From wiki.

"According to Stubbs, a shift in English history took place under Edward I when the feudal levy was replaced with royal payment in return for military service by the great magnates who willingly served the king. Thus, instead of vassals rendering military service when required by the lord, they paid a portion of their income into the lord's treasury. In turn the lord would supplement the owed military service with hired retainers, a sort of private army in full time service to the lord."

How was this different from the earlier Danegeld tax and fyrd levy?

Hi Haesten



The same article says "Recent historical research has shown that payment for military service goes back much further than the reign of Edward I, further discrediting the ideas of Stubbs."

I would tend to agree with the "recent historical research" (how recent is recent? This has been known a long time). The fyrd levy, for example, always allowed room for payment in lieu and even Alfred, rather famously, implemented "retainers" paid for more or less on that basis practically as a standing army. Well, more like an army rotating in shifts but still with a standing presence against Danish attempts to expand.

The point is that Stubbs, writing when he did, was of the view that feudalism, even in its "bastard" form, could not extend too far back into Saxon history. I think his stumbling block was that he placed great importance on the notion of "chivalry" and didn't want it extending back into the Saxon era if it could be helped, as this would negate his other favourite hobby-horse - that chivalric behaviour was introduced by the Normans. It was convenient to find a name therefore on which to hang the origin of the concept of "bastard feudalism" and Edward was about as far back as he dared go. Even contemporaries accused him of misstating the case, however his view was one shared by several medievalists of his day.

It was a question asked on the Archers board, Uni course I think.

I'll post your reply if you don't mind.

I think the king's ability to tax the land directly just broke down a bit after the conquest/anarchy. By the hundred years war it was certainly back to part feudal levy and part paid by the King.

I thought it sounded a bit like an "end of chapter revision question"!

Maybe what they're trying to get at is that Edward I regularised the system a bit? It could be that he removed the need to pretend to be otherwise occupied (dying of plague, raiding Scottish cattle etc) in order to opt to pay instead of serve, and just brought in a set table of charges? But if he did I've never heard about it, despite what Stubbs implied.