Feudalism, as a natural stage in the development of human society, occupies an important place in history. The system appeared at the end of antiquity and existed in some countries until the nineteenth century.
New way of production
So, the feudal system that replaced the slave system was, by definition, more progressive. The most dynamic part of medieval society - warriors and princes - seized fertile free lands, turning them into their own property. Its base was a large land holding, which was divided into two parts: the master's with the estate and settlements with dependent peasants. The part of the property that belonged to the owner was called the "domain". At the same time, a special domain was allocated to the ruler of the country, which he was free to dispose of at his own discretion. This, in addition to arable land, also included forests, meadows, and reservoirs.
The large size of the estate made it possible to produce everything necessary for life, so this economic system was closed in nature, and in history it was called “subsistence farming.” Those goods that were in short supply on the farm could be obtained as a result of an exchange with another feudal estate. The peasants living in it were personally unfree and were obliged to bear a certain list of duties in favor of the master.
Hierarchy of medieval society
This is how the feudal ladder developed, that is, the position of social groups that demonstrated their status in society. This is a kind of pyramid, at the top of which was the supreme ruler, the first feudal lord of the country - a prince or king (depending on the state).
So what are the differences between the feudal ladder? They are quite easy to explain. The monarch had loyal assistants who were paid for their service. If in the early stages he allowed them to collect taxes from the population and keep part of it for themselves as payment, then later the system was improved. Now the ruler from his domain granted his servants - vassals - a land plot populated by dependent categories of the population.
Land ownership was hereditary, but the supreme right to it belonged to the overlord, therefore, in the event of treason by the vassal, he could take away the estate. The king's major subjects also had servants to support. Feudal lords from their own estates gave them plots of land with a certain number of serfs. The size of these plots depended on the importance of this person for the overlord.
Finally, at the lower level of the feudal class there were simple knights who no longer had the opportunity to allocate land to servants. And at the base of the pyramid was the “engine” of this entire system - the serfs. Thus, those who entered the feudal ladder were the main classes of medieval society.
Principles of the European world order
The feudal ladder, or (in other words) hierarchy, was a rigid structure. There was virtually no mobility of any kind. Having been born a serf, a person died as a serf; the opportunity to change his own was minimal. This gave medieval society a certain stability bordering on stagnation.
The development of feudalism is almost identical in all countries. Initially, a vast state was created, which was a conglomerate of tribes and tribal associations of various levels. Then these territories, within the framework of a single sovereignty, received certain assistance, grew, and strengthened, which subsequently led to their reluctance to obey the supreme ruler. The former major powers turned into a “patchwork quilt”, woven from counties, principalities and other feudal units of different sizes and development.
Thus begins the period of collapse of the once united state. Major eras of feudalism also had their advantages. Thus, it was not profitable for the owner to ruin his own peasants; he supported them in various ways. But this also had the opposite effect - the enslavement of the population increased.
Immunity relations presupposed the right of complete suzerainty, which meant both protection and subordination for the peasants. And if at the beginning personal freedom remained with them in full, then gradually they lost it in exchange for a stable existence.
Ethnic differences of the system
The medieval feudal ladder had its own national nuances. The interpretation was different in, say, France and England. Their development on the British peninsula proceeded at a slower pace than in continental Europe. Therefore, a full-fledged feudal ladder in England was finally formed by the middle of the twelfth century.
Carrying out a comparative description of these two countries, we can highlight the general and the special. In particular, in France the rule “my vassal’s vassal is not my vassal” was in force, which meant the exclusion of mutual subordination in the feudal hierarchy. This gave a certain stability to society. But at the same time, many landowners understood this right too literally, which sometimes led to conflict with royal power.
In England, the diametrically opposite rule was in effect. It was precisely as a result of the belated feudal development that the norm “my vassal’s vassal is my vassal” was in effect here. In reality, this meant that the entire population of the country must obey the monarch, regardless of seniority. But in general, the feudal ladder in all countries looked approximately the same.
Interrelation of socio-economic processes
In general, classical feudalism gave way to a period into which Europe plunged from the tenth century. Until the thirteenth century, there was a process of gradual centralization and the creation of national states on the basis of new conditions. Feudal relations changed, but persisted in Europe until the 16th-17th centuries, and if we take Russia into account, then almost until the 19th century.
The process of centralization, which began in Rus' also in the 13th century, was interrupted by the invasion of the Mongol conquerors, which caused such a long existence of feudal remnants in our country. Only after 1861 did Russia embark on the capitalist path of development with both feet.
On 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 of medieval Europe, until the cities became stronger, can be divided into two very unequal parts. The vast majority were peasants, and from 2 to 5% would fall on all feudal lords. We already understand that the feudal lords were not at all a layer that only sucked the last juice out of the peasants. Both were necessary for medieval society.
Feudal lords occupied a dominant position in medieval society, which is why 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 feudal lords already known to us. It is about this main part of the ruling layer of medieval Europe that the further story will go.
Feudal staircase
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 faithfully, in deed and with advice, or senor(“senior”) 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, 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, especially in Russia, there was a rule: 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...
God's peace
Sought to limit the scope of civil strife church. 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 menacing as before
"Precious!" - the Arab emir shouts proudly.
Karl "Montjoie!" throws loudly in response
One recognized the other by the voice.
They met in the middle of the field
Both of them use spears,
The enemy is struck at the patterned shield,
They pierce him under the thick pommel,
They rip open the floors of chain mail,
But both remain unharmed
The girths of their saddles burst.
The fighters fell from their horses to the ground sideways,
But they immediately jumped to their feet deftly,
They threw away their damask swords,
To continue the martial arts 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 might.
Tops, leather, double hoops -
Everything was torn, shattered, popped apart,
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 have unlawfully invaded this land,
But if you recognize me as your overlord,
You will receive it as fief possession" (Fief possession, or flax, is the same as fief.) -
“It doesn’t suit me,”
Karl answered.-
I will never reconcile myself with an infidel.
But I will be your friend until death,
If you agree to accept baptism
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 the blade,
It goes through his hair.
Causes a palm-wide wound
Tears off the skin, exposes the bone.
Karl staggered, almost fell off his feet,
But the Lord did not allow him to be 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.
He struck the enemy with a French sword,
A richly decorated cone struck
The forehead was crushed, the brain of the Arab was splashed,
He 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, a thick one dismounted,
He walks down a marble staircase,
He steps so that the greaves are off
They fly off good Cordovan boots.
He plunged the court into confusion and fear.
The king stood up, pointing to the throne:
“Guillaume, 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 listen, friend Louis, everything.
I was not a flatterer to please you,
He did not deprive orphans and widows of their inheritance,
But I served you as a sword more than once,
You weren’t the only one who got the upper hand in the battle,
He killed many young brave men,
And this sin is now upon me to the grave:
Whoever they are, 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 (Per (“equal”) is an honorary title for a representative of the highest nobility in England and medieval France) will die,
And I will pass on his inheritance to you,
As well as a widow, if you don’t mind.”
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,
If he is not yet old, but poor in treasury,
My good horse needs food,
But I don’t know where I’ll get food.
No, both the climb and the slope are too steep
To those who secretly await someone's death
And goodness will covet someone else's...
“King Louis,” the count said proudly, “
All peers will confirm my words.
In the year when I left your land,
In a letter to Gefye, Spoletsky promised,
That he will give me half the state,
If I agree to become his son-in-law.
But it would be easy if I did this,
I should send troops to France.”
The king said this out of spite,
What would it be better for Guillaume not to hear?
But this only worsened the discord:
They went even stronger...
“I swear, Señor Guillaume,” the king said, “
The Apostle Watching Nero's Meadow (This refers to the Apostle Peter. Nero once laid out a park in that part of Rome,
where later there was a papal residence.)
There are sixty peers, your equals,
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 you talked about with me
They will 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 flax.”
The worthy king bowed his head,
Then he raised his eyes to the count again.
“Senor Guillaume,” exclaimed the sovereign, “
I see that you have a grudge against us!”
“That’s my breed,” said the count. -
He who serves evil people is always like this:
The more energy he wastes on them,
The less he wishes them well.”
Questions
1. Find in the fairy-tale description of the duel between Charlemagne and the Emir signs that the poem was composed during the era of the Crusades.
2. What peace conditions do the emperor and emir offer each other and why do these conditions not suit each side?
3. What explains the insolence with which Count Guillaume behaves in the royal court?
4. Why does Guillaume not hesitate to admit that he could “move troops to Franguia”? Why didn’t he accept the obviously advantageous offer of Geffier of Spoletsky?
Boytsov M.A., Shukurov R.M., General history. History of the Middle Ages, 6th grade
Submitted by readers from Internet sites
Calendar-thematic planning in history, tasks and answers for schoolchildren online, download courses for teachers
During the era, European social life was built on the principle of a strict hierarchy, that is, a ladder, on the top rung of which were the most noble and privileged: the king or emperor, the clergy, large. Without competition, of course, there were kings and emperors; they occupied the highest rung of the hierarchical ladder (supreme lords). Everyone on the top rung was the owner of the land. Land plots were called fiefs (or fiefs). Those who gave fiefs were called overlords (or lords), and those who received them were called vassals. But it was the kings who granted lands to the clergy, dukes, and counts, but after that they, although they were direct vassals of the king, at the same time became separate feudal lords with their own politics and independent economy. They had the right to control the destinies of their subjects (for example, to judge), issue their own coins, and even wage wars. The large owners of fiefs (feudal lords) had vassals, also nobles, but smaller ones - barons. They could have very extensive possessions, but their power extended only to those who were even lower in rank and stood one step lower. And below were only their knights, owners of small estates. At first, warriors in the service of the king were called knights. They were purposefully trained in military discipline, weaponry, horse riding and other intricacies of military affairs. European chivalry flourished during the period of the Crusades in the Middle East. For two centuries, the Crusaders tried to expel Muslims from the Holy Land and retake Christian shrines. But let's return to the feudal hierarchy.
Everyone from school is familiar with the phrase associated with the Middle Ages: “The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal.” This means that the vassal obeyed only his overlord, but not the one who was the overlord of his overlord. Relations between feudal lords were built according to agreements that were concluded upon the transfer of land (feud). This transfer of the fief was called investiture and was accompanied by a solemn ceremony: the vassal loudly announced to those present that from now on he was “the lord’s man” and swore an oath of allegiance to his overlord. Serving one's lord was an honor, a privilege and the main duty of a knight as a noble warrior. The vassals protected the lands and property of their lords with their own forces, helped ransom them from captivity, and defended their interests. And the lord, in turn, must also take care of his vassal, if necessary, then defend him from enemies, from prosecution, and after his death, it is the lord who must take care of the widow and children of his vassal.
The Catholic Church had its own hierarchical ladder. At its head is the Pope, who had powerful power over all the clergy and secular nobility. His closest servants are cardinals, bishops, then abbots, abbots of monasteries, followed by other clergy. On the last step were the parish priests. All representatives of the clergy were landowners and even sometimes vassals of secular lords. Often (for example, in Germany) a Catholic bishop could become a secular sovereign. In the tenth - eleventh centuries, the decline of the papacy began, and churchmen became dependent on secular feudal lords, to the point that during the ritual of investiture, the bishop knelt before his secular overlord, swore an oath of allegiance to him and obeyed him. The situation was changed by the inhabitants of the Cluny monastery in Burgundy. They, led by their leader Hildebrand (1059), proclaimed the Pope the vicegerent of God and the sole ruler on earth. In the thirteenth century, the papacy achieved unlimited power and greatest power. The clergy becomes the richest class. A strong support for papal policy were the monastic orders, which consisted of knights trained to fight. They were the initiators, organizers and participants of eight crusades.
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 Geffier, 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 spite, something that Guillaume would rather 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.”Left a reply Guest
Society fell apart into two antagonistic classes: the class of feudal landowners and the class of feudally dependent peasants. Serfs everywhere were in the most difficult situation. The situation was somewhat easier for the free peasants personally. Through their labor, dependent peasants supported the ruling class.
Relations between individual representatives of the feudal class were built on the principle of the so-called feudal hierarchy (“feudal ladder”). At its top was the king, who was considered the supreme lord of all feudal lords, their “suzerain” - the head of the feudal hierarchy. Below him stood the largest secular and spiritual feudal lords, who held their lands - often entire large regions - directly from the king. These were titled nobility: dukes, counts, archbishops, bishops and abbots of the largest monasteries. Formally, they all submitted to the king as his vassals, but in fact they were almost independent of him: they had the right to wage war, mint coins, and sometimes exercise supreme jurisdiction in their domains. Their vassals - usually also very large landowners - often called "barons", were of a lower rank, but they also enjoyed virtual independence in their possessions. Below the barons stood smaller feudal lords - knights, lower representatives of the ruling class, who usually no longer had vassals. They were subordinated only to peasant holders who were not part of the feudal hierarchy. Each feudal lord was a lord in relation to the lower feudal lord if he held land from him, and a vassal of the higher feudal lord of which he himself was the holder.
The feudal lords who stood at the lower levels of the feudal ladder did not obey the feudal lords, whose vassals were their immediate lords. In all countries of Western Europe (except England), relations within the feudal hierarchy were regulated by the rule “my vassal’s vassal is not my vassal.”
Feudal hierarchy and peasantry
The basis and guarantee of vassal relations was the feudal land ownership - fief, or in German “flax”, which the vassal held from his lord. The feud was a further development of the benefice. The fief was also given for fulfilling military service (it was a conditional holding), and was a hereditary land ownership. thus, the conventional and hierarchical structure of feudal land ownership. But it was formalized in the form of personal contractual relations of patronage and loyalty between the lord and the vassal.
Due to the complexity of vassal relations and frequent non-compliance with vassal obligations, there were conflicts on this basis in the 9th-11th centuries. a common occurrence. War was considered a legitimate way to resolve all disputes between feudal lords. The peasants who suffered most from internecine wars were the peasants, whose fields were trampled, their villages burned and devastated at each successive clash between their lord and his many enemies.
The peasantry was outside the feudal-hierarchical ladder, which pressed on it with the full weight of its numerous steps.
The hierarchical organization, despite frequent conflicts within the ruling class, connected and united all its members into a privileged layer, strengthened its class dominance, and united it against the exploited peasantry.
In conditions of political fragmentation in the 9th-11th centuries. and the absence of a strong central state apparatus, only the feudal hierarchy could provide individual feudal lords with the opportunity to intensify the exploitation of the peasantry and suppress peasant uprisings. In the face of the latter, the feudal lords invariably acted unanimously, forgetting their quarrels. Thus, “the hierarchical structure of land ownership and the associated system of armed squads gave the nobility power over the serfs.”
