I had an ancient history professor this year who claimed that the idea of Feudalism existing during the Middle Ages was a myth--A creation of revisionist historians. I'm trying to learn what I can about Medieval history, I'm a Medievalist in the way that Henry, Sr. is shown to be. My professor's claim was that essentially with some individual exceptions, Feudalism was not the virtual slavery it's portrayed as, but an early form of capitalism, especially in terms of social mobility. He claimed you could gradually work your way up the ladder from serf to Noble.
He also claimed that the "Dark Ages" weren't so "Dark." He claimed that women had a much better standing in the Middle Ages than they did earlier, or even for quite a bit later--That they were acknowledged as leaders in the Middle Ages, using examples of Clothilde and others. He pointed to what he claimed was the fact that for the first time in history, women were made property owners (upon the deaths of their husbands). He promoted Christianity as the first ''true'' religion--The first religion that was followed seriously, in comparison to the way the Greeks and Romans regarded their religion. He pitted the Celts as the saviors of the knowledge of the Greeks, and painted it as though the knowledge and Greek spirit was gradually lost amongst the Romans. He had us read a book entitled, "How the Irish saved Civilization" to exemplify this. He made parallels with our nation since FDR to the Roman Empire after Julius Caesar. He paralled the Roman bread program to Social Security and other welfare programs, saying they were an early form of Socialism, and also had us read from Plato in which Plato supposedly derided the idea (then unnamed and unknown, of course) of a theoretical Communism. The professor equated the gradual decline of the Romans' Constitution with our history since 1933. He also subtly equated Caesar, Nero and other Roman Emperors to Hitler, FDR and Stalin
He also said the Middle Ages were better in terms of morality--Even better than the present day. He drew a timeline and listed all of the wars and horrors of the 20th century and 21st--WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, 9/11, Spanish Flu, etc, and claimed that such things didn't really happen all that often in the Middle ages. He claimed the Black Death wasn't as major in terms of numbers as mainstream historians make it out to be, and that such plagues happened periodically throughout history and thus the Black Death was just the norm, not a tragic aberration. He claimed people were more liberal in their sexuality, citing the Decameron as one example. Basically, overall, the pounding themes of his message were that the Dark Ages weren't ''Dark'' at all and were a time of great knowledge and progress, and that Feudalism was not slavery but early Capitalism.
His ideas seemed very alien, and even kind of, well...nuts...to me, and I was wondering if there were any hardcore Medievalists, Historians or History Buffs in general who could set me as to whether this professor was right, or wrong.
He also claimed that the "Dark Ages" weren't so "Dark." He claimed that women had a much better standing in the Middle Ages than they did earlier, or even for quite a bit later--That they were acknowledged as leaders in the Middle Ages, using examples of Clothilde and others. He pointed to what he claimed was the fact that for the first time in history, women were made property owners (upon the deaths of their husbands). He promoted Christianity as the first ''true'' religion--The first religion that was followed seriously, in comparison to the way the Greeks and Romans regarded their religion. He pitted the Celts as the saviors of the knowledge of the Greeks, and painted it as though the knowledge and Greek spirit was gradually lost amongst the Romans. He had us read a book entitled, "How the Irish saved Civilization" to exemplify this. He made parallels with our nation since FDR to the Roman Empire after Julius Caesar. He paralled the Roman bread program to Social Security and other welfare programs, saying they were an early form of Socialism, and also had us read from Plato in which Plato supposedly derided the idea (then unnamed and unknown, of course) of a theoretical Communism. The professor equated the gradual decline of the Romans' Constitution with our history since 1933. He also subtly equated Caesar, Nero and other Roman Emperors to Hitler, FDR and Stalin
He also said the Middle Ages were better in terms of morality--Even better than the present day. He drew a timeline and listed all of the wars and horrors of the 20th century and 21st--WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, 9/11, Spanish Flu, etc, and claimed that such things didn't really happen all that often in the Middle ages. He claimed the Black Death wasn't as major in terms of numbers as mainstream historians make it out to be, and that such plagues happened periodically throughout history and thus the Black Death was just the norm, not a tragic aberration. He claimed people were more liberal in their sexuality, citing the Decameron as one example. Basically, overall, the pounding themes of his message were that the Dark Ages weren't ''Dark'' at all and were a time of great knowledge and progress, and that Feudalism was not slavery but early Capitalism.
His ideas seemed very alien, and even kind of, well...nuts...to me, and I was wondering if there were any hardcore Medievalists, Historians or History Buffs in general who could set me as to whether this professor was right, or wrong.
Last edited:
