It's the system, sweetie pies.---Episode 2

How In The Hell Did Aristocracies Come Into Existence     ?

   The archaeological guess is that the change in economic forms accounts for the rise of a narrow elite, with control over ALL THE RESOURCES OF THE SOCIETY ( intellectual as well as material, religious as well as political ). Whether this change was in the nature of new forms of production through the use of metal or new forms of agriculture through the use of irrigation resources, the people WHO INITIALLY GOT CONTROL of these revolutionary forms IMMEDIATELY MONOPOLIZED the key economic resource of society.  They could do anything they wanted thereafter, provided that they remained a relatively homogeneous and peaceful group. By and large they remained homogeneous and at peace among themselves. THEY decided how to divide up the power, how to divide up the wealth, who should be king, and which family should become the royal dynasty.  { Much like the oligarchic system of early 21st-century USA. } The instability in these societies usually came NOT from within , but from external invasions by new people --- in the case of Mesopotamia, from the north, and in the case of Egypt, from the sea or the desert --- who at various times pushed into these wealthy river valleys and gained control.  Their control usually collapsed or was overthrown a few generations later by the old native aristocracy or by later invaders. But all the invaders perpetuated the existing social structure, taking over the prerogatives of the old aristocracy.

   The social structure of the ancient near Eastern societies, once established,was perpetuated in the Hellenistic empires that replaced the old Near Eastern dynasties after the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C.E. The Hellenistic empires were conquered, in turn, by the Romans in the second and first centuries B.C.E.  By and large, the Romans also perpetuated the Mediterranean social structure they had found. 

                   HERE'S THE POINT, DEAR HEARTS 

     The exploitation of serfs by their lords then, was not an invention of the Middles Ages [ 300-1500 A.C.E.] Medieval people inherited the rule of lords over peasants. They knew no other way of life or alternative organization of rural society. It was natural to them that a few lords should own all the land while the mass of peasants TOILED THEIR LIVES AWAY ---- that was the very nature of society. Medieval people did not give this social structure as second thought ; just as 21st-century westerners, for the most part, take middle-class society for granted, so medieval Europeans took for granted the aristocratic--peasant organization of society. 

   The social system of lord and peasant was not questioned, but medieval men and women had to justify it and to organize it, and they did so in a number of ways. Variations in the social patterns of the ancient Near East and medieval Europe are NOT fundamental changes. They are simply variations of the methods and ideology of organization. The ancient social structure was elaborated or varied in different places at different periods, but mainly it was simply perpetuated for thousands of years. 
   To understand medieval people, one must understand how uneducated and downright stupid the masses were, and how much the minority aristocrats liked it that way. Until the twelfth century, at least, medieval people were not even aware that the oppressed peasants could possibly overthrow the aristocrats. Their way of life had always been there ; to reject it was to disappear into primitivism, into the void of barbarism. Under thses circumstances, it is remarkable that anything ever changed in the middle Ages --- for their heritage was extraordinary. Medieval social theory, at least before the twelfth century, was entirely A JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM, and even in this respect, medieval people inherited a tradition from early mediterranean civilization. { Got that, bucko ?? } 


   SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION WAS A PRODUCT OF RELIGION

   In the ancient world, in Egypt and Mesopotmia, the social structure was justified on religious grounds. It was God's plan for the world ---God's will --- and acceptance of the social forms was a religious duty. [ And, bear in mind, this was before Madison Avenue advertising, TV reality shows, Rush Limbaugh on a.m. radio, Fox News, movies, social media, and even World Wrestling.] Medieval men inherited that attitude and built upon it. They had more difficulty than the Egyptians, in doing so however, because certain strains within Christianity were incompatible with the ancient system. THERE IS AN EGALITARIAN STRAIN IN THE BIBLE [ particularly in the Hebrew prophets and in the New Testament] , for example, that runs counter to the ancient traditions of exploitation and domination. { Some called this "A liberal in the wood pile !" } Medieval people had to relate these two traditions, and they came out heavily (before the late middle ages, almost exclusively) on the side of the ancient, class-dominated, authoritarian society.