Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 4th, 2018, 06:38 AM   #21

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,501

Quote:
Originally Posted by milstrom View Post
In other words, one could say that germanic traditions really didnt have any significant influence on feudalism?
I don't think you could say that. Take a look at Marc Bloch's Feudal Society . It's somewhat dated, but gives a good introduction to feudalism.

German (that is, people living east and north of the Rhine) feudalism was different from Frankish (that is people living in what was to become northern France), but the Franks were a Germanic people and there were cognate institutions.

I also think it would be wrong to say that Charles Martel "invented" feudalism. Feudalism was an organization of society that grew organically following the collapse of the central, Roman, government and was meant to address a very dangerous and anarchic situation in Europe. Its basis was, in short, extended family relationships.
David Vagamundo is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2018, 06:48 AM   #22

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,501

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Probably it was a meeting between the Germanic tradition and the Roman habit to have "clients". The "Barbarian" Lord surrounded himself with loyal "friends", the Roman men of power surrounded themselves with political clients.

In the Roman-Barbarian kingdoms these traditions mixed together, gathering, joining and generating the feudal system.
Very good brief explanation! But you also have to take into account the context: the anarchy that resulted in northern Europe after the breakdown of the Roman Empire and the invasions of Vikings, Hungarians (Magyars) and Muslims.
David Vagamundo is online now  
Old January 4th, 2018, 07:51 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulRyckier View Post
It was only later when the "king" emerged from those Germanic peoples, considering his land as his own property, that the king could give land in "fief" to people worthwhile in his eyes to receive it.

It still is Paul. English law is not based on rights but based on permissions. All the land is owned by the Crown and permissions are given under various titles. The most extensive set of permissions regarding land is the Freehold which included the permission to buy and sell the Freehold but, incur the king's displeasure and it could be taken from you. Hence any owner of the Freehold could lose the rights if the crown gave it to the Church or a more deserving follower. The wars of the roses, the dissolution of the monasteries, the civil war were all episodes where people lost their Freeholds.

Whilst it is common to think of a Freeholder as owner and possessor of the land, it is still a set of permissions. Whilst you have permission to catch rainwater and use it to water the garden, you don't own the water. You don't own the airspace above the land nor the mineral resources under it, unless it is an extension to the freehold. A Freeholder can demand rent for the space taken up if, for example, a wind turbine is erected on his land but I don't think a Leaseholder could, not without the permission of the Freeholder. Many householders prefer to buy the freehold of the land if it is leashold because, if they wanted to extend or develop their property, the freeholder can refuse them permission.

Although the freeholds granted by William the Conqueror have changed hands many times since 1066, the result is still that 66% of the land is held by 160,000 families, 70% of England is owned by less than 1% of the population.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/last-1000-years-families-owned-england/

Much freehold land is owned by offshore companies thesedays and they drip feed it onto the market. Controlling the supply of freehold land keeps the price high.

I always thought it amusing that I own the freehold to the land in Yorkshire on which my house is built but my neighbouring landowners are Dartmouth and Devonshire, the opposite end of the country.

Last edited by authun; January 4th, 2018 at 07:53 AM.
authun is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 10:54 AM   #24

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,221

Quote:
Originally Posted by authun View Post

Although the freeholds granted by William the Conqueror have changed hands many times since 1066, the result is still that 66% of the land is held by 160,000 families, 70% of England is owned by less than 1% of the population.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/last-1000-years-families-owned-england/

Much freehold land is owned by offshore companies thesedays and they drip feed it onto the market. Controlling the supply of freehold land keeps the price high.

I always thought it amusing that I own the freehold to the land in Yorkshire on which my house is built but my neighbouring landowners are Dartmouth and Devonshire, the opposite end of the country.
The details of the TodayIFoundOut article are drawn almost entirely from a Guardian article of 2012. Not really very university so to speak! Not really much in the way of Stenton, Chambers, or Tout etc etc then or now.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 11:35 AM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Belgium
Posts: 1,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by authun View Post
It still is Paul. English law is not based on rights but based on permissions. All the land is owned by the Crown and permissions are given under various titles. The most extensive set of permissions regarding land is the Freehold which included the permission to buy and sell the Freehold but, incur the king's displeasure and it could be taken from you. Hence any owner of the Freehold could lose the rights if the crown gave it to the Church or a more deserving follower. The wars of the roses, the dissolution of the monasteries, the civil war were all episodes where people lost their Freeholds.

Whilst it is common to think of a Freeholder as owner and possessor of the land, it is still a set of permissions. Whilst you have permission to catch rainwater and use it to water the garden, you don't own the water. You don't own the airspace above the land nor the mineral resources under it, unless it is an extension to the freehold. A Freeholder can demand rent for the space taken up if, for example, a wind turbine is erected on his land but I don't think a Leaseholder could, not without the permission of the Freeholder. Many householders prefer to buy the freehold of the land if it is leashold because, if they wanted to extend or develop their property, the freeholder can refuse them permission.

Although the freeholds granted by William the Conqueror have changed hands many times since 1066, the result is still that 66% of the land is held by 160,000 families, 70% of England is owned by less than 1% of the population.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/last-1000-years-families-owned-england/

Much freehold land is owned by offshore companies thesedays and they drip feed it onto the market. Controlling the supply of freehold land keeps the price high.

I always thought it amusing that I own the freehold to the land in Yorkshire on which my house is built but my neighbouring landowners are Dartmouth and Devonshire, the opposite end of the country.
Authun,

now you set something in move...
"freehold, leasehold" never heard about it.
I started somewhere on a forum a thread about "property" from the Ancients to now.
Your article is worth a thread apart.
Started with the situation in Belgium...not easy to find...especially about money and property the nobility is scanty, as each Belgian btw...
Also something about the property of the Church (here it resides under the "kerkfabriek" (church council?) and the whole thing is "hazy", while you had the taking away after the French revolution and then the restitution by Napoleon)
About the nobility I found:
https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economi...d-euro/9870835
It seems to me from these data, that the old land nobility hasn't that much anymore in the 500 richest Belgians, most are new nobility granted a title by the king and in my opinion not "true" nobility
But nevertheless I will celebrate my 75 years on a domain of a local "baron" and the domain is given in lease to the exploitant...

I know that I still owe you more information as to your French counterpart, about the Saxon shore (btw found today something new about it) but lack of time...spent too much time on a small forum, nearly a common blog...

Kind regards, Paul.
PaulRyckier is online now  
Old January 4th, 2018, 12:31 PM   #26

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,231

Most societies operated on some level via gifts and favours.

Feudalism was just an evolution of that, thouguh different from the Roman model that succeeded it. The Roman model was similar to the modern day nation-state, in that citizens were bound to respect the law and authority of the state, pay taxes, etc. A Roman patrician, nor plebeian, held their status via homage to the Emperor, only that they would follow the Emperor's word/laws.

I'd argue feudalism WAS Germanic, since not only the Franks, but the Anglo-Saxons, Norse, and others all had essentially feudal societies.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 02:14 PM   #27
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
The details of the TodayIFoundOut article are drawn almost entirely from a Guardian article of 2012. Not really very university so to speak! Not really much in the way of Stenton, Chambers, or Tout etc etc then or now.
So what? Are you claiming it is inaccurate? Why would someone like Stenton, if you mean Frank Stenton that is, write about modern day land tenure statistics? or the other two for that matter. Perhaps you can provide references to any of your authors providing any data on the current state of land ownership in the UK.

Or maybe you just didn't comprehend my first sentance, "It still is" which does require some numbers on how much land is owned by a few people. If the Guardian got it wrong, I'm sure you will furnish us with a more accurate assessment.

Last edited by authun; January 4th, 2018 at 02:51 PM.
authun is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 02:25 PM   #28

Naima's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Venice
Posts: 2,017

Isn't Feudalims kind of a return to the Tribal organization system of precivilized europe?
Reproposing perhaps the Indoeuropean Patriarcal society around a King with the warrior caste ?
Naima is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 02:50 PM   #29
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulRyckier View Post
"freehold, leasehold" never heard about it.
....
Started with the situation in Belgium...not easy to find...especially about money and property the nobility is scanty,
Well the terms are used in english law but I don't know how common they are on the continent where the people tend to have rights rather than the english equivalent of permissions.

Freehold originally meant an estate of free tenure, where a tenure relates to the conditions under which land or buildings are held or occupied. That was the basis of the feudal system in England where a knight might hold land on condition that he supplied men at arms for example. More usual he laid down conditions such as the miller had to give him a percentage of any grains milled and he also required other tenants to have their grains milled at that particular mill. It probably not disimilar to the Gruutshuse in Bruges where the owners controlled the supply of gruit for beer making. If you wanted to brew beer you went to one man who controlled the process. It's how these families became very wealthy.


Freehold today is used to denote a legal estate in fee simple absolute in possession, the most complete set of rights. In Fee Simple the rights of the fee simple owner are limited by government powers of taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion interest in the grantor if the condition fails; this is a fee simple conditional. Breaches of those encumbrances and conditions are what the king would use legally take the land away from the family, often for 'being disloyal', ie not supporting the King. Famously, Henry VIII dissolved many monasteries because he was displeased with a faction of the Church being loyal to Rome, rather than to himself. Landed families who backed the king, gained from lands taken from the church for example.
authun is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 03:05 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,393

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naima View Post
Isn't Feudalims kind of a return to the Tribal organization system of precivilized europe?
Reproposing perhaps the Indoeuropean Patriarcal society around a King with the warrior caste ?
In anglo saxon england, much land was still allodial land, ie independent of a superior landlord and was effectively land owned by one particular man without any conditions. It was his. This was taken by William after the conquest when he confiscated much of it and handed it to his followers in exchange for fealty and promises of military and other services. They could lose tenure and if they didn't comply and effectively all land was the king's possession with no allodial land at all. This is the difference between the two.
authun is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
feudalism, germanic, influence



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the difference between Feudalism and Bastard Feudalism? grey fox Medieval and Byzantine History 6 November 7th, 2017 07:23 PM
How was European Feudalism different from Japanese Feudalism? grey fox General History 11 October 9th, 2017 04:45 PM
How did Anglo-Saxon Feudalism before 1066 differ from Frankish Feudalism in England? grey fox Medieval and Byzantine History 4 May 4th, 2017 01:06 AM
Feudalism and Bastard Feudalism ballygowan History Help 10 December 30th, 2014 11:19 AM
Augustus' influence on Germanic front Alcibiades European History 2 January 13th, 2012 06:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.