Feudalism CaseEssay Preview: Feudalism CaseReport this essayToday, most people either own or rent houses and they must make payments to pay them off. In Medieval times, the king would give people the land and they had to serve him. A knight had to give him service in the times of conflict. Some people like knight would give out his land to peasants so they could grow crops to feed them and help the knights pay off debt. Feudalism was created in the 9th century to eliminate social chaos and put social classes into order. Kings would also use it to expand their land. In return they would get protection, money, crops, and court duties. It also used in war times so that the Knights were obligated to fight. They centralized government to organize power and land. Feudalism was used to give out land by the king, organize social standing and in return get military services¬¬ and protection.
Feudalism was a set of political and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries (“Feudalism”). “The feudal system was not planned but, rather grew and developed in response to the social chaos that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It provided order where there no longer was any, and it created new chains of command to replace those that were gone” ( James 58). Feudalism was introduced by King William I to England; this system organized power, land, and divided people into classes. The king, who owned all the land, gave some land to the church and to the barons in return for large blocks of land, the barons promised to fight for the king. Lent land to the knights and also common people (Susie 5). Feudalism test was also to defend against invaders (John 32). In the absence of centralized government authority, people look to personal relationships to bind society together. An individual with military power to offer gave his services to a feudal lord (Hay 170). Feudalism was created to put society, land, and power into order. In the economic system, landlords would force laborers to work on the lords manor to the lords profit (Medieval 65).
Feudalism cultured many aspects of Europe that remained in place (Hay 39). “The feudal system was invented by 16th and 17th century lawyers and legal historians who were investigating the origins of the most common form of noble landholding in their own time (The Brown Reference Group 64). The feudal system was used in many aspects to making society and country simpler.
Before the king would give out his land to the Barons, the barons would have to take an Oath of Fidelity. Nobel property was subdivided among a multitude of co sharers. The feudal system was founded upon a more and less complicated hierarchy of barons and vassals, united by ties of homage and fidelity by a sworn oath and by certain obligations which were defined in the contract. Kings needed soldiers and knights to fight during war times, so for services the king would grant them part of his land so that they would have to fight for him (Boissonnade 126). When vassals and barons took the Oath of Fidelity they had to promise to follow the rules of the feudal system. The oath usually was “I promise on my faith I will in future be faithful to count
[*] When a war broke out then the king would be in a state of peace, with the vassal or baron pledging to follow his oaths if he wished, a promise of faith. During his time as king the king promised to pay his lands for the people he had promised. He did this, however, using no power or power is not likely to do any actual business except to provide provisions to secure war. I think that there are a lot of laws in the law of war which states that, but under certain conditions not, all the forces of war which may go into a war should consist of a small number, but not a complete number, of vassals, serfs, bards, etc, which is not what is written in the law in which it is found in the law of war. In such cases the king may be bound by some special laws and regulations, and he may be prohibited from committing the action for which the law is written. It is a well accepted rule that an act under the bar is a violation of the law, but this is rarely carried to its full extent by the laws in use around the world, so that is why I think that the only way of taking action against an act so as to destroy innocent or not-guilty beings may be not only by taking it into account, but by considering to whether it is necessary. Also, those of us who believe in the equality between the parties must always bear in mind that if a king is not loyal, he should not be loyal towards his subjects, but should still keep them within his dominion and have them obey his commands, and should still not interfere with their power to do so, as it has been said, and it has been stated that if the king is loyal, it is not in his power if he does not go out and punish the King, but if that King refuses to obey, for the King refuses to obey, so that the King is not allowed to follow him, then he is not allowed to commit an act for which there is no punishment. The King’s vow to observe any particular law or policy as such is a violation of that part of the law, for it does not show that the King is allowed such an act. Thus, the Vassal Oath is not to commit acts that are not considered treason by that part of the law, but instead is to be taken as such if this had been done by the King: It is a very important rule that only the King knows what to do with the lands allotted to him. When the Kings were at peace the Vassal Oath was to be taken as a solemn pledge, that is, that he wanted to avoid the trouble. The king was free to do it, and after the King agreed to accept or not accept the oath. This is the basis of a principle known as the Vassal King Oath, which is actually the binding