Was Feudalism really as brutal as is commonly believed?

Was Feudalism really as brutal as is commonly believed?

Other urls found in this thread:

mediafire.com/file/iatouqp7fb0590c/Fiefs_and_vassals.pdf).
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It depends

feudalism is a meme. the middle ages weren't terrible, but they weren't necessarily good, just different. different pluses and different downsides, when times were bad (war, plague, famine), things were very bad, but not always so

I know this isn't Veeky Forums, but do you have any reading material you could recommend me to learn more about feudal society (its economy, legislative structure, extent of power feudal lords had, etc.)?

Go on?

feudalism was institutionalised inequality, as in, society was structured by decree into hierarchicaly subdivided sectors, and if youre born in one of them youre not getting out unless the king, or whichever authority figure says so, and this irked people, since it meant no upward mobility for the average guy, and no right to say no or even anyone to complain to if the local lord starts treating you like shit, which happened at times

weather it was brutal depended on place and time, and the specific feudal in question, some nobles were total people persons and the population loved them, some were autistic sadists that hunted their own pesants like game because theyd get bored, some just did their standard thing and no on even took notice of them, and the small nobles were particularly close to the population since they were basicaly just small landowners

it was a complex set of relations realy, in some places you had people move from areas where they would be free citisens, like say venetian republic, into areas where they would have to live under a lord as subjects and serfs, just so they wouldnt have to deal with so much taxes, regulations and state beurocracy, then again you had people start uprisings and wars to shake off feudalism, and whole swats of forests and mountains never under feudal control

Not so much brutal as it was arbitrary. Think about why the French Revolution happened in 1789 and not 1389: in 1389 the feudal model had a reason to exist. State power was very weak, there were no standing armies and there was a necessity for a warrior-class. The nobles (and mercenaries, and sometimes levies) fought, the priests preached and the masses worked, that was the social contract (to use an anachronous term) at the time and people were generally fine with it. The average peasant accepted his lord because he knew that without his lord he wouldn't be able to work the land in peace.

We see the first cracks showing up with the Hundred Years War, when the king of France (followed by other kings in Europe) creates a standing army directly loyal to him. The nobles slowly transform from warriors to officers to eventually a leisure class. A leisure class that became less and less legitimized as state power centralized (Louis XIV for example concentrated power, moved it away from the nobles but in turn relied heavily on the bourgeois). 1789 was when enough was enough and the bourgeois demanded by force to have the nobility abolished, because "500 years ago my ancestor fought for the king" was no longer considered an argument to claim the best jobs and most influence in society.

That's the way I see it at least.

It could be bad but it was generally self policing.

If a baron got too tyrannical the neighbouring baron generally went to the count and told him "This guy's making us look bad, can you sort it out?"

>some were autistic sadists that hunted their own pesants like game because theyd get bored

Evidence for this?

Not that guy, but Juan Alonso de Butrón y Múgica did shot people from his tower with a crossbow. And liked to rape.
He was denounced by that same people though.

Game of Thrones, the most realistic fantasy series debunking noble knight cliche

It's one of the 20000000 thousand myths invented by enlightenment philosophers who had to justify the disaster of the french revolution.

>yeah we killed one bajillion people in a few years but did you know the king could sleep with any woman he desired?
>Francois what the fuck are you saying, we had a king up until two years ago and that shit never happened
>hush, or you'll ruin the lie

>one bajillion people
Literally less during the entire reign of terror than died at Austerlitz in one day. Not saying it's a good thing, just putting it in perspective.

Black legends work both ways.

>Literally less during the entire reign of terror than died at Austerlitz in one day

I don't know why you thought that would be a good rebuttal to what I wrote.
Napoleon was a disaster and a product of the environment created by those fuckers I was referring to earlier.

Why was the French revolution a disaster?

>Napoleon was a disaster
t. Royalist

Never denied that.

It spawned classical modernity.

Napoleon is the greatest man to ever walk on European soil.

Dunno, not being forced to regularly work for free for some local noble or follow the official Church seems rather good for me.

Game of Thrones-tier brutal feudalism would be unsustainable for any kind of civilization, let alone the one who game the world the Enlightenment.

>Dunno, not being forced to regularly work for free for some local noble

What actually happened is barely different from what we have now.

>or follow the official Church seems rather good for me.

Yeah, because secular humanism is soooooo much better.

>What actually happened is barely different from what we have now.
This doesn't make feudalism good. This just brings more attention to the fact capitalism is more than a bit shit.

>Yeah, because secular humanism is soooooo much better.
Well I'm not under any obligation to be a secular humanist so yes actually it is.

He created an incredebly centralised bureaucratic autocracy and limited personal liberties.

>This doesn't make feudalism good.

No, other things made it good, I was just pointing out that it wasn't bad.

>to the fact capitalism is more than a bit shit.

oh god a marxist

>Well I'm not under any obligation to be a secular humanist so yes actually it is.

Setting aside the "moooom, i'm a free spirit!" undertone and the implication it has for the vast majority of people who are clearly suffering because of the insane amount of freedoms they're afforded, you actually are obligated, more or less.

If you stray from secular humanist orthodoxy you become a pariah very quickly. Your only alternatives are contemporary versions of religions, which are basically empty, or nihilism. And nobody actually behaves like a nihilist for extended periods of time.

That he did. This is a good thing.

>and limited personal liberties.
On the contrary he expanded personal liberties. France under Napoleon made both the republic and the kingdom look absolutely barbaric.

>What actually happened is barely different from what we have now.
Its a lot different than what we have now

Yeah, at least back then you'd have some sort of connection to the land.

>Yeah, because secular humanism is soooooo much better.
It actually is, yes. Becoming a social pariah is in any way better than getting imprisoned or killed for your belief, unless we are going full moral relativism of course.

>I was just pointing out that it wasn't bad.
I beg to disagree though.


>people who are clearly suffering because of the insane amount of freedoms they're afforded, you actually are obligated
1. Yes, lots of people do indeed have a strong desire to be told what to do. But you shouldn't care about these people. If it was up to them we'd still be living in the stone age. Fortunately the great men of history have dragged us all kicking and screaming through the ages to get to where we are now.
2. You really aren't obligated though. I'm not a secular humanist and no one could care less.

>Your only alternatives are contemporary versions of religions, which are basically empty, or nihilism. A
There's another way. But it's not an easy way. Pic related.

A connection that is largely meaningless now that agriculture has become less important.

No.

The Monarch had very little power outside of the capital due to how long travelling could take, so the Lords and the peasants could do whatever they wanted. I'd wager that people were happier back then too, since the Feudal hierarchy gives them a clearly defined purpose in life.

The only way that Feudal society could suck for you if you were a peasant is if you were unlucky enough to live under a shitty Lord; and even then
that proved to no longer be a problem once peasants got the upper hand in negotiations following the Plague.

>Becoming a social pariah is in any way better than getting imprisoned or killed for your belief

Nah.
First of all, social pariah = good luck finding a job.
Also, the probability of becoming a heretic back then were negligible compared to today.
Finally, soft, implicit dictatorships are even worse in several ways.


The land isn't the soil.

>But you shouldn't care about these people

Quite the contrary.

>I'm not a secular humanist and no one could care less.

Because you coincidentally don't break any of their dogmas.

>There's another way. But it's not an easy way. Pic related.

If you actually read pic related and not what someone like Kaufman or some frenchie wrote about him, you'd have a serious appreciation for aristocratic values.

>Also, the probability of becoming a heretic back then were negligible compared to today.
Yeah, as long as you knew what to say and what to do. You might as well say that the chances of going to a Soviet Union gulag were negligible, as long as you never offended the Dear Leader and the Wise Party.

I personally believe that religion is indeed a powerful force in binding a civilization together and that a civilization decays once it is replaced with relativism and hedonism, but I don't believe in using violence to enforce it.

>Quite the contrary.
I don't agree.

>Because you coincidentally don't break any of their dogmas.
I literally just did in the preceding point by disregarding 99% of the human population.

>you'd have a serious appreciation for aristocratic values.
I do. Hence why I pay Napoleon the respect that he commands.
If your understanding of Nietzschean aristocratic values is monarchism then you didn't understand Nietzsche. Simply being fortunate enough to pass through the royal vagina doesn't imbue you with any higher spirit.

>limited freedom
>Napoleon

Yeah he was such a tyrant, the feudalism of every other country was so much better, everyone loved it

>Yeah, as long as you knew what to say and what to do

Which wasn't a problem at all, since you would have gone to church since being a little kid, you wouldn't have heard or read about anything heretical. The comparison with the soviet union shows how little you understand about life in the middle ages. You'd barely ever meet the government in the latter. How many people do you think the various inquisition killed? Barely any.

>but I don't believe in using violence to enforce it

There was barely any need of violence even back then because there people didn't even know you could be anything else but what you were supposed to be.

>I literally just did in the preceding point by disregarding 99% of the human population

Disregarding 99% of the human population doesn't actually have any effects on them, it's the tamest thing you could do. It's teenager-tier.

Neither active nor passive nihilism are a threat to the current orthodoxy.

>Was Feudalism really as brutal as is commonly believed?
Well it varies widely so depends on where you look. There has been some debate over the term itself and how well it describes reality (See Fiefs and Vassals by Anthony mediafire.com/file/iatouqp7fb0590c/Fiefs_and_vassals.pdf). Its days were numbered once capitalism appeared on the horizon because it simply could not compete.

>Disregarding 99% of the human population doesn't actually have any effects on them, it's the tamest thing you could do. It's teenager-tier.
I'm not going to be actively cruel just for the sake of being anti-humanist, that's just being misanthropic out of pure contrarianism. They may be lemmings that would sooner burn all the greatness of Europe on a pyre than even try to overcome themselves, but I don't begrudge them life whether or not they appreciate it.

>Neither active nor passive nihilism are a threat to the current orthodoxy.
Active nihilism is the first step on the path to self-overcoming. And as a matter of fact before you can replace decaying reigning values with something higher you must first level the field of them.

not him, but definitely check out feudal society by marc bloch, great book that covers a lot of what you just mentioned :)

Dude I'm not against active nihilism as a stepping stone. I did the same, so I'm not going to criticize you or anything.

>that's just being misanthropic out of pure contrarianism

I agree, the point is, you're not actually dangerous to the orthodoxy that way, which was my only point.

Read Montaillou: Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 1294

>a class of literal parasites rolls down in wealth for hundreds of years doing fuck nothing
>meanwhile the citizenry acquires all its wealth and success with nothing but hard work
>eventually the citizenry becomes so rich and successful that it naturally wants to remove the obsolete parasitic feudal class
>WOW HOW THE FUCK DID THIS HAPPEN, MUST BE THE ILLUMINATI JEWS, I DON'T EVEN

And reactionary scum keeps crying to this day.

>muh merchantile values

absolutely disgusting