Jeanry,
I've gotten tired of reading this thread because you're coming up with example after example without citations or context. You throw a lot of mud on the wall as "proof" without threading together a cohesive argument. This is not mean to insult or be mean. I've been working my way through this thread for the first time and this is simply my observation.
Yes, the Middle Ages sucked compared to our modern pampered middle class palaces. However, in my reading (both primary and secondary sources) I'm not under the impression that it was the Hell Reincarnate that you seem to think it was.
It is normal for every society at every point in time to look back at preceding ages and judge it harsh, barbaric, ignorant... frequently bordering on evil. It props up our human vanity to suppose that we're more enlightened, more advanced, more compassionate than our ancestors.
Your views are very much in lines with human historic tendancy.
Feudalism was not a late form of Roman Imperialism. It did grow out of a collapsing Empire, but it became something entirely distinct by around 600 A.D. Exact dates and details are tough since record keeping was horrible through this time period. Even the noted authors during the "Dark" ages wrote in crappy unschooled Latin.
However, that the Imperial governmental structure had collapsed and evolved into a distinct mish-mash of localized powers is clear. The Church and monastic system provided much of the stability (as it was) during this post-Imperial anarchy. The influence of the various emmigrating Germanic tribes stirred the pot of governmental theory tremendously.
Additionally, you speak as if feudalism was a static, uniform phenomenon. The feudalism of what became France was distinct from what grew in England, the fractured German states, and the mess that became Italy.
Nor was feudalism static. It evolved and changed. Feudalism in Charlemagne's 800 A.D. was different than Phillip's 13th century, which was different... you get the idea.
how was a serf supposed to go running around the countryside appealing this or that Lord about some kind of abuse, when in 90% of Europe they were not even allowed to leave their own village, under pain of death?
Care to give citations? Please?
Did you know that it was common for any one person at any "level" to be a vassal of
many lords? A feudal pledge was how contracts were done for hundreds of years. Suzereins broke them. Vassals broke them. They moved around, gained power, lost power.
It wasn't all vaunted lords herding serfs like cattle.
The Church provided a mediating influence as a parallel feudal power structure. Frequently the ecclesiatical feudal system was more rich and powerful than the local secular powers. This was not a bunch of little churches in the countryside or a cathedral in a large city. These were vast holdings of land, money, goods, men, and even armies when needed.
As for the rights of peasants, in England you can trace just about every one DIRECTLY to the aftermath of one or more major uprising, including the Magna Carta.
Bzzzt! Neither of the Great Charters (1215 or 1225) were from peasant uprisings. Nor did they grant rights to peasants, nobles, or anybody else.
The first (1215) Great Charter was a result of a revolt of the barons against King John who was trying to drag England into Yet Another War on the Continent. If you remember, John's father Henry II ruled vast territory not just England but most of what is now France down to the Mediterranian. Between Richard but mostly the tyrant John, those lands were largely lost to King Phillip.
As is evident by the 13th century all the inhabitants of England saw themselves first as
English; evidence for this extends back a few hundred years before. Such blatant nationalism did not appear on the Continent for centuries afterwards. However, the 1215 Great Charter was not so much about "rights" as forcing the king to stop being a pain in the a**. John ignored the terms and another revolt broke out.
If you examine the document, it wasn't trying to carve out new "rights," but to enforce John to respect
existing feudal law.
Note that the concept of even the lowest farmer had protection under old English feudal laws and regulations! Trial by jury before a suzerein could take a peasant's personal property? Sounds strangely modern and a long cry from Total Hell. These were not new ideas. They were very old ideas that King John's policies trammeled.
I'm a little shocked that even people in the WMA community see those days through such rose colored glasses
These "Hell on Earth" ideas are just as sterotyped as any rose-coloured views. Ever consider that truth about the human condition is somewhere between Heaven and Hell?
You appear to assume that people were so stupid back then that they couldn't figure out that flagrantly violating contracts, treating others like chattels, and otherwise being a barbaric ass hurt one's chances of accumulating power and influence. Sorry, even during the worst of documented human history has this ever been true.
Every society of every age has its notorious criminals and corrupt politicians, but citing the worst of the worst separated by hundreds of years and hundreds of miles does not paint a true picture.
In 1000 years how will our modern world be judged? How many tyrants? Mushed together with the last 600 years? How many Looking at Hitler, British slavery, Al Capone, the Jaquerie, Stalin... you'd think today was hell.
