Why Did Feudalism Develop In Medieval Societies? - Quora

à 28 avril

The development of fiefs was also influenced by the Roman institution of patricinium and the German institution of mundium, by which the powerful Feudalism spread from France to Spain, Italy, and later Germany and Eastern Europe. In England the Frankish form was imposed by William I (William the...Although feudalism develops as early as the 8th century, under the Carolingian dynasty, it does not prevail widely in Europe until the 10th century - by The original feudalism, a structure of personal relationships, tends in one direction towards centralized monarchy - and in another towards anarchy.What Caused Feudalism? Perhaps the gangs simply followed the pattern set by city governments of the time, which put their political workers on salary by giving them a position in the city government where they could enjoy a regular income while still devoting their full time to advancing the political...feudalism developed for the want of an order, of rank especially, in society. Someone would proclaim himself the sovereign, but others, wanting to "Why did feudalism die in Europe? For one thing, growing towns offered alternativesŠ" (Feudal Europe and Japan, 274) what kind of alternatives are...For example, as feudalism developed, lords gave tracts of lands to vassals, who in turn pledged loyalty and accepted duties to the lord. European feudalism borrowed from its religious tradition to create the chivalric code; Japanese feudalism did the same to create bushido, the way of the warrior.

History of feudalism

The presence of ayuntamientos and alcaldes reveals that the mission settlements had_. a. many strange diseases b. their own local governme … nt c. many different immigrants d. their own language Answer honestly and if u do not know then do not answer not to be rude but this is a test!Although the term 'feudalism' and 'feudal society' are commonly used in history texts, scholars have never agreed on precisely what those terms mean. The term feudalism was not used by the people who lived in the Middle Ages. Neither can the feudal system, once defined, be applied uniformly...Why did feudalism end in Japan? The feudal system in Japan worked successfully for many years and it Although feudalism develops as early as the 8th century, under the Carolingian dynasty, it does not why-did-feudalism-last-longer-in-japan-than-in-europe-153366794.3 / 5 based on 3 votes.Development of Feudalism Chapter 2 Periods of the Middle Ages  Historians have divided the Middle ages into three periods: ◦ The Early Feudalism  Feudalism is the economic and political system that developed in Europe during the Middle Ages.  Feudalism developed different social classes.

Why and how did feudalism develop in western europe.

How and where did feudalism develop? 2019-01-28. European Feudalism Feudalism developed in Western Europe at around 800 C. Pepin the Short succeeded him and strengthened the alliance between Benedictine missionaries and Frankish expansion.If it never existed, then why did so many historians say it did? Weren't entire books written on the subject? Who has the authority to say that all those historians Brown maintained that the feudalism construct, developed after the Middle Ages, bore little resemblance to actual medieval society.Stages of Development. An important step towards feudalism was taken by the Frankish king Charles Martel in the VIII century, in creating many military The Feudal System. The two principal institutions of feudalism were vassalage and the fief. Vassalage was a contractual arrangement between lord...AnswerThe bottom line on feudalism is that it developed because of a need for security when a strong central government was not in place to provide it, and this was the condition of much of Europe of the Middle Why did feudalism develop? it was for the want of an order, of rank especially in society.Read about the development of feudalism and how the effects of feudalism during the Middle Both lords and vassals were considered aristocrats and the system of feudalism did not include peasants Under Henry III, John's son, the population grew and with it the development of towns and a new...

http://www.blackstudies.ucsb.edu/antillians/feudal... - Feudalism, contractual system of political and military relationships existing among members of the nobility in Western Europe during the High Middle Ages. (It had nothing to do with blood feuds; the two words came to be spelled alike in the 17th century, but have no etymological relationship.) Feudalism was characterized by the granting of fiefs, chiefly in the form of land and labor, in return for political and military servicesa contract sealed by oaths of homage and fealty (fidelity). The grantor was lord of the grantee, his vassal, but both were free men and social peers, and feudalism must not be confused with seignorialism, the system of relations between the lords and their peasants in the same period. Feudalism joined political and military service with landholding to preserve medieval Europe from disintegrating into myriad independent seigneuries after the fall of the Carolingian Empire.

Origins

When the German invaders conquered the western Roman Empire in the 5th century, they destroyed the professional Roman army and substituted their own armies, made up of warriors who served their chieftains for honor and booty. The warriors fought on foot and lived off the countryside. As long as they fought one another, they needed no cavalry. But when the Muslims, the Vikings, and the Magyars invaded Europe in the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries, the Germans found themselves unable to deal with these rapidmoving armies. First, Charles Martel in Gaul, then King Alfred in England, and finally Henry the Fowler of Germany provided horses for some of their soldiers to repel the raids into their lands. It is not certain that these troops fought on horseback, but they could pursue their enemies faster mounted than on foot, and as stirrups were then coming into use, it is probable that cavalry actions began to take place in this same period. They were certainly occurring in the 11th century. See also Chivalry.

Early System War horses were expensive, and training in their use took years of practice. To support his cavalry soldiers, Martel gave them estates of land farmed by dependent laborers, which he took from the church. Such estates, called benefices, were given for the duration of the soldiers' service. The soldiers were called vassals (from a Gaelic word meaning servant). The vassals, however, being selected soldiers with whom the Carolingian rulers surrounded themselves, became models for the aristocrats who followed the court. With the breakup of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century, many powerful men strove to assemble their own bands of mounted vassals, giving them benefices in return for their services. Some of the weaker landowners then found themselves obliged to enter into vassalage and to concede their lands to the lordship of the more powerful, receiving them back as benefices. The greater lords were expected to protect their vassals, as the vassals were expected to serve their benefactors.

Classical Feudalism These military relationships of the 8th and 9th centuries are sometimes described as Carolingian feudalism, but they lack some of the essential features of classical feudalism, which developed in and after the 10th century. It was only toward the year 1000 that the term fief began to be used instead of benefice, and the change of term reflected a change in the institution. Now the estate given a vassal was commonly understood to be hereditary, provided the vassal's heir was satisfactory to the lord, and provided he paid an inheritance tax called a relief. The vassal not only took the oath of fealty, which everyone owed to his lord, but also a special oath of homage to the feudal lord who invested him with a fief. Thus, feudalism was a political as well as military institution, one based upon a contract between two individuals, both of whom held rights in the fief.

Reasons for the Feudal Pattern Warfare was endemic in the feudal period, but feudalism did not cause warfare; warfare caused feudalism. Nor was feudalism responsible for the collapse of the Carolingian Empire; rather, the failure of that state made feudalism necessary. The Carolingian Empire collapsed because it was based on the rule of one man, who did not have institutions sufficiently well developed to carry out his will. The empire's disappearance threatened Europe with anarchy: thousands of individual seigneurs ruling their people entirely independent of any suzerain authority. The bonds of feudalism reknit the local seigneuries into a loose unity, under which the seigneurs gave up only as much of their freedom as was essential to effective cooperation. Under the leadership of their feudal lords, the united vassals were able to fend off invaders and then to create feudal principalities of some size and complexity. When feudalism proved its worth on a local basis, kings and emperors adopted it to strengthen their monarchies.

Maturity Feudalism reached its maturity in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. Its cradle was the region between the Rhine and Loire rivers, but in the late 11th century rulers of that region conquered southern Italy and Sicily, England, and, with the First Crusade, the Holy Land. To each place they took their feudal institutions. Southern France, Spain, northern Italy, and Germany also adopted some degree of feudalism in the 12th century. Even central and eastern Europe came under its spell to a limited degree, especially after the Byzantine Empire was feudalized following the Fourth Crusade. But the "feudalisms" of ancient Egypt and Persia, or of China and Japan, were not related to European feudalism and generally were only superficially similar. Perhaps the Japanese samurai most resembled medieval knights, particularly under the Ashikaga shoguns (13361573), but the relationships between lords and vassals in Japan were different from those of Western feudalism.

Characteristics In its classical form Western feudalism assumed that most or, in England, all of the land belonged to the sovereign princebe he king or duke, marquis or countwho held it "of no one but God." The prince then granted fiefs to his barons, who made their oaths of homage and fealty to him and were required to give him political and military service according to the terms of the grant. The barons, in turn, might grant portions of their fiefs to knights who swore homage and fealty to them and served them according to their grants. Thus, if a king granted a fief of a dozen seigneuries to a baron and required the service of ten knights, the baron could grant ten of the seigneuries to ten knights and thus be prepared to provide the required service to the king. Of course, a baron might seek to keep all his fief in his demesne (his personal domain) and keep his knights in his hall, feeding and arming them out of his own pocket; but this was resisted by the knights, who wanted to be seigneurs themselves. Knights might acquire two or more fiefs, and then they too might find it desirable to subgrant what they needed to provide the service for which they were obligated. By such subinfeudation, a feudal pyramid was created, providing the suzerain at the top, and each mesne lord below, with a feudal force of knights to serve him at his summons. Complications occurred when a knight accepted fiefs from more than one lord, but the institution of liege homage was invented to enable him to declare one of his lords his liege lord, whom he would serve personally, while he would send his vassals to serve his other lords. It was also the rule in France that "the lord of my lord is not my lord"; thus, it was not rebellion for a subvassal to fight against his lord's lord. In England, however, William the Conqueror and his successors required their vassals' vassals to take oaths of fealty to them.

Duties of a Vassal Military service in the field was basic to feudalism, but it was far from all that the vassal owed to his lord. When the lord had a castle, he might require his vassals to garrison it, a service called castleguard. The lord also expected his vassals to attend his court in order to give him advice and to participate in judgments of cases concerning other vassals. If the lord had need for money, he might expect his vassals to give him financial aid. During the 12th and 13th centuries many conflicts between lords and their vassals arose over just what services should be rendered. In England it was the Magna Carta that defined the obligations of the king's vassals; for example, they did not have to give financial aid except on the occasion of the marriage of the king's eldest daughter, the knighting of his eldest son, and the king's own ransom. In France it was common to find a fourth occasion for feudal aid: a lord's crusade. Giving advice also led to a demand by the vassals that their assent be sought on those of their lords' decisions that involved them, whether it be war, marriage alliance, taxation, or legal judgment.

Inheritance and Wardship Another area of feudal custom that required definition was that of the succession to fiefs. When fiefs became hereditary, the lord reserved an inheritance tax called a relief, and the size of the relief was often a matter of conflict. Again, in England, the Magna Carta established the relief as £100 for a barony and £5 for a knight's fee; elsewhere, custom varied from fief to fief. Lords reserved the right to secure a useful and loyal holder of a fief. If a vassal died and left a son of full age who was a good knight, the lord had no reason to object to his succession. If the son was a minor, however, or if the heir was female, the lord would want to control the fief until the heir was of age or the heiress married to a man the lord approved of; thus arose the lord's right of wardship for a minor or female heir and his further right of marriage, which might, in some fiefs, lead to his choosing the partner himself. The widow of a vassal had a lifetime right of dower in her husband's fief (commonly a third of the value), and this also led to the lord's interest in her remarriage; in some fiefs he had a full right to control such a remarriage. In the event a vassal died childless, the relationship of his heirs to the lord could vary: Brothers were usually acceptable but cousins might not be. If no heirs were acceptable to the lord, the fief was declared an escheat and returned to his full control; he could then keep it in his demesne or grant it to any knight he chose to make his vassal.

Breach of Contract Because the feudal relationship was contractual, false actions on either side could cause breach of contract. When the vassal failed to perform required services, the lord could bring charges against him in his court before the other vassals, and if they found their peer guilty, he would be declared to have forfeited his fief, which would return to the lord's demesne. If the vassal chose to try to defend his land, the lord might have to go to war against him to win control of the forfeited fief. But the fact that the vassal's peers had found him guilty meant that they were morally as well as legally obligated to enforce their judgment, and it was a rare vassal who would war against his lord and all his peers. On the other hand, if a vassal felt that his lord had failed to live up to his obligations, he could defy the lordthat is, formally break faith with himdeclaring he would no longer accept him as lord but would continue to keep the fief as his own demesne or take it to another lord who might accept him as vassal. Because the lord often regarded defiance as rebellion, defiant vassals had to have strong support or be prepared for a war they might lose.

Royal Authority Monarchs during the feudal period had other sources of authority besides their feudal suzerainty. The renaissance of classical learning included the revival of Roman law, with its traditions of powerful rulers and territorial government. The church looked on rulers as divinely ordained and by its anointment gave them a sacred character. The resurgence of trade and industry brought into being towns and a powerful urban class that looked to princes to maintain the freedom and order required for business activities. These townspeople also demanded a role in government commensurate with their wealth. In Italy they organized communes that won control of the countryside from the feudal nobles and even forced them to live in some of the cities. North of the Alps the townspeople sent representatives to the monarchs' councils and developed parliamentary institutions to give them a voice in government equal to that of the feudality. With the taxes from the towns, the princes were able to hire civil servants and professional troops. Thus, they were able both to impose their will on the feudality and to make themselves largely independent of the service of their vassals.

Decline During the 13th century feudalism reached the zenith of development and also began to decline. Subinfeudation had reached the point where superior lords had difficulty obtaining the service to which they were entitled. Vassals typically preferred to give money paymentscalled scutage, or shield moneyinstead of personal military service to their lords, and the lords themselves tended to prefer the money because it enabled them to hire professional troops that were often better trained and disciplined than the vassals. Moreover, a revival of infantry tactics and the introduction of new weapons, such as the longbow and the pike, made cavalry tactics less certain of victory. In the 14th and 15th centuries the decline of feudalism accelerated. During the Hundred Years' War, the chivalry of France and England fought bravely and gloriously, but the battles were largely won by professional menatarms and especially by the archers on foot. The professionals fought in companies whose leaders took oaths of homage and fealty to a prince, but under contracts that were not hereditary and usually for a term of months or years. This "bastard feudalism" was but a step away from purely mercenary fighting, and in Italy the Renaissance condottieri, some of whom were Englishmen trained in transalpine war, had indeed made that transition.

Role in Political Development The fief was embedded in the customary law of western Europe, and the incidents of feudalism, such as wardship and marriage, escheat and forfeiture, continued to flourish after feudal military service died out. In England feudal tenures were abolished by statute in 1660, but they lingered on in parts of the Continent until the customary law was replaced by Roman law, a process completed by Napoleon. Roman law substituted other legal notions for feudal ones on the Continent, but in England the common law continued to be basically feudal law. Wherever English people settled in the modern era, they took their common law with them and thus established feudal principles all over the world. English constitutionalism is fundamentally feudal, based on the contract theory of government. When John Locke wrote his treatises on government in the 17th century, he was seeking to generalize for all persons the feudal contract that limited the rights of the suzerain over his vassals and retained for them the German warrior's independence. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was a classic act of feudal defiance, as the Continental Congress enumerated the tyrannical acts of the king and declared the colonists no longer bound by their allegiance to him. Nineteenthcentury liberalism and 20thcentury libertarianism owe their basic premises to feudalism. In sum, feudal ideas were important to the political development of Western civilization, reconciling authority with liberty by way of contract.

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/feudalism.html

http://www.globaled.org/japanproject/lessons/lesso...

http://web.psych.ualberta.ca/~msnyder/Academic/jap... - There are similarities and differences between Japanese and European feudalism. Both seem to have developed from a blending of concepts of centralized imperial rule with traditional tribal organization and personal bonds of loyalty. In Europe these ingredients derived from the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes. Japan's feudal tradition can be traced to T'ang China and the uji organization in early Japan.

Feudalism developed slightly later in Japan than in Europe (12th and 9th centuries, respectively). This delay could have been due to Japan's isolation and the lack of foreign invasions. However, both systems began with strong legalistic attitudes and stressed vassal-lord obligations, designed to ensure the allegiance of the former in periods of constant warfare. The legal foundations were, however, very different in the Japanese and European feudal systems: European feudalism was grounded in Roman legal structure while Japan feudalism had as its basis Chinese Confucian morality.

http://www.csun.edu/~jjc59193/HisitoryPaper.html - Reading through the Two Feudal Societies, a chapter from a world history book used in the Los Angeles Public School System, one can see that many of the information given has been stripped of its details. The Two Feudal Societies chapter discusses the Japanese and European Feudal Societies, and their samurais and knights, respectively. None of the information given in this chapter goes into any detail. The chapter is basically is a pile of facts about the Japanese and European feudalistic society put into paragraphs and into a chapter. The sentences are just straights facts and don't go into any details, which is important, because children wouldn't understand the material if there wasn't any explanation behind the information given. Also, in the process of simplifying the language some ideas have been distorted. This also ties in with the fact that the information doesn't go into detail; the author of this text is trying to put a lot of information into one or two sentences, that some of the ideas may have been distorted.

Some of the sentences in the chapter could use some more explanation. Such as: "Japanese samurai did not learn new methods of fighting at the beginning of their feudal period." (Feudal Europe and Japan, 272) This sentence could use some more sentences afterwards explaining what kinds of methods were used before learning new methods. In the beginning of the chapter, it says that " when a samurai was a boy, he would practice with a long wooden sword and studied martial arts." (Feudal Europe and Japan, 271) These two sentences were placed paragraphs apart. If these two sentences were used to support one another, it would be easier for a child to understand the facts better. Another sentence: "The knight began his training young, learning to fight as a page and a squire" and "Šaccustomed to using into lances". (Feudal Europe and Japan, 271) How would a 6th or 7th grader know what a page, squire or lance is if the text doesn't explain and give the definition? It is said in the chapter that a samurai practices "Buddhism and Shintoism", but doesn't go about explaining what these terms mean.

"Why did feudalism die in Europe? For one thing, growing towns offered alternativesŠ" (Feudal Europe and Japan, 274) what kind of alternatives are we talking about here? The author of this text needs to explain in details what those alternatives might be. It may make the chapter longer if everything had some explanation, but it would allow a student to understand the material better. We, teachers, always tell their students to include: who, what, where, when and how. If the textbooks don't even follow this rule, it would be contradicting with what the teachers are telling their students.

The chapter mentions that if a samurai failed in his job to protect the lords he would kill himself. Bentley & Ziegler states that a samurai would end his life by performing a ritual suicide by disembowelment- called a seppuku or a cruder term hara-kiri ("belly-slicing"). One could understand why a 6th or 7th grade world history text might not include this kind of information for it would be too graphic for children to read. But in other cases, it would be better if the text went into a little bit more detail explaining or defining a term.

This chapter is about feudalism in Japan and Europe, but it fails to actually explain what is feudalism. I think it would be important to go into depth on what it is because according to Webster's dictionary its definition is: medieval political order in which land is granted in return for service. I found this definition to be a bit different to what I thought feudalism was after reading this chapter on the Two Feudal Societies. If the text went into depth, explaining the meaning of feudalism, it would also make it easier for a child in the 6th or 7th grade to understand the material better.

When stating dates, the years are mostly always rounded off. Anything that happened in the 1300s would be referred to occurring in the 1300s, not 1320s or 1360s. "ŠMilitary technology changed in the 1300s" (Feudal Europe and Japan, 274) this is somewhat confusing, as to when in the 1300s did the military technology change? Another sentence that caught my eye was "But after about 1400," (Feudal Europe and Japan, 274) it is confusing to say "about after 1400", the sentence just doesn't make sense. If it gave an actual year, such as 1421, it would make more sense. In some parts of the chapter it states "between 1635 and 1854" which allows a student to form a mental picture of when the event actually happened. 1400s or 1300s is too vague in explaining a time period.

Some of the information is distorted in that the text doesn't give specific dates. The text states that samurais were depended on to protect estates and such in the 1100s. "In the Kamakura (1183-1333 c.e.) and Muromachi (1336-1573 c.e.) periods Japan developed a feudal political order in which provincial lords wielded effective power and authority in local region where they controlled land and economic affairs." (Bentley & Ziegler, 349) So, according to Bentley & Ziegler's text, samurais were depended on all throughout the 1100s through late 1500s. The children's world history textbook uses a lot of words that estimate a date: "around", "about" or "during", these terms that estimate a date could cause confusion. It distorts that actual time period in which the event might have happened. A lot could change from the early to the late periods during a decade, and so in using estimated dates, it would cause a problem was validness. One could call this false information, but unless you were going to be an expert in Japanese and European feudalism, 6th and 7th grade students don't need to have exact dates, maybe just rounded off into the ten's spot (i.e. 1420s, 1370s).

Reading through this text, I find myself wondering and questioning myself about a lot of the information due to lack of information on the people written about. Like who is Charlemagne and Charles Mantel? What are Frankish warriors? A child could possibly ask these same questions when reading through this chapter. Or they could never even care to ask, but the main point is that the child wouldn't receive sufficient knowledge on this subject matter. In the subheading of "Styles of Battle" it goes in somewhat of a detail on the ways the Franks fought, but fails to go into depth on the Japanese samurai battle tactics.

Besides the fact they round out the dates, distort the material by simplifying it, this text just needs to go into some detail with the information given, not a whole lot, but just enough so that a child might not come up with questions regarding who, what, when, where, and how they are reading about. We want our students to ask questions, questions on what they don't understand not because they didn't get the sufficient information they need through the reading. These textbooks are used as a teaching material, so how is it teaching a student if a chapter titled Two Feudal Societies doesn't even explain the meaning of feudal society

High School World History - http://www.smith.edu/fcceas/curriculum/berkwood.ht...

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/...

FEUDALISM - We are all familiar with the term Feudalism. The following is a brief overview of feudalism. This was a political system in place in Europe, Japan and China for many centuries. It is useful to reflect on the way this political system works to maintain social order. In many respects it is similar to the chiefdom political organization of the Celts or Africa. It is led by great families with political loyalties and alliances. It is interesting to look at Marvin Harris' writings about the development of bigmen, chiefs and states in this respect. As well, ponder the similarity between a chiefdom and feudal state. What are some of the primary similarities and differences?

Feudalism was a medieval contractual relationship among the upper classes, by which a lord granted land to his men in return for military service. Feudalism was further characterized by the localization of political and economic power in the hands of lords and their vassals and by the exercise of that power from the base of castles, each of which dominated the district in which it was situated. This formed a pyramidal form of hierarchy. The term feudalism thus involves a division of governmental power spreading over various castle-dominated districts downward through lesser nobles. Feudalism does not infer social and economic relationships between the peasants and their lords. This is better defined as manorialism.

In theory, diagrammatic feudalism resembles a pyramid, with the lowest vassals at its base and the lines of authority flowing up to the peak of the structure, the king. In practice, however, this scheme varied from nation to nation. In Germanic Europe, the pyramid ended at the level below king or emperor, that of the great princes. In other words, the German kings were never able to impose themselves at the top of a system that had developed out of royal weakness. They were recognized as feudal suzerains but did not exercise sovereignty. In western Europe (France), the kings overcame the same handicap, using their positions to become feudal sovereigns. In England, where feudalism was imposed by the Normans, the kings were at the top of the pyramid, ruling by grace of their offices rather than by the grace of their feudal positions. The extent of feudalism must not be exaggerated, however. Many portions of Europe were never feudalized.

Feudal institutions varied greatly from region to region, and few feudal contracts had all the features here described. Common to all, however, was the process by which one nobleman (the vassal) became the man of another (the lord) by swearing homage and fealty. This was originally done simply to establish a mutually protective relationship, but by A.D. 1000 vassalage brought with it a fief--land held in return for military service. With the vassal's holding of a fief went rights of governance and of jurisdiction over those who dwelt on it.

Lord and vassal were interlocked in a web of mutual rights and obligations, to the advantage of both. Whereas the lord owed his vassal protection, the vassal owed his lord a specified number of days annually in offensive military service and in garrisoning his castle. The lord was expected to provide a court for his vassals, who, in turn, were to provide the lord with counsel before he undertook any initiative of importance to the feudal community as a whole--for example, arranging his own or his children's marriages or planning a crusade. In addition, the lord frequently convened his vassals "to do him honor."

Financial benefits accrued largely to the lord. A vassal owed his lord a fee known as relief when he succeeded to his fief, was expected to contribute to the lord's ransom were he captured and to his crusading expenses, and had to share the financial burden when the lord's eldest son was knighted and his eldest daughter married. In addition, a vassal had to seek his lord's permission to marry off his daughter and for himself to take a wife. Should the vassal die leaving a widow or minor children, they were provided for by the lord, who saw to their education, support, and marriage. Should the vassal die without heirs, his fief escheated, or reverted to the lord.

Feudalism had hardly begun before its first important sign of decline appeared. Problems with inheritance soon became a critical weakness. When a lord was no longer able to enter into an agreement with his vassal, freely accepted by both parties, then the personal nature of the feudal contract was seriously undermined. This transformation occurred before 1100, as did the beginning of the commutation of personal military service into money payments (called scutage in England), which further undermined the personal loyalty central to original feudalism.

A late medieval outgrowth of this commutation was contract service in return for land or money, embodying loyalty to a lord in return for help and protection. This form of social bond enabled wealthy lords to field an army quickly when needed and gave them tangible and effective means to assert their own private influence in political and social life, to the detriment of orderly central government.

Something else that appeared early in the history of feudalism was liege homage, by which a man who was the vassal of more than one lord chose one as his paramount lord, thus again subverting the original feudal idea of personal loyalty between lord and vassal.

The centralization of strong lordships, whether as kings (as in England and France) or territorial rulers (as in the Holy Roman Empire), obviously undercut the localization of government so essential to feudalism. So too did new forms of warfare following A.D. 1300. Feudalism's decline was also rooted in ties to family and for other social changes. Family ties came to be seen as more important than territorial or protective concerns. The economic and social gulf between greater and lesser nobles grew wider, and respect for historically based ties of mutual relationships between lord and vassal steadily weakened. These circumstances, as well as the increasing division of inheritances, all combined to destroy feudalism, slowly and inexorably. The process was largely complete by the end of the 14th century. It should be noted that many of the problems associated with feudalism in Europe were not as noteworthy in Japan where the system seemed to have greater stability. However, in Japan the system did weaken for similar reasons as found in Europe.

http://mhsweb.ci.manchester.ct.us/library/webquest...

The feudal system was a precursor of capitalism that flourished in both Europe and Japan. It stabilized society during a time of constant threat from barbarian invasions and consolidated small groups of people into a larger political and cultural group.