How many knights where at any one point and how did they afford...

[JodelDiplom]

I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but my Medievalist tutor at uni was quite adamant that feudalism never existed and shouldn't be used as a concept.

Academics like to talk like that...

"no two things are ever the same (in my subject matter)! Everything (in my subject matter) is unique and super complicated! Everything you think you know (about my subject matter) is wrong! No one can say anything definite (about my subject matter) unless I am personally involved!"

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Academics like to talk like that...

"no two things are be the same! Everything (in my subject matter) is unique and super complicated! No one can say anything definite (about my subject matter) unless I am personally involved!"

So true, I once had a history proffessor for dinner and thought we can talk about history............

 

[JodelDiplom]

So true, I once had a history proffessor for dinner and thought we can talk about history............

Well you can usually ask them a question and then they hold a lecture. That's often the kind of conversation they engage in with lesser beings who don't hold at least a PhD degree in a relevant field.

 

[sleeperul]

Sure, but one could say the same for Italy, Russia, Ireland...basically anywhere which isn't northern France.

I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but my Medievalist tutor at uni was quite adamant that feudalism never existed and shouldn't be used as a concept.

Really even HRE, England, Castille, Aragon, Hungary?

 

[bz249]

Really even HRE, England, Castille, Aragon, Hungary?

For Hungary not until the 13th century... practlically the whole country was royal demesne. And at that point there was quite a few "royal knights" and from 1200 till 1500 one of the key concerns was how to prevent their impoverishment. I guess this is not really how "Real Feudalism(TM)" works.

 

[sleeperul]

For Hungary not until the 13th century... practlically the whole country was royal demesne. And at that point there was quite a few "royal knights" and from 1200 till 1500 one of the key concerns was how to prevent their impoverishment. I guess this is not really how "Real Feudalism(TM)" works.

I remember that there where forces from Hungary in the crusades where they not knights?

 

[Arilou]

What do you call it then?

Call what?

The argument is that there was no one, europe-wide (or even in many cases nation-wide) system of landholding and military service, it was all different based on time period, location, situation, etc.

 

[The-Doc]

Call what?

The argument is that there was no one, europe-wide (or even in many cases nation-wide) system of landholding and military service, it was all different based on time period, location, situation, etc.

Certainly there has never been a social arrangement that remains static or universal over time, that's hard to question. But there was a certain unique blend of homage, obligated service and tenancy that held sway in parts of Europe, primarily northern France, throughout the middle ages. It would be nice to have a name for it.

 

[Barsoom]

Certainly there has never been a social arrangement that remains static or universal over time, that's hard to question. But there was a certain unique blend of homage, obligated service and tenancy that held sway in parts of Europe, primarily northern France, throughout the middle ages. It would be nice to have a name for it.

Northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands and western Germany would be the core area, basically the lands between Seine and Rhine and a little bit beyond. The issue is that other arrangements of property, tenancy and service were always present even in the core area and were likely more prevalent. The first thing to look for would be allodial property and rights inherited directly, without any need for confirmation from the liege lord.

Doesn't matter that much for OP's question, though. Nor does the legal definition of knight, I think. I take OP's question to mean how much armored cavalry of a certain social status was around; I doubt OP cares about the distinction between those who held lands in tenancy or in property, or between knights and ministeriales. In any case, they require about the same amount of surplus produce.

One thing I've not seen in the discussion above (which was very informative, thank you all), is the renewal rate on military equipment. Weapons and armor were often passed along from generation to generation, needing repair or replacement only sometimes after battle. The replacement rate could rise suddenly during intensive warfare, even increasing to several replacement sets in one year, but the number of years without any serious battle far outnumbered those with. This means the average surplus only needs to be as high as sustenance plus status-associated duties plus something to pay off irregular equipment costs. Not that lords would lower taxes/extraction on peasants if they didn't need new weapons or armor, they would probably use the extra income for more social displays or to pay for hired military; but I also don't expect the surplus to be so high that it would pay for one set of equipment per year.

 

[icedt729]

I am totally unconvinced that a village of peasants would on average produce so much surplus that it could be sold for several kg of silver? I mean to whom would they all sell it? Almost all people in the middle ages were peasants living in villages who produced what they needed and wouldn't want to or even have the means to buy the produce from the next village over, especially not hard cash. Were there really so many towns with townsfolk who had silver money to purchase all that peasant produce?

Medieval economies were much less-monetized than the peak Roman economy was, but that doesn't mean cash vanished from the system completely. On a regional basis you would still have peasants selling a significant amount of their crop to city-dwellers for cash, and if they knew they would be taxed in cash later that year they would save the cash up and use barter to meet their regular needs.

 

[Arilou]

Medieval economies were much less-monetized than the peak Roman economy was, but that doesn't mean cash vanished from the system completely. On a regional basis you would still have peasants selling a significant amount of their crop to city-dwellers for cash, and if they knew they would be taxed in cash later that year they would save the cash up and use barter to meet their regular needs.

And it should be noted that even if no actual cash changed hands, it was still used as an accounting unit.

I think. I take OP's question to mean how much armored cavalry of a certain social status was around[/quote9

If the question is "how many armored horsemen could be raised?" that is a fairly different question. (and is again, going to depend a lot on time period)

 

[Barsoom]

If the question is "how many armored horsemen could be raised?" that is a fairly different question. (and is again, going to depend a lot on time period)

Of a certain social status. You cut off the part of my sentence where I don't make it a different question. I reformulated only to get around some legal niceties, that's all.

 

[Arilou]

Of a certain social status. You cut off the part of my sentence where I don't make it a different question. I reformulated only to get around some legal niceties, that's all.

That's the point, what social status? (and that's where people is going to have to sit down and define "knight")

 

[Klausewitz]

Really even HRE, England, Castille, Aragon, Hungary?

There problem the quote goes to is that there is no feudalism.
There are feudalisms.
Each distinct enough that they are not really the same thing yet all of them routinely put in the same box.
You have German feudalism, that branches into specific regional expressions of the concept.
English feudalism, different kinds of Iberian feudalism, etc.

It is like talking about 'democracy'.
France, Germany and the US are all democracies, yet there difference are probably as many as their overlaps. Widen the focus and it becomes even worse.

It is the same with 'Volk' (people) or 'race'.
One word trying to cover so many disparate things that in an academical context where you want to communicate a precise, specialized concept the word is basically worthless without writing two pages to define which part of the word you want to use.
Which would then be "Don't use it, it is imprecise" and further shortened for the mouthbreathers "That does not exist!"

 

[Eusebio]

It is like talking about 'democracy'.
France, Germany and the US are all democracies, yet there difference are probably as many as their overlaps. Widen the focus and it becomes even worse.

Democracy is a governmental system, feudalism is a socioeconomic structure. The two are not comparable concepts.

Also, the claim isn't that feudalism doesnt real because it took different forms, but that feudalism coexisted alongside obviously non-feudal forms of relations and so couldn't be said to have been dominant in society. For example, in 13th century England about half of the peasantry was also engaged in wage labour of various types.

 

[Barsoom]

It is like talking about 'democracy'.
France, Germany and the US are all democracies, yet there difference are probably as many as their overlaps. Widen the focus and it becomes even worse.

Democracy is commonly considered a useful concept in academia. Any system where citizens exercise power through voting is a democracy. While comparative political science indeed makes further distinctions (between different electoral systems, divisions of government power, and so on), there is also the basic distinction between democracy and various types of non-democratic government.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Any system where citizens exercise power through voting is a democracy.

That sounds rather vague actually. For example is a system where the citizens are only allowed a yes/no vote without any influence in presenting agendas and no power to deliberate on them (in press, for example) a democracy? What about one where citizens are only allowed to elect part of the executive or legislature, or one where corruption is so systemic that money buys virtually all the votes?

 

[The-Doc]

Even when one restricts oneself to Europe and to feudalism in its narrow sense it is extremely doubtful whether feudo-vassalic institutions formed a coherent bundle of institutions or concepts that were structurally separate from other institutions and concepts of the time.

"Feudo-vassalic institutions" is quite a mouthful. Can't I just keep saying feudalism?

 

[bz249]

Democracy is commonly considered a useful concept in academia. Any system where citizens exercise power through voting is a democracy. While comparative political science indeed makes further distinctions (between different electoral systems, divisions of government power, and so on), there is also the basic distinction between democracy and various types of non-democratic government.

And that line is not a line, but a diffuse zone somewhat along China (voting only for party members) Iran (voting for the general population on strongly screened issues) pre-2000 Mexico (voting is there, but winning for the ruling party is pretty much guaranteed) US (the hurdle to successfully compete in the elections is so high, that only the two major parties have a chance). Therefore depending on your threshold the limit of democracy can be anywhere.

So is with feudalism, depending on how important is the landed nobility and how capitallike the land is (e.g. in Hungary before 1848 noble lands cannot be sold, mortgaged or gifted...) and at a given threshold you can say it is a feudal society.

 

[Barsoom]

That sounds rather vague actually. For example is a system where the citizens are only allowed a yes/no vote without any influence in presenting agendas and no power to deliberate on them (in press, for example) a democracy? What about one where citizens are only allowed to elect part of the executive or legislature, or one where corruption is so systemic that money buys virtually all the votes?

And that line is not a line, but a diffuse zone somewhat along China (voting only for party members) Iran (voting for the general population on strongly screened issues) pre-2000 Mexico (voting is there, but winning for the ruling party is pretty much guaranteed) US (the hurdle to successfully compete in the elections is so high, that only the two major parties have a chance). Therefore depending on your threshold the limit of democracy can be anywhere.

So is with feudalism, depending on how important is the landed nobility and how capitallike the land is (e.g. in Hungary before 1848 noble lands cannot be sold, mortgaged or gifted...) and at a given threshold you can say it is a feudal society.

You're both focusing on voting rules so much that you forget the definition first says the citizens exercise power. I'm aware of the various restrictions and corruptions but it doesn't take away the fact that social scientists find democracy a useful concept. I think feudalism is as well. Different variations with different rules and rights mean you should look closely when you study a particular medieval society, it doesn't mean you can't use the word feudalism as a shorthand for a hierarchical system that traded military service for lands and rights.