So why exactly was feudalism bad?

So why exactly was feudalism bad?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    serfdom
    totalitarianism
    manipulation and mind control with religion

    It was only good for the priests and landowners. Until the neighboring king wanted more than he had out of boredom or inferiority complex.
    Participation is crucial for a community and stratification makes that looked down upon. War was sadly the only time when kings and peasants could stand side by side to accomplish a common goal.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >totalitarianism

      you utter moron

  2. 5 months 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

    The only people who suffered from this were the aristocratic middlemen who needed a weak central authority to have the room to do as they pleased.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sustainable living, vegan diet, low carbon footprint, work life balance, a living wage, zero unemployment...

    How exactly is that bad?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you need the live under Feudalism to be a peasant exactly. People do that today all over the World.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Go read adam smith. Subsistence farming is the price floor on land. Once it gets put to other use, it drives the price of everything up. But on it's own it's an inherently egalitarian society. There are a handful of "wealthy" nobles in the whole country. Everyone else is more or less equal.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Everyone else is more or less equal.
          Everyone being equal isn't a good thing when the average is more or less poverty.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            thats the only thing that actuall makes people unhappy, relative wealth. people could be naked in the wilderness eating berries. so long as everyone they know is also naked in the wilderness and eating the same berries, they will be happy.

            a society should aim to achieve happiness for its citizens.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Free healthcare
      >No unemployment
      >Free housing and food
      How exactly is prison bad?

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just wanna point out before it gets brought up that feudalism and authoritarianism aren’t tied together. If anything, a feudal king was less powerful than a later reneassiance or early modern king. Thing Magna Carta which limits the kings powers, versus a guy like Louis XIV w

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It didn't allow them to make more money

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally capitalism is nu-feudalism. Look at the structure of any corporation. A fat cat at the top controls peons who work for said fat cat in order to subsist with little to no rights. It's downright exploitative.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    How Feudal lords came about is literally no different from a bunch of leeches. The Carolingian Empire fell to infighting and what did the court officals do? They refused to give up their granted offices and stole from the King directly, and too little too late when the Carolingians were in periods of peace like under Charles the Fat he only had a few years to try and destroy these upstart leeches before he died and the cycle continued with more court officals taking permanent power from the King all the way into the 10th century. There is nothing noble to Feudalism, it came about through spectacular corruption and the deliberate dismemberment of the state. No different from a bunch of modern bureaucrats stealing money from the state but they just don't have guns to hold the head of the country hostage when he tells them enough is enough

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >feudalism
    define it, pro-tip, you can't

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was a product of its time, it is bad in today's world, but it was fine back then as a ruling system
    It wasn't as good as greek city states or roman republic/empire, it wasn't as bad as it could have been without it in the unsure harsh times that came after rome fell.
    It worked for houndreds of years which is what was needed.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it wasn't as bad as it could have been without it in the unsure harsh times that came after rome fell.
      Feudalism wouldn't come about until centuries after the fall of Rome

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, it formed over time because of the hard times caused by the fall of rome
        The warlord situation was not ideal

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah, it formed over time because of the hard times caused by the fall of rome
          Feudalism formed with the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, not Rome

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's form of government that will have to transition into something like Empirialism or a Republicanism in order for progress to happen. It's not the worst thing in the world but you can do better.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Socialists are moronic and don't understand history. When they took the definition of feudalism from Adam smith who himself never fully explained why feudalism was bad they tried even less to give a proper explanation.

    Google says feudalism didn't exist during the roman empire, but the definition of feudalism is land owning classes. Rome got most of its power from the patrician or land owning classes which held all important positions of power in Rome.

    Adam smith claimed that these landowners in the medieval age were prone to evil but this isn't applied to the roman empire by historians or economists completely arbitrarily.

    This might be because socialists use Adam smiths definition of feudalism as propaganda to destroy private property.

    One of the main mysteries of history is how all of the sudden the world became so great and peaceful after these supposed super corrupt and evil times, but the reality of the situation is that it never was that bad.

    Smith's definition of feudalism is more appropriately the stifling of the merchant and entrepreneurial class through adherence to tradition and a general disinterest in economics outside of industrialization.

    Of course this means every single society before modern society could be considered feudal and stifling to Adam smith.

    Which means outside of economic bottlenecking feudalism doesn't actually have a definition socially and was actually humanity's status quo since at least the introduction of agriculture

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      his argument was mostly that they were wasteful.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes I think the problem with people talking about feudalism is that they don't understand the difference between social and economic commentary, probably thanks to socialism which combines social and economic policies.

        Of course an economist like adam smith would pull his hair out when talking about kings and queens. I think this economic hatred that he probably held is used as a social bludgeon by socialists to legitimize the removal of royalty by force and this cognitive dissonance is why socialism was so successful in continental europe where pure economics never took off outside of socialism and the military industrial complex

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          i don't know if you read the book but he's pretty neutral and dispassionate. he just says that a lot of inherited wealth is wasteful because they don't naturally understand prudent spending, which was just a tendency he observed. he's not overtly attacking anyone. he comments on the capitalists as naturally wanting to combine and reduce competition as well. and on poors for being dumb.

          he has mild criticism for everyone, but its not an "attack" on anyone besides mercantilists or trade protectionists.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah so just a general commentary, it's more important how these people were popularly interpreted versus what they would actually say were their opinions behind closed doors, or even openly for that matter.

            the adherence of mainland europe to this corrupt society ruled by hereditary landowners that always want to kill other hereditary landowners is probably in part thanks to the catholic church trying to hold onto its power after the collapse of the roman empire, of course both charlemagne and the HRE gained its legitimacy from the roman papacy and in the footprint of these empires exist some of the largest and most influential consolidated states in western europe. It is probably only because of the UK's general distance from mainland europe and its distaste for the papacy/general authority that it was able to industrialize as it did and create economics

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're just sort of rambling. I don't get what your point is. Feudalism is a well defined term. Smith isn't wrong in that people who don't own their land will not seek to actively improve it, or that some dumb yokel noble with a middle school education at best would probably eat up any gains from land improvement rather than encourage and incentivize it. This has nothing to do with socialism, which is also wrong because it also lacks incentives.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying that it's not necessarily land ownership that caused industrialization and thus the "end of feudalism", it was a combination of that and the UK's distance from europe which strained its relationships with the main power structures in europe. The UK could neither be wholly conquered nor conquer any other states

            >this has nothing to do with socialsim
            most of the confusion today about what feudalism even means is because of socialists

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            also this occurrence has modern implications with the creation of british colonies, who through their remoteness pursued rapid and nearly complete liberalization of their economies as the british could not control them because of their remoteness

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was a tech innovation. It wasn't caused by any social or economic phenomenon. Financial innovations from the need to administer the new world made it possible to fund. It doesn't have anything to do with the vatican, unless you really want to go out on a limb an say priests spouted a bunch of unbiblical nonsense about walking three times around a building to make it stop raining, which made people too dumb and superstitious to invent things. But the catholic countries also invented a lot of the antecedent machinery in the form of watches and clocks so that doesn't work so well either.

            The english had lots of wool. It stands to reason they be the ones to innovate a way of spinning it using machines. Wool spinning is an easy process to automate. So the industrial rev starts there.

            Doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            france developed industrial tier machinery 50+ years before the brits, but they didn't put it to use, and that's because most of the geniuses they contracted to make technology were was funded by kings who were paying them to make art projects to entertain them.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wool was often spun at home by women for side cash. They were not an organized block opposed to automation of their jobs. So, it was an easy process to automate an expensive part of production while facing little opposition.

            English had lots of it, so that's where it gets put to use. That's your answer.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >easy process to automate
            frenchies had been making lovely silks for hundreds of years thanks to the romans, they even created mechanical industrialized metal looms all the way back in 1725 but never adopted them

            The weavers frequently rose up to keep the labor as maxed as possible in the weaving process

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    For somene living at the peak of civilization during the time of the Roman Empire, the middle ages must have been some kind of cyberpunk dystopian future where people are moronic and mentally controlled by state religion, science is dead and wars are fought in cool metal armor that covers the entire body

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >humans discovering by accident economics circa 18th century

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It brought back prosperity to evilrope therefore paving the way for white settler colonialism and genocidal oppression of POGMAIPS worldwide.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that peasants worked for 4 days a week

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      history repeats themself, soon modern feudal corpo peasant come back to work 4 days a week

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Feudalism is "bad" today, because the conditions that made it good in the past are no longer true.

    Feudalism was established as a way to keep the military decentralized, while also maximizing the number of heavy cavalry, which were instrumental in warfare at that time. When conditions changed to favor different kinds of warfare, Feudalism lots its raison d'etre, and was slowly phased away.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    As other anons said, it may look bad to a modern man but worked well in these times.
    Also read 'The Servile State' by Belloc.

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