MEDIEVAL WARFARE

The Many Faces of Feudalism

Definition:  Feudalism was a system of social, political, economic, and military organization which involved the upper classes of medieval society.  The majority of those directly involved in feudalism were members of the warrior class; however, a significant minority were members of the upper clergy (bishops, archbishops, abbots).
The word feudalism  came into existence only in the seventeenth or eighteenth century and is therefore of relatively recent origin.  However, it does have good medieval roots since it comes from the medieval Latin word feudum (feodum) which translates into English as fief.  (The fief was at heart of the feudal system.)
Major generalizations concerning feudalism:
(1)  It was the dominant system for organizing the upperclasses throughout much of medieval Europe.
(2)  It provided a means by which both land and political power could be parcialed out among those who were involved in the system.
(3)  It was a complex system which varied from place to place and time to time.
(4)  It involved what we call an 'honorable' relationship, between members of the elite.  Therefore, it did not directly involve the peasants who farmed the land.  The land which they worked was an integral part of the feudal system, but they themselves were not.
By contrast, the relationship between the upper classes and the peasantry was regarded as a 'servile'one; in other words, a relationship in which one group (the peasants) performed menial functions which were those of a servant.  The name for this larger relationship which involved both the aristocracy in the role of "exploiters" and the peasantry in the role of "exploited" is called manorialism.
Feudal Contract:  the contract between the lord (the dominant party) and the vassal (the subordinate party) which lay at the heart of the feudal system.
As part of this contract, the lord owed his vassal:
(1)  a fief (or other form of support)
(2)  protection
(3)  good lordship
Note:  There was another form of support characteristic of the Middle Ages; what is known as maintenance.  While the more important vassals would obtain fiefs, it is probable that the majority of vassals would be maintained.
The vassal owed his lord:
(1)  loyalty
(2)  certain forms of service (in particular, military service)
(3)  feudal dues
Fief (from Latin feodum):  a parcel of land from which the vassal could derive an income, which meant that it had to be an agriculturally productive piece of land with the labor necessary to keep it producing.
Maintenance:  a means of giving support to a vassal, without actually giving that vassal a fief.  Instead of getting a fief from which he could draw an income, the vassal was taken directly into the lord's household, where he received food, clothing, shelter, and weapons.  The forerunner of feudalism, which existed before the time of Charlemagne, involved maintenance rather than the giving of fiefs.  Even after the appearance of the fief, maintenance remained an important part of the feudal system throughout the Middle Ages, for the simple reason that no lord ever had enough fiefs to give one to each of his vassals.
In the Middle Ages, the basic unit of land with labor attached to it was known as a manor; consequently, a fief would usually consist of one or more manors.
How does one distinguish between the fief and the manor?  The manor was the basic unit of land in the Middle Ages, with an agricultural population living on it.  Only when that manor was granted by a lord to a vassal, as part of the feudal contract, did it become a fief.
Characteristics of the fief:
(1)  the lord did not give the vassal outright ownership.  Instead, the vassal received use of the land.  In return, the vassal had to fulfill certain continuing obligations to the lord.
If the vassal failed to fulfill these obligations, the land would legally revert to the lord.  In short, the fief was more like a rental contract, than an outright gift of property.
(2) The fiefholder had certain rights over his fief which we today would not think of as property rights.  He would rule, tax, and try the people who lived on his fief.
Forms of service owed by a vassal:
(1)  The primary service which a vassal owed his lord was military service.  When called up by his lord, the vassal would be obliged to appear at a specified time, with whatever forces he owed under his contract.  He and his men would have to continue serving for however long the contract required or custom demanded.  (The most widely acknowledged period for military service was forty days a year.)
(2)  A vassal could be called on to govern a town or castle for his lord.
(3)  He could also be asked to serve on the lord's court and help try cases involving other vassals and even the lord himself.
(4)  He could be asked to serve on the lord's council and give advice.
These forms of service which the lord could demand of his vassal had one thing in common:   they all constituted honorable service!  They were distinct from the servile obligations owed by the peasant population to its masters.  Consequently, while you could ask your vassal to go out and fight, kill or die for you, you could not ask him to plant your grain or plow your fields; nor could you ask his wife to cook your meals or do your sewing.  These were servile tasks, to be performed by those who stood outside the feudal contract.
Trial by one's Peers [Equals]:  this was a principle from feudal law.  In the feudal court, the lord could not simply hand down a judgment against his vassal as he could against a peasant.  Instead, the vassal, as a member of the warrior elite, had a right to be tried by his peers, or, in other words, by his fellow vassals.  This concept of being tried by a jury of one's peers is an important part of modern Anglo-American law.
The vassal was supposed to bring his disagreements into the lord's court where they might be settled through peaceful means.  Medieval warriors had a widely recognized right to resort to the use of force in settling their quarrels.  In order to limit this dangerous activity, the feudal system called upon them to first go into the lord's court and try for a peaceful solution.
Feudal dues:  payments owned by the vassal to the lord.
(1)  Hospitality:  When the lord and his court arrived at the fief of a vassal, they could lay claim to this hospitality; which meant that the vassal would have to house, feed, and entertain the lot of them.  Usually limited to three days a year.
(2)  Aides:  payment made to the lord on certain special occasions:
(a) the knighting of his eldest son
(b) the marriage of his eldest daughter
(c) when he had to be ransommed from captivity
(d) to help him prepare to go on crusade
Although we might regard these financial contributions as a sort of taxation,  the medieval warrior would not have seen them as such.  Instead, he would have been very careful to distinguish them as "honorable" feudal dues.
Throughout the Middle Ages, and well into the modern period, aristocrats in most parts of Europe enjoyed exemption from the major taxes imposed upon the majority of the population.  Consequently, taxes were something which common people payed; not aristocrats!
Even in the Middle Ages, with its limited literacy, there was a good chance that such an important thing as a feudal contract would be written down.  However, as in so many other cases in the Middle Ages, it would have been considered to have been fully in force only after the performance of certain ceremonies.
Ceremonies which put the feudal contract in force:
(1)  Homage:  the principal oath which a vassal swore to his lord in the presence of the other vassals to observe the contract.
(2)  Fealty:  a similar religious oath usually sworn on a Bible or sacred relict (such as the bones of a saint).  Fealty represented the Christianizing influence.
During the period when feudalism was just developing, the lord would ordinarily grant a fief to his vassal for a specified period of time - usually his lifetime.  With the passage of time, however, there was great pressure to make the system hereditary.  Each fief holder had the natural human desire to provide for his offspring.  Eventually, this pressure altered the system; and it became customary for the eldest son to succeed his father in the fief.
Relief:  an inheritance tax (an aristocrat would call it a "feudal due") paid to the lord by the vassal's son in order to inherit his father's fief.  It often amounted to a full year's revenue from the fief.
Primogeniture:  the rule of inheritance by the eldest son which came to govern the passage of fiefs.
Two ways of losing the fief:
(1)  Escheat:  Loss resulting from the failure to produce heirs capable of inheriting.  (For example, if the feudal contract provided for succession by a male heir and the vassal had only daughters.)
(2)  Forfeiture:  loss which occurred when a vassal committed a serious crime, which violated the feudal contract.
Felony:  in the Middle Ages, any crime calling for forfeiture. The person who committed such a crime was called a felon.  Thus, we take our modern word for any serious crime from feudal law.
What would happen when the vassal left an heir who, under the terms of the contract, had a right to inherit the fief, but was either a minor or a female?  (The minor was too young to perform the services - in particular, the military service - owed under the contract while the female was disqualified by her sex from doing so.)
The feudal system came up with solutions to the problems of both age and sex:
(1)  Wardship
(2)  Right of marriage
Wardship:  the right of the lord to take control over the heir to a vassal's fief when that heir was (a) too young to fulfill the service demanded by the feudal contract; or (b) an unmarried female.  In either case, the lord would collect the income from the fief throughout the period when the heir was his ward.  When the son came of age, he would inherit his father's fief.
Right of marriage:  if the contract permitted any direct descendant - male or female - to inherit the fief, then it could pass to a daughter.  In this case, the lord could invoke what was called his 'right of marriage' which was the right either to choose the woman's husband or to okay her choice.  It was a way of insuring that the military service owed on the fief would be performed. Subinfeudation:  this occurred when a vassal sub-divided his fief, keeping part of it for his own support, while handing over part of it to yet another member of the warrior class.  In doing this, the vassal was entering a new feudal contract, in which he would be the lord, and the man to whom he had given part of his own fief would become his vassal.  Thus, the same individual could be both a lord and a vassal at the same time.  It was subinfeudation which made feudalism into an interlocking system of lords and vassals.
At the top of the feudal system was a sovereign lord, such as a king or emperor, who, according to feudal theory received his kingdom as a result of God's will.  He therefore had the land of that kingdom at his disposal.
In order to rule, he needed the services and loyalty of his best subjects.  To acquire these, he entered into feudal contracts, conferring major fiefs upon them.
Tenant-in-chief:  those individuals who had a feudal contract directly with the king.  They often bore a major title such as count, duke, marquess or, on the ecclesiastical side, bishop or archbishop.
Rear Vassal:  any vassal who had his contract with somebody other than the king.
Knight Service:  the military service of one knight.  If the feudal contract specified that the vassal owed his lord the service of ten mounted warriors, it was said that he owed 'ten knight's service.'
The feudal system permeated the upper classes of society, and tied together its members.
Like many other important institutions in the medieval west, feudalism had roots which were in part Roman and in part German.  In particular, there were three earlier institutions which helped give rise to feudalism:
(1)  Patrocinium (Roman)
(2)  Precarium (Roman)
(3)  Comitatus (German)
Patrocinium:  the Roman system of patronage where a powerful man (known as a patron) had a number of men dependent upon him (called his clients.)  Patrocinium was most prevalent in periods of disorder, such as the late Empire, when public authority was in eclipse.  Both patron and client benefited from being part of the system.  The patron would get a number of clients to do his bidding, and protect him against lawless elements in society.  The client would get the protection and security afforded by having a rich and powerful patron.  Actually, there were two kinds of clients.  Some, in return for protection, became mere laborers (coloni), working their patron's estate.  However, if the client had some sort of military talent, he would serve his patron as a soldier.  These military clients were maintained in the patron's household with an allowance of food, clothing, and weapons; and, in return, they were expected to fight the patron's battles.  Thus, the institution of patrocinium actually pointed in two distinct directions:  (a) if a client became a colonus, it pointed toward the medieval serf and the system known as manorialism; (b) If the client became a soldier, it pointed toward the warrior vassal and the system of feudalism.
Precarium:  a piece of land granted by a wealthy Roman to someone less well off on the condition that the recipient pay certain dues, fulfill certain services, or both.  Eventually, this precarium evolved into the beneficium (or benefice); which in turn evolved into the feudum (or fief.)
Comitatus:  Roman word for the German warrior band in which a number of young men attached themselves to a war-like chieftain, who would lead them into battle.  The chief was like the medieval feudal lord; the young men were his vassals.
The feudal system of the Middle Ages grew up in the region between the Loire and Rhine Rivers, in the heart of what was then the Frankish Empire.  It came of age in the centuries between Clovis and Charlemagne; or, in other words, between roughly 500 and 800 A. D.  It reached its peak in the centuries after Charlemagne's death (from roughly 800 to 1100), but continued to exist for centuries thereafter.
Merovingian Vassalage:  the kind of lord-vassal relationship which grew up under the Merovingian kings.  A Frankish warrior would 'commend' himself to some powerful lord which was simply another was of saying that he would agree to be the lord's vassal in return for the lord's support.  Support took the form of maintenance; it did not ordinarily involve the giving of a fief.  The addition of the fief was the major step in the evolution of feudalism out of Merovingian vassalage.
Charles Martel:  Charlemagne's grandfather and the victor of the Battle of Tours.  He is believed by many historians to be the 'father of feudalism.'  It was Charles Martel who appears to have been most responsible for the idea of creating a permanent class of heavily-armed, mounted warriors who would draw their support from fiefs and could therefore could devote full time to training and fighting.
The role of the stirrup:  around the mid-twentieth century, the foremost historian of medieval technology, Lynn White, Jr., established a new paradigm to explain the growth of feudalism at this particular point in time:  the introduction into the west of the stirrup.  Without the stirrup, the medieval knight as we know him would not have existed.  According to White, the shock of a cavalry charge would have tended to throw him violently from his horse.  Consequently, Charles Martel's plan to form a force of heavy cavalry would not have gotten off the ground were it not for one of the key technological developments of the Middle Ages.  Actually, the stirrup seems to have been invented in Central Asia centuries before Christ, but made its appearance in the west around the 8th century.
The system set up by Charles Martel was further developed under his son, Pepin the Short, and his grandson, Charlemagne.  By the death of Charlemagne, the essential features of feudalism were all present:
(1)  There was a feudal contract, binding together lord and vassal.
(2)  The primary obligation of the vassal was military service.
(3)  The warrior vassal enjoyed high social status.
(4)  In return for his services, the vassal would often receive a fief.
Generally speaking, each fief holder exercised within his own fief an almost sovereign power to govern the land and its inhabitants.
Immunity:  special grant by a Frankish king which would free the fief from the jurisdiction of government officials.  The grant of immunity took away from the government, and transferred to the fiefholder, most political and judicial power over the fief.  Originally, only the lands of the king enjoyed this freedom from interference by local officials.  However, as time passed, immunity became increasingly widespread.  Eventually, in the troubled centuries following Charlemagne, immunity more or less came to characterize all fiefs.
Noble Titles:  Another reflection of the disintegration of central authority which accompanied the rise of feudalism can be seen in the origins of the great noble titles - duke, marquess, and count.  Originally, the men who held these titles were government officials and they served at the pleasure of the king.  A distinction was made between a man's administrative district - such as a county or duchy - and his fiefs.  In other words, a count's county was not originally regarded as his fief.  Eventually, however, this key distinction broke down.  What had once been an administrative territory and the title which went with it came to be regarded as a hereditary fief which the fief holder could pass on to his heirs.  Thus, many monarchs in Europe lost control over the appointment of their major regional officials.
The fragmentation of power which grew out of the feudal system did not stop at the regional level.  In the centuries after the death of Charlemagne, even localities became virtually independent of any higher authority.  All up and down the feudal hierarchy, men were doing their best to be as independent as possible of their lords, while at the same time trying to retain control over their own vassals.
List of Problems and Complexities involved in the Feudal System
(1)  the problem of vassal independence
(2)  the problem of proliferating quarrels
(3)  the problem of multiple fief-holding
(4)  conflicts of interest
(5)  the problem of overmighty-vassals
(6)  the loyalty crisis
(7)  the Church and the Feudal System 
[Note:  the names for problems are my own.]
(1)  The Problem of Vassal Independence:  When vassals were maintained in the household, they remained highly dependent upon the lord; if they disobeyed or defied him, they could be dismissed.  When lords began granting fiefs, it became much more difficult to discipline a disobedient or rebellious vassal - for the simple reason that it was far easier to cut off his maintenance than to take back his fief.  Fiefs were often heavily fortified, necessitating a military effort on the lord's part.  To complicate matters, still further, the fief of a rebellious vassal might lie at quite some distance from the rest of the lord's property, increasing the difficulties of an attack.  The growing use of fiefs made the problem of vassal independence a serious one.
 (2)  The Problem of Proliferating Quarrels:  This was the likelihood that a quarrel between members of the feudal system would  spread widely throughout the feudal network as each party to the quarrel called on his lord for protection and on his own vassals for military service.  Given these reciprocal obligations, the feudal system automatically tended toward escalation.
(3)  The Problem of Multiple Fief-holding:  In the early Middle Ages, a vassal would have only one lord in whose household he was maintained.  The introduction of fiefs enabled the vassal to form feudal contracts with several lords, from each of whom he would receive a fief.  By gathering a number of fiefs, he would increase his own standing within the society.  The counts of Champagne are an extreme example of multiple fief-holding:  they held land from a number of feudal lords, including the King of France, one abbot, three bishops, two archbishops, the Duke of Burgundy, and the Emperor of Germany.  While the counts of Champagne provide one of the most extreme examples of multiple fief-holding, there were many others who practiced it on a somewhat less exaggerated scale.  The existence of multiple fief-holding was at the heart of many of the worst problems of the feudal system.
(4)  Conflicts of Interest:  The feudal relationship between lord and vassal was based on a contract in which each party owed the other certain obligations, the most important of which was military.  Conflicts of interest occurred when a man had several feudal lords, and they got embroiled in a quarrel with one another.   Which would the vassal support?  Since multiple fief-holding made such conflicts fairly common, the system eventually encorporated means by which a vassal might sort out his conflicting loyalties.  The most important was liege homage.  This was the homage a vassal owed his principal lord, who, as a result, became known as his liege lord.   Liege homage would be reserved in all subsequent contracts.  In other words, in later feudal contracts, the vassal would specify something like: "I will faithfully serve you against all men except my liege lord [naming the individual]."
(5)  Problem of Over-mighty Vassals:  This problem is another which traces in large part to multiple fief-holding.  An over-mighty vassals was a vassal who was as strong as or stronger than his lord(s).  In the Middle Ages, the situation often arose; the Plantagenet kings of England supply the most famous example..  The ancestors of these kings had been the Norsemen who were given the Duchy of Normandy in the tenth century.  Here, they set up one of the most powerful and best organized territorial states of the period.  This made it possible for them to spread their control to adjacent areas of France, not infrequently defying their overlord the king of France.  Officially vassals of the French king, the very extent of their holdings placed them in the category of over-mighty vassals, even without the next step.  That step came in 1066, when one of the most talented of these Dukes of Normandy, William the Bastard (also known as William the Conqueror), sailed across the channel to England, won the great battle of Hastings, and seized the English crown.  Now, not only were William and his descendants vassals of the Kings of France, they were also kings of England.  As a result, they were the greatest over-mighty vassals of the Middle Ages.  Their existence gave rise to one of the greatest medieval power struggles:  the struggle over who would dominate France.  Would it be the French royal family - the so-called Capetian Dynasty - or would it be their over-mighty vassalss, the Plantagenets?  For some four centuries, from roughly 1050 to 1450, this struggle continued.  Its final phase, which saw the expulsion of the Plantagenets from their French properties, was known as the Hundred Years War.
(6)  The Loyalty Crisis:  a problem largely resulting from the fief having become hereditary.  Since a lord greatly depended upon the loyalty of his vassals, he would choose as a vassal somebody with whom he had a good relationship - somebody he could count on for loyalty and service.  In a non-hereditary system, when that vassal died, the lord would get back the fief which he could then hand out to another vassal whom he trusted.  As a result of always being able to choose who would hold the fief, a lord would have the best chance of obtaining loyal and competent vassals.  When fiefs became hereditary, the equation changed.  Although a lord might initially enter into a feudal contract with a vassal of his choice, after that vassal's death, he could no longer choose the next person to get the fief.  Instead, he would have to grant it to the vassal's eldest son.  In this way, the right of inheritance ended the lord's power to choose his own vassals. Even if the lord and vassal enjoyed the closest possible relationship, who could say that their sons, grandsons, or great grandsons would enjoy a similar relationship?   
(7)  The Feudal System and the Church:  Over the course of the Middle Ages, these two institution became inextricably entangled.  It was not only members of the warrior aristocracy who participated in feudalism; many members of the clergy - in particular the upper clergy - were also involved.  A churchman, such as a bishop or archbishop, was fully capable of entering into a feudal contract, either as a lord or as a vassal.
Ways in which churchmen entered into the system. 
Gifts of land given to the church:  Through such gifts, the church became one of the greatest, if not the greatest landowner in medieval Europe.  Often, the land was given as a fief; and the churchman who held it, such as the local bishop, became the vassal of the lord who gave it.  Such a bishop was no longer just a clergyman; he was a feudal vassal as well.  In the event that his two masters came into conflict, which would he serve? 
The Church distributing land as fiefs:  Here, it was acting no differently than any other great landholder of the period.  The church also needed feudal vassals, in order to secure the military service so necessary for protection amidst the dangers and disorder of medieval society.  
In handing out fiefs, the church was usually acting voluntarily; sometimes, however, it was not.  A powerful king might force the church to convert some of its land into fiefs, which would then be granted to his supporters.  In this way, the crown rewarded its followers at the expense of the church.  The major example of someone doing this was Charlemagne's grandfather - Charles Martel - who confiscated church lands throughout the Frankish Empire to use as fiefs.
Churchmen and Military Service:   Churchmen faced a serious problem when it came to rendering the military service due from a fief holder. Although starting around the time of Constantine (c.300), the Church had relaxed its original ban on bloodletting, thereby permitting laymen to engage in that activity, the ban continued for churchmen.   Consequently, the question arose, how could a churchman fulfill both his religious and his feudal obligations?
The easiest way was through subinfeudation.  For example, if a bishop had a contract granting him twenty manors for ten knights service:  Instead of contracting with only nine knights, and then leading them to war in person as regular feudal lords were expected to do, the bishop could contract with ten knights, sending one of them as his substitute. The one to whom he entrusted command was known as an advocatus.  While such an arrangement would not be honorable for a vassal who was a member of the warrior class, it was quite alright for a churchman.  In fact, this was the major way in which the great churchmen of the Middle Ages could satisfy both their god and their feudal lord.
Not all churchmen chose this path.  An overwelming percentage of the upper clergy came out of the warrior class.  The less dedicated ones might refuse to give up their aristocratic way of life, including the combat that characterized their class. Consequently, quite a few medieval clerics simply ignored the rules; and the great warrior churchman was a prominent feature on medieval battlefields.
In certain cases, the church actually waived its rules against warring clerics; for example, when they were fighting in a holy war or crusade.  The shedding of infidel or heretic blood was not looked upon with the same disfavor as the shedding of good Christian blood.
Using the Church to solve the Loyalty Crisis:  A king or great noble would appoint someone he trusted to an important position in the church, making him a bishop or abbot.  He would then confer upon that trusted churchman a major fief.  Since members of the clergy could not produce legitimate children, there would be no one to inherit that fief when the churchman died.
Instead, it would revert to the lord who could then bestow it on another churchman whom he had appointed - and so on.  However, for this system to work, it was absolutely critical that the ruler maintained control over the appointment of his churchmen.  And it was for this reason that rulers all over Europe reacted so harshly to the attempts of the church to prevent them from appointing their churchmen.  Such a reform would endanger one of the major ways in which they could control the choice of vassals.  As we shall see, this great battle between the rulers and the church over who would appoint churchmen became known as the investiture controversy.