Joan of Arc: Queen of France?

Feudalism was considerably older than the 10th century. It had its origin in Late Roman senatorial estates.

Not really. The clientele is an old system, granted, but the feudalism have distinct features with the roman system : hereditary, possession instead of gift, transmission instead of delegation, the oath proeminance, etc.

You have approximatly this
400 - 650 : Post roman clientelism
650 - 850 : Pre-Feudalism
850 - (variable) : Feudalism.
 
Not really. The clientele is an old system, granted, but the feudalism have distinct features with the roman system : hereditary, possession instead of gift, transmission instead of delegation, the oath proeminance, etc.

You have approximatly this
400 - 650 : Post roman clientelism
650 - 850 : Pre-Feudalism
850 - (variable) : Feudalism.

Yes, but once you have the Roman equivalent, it's easy to drift towards feudalism, while it's impossible, and likely a bad idea, to stop it.
 
You know what, wouldn't it be better to have the TL include Joan coming out of the closet and establishing the first line of lesbian monarchs, electing their younger lovers as heiress by adotpion? She could do this by founding her own church with Isis/Mary as the third person of the Trinity, in opposition to the Bishop of Rome and the other, less holy believers around her? She could keep the Capetians as her viziers.

Please don't be defeatist in your replies kthanx
 
Yes, but once you have the Roman equivalent, it's easy to drift towards feudalism, while it's impossible, and likely a bad idea, to stop it.

The development of classical clientelism to feudalism as we know it, is quite hard without OTL development.

Clientelism is not an equivalent, it's different, regarding the potestas, the capacities of the dominant part to revert gifts as the overlapping of powers, the relative nit durable installation of clients in the lands.

For having a classical feudalism, you need first to have the need of a pre-feudalism feature, with the apparition of benefices and the emergence of territorial lines.

And when you achieved this evolution, you then need to have a central authority apparence to systematise feudalism, at the benefit of that said authority, then have it to fall to allow the autonomy of such created principalities.

To reach 3 different evolutions from clientelism to feudalism is not reall "easy", even if it's no really hard : you've just to be cautious about the economical and geopolitical context changes (650 : relative closure of Mediterranea, 850 : closure of North sea and Eastern Europe, by exemple)
 
The development of classical clientelism to feudalism as we know it, is quite hard without OTL development.

Clientelism is not an equivalent, it's different, regarding the potestas, the capacities of the dominant part to revert gifts as the overlapping of powers, the relative nit durable installation of clients in the lands.

For having a classical feudalism, you need first to have the need of a pre-feudalism feature, with the apparition of benefices and the emergence of territorial lines.

And when you achieved this evolution, you then need to have a central authority apparence to systematise feudalism, at the benefit of that said authority, then have it to fall to allow the autonomy of such created principalities.

To reach 3 different evolutions from clientelism to feudalism is not reall "easy", even if it's no really hard : you've just to be cautious about the economical and geopolitical context changes (650 : relative closure of Mediterranea, 850 : closure of North sea and Eastern Europe, by exemple)

I see your argument, and concede; there is much too much arguing for the sake of winning. Now, if I'm getting this right, feudalism requires systemisation of existing proto-feudalistic practices by some greater authority, and then opportunity for the beneficiary of said systemisation to gain power under their own right?
 
I see your argument, and concede; there is much too much arguing for the sake of winning. Now, if I'm getting this right, feudalism requires systemisation of existing proto-feudalistic practices by some greater authority, and then opportunity for the beneficiary of said systemisation to gain power under their own right?

Yes. Let's take the exemple of an inexisting region : "Landalia"

During the late antiquity Landalia, regarding power, is divided between great land owners in their villae (mostly gallo-romans), cities ruled by bishops and nobles (sometimes, it's the same) and territorial power.
The wealth of the nobles came more from income perception, protection of merchants and maybe land they could have.
The royal power is strong enough to avoid the creation of alliance between german and romans (hence the interdiction of mixed marriage, aka alliance, after the period of stabilization).

For some reasons (weakness of royal power, decline of trade, raids, etc.
The nobles that rule Landalia are more encline to create alliance with land-owners and cities to strengthen their position (or to settle raids against neighboors) and they really don't like that the king try to move them from these lands.

Finally, a great noble of Landalia took the crown and sanction the transformation. But being careful of not being himself weakened, he makes the royal title a sacred one. Transforming itself from chief of nobles to garant to society, he's becoming holy.
To prize his followers, he give them lands (at an invidivudal title) that would allow him to have wealth, when they didn't raid rich lands.

During carolingian times, not only they raid rich lands (Spain, Avaria, Italy, Aquitaine) but the land become sort of salary that the king is supposed to give. Still, the land is not the property of the noble, and he have to deserve it, and to make a personnal submission to the king.

But a crisis strikes, and as the land is given since generations to the same family (mostly because when it's not, there is real war to decide who's the real ruler, and the king often can only sanction the victor in period of crisis). Nobles tend to see the land, not as a salary but as THEIR property.

Finally, it's sanctionned by a king to avoid civil disorder and to make the nobles help him
 
I think you should expand the above and maybe post it on the help section or something. Understanding feudalism is difficult, evolving and this seems like a good illustration.
 

Dom

Moderator
You know what, wouldn't it be better to have the TL include Joan coming out of the closet and establishing the first line of lesbian monarchs, electing their younger lovers as heiress by adotpion? She could do this by founding her own church with Isis/Mary as the third person of the Trinity, in opposition to the Bishop of Rome and the other, less holy believers around her? She could keep the Capetians as her viziers.

Please don't be defeatist in your replies kthanx

That was a completely random non-sequitur and senseless post in an otherwise serious thread. Don't do that.
 
All of you forgot that feudalism could have only been established in a rural culture, but the Roman Empire was always urban. Once the large cities are gone, once the bureaucracy is gone you have the develop something like feudalism to keep control.
 
All of you forgot that feudalism could have only been established in a rural culture, but the Roman Empire was always urban. Once the large cities are gone, once the bureaucracy is gone you have the develop something like feudalism to keep control.

1) Roman Empire didn't was an urban only culture, especially in the west. You can see, during the crisis, that the ones which have power are the villae owners. The cities have more a role of regulation as trading centers, military cores and power source.
During the great era of Rome, you have maybe 20% of people in the cities, and it caused endless issues because of the problematic ties with procurment.

So, no, Rome wasn't always urban. Even the manufacturing centers were more close in the western side to villae than cities (by exemple, Montans site, which was one of the greatest pottery center of roman Gaul).

2) Feudalism isn't something elaborated, or developped by power. It's a reality that was imposed to them. When Pépin, Charlemagne or Charles I reguled feudality, it was not about maintain their control but loose as few control they can.
 
That was a completely random non-sequitur and senseless post in an otherwise serious thread. Don't do that.

The propositions being put forward in this thread seem just...wow...to me. My post was just an extrapolation of what seemed to me pretty insane reasoning on all accounts.

Apologies.
 
1) Roman Empire didn't was an urban only culture, especially in the west. You can see, during the crisis, that the ones which have power are the villae owners. The cities have more a role of regulation as trading centers, military cores and power source.
During the great era of Rome, you have maybe 20% of people in the cities, and it caused endless issues because of the problematic ties with procurment.

So, no, Rome wasn't always urban. Even the manufacturing centers were more close in the western side to villae than cities (by exemple, Montans site, which was one of the greatest pottery center of roman Gaul).
But the cities played a major role, something they had not durimng the early medieval and just regained in the high medieval.

2) Feudalism isn't something elaborated, or developped by power. It's a reality that was imposed to them. When Pépin, Charlemagne or Charles I reguled feudality, it was not about maintain their control but loose as few control they can.
You have to ask, why did that happen? The structures of the Roman Empire were gone. Most cities have turned into large villages. And the Franks were not Romans. they had their own culture and political structures. Feudalism was developed out of the old Germanic tribal structure. Even half a millenium after the migration era the Germanic tribes still existed.
The history of feudalism is very complex.
 
But the cities played a major role, something they had not durimng the early medieval and just regained in the high medieval.
Cities played a major role, as i said : regulation, trade, power, centralisation.
But when it comes to the production, to the higher incomes, you have to see about the countryside and particularly the villae in the western side of the Empire.

Regarding the population, if you look closely, you can see that if their population lowered, the approximative proportion of urban population in comparison of rural one didn't changed too much : in italy you have still around 20% of urban population, in Spain maybe the same (cities like Saragossa have still 10 000 inhabitants before the Islamic conquest) and less in Gaul, but it was always the case.

So, you don't have really a specifically urban crisis, but a global demographic decline (decline of the mediterranean culture for climatic reasons, plague and other epidemies, etc.)


You have to ask, why did that happen? The structures of the Roman Empire were gone. Most cities have turned into large villages.
You're wrong. The structures of Roman Empire didn't disapperead. In face, the biggest problem of romano-germanic kingdoms are that the new masters used the roman structures without adapting them.
Incomes calculation, institutions, economy, the different dynasties tought that is was better to preserve it as it was because they were so living in the shadow of Rome they couldn't really think of another organisation.

In Spain, by exemple, roman features were maintened until the late period, or think about Theodoric's Italy. No, except in the less romanized parts where a "roman city" was mainly a joke even during the apogee of Rome, the roman civilisation perdured, admitedly in parallel of a germanic culture.

And the Franks were not Romans. they had their own culture and political structures.
In that you choose the worse exemple for your point : the Franks were the germanic people that was the more romanized after the conquest. While the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths or the Lombards, by exemple, created laws to forbid inter-ethnic marriages, alliances etc, Franks did not.

In fact, they didn't seems to have really searched to make a separation between them and the gallo-roman population (hence the varied origin of many frankish, aquitain or even provencal leaders). Soon, they abandoned their original religion to choose the roman one, they passed alliances with gallo-roman (something the visigoths didn't made and that caused their loss of the Gaul) and adopted many roman uses.

The reading of Gregory of Tours is really helping on that, i highly council you to read it if you're interested.

Feudalism was developed out of the old Germanic tribal structure.
Simple answer : no.
Long answer : Feudalism is what the traditional gallo-roman clientelism gave, influenced by celts and german uses and most of all, directed by circumstance.

What you said is a common mistake, as it was the official historiography until the early XX century.

Even half a millenium after the migration era the Germanic tribes still existed.
I think no one would say that the Franks of 1000 are the same than Clovis one's.
Their language, their customs, their laws, their institutions were totally different. Oh sure, there is a real frankish influence (especially in warfare and some parallel organisations), but the background is mainly gallo-roman especially regarding the base of the nobility : land-owning.
 
She was not a peasant, she didn't have the control of the army.

She was a little noble from Lorraine that served as banner for the french army. Every battle she fought in, was actually led by Alencon, ALbret, Boussac, La Hire, etc.
Define peasant.

I read a recent biography of her last year and that's not my recollection of things. IIRC modern historiography was presented as having come down on the side of her having considerable tactical ability that was instrumental in several victories.
 
Define peasant.
Basically non-noble. If by peasant you mean "her family wasn't rich, and had to count on their land production instead of income", it's the case of the majority of nobles during Middle-Ages.

I read a recent biography of her last year and that's not my recollection of things. IIRC modern historiography was presented as having come down on the side of her having considerable tactical ability that was instrumental in several victories.

Biographies are of various quality. Really, it depends from who write it.
I can't say anything more i already did : she was the daughter of a local little noble and little land owner.

All the peasant, shepardess stuff is hagiographic invention. What is certain, regarding her education, her answer and his knowledge is that she wasn't a simple peasant.
Besides, her introduction to the local officers and lords TWO times before she could go to Chinon, are likely to show she had facilities to do so.

And for modern historiography, i'm afraid to have no seen such thing since 5 years: at the contrary everyone insisted on the constant accompagnment of at least one skilled and experimented commander during her campaigns.

Sure, she wasn't an ignorant girl, and probably have already some empirical knowledge after Reims. But her past as a daughter of a little land-owner and is youth are totally forbidding any tentative to make her the REAL head of french victories.
By exemple, at Patay (one of the more important battles for opening the road to Reims), Joan did NOT participate to the fight

She was a symbol, and all the campaign was full of them : sword of Charles Martel, crownation at Reims.
Besides you can see in contemporary sources, as the "Diairy of a Paris' Bourgeois" regarding the relative minor role of Joan.

Again, i'm agreeing with the fact she learnt quickly about the rules of war, and that at the end, she was able to more or less sucessfully a small army. She had too a real political sense, and that is going in the way of someone having already some knowledge of how it works.
But she had mainly a symbolical and moral role, both then and now.

To resume : the tentative to make her a poor peasant that miraculously knew by some unknown or divine way to lead armies (while making the real captains shut up about it) is a christian, royal and nationalist hagiography or a video game scenario. It can be interesting, but it's not an historical study.
 
Last edited:
Top