What was wrong with feudalism?

What was wrong with feudalism? It was a system founded on personal loyalty and the charisma of rulers, as opposed to fear of punishment, and it worked.

If there is a task that needs to be carried out for the good of the country, it is far more straightforward to have a faithful and loyal knight carry it out than to have a system that constantly monitors people to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and more systems to watch the watchmen and make sure they are loyal and not corrupt.

The only caveat of feudalism is that people need ample resources so the state doesn't have to provide it form them, they need their own little fiefs or plots of land. But is this really so bad?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    it's good if you aren't the slave.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Literally nothing.

      No one was a slave. Everyone owed fealty to the man above them but not in all circumstances.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        a forced labor role is slavery.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          No different to democratic wageslavery.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >No different to democratic wageslavery.
            You are using that word incorrectly.

            Every single laborer can stop working and live off tree bark and fishes in the ocean, that there is no one forcing people to work for someone.

            A slave is forced to work and for no universal payment but lives a subsistence life with no economical power the same as the ox that plows with him.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            except serfs had certain rights and had significant economic power over their lords. if you knew anything about the period, you would know about the serf-lord contracts that existed. or serfs being in protracted legal battles with lords and monasteries that could last for over a decade.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Ox's also had certain rights as did slaves.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            except neither of them did you historically illiterate moron. serfs couldn't be murdered, raped, or sold. fiefs were bought and sold, in the same way apartments are, but not the individual people.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you're telling me I could go and kill someones Ox's and it was legal?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            can you please euthanize yourself? the idea with animals and slaves is that if you own them, you can do whatever you want to them. you can't do whatever you want to someone else's property. provided you actually own your housing, you can shit all over it how much you like, that's perfectly fine. you can't do that to someone else's house.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >serfs have some legal shoulds therefore they aren't slaves
            >ox's have legal protection from their owner from being killed by someone else
            ox's aren't property then.

            Serfs are property of the owner and the small differences in terminology does not differ in any way to reality.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            serfs - legal protections from their owner
            slaves and animals - no legal protections from their owner

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            serfs = legal protection provided by their owner
            slaves = no legal protection provided by their owner

            ox's are serfs because they are protected from being harmed by someone other than their owner.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            either you are pretending to be moronic or you have some horrific genetic deformity or your parents dropped you on the head too many times. in either case, i recommend euthanasia.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            tell me why ox's are not serfs considering they have legal protections.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            scroll up

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's "oxen" you tr00n.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Serf: May NOT be killed by owner.
            Slave: May be killed by owner, as a slave has historically been considered to be property.
            Ox: May be killed by owner, as it is the property of the owner.

            NONE of the three may be killed by anyone else.

            Now, you still may not go and kill another man's ox, it is as if you destroyed another man's vase. Since it is the property of another man, you are not allowed to destroy it / modify it in any way.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Slave: May be killed by owner, as a slave has historically been considered to be property.
            What if the law said the slave could not be killed by the owner?
            In the USA slave laws prevented owners from killing or treating slaves cruelly, did they become serfs?

            >Ox: May be killed by owner, as it is the property of the owner.
            What if the law states that the Ox can not be killed by the owner?
            Does the Ox become a serf and something completely different to a slave?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            A prerequisite to being either a serf or slave is that the being in question must be human.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >A prerequisite to being either a serf or slave is that the being in question must be human.
            An Ox can not be elevated from the status of a slave to a higher status of protection?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The Ox could be paid 10 bushels of wheat for their labor instead of 5 bushels of wheat and could graze in 10 acres instead of 5 acres.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You're just being pedantic. The ox cannot understand payment, and besides, at a certain point the ox would stop caring, as the ox desires only what it needs to eat. It does not have wants and desires for extravagant things like humans do. If you feed the ox what it requires to survive, you're not paying it, just like you don't pay a slave.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Oxen really like sweets and fruits instead of regular food, they like sweet food.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I plow through your mother every other night but I'm not an ox, just like an ox isn't a serf because it likes to eat fruit. Get a grip.

            More seriously, motivating your slaves to work hard does not make them serfs. Does giving prisoners benefits for good behavior make them any less prisoners? You are still able to kill or sell the ox at any time, unlike a serf (although I would hesitate to call it a slave because it's not a human).

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            the oxen could always be freed so it is a slave.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >In the USA slave laws prevented owners from killing or treating slaves cruelly
            No they didn't, and if they were on the books, no one obeyed them

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            = no legal protection provided by their owner
            slaves are protected legally since they are objects of the masters, and the usual rules about property applies

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            lords were also almost always absent from the fiefs they governed except on special occasions, good or bad. it was a matter of both sides reaching compromises.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Every single laborer can stop working and live off tree bark

            ...on their own land. Too bad that hardly any laborers own land. Otherwise you'll go prison for illegal foraging/trespass/vandalism.

            >and fishes in the ocean

            ...10 miles or further off the coast. You have to own a boat to do that, which laborers don't have unless they're already wageslaving as fishermen.

            There is currently no escape from wageslavery.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            if you're the type of person who is too lazy to work a cash register for 8 hours a day 5 days a week, you would definitely be too lazy to be a serf, performing manual labor 10 to 15 hours a day 7 days a week.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Serfdom has
            >free housing
            >live with your family and friends
            >party all night with cheap alcohol
            >get married to a girl after her first period
            >have 16 children
            >never suffer from unemployment
            >don't have everything you've ever said recorded and used against you
            >trannies and SJWs stoned in the streets to the sound of cheering
            Sounds good to me.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            how can i tell a man who likes eating shit that eating shit is bad?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you are a dung eater.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>free housing
            One room that you share with 6 people and 3 animals
            >>live with your family and friends
            Not a benefit if you ever had roommates
            all night with cheap alcohol
            Cheap and weak booze, and if you drank you were chastised as a drunkard and could be tortured to death in the public square if the liege lord felt you were missing your quota because of it
            >>get married to a girl after her first period
            A buck toothed and sallow eyed farmers daughter with a beer gut at 12, yes
            >>have 16 children
            Half of which die their third summer, a pain which none of us can comprehend. Then you have to go to work the next day because your lord needs those vegetables.
            suffer from unemployment
            Because you are tortured to death in public if you ever leave the plot of land you don't own.
            >>don't have everything you've ever said recorded and used against you
            Yeah you do. Your wife and friends still remember the stupid shit you said a week ago and think you're a total gadabout chode. No wonder she's fricking Chaddicus the butchers son.
            and SJWs stoned in the streets to the sound of cheering
            Didn't exist at the time and Christians were the original SJWs anyway so their regressive anti human autism is literally enshrined as divine law so no jerking off or fricking or drinking or believing anything that the Catholic Church doesn't want you to believe. BTW enjoy mass in a language you don't speak. I'm sure you'll love a religion with tenants and stories that are completely alien to you.

            If I was your liege lord I would have you flayed alive in the public square for reckless stupidity and vagrancy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >projecting by shitting on people who have been dead for several hundred years
            Is this supposed to make you feel better about your miserable wagie life?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I make more money than you do in a month in one week on the job, doing something I love to do, and I get to engineer a part of the culture that hundreds of thousands of people see every day. I am on track to rise in the ranks, and make my name in an industry that earns more money annually than most small countries.

            I have a fricking degree with a double major. You have nostalgia for a time where you would be just as useless and stupid as you are now, except you would be directly cucked by some inbred homosexual with a number next to his name, and consider that a benefit because you won't have to deal with people being different from you. Grow up.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            sure you do big boy. come back here after your little startup goes bankrupt and you need to blow hobos for cash just like your mommy

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            did history channel teach you this or is braveheart your favourite medieval movie, you pop sci brainlet?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You didn’t refute anything he said so you’re just coming across as a brainlet who plays too many medieval themed video games and dreams about some long lost golden age where it didn’t totally suck to be a poorgay

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession, weakling.

            When you have a nice day all your family will feel is relief.

            nice way of not tackling any of the arguments brought against your bullshit, samegay

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You had no argument and everyone else could see this. You got mad I was being accurate instead of a romanticist, and call samegay, the last resort of any homosexual moron with no argument and no b***hes.

            Genuinely have a nice day

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            the only one mad here is you, answering a mere minute after i shamed you. why are you so hellbend about defending a position that is clearly not founded on scientific research? i wont be waiting for your answer because i already know it will only be more unsubstantiated belittlement, so feel free to embarass yourself even more.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >proving you wrong is being mad
            Then I guess everyone on this website is mad as hell anon. Run away with your tail between your legs lmao.

            >scientific research proves the middle ages were great for serfs to live in
            That's why they agitated for it to end, right? Cuz it was so much fun being peasants cucked to the local lord and his gang of armored thugs?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            well they got rid of the landlords in China and Russia then everyone starved, it turned out paying a little rent wasn't such a big deal

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Communism is moronic
            Yeah anon we know, keep up with the rest of the civilized world.

            It's funny how everyone else in Europe didn't suffer those famines when the feudal system was abolished

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you wrong is being mad
            you didnt prove shit

            >That's why they agitated for it to end, right?
            scientists dont agitate. but this shows nicely were you are coming from.

            >Cuz it was so much fun being peasants cucked to the local lord and his gang of armored thugs?
            even more than dumb buzzwords. whats so fragile about your narrative that a realistic view of the middle ages would compromise it that much?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession, weakling.

            When you have a nice day all your family will feel is relief.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            no one worked 7 days a week, sundays were off since its the lords day, and you had a ton of holidays all over the year. besides, working on the fields, growing and farming the very things you will later eat is something completely different than working a soul-crushing 9-5 job so some dude you have never met can buy an even bigger boat.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >no one worked 7 days a week, sundays were off since its the lords day
            In the Roman Empire Sunday was considered a holiday, unless you were a farmer. In which case you were exempt since it wasn't very pragmatic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            the topic is about medieval serfs.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          damn wouldn't i hate being the first born son of a wealthy noble... i mean being forced into that labor role by my birth alone. that would be pure torture!

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      same as now

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Thats an unfair comparison. First of all, even if slaves/surfs were your property, do you just go around damaging your shit? For no reason? Of course you dont youre shooting yourself in the foot, you may do something moronic or you may be actually medically insane, but thats about it. Its really in your best interest to keep the serfs healthy and happy so that they work for you rather than against you. The peasants still could cheat you out of the taxes, they could do their best to impede your conquering aspirations etc. If they were ballsy and your court isnt particulalry loyal either they could even hunt in your forests long as they werent caught and stuff. Also if a duke actually treated his surfs like peasants then the nearby duke would try to get him to act normal cause if his surfs hear that the surfs in the nearby village where they have relatives and friends are abused they will also feel unhappy about it.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Feudalism replaced Roman slavery on the Latifundia. Peasants held land through customary tenure and many were paid professionals such as the plowmen, at the center of village life was the Church and festivals through the year marking the agricultural calendar, again customs which the nobility could not interfere with.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Feudalism replaced Roman slavery on the Latifundia.
        Roman slavery was unquestionably better than medieval slavery aka "serfdom" an invented word for slavery with a coat of paint still the epitome of human suffering.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There was a reason people violently disposed of their nobility when given the chance like in France, Russia, and China. They were mostly tyrannical buttholes

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      there were more generations of peasants that put up with it than didnt and also the peasants were defending the monarchy in france didnt you ever hear of the vendee??? i know you are gay/brown/american/israeli but you dont have to LIE to attack aristocracy just say you are Black personed up Black personing it up in this shit and thats fine and we can respectfully disagree. ok vive le roi!!!>!!!! n shiet

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous
  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Its shit for organizing a country.
    >Be government.
    >Wanna build important infrastructure, rally everyone for an important war.
    >Duke Le Penis de La Puccihomo: "no"

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Good thing the Duke doesn't own the land you want to build the bridge on so you can just ignore him.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        But in Feudalism he does.
        >Be government.
        >Try to consolidate national borders.
        >Duke Le Penis de la Puccihomosexual inherits the Kingdom of Bumbulia because King Charles serialnumber6 died without an heir and de la Puccihomosexual is his nephew.
        >half of your country now belongs to a foreign country as Duke Puccihomosexual moves to Bumbulia and drags his fiefs with him.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          is being a gay israelite funny to you..... because I DONT FIND IT VERY FUNNY. have you ever tried to read a book also you arent allowed to talk about european history if you arent european so please log off and go to bed now you fat american bellend

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Im sorry your feudal kingdoms weren't the epic nations states you think they are. Far from it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            not him but i prefer the comparably tolerant model of feudalism to rabid nationalist tribal larp. not that i'm advocating for a return to a system that is impossible in the 21st century, but there is seriously nothing wrong with being ruled by foreigners if they're nice rulers.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            for example the hohenstaufens of sicily were amazing rulers. why, if i'm a medieval italian peasant, should i ape out if my german king is a very effective, caring ruler?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because if you were a medieval peasant things like him being very effective and caring wouldn't be felt as it's today since their information didn't move like it does today, as an average bog standard peasant you'd even know how your king is for most of the time unless you live directly under him, which most of the population didn't, and even if you knew those traits of him you'd probably still not cared because he's still a very distant being to you and the extent of his effectiveness and caring are probably too out of your scope of understanding/perception as they would reach parts of the sociological spectrum you don't even know exist do to you being just a peasant. But you know what matters to you? He is a fricking Germs and Germs are fricking barbarians, unlike you, true Roman patrician, so frick 'im.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Crusader States, Normans, Carolingians, Byzantines just to name a few great medieval states.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Not if the river is on my land. If it's on his land then of course he can decline to build or have built a fort since serfs/subordinates have rights. It might be bad for me but it's obviously not bad for the Duke or he'd build it. And if someone else succeeds him then good for that guy, I don't really care that he's a foreigner since nationalism doesn't exist yet.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Not if the river is on my land.
            It isn't. He already had the river and cucked your moronic infrastructure project. Also he wants you to lower taxes on his fief

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I assemble my other vassals and crush the duke with the Pope's blessing since I am a good Catholic king and we get along great. Maybe even condemn him as heretic and make it a holy war while we're at it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I assemble my other vassals
            None of them want to support your blatant power grab
            >crush the Duke
            He fights back with a levy bigger bigger your army because his family had better connections and built up their lands and half your vassals go against you, swelling the ranks of his already comparable army until you are outnumbered and surrounded.
            >The Pope
            Condemns your naked act of aggression and excommunicates you for making war against your catholic kin. Every nearby lord declares war on you and they rip your lands to pieces like wolves tearing apart a pork chop in a fight for the scraps. You are tortured to death for your arrogance and your wife is turned out into the street to live her days as a prostitute. Your children are beheaded and their bones burned.

            You suck at CKII and you suck at being a king. When you find a viper in your bed in the night, you will have no one but yourself to blame.

            moron

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You're not very bright, are you?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I may be a dumbshit but at least I didn't turn the kingdom against me with a moronic play at some foreign dukes lands for a bridge

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Little did you know that holy war ploy worked. The Holy Roman Emperor himself has crossed the Alps and is marching against Duke De la gayuette as we speak. Whether the duke is a heretic or not it does not matter because I promised the emperor half the dukedom as well as my daughter's hand in marriage with a rich dowry. The spoils of war and bridge tax will help pay for it. I also borrowed large sums of money from the local israelitery with no intention to pay it back.
            Vae victis dumbfrick.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            not him but you sound like you watched too much game of thrones and read too few actual history books

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >dude just ignore their wishes
        do you not realize how decentralized feudal kingdoms were, the king couldn't just say his nobles had to do shit, he very much needed their approval and if he tried to brute force something against their wishes it could easily lead to them rebelling and installing a claimant on the throne, it took centuries of slow but steady reforms to government and even new break throughs in tech and economic thought for kings to have absolute power needed for that type of shit, there is a reason the moments governments can ditch it they got rid of the feudal model

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          You didn't say all the Dukes were against building the bridge, just one. And if the bridge is helpful enough for everyone except him to be on board with it, then he's probably just a dickhead anyway.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            except stepping on his toes could also pose a future threat to their own power as well even if nobody else liked him, its pretty much a give an inch they take a mile scenario with feudal power

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, if nobody liked him, they might overthrow him. That is the whole benefit of the feudal system. Let me demonstrate:
            Democracy
            >the guys in charge are shit but if we all band together we can vote the other guys into power in 3 years' time!!
            Feudalism
            >the guy in charge if shit but if we all band together we can force him to change his ways of replace him instantly

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            except the only time they would try to get rid of him is if one of them had a claim, you can't really just get rid of a local lord because you don't like him especially since at the end of the day its his land, that and he would also have his own military units, good luck convincing the nearby lords to waste their own units just to get him to comply with something that would also potentially threaten their own power in the future, also you other example doesn't take into account the various time elected officials were forced to cut their own term short because of being really unpopular

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Listen to what you are advocating
            >this guy owns this bit of land
            >he's going to build a bridge on it
            >you don't want a bridge there
            This is the situation. This is what you advocate:
            >even though he owns the land and has the right to build a bridge on it, I would rather kill him and replace him with someone who won't build a bridge
            This is what feudalism advocates:
            >he owns the land and has the right to build the bridge on it unless there is someone else with a better right to ownership of the land, in which case we will replace him if he persists in proceeding against our wishes

            >he would also have his own military units
            More nonsense, feudal states did not maintain standing armies in 99% of historical cases.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >he owns the land
            the local duke is the one with the rights to the land that the king only had nominal control over meaning there is an absolute limit over what he can force him to do
            >no standing army
            they still had a standing retinue at all times, while not an army it would still be a pain for those nearby to fight against especially with prep time were both can get their levies

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If it is on the Duke's land then the king cannot build the bridge without his consent. It's that simple. Meanwhile, in democracy, the federal government constantly ignore what states and individuals want with basically no recourse.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >they still had a standing retinue
            Fifty dudes with hauberks and billhooks aren't gonna stop Lord c**tswaller of c**tswallis from bringing his Viking mercenaries to burn your shit down while you're sleeping

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not necessarily in argument, different anon, but in regards to standing army, what is your concept of a 'police state'; considering though one has no grasp of anarchy, just ownership.
            In worst times, your town's militia would be your guards. In good times, it's a rotation of a small standing army dispersed by the retinue of the higher ups.
            The militia model was one of Joan of Arc's time, very lawless and weak France because of the weakness of the court.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They were one of the first, but even then, standing armies weren't invented until the 15th century, when feudalism was already on the way out.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It did not really frick over the peasants tbh, a thing the peasants did was when the times were good they stayed where they were no problem, but when times got bad they immediately packed up shop and left for more prosperous places. This would mean you had some regions where you would have a shitton of workforce that the duke could exploit with virtually no consequences, and actually dirt poor peasants cause there is only so much work to go around, and then you had whole swaths of land that was fertile but just not as good that was operated by no one and their duke was growing ever weaker. By chaining up the peasants the king avoided this boom and bust economy that would really benefit no one except the petty lords and the few lucky peasants.

            Thats not at all what happened. How it really worked was that, if your lord was trash, and the king needed to go to war, the lord would levy the absolute minimum for the king. Obviously a few aristocrats who kinda had no choice and a few peasants who wanted an adventure would join, but it would not be much and they would be kinda grumpy. The king would see this lord does not help him much on the battlefield and would give him little of the spoils if he won. So the lord would grow poorer, and if he didnt decide "well I have to change or I will go broke", then he would get conquered or more likely assimilated by some wealthier duke. There were peasant revolts but they never meant to overthrow the duke and install their own regime, it was more like they didnt know what to do and wanted someone to notice them and help them.

            cont

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        If it's the King's domense, but if its on the duke's land the king would have to seize it to build the bridge. Guess how that would go over with the local nobility.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the problem with feudalism is that its not real and you shouldnt use that word!!!!! now excuse me since i am israeli it is part of my diet to not eat cloven animals that dont chew their own cud but also it is part of my relgiong to suck penis, so i will demonstrate for you all how that is done in the lecture hall today. Lets go to the penis part of the lecture . Yurope doesnt need a king or a monarch or adolf hitler actually instead what you need is hte Black persongarchy, yes our current system works quite well also this cum taste real good captcha W2DD4S

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Created weak government
    Fricked over the King
    Fricked over the middle class
    Fricked over the peasantry

    Everybody but the Lords and Church got no benefit from it. It stopped the King from being able to do what he wanted (hence why basically every Western Medieval King tried to break down Feudalism as much as possible), made the state weaker and increased instability in his realm. The Middle class got throttled, stifling political freedoms, weakening the economic systems of the state and greatly decreasing the tax which the King/State could collect.

    During the 14th century, in France and England. Feudalism was broken down enough that Kings could actually do meaningful things for the state on his own terms, cities and the Middle Class were able to greatly enlarge and become prosperous, in turn increasing State revenues. The vestiges of Feudalism were stuck in few large and centralized fiefs, which the Kings of France constantly fricked over for their own benefit and to degrade their power. In England, Feudalism was on its way to becoming defunct in just a centuries time. Because of this, both the Kingdoms and the people become richer, more free and more powerful

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      People often forget that at one point it was actually the HRE that was the most centralized country in europe, starting with Otto the great who really did his best to centralize everything, its just after the death of Barbarossa there just werent any particularly strong emperors to keep that going.

      Also dont forget feudalism was started by Diocletian way back in Rome of antiquity precisely *because* Rome was so centralized. It was too much power for one man, I mean sure it worked great if the guy was competent, but when he was not or when he got kinda unlucky then it was unmanageable and you had 15 usurpers cause the troops and peasants in the more distant parts were annoyed with the emperor ignoring them.

      Also it is true france started centralizing with Philip le Bel but it kind of backfired in the end, with the protestant reformation you had the hugenots who were particularly vicious against the king cause he held so much power, so the king had to siphon even more power to get rid of them, leading to a guy like Louis XIV. Absolutism would have worked just fine if his successor had not been so terribly incompetent.

      Also do not forget centralisation has a very low cap if you do not have gunpowder. Go ahead, try to force all faraway dukes of your land to bow to you if they close themselves in their castle and you cant do much about it except pay them off.

      cont

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Also dont forget feudalism was started by Diocletian way back in Rome of antiquity precisely *because* Rome was so centralized.
        Diocletian's Empire was anything but Feudal. There was literally nothing Feudal about it.
        >but when he was not or when he got kinda unlucky then it was unmanageable and you had 15 usurpers
        You're imagining a Pre Diocletian Empire. Usurpers were exceptionally rare after him compared to what came before. Let alone any successful ones.
        >troops and peasants in the more distant parts were annoyed with the emperor ignoring them.
        If anything they had far more interaction and possibilities to take up grievances with the state than ever before. Diocletian increased the size of the public service by a magnitude of literally 100 times, people could far more easily get court hearings, take problems up with administrators or the military command and even still reach the Emperor as it used to be in the past.

        >Also do not forget centralisation has a very low cap if you do not have gunpowder
        You don't need to crush everybody, all at once to centralize power. Nobody did that. It took generations of increasing Royal domains and increasing the Royal administration to do it.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >You don't need to crush everybody, all at once to centralize power. Nobody did that. It took generations of increasing Royal domains and increasing the Royal administration to do it.
          You are always gonna have some more disobedient nobles thats just a fact, and good luck getting them to comply with traditional weaponry, it can be done, but it takes a lot of time or money.

          Diocletian started the feudal reforms literally. And yeah after him usurpers started to become rarer, but thats precisely because of the decentralized nature of his system. I was more thinking of Theodosius

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Diocletian started the feudal reforms literally
            Feudal structure like appointment of officials to new administration posts? He didn't do anything Feudal.
            >but thats precisely because of the decentralized nature of his system
            You have no idea what you are talking about bruh. Diocletian centralized power so massively that he had over 30,000 officials working under him as compared to the 300 or so that used to be reportable to the Emperor in previous reigns.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I am not a romeaboo I am a more a medievalist, I mention rome in one sentence and its all wrong now, remind me never to offend hte romeaboos again

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What you need to know about the Medieval-Roman relationship is:
            >Dominate/Tetrarchy
            Diocletian's and Constantine's reforms set up the bedrock for the middle ages.
            >Great Migrations7Western Roman Empire Warlords period
            Got all the peoples involved in the middles ages together into the same places and establish the "social constructs" that would define the relationship between ruler and ruled, barbarians became integrated into the roman system as the roman system disintegrated/changed to acomodate them as Rome fell apart, think of it as the plans for the foundations of the Middle Ages.
            >Barbarian Kingdoms till the fracture of the Carolingian empire.
            Foundations of the era being built and new states have formed on top of the remains of Rome while using the remains of Rome as core elements of statecraft. Eventually, the Franks rose and fell, finally establishing the solid foundations the era can develop naturally, where states and man can look back to look for continuity and recognition.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Diocletian's and Constantine's reforms set up the bedrock for the middle ages
            The Empire of Diocletian and Constantine and its reforms are foreign to that of the later Germanic Kingdoms. It couldn't have been any bedrock of the middle ages when it didn't carry over from the Empire.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Proto-Feudalism
            >The entire administrative apparatus Germanic Kingdoms would later use to create their states
            >The prestige system Germanic peoples would use to justify/use to recognise themselves as overlords of former Roman lands
            >The military reforms that would allow them to come into the empire en mass and gain so much power.
            >State sponsoring of Christianity
            >Foreign to the later Germanic Kingdoms
            It's bedrock, and not the foundations, for a reason, you won't notice they are there due tot eh fricking house on top but dig deep enough and you'll find the house wouldn't be able to exist without them. Diocletian and Constatine reforms are SINGLE HANDLY some of the most important measures taken in the history of the west, as the entire world history would look very different from what it is today.
            I also forgot to mention Caracalla's edict that granted citizenship to all males in the Empire, another incredibly important, west-changing event that just tends to be glossed over.
            Seriously the Late Roman period is incredibly underrated for how fricking important is to all of our fricking existence, granted sources for it are fricking shit, but understand that if you look far back enough to something existing in the middles ages, you'll find 50% of it originates with these reforms, the other 50% originating with the Franks, who used worked on the world these reforms created to form their empire.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Also, forgot to give a shout-out to ma boy Gallienus, whom I just fricking love. Dude wasn't much of a reformer but he did take some decisions that would shape up Diacletian's and Constantine's later reforms. And well, just look at him, I'd be gay for this man.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            -Feudalism
            Buzzword nobody had managed to define
            >>The entire administrative apparatus Germanic Kingdoms would later use to create their states
            This is only true in Ostrogothic Italy. The Franks practiced a system of Counts for example.
            >The military reforms that would allow them to come into the empire en mass and gain so much power.
            There were no military 'reforms' allowing them into the Empire en mass. It was the weakness of the army and their inability to decisively defeat major groups of Germanic peoples that allowed them to stay in their lands. It happened in spite of the Roman army, not in concord with it. From Theodosius and the Visigothic settlement to Zeno and his struggle with the Ostrogoths.

            Also, forgot to give a shout-out to ma boy Gallienus, whom I just fricking love. Dude wasn't much of a reformer but he did take some decisions that would shape up Diacletian's and Constantine's later reforms. And well, just look at him, I'd be gay for this man.

            I think you overstate how much Gallienus might have done. He took strides but he followed the same path as men before him when it came to changing the form of the Roman state and Army. For example Septimius Severus created the first 'reserve' army and increased non-Senatorial participation in the military and state. Both just followed, and even accelerated during the Third Century

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > Buzzword nobody had managed to define
            >Created a de-urbanized social system where local large landholders were basically autonomous and dominated the economy and provided military retainers as payment to the state in exchange for mutual protection
            NTA but it checks out. The title ‘count’ even has its roots in the Latin ‘comes’ and denoted a range of high ranking administrative and military positions, and the Roman government using non-citizen auxiliaries was nothing new in the 4th centuries and the state was so strapped for cash and manpower that it began leasing land to Federated Germanic tribes in exchange for a quota of fighting men.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            a de-urbanized social system where local large landholders were basically autonomous
            If anything he cut down on what came before. These large landowners already existed and he attempted to cut down on their horrendous tax evasion to relative success.
            >dominated the economy and provided military retainers as payment to the state
            They didn't have military retainers. They were conscripted into the Roman Army, not 'provided' they were taken more or less by force by the state under heavy penalty or a levy in Gold. Neither did they dominate the economy. General taxation as a whole accounted for roughly 90% of the Wests state revenue and those exempt for the most part owned the largest estates, that being the Senators.
            >The title ‘count’ even has its roots in the Latin ‘comes’ and denoted a range of high ranking administrative and military positions
            Same name does not mean same thing. The Franks lacked a large administration with its departments for the running of the state and the Counts were not like their Roman namesakes, they were more or less military governors.
            >the Roman government using non-citizen auxiliaries was nothing new in the 4th centuries and the state was so strapped for cash and manpower that it began leasing land to Federated Germanic tribes in exchange for a quota of fighting men.
            Only the Franks actually got this treatment in favourable terms for both sides when it came to land. For the most part this was a 'vassal' relationship with those outside of Roman borders like with the Sarmatians and Gepids. The Visigoths were unable to be effectively contained and more or less made the Romans come to the bargaining table, they were not in some cooperation with the state, they were actively gouging it for what it was worth to them.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What came before was a latifundia style system where most major landowners lived in the capitol and their workers were slaves. Sort of hard to maintain that when you don’t have conquests continuously funneling new slaves into the system and the lord needs to be home tending to the defense of his land against migrating marauders.

            > They didn't have military retainers
            They were called bucellarii and rose to prominence over time as heavily armored cavalry contingents that provided force projecting capacity for the infantry which were mostly conscripted rabble.

            > Counts were not like their Roman namesakes, they were more or less military governors.
            The term comes comes from “companion” and they answered to a dux and were given both civil and military tasks. Medieval counts and dukes simply had their duties formalized in a legal context and answered to their king rather than an imperial state

            > treatment in favourable terms
            the Romans were shitty landlords and intentionally screwed them over to keep them desperate enough that military service in an age of usurper wars seemed like a step up in their living conditions. ape outs were a routine occurrence in the entire history of the Roman military, but in the 5th century the state ran out of money to do something about it

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >They were called bucellarii
            They only appeared in the 5th century. And they were retainers to State Warlords, not private landowners. Warlords like Aetius and Marcellinus had contingents of foreign bucellarii and they were paid through the state apparatus that these men controlled not their (essentially non existent) private property. They had no specific role other than being the personal retinue of a Warlord, like Aetius' Huns or Marcellinus' Gepids.
            >The term comes comes from “companion” and they answered to a dux and were given both civil and military tasks
            That's misleading at best, and just outright wrong most other times. In the West, Counts were the supreme power behind regions besides the Magister. The Comes of Africa and Illyria didn't need to report to anyone other than the Emperor. In the Civil Service there were no Dux's, the Count was the highest official in their given department.
            >Medieval counts and dukes simply had their duties formalized in a legal context and answered to their king rather than an imperial state
            In case of the Franks, no. Counts were agents of the King, appointed as a military and usually as well civil governor of the region. While they were called a Comes and they were appointed as agents, that's about where the comparison ends. Dukes in the Frankish Kingdom were completely foreign to any Roman ideas of a Dux. They were essentially mini-kings who reported to nobody, controlled their land independent of the Kings and had to be destroyed by the rising Carolingians and replaced by the appointed Counts after their land was broken up.
            >the Romans were shitty landlords and intentionally screwed them over
            The Romans didn't even want them as a nation in arms on their land. There was nothing like the Visigoths to ever exist in Roman history. There was never a time before where Roman officials were forced to recognize more or less a Kingdom being carved out of their lands because they were incapable of destroying them.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >People often forget that at one point it was actually the HRE that was the most centralized country in europe, starting with Otto the great who really did his best to centralize everything, its just after the death of Barbarossa there just werent any particularly strong emperors to keep that going.
        During the 11th and maybe 12th centuries sure, afterwards the Germans went full moron and the HRE gradually became the notorious > > > it is known as today. But when people discuss the Middle Ages, they are usually focusing on the 13th and 14th centuries.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      People often forget that at one point it was actually the HRE that was the most centralized country in europe, starting with Otto the great who really did his best to centralize everything, its just after the death of Barbarossa there just werent any particularly strong emperors to keep that going.

      Also dont forget feudalism was started by Diocletian way back in Rome of antiquity precisely *because* Rome was so centralized. It was too much power for one man, I mean sure it worked great if the guy was competent, but when he was not or when he got kinda unlucky then it was unmanageable and you had 15 usurpers cause the troops and peasants in the more distant parts were annoyed with the emperor ignoring them.

      Also it is true france started centralizing with Philip le Bel but it kind of backfired in the end, with the protestant reformation you had the hugenots who were particularly vicious against the king cause he held so much power, so the king had to siphon even more power to get rid of them, leading to a guy like Louis XIV. Absolutism would have worked just fine if his successor had not been so terribly incompetent.

      Also do not forget centralisation has a very low cap if you do not have gunpowder. Go ahead, try to force all faraway dukes of your land to bow to you if they close themselves in their castle and you cant do much about it except pay them off.

      cont

      [...]
      These are the reasons it doesn't work anymore, it's designed for a low tech society. As beautiful a system as it is, feudalist societies would get outcompeted in the modern world by American fascism or Chinese state capitalism coming into their country with government subsidies and destroying their industries. And with the control leaders can now have of their subjects, there would be no peasant rebellions, nor even the free movement of peasants from harsh lords to fair ones.

      Your analysis seems to be based on the modern notion that "centralization good". Pooling resources in a central state is great for something like NASA or building the pyramids, but in the real world grand megaprojects are not how most of the economy works, it doesn't necessarily mean greater efficiency.

      The free cities and principalities of the Holy Roman Empire were quicker to adopt the printing press and mechanical clock than the then more centralized Kingdoms of England and France. They were also generally more amenable to trade and manufacturing. England would sell wool to the lowlands then purchase their textiles rather than weave it themselves for example. Why? Because their autonomy meant they were more than tax farms, they were more inclined to invest in themselves and manage the particulars of their own affairs.

      >Poland
      The liberum veto was a produce of centralization, the decisions of the Sejm had to be abided by everyone. This is a deviation from feudalism where lords pay homage to the King, not parliament. A baron may still side with the King against popular opinion, riding to court at the head of his cavalry veiled in the resplendent heraldry of his shires and few Kings would fail to bestow favor, titles and lands upon their most resolute subjects. They could always rely on some level of support in a crisis.

      >15 usurpers
      It is usually only 2 or 3, also feudalism was more adaptable, instead of tearing all of Europe apart a dispute was limited to a few regions and there were more options to resolve conflicts, like offering someone a meme title or land on both sides of the border.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Pooling resources in a central state is great for something like NASA or building the pyramids, but in the real world grand megaprojects are not how most of the economy works
        Centralization in the Middle Ages had very little to do building massive things and all the more to do with stopping internal wars, consolidating power effectively and being able to increase security in the region
        >it doesn't necessarily mean greater efficiency.
        It may not, but it very much did in France and England. Larger armies, wealthier cities and less war in their own country.
        >The free cities and principalities of the Holy Roman Empire were quicker to adopt the printing press and mechanical clock than the then more centralized Kingdoms of England and France. They were also generally more amenable to trade and manufacturing
        You're confusing centralization with competition and urbanism. London and Paris were both forefronts of progress, although thanks to their privileged status. The Low Counties and Northern Italy had high levels of urbanism, high levels of education and high levels of wealth thanks to urbanisation, not decentralization. When France and England caught up to these levels they also produced more, especially in England where these rates became even higher while the Low Counties started to falter due to political instability.
        >instead of tearing all of Europe apart a dispute was limited to a few regions and there were more options to resolve conflicts
        Conflicts in a feudal system were also far more common and in cases was an almost eternal low intensity war. Centralized states did not have this problem, the (not really) Feudal states of France and England when fighting a public war would be just as brutal as later wars with usually no end in sight, the difference being in centralized states, it was only the public wars. Not the hundreds of small private ones across the state.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I'm the guy who brought up Poland. Centralisation isn't necessarily better but it definitely allows you to mobilize more of your currently existing resources for war, and you can have all the best principles, systems and long term perspectives but there comes someone who simply can overwhelm and conquer you and poof, it's all gone, like tears in the rain.

        Liberum veto has it's roots in barbarian tradition that survived in one way or another. The actual use of it was more restrictive than people think(if a random person without any support shouted it he would literally be beaten up and his request ignored), and in principle it was meant to allow a locality with some particular interest to block legislation potentially damaging this interest, it was abused the most during the reign of August the 3rd and that's because half of the nobility fought a civil war to not let him rule and his reign is always given as an example of the inherent anarchy of the system, even though it was an exception.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >The liberum veto was a produce of centralization, the decisions of the Sejm had to be abided by everyone. This is a deviation from feudalism
        >I-it doesn't count, it wasn't REAL feudalism

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >muh centralization
      >muh state
      >muh middleclasserino
      shut the frick up you colossal statist cuck

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Piss off, reactionary moron

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >as opposed to fear of punishment
    Are you fricking stupid, serfdom is literally all about fear of punishment

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    it is really strange that this american is advocating agaisnt regionalism in this way. yeah well what if idaho doesnt want their bridge to be aborted!? checkmate europeans time to suck ameriBlack dick again

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >What was wrong with feudalism?
    No one wanted to be the serf or peasant.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A more "liberal" societies allowed for creation of a state capable of more efficient mobilisation of resources, which opened a pandora box, you could either adapt the same reforms or you'll have a neighbor who has and who can put more men and weapons into fight than you do.

    Poland of all places attempted to, for various reasons keep the feudalism in some form(17th century state of Poland proper employed only 300 people in its administration, majority of courts etc. were controlled by local structures), but this form just couldn't survive changes to scale and financial burden of conflicts especially with westernising tendencies among aristocracy making them more of a gentlemen and less of a knights throughout 18th c.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      People often forget that at one point it was actually the HRE that was the most centralized country in europe, starting with Otto the great who really did his best to centralize everything, its just after the death of Barbarossa there just werent any particularly strong emperors to keep that going.

      Also dont forget feudalism was started by Diocletian way back in Rome of antiquity precisely *because* Rome was so centralized. It was too much power for one man, I mean sure it worked great if the guy was competent, but when he was not or when he got kinda unlucky then it was unmanageable and you had 15 usurpers cause the troops and peasants in the more distant parts were annoyed with the emperor ignoring them.

      Also it is true france started centralizing with Philip le Bel but it kind of backfired in the end, with the protestant reformation you had the hugenots who were particularly vicious against the king cause he held so much power, so the king had to siphon even more power to get rid of them, leading to a guy like Louis XIV. Absolutism would have worked just fine if his successor had not been so terribly incompetent.

      Also do not forget centralisation has a very low cap if you do not have gunpowder. Go ahead, try to force all faraway dukes of your land to bow to you if they close themselves in their castle and you cant do much about it except pay them off.

      cont

      These are the reasons it doesn't work anymore, it's designed for a low tech society. As beautiful a system as it is, feudalist societies would get outcompeted in the modern world by American fascism or Chinese state capitalism coming into their country with government subsidies and destroying their industries. And with the control leaders can now have of their subjects, there would be no peasant rebellions, nor even the free movement of peasants from harsh lords to fair ones.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >It was a system founded on personal loyalty and the charisma of rulers, as opposed to fear of punishment
    For the vast majority of people it WAS founded on fear of punishment.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If feudalism was so great, why were the republican cities always the best places to live?

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >and it worked.
    lol. lmao, even.

    Tell me, OP, how many civil wars have there been in your country in the past 3 years?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      depends where you live. non-western countries have their fair share of civil wars all over the place, and the west wasnt much better just 200 years ago, at a time where feudalism was long abolished, mind you.
      civil wars or not isnt dependant of the form of government, but the overall state of society, its prosperity and the zeitgeist.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >the west wasnt much better just 200 years ago
        the west was much better 200 years ago than it was under feudalism, wtf are you smoking? there was still a lot of international warfare but the local landowners going to war with your town was basically not a thing anymore.

        *exactly* 200 years ago you had a period of revolutions, which is a bit unfair, but prior to that you had centralized autocracies and after you had a mix of constitutional monarchies, republics and more autocracies. all of which were more stable than literally any high medieval state ever.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Not him, but you realize that these local wars between lords were far less destructive than the massive wars seen 200 years ago. For one, it was constrained to only the competing lords and their retinues. Peasants weren't levied and the collateral damage was oftentimes minimal.

          Compare this to an era of levee en masse that leaves entire countries horrifically depopulated over nonexistent nationalist LARP. I prefer the model of the commoners keeping to themselves and going on with their lives, as opposed to being rounded up by their elites, given a gun, and being told to die on the front line.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        and the countries plagued by strife these days often have echoes of the feudal system with self-interested warlords fighting each other over control of land and resources

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how the Chaos Warriors of Nurgle look WAY cooler and nurglish than the Chosen.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because hereditary rule is fricking moronic for every good king or lord you have 3 incompetent shitbirds.
    Some kind of democracy + capitalism is objectively more meritocratic than feudalism. Yes is not perfect there's corruption and whatnot but in a capitalist society the ones who know how to most efficiently make money are the ones in charge of the economy, not spoiled inbred moron "nobles".
    Go ahead and argue against capitalism but there's no way to argue that it's worse then a hereditary system.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing was wrong with feudalism.

    The problem was that the nobility stopped upholding their feudal duties. The ruling class ceased to be a martial aristocracy that provided security on the battlefield and enforced the law, instead delegating those duties to appointed members of the common class. Once commoners were fighting on the battlefield as professional soldiers and administering the state as bureaucrats, the nobility just became a parasitic class like the bankers are today.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Could feudalism be reinstated? Is it even possible in the sovlless modern world?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Wageserves are serfs anon. We just reinvented it in all but name lol. Instead of tilling the sovereigns land we just till the factory for our upper management's portfolio.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The world is slowly moving towards Neo-feudalism, but instead of being a serf to a lord people will become serfs to corporations.

      Piss off, reactionary moron

      cope, Anarchism is the only way

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >being an anarchist
        imagine following an ideaology that got BTFO'd by every ideology to exist, its the equivalent of being that one kid that even the bullied kids laugh at thats how low he is on the totem pole

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >anarchy is totally sustainable broseph
        I too would love to be a bandit

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How would corporations lead to feudalism?

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with feudalism was the church and the lords.

    The church failed to become scientific, and thus became unscientific and allowed them to be BTFO by the educated merchant class. Which brings me to:

    The lords. Feudalism failed to make the king a powerful executive who could steer the aristocracy. The only way they could was by breaking feudalism and empowering freed serfs/peasants to trade so they could tax them.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    > as opposed to fear of punishment

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Witch burning was rare in the middle ages and opposed by the church. That image is from a 14th century chronicle describing the reign of Chilperic in the 6th century where his consort Fredegund falsely accused Mummolus of being a witch along with several others, an event further removed from them than they are from us.

      https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=8469
      https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=43627

      Witch burning would flare up during the renaissance, after feudalism had declined, far from the impression we are often given of the renaissance washing away medieval superstition.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There's nothing wrong with feudalism per say.
    Its just that it inevitably gradually ends on its own when the burghers become wealthier than the landlords that they rent the land of; replaced by capitalism.
    Heck, some of the first capitalists were aristocratic landlords who invested in companies in exchange for a share of the profits. Its also why many tradesmen formed guilds.
    Attempts to prevent feudalism becoming capitalism usually resulted in revolt.
    Feudalism was in decline in England, France, Flanders, and the Netherlands by the 16th century.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    serfs are easily more free than the average modern man in a "democratic and free society"

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It did not exist, at least that's what main stream historians are claiming since it has much validity as "the dark ages" aka, a term people who lived after the middle ages forced on to the Era to try and understand it. Japanese historians even tried to do the same trick for their histories to show how similar to the west they were.

    https://www.medievalists.net/2013/12/the-tyranny-of-a-construct-feudalism-and-historians-of-medieval-europe/

    https://www.thoughtco.com/the-f-word-feudalism-1788836#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20feudalism%20as%20described,our%20view%20of%20medieval%20society.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >It did not exist
      isnt the same as
      >its to complicated to explain in a few words

      yes, feudalism never existed in a "pure form", but this doesnt mean that the concept isnt suitable to explain the societal structure of the time in principle

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that all of those holidays serfs enjoyed were merely days off from their feudal obligations. They still had to work to support themselves almost every day of the year.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *