Feudalism developed in both the Western European and Japanese worlds in the middle Ages. Compare and contrast the two similar institutions, looking at politics, society, and military affairs.
Introduction
Feudalism is basically regarded as being a combination of military and legal customs which flourished during the Middle Ages. Ideally, this was one of the means used by nations, especially Western Europe and Japan for the purpose of restructuring their society around some relationships that were obtained through land holding in exchange for labor or other services. Despite that, the extensive use of this feudalism and its associated system was not ultimately used by the society as being the mechanism of improving their political system during Middle Ages (Smith, 2008).
Later, it was understood that the significance of feudalism was to aid in describing a set of military and legal obligations that existed amongst the warriors’ nobility revolving around fiefs, vassals, and lords. Furthermore, since it includes the nobility of clergies and peasantry who are bounded by manorialism, it makes this system to be termed as being a feudal society. This in return has enabled people to understand the role played by the medieval society (Wallech et al., 2012).
Comparison
Regardless of the fact that the feudal system of Western Europe and Japan had differed greatly, they shared common key elements. The first one is that the Japanese and the Western Europe feudal systems were established on rigid hierarchy or chain of command that in return restricted people from moving from one class to another. It means that in both states, nobles were the top most class, followed by warriors and lastly farmers. Secondly, both of these systems depended on peasantry for the purpose of boosting their agricultural activities as well as defining the classes of warriors who were absolutely committed in maintaining their military powers (Wallech et al., 2012). Likewise, the political and social systems of Western Europe and Japan had similar structure that is having same habits, garb, skills, and ideals.
Basically, there existed little societal mobility that is to imply that the peasants’ children were to remain peasants while those of the lords were to be lords and ladies. The only exemption of this scenario is that of Toyotomi Hideyoshi who was born by a peasant, but later rose to power as the ruler of their country (Powelson, 2000).
Nonetheless, the feudalism of Western Europe and Japan had extensively enabled warriors to depend on constant warfare as a means of maintaining the military class. Ideally, the samurai of Japan and the knights of Western Europe had the responsibility of serving their lords. Furthermore, the warriors of both nations were meant to serve their lords with accepted code of conduct or ethics. From this perspective, it implies that the duty of the knights of Europe was to conform to the concept of chivalry while those of the Japanese samurai were to be bounded by the way of the warriors or the precepts of bushido (Upshur, 2012).
Differences
Feudalism in Western Europe was built in the late 800s CE while in Japan it was established in the late 1100s CE as the Kamakura Shogunate rose to power and Heian era drew closer. In the 16th century, feudalism in Western Europe came to an end as a result of the establishment of stronger or better political states while Japanese feudalism continued to flourish until in came to an end as a result of the Meiji Restoration.
In both states, the samurai and the knights wore armor, used swords, and rode horses to the battle field. The armor that the European knights wore was made of plate metal or chain mail. The armor that the Japanese samurai wore incorporated lacquered metal plates or leather with metal bindings or silk. Despite that, the knights of Europe were almost immobilized because of their armor hence requiring extra assistance while riding their horses. The reason for that is because that could give them an opportunity of knocking their opponents off the mounts of their opponents. On the other hand, the armor that the Japanese samurai used to wear was light in terms of weight hence enabling them to maneuver quickly. This means that they required little protection while attacking their opponents in the battle field (Wallech et al., 2012).
During the Middle Ages, the feudal lords of the Western Europe used to built castles made of stones. The reason for that was to offer protection not only to them, but also to their vassals in the process of being attacked. On the contrary, the castles that the daimyo or the lords of Japan used to build castles were made up of wood.
The Japanese feudalism was absolutely based on the ideas that were initially developed by their philosopher Confucius or Kong Qiu. The reason for that is because such ideas were meant to ensure that filial piety or morality has been maintained, especially for elders and not for any other superior. Likewise, one of the main responsibilities of the daimyo and samurai was to ensure that they have provided protection to their villagers and peasants. As a reward for their duty, the villagers and peasants were required to pay them taxes as a way of honoring them (Upshur, 2012).
On the other hand, instead of the Roman regal customs and laws, the feudalism of Western Europe was supplemented by the Germanic traditions. In return, it was important to ensure that such a system has also been supported by main authorities of the Catholic Church. Conversely, the relationships that the vassals and their lords had were perceived to be contractual. For instance, the lords used to offer protection as well as payments while vassals were to remain loyal to them (Smith, 2008).
Land ownership was also another key distinctive factor. The knights of Europe used to acquire land from lords as a means of paying for their military services. They also had direct and full control of the serfs who used to work on their land. The samurai of Japan, in contrast, did not have the opportunity of owning land. The daimyo instead used a certain percentage of the returns they obtained as taxes from peasants to pay them salaries in terms of rice (Classen, 2010).
Gender interactions are also another factor that used to distinguish the knights of Europe and the samurai of Japan. For instance, samurai women were regarded to be stronger as their men. They were also expected to have the courage of facing death without cringing. On the other hand, the European women were perceived to be delicate flowers hence requiring constant protection from the chivalrous knights. Furthermore, the samurai of Japan were expected to be artistic and cultured. They were supposed to have the ability of writing or composing poetry in beautiful calligraphy. On the other hand, the knights of Europe were usually illiterate. They have would have had the likelihood of being scorned that time in favor for jousting or hunting (Powelson, 2000).
When it comes to death, the samurai of Japan and the knights of Europe had different approaches. For instance, the European knights were ultimately bound by their catholic Christian laws against strove and suicide. The reason for that was to enable them to avoid any form of death. In contrary, the Japanese Samurai did not have any religious reasons that could have compelled them to avoid death. In order to maintain honor, they could commit suicide once defeated (Upshur, 2012).
Conclusion
Despite the fact that the Japanese and the European feudalism have vanished, still few traces of this system still remains. For example, monarchies still thrives in European and Japan though in ceremonial or constitutional forms. The Japanese samurai and the knights of Europe have been demoted to horrific titles or social roles. Although nearly becoming extinct, the divisions of their political and social as remains.
References
Classen, A. (2010). Handbook of medieval studies: Terms - methods - trends. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Powelson, J. P. (2000). The moral economy. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.
Smith, B. G. (2008). The Oxford encyclopedia of women in world history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Upshur, J.-H. L. (2012). World history: The age of global integration. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Wallech, S., Hendricks, C., Negus, A. L., Wan, P., Daryaee, T., & Bakken, G. M. (2012). World History, A Concise Thematic Analysis: A Concise Thematic Analysis. New York: Wiley.
