1. This system was the direct opposite of centralization. Under it all Christendom broke up into fragments; the king exerted but a loose general control, that continued to decrease for several centuries; and most of the real authority was exerted by the feudal lords from their fortified castles, which, for three hundred years, had been springing up over all the territory conquered from the Romans. It had its true origin in the marked personal assertion, the strong individuality of the Teutonic Race, which was, and is, one of its most prominent traits. While in their native barbarous state their armies were formed for their expeditions of foreign conquest, that proved so fatal to the Romans, on the voluntary principle. The prowess and fame of a leader, or chief, drew to him a multitude of warriors, longing for activity and booty. So long as he could lead them to success, to gain their individual ends, they obeyed him. When he failed to reward their ambition they held themselves free to leave him. 2. It was not immense disciplined armies, but innumerable bands, organized in this way, that, through a long course of years, gradually overran Britain, Gaul, Spain and Italy. For four hundred years the civilized world had been accustomed to the control and protection of a distant ruler whose powerful armies rendered resistance vain, and all thought of organization for self-protection against the terrible barbarians was wanting when they were attacked. Each city or region defended itself as well as possible, or submitted at once. The[134] conquerors took what they wanted and passed on to other lands, or spread themselves out over the province. They usually settled in the country parts, fortifying the country seats of the richer inhabitants, or building themselves castles near the larger towns, to hold them in awe. The leader considered himself the owner of the conquered territory, and divided it among his followers, who settled themselves, each in his new domain, as its owner and ruler. The conquered inhabitants were his subjects from whom he took tribute. The conquerors were few in number in proportion to the conquered; but there was little resistance throughout the old Roman provinces. Organization and spirit were wanting to them, and resistance would provoke complete ruin, since the conqueror could easily call to his aid any number of his fellows in return for a share of the spoils. Thus they gave what was demanded and made themselves content with what was left.
The cities paid tribute, the cultivators gave a portion of their harvests to the new rulers. The territory not given to his followers was considered the property of the original leader. In return for the gift each of the recipients of territory was held bound to aid him in his wars, and each larger chief stood in similar relations to the king of his tribe or nation. Out of this grew, at length, what was called the Feudal System, feudal being derived, by some, from the old German words “fee,” salary, and “od,” landed possessions—a payment, or salary, in land, for services rendered, with a certain obligation to the giver.
3. The kings of the Franks—the German nation that conquered Gaul—up to the time of Charlemagne, labored to consolidate their power and rule like the Roman emperors. But the genius of their race and the peculiarities of the situation were both opposed to that purpose. Charles Martel, Pepin, his son, and Charlemagne, his grandson, were all rulers of great vigor, and the last, apparently, succeeded for a time. But the military strength lay only in the scattered feudal[135] chieftains, each of whom sought to build up his own power on his own estates. It was not possible to maintain a strong central government for any length of time, or under an ordinary man. For two hundred years these petty lords grew in strength at the expense of the king. They were still held to him by the necessity of supporting him in war, by a system of checks, which, in time, were increased, and still mo............