Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rise and decline of feudalisn
Rise and decline of feudalisn
Rise and decline of feudalisn
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rise and decline of feudalisn
Jenna Lopez 3/25/15
3rd Quarter Project (Feudalism) Colesanti Pd. 8
The fall of the Roman Empire resulted in significant change. Western Europe fell into a state of chaos and disorder and lacked a strong central government. As a result, feudalism and the manor systems developed. The feudal system was a loosely organized system of government where local lords would govern their own land but owed service to a greater lord. The manors were self-sufficient and were the center of feudal society. As the Roman Empire fell apart the kings would grant their land (otherwise known as fiefs) to lords and nobles/vassals in exchange for their loyalty. These lands developed into manors and usually contained a castle, a small village, farmland,
…show more content…
In return for protection, the serfs would tend to the land. By doing this, they would thus for be considered serfs and would never be able to break out of serfdom. Overall, there were many outcomes socially, politically, and economically as a result from the feudal system. Socially, the feudal system was positive because it created a need for all citizens. Even though there was a separation between classes, each class helped one another in different ways. The Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World states “strictly speaking, feudalism refers to the medieval dependency/service relationship between lords and their vassals or to the political subordination and service of lesser lords to higher lords or princes.” This quote shows how the classes in these societies were dependent on one another. They trusted that each class in the feudal society would do their part in order to keep their manor running properly. Although, the separation between these classes was very large and had a …show more content…
At the time when feudalism developed, Rome was in complete chaos and had a very weak government and army. Many peasants felt unsafe because they could not count on the army for protection, so they turned to the feudal system and went into serfdom which provided them with the security they needed. The book Feudalism, Monarchs, and Nobility describes the rise of the feudal system by saying “the medieval feudal system was characterized by the absence of public authority and the exercise by local lords of administrative and judicial functions formerly (and later) performed by centralized governments…” (Nagle. Pg. 9). This quote shows how the feudal system was formed out of a need for centralized government and attempted at performing functions that the centralized government once did. This feudal system gave many citizens a form of safety and government in times when they needed it most. Another positive feature of this system was that power was broken up. Instead of having one king or emperor control all of the land, nobles were given different parts of Europe which makes it easier to focus and manage one area of
Others were more like slaves. They owned nothing and were pledged to their local lord. They worked long days, 6 days a week, and often barely had enough food to survive”(“Middle Ages History”). Knights were above the peasants and they were given land granted by the barons in exchange for their military services if the king needed it. They were responsible for protecting the baron who granted them land as well as the baron’s family and the manor they lived at. The knights were able to keep any amount of land they were given, and they gave out the rest to the serfs. The lord, or baron, was above the knight in the social class divide. They were given land by the king and in return they showed loyalty to the monarch. They provided the king with fully equipped knights if the king needed some to serve. If the baron “did not have an army, sometimes they would pay the king a tax instead. This tax was called shield money”(“Middle Ages History”). The king was at the top of the feudal system and held the most power and wealth. The king could not maintain control over all the land in England so he divided the land up to the barons which eventually
Like the Pre-Columbian Civilizations, the Middle Age kingdoms of Europe had similar qualities such as the governmental structures. Spain, Portugal, England, and the rest of Europe used the Feudal System to sort out the social differences. The King and Queen were the head of state, followed by princesses, princes, bishops, and other church officials. Then came the merchants and artisans trailed by the lowly serfs and peasants who work the land for the system.
Feudalism was a political system in which the lesser served the greater in return for land. Also, the Church had a great deal with the political side of the Middle Ages. “In time of chaos The Roman Catholic Church was the single, largest unifying structure in medieval Europe” (Doc. 3). In other words, the Church influenced all there was. In 800 CE Pope Leo named King Charlemagne the “Emperor of the Romans” (OI). This is a great example of how the Church had political power.
The evolution of human society consists mainly of ineffective ruling regimes and oppressed peasants. Medieval Europe falls into this same pervasive cycle. Social and political hierarchies intertwine which creates a grossly inefficient system. Hereditary lineage determines nobility. Commoners possess no hope of social mobility.
When the aristocrats had all of the power, they were bloodthirsty. They would "sentence a youth to death" for not kneeling to monks. This was a very bad time and this seems extremely evil. It seems as if the peasants were good, yet when the tables turned they acted the exact same way as the aristocrats. The peasants had "eleven hundred defenseless prisoners killed just because they could."
Feudalism dominated European social life during the Middle Ages (Doc.1). “Feudalism was a political, economic, and social system in which nobles were granted the use of land that legally belonged to the king” (Doc. 1) "Social" life in the Middle Ages was the only kind of life people knew. Whether nobility, craftsperson or peasant, your life is defined by your family, your community and those around you (OI). “The Church protected the Kings and Queens (OI).” “The King is above Nobles, Nobles above Knights, and the Knights are above serfs (Doc.1).”
The Roman Era and the Feudal Era had many differences and comparisons between them. The Roman Era was gevorn by a king and the lower priest underneath him. The Feudal Era was almost like the Roman Era small communities were formed around the local lord and the manor. The lord owned the land and everything in it.
In Louis H. Sullivan’s article, “Thought,” he claims that our thoughts aren’t our own, but that they’re thoughts that other people have had. Sullivan’s article hits many points such as how the mind thinks, the written or spoken language, forms of communication etc. From discussing if we think in images or with words. He believes that people only need words as a spoken language but there are other ways to express yourself as well. He uses the example of music, painting and sculpture that are other ways of expressing yourself also by gestures or facial expression. How can our thoughts belong to someone else? Sometimes we do think alike with other people but our mind developed it on its own. Throughout his writing he claims that the things we
Rome was at its peak when some of its greatest leaders, such as Caesar, were in power (this time was called Pax Romana.) After this period, which had lasted from 27 BCE to 200 CE, a 50 year period of unstable leadership greatly brought along an obvious reason for decline: greed for power. The chart on document A, titled Roman Emperors 235-285 CE, shows that the emperors and higher ups only cared about power and killing to the top, as in that time span, 13 assassinations (or possible) happened to more than half of the rulers, as 13 of the 22 leaders were killed in that way. This evidence shows that Rome’s leaders did not care of their people, as the message they were sending to the people was that they cared more about hiring people to kill people higher up than their own subjects. This obviously made the people of Rome feel negative about their government, as the leader’s reason for being there is to take care of their people, which they are not doing. Therefore, Rome’s leaders were too busy bickering for power to care for their people. Additionally, many of Rome’s own people felt it was a government unfair to live under. A historical text written by Priscus described that, “[In a conversation Priscus had with a former Roman citizen whose land had been conquered] The condition of Roman subjects in time of peace [is worse than war]… taxes are very severe, … men inflict
...ing and the nobles had a right called capitaineries to all game in region, which meant that nothing could be done to harm the game even if the crops were destroyed. The system was very corrupt but the king did not change it for it meant that the peasants were more oppressed, thus less inclined to revolt.
The feudal system was one that arose in England after the invasion and conquest of William I. It has been said that this was the perfect political system for this time period. Life was really hard back in the Middle Ages and safety and defense were really hard to come by after the empire fell. There were no laws to protect the poor, so they turned to their lords to keep them safe. The king was in complete control of the system and he owned all the land. One quarter was kept as private property and the rest was given to the church or leased
There were many different systems in Europe that rose and fell throughout its colorful history. The system that was very influential of change during the Middle Ages was a duel system called feudalism/manorialism. In a lecture Robert W. Brown defines feudalism as a political structure that is a relationship between the king and his vassals while manorialism is a socio-economic structure that defines the role of the vassal and his subjects (The Legacy of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages in the West). Timothy C. Hall explains: “local nobles acquired large tr...
The feudal system was a political, military, and economic system based on the holding of land. The system was developed since the whole entire basis of rule from all the civilizations before the Middle Ages was lost. Early Europe was in desperate need of such a system since they were constantly being raided by the Vikings and other outsiders.
Feudalism was created in the 9th century to eliminate social chaos and put social classes into order. Kings would also use it to expand their land. In return they would get protection, money, crops, and court duties. It also used in war times so that the Knights were obligated to fight. They centralized government to organize power and land. Feudalism was used to give out land by the king, organize social standing and in return get military services and protection.
In contrast in Germany, kings seem unable to keep a reign on their crown as well as their nobles and other officials. ("HISTORY OF FEUDALISM." HISTORY OF FEUDALISM. ) The structure seems to fall over due to the nobility’s places as second in the Feudalism structure. But in some cases the nobility actually had more money and power than the king himself. This and as well as the other problems discussed would eventually lead to taxing and ruling from a central place, slowly becoming the norm. But, although the system seems to fall apart its customs seem to be made use to other places.