The Feudal (not futile) Era

Charlemagne’s empire crystalized an economic, social, and political system called feudalism. This system flowed from the mixture of Roman and Germanic ways of life as channeled by Christian beliefs and practices. Roman society favored a landed estate, owned by the aristocracy and worked by slaves. Christian teachings did not prohibit slavery—both Old and New Testament regulated slavery rather than forbidding it, but the New Testament also stresses the brotherhood and equality of all Christians under the Lord Christ and in His Church. Under Germanic leaders, the working class shifted from slaves to serfs. Serfs, unlike slaves, were not property to be bought and sold. They belonged to the land and could not be removed from the land; when the land changed hands, owners moved but serfs remained. The genius of feudalism was that mutual obligations and services existed at every level of society. Like a lease between renter and landlord today, the agreement between serfs and lords placed each party under obligation to the other. Serfs tended the land, produced a crop for the lords, and had other duties on the estate. Lords protected their serfs, acknowledged their rights, and saw that their basic needs were met. Abuses happened in feudalism, as was the case with slaves and masters and is the case with employers and workers today. But feudalism was right for Europe’s Middle Ages (and similar systems existed in India, China, and especially Japan around the same time).

Lords owned land and directed the serfs who lived on the land. But lords answered to higher officials—to counts and dukes and earls and other nobility. Those counts and dukes and earls answered to kings. The kings answered to an emperor. The emperor answered to God—sometimes directly and sometimes through Church officials (and that balance could be contentious at times). Each of these relationships involved promises of loyalty and protection, and the feudal bonds could be broken if promises were not kept. Many of the landowners—lords, counts, dukes, and earls—were warriors, or knights, who served their kings and their emperor. They needed wealth to be knights—to have armor and weapons and a horse, as well as means to maintain them and training to use them properly. They might train some of their serfs as infantry, but warfare relied upon the cavalry of knights, and those knights were expected to follow the rules of warfare and of society according to the code of chivalry.

Feudalism helped to maintain a stable society, but it also opened the door to a passage toward our modern economy. Not all peasants were serfs who worked the land on the lords’ estates. Some serfs on the estates, and some peasants not tied to the land, excelled in crafts that were not agricultural. Some were builders in stone or in wood. Some were smiths, working with metals. Some made clothing. Sheep were raised for their wool, so the fabric industry needed shepherds, shearers, spinners, weavers, fullers, dyers, and tailors. Likewise, cattle were raised for milk, for farm labor, for meat, and for leather. Tanners and shoemakers came from the peasantry. (Consider how many of these crafts became last names that still are used today.) Some serfs were released from their manorial duties and became free peasants. Some ran away from the estate. Some already lived in free cities. Together, they formed a class of workers who were able to unite into guilds that oversaw their crafts and protected their rights as workers.

A city might have three shoemaking shops, each owned and operated by a craftsman and his family. The three shops did not compete for customers; instead, the master shoemakers met frequently as a guild to set prices for shoes and to discuss their work. If a fourth shoemaker moved to town, he could not open a shop without joining the guild and receiving its permission to work in the city. Likewise, each master shoemaker had assistants who were learning to make shoes—perhaps his own sons, perhaps apprentices from other families. These assistants might hope to open their own shop one day, or they might hope to take the place of their master when he died; but they could do neither without permission from the guild. Every craft had its own guild. The lords, the counts and dukes and earls, the kings, even the emperor and the Church leaders could not interfere with the guilds. They made their own rules and governed their own affairs. The seeds of capitalism were already sprouting during the Middle Ages within the guilds.

Merchants had their guilds as well. They bought items in one city and sold them in another; they also purchased and sold items that had traveled the silk roads from far-away lands. Medieval merchants were also proto-capitalists as they combined forces to protect their trade and to resist interference from governments and the Church. One of the most powerful merchant guilds, the Hanseatic League, operated in northern Europe at the height of the Middle Ages. Travel between cities was both protected and financed by merchants in the various cities of the League. Even the emperor and the archbishops of the Church had no power to tell the members of the Hanseatic League what to do with their money, their purchases, and their sales.

Rudimentary banking existed in ancient empires, including Rome, but most people preferred barter and personal trade to government currency. Money from the government was used mostly to pay taxes, not as exchange between citizens. Lending institutions were problematic, because the Bible prohibits usury—lending money or items of value for repayment with interest assessed on the loan. Instead of usury, Christians were expected to care for one another, to lend to the needy without expecting (or demanding) repayment, to pay a worker timely wages and to prefer heavenly treasure over earthly wealth. One loophole used during the Middle Ages was for Christians to lend to Jews and for Jews to lend to Christians. They could charge interest on their loans, since they were not family under the same religion. Since Jews were barred from owning land in most European countries, banking was one of the few businesses open to them. (Jews have no natural gifts for banking or desire to handle money; Christian rulers essentially forced them into the banking business.) By the High Middle Ages, usury was redefined from “lending at interest” to “lending at excessive interest.” By that definition, Christians were able to finance one another’s ventures. Some families, such as the Fuggers, became very wealthy under this system. Historians who claim that modern banking was invented in Italy during the Renaissance overlook the development of capitalistic financial practices in Europe long before the Italian banks were established in the 1400s.

These times were not Dark Ages in Europe. They were times of development and improvement, times which were leading Europeans toward the modern era. Science, education, and theology were also taking strides at this same time, as I will show in a future post. J.

14 thoughts on “The Feudal (not futile) Era

  1. Excellent post. The differences between serfdom and slavery alone made your post worth reading.

    Were the Middle Ages the Dark Ages? I grew up at a time when the Middle Ages were also referred to as the Dark Ages. Was that an exaggeration? I realize that the new conventional wisdom does not equate the Middle Ages with the Dark Ages, but I think that minimizes three seminal events: the collapse of the Roman Empire, the rise of Islam, and the rise of Viking raiders..

    When Roman Empire fell in the West, that allowed feudal war lords to rise and take control. The Frankish domain that Charlemagne eventually ruled began as a domain ruled by a warlord. Charlemagne took over 476 AD and Charlemagne did not unify a largest portion of his empire until 768 AD. The point is that we had over 300 years alone of contentious rivalry between warlords before Charlemagne, and that warring did not end with his reign..

    Islam began its rise in the early part of the 7th Century. Islamic warriors began battering Europe before the rise of Charlemagne. Islamic pirates made trade in the Mediterranean Sea problematic at least until the American Navy decided to make war on the Barbary Pirates. I think that is one reason why Southern Europe took longer to recover. Check out

    In the next century Viking warriors started raiding in the north, which disrupted trade in Northern Europe. The Carolingian Empire was able to defend itself from the Vikings. So, there was a Carolingian Renaissance, but Europe was still in recovery. When was that recovery complete? I think that is debatable, but much of the Middle Ages were a dark time for Europe.

    What is at issue is when governmental authorities provided sufficient security and stability for widespread cultural growth. That period is usually associated with the Renaissance. However, the recovery began here and there long before the Renaissance. That fact defeats any effort to fix an exact date for the end of the Dark Ages.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is what makes history fun: two or more historians look at the same data, see it from different points of view, emphasize some matters and minimize others, and come to contrary conclusions. So long as it is done honestly–not twisting the data to fit the opinions and not ignoring significant matters–the discipline of history is very important, and also very enjoyable.
      Remembering that Roman civilization was preserved in the Byzantine Empire during the troubled years of western Europe, we can also measure the eventual blend of Germanic and Roman civilizations as progress rather than darkness. Yes, there were troubled times as the Huns, the Goths, the Muslims, the Vikings, and the Mongols encroached from various directions in different centuries. But the Carolingian renaissance was not a single flicker of light in a long dark time; it was one of many strongholds of civilization shining from the monasteries, the guilds, and the growing cities of western Europe. Much of the propaganda regarding Europe’s “Dark Ages” reflects hostility toward the role of Christian faith and the Church in medieval Europe, celebrating instead the rejection (and reformation) of Christian teachings in the Italian Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment. Yet all of these built upon medieval progress; they were not, as some historians insist, a return to light from darkness. J.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @Salvageable

        I was not aware that the expression “Dark Ages” reflected an anti Catholic bias. Possible, I suppose. Like the severity of the collapse of the Roman Empire, that sort of statement is difficult to quantify.

        Since I am a third rate student of history, I am in no position to make an authoritative argument. I just look at what is meant by the expression “Dark Ages” and the enormous security and logistical problems that arose as the Roman Empire collapsed.

        The 5th Century world had an agrarian economy. Nevertheless, even the Romans shipped food from the hinterlands to the big cities. With the collapse of the government even that sort of trade would have grown more difficult.

        With the shrinking volume of trade each group of people who still retained an identity would have assumed full responsibility to ensure its survival, and knowledge of the outside world would have been loss.

        How isolated were people from each other? It would be ridiculous to say that the collapse of the Roman Empire did not result in increased isolation, but I don’t know how to quantify the matter. I also don’t know how to measure the severity of Islamic and Viking piracy.

        There is another thing I probably should have mentioned. Disease was a huge issue during the Middle Age.

        Diseases in epidemic proportions included leprosy, bubonic plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, scabies, erysipelas, anthrax, trachoma, sweating sickness, and dancing mania (see infection). The isolation of persons with communicable diseases first arose in response to the spread of leprosy. (

        The Black Death, which began in 1347, was the worst of plagues. Part of reason for the Renaissance was that people were finally learn how to control disease.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I love teaching history, and I’ve received favorable reviews from students, including some who never liked history classes before. I miss being in the classroom, and I’m glad that WordPress is giving me the opportunity to share some of the things I’ve been teaching over the years. Thank you for your kind words. J.

      Liked by 1 person

      • For some reason, the app won’t let me reply to comments on other people’s blogs… I don’t get it.

        Anyway, you are very welcome. I think I would have enjoyed your classes very much.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s