NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion, feudalism is an important development in world history. Although it might not be the greatest government now, during the dark ages, it was probably a necessary evil. Although it enslaved many people as serfs and created a vast social classification system, it was really the only government that could have thrived in the middle ages becasue of the manner in which the serfs pledged their work to the lords in order for protection. Could any other government have worked during the dark ages? Was Feudalism a necessary evil?

Or, looking at it a different way, it was part of the reason the dark ages lasted for so long.

They should have replaced money with hugging for a currency. That way, people would be happy and gay. And if you were to cut a tree down, you had to hug it, that way you gave back to nature. So happy. La la la la.

When I play Civilization, Feudalism is always an inticing option, it looks so cool. I sadly never get to use it :(

What did they call that right which stated that the lord of the lands had the right to the first intercourse?

What was I doing again?...

What did they call that right which stated that the lord of the lands had the right to the first intercourse?
Primus noctus?

Primus noctus?
I don't think so, the English used it in Ireland to breed the Irish out. It had a cool name.

One of the most oppressive systems ever created. Feudalism stratified society and created huge class divisions, concentrating the wealth at the top, a concentration that seems to be the legacy of feudalism.

I don't think so, the English used it in Ireland to breed the Irish out. It had a cool name.
I know what the spelling is....Primae Noctis (also Droit de seigneur). When the Lord had right of first intercourse with a bride on the wedding night.

Well, Rome had a republic until the decay into monarchy. Feudalism (especially the British type) was more like lots of tiny authoritarian anarchies (if that makes sense). The King had less total control than we tend to think (at least until maybe the 1400s), and his will had to be carried out by the Dukes, Earls etc who controlled the lands and peasants.

More autonomous, anarcho-syndicalist groups would have been interesting.

Also I suggest looking at the 'government' the old Icelanders used; google for 'Althingi'.

What did they call that right which stated that the lord of the lands had the right to the first intercourse?

Edit: I guess its called Jus Primae Noctis, "The Right to First Night". http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd04501.htm denies it was ever real. http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm is more in-depth. Barbaric either way.

Feudalism? It's imo, nearly the same as authoritanism. It all bores down to having a good King/leader. The only problem is INBREEDING!

Well, Rome had a republic until the decay into monarchy. Feudalism (especially the British type) was more like lots of tiny authoritarian anarchies (if that makes sense). The King had less total control than we tend to think (at least until maybe the 1400s), and his will had to be carried out by the Dukes, Earls etc who controlled the lands and peasants.
No, it doesn't make sense. Anarchism and Authoritarianism can't mix. Like Anarchism and Capitalism can't mix.

No, it doesn't make sense. Anarchism and Authoritarianism can't mix. Like Anarchism and Capitalism can't mix.
He's saying it was many little anarchies, with an absolute ruler who potentially could rule, but usually didn't.

Anyways, here is the (kind-of) definition of Feudalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

The Legacy? How about modern Europe. Our nations, our peoples, our cultures are all direct successions of the early Feudal kingdoms.

I think the point of people who critique feudalism from hindsight is that it was corrupt, oppressive, and brutal, often unnecessarily brutal. There never was any real chance to enter into the higher strata of society, but higher citizens could fall into poverty, and damn their children to poverty with them. Simply put, it was brutal, harsh, and unnecessary. As for stratification, society will always be stratified to a degree, even if enough goods are produced to eliminate poverty. It's a natural part of human existence, and wealth will always be concentrated. To try and undo that would be communist, and against human nature. And it would never work, for the people who take away the wealth would hoard it. So don't waste time dreaming of ideals and utopias. They will never happen, because no one truly wants it, as we have seen countless times, in countless wars, murders, brutalities.

Bah. Dream all you like, if that's your cup of tea, so be it. If it makes you happy to dream of utopia, then go ahead. It's just not realistic.

Could any other government have worked during the dark ages?

yep. democratic city-states, non-democratic city-states, continent spanning empires, segmentary clan societies, egalitarian or non-egalitarian federations, primitive communist gatherer-hunters, etc. in fact, some of those even actually existed at the time.

It worked well in it's time. The lord had responsibilities to his people, and they could put thier head in his hands and he would be required to feed and keep them in exchange for labour.

But like every other system (including the supposed breat panacea, democracy) it can be abused. We got Stalin through Comunism and Hitler through democracy, so no system is perfect.

As a citizen of Brunei if they like having an absolute ruler and I think they will be happy with what they have.

I'd say it was a necessary evil

I'd say it was a necessary evil
I'd say it worked and wasn't evil at all. What were the options back then? Anything better on offer that would have worked? Don't think so. Less people starved under that system per head of population than have under modern African democracy.

Well, really there is nothing else that could have happened. As the Roman Empire was falling apart and Germanic tribes were pillaging the countryside, the landowners began fortifying their property for protection. The poor sought refuge in them, and pledged their service to the owner. Before long, you had egotists calling themselves kings, and the ideas of vassalage and serfdom spread to areas where it hadn’t evolved originally, because it was a way for leaders to legitimize their power.

I'd say it was a necessary evil

what exactly made it necessary?

what exactly made it necessary?

It was necessary in that during its formation immediately after the Roman Empire, most people were willing to sacrifice their domestic rights for protection, and feudalism was very efficient at achieving protection. Democracy is a very complex form of government and takes a while to build sucessfully. Feudalism is very simple and works well with a simplifed economy and social structure. In a time when most people were illiterate farmers, many would not have had the time or education to engage in a true democracy or city state.

id say it was a huge mistake that held back europe for 500 years. if it werent for the irish and the moslems classical learning would have vanished from the face of the earth. binding people to the land is just unnecessary.

id say it was a huge mistake that held back europe for 500 years. if it werent for the irish and the moslems classical learning would have vanished from the face of the earth. binding people to the land is just unnecessary.
The Irish?

It worked well in it's time. The lord had responsibilities to his people, and they could put thier head in his hands and he would be required to feed and keep them in exchange for labour.

But like every other system (including the supposed breat panacea, democracy) it can be abused. We got Stalin through Comunism and Hitler through democracy, so no system is perfect.

As a citizen of Brunei if they like having an absolute ruler and I think they will be happy with what they have.

You know, Hitler actually established himself as a dictator, so he doesn't really count for democracy.

However, I agree that there is no perfect system

id say it was a huge mistake that held back europe for 500 years. if it werent for the irish and the moslems classical learning would have vanished from the face of the earth. binding people to the land is just unnecessary.

I agree here: Ireland was free of feudaliusm until it was imported by the various different waves of Normans invasion following on from William the Conqueror: what was once am intellectually progressive nation became priest ridden and shackled to the powers of the Norman-Britains where it wasn't still riven by civil war following that point.

The Irish?

Yup: the Celtic Church, as distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, kept alive many traditions and preserved many manuscripts which disappeared from the rest of Europe during the oft-misnamed Dark ages, add to that that their scholastic method and art of producing illuminated manuscripts was a major influence on those thinkers thet marked the end of that period (such as the influence of the Book of Kells on the monastic tradition which gave birth to the VEnerable BEde and indirectly Bacon).

Too drunk for details right now, but the sources are out ther if you look.

Feudalism sucked and if you ask me, anarchism would of course have been better. In a Marxistic sense, feudalism was the result of the existing material conditions and there wasn't much that could be done about it.

I'd say it worked and wasn't evil at all. What were the options back then? Anything better on offer that would have worked? Don't think so. Less people starved under that system per head of population than have under modern African democracy.
Oh I'm not saying it didn't work or is actually evil. It's just that the poll option that fits my idea most is the one "a necessary evil "
I'd actually think that with a few changes it could work in today's society [I was actually just discussing somebody's idea of this].

The dark agres? it really wasnt that dark. it was in the dark ages that university had its beginings. The Irish along with the rest of europes christian monks kept alive classical learning not the moslems i get sick of hearing how civil the muslims were. If it wasnt for the Catholic church we the west would not be as developed as it is.

The dark agres? it really wasnt that dark.


Ergo...

the oft-misnamed Dark ages

...would you prefer, with regard to the UK, that it be known as 'that irritating period between the end of the Romano-British era and the rise of pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon culture in its late flourishings"? A tad cumbersome.

The Irish along with the rest of europes christian monks kept alive classical learning not the moslems i get sick of hearing how civil the muslims were.

Are you claiming that the 'lost' texts of Aristotle were actually recovered from the Irish, instead of the Arab nations, and that scholars such as Abul Walid Mahommed Ibn Achmed, Ibn Mahommed Ibn Roschd were actually Irish dudes with just really funny names? If so, I'm calling you on bullshit.

Bump, because I want to see Axsom make a reply.

Feudalism sucked and if you ask me, anarchism would of course have been better. In a Marxistic sense, feudalism was the result of the existing material conditions and there wasn't much that could be done about it.

Anarchism would obviously be better than any other system... if it could happen.