First, let's define feudalism and make sure we understand its origins. Feudalism was an economic and political system in which the political ruler — typically a king — had authority over all the land in his state, or "kingdom." The king would allocate parcels of land, or, "fiefs," to members of an upper class called the "nobility." In return for their land, members of the nobility would be expected to serve in the king's army, and fight his battles. On top of this, everyone in society who was not apart of the nobility or the Church lived on a nobleman's land. Instead of paying rent, they worked the land and maintained the agriculture. I'm not too sure where the Church fits into this, but that's basically the idea, right? It was very much a property-oriented political and economic system where the ruler shared property with individuals, and in return, they constituted a kind of wealthy military class. Everyone else (besides the Church) was subjected to the will of the landed nobility.
Second, feudalism's origins. I've often heard people say that feudalism led to the fall of the Roman Empire, or the fall of the Roman Empire led to feudalism. As the argument goes, when powerful Romans lost faith in the Roman state, they stopped sending men to fight in Rome's armies, and instead, they became very insulated, and this is how the fief originated. From what I understand, none of this is true. Feudalism actually originated in the 9th century during the Carolingian period. Charlemagne was emperor of what was essentially France and Germany, and his only means to control such a prodigious amount of land was to decentralize political control. Hence, he and his family developed the system described above. When the Normans invaded England in the 11th century, it spread, so western and and central Europe would practice feudalism for centuries.
My first question is whether I properly understand the definition and origins of feudalism. My second question, then, is what economic/political system preceded it? And I actually think this question cannot be answered without describing the economic/political system that existed two generations before feudalism. By this I mean, we must first distinguish the system of the late Roman Empire from feudalism, and then explain how the Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Franks, Ostrogoths, Lombards) altered the system that they encountered. My question could be phrased as such: What was the economic/political system that existed in the last century of the Roman Empire, how was it altered by the "Barbarian Invasion," and how was the economic system of the Barbarian kingdoms of the 6th-8th centuries different from the one enacted by the Carolingians in the 9th century?
Part I - Commentary on the subtext of post
Part II - Merovingian economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I
A lengthy commentary in the post, while summarizing some of the common views, which, granted, a case can be made, might be in certain instances party correct, but should nevertheless be taken with caution, since the period from roughly 9th century up to the 18th century is a long one, and even more so considering the geographical location and the diversity which comes with it.
In return for their land, members of the nobility would be expected to serve in the king's army, and fight his battles. On top of this, everyone in society who was not apart of the nobility or the Church lived on a nobleman's land.
This very much depends on such a plathora of factors that any general remarks are misleading, and likewise, while still with great time and region related variety, not everyone who was not a nobleman or a clergyman lived on their land. ( I can expand on this if requested, since a great example of this is how Carinthian social class of kosezi integrated after Bavarian and Frankian rule, and later Duchy of Carniola & Carinithia )
Instead of paying rent, they worked the land and maintained the agriculture.
The manner of paymant varied just as much, based on obligation, size of property in a fief, time, specially after the shift from naturalistic ( ie. in various goods ) to monetary payments after the stabilization of currencies ( which again depend on the region, and times of economical crisis of currency devaluation ). Demesne in direct Manorial control might be described as such, with some reservations.
I'm not too sure where the Church fits into this, but that's basically the idea, right?
There might already be some posts on this issue, but ecclesiastical nobility has an interesting history, but any sort of generalized comments will be misleading. For example, in some places, some medieval churches and parishes were under patrimony of secular nobility, so they excercised a certain amount of power over them, their appointments, and were due an advocatia ( ger. Vogtei ) to the lord.
Everyone else (besides the Church) was subjected to the will of the landed nobility.
There was a considerable amount of priviliges given, be it cities and towns, minning communities, though the amount of influence the nobility had, as usually, varied. And landed nobility was not a homogeneous entity. Sometimes their interests alligned, sometimes not. Also, to mention, some medieval cities ( civitates ) had a Roman continuity, specially around the Mediterranian Sea, so their respective internal organization would differ substantially from their continental counterparts, and some of them went through fascinating legal and governemental transformation once subsumed.
More information about feudalism here, and naturally, follow-up questions of a more specific nature.
Part II
The issue here seems to be what preceeded Manorial landowning, the transition to it, and the state of trade up to the 8th century. The issue here would again be the situation was geographically diverse, and in certain regions, like todays Holland, Friesland, Flanders, ... the population of allodial peasantry was substantial well into the Middle Ages, and the sea proximity opened trading opportunities. But even in continental lands, manorial influence and centralization was not strong enough at least until well into the 8th century for unilateral economical and other decisions.^(1)
Trade and connectvity between different terp settlements and communities is showcased by a legion of artifact between England, Scandinavia, Merovingians, and those in the Mediterranean Sea. We have important Merovingian trade centers, like Maastricht on Meuse river, between 6th and 8th century, where the golden tremissi was produced, further south we have Huy and Namur.
Even 6th and 7th century Merovingian coinage was not dependent on Merovingian family in the manner of high middle ages, the fiscal systems have significant continuity with Roman Gaul, as do civitates, and not to undersell ecclesiastical and monastical sites. The primary role of minting and coinage though seems to have transitioned from before, namely, that of taxes, which can be found in Vita Eligii from 7th century, and beside trade, sevices, but by the end of 7th or early 8th century, we see a slow shift from monometallic gold to the implementation of silver - which coincides with the loss of tremissi, and the coming of dinarii, and with silver, we also see the gradual rise of elites, and general fragmentation and dispersion of minting.
The elite-contolled top-down economy has been heavily critized in the last twenty years ( C. Loveluck and D. Tys ), while still maintaing significant difference between coastal and inland communities, where the former were more independent from influence, and subscribing the significant part of rural production, beside basic sustenance, to the eclectic exchange for ceremonial function and procurement of valuable goods for its fullfilment, from this also stemming the common nomenclature of "ritual economy"^(2).
These would be the basics.
1 Innes, M. (2005). “Charlemagne’s Government.” In J. Story (ed.), Charlemagne, Empire and Society (pp. 71–89). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
2 Hodges, R. (2012). Dark Age Economics. A New Audit. London: Bristol Classical Press.
McAnany, P., and Wells, E. C. (2008). “Towards a Theory of Ritual Economy.” In E. C. Wells
and P. A. McAnany (eds.), Dimensions of Ritual Economy (pp. 1–16). Bingley: JAI Press.
The FAQ section on "feudalism" contains some discussions related to your queries