Friendship

"I didn't watch that movie because you didn't watch the one I told you to." - a girl talking to her friend in the park yesterday.

    Yeah, I know, the quote seems rather banal, but it helped draw together some ideas that had been bouncing around in my head for some time.  It started back with the research for my posting "What is Feudalism?" and came back in while doing my reading for the last post, "Jobs - Castellan," especially that Master's thesis I stumbled upon.  The ideas essentially boiled down to the title of this post, "Friendship."  Listening to those kids in the park started me thinking about my views on friendship, which then led to how those views were shaped by my childhood, which made me ponder how relationships would be different in a world where the legal and social construct I lived within did not exist.
    One of the larger conversations among historians, regarding the Middle Ages, is whether there was any such thing as feudalism, or if the "system" was purely a construct of later generations.  While this isn't entirely pertinent to my title, the connection lies in the idea that these political constructs were based on social ties of loyalty and trust.  The fiction that most of us lazily ascribe to is that those connections were based on a strict code of honor which bound these men of war into a rigid hierarchy.  In fact, these relationships functioned much the same way as "friendships" do today, depending entirely upon the specific connection between the participants.
    The basic idea in feudalism is this: the leader would give his men control over certain portions of the land he had conquered, but expected a little something in return.  However, what they owed him was open to negotiation.  There were no written rules on all of this; they made it up as they went along.  Often vassals were required to provide counsel to their overlord and soldiers in time of war.  Cash was often accepted in place of personal service in war (especially as time went on and cash became more common).  Vassals were also required to feed and house their overlord if/when they came visiting, which could be part of an annual tour of the realm, if a lord wanted to sit in judgement at local courts, or even used punitively, as a sort of additional tax.  Now we're beginning to see some of the complications.
    In reality, the larger the domain, the less frequent the visits with your overlord and the stronger the bonds needed to be.  Think Game of Thrones.  At the onset, Ned hadn't seen Robert for years, even though they had grown up together and been trusted and faithful allies in their rebellion.  Clearly, Ned is the kind of guy you want to put in a position of trust, overseeing an enormous area of land and covering your ass.  Not only is he loyal, but he is content in his role as caretaker.  How common do you think guys like Ned are in the real world?  I can't help but feel that if GRRM ever had the time to write Ned's early years, that he'd have a tough time keeping the character alive. 
    Hereditary rights are the other aspect of the lord/vassal relationship that we naturally associate with the period.  Yeah, not such a safe assumption.  Naturally, every parent wants to be able to pass on all that they have acquired to their children, and kings got to do that because they were in charge, but their vassals didn't always have the same assurances.  This was for a number of reasons.  Just because your dad was a good man and a friend of mine doesn't mean that his kids are the kind of folks I want administering my kingdom.  Not everyone is cut out for that kind of thing and it keeps the next generation working hard to stay in the king's good graces.  Next, as the old saying goes, "land is the one thing they aren't making any more of."  If a large landholder dies, I can now distribute that wealth to other deserving vassals without having to fight to expand my kingdom, or stripping fiefs from my other subordinates.  The granting of hereditary title was demanded by especially powerful vassals in return for service, but it was not the obvious choice we all think of it as now.  Later this became a more common fixture, denoting special favor of the lord (in which case it could be just as easily stripped).
    In a world where you are fighting to determine who writes the laws, the bonds of honor might be a touch tenuous.  It is no surprise that those in power sought to ally themselves with religious institutions.  By being declared "the anointed" of whatever deity, they added another bond between lord and vassal.  Not only was it then dishonorable to go against your liege lord, it was also a sin.  Christian lords who fought against those favored by the Pope were excommunicated (which might not sound like much to a non-believer, but is significant if you are allergic to hellfire).  Of course the priesthoods also became corrupted by this association (becoming a route to power for younger sons in Europe, with positions regularly bought and sold), but the purpose of this corruption remains the same, strengthening the bindings between the haves and the have nots. 
    The bonds that I have in my personal life find me doing things for friends with no expectations.  If they need, I give.  When I need, it tends to work out the same way.  It's not a question of keeping score.  While this works for me, somehow I don't think that this social contract would be quite as functional in lord/vassal relationships of the Middle Ages.  What started out as simple bonds of loyalty and faith became political game pieces.  Friendship is all well and good, but I need to look out for my future, my family.  What value does your friendship have in the long term?  You might have a basketball court in your driveway, but that guy has a swimming pool and he doesn't like you very much.  You don't come over all that much anymore, anyway.  I didn't watch that movie, because you didn't watch the one I told you to.