Feudal social ladder in Europe. Feudal staircase in the Middle Ages. How the feudal ladder system was structured

Feudal lords and feudalism.

Questions

1. What are the differences between the plot from the “Novel about Kis” and the famous fable by I. A. Krylov “The Crow and the Fox”?

2. What are your assumptions about the common roots of the above scene from “The Romance of the Fox” and Krylov’s fable?

3. Which “social group” does the author include the Fox and the Crow? Why do you think?

4. Is it possible to guess what class the poet belonged to, who worked on the plot of the Fox and Tjeslin for his poem?

Who are the feudal lords?

The peasants worked for 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. It is already clear to us 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, and in connection with this, 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 feuds already known to us. It is about this main part of the ruling layer of medieval Europe that the further story will go.

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 lord (ʼʼseniorʼʼ) 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, for example, 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. Οʜᴎ became vassals in relation to him, and he became their lord. One step down, everything was repeated again. However, it turned out to be something like a ladder, where almost everyone could be a vassal and a lord at the same time. The king was the lord of everyone, 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.

ʼʼThe vassal of my vassal is my vassalʼʼ?

In some countries, for example Germany, it was believed that everyone who stands on the steps of this “feudal ladder” is obliged to obey the king. In other countries, primarily in France, the rule was in force: 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 contradicted 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. However, 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 commands 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, incl. and 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 his rights were a threat. 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 were in awe of him. If the lord was weak, then turmoil reigned in his possessions: vassals attacked each other, neighbors, the possessions of their lord, robbed other people's peasants, and sometimes even 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...

Feudal lords and feudalism.

Questions

1. What are the differences between the plot from “The Novel about Kitty” and the famous fable by I. A. Krylov “The Crow and the Fox”?

2. What are your assumptions about the common roots of the above scene from “The Romance of the Fox” and Krylov’s fable?

4. Is it possible to guess what class the poet belonged to, who worked on the plot of the Fox and Tjeslin for his poem?

Who are the feudal lords?

The peasants worked for 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.

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.

“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 commands 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...

In medieval studies, since the time of F. Engels, France has been assigned the definition of the country of classical feudalism, which emphasizes the completeness and expressiveness of its forms. But this definition is valid only for the northern and central parts of the country, in which the symbiosis of Roman and barbarian principles was most fully developed. These same territories also had the most favorable conditions for the development of agriculture, mainly grain.

The lands in the basins of the Seine and Loire rivers, in the areas adjacent to Paris and Orleans, were distinguished by favorable geographical conditions, there were fertile lands, a developed network of roads and navigable rivers was inherited from the Roman Empire, and the population density was relatively high.

Formation of the feudal class

Note 1

At the end of the 11th century. There is an increase in the number of feudal lords and its disintegration into several groups. From the large lords, who, as a rule, traced their ancestry to the Carolingian nobility, numerous side branches were separated, from which a significant group of middle feudal lords was formed.

In quantitative terms, the predominant category was small feudal lords, people who came from vassals and servants of the king and secular magnates. Another important source of replenishment of the lower strata of the feudal ladder was the rural community, or rather, free members of the community who became professional warriors.

By the 11th century. the feudal class as a whole had already separated from other classes, becoming a closed privileged group, membership to which was determined by birth. By that time, the feudal lords had monopolized almost all land ownership, which became a reflection of the legal norm that had developed in society “there is no land without a lord.”

The allods of free community members became an exception even in the southern regions, where their numbers were greater than in the north. Communal lands also fell under the authority of the lords, the use of which by the peasants was now accompanied by the payment of certain duties.

Gradually, banal rights of lords were formed, monopolizing the rights to the oven, mill and grape press, which had previously been the collective property of the community.

Feudal staircase

The completeness of the process of formalizing the feudal estate is also indicated by the fact that a consistent hierarchy (feudal ladder) has developed among it:

the lowest level was represented by a group of “single-shield” knights who had no vassals;
After 3-4 intermediate steps, on which the wealthier feudal lords were located, there were the highest layers of the hierarchy - the rulers of significant territories:
- Dukes of Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Aquitaine,
- Counts of Champagne.

Specifics of feudal relations in France

The hierarchy of French feudal lords was characterized by the norm: “The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal,” which preserved the privileges of large feudal lords from the encroachments of the central government, but at the same time ensured the internal cohesion of this class.

The implementation of a monopoly on land allowed the feudal lords in France to acquire significant political power. The main political prerogative was the right of legal proceedings, court fines from which were a significant source of income for the lords. Large feudal lords also had the right of supreme justice.

The process of formation of the ruling class in France was faster than in most Western European countries and was more complete. The formation of the feudal-dependent peasantry was a slower process, which also generally ended in the 11th century.

Note 2

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)

“My vassal’s vassal is my vassal”?

Dispute between lord and vassal. Miniature (XII century)

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 might. 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, I promised in a letter to Geffier of Spoletsky 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 malice, which Guillaume had better 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.”

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, which 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.