11-27-2006, 10:40 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 27 2006, 10:15 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 27 2006, 10:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"2. Consider these two famous research questions about the `transition'
in history (of both the `leftist' and the `rightist' variety): when
and how did transition from `slavery' to `feudalism' occur in Europe?
This issue was discussed by theologians and theological historians for
a long time in the following form: how did Christianity put an end to
the Pagan Rome? The historians discussed precisely this issue, and in
this form, till the end of the eighteenth century as well. The
division they made between `epochs' (a word coined by a French
Christian Priest called Bossuet during the 18th century) was the one
between pre-Christian (pagan) Rome and the post-Christian Rome. The
very same issue, with the *very same* division has now become a
`scient ific' question in the guise of: how did feudalism put paid to
slavery? The same can be said about another transition question that
bothers Marxist historians: <b>how did feudalism (an `epoch' of social
production) give way to Capitalism in `the West'? Do you know what
this question is a complex translation of? `Why did the Protestant
reformation against the Catholic Church gain foothold?'</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]61396[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine...but dhu can you also maybe put what are implications of these. I did not very well understand the slavery to feudalism thing. Can we correlate it and say that Pre-Christian Europe to Post Christian Europe is equivalent to slavery to feudalism i.e. with Christianity coming in slavery gave way to feudalism. I personally don't think that was the case. It can be only in one case, if you can prove that Christianity was the main cause of the decline of Roman Empire.
Contrastingly in early and medieval Islamic regimes in Baghdad, Egypt or the Ghazni sultanate, with Islam coming in I think slavery replaced or took some share away from the feudal set up. You would have heard of Mamluk regimes at various places. The Caliphs and other Sultans started maintaining large contingents of slave army who directly reported to them and were personally loyal to the Sultan. This was done to decrease reliance on feudal lords and curb their power. You can find these instances across the time period and geography from 700 A.D. to 14th-15th century. During this entire period first slave armies became more prominent and then existed side by side with feudal levies.
Incidentally post 14th century in India you don't find much mention of slave armies in India. The last prominent guy AFAIK to maintain large slave army is Firuz Tughlaq. I think with the Mongol invasion and occupation post 1398 this set up was disturbed. Later on in Lodhi, Suri and Mughal times in 14th, 15th centuries there was full reliance on feudal levies. The introduction of mansabdari system thereafter also created a greater trust in the feudal set up. I think this would be because of the oncoming of gunpowder. As I have earlier remarked, gunpowder and artillery gave a boost to centralization in 15th century and you had strong centralized kingdoms coming up all over India like Malwa, Gujarat, Bihar, Bijapur, Ahmednagar, Golkonda, Vijayanagara. It would be interesting to debate how much artillery power helped to centralize these kingdoms. So slave armies became redundant. Slave armies, I think, were costlier to maintain. They required regular payments of salaries in cash and supplying them with accoutrements meant that the king needed to have regular working capital. Also with gunpowder power, it was easier to control feudal lords. But anyway looking at it through the slave army angle is interesting. By the way, what is the source of your article.
in history (of both the `leftist' and the `rightist' variety): when
and how did transition from `slavery' to `feudalism' occur in Europe?
This issue was discussed by theologians and theological historians for
a long time in the following form: how did Christianity put an end to
the Pagan Rome? The historians discussed precisely this issue, and in
this form, till the end of the eighteenth century as well. The
division they made between `epochs' (a word coined by a French
Christian Priest called Bossuet during the 18th century) was the one
between pre-Christian (pagan) Rome and the post-Christian Rome. The
very same issue, with the *very same* division has now become a
`scient ific' question in the guise of: how did feudalism put paid to
slavery? The same can be said about another transition question that
bothers Marxist historians: <b>how did feudalism (an `epoch' of social
production) give way to Capitalism in `the West'? Do you know what
this question is a complex translation of? `Why did the Protestant
reformation against the Catholic Church gain foothold?'</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]61396[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine...but dhu can you also maybe put what are implications of these. I did not very well understand the slavery to feudalism thing. Can we correlate it and say that Pre-Christian Europe to Post Christian Europe is equivalent to slavery to feudalism i.e. with Christianity coming in slavery gave way to feudalism. I personally don't think that was the case. It can be only in one case, if you can prove that Christianity was the main cause of the decline of Roman Empire.
Contrastingly in early and medieval Islamic regimes in Baghdad, Egypt or the Ghazni sultanate, with Islam coming in I think slavery replaced or took some share away from the feudal set up. You would have heard of Mamluk regimes at various places. The Caliphs and other Sultans started maintaining large contingents of slave army who directly reported to them and were personally loyal to the Sultan. This was done to decrease reliance on feudal lords and curb their power. You can find these instances across the time period and geography from 700 A.D. to 14th-15th century. During this entire period first slave armies became more prominent and then existed side by side with feudal levies.
Incidentally post 14th century in India you don't find much mention of slave armies in India. The last prominent guy AFAIK to maintain large slave army is Firuz Tughlaq. I think with the Mongol invasion and occupation post 1398 this set up was disturbed. Later on in Lodhi, Suri and Mughal times in 14th, 15th centuries there was full reliance on feudal levies. The introduction of mansabdari system thereafter also created a greater trust in the feudal set up. I think this would be because of the oncoming of gunpowder. As I have earlier remarked, gunpowder and artillery gave a boost to centralization in 15th century and you had strong centralized kingdoms coming up all over India like Malwa, Gujarat, Bihar, Bijapur, Ahmednagar, Golkonda, Vijayanagara. It would be interesting to debate how much artillery power helped to centralize these kingdoms. So slave armies became redundant. Slave armies, I think, were costlier to maintain. They required regular payments of salaries in cash and supplying them with accoutrements meant that the king needed to have regular working capital. Also with gunpowder power, it was easier to control feudal lords. But anyway looking at it through the slave army angle is interesting. By the way, what is the source of your article.