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.