Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities and differences japanese and european feudalism
Critically examine the practice of feudalism in Europe
The rise of feudalism in european
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Counts vs. Daimyo By examining Japan and Medieval Europe’s past, both areas had feudalism incorporated in their social structure. Feudalism was a relationship among the upper class, in which a member of the nobility was granted land, and in return promised to protect the king, who gave them their land. The nobility referred to are counts in Europe and daimyo in Japan. Both are generally governors who rule over a substantial subsection of the empire with certain duties and obligations. Daimyo and counts are very similar with some slight difference like whether their power is handed down by heredity and how much power they really have. The term count was originally just a companion of princes, ‘but from the time of the early Germanic kingdoms it was also used to designate local agents of public power exercising their authority as royal representatives."(1) As feudalism became prominent in the Carolingian Empire, counts became the main officers and were designated to rule over a county. Their job was to maintain peace, conduct military affairs, administer justice, assess revenues, summon warriors, etc. Originally the positions of counts were not held because of hereditary, but in the 10th -11th centuries the office was kept in the same family. Carolingian counts specifically, were "generally members of important aristocratic families."(2) For example, the successful counts such as Flanders, Champagne, and Toulouse passed their powers on to their sons to insure their well being. Originally when feudalism was 1st forming in the Carolingian Empire, the king divided his empire among his counts, who were directly responsible back to him. It is known as the king-lord contract; where a king grants the lesser with land and in ret... ... middle of paper ... ...ngoku built many castles to show their wealth and power. Also they supported many merchants and artisans, for they realized that by working hand and hand with them, they would receive the finest clothes and food. For Daimyo’s "local interests often took priority over the needs of the whole nation."(5) This means that the Daimyo’s often looked out for their own well-being and raising their power rather than helping out their province as a whole. All and all, after analyzing my information, I believe that counts and daimyos were generally the same. Both were governors of a subsection of their empire, and they eventually took control of their area. Also both positions ended up being hereditary, only counts were originally granted their land by merit. Even though the two cultures were thousands of miles apart, they both were able to develop a similar social structure.
Davis gives various examples of the social norms that peasants lived under during the sixteenth century. When Sanxi, Guerre’s father, and his family decided to leave their village, Davis states that the majority of men who leave their village do so because they “were usually not heir to their family’s property, as was Sanxi Daguerre, but younger brothers who could not or would not remain in the ancestral household” (Davis 6). This highlights the idea that being the heir to the family’s inheritance is a great indicator of how one’s life as a peasant would carry on. It is very likely that if one is the heir, then the individual shall stay at their property and assume the role as head of the household once the “s...
In the little kingdoms or principalities, the lands over which a King ruled were regarded as no different from other property. Among the Franks, all sons were entitled to a share. Therefore, when a King died, each son became a King over his own little kingdom. Thus, many political units became small so there were no uniform laws or policies. This lack of unity made them vulnerable to enemies as well as conflict from within. Bullough points out that the loyalty of a warrior or subject to his chosen leader was not a light matter. The author does not contrast that concept of loyalty however, with our present ideas of loyalty to the homeland or institution.
Medieval society was traditionally divided into three "estates”. The "First Estate" was the Church receiving their authority from God; the "Second Estate" was the Nobility receiving their authority from the clergy; and the "Third Estate" was the commoners receiving their authority and rights from the nobility. The First Estate provided the moral authority and structure encompassing the whole system, essentially, they set the rules. The clergy used their influence to provide moral authority for the nobility to rule over the commoners. The commoners, were instructed by this hierarchy, to follow the nobles. This enabled the clergy to receive special rights and exclusions from most of the noble’s governance. The clergy had many functions independent
Within this essay, I will be discussing the difference in feudalism between Europe and Japan. Feudalism is the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility holds lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals are in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) are obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. I will be arguing that Japan system with feudalism is much more simple and easier.
Being in control of a country takes dedication because there are several contributions needed to keep their people happy. In Charlemagne’s reign, he had great tactics in persuading his people through influential lectures and victorious wars. Charlemagne was a very ambitious lord, who many soldiers and people looked up to because of his superiority in executing laws that would benefit his country. They followed his way of ruling, which was mainly performed by the court officials to initiate the plans and suggest new ideas to the lord. The rapid increase of Charlemagne and his ruling started due to the influence of the Germanic tribe, Juedo-Christian, and Greco-Roman cultures throughout the Middle Ages. These cultures had demonstrated the important aspects of being a leader. From these traditional beliefs, the change of governing a country has become different than it used to because of how it affected the power of the ruler. Through these three cultural traditions, the spread of the Charlemagne’s reign and his creations during the Middle Ages will be known for several centuries to come.
This investigation will attempt to examine the effectiveness of feudalism as an economic system. It is relevant as it examines a form of governing and its impact on the economic status of a country. This allows it to be decided whether or not it was successful, and therefore if it is relevant to use in the modern world and what consequences might follow. Specifically, it will be focusing on feudal society from the Kamakura Period, starting in 1185 CE, to the Azuchi-Momoyama Period, ending in 1615 CE, within Japan. The issues that will be addressed are how feudalism affected the economic prosperity of the Japanese people, and how it affected Japan’s productivity and advancement. This will be accomplished by examining a variety of secondary sources, such as William E. Deal’s Handbook to Life in Medieval & Early Modern Japan and Conrad Shirokauer’s A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations.
The Ming Dynasty consisted of one department the Secretariat where they controlled the six ministries. The Six Ministries were Ministry of Personnel, Ministry of War, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Revenue, Ministry of Rites, and Ministry of Public Works. The Ming had a centralized authority and their emperors could rule directly. The Tokugawa Shogunate also had an emperor, yet he was not so powerful. At the top were the shoguns, then the daimyos, then the Samurais, and finally the peasants. Even though, farmers were mostly of the lower class they were still highly
During the 800 through the 1050’s a new empire arose called the Carolingian empire. The Carolingian empire was established when Charlemagne was coronated and received the crown to become king. As the empire grew stronger and bigger the mistakes and cracks in the foundation started to appear. Einhard, the Life of Charlemagne will be a source in this essay. The General Capitulary for the Missi will be examined in this essay. This essay will inspect Nithard, The History of the Sons of Louis the Pious as a source. Select Feudal Documents will be examined as a source in this essay. Also, John Scotus Erigena, On The Division of Nature will be used as a source. The Oaths of Strasbourg and Liudprand of Cremona, Otto the Great in Italy will both be inspected as sources.
The samurai of Tokugawa Japan, the yangban of Choson Korea, and the gentry of Ming China were three very powerful and elite groups of East Asia. These groups consisted of high ranking government officials with judicial power and influence. Although the groups were located in the same region they had their similarities and differences in how they obtained power and how they used their power. Japanese samurai were military nobility who had almost as much power as the emperor, but were not the highest ranking officials whereas the yangban officials of Korea were the highest ranking rulers. The gentry of the Ming period of China were once high ranking rulers; however, the gentry were defined as retired Chinese bureaucrats. Socially, all of these groups, at one point or another, were high ranking officials with power in office. The elite groups ruled in different areas of Asia, but they had similarities as well as differences in sources of power, functions as officials, and the problems they faced as elite groups in Asia.
During the last years of the XII century the relations among King John and the feudal barons were seriously damaged. The Barons were suffering many kinds of injustices. For instance, they had to pay large amounts of money in order to keep safe their own lands. Moreover, many of them were obliged to join the army and give military service if King John required. However, they could avoid joining the army, but they had to pay a “Scutage” a specific tax with only one purpose, not to service the King in the milita...
When the Vikings, Magyars, and Muslims began their raids in the 800s, the frankish kings were unable to defend their empire. Their army was not fast enough to defend against the fast attacks of their enemies. Because they couldn't depend on protection from their kings and nobles had to defend their own lands. As a result, the power of nobles grew, and kings became less powerful. In fact,some nobles became just as powerful as the kings themselves. Although these nobles remained loyal to the king they ruled their own lands as independent territories.
Since he united surrounding tribes from his numerous military campaigns, his empire consisted of various people who had their own government, culture, and language. To merge the different people into one empire, he needed constant and thorough governing. First, he divided his vast empire into three hundred districts and assigned a count for secular business, a duke for military matters, and a bishop for religious affairs. The frontiers were ruled by special commanders, the margraves. He personally appointed capable people on position so that he could make sure that they are loyal to him. He held a meeting annually, called “Field of May” and asked the conditions of their regions. Following the initial conquest of these different peoples, one of Charlemagne’s most important tasks was to ensure that they would not turn against him and disrupt the progress of his empire. Dividing his land into such a large number of districts and allowing the people of various cultures rule themselves to a certain extent carried high risk, and he knew this. But he also knew that it was a risk worth taking to maintain and grow the prosperity of his empire. Besides the counts and margraves, he had royal inspectors, called missi dominici, meaning the envoys of the lord, to travel around the counties and supervise them. As a two-man team, missi
“Their para-monastic form, capable of being endowed, adopted, or controlled by individuals or dynasties, was attractive to the kings and nobles of northern Europe, where the monastic sites tended to become nodes of interconnections based on familial and territorial structures”(Blair 49). In this para-monastic form, the bishops were important pastorally and to varying degrees administratively. This also provided infrastructure for the local churches. In all the complex religious sites, housing communities of a broadly monastic character became progressively more important. “…it proved enormously attractive to English kings too, though this only becomes apparent sometime after the initial conversions” (Blair 49). As a result, there rose long-term stability within Irish society where the emergent Anglo-Saxon communities helped forge a new Germanic and pagan identity. As they moved toward a more political and less tribal organization, they reoriented themselves towards the Christian world. “…the late Anglo-Saxon kings developed a highly advanced administration that functioned through a system of local divisions (shires) and royal officers (sheriffs)” (McKitterick 121). This system made the Anglo-Saxon kings’ will known throughout their kingdom by means of writs and allowed the direct levying of taxes. With this improved degree of communication, the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms survived
In ancient time Greece was not one country, but it was composed of several hundred city-states (Brand, n.d.). Each of these city-states spoke the same language, but each of them was independent and distinctively from others. Their organization, it sets of laws, and forms of government were unique to each polis. The power in politics rested in the hands of either a single, or a few people, or several people. Even though there were hundreds of city-states the five most known forms of government used in several city-states were a monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (Cartledge, 2011).
These people are called vassals, and owed service and allegiance to the lord. They ensured their loyalty and obedience by taking an oath, known as the Oath of Fealty, and the ceremony in which they do this is called homage. The lord, in return, provided vassals with protection and pieces of land, called fiefs. Fiefs varied from huge estates and whole provinces to a plot of few acres (Stubbs). Tied to these fiefs were serfs, or peasants who were obligated to farm the land of the lord in exchange for a small plot of land of their own (The Development of Feudalism in Western Europe). They were bound to the lord for life and could own no property. In addition, they needed the lord’s permission to marry and to leave the land (Ross). However, they did have some rights, and these include that they were not required to fight and were still provided protection by the lord (Ross). And although even some vassals, called barons, held their fiefs directly from the crown and were tenants in chief (Stubbs), not all vassals received fiefs. These vassals instead lived at their lord’s court to serve as his household knights. Furthermore, other than providing military services, some vassals were also required to accompany the lord at his court, help administrate justice, and contribute money if needed (Ross). Additionally, lords lived on manors, and these became the economic and social units of life in the early Middle Ages (Ross). They were made up of manor houses, one or more villages, and several thousand acres of land. Furthermore, the lords themselves were vassals under some greater lord and bound themselves to bring all their own vassals to serve him (Harding). This then created a pyramid of loyalty, in which the king of the land was at the top, then under him were his vassals, or the nobles, and under