Why peasants didn't just revolted? They were the overhelming majority so they could easily overthrow kings...

>political disorder that was a creation of higher classes
>physical security from foreign nobles
>tools produced by peasants

WHY WOULD THEY?

IT IS NOT THAT SYSTEM WHICH IS FLAWED, BUT SOME PARTICULAR RULERS WHO WERE CORRUPT.

>pay taxes to the lord
>work his land
>get conscripted to war
>get nothing in return

Yeah yeah blabla means of production blabla we know your bullshit commie

WHY DID EGYPTIAN PEASANTS NEVER REVOLT AFTER 5000 YEARS OF OPPRESSION AND HARDSHIP???
Or did they but the scribes never recorded it, because they were propaganda fake news faggots.

>le "lower classes were always oppressed and suffering under their oppressive overlords in the feudal system" meme

You got safety and land to work on. Also, people thought kings and Nobels were chosen by God. So if you would revolte to the kings you would also revolte against God.

They did, and they succeeded eventually.

Because 1% of ruling class have enough power and influence to convince 99% of commoners that they shouldn't rebel.

Intimidation and force can mentally crush any resistance if applied well. They paralyze a man, his will to fight. It's the same type of fear that prevents 15 people being held at gunpoint from a single guard from overwhelming him and escaping.

>get nothing in return
Land, protection, the enforcement of your rights, etc.

Trade on a large scale was virtually impossible in the early middle ages (the gold/silver trade system had collapsed with the fall Rome, society reversed to quasi autark estates/hamlets) and gradually evolved with increased urbanization and specialization in the beginnnng of the high middle ages. In a graph of the late middle ages, it may be possible to include a merchant/craftsmen class, but because of them being vastly outnumbered by the farmer/peasent class, they are usually grouped into the third estate (peasents), OP's pic also describes the political structure of the feudal system not every job you saw in your RPG.

>idpol has progressed to the point people self insert into ideologies where they unironically think there was nothing wrong with feudalism
>they want to throw away the freedom our ancestors slowly struggled for for centuries and go back to an order predicated on hereditary debt slavery just to be avant garde on the internet

There were shitloads of peasants' revolts, why do you think all those torture devices are for?

>why do you think all those torture devices are for?
You're telling me BDSM wasn't a thing back in the middle ages?

I mean they certainly weren't suffering all the time, but from our prespective they were oppressed (and did revolt as has been mentioned), and most people can't understand, that it is fallacious to force our moral understandings on the past.

>why do you think all those torture devices are for?

Mostly fakes from the 19th century, made for shock value/entertainment

>crowd of burlap-clad carrot-wielders approach the government building.
>first one gets cut in half with a greatsword
>"Just lookin' for the fields m'liege, thank you m'liege"

Cool opinion man!

Because realistically you know as a peasant army that you're not gonna be able to overthrow the entire system, let alone your own local nobility.

So it's rather enticing when you hear the nobles are offering you a chance for peace without repercussion. Only most of the time if you took the bait you get executed.

>political disorder that was a creation of higher classes

The ambitious, powerful and wealthy dont cease to exist just because they do not meet normative standards.

Feudalism was the most stable system for balancing these conflicts the world had ever had for large scale communities up until about 200-300 years ago.

>physical security from foreign nobles

Once again normative values do not trump reality. No matter what government type you have you will have to deal with foreign aggression whether its barbaric nomads, peoples republics, merchant republics or democratic republics ect.

>tools produced by peasants

Exactly like the workers in modern times who use tools and equipment made by other workers

A comment: Do you think that illiterate farmers from over 1000 years ago who had been living the same way for centuries had the same political ideologies and aspirations as modern people do?

>Why peasants didn't just revolted? They were the overhelming majority so they could easily overthrow kings.
The Kings had, you know, professional soldiers. Peasants don't

Also in the history of medieval Europe, uprisings led by Urbanites- especially in free cities where every citizen is required to do a term in a citizen militia- were far more successful than rural peasants who relied on their feudal overlords for protection.

>Yeah yeah blabla means of production blabla we know your bullshit commie
Liberalism and Nationalism fostered the narrative that nobility are self-serving overlords.

And both the left and right and ultimately derived from classical liberalism.

democracy was a mistake.
it's nothing but trash.

Well, yeah, the old right was basically for French land owners pre-revolution, I doubt most people, who don't own land or a very little amount of it would find it appealing at all in this and day age.
What's the alternative? People feel very strongly about democracy.

Because the lacked class conciousness

what are you gonna do peasant? hit me with sticks?

>>get conscripted to war
You "conscription" is digging ditches and chopping wood, peasant. Why would a lord want to jeopardize his economic base?

Those were city-dwellers not peasants.

Plenty of peasants actually fought against the revolution.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée

>What's the alternative? People feel very strongly about democracy.
Republicanism with voting rights and the right to hold public office restricted to a group of individuals who have proven to be selfless and qualified enough to shoulder the responsibility of the political machine

>What's the alternative?
absolute monarchy lad, no (((parliament))) or autistic feudalism, just a king and a local lord maybe.

Where did you get these kinds of ideas? What kind of reading?

Different user,
Thomas Hobbes made me more in favor government and law, but it would just be kind of odd to have an actual king in this day and age (in the west, pretty sure there are still Arab kings?) would he dress and act like a typical president? It's pretty interesting to think about. I think constitutional monarchies could work, though.

Tolkien tbqhwyf
Beowulf maybe, and Ælfred The Great's eternal anglo Chronicle

1066 worst day of my life

Why gamble the well-being of a nation on the competency of an absolute monarch?

>your horde of unarmoured peasants with hoes, pitchforks and improvised spears attacks the feudal lord's army
>his crossbowmen start shooting at your mob
>"I wish I had a shield right now. maybe this wasn't such a good idea. my feet hurt"
>the guy next to you is hit by a quarrel
>you suddenly hear commotion and the thundering of hooves
>hundreds of knights in plate, on horses taller then you are charging towards your "army"
>they start ploughing through your formation
>people behind you start running and your lines begin to collapse
>"fuck this"
>you're run down by the lord's army and if you do escape, hanged later

Fixed that image for you.

Why gamble it on a bumbling mass of incompetents who couldn't find a real profession, or a literal mob?

You're supposed to pick a king who espouses all of your peoples's virtues, and his heirs will learn from him or be trained to rule from birth.

Power should never be given to those who want it the most, and making positions electable will guarantee the official will only be concerned with politicking. These two reasons combined are what's wrong with every politician.

If you can't find a so called "competent" man to be your king, or you can't expect his heir to not burn down his own kingdom, then what's the point of anything lad?

I refuse to believe the meme that all monarchs are dishonorable, selfish tyrants who oppress the poor peasants and execute subjects like a fantasy villain. Just blatant propaganda.
History has shown us the first monarchs of a land were great heroes, pious men, saints, kings who many tribes and ushered prosperity.
Almost always they have a long, great dynasty but eventually comes to an end.

After a while, the line may degenerate and you could have a bad king. There's just now way around this tbqh, you can't expect to circumvent a fundamental aspect of men. That's not a reason to have 800 of these degenerates ruling in the hopes some of them might be halfway decent. It's simply unnatural. It creates a false sense of equality. No one has any real power to enact change or literally do anything worth doing.

In the end, if you're not a good king, you are going to get sorted out one way or another.

Well, have Pierre, Louis, and Arnault, beat you with blunt farming tools and axebutts while Henri probes your armor with a Rondel dagger,

>what are you gonna do peasant? hit me with sticks?
Well, have Pierre, Louis, and Arnault, beat you with blunt farming tools and axebutts while Henri probes your armor with a rondel dagger,

>If they all just rose up
Well they couldn't even write or read, it would be hard to organise such a thing

King (theoretically) controlled the nobility but he didn't control the peasants the nobility did.

They were segmented and restricted to their own fiefs most of the time, they didn't have access to any armor or good weapons, and though they outnumbered the knights they didn't outnumber them enough so any revolt was quickly mowed down by the Medieval equivalent of tanks.

When their population grew due to better conditions and gunpowder became a thing it was fair game from then on. The Renaissance, Reformation, and the Revolutions of the Enlightenment in a military perspective can be summed up as "the peasants now have guns"

Actually most countries forbid their peasantry from war.

The lords of medieval times were the warrior class who got their legitimacy through battle so why would they undermine that by getting peasants involved? and if they wanted more specialization they would usually just hire mercenaries or small landowners.

Because best case scenario, they lose and the Kingdom's industry is a bit fucked for a bit.,

Worst case scanrio they win and the kingdom gets absolutely fucked by neighbours because peasants are retarded and incapable of ruling large areas of land.

>But what if the peasants then armed themselves, created an armed force, protected their land while exploiting it?
>They could appoint certain peasants as the leaders and others as farmers and so on

Congratz, it's feudal.

the idea of a highly structured, rigid feudal system is a meme. Social mobility existed, and in the high middle ages people flooded into the burgeoning towns and cities to become tradesmen and merchants who had no real feudal limitations.
After the black death there was an emergence of a rural middle class who, again, existed outside of what we would call feudalism. The system that existed was the basis of the entire medieval economy and a widespread overthrow of that system would have been unthinkable. Revolts that did happen were due to local grievances and were almost always unsuccessful.

I agree. Their lack of financial resources made it impossible for them to overpower the higher classes. Money = dominance

They did
But peasents are poor as fuck and would usually end up getting fucked up by mercs and knights

>Trade on a large scale was virtually impossible in the early middle ages
nope
And merchants as a group were far more numerous in the 13th century than the 14th, the black death shredded the urban sphere and pushed the majority of economic growth into the countryside.

>durr muh Communism
>why did the proletariat not rise up
>they easily could have taken the means of production
>damn capitalist/imperialist kings

Weak b8

What did they fight for? Did they want to have a peasant republic or some shit afterwards?

For a less miserable life, maybe?

Why they didn't allowed them? There were lots of them and they could overhelm enemy simply by numbers. Also weaboos used ashigaru

Peasants often weren't explicitly anti-regent but anti-nobility givenl the regent was God ordained and often seen as a just ruler by the peasantry unlike Lords. In the Jaquere rebellion of 14th century France the peasants used a Fleur du Lis flag to symbolise thier fight was explicitly with the tyrannical maurading nobles and not the king or institution of feudalism itself.

Two words my good sir: class division.

>But they were 90% of the medieval society

If you add together a lot of different social class's and look sideways at it then yes, they are around 90% of the population. However peasent is a load word when talking about the Feudal system so let change it to serf.

Urban populations are not serfs. This is a bigger percentage then you may think it is of the total populations for a few reasons. First the citizenship lists of many cities that keep records do not count the total population of their settlements but rather only their citizens. Many old Medieval demography studies based themselves off of those list and thus are very low. Second many of the old Medieval demography studies do not count Townships under a given population as being urban and thus added their population to the "peasents" side of the population. Those people may of been mostly farmers but they were not period legally speaking or politically "peasants'.

Next up is free commoner land holder like bondsmen or Yeomen. They may be farmer ( and part time warriors), they may be rural, but they are not serfs. They do not have the same tax system on them as serf. They have rights serfs do not have. Bondsmen benefit from the same systems that oppresses the serfs most of the time.

Some village craftsmen ( blacksmiths are a great example) share a similar lot with bondsmen. In the case of blacksmiths it was a anti revolt measure in part. Farmers need iron tools to be effective. By making blacksmiths interest counter to the freeing of serfs it makes it were small revolts will quickly lose their ability to make surplus food for sell. Or you know make weapons.

This is not an age in which there are men of middle or upper class in the business of writing literature or doing great speeches that would incite social upheaval, they were simply too illiterate, malnourished and divided into smaller areas through feudalism to be that successful.

Thread should have ended with the first post.

>>Trade on a large scale was virtually impossible in the early middle ages
>nope
>And merchants as a group were far more numerous in the 13th century than the 14th

The early middle ages lasted from the 6th to the 10th century. Outside of the peak years of the Carolingian dynasty large scale was virtually impossible inside western & central Europe. Is their a source anyone can show otherwise?

I mean to my know large scale trade really restarted around 1130-1140 in Europe.

it would take all the peasants of a society to even stand a chance against the average feudal army. Considering few of them knew how to read, let alone how to fight, this is unlikely. Peasants didn't read and didn't travel- how were they supposed to organize revolts large enough to do anything?

What is this utter propaganda that every peasant in every kingdom in every period of time was miserable and oppressed?
Why would they want to revolt? Set all physical limitations aside. For what reasons would they believe they could just march into the king's hall, get rid of him, then everything would be fine? How would they replace him? What was their endgame?

You can see how revisionist it is by the fact that republicans and marxists teamed up to push this garbage meme.
Their obsession with subverting the natural order of things and the organic hierarchy can only be pushed through massive, continuous propaganda campaigns.
Clearly it's worked because no one even dares to think of an alternative to the "oppressed lower class" meme that's been hammered into every single member of society since the enlightenment.

As if there were only fat lords, knights in shining armour, and virtuous yet downtrodden peasants who would die tilling a field even if they were a genius or had the ability to do literally anything else.

Meanwhile, in reality people loved and revered nearly all of their kings. The only reason we have """"""democracy"""""" today is because a gang of power-hungry, greedy politicians decided they can just execute the king whenever they feel like it. Then apparently poverty was abolished and even the poorest beggars made something of themselves, all because they were now ruled by hundreds instead of one.
Oh wait, that didn't happen, as it turns out the greatest and most prosperous civilizations were ruled by a lone monarch.

The problem is that you're looking at feudalism from a very "modern" point of view.

Our concept of human rights, and the responsibility of the government, doesn't extend that far back in history.

Desu. Don't you play CK. Those peasants shits are revolting every goddamn week.

Technically not a revolt, but the peasants in Switzerland kind of formed a republic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_of_the_Old_Swiss_Confederacy

How do you achieve less miserable life for all as a medieval peasant? Barring inventing synthetic fertilisers.

t. François Claude Amour, marquis de Bouillé

>Why peasants didn't just revolted?

"Why DIDN'T peasants... just revolt?"

fixed for BR tier grammar

>oh shit cool let's see what it's like to be the leader of a pesant revolt
>*switches characters*
>defeat the monarchy
>peasants crown just you the new monarch

Just like Communism

t. Oliver (((Cromwell))), """Lord""" Protector of the Eternal Anglo

>professional soldiers
>in feudalism

>ashigaru are serfs
THEY WERE FUCKING YEOMEN YOU MONG

[SNIFFING INTENSIFIES]

>What is a knight?
>What is a miles?
>What is a mercenary?
Professional =/= Standing Army. You could have a professional soldiery without a standing army.

>non standardised army
>professional
I'll agree they ere a fighting force but not professionals

there was a peasant republic in dithmartschen wasn't it?

Is that your only bait, today, peasant?
You only enjoy the privilege of my overlordship on the condition that you perform the labor of producing baits for me, why else do you possess the miserable slice of an IP which I loaned you?
I bet you have yet to even meet your shitpost tithe for the church.
Get back to work in those threads. And remember, if you try to revolt or leave for another board, I will have you hanged.

very good post ty

Bro they fucking did nothing but fight as a job. That is what "professional." means.

They weren't like the militia who only served in a military capacity in wartime or a given term, then go back to being citizenry.

Peasants are retarded.

This is not true. Most knights were farmers.

Are you retarded? Several western nations have kings.

>Why peasants didn't just revolted?

Feudalism wasn't that bad most of the time, why would they revolt?

This is French revolution-tier propaganda.
I admire your dedication to remaining conditioned, when you respond to a post that complains exactly of what you're doing.

> For a less miserable life
> Peasants in fields
> Fuck this
> Overthrow lords
> Congrats!
> Starve to death because nobody tended the fields while you were off storming the castle
Peasant revolts only occurred when the King got so greedy that people started starving.

You can always hire half of the poor to kill the other half. All it takes is money, and too many fat bastards eating all the pie.

> Not a standing army
Well tell them to get off their arses. They have shit to do.

>burlap-clad carrot-wielders

underrated.

> Probes your armor
Fag

They didn't know communism

Thanks never heard of it.

Even in the early middle ages there was still large scale trade, especially from the 8th century onwards. High status goods especially were still traded over exceptionally long distances, and Arab/East Roman goods were not uncommon in Britain

They did, on occasion. But let us just for a minute get inside the head of a peasant, they are ignorant and uneducated. They have been told all their life that the King is appointed by God and so he must rule and the only means by which they got news was from the Church, the Church propped up the Crown and the Crown propped up the Church. Secondly, they didn't have much reason to, they make food and go die for their Liege and in return they are allowed to live, the women and children will be safer and most of the time they can farm and live out their life. Finally, assume they did overthrow the system, particularly during the Middle-ages, nobody would know how to run anything, they only knew how to farm turnips.

All you'd need is 2 or 3 ntelligent men who understand the system and combat and they could raise a peasant army in secrecy