Relationship Between Lord And Vassal

What Happened to Medieval Relationships? The difference between a lord and vassal not only describes a simple gap in ranking and power but the foundation of most medieval relationships. A vassal, Hugh of Lusignan, dictated to his scribe the work of literature, An Agreement between Lord and Vassal, that showed from Hugh's point of view a series of disagreements between him, a vassal, and his lord, William of Aquitaine. Even though this work demonstrates only a specific instance of a feudal relationship with an extremely ambitious vassal, it offers a view that historians expect several other feudal relationships to be like (Geary 377). Now, contemporary, idealistic views about “feudalism” liken themselves to a cordial, honorable agreement that resembles King Arthur and his Round Table instead of the tumultuous conflict written in An Agreement between Lord and Vassal. Ignoring misinformation being spread in modern times, this discrepancy in reality and what is idealistically believed now is a result of the dissolving of the Carolingians, the Viking raids, and the influence of the Catholic Church along with the anarchy that followed. The reality of a relationship between a lord and his vassal was extremely one-sided. In Agreement, Count William V of Aquitaine was the duke of the duchy of Aquitaine and Hugh was one of his vassals that controlled Lusignan. Even though Hugh had the important city of Lusignan and several other claims, William knew that he could take advantage of Hugh because of the one-sided fact that he was a vassal. In one instance, when Hugh had taken an enemy's men ransom, the count wanted them not because “...to do you [Hugh] wrong but because you are mine to do my will...” (Geary 378). The count believed himself to have absolute power over his domain and knew he could demand anything. And, Hugh complied with all of William's unreasonable demands without complaining. He was completely submissive to William.

However, after being betrayed by the count behind his back several times, Hugh's ambitious nature decided to defy the count and force a fair compromise. Hugh went further than defiance though and “...renounced his allegiance to the count...” (Geary 381). Hugh wanted more power than William was willing to offer. This event demonstrates another important feature of these lord-vassal relationships, which was the constant power struggle between nobles. Hugh, a powerful vassal of Lusignan with several claims, could challenge his lord if he believed he had enough power to do so. This volatility led to distrust between the landholders and tight-knit circles of power that divided France into counties and duchies. William, Duke of Aquitaine, amassed power with his tight-knit dynasty. In the same way, he and several other strong nobles of the time formed alliances with the weaker landholders to weaken up-and-coming ambitious vassals like Hugh. For Hugh, William undermined him by making deals with his rival, Bernard, so that “Then Bernard in consultation with his men decided that they should do evil to Hugh on the advice of the count and they appointed a deadline fifteen days away” (Geary 379). William was as willing to lie and cheat his way to power as Hugh was to renounce his allegiance. This cut-throat attitude bolstered power for each noble and weakened their opponents. An idealistic view of knights, lords, and ladies doesn't involve cut-throat betrayal or greedy, power-hungry warlords though. The knights are chivalrous, kiss the fingers of proper ladies, and are cordial to everyone they meet. And, the lords are respectful to their knights and honor them with money, power, and recognition. This idea, portrayed in Disney movies and embellished medieval tales of fame and fortune, is completely wrong. If it did exist, it did not occur during the Middle Ages. But, it could have. During this time period, England was flourishing with its strong

government and efficient taxation. Monasticism was booming with the Cluniac and Cistercian monasteries along with the Catholic Church forming the college of cardinals and swiftly gaining power. Germany was consolidating its power into one monarch, the Holy Roman Emperor, and doing well in the times before civil war and the Investiture Controversy. The Muslims and Byzantines were in decline and Europe was appearing to be on the rise especially with Renaissance of the Twelfth Century coming up soon. The Crusades would be starting soon and the teachings of Aristotle and other great philosophers would be rediscovered. Yet, life was awful for most people during this time period and nobles were always holding daggers at each other's throats. The rise of these cut-throat nobles could be attributed to the fall of the Carolingians. After Charlemagne's reign, the empire fell into its death throes when it was split between Charles the Bald, Lothar, and Louis the German in the Treaty of Verdun. The men in charge of these divisions did not peacefully accept their territory as is and were as power-hungry as the nobles in Hugh's time. Their infighting weakened each of them and allowed the landed aristocrats to seize power. By 900, France and Germany were each divided into small regions of power always at war with another. In France, the king only ruled the Ile-de-France and could not control the corruption and unfair land disputes. France and Germany were each thrown into anarchy. To compound the problems, the Vikings and other barbarians were heavily raiding the continent and England alike. Amidst the ongoing wars in Europe, the Vikings found Europe a great raiding location for food and money. They also found it a great place to live. They beat back the English to Wessex and controlled most of Northern England until Alfred the Great and other monarchs pushed back. These were not the only the Vikings to take land in Europe though.

The Normans, known for their heavy involvement in the Crusades and the conquest of England, were founded by the Vikings. They took Sicily from the Byzantines and took the region of Brittany. Their effect was felt everywhere and even after converting to Christianity, they would continue to be extremely war-like and have a disruptive, permanent effect on Europe Even more disruptive in Europe though was the Catholic Church. In the early years of the Church, the pope was merely a figurehead and the Church consisted of a disorganized mess of bishops, monks, and priests. There was no College of Cardinals, Roman Curia, and interest in Western Europe. In the time of the Merovingians and Carolingians, popes began caring about Europeans and accruing power. Still, much of Europe was populated by pagan barbarians during the Merovingians and it was not until the Carolingians that the Roman Catholic Church saw real advances in power. Monasticism was booming and the Catholics had an organized system of administration. However, with each boom, the Church drained more land from each noble and tried to control more European states. In 1054, an event called the Investiture Controversy occurred that resulted in a 50-year-long civil war in the Holy Roman Empire. The Investiture Controversy was a disagreement between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, the Holy Roman Emperor, on who has the right to invest clerics. Furthermore, the individual bishops had great sway in wars with their own personal armies and large amounts of land. In Agreement, Hugh asks for “...advice of Gerald the Bishop of Limoges, and they both left to move against Bernard in La Marche...” (Geary 379). The Bishop of Limoges had his own castle and personal force he could use in battle. The direct and indirect influence of the Catholic Church both contributed to the chaotic nature of Western Europe. The chaos of Western Europe was not just limited to Western Europe. The Byzantines

were facing issues because of the Muslims and the Muslims were facing major infighting between the caliphs. This period was one of downturn in terms of political organization in most of Europe, northern Africa, and the Middle East. It was not until the twelfth century that Western Europe began to see major improvements with a renaissance. And, the Byzantines never saw improvements but just a constant decline until its fall in 1453. Then, the Muslims continued to splinter and eventually be conquered by the Mongols. The chaos was widespread. The chaos and unfair dealings portrayed by An Agreement between Lord and Vassal described an extremely disorganized Europe with little to no accountability. However, the author, Hugh, was a victim in this relationship. And, he was an extremely ambitious vassal who worked hard to amass more power. He would not be content with what he inherited. So, in his work, it was very possible that he purposefully left out reasons for William's hostility that would make him look poorly. However, it can be interpreted that these agreements between William and Hugh were broken and their relationship was combustible. Then, looking back into history, it can be seen that besides humanity's natural drive to gain power, that the reason their feudal relationship was messy and chaotic was because of the devolution into civil war after the fall of the Carolingians and exacerbated by the Roman Catholic Church and Viking invasions.