were medieval kingdoms similar to corporations today? I realize nationalism as we know it now didnt really exist back then, and you were part of a certain kingdom just because. So I was thinking being a peasent back then in a kingdom would be similar to someone working for a corporation today in terms of they care about it to the effect that they have to, but they dont really have some deep ideological patriotism for it.
Were medieval kingdoms similar to corporations today...
Hudson White
Xavier Wilson
It would be closer to wage slavery. The work sucks but you have to do it because all the money you make gets taken to pay for shit faster than you can make it. Some corporations aren't too bad to work for (Google) and some small businesses could be hell. It's like having a shitty job but you can't stop working cause they'll take your house and you can't move away because the roads are infested with bandits.
Grayson Walker
I worked in Allianz New Europe Holding GmbH. It's damned hell.
Bentley Hernandez
I tend to always preferred working for a small company, even though I was paid less, just because you are a human instead of just another cog in the machine. For all the corporate propaganda of "we're a team! and a family!" the only place I ever experience that was a liquor store I worked for when I was in college. Our boss even had his wife baby sit for the kids of a 18 year old girl that worked there whos parents were deadbeat drug addicts.
Brody Torres
they were similar to organized crime
beeing a peasant would have been similar to beeing a small business owner paying protection money to the local enforcer
Jason Miller
I've heard this analogy to. I think the mob actually traces its roots back to medieval italian societies that just operated like the feudal system, but in secret away from the king
Joseph Lewis
>I realize nationalism as we know it now didnt really exist back then
It was quite a bit more complicated than that. Some long-lasting monoethnic kingdoms developed things really really close to modern nationalism. Say, Brittany for example.
Ayden Clark
>operated like the feudal system, but in secret away from the king
That's an oxymoron
Brandon Perez
No. The peasants cared about a kingdom because of what it represents for religious order, internal justice, and security. A king was God's agent on Earth, who intervened on one's behalf against the likes of corrupt nobles, merchants, bandits, and invaders.
Jack Morgan
Mideval kingdoms were formed on ethnic basis nationalism existed in the feudal politics but the political system wasnt very socialist.
Sebastian Morris
Completely wrong.
Jordan Jenkins
So its just concidence that the different states encompasses different ethnic groups?
The elites had a sense of ethnic nation.
John Perry
>The peasants cared about a kingdom because
It didn't matter what peasants cared about, as they had no choice in the matter. The average peasant was only vaguely aware there even was a king. They served their direct landlord (or else), and had no participation in or knowledge of the wider political situation.
Brayden Wood
>o its just concidence that the different states encompasses different ethnic groups?
No, because they didn't.
Jackson Richardson
Wrong on all counts. Peasants were well aware of their legal rights, and would take their landlords to court if they felt they had cause. The gradual erosion of their rights and privileges over time made kings, who could overrule in their favor, even more popular.
Not to mention how kings were considered blessed, and were popular among crowds who sought his supposed residual blessing and even healing power.
Jace Jackson
Nationalism as a political ideology wouldn't have existed but Tribalism certainly would have and Monarchies are closest to Fascism if you want to compare it to a political ideology.
Adrian Edwards
Where are you even getting this bullshit?
Luis Wilson
No
actually it was (is) much more common than written history generally reflects.
Although - no necessarily completely 'Secret' from the King - just as today (or 20 years ago) the president or King ... may be Better Off NOT knowing details of an operation, or anything about it. - Deniability.... separation...?
ALSO there is Much evidence that nobles/ lords would band together and conspire against the King, from voting blocks, to outright Treason.
Oliver Watson
No, not really. But i can see the analogy in one specific case, when the king wants to be powerful but is still subordinate to the council of the nobility, and they can depose him whenever they don't get what they want. That mimics the CEO-board relationship.
But then i can't really think of a historic example. It's usually either strong king or strong nobles.
David King
At the time society was built into a few separate classes. A lord or noble owned land, a serf tilled the land for the lord in conjunction with other tasks with which the received a fee which plays into the other two groups. Peasants and merchants/craftsmen, a peasant was an individual who's circumstances had allowed him to purchase his freedom as well as land to sustain himself and his family. The only real differentiation was that a peasant owns his own means and would only occasionally pay a lord for use of his mill/oven/still/etc. A merchant/crafstman was almost even with a peasant except that his means were monetarily obtained through trade/craft.
Regardless of this a peasant or a serf would pay fees to a lord on occasion as a means of processing tithes(church fees) or services rendered (oven/mill/etc). A serf was not a slave, but a citizen bound to land. Serfs obeyed the same laws that lord did, but were not on the enforcing end of the law. Come invasion a lord would recruit openly but only serfs were bound to do so. Ultimately nationalism only existed so far as local conflict went. A lord was more or less the same as a mayor or government is seen today just on a more individual basis. It should also be noted that this system tends to vary across Europe and century as things tended to grow and complexify with population density.
To answer the question a peasant saw the lord as responsible for the maintenance of local industries, less a businessman more a leader.
