feudalism good or bad essay

The Problem With Feudalism

Later historians say the concept doesn't match reality

De Agostini / G. Dagli Orti / Getty Images

• People & Events
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History
• B.A., History, University of Texas at Austin

Medieval historians generally aren't bothered by words. The intrepid medievalist is always ready to leap into the rough-and-tumble milieu of Old English word origins, medieval French literature, and Latin Church documents. Icelandic sagas hold no terror for the medieval scholar. Next to these challenges, the esoteric terminology of medieval studies is mundane, no threat to the historian of the Middle Ages.

But one word has become the bane of medievalists everywhere. Use it in discussing medieval life and society, and the average medieval historian's face will screw up in revulsion.

What word has this power to annoy, disgust, and even upset the ordinarily cool, collected medievalist?

What Is Feudalism?

Every student of the Middle Ages is at least somewhat familiar with the term, usually defined as follows:

Feudalism was the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. It was a hierarchical system of social relationships wherein a noble lord granted land known as a fief to a free man, who in turn swore fealty to the lord as his vassal and agreed to provide military and other services. A vassal could also be a lord, granting portions of the land he held to other free vassals; this was known as "subinfeudation" and often led all the way up to the king. The land granted to each vassal was inhabited by serfs who worked the land for him, providing him with income to support his military endeavors; in turn, the vassal would protect the serfs from attack and invasion.

This is a simplified definition, and many exceptions and caveats go along with this model of medieval society. It is fair to say that this is the explanation for feudalism you'll find in most history textbooks of the 20th century, and it is very close to every dictionary definition available.

The problem? Virtually none of it is accurate.

Description Inaccurate

Feudalism  was not the "dominant" form of political organization in medieval Europe. There was no "hierarchical system" of lords and vassals engaged in a structured agreement to provide military defense. There was no "subinfeudation" leading up to the king. The arrangement whereby serfs worked the land for a lord in return for protection, known as manorialism or seignorialism, was not part of a "feudal system." Monarchies of the early Middle Ages had their challenges and their weaknesses, but kings didn't use feudalism to exert control over their subjects, and the feudal relationship wasn't the "glue that held medieval society together," as had been said.

In short, feudalism as described above never existed in Medieval Europe.

For decades, even centuries, feudalism has characterized our view of medieval society. 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 were wrong? If the current consensus among "experts" in medieval history is to reject feudalism, why is it still presented as reality in nearly every medieval history textbook?

Concept Questioned

The word feudalism was never used during the Middle Ages. The term was invented by 16th- and 17th-century scholars to describe a political system of several hundred years earlier. This makes feudalism a post-medieval construct.

Constructs help us understand alien ideas in terms more familiar to our modern thought processes. Middle Ages and medieval are constructs. (Medieval people didn't think of themselves as living in a "middle" age—they thought they were living in the now, just like we do.) Medievalists might not like the way the term medieval is used as an insult or how absurd myths of past customs and behavior are commonly attributed to the Middle Ages, but most are confident that using Middle Ages and medieval to describe the era as between the ancient and early modern eras is satisfactory, however fluid the definition of all three timeframes might be.

But medieval has a fairly clear meaning based on a specific, easily defined viewpoint. Feudalism cannot be said to have the same.

In 16th-century France, Humanist scholars grappled with the history of Roman law and its authority in their own land. They examined a substantial collection of Roman law books. Among these books was the  Libri Feudorum —the Book of Fiefs.

'Libri Feudorum'

The  Libri Feudorum  was a compilation of legal texts concerning the proper disposition of fiefs, which were defined in these documents as lands held by people referred to as vassals. The work had been put together in Lombardy, northern Italy, in the 1100s, and over the intervening centuries, lawyers and scholars had commented on it and added definitions and interpretations, or  glosses.  The  Libri Feudorum  is an extraordinarily significant work that has been barely studied since 16th-century French lawyers gave it a good look.

In their evaluation of the Book of Fiefs, the scholars made some reasonable assumptions:

• The fiefs under discussion in the texts were pretty much the same as the fiefs of 16th-century France—that is, lands belonging to nobles.
• Te  Libri Feudorum  was addressing actual legal practices of the 11th century, not simply expounding on an academic concept.
• The explanation of fiefs' origins in the  Libri Feudorum —that grants were initially made for as long as the lord chose but were later extended to the grantee's lifetime and afterward made hereditary—was a reliable history and not mere conjecture.

The assumptions might have been reasonable, but were they correct? French scholars had every reason to believe they were and no real reason to dig any deeper. They weren't so much interested in the historical  facts of the time period as they were in the legal questions addressed in the ​ Libri Feudorum.  Their foremost consideration was whether the laws had any authority in France. Ultimately, French lawyers rejected the authority of the Lombard Book of Fiefs.

Examining Assumptions

However, during their investigations, based in part on the assumptions outlined above, scholars who studied the  Libri Feudorum  formulated a view of the Middle Ages. This general picture included the idea that feudal relationships, wherein noblemen granted fiefs to free vassals in return for services, were important in medieval society because they provided social and military security at a time when the central government was weak or nonexistent. The idea was discussed in editions of the  Libri Feudorum  made by legal scholars Jacques Cujas and François Hotman, who both used the term  feudum  to indicate an arrangement involving a fief .

Other scholars soon saw value in the works of Cujas and Hotman and applied the ideas to their own studies. Before the 16th century ended, two Scottish lawyers—Thomas Craig and Thomas Smith—were using feudum in their classifications of Scottish lands and their tenure. Craig apparently first expressed the idea of feudal arrangements as a hierarchical system imposed on nobles and their subordinates by their monarch as a matter of policy. In the 17th century, Henry Spelman, a noted English antiquarian, adopted this viewpoint for English legal history.

Although Spelman never used the word feudalism , his work went a long way toward creating an "-ism" from the ideas over which Cujas and Hotman had theorized. Not only did Spelman maintain, as Craig had done, that feudal arrangements were part of a system, but he related the English feudal heritage with that of Europe, indicating that feudal arrangements were characteristic of medieval society as a whole. Spelman's hypothesis was accepted as fact by scholars who saw it as a sensible explanation of medieval social and property relations.

Fundamentals Unchallenged

Over the next several decades, scholars explored and debated feudal ideas. They expanded the meaning of the term from legal matters to other aspects of medieval society . They argued over the origins of feudal arrangements and expounded on the various levels of subinfeudation. They incorporated manorialism and applied it to the agricultural economy. They envisioned a complete system of feudal agreements running throughout Britain and Europe.

But they didn't challenge Craig's or Spelman's interpretation of the works of Cujas and Hotman, nor did they question the conclusions that Cujas and Hotman drew from the  Libri Feudorum.

From the vantage point of the 21st century, it's easy to ask why the facts were overlooked in favor of the theory. Present-day historians engage in a rigorous examination of the evidence and clearly identify a theory as such. Why didn't 16th- and 17th-century scholars do the same? The simple answer is that history as a scholarly field has evolved over time; in the 17th century, the academic discipline of historical evaluation was in its infancy. Historians didn't have the tools, both physical and figurative, taken for granted today, nor did they have the example of scientific methods from other fields to incorporate into their learning processes.

Besides, having a straightforward model by which to view the Middle Ages gave scholars the sense that they understood the time period. Medieval society becomes so much easier to evaluate and comprehend if it can be labeled and fit into a simple organizational structure.

By the end of the 18th century, the term feudal system was used among historians, and by the middle of the 19th century, feudalism had become a fairly well-fleshed-out model, or construct, of medieval government and society. As the idea spread beyond academia, feudalism became a buzzword for any oppressive, backward, hidebound system of government. In the  French Revolution , the "feudal regime" was abolished by the  National Assembly , and in Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto ,"   feudalism was the oppressive, agrarian-based economic system that preceded the industrialized, capitalist economy.

With such far-ranging appearances in academic and mainstream usage, breaking free of what was, essentially, a wrong impression would be an extraordinary challenge.

Questions Arise

In the late 19th century, the field of medieval studies began to evolve into a serious discipline. No longer did the average historian accept as fact everything that had been written by his or her predecessors and repeat it as a matter of course. Scholars of the medieval era began to question interpretations of the evidence and the evidence itself.

This wasn't a swift process. The medieval era was still the bastard child of historical study; a "dark age" of ignorance, superstition, and brutality, "a thousand years without a bath." Medieval historians had much prejudice, fanciful invention, and misinformation to overcome, and there was no concerted effort to shake things up and re-examine every theory ever floated about the Middle Ages. Feudalism had become so entrenched that it wasn't an obvious choice to overturn.

Even once historians began to recognize the "system" as a post-medieval construct, its validity wasn't questioned. As early as 1887, F.W. Maitland observed in a lecture on English constitutional history that "we do not hear of a feudal system until feudalism ceased to exist." He examined in detail what feudalism supposedly was and discussed how it could be applied to English medieval law, but he didn't question its existence.

Maitland was a well-respected scholar; much of his work is still enlightening and useful today. If such an esteemed historian treated feudalism as a legitimate system of law and government, why should anyone question him?

For a long time, nobody did. Most medievalists continued in Maitland's vein, acknowledging that the word was a construct—an imperfect one, at that—yet going forward with articles, lectures, treatises, and books on what feudalism had been or, at the very least, incorporating it into related topics as an accepted fact of the medieval era. Each historian presented his or her own interpretation of the model; even those claiming to adhere to a previous interpretation deviated from it in some significant way. The result was an unfortunate number of varying, sometimes conflicting, definitions of feudalism.

As the 20th century progressed, the discipline of history grew more rigorous. Scholars uncovered new evidence, examined it closely, and used it to modify or explain their view of feudalism. Their methods were sound, but their premise was problematic: They were trying to adapt a deeply flawed theory to a wide variety of facts.

Construct Denounced

Although several historians expressed concerns over the indefinite nature of the model and the term's imprecise meanings, it wasn't until 1974 that anyone thought to point out the most fundamental problems with feudalism. In a groundbreaking article titled "The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe," Elizabeth A.R. Brown leveled a finger at the academic community, denouncing the term feudalism and its continued use.

Brown maintained that the feudalism construct, developed after the Middle Ages, bore little resemblance to actual medieval society. Its many differing, even contradictory, definitions had so muddied the waters that it had lost any useful meaning and was interfering with the proper examination of evidence concerning medieval law and society. Scholars viewed land agreements and social relationships through the warped lens of the feudalism construct and either disregarded or dismissed anything that didn't fit into their version of the model. Brown asserted that, even considering how difficult it is to unlearn something, continuing to include feudalism in introductory texts would do readers a grave injustice.

Brown's article was well received in academic circles. Virtually no American or British medievalists objected to any part of it, and almost everyone agreed: Feudalism wasn't a useful term and really should go.

Yet, it stuck around.

Hasn't Disappeared

Some new publications in medieval studies avoided the term altogether; others used it sparingly, focusing on actual laws, land tenures, and legal agreements instead of on the model. Some books on medieval society refrained from characterizing that society as "feudal." Others, while acknowledging that the term was in dispute, continued to use it as a "useful shorthand" for lack of a better term, but only as far as it was necessary.

But some authors still included descriptions of feudalism as a valid model of medieval society, with little or no caveat. Not every medievalist had read Brown's article or had a chance to consider its implications or discuss it with colleagues. Additionally, revising work conducted on the premise that feudalism was a valid construct would require the kind of reassessment that few historians were prepared to engage in.

Perhaps most significantly, no one had presented a reasonable model or explanation to use in place of feudalism. Some historians and authors felt they had to provide their readers with a handle by which to grasp the general ideas of medieval government and society. If not feudalism, then what?

Yes, the emperor had no clothes, but for now, he would just have to run around naked.

• Feudalism in Japan and Europe
• The Early, High and Late Middle Ages
• Defining the Middle Ages
• The Top 8 Medieval History Books
• What Does "Medieval" Mean?
• A Beginner's Guide to the Renaissance
• Role and Importance of Children in the Middle Ages
• The Kingdom of Mali and the Splendor of Medieval Africa
• Medieval Times Printables
• Enslavement and Chains in Medieval Times
• The Learning Years of Medieval Childhood
• Humanity Bloomed During the Renaissance
• A Brief History of Japan's Daimyo Lords
• Wool in the Middle Ages
• A Guide to Renaissance Humanism
• Types of Meat

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Feudalism in Medieval Europe

European feudalism was an economic, political, and social system practiced in the Middle Ages. Land was granted in return for labor and military support. There are various benefits and disadvantages involved. Feudalism was suitable for the times, encouraged local control, and stability, and maintained a set of values.  Meanwhile, it promoted inequality, a weak central government, was insecure in various ways, and hindered advancement.  

What Is Feudalism?

The word “feudalism” arises from a “fief,” the name given to the basic self-sufficient unit of land during the Middle Ages .  Feudalism had social, political, and economic aspects.

The Middle Ages lasted from around 500-1500 CE. Before this time, the Roman Empire controlled Western Europe.  The empire broke apart and feudalism developed.  

Feudalism was a system where land was granted in return for labor and military support.  It was largely an agricultural society.  Small villages grew up around the farms to serve their needs.  

Peasants farmed the land.  Local nobility (knights) controlled the land in return for military service to the king.  There was a weak center of power and Western Europe was split up into many small kingdoms.  The Catholic Church was very powerful and had a large role in social life. 

What Were The Benefits Of Feudalism? 

[1]  suitable for the needs of the time.

The Fall of the Roman Empire resulted in a power vacuum in Western Europe.  

There was no longer a strong central government to provide basic needs, including defending people from bandits and foreign invaders.  A new local-based system had to be developed.  

Feudalism was suitable for the needs of the times. There was no longer a strong central government so small communities had to be self-sufficient .  

It was a sensible type of society for agricultural-based times when the economy was based on land, not the cash-based system of modern capitalism.  

Meanwhile, the layers of control (peasants, nobles, king) still enabled smaller communities to join together into larger ones.  Loose confederations developed, extending power bases.  

[2]  Stability

Each group in society had a place.  Peasants farmed their land generation after generation.  Peasants, nobles, and kings had responsibilities based on how things had always gone.  

The Church helped by setting forth basic social rules for everyone to follow.  A son followed in the footsteps of their father. Life might be hard at times with disease, famine, or the occasional war,  but it followed a certain expected ebb and flow.  

Feudalism provided peace and security .  

[3]  Local Control

A person interested in federalism , the division of local and national government, might find feudalism a useful model.  Local control thrived based on their specific needs. 

Peasants had a large degree of self-control as long as they provided a certain amount of goods and services to their local lord.  Local estates (called “manors”) were self-sufficient, providing all the basic needs for the community.  Smaller units were easier to govern.  

Meanwhile, each local noble was not merely a self-sufficient unit.  They were part of a larger kingdom.  They joined together to serve the king and protect a wider area of territory.  

[4]  Values  

Feudalism was not just an economic and political system.  It was also a system of values. 

A basic system of obligation is in place.  Everybody has a responsibility to someone else.  Peasants provided goods and services in return for land and security.  Nobles had obligations to peasants and the king.  Everyone served the Church, which in return protected everyone’s souls.

Knights developed a code of honor called “ chivalry .”  Feudalism was a theocracy , with church rules being followed, including in matters of family life.  

What Were the Disadvantages? 

[1]  inequality.

Feudalism was a class-based society.  Those with power were able to abuse those without it.  The lack of a strong government and justice system made things worse.  

Peasants were not allowed to leave the land without permission.  Different degrees of nobility arose, not based on merit alone, but on who your parents might be.  

It also was a male-dominated world, with power passing from father to son.  Women sometimes had power.  Women had important roles on farms and in village businesses.  But, there was no equality of the sexes.  Men controlled married life too in a system known as “coverture.”   

[2]  Weak National Control 

A king had limited power.  The central government was weak.  

This limited the ability to have a large, powerful country.  It made kingdoms more open to invasion and less able to address the needs of the people as a whole.  

A system of self-sufficient small territories limited trade.  A powerful government also is important for the development of industry , including regulations and infrastructure.  

[3]  Insecurity

Feudal life was insecure in a variety of ways.  

A system of small communities resulted in nobility fighting over land.  Warfare was a common occurrence during the Middle Ages.  A bad crop or outbreak of disease could be disastrous.  

[4]  Lack of Development

Each community also was isolated from the others.  People often spent their whole lives without traveling a few miles away from their homes.   It was a limited existence.

There was limited room for advancement.  A person had little chance to do better than their parents or try something new.  Their roles in life were fixed.  

There was a limited need for industry, including a small market for goods.  Land is a fixed thing, unlike the flexibility of money and trade goods.  This blocked development and expansion.  

Feudalism After the Middle Ages

A range of developments led to the decline of feudalism, the growth of the industrial revolution, and the current post-industrial world that we live in today.  

Meanwhile, European powers spread their control to the Americas, Africa, and Asia.  The colonial system spread feudalism into new locations.  The results linger on in some form today.

Feudalism now seems like something only found in medieval tales of yore.  But, in its own time, there was a place for the system though its disadvantages in time helped us move past it.

Teach and Thrive

A Bronx, NY veteran high school social studies teacher who has learned most of what she has learned through trial and error and error and error.... and wants to save others that pain.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Were Medieval Bathrooms Like?

The Roman Empire ended (it had fallen and couldn’t get up) in 476.  The people at the time did not know it then, but it was the Middle Ages.  Medieval times.  You can read about it...

Medieval Times Summary (Download Included)

[convertkit form=1816758] If you’re looking for a brief (650 words) summary on a topic in history you’re in the right place! You can find reading passages for U.S. History and World History...

Home — Essay Samples — History — Feudalism — Feudalism Analysis

Feudalism Analysis

• Categories: Feudalism

About this sample

Words: 657 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 657 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Origins of feudalism, characteristics of feudalism, impact of feudalism, significance of feudalism.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 792 words

2 pages / 927 words

4 pages / 1692 words

2 pages / 1063 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Feudalism

Feudalism was established in Europe by the 800s CE but appeared later in the 1100s in japan. European feudalism ended by the growth of a stronger political states in the 16th century, but Japanese feudalism held on until the [...]

Feudalism, a system of social organization that dominated Medieval Europe, has been a topic of much debate among historians. In this essay, we will explore the definition of feudalism, its history, and the ongoing debates [...]

Feudalism in France stands as a cornerstone of medieval European history, representing a complex social, economic, and political system that dominated the region for centuries. This essay delves into the intricacies of feudalism [...]

Feudalism, a socio-economic system that dominated European societies from the 9th to the 15th century, has often been a topic of debate among historians and scholars. While some view it as a crucial and functional structure, [...]

Feudalism was the way of life for people in the Middle Ages. Some people, like the royalty and nobles, supported and liked feudalism. Others, like serfs and slaves, did not enjoy feudalism. Everybody in society was involved with [...]

After the collapse of the Roman Empire, feudalism was by far the most prevalent of social systems during the ninth and fifteenth centuries throughout Western Europe. This system found its supposed highest authority in the king [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Ch. 8 The Middle Ages in Europe

Learning objective.

• Recall the structure of the feudal state and the responsibilities and obligations of each level of society
• Feudalism flourished in Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries.
• Feudalism in England determined the structure of society around relationships derived from the holding and leasing of land, or fiefs .
• In England, the feudal pyramid was made up of the king at the top with the nobles, knights, and vassals below him.
• Before a lord could grant land to a tenant he would have to make him a vassal at a formal ceremony. This ceremony bound the lord and vassal in a contract.
• While modern writers such as Marx point out the negative qualities of feudalism, such as the exploitation and lack of social mobility for the peasants, the French historian Marc Bloch contends that peasants were part of the feudal relationship; while the vassals performed military service in exchange for the fief, the peasants performed physical labour in return for protection, thereby gaining some benefit despite their limited freedom.
• The 11th century in France saw what has been called by historians a “feudal revolution” or “mutation” and a “fragmentation of powers” that increased localized power and autonomy.

In the Middle Ages this was the ceremony in which a feudal tenant or vassal pledged reverence and submission to his feudal lord, receiving in exchange the symbolic title to his new position.

An oath, from the Latin fidelitas (faithfulness); a pledge of allegiance of one person to another.

Persons who entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context of the feudal system in medieval Europe.

Heritable property or rights granted by an overlord to a vassal.

mesne tenant

A lord in the feudal system who had vassals who held land from him, but who was himself the vassal of a higher lord.

Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. It can be broadly defined as a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land, known as a fiefdom or fief, in exchange for service or labour.

The classic version of feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs. A lord was in broad terms a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and a fief was what the land was known as. In exchange for the use of the fief and the protection of the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord. There were many varieties of feudal land tenure, consisting of military and non-military service. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief formed the basis of the feudal relationship.

Feudalism, in its various forms, usually emerged as a result of the decentralization of an empire, especially in the Carolingian empires, which lacked the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to support cavalry without the ability to allocate land to these mounted troops. Mounted soldiers began to secure a system of hereditary rule over their allocated land, and their power over the territory came to encompass the social, political, judicial, and economic spheres.

Many societies in the Middle Ages were characterized by feudal organizations, including England, which was the most structured feudal society, France, Italy, Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, and Portugal. Each of these territories developed feudalism in unique ways, and the way we understand feudalism as a unified concept today is in large part due to critiques after its dissolution. Karl Marx theorized feudalism as a pre-capitalist society, characterized by the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) in their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom and principally by means of labour, produce, and money rents.

While modern writers such as Marx point out the negative qualities of feudalism, the French historian Marc Bloch contends that peasants were an integral part of the feudal relationship: while the vassals performed military service in exchange for the fief, the peasants performed physical labour in return for protection, thereby gaining some benefit despite their limited freedom. Feudalism was thus a complex social and economic system defined by inherited ranks, each of which possessed inherent social and economic privileges and obligations. Feudalism allowed societies in the Middle Ages to retain a relatively stable political structure even as the centralized power of empires and kingdoms began to dissolve.

Structure of the Feudal State in England

Feudalism in 12th-century England was among the better structured and established systems in Europe at the time. The king was the absolute “owner” of land in the feudal system, and all nobles, knights, and other tenants, termed vassals, merely “held” land from the king, who was thus at the top of the feudal pyramid.

Below the king in the feudal pyramid was a tenant-in-chief (generally in the form of a baron or knight), who was a vassal of the king. Holding from the tenant-in-chief was a mesne tenant—generally a knight or baron who was sometimes a tenant-in-chief in their capacity as holder of other fiefs. Below the mesne tenant, further mesne tenants could hold from each other in series.

Before a lord could grant land (a fief) to someone, he had to make that person a vassal. This was done at a formal and symbolic ceremony called a commendation ceremony, which was composed of the two-part act of homage and oath of fealty. During homage, the lord and vassal entered into a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, while the lord agreed to protect the vassal from external forces.

Roland pledges his fealty to Charlemagne. Roland (right) receives the sword, Durandal, from the hands of Charlemagne (left). From a manuscript of a chanson de geste, c. 14th Century.

Once the commendation ceremony was complete, the lord and vassal were in a feudal relationship with agreed obligations to one another. The vassal’s principal obligation to the lord was “aid,” or military service. Using whatever equipment the vassal could obtain by virtue of the revenues from the fief, he was responsible for answering calls to military service on behalf of the lord. This security of military help was the primary reason the lord entered into the feudal relationship. In addition, the vassal could have other obligations to his lord, such as attendance at his court, whether manorial or baronial, or at the king’s court.

The vassal’s obligations could also involve providing “counsel,” so that if the lord faced a major decision he would summon all his vassals and hold a council. At the level of the manor this might be a fairly mundane matter of agricultural policy, but could also include sentencing by the lord for criminal offenses, including capital punishment in some cases. In the king’s feudal court, such deliberation could include the question of declaring war. These are only examples; depending on the period of time and location in Europe, feudal customs and practices varied.

Feudalism in France

In its origin, the feudal grant of land had been seen in terms of a personal bond between lord and vassal, but with time and the transformation of fiefs into hereditary holdings, the nature of the system came to be seen as a form of “politics of land.” The 11th century in France saw what has been called by historians a “feudal revolution” or “mutation” and a “fragmentation of powers” that was unlike the development of feudalism in England, Italy, or Germany in the same period or later. In France, counties and duchies began to break down into smaller holdings as castellans and lesser seigneurs took control of local lands, and (as comital families had done before them) lesser lords usurped/privatized a wide range of prerogatives and rights of the state—most importantly the highly profitable rights of justice, but also travel dues, market dues, fees for using woodlands, obligations to use the lord’s mill, etc. Power in this period became more personal and decentralized.

• Boundless World History. Authored by : Boundless. Located at : https://www.boundless.com/world-history/textbooks/boundless-world-history-textbook/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Essays

Feudalism and knights in medieval europe.

Viking Sword

Aquamanile in the Form of a Mounted Knight

A Knight of the d'Aluye Family

Michael Norris Department of Education, The Metropolitan Museum of Art

October 2001

From the ninth to the early eleventh centuries, invasions of the Magyars from the east, Muslims from the south, and Vikings from the north struck western Europe. This unrest ultimately spurred greater unity in England and Germany, but in northern France centralized authority broke down and the region split into smaller and smaller political units. By the ninth century, many knights and nobles held estates (fiefs) granted by greater lords in return for military and other service. This feudal system (from the medieval Latin feodum or feudum , fee or fief) enabled a cash-poor but land-rich lord to support a military force. But this was not the only way that land was held, knights maintained, and loyalty to a lord retained. Lands could be held unconditionally, landless knights could be sheltered in noble households, and loyalties could be maintained through kinship, friendship, or wages.

Mounted armored warriors , or knights (from the Old English cniht , boy or servant), were the dominant forces of medieval armies. The twelfth-century Byzantine princess Anna Komnena wrote that the impact of a group of charging French knights “might rupture the walls of Babylon .” At first, most knights were of humble origins, some of them not even possessing land, but by the later twelfth century knights were considered members of the nobility and followed a system of courteous knightly behavior called chivalry (from cheval , the French word for horse). During and after the fourteenth century , weapons that were particularly effective against horsemen appeared on the battlefield, such as the longbow, pike, halberd, and cannon. Yet despite the knights’ gradual loss of military importance, the system by which noble families were identified, called heraldry, continued to flourish and became more complex. The magnificence of their war games—called tournaments—also increased, as did the number of new knightly orders, such as the Order of the Garter.

Norris, Michael. “Feudalism and Knights in Medieval Europe.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History . New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/feud/hd_feud.htm (October 2001)

Further Reading

Bennett, Judith M., and C. Warren Hollister. Medieval Europe: A Short History . 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Gies, Joseph and Frances Gies. Life in a Medieval Castle . New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

Additional Essays by Michael Norris

• Norris, Michael. “ The Papacy during the Renaissance .” (August 2007)
• Norris, Michael. “ Arms and Armor in Medieval Europe .” (October 2001)
• Norris, Michael. “ Life of Jesus of Nazareth .” (originally published June 2008, last revised September 2008)

Related Essays

• Arms and Armor in Medieval Europe
• The Crusades (1095–1291)
• The Decoration of Arms and Armor
• Fashion in European Armor, 1000–1300
• The Function of Armor in Medieval and Renaissance Europe
• The Age of Saint Louis (1226–1270)
• Arms and Armor in Renaissance Europe
• Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions
• Art and Death in the Middle Ages
• Byzantium (ca. 330–1453)
• Courtship and Betrothal in the Italian Renaissance
• The Decoration of European Armor
• Domestic Art in Renaissance Italy
• Famous Makers of Arms and Armors and European Centers of Production
• Fashion in European Armor
• Fashion in European Armor, 1300–1400
• Fashion in European Armor, 1400–1500
• Medieval Aquamanilia
• Nuptial Furnishings in the Italian Renaissance
• Romanesque Art
• Techniques of Decoration on Arms and Armor

List of Rulers

• List of Rulers of Europe
• France, 1000–1400 A.D.
• Great Britain and Ireland, 1000–1400 A.D.
• Low Countries, 1000–1400 A.D.
• 10th Century A.D.
• 11th Century A.D.
• 12th Century A.D.
• 13th Century A.D.
• 14th Century A.D.
• 9th Century A.D.
• Frankish Art
• Great Britain and Ireland
• Horse Trappings
• Islamic Art
• Medieval Art

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

15.4: The Feudal System

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 17082

• Christopher Brooks
• Portland Community College

While most Europeans (excluding the Jewish communities, the few remaining pagans, and members of heretical groups) may have come to share a religious identity by the eleventh century, Europe was fragmented politically. The numerous Germanic tribes that had dismantled the Western Empire formed the nucleus of the early political units of western Christendom. The Germanic peoples themselves had started as minorities, ruling over formerly Roman subjects. They tended to inherit Roman bureaucracy and rely on its officials and laws when ruling their subjects, but they also had their own traditions of Germanic law based on clan membership.

The so-called “ feudal ” system of law was one based on codes of honor and reciprocity. In the original Germanic system, each person was tied to his or her clan above all else, and an attack on an individual immediately became an issue for the entire clan. Any dishonor had to be answered by an equivalent dishonor, most often meeting insult with violence. Likewise, rulership was tied closely to clan membership, with each king being the head of the most powerful clan rather than an elected official or even necessarily a hereditary monarchy that transcended clan lines. This unregulated, traditional, and violence-based system of “law” stood in contrast to the written codes of Roman law that still survived in the aftermath of the fall of Rome itself.

Over time, the Germanic rulers mixed with their subjects to the point that distinctions between them were nonexistent. Likewise, Roman law faded away to be replaced with traditions of feudal law and a very complex web of rights and privileges that were granted to groups within society by rulers (to help ensure the loyalty of their subjects). Thus, clan loyalty became less important over the centuries than did the rights, privileges, and pledges of loyalty offered and held by different social categories. Historians refer to that social and political system as "feudalism" or "the feudal system," a hierarchical, class-based structure in which kings, lords, and priests ruled over the vast majority of the population: peasants.

The feudal system was based on a kind of protection system (or even protection racket). A lord accepted pledges of loyalty, called a pledge of fealty, from other free men called his vassals; in return for their support in war he offered them protection and land-grants called fiefs. Each vassal had the right to extract wealth from his land, meaning the peasants who lived there, so that he could afford horses, armor, and weapons. In general, vassals did not have to pay their lords taxes; all tax revenue came from the peasants. Likewise, the Church itself was an enormously wealthy and powerful landowner, and Church holdings were almost always tax-exempt; bishops were often lords of their own lands, and every king worked closely with the Church's leadership in his kingdom.

This system arose because of the absence of other, more effective forms of government and the constant threat of violence posed by raiders. The system was never as neat and tidy as it sounds on paper; many vassals were lords of their own vassals, with the king simply being the highest lord. In turn, the problem for royal authority was that many kings had “vassals” who had more land, wealth, and power than they did; it was very possible, even easy, for powerful nobles to make war against their king if they chose to do so. It would take centuries before the monarchs of Europe consolidated enough wealth and power to dominate their nobles, and it certainly did not happen during the Middle Ages.

One (amusing, in historical hindsight) method that kings would use to punish unruly vassals was simply visiting them and eating them out of house and home - the traditions of hospitality required vassals to welcome, feed, and entertain their king for as long as he felt like staying. Nevertheless, there are many instances in medieval European history in which a powerful lord simply usurped the throne, defeated the former king's forces, and became the new king. Even though the rulership of a given king was always understood to be the will of God, new kings had little trouble arguing that God obviously favored them over the former monarch.

Ultimately, the feudal system represented a “warlord” system of political organization, in many cases barely a step above anarchy. Pledges of loyalty between lords and vassals served as the only assurance of stability, and those pledges were violated countless times throughout the period. The Church tried to encourage lords to live in accordance with Christian virtue, but the fact of the matter was that it was the nobility’s vocation, their very social role, to fight, and thus all too often “politics” was synonymous with “armed struggle” during the Middle Ages.

Medieval Europe: What is Feudalism Essay Example

Feudalism was the major social and political order in medieval Europe.  It was later developed as power passed from things to local lords. “Feudalism brought together two powerful groups: lords and vassals.” (“You decide… Feudalism: Good or Bad?”).  Feudalism provided people with protection and safety by establishing a stable social order.  It is a highly decentralized form of government that is based on rights and obligations.  

There were different levels of the feudal system.  Starting off with the monarchs, they had the highest authority.  The monarchs had all the authority and kept most of the land for themselves.  They gave fiefs to the most important nobles who became his vassals.  Next, there were Nobles and Church Officials.  When Monarch’s were to give them land, in return, they swore an oath of loyalty to supply the king with knights for war.  Next, were the knights.  The knights were to fight in the king’s wars.  Lords would supply the king with them for wars.  Lastly, there were Peasants and Serfs.  They were in the lowest class of the social structure.  Lords would sometimes rent land to the peasants who worked for them.  But, most peasants were serfs.  Serfs would usually work, but weren’t considered slaves.  They couldn’t leave the lord’s land without permission, and had to farm their fields in exchange for a small plot of their own land.  

Feudalism can be interpreted as either good, or bad.  Personally, I believe it was good and bad. But it was more so good than bad.  First, “Feudalism protected the communities from the violence and warfare that broke out after the fall of Rome and the collapse of strong central government in Western Europe.  Feudalism secured Western Europe’s society and kept out powerful invaders.” (Packet, “You decide… Feudalism: Good or Bad”?)  Feudalism had a strong impact on this time because of all the corruption and warfare going around near them.  It ensured the community was safer, and the invaders were kept out.  Next, feudalism did not allow one person to gain all the power.  Instead, it was shared amongst themselves with many different people and groups.  The feudal system also allowed rights to most people, however the monarchs had a little more power than everybody else.   Knights were used for war, but peasants weren’t looked at as slaves, they worked for small amounts of land.  But, like I said, this system had its downside.  This system didn’t allow people to move up in the society.  If a person was born a peasant or serf, they had stayed there, and were never allowed to move up.

As we can conclude, Feudalism can be looked on either way.  We see how it provided protection to people, but also didn’t allow people to ever move from where they were born into.  The system helped protect people from invaders and protected them from violent acts such as Warfare, but also favored monarchs and lords power above most.  We looked at what feudalism was, how it worked, and how it is Good, but also a reason why people can see it as a “not so great” idea.

Related Samples

• The Biggest Tragedy: Holocaust Essay Example
• History Essay Sample on The World War II: The United States And The Soviet Union
• Life of Medieval Knights Essay Example
• Essay Sample about Ida B. Wells: Journalist and Suffragist in the Time of Jim Crow
• Essay Sample about Causes of World War II
• Reconstruction Essay Example
• The Atlantic World: Essay on Slavery, Migration, and Imagination
• John F Kennedy Essay Example
• Wollstonecraft Intellectually Impacts Society (Essay Example)
• Is Brutus Tragic Hero Essay Example 2

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• STS NEWSFEED
• VLM NEWSFEED
• Alternative News
• Investigative Journalists
• Free-Speech
• Health Freedom
• Consciousness
• Free Speech Media
• Red-Pill Documentaries
• Red-Pill Series
• Medicine (UN) Censored
• Vaccine Series
• Sign in / Join

The Great Awakening – A Documentary About The State & Fate…

Zeitgeist: Exposing The Invisible Chains Globalist Use To Enslave The World!

Bitcoin & The Banking Crisis: Caitlin Long

SGT Report: THE MOST DEADLY PRODUCT IN MEDICINAL HISTORY — Dr….

The Destruction of Memory & False History- Jay Weidner & Howdie…

World issues, pros and cons of feudalism.

Feudalism is a system of government that some look back upon quite fondly. Instead of having one large nation-state, a country would be divided into different ruling regions. Each region had a noble ruler and these nobles would then pledge their allegiance to a king, queen or other ruling entity. This creates a national allegiance and a regional allegiance that was very powerful for each individual.

What are the pros and cons of feudalism? Is this a system that could still potentially work today, or has its time come and gone? Here are a few of the key points to consider.

What Are the Pros of Feudalism?

1. It is a very self-sufficient system of governing. Each area had its own rulers assigned to it. Each ruler had their own classes of people in the region, from workers to soldiers, that helped to provide for each other. Trades only happened periodically, which kept the economy stable locally. In feudalism, there was always a job available for someone who wanted to work.

2. It provided a system of co-existence. The working classes required protection from other regions who might want to take what they had. The noble classes could provide this in exchange for a portion of the goods and services that the working class created. The exchange gave the nobles riches and the working classes a chance to live their lives in the way they wished without much interference beyond their duties to the region.

3. It allowed for a simplistic chain of command. There was no red tape in feudalism. Decrees were issued from the top and implemented on the way down. Because every region was different, people could pledge their loyalty to certain nobles that fit in with what they wanted to accomplish in life. This made it easier to avoid conflict because different nobles in the same region wouldn’t be issuing conflicting orders.

4. Land management was incredibly easy. Because every region had to sustain itself locally, land management had to be maximized. This meant that regions were more productive overall because instead of worrying about ownership, the lands could just be managed by the working class and maintained by the noble class. Because everything depended on quality land production, an emphasis on resources was always placed on land use.

What Are the Cons of Feudalism?

1. It was easy to abuse the power given. Because the chain of command started at the very top, the power of that position made it easy to abuse everyone else within that region. People could uproot to a new noble, but would often be threatened with death or tracked down if this happened. This could make life very difficult for the working classes.

2. One bad season could end everything. If there was one bad growing system in a region, then the entire ruling system in that area could come tumbling down. That’s the problem when everything is locally emphasized without much trade. This issue still exists today when nations decide to isolate instead of create trading relationships.

3. It was a very isolated existence. Most people in a feudalism system would rarely travel outside of their region. This was even true of the noble class unless there was a need to expand or defend the territory. It created a system of isolated regions, even within the same overall kingdom, that could develop some very distinct differences that had the potential to create a civil conflict. Even when travel did happen, people from neighboring regions were often treated with hostility instead of welcoming arms. Suspicion was everywhere.

4. Freedoms that were obtained were very rarely free. In order for the working class to gain access to land to work or own, they had to pledge their support to their noble, their king, or both. In return for this privilege, they had to respond to requests for troops when needed, provide a portion of their crops or work as taxes, and bear additional expenses for war or defense when called upon. If there wasn’t enough money available to pay the needed taxation, then they could lose their land, be thrown into prison, or even executed.

The pros and cons of feudalism make it difficult to say whether it is a beneficial or detrimental system of ruling. Much depended on how it was implemented and what the ethics of the nobility happened to be. Eventually people want something more valuable than land for their services and that is what causes feudalism to break down.

Crystal Lombardo is a contributing editor for Vision Launch. Crystal is a seasoned writer and researcher with over 10 years of experience. She has been an editor of three popular blogs that each have had over 500,000 monthly readers.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

The Story Of Your Enslavement

Enough is Enough, Says Russia

New World Order Desperate as Plan Falls Apart – Martin Armstrong

The Great Awakening – A Documentary About The State & Fate...

Is Free Energy Possible In 2023? The Liberty Engine: Perpetual Free...

They Are Trying To Normalize SADS Like They Did With SIDS....

How is It Possible That So Many People Still Believe That...

POPULAR CATEGORIES

• World Issues 715
• Crowdfunding 320
• Articles 309
• Inventors 288
• Business 140
• Home Sidebar 106

Pin It on Pinterest

82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best feudalism topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on feudalism, ✅ simple & easy feudalism essay titles, ❓ questions about feudalism.

• Feudalism System of Western Europe in the Middle Ages Although there was the presence of the king, the position was irrelevant in the country. The vassals, as mentioned in the introduction, were the persons who paid homage and pledged allegiance to the lords in […]
• The Development of Feudalism and Manorialism in the Middle Ages Manorialism on the other hand refers to an important component of feudal community which entailed the principles used in organizing economy in the rural that was born in the medieval villa system. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Susan Reynolds’s Attack on the Concepts of Feudalism Supported by F.L. Ganshof and Marc Bloch However, in her book Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted, Susan Reynolds states that it is inappropriate to follow the narrow discussion of feudalism with references to the concepts of vassalage and fiefs, and […]
• The Fall of Roman Empire and the Rise of Feudalism Therefore, to German, the fall of the Roman Empire is significant for some of the aspects of feudalism are still present in German societies.
• Digital Feudalism: Capitalists Exploit Laborers The examination of the life cycle of a single Amazon Echo speaker reveals deep interconnections between the literal hollowing out of the earth’s materials and the data capture and monetization of human communication practices in […]
• From the Fall of the Holy Roman Empire to Feudalism This remnant from the past reflects the time when the Franks took over the Burgundians and influenced both the language and culture of the Burgundians.
• Major Historiographic Views on Feudalism The history of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance continues to attract the attention of many contemporary historians. This is one of the points that should be considered.
• The Role of Women on Feudalism: Nobility, Peasantry, and the Church
• The Cultural Significance of Feudalism: Literature, Music, and Dance
• Capitalism and Feudalism: The Lowell System
• Key Differences Between Feudalism and Capitalism
• Feudalism and Powerful Warrior Landlords
• Comparing and Contrasting Haritan and Japanese Feudalism
• The Impact of Feudalism on Medieval Art and Architecture
• Feudalism and Court Services Vassals
• The Feudalism and Manorialism Unraveled
• Political and Economic Characteristics of Feudalism
• The Role of the Black Death in the Decline of Feudalism
• Feudalism and Feudal States From Europe After the Breakup
• Similarities Between European Feudalism in the Middle Ages and the Caste System of India
• The Feudal System in Central Asia: Comparative Analysis With European Feudalism
• Lives Sold Dear: Chivalry and Feudalism in the “Song of Roland”
• The Dark Ages and the Feudalism
• The Role of Feudalism in the Crusades and the Reconquista
• The Impact of Feudalism on the Development of Capitalism
• The Role of Feudalism in Medieval Medicine and Health Care
• The Impact of Feudalism on the Development of Modern International Relations
• Literature and the Transition From Middle Ages Feudalism to the Industrial Era
• Main Reasons for the Fall of Feudalism
• The Role of Feudalism in the Formation of Medieval Cities
• Feudalism and New Social Order
• The Impact of Feudalism on the Development of Nationalism in Europe
• The Military System of Feudalism: Knights and Chivalry
• The Historical Context of Feudalism: Origins and Evolution
• The Rise and Fall of Feudalism
• Feudalism: The Rights and Responsibilities of Lords and Vassals
• The Rise of Feudalism in Eastern Europe
• The Differences Between Feudalism Before and After the Norman Conquest
• Feudalism and Its Effects on Society
• Comparing and Contrasting Japanese Feudalism to Western European Feudalism During the Middle Ages
• The Transition From Feudalism to the Renaissance
• The Military Government: The Oldest Form of Governance Since the Feudalism
• The Influence of Feudalism on the Development of Democracy in Europe
• How Revolutionaries Change System Government-Based Monarchy Feudalism?
• Feudalism: Social Class and National Government
• The Impact of Feudalism on Trade and Commerce in Medieval Europe
• The Economic System of Feudalism: Manorialism and Serfdom
• The Impact of Feudalism on the Development of International Law
• Feudal System: Medieval Life and Feudalism
• The Impact of Feudalism on the Development of Modern Science
• The Feudal System in America: Comparative Analysis With European Feudalism
• The Social and Economic Changes in Feudalism in the 14th Century
• The Role of Feudalism in the Formation of Modern Nation-States
• The Impact of Feudalism on the Development of Human Rights
• The History and Impact of Feudalism in Europe Between the 8th and 9th Century
• The Social Hierarchy of Feudalism: Nobility, Clergy, and Peasantry
• Pensions and Lifetime Jobs: The New Industrial Feudalism Revisited
• Are There More Similarities Between Feudalism and Capitalism Than We’d Like to Admit?
• Was Feudalism an Effective Form of Government?
• What Events Led to the Decline of Feudalism?
• Did Feudalism Create Capitalism?
• How Did Centralized Feudalism Under the Tokugawa Shoguns Unite Japan?
• What Made Feudalism So Unfair?
• How Long Did Feudalism Last?
• What Economic System Started to Replace Feudalism During the Time of the Renaissance?
• Why Did Russian Feudalism Last So Much Longer Than Its Western European Counterparts?
• How Is Feudalism and Manorialism Connected?
• Did Karl Marx Believe in Feudalism?
• What Was the Main Problem With Feudalism?
• How Did Feudalism Begin and End?
• Why Did Europe Shift From Feudalism to Capitalism?
• How Did Feudalism and the Manor Economy Emerge and Shape Medieval Life?
• What Are the Theories of Feudalism?
• How Did the Tokugawas Set Up Centralized Feudalism?
• What Was the Basic Structure of Feudalism in Western Europe in the 8th and 9th Centuries?
• Is Capitalism Better Than Feudalism?
• Which Country Abolished Feudalism First?
• How Did Society Change From Feudalism to Renaissance Times?
• What Was the Social and Economic Impact of Feudalism?
• How Did Feudalism Change History?
• What Is the Structure of Feudalism?
• How Did Feudalism Impact Life in the Middle Ages?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, March 20). 82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/feudalism-essay-topics/

"82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 20 Mar. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/feudalism-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 20 March.

IvyPanda . 2023. "82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/feudalism-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/feudalism-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "82 Feudalism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/feudalism-essay-topics/.

• Anarchy Titles
• Social Class Research Ideas
• World History Topics
• Crusades Research Topics
• Ancient History Topics
• Imperialism Questions
• Roman Empire Ideas
• Byzantine Empire Essay Ideas
• European History Essay Titles
• British Empire Ideas
• Joan Of Arc Topics
• Renaissance Essay Titles
• Colonialism Essay Ideas
• Black Death Ideas
• Monarchy Research Topics

Using Concepts in Medieval History pp 15–48 Cite as

Feudalism: Reflections on a Tyrannical Construct’s Fate

• Elizabeth A. R. Brown 4  
• First Online: 24 January 2022

561 Accesses

In this article I reflect on feudalism and the attack I launched in 1974 against it and such similar constructs as feudal system, feudal society, and feudal monarchy. I first review the reasons for my campaign and its timing. Re-evaluating the extent and gravity of the disapproval the term had long elicited, I reconsider the relationship between my uncompromising assault and earlier opposition to feudalism. Before examining the reactions to the article, positive and negative, I treat the feudal constructs’ appeal and powers of endurance, and the cognitive roots of their advocates’ attachment to them. In appraising the article’s reception, I discuss Susan Reynolds’s book, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted , published in 1994, and the similarities and differences between our approaches to the feudal constructs and to medieval society and politics. In a final section I assess the diminished fidelity that feudalism has commanded since 2000, and the progressive waning of the feudal constructs’ influence on studies of medieval Europe, which focus increasingly on the complexities of its evolution. The conclusion reiterates the call I issued in 1974 to renounce the constructs and cautiously forecasts their imminent demise, except as evidence of the styles of conceptualization that led their sixteenth- and seventeenth-century fabricators to invent them.

• Feudal system
• Thomas N. Bisson
• Georges Duby
• Richard W. Southern
• Fredric L. Cheyette
• Ermengard of Narbonne
• Susan Reynolds

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

American Historical Review , 79:4 (1974), 1063–88. I am grateful for encouragement, suggestions, and corrections to Allan Appel, Suzanne Boorsch, Rowan Dorin, Theodore Evergates, Geoffrey Koziol, Susanne Roberts, M. Alison Stones, Thomas N. Tentler, and, particularly, Richard C. Famiglietti and Emily Zack Tabuteau. I am indebted as well for exchanges I have had over the years with Theodore Evergates, the late Susan Reynolds, and Stephen D. White, as well as Walter Goffart, the late Howard Kaminsky, and, particularly, the late Fredric L. Cheyette. Lucy L. Brown and Herbert H. Schaumberg have discussed and debated with me my ideas about the development of the physical and social sciences, and the relevance of experimental studies of human cognition to attitudes toward the feudal constructs. Jackson Armstrong, Peter Crooks, and Andrea Ruddick have been models of editorial patience and efficiency.

Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

At Swarthmore College, Professor Mary Albertson introduced me to Eileen Powers’ masterpiece, Medieval People (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), a seventh edition of which was published in 1939, and a tenth in 1963. In 1957, four years after its publication, when I was in my third year of graduate school, I acquired a now ragged copy of Isaiah Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox , which was based on an essay that appeared in 1951. See below, n. 37 and the accompanying text.

M. Bloch, Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien , ed. Étienne Bloch (Paris: Armand Colin, 1993). I treasure the copy I bought in 1957 of The Historian’s Craft , trans. Peter Putnam with an introduction by Joseph R. Strayer (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1954).

M. Bloch, La société féodale. La formation des liens de dépendance (L’Évolution de l’humanité, synthèse collective, 34:1; Paris: Albin Michel, 1939), and La société féodale. Les classes et le gouvernement des hommes (Paris: Albin Michel, 1940) (the second part of the volume in Henri Berr’s series). In the English translation that appeared twenty years later the two divisions were rendered as ‘The growth of ties of dependence’, and ‘Social classes and political organization’: Feudal Society , trans. L.A. Manyon (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). I discussed Bloch’s mixed attitude toward the constructs in ‘Tyranny’, 1069–1070, and also in ‘Reflections on Feudalism: Thomas Madox and the Origins of the Feudal System in England’, in Belle S. Tuten and Tracey L. Billado (eds), Feud, Violence and Practice: Essays in Medieval Studies in Honor of Stephen D. White (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010), 135–55, at 136, 138–41.

Richard W. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953; cf. Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1080–1; Georges Duby, La société aux XI e et XII e siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Bibliothèque générale de l’École pratique des Hautes Études, 6 e section; Paris: Armand Colin, 1953; reprinted, with different pagination, as Bibliothèque générale de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales; Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1971); see Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1073–4, 1081–4. Fredric L. Cheyette commented on Southern and Duby, in ‘George Duby’s Mâconnais after Fifty Years: Reading It Then and Now’, Journal of Medieval History , 28 (2002), 291–317, at 293.

Notable among them are Jacques Flach (1846–1919), Les origines de l’ancienne France , 4 vols (Paris: L. Larose et al., 1886–1917), on whom see Alain Guerreau, Le féodalisme: un horizon théorique (Paris: Le Sycomore, 1980), 51–5; and Alain Guerreau ‘Fief, féodalité, féodalisme. Enjeux sociaux et réflexion historienne’, Annales : Économies – Sociétés – Civilisations , 45:1 (1990), 137–66; Émile Lesne, ‘Les diverses acceptations du terme “beneficium” du VIII e au IX e siècle (Contribution à l’étude des origines du bénéfice ecclésiastique)’, Revue historique du droit français et étranger , 4th ser., 3 (1924), 5–56; Charles Edwin Odegaard, Vassi and Fideles in the Carolingian Empire (Harvard Historical Monographs, 19; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1945); Léo Verriest, Institutions médiévales. Introduction au Corpus des records de coutumes et des lois de chefs-lieux de l’ancien comté de Hainaut, 2 vols (Société des bibliophiles belges séant à Mons, Publications, 41–42; Mons-Frameries: Union des imprimeries, 1946); Léo Verriest, Questions d’histoire des institutions médiévales. Noblesse. Chevalerie. Lignages. Condition des biens et des personnes. Seigneurie. Ministérialité. Bourgeoisie. Échevinages (Brussels: Chez l’Auteur, 1959/1960); Jan Dhondt, Études sur la naissance des principautés territoriales en France (IX e – X e siècle) (Werken Uitgegeven door de Faculteit van de Wijsbegeerte en Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit te Gent, 102; Bruges: ‘De Tempel’, 1948); Yvonne Bongert, Recherches sur les cours laiques du X e au XII e siècle (Paris: A. & J. Picard, 1949); Jean-François Le-marignier, ‘Les fidèles du roi de France’, in Recueil de travaux offert à M. Clovis Brunel …, 2 vols (Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’École des chartes, 12; Paris: Société de l’École des chartes, 1955), II, 138–62. In his study A Rural Society in Medieval France: The Gâtine of Poitou in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Johns Hopkins University Press Studies in Historical and Political Science, ser. 82, 1; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964), 72, 94, 96, George Beech invoked ‘feudalism’ in studying the nobility and drew on Marc Bloch’s La société féodale to flesh out ‘the few scraps of information’ that he had found, while cautioning that ‘the lacunae of the documents … cast a shadow of uncertainty on any assertion’, and making clear ‘that birth was a more important criterion for nobility than the ability to fight’.

William Huse Dunham, Jr., review of Bryce D. Lyon, From Fief to Indenture: The Transition from Feudal to Non-Feudal Contract in Western Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), in Speculum 33:2 (1958), 300–4, at 304. Citing the Oxford English Dictionary , Dunham dated to 1776 the appearance of the term ‘feudal System’ and to 1839 the first use of ‘feudalism’, although in fact Thomas Madox (1666–1727) used the first expression, and in 1771 John Whitaker (1735–1808) employed the word ‘feudalism’ and introduced the notion of the feudal pyramid; see my article, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, esp. 145n. 35, and 147–49, for the dates.

F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England: A Course of Lectures , ed. H A. L. Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1st edn., 1908), 142–3; see also my essay, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, 138–41.

Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I , 2nd edn., 2 vols (first pub. 1898; ed. S. F. C. Milson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), I, 66, and see the following pages for Maitland’s continued use of the term and his suggestion that the term ‘feodo-vassalism’ might be preferable to ‘feudalism’. See also Maitland’s Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England (first pub. 1897; London: Collins, 1960), esp. part 8 of Essay I (‘Domesday Book’), 189–212 (‘The Feudal Superstructure’), at 211 (writing of ‘feudalism’ and ‘vassalism’).

F. M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism 1066–1166. Being the Ford Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1929 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932; 2nd edn. 1961), 214–15 (216–17 in the 2nd edn.). For the terms I mention, see ibid., (2nd edn., 1961), vii, ix, 8–9, 12–14, 16–17, 27, 33, 35–6, 145, and 223.

V.H. Galbraith, 1066 and All That: Norman Conquest Commemoration Lecture Delivered to the Society on 14th October, 1966 (Leicester: The Leicestershire Archæological and Historical Society, 1967), 3, who remarked that in 1870 Freeman questioned ‘Did the Feudal System ever exist anywhere?’ (without, however, pursuing the implications of the question, I should note) and pointed out that Richard Southern avoided ‘Feudalism, yet without affecting [his book’s] popularity’. Like the others, Galbraith himself did not repudiate the feudal terms, declaring (ibid., 5) that in Domesday Book we find ‘the introduction of the’Feudal System’ into England’. See Edward Augustus Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its Results , 6 vols, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1870), I, 90–92; the preface is dated 4 January 1867 (ibid., xii).

Henry Alfred Cronne, The Reign of Stephen 1135–54. Anarchy in England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), 4–8, where Cronne provided useful historiographical background and commentary. Cronne advised (ibid., 8), ‘Let us rather study the characteristics of society as we find it revealed in the available sources of information, without bothering too much about the exact shade of meaning to be attached to the term “feudal” in relation to it’.

Fredric L. Cheyette, ‘Some Notations on Mr. Hollister’s “Irony”’, Journal of British Studies , 5 (1965), 1–14 (at 2 and 4); and ibid., 2 (1963), 1–26, for Hollister’s article. Cheyette commented on Hollister’s other publications and the debates they stimulated in ‘Some Notations’, 1–2, esp. notes 1–4.

Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 5. For Susan Reynolds’s attention to the relationship among word, concept, and phenomenon, see below, n. 77.

Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 2.

Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 12.

Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 13 (‘in a sense, there was not one feudalism; there were a great many’, suggesting in n. 33 that in 1962 Strayer perhaps ‘[did] not go far enough’ in positing ‘two feudalisms’); see below following n. 40, for the similar proposition that Thomas N. Bisson later made.

Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 14.

F. L. Cheyette, Lordship and Community in Medieval Europe: Selected Readings (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968). In Susan Reynold’s ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, in Sverre Bagge, Michael H. Gelting and Thomas Lindkvist (eds), Feudalism, New Landscapes of Debate (The Medieval Countryside, 5; Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 15–26, at 15, she wrongly wrote that Cheyette’s book was published a year after my article (and thus in 1975), rather than six years before my essay, which both Cheyette and his anthology greatly influenced. Reynolds’s essay and others in the volume were based on papers delivered at a conference on feudalism in Bergen in 2006, on which see below, at n. 108 and following.

Cheyette, Lordship and Community , vii, 1–5.

Exceptions are the essays by Édouard Perroy and William Huse Dunham, Jr., and one of the two essays contributed by Duby and one of Joshua Prawer’s, whose authors use such terms as ‘feudal régime’, ‘feudalism’, and ‘feudality’: Cheyette, Lordship and Community, 137–79, 217–39.

Cheyette, Lordship and Community , 10.

Cheyette, ‘“Feudalism”: A Memoir and an Assessment’, in Tuten and Billado (eds), Feud, Violence and Practice , 119–33, at 120, where Cheyette singled out Stephen White as his ‘welcome and learned companion’, even though in my view White’s commitment to the crusade against the constructs has been sporadic: Brown, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, 135–8, and n. 121 below.

Published in the 1 February 1969 issue of The New Yorker (on 26), the cartoon appeared on the cover of the issue of The American Historical Review in which my article was published. Cf. the cartoon that Jacob Adam Katzenstein contributed to The New Yorker , the issue dated 5 and 12 August 2019 (19), which shows a crowned princess and a jongleur companion walking hand-in-hand toward an imposing castle as she beseeches him, ‘Try not to bring up feudalism with my dad tonight’.

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); 2nd edn. (International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Foundations of the Unity of Science, 2, part 2; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970); Michel Foucault, Les mots et les choses (Paris: Gallimard, 1966), translated with a special foreword as The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Pantheon, 1971).

Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1063–4.

Cf. the comments of Richard Abels, in ‘The Historiography of a Construct: “Feudalism” and the Medieval Historian’, History Compass , 73 (2009), 1008–31, at 1022–23.

Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1066–80.

See n. 6 above.

E.A.R. Brown, ‘Customary Aids and Royal Fiscal Policy under Philip VI of Valois’, Traditio, 30 (1974),191–258, at 191n. 1, reprinted in my book, Politics and Institutions in Capetian France (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 350; Aldershot: Variorum, 1991), no. IX. I treated the issue at greater length in Customary Aids and Royal Finances in Capetian France: The Marriage Aid of Philip the Fair (Medieval Academy Books, 100; Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1992), 2–7. In a paper published four years earlier, I did not confront the issue directly but simply referred to ‘aids’ and, once, to ‘customary aids’; I twice employed the adjective ‘feudal’, to describe the ties between the kings of France and England and issues arising from those bonds: ‘Philip the Fair, Plena Potestas , and the Aide pur fille marier’ , in Representative Institutions in Theory and Practice: Historical Papers Read at Bryn Mawr College, April 1968 (Studies Presented to the International Commission for Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, 39; Brussels: Éditions de la Librairie encyclopédique, 1970), 1–27, esp. 5.

F.L. Cheyette, Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2001). I prize my copy, in which, at my request, Fred wrote: ‘OK, Peggy, this is what it was really like’. For Cheyette’s preliminary research and findings, see his essay ‘The Castles of the Trencavels: A Preliminary Aerial Survey’, in William C. Jordan, Bruce McNab and Teofilo F. Ruiz (eds), Order and Innovation in the Medieval West: Essays in Honor of Joseph R. Strayer (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 255–72, 498–99, for which Cheyette had not only acquired aerial photographs of the area but also visited the sites (ibid., 498n. 1). See also his articles ‘The “Sale” of Carcassonne to the Counts of Barcelona (1067–1073) and the Rise of the Trencavels’, Speculum , 63 (1988), 826–64; and ‘Women, Poets, and Politics in Occitania’, in Theodore Evergates (ed.), Aristocratic Women in Medieval France (The Middle Ages Series; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 138–233; as well as his review of Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , in Speculum , 71:4 (1996), 998–1006. Cheyette usefully discussed topics that still need study, in ‘George Duby’s Mâconnais ’, 317.

In ‘De feodale maatschappij der mideleeuwn’, Bijdragen en mededelingen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden , 89 (1974), 193–211, which appeared in the same year as my article, Co Van de Kieft surveyed the many definitions of feudalism found in the work of Bloch, Duby, and others, without directly attacking the feudal constructs. In the article he emphasized as powerful determinants of medieval society the medieval economy’s agrarian character, and the Church and Christian faith. In 1968, in contrast, Van de Kieft had written, ‘La rencontre des structures économiques, sociales et politiques s’exprime avec tellement d’évidence dans les pouvoirs de l’aristocratie féodo-vassalique que l’on peut concevoir, à bon droit, une société féodale, une époque féodale dont l’histoire se déroulerait approximativement de 900 à 1200’, in ‘La périodisation de l’histoire au Moyen Âge’, in Chaïm Perelman (ed.), Les catégories en histoire (Travaux du Centre national de recherches de logique; Brussels: Éditions de l’Institut de Sociologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1969), 39–56, at 54–55. However, on the offprint of this piece that Van de Kieft sent me in 1982 he wrote beside this statement, ‘I do not hold this opinion now’. In Fiefs and Vassals , 1, Susan Reynolds noted that Van de Kieft and I ‘pointed out independently in 1974 [that] feudalism can mean a lot of different things’. I am grateful to Mayke de Jong, a student of Van de Kieft, for her counsel concerning his views. See n. 77 below.

Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1065.

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), esp. 19–70, 415; and, for ‘cognitive ease’ and ‘cognitive strain’, ibid., 59–70, 212. See also Gary Marcus and Annie Duke, ‘The Problem with Believing What We’re Told’, Wall Street Journal (31 August–1 September 2019), C5. I explored remarks on this subject by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Playfair (1748–1819) in ‘ Veritas à la cour de Philippe le Bel de France: Pierre Dubois, Guillaume de Nogaret et Marguerite Porete’, in Jean-Philippe Genet (ed.), La vérité. Vérité et crédibilité: construire la vérité dans le système de communication de l’Occident (XIII e –XVII e siècle). Actes de la conférence organisée à Rome en 2012 par SAS en collaboration avec l’École française de Rome (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 485/2; Histoire ancienne et médiévale, 128/2; Le pouvoir symbolique en Occident (1300–1640), 2; Paris/Rome; Publications de la Sorbonne/ École Française de Rome, 2015), 425–45, at 442–43; see also ibid., 433.

Cf. Kahneman’s comments on hedgehogs and foxes, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, 218–20, with reference to the findings of Philip E. Tetlock.

Isaiah Berlin’s book The Hedgehog and the Fox, has critically affected my thinking about concepts and theories, and a host of other topics. See my articles, ‘Jürgen Habermas, Philippe le Bel, et l’espace public’, in Patrick Boucheron and Nicolas Offenstadt (eds), L’espace public au Moyen Âge. Débats autour de Jürgen Habermas (Le Nœud Gordien; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2011),193–203, at 193–94; and ‘The French Royal Funeral Ceremony and the King’s Two Bodies: Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Ralph E. Giesey, and the Construction of a Paradigm’, Micrologus, 22 (Le Corps du Prince) (2014), 105–37, at 108–9.

See, e.g., Guerreau, ‘Fief, féodalité, féodalisme’, 152–53; and Peter Coss, ‘From Feudalism to Bastard Feudalism’, in Natalie Fryde, Pierre Monnet, and Otto Gerhard Oexle (eds), Die Gegenwart des Feudalismus; Présence du féodalisme et présent de la féodalité; The Presence of Feudalism (Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, 173; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 79–108, at 79.

T. Bisson, ‘The Problem of Feudal Monarchy: Aragon, Catalonia, and France’, Speculum , 533 (1978), 460–78, at 461.

T. Bisson, ‘ Pro feodalitatibus’ , a paper presented at the Fourteenth International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University on 4 May 1979.

Bisson, ‘ Pro feodalitatibus ’; for a variety of feudalisms, see above at n. 18.

Bisson, ‘ Pro feodalitatibus’ .

In Brown, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, 137n. 7, I quoted excerpts from Bisson’s description of the National Endowment for the Humanities summer seminar, ‘Medieval European Feudalism’, given at the University of California at Berkeley, June 23–August 15, 1986; I am grateful to him for sending me a copy of the description, in which he proposed that the concept filled ‘a need particularly associated with explanatory generalizing and teaching’—while not being ‘a requirement for research’. In a letter dated 24 March 1986 he commented, ‘I no longer believe the conceptual problem worth discussing until people like you and me work directly with the sources for vassalage and laws of fiefs’.

Cf. Stenton’s comment ( First Century, 2nd ed., 216), ‘But unless the term [feudalism] is to lose all significance, it should at least be reserved for some definite form of social order’.

Remarks made by Philippe Contamine at the inauguration of the Journée d’étude ‘Kings like semi-gods: Autour des travaux d’Elizabeth A.R. Brown’, at Université de Paris—La Sorbonne, Centre Roland-Mousnier, 15 June 2013.

The papers were published in Structures féodales et féodalisme dans l’Occident méditerranéen (X e –XIII e siècles). Bilan et perspectives de recherches. Colloque international organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et l’École française de Rome (Rome, 10–13 octobre 1978) (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 44; Rome: École française de Rome, 1980), a volume of 800 pages.

Long after the article was published it was sometimes mentioned in connection with Reynolds’s book Fiefs and Vassals; see Élisabeth Magnou-Nortier, ‘La féodalité en crise. Propos sur “Fiefs and Vassals” de Susan Reynolds’, Revue historique, 2962 (600) (1996), 253–348, at 254–55; and also Eric Bournazel and Jean-Pierre Poly, ‘Introduction générale’, in Eric Bournazel and Jean-Pierre Poly (eds), Les féodalités (Histoire générale des systèmes politiques; Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998), 3–12, at 6. A translation of my article by Réjean Girard, ‘La tyrannie d’un construct: la féodalité et les historiens de l’Europe médiévale’, will appear in a collection of essays edited by Richard M. Pollard. In the introduction to his translation, which he prepared in consultation with Professor Pollard at the Université de Québec à Montréal, M. Girard noted the absence of references to the article in popular French manuals on medieval history, ‘bien que les problèmes reliés à la définition et à la généralisation du concept y soient évoqués’.

G. Bois, Crise du féodalisme : économie rurale et démographie en Normandie orientale du début du 14 e siècle au milieu du 16 e siècle (Cahiers de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, 202; Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques/Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1976), with a 2nd edn. in 1981; translated into English in 1984 as The Crisis of Feudalism: Economy and Society in Eastern Normandy c. 1300–1550 (Past and Present Publications; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1984).

G. Duby, Les trois ordres ou l’imaginaire du féodalisme (Bibliothèque des histoires; Paris: Gallimard, 1978); translated by Arthur Goldhammer as The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), esp. 183–205 (section III, ‘La révolution féodale’); see the translation, The Three Orders, 147–66. In this section, Duby declared of the new mode of production whose appearance he hypothesized (ibid., 189; trans. 153), ‘Mieux vaut ne pas l’appeler féodal—le fief n’a rien a voir ici—mais seigneurial’, thus indicating the preferability of ‘lordship’ to ‘feudalism’ to characterize the essence of eleventh-century society.

Georges Duby, ‘Vers la féodalité en Aquitaine au onzième siècle’, a lecture presented at Columbia University on 15 April 1986, and a seminar on Andreas Capellanus given at New York University on 18 April 1986. See Elizabeth A. R. Brown, ‘Georges Duby and the Three Orders’, Viator , 17 (1986), 51–62, esp. n. 3; and Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1073–74.

Published by Gallimard in Paris in 1996 in the series Quarto, with an introduction by Jacques Delarun; Gallimard republished the volume in 1999, in the series Le Grand Livre du Mois. In 2002 another compendium of Duby’s writings entitled Qu’est-ce que la société féodale? was published by Flammarion in Paris, in the series Mille & Une Pages, with introductions by Dominique Iogna-Prat and Mirna Velcic-Canivez. See Theodore Evergates, ‘The Feudal Imaginary of Georges Duby’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 27 (1997), 641–60, at 653.

J.-P. Poly and É. Bournazel, La mutation féodale. X e –XII e siècle (Nouvelle Clio, 16; Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1980, and 2nd ed., 1991). On Poly’s work on Provence, see n. 57 below. Duby wrote the preface to Guy Bois’s book, La mutation de l’an mil : Lournand, village mâconnais, de l’Antiquité au féodalisme (Nouvelles études historiques; Paris: Fayard, 1989).

In R. Fossier (ed.), Le Moyen Age , 3 vols (Paris: Armand Colin, 1982–3), II ( L’éveil de l’Europe, 950–1250 , 1982), 19–78, esp. 30, 38, 54–57, 60.

R. Fossier (ed.), Histoire de la Picardie (Toulouse: Privat, 1974), esp. R. Fossier, ‘La société picarde au Moyen Age’, ibid., 135–76, at 159–67. See R. Fossier, La terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu’à la fin du XIII e siècle , 2 vols (Publications de la Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines de Paris, série Recherches, 48–49; Paris and Louvain: B. Nauwelaerts, 1968); a new edition was published in 1987 in Amiens (Centre régional de documentation pédagogique).

D. Barthélemy, Les deux âges de la seigneurie banale. Pouvoir et société dans la terre des Sires de Coucy (milieu XI e –milieu XIII e siècle) (Publications de la Sorbonne, Université de Paris IV, Série Histoire ancienne et médiévale, 12; Paris, 1984), 13–16, 34–42 (sources), 108–9, 117 (‘hiérarchie féodale’), 157 (courts), 158 (esp. n. 63) (allod, fief, and manse); cf. ibid., 374–75 (on arbitration), and 492 (the dangers of projecting onto the past ‘l’image d’une féodalité “classique”’).

T. Venckeleer’s article appeared in Quirinus Ignatius Maria Mok, Ina Spiele, Paul E.R. Verhuyck (eds), Mélanges de linguistique, de littérature et de philologie médiévales , offerts à J. R. Smeets (Leiden: Comité de rédaction, 1982), 303–16; Susan Reynolds referred to it in ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, 20n. 8, and later publications. Felice Lifshitz proposed that in Dudo of Saint-Quentin’s Gesta Normannorum , the word vassalus , used once, means ‘fighter’ and has no other, more technical, connotations: ‘Translating “Feudal” Vocabulary: Dudo of St. Quentin’, first published in The Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History, 9 (2001), 39–56, reprinted in her Writing Normandy: Stories of Saints and Rulers (Variorum Collected Studies, 1095; London and New York: Routledge, 2021), 206–24, at 213; on Dudo (fl. late tenth century), see ibid., 188 (a notice Lifshitz first published in 1998).

J.-P. Poly, La société féodale en Provence du X e au XII e siècle (Paris: Hachette, 1973). Three years later Poly brought out La Provence et la société féodale (879–1155). Contribution à l’étude des structures dites féodales dans le Midi (Collection ‘Études’; Paris: Bordas, 1976), but his approach was fundamentally similar despite his introduction of the modifier ‘dites’ into the phrase ‘structures féodales’.

G. Giordanengo, Le droit féodal dans les pays de droit écrit : l’exemple de la Provence et du Dauphiné , XII e -début XIV e siècle (Bibliothèques des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 1 ère sér., 266; Rome: École française de Rome, 1988).

Hélène Débax received her doctorate in 1997 for a thesis entitled Structures féodales dans le Languedoc des Trencavel (XI e -XII e s.) , for which see H. Débax (ed.), Les sociétés méridionales à l’âge féodal (Espagne , Italie et sud de la France, X e -XIII e s.). Hommage à Pierre Bonnassie (Collection “Méridiennes”; Toulouse: CNRS, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 1999), 441.

Theodore Evergates, Feudal Society in the Bailliage of Troyes under the Counts of Champagne, 1152–1284 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), esp. 136–53.

Evergates, Feudal Society , 153, 251 n.49.

T. Evergates, review of John Critchley, Feudalism (Boston: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), in American Historical Review , 84:2 (1979), 418. Ending his review, Evergates declared ‘It is not clear what is achieved by cramming bits and pieces of information on hundreds of societies widely scattered in time and place into the worn mold of feudalism’.

E.Z. Tabuteau, ‘Ownership and Tenure in Eleventh-Century Normandy’, American Journal of Legal History , 21:2 (1977), 97–124; E.Z. Tabuteau, ‘Definitions of Feudal Military Obligations in Eleventh-Century Normandy’, in Morris S. Arnold, Sally A. Scully, and Stephen D. White (eds), On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thorne (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press in Association with the American Society for Legal History, 1981), 18–59, at 19; E.Z. Tabuteau, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-Century Norman Law (Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 3; see also the review of the volume by R.C. van Caenegem, in American Journal of Legal History , 26 (1982), 391–93, at 392.

Tabuteau, Transfers of Property , 2–3 and passim; Tabuteau, ‘Definitions of Feudal Military Obligations’, 59.

Tabuteau, Transfers of Property , 4–6; Tabuteau, ‘Definitions of Feudal Military Obligations’, 41, 59; see also van Caenegem’s review, 392, and above, at n. 11, for Frank Murray Stenton’s work.

T. Bisson, review of Tabuteau, Transfers of Property , Speculum , 66:3 (1991), 698–700, at 699.

S.F.C. Milsom, Historical Foundations of the Common Law (London: Butterworths, 1969); S.F.C. Milsom, The Legal Framework of English Feudalism. The Maitland Lectures Given in 1972 (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). See Robert C. Palmer’s review of Milsom’s Legal Framework , ‘The Feudal Framework of English Law’, Michigan Law Review , 79:5 (1981), 1130–64. For additional bibliography, see Stephen D. White, ‘Inheritances and Legal Arguments in Western France, 1050–1150’, Traditio , 43 (1987), 55–103, at 57n. 8.

White, ‘Inheritances’, 96.

White, ‘Inheritances’, 96–103, esp. 96.

White, ‘Inheritances’, passim, esp. 64–70. In another study of the same region White showed the importance of ecclesiastical mediation in resolving feuds and demonstrated that the absence of established governmental institutions did not result in unbridled violence, although warfare made peasants ‘more and more vulnerable to pressure exerted by lords’: Stephen D. White, ‘Feuding and Peace-Making in the Touraine around the Year 1100’, Traditio , 42 (1986), 195–263, esp. 261 and n. 256.

The volume edited by Cantor was published by Viking in New York in 1999. Although an earlier article on ‘feudalism’ in Wikipedia gave the classic definitions of the term while referring readers for further information to the articles I wrote for these reference works, the version posted on 26 December 2020 featured my article and Susan Reynolds’s book and cited my entry in the Encyclopædia Britannica Online .

D. Corner, review in American Journal of Legal History, 34 (1990), 98–99.

From the endorsement that Donahue wrote, which appeared on the cover of Tabuteau’s book.

S. Reynolds, An Introduction to the History of English Medieval Towns (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977, with a corrected edn., 1982); S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984, with a 2nd edn. in 1997).

In precisely what sense(s) I was Reynolds’s ‘forerunner’ is an involved question. See Philippe Buc, ‘What Is Order? In the Aftermath of the “Feudal Transformation” Debates’, Francia, 46 (2019), 281–300, at 282. In ‘Historiography of a Construct’, 1021, Abels described Reynolds as ‘further developing’ my criticisms of the feudal constructs. In ‘Feudalism’, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2nd edn., ed. James D. Wright, vol. 9 (Oxford: Elsevier, 2015), 111–16, at 114, Levi Roach described me as opposing all models of feudalism (and particularly its use ‘as a socioeconomic model’) and Reynolds as combatting the ‘legal-tenurial’ model. He distinguished Reynolds’s attack as ‘more fundamental’ than mine, and he credited her with presenting ‘feudalism tout court [as] an Early Modern invention’; cf. Brown, ‘Tyranny’, 1063–65, and also Brown, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, 138–47.

In ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, 15, Reynolds wrote that we planned a book ‘about the problem of feudalism’ and that I was interested in taking ‘a wide look at the ideas behind the word feudalism’ , whereas I recollect wanting to collaborate on a series of essays featuring sources related to the development of property-holding and their proper interpretation, and the ways in which different regions evolved from the tenth century onwards. Thus, I did not favour placing particular emphasis on ‘fiefs’ and ‘vassals’ but thought that words like feodum and vassus should be examined with other similar terms in the specific documentary contexts in which they appeared.

Like Cheyette, Reynolds has insisted that words, concepts, and phenomena must be meticulously distinguished: see Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 5, and Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 12–14, esp. n. 33, where she confessed to ‘painstakingly reinvent[ing] the wheel’, citing John Lyons, Semantics , 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). In 2009 she presented and analyzed the diagram of Charles K. Ogden and Ivor A. Richards illustrating the relationship of word to concept (or notion), and phenomenon, which Lyons treated in Semantics, I, 96–98: Reynolds, ‘The Use of Feudalism in Comparative History’, first published in Benjamin Z. Kedar (ed.), Explorations in Comparative History (Publication of the Institute for Advanced Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2009), 191–207, at 194–97, reprinted in S. Reynolds, The Middle Ages without Feudalism. Essays in Criticism and Comparison on the Medieval West (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 1019; Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), no. VI. In 2011 she also focussed on this issue, in ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, 17–18 (first delivered in 2006). In ‘Use of Feudalism’, 192, she again compared my work to that of Co Van de Kieft (see n. 33 above).

Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 14, but cf. 17–47, esp. 47 (‘having concluded that vassalage is too vacuous a concept to be useful, I shall concentrate my attention primarily on fiefs, which raise much more substantial issues’). Geoffrey Koziol emphasized to me on 28 December 2020 the abundant references to oaths and acts of commendation and alliance in early acts, which merit study and analysis.

In his introduction to Lordship and Community , 5, Cheyette noted that fiefs and vassalage had ‘been associated with the term “feudalism”’ since the construct’s invention, and he warned that ‘if a historian approaches medieval society primarily in terms of fief and vassalage … [he] must assume, explicitly or implicitly, that fief-holding and vassalage were in fact of primary importance in medieval society, indeed, that they determined its nature’. Cheyette himself compellingly questioned whether ‘lordship and vassalage did form the primary social tie among the class of rulers of late eleventh-century England’ (cf. ibid., 9). In contrast, as has been seen, in ‘Problem of Feudal Monarchy’, 461, Bisson argued the central importance for medieval historians of lordship, vassalage, and the fief. Reynolds, in ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, 15, expressed her debt to Cheyette for ‘the idea of approaching the subject [of feudalism] … through an investigation of the medieval evidence about fiefs and vassalage, which medievalists have long taken as key institutions of what most of them characterize as feudalism’. She herself indeed believed that ‘[n]either the great extension of knowledge nor the elaboration of interpretations in the past two centuries seem to have led to serious questioning of the fundamental importance of fief-holding and vassalage’ (ibid., 16). More recently, in 2018, Reynolds herself wrote that the ‘focus on relations between lords and those whom historians call their vassals has distracted attention from so much else in medieval societies’: S. Reynolds, ‘Still Fussing about Feudalism’, in Ross Balzaretti, Julia Barrow, and Patricia Skinner (eds), Italy and Early Medieval Europe: Papers for Chris Wickham (The Past & Present Book Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 87–94, at 94.

See, e.g., Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 322. The ‘feudal’ perspective vitiated her attempts to establish the precise nature and function of the so-called fiefs de reprise recorded in the French Midi by leading her to assume that they were equivalent to what Italian historians term feudi oblati (in German Lehnsauftragung ), all of which she presented as allodial lands definitively ‘converted’ into fiefs, as later legal scholars described them: ibid., the various pages referred to in her index, s.v., fiefs de reprise, feudi oblati , Lehnsauftragung , and especially 50, 230, 233, 390. In 1687, at the University of Leipzig, Johann Friedrich Egger defined the feudum oblatum as ‘feudum, quo dominus de re antea ipsi a vasallo sub conditione investiendi tradita, vasallum investit’: De feudis oblatis, Von Aufgetragenen Lehen … (Leipzig: Andr. Mart. Schedius, 1715), nos. 46–47. Charles-Edmond Perrin gave examples of twelfth-century acts that distinguished German from Italian and French customs governing such fiefs: 111 ( mos theutonicus , Karlenses custume , ius et consuetudo teutonice [ romanie ] terre ): La société féodale allemande et ses institutions du X e au XII e siècles , 4 parts (Les cours de Sorbonne, Histoire du Moyen Âge; Paris: Centre de documentation universitaire, 1956–7), II, 111. Cheyette commented on fiefs de reprise in his review of Reynolds’s book, in Speculum, 71:4, 1003–4 (‘she does not herself escape the analytical categories of rights and obligations associated with property’ in considering ‘documents from Montpellier’ which reveal ‘that scribal words do not always correspond one-to-one with social processes’). Cheyette elaborated on these land transfers and their ceremonial function in twelfth-century Occitania, first (in 1999) in ‘On the fief de reprise’ , in Les sociétés méridionales à l’âge féodal , 319–24 (at 324, ‘a ritual of succession … fix[ing] in the landscape the paired and inseparable values of fidelity and good lordship’), and then (in 2001) in Ermengard , 220–32.

Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 75–180, 258–322 (France, 168 pp.), 181–257 (Italy, 76 pp.), 323–95 (England, 72 pp.), 396–474 (Germany, 78 pp.). As to Spain, the Spanish Jesuit Luís de Molina (1535–1600) declared ‘quamuis frequens sit vsus feudorum in Germania, in Gallia, & in Italia, nullus, aut ferè nullus, est vsus eorum in Hispaniis’, although he believed ‘Apud Iaponenses nil videri esse frequentiùs, quàm feuda’: De iustitia , Tomus secundus, De contractibus (Mainz: Balthasar Lippius, sumptibus Arnoldi Mylii, 1602), 1055 (disp. 485). See, however, Bisson, ‘The Problem of Feudal Monarchy’, 463–70. In ‘Feudalism in Twelfth-Century Catalonia’, in the special issue on ‘Structures féodales et féodalisme’, Publications de l'École Française de Rome, 44 (1980), 173–92, Bisson concluded that Catalonia ‘could be called a “feudal monarchy” … only in a severely qualified sense’, involving ‘diffusion and diversity’, and that it was characterized ‘by a feudalism distinctively her own’. The paper was reprinted in Bisson, Medieval France and her Pyrenean Neighbors: Studies in Early Institutional History (Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, 70; London: Hambledon Press, 1989), 153–78, no. 7. For Spain, see below, at and following n. 110; see also the comments of Steffen Patzold, Das Lehnswesen (Beck’sche Reihe, Wissen; Munich: C. H. Beck, 2012), 58–63. Fuller consideration of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus might have affected Reynolds’s conclusions: Abels, ‘Historiography of a Construct’, 1023–4, 1028n. 52, giving bibliography. Peter W. Edbury has cautioned that ‘the absence of evidence … is not evidence that … features did not exist’ although he has also emphasized that ‘Frankish society in the twelfth century was not tidy; nor was it schematized’, and, citing Joshua Prawer, has stressed that ‘the Frankish conquest of the Holy Land at the start of the twelfth century did not entail the importation of a fully-fledged “feudal system” from the West’. See Peter W. Edbury, ‘Fiefs, vassaux et service militaire dans le royaume latin de Jérusalem’, in Michel Balard and Alain Ducellier (eds), Le partage du monde. Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médiévale (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1998), 141–50, at 142–5, reprinted in Edbury, Law and History in the Latin East (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 1048; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2014), no. I; and ‘Fiefs and Vassals in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, from the Twelfth Century to the Thirteenth’, Crusades, 1 (Aldershot: Ashgate, for the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, 2002), 49–62, at 50, 52–53, reprinted in his Law and History in the Latin East , no. II.

In Fiefs and Vassals , 115–23, Reynolds enumerated problems she confronted in developing her hypotheses: the hazard of ‘generalization about property rights’ when there was ‘probably … a great deal of local variation’; the ‘danger of teleology’; the difficulty of establishing the meaning(s) of words used to designate property holdings, including the ‘uncertain’ relationship between words and phenomena. For her ideas and methodology, see particularly ibid., 166, 179–80, 259.

Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 256–59, 270–8, 288, 320. In her conclusion, as earlier in her book, Reynolds privileged governmental over legal activity to explain systematization of property holding: Fiefs and Vassals , 74, 478–79 (‘increasingly bureaucratic government and expert law’), 482 (‘the development of the new sort of government and law’); see, however, 180, 257, 278, and also 235–40 and 257 (Frederick Barbarossa’s ‘rather patchy’ development of feudal administrative and governmental devices). In 2012 she laid greater emphasis on the role of ‘academic lawyers’: see the ‘Introduction’ to The Middle Ages without Feudalism , ix–xv, at xiii. See too her earlier discussion of professional law and lawyers in ‘Afterthoughts on Fiefs and Vassals’ , first published in Haskins Society Journal , 9 (2001, for 1997), 1–15, at 13–14, reprinted in The Middle Ages without Feudalism , no. I.

C.-E. Petit-Dutaillis, La monarchie féodale en France et en Angleterre , X e –XIII e siècle (L’Évolution de l’Humanité, Synthèse collective, 41; 2 ème Section [ La reconstitution du pouvoir monarchique ]; Paris, La renaissance du livre, 1933), where, at 2–3, he underscored the role of ‘the jurists’, whom he presented as ‘co-ordinat[ing] and systematis[ing] the practices of the administration’; see also ibid., 223, 246–47, 336–47 (‘Le roi seigneur supérieur’), and the conclusion, 424–27, which stressed the importance of Roman law in promoting the growth of monarchical power without insisting on ‘feudal’ elements; tr. as The Feudal Monarchy in France and England from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century , trans. E. D. Hunt (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1936), 2, 200, 220, 301–10, and 376–9. In relation to Philip Augustus, and royal and comital administrative record-keeping, see: Josette Metman, ‘Les inféodations royales d’après le “Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste”’, in Robert-Henri Bautier (ed.), La France de Philippe Auguste: le temps des mutations. Actes du Colloque international organisé par le C.N.R.S. (Paris, 29 septembre–4 octobre 1980) (Colloques internationaux du CNRS, 602; Paris, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1982), 503–17, at 517; John F. Benton, ‘Written Records and the Development of Systematic Feudal Relations’, in John F. Benton, Culture, Power and Personality in Medieval France , ed. Thomas N. Bisson (London: Hambledon Press, 1991), 275–90 (a paper presented at a conference at the Centre for Medieval Studies in Toronto, 6–7 November 1981); Bisson, ‘Problem of Feudal Monarchy’, 474, and also 461; John W. Baldwin and C. Warren Hollister, ‘The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I and Philip Augustus’, American Historical Review, 83:4 (October 1978), 867–905, at 881, 895–96, 901, 903–4; John W. Baldwin, Knights, Lords, and Ladies: In Search of Aristocrats in the Paris Region, 1180–1220 (The Middle Ages Series: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 2019), 121, the conclusion of a chapter examining royal registers and surveys (ibid., 101–21).

Bisson, ‘Problem of Feudal Monarchy’, 477, who also wrote of the ‘feudalizing’ of rural settlements, the ‘de-feudalizing of royal administration’, and the ‘very retarded [feudalizing]’ in Picardy (commenting on the work of Robert Fossier) (ibid., 466, 474). Bisson offered useful comments on the historiography of the notion and the phrase, ibid., 461–62.

In ‘The Chancery Archives of the Counts of Champagne: Codicology and History of the Cartulary-Registers’, Viator, 16 (1985), 159–79, Theodore Evergates argued (ibid., 178) that the volumes ‘were primarily memorial books produced during moments of institutional insecurity’, rather than volumes compiled for administrative purposes. See also Evergates’s introduction to his edition, Littere Baronum: The Earliest Cartulary of the Counts of Champagne (Medieval Academy Books, 107; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 3–22. See also Constance Brittain Bouchard, Sword, Miter, and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980–1198 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1987), 37–43; and the introduction and conclusion by Patrick Geary and Michel Parisse to Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse (eds), Les cartulaires. Actes de la Table ronde organisée par l’École nationale des chartes et le G.D.R. 121 du C.N.R.S. (Paris, 5–7 décembre 1991) (Mémoires et documents de l’École des chartes, 39; Paris: École des chartes, 1993), 13–24 (Geary, ‘Entre gestion et gesta ’), 503–11 (Parisse, ‘Conclusion’). Also important are essays in Jean-François Nieus (ed.), Le vassal, le fief et l'écrit : pratiques d'écriture et enjeux documentaires dans le champ de la féodalité (XI e –XV e s.). Actes de la journée d'étude organisée à Louvain-la-Neuve le 15 avril 2005 (Textes, Études, Congrès, 23; Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, 2007), especially those by Nieus, Dirk Heirbaut (esp. at 98), and Karl-Heinz Spiess (esp. at 160 and 167).

Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 215–31, where she presented a number of hypotheses; see particularly 225. The work of Gérard Giordanengo on the feudists of the twelfth through the sixteenth centuries casts considerable doubt on the general (and practical) importance of their writings and debates, and on the influence they may have exercised (directly or indirectly) on rulers and their officials: Gérard Giordanengo, ‘La littérature juridique féodale’, in Nieus (ed.), Le vassal, le fief et l’écrit , 11–34. See as well the chapter ‘Les féodalités italiennes’, which Giordanengo contributed to Bournazel and Poly (eds), Les féodalites , 211–62, where, adopting a feudal perspective in deference to the book’s orientation, he demonstrated the diversity of institutions in Italy and the differences among Italian feudists.

Reynolds, ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, 25–26.

Reynolds, ‘Introduction’, The Middle Ages Without Feudalism , ix–xv, at xiv.

Reynolds, ‘Still Fussing about Feudalism’, 94.

In ‘Fiefs and Vassals after Twelve Years’, 15–16, Reynolds acknowledged that the book ‘had a relatively narrow scope’ and ‘became increasingly negative, as, to my increasing surprise, I gradually found how scarce was the medieval evidence, especially before the thirteenth century, for the concepts or phenomena that modern medievalists characterize as noble fief-holding and vassalage’.

In her review of Reynolds’s book, almost a hundred pages long, Magnou-Nortier, ‘La féodalité en crise. Propos sur “Fiefs and Vassals” de Susan Reynolds’, focussed on the meanings of specific Latin and vernacular terms. In 1998, Jim Bradbury cited Reynolds’s book in concluding that ‘at about the time of Philip Augustus something akin to feudalism was becoming visible’ and that ‘Philip and his government [probably] contributed to this development’: Philip Augustus, King of France 1180–1223 (London: Longman, 1998), 227–30 (esp. 228 and 229n. 30, referring to Reynolds’ book), 234. Reynolds’ arguments persuaded Dirk Heirbaut of the necessity of continuing to study ‘feudalism’ in order to produce different and better constructs to replace those she attacked: Heirbaut, ‘Dispute Resolution. Feudalism’, available on Heirbaut’s website, with a translation into German forthcoming (in D. von Mayenburg et al. (eds), Geschichte der Konfliktlösung in Europa. Ein Handbuch ); and Dirk Heirbaut, ‘The Quest for the Sources of a Non-Bureaucratic Feudalism: Flemish Feudalism during the High Middle Ages (1000–1300)’, in Nieus (ed.), Le vassal, le fief et l'écrit, 97–122, at 122. In his own work Heirbaut distinguishes between ‘real’ and ‘personal’ feudalism; see Heirbaut, ‘Flanders: A Pioneer of State-Oriented Feudalism? Feudalism as an Instrument of Comital Power in Flanders during the High Middle Ages (1000–1300)’, in Anthony Musson (ed.), Expectations of the Law in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge and Rochester: Boydell & Brewer, 2001), 23–34, at 24.

C.M. Bouchard, “Strong of Body, Brave and Noble”: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 35–46, esp. 35, 37.

Benton, ‘Written Records and the Development of Systematic Feudal Relations’, 275n. 1.

F.L. Cheyette, ‘Some Reflections on Violence, Reconciliation, and the Feudal Revolution’, in Warren Brown and Piotr Górecki (eds), Conflict in Medieval Europe. Changing Perspectives on Society and Culture (Aldershot, Hants., and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2003), 243–64, at 245–46 and 258. Cheyette noted that proponents of the mutational, transformational approaches had difficulty ‘accommodat[ing] the discoveries of detailed research in the sources’ (ibid., 247). In Cheyette, ‘George Duby’s Mâconnais ’, 303, he declared himself unable to discern traces of a ‘crisis of the year 1000’ or a ‘feudal revolution’ in documents from the Midi. Warren Brown and Piotr Górecki provide a useful survey of the debates over feudal revolution and mutation, in their essay, ‘What Conflict Means: The Making of Medieval Conflict Studies in the United States, 1970–2000’, in Brown and Górecki (eds), Conflict in Medieval Europe , 1–35, at 27–33; see also Stephen D. White, ‘Tenth-Century Courts at Mâcon and the Perils of Structuralist History: Re-reading Burgundian Judicial Institutions’, in ibid., 37–68, at 37–38nn. 2 and 3; Patrick Boucheron, ‘An mil et féodalisme’, in Christian Delacroix, François Dosse, Patrick Garcia, and Nicolas Offenstadt (eds), Historiographies. Concepts et débats , 2 vols (Folio Histoire; Paris: Gallimard, 2010), 952–66, on which see Buc, ‘What is Order? In the Aftermath of the “Feudal Transformation” Debates’, 289–94.

See, e.g., Miriam Pawel, ‘California Calls It “Feudalism”’, New York Times (14 September 2019), A27; and David Brooks, ‘The Case for New Optimism’, New York Times (22 January 2021), A23.

J.B. Collins, From Tribes to Nation: The Making of France 500–1799 (Toronto: Wadsworth: 2002), iii.

From Tribes to Nation , v; see also J.B. Collins, The State in Early Modern France (New Approaches to European History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 1–6.

Collins, From Tribes to Nation, 35–85, esp. 35, 52–53 (‘The Birth of Feudalism’); the next chapter ‘The Origins of France and of Western Civilization, 1095–1270’, ibid., 87–135, features the Church, towns, and culture (ibid., 35).

Collins, From Tribes to Nation , 56–57. Collins wrestled elsewhere with the problems associated with the construct: ibid., 36, 40–43, 57. In his introduction (ibid., vi) he stressed his desire ‘to inquire about lived life’, and ‘to offer readers a small taste of human life in France’.

Collins, From Tribes to Nation , 53–59.

Ina Caro, The Road from the Past: Traveling through History in France (A Harvest Book; Harcourt Brace, 1994); in an endorsement on the cover Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., praised the book as ‘[t]horoughly delightful, the essential traveling companion’.

Caro, Road from the Past , 5.

Caro, Road from the Past , 117.

Ina Caro, Paris to the Past. Traveling through French History by Train (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011), 30, 34.

William W. Kibler and Grover A. Zinn (eds), Medieval France: An Encyclopedia (New York and London: Garland, 1995). I contributed articles on Philip IV the Fair and his sons Louis X and Philip V. See also Steffen Patzold, Das Lehnswesen (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2012), comments at 121, and notably the succinct definition of the feudal ‘model’ he gives at 9–12, and the simplified graphic representation he presented on the book’s final page at 129. With Reynolds, Patzold figures prominently in the nine essays, all focussed on the concept of feudalism rather than medieval society and politics, in Simon Growth (ed.), Der geschichtliche Ort der historischen Forschung. Das 20. Jahrhundert, das Lehnswesen und der Feudalismus (Normative Orders, 28; Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2020).

Poly and Bournazel, ‘Conclusion générale’, in Poly and Bournazel (eds), Les féodalités, 751–74, at 753–54.

See n. 20 above. Sverre Bagge, Michael H. Gelting, and Thomas Lindkvist, the editors of the conference volume, analyzed the standpoints of the different contributors, in their ‘Introduction’, Feudalism, New Landscapes of Debate , 1–13; see also my review of the book, available online in The Medieval Review ‘12.06.10, Bagge, Feudalism’. For the essay that Fredric Cheyette wrote for the conference but published apart, in 2010, see n. 24 above.

‘Introduction’ to Bagge, Gelting, and Lindkvist (eds), Feudalism, New Landscapes of Debate , 5, 13.

A.J. Kosto, ‘What about Spain? Iberia in the Historiography of Medieval European Feudalism’, in Bagge, Gelting, and Lindkvist (eds), Feudalism, New Landscapes of Debate , 135–58, at 157.

Abilio Barbero and Marcelo Vigil, La formación del feudalismo en la Peninsula Ibérica (Crítica /Historia, 4; Barcelona: Editorial Crítica, 1978).

I am grateful to Charles West for sharing his paper with me in advance of publication.

B. Rosenwein, A Short History of the Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 4th edn., 2014), 131. In 1998, Barbara Rosenwein and Lester K. Little edited Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and Readings (Malden: Blackwell, 1998). In a section entitled “Feudalism and its Alternatives” (ibid., 105–210), they included my article together with selections from descriptive and analytical works by a number of authors including Dominique Barthélemy and Fredric Cheyette.

Christoph Bramann, Das ‘Lehnswesen’ im Geschichtsschulbuch. Bindungsadministrative und fachwissenschaftliche Einflussfaktoren auf die Darstellungen zum Lehnswesen in hessischen Geschichtsschubüchern für das Gymnasium zwischen 1945 und 2014 (Georg Eckert Institute: Beiträge 2017, urn:nbn:de.0220-2017-0228), https://repository.gei.de/handle/11428/271 [1 February 2021], demonstrates how little effect scholarly debate about and research on feudalism has had on medieval history textbooks in Hesse. I thank Dr. Bramann for sharing with me his ideas about his research.

See the work surveyed by Buc, ‘What is Order? In the Aftermath of the “Feudal Transformation” Debates’, esp., 281–82, 286–88, 291–92, 296.

See my essay, ‘On 1500’, in Peter Linehan and Janet L. Nelson (eds), The Medieval World (London: Routledge, 2001), 691–710, at 694–98; in the 2nd edn., ed. Peter Linehan, Janet L. Nelson, and Marios Costambeys (London: Routledge, 2018), 811–30, at 814–18. For evidence supporting my hypotheses, see Giordanengo, ‘La littérature juridique féodale’, 26–27; and also Antheun Janse, ‘Feudal Registration and the Study of Nobility: The Burgundian Registers of 1475’, in Nieus (ed.), Le vassal, le fief et l’écrit, 173–87; Henri Sée, ‘La portée du régime seigneurial au XVIII e siècle’, Revue d’histoire médiévale et contemporaine , 103 (1908), 173–91; Albert Soboul, ‘La Révolution française et la “féodalité”. Notes sur le prélèvement féodal’, Revue historique, 2401 (1968), 33–56; and James Lowth Goldsmith, Les Salers et les d’Escorailles, seigneurs de Haute Auvergne, 1500–1789, trans. Jacques Buttin (Publications de l’Institut d’Études du Massif Central, 25; Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines, Université de Clermont-Ferrand II; Clermont-Ferrand: Institut d’Études du Massif Central, 1984), esp. 218.

Cheyette, Ermengard of Narbonne and the World of the Troubadours . See above, notes 32 and 80.

H. Débax, ‘L’aristocratie languedocienne et la société féodale: le témoignage des sources (Midi de la France: XI e et XII e siècles)’, in Bagge, Gelting, and Lindkvist (eds), Feudalism, New Landscapes of Debate , 77–100, at 78 (‘une société qui n’est conforme ni au modèle de Ganshof, ni au modèle des feudistes’).

H. Débax, La féodalité languedocienne. XI e –XII e siècles. Serments , hommages et fiefs dans le Languedoc des Trencavel (Tempus; Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail 2003), in which the last chapter demonstrates in detail the striking assortment of mechanisms the Trencavel lords used to secure their power (ibid., 269–325).

H. Débax, La seigneurie collective. Pairs, pariers , paratge: les coseigneurs du XI e au XIII e siècle (Collection ‘Histoire’: Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2012), esp. 343–429; see the review by Theodore Evergates, in American Historical Review 118:5 (2013), 1581.

F. Lifshitz, ‘Translating “Feudal” Vocabulary’, in Lifshitz, Writing Normandy , 206–24, esp. 206–7, 210–11, 213, 217 (‘feudo-vassalic relations, as traditionally conceived, fail to help us understand Dudo’s sociopolitical vocabulary’); see also F. Lifshitz, ‘Viking Normandy: Dudo of St. Quentin’s Gesta Normannorum ’ (her introduction to her online translation of the Gesta Normannorum , written in 1996 and revised in 2008), in Lifshitz, Writing Normandy , 181–87, at 186–87; and F. Lifshitz, ‘Still Useless After All These Years: The Concept of “Hagiography” in the Twenty-First Century’, in Lifshitz, Writing Normandy , 26–45, at 29n. 10. On 19 July 2019, Stephen D. White promised in an email to tell me when next ‘we have a chance to talk about it face to face’ his reasons for featuring the ‘fief’ in the title of a paper on Raoul de Cambrai despite the fact that the word does not appear in the poem itself, where ‘terre’ is often found. See White, ‘The Discourse of Inheritance in Twelfth-Century France: Alternative Models of the Fief in “Raoul de Cambrai”’, in George Garnett and John G. Hudson (eds), Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 173–97, reprinted in White, Re-Thinking Kinship and Feudalism in Early Medieval Europe (Variorum Collected Studies, 823; Aldershot and Burlington VT: Ashgate Variorum, 2005), no. V; Buc discussed White’s ideas in ‘What is Order? In the Aftermath of the “Feudal Transformation” Debates’, 293–94. Patrick Wormald described the poem as ‘the most eloquent testimonial to the passions aroused by lords and their patronage’, as he called on historians to focus on ‘lordship’—rather than the ‘fief’—in investigating eleventh- and twelfth-century Europe. See Wormald’s review of Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , in Times Literary Supplement (10 March 1995), 12.

Lifshitz, ‘Translating “Feudal” Vocabulary’, in Lifshitz, Writing Normandy , 207, 211, 217, 222; see also her references to ‘sociopolitical discourse’, ibid., 207, 209–10, 212–13.

Brown, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, 140–54. Cf. the thumbnail sketches given by Reynolds and Cheyette, with both of whom I shared my findings about the creation of the constructs. See Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals , 3–14 (referring to my work on 3n. 4); Reynolds, ‘Still Fussing about Feudalism’, 87, 91–94; and Reynolds, ‘The Historiography of Feudalism in France’, Osamu Kano and Jean-Loup Lemaître (eds), with Takashi Adachi, Yoshiya Nishimura, and Michel Sot, Entre texte et histoire. Études d’histoire médiévale offertes au professeur Shoichi Sato (De l’archéologie à l’histoire; Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 2015), 293–308, at 293 (esp. n. 1), 295, 303–4. See Cheyette, ‘Some Notations’, 6–7; Cheyette, Lordship and Community , 5; Cheyette, ‘Some Reflections on Violence’, 244–45; and Cheyette, ‘“Feudalism”: A Memoir’, 119–30. In 2005 Cheyette prepared a short article on ‘Feudalism’ for the Dictionary of the History of Ideas that was never published but that can be consulted (as ‘Feudalism. Preprint for the Dictionary of the History of Ideas ’) on the site devoted to Cheyette’s publications at Amherst College https://amherst.academia.edu/FredricCheyette/Papers [1 February 2021].

Brown, ‘Reflections on Feudalism’, 140–54, and see n. 8 above.

See particularly Louis Chantereau Le Febvre, Traité des fiefs, et de leur origine. Avec les preuves tirées de divers autheurs anciens et modernes … (Paris: Louis Billaine, 1662), esp. 2 and 4. Following the Traité are two hundred pages of texts (including much of Henry Spelman’s Archæologus … [London: John Beale, 1626]) and three hundred pages of collected documents (separately paginated), which range in date from 1091 to 1279.

I have been particularly heartened by a paper David Snyder presented in January 2014, ‘The Construct of Feudalism: A War with the “Tyrant”’, (available on https://www.academia.edu ), and his subsequent description to me (on 15 December 2020) of the resistance he has subsequently mounted to charges that his view of history is ‘parochial’ because it does not ‘give primacy to theoretical debates’.

In a paper entitled ‘The Feudal Prism’, delivered in October 1989 at the Seventh Colloquium of Soviet and American Historians in Moscow, I argued that the feudal constructs had vitiated understanding of medieval ‘lordships, communities, and kingdoms’, the topic of the session.

In order to expose the feudal constructs’ absurdity (and also, I admit, test the limits of scholarly credulity), in 2004 I wrote a paper concerning my discovery of a protocollum feodale that I claimed to have found among the muniments of Saint-Denis. The protocollum , which I attributed to Charlemagne’s brother Carloman, features the noun feodalitas , the phrases pyramis feodalis and systema feodalis , and ends ‘Vivat feodalitas, vivantque vassalli admirabiles, operatores sui’. The inspiration for the lark was an invitation to present a short paper at Giles Constable’s 75th birthday party, where it was taken by some to be a serious report, as it was ten years later at a seminar at the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of York. To prevent further misunderstanding, I refrain from publishing it here but will gladly make it available to anyone who is interested—on condition that its fictional nature and the circumstances of its creation be fully recognized in any reference to it.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Professor of History Emerita, The City University of New York (Brooklyn College and The Graduate Center), New York, NY, USA

Elizabeth A. R. Brown

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of History, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Jackson W. Armstrong

Department of History, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Peter Crooks

Faculty of History, St Paul’s School, London, UK

Andrea Ruddick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Brown, E.A.R. (2022). Feudalism: Reflections on a Tyrannical Construct’s Fate. In: Armstrong, J.W., Crooks, P., Ruddick, A. (eds) Using Concepts in Medieval History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77280-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77280-2_2

Published : 24 January 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-77279-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-77280-2

eBook Packages : History History (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Essay on Feudalism

Students are often asked to write an essay on Feudalism in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Feudalism

What is feudalism.

Feudalism was like a team game where everyone had a role. Kings gave land to nobles, who were like team captains. Nobles then picked knights to protect the land. In return, the knights got small pieces of land to live on. Farmers, called serfs, worked the land for the knights but didn’t own any of it.

The Feudal Pyramid

Imagine a pyramid with the king at the top. Below him were the nobles, then the knights, and at the bottom were the serfs. This pyramid shows who had power and who worked for whom. The higher you were, the more power you had.

Life of Serfs

Serfs were like the workers of the team. They farmed, fixed buildings, and did whatever the knights asked. They couldn’t leave their land without permission and had a tough life. But they had a home and protection, which was important back then.

End of Feudalism

Over time, things changed. Money became more important than land. People could buy and sell goods instead of just working the land. Soldiers were paid to fight, so knights weren’t as needed. Slowly, the team game of feudalism came to an end.

250 Words Essay on Feudalism

Feudalism was a way of life in the Middle Ages, from around the 9th to the 15th century. It was a system where a king gave land to lords, who were powerful people. In return, these lords promised to be loyal to the king and give him soldiers when needed.

The Feudal System

In this system, the king was at the top. Next came the lords and nobles, who got big pieces of land called fiefs. Below the lords were knights, who were given smaller pieces of land for their service. At the bottom were peasants or serfs. These were farmers who worked the land for the lords and knights. They were not free to leave and had a hard life.

Life of the People

Lords lived in large houses or castles and had a comfortable life. Knights trained for battle and fought for their lords. Peasants worked hard, growing food and raising animals. They gave part of what they grew to the lords. The rest was for their families.

Over time, trade grew, and money became more important than land. Wars and diseases also made it hard for lords to control their lands. Slowly, the feudal system came to an end. Instead, countries started to have kings with more power and governments to make laws.

Feudalism was an important part of history that shows how people and societies can organize themselves in different ways. It teaches us about the past and helps us understand how things change over time.

500 Words Essay on Feudalism

Feudalism was a way of life in the Middle Ages, especially in Europe, from around the 9th to the 15th century. It was like a set of rules for how people lived and worked together. Imagine a big game where everyone has a role. Some people are leaders, some are workers, and everyone must follow the rules to make sure things run smoothly.

At the top of the feudal pyramid was the king. He owned all the land but couldn’t take care of it alone. So, he gave pieces of land to important nobles called lords in exchange for their loyalty and help in battles. These lords were like the king’s team, promising to support him.

Under the lords were the knights. Knights were like the protectors of the land. They had to fight for the lords and the king when there was a war. In return, they got small pieces of land to live on and food to eat.

At the bottom were the peasants or serfs. These were the everyday workers who farmed the land. They didn’t own the land but lived on it and worked hard to grow food. They had to give some of their food to the lord as rent. Life was tough for peasants, but this was the way things worked back then.

Life on the Manor

A manor was like a big farm that was the heart of feudal life. It was where the lord lived and where the peasants worked. The manor had houses, a church, and sometimes a mill for grinding grain. Everyone had their job, and the work never stopped. The peasants worked long days in the fields, growing crops and raising animals.

The Role of the Church

The church was very powerful during feudal times. It was involved in almost every part of life. The church taught people how to live and what to believe. It also owned a lot of land and could be like a lord, with peasants working on its lands. The church helped the poor and sick, but it also expected people to pay it a part of what they earned.

The Decline of Feudalism

Over time, things changed, and feudalism began to fade away. Wars, diseases like the Black Plague, and the growth of towns and trade meant that people didn’t rely on the feudal system as much. Peasants started to pay rent with money instead of food and could even leave the land to find work in towns. Eventually, kings became stronger and didn’t need lords as much.

Feudalism’s Impact

Even though feudalism is long gone, it shaped the world in many ways. It influenced how governments and societies were organized. Some of the ideas from feudalism, like giving loyalty to a leader, can still be seen today in how people work and live together.

In conclusion, feudalism was a unique system that controlled how people lived for many centuries. It had clear roles for everyone, from the king to the peasants. While it might seem strange to us now, it was just the way of life back then. As time passed, new ideas and changes in society led to the end of feudalism, but its memory still affects us today.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
• Essay on Family’s Role In Society
• Essay on Favourite Things

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• World History
• Middle Ages

Feudalism: Good or Bad

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Feudalism India

Feudalism in India

Feudalism in India refers to the societal structure dating all the way back to the Gupta Empire to the Mughal era in the late 16th century. Along with the Guptas, it was the Kushanas as well who played a leading role in introducing feudalism to India

Although the term ‘Feudalism’ is more associated with the social structure commonly in practice in Europe, there were remarkable similarities between Indian and European feudalism with few minor differences.

This article will give details about Feudalism in India within the context of the IAS Exam .

Overview of Indian Feudalism

As in the case of Europe, feudalism is a concept where the landed nobility owned lands in the name of the king/queen in exchange for raising an army in times of war. The lands owned by the nobility were in turn looked after and laboured upon by tenants, who shared produce with the nobles in return for military protection.

The likely origin of feudalism was during the post-Mauryan period in the empires of the Gupta’s and the Kushanas .

Indian feudalism is commonly associated with the following terms:

All the above would be major sources of revenue for the ruling dynasties in the Indian subcontinent and would continue to function even during the British rule, only being ended following the independence of India.

Structural makeup of Indian feudalism

The term ‘Samantha’ (neighbour) had its origins during the Gupta era, when it came to refer to the feudatory rulers of the time.  Weak enforcement of power over the conquered regions led to the resumption of independence and some high administrative positions became hereditary.

There is much speculation among historians on how much the feudatory system in India can be described as feudalism due to the lack of an economic relationship between king, vassal and serf. However, there are enough to describe it as feudalism. The chief element of feudalism present in both the Indian subcontinent and Europe was the decentralization of power.

Feudal lords in India were obligated to pay a small fraction of revenue, a small fraction of revenue and provide troops for the overlord.

In time the feudal lords began to abuse their own authority leading to fragmentation in local authority and  general breakup of unity among the populace. Such conditions would be fertile grounds for future invasions  such as the Arab and Turkish Invasions of India

Features of Indian Feudalism

Vassalage : Vassalage expressed the relation of personal dependence and loyalty between the lord and his vassals.

Hierarchy of feudal lords: Different titles signified the position and powers within the rank of feudal lords.

Hereditary administrative positions: Weak enforcement of power led to the resumption of independence and some high administrative positions became hereditary.

Decentralisation of Power: Samantas were granted lands instead of salary and proceeded to seize ownership of the area while continuing to refer to themselves as vassals of their rulers.

Oppressive tax system: Imposition of proper and improper taxes, fixed and unfixed taxes along with rent exploited the labour class.

Prosperity was not shared equally: It was believed that some people were meant for cultivation of land and some for enjoying the fruits of production and hence, prosperity was not shared equally.

Fragmentation of social formation: Castes were split up into thousands of other castes and subcastes.

Manorial system: Under the manorial system, the landlord granted lands to persons who would render different services including labour on the lands of the lords in exchange for land.

There were few differences between Feudalism in India and the one in Europe, some of them are as follows:

• Indian feudalism was divided on a caste-basis such as Brahmanas, Kshatriya, Vaishaya and Shudras, while European feudalism was divided on the basis of class as in nobility, clergy and commoners

*Candidates can know the difference between Class and Caste by visiting the linked article.

• Unlike the European variety of feudalism, not many of the power structures did not have to pay taxes
• Western European Feudal lords granted lands to their serfs in order to get their own land cultivated, but Indian Kings made grants to collect taxes and surplus.
• Different ecological factors contributed to the nature of social structure and dynamics and hence the difference in European and Indian feudalism.

Feudalism in India- Download PDF Here

FAQ about Feudalism in India

What are the levels/classes in a feudal system, does feudalism still existent in india.

Aspirants can find complete information about upcoming Government Exams through the linked article. More exam-related preparation materials will be found through the links given below

Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

assignment under law

• assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

Contact us whenever you need it!

+1 855 997 0206

Contact Hours: Sun-Sat 8am - 10pm ET

• LawDistrict ❯
• Legal Dictionary

Assignment is a legal definition that refers to the transfer of rights, property, or other benefits between two parties. The party allocating the rights is known as the “assignor”, while the one receiving them is called the “assignee”. The other original party to the contract is known as the “ obligor ”.

A burden, duty, or detriment cannot be transferred as an assignment without the agreement of the assignee . Furthermore, the assignment can be carried out as a gift, or it may be paid for with a contractual consideration .

Keep reading to learn how this important legal term is used both in contract and property law and to see relevant examples.

• Assignment Examples

A common example of assignment within property law can be seen in rental agreements between landlords and tenants. For example, a tenant may be renting from a landlord but wants another party to take over the property . In this scenario, the tenant may be able to choose between assigning the lease to a new tenant or subleasing it.

If assigning it, the new tenant will be given the entire balance of the term, with no reversion to anyone else being possible. In other words, the new tenant would have a legal relationship with the landlord. On the other hand, if subleasing the property, the new tenant would be given a limited term and no legal responsibility towards the property owner, only towards the original tenant.

Another example of assignment can be seen within contract law . Let’s say that a school hires a piano teacher for a monthly employment contract with a salary of $2000 per month. As long as there is consent from all parties, the teacher could assign their contract to another qualified piano instructor.

This would be an assignment both of the piano teacher’s rights to receive $2000 per month, and a delegation of their duty to teach piano lessons. This illustrates the fact that under contract law, assignment always includes a transfer of both rights and duties between the parties. If a breach of contract is made by either party, for example for defective performance, then the new teacher or the school can sue each other accordingly.

• Legal Requirements for Assignment

For an assignment to be legally valid, it must meet certain requirements . If these are not met, a trial court can determine that the transfer of rights did not occur. The legal requirements for assignment are as follows:

• All parties must consent and be legally capable to carry out the assignment.
• The objects, rights, or benefits being transferred must be legal.
• The assignment is not against public policy or illegal.
• Some type of consideration is included if necessary.
• The contract in question must already be in place and doesn’t prohibit assignment.
• If a duty is being transferred, and it requires a rare genius or skill, then it cannot be delegated.
• The assignment doesn’t significantly change the expected outcome of a contract.
• Assignment Steps

To successfully assign a contract, certain steps must be followed to ensure the process is legally valid. The necessary assignment steps are listed below:

• Ensuring there is no anti-assignment clause in the contract.
• Executing the assignment by transferring the obligations and rights to a third party.
• Notifying the obligor of the transfer, which in turn relieves the assignor of any liability.
• Avoiding Assignment

In certain situations, one of the two parties may not want to allow their counterpart to assign the contract. This can be prevented by setting anti-assignment clauses in the original contract. An example of this is making it necessary for prior written consent to be attained from the other parties before the assignment is approved. Nevertheless, an anti-assignment clause cannot be included in an assignment that was issued or ordered by a court.

• Assignment vs. Novation

Novation occurs when a party would like to transfer both the benefits and burden of a contract to another party. This is similar to assignment in the sense that the benefits are transferred, but in this case, the burden is also passed on. When novation is finalized, the original contract is deleted and a new one is created, in which a third party becomes responsible for all the obligations and rights of the original contract.

• Assignment vs. Delegation

Although delegation and assignment are similar in purpose, they are two different concepts. Delegation refers to transferring the obligation to a third party without an assignment contract . While in assignment an entire contract and its rights and benefits can be passed on, in delegation only a particular contractual task or activity is transferred.

Let’s look at an example . Lisa is a homeowner that wants to hire Michael with an independent contractor agreement to remodel her garage. He plans to do all the work himself, but he’s not a painter, so he wants to delegate the painting work to his friend Valentina.

In this example, the contract is between Lisa, the obligor, and Michael, the delegator. Valentina would then be known as a delegatee, she doesn’t assume responsibility for the contract nor does she receive the contractual benefits, which in this case would be monetary compensation. However, Michael may have a separate agreement with Valentina to pay her in return for her work.

It’s also important to note that some duties are so specific in nature that it’s not possible to delegate them. In addition, if a party wants to avoid delegation , it’s recommended to add a clause to prevent the other party from delegating their duties.

Create a Customizable Legal Form Now

Get 7 Days Total Access to Our Entire Catalog!

The Law Dictionary

Your Free Online Legal Dictionary • Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

ASSIGNMENT Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & citations:.

In contracts. 1. The act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in that other, the whole of the right, interest, or property which he has in any realty or personalty, in possession or in action, or any share, interest, or subsidiary estate therein. Seventh Nat. Bank v. Iron Co. (C. C.) 35 Fed. 440; Haug v. Riley, 101 Ga. 372, 29 S. E. 44, 40 L It A. 244. More particularly, a written transfer of property, as distinguished from a transfer by mere delivery. 2. In a narrower sense, the transfer or making over of the estate, right, or title which one has in lands and tenements; and, in an especially technical sense, the transfer of the unexpired residue of a term or estate for life or years. Assignment does not include testamentary transfers. The idea of an assignment is essentially that of a transfer by one existing party to another existing party of some species of property or valuable interest, except in the case of an executor. Ilight v. Sackett, 34 N. Y. 447. 3. A transfer or making over by a debtor of all his property and effects to one or more assignees in trust for the benefit of his creditors. 2 Story, Eq. Jur.

This article contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. The Law Dictionary is not a law firm, and this page does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Browse Legal Articles

Business Formation

Business Law

Child Custody & Support

Criminal Law

Employment & Labor Law

Estate Planning

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Landlord-Tenant

Motor Vehicle Accidents

Personal Injury

Real Estate & Property Law

Traffic Violations

Browse by Area of Law

Powered by Black’s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed., and The Law Dictionary .

About The Law Dictionary

Terms and Conditions

• Privacy Policy
• What’s New on the Watch?
• COVID-19 Updates
• Private Equity Webinar Series
• Private Equity Finance
• Global PE Update
• Glenn West Musings
• Quarterly Private Funds Update
• Ancillary Agreements
• Co-investments
• Cybersecurity
• Going Privates
• Legal Developments
• Minority Investments
• Portfolio Company Matters
• Purchase Agreements
• R&W Insurance
• Secondaries
• Securities Laws
• Shareholder Agreements
• Specialist Areas
• Contributors
• Global Team

Private Equity

Watch your inbox.

Get the latest views and developments in the private equity world from the Global Private Equity Watch team at Weil.

Assignment Law: Everything You Need to Know

In legal terms, the meaning of an assignment is a contractual obligation to transfer a property title or right from one party to another. 3 min read updated on February 01, 2023

The term assignment law is used in the law of real estate and in the law of contracts. In both instances, it relates to the transfer of rights held by one party (the assignor) to another party (the assignee).

Assignment Law

In legal terms, the meaning of an assignment is a contractual obligation to transfer a property title or right from one party to another. Generally, the assignment is transferred based on an entire interest in the property, chattel, estate, or other item assigned.

A grant is different from an assignment in that an assignment refers to the right to transfer the property. This is considered an intangible right. On the other hand, the grant is concerned about the physical transfer of property. This is a tangible right. For example, a payee can assign their rights to collect a note payment to a bank. 

The terms of the contract must be analyzed to determine if the right of assignment is prohibited. For example, a property owner may allow a lease to be assigned, ordinarily along with an assumption agreement, where the new tenant is now responsible for the payments and duties of the lease.

The holder of a trademark may transfer it, either by giving or selling their interest in the trademark to another party. This is referred to as an assignment. The party that receives the benefit is called the assignee. Once transferred, the assignee has the ability to exclude others from using their trademark.

In order for the assignment to be enforceable, it must be in writing and have the goodwill of the company attached to the mark. For an assignment to be effective, it must contain the fundamental aspects of a contract, such as:

• Parties with legal capacity
• Legality of object
• Consideration consent

A contract assignment occurs when a party assigns their contractual rights to a third party. The benefit the issuing party would have received from the contract is now assigned to the third party. The party appointing their rights is referred to as the assignor, while the party obtaining the rights is the assignee. Essentially, the assignor prefers that the assignee reverses roles and assumes the contractual rights and obligations as stated in the contract. Before this can occur, all parties to the original contract must be notified.

How Assignments Work

The specific language used in the contract will determine how the assignment plays out. For example , one contract may prohibit assignment, while another contract may require that all parties involved agree to it before proceeding. Remember, an assignment of contract does not necessarily alleviate an assignor from all liability. Many contracts include an assurance clause guaranteeing performance. In other words, the initial parties to the contract guarantee the assignee will achieve the desired goal.

When Assignments Will Not Be Enforced

The following situations indicate when an assignment of a contract is not enforced:

• The contract specifically prohibits assignment
• The assignment drastically changes the expected outcome
• The assignment is against public policy or illegal

Delegation vs. Assignment

Occasionally, one party in a contract will desire to pass on or delegate their responsibility to a third party without creating an assignment contract. Some duties are so specific in nature that they cannot be delegated. Adding a clause in the contract to prevent a party from delegating their responsibilities and duties is highly recommended.

Three Steps to Follow if You Want to Assign a Contract

There are three main steps to take if you're looking to assign a contract:

• Make sure the current contract does not contain an anti-assignment clause
• Officially execute the assignment by transferring the parties' obligations and rights
• Notify the obligor of the changes made

Once the obligor is notified, the assignor will effectively be relieved of liability.

Anti-Assignment Clauses

If you'd prefer not to allow the party you're doing business with to assign a contract, you may be able to prevent this from occurring by clearly stating anti-assignment clauses in the original contract. The three most common anti-assignment clauses are:

• Consent required for assignment
• Consent not needed for new owners or affiliates
• Consent not unreasonably withheld

Based on these three clauses, no party in the contract is allowed to delegate or assign any obligations or rights without prior written consent from the other parties. Any delegation or assignment in violation of this passage shall be deemed void. It is not possible to write an anti-assignment clause that goes against an assignment that is issued or ordered by a court.

If you need help with assignment law, you can  post your job  on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb. 

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Legal Assignment
• Assignment Contract Law
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Assignment Legal Definition
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Consent to Assignment
• Assignment Of Contracts
• Delegation vs Assignment
• Assignment of Contract Rights
• Practical Law

Practical Law UK Glossary 1-107-6442  (Approx. 4 pages)

• Lending: General
• After Death
• General Contract and Boilerplate
• Security and Quasi Security

Assignment of Contract

Jump to section, what is an assignment of contract.

An assignment of contract is a legal term that describes the process that occurs when the original party (assignor) transfers their rights and obligations under their contract to a third party (assignee). When an assignment of contract happens, the original party is relieved of their contractual duties, and their role is replaced by the approved incoming party.

How Does Assignment of Contract Work?

An assignment of contract is simpler than you might think.

The process starts with an existing contract party who wishes to transfer their contractual obligations to a new party.

When this occurs, the existing contract party must first confirm that an assignment of contract is permissible under the legally binding agreement . Some contracts prohibit assignments of contract altogether, and some require the other parties of the agreement to agree to the transfer. However, the general rule is that contracts are freely assignable unless there is an explicit provision that says otherwise.

In other cases, some contracts allow an assignment of contract without any formal notification to other contract parties. If this is the case, once the existing contract party decides to reassign his duties, he must create a “Letter of Assignment ” to notify any other contract signers of the change.

The Letter of Assignment must include details about who is to take over the contractual obligations of the exiting party and when the transfer will take place. If the assignment is valid, the assignor is not required to obtain the consent or signature of the other parties to the original contract for the valid assignment to take place.

Check out this article to learn more about how assigning a contract works.

Contract Assignment Examples

Contract assignments are great tools for contract parties to use when they wish to transfer their commitments to a third party. Here are some examples of contract assignments to help you better understand them:

Anna signs a contract with a local trash company that entitles her to have her trash picked up twice a week. A year later, the trash company transferred her contract to a new trash service provider. This contract assignment effectively makes Anna’s contract now with the new service provider.

Hasina enters a contract with a national phone company for cell phone service. The company goes into bankruptcy and needs to close its doors but decides to transfer all current contracts to another provider who agrees to honor the same rates and level of service. The contract assignment is completed, and Hasina now has a contract with the new phone company as a result.

Here is an article where you can find out more about contract assignments.

Assignment of Contract in Real Estate

Assignment of contract is also used in real estate to make money without going the well-known routes of buying and flipping houses. When real estate LLC investors use an assignment of contract, they can make money off properties without ever actually buying them by instead opting to transfer real estate contracts .

This process is called real estate wholesaling.

Real Estate Wholesaling

Real estate wholesaling consists of locating deals on houses that you don’t plan to buy but instead plan to enter a contract to reassign the house to another buyer and pocket the profit.

The process is simple: real estate wholesalers negotiate purchase contracts with sellers. Then, they present these contracts to buyers who pay them an assignment fee for transferring the contract.

This process works because a real estate purchase agreement does not come with the obligation to buy a property. Instead, it sets forth certain purchasing parameters that must be fulfilled by the buyer of the property. In a nutshell, whoever signs the purchase contract has the right to buy the property, but those rights can usually be transferred by means of an assignment of contract.

This means that as long as the buyer who’s involved in the assignment of contract agrees with the purchasing terms, they can legally take over the contract.

But how do real estate wholesalers find these properties?

It is easier than you might think. Here are a few examples of ways that wholesalers find cheap houses to turn a profit on:

• Direct mailers
• Place newspaper ads
• Make posts in online forums
• Social media posts

The key to finding the perfect home for an assignment of contract is to locate sellers that are looking to get rid of their properties quickly. This might be a family who is looking to relocate for a job opportunity or someone who needs to make repairs on a home but can’t afford it. Either way, the quicker the wholesaler can close the deal, the better.

Once a property is located, wholesalers immediately go to work getting the details ironed out about how the sale will work. Transparency is key when it comes to wholesaling. This means that when a wholesaler intends to use an assignment of contract to transfer the rights to another person, they are always upfront about during the preliminary phases of the sale.

In addition to this practice just being good business, it makes sure the process goes as smoothly as possible later down the line. Wholesalers are clear in their intent and make sure buyers know that the contract could be transferred to another buyer before the closing date arrives.

After their offer is accepted and warranties are determined, wholesalers move to complete a title search . Title searches ensure that sellers have the right to enter into a purchase agreement on the property. They do this by searching for any outstanding tax payments, liens , or other roadblocks that could prevent the sale from going through.

Wholesalers also often work with experienced real estate lawyers who ensure that all of the legal paperwork is forthcoming and will stand up in court. Lawyers can also assist in the contract negotiation process if needed but often don’t come in until the final stages.

If the title search comes back clear and the real estate lawyer gives the green light, the wholesaler will immediately move to locate an entity to transfer the rights to buy.

One of the most attractive advantages of real estate wholesaling is that very little money is needed to get started. The process of finding a seller, negotiating a price, and performing a title search is an extremely cheap process that almost anyone can do.

On the other hand, it is not always a positive experience. It can be hard for wholesalers to find sellers who will agree to sell their homes for less than the market value. Even when they do, there is always a chance that the transferred buyer will back out of the sale, which leaves wholesalers obligated to either purchase the property themselves or scramble to find a new person to complete an assignment of contract with.

Learn more about assignment of contract in real estate by checking out this article .

Who Handles Assignment of Contract?

The best person to handle an assignment of contract is an attorney. Since these are detailed legal documents that deal with thousands of dollars, it is never a bad idea to have a professional on your side. If you need help with an assignment of contract or signing a business contract , post a project on ContractsCounsel. There, you can connect with attorneys who know everything there is to know about assignment of contract amendment and can walk you through the whole process.

Meet some of our Lawyers

Travis counsels individuals and businesses on a broad range of complex topics. His practice centers on producing efficient, client-driven results. He concentrates his practice on real estate, construction, and general business matters with an emphasis on assisting clients both before and after problems occur by drafting contracts designed to best position clients to avoid disputes and litigating matters to a final resolution if problems emerge. Born and raised in Oklahoma, Travis is a triple graduate of the University of Oklahoma, having obtained his Bachelor of Arts, Master of Business Administration, and Juris Doctor degrees from OU. Prior to practicing law, Travis managed the finances and business operations of a successful construction supply company for several years. This insight into sophisticated business dealings, contractual issues, and strategic planning makes him uniquely qualified to handle a wide range of legal matters. Travis lives in Norman with his wife, Haley, dogs, Walter and Poppy, and cat, Ernest. Outside of the office, Travis enjoys playing golf and reading.

Justin Camper is a small business and trademark attorney, entrepreneur, public speaker, and writer. Justin has been practicing law close to 5 years and has done various areas of law from criminal work as a Prosecutor, to business and civil litigation at private law firms.

I am a corporate attorney with offices in Rock Hill, SC, and Lavonia, GA. My practice is focused on contracts, tax, and asset protection planning. I act as a fractional outside general counsel to over 20 businesses in 6 countries. When not practicing law, I can usually be found training my bird dogs.

Williamson Health Law is an established and trusted law firm focused on representing hospitals, health plans, physician groups, physicians, physical therapy businesses, psychologists and other health care providers and businesses in all aspects of health law. including the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), regulatory compliance, Medicare and Blue Cross audits and overpayment appeals, payer departicipation and disaffiliation appeals, payer and provider disputes, reimbursement and billing, compliance plans, health care industry contracts and professional licensure. We represent clients throughout Michigan and the U.S. with certain federal matters such as federal regulatory analysis and Medicare audits.

Bolaji O. Okunnu is an entertainment lawyer and founder of the Okunnu Law Group, PLLC based in New York, New York. His practice includes work in the area of copyright, trademark, contract, intellectual property and business law. As an entertainment attorney, Bolaji represents a diverse roster of celebrities, record labels, music publishers, artists, bands, entrepreneurs, authors, songwriters, artist managers, record producers and entertainment executives concerning their intellectual property, business affairs and creative assets. He is an expert at solving complex and sophisticated legal and business issues relating to contracts, copyrights and trademarks. With his background in both the law and the music business, he brings a broad perspective to problem-solving and business plan strategies. He also has an extraordinary ability to speak to the hearts of creatives while helping them discover their voice and clarify their creative dreams and assignments.

I love to learn, and I love solving problems. That's why I became a lawyer, and learned to solve legal problems for individuals and businesses and help them fix things when there's a snag. Touch base if you think I could have something to offer for you or your company. Experienced, results-oriented legal professional whose background and education have established him as a valuable resource in areas of corporate law, franchising, litigation, compliance, mortgages and banking, and more. Practice Areas Include: Corporate law, Franchising, Litigation, real estate, corporate law, civil disputes, insurance representation, corporate counseling, dispute resolution, risk management, regulatory counsel, compliance. Experience involves sophisticated as well as routine corporate structuring and transactions, simple and complex litigation, and written and oral advocacy such as depositions, mediated settlement conferences, trials, appeals, written pleadings and discovery, and case strategy and analysis. Experience managing and litigating disputes between parties and negotiating settlements across the spectrum of civil litigation, including probative discovery, successful motions practice, legal research and writing, appellate practice, and legal consultation to individuals and business entities. Further experience includes digesting and monitoring updates to the legal landscape to advise clients or departments and successfully adapt policies and procedures to assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations as well as to manage risk effectively. For those needing a skilled commercial or corporate lawyer, or for individuals whose rights need persuasive advocacy, I am a valuable resource. Representative work also has involved success on the appellate level, as in Baker Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Burlington and Hawthorne, LLC, North Carolina COA09-13.

Madeline P.

I am the CEO and attorney at my law firm that I started in June 2020 (as other businesses were shuttering due to Covid-19). I am currently seeking contract work to supplement my case load as I recently finalized numerous family law cases within a short timeframe.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Need help with a contract agreement.

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

CONTRACT LAWYERS BY TOP CITIES

• Austin Contracts Lawyers
• Boston Contracts Lawyers
• Chicago Contracts Lawyers
• Dallas Contracts Lawyers
• Denver Contracts Lawyers
• Houston Contracts Lawyers
• Los Angeles Contracts Lawyers
• New York Contracts Lawyers
• Phoenix Contracts Lawyers
• San Diego Contracts Lawyers
• Tampa Contracts Lawyers

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT LAWYERS BY CITY

• Austin Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Boston Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Chicago Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Dallas Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Denver Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Houston Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Los Angeles Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• New York Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Phoenix Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• San Diego Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Tampa Assignment Of Contract Lawyers

other helpful articles

• How much does it cost to draft a contract?
• Do Contract Lawyers Use Templates?
• How do Contract Lawyers charge?
• Business Contract Lawyers: How Can They Help?
• What to look for when hiring a lawyer

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

How It Works

Want to speak to someone.

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

Spotting issues with assignment clauses in M&A Due Diligence

Written by: Kira Systems

January 19, 2016

6 minute read

Although not nearly as complex as change of control provisions , assignment provisions may still present a challenge in due diligence projects. We hope this blog post will help you navigate the ambiguities of assignment clauses with greater ease by explaining some of the common variations. (And, if you like it, please check out our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence. )

What is an Assignment Clause?

First, the basics:

Anti-assignment clauses are common because without them, generally, contracts are freely assignable. (The exceptions are (i) contracts that are subject to statutes or public policies prohibiting their assignment, such as intellectual property contracts, or (ii) contracts where an assignment without consent would cause material and adverse consequences to non-assigning counterparties, such as employment agreements and consulting agreements.) For all other contracts, parties may want an anti-assignment clause that allows them the opportunity to review and understand the impact of an assignment (or change of control) before deciding whether to continue or terminate the relationship.

In the mergers and acquisitions context, an assignment of a contract from a target company entity to the relevant acquirer entity is needed whenever a contract has to be placed in the name of an entity other than the existing target company entity after consummation of a transaction. This is why reviewing contracts for assignment clauses is so critical.

A simple anti-assignment provision provides that a party may not assign the agreement without the consent of the other party. Assignment provisions may also provide specific exclusions or inclusions to a counterparty’s right to consent to the assignment of a contract. Below are five common occurrences in which assignment provisions may provide exclusions or inclusions.

Common Exclusions and Inclusions

Exclusion for change of control transactions.

In negotiating an anti-assignment clause, a company would typically seek the exclusion of assignments undertaken in connection with change of control transactions, including mergers and sales of all or substantially all of the assets of the company. This allows a company to undertake a strategic transaction without worry. If an anti-assignment clause doesn’t exclude change of control transactions, a counterparty might materially affect a strategic transaction through delay and/or refusal of consent. Because there are many types of change of control transactions, there is no standard language for these. An example might be:

In the event of the sale or transfer by [Party B] of all or substantially all of its assets related to this Agreement to an Affiliate or to a third party, whether by sale, merger, or change of control, [Party B] would have the right to assign any or all rights and obligations contained herein and the Agreement to such Affiliate or third party without the consent of [Party A] and the Agreement shall be binding upon such acquirer and would remain in full force and effect, at least until the expiration of the then current Term.

Exclusion for Affiliate Transactions

A typical exclusion is one that allows a target company to assign a contract to an affiliate without needing the consent of the contract counterparty. This is much like an exclusion with respect to change of control, since in affiliate transfers or assignments, the ultimate actors and responsible parties under the contract remain essentially the same even though the nominal parties may change. For example:

Either party may assign its rights under this Agreement, including its right to receive payments hereunder, to a subsidiary, affiliate or any financial institution, but in such case the assigning party shall remain liable to the other party for the assigning party’s obligations hereunder. All or any portion of the rights and obligations of [Party A] under this Agreement may be transferred by [Party A] to any of its Affiliates without the consent of [Party B].

Assignment by Operation of Law

Assignments by operation of law typically occur in the context of transfers of rights and obligations in accordance with merger statutes and can be specifically included in or excluded from assignment provisions. An inclusion could be negotiated by the parties to broaden the anti-assignment clause and to ensure that an assignment occurring by operation of law requires counterparty approval:

[Party A] agrees that it will not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer its rights hereunder, either voluntarily or by operations of law, without the prior written consent of [Party B].

while an exclusion could be negotiated by a target company to make it clear that it has the right to assign the contract even though it might otherwise have that right as a matter of law:

This Guaranty shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of [Party A]; provided, that no transfer, assignment or delegation by [Party A], other than a transfer, assignment or delegation by operation of law, without the consent of [Party B], shall release [Party A] from its liabilities hereunder.

This helps settle any ambiguity regarding assignments and their effects under mergers statutes (particularly in forward triangular mergers and forward mergers since the target company ceases to exist upon consummation of the merger).

Direct or Indirect Assignment

More ambiguity can arise regarding which actions or transactions require a counterparty’s consent when assignment clauses prohibit both direct and indirect assignments without the consent of a counterparty. Transaction parties will typically choose to err on the side of over-inclusiveness in determining which contracts will require consent when dealing with material contracts. An example clause prohibiting direct or indirect assignment might be:

Except as provided hereunder or under the Merger Agreement, such Shareholder shall not, directly or indirectly, (i) transfer (which term shall include any sale, assignment, gift, pledge, hypothecation or other disposition), or consent to or permit any such transfer of, any or all of its Subject Shares, or any interest therein.

“Transfer” of Agreement vs. “Assignment” of Agreement

In some instances, assignment provisions prohibit “transfers” of agreements in addition to, or instead of, explicitly prohibiting “assignments”. Often, the word “transfer” is not defined in the agreement, in which case the governing law of the contract will determine the meaning of the term and whether prohibition on transfers are meant to prohibit a broader or narrower range of transactions than prohibitions on assignments. Note that the current jurisprudence on the meaning of an assignment is broader and deeper than it is on the meaning of a transfer. In the rarer case where “transfer” is defined, it might look like this:

As used in this Agreement, the term “transfer” includes the Franchisee’s voluntary, involuntary, direct or indirect assignment, sale, gift or other disposition of any interest in…

The examples listed above are only of five common occurrences in which an assignment provision may provide exclusions or inclusions. As you continue with due diligence review, you may find that assignment provisions offer greater variety beyond the factors discussed in this blog post. However, you now have a basic understand of the possible variations of assignment clauses. For a more in-depth discussion of reviewing change of control and assignment provisions in due diligence, please download our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more about what we do with these cookies in our privacy policy .

• Practices & Industries
• Drill Deeper Blog

As the name suggests, a consent-to-assignment clause is one way of preventing an obligor from subsequently transferring its contractual rights and obligations to a third party assignee without the prior consent of the original obligee. The original intent behind including these clauses in contracts, such as leases, was to ensure that the assignee would be bound to the same terms and conditions as the original obligee or lessee. However, it has become more common for lessors to rely on such consent-to-assignment clauses as a mechanism to require lessees and/or their assigns to agree to more onerous terms and conditions than otherwise contemplated, such as requiring the lessee to remain liable to the lessor should the assignee default or requiring that the assignor compensate the lessor for consenting to the assignment. The express language of the consent-to-assignment clause, as well as the venue in which the issue is litigated, typically will determine the extent to which the lessor can lawfully condition its consent to a proposed assignment.

Consent-to-assignment clauses typically are categorized as either “qualified” or “unqualified.” Qualified consent-to-assignment clauses contain a caveat limiting the lessor’s right to withhold its consent, such as: “and such consent will not be unreasonably withheld.” The phrase “unreasonably withheld” has been interpreted to mean that “there are no sufficient grounds for a reasonably prudent business person to deny consent.”  Louisiana courts have found that “sufficient grounds” existed for the lessor to withhold its consent where the proposed sublessee or assignee is financially inferior compared to the present lessee; where the sublessee’s proposed use does not fall within the permitted uses in the lease or would inhibit the lessor’s ability to lease other spaces in the leased property; and where the sublease or assignment would cause the lessor to lose a lessee on the same property. However, a lessor’s refusal to consent to a sublease or assignment likely will be found unreasonable if the reasons for the refusal are pretextual, or if the proposed sublessee is identical to the lessee in financial status and proposed use of the property.

Alternatively, unqualified consent-to-assignment clauses (also referred to as “silent” consent-to-assignment clauses) do not expressly prohibit the lessor from withholding consent for unjustifiable reasons or for no reason at all. When litigating such silent consent-to-assignment clauses, lessees and potential sublessees have argued that courts should inject a reasonableness standard or that an implied standard of reasonableness exists based upon general contract principles. The majority of courts, including those in Texas, adhere to the traditional view that silent consent provisions allow a lessor arbitrarily to refuse to approve a proposed assignment or sublease, no matter how suitable the assignee or sublessee appears to be and no matter how unreasonable the lessor’s objection. These jurisdictions typically have found that there is no implied covenant of good faith requiring a lessor to be “reasonable” in refusing to consent. Other courts following the traditional view may simply refuse to rewrite what they consider to be unambiguous contractual language, especially in cases where there is evidence that the silent consent was included as a result of negotiation.

Louisiana, on the other hand, was the first jurisdiction in the nation to adopt the modern view of implying a standard of “reasonableness” when interpreting silent consent-to-assignment clauses. Louisiana courts historically implied an abuse of rights standard to restrain the lessor’s arbitrary refusal to consent to an assignment. In their view, allowing a lessor to arbitrarily refuse consent to an assignment or sublease virtually nullifies any right to assign or sublease. However, in 1987 the Louisiana Supreme Court limited the applicability of the abuse of rights doctrine, articulating that it applies only when one of the following conditions is met:

(1) if the predominant motive was to cause harm; (2) if there was no serious or legitimate motive for refusing; (3) if the exercise of the right to refuse is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness; (4) if the right to refuse is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it is granted.

See Truschinger v. Pak , 513 So.2d 1151, 1154 (La.1987).

In Truschinger , the lessor conditionally consented to a proposed sublease in exchange for a cash payment of $40,000.00. The court held that because the lessor’s predominate motive was economic, serious, and legitimate, and was not a wish to harm, the lessor’s refusal was not an abuse of rights. It is questionable whether the historical authority for implying a standard of reasonableness has survived in the wake of Truschinger , considering that the court appeared tacitly to approve of lessors withholding or conditioning consent based on purely economic motives.

Even so, it is important to note that Truschinger and the cases cited therein relied upon La. Civ. Code. art. 2725 (1870) and the French interpretations of its ancillary provision in Code Napoléon as support for construing silent consent-to-assignment clauses against lessees. However, in 2004 La. Civ. Code. art. 2725 (1870) was revised and renumbered as La. Civ. Code art. 2713 and now expressly provides that a “provision that prohibits subleasing, assigning, or encumbering is to be strictly construed against the lessor .” The 2004 Revision Comment explains:

[This] sentence restates the principle of the second paragraph of Civil Code Article 2725 (1870) properly understood . . . . In derogation of general principles of interpretation, some cases have erroneously construed such interdiction against the lessee . The third sentence of Civil Code Article 2713 (Rev. 2004) corrects this error.

Although Article 2713 has been in effect for more than twelve years, no court has applied this article in the context of interpreting a silent consent-to-assignment clause.  Consequently, while Louisiana courts traditionally have been less favorable toward lessors when interpreting such clauses, a lessor’s conditioned consent or refusal to consent may nonetheless be lawful, absent a showing that such refusal equates to an abuse of rights as set forth in Truschinger .

NEW ORLEANS

201 St. Charles Avenue 40th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Tel: 504.582.1111 Fax 504.582.1121

1015 Saint John Street Lafayette, LA 70501 Tel: 337.237.0132 Fax 337.237.3451

1001 Fannin Street Suite 3850 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: 713.333.5500

© 2024 Gordon, Arata, Montgomery, Barnett, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, LLC Disclaimers

Assignment is a legal term whereby an individual, the "assignor," transfers rights, property, or other benefits to another known as the " assignee ." This concept is used in both contract and property law. The term can refer to either the act of transfer or the rights /property/benefits being transferred. Contract Law

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the "assignor" to another party called the "assignee." The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment.

Assignment [1] is a legal term used in the context of the laws of contract and of property. In both instances, assignment is the process whereby a person, the assignor, transfers rights or benefits to another, the assignee. [2] An assignment may not transfer a duty, burden or detriment without the express agreement of the assignee.

Under property law, assignment typically arises in landlord-tenant situations. For example, A might be renting from landlord B but wants another party (C) to take over the property. In this scenario, A might choose between assigning and subleasing the property to C.

Assignment is a legal term referring to the transfer of a right from one party to another. It plays an important role in both contract and property law.

An assignment of contract occurs when one party to an existing contract (the "assignor") hands off the contract's obligations and benefits to another party (the "assignee"). Ideally, the assignor wants the assignee to step into his shoes and assume all of his contractual obligations and rights.

ASSIGNMENT Definition & Legal Meaning Definition & Citations: In contracts. 1. The act by which one person transfers to another, or causes to vest in that other, the whole of the right, interest, or property which he has in any realty or personalty, in possession or in action, or any share, interest, or subsidiary estate therein.

(4) An assignment of "the contract" or of "all my rights under the contract" or an assignment in similar general terms is an assignment of rights and unless the language or the circumstances (as in an assignment for security) indicate the contrary, it is a delegation of performance of the duties of the assignor and its acceptance by the ...

A recent federal court decision applying Delaware law, Partner Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. RPM Mortgage, Inc., 2021 WL 2716307 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2021), explores some rare contractual territory—i.e., the question whether, in the absence of consent, a valid assignment may be made by a party of its rights to pursue a claim for damages for breach of a merger agreement, notwithstanding an anti ...

Assignment Law. In legal terms, the meaning of an assignment is a contractual obligation to transfer a property title or right from one party to another. Generally, the assignment is transferred based on an entire interest in the property, chattel, estate, or other item assigned. A grant is different from an assignment in that an assignment ...

an assignment of only part of the chosen in action; an assignment of which notice has not been given to the debtor; an agreement to assign. If the assignment is equitable rather than legal, the assignor cannot enforce the assigned property in its own name and to do so must join the assignee in any action.

April 20, 2022 7891 0 This article is written by Neha Dahiya, a law student at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat. This article explains the meaning, types, and conditions of the assignment of contract. It also seeks to explain the judicial opinion about assignment by the means of a case study.

Practice note: overview A guide to key resources: security and quasi-security • Maintained Practice notes Contracts: assignment • Maintained Taking security over choses in action • Maintained Standard documents Assignment of loan • Maintained Novation of loan • Maintained Glossary Assignation • Maintained Equitable assignment • Maintained

An assignment of contract is a legal term that describes the process that occurs when the original party (assignor) transfers their rights and obligations under their contract to a third party (assignee).

An assignment of a legal claim occurs when one party (the "assignor" ) transfers its rights in a cause of action to another party (the "assignee" ). 1

Assignments by operation of law typically occur in the context of transfers of rights and obligations in accordance with merger statutes and can be specifically included in or excluded from assignment provisions. An inclusion could be negotiated by the parties to broaden the anti-assignment clause and to ensure that an assignment occurring by ...

12 - Knowledge of Assignment: Procedural Avoidance in Equity and by Statute of 'Equities' or 'Defences'. pp 281-324. Get access. Export citation. Part V - Statutes. pp 325-410. Get access. Export citation. 13 - 'Statutory' Assignments under Law of Property Act 1925, Section 136 (1)

A Practice Note examining Texas law relating to the transferability of commercial contracts, including a party's legal ability to assign its rights and delegate its performance obligations under a contract that is silent on transferability, and the construction and enforceability of contractual anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses.

Contract Assignment: New York by Practical Law Commercial Transactions Maintained • New York, United States A Q&A guide to contract assignment in New York. This Q&A addresses key areas of contractual limitations on assignment of rights and delegation of performance. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions.

Assignee is a person to whom a right is transferred by the person holding such rights under the transferred contract (the "assignor"). The act of transferring is referred to as " assigning " or " assignment " and is a concept found in both contract and property law. Contract Law

A Practice Note examining California law relating to the transferability of commercial contracts, including a party's legal ability to assign its rights and delegate its performance obligations under a contract that is silent on transferability, and the construction and enforceability of contractual anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses.

be an equitable assignment under English law. However, whether an assignment of receivables expressed as an outright sale is re-characterised as a secured loan does not depend on whether the sale is a legal assignment of existing receivables or an equitable assignment of future receivables. (Assignments of future receivables are not

Consent-to-assignment clauses typically are categorized as either "qualified" or "unqualified." Qualified consent-to-assignment clauses contain a caveat limiting the lessor's right to withhold its consent, such as: "and such consent will not be unreasonably withheld."

Was Feudalism Good or Bad for Europe?

YOU ARE READING

Feudalism in Medieval Europe effected society. Positive or Negative you decide! Wrote for History Class. This is just a brief essay thing discussing Feudalism. Not very good as an essay, but did get 100% as a grade for the class.

# educational # essay # europe # feudalism # history # middleages # nemohorsegirl # positiveornegative

• Post to Your Profile
• Share via Email

• Report Story

Feudalism is a system of government based on ties of loyalty between lords and vassals. This system united them and improved society, but feudalism both helped and harmed the development of Western European society. I feel feudalism helped Europe more than it harmed it. Feudalism made Western Europe safer, increased trade, benefited all classes of society, and one person couldn't become too powerful in the society

Feudalism made Europe safer because it kept out invaders. Knights (noble warriors who fought on horseback and followed the code of chivalry), went off and fought to protect the feudal territories. When Rome fell powerful invaders were everywhere and with feudalism knights were able to go out and keep them out. Knights also enforced laws and arrested bandits which made roads safer to travel on which in turn increased trade.

Feudalism allowed more food and goods to be produced so trade between territories increased. The increase of trade made Europe wealthier. As Europe grew wealthier the demand for gold and silver coins increased and people began to use the money system once more.

Another great thing about feudalism is it didn't only benefit rich nobles, I benefited everyone. Under this system lords gained an army to protect there lands and fight for them, vassals gained lands or fiefs from lords and peasants were protected.

Feudalism was different from other systems because it didn't allow one person to become too powerful. This was important because everyone shared power. Feudalism was the first step to ideas about limited government power and ideas that everyone had rights. These ideas eventually led to important documents like the Magna Carta.

In conclusion feudalism is a political system based on bonds of loyalty that both harmed and helped European Society.