Decline of Antiquity and the Ascent of Feudalism: How Roman and Germanic Ancestral Law Evolved into Feudalism

Decline of Antiquity and the Ascent of Feudalism: How Roman and Germanic Ancestral Law Evolved into Feudalism

The tumultuous and transformative decline of the Roman Empire brought about a new period known as the Middle Ages, and with it came a new system of rule under feudalist doctrine. The word feudalism comes from the latin term feudum, or fee. However, the expression also derives from the Old High German for cattle, fihu (Stubbs 273). Although feudalism was a system utilized throughout the Middle Ages, the term was actually fashioned by post-feudalist state philosophers of the 17th and 18th century. Feudalism, put simply, is a system wherein citizens are bound to each other in a hierarchy based on land, tenure, and power. The term feudalism became even more distinct in the light of social reformists such as Carl Marx who used feudalism to describe where the supposed "evils of capitalism" were given life (Cantor 195). The plurality of causes that spawned feudalism kept it an ever-evolving enigmatic puzzle, changing across both time and especially across cultural divides. Even today, remnants of feudalism last through European inspired nations such as the United States, thus proving that archaic rules, though they may change in appearance, seldom wither from their original plot. Evidence shows that many cultures are spawned from a cocktail of multiplicitous ideologies. In viewing such a complex system there are some distinct aspects that remain universal throughout all nations that fell under the feudalist code. To postulate on these feudal ideas, one must observe how to weed out the misconceptions from evidentiary material, and only then will the true roots expose themselves, that of the Roman Empire and the early Germanic barbarians.

Before beginning this enormous journey down the path of feudalism, one must understand that much confusion surfaces when trying to juxtapose the views of one early theologian with another as their differences are usually split due to nationalism or racial pride. Moreover, it seems that many of these early theologians of the 17th and 18th century are somewhat humiliated by the concept that their ancestral countrymen had a hand in creating what was, in the aftermath of feudalism, an embarrassing burden to bare. Many of them use the art of casuistry or speculative legitimacy, in identifying the true essence of feudalism. However, this is expected as most of these feudalist observers studied law and every lawyer knows that prestidigitation can often win the case. So, in observing the conception of feudalism, it is most advantageous to stick with modern day scholars as they do not hold as many foregone conclusions as their predecessors.

There is much debate among both post-feudalist philosophers and modern scholars as to where the infrastructure of feudalism arose.