Carolingian Reforms: Charlemagne or Charles Martel

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I'm beginning to doubt my memory.

I was GOING to right a (short!) essay on Charlemagne, focusing on how he, through his reforms of the military, created the framework of the feudal system. However, now I am wondering whether those reforms occurred later, in the time of his grandfather, Charles Martel. I've read sources stating both points, and I would like to ask you knowledgeable people whether the essay I want to write is on Charlemagne, or really on Charles Martel.

In either case, I was wondering if any of you could recommend some good books on either characters, or a more general book on the Carolingian era of Frankish history.

[Barry Ferguson]

According to my reading in 'Millenium' by Tom Holland, it was the weakening of the West Frankish king's authroity after Charlemange that led to classic fuedalism. Lords like Fulk Nerra of Anjou established castles to secure them from outside influence, making them semi-independent, and their loyalty to the king depended on entirely whether it profited them. The knight emerged as a warrior who no longer had the central authority of the king, and so gave his loyalty to a local lord who would reward him with land, weapons or armour

[motiv-8]

Name the things you would consider to be instrumental to the Carolingian Reforms. And then we can identify which began under Charles Martel and which were initiated by Charlemagne.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, feudal system was already existed during Merovingian time... Whne Merovingian collapsed, the Frankish Empire was divided into by the local administration, each one independant to others. Carolingian only reunited those land again into a powerful central government, and once the central government became weaker, the same chaos in post-Merovingian appeared again.

[konny]

I was GOING to right a (short!) essay on Charlemagne, focusing on how he, through his reforms of the military, created the framework of the feudal system. However, now I am wondering whether those reforms occurred later, in the time of his grandfather, Charles Martel.

The military reforms of Charlemange were of course done by Charlemange, and not by his grandfather.

Even though I cannot see how those would have created, or even seriously promoted, the development of feudalism. The idea behind his military reforms was to raise the number of heavy horsemen by combining the duties (not the estates themselves) of many smaller estates, that would have not been able to provide a horsemen individualy, to larger "taxing communities" that would have been able to do so. That's not real feudal, is it?

Otherwise Charlemange was rather aiming on centralization and seriously reduced the power of the dukes. The fragmentation of power, a requirement for feudalism, came with the crisis and collapse of the Carolingian Empire.

[hellheaven1987]

Even though I cannot see how those would have created, or even seriously promoted, the development of feudalism. The idea behind his military reforms was to raise the number of heavy horsemen by combining the duties (not the estates themselves) of many smaller estates, that would have not been able to provide a horsemen individualy, to larger "taxing communities" that would have been able to do so. That's not real feudal, is it?

That does not sound like a reform at all, since early Carolingian already had this system.

[konny]

That does not sound like a reform at all, since early Carolingian already had this system.

The idea behind Charlemange's system was to raise the quality of the army on expenses of its quantity; so it is assumed. The problem with that periode is that we have tons of laws, but only little informations on the pratical consequences of those regulations (for example, an order repeated over and over again, acompanied by many threated penalties, must not mean that things had been done exactly that way, but rather that things were not going as intended).

It has been occasionally said that this marked the first steps in professionalisation of the military, one of the pillars of feudalism. The same idea has been rejected by showing that Charlemange's armies still had been the traditional peasant levies and not some kind of vassals' army. Given that the peasant levy still played a considerable role in Western Europe's armies of the 11th Century, and never came completly out of use in some regions, I also wouldn't have this developement starting as early as the 8th Century.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The Magyar, the Normans/Vikings and the Saracen raids had a lot to do, with Feudalism, subsistence farming culture and general breaking down of society during the VIII/IX centuries.

The Feudal system was a natural response to Central Governments being teared apart, by lack of communication, constant warfare and unclear legislation regarding the organization of states.

What Charles the Great did was keeping togheter the already broken system in his hands during his lifetime.

The Knight had already started to appear and develop since the fall of the WRE.

[konny]

The Magyar, the Normans/Vikings and the Saracen raids had a lot to do, with Feudalism, subsistence farming culture and general breaking down of society during the VIII/IX centuries.

The Feudal system was a natural response to Central Governments being teared apart, by lack of communication, constant warfare and unclear legislation regarding the organization of states.

What Charles the Great did was keeping togheter the already broken system in his hands during his lifetime.

The Magyars did not come to Hungary before the late 9th Century and for the next two or three generations after that became a problem for Central Europe. The Vikings indeed started their raids during the lifetime of Charlemange, but only gained a foothold in France after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire (i.e. the collapse was the requirment for the Vikings successes in France, not the result of it). The Arabs were a threat before the rule of Charlemange, but his campaigns in southern France and northern Spain effectivly ended that threat.

So, none of these events/people had in any way caused the collapse of the Carolingian Empire and the developement of feudalism in the successor states.

The Knight had already started to appear and develop since the fall of the WRE.

correction: The armoured horsemen appeared in Western Europe at the end of the WRE. But to make an armoured horseman a knight requires a few more ingridens, none of which appeared before the 11th Century.

[Ramashan]

I thought the Medieval Feudal system was created in large part to the Viking invasions that ravaged France through the 9th and 10th century. The kings were unable to protect the countryside so it was up to local lords to take on more of the protection because there was no way for an army to be levied and respond to the viking attacks.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I thought the Medieval Feudal system was created in large part to the Viking invasions that ravaged France through the 9th and 10th century. The kings were unable to protect the countryside so it was up to local lords to take on more of the protection because there was no way for an army to be levied and respond to the viking attacks.

Which started happening as soon as the Carolingian system collapsed.

[hellheaven1987]

I thought the Medieval Feudal system was created in large part to the Viking invasions that ravaged France through the 9th and 10th century. The kings were unable to protect the countryside so it was up to local lords to take on more of the protection because there was no way for an army to be levied and respond to the viking attacks.

No, same type of feudal system was existed after Merovingian was collapsed, and Carolingian only reunited all land again and strengthened central government.

Viking raids already started before Carolingian Empire collapsed, but when Carolingian still had resource to create coastline defence, Viking could not do much harm.

[justinius]

Feudalism was created in the successor states because of the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire.

[Odovacar]

It would be nice to know what feudalism exactly was.

[justinius]

Basically a Lord or noble with his own domain, soldiers and serfs at his disposal to work the land. The opposite of the centralization of government.

[konny]

I thought the Medieval Feudal system was created in large part to the Viking invasions that ravaged France through the 9th and 10th century. The kings were unable to protect the countryside so it was up to local lords to take on more of the protection because there was no way for an army to be levied and respond to the viking attacks.

I think that would be overrating the impact of the Viking raids. They did create some serious havoc in northern France and on the British Isles, but not more than other people created in other parts of Europe, and most likely not enough to throw about European society for centuries.

It would be nice to know what feudalism exactly was.

A system based on personal linkeage between a supreme ruler and his vassals. Different to a centralized system of government where all authority is held by a central government (including its local administrative bodies), in feudalism the local ruler (for example a duke) holds the authority in his territory and in return is a personal vassal to highest ruler (king) whom he owes (usually military) service, depending on the size of his fief.

The local ruler on his turn might also install further vassals of him (so called after-vassals), for example counts. These again would owe the duke military service. The counts, now, might also grant fiefs on their account, for example to single knights.

So, in case of war the king would call his dukes to arms, these in return would demand military service from their counts who then would marshal their knights.

That's for a simple and straight version. In reality the system would not be that linear and there would be counts and knights as direct vassals of the king, as well as knights as direct vassals to the dukes.

The advantage would be that it saves costs for administration: When (close to) all revenues of the kingdom would be consumed by maintaining the army, it would be more economical, for example, to give a heavy horseman the income of a certain village and leave tax collection as well as mainting of that man and his equippement to him, instead of having a large administrative apperatus that would collect the taxes from that village, transfer them to the capital, from there buy the weapons and horses, and recruit and maintain the heavy horseman.

A military system that is based on mass levying the peasants does not need feudalism: The military service itself is the tax. That way you neither need an administration to collect and transfer taxes and turn them into an army, nor would you need to grant a soldier a certain taxable income as a fief.

That way, the more and more professional the military in the Carolingian Empire (resp. its successor states) became the more it either was required to establish a sophisticated administration or to ressort to feudal structures.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I think that would be overrating the impact of the Viking raids. They did create some serious havoc in northern France and on the British Isles, but not more than other people created in other parts of Europe, and most likely not enough to throw about European society for centuries.

Added to the ravages of the Saracen fleet in the Western Mediterranean and IMHO it's enough to screw a society enough to create a Highly Decentralized system that lives of the land due to the lack of major trade and communications.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I think a lot of people over complicate social structure and militiary organisation throughout history. Until recently most of it was quite simple.

Feudal armies have almost always existed in some form.

The simple explanation was that it worked like a regiment in the british army. The Lord of a region would be like a Colonel or Colonel in chief either directly contolling and overseeing the military retainers or having a chief retainer do it for him. This as such was the basis of Lord and Vassell.

The owner of a land requires people to work it, to defend the land and people (or police them) armed retainers were required, either the land owner prioritised the land or the training and upkeep of armed retainers. Those who were successful held thier land and possition either becoming a great lord or joining other lords in alliance.

Some places brigand gangs could overrun places and place themselves as lords who receive the tribute. Ultimatly the government has always been a protection racket. The feudal system never decayed it mearly changed its lords and players based on relationship with the greater authority or ability to stay alive.

The other form of military is not retainer to a Lord but a civic organisation by a centralised oligarchic authority.

Feudalism is decentralisation, Republic/Democratic is ultimatly Centralisation (As is despotic monarchy) where professional armies of a non feudal character exist.

Feudal armies fluctuate in size based on the Lords resources and ability to attract, train and retain people who are ultimatly mercenaries unless they are locals to the Lord's Estate.

You should see the breakdown of centralisation from the 3rd Century on in the Roman Empire and the gradual aristocratic retainers of the household show up as armed forces. The barbarians would have easilly adopted this due to similar social structure and distribution of conquests.

Charlemagne did not do anything drastic he only maintained the machine attaching it to his needs and thus keeping it malabul to his will.

Either write a large thesis on the balance between professional centralised military forces against decentralised personal armed retainer forces, or mearly choose one or other monarch and write about their individual organisation of their forces.

[konny]

Feudal armies have almost always existed in some form.

That's correct the basic form would to be found in the system of vassalage that formed the Germanic (and others) warbands and continued in the early Frankish empire (and others).

The simple explanation was that it worked like a regiment in the british army. The Lord of a region would be like a Colonel or Colonel in chief either directly contolling and overseeing the military retainers or having a chief retainer do it for him. This as such was the basis of Lord and Vassell.

No, that's not feudalism. Feudalsim would be the colonel granting each soldier a fixed percentage of the regimental treasury (and that way emptying it) in return for the individual soldier personaly promising to fight for the colonel on his own expenses. Feudalism would not be the colonel holding the regimental treasury and paying the soldiers out of it according to their rank.

[G-Megas-Doux]

No, that's not feudalism. Feudalsim would be the colonel granting each soldier a fixed percentage of the regimental treasury (and that way emptying it) in return for the individual soldier personaly promising to fight for the colonel on his own expenses. Feudalism would not be the colonel holding the regimental treasury and paying the soldiers out of it according to their rank.

In the British Army during the 18th Century, the Colonel was responsible for the wages of the soldiers and in effect did charge them for their own upkeep from the wages. I see no difference in the actuality only the presentation. This was also a style of Feudalism as regiments for a long time were known only by the name of the Colonel.

This is important when dealing with change that people recognise what something is even when it is disguised.