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.