One of the common characteristics that all historical eras or periods have is that there are elements that stand out above the rest and become referents of that stage. In the Middle Ages one of those outstanding elements is feudalism. However, as can be seen in the following lines that will make up this article, the feudal system is much more complex than might be considered at first. Traditionally, feudalism is usually associated with the Middle Ages in Western Europe as a whole, although this is quite inaccurate. It can also be found intimately linked with the term lordship, despite the fact that the differences between the two are also evident, as will be seen. Admitting the complexity of the subject, the scheme that the article will follow will be aimed at getting to know more or less precisely that political, social and economic phenomenon that was feudalism, but also the debates that its study has launched. To do this, the main controversies around feudalism will be exposed, around when and where it developed, but also about how it has been understood and studied, from there three sections will be dedicated to the configuration of feudalism, one to its previous stages, another will be assigned to the full stage and the third will start with the increase in royal power around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, extending until the end of the Middle Ages.
Controversies over feudalism.
Before beginning to explain what the feudal system consisted of, two matters must be made clear; the first of them is related to chronology: in no way can feudalism be considered to have spread during the Middle Ages (5th-15th centuries) in a monolithic way; later it will be described when it developed, but by now it should be clear that what is certain is that feudalism proper (which will be defined later) did not spread during those ten centuries, much less unchanged. This problem is related to another of the myths about the time that we are dealing with: the one related to considering the medieval era as a period of few variations and changes. The second of the postulates that must be crystal clear is the one related to the spatial component, feudalism did not develop in the same way in all parts of Western Europe, far from it. Thus, having clear what feudalism is not and having discarded some of the most widespread ideas, it is time to describe what it is.
Although it is relatively easy to banish topics due to its simplicity, executing a negative definition of feudalism (what it is not), much more complex is to give a positive definition. Many specialists of different nationalities have dedicated themselves to this task for decades. Accordingly, the list of interpretations that exist around this topic is very extensive, which connects with what history itself is, which “far from being a mere collection of static facts, is a dynamic hermeneutic process” (Little and Rosenwein 2003 :sp). Those interpretations discuss where and when the feudal system developed, but also how it developed; All this is explained below. On the other hand, it is necessary to specify that there are authors who refer to this reality as feudalism and others as a feudal system, but in order to simplify understanding, both will be used interchangeably throughout the article.
Where and when did the feudal system develop?
As for the debates on the beginning of feudalism, there are several currents, two of the main ones are those that focus on continuity or rupture to explain the arrival of the feudal system. The mutationist theses consider that the Germanic societies, originated as a result of the fall of the Empire, existed until the year 1000; at that time one sudden, violent crisis… would lead to the destruction of the old political and economic edifice which is replaced by a new system: feudalism. This conception would be based on two main elements. The first of these is the continuity and survival of slavery, understood as a fundamental part of the economic system developed between the 5th and 10th centuries. Second, the continuity of the legal and administrative structures of the Roman or late Roman type where the public authority; Said authority is exercised in a homogeneous way over all the inhabitants in relation to issues such as taxation and justice. For example, in Catalonia that crisis occurs between 1020 and 1060 and after that period of crisis the feudal society would arise. These ideas have also been echoed in León and for this space the chronology speaks of a rupture between the end of the 10th century and the beginning of the 11th. In other words, even in relatively small spaces, the chronologies change, which gives an idea of the complexity of the general panorama.
Against these theories, there are authors who consider that feudalism is born from a series of processes and changes that extend over time.. From this point of view, the transformation of older realities would occur in some areas faster than in others. That process of transformation would have ended around the 11th century in general; although, again, it is necessary to point out that the chronology is not monolithic and that there are some areas where that date would be somewhat later. According to these theories, the late Roman society is transformed into a feudal society. In the Peninsula, this theory will find certain problems derived from the Muslim invasion; thus, prior to the invasion there seem to be some proto-feudal elements in those more Romanized areas of the Guadalquivir valley, although this theoretical process of transformation would be broken with the rupture of 711. Despite this, some authors consider that, indeed, peninsular feudalism it comes from the evolution of ancient societies, but not Roman but indigenous; it would be a process through which the gentile societies of the north of the Peninsula would be transformed into feudal societies.
There are also hard debates surrounding the end of feudalism. There are those who consider that its end came in the 16th century with the construction of modern states, while other authors extend the life of feudalism to dates as late as the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century, although many others consider that it can only talk of feudalism between the 10th and 12th centuries (Arroyo Martín 2018: 11). The same happens with regard to the territorial development of the feudal system; there are those who argue about in which places in Europe it developed while others do so around the question of whether it was an exclusively European phenomenon or if, on the contrary, other civilizations such as the Muslim or even the Japanese set up systems comparable to Feudalism.
How feudalism has been understood and studied.
The first scholars of the subject were, above all, historians whose research was aimed at law and institutions. Two authors stand out within this category: R. Boutruche and F. Ganshof. Both study feudal-vassal ties and define feudalism in a concrete way, as a specific legal institution. Its definition has a lot to do with that contract, that is, with the legal elements that make up that reality. In this way, the feudal system would affect the king and the privileged society, which were a clear minority within the whole of medieval society; thus, this way of analyzing feudalism included a very small percentage of the population as part of the system.
When these institutions did not appear in a pure way, many authors argued that one could not speak of feudalism. That is why some authors begin to theorize about the non-existence of the feudal system in certain areas of Europe, in the case of Sánchez Albornoz who defends these theses applied to the peninsula, with the exception of the Catalan area which, due to its Frankish influences, does presents a pure feudal model. Namely, it fell into a kind of Manichaeism because it was considered that it either existed or not, leaving out all kinds of intermediate situations.
In addition, the jurists considered that the lordship was not part of that contract, that the feudal contract was separate from the manorial regime. That vision of legal scholars is going to be questioned subsequently by those who interpret these feudal-vassal contracts in a different way. An example of this are the historians of the french annals school, authors such as Marc Bloch or Georges Duby provide a new point of view on the situation. These authors considered that, to define feudalism, it was necessary to take into account an economic and social component that legal historians ignored. Within this component, one of the great changes that they advocated was to include the peasants in the feudal system, they would be a key part of that system by virtue of the fact that they were the majority group in society, for example, around the 12th century the European societies could have over 80% of the rural population, dedicated almost exclusively to agricultural work (García Cortázar and Sesma Muñoz 2008: 193).
It will also be very important stream of scholars focused on historical materialism, who analyzed historical reality from a Marxist perspective, two of them are Guy Bois and Hilton. These authors considered that to define feudalism it is necessary to highlight the seigniorial domination and peasant dependency as a result of that domination. All this is revealed in the geographical framework of the manor. In this way, Marxist scholars united feudalism and lordship because “feudalism is considered as a transition between the slave and capitalist system; therefore, it uses an eminently economic and social definition, much closer to the manorial regime than to feudal relations” (Arroyo Martín 2018: 12). Therefore, both the Marxists and the members of the annals school are going to propose a different definition of feudalism that, without neglecting legal institutions, includes other elements such as manorial domination. In other words, the links between the privileged would be as feudal as the relationship between the lords and the peasants. This vision is fully accepted within the framework of the study of history, but in the legal field there are still those who consider the most restricted definition correct.
Lordship and feudalism.
Before going on to talk about the process experienced by feudalism throughout the Middle Ages, it is necessary to point out the similarities and differences around the term manor and its connections with feudalism. During feudal times, the lordship has been described as “the main agent of the entire system” (Fourquin in Arroyo Martín 2018: 25); This is due to the fact that it was the main economic and social agent of the time, through which the highest tycoons to the most impoverished peasants are supported….