Non-fiction and essays
University essays
History
First Year
Medieval History 101
What can be said of the relationship and reciprocal duties of great lords and their followers during the
eleventh century? (HIST 101, Spring 2002)

In classical interpretations of the society of the eleventh century, the casual reader may be forgiven for
thinking that there existed a simple hierarchical structure of lords and their followers. This includes ideas
such as the ‘feudal pyramid’ with the king at the top, below him the lords, and followed by vassals, sub-
vassals and finally the peasantry. In this model, there existed clear relationships up and down the hierarchy,
with the subordinates owing allegiance to their superiors. However, perhaps this model is too simplistic to
explain the more complex interrelations between lords and their followers, and struggles to provide a clear
idea of the duties expected of both sides in the arrangements. It is therefore necessary to examine the duties
and relationships in more detail, and to separate the ideals of the system from the realities. An example of
this can be found in examining the contemporary accounts from Fulbert of Chartres, describing the mutual
duties of vassals and lords, which is an idealised version. When compared with the lengthy agreement
between Hugh of Lusignan and his lord, Count William, we can perhaps see a more realistic view of how the
relationships worked.
Many historians refer to Fulbert of Chartres when he describes the six duties of ‘He who swears loyalty to his
lord’ to be ‘what is harmless, safe, honourable, useful, easy practicable.’# It then goes on to describe the
meanings of these six duties, which basically pertain to not being ‘injurious’ to their lord in all manner of
activities. It furthers the duties of the vassal by saying ‘he should faithfully counsel and aid his lord’ therefore
suggesting that the vassal must also do ‘good’ as well as abstaining from ‘evil’. The letter concludes with the
remark that the lord:
Also ought to act toward his faithful vassal reciprocally in all these things. And if he does not do this he will be
justly considered guilty of bad faith.
Therefore in this document, it is possible to infer that the lord-follower relationship was an entirely reciprocal
affair, with both sides honour-bound to fulfil their part of the agreement. There is no sense of the lord
dominating the relationship, and the idea of interdependence is put forth. Some historians, including Barber
make reference to this idea, when he says that the inferiors owe their superiors service, while the superiors
owe their inferiors protection.#
If we take the example of England after the Norman Conquest of 1066, which according to Brown provided the
‘origins of English feudalism’#, we see the ‘partitioning of land … among a French and Norman aristocracy’.#
These aristocratic landholders were subordinate to the King William. In turn they had below them a number
of knights, whom they were responsible for bringing to battle if so called upon by the king. The knights’
services, although primarily military, also consisted of financial aid: auxilium. In fact, the knights’ military
service could be commuted, at the king’s discretion, for a money payment.# This reflects the shift in the arena
of power, which according to Duby was from the army to the ‘great domain’.# Lords were no longer just
interested in military might, but needed to sustain their wealth and the power of their lands. In order to do this,
they required the services of fighting men, but also the general peasantry, who would work for the lord in
return for his promises of protection. Fourquin sums up this idea:
The feudal hierarchy reinforced the hierarchy of wealth in landed property and the hierarchy of military power.#
This preoccupation with land and its defence can be seen in the proliferation of the granting of fiefs or
benefices. These areas of land, usually given to knights in return for their promises to protect the lord from
attack, help him to fight his wars, and also aid him in peacetime. The eleventh century saw the spread of the
knight’s fee, in conjunction with the building of castles. According to Duby, the castle formed the centrepiece
of the lord-follower relationship:
A territory; at its centre, the fortress, guaranteeing the security of the lands; all who lived within its confines
and who, normally unarmed, did not participate directly in its defence, were subjugated to the master of the
tower. … To his coercive powers, defenceless before his demands, exploited on the pretext of paying for the
peace that he secured.#
This seems to suggest that perhaps the relationship was not so mutual as it appeared to be, the followers
exploited by the rulers who were only interested in filling their coffers. Duby continues his argument by
suggesting the main reason for the widespread expansion of people into previously uncultivated areas was
not the desire for additional land, but need of the people themselves, who had come to be the ‘most
profitable form of capital’ available to the lords. Therefore it would seem that the populace was becoming
ever more divided into those few with the power, the potentes and the majority who followed them, the
pauperes. Indeed, the increasing income and power the rulers gained, the easier it was for them to impose a
much higher degree of legal control over their vassals. This exercise in control extended to the lords
themselves, who would be subjected to the demands of the king, the supreme feudal lord in the land.
In the account of Hugh of Lusignan, the abuse of power by the powerful in relation to their followers is evident.
In a series of negotiations between Hugh and Count William, Hugh is continually promised to be given
something, be it land, a castle, even a wife, and the Count repeatedly breaks his promises. Practically every
passage ends with such unfortunate remarks as ‘Hugh suffered heavy loss’ or ‘he lost his land’, until finally
the Count allows Hugh what is rightfully his.# This is a good example of the way in which a lord, safe in the
knowledge of his superior might, can act in a manner that would seem to warrant the voiding of an act of
homage on the grounds of ‘bad faith’. Even with all these injustices, Hugh still stays loyal to the Count,
probably due to having few other courses of action available to him. Poly and Bournazel make an analysis of
this document:
In this system, based entirely on faith, the duke never keeps his word. In order to maintain the balance of
divided lands, he can only answer the demands of the lords with promises he had no intention of keeping.#
So in light of this account, it would appear that the faithful bonds between lords and their followers were
perhaps not as faithful as discussed by Fulbert. In fact, many vassals owed allegiance to numerous lords,
and the ties of vassalage were interwoven and difficult to disentangle, particularly in the advent of a conflict.
This resulted in a system of liege homage, which should have in theory made one relationship more
important that any others. If the relationship between the powerful and powerless was so one-sided, what
can be said about the duties, supposedly reciprocal?
The original manner in which someone became the ‘man’ of another man were the acts of fealty and
homage of one party to a superior party. The true significance of these pledges depended on the relative
status of the two parties:
Oaths taken by one great lord to another or by one knight to another were simply a guarantee, a promise not
to injure; taken by a petty nobleman to a powerful one it was a genuine allegiance, a promise to serve.#
The act of fealty was gradually transformed from a simple pledge to act faithfully towards the lord into a
detailed contract, including the definition of duties. The primary duty of the follower was a military service, for
instance to garrison the castle of the lord. This extended to any vassal who had their own sub-vassals, as
they would be expected to supply some of their own men in response to a lord’s call to arms. The duties in
peacetime were varied, depending on the type of land held by the lord, the country they resided in and the
relative status of the two parties. For instance, the followers may have been summoned to the ‘court’ of the
lord, which often coincided with liturgical feasts.# Vassals’ duties extended beyond the military, to include
financial aid, which although initially a ‘voluntary gift’, soon became a means for the lord to exert a taxation
power over his followers. The lord could also levy fines on those vassals who refused to provide military
service. The other aspect of the vassal’s duties concerned consilium, or counsel. They were expected to offer
advice in a variety of areas, for instance helping in the lord’s business affairs, the carrying of messages and
the administration of the household. # The less powerful vassals, including the peasantry, were mainly
concerned with providing for the lord, working the lands, but even these were bound to perform military
service if so required. The duties of vassals are extolled at length by Critchley:
The vassal should never attack his lord, in word or deed. … He should never rape the lord’s wife, or his
daughter, daughter-in-law, or sister … He must warn of any plots he might hear of being hatched against
him. He should help him in his just wars, and at the very least defend him in his unjust ones.#
Therefore it remains to be discussed why these people were willing to subject themselves to the control of
another.
The main duties of the lord concerned the protection of their vassals, indeed in the eleventh century this was
the paramount issue. This is seen in a military sense and also defending them in any legal disputes they
may be involved in. The lord was ‘bound to come to the vassal’s aid’ and to defend him against his enemies
when the vassal was ‘unjustly attacked’. The lord was also bound to ‘defend his vassal in a court of law, even
the King’s court.’# The fact of the matter is that lords needed their followers, so much so that they had to be
generous to their vassals to some extent. It was the lord’s responsibility to enable his followers to perform
their duties, which meant the maintenance of the vassals, either by the granting of a fief, or by providing for the
follower in his own household. However, the lordly duties do not seem to be so all consuming as those of the
vassals were.
It is apparent that the relationships between lords and followers were decidedly complicated, and it does not
appear that they were the models of faithfulness and reciprocity that are put forth in Fulbert’s letter. Instead,
with the lords able to exercise a great amount of control over their followers, through calling them up for
military service, to forcing them to finance the lord’s campaigns, it was a decidedly one-sided situation.
However, there is some truth to the fact that the vassals did benefit from the protection of a powerful ruler, in a
time when local disputes and skirmishes were common. There was even competition for the services of
vassals, but this did not occur until later in the period. For the majority of this era, the few powerful lords
controlled the lives of those bound to them, and even in cases of supposed bad faith, there was little their
followers could really do to change this.

Bibliography
Barber, M, The Two Cities: Medieval Europe 1050-1350, (1993).
Bartlett, R, The Making of Europe, (1993).
Bloch, M, Feudal Society (translated from the French by L A Manyon), (1961).
Brown, R A, Origins of English Feudalism, (1973).
Cheyette, F L, Lordship and Community in Medieval Europe: Selected Readings, (1968).
Critchley, J S, Feudalism, (1978).
Duby, G, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined (translated by A Goldhammer), (1980).
Fourquin, G, Lordship and Feudalism in The Middle Ages (translated by I and A L Lytton Sells), (1976).
Ganshof, F L, Feudalism (translated by P Grierson), (1964).
Poly, J-P & Bournazel, E, The Feudal Transformation 900-1200 (translated by C Higgitt), (1991).
Southern, R W, The Making of the Middle Ages, (1953).
Medieval Sourcebook, Fulbert of Chartres: On Feudal Obligations, 1020 (www.fordham.
edu/halsall/source/fulbert.html) (1996).
Medieval Sourcebook, Agreement between Count William V of Aquitaine and Hugh IV of Lusignan, (www.
fordham.edu/halsall/source/agreement.html (1996).
Non-fiction


Hom-UHT Publishing