putin is basically correct about feudalism

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/32162077/goyas-saturn_tshirt?productId=342517735

How does that address my point on the HRE? That entity began, not with Charlemagne and the Frankish Empire as is often believed and you seem to imply, but almost two hundred years later under Otto I in the former East Francia and much of Middle Francia.

No one's saying that feudalism wasn't more centralized than the petty barbarian kingdoms in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Rome. The issue is whether feudalism prevented further centralization. If you know the subject fairly well (as I can say I do when it comes to the HRE, having studied it in German in Vienna) it's pretty clear it did.

"Feudalism was an attempt at greater centralization, not less, to coordinate against cavalry-based steppe armies or Viking raids and the like."

This is completely backasswards. Feudalism evolved in part because centralized authority proved utterly incapable of dealing with Viking raiders and the like. Suggesting that the France of Henry I was more centralized than Charlemagne's empire 200+ years before is utterly ridiculous.

Certainly in germany-italy

but i thought the issue was christianity, yes?

"the Frankish king exchanged protection and the utilization (but not ownership) of land in exchange for the raising of knights trained as cavalry."

You're about 40-50 years behind the historical scholarship.

but i thought the issue was christianity, yes?
That is Putin's debatable assertion.

Well there is the OP
have to say christmas is both christian and pagan, but that should be obvious

The east and west did not split on doctrine beginning at the council of Chalcedon. A segment of the east fell away from the orthodox tenants held in common between west and east. Real roots for the schism started with the Council of Aachen in 798 (held by Charlemagne and promoting the Filioque). However, centuries lapsed before a meaningful divide occurred between Rome and the eastern churches. In the east, the emperor and church worked together in a rather symbiotic manner. At times, one was a check on the other, but it was not anywhere near the same degree of conflicts between the pope and H.R. emperor, etc.

This is completely backasswards. Feudalism evolved in part because centralized authority proved utterly incapable of dealing with Viking raiders and the like. Suggesting that the France of Henry I was more centralized than Charlemagne's empire 200+ years before is utterly ridiculous.

This is my understanding Tolstoy. This trend was reversed with advent of standing professional armies and artillery that shifted power back to the central governments that could more readily afford both. I'm certainly open to hearing how this is incorrect though.

i read Gibbon when I was in junior high and I still have to feel the idea that christianity played a role in the decline is a powerful one. But I don't think there is a lot of direct evidence. I don't put much on the superstructural arguments about the effect of the church's claim of political supremacy.

As an anthropologist, i tend to put more weight on the infrastructural. Demographic changes including increases in manoralism developed before the "Fall". And as i mentioned earlier, defense depended on a professional military. Christianity, in its early form, as a religion of the poor and of peace may have contributed to a culture that pacifism and fatalism.

KRELLIN FEARS JACK_KLEIN

"Feudalism evolved in part because centralized authority proved utterly incapable of dealing with Viking raiders and the like."

What centralized authority existed prior to Charles Martel or Henry of East Francia? Prior to Martel's feudal system the lands of the Franks were divided and had been since around 500 AD.

Martel successfully kept the Moors out so I don't think he failed.

" A segment of the east fell away from the orthodox tenants held in common between west and east"

The West was not at all pleased with the East's repression of the Three Chapters (a dispute, frankly, I don't understand), as they held it to be a violation of the Council of Chalcedon. The split was not as formal as later splits, but it had consequences for the differences in political organization, with Justinian successfully pushing for co-equality between the empire and the church.

"i read Gibbon when I was in junior high and I still have to feel the idea that christianity played a role in the decline is a powerful one."

I agree, Dirge, and I did not think to bring that up at all. Thanks for pointing that out. Christian fatalism and apocalyptic thinking combined with its zealotry/intolerance for pagan customs as well as its undermining the administration of the state by refusing to participate in the military or civil administration all contributed to the collapse of the Empire.

HRE...?

Snow on the ground in Michigan yesterday...Santa's little elves are seeding for the Christmas holiday!

I don't know what you're talking about with the HRE. Perhaps you could elaborate on how feudalism prevented a centralized polity from forming. Saying it's clear that this happened doesn't really illuminate anything for me.

If it isn't clear you know nothing about the Holy Roman Empire, and therefore are not in a position to make a blanket statement that Christianity prevented centralization, since the Holy Roman Empire was the dominant political entity (at least in geographic terms) from the Dark Ages well into the Early Modern Era in Europe.

I'm not going to slave away at a post proving you wrong. Call me lazy if you want, I call it trying to maintain something of a life. Just look into it and you'll see that it was the political interplay between secular rulers that was the main thing keeping "German" unification from happening a thousand-odd years before it actually did. Not, as you claim for some standard hate-boner reason, Christianity or, more specifically, the Church.

You're just being nasty for being nasty's sake at this point. Or you have a new found obsession with "hate boner", thinking it very clever, just like you did "shit sucker". Your language has really gotten disgusting.

Slave away? All I asked you to do was to explain the mechanics of your point. You say one sentence, insist over and over again I must address it, but would rather attack me than explain anything.

If you have such a life then go enjoy that life and stop spamming every single thread I post in with your obligatory ad hominems.

41 Days until Christmas!

Have a Twisted good night!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scqPtonqnH8

"What centralized authority existed prior to Charles Martel or Henry of East Francia? Prior to Martel's feudal system the lands of the Franks were divided and had been since around 500 AD. "

Martel didn't implement anything close to a "feudal system"; he created a centralized state that paid a professional full-time army with tax revenues squeezed out of the Church and the Little People. The feudalism ball didn't get rolling until after the death of Charlemagne, reaching its climax in the 11th century or so when France (for instance) was ruled by a dozen or so major counts and dukes who were politically completely independent and constantly warring with each other, completely unfettered by any kind of central authority. The idea that this would not pose a problem for the formation of a large centralized state is absurd.

"Perhaps you could elaborate on how feudalism prevented a centralized polity from forming. Saying it's clear that this happened doesn't really illuminate anything for me."

r u serious?

gameID=129428

I don't know. i think hate boner is kind of cleaver actually.

But to the point, IMHO, far too much is put on superstructural arguments, hence church dogma/ideology shaping politics and society. Ideology actually has far less effect of sociocultural change than people tend to think. Holy Roman Empire history exemplifies the divisive internecine "feudalism" in which the power and dogma of the church were simply weapons used by political players to play off their rivals and strengthen their positions.

While I am sympathetic to Gibbon's old theory of Christianity aiding the end of Empire, I put far more weight on the fact that Rome created a disarmed slave society and when the professional armies collapsed everything went to hell (and this is not a metaphor for modern politics a la NRA and Red Dawn -- that shit is stupid).

Oh and, just a foot note, since I am more familiar insular history, I thought I should point out that 1) the English responded to viking menace by increasing centralization and a strong monarchy supported by a few earldoms, and 2) when the normans imposed a feudal system it was extremely successful in subjugating the english. I'm not seeing where centralized authority versus feudalism had anything to do with Christianity though.

And it's interesting that feudalism didn't really work to turn the irish into good little peasants. Probably because they're a bunch of lawless rubes who care for nothing better than stealing cattle from each other.

40 Days 'til Christmas...and a Little Saint Nick to you...

Keep the sand clean, and tires full kiddies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSynDh_K0EE

keep you papist saint crap to yourself krellin.

just kidding :)

"Probably because they're a bunch of lawless rubes who care for nothing better than stealing cattle from each other."

Hey, my forebears also like to drink and fight, thank you very much.

"Martel didn't implement anything close to a "feudal system""

He granted fiefs in exchange for vassals. That's the definition of feudalism. Yes, he seized church lands and handed them over as fiefs - called benefices. The two points are not contradictory.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kyhRTSTY_IIC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=heinrich+brunner+on+feudalism&source=bl&ots=Fm_sTF1ai-&sig=2LWyumemiZkI56stiVc9AsHdwH4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QDyEUoekILSysAT5iIGwCA&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=heinrich%20brunner%20on%20feudalism&f=false