Oh, boy... This is a BIG one. A really big one. I will try to be as brief and clear as possible, but I don't promise anything, and my anwser will almost certainly not be enough. But I'll try.

 

So, first thing first: What do we call feudalism ? In the most basic sens, it's the interpersonnal relationship between two people, linked by an oath of alligeance. That oath works both way : the vassal (the one who swear alligeance) owes fidelity, help and advice to his suzerain (the one who recive the oaht of alligeance). The suzerain, in turn, owes protection and respect to his vassal, and usualy, but not always, offers him land in return of his oath. That's a really basic description of how feudalism work. And that base is more or less the same in most Europe, at least in the 11th - 12th century.

BUT, and that's where it gets complicated, "Feudalism" is also, in a larger sens, the entire socio-political system that is based on this interpersonnal relationship. And that's where differences arise, both between different places, but also between different time period. The way the oaths are given, the way land is granted, the number of oaths and who swear an oath to who, how well oaths are respected, and most importantly, how it affects society as a whole... All of that depend on where and when you are.

All of that is already quite complicated... But wait ! There is more ! Because that question is also complicated by that fact that historians haven't yet reached a consensus on the question. I will come back on that at the end of my anwser, but there is, to this day, a quarrel between historian regarding when feudalism appeared, and how it impacted society.

 

Mon Dieu, I have not even STARTED to anwser your question.

 

Anyway, moving on. Feudalism has its origin in antique clientelism, but it really take form in the 7th 8th century, with the Pippinids dynasty, who gradually took over the Merovingians for control of a kingdom that covered part of actual France, Belgium and Germany. An kingdom that became the empire of the descendant of the Pippinids : Charlemagne.

The Carolingien empire is where feudalism really became essential in the way society was organized. But it was not what we call feudalism. It was the vassalage system. Basicaly - and I can't stress this enough : I am simplifing the subject here, because it's not the core of your question, but bare in mind that "the vassalage system" is the object of 500 hundred pages books - the vassalage was a system where nobles swore an oath to the emperor, and these nobles - the missi dominici (the "master envoy") - were in charge of large part of the empire. They would delegate part of their authority to vassal of their own, the counts, that would administrate part of the land. And that's where the feudalism started.

Now, the carolingian empire included today's France, Belgium, a part of Germany, a part of Austria and the North of Italy. So most of Europe where under the vassalage system.

 

The vassalage worked well under Charlemagne and in the begin of the reign of his son Louis the Pious. But by the end of Louis life, around 830, the counts started to rebel againt their suzerain. Since they controled land and armies, they could hold their ground against their suzerain, as long as he didn't manage to gather the other counts. So the nobles took more and more independance as the carolingien empire was falling apart.

 

I skip the slow degradation of the vassalage system and the fall of the carolingien empire because I have STILL not started to anwser your question. Let jump forward to 1000 A.D, when feudalism as a socio-political system is considered to have settled - accoding to some historians. Because remember : we do not agree between us about this.

 

SO, around 1000 A.D is when feudalism as a system starts to settle. The suzerain - vassal relationship still exist, but it's not a delegation of power emanating from the emperor, but an interpersonal relationship between two nobles.

That is... in the part of Europe that is NOT the empire. At this point, their is three main feudal system in western Europe. And THAT's where I was getting to, and THAT's part of the anwser to your question.

 

First, in what is today France, is where the most well know by the general public feudalism is the more present. Nobles that control small or big land are tied by fidelity oath, with the king being theoretically at the top of everyone else, being the suzerain of the most powerfull nobles.

But that domination of the king of the Franks is really theoretical, because there is constant negociation between nobles, that break their oath, swear new ones, argue over what they owe and what they are owed. The feudalism is not so much a pyramid, as were the carolingien system, but more a general hierarchy of power, that is constantly evolving.

Wars between nobles, betrayal and reciliation are numerous. The king of Frank is generaly called upon as a arbitrator between noble, but his authority is mostly theorical until the 13th century. That why this version of feudalism is the most well know. It makes for the best stories. Plus it's the version of feudalism that William the Conqueror and the Normans will bring to England, and that is the system that will later be applyed to the Arthurian myth (But I digress...).

So that's feudalism in France and England in the 11th century.

 

On the other side of the Rhine, where Germany is nowaday, in the 11th century, it's still the Germanic Holy Roman Empire. And the vassalage system still more or less work the same as under the carolingians : The emperor give part of his lands to a noble, who act as his envoy, and rule in his name. Contrary to western Europe where the nobles took their independance, the nobles of the Holy Roman Empire continues to respect the prevailing authority of the emperor. That system last until the 13th century.

 

The third type of feudalism in medieval Europe is the Italian system. Now, I'm really not familiar with it, so I can only give you the basics. The main differences with western feudalism is, on one hand, that Italy harbor numerous "micro-fief", meaning really small land grant given by suzerain to his vassal, and on the other hand, that in the 12th and 13th century, various cities obtained their independance, and integrate themselves in the feudal system not as individual, but as collectives. Again, I can't really say more on the subject, since I don't know much on that.

 

And then... There is ALL the other. Eastern Europe as feudal system of its own, that ressemble western feudalism, but not exactly identical. There is the scandinavian feudalism, that takes its roots in the Scandinavian kingdoms of the 9th century more than in the carolingian empire. And I can't really give you the specifics.

 

Finally, I am going to say a word about that quarrel between historians I mentionned earlier, because that will allow me to give my sources.

So, in France, the feudalism was mostly theorized by George Duby, in all of his work, but his ideas are condensed in Hommes et structures du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1973) (from wich I draw most of my knowledge on the subject). The big idea of Duby is the "feudal revolution", the idea that, around 1000 A.D, society underwent rapid change, and that violence of small bands of warriors - the knights - lead by small nobles lead to the rise of feudalism as a mean to regulate violence and structure society, after the chaos braught by the fall of the Carolingian Empire.

Duby's thesis was the generaly agreed upon vision of medieval Europe. but in the 90's, Dominique Barthelemy contested Duby's work, and argued that they were no "revolution" around 1000 A.D, that the nobles were not that violent and disorganized, and that the vassalage system pretty much de facto kept going own, with counts still administrating their respective provinces, and respecting the king authority, to a certain extent. So what I discribed earlier as a different system from the Holy Roman Empire would actually be much closer to it, even though there was differences, and more negociations than in the Empire. Barthelemy's work is summerize in his book La Mutation de l'an mil a-t-elle eu lieu ? Servage et chevalerie dans la France des xe et xie siècles (Fayard, Paris, 1997).

Both thesis have their merits, and even though Barthelemy's was the dominant thesis during the 2000's, it is still debated, with a recent controversy on his methodology started by another french medieval historian, Patrick Boucheron in 2016.

 

Unfortunatly, I can't give you a bibliography in English on the subject, having read about that only the french books mentionned above. And I am not aware of the current state of the question regarding English feudalism after the 12th century, but I'm sure someone will come along to clarify.

 

SO. That's all I can give you on the subject. Feudalism is a VAST subject. I tried to anwser your question in the most synthetic way possible, and bare in mind that I simplify the issu. I hope I anwser part of your question. I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. English is a second language to me.

[edit : spelling]