The Catholic church has a feudalistic organization, and is perhaps not coincidentally richer than any Protestant church, probably even per capita—except for the Mormons, with assets of about $6000/member, whose organizational structure I know little about (read this if interested).
This is a completely inaccurate use of the term “feudalistic.” The rigid hierarchy of the Catholic Church is extremely dissimilar to the European medieval social order that’s commonly called “feudal,” in which local lords had a level of autonomy and autarky unimaginable by modern standards.
A Catholic priest who defies his bishop or other superior will lose his position promptly, and the same will happen to a bishop who defies the pope. Control and discipline are enforced tightly at each level, and the hierarchy is staffed by men from lower levels who get promoted and appointed by the central authority (except for the elective pope, of course, and with some rare peculiar semi-autonomous local institutions due to accidents of history). In contrast, a feudal lord ruled his fief for life as his own property, and left it to his heirs after death—while his overlord, or even king, had no control whatsoever over his day-to-day affairs, and could only demand the regular tribute. Even in cases of open defiance, it was by no means certain whether the king would be able to get his way. This fragmented world of extreme local autonomy and autarky was the polar opposite of the modern tightly disciplined Catholic hierarchy.
Generally speaking, “feudalism” is one of those terms that are often thrown around casually and without any regard for historical accuracy, to the point where they’ve become nearly meaningless (kind of like “fascism”). Whenever you feel tempted to use it for the purpose of making historical parallels, you should stop and think carefully whether it makes sense.
That’s a good point. Thanks for the correction. The relationships in the work cited don’t closely approximate either kind of relationship, so I don’t think the correction has a predictable change on the application here.
The most accurate meaning of this term would be a situation where numerous local lords are powerful and autonomous, but there is one among them who commands disproportionately large resources and is capable of raising overwhelmingly powerful military forces, either directly from his own personal domains or from his loyal vassals.
In this situation, any lord who defies the monarch openly can be subdued by sheer military force, so if the monarch successfully advertises his military power and his commitment to lash out whenever provoked, there can be a stable equilibrium where local lords find it in their best interest to be loyal vassals, profess allegiance, and pay their tribute in a timely manner—and otherwise be left alone to rule their fiefs. Another factor that can strengthen this equilibrium is if the monarch’s military power provides protection against an external threat that is too powerful for the lords to handle individually; in such situations, the monarch can be more of a coalition leader than overlord.
Clearly, such an equilibrium is unstable for many reasons. External military threats can disappear, a strong monarch can be succeeded by a weak one who won’t be able to insist on his supremacy credibly, local lords can become powerful to the point where defiance seems tempting, a neighboring ruler can offer a better deal for those who switch allegiance to him, several lords can form a coalition too powerful to subdue, and so on. The classic example is the history of the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. Occasional exceptionally capable and powerful rulers were able to assert strong personal authority, but their heirs would regularly fail to uphold it.
Granted that the Catholic Church hierarchy is not feudalistic. But this suggests the question: during the height of European feudalism, the Catholic Church itself was—what? Rigidly hierarchical even then? Or did it in some way partake of the feudal lack of hierarchy and center?
The question of Church governance and its relation to the secular authority was the number one hot-button political issue during the European Middle Ages, over which many intellectual, political, as well as military battles were fought. It’s a vast and fascinating topic that spans several centuries of complicated history, with changing fortunes on all sides; to get a basic taste of it, this article on the Investiture Controversy is decent.
These controversies exploded again during the Reformation and the subsequent religious upheavals and wars that engulfed Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they haven’t died down completely to the present day. But as a simplification (perhaps excessive), one could say that the present tightly disciplined form of Catholic Church governance developed during the Counter-Reformation period.
(It should also be noted that some local Catholic churches, most notably the Eastern ones, have much more autonomy for peculiar reasons of local history. Formally, this is known as the sui juris status.)
Feudalism is hierarchical. Vladimir is talking about the high level of autonomy of each boss in the hierarchy. Even kings did not have the absolute power we usually think of kings as having; the Holy Roman Empire being an extreme example of this, in which IIRC the Emperor was usually less powerful than any of his immediate subordinates, and served more as a balancing force or referee than as a supreme ruler.
I think that it’s not so much whether you remember correctly as which emperor you mean. The HRE lasted for nearly 1000 years, and the power of emperor varied a lot over this time.
To make things even more complicated, besides their imperial title, Holy Roman emperors typically had a whole bunch of titles over different lands within the Empire (and sometimes even outside of it), whose significance in terms of actual control ranged from purely theoretical to very real. Their ability to assert their imperial authority across the Empire heavily depended, among other things, on the ability to draw resources from the specific lands they controlled more tightly.
PhilGoetz:
This is a completely inaccurate use of the term “feudalistic.” The rigid hierarchy of the Catholic Church is extremely dissimilar to the European medieval social order that’s commonly called “feudal,” in which local lords had a level of autonomy and autarky unimaginable by modern standards.
A Catholic priest who defies his bishop or other superior will lose his position promptly, and the same will happen to a bishop who defies the pope. Control and discipline are enforced tightly at each level, and the hierarchy is staffed by men from lower levels who get promoted and appointed by the central authority (except for the elective pope, of course, and with some rare peculiar semi-autonomous local institutions due to accidents of history). In contrast, a feudal lord ruled his fief for life as his own property, and left it to his heirs after death—while his overlord, or even king, had no control whatsoever over his day-to-day affairs, and could only demand the regular tribute. Even in cases of open defiance, it was by no means certain whether the king would be able to get his way. This fragmented world of extreme local autonomy and autarky was the polar opposite of the modern tightly disciplined Catholic hierarchy.
Generally speaking, “feudalism” is one of those terms that are often thrown around casually and without any regard for historical accuracy, to the point where they’ve become nearly meaningless (kind of like “fascism”). Whenever you feel tempted to use it for the purpose of making historical parallels, you should stop and think carefully whether it makes sense.
That’s a good point. Thanks for the correction. The relationships in the work cited don’t closely approximate either kind of relationship, so I don’t think the correction has a predictable change on the application here.
So really more like a corporation than a feudal empire.
What is a “feudal empire”? Can you give an example?
The most accurate meaning of this term would be a situation where numerous local lords are powerful and autonomous, but there is one among them who commands disproportionately large resources and is capable of raising overwhelmingly powerful military forces, either directly from his own personal domains or from his loyal vassals.
In this situation, any lord who defies the monarch openly can be subdued by sheer military force, so if the monarch successfully advertises his military power and his commitment to lash out whenever provoked, there can be a stable equilibrium where local lords find it in their best interest to be loyal vassals, profess allegiance, and pay their tribute in a timely manner—and otherwise be left alone to rule their fiefs. Another factor that can strengthen this equilibrium is if the monarch’s military power provides protection against an external threat that is too powerful for the lords to handle individually; in such situations, the monarch can be more of a coalition leader than overlord.
Clearly, such an equilibrium is unstable for many reasons. External military threats can disappear, a strong monarch can be succeeded by a weak one who won’t be able to insist on his supremacy credibly, local lords can become powerful to the point where defiance seems tempting, a neighboring ruler can offer a better deal for those who switch allegiance to him, several lords can form a coalition too powerful to subdue, and so on. The classic example is the history of the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. Occasional exceptionally capable and powerful rulers were able to assert strong personal authority, but their heirs would regularly fail to uphold it.
The Holy Roman Empire is the obvious example. But really I was just being careless in writing ‘empire’.
Granted that the Catholic Church hierarchy is not feudalistic. But this suggests the question: during the height of European feudalism, the Catholic Church itself was—what? Rigidly hierarchical even then? Or did it in some way partake of the feudal lack of hierarchy and center?
Rigidly hierarchical in theory, but forced to make political compromises occasionally in reality.
See the investiture controversy, for instance.
The question of Church governance and its relation to the secular authority was the number one hot-button political issue during the European Middle Ages, over which many intellectual, political, as well as military battles were fought. It’s a vast and fascinating topic that spans several centuries of complicated history, with changing fortunes on all sides; to get a basic taste of it, this article on the Investiture Controversy is decent.
These controversies exploded again during the Reformation and the subsequent religious upheavals and wars that engulfed Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and they haven’t died down completely to the present day. But as a simplification (perhaps excessive), one could say that the present tightly disciplined form of Catholic Church governance developed during the Counter-Reformation period.
(It should also be noted that some local Catholic churches, most notably the Eastern ones, have much more autonomy for peculiar reasons of local history. Formally, this is known as the sui juris status.)
Feudalism is hierarchical. Vladimir is talking about the high level of autonomy of each boss in the hierarchy. Even kings did not have the absolute power we usually think of kings as having; the Holy Roman Empire being an extreme example of this, in which IIRC the Emperor was usually less powerful than any of his immediate subordinates, and served more as a balancing force or referee than as a supreme ruler.
I think that it’s not so much whether you remember correctly as which emperor you mean. The HRE lasted for nearly 1000 years, and the power of emperor varied a lot over this time.
To make things even more complicated, besides their imperial title, Holy Roman emperors typically had a whole bunch of titles over different lands within the Empire (and sometimes even outside of it), whose significance in terms of actual control ranged from purely theoretical to very real. Their ability to assert their imperial authority across the Empire heavily depended, among other things, on the ability to draw resources from the specific lands they controlled more tightly.