What's wrong with feudalism?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3Unnbzr94zc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nothing, unless you had a shitty lord.

It doesn't last unless you stay isolationist for all eternity

What about feudalism but you can go up a class if you are very skilled/hit the right buttons? (But not to king level)

Who gets to be king?

But that's kind of the way it worked, after a certain point at least.

The son of the old king.

it lasts longer than republics do

Me. Check em.

56 percenters don't have the purity to be chosen by god to rule.

Fuck that. I’ll only accept it if I’m king.

No me

It worked that way, in some late feudal societies 5-10% of the population were nobles. Most of them lived like peasants, but they had political rights. And peasants could usually escape to the cities to work as apprentices and maybe end up as burghers, join their lord's forces and hope for a promotion (war was always the way to nobility) or if they were intellectually inclined they could join the Church or maybe even go to a university, though that often lead to a Church career as well.

trips is king

rolling

dubbs are lords

Would support if could vote for king from lords and king could redistribute Lords land for benefit of peasants, and Lords had term limits until they had to raise a knight to replace them. Being a knight is volunteer service available to all.

ROME.

Rolling.

That sounds like a terrible system which could only ever benefit a (((certain type))) of people. Any time you bring in votes, you bring in chaos.

King is king for life. King can be murdered.

youtube.com/watch?v=3Unnbzr94zc

"The middle class isn't on top."

King of kings here. God wills it and I shall act has His hand.

If we are talking about classical King/Emperor/Leader a couple issues:
Why?
I mean why in the world the peasants would accept a king or nobles? Protection is secondary when you need food.
So that scheme is incomplete.
Because Kings are Kings by Divine Election.
So if the King is chosen by a superior being, you need to keep the idea of God, not only present but permanent. So you need to use the current religion or impose your own to support the idea.
And while you can build a feudal system without it, religion gives the structure stability.
And a new step on the pyramid. One without economic profit, and a lot of needs.
You need temples, you need free days, you need moral standards...

Yeah, sure.
You kill the king. Nobody wants to be a king anymore.
Pretty clever.
Oh, you force one person into the possition of power. He is so afraid he do absolutelly nothing becoming the most PC king in the history.
You kill him because is useless.
You force another one. He becomes a tyrant and kills half the population.
You kill him (don't know how).
Carlin is an idiot.

I dunno, I've been wondering the same thing myself. Seems like the kind of system where shit gets done.

Roll.

Literally fucking nothing

rolling

You would all be serfs and Im pretty sure thats not the life you want.

...

...

Well I'm not voting for you.

danish bro,

I have been accepted to a phd program in your country. Do danish women like conservative guys? I heard they are super SJW's.

Most people are still serfs anyway. But now they have fewer holidays and higher rent.

99.99 percent of people that think monarchism is good would be serfs and peasants. Nothing more cucked.

...

King leaf reporting in

BOW

rollllllin

>He says, whilst being in a worse position than most Western European serfs ever were
/r/ing the pic of the snake being stepped on by corporations with the caption, "at least it's not the government!"

oh good, Nrx emerges yet again

kek

Quads pull out Kek's sword stuck in the stone.

Rolling

That is incorrect. The apex in European feudalism was the Pope

I'm back.

Radovid was a cuck
You Shouldn't have betrayed Roche
Bros before hoes

They turn oppressive and put power in the hands of the few, which leads to general stagnation and make power struggles more frequent, since authority to rule is defined by military might, not consent of the governed

There can be only one.

Are you kidding me? Is that a joke?

I spend a good 12 hours every day dedicated to leisure. I can eat any food that I want and consume practically any form of entertainment that I wish with just a little effort.

Girls not wanting to fuck you because you are conservative does not mean you have a life that is worse than medieval serfs. Holy fuck, how can anyone be this delusion?

>youre the king?
>well i didn't vote for you

You'll make a good court jester user. Make me laugh again.

Decentralized states are easily divided and conquered.

>be wagecuck
>uncuck self and start making money
>hire wagecucks
>become capital chad, literally the opposite of serf
>retire at 30 and live exactly the life I want to live

seriously one of you guys have a fucking ancap flag, how could you possibly want the government where you have no say and are most likely to become part of the untouchable caste whose wife gets raped by knights and then executed for adultery. Literally the definition of a cuck.

>muh hedonism is worth the complete destruction of God, country, and basic decency
I don't want girls to fuck me, I want ONE wife who will stay loyal and saves herself for marriage like me, but no, that's too much to ask in this shithole.

Roll
First act: free market for all

Kind of seems like the peasants are giving a lot more than they're getting...

roll

>confirmed underage dreamer

It's a few steps above slavery.

Generally everyone shits on each other like poo-in-loo. There is no incentive to go above and beyond so everyone just does the bare minimum to get by.

Not great if you want great advancements.

>The royal bloodline may be a good idea at first, but then the king sticks his dick in crazy.
>Rather minimal opportunities for the general public to rise up to the occasion and seize their ambitions.
>Similar problems as Communism with 'infallible leaders'.
>A lack of checks and balances.
>No guarantee of respect for art that disagrees with them.
>Now have to deal with two sources of major influence; the church and the corporations, both of which are currently hyper liberal.
There are others, but this is just what I have down right now. In short, the idea is just short sighted and plum idiotic, at best creating a system that will be torn down with renewed vigor after roughly a decade, and at worst becoming a tyrannical dystopia almost exactly like those witnessed in communist countries and various novels.

Look at the Holy Roman Empire retard thats exactly whats wrong with feudalism.

You think there were no great advancements under feudalism? Have you read a history book?

...

You will get nothing peasant swine

i wouldn't mind having my family's political power restored...
maybe i'd move to the family manor and have some serf chick on blowjob duty

>dreams with a slight chance of success based on motivation are better than literally no chance at all
are you retarded? you would do well in the gulag.

>not wanting your corporate entity to take on responsibilities of a nation state
>not wanting your corporation to have actual sovereignty

The Pope you say?

Tyrant here

>defining the creation of a state

ancaps everyone

got my meme quote backwards but you get the point

You can easily have a system in place where there is room for advancement in feudalism.

Not really. At best the crown and the church were twin pillars. But functionally the pope held little power compared to the king of each nation, or the Holy Roman Emperor.
This is evidenced by the frequent rebukes against the Holy See by kings, or Emperors killing and installing their own Popes to get their own way.

>I spend a good 12 hours every day dedicated to leisure.
Like how serfs were. Being vassal to a lord meant only a few months of farm (or equivalent) work per year.
>I can eat any food that I want and consume practically any form of entertainment that I wish with just a little effort.
As could most serfs. You just think you have it better because we have more technology overall now.
>Girls not wanting to fuck you because you are conservative
Isn't that a liberal complaint? But otherwise, why would my political views ever get in the way of that?
> does not mean you have a life that is worse than medieval serfs.
Me personally as a business owner? No, not so much. But the average peasant yes.
>Holy fuck, how can anyone be this delusion?
I would ask the same thing, but i already know the answer: You've been force fed American ""education"" propaganda your whole life that anything beyond your CokeCola or Disney ruled commercialism is bad.

>the government where you have no say
Like now?
Unless you're a jewish bank owner, that is.


>It's a few steps above slavery.
It's the exact opposite. Vassalage was voluntary. But you just had a hard time in such a lawless world without land to lease and military protection to keep you safe.

The requirements of a state are: land, population, legitimacy, and monopoly on violence.

To play devil's advocate, there were several. However, the amount of great advancements under feudalism is minuscule next to the plethora of discoveries and their applications under a more free society such as our own.
Perhaps you are the one who should open a history book.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa

Now you're starting to get it.

There shall be no king.

>several.
Jesus Christ man....

I'm Protestant and I acknowledge the positives of the papacy a thousand years ago (before the Trentian Heresy)... The popes of the false religion of today can't be compared.

Literally why would the powers at be be interested in allowing advancement? Use your noggin please.

roiling for knighthood

Exceptional ability? Is the lack of multifacet problem solving a sign of low IQ?

I am the one true King!

Always going to be a few exceptions. But just look up how many times papal lands were invaded by European kings. Or cases like Phillip la Bel where he would neck Popes and try again until he got a good stooge.
Then of course there are excommunications, which was meant to be a punishment, but wound up being a renouncing of papal authority in an area.

I admit I may be understating it, but it seemed to be the best fit at the time. Would 'many' be a better fit?

>confirmed underage dreamer

Sweet I'll take being a Lord

Rolling

Behold! I am one of simple mind!

Roll

>Simple mind.
>American.
Checks out.

A lot of time has passed. Have we advanced because of our political setup, or despite it? It seems things have taken a life of their own and snowballed.

>few exceptions
The same with many Dukes and Lords. They could rebel and if they had enough food/supplies/water just stay held up in their castle for an indefinite time. Of course the cannon ended that and feudalism.

Step aside poor people

King of Cucks

Absolutely nothing. The future is kingdoms post balkanization

>Canadian
>no numbers

Checks out

>I don't want girls to fuck me, I want ONE wife who will stay loyal and saves herself for marriage like me

saving implies you have something someone wants user

Looking forward to my new hat.

Rolling

Agreed. That's why castallans were meant to be picked so carefully, and often there were restrictions on castle ownership/building, such as under Charlemagne.
>Of course the cannon ended that and feudalism.
Eh, seems more like expanded mercantilism killed feudalism, since it focused on building towns and moved wealth away from rural areas. They just weren't ready/able to adapt with that change.