Feudalism Discuss in Spain has always been controversial. Depending on the concept that had the same views could come to give sick antagonistic. Then I will review some opinions that were at the time the provosts of major English historical thought and medievalism Hispanic.
The general opinion on the issue in early twentieth century was to consider that Hispanic feudalism was immature. Exponent of this view is Valdeavellano Garcia, who does not dispute that reached the Peninsula feudal-vassal institutions from beyond the Pyrenees, but always in the form of partial elements, late and not fully developed feudalism. Academically and personally support this view because in reality what moves us is that each part or "nation" or "state" (note the quotation marks of certain terms) of the present Europe was given a kind of feudalism and own levels , and there is a minimum concepts related to them all.
Another outstanding view and the same years corresponds to Claudio Sánchez Albornoz, who in his magnificent work "Around the origins of feudalism" and "Spain, a Historical Enigma" tells us that in the Visigothic there was a process of "prefeudalización" and that was aborted with the Muslim invasion of 711 AD in place only in the Hispanic feudalism of the Carolingian court because of the relationship of this territory with the dynasty, as shown in the code Usatges dels. What most attracts me to the opinion of D. Claudio and his followers is not in the least contradict the previous view but Valdeavellano Garcia complements and enriches.
With the arrival of 60 and 70 to come up several English historiography and innovative views on the subject at hand. Professor Miguel Artola tells us in his works than in the corresponding period to the modern age can speak either noble or feudal regime, contradicting the separation crystal terminology which had hitherto rampant among the historiography of English and de facto recognition the existence and survival of feudalism Hispanic.
Josep Fontana in 1971 and to study the period 1814-1820 tells us that using the term "feudalism" in this period is debatable but the English peasants the period called "feudalism" the rate at which they opposed.
latter two views tie in somewhat with Barber and Vigil who in his book "The formation of feudalism in the Iberian Peninsula" state unequivocally that we can speak of feudalism in the Iberian Peninsula from the late Roman Empire until the end of nineteenth century. Particularly the latter do not share such general views of feudal phenomenon because it can not be called feudal lord-peasant relations in the tenth century and do likewise in the nineteenth century when Spain had entered the orbit of the European bourgeois revolutions of 1820 , 1830 and 1848 as well as having enjoyed various civil constitutions. Another thing is to call late feudalism to political, economic and sociological dragged Spain and who tried in vain to rid the arrival of the Second Republic of 1931.
Of course, there are other opinions about the issue, some very reputable but I wanted to in this my first post, representing those most antagonistic. But I do not want me in the ink the view historians as Pierre Vilar De Moxó and for those who in every kingdom medieval English feudalism itself was developed primarily differentiating feudovasalláticas relations in Castile and the Crown of Aragon.
Currently, state of affairs has evolved into a consensus view in which generally recognized protofeudalismo Hispano and Visigoths, more diffuse characteristics to the European medieval feudalism and the Early Modern English and structural backwardness and class contemporary periods sometimes confuses medieval terms with another kind of better terms.
Posted by MEPI at 11:37
