Feudalism

This is for the discussion of Feudalism, because we were hijacking some threads in the Tavern.

I shall start by addressing a point made by Gregor Eisenhorn.

Gregor Eisenhorn said:

    You'd be amazed how frail we are. You lose all your money, belongings, clothing, and food and try to survive for a week. Food isn't made constantly like it is in games. If all your food is taken, you won't have any more except for a few berries until the end of the next growing season. A community doesn't live off that. Sure, there have been times when people have survived off the land, but for the most part peasants were pretty happy with their lot! They had food, shelter, clothing, a family, and in time children to be proud of and pass their lot on to. How many kings regularly sent troops around to take everything people owned? Not many. They sent their men to collect a percentage of the goods a peasant produced. And it wasn't anywhere near everything.

Click to expand...

First get this straight: the peasants were not pretty happy with there lot! You seem to see feudalism as a Utopian way of life, which it was most defiantly not! I challenge you to go read a history book and see how happy the peasants actually were, or even better, read The White Company by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. 

    The Feudal system is based off the satisfaction of all, like I said...it does this simply out of necessity, since each person contributes something. Those lower on the chain provide food and raw materials, while the higher-ups protect those below and act as political and spiritual leaders. The lord would not starve his people, because he knew what that meant: no more people to tax in the coming year. Why would peasants even offer fealty if it meant starvation? They got a farm out of it. The modern farm usually isn't used to provide the owner with food, it is for crops that can be sold for money. Back then, you didn't usually sell your crops. It only took a small portion of land to keep a family alive, and the rest went to the lords. And unreasonable lord had rebellions, and so there weren't too many unreasonable lords. If the bulk of your soldiers are from the common people, then what incentive do the soldiers have to kill family members? If they obey an insane lord and quell the rebellion...they won't be eating that winter.

Click to expand...

I can see your reasoning behind what you say, but in reality, it didn't always work out like that.

    Of course it isn't the ideal way of life, and of course it didn't always work out. But times were different then. The ideal government today might not (probably wouldn't) work in the Middle Ages. At the time, Feudalism seemed the best way to go (I use the term "Feudalism" because it is what was used 100 years ago. Now we have people claiming Feudalism can't be defined, should be shunned, never existed, etc.). A democracy probably wouldn't have worked as well as the monarchy-and-Fuedalism combination. I don't believe Feudalsim is an actual form of government, it is merely a system of lord and vassal that was useful to all. Lord and vassal depended upon each other, and so the lord would not harm the vassal, and vice versa.

Feudalism is probably the best form of government in a society where the majority of people are uneducated (even more so than most people are today, even). It was an excellent system for keeping order and an obvious chain of command. It's basically perfect in times of constant warfare (that and communism); since for either of those systems to work, the separate classes must be told from birth that their pretty much destined to remain in that class.

I don't believe Feudalsim is an actual form of government, it is merely a system of lord and vassal that was useful to all

Click to expand...

I guess that would make it a sort of social contract, eh?

^ Eh, feudalism was tricky in terms of warfare. Either the feudal lords were fighting each other or fighting a common enemy only in the situation where an alliance would be very prudent. There was also a deplorable lack of decent commanders, since rank was based more on status or wealth rather than merit.

Feudalism, on paper, would be handy for warfare, since less pressure is on the king to maintain an army. In real life, however, it didn't quite work that way.

there are numerous occassion in history where lords of a region, whether they be lesser or greater, haven't sent in troops to a war/battle to support a lord they had vowed to either because they wanted to move up int he chain of command, personal grudges, or some other reason. So, as with communism, on paper fuedalism looks great -- but once one takes into account human nature and other things that people do it starts to fall apart.

I don't really have anything to say on this topic, but I am enjoying the conversation. 

Yeh, I don't really thnk arguing with this guy would be worthwhile, even though Feudalism has never worked and never will.

It worked for hundred of years (a thousand?). And you tell me that I don't read enough history. If it never worked, then why did it succeed in keeping Europe alive for so long (yes, I know other forms of Feudalism were used in Asia)? People in the Middle Ages weren't so stupid as you think. How do you think Feudalism came about? Out of necessity. Because it worked.

    To those discussing the military aspect, this thread deals with Llew and Halden's argument with me about the economic and social workings of Feudalism and how the peasants lived. They claim that kings took everything the peasants owned, the peasants were oppressed and unhappy, the lords were fat, evil idiots; and people were dying from hunger and cold everywhere. True, it sometimes happened that lords (or kings, which would have a much more severe impact) would tax their people literally to death, in which case those lords would either have their weakened lands captured by a neighboring lord or the peasants themselves would rebel and likely kill the lord. The peasants have an advantage, because many soldiers in medieval armies came from the peasantry. Would those same soldiers try to kill their own families? No, I think they would join the rebellion. Only enough knights to fill a feasting hall would be left to defend the lord's estate (I don't know much about men-at-arms...do they come from nobles or peasantry or a well-off class in between? Whose side would they take? I'd assume the lord's, since he probably gives them a regular pay). Even a lord's small group of retainer knights could be a deadly force, but against such odds...? Rebellions inevitably take down oppressive lords.

It worked sort of, but not really, since peasants STARVED TO DEATH, were BEATE TO DEATH, were JAILED FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, or just HAD THEIR FAMILY HUNG FOR NO REASON! Peasants had the worst lot of anyone. Soldiers that were inlisted from peasants DID kill rebelling peasants, because human nature took over, and they may have felt bad aout it later, but at the time the bloodlust was too strong. Besides, it was fun to run your sword through a helpless person who had stolen apples or toys from you as a child. Peasants had very low value, almost none.

Such things happen. It is perfectly possible for a feudal society not to have that level of violence and oppression, too, and you can't say that it's part of feudalism. Feudalism is very prone to corruption, though, and that's when such egregious violence can occur -- because the perpetrators can do so without fear of reprisal.

But randomly killing peasants did not occur, as it would make as much sense as a chicken farmer trampling his eggs. Peasants represent income, after all, and so it was in the feudal lords' interest to take care of their peasants.

THEY DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF THE PEASANTS! THEY SAID "BRING US *SO MUCH FOOD* AND *SO MUCH MONEY* AND THEY DIDN"T EVEN LET THE PEASANTS TAKE PhEASANTS OR DEER FROM THE WOODS!

Halden The Borch shooter said:

THEY DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF THE PEASANTS! THEY SAID "BRING US *SO MUCH FOOD* AND *SO MUCH MONEY* AND THEY DIDN"T EVEN LET THE PEASANTS TAKE PhEASANTS OR DEER FROM THE WOODS!

Click to expand...

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

Do you seriously think anyone is listening to you when you type like that?

Apparently he was, because he made an educated reply earlier...

Rest quite assured, however, that if you had used all-caps in that post as well, I would have ignored it completely.

But it is indeed true that peasants could not hunt in their lords' forest without permission, but then they were self-reliant anyway, and had no absolute need to poach. And you cannot tax dead peasants, so you wanted them alive. You couldn't collect taxes during rebellions either, which meant you didn't want to push them too far. Peasants grumbled about the taxes, but we still do that today, too.

Feudalism is what happens when the people at the bottom have absolutely no power, possessions, or rights and the people at the top own everything.

Call it endentured servitude, call it slavery, call it Feudalism.  In any case, it's bad for the peasants.

IMHO, the Feudal system collapsed for two reasons.  First (and foremost), the plagues that racked Europe dropped the populations so low that labor was actually in high demand and those of the lower classes who survivied could actually negotiate for a better standard of living.

Secondly, the Feudal system didn't work very well from a militaristic standpoint because (as already mentioned) the knights and nobles who were supposed to support the king didn't always do so when the time came.  The mercanary and standing armies of the later middle ages were more reliable.

Note that the above statements are my own opinion based on my own readings and experiences and could very well be wrong. 

No, actually, I think that's pretty good.

First off, I believe that Halden is incorrect. The peasents were not randomly tortured, killed, and beaten just to satisfy the lords or whomever. As was said earlier, peasents=money and a support system.  Even if they didn't represent those, they represent a defense against invading forces.

It was also said that kings could have a very strong impact on the countries -- this was only true for a few, rather effective and strong kings. Many (I'd venture to say most) kinga were actually on the sideline -- figureheads that lacked true power.  Barons and Counts oftentimes had more influence and power, and could bend kings to thei will or totally ignore the king.  If you wanted peace with one country, you had to do jsut as much negotiating with the nobles as you did with the monarch.

As to how peasents actually were treated... I think a lot of it depends on the region and the current lord.  I've read accounts of them being treated wonderfully, and others were they truly are treated as miserable slaves. So on that topic I think it varied a great deal.

Oh yeah, and indentured servitude and slavery aren't the same thing

Even strong kings like Henry II of England were -constantly- challenged with civil war and insurrection.  Hank had to deal with a baker's dozen of such from just his own sons and wife, let alone the machinations of other ambitious men in his realm.  it wasn't the most efficient system for command and control, even for very able kings.

jpgray said:

Even strong kings like Henry II of England were -constantly- challenged with civil war and insurrection.  Hank had to deal with a baker's dozen of such from just his own sons and wife, let alone the machinations of other ambitious men in his realm.  it wasn't the most efficient system for command and control, even for very able kings.

Click to expand...

Precisely -- inner politics could be absolutely brutal. Peasents also cared more about their direct lord than the higher up king -- their lord could affect them much more directly most of the time

Rameusb5 said:

Feudalism is what happens when the people at the bottom have absolutely no power, possessions, or rights and the people at the top own everything.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Feudalism is what happens when the king has absolute legal power, but delegates this power to provincial rulers who govern their own provinces autonomously. They, in turn, may further delegate power to lesser lords. This means that the lord does whatever he pleases on his land, even if the King has overriding authority. Whether peasants have rights or not has nothing to do with feudalism, but is decided within feudalism. In other words, feudalism is not oppression in and of itself, but can easily lead to oppression. It was a useful system back then because it took a lot of administrative burden off the King's shoulders, and it was certainly not the time for democracy.