Feudalism

The economic portion of feudalism was centered on the lord’s estates or manor, and is called manorial. A lord’s manor would include peasant villages, a church, farm land, a mill, and the lord’s castle or manor house. All economic activity occurred on the manor. This meant that little to no trade occurred during this time period. Most of the peasants during the middle Ages were serfs. Serfs were generally farmers who were tied to the land. They were not slaves because they could not be bought or sold, but they could not readily leave the manor either.

Serfs were given land to farm in exchange for service to their lord. This service usually involved working the lord’s fields, maintaining roads and the manor, and providing military service in times of war. Serfs paid taxes to their lord in the form of crops. This is also how the paid the fee to use the manor’s mill or other services. Http://regenerates. Org/regents/global/ themes/economic/mid. CFML Feudal land tenure, system by which land was held by tenants from lords.

As developed in medieval England and France, the king was rod paramount with numerous levels of lesser lords down to the occupying tenant. Tenures were divided into free and unfreeze. Of the free tenures, the first was tenure in chivalry, principally grand sergeants and knight service. The former obliged the tenant to perform some honorable and often personal service; knight service entailed performing military duties for the king or other lord, though by the middle of the 12th century such service was usually commuted for a payment called scuttle.

Another type of free tenure was sewage, primarily customary sewage, the principal revive of which was usually agricultural in nature, such as performing so many days’ plowing each year for the lord. In addition to the principal service, all these tenures were subject to a number of conditions, such as relief, the payment made on transfer of a fief to an heir, and escheat, the return of the fief to the lord when the vassal died without an heir.

Chivalric tenures were also subject to hardship, the guardianship of a fief of a minor, and marriage, payment made in lieu of marriage of the vassal’s daughter to the lord. Another form of free tenure was the spiritual tenure of bishops r monasteries, their sole obligation being to pray for the souls of the grantor and his heirs. Some ecclesiastics also held temporal lands for which they performed the required services. The main type of unfreeze tenancy was village, initially a modified form of servitude.

Whereas the mark of free tenants was that their services were always predetermined, in unfreeze tenure they were not; the unfreeze tenant never knew what he might be called to do for his lord. Although at first the villain tenant held his land entirely at the will of the lord and might be ejected at any time, the royal courts eater protected him to the extent that he held tenancy at the will of the lord and according to the custom of the manor, so that he could not be ejected in breach of existing customs.

Moreover, an unfreeze tenant could not leave without his lord’s approval. Tenure in village in England then became known asphodel tenure (abolished after 1925), in which the holder was personally free and paid rent in lieu of services. Http://www. Britannica. Com/Upchucked/topic/205571 ‘feudal-land-tenure Feudal Economic System By Germination’s

The greater part of medieval civilization was a time of simplicity and little cultural development. Feudalism was the structure that governed medieval society and came to represent this time period. The church became the universal symbol of medieval unity. Toward the end of the medieval period, however, town life and large-scale trade and commerce were revived. Great changes took place in the church fostering a new era and change. Feudalism was a system of government that provided the structure for the political, social, and economic aspects of medieval civilization.

It consisted of contracts between members of the nobility and less powerful nobles who served as their vassals. Economically it was a contract between the serfs who farmed that land and the nobles who owned it. Feudalism was very complex and confusing in some ways, but it could also be looked at as very simple. It was constructed in a pyramid or chess board-like form. Kings were at the top although they did not have much power, lords and vassals followed the king and had control of the lesser nobles. The serfs were at the base of the pyramid.

A manor, otherwise known as the lord”s estate, was where everyone lived and worked. In exchange for a place to live, food, and mainly protection, the serfs farmed the land. Agriculture was the foundation of feudalism, where land and food was used to barter for other items. There were different taxes and positions of distinct people on the manor. This illustrates the complexity of feudal life during the medieval ages. If you look at it as what the duties were of each specific class you see the simplicity of feudalism.

Each member of medieval society had its own particular tasks to perform. The serfs preformed the most labor-intensive tasks and often did the same thing everyday. The knights protected the manor and the lords were responsible for taking care of everyone on their manor. The feudal system could be compared to a modern corporation. The serfs could be looked at as the workers, the lords as management, the knights to the security, and the king would be the CEO of the company.

Feudalism was complex in its organization and simple it its implementation. During most of the medieval time period the church was the center of society and was the law of the land. The church regulated business practices, had the power to tax, controlled all people through the power of excommunication and had influence on the aesthetic aspects of life. The church exemplified both the simplicity and complexity of medieval life. Monks led a very simple life. Their days were spent working hard, studying, and praying.

The church wanted to make life simpler by standardizing the rite, calendar, and monastic rule. It was more complex then simple however. The church held a great deal of power that was often in conflict with the monarch. The head of the church, the pope, spent much of his time in Rome while attempting to govern the rest of Europe. It was difficult to govern such a large geographical area while residing in a city that was not centrally located. In A. D. 1377, Pope Gregory XI left Avignon and returned to Rome.

This was known as the great schism and it developed great entanglement in the popes” standing in medieval society. The crusades, while increasing the status of the pope, also increased the power of the monarchs over the nobles. Feudalism was broken down and the power the church was illustrated in the crusades. Certain aspects of the church tried to simplify life while other things only made it more complex. Population growth contributed to the migration of people from the manor to the town, which was the base of complexity in the later stage of the Middle Ages.

A self-sufficient manor sometimes was the beginning of a town where people came to form a complex web of commerce and trade. Products were bought with money rather then used to barter for other necessities such as in the earlier stage of the Middle Ages. As the towns grew the people became dissatisfied with being ruled by the nobles and church. They wanted to govern and tax themselves, and eventually they began to do these things without the consent of the church or nobles.

To better protect themselves the townspeople often joined together with people from other towns to form leagues. These leagues would band together to protect one another and promote trade. The people organized themselves even further with forming merchant and craft guilds. The guilds controlled the making and sale of particular products. Feudal lords as well as the church was concerned with the formation of towns. Townspeople were able to increase their wealth through the sale and manufacturing of goods, while the lords only produced what was needed for their manor.

The serfs began to move away from the manor because they realized that they could have a better life if they lived in the towns. By forming autonomous towns, people created complex relationships between themselves and the monarchs and churches. This was the development of a more complex form of economic subsistence known as capitalism. Medieval civilization was a time of change in many different ways, both simple and complex. Feudalism was organized in a quite clear way yet the structure in which it was carried out and the roles played in it were confusing.

The church”s power was very perplexing in that it had the power to run the government and economy. The way that the church wanted to standardize certain things was easy to understand. Towns were complex in their organization and in the way they divided the power among the common people and the nobles and church. Medieval society that was once based on faith became rooted in scholasticism. Many new ideas brought up through the medieval civilization forced the society to be both simple and complex in many aspects.

The great publicist of the enlightenment, Voltaire, even while he advocated the widening of historical inquiry to embrace social and economic activities and their effect, strongly believed that any objects worthy of historical study were the peeks not the valleys of the achievements of mankind. l This statement shows that among the civilization that rose, the western civilization is always ahead of the other societies. There is an assumption that western civilization are progressive than Asians. In comparison to the medieval world, view, however believed in a fixed order of things and was theocratic.

It is true that the western civilization started the economic and social activity through the Industrial revolution. The industrial revolution began at the United Kingdom in 1750-1850 and spread to the Germany, United States and the rest of the Europe in 1850 – 1950. And in 19502050 it expand through Asia and Brazil . lt also started the massive release of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the comparison between Industrial Revolution and French revolution, we can see that the two have similarities.

The French Revolution was a transformation in society and political. In the start of French Revolution, France becomes a monarchy. The Industrial revolution was resulted to transform agricultural economies to industrial. But it also changed the whole society. The social changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution were significant. As economic activities in many communities moved from agriculture to manufacturing, production shifted from its traditional locations in the home and the small workshop to factories.

Large portions of the population relocated from the countryside to the towns and cities where manufacturing Duchesne,Ricardo, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, KoninkliJke, Brill NV,2011 PASCUA, Diane JOY T. 2013-63299 enters were found. New groups of investors, businesspeople, and managers took financial risks and reaped great rewards. 2 There is also similarity in the Dark Ages and in the Industrial Revolution in social stratification. In the Dark Ages, Feudalism flourished in the Western Europe. It is a specific kind of decentralized government which started in Western Europe in ninth century to thirteenth. Three elements are considered in the classical Feudalism; the decentralized of government and law. 4 The lord is the most powerful in this stratification. They are the one who holds the power in economic aspects. In some cases, some lords are more powerful than the kings. While in the Industrial Revolution, industrialists, bankers and political leaders govern over the ordinary people. Industrialists hold the power in Economic aspects and they also “control” the political system because of the wealth. We can see that the power in this time is in hands of the wealthy.

A form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people Inhabits a sovereign state Sovereignty Denotes a single, supreme political decision-making authority. In early modern Europe the Monarch was the Sovereign. In modern states sovereignty tends to lie with the executive arm of government. A controversial term, sovereignty relies on authority, not power. That is, the sovereign claims the right or authority to decide matters of interest to the state, even if it cannot control everything that occurs within its territory. Medieval

Of or relating to the period of European history from about A. D. 500 to about 1500. Feudalism Feudalism was the medieval model of government predating the birth of the modern nation-state. Feudal society is a military hierarchy in which a ruler or lord offers mounted fighters a fief (medieval beneficial), a unit of land to control in exchange for a military service. The individual who accepted this land became a vassal, and the man who granted the land become known as his liege or his lord. Individualism A social theory advocating the liberty, rights or Independent action of the Individual.

Liberalism A political theory that prizes Individual freedom. It believes Individuals should be free to do as they please, without the interference of others. So long as they don not harm or limit the freedom of others. In IR it has tended to focus on the development of international law, the spread of democracy and the expansion of free trade, in which Emmanuel Kant is one of the leading theorists. Communitarian’s A political theory that emphasizes individuals’ attachments to the community in which they grew up.

The communities in which we grow up are thought to be the resource of moral values. Communitarian’s adopts the ethical position that a person’s moral obligations are always first and foremost members of our own community and that they cannot be extended beyond that communities boundaries. Liberal Internationalism Woodrow Wilson, thus sometimes being referred to as Williamson’. Wilson suggested that the cause of instability and conflict was the “undemocratic nature of international politics”, particularly in regards to foreign policy and the balance of power.

Having identified the cause of conflict, it is possible to suggest that the aims of Iberia internationalism are expanding democratic practices and free trade, defending democracy from its rivals while protecting and promoting human rights. Harmony of interests The idealist concept of the harmony of interests is based on the notion that human beings can rationally recognize that they have some interests in common, and that cooperation is therefore possible. Democratic Peace Theory The theory that democratic states do not fight war against each other.

A good amount of empirical evidence has been collected indicating that war has never been fought teen two stable democracies. Closely associated with Michael Doyle. International Institutions International institutions be defined as relatively stable sets of related constitutive, regulative, and procedural norms and rules that pertain to the international system, the actors in the system (including states as well as non-state entities), and their activities. Interdependence The mutual dependence developed among states by utilizing new technologies and through the growth of international cross-border commerce. Communication and travel.

A term used before globalization became popular. Anarchy The absence of rule or government. In international relations it does not mean disorder and chaos. Power Classically defined as the ability to get an actor to do what they would otherwise not do. This is power in the sense of domination or power over others. But power can also be thought of in terms of capability or power to do or act. Realist theories hold the belief that international relations are a constant struggle for power, usually defined by material terms. National Interest A notoriously plastic term that refers to the states foreign policy aims.

The national interest is said to be the same regardless of the government in power, but different governments will hold different ideological agendas and priorities, meaning that national interest will change accordingly. Refers to a mechanism that operates to prevent one state from achieving such a preponderance of power that it is in a position to lay down and enforce the law over all such others. Central to realist theories, it can be viewed as the deliberate product of foreign policies, or as the unintended consequence of several states seeking to protect themselves.

In any case, states align with others to counter-balance the growth in another’s power, seeking to preserve international order and a degree of equilibrium. International Community vs. international system An international system exists when two or more states have sufficient contact with each other that they become conscious of existing in the same environment and conscious of the need to consider other states interests and capabilities in the pursuit of their own interests.

Globalization The stretching and intensification of social and economic relations across the globe dad possible by new communication and computer technologies and advances in transport. It is thought by many to inaugurate an unprecedented degree of global interconnectedness, although some deny its novelty by pointing to similar levels of interdependence in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Still others criticism globalization for being a vehicle of inalienable theory. Non-state Actor An actor not part of the official state or governmental apparatuses.

Non-governmental organizations Specializes not-for-profit non-state actors that seek to raise consciousness and hanged the activities of governments and populations on a variety of issues. Nooks have proliferated over the last century, advocating and lobbying on issues such as human rights, landmines, poverty, animal rights and the environment, among many others. Civil Society Simply refers to those who act in international politics but are not a member or representative of any particular state. Social Movements. Denotes some kind of collective action, driven by a particular set of social concerns and emerging from society at large.

Modernity A modern way of thinking, working etc. The schism between domestic and international politics in international relations. The clash of civilizations The cause of conflict in the 21st century will not be political or economic, but cultural. Different cultures have different ways of organizing society and this will be the cause of conflict. He cites Western, Slavic Orthodox, Hindu, Islamic, Japanese, Latin America, African and Confucian as the main civilizations. Cosmopolitan Democracy Cosmopolitan democracy is a political theory which explores the application of norms and values of democracy at different levels, from global to local.

It is about what global governance of the people, by the people, for the people can mean. Asian Century The dominant role that could be played by Asia in the 21st century, because of its growing economic clout and global demographic trends. “Asian Century” as a theme, has gained credence following the rapid economic growth of China and India since the asses, which has propelled them to the top ranks of the world’s biggest economies Mercantilism The main economic system used during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries.

The main goal was to increase a nation’s wealth by imposing government regulation uncovering all of the nation’s commercial interests. It was believed that national strength could be maximized by limiting imports via tariffs and maximizing exports. North-south gap The North-South divide is broadly considered a socio-economic and political divide. Generally, definitions of the Global North include the United States, Canada, developed parts of Europe, and East Asia. The Global South is made up of Africa, Latin America, and developing Asia including the Middle East.

Unilateralism An approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is hefted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, unilateralism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privative state- run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation.

Focuses on the interplay between political power and economic forces from the national through to the international and global level, whilst also taking account Based on liberal theories of economics, 1944 saw the meeting of 44 states at Breton Woods, where the new economic order was constructed and the multilateral institutions of the WEB, MIFF and GAIT were established.

Hegemony Domination by a great power and its allies Washington Consensus This is the set of 10 policies that the US government and the international financial institutions based in the US capital believed were necessary elements of “first stage policy reform” that all countries should adopt to increase economic growth. At its heart is an emphasis on the importance of macroeconomic stability and integration onto the international economy – in other words a neo-liberal view of globalization.

Rationalization The process of dividing an area into smaller segments called regions. One of the more obvious examples of rationalization is the division of a nation into states or provinces. 1951 Refugee Convention The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal document in defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of states. UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an international document that states Asia rights and fundamental freedoms to which all human beings are entitled.

Negative Rights and Positive Rights Positive Rights are rights that can only be enjoyed through positive intervention on the part of government, often linked to the idea of freedom to’, whilst negative rights are rights that are enjoyed by virtue of the inactivity of others, particularly government, and are often seen as freedoms from’. Resurrections The application of values and theories drawn from European culture, to other groups or peoples, implying a biased or distorted viewpoint.

Enrique Moreno Prd7 2/1/13 The Middle Ages From A. D. 500 to 1400, Europe went through a period of faith, disease, terror, feudalism, and advancements in art and architecture. This period is commonly referred to as the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages brought an epidemic that killed roughly one-third of Europe’s total population, renewed faith in God, and advancements in art, architecture and science. It is quite impossible to describe the Middle Ages using one label.

The Dark Ages, Age of Faith, and Golden Age of Europe have completely different meanings but come to describe one period in time- the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church was very powerful it played a very important role in faith which was a very important aspect in life. People had faith, that way they will go to heaven, but they also had to follow the laws that were made by the church. The church controlled the decision of who will go to heaven and who will not and everyone’s goal in life was to go to heaven.

If they disobeyed the laws of the church, they were rejected from the church and therefore ruining their chance of going to heaven. Many men became monks and women became nuns. They replaced their will with the will of god. ”…renounce their will with the will of god,” and”…take the vows of purity, chastity, and poverty (Doc. 8). The monks and nuns influenced everyone else during the medieval time period. The Middle Ages were also a period of feudal age. There were three social classes, the nobles which was the upper class, the peasants and serfs were on the lower class.

The lords would receive land from a higher ranking lord or the king. The lord would distribute the land between the lower lords called vassals. The mutual relationship between the vassal and lord meant that the lord would provide land and protection from invaders and in return the vassal would provide loyalty, military service, and ransom payments. Vassals had serfs working the land and knights for military services. Lords also used knights for protection, so the vassals would remain loyal. (Doc. ) “I will aid the count of champagne… and will send knights whose service I owe to the m for the fief which I hold for them. The feudalistic system originated on large pieces of land called manors. These manors contained everything that people would need for survival and it also included a large manor house were the lord was stationed. The golden age was also a part of the middle ages. Education was a big deal back then, during the golden age. The government needed men who can read and write for their bureaucracies.

The cathedrals developed into the very first universities. The Europeans studied Aristotle, theology, and philosophy in these universities. They also studied medicine and math, including geometry which was big. ”…age once described as ‘dark’ had… vitality and exuberance… they were creative and inventive” (Doc. 6). Literature written in the vernacular language was also popular back then in the middle ages. Lastly, architecture was important and perfected by the people of the medieval time period.

They built the gothic cathedrals using their skills of architecture. In conclusion, the Middle Ages were a time of faith, feudalism, and desire for knowledge. It is mostly known because of all the harsh events in brought with it like the Black Death. After the dark ages were over, the feudal age kept Europe from falling apart by keeping a mutual relationship between the vassal and the lords. The highlight of the middle ages was the golden age which was the era where everyone had a thirst for knowledge.

Is Chivalry Dead?! What do you think of when you hear the word “chivalry”? I can’t speak for everyone but I know most of us, when we hear or think about the word “chivalry,” automatically we picture images of such figures as the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, Prince Charming, Gawain and The Green Knight, castles, and images of heavily armor knights saving princess or the cliche-ic “damsels in distress”. Though myths and fairytales illustrate this picture of chivalry, this in fact is a result of what the world has come to mean.

Originally, the word “chivalry” had a different meaning. During the middle ages, the individuals who lived during this time use chivalry as a “code of conduct”. This “code of conduct” was put in place help the society become better by organizing it. People who lived during the Middle Ages supported the “code of conduct” because they felt it may help control the nation and help it gain more power. With any society, if chaos arises something is put into place for it to be demolished.

For example, laws are created to provide a society with some type of order. Therefore, chivalry was created to control a society. “Chivalry wasn’t only to regulate the disorganization within a society but it also provided individuals at the type of the social ladder to be viewed with high esteem, particularly knight”. In order for a knight to make a name for himself or be recognized as honorable, he had to follow the behavioral code of chivalry.

In modern society, one might speculate if chivalry has influence other people from across the globe. Although it pretty safe to say that in our society, chivalry has not fully impact us as a society, neither socially or culturally. Therefore providing truth to the saying that chivalry is dead. In medieval times, power in Europe was dispersed to the people of hierarchy. The people of great nobility, such as the king, had control of people who were viewed as inferior, such as the peasants.

The earliest way for the nobles to protect themselves and land is through feudalism. Feudalism is a social system based on a hierarchy which consists of social, political, and economic systems. The purpose of the feudalism system was to give the nobles a chance to have power over lands and people. “This control would be so successful that it would provide a way for the king to give knights things such as gold or land in exchange for their loyalty and service to the kingdom”. This was the bases for the “code of conduct. ”

Chivalry among men in the novel The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

The element of chivalry overshadows everything else in Alexandre Dumas’s historical romance, The Three Musketeers. The work was set against the background of King Louis VIII’s France. It was a time of intrigue, treachery and machinations in high places, an atmosphere in which you could hardly distinguish friend from foe. It was at this juncture that D’Artagnan, the principal character arrives in Paris.

When he sets out to seek his fortune in the famed city, as any young man did in those times and still does to some extent, he was armed with only the three things that were given to him by his aging father:

They were, a horse as aging as his progenitor, fifteen crowns and a letter of introduction to Monsieur de Treville, captain of the musketeers, the personal guards of the French king. And there follows a story so packed with events that it leaves the readers spellbound.

To many, the idea of chivalry seem frivolous, naïve and very much in vain. It is like taking romanticism to an illogical conclusion. You have only got to read Don Quixote to remind yourself of this fact. But one comes to the conclusion that there is a flip side to it after all, after reading the swashbuckling heroics of the protagonist and his bosom pals.

Although some of their exploits seem somewhat comic and incredulous, the way they were committed endears them to our hearts with the sheer buoyancy, exuberance and spontaneity of those acts. It takes one right back to childhood, when one indulged in the fantasies peculiar to the period, thereby filling us with nostalgia and even déjà vu.

Here, the protagonist also “Seeks great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight, realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens.

Nobility also has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in the service of rightness.” (Price, Brian R. 1997).

So the aforementioned negative qualities of chivalry do not in any way detract from the story in the least as we find the protagonist move forward in his onward momentum, in the most chivalrous manner, “packed with events and exciting dramatic encounters.” (Dumas, Alexandre).

For this, indeed, is a story packed with events with the spirit of chivalry leading it ever forward. And watching D’Artagnan move from adventure to mayhem, one is filled with an overwhelming sense of admiration for the perpetrator of all those hair-raising episodes.

And before long one is convinced of the fact that the idea of chivalry is not so frivolous and foolish after all, as seemed at first. Although at times it sounds childishly romantic, it has its high points of idealism, even if it is romantic in nature and so not everybody’s cup of tea.

For D’Artagnan does follow the kind of chivalry in its original connotations. At every step, he is ‘guided by the ideals of chivalry, a moral code that has its origins in medieval knighthood.’ (Dumas, Alexandre).

And we sit glued to our seats as if are watching an action packed movie. He exhibits almost all the qualities considered necessary by a typical chivalrous person. First and foremost he is guided by the quality of prowess.

In every action ‘he seeks excellence in all endeavors he goes through, martial or otherwise. Like a true knight he does not use his strength for personal glory but uses to serve the cause of justice.’ (Price, Brian R. 1997).

He is also fiercely loyal to the cause and the people whom he seeks to serve. In the novel, he is loyal to his friends, his country and his amour Madame Bonacieux. And like a true knight he fights the forces of evil with all his strength. Thus he battles the villain Cardinal Richelieu and his guards. Yet he has the time to answer the calls of love from the beautiful and enigmatic Madame Bonacieux.

His cronies were Athos, Porthos and Aramis. They were with him in all his adventures and escapades throughout the narrative. Strangely enough, they became friends by fighting duels with D’Artagnan on the one hand and the others one after another, on the other.

These encounters came to an end when they were confronted by the arch villain Cardinal Richelieu’s guards who, at that juncture and then onwards, became their common enemy. And their common exploits under the leadership of D’Artagnan also became tinted with the codes of chivalry then prevalent throughout the length and breadth of Europe.

Another chivalric code of conduct is to fight for justice ‘unencumbered by bias or personal interest.’ ((Price, Brian R. 1997). Accordingly, the four friends wielded the sword in cause of justice while at the same time practicing the fine qualities of mercy and humanity. They fought against the evil Cardinal whose machinations had filled the French court with intrigue, treachery and violence.

The chivalric code of defense, demands that D’Artagnan and company also should defend their liege lord, in this case the king of France. But here there is a deviation and object the D’Artagnan’s fealty falls on the queen instead of the king by a quirk of circumstance. ‘The Musketeers join forces to protect the honor of the Queen, to help her conceal her affair with Buckingham, and to help her to arrange meetings with him.

This may seem like a relatively trivial matter to most modern readers when compared to the urgencies of the political situation of the time, but according to the code of chivalry and honor that the Musketeers believe in, fostering true love is of the highest importance.’

In this work the hero achieves his goals through pride honor and determination. A true gallant always defends his honor whatever be the cost of doing so. For this he is ready to die if necessary.

Was Chivalry in Decline During the 14th and 15th Centuries

Far from disappearing, chivalry during the 14 and 15th centuries it was actually going through somewhat of a revival, some historians even go as far to say it was experiencing a “renascence” in the late middle ages albeit an imperfect one. Even though it appears in this period of medieval history that chivalry was becoming all the more popular, fashionable even, the meaning and spirit behind chivalry that were so important during the first crusades were dilapidated, therefore one can see why it can be viewed that chivalry was in decline in the 14th 15th century.

This is especially apparent seeing as Chivalry became a tool to be wielded by those privileged enough to have the money and influence to use it. Furthermore despite the large amount of bravado surrounding chivalry in the later medieval period, this just underlines the fact that chivalry in the 14th and 15th centuries was a hollow shell of what it had been in the time of the crusades. Kilgour indentifies chivalry in the early medieval period as the “First heroic age” where a “fusion of military glory and religion” was achieved for the first time.

In his description of the glory of chivalry in its early days Kilgour only stresses the devaluation of chivalry in its time of decline in the 14th and 15th century. The writings of J Huizinga in which he describes the return of chivalry as ”a rather artificial revival of things long dead, a sort of deliberate and insincere renascence of ideas drained of any real value” offer a clear analysis of chivalry and its decline as an ideal with any real meaning during the 14th and 15th century.

Even though to a large extent he is certainly right to view chivalry as a hollow shell of what it was, his statement is slightly implausible because by no means were there no chivalric deeds performed that would not have seemed out of place some 200 years earlier during the crusades, for example: “A knight of the nation of Hainault named Sir Loys de Robessart. One day it happened that his enemies found him in a village with few of his people with him. There they attacked him and staged a fine skirmish. And although his enemies where great in numbers and much stronger he drove them out of he village. Thereupon a great force of his enemies renewed the attack, and although he sighted them at a distance, all the same he disdained to flee or to show any signs of fear. But with very steady, noble and virtuous courage sallied forth and in order to uphold the honour of this order of chivalry and of himself he determined to hold his ground, and there he died gloriously, for before he died when he saw he could not hold he made his men withdraw to the castle, for which act he was greatly praised both by his enemies and his own men. ”

From this example it is apparent that there were cases in which chivalric actions were not completely selfless, suggesting to one that chivalry was not in decline. Never the less mindful of Maurice Keens remark that the value of chivalry signified by the heroic ideals of the earlier romances has been lost to sight in a quest for imitative decoration, it is thus easy to see that perhaps even the most selfless cases of chivalry recorded by historians like the tale of Roberssart just suit to underpin the inherent flaws in late medieval chivalry with their “quest for imitative decoration. There is however one issue in the early medieval period that is conceivably the defining factor in best determining if there was a decline in chivalry in the 14th and 15th century, one that is not explored by Huizinga or Kilgour.

It is whether the state of chivalry in its “first heroic age” was any different in its ideals and value before it had collapsed into a “mad, exaggerated display. One aspect that might prove this conclusion to be correct is raised by Maurice Keen who observes that some of the evidence describing chivalry, although being less plentiful in the 12th century is remarkably similar to what is being said two or three hundred years later. This example is enough to convince one that there was little difference in the spirit of chivalry at its beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, suggesting that there was not a decline in chivalry due to it losing its meaning because that meaning was unchanged in some two hundred years.

Despite her argument there is some evidence which disproves Maurice Keen’s notion of a chivalric spirit unchanged over two hundred years, which apart from being implausible, is proved to be inaccurate due to the evolution of chivalry as a tool to be used for selfish ends further undermining the ideals for which chivalry stands. The best illustration of chivalry being used as a tool is when it started to be harnessed for means of propaganda.

This can be seen most prominently at the Vow of the Pheasant and the banquet held at Lille in 1445, in which the banquet was used to lavishly display a sense of chivalry with the intention of trying to gain the adequate support to initiate a crusade along the Mediterranean. However this was no excessive imitation of the past but was a calculated move by King Philip the Good, a move which perfectly illustrates the decline of chivalry in the late Middle Ages. What one also needs to understand is that this was not an isolated case.

Chivalry was used as a tool in other ways as well. For example many Dukes’ Counts and court officials hoped that by exploiting the genuine respect for chivalrous values and conduct they could “solidify” respect for their rather “shaky” ducal authority. This point is interestingly supported by Maurice Keen who despite her previous argument explains that “chivalry was something secular princes could exploit” mainly because it was taken so seriously by “a very important sector of people. What makes her statement even more plausible is that it is reinforced by Raymond Kilgour, whose view is that an event such as these pageants evolved without a “deeper value to society” such was the extent to the dilapidation of chivalry, and its decline in the 14th and 15th centuries Despite much evidence to prove that chivalry was in decline in the late medieval period of the 14th and 15th centuries, some events just do not lend themselves to be interpreted it in this way.

Especially when taken into account that a definition of the word decline is “the period when something reaches its end” this is particularly interesting as there are some documents which raise the question whether chivalry actually ever reached a period of definite decline at all in the 15th and 14th centuries, despite its withering spirit. One such piece of evidence that supports this view is a table listing all books printed in Venice in reference to military affairs.

This specific document is useful because of all the works devoted to military affairs or dealing with them, the most prevalent category of book published was that of the laws of war and chivalry. The fact that this table lists books on chivalric warfare as being so popular this late on in the 1400’s must denote that chivalry was not in decline, for if it was going through a tangible Decline it would surely not have been such a popular subject for publishing.

However if we are to take Huizinga’s view that chivalry was nothing more than “a rather artificial revival of things long dead” this would explain why even though chivalry exercised a “disastrous” affect on wars in this period of late medieval period it was still so wrote about. Another interpretation which supports Huizinga’s view is that litterateurs of the time where probably trying to capitalize on chivalry as a popular subject, similar to the way that secular princes used chivalry as a tool as Maurice Keen pointed out.

Chivalry in practise was obviously not in decline in the late medieval period however in spirit it was, a perfect exhibition of this is shown through the disastrous effect chivalry had on the outcome of wars and on France itself. This was mainly the doing of King John the Good whose reign was “disastrous” to France because of his “chivalric prejudice”, as is pointed out by J Huizinga who rightly claims that it was King Johns “chivalric stubbornness” and carelessness which cost him the battle of Poitiers in 1356, as well as one of his most celebrated chivalric knights Geroffroi De Charny.

This use of chivalry almost seems as though it’s being used to keep up appearances with what was fashionable at the time no matter the cost, and as a result underlines the decline in the spirit of chivalry and therefore the decline of chivalry itself. In conclusion the “cult” of chivalry as it is sometimes called in the later middle ages is generally considered by the majority of historians who deal with it indirectly or directly as meaningless, and therefore it has to be perceived as being in decline.

Karl Brandi labelled the elaborate protocol at play in chivalric court as an “impressive, sumptuous yet wholly meaningless shell. ” Similarly J Huizinga described chivalry as “naive” and “imperfect. ” Raymond Kilgour on the other hand stated that chivalry was an “extravagant” illusion to try and maintain a feeling of “significance. ” All these statements overwhelmingly point at a chivalry in a dire state of decline in the late medieval period, however in reality it was going through a revival.

Despite this revival, chivalry was weak in spirit and had disastrous effects on society, the outcomes of war and on France itself. From this assumption it’s hard not to see that although chivalry in practise was not in decline in practise its meanings and ideals were, hence why one can see that chivalry was in decline in the 14 and 15th century.

Comitatus & Chivalry

Comitatus and Chivalry are two concepts that resounded all throughout the Medieval Ages. However, while the two are closely related, there is a clear difference between them. Between the two, Chivalry is perhaps more recognized, but not necessarily more widely-practiced. Bennett in his book, Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare, traces the origin of Comitatus to reign of Emperor Diocletian where Germanic and Roman commanders were assigned a comitatus, soldiers who held “direct allegiance to their individual commander, rather than to the army as a whole.(2001, 81)

The term later on evolved to describe the dynamics that exists between a warrior and his Lord. Comitatus holds that while both are still in the battlefield, actively fighting, neither lord nor warrior can leave the scene of battle for any reason. Both entered the battle, and both should leave at the same time. This may be where the “leave no man behind” phrase comes from. This agreement that exists between Germanic Lords and his subordinates is believed to have given rise to the feudal system, where the serfs owed loyalty to their feudal lord.

Some scholars maintain that there is no break between the original comitatus of the Roman Empire and the vassals of the Middle Ages (Powicke, 1949, 92) Chivalry describes the virtues practiced by the knights of the Middle Ages. It is hard to place a specific definition to chivalry, but it is a moral and social code which advocated honor, courage, and respect. When we talk of chivalry, we conjure images of a knight in shining armor, ready and able to rescue us from our dire circumstances (Frantzen, 204, 1)

Comitatus is a code that binds soldiers to their commanders, while chivalry is a code that binds men to the principles of honor and virtue, wherever they may be. While both concepts refer to relationships and values, comitatus is more about loyalty and courage in battle, while chivalry is more about loyalty and courage in all aspects of life. Chivalry presupposes comitatus, but comitatus does not necessarily mean chivalry.

The systems Presence of Feudal System Compare Feudalism developed slightly later in Japan than in Europe Contrast: Base of Feudalism European feudalism was grounded in Roman legal structure while Japan feudalism had as its basis Chinese Confucianism Evidence 1: Europe: the economic system of Europe is based on an economic system made of the relationships between the different classes in the hierarchal life in Europe. Japan: Unlike Europe, Japan’s economy relied on Internal money flow.

For the most part an Agricultural Economy Evidence 1: What the main Religion was Europe: Christianity Japan: Buddhism with Shinto Influence and Zen Buddhism Evidence 2: class differences and positions Divisions of Class and Rank Europe: King, Nobles (dukes, Duchesses), Peasants, Serfs Japan: Empower (acts as a figurehead) Shogun (has the power, Military Leader), Deadly (Each controls an area of land had Is master so his Samurai who are paid to work for and protect him), Samurai (Warriors who fought to protect their Diamond and people.

They uphold a strict code of selflessness and honor), Peasants (farmers and Sherman, they were considered higher class than in Europe because they supplied food which all classes depend on), Artisans (people who were specialized in a specific trade), Merchants (Merchants were the lowest class and their Job was to trade and transport goods as well as shop-keep Europe: Unity of Church and State, Papacy Sometimes forced conversion Japan: In feudal Japan, state and religion were kept separate for the most part.

Buddhism came to Japan 300 years before feudalism took shape. It blended with the native Japanese religion Shinto to for Zen Buddhism Japanese variation of Buddhism Reinforced Bushier values of mental and self-discipline Buddhist monasteries became very wealthy Conversion was never forced. Monasteries were centers of learning, charity, interpretation for the poor It was the country official religion throughout feudal Japan, but religious leaders did not try to control politics or society.

This non-interference allowed the Shogun and Dynamos to rule while only focusing on the military and political aspects of their rulers The beliefs of Zen Buddhism were very popular among samurai since they followed beliefs of Bushier Evidence 3: Compare and Contrast in Warriors and their values

Who they were, difference in training, attire, Position in society, role in the community, duty outside of warfare Bushier-values Justice or rectitude Without rectitude they will not be fulfilling the full responsibility of the samurai Courage Doing what its right no matter how scary Mercy Politeness (etiquette) Honesty Honor Loyalty Self Control expected to have not only the strength and skills to face combat in the violent Middle Ages but was also expected to temper this aggressive side of a knight with a chivalrous side to his nature. To fear God and maintain His Church

To serve the liege lord in velour and faith To protect the weak and defenseless To give succor to widows and orphans To refrain from the wanton giving of offence To live by honor and for glory To despise pecuniary reward To fight for the welfare of all To obey those placed in authority To guard the honor of fellow knights To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit To keep faith At all times to speak the truth To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun To respect the honor of women Never to refuse a challenge from an equal Never to turn the back upon a foe Evidence