Was Feudalism a good or bad system?

Was Feudalism a good or bad system?

I tend to give it the benefit of the doubt and I believe that modern people have to earn their right to criticize the past.

I prefer the medieval hierarchical understanding of society, but it was technically not very just for the lord to take the leftover harvest of his vassals.

Difficult to say, I'm just starting with a more thorough study of the medieval age myself and can't say too much yet

well if you think of it, it was some kind of capitalism. Who owned the properties collected the harvest and other goods; the vassals in exchange had "protection" and some kind of assurance of their living. Obviously there were many abuses too.

And obviously we live in much better times.

Surely after the collapse of the roman empire, what would have you chose? living by your own in the woods living in complete fear or having some kind of assurance that as long as you work for your lord you'd survive?

the leftover were like no more than 10% of their production, what does it say that now we pay like 50%

I don't think it's down to that choice. The way they said it on wikipedia is that around 700 or so they just 'decided' everywhere in the french-german lands that the common man can not be free. Therefore the landlords collect their harvest. They did provide protection but basically you could not escape it as a regular joe because wherever you lived, even the woods, you had a lord you owed to.

the collapse of the roman empire btw did not leave chaos. Many roman practises and institutions were left and were continued for some time in the frankish empire that came after it.

You have a very idealistic view of what life was like back then.

He's an ancap, he wants us to return to that.

Easily forgetting the fact that medieval serfs and peasantry had an incredibly limited diet. Hunter-Gatherers thousands of years before had more variety in their diet than a serf.

You're living in it right now, so.

It was awful.

Literally a kleptocracy of the rich parasites and warlords who robbed the hardworking peasants and artisans of the products of their labour to fuel their own desires and greed.

I would rather live in Bolshevik Russia than be a serf in France/Russia during the middle ages.

>the leftover were like no more than 10% of their production
are you sure?
leftover means, everything they did not consume themselves. So I imagine it's probably more like 80%.

technology was indeed a problem but in term of social life it was way healthier than right now

imo we should live in a theocratic neo-feudalist system that combine ancap and clerical fascism

This is partially right. We aren't quite as bad as we could be right now. But we will certainly get their if people don't stand up to the rich/Zionist Jews.

A commie in capitalist clothing i see.

most tax rate never got above 10%, in some case it was 3%(because the population didnt had the illusion of being represented)

Necessary for the time being but also teaching not to trust the masters wholeheartedly.

There was several types of feudal organization with more or less freedom.
On average people use to have more free time and work less than today.
Lord's usually had immense power, but even so the feudal system gave some rights to serfs, especially under low medieval period.
I believe most problems were due to high mortality, eventually famine due to bad crops and wars. Culturally I can't say we are much better now, mstersilly yes.

Easily forgetting that hunter gatherers didn't have a whole lot of protection and luxuries.

>liberated from catholic monarchs
>just to be ruled by jews instead
I feel cheated. I want to go back.

it was slightly better then slavery

Feudalism was good so long as it wasn't centralised to the point that widespread exploitation happened. For the most part England and HRE had it nailed on compared to places like France and Russia in which the centralised state (even before the true centralisation post-1648) really oppressed the peasants.

Only downside was to have a shitty monarch but again HRE lead the way with elective monarchies so if an Emperor had an impetus to not be shit.

The feudal system came from late rome, plagues and urbanization happened. people died of sicknesses the survivors moved to cities for gibs, and the emperors got pissed and tied people to their land, especially in the border provinces where they needed a population to defend the place the most.

Afterwords the client kingdoms and successor states kept the practice because it was just how they did it for a few hundred years.

and the UK became shit when they broke of the overwatch of the catholic church that protected the peasants from the tyranny of the lords

The only reason why Sup Forums looks at the middle ages fondly is because they can relate to being a poverty stricken, shit covered illiterate.

How would a serf know he had rights if he couldn't read the parchment it was written on? If the ones who owned him like property weren't constantly in his ear saying "do as I say or you'll burn in a lake of fire"?

Feudalism was only good for feudal lords, just like capitalism is only good for capitalist (private business owner).

Maybe if the Catholic church wasn't selling indulgences and being so corrupt it literally sold being the pope to another person

I'm not part of the group of retards that say that everything was awful in the medieval ages. But no one can deny that we live in much better and more secure times

only because the criminals during that age were killed and and purged their criminal genes with it

also most problem of that time came from a lack of technology that no type of civilisation would have fixed

if you lived as a degenerate like in our current sick society at that time you would have starved pretty fast

our current society lack of stoicism

>is fire a good or bad thing

The vast majority of children died before reaching age 5, what do you think? Of course it was a colossal shitfest for anyone non-nobility.

This. Only uneducated spoiled wuitebois actually think feudalism is a great system to live under.

Hillary lost, get over it... she will never be queen

>The vast majority of children died before reaching age 5
So your issue is not with feudalism, but that times before the 1900s existed?

>Feudalism was only good for feudal lords
It was actually better for vassals. Lords had it better in some cases, but they were pretty specific. The rest of the time it favoured the vassal, who got more out of it.
Ie. The vassal got protection, and was given land. The lord might have gotten some tax off them, but the main draw was requesting military service, which may not have been that necessary.
Plus, vassals could have several lords, and thus might refuse serving one against the other.

>Was Feudalism a good or bad system?
It's a descent system for strong monarchies without desire for expansion
However, for a warring nation, it's not good enough to stand against countries with a free market and even only low-moderate taxes