debators, and a characterization of their work (e.g., Marxist historian, specialist in social relations...).  I'm still totally unconvinced that this is not a historical question -- I think that the terminology first used by historians (and I think of myself as being Arts or Humanities, Not Social Science) may have been co-opted by social scientists, but the work that has gone to redefining the term more accurately in History has not been followed by those same social scientists -- precisely because many of those fields actually encourage a narrower, single discipline approach.  JHK

No. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be conciliatory. David, please let us in on your background and the research you have done on this concept. I've re-read what I have on Brown and Reynolds, as well as Ganshof (whom Reynolds mostly rejects, but I kind of like), Bloch and Duby. I stand by what I said earlier -- this is a historian's topic, because historians created the term and have since almost entirely discredited the common usages of the term. THe fact that it has been coopted by academics in other social sciences needs to be explained in the context of common- and commonly perpetuated misconceptions. If you want to discuss the history of the concept, then do so honestly and with historiographical references. If you can point to how the concept is currently (or in the past, but currently accepted) by those communities, then do so. I've bloody well read most (if not all) of the seminal historical works on this subject -- works that are written from Annalistes, legal and administrative, and pure socio-economic approaches.

There is no denying that arguments can be made on pretty much every side, but when some of the greatest medievalists of our age begin to back away from the concept and instead, discuss the F word in the very narrow sense and Feudal Society as something more all-encompassing, then I see no reason that this particular article should not reflect the prevailing view. The kinds of changes you intend to make (and have begun to make) belong, as both Michael Tinkler and I mentioned above, in articles on Manorialism and perhaps Feudal Society. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise with clear and valid references and citations, I will remain unconvinced of the need for the types of changes you seem bent upon. There is much can be added to the article, but not at the expense of allowing its demonstration of the prevalent academic thought to be relegated to a "one of" position. JHK, who tries not to make such changes without being able to back them up first. And I'm not prepared to be unconciliatory. Or re-reading my sources I accept that your position (even, perhaps, Brown's - many seem to avoid the term entirely) has a far longer pedigree as the majority view than I assumed. I'm accordingly quite happy to restore the "strict" definition to the beginning as the one prevailing in medieval history, and others as disputed variations best avoided. But I still don't agree that other approaches are best discussed as "misconceptions": history itself co-opted the term to some extent from legal argument (and a bit of French politicking), and I don't think one can undo the broader approaches of other disciplines or of the past or usefully characterise them as erroneous when they weren't necessarily so in the context of the dicussion within which they were framed. I'm all for including the broader F+M in an article on "feudal society" (where I think the "pyramid" caveat belongs) with cross-references to and from Feudalism and Manorialism - watch those spaces. David Parker

Imposition of modern perspective on History
I'm going to go over this carefully when I have time, but it's already clear that either people are imposing modern concepts (despite their best efforts not to fall in the trap), or else they are using some modern concepts just as loosely as many people use concepts from feudalism in describing other times and places. Case in point: the feudal bond wasn't one of the same sort as today's contracts. If today A contracts with B, and B does not comply, no obligation remains on A. But under feudalism A and B exchanged promises, as it were; if B didn't keep his promise, that didn't excuse A his - unless the promise itself expressly or impliedly allowed this (in which case it remained in force as a promise, applying its non-performance side). It had to be so, to have an enforcement mechanism ("honour") that didn't rest on an existing framework. So also, feudalism isn't really about the framework itself, until you realise that the only framework was emergent from the feudal stuff, meaningless as a thing in itself. But I have to get all this sorted out and presented as other than a mere mind dump, so it may be a while. Meanwhile, have a look at Anarchism for some useful comparative stuff. PML.

Oh my. Coming across this page as I'm reworking the Holy Roman Empire, I am reluctant to even touch this article, as there seems to have been so much discussion about it. If you want my &euro; 0.02, the article is very interesting, but too hard to understand for non-historians, IMO. While many valid points are made, I believe there should be a separation between 1) feudalism as actually described and performed in the Middle Ages, especially the Holy Roman Empire and 2) discussion about the term as such. -- Feudal Law (Lehensrecht) was actually laid down in 1220's Sachsenspiegel, and it is quite impossible to understand the strange beast that the Empire was without the delicate relationship between the German King and the Reichsstände, which was influenced by a great degree by such conflicts. But then maybe "Feudalism" is not the correct translation (and thus article) for Lehensrecht in the first place... anyway, I would love to add some information about the basic structures such as the Lehenspyramide, which was an accepted theory at the time and for which Wikipedia has no information so far, but do not want to step on anyone's toes. I would not want to take anything away from this article, but only add the basics and restructure things a bit. Request for comments. Djmutex 09:11 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have seen in Chinese texts (those from the Foreign Languages Press?) "Feudalism" used to describe the system of the countryside before the Revolution (People being accused of being evil feudalists). There should be a mention or a link about this in the article -- Error

I added a paragraph that tells a tiny bit about the Feudal system in Europe. Its mainly about the North though becuase the South (Italy, Spain etc) didn't really need any Feudal system. Maybe I should've actually written that in the paragraph...

Error -- the use of feudalism to which you refer is covered in the bit on Marx -- or is to anyone who understands the connection between Mao and Marx. As for the removed bit, The entire article as written is about Europe. And it's clear in the article that the entire concept of a feudal system is something that is not entirely accepted. I'm sorry, but the little that you wrote show that you are not only unfamiliar witht he historiography (not uncommon) but that you are also not really on top of the facts. The feudal system (or, as many people call it because of the problematic nature, the "F" word) was not planned, nor instituted, nor consciously used in any way. It was a set of obligations that rose out of Germanic tradition and the Roman Patron-client relationship, as far as anyone knows.

Oh -- and Djmutex -- the stuff about the Sachsenspiegal is right on the mark, but I didn't want to get into the entire imperial thing when I wrote the article, because it would have been far too complex. That said, perhaps it would be a good thing to add a couple of lines about it in the section where Norman England is mentioned as a model? Boots

My goodness. I come to this page hoping for a simple, straightforward definition, something to work forward from, and the best I get is "the exchange of reciprocal undertakings of protection and loyalty" - you're not getting the average reader engaged with that kind of opening.

Could we please have an introduction that eases the average reader into the subject, hopefully with a basic definition (even if it has to be further explained)? I'm very lost in what is there currently. Radagast 04:42, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Terms such as feudalism, manorialism, serfdom and seignorialism all refer to socio-economic systems with obligations to landowners. These systems varied thru time periods and across different locations. Each term is appropriate to a specific location within a specific time period. And none of these terms covers all such situations. I use the (slightly clumsy) term land-duty to refer to all forms of society based on landownership. Nathan K Davis

"Rejection" of the Term in Historiography
"Although some of her contemporaries questioned Reynolds' methodology, her thesis has received widespread support, in particular with women historians, baby boomer historians and historians not from the elite institutions, all of whom gain advantage by shaking up the status quo traditional views of feudalism." Posturing like this doesn't tell the reader what the essence of this revision actually is. "Baby-boomers" are most unexpected in an entry on Feudalism. Wetman 07:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I'm actually taking this from class notes from a Harvard history professor. As non-PC as it all sounds, it is I believe important to note when historians divide on opinion, and why that division occurs. Since we are talking about the history of the term fuedalism in this section, indeed it would be strange to talk about feudalism at all since the term feudalism was only invented a few hundred years ago. There has been a major revisionism with Brown and Reynolds who outright say the term "feudalism" should be struck from every schoolbook in the world (no kidding). Anyway your right it needs more detail on their ideas to make the controversy and where the supports line up. Stbalbach


 * Excellent recasting of the article, Stbalbach. Try not merely to revert other people's edits, but to improve them if you can. I shall drop this from my watchlist. Wetman 13:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re: definition
The article comes out and says "Many definitions of the term exist. In order to understand what feudalism is, a working definition is desirable. The definition described in the section What is Feudalism? is based on a narrowly-defined legal relationship... ".  This cleary implies that there are other conflicting definitions in use elsewhere. It would be good if the article gave some mention of those other definitions.

For example, according to the article's external link http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1i.html#Feudalism Feudalism "has had two quite distinct meanings in recent usage". The first "refers to a social system... in which slavery is non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way..." and which is "probably the most important meaning in modern popular usuage [sic]." It then gives a second definition: "[f]or most of the 20th-century, professional medievalists have given the term a quite different meaning... a system of reciprocal personal relations...".

The current Wiki article concentrates entirely on the second meaning and does an admirable and thorough job explaining it. But it totally ignores the first meaning, the one which "is probably the most important meaning in modern popular usage" and which I've elsewhere seen described in terms of economic systems.

I'd expect that lots of readers looking at a "Feudalism" article are more interested in "the most important meaning in modern popular usage" than they are in the meaning of interest to "professional medievalists". I know that the first meaning is what I was hoping to find more information about.

So I'd like to ask that the article give some coverage to the first definition as well as the second one. Certainly, it's not in the Wikipedia spirit to try to revise the first definition out of existence. Could someone who knows more than I do about this stuff add something?


 * The article in fact does provide refrences to other definitions, including the one you mention. It says:


 * "A broader social definition of feudalism which includes the peasantry bonds of Manorialism is described in Feudal society.


 * This is a highly contentious issue among medievalists, one of the most hotly debated issues.. it was my desire to set forth a strong and clear signal from the start of the article, that this particular article deals with one particular definition. Otherwise, as has happened in the past, the article quickly becomes a battleground and incomprehensible to the lay person, as has happened in the past. So, the two different definitions are seperated into seperate articles. The defintion provided here is the original, classic definition, it is the one most well known, and which has been around the longest, and is the most conservative and least contentious. That the most people will agree that this an acceptable definition of "Feudalism". The broader social definition of feudalism which happened in the mid-20th century with Marc Bloch is defined under the "Fedual society" article. Also please read carefully the "Historians on feudalism" section for more information. Stbalbach 05:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Scottish feudal law
This information looked as though it should fit under Feudal land tenure, but that redirects to Manorialism and it doesn't seem to fit: it's going under History of Scotland and expanded under Scots law, think a version belongs here? (IANAL).. The feudal system lingered on in Scots law on land ownership, so that a landowner still had obligations to a feudal superior including payment of feu duty. In 1974 legislation began a process of redeeming feuduties so that most of these payments were ended, but it was only with the attention of the Scottish Parliament that a series of acts were passed, the first in 2000, for The Abolition of Feudal Tenure on November 28 2004.....dave souza 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It could be added to feudalism (examples) where other modern feudalism remnents are discussed. If the trend continues and there is enough material we could make a new page feudalism (modern) with sub-headings by country to discuss the various modern vestiges. Stbalbach 04:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mentioning of Present Day Feudalism and the introduction of a Non-NPOV Agenda
I think mention of presentday feudalism is quite relevent in the article why it was removed? Zain 10:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Feudalism, then click on Feudalism examples which is a seperate article for the various real-world implimentations of feudal-like land tenure systems, both modern and historical, both European and rest of the world. This article deals with the definition, historiography and historical debates about the concept of feudalism. --Stbalbach 10:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah I saw that but the title of the article states 'Feudalism' limiting the definition doesn't seem to be correct to me, for example in the main page it is written on the top
 * "This page relates to medieval Europe."
 * If the title of the article would be 'feudalism in medieval Europe' or 'history of feudalism in Europe' or 'definition of feudalism in europe' the article might seem correct but otherwise all other information related to feudalism should be provided directly in this page. and if it makes the page lengthy then lengthy topics should have a reference like 'see main article "feudalism in medieval Europe" for details' or 'see main article "feudalism in Mughal Era" for details' or ''see main article "present-day feudalism" for details'.
 * Relevance of the content can only be determined from Title of the article or keywords from which the article is accessed. Putting definitions to limit the scope of the article is not correct.
 * Can you explain how 'history of feudalism' in subcontinent which has more then twice human beings then the entire european continent, can't get direct mentioning in this article. noting the fact that the percentage of the population in subcontinent effected from feudalism was a lot more then in europe.
 * Zain 11:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "This page relates to medieval Europe." .. (that's an old label it needs to be updated)


 * The points you bring up really gets to the heart of the debate between historians and the proper usage of the term Feudalism. The article has a long history of tug of war between divided camps and in its current form it is somthing most historians can accept as valid. Feudalism was invented in modern times by historians to describe the land tenure system of medieval europe. It has since been used by others to describe just about any land-tenure system that is not seen as modern, sometimes in a perjorative sense for political reasons to express disfavour. So for example, to call Pakistan "Feudal" requires an entirely new definition of the term because it is nothing like the original definition of feudalism (described in this article). So for every real-wold system that one wishes to call "feudal", there is an entirely diffrent definition. So in the end, the term is meaningless because there are so many different and conflicting definitions. This is all talked about in the article under "Revolt against the term". That is why this article is about the original classic traditional definition only, and why it sticks with the history of the usage of the term and debates over its usage (Historiography). This article is not specifically about medieval europe, it is about the history of the term feudalism. The actual details of the systems which one wishes to apply the label feudal too would be described in other articles. The problem with creating sub-sections like "feudalism in Mughal Era" is as I described above, there is a serious debate and question if the term feudal should be used to describe it at all. The article discusses many of these issues and highly recommend reading the section on historians. --Stbalbach 13:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content is disputable but here I will like to make following points.
 * It is not only a historical issue but also involves modern times (arguably) the historians can't be considered the only authority.
 * Sadly most of the articles on wikipedia are quite tilted towards western perception of the things. So western perception of this phenomenon shouldn't be declared de-fecto definition
 * you mentioned that "The article has a long history of tug of war between divided camps and in its current form it is something most historians can accept as valid" but this disagreement is about the definition of feudalism within western societies, and transforming it into some thing which is accepted to most western historians.


 * What I am trying to say, is not related to disagreement on definition of feudalism within western societies and historians. But the different types of feudalism in different cultures. Please look at the article Feudalism yourself it is entirely dedicated to western interception of the phenomenon. And feudalism in other parts of the world (a very big world outside western culture) is ignored, with one exception in china as I quote " feudalism which most Western historians would consider a contradiction in terms." here too although it is accepted that western historians are more likely to disagree with this then other historians, western perception is given precedence. Further please see in the article "strong commonalities between Chinese and European history that may not exist".


 * Reasons which I site for mentioning other culture perceptions in this article are following.
 * Wikipedia shouldn't be limited to western perceptions of the phenomenons
 * Reasons given for not mentioning feudalism in other culture is using the definitions which rely on western perception of the phenomenon.
 * Zain 14:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do understand that concern, however Feudalism is not a phenomenon. It is a western concept, invented by western historians in modern times, to describe the history of the west, with a very specific and defined narrow meaning. Feudalism is not somthing that "exists", it is entirely conceptual and made-up in modern times, a definition layered on to the past. Some even say that the concept of fedualism is completely invalid and should not be used at all. This article deals with the origin and history of the term fedualism, which so happens is a western one. Other "feudal-like" systems exist and they have their own names and articles, for example Zamindar, which is refrenced in the feudalism (examples). Basically your taking up one side of the debate, saying that feudalism has wider application and valid popular usage, which is a POV position.  Stbalbach 01:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feudalism a western phenomenon or Modern concept
Well I agree many western historians see it as a 'western concept'. But outside west people may see it as a phenomenon.

Evidence Supporting Non-Western Usage

 * Article it self says "Compare feudal Japan at the entry Tokugawa shogunate"
 * Article says "Feudalism was practiced in many different ways, depending on location and time period"
 * Again to quote the article "The use of the term feudal to describe a period in Chinese history ..."
 * Now please also see the links which I have provided which you removed. So let me mention them
 * Feudal system In Pakistan on Pakistani News website
 * Feudalism in Pakistan by Asian Human Right Commission
 * To many other places to you can find it as non-western concept.

Possible Solutions

 * 1) Other Type of feudalism should be mentioned in this article.
 * 2) If these can't be mentioned here and it is insisted that this article should be restricted to 'western definition', then from links and extracts which I mentioned earlier, feudalism has to be called 'Disambiguation' and this page should be replaces with {Wikipedia:Disambiguation}, and this article should be linked to some thing like with Title 'Feudalism as western concept' or any other similar titles.

Better Solution?
I think first solution is better because two things are not that different that we need a &#8216;Wikipedia:Disambiguation&#8217; both can be mentioned here. with non-western concept headings etc.

Zain 13:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article does not talk about specific cases of feudalism. The article feudalism (examples) is where specific cases are listed. The feudalism article does not describe any specific case of fedualism, it only describes a very loose definition that most historians are able to grudginly agree to, but no real-world example was ever that simple or basic. It only describes the concept, as it was initially defined by historians. Anything beyond that enters the realm of POV, that is why they are kept seperate, to remain the integrity of the article and the term.

Also the links you posted, further the point made earlier. That the term feudalism is often incorrectly used as a perjorative term for political reasons to express disfavour with a political situation. The usage of the term in those articles has nothing to do with academic discourse. --Stbalbach 23:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trying to Get some common ground
Personally I think due to the definition conflict, it is difficult to get some common ground but still let me try to list agreements and disagreements.

Agreements supporting current version

 * I agree that according to most western-historians &#8216;pakistani feudalism&#8217; and other such phenomenon have no direct place in the article.
 * Putting other &#8216;proclaimed feudalism&#8217; will make difficult to make consensus of the definition

Agreements opposing current version

 * Considerable readers of wikipedia see &#8216;Pakistani Feudalism&#8217; and other such phenomenon as &#8216;true part of feudalism&#8217; (some might see it as only type that exists!).

Workarounds of this Disambiguation
Well I think as it is clear that some Disambiguation does exist. To solve it I tried to read Disambiguation in its section &#8220;Types of disambiguation&#8221; Solution 1 which is given says &#8220;''&#8221; Sections on one page: Several small articles of just a paragraph or so each can co-exist on a single page, separated by headings. Although this is a disambiguation page, the disambiguation notice should not be put here as the page doesn't link to other articles with similar title. But as each section grows, there comes a point where each meaning must have a page of its own.&#8221;''

I think we should give a section to other if you don&#8217;t consider it &#8216;accepted type of feudalism&#8217;. Zain 12:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The article allready addresses those concerns for the most part, it has a section saying there are specific uses, and those uses are listed in feudalism (examples) .. some of the wording can be made more clear, and need to remove the Japanese refrence at the top of the article and point it to the feudalism (examples) page instead.


 * Creating a fedualism article that covers all occurances of feudalism has been tried in the past and it doesnt work, the article breaks down as diffrent editors try to make their favorite version of fedualism (Feudal Socity, Pakistan, Japan, 12th C Germany, etc..) the one that is significant, or important, or authoritative, etc... Therefore, the approach taken is to make the article essentially only about historiography and etymology, a very narrow and limited scope; and each specific case of feudalism has its own seperate article with its own official name, such as Feudal society or the Pakistan system Zamindari system. The feudalism (examples) page is where they are listed. feudalism (examples) resolves the disambigutions. --Stbalbach 21:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe what you did is in right direction but we need a more cleared indication that many people don't see the content here as the right interpretation of the word 'Feudalism'. To help avoid this section of talk more crowded. I am copying a section from 'wikipedia guide line' I hope it will be helpful.
 * Zain 21:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'Zain, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There's a very good reason that Japanese feudalism was originally included in the article and not other so-called forms of feudalism. In Japan, the system of land tenure and a vassal receiving tenure in exchange for an oath of fealty is very close to what happened in parts of medieval Europe. As the article make clear, other uses of the word are offshoots of Marx and Engels' use of the word. They are based on an incomplete/incorrect understanding of the term, and really refer more to the economic relationship known as manorialsm -- which you would know if you'd read all of the discussion carefully. Because WIkipedia is not a dictionary (look it up), it makes no sense to turn the article into an etymology when the later uses of the word are generally based on incorrect popular assumptions. TO do that would be as bad as perpetuating the idea of the Dark Ages as being a reality rather than a Renaissance construct. Instead, I suggest that the article on the Zamindari system remain on its own with perhaps a paragraph that indicates that some scholars see paralells to the feudal system, but even there, you're wrong. What this system most resembles is the tax farming system used throughout Eurasia from at least Hellenistic times. In fact, this type of tax farming existed both before and after the feudalism you are trying to tie it to. Remember, the Wikipedia tries to add to knowledge and correct misconceptions, not further them. JHK


 * I thought the problem is solved. Following is the problem for which others have to be included.


 * In NPOV we can never claim which usage is 'correct' and which is 'incorrect'. We give different claims and let users decide. Even if there are very convincing reasons NPOV doesn't allows us to be 'judge'. We are simply the conveyors of information not source of information.


 * Please read carefully wikipedia policy carefully let me copy paste again for you.


 * Here is the copy from the section NPOV_tutorial under the section heading Word ownership


 * Zain, I am not stupid. I am a PhD in medieval history.  Your citations actually prove my point in that they indicate misuses and misinterpretations of what the word means.  This has nothing to do with word ownership, and everything to do with clarity of thought and definition.  Just because you happen to have found articles in English that misuse the word and propagate an incorrect understanding does not mean that that is correct.  This is an encyclopedia and should clarify knowledge, not extend misperceptions.  Your own insistence on including examples that are based on false assumptions merely shows that you are unable to accept that your own understanding might be incorrect.  I doubt that there is a word in Urdu or any other language spoken in Pakistan that equates to feudalism.  What you are doing is trying to make it a pejorative term -- something that might be common usage (analogous to when a character in 'Pulp Fiction' says, "Don't make me get medieval on your ass," as a threat of some kind of brutality.  Feudalism in practice was neither oppressive nor brutal.  Please stop trying to color the article with your own misperceptions.  In scholarly English, when we cannot directly translate something from the original language, we leave the term in its original language and explain what that it as a distinct cultural phenomenon.  This is essentially what has been done.
 * By the way, you are citing something in the context of NPOV below. This has nothing to do with NPOV.  It has to do with scholarly correctness.  JHK 23:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well 'correct' and 'incorrect' is not an issue here. May be Marxist are 'incorrect' may be Pakistan/Indian/Bangladeshi politicians/journalist are 'incorrect'. What we can write here is that this usage of the term by these people is not accepted by most western scholars. It is ok. You can tell that which segment calls which definition 'correct'. But the right of a segment (even if they are Scholars) to call some thing 'absolutely correct' or 'absolutely incorrect' is not accepted in wikipedia. Reason is that, this encyclopedia is encyclopedia of every editor. For example articles which cover the claims of 'denying holocaust' or 'denying human landing on moon' never say that the claims are 'incorrect'. Simply they mention sources accepting the claim with their arguments. Then they mention the sources which reject the claim listing their arguments. And let user decide.

If you read those articles you will find that even very improbable claims are not rejected straight away. That can be more clear by the example which I copy pasted from 'wikipedia policy'. It even rejects rejecting ancient Greek ideas about Sun. These will be rejected by every body in this modern time. I won't like to copy it again and again. But still copying just a line.
 * "Ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment"

So maximum which can be done is to say that this understanding of 'feudalism' is rejected by most/all western scholars. Zain 20:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Zain, I am saying that you are not only incorrect about the appropriateness of rewriting as you would like, but also in your interpretation of the policy. What you want to do is use -- hijack, really -- a term that means one thing as a pejorative term that makes not real sense.  What I am saying is that the article as stbalbach and others have edited it makes sense.  It also provides an explanation for why the term has been incorrectly and pejoratively used in later societies.  By insisting that the Zamidari system is something it most assuredly is NOT, you are in fact weakening that article and the point that most people consider it to be a system that oppresses the poor and landless at the expense of the rich landowners.  Surely that is not your intent.  Your suggestions really add nothing to the strength of the article and only serve to make parts of it ambiguous.  That is not the point of any encyclopedia.' JHK 00:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note I am not currently persuading any further changes in the article. The comments to which you are replying are quite old.

Yeah it might be hijacking of term by Marxist, Politicians/journalist of sub-continent. You can write that, "this meaning is hijacking of the term", by mentioning sources. That is ok. You can write a full article on misuse of the term. This is also ok. But wikipedia policy says that


 * "Ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment"

If you think it is incorrect. You can put it on Criticism of Wikipedia. But as far as long as policy is not changed, we have to follow it on wikipedia.

Zain 14:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it: "The word sun is from the science of astronomy. Astronomers are the experts on the sun, and not one of them alive today believes the sun is Helios and his chariot."

In fact, many words have multiple meanings. And it's not just that one person sometimes uses "sun" to refer to the bright ball in the sky and sometimes the yellow circle in a child's drawing. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.

Ancient Greek ideas about the sun aren't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the traditional ideas of contemporary indigenous people. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment. Many of these problems can be solved through what we call disambiguation."

I hope above paragraph from 'wikipedia guide' line will help a lot.

Zain 01:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Word default Meaning problem from wikipedia guideline
Here is the copy from the section NPOV_tutorial under the section heading Word ownership

"A common source of obstinacy in NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it: "The word sun is from the science of astronomy. Astronomers are the experts on the sun, and not one of them alive today believes the sun is Helios and his chariot."

In fact, many words have multiple meanings. And it's not just that one person sometimes uses "sun" to refer to the bright ball in the sky and sometimes the yellow circle in a child's drawing. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.

Ancient Greek ideas about the sun aren't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the traditional ideas of contemporary indigenous people. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment. Many of these problems can be solved through what we call disambiguation."

I hope above paragraph from 'wikipedia guide' line will help a lot.

Zain 21:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Edits in Line with original intent of Article
Revised the decline of feudalism bit, since it was about the decline of manorialism. Someone should probably edit the discussion to smaller talk pages, but I can't remember how. JHK 19:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How many times we have to go through it?
Disambiguation is best way to deal with it. Disambiguation tells that some other people also use the same word but that usage is not accepted/ used in this article. If we don't use disambiguation all that has to incorporated in this article too!

Either that usage should be in this article Or this usage should be in any other article with disambiguation on top.

Zain 00:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Zain, you have been told you are incorrect by multiple people including the previous editor who has a PhD in Medieval history with a specialty in Feudalism, yet, you continue to use up our time and energy with your repeated threats to change the structure of the article to fit your POV about Pakistan and its current political climate. You have failed to support your case with authoritative sources. I have no personal interest in "debating". You are just simply wrong. Either make changes to the article and we will start the process that will be required to resolve disputes in front an arbitration committee, or please stop posturing and using up our time and move on. --Stbalbach 03:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if the 'interpretation' is 'incorrect'. A lot of people believe in this 'incorrect interpretation' means that it deserves a place. Any how I think we should move it to arbitration committee. Zain 20:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is allready discussed in the article and sub-articles. --Stbalbach 21:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair, my specialty is in Carolingian political and social history -- but since we see some of the earliest examples of feudal relationships in that period ... Thanks! JHK 05:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put in the "Bastard Feudalism" line in the decline of section. I'm going to dig around my notes to see if I can find enough to start off a seperate entry for "Bastard Feudalism". Failing that I'll at least dig out a MacFarlane reference. --1MK 19:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon user post re: Reynolds
This should be taken out as it is not based on any reality whatsoever. There is no question of who 'benefits'. It is not conservative, this is quite an insulting and ignorant claim, to keep using the term 'feudalism', especially when it is by no means clear that Reynolds is correct in attempting to toss out this concept once and for all.- by an anon user (posted in the body of the article and moved here).


 * Ok, if I understand what your saying, you have taken a side in the debate. You don't believe Reynolds is right. In your point of view, there is no question about feudalism, and therefore the whole section should be deleted. Am I correct? Stbalbach 03:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sentences, "Who would support the removal of the term feudalism? Those historians who have been traditionally disadvantaged in the profession - such as women historians and historians not from the elite institutions - who gain advantage by shaking up the status quo have been some of the most vocal supporters of Brown and Reynolds in rejecting the term feudalism. The historians and institutions that benefit the most from the status quo, the more conservative elements of the historical profession, are generally more interested in keeping the traditional term feudalism, such as defined by Francois-Lois Ganshof and Marc Bloch." These should definitely be cut, first of all because the criticism is ad hominem – trying to delegitimize a person's argument solely by impugning her motives – and secondly because it constitutes an original analysis, thereby violating both the NPOV policy and the reports-not-essays policy. Best, Quartier Latin   1968  21:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (It's also, might I add, a rather shockingly sexist intervention to discredit these scholars' theses simply because they are women.)


 * Thats rediculous, the statement is perfectly neutral. It makes no effort to delegitimize anything. Where does it do that? You are reading far more into it than what it says. If anything it's a compliment to those traditionally disadvantaged in the proffession. If you cant talk about it like an adult without crying sexism I dont know what to say. The fact is traditionally the historial profession has been white males from ivy leauge schools who set the standards (just look at the historiography of Feudalism). Do you not agree? This is being discussed in this article because it is one of the most devisive issues in the medieval profession with strong feelings on all sides, usually lined up along the lines portrayed here. This observation is supportable if need be. I might suggest doing some research into Medieval historiography. I'd also ask what your position is in this debate. Stbalbach 22:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. You haven't addressed my points that these sentences consist of analysis rather than reporting, or that their argument is purely ad hominem. Perhaps I am reading more into these sentences than you, or their author, intend, but frankly I do see it as trying to delegitimize these scholars' thesis by saying that the only reason they would make such arguments is that they "gain advantage by shaking up the status quo". (You're probably being unfair on Bloch to say that he has a vested interest in the academic status quo, considering that his own work was also ground-breaking.) If you can produce a particular source who makes these ad hominem claims, let's cite them and give them credit; otherwise I'm just going to cut these lines again. Quartier Latin   1968  18:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I really think your mis-reading it, turning it into somthing it is not. No where does it try to discredit anyone, if anything it does the opposite of what your saying, Reynolds theories are becoming the mainstream. In any case it is now sourced. Stbalbach 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good! Now at least we're holding this line of argument at arm's length. Professor so-and-so of William and Mary can argue whatever POV he wishes, and good luck to him. Now, if you'll permit me, I'll just tweak a sentence or two and then I'll be completely happy. Thank you, Quartier Latin   1968  16:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence attributing historians' views on this to their career interests. I agree with a previous editor that attributing people's opinions purely to their position on the career ladder constitutes an ad hominem attack. I've also included a note clarifying Reynolds's stance towards Marxist feudalism and corrected the phrase 'does not exist at all' in the Historians on Feudalism section to 'should not be used at all'. Of course the term exists!


 * What "attack" on who? It is a neutral observation it makes no value judgement, it's a relevant piece of historiographical information about one of the most contentious issues in medieval scholarship. There exists divides in the medieval profession (as in any profession), and on this issue, typically historians fall along those divides. This is factual, if you see it as an attack, that is a POV. --Stbalbach 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While the questions historians ask are often influenced by personal circumstances (e.g. feminists pioneering the study of women in history), the resulting conclusions must stand and fall on the basis of the evidence. To imply that a historian's opinion is determined more by their material interests than by their view of the evidence is to accuse them of unprofessionalism. For the same reasons it is irrelevant to this entry. If someone wants to know whether to use the term or not, why should they care about a historian's personal background? Their decision should be based on the utility of the term to understand the evidence. Your professor's observation is also empirically incorrect. Reynolds is, IIRC, a Fellow of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. On all three counts, therefore - the neutrality of the comment, its relevance and its facticity - you are wrong.


 * Well, the quote is not so literal or written so definitive (and BTW Reynolds ideas have had time to penetrate the mainstream somewhat since they first appeared in the 70s). The same quote could universally be said for a lot of historical revisionism ideas, they often appear first with traditionally disadvantaged historians who cover new ground that was in the past not done (womans studies, indigenous people etc..), this is true for many professions. Personally, I see this as a compliment, outsiders moving the field forward with new perspectives. You see it as an attack, but thats a POV interpretation. Funny how we see the same thing in opposite ways. As for someone wanting to know to use the term or not, the article and Wikipedia makes no such statement, and shouldnt. Perhaps your reading into it that is not there, it could be read in the exact opposite way. It presents multiple POVs as we are supposed to. It's just an observation (attributed) by someone with experience to be interpreted and judged by the end user. I think that's of value. --Stbalbach 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevevirtigo
I reverted to avoid an edit war. Any major edits to the article, in particular ones that change the fundamental definition of Feudalism, must be discussed before they are put into the article. Id urge you to read the discussion page and the history of this article, it is a minefield and a warzone. Are you prepared? In short, this is a very complex topic, one that involves POV and a very complex subject. Please discuss your proposed changes and reasons and justifications. Thanks. Stbalbach 03:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I likewise "reverted to avoid an edit war." -SV|t 08:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What about the term, "Feudal Japan"?
In casual conversation with friends and on forums, I see the term, "feudal Japan" used alot, refering to a period when a system similar to what is commonly defined as feudalism in Europe was in place. I know that this was the period when samurai were most prevalent. Before I add something to this article about this, can someone at least provide some input about this? Thanks

Blueaster 18:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Japan is talked about in Feudalism (examples). There is also discussion about it in this talk page. Stbalbach 18:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Debate
Anon user believes there is a "debate" between a "small minority" of Medievalists and the vast majority of scholars that the term Feudalism is applicable outside a European context. Would anon user please substantiate this claim by providing the names of scholars and books and articles or other sources that can be verified that such a debate exists. I might suggest to anon user that scholars use the term in a rhetorical sense, as a comparison to the European system, but systems outside Europe have their own names and are not called Feudalism (Japan excepted, see comments above). Indeed Feudalism is not a single thing, it is a concept made up of many sub-terms (see the Feudalism category for some of the elements that make up this "system"). None of these subarticles which make up Feudalism, such as manorialism, condemation ceremony, etc.. exist outside of a European context. The specialists in this field, who define the mainstream view, who have written about Fedualism in the past 300 years or so, do so in a European context.

Finally I would please ask anon user to refrain from personal attack and slander and address the issue, not the person.Stbalbach 16:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to Stbalbach: If you don't like the sentence on the debate, I can remove that. (see changes.) But to ask for sources on the larger issue of the use of the term feudalism is absurd since the vast majority of scholars use the term in the more expansive meaning and not in the limited format that you insist on. It would be like asking for sources from the "round earth" side of the "round earth vs flat earth" debate. Unlike you, most of us don't have the massive spare time to devote to the games you are playing on this "feudalism" webpage. We would just like a fair presentation of such a widely-used term. Please see the wikipedia rules on this issue (which I see Zain has already brought to your attention on this discussion page). Like the others, I have to return my attention to my real work and will give up on making some headway on improving the coverage of this article. Ultimately, the losers are all the wikipedia users who come to this "feudalism" webpage looking for an explanation that fits the usage they have encountered in their readings which will almost always be different from the meaning you have restricted it too. This is a shame for Wikipedia. (See all of the previous comments to this effect in the discussion section!)

Regarding your request about "personal slander", the kettle is calling the pot black. You should go back and look at your comments to others about how you are always right and they are always wrong and they don't know what they are talking about. That is not just an insulting position to take in a scholarly debate, but it is also immature. There are clearly different positions on this term (which should be reflected more even-handedly in the article) and your attitude (that there is one obviously right position and everyone else is wrong) is childish. I have no other way to describe that attitude. And your rigid imposition in this public encyclopedia of your particular view on this term can only be described as "absolutist". You are acting like the "King" of this webpage. (Maybe you need to take a break from your specialty?) Or, to use a Modern analogy rather than a Medieval one, you do not "own" this wiki page, so you should stop acting like you do. If you want to define the term without input from those who disagree with you, then stick to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is meant to be something more inclusive.


 * the vast majority of scholars use the term in the more expansive meaning and not in the limited format -- Most scholars ignore the mainstream academic historian view? Can you provide some examples? It's unclear what position your coming from—other than a very feudish one! Stbalbach 00:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

a copout
I just came upon this article and saw "Defining feudalism is difficult because there is no generally accepted agreement on what it means." This is a copout that comes across as saying "we amateur wikipedia editors aren't sure what it means yet." That's no way to start out an encyclopedia article and is embarrassing to Wikipedia. Take a stand. Go through all the sourced popular definitions and synthesize all the salient aspects into one or more (preferably one) definition(s). RJII 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a misinterpretation. It is the actual state of affairs. There is no "stand". Many academic articles start out that way when the topic requires it. Stbalbach 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is more than a copout, leans toward propaganda
A very large number of Marxian theorists have used the term feudalism to define a distinct society based on a particular mode of surplus labor appropriation. This use of the term is far less ambiguous than the usual "let's just define feudalism as whatever was going on in Western Europe, or particular areas of Western Europe, over a particular historical period." This latter approach has no social scientific use. However, the much used Marxian definition of feudalism based on a feudal class process, where direct producers are bound to the service of a specific employer (qua feudal lord), who holds a monopoly over the use of means of production in a particular sphere of work (usually a specific geographic area), is used to distinguish feudal economic structures from capitalist, communist, ancient (or petty commodity or self-employment), and slave economic structures. There are countless articles and texts making use of this particular definition and it would be valuable to make the definition available to students and others who use Wikipedia. Indeed, this economic (class-based) use of the term feudalism goes back more than 150 years and continues to be used (and further developed) by post structuralist and post modernist Marxian theorists. Indeed, I've been asked to write an article on this topic for a new encyclopedia of social sciences, yet the person who has taken ownership over this Wiki article seems to violate the spirit of this open source encyclopedia by not allowing any additions. I made no effort to delete anything, just add to the article to make it more complete and less narrowly focused on how a subset of historians think about this term. I'm fairly disgusted with this authoritarian approach to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgabriel (talk • contribs).


 * Have you read the article? If you had, you would have noticed that there are many many definitions of feudalism, and that Marxism is already in the article as one of those definitions - instead you added a lengthy detailed treatment of Marxism in the opening sections of the article in an attempt to make it more important than other definitions. This article has a structure and a layout. Also if you have a lengthy treatment on Marxism and feudalism I would suggest creating a new article and link to it from here with a summary. -- Stbalbach 03:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the tennents?
How did the tennents live? I mean there is nothing on how they live or what they did.


 * This article is not about feudal society or manorialism. --Stbalbach 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What!!!!?
I came across "What is feudalism?". To me it sounds like the amateur Wikipedia editors are saying,"We don't know anything about it either.-Yungun (Logan Samuel Fyffe)
 * theres a lot of BS in it, several information that has no real purpose (such as "feudalism in history"), the text expands a rather vague, dictonary definition of feudalism, and it even gives the same explanation at least 2 times (in the beginning and then it gives it again). The examples, wich the page is supposed to give... well, they never really come, just a few "trivia" on what feudalism is. Its just sloppy.


 * Since you have apparently figured out how to use the "edit this page" button, congratulations, you too are now amateur Wikipedia editors. Perhaps you would enjoy fixing the article? Or would you prefer to complain? Adam Bishop 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I strengthened the lead without removing any information. --216.237.179.238 20:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Pikeman?
Why is there a link to pikeman in the see also section. I know was often used during the later medieval eras, but what does it have to do with feudalism? (has someone played Civ too much?)

Church and state
Regarding this addition to the lead section of the article:
 * Among other properties of feudalism can be counted relatively weak state power with clue role of religion and chirch in all political and private spheres.

Im not sure what is meant by "clue role", but if you would like to discuss this aspect than I suggest it be done properly in the body of the article, and not a 1-sentence in the lead section that leaves more questions than answers what it is your trying to say. There are allready a number of articles that discuss the nature of the relationship between Church and State in Medieval Europe, including Separation of church and state (medieval). This sentence also seems to imply that secular=feudal and church=non-feudal, and thats simply not the case, the Church operated with systems that were feudal-like as well. --Stbalbach 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems you misundestood. I agree church operated within the feudal system and itself was a massive landowner. I do not state church was non-feudal, just the opposite. Medieval Europe was devided in many small feudal entities and church (within the system) was a glue that united the system. European monarchs and kings were vassals of the Pope. Monasteries, convents etc were essential in Feudal Europe.--Nixer 15:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the original phrasing strange too - so much so that I deleted it because it just read like Nixer wanted to blame the church for everything. Now that he explains, I agree that he does have a good question.  It is certainly true that the church was a major land-owner in the medieval period - indeed was still one in Italy until the late 19th C.  But I don't think it had the same "pyramid" that was characteristic of civil fudalism - other than its hierarchy.  It doesn't belong in the intro para, but I can see a case for a specific section.  --Red King 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also it should be mention crusades and fight against heresy along with religious orders. Because the medieval states were weak and there was no continual law even within a territory of a given state, church performed some functions of state such as helping poor people, invalides, education etc. Resigned monarchs often ended up in monasteries. All people had to give 1/10 of their wealth to church etc....--Nixer 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which might all be true or at least arguable - but has it got to do with feudalism? I think you completely overestimate the power of the church.  --Red King 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this all is essential for feudalism.--Nixer 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish legal document
I looked over the 27 page PDF Scottish legal document and had a hard time finding anything that talks about the origin of the word "Feudalism". It is an interesting document I will add this link to the Feudalism (examples) article. -- Stbalbach 18:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)