Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TonyZa's avatar

That pure feudal system was not universal across Europe and it was pretty short lived. For example, England didn't had it as William the Conqueror didn't allow the establishment of powerful territorial dukes when he divided the land.

France had powerful feudal dukes but the kings also had a large royal domain that eventually absorbed all those duchies. That large royal domain usually meant that they had their own money and army for which they didn't rely on dukes.

The dukes did rebel sometimes but that was usually just a moderating force against excessive royal power. If the great lords got too ambitious they would be opposed not only by the king but also by the powerful Catholic Church which was big on legitimacy, the towns which were allied with the Crown because they needed safe roads for trade and even their own feudal barons and knights who may use the occasion to improve their own power.

Feudal order was a cheap and effective system that allowed to run a country without a bureaucracy.

There are some drawbacks to primogeniture but it allows for incredible stability. The crown of France passed from Hugo Capet in 987 AD to the French Revolution in 1789 with only 2 minor crises of legitimacy. This means that compared to other systems France had far fewer civil wars, no paranoid rulers launching purges and always seeking for traitors, kings could trust competent ministers and generals because they didn't fear them. And in all those 800 years there was only 1 mad king Charles VI who spent almost his entire reign under a regency. Because of regencies madness was not a big concern.

There was always social mobility even in feudal Europe. The bulk of soldiers in amedieval army were men-at-arms, archers, crossbowmen, valets and sailors which were commoners. Military success could lead to being knighted and receiving a fief The church also allowed for social mobility either by raising in the ranks of Church hierarchy or by becoming a professor at a medieval university. Education could also lead one to become a member of powerful judicial courts like the Parliament of Paris. A skilled craftsman could move to a different country and receive a royal letter patent giving him a temporary monopoly on the technology he brought, the origins of our modern patents.

Expand full comment
Tikkitakki's avatar

Thank you for this wonderful post, so in depth! It makes me think of two things I’ve been reading lately.

One of them is a blog by a pre-modern Mediterranean history professor (https://acoup.blog/) who has a bunch of posts about things like “how did these systems of vassalage work to keep kingdoms from imploding?” I wonder whether you might enjoy it!

The second is this book called “the WEIRDest people in the world”, and I think its argument for why pre-modern European cultures didn’t do this reasonable hybrid-meritocracy-plus-concubines thing is the whole Christian insistence on fidelity between one man and one woman. Which is partially a religious fixation, but their argument is that it’s also practical, in a way related to something you mentioned about why the CCP is pushing marriage so hard: if there’s no polygamy/concubinage, there are enough wives to go around even for poor peasants. And if even the poorest peasant men have a wife and family to lose, they’ll be less willing to rock the boat/burn it all down.

I honestly don’t know enough, I feel like I need to read more from the ACoUP blog!

ADDITION: Come to think, I wonder whether it was post-Rome, pre-modern Europe’s lack of coordination that stopped it from having a system like this. In order to reward a soldier for bringing back an enemy’s head, you have to be able to identify and *get* the materials for that reward in the first place. And to keep him from giving that inheritance to his children, you need to have the organization to notice that he’s hoarding, and the power to take it away from him. For a locally powerful noble to advance more and take more land, maybe even become a king, they need to feed and coordinate enough soldiers to take and hold the land, and administer and tax it. If the big problem is logistics and extracting surplus from the peasants — a 10-30% literacy rate isn’t enough to have a good pool of talent for a big bureaucracy — noble holdings and armies just wouldn’t be able to get overly big. This is spit-balling, but it would kind of make sense that China was able to take a certain level of organization/bureaucracy for granted when other, simpler places couldn’t!

Expand full comment
28 more comments...

No posts