THE Authorative History of the British serf

For those of you who believe they were silenced by Bloch...Monty Python has found their voice!!

If you like this talk about religion and early European history...

then you will love the author Bernard Cornwell!  Not a historian, but he does write fictions based on historical actors and events...one of my favorite authors!

Zombie Survival rule #1 --- Stay out of the woods!!

Bloch Response

Bloch in Feudal Society aims to answer several questions that act as the structure for this historiography: What is the social structure and how did it come about? What were its unifying principles? This in itself is a large endeavor to accomplish because of the broadness, but feel that he does so by expanding beyond Prescott’s “Great Man View of History”. Bloch does not just focus on the who is in power like Prescott did with Cortes and instead he provides a framework for the social structure for this medieval period of feudalism.

Instead, he tries to provide a complete insight into feudalism and how it functions within society between the 9^th and to about the 14^th century in this first volume. He does this at first by describing the environment of medieval Europe such as the invasions in the 9^th and 10^th century and then expands upon this by describing the conditions of life and the mentality of the time. Bloch attempts to tie in cultural influences that make this history, at least for me, reminiscent to anthropological workings that were happening at the time. After all, he is writing at the same time or after as social theorists such as Marx or Durkheim (who is also French and really influenced the social sciences).

I would also like to point out that I feel Bloch geared this book for other history workers already having some prior knowledge to this time period. As a result, this book could come across overwhelming for some not versed in this medieval period. Because of a medieval literature class that I had to take as a requirement, I feel that I had a firmer grasp on this book than others because I already had some familiarity with the time period. With that in mind, I would like to say that if anyone in our class is interested in this time period that they should take a medieval literature class with Amelia Rutledge because she really gets into the nuts and bolts of medieval societies and how this can be seen in the literature produced at the time.

Bloch's Writing Genius

After reading the extensive work of Bloch’s Feudal Society, it was clear to me that this book was intended for an established historian. Personally, I do not research or read about medieval history, thus Bloch’s work sent me to the internet for answers quite frequently. Bloch writes with assumptions about the times, from the 9th century onwards.

Bloch’s sources however, were credible and he gave a fair analysis from a European perspective. Being a Frenchman, and apparently a full hearted one, Bloch does not just focus on the post-Carolingian France but Europe as a whole. Bloch’s “General Survey of Europe” was his credible tool for expansive and credible research, especially for the time written in the 1930s.

I believe Bloch’s work has held up for many reasons. First being the book’s large chronological window. Bloch covers from the 9th century until about the 14th, and without getting into gritty details, his analysis is easily understood to historians at almost all levels. Also, Bloch does not make any outlandish claims such as Prescott. When compared to Prescott, Bloch writes with much more academic caution. But what makes Bloch’s work truly timeless is his writing style. His vivid big picture that he creates in this first volume is a memorable read, and it it easily digestible. I found it shocking that Bloch was able to cover so much ground in a rather short book, but I believe that skill speaks to his intellect.

The only debate which may still surround Bloch’s book is the definition of ‘feudal.’ Both Bloch and the author of the foreword try to tackle this phenomena, but no easy answer is given. This may be because the essence of ‘feudal’ has been and continues to be a changing dialect within the academy. Other than this quasi-clarity (or lack of easy specificity), Bloch’s work deserves to remain a timeless academic work on medieval European history.  

Response to Bloch

Feudal Society was undoubtedly written for Bloch's fellow historians and other history workers. While Bloch explicitly states in his introduction that he is concerned with history and not historians one could make the claim that Bloch’s work was quite ahead of its time and as such found a home among his contemporaries. Bloch’s French nationality may well have informed his perspective because he was the member of a post-feudal, yet classist society. One could make the argument that the United States’ obsession with individuality, and the agency of individuals may have prejudiced American historians at the time to this kind of history. 

Today a book such as Bloch’s might be criticized because it has so many irons in its analytical fire. Not only is the books geographical scope expansive he is concerned with many prime movers to include conflict, religion, agriculture, economics, transportation, intra-group dynamics and what he refers to as “mental climate.” While Bloch affords agency to the higher rungs of society the presence of the “Great Man” is notably absent from his work, save for the occasional mention in passing.

 While Bloch’s methodology may remain one might think that he would be forced to big one of these forces above all else, as is seen with many Marxist or orthodox historians. His use of sources leaves something to be desired as his footnotes are sparse are not of much use to the unilingual (ie. Americans). The lack of a bibliography is a also a detriment of the work. Additionally he adheres to the idea of a distinctive “West,” a notion which has become passé among contemporary academics. 

Bloch & Prescott - similarities and differences

  The Annales School of history writing sought to take all walks of life into account when writing history.  Taking that into account, what different groups does Bloch include in his book?  How does this differ from Prescott's "Great Man View of History"?

  Volume I of Marc Bloch’s Feudal Society examines the (swift?) birth of feudalism and the development of its foundation.  The volume is written in an erudite and literary style which seemed to me to be similar to Prescott in some ways, and seemed be equally biased in a Eurocentric way.  In the Forward of the book, T.S. Brown points to criticism over the weakness in the way Bloch handles chronology (xvi), but I didn’t see it.  I thought both Prescott and Bloch wrote chronologically understandable narratives.

  

  I do see stylistic similarities in Bloch and Prescott, but the differences between the two authors are more distinct.  Prescott conveyed his history by employing the great man, Cortes, to help deliver the narrative.   Bloch seems to stand in contrast to the great man theory or method – more prone to examining a long term social history, the emphasis being the social and economic themes of feudalism, rather than political or diplomatic themes.   Bloch looks at the roles of “Northmen,” kindred groups and the ties between Man and Man – vassalage and fief, and lord, to name a few, in a broad way (although the book was particularly Franco-centric).  Granted, as other posts from the class have pointed out, Bloch didn’t spend much time with the serf, but I still believe he effectively employs major elements of society as the deliverer of his thesis, instead of, as Prescott may have been inclined to do, using Charlemagne (or the hero Roland) to tell the story.

  Trouillot may have been concerned, as T.S. Brown was in the Forward to this volume, about the potential silences produced by Bloch’s scant treatment of the role of Christianity, paying little attention to the religion that Brown called the factor that “contributed most to the cohesion of Western society.” (xviii)

If I'd read an Annales before, I didn't know it...

It seems ironic to me that Bloch attempts to provide structure to a historical era known for its lack of the same.  But in thinking about this more, it dawns on me just how useful this approach is, but not for the purpose of historiography, rather to glean observations on the nature of man kind, the need for social structure, and the criticality of security as a pre-requisite for civil order name just a few.

This being my first experience reading an Annales, I found its style, lacking a clear and consistent thesis, a bit frustrating.  While the book was rich with historical knowledge, it was hard to get into a rhythm and even the sub-sections seemed to jump around from region to region, and origin to origin.  It felt more like a collage of loosely related facts than a systematic presentation of a historical era.  

This criticism does not mean that the book is not useful, in fact, quite the opposite.  Its fragmented organization almost makes it more like a reference book, easily separated into its distinct parts than a comprehensive presentation. 

Bloch clearly understands that there was no singular monolithic system of feudalism, rather a great variety of systems that all shared common origins and framework.  This creates two opportunities: first, the book presents countless new opportunities for scholastic endeavor, not just for historians, but the other social sciences as well; second, the books social focus helps to identify potential "truths" about mankind that can help better understand the relationship between man and social structures and the most basic needs of civilization and how man responds in their absence or abuse.

PS...The book would have benefitted greatly from a series of maps to help identify locations of many of the places, kingdoms, tribes, etc. mentioned throughout.

Bloch chips off the old history

Whereas Prescott gave us a historical view from the top down, with a great man like Cortes, Bloch offers a perspective of history from a middle to upper-crust perspective.  A wider, if not wide, array of societal positions.  According to Koziol, the author of the forward, “Bloch believed that the practice of history had to become more scientific.   … [And] a scientific history would be a history of social and material forces rather than of great events and great men” (Kindle, 141-146).  I am not an expert of this time period, but I think Bloch did a fine job of conveying that the turn of the first millennium and a few centuries after were a more vibrant period than had been previously recognized.  People didn’t wait until the traditional understanding of the beginning of the Renaissance in order to have culture and form modern relationships among each other, with local officials, and with something we would come to call “the state.”  By looking at a variety of sources, in particular the stories, poems, and folklore that isn’t as neatly recorded in traditionally accepted documents of the time, Bloch cast a somewhat wider data net in order to present a vivid picture of some exciting times in western history.  

With Prescott and in reading The History of the Conquest of Mexico, we learned about an historical approach to an important moment in world history, and we learned something about the conquest of Mexico.  But with Bloch, I feel like we are reading more of actual history - it feels more scholarly and less opinionated than Prescott’s book did.  Bloch is taking the science part seriously.  However, in defense of Prescott, Conquest was a much more fun book to read.  Overall, I love the diversity of academic approaches to history we have encountered so far, and I have also enjoyed the different writing styles of the authors.  

Feudal Society Response

While reading Marc Bloch’s, Feudal Society, I believed the information presented in the book was quite broad; however, he goes into great detail and depth of the topics at hand. To be honest I found this approach intriguing in some aspects and long in others. For example, the first few chapters on the invasions, interesting as they were, I found to be redundant. Overall, I enjoyed the book as whole. As many others mentioned, Bloch does silence the serfs and peasants throughout the book. He mentions them from time to time, but does not go into great detail about them like he does other topics.

Last week in class we discussed how Prescott viewed Cortes as the great man who changed history. I could apply this notion to Bloc’s Feudal Society, but I wouldn’t say that it was one person in particular who changed history. I think Bloch would argue that society as an entity changed history. The use of the Latin language, kinship, education, law, etc., all of which are part of the society, change with time and the understanding of their history. “Thus feudalism, a type of social organization marked by a special quality in human relationships, expressed itself not only in the creation of new institutions; it imparted its own coloring to what it received from the past, as if passing it through a prism, and transmitted it to succeeding ages” (page, 279).  

Bloch's Middle Ages

Bloch approached his book, Feudal Society, from an interesting perspective.  Bloch did not write for the typical historian; he is quite clear of this fact on page xxvii where he states “History, not historians, is my concern.”  Bloch found that viewing history from a solely scientific-style approach was too rigid and was prohibitive to truly understanding history.  Therefore, he took a more anthropological approach to his work, tying in cultural influences to create a more thorough description of the period.

Bloch uses few sources throughout the book and the reader can find himself going several pages between footnotes.  Many footnotes are merely a way to clarify a point or discuss it further without cluttering up the main text.  From reading his introduction and reviewing the citations, he appears to have been very discerning when choosing his sources.  However, his presentation of these lack a professionalism that is necessary for his book to have much clout.  Bloch mentions a bibliography, however in the Routledge 2001 edition of Volume 1 it is noticeably lacking.  It would have been beneficial to include a bibliography in all separately printed volumes.

I think that Bloch’s book is very well written and an interesting read.  He has made a period which can seem rather dull interesting to the reader.  He makes you want to travel back to medieval times and experience their culture.  This is the first book we have read this semester that I would like to keep and return to at a later date.  

Bloch - Feudal Society

In the introduction to Feudal Society, Marc Bloch wrote that his concern in writing this book was for the sake of “[h]istory, not historians” (p. xxvii).  This statement sums up my adventure into this graduate degree.  So, with that beginning I began to read Feudal Society with a confidence that I had not experienced with the other required readings. 

First, it seems as was not written specifically with only the historian in mind.  In fact, T.S. Brown stated in his forward that Bloch’s admirers came more from the other social sciences than from the ranks of medieval historians (p. xii).  When Bloch did mention the historian’s craft, he appeared to be explaining the tools of the trade to people who were not necessarily his peers in his field (pp. 31, 52, 181, 206, & 212).  He truly seemed to be interested in writing about the feudal society of medieval Europe.  So, who was Bloch’s audience?  In my opinion, it was written mostly for the present and future leaders of government.  While Bloch had a genuine affinity for the study of medieval Europe and wanted to pass on his knowledge to others who cared about the period, he also lived through the Nazi occupation and would ultimately become a victim of that regime.  I believe that he had a desire to tell why the atrocity of totalitarian regimes could happen in Europe.    

Second, his detached descriptions of the foundations of law, government, and society in the feudal period struck a familiar tone.  His systematic organization, more topical than chronological, appealed to my study of governmental systems.  Moreover, his chapter that surveyed the feudal systems gave insight into the governments and societies of the various western European nations in a comparative form to modern governments.  He also wrote an entire section on the lessons learned from the invasions of the Arabs, Hungarians, and the Scandinavians, which is another part of governmental study.  If Bloch’s analytical style is indeed the form of writing used by historians of the 1930s and 1940s, I can see the value it adds to other fields.

My major criticism of his work is the almost complete lack of citation.  He explained his reasoning for this negation by stating that the body of text contained the necessary sources and that the references would be listed in the bibliography.  Unfortunately, it was difficult to pull sources out of the main body and my copy of the book had no bibliography.  This lack of citation of sources was a disappointment in an otherwise quality work. 

 

Feudal Society as a Living Organism and Bloch's Audience

In his introduction, Bloch writes, “In other words, what we are attempting here is to analyse and explain a social structure and its unifying principles” (xxvi).  Bloch’s work treats feudal society as a “living organism,” (xxvii) exploring its mental atmosphere and its “microorganisms’,” i.e. its people’s, web of societal ties.   He brings this organism to life for his reader in his vivid account of the lived human relationships within feudal society, such as ties of kinship (and how the actions of one member of the family apply to all), the swearing of homage and fealty (and the differences between the two), and various complications that arise when either a lord or a vassal passes away before the other (such as when the heir of a fief is a minor). 

Furthermore, he does so in a guiding and honest fashion, making sure to acknowledge when his sources fall short of answering the questions that he poses.  He writes, for example, “... yet no study has been more neglected than that of this social geography.  It is therefore only possible here to offer a little guidance to students” (176).  This statement addresses Zachary’s prompt for this week by hinting that perhaps Professor Bloch’s audience is students, even though Bloch’s work has “had an impact on the medievalist, the non-historical specialist, the student, and the general reader,” as Brown acknowledges in his foreword.  In any event, after reading Feudal Society, it is clear to me that Bloch has accomplished something that would “leave him well content”, which is to leave its readers hungry to learn and to inquire (xxvii).     

Bloch, Social Sciences, and Ultranationalism

In response to this prompt, I am going to utilize the “Also feel free to just talk about the book as you normally would” card and weave in and out of posed questions.

While reading Bloch, the first thing that I noticed was his depth of knowledge and the extent of this work. He hits on SO many different aspects of what he describes as feudalism and a “feudal society”. From a certain standpoint, it’s interesting how Bloch describes the society itself as being feudal, rather than a society which incorporates feudalistic aspects. One being at the core of the society itself, the latter is an aspect of it. Through his comparative history he hits on just about every aspect of this society from its foundation, two eras, historiography, law, kinship, vassalage, literature, etc. I was at first worried that Bloch may have bit off a bit more than he could chew. I began thinking this might be a failed attempt at a sort of Universalist (though yes, still tied to the feudal era) work attempting to wrap an entire society up into a nice neat package. However, this isn’t Bloch’s intentions and in the end, from what I read, he does an outstanding job of defining and outlaying what he believes to be the feudal society. I still found myself getting lost in the immense details he provides to which I have very little context, though I don’t believe this work should be taken as an introduction to feudalism, but rather as an in-depth (though slightly antiquated) exploration into a society his contemporaries may have misunderstood.

Something very important about his work that I wanted to touch on, however, is the context in which Bloch composed his work. He is seen as one of the founders of the Annals school. This school of thought prides itself on the study of societies and utilizing, as we have seen in Townsend, this mid 20^th century incorporation of history into the social sciences. I personally believe that Bloch utilized his knowledge of medieval Europe to launch a revolution in thought. His work differs from many of the historians before him in focusing less on politics, “kings”, nations, war, etc. and more on the society itself. Bloch work and the Annals school is sort of an amalgamation history, anthropology, and sociology. Perhaps he is best seen in what Townsend mentions as a “social historian”. Coming from the early to mid 20^th century with the rise in totalitarian governments and ultranationalist beliefs, Bloch’s work stands in direct opposition. He is discrediting the agenda historians hired by the state to glorify the state and its history. He stands in opposition to a history of great men and great events, but rather talks about the larger picture (XI). Bloch focuses on the movement of peoples, their relationships/kinship, values, perceptions, and other societal frameworks. He speaks of the society itself, in this case his magnum opus on “Feudal Society”.  In this regard, he is almost the anti-Prescott. Perhaps that is a bit harsh, but their historical philosophies would differ greatly! 

What Bloch? No little people?

While reading Bloch's Feudal Society, as some other postings indicate, there is next to nothing about the serfs and or the peasant class - or 80-90% of the people alive at this time.  Bloch does a outstanding job of bringing to life a forgone era of knights and royalty and how they lived eventful life's, but nothing for the common man.  What does this say about Bloch though? Was it deliberate on his part or was he writing to a specific group of people?

In my humble opinion he was a product of the tail end of the historian gentlemen.  While thoroughly trained in the ways of historical writings, we was never-the-less writing to a college educated crowd of readers - in particular men, as there is very little in the ways of the day to day lives of women in this work.  Bloch wanted to connect his readers to a age that perhaps maybe many of these well to do college students or older gentlemen could make familiar ties to. 

I enjoyed this work and I am very impressed with who detailed it was.  I was constantly looking up the names of various peoples and gothic tribes to learn about who they were and what part they had to play in this work.  Bloch's use of citations' also allowed me to further delve into the details and learn more.  A Oprah book club winner - no, but a staple of historical work, absolutely.

Prompt for reading

For Bloch's Feudal Society, who was this work written for when it was published? Was it for the casual history reader or a student of the somewhat recently established post-gentlemen historian world? Did blocks use of sources give credulity to his work thought he was a economic historian and not a medieval/middle-ages trained historian? Would his credibility hold up to todays standards?

Bloch's French Feudal Society - the Golden Age

While reading Bloch, I was struck by quite a few things.  On the positive side, I was very impressed with the scope and range of topics he covered.  In particular I enjoyed his discussion of the epic poem and folk memory as well as his mapping of language development across various cultures.  I would expect to find topics like these covered by folklorists and social scientists, so I was pleasantly surprised to find them addressed by Bloch.  I also truly enjoyed reading the content. I am particularly interested in Britain directly prior and post the Norman Invasion of 1066, so seeing the French perspective was a new point of view for me to consider.

I did however have a few concerns when I considered Bloch critically.  For example, as a work covering a feudal society, I was expecting a lot more about the serfs!  They hardly make an appearance! I thought Bloch presented an extremely rosy, romantic, and optimistic view of feudal conditions.  In addition to the epic poetry, Bloch discusses implementation of laws based on sage Roman precedent (and no upper class Roman ever passed a law which benefited the elite politically or economically at the expense of the lower classes) and he also romanticizes the mighty brotherhood experienced communally among all men who pledged themselves in service and loyalty.   I felt as if I were reading about a Golden Age or Camelot and not a violent and brutal Feudal Age!

Bloch also seemed to take a very strong Eurocentric and specifically even a Franco-centric perspective placing a supremacy on upper class European Christian men.  I interpreted Bloch as viewing France as a nucleus in Europe because, in his opinion, France was the least tainted ethnically, linguistically, judicially, and socially. In particular he traces how Britain, Germany, and Spain were more heavily influenced (corrupted) by invading foreign-speaking pagan barbarians and how France felt these effects to a lesser degree than her neighbors.  We discussed several times in class the connection between the present and the past in terms of the historian and his/her perspective. I don’t know if Bloch had a specific agenda presenting such a strong national bias, particularly considering the time he was writing, but I do think he could have presented a more balanced view of French Feudalism by including more from the perspectives of the poor and women.  I also think that he could have presented a fairer few of feudalism in Europe in general if he didn’t try to elevate French feudalism over the feudal societies in Britain and Germany; of course each area had differences unique to that culture, but that doesn’t make one better than the other.  Additionally, while discussing the different feudal practices in each culture, Bloch often questioned and insulted the intelligence of the other cultures saying that they were not intelligent enough to do things differently or come up with different solutions (p30, 67, 71).  I think this is lazy and irresponsible on the part of the historian.  There could be a myriad of reasons why a culture decides to pursue one option or course of action over others and none of them have to do with the innate intelligence of the people of the time.  Bloch should have considered other social, political and economic reasons for why a culture might chose a certain action (or inaction) without insulting their basic intelligence.

Intersection of Folklore and History

In reading Boch’s Feudal Society, I was struck by the breadth of environmental and social factors he analyzes to explain the historical events of Medieval Europe.  As a student of folklore, I was most interested in how he describes the role of epic poems in shaping feudal society in his chapter on “Folk Memory” stating “epic tales in the vernacular were the history books of the people who could not read but loved to listen.”  In essence, Bloch expands the group of history workers to include the poets, jongleurs, trouveres and clergy who created and communicated these epics to the broader public.  With literacy limited to the clergy until the 12^th century, these epics shaped society’s knowledge of what had happened in the past.  When combined with the increase in travel and interaction between people across Europe, it explains how knowledge of historical events is passed down over time. 

Most notable is Bloch’s strong disagreement with “historians of the romantic school” that there was a clear separation between the vernacular or learned writings of the clergy and these more popular epic poems.  Given that the level of education and training for clergy was poor, their interest in collecting information from these oral sources, and the church as a common place for markets and festivals (where the telling of these poems take place), it makes sense that the line between epics and vernacular writings by the church was frequently blurred.

The epic poems also provide insight into the traditions, relationships and practices of feudal society; usually they revolve around the actions of a warrior hero, and the vassals who have pledged homage or allegiance to him.   By treating these epic poems as contributors of useful historical information about 11^th and 12^th century Europe, he expands the sources to research and provides greater context of how vassalage came to be in feudal society.

Prompt For Bloch

For those of you who have not yet posted for Bloch, just some thoughts and questions regarding the book:

First, Bloch is a French writer who was killed during the occupation of that country during the Second World War; he is our first author who is not an American nor lived in the United States.  How do you believe this differentiates him from other authors we have read stylistically and in terms of content?  Would this book have been the same from an American perspective?

Second, the annales school of history writing, founded in part by Bloch, sought to take all walks of life into account when writing history.  Taking that into account, what different groups does Bloch include in his book?  How does this differ from Prescott's "Great Man View of History"?

Also feel free to just talk about the book as you normally would.

Bloch's Feudal Society

I found Bloch's work Feudal Society very interesting but at the same time rather broad.  He is concentrated on the development of societies in western Europe (France, Germany, Italy...) but only touches on how outside forces would have affected goings-on in Europe.   The Scandinavians and the Arabs who were a part of history and certainly would have left their mark were not addressed as much as I would have thought.  He does state on page 59 that “western society would certainly have their clashes; but they would take place in a closed arena…uninterrupted by any attack from without or any influx of foreign settlers.” While few people were coming to western Europe this did not mean that there were not clashes between these societies as well.  In this respect I believe he is creating some silences in early european history by not addressing how the Scandinavians and Arabs made an impression on western Europeans and how they were forced to change because of it. 

Bloch’s does a good job comparing the 1st and 2nd feudal revolutions. There is a huge jump in living conditions and expectations between the two.  Bloch does characterize it as a “renaissance.” On page 113 he states, “In many characteristics the man in A.D. 1200…resembled his ancestor of the earlier generations: he display the same spirit of violence…, same preoccupation with the supernatural;…but in two respects he differed profoundly from his predecessor. He was better educated. He was more self-conscious.” This was the time in European history when people’s situations made a turn for the better. People were better educated, they (the upper classes at least) could read latin and other classical languages.  While they were still violent and still very religious, they were also aware of their status and place in society.  The change over from oral epic tales to developed and written historical works, customs, and laws shows their want and necessity for permanent records to control education and how society is run. He is clearly showing through his themes how Europe as we know it came to be. 

Otherness in Feudal Society, volume 1

In light of our discussion last week on Prescott's creation of both Aztec and Spanish Catholic "others," I found Bloch's treatment of "the other" in Feudal Society interesting.  Although the book’s title is “Feudal Society,” suggesting a broad brush of topics, it is mostly about feudal social and economic history as it relates to France, and in comparison, some of the “rest” of Western Europe.  In treating this topic, Bloch seems to create several others.  For example, he creates an Arab through his word choice and his treatment of historical silences.  On page 7, Bloch uses the word “lair” to describe the Arabs’ homeland—a word typically used (in both French and English) to describe the home of a wild animal.  He also ignores the reasons as to why the Arabs conducted raids or what their history was, putting them at odds with the West.  These value-laden terms occur throughout Bloch’s treatment of the Arabs.  Additionally, Bloch creates a sense of otherness when discussing the “pagans of the North.”  In particular, his description of their use of violence puts them in opposition to a Western reader. He uses words such as “madness” and “orgy” to describe their violence, and reverts to the passive voice when describing them, as to give them no agency.  For example, on page 22, Bloch describes Scandinavian violence saying, “…the Archbishop of Canterbury was pelted to death with the bones of the animals eaten at the banquet…”  In describing this Scandinavian raid with an English victim as the subject of the sentence, Bloch accentuates the otherness of the Northmen.

Bloch’s early treatment of the Scandinavian and Arab raiders is in stark contrast to his later treatment of the Western European (especially pre-French, English, and Italian) feudal societies.  In tracing social, economic, and linguistic history of this time in great detail, Bloch attempts to identify “what was it in the actions and the hearts of men that constituted the real strength of vassalage as a social cement” (pp. 241).  This critical examination of the motives of men living during his period of interest seems to be utterly missing in his treatment of Arab and Scandinavian raiders, who played a large part in shaping the society in which Bloch is interested.