On "feudalism"

[Lone Wolf]

The definition the article uses matches the Imperial Russian case perfectly, which is my point.

Don't see how. Imperial Russia didn't have any "subinfeudation" or "fiefs". The lands (and the serfs) the nobles owned were their private property. It had more in common with Latin America with its great landed estates or even (pre-1861) U.S. slave-owning South.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Don't see how. Imperial Russia didn't have any "subinfeudation" or "fiefs". The lands (and the serfs) the nobles owned were their private property. It had more in common with Latin America with its great landed estates or even (pre-1861) U.S. slave-owning South.

Because it was imposed from above as a complete system, as I said before, which is the complete opposite of how I understand it to have come about.

Or are you saying that Russian nobles did not owe trooper obligations to the Tsar in exchange for their land and titles?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Or are you saying that Russian nobles did not owe trooper obligations to the Tsar in exchange for their land and titles?

Not since 1762 (confirmed in 1785). Of course, noblemen who were not independently wealthy still had to serve, and informal societal obligations to do so remained. And noble military officers still had a formal obligation to serve or lose their nobility during wars, so I guess you can say that. Not every noble was a military man, though, and noble wealthy idlers were a common trope in Russian life, and, especially, in literature.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Not since 1762 (confirmed in 1785). Of course, noblemen who were not independently wealthy still had to serve, and informal societal obligations to do so remained. And noble military officers still had a formal obligation to serve or lose their nobility during wars, so I guess you can say that. Not every noble was a military man, though, and noble wealthy idlers were a common trope in Russian life, and, especially, in literature.

So we're both kind of right.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yeah, true.

 

[Louis XXIV]

So if Feudalism didn't exist, what did?
From what I am reading, I'm being convinced to believe that all European political relationship and societies were so vastly different one another.

Based on everything I've read, yes. Furthermore, regions within countries were vastly different. Anjou was different from Ile de France, which was different from Avignon.

Are there no over-arching trends or themes or characteristics of the political power structure across Europe that was similar or related in the same way that allows the term 'feudalism' or any substitute terms to be useful in the same way the Japanese Daiymos operate or similar?

R.W. Southern's The Making of the Middle Ages is all about overarching themes and I'm certainly not one to question that book. However, he doesn't try to tie these themes into simplistic things that have to reflect equally on society, politics, and economics. There's the role of church. There's the role of landed aristocracy and the conflict between Lord and King and King and Pope. The idea of people pledging their service (and future service) to a monastery or lord in exchange for land or something else did happen to some throughout, just not necessarily to everyone. But I do hesitate to generalize even more specifically than this. After all, Europe is a much bigger place than Japan. I don't think it's easy to compare Italy to France to Germany to England.

 

[innonimatu]

Based on everything I've read, yes. Furthermore, regions within countries were vastly different. Anjou was different from Ile de France, which was different from Avignon.

I wouldn't say vastly different. After all, nobs intermarried across kingdoms, and often foreign ones were appointed kings during a dynastic crisis. There was much in common between the political systems of medieval Europe, otherwise this wouldn't be possible at all.

 

[Dachs]

Barter certainly not, within much of the Imperial economy. But my understanding was that the Pronoiai were introduced as a way to buttress dwindling number of imperial troops, such as were presently supplied only through Tagmata, and that they were roughly based upon a land-grant system similar to other parts of Europe, such that recipient land lords became responsible for raising troops on behalf of the crown in a manner somewhat similar to feudal military service obligations.

The use of pronoiai as we understand them doesn't really match up well with the Empire's manpower crisis, and frankly there's no reason to believe that they were much of a solution for raising troops. Most of the late Empire's armed formations that we know of were in fact not pronoiar ones. Instead, recruitment seems to have been done on a considerably more ad hoc basis, as was the Byzantines' wont. Some military pronoia provided men, local communities had specific troop obligations, seasonal mercenaries were hired - by and large, a given late Byzantine field army was a pretty polyglot group.

And, again, pronoia weren't actually land grants. They were revenue grants, providing the recipient or recipients all or some of the funds or goods raised from a specific piece of land in exchange for Service X. The state continued to actually work the land, and retained title. Pronoia were not usually heritable, but sometimes they were; just as often, they would only legally last for a few years. They could be granted to institutions like monasteries or local citizens' clubs, in exchange for something other than military service obviously. Pronoia seem to have been much more of an exercise in patronage and in binding various local groups into the state than in military expediency.

 

[_random_]

For those who want a good overview of better information: this is written towards a general audience.

That was a good read. Thanks to you and the OP.