Is feudalism natural transition that ensues after societal collapse?
>>1195581
Feudal society is a society itself. So was the society that proceeded it.
In Europe feudalism was very much the result of traditional Germanic power structures and the absence of some sort of civil servant/lawyer group like say the Romans had.
If Rome was conquered by "Barbarians" with an army of bureaucrats we might not have had a society with feudalism following Rome.
>>1195581
Feudalism is the natural state of humanity. Feudalism existed long before the medieval period, and we still exist in a feudal state today.
>>1195581
No, it takes awhile to reach feudalism. First you need an an acquiescing network of strongmen, united under some common cause. In the case of feudal Europe, for example, it was the dogma of a shared religious concept.
Otherwise, you have despotic individual city states.graduating to some form of oligarchy or pseudo-democratic council.
feudalism followed the invention of the stirrup
read a book every once in a while for chrissakes
>>1195604
>feudalism followed the invention of the stirrup
Subtle troop, people will fall for it
>>1195602
I think culture might count under the common cause thing, a lot of the gallic tribal confederacies were feudal or semi-feudal before they were conquered by the romans.
>>1195597
Ah yes the 'stretching the definition of a word until it becomes almost meaningless' post
>>1195581
Feudalism's what happens when you have a lot of land but not a lot of money
>>1195623
Feudalism is being gifted one thing for the promise of doing another thing, between superior and inferior.
It's not something that was magically invented in the middle ages, as the other guy said, the ancient Celts used to do it, so did the ancient Germans, and the majority of ancient people.
>>1195592
this + The WRE had started to feudalize already because of stupid decisions by the Romans
naw, people feud all the time
it's pretty common, actually
Feudalism, at least in Western Europe, is based on the development of the Roman patronage relationship as the Western Roman Empire fell apart and Western Europe became far more decentralized
>>1195647
I am talking about it as a concept
>>1195581
>Is feudalism natural transition that ensues after societal collapse?
feudalism is the natural order of any society. strong subdue the weak and protect their fief, this is not something that was developed over time, this is something that always existed even since the monkey times.
>>1195633
He's right. All power structures are built like this and are essentially feudal. The alternatives are rule-based bureaucratic organization and (hypothetical) anarchical cooperation of equal individuals, but both of these transform into feudalism pretty quickly. If you don't like the word 'feudal', call it patron-client relations.
>>1195683
>I am talking about it as a concept
in a snide girlish voice:
"I am talking about it as a concept."
>>1195718
Nice argument.
I have clearly won.
>>1195705
Frankly, I am surprised by how closely power structures in any group resemble classical feudalism. It's always a strong guy caring for a small circle of his followers, in exchange for loyalty and favors. When you think about that, you can find it everywhere, from universities to gangs and from political parties to farms.
>>1195729
Well, I would agree only partially. Feudalism is loyalty to a particular person. It still exists in almost any business environment (like when a boss builds his 'team'), but nowadays it's usually frowned upon and is called nepotism or cronyism.
>>1195722
won what?
god, please kill self now
your parents will be pleased
one less dipshit in the world
I'm not in the argument, yet, really, except to post >>1195602
.. but I want to say some of you are trying to explain it too broadly and it's making the word lose the specific definition.
In a structure of feudalism there is one person at the top and this becomes as a pyramid power structure, shit rolling down hill kind of thing. Without some specific ideology defining the "top person", i.e. divine right of monarchy, the rest of it is pretty meaningless.
I "think" you need a monarchy system for true "feudalism", not despotism, not oligarchy, not "a bunch of culturally similar leaders got together and decided to divvy out property and establish a caste system". There was not "feudalism" before the existence of an "empire" or a "kingdom".
>>1195751
So how about the Celts. Their leader would have men below him, who were sworn by oaths, literally homage, that they would be his bodyguards and fight for him, in return they would get equipment and either land or slaves. These "Oathsworn" themselves would then have their own lesser men doing the same for them, right down until the actual serf/peasant class, whatever you want to call it, who were not free and were farmers.
Except the difference is there is no monarchy, the Celts had many different systems of government, but they all used this retainer system which is basically just feudalism.
>>1195683
no you aren't
>>1195753
only if you come back when you can pass 9th grade algebra and tell us you don't listen to talk radio - which by watch it will be never
>>1195762
Well, which "Celts"? Picts? Gauls? Sure, they practiced slavery, but not the complex, society wide "caste-esque" system of medieval Europe. That's another big part of feudalism, the organized labor force, who are not only captured slaves, but a societal rank. For there to be "lords", there needs to be "fiefs".
I think you're just simplifying it too much to prove a point. People lived this for centuries. Generations of haves and have-nots were born into the practice.
>>1195792
Gauls primarily. I mentioned much more than slavery.
What about the Ptolemaic Cleruchy then. Land granted to men of the noble classes in return for their military service.
Feudalism is based upon a subsistence economy and was the result of the breakdown of large scale trade and more advanced states of manufacturing. Hence why it ended when the economy shifted to wealth being held by predominantly non-landholding bourgeois capitalists
>>1195834
BTW. Feudalism has little to do with Germanic culture, the beginnings of it lie with the late Roman economy, and stifling of trade that led to the collapse of urban economies and the shift to estate based serfdoms. The Germanic leaders were Romanized and just intermarried and mixed with the Roman land holding aristocracy. The ultimate breakdown does not occur until the end of the Merovingian Frankish dynasty, probably as a result of the Mediterranean and countryside becoming too dangerous to travel for merchants. We see the Carolingian dynasty shifting northwards basing trade around the north sea and laying the frameworks for the rise of European trade and culture in that region
>>1195581
Yes
>>1195801
That's a practice of benefice, not a societal structure.
>>1195592
>feudalism was very much the result of traditional Germanic power structures
Germanic are extremely bloodthirsty savage cruel people. Outwardly they're all smiles and politeness but when you get to know them they're vicious like lions or wolves.
Look at all the misery they have caused worldwide. Wars, colonialism, diseases. Being such a small amount of people they have killed so many more people than they have produced. They're also sexual deviants yet don't use sex to create children. They are a nasty race of devils who have no love for anything except their own individual selves. They don't even like other Germanics or their family members. Everything is competition to them. The Germanics biology is one of seeking out imperishable fame to achieve wealth and sexual partners by any means necessary. And Germanics love it! They take tremendous pride in their ability to kill and destroy, they obsess over violence all day everyday. To the Germanic, families tearing themselves apart and living lives filled with harsh competitiveness is the foundation of their deranged brand of normalcy.
And this way of thinking which Germanics claim is normal has been pushed onto the entire world and everyone cannot succeed in capitalist life without adopting the fierce brutality of the Germanic.
When blacks, Asians, South Americans and other native populations say "I hate white people" they should be saying "I hate Germanics"
they're also mechanistic and ideologically shallow. All their philosophy revolves around how the individual needs to comport himself in society, something everyone else can figure out for themselves. They're ALL little Eichmanns.
Anglos are literally A Germanic tribe.
