Muscovite Manorialism - Contrasts Between European Feudalism and Kievan Manorialism

Contrasts Between European Feudalism and Kievan Manorialism

The major difference between the Kievan manorial system and European feudalism is vested in the fact that lands granted by a prince to a knight held no obligation; that is to say if the knight wished to leave the service of the prince, which usually expect loyalty, he was able to do so with no obligation whatsoever and was also able to retain possession of the granted land. Therefore, the political structure created by the Western European feudalism was not transferred to the Rus' by its manorial system. Rather, the manorial system was more of an economic control.

The manor owners in Rus' usually relied on direct production of their land and chose not to rent it out which proved a stark contrast to feudal Europe in which by the High Middle Ages had most of its land claimed by monarchs, which in turn parceled it to vassals who rented the land to serfs. Even though it became increasingly common for one knight to have landholdings in several different princedoms, due to the use of direct production, the land of the Rus' was still largely in the hands of the peasants during the 12th century.

In 1100 it started to become more apparent the smerds were considered lower than their totally independent counterparts in Europe (free traders), however, it is important to note the smerds still had remarkably more freedom than the growing peon/serf class, or the serf class of Europe. Even though this indentured class grew greatly in numbers, the economy of Kievan Russia blossomed until 1125 the year of the death of Prince Vladimir Monomakh.

Through its history, the Kievan coalition had relied on lateral succession to the princedom; that is to say, that when a prince died, he was replaced by his brother, then he by the next brother, etc.… with this repeating until the fourth brother was reached and then succession transferred back to the original prince's son. Unfortunately for the Kievians, when Vladimir died, there was no clear line of succession and political infighting ensued; the resulting anarchy and civil war made trade difficult and invasion inevitable.

Politically, the structure of the Kievan Federation left the people without the tools necessary to ward off invaders and prosecute a winnable war. The aristocracy had no real power to deal with foreign states and there was not seat of true power as was found in feudal Europe. The Kievan Federation lacked the land-grant vassal—lord system which made England and France strong. In those two states, the king granted land to his loyal knights in return for cooperation, loyalty and tax revenue. The knight, or vassal, would then parse the land out to renters, or serfs in order to bring in wealth. The king offered protection to the knight by control of an army to ward off invaders and the knight afforded safety to the serfs by local protection.

The Kievian federation, however, took the path of the German Empire and still contained characteristics of city-state independence; the individual family communes still thought of themselves as independent entities. In Europe as often happened, independent states often banded together and formed a strong central power in efforts to achieve a common goal, such as defense. Unfortunately for the people of Rus' they found themselves with no strong government, no clear successor, and no foreseeable way to ward off the invasions of its enemies. It would not take long for sorties in the north and west by the Norse and Poles to begin the weakening of the Kievan state to a point the Tatars were able to conquer the country unopposed.