The idealist interpretation of the history of society in the Middle Ages is in complete opposition to the materialist understanding of the development of feudalism and its stages .

The term Middle Ages also exists in bourgeois literature , having been introduced by the Italian humanists as a means of indicating the intermediary period between the cultures of Greek and Roman Antiquity and the Renaissance in Italy and other European countries in the 15th – 16th centuries . Later , through the works of Bourgeois authors , this division into ancient history , the history of the Middle Ages and modern history was established . However , the majority of Western scholars do not relate these terms to any definite socio – economic processes but regard them merely as condi tional names . Some bourgeois scholars believe that the Middle Ages begin with the onset of the Christian era , others , with the 5th century , the time of the fall of Western Roman Empire . They also hold different views on the period which ends the Middle Ages : from the 14th to the 16th centuries . Withal , their chief aim is to prove that there was no revolutionary upheaval in social relations in the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages . Various bourgeois authors approach this question in accord ance with their own political beliefs . Two questions have been at the centre of the dispute : the significance of the invasion of the German tribes and the historical role of the German commune ( mark ) in regard to the states that emerged on the territory of the former Roman Empire . Waitz , Sohm , Brunner and other 19th – century chauvinist German historians portrayed the fall of the Roman Empire as the triumph of the German ” national spirit ” over the decadent Roman society , never mentioning the role of the commune in estab lishing new social relations . The French historian Fustel de Coulanges ( late 19th century ) ignored the very existence of the agricultural commune . In his attempt to prove the eternal nature of the wealthy class and the exploitation of the masses by the aristocracy he was a proponent of the so – called patri monial theory . He stated , without any proof , that the mark had never existed and that the patrimony was allegedly the basis of the medieval economy ; ” he further contended that it had appeared , fully formed , in the Middle Ages from the Later Roman Empire . Fustel de Coulanges , Du Bos , and the English historian Seeboh all denied the fact that the German tribes had con quered the Roman Empire , stating that what had actually occurred was a gradual penetration of Roman society by the

German tribes , a fact that in no way changed the nature of Fustel de Coulanges opposed the so – called commune theory . However , the bourgeois historians who supported this theory that society . ( Maurer and others ) misrepresented the true role of the primitive – communal system of the German tribes and especi ally the commune in the establishment and further develop ment of feudalism . Maurer believed the commune , patterned on the ancient German clan , was the immutable basis of life in medieval society . The reactionary historian Dåpsch also attempted to prove there was no leap in the transition to the Middle Ages . He contended that the ancient German tribes , far from causing any damage to Roman civilisation , had become its proponents and preservers and that their social system was allegedly no different than that of Roman society . All this , according to Dopsch , proved the absence of a revolutionary upheaval in the transition to the Middle Ages . He further contended that the essence of both systems was large – scale private prop erty which had existed from the beginning of time . In this respect , his opinions coincide with those of many contem porary bourgeois authors . Bourgeois historians also use the term feudalism , but the meaning they put into it is quite different than that described above . One can follow the evolution in their opinions on this question . François Pierre Gizot and other 19th – century bourgeois historians regarded feudalism as a system of vassalage and considered its basic feature to be political disunity . They did not accept the theory of the development of human society and rejected the idea of changing socio – economic formations . In their opinion , vassalage was connected with the early land relations and the predominance of the patrimony . Henri Sée , one of the most prominent bourgeois historians of the 20th century , also believed feudalism stood for political disunity . He saw no difference between the Roman latifun dium and the medieval feudal estate . According to Sée , feudal property was an estate which belonged completely to the Contemporary bourgeois historians have digressed still further from the scientific understanding of the term feudal ism . Thus , the American historians Strayer and Colburn

believe feudalism is not a system of definite social relations , but an extremely conditional term which stood for different things at different times . In their opinion feudalismi is , firstly , a ” method of administration ” and not an economic and social system , and , moreover , a method which kept changing ; feudalism was allegedly related to landownership , the fief , in name only . They held that the political rule of the feudal lord was in no way connected with any social or economic processes . That is why with equal facility they find feudalism in Meso potamia and Ancient Egypt in the 3rd millennium B.C. and in China , on the Arabian Peninsula and in Western and Eastern Europe in the 1st millennium B.C. , while India and Russia , according to these historians , allegedly by – passed feudalism completely . This outlook is typical of those bourgeois historians who deny the scientific periodicity of history and ignore the facts of reality , both in the past and in the future , if they do not comply with their political beliefs .