![feodal_sistem_feodalite_feodalizm[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Gngqk6w.jpg "feodal_sistem_feodalite_feodalizm[1].jpg")
>>536927
In the face of attacks by Vikings, Magyars, Arabs etc. the Carolingians had to decentralize authority to local lords who used this as an opportunity to build up their own power and could resist the central power of the state.
A related question:
Why did serfdom last so much longer in eastern Europe than in the west?
Hell, serfdom in Russia practically survived until 1917
>barbarians come
>they burn and loot our village
>can't defend ourselves because we're pisspoor peasants
>suddenly a big guy appears
>he's rich, has an army and horses
>he offers to defend us if we hand our village to him and pay him taxes
>agree
>>536927
It wasn't a "system" or an organized social hierarchy at all that was the exact same throughout continental Europe in around the 11th Century.
>>536942
>Hell, serfdom in Russia practically survived until 1917
actually it continues to this day
>>536942
Until 1861
>>536985
Really?
Roman patricians started offering plebeians protection in exchange for working their land as the empire declined.
>>536935
That was the beginning of "manorism". The actual feudal aspect of this era was marked by the willingness of these lords to allege themselves to each other in exchange for certain benefits.
>>536985
Proofs??!
>>536942
>Why did serfdom last so much longer in eastern Europe than in the west?
>Hell, serfdom in Russia practically survived until 1917
Meh, Sweden still had bordars when WW2 was raging on.
>>536942
>serfdom in Russia practically survived until 1917
Except it did not and you're making shit up. It got abolished by Alexander II.
>>537096
>suddenly the serfs became a population of educated and emancipated upwards-mobile individuals with disposable profits and a steadily rising standard of living, not at all forced to do more work on the same land for less profit and in more existential insecurity
>>536993
>>537047
>>537141
>suddenly I keep moving the goalposts and ad hoc defining what I think serfdom is even though it's legally abolished
>>537157
>wealth inequality is serfdom
Commit suicide you communist waste of oxygen
>>537162
Based, this is the only way to deal with communists
>>537162
When you combine it with the following, it IS serfdom:
http://imrussia.org/en/politics/627-the-revival-of-serfdom-in-russia
>>537189
Lol. Do not talk nonsense. This is only a proposal, not the law.
And shit, i live in Russia, i've been in mane Europeans countries. There is no serfdom here.
society was always a pyramid scheme.
this is the nature of mankind.
Some men own more money, some men have more friends, some men are more infuential, some men simply have more fanatic followers, for no real reason.
So there's somewhere a man with the most amount of influence, and somewhere there are men who have no influence, and have to survive completely on their own
this has gone on since the inception of mankind and will continue to its end.
the feudal system is but one particular incarnation of this pyramid scheme that defines humanity.
>>537189
nigga this registration law also exists in germany... theoretically you can also go to prison if you fuck with it. or at least pay big ass fines. In practice though never heard of jail time for that.
your article seems to come from a western sponsored think tank... Always the same, westerners pissed off about the west think RT is the truth and NATO worshippers in Russia find new ways every day to prove Russia is a dictatorship. everything is just propaganda.
>>536927
Is a set of mind.
The socity becames dominated by man to man relations. Services are offered to social superios in basis to such relations, some services, most notably the military ones, are honourable while others are shameful.
The links that tie together the poor or weak to the rich or powerful have existed since the Roman times (and way before Rome too), but they could be countered by the Public Power which will be eroded through the Late Antiquity.
The first Carolingians tried to use the man to man links to streght the bonds to the Emperor, forcing everyone to swore loyalty to their inmediate superiors and to the Emperor, but they ultimatelly failed and the Powerful keep using the Public Authority that they were given by the Carolingians to strenght their own powerbases.
Powerful families began to see the offices that they held in the name of the Emperor as their own pathrimony, Louis the Pious first recognized the right of the heirs of faithfull vassals to inherit the honours of their elders.
As the Empire weakened and shattered, the Imperial Nobility lost her place, the service of the Crown which had been one of the pillars of the aristocratic ethos, and their principal way of income became unviable. The new nobility had to narrow her actionground from the Imperial level to local or regional one, and had to look for new ways of income.
To assure their preemince they tried to get more revenue from their dependants while simoultaneously getting more people into their depency.
The loose noble families became more strictly defined lineages in which inheritance was the vital key to allow the perpetuation of the family.
Without a great Court in which to serve, the Aristocrats focussed in the other great pillar of their ethos, the war. The war, which began as the duty of the Free man, became the privilege of the Noble one, even so once the heavy calvary took her place in the batlefield, making more and more expensive to effectively serve as warrior.
>>536927
It started coming about when there was less and less social mobility in the later Roman Empire. You basically were born into whatever position your dad and his dad had. That creates peasant and soldier classes.
Then you have the wealthy, who lived in Villas and other better defended areas away from the cities, who could pay off anyone trying to kill them or were killed anyway because good farm land can be hard to get. But these guys still own these dumb peasants who only know this land.
Toss in a few centuries of uncertainty and weak central states, and voila: feudalism.
>>537223
This. Some men are simply better than others. These men will always rise to the top of society, will have all the power, wealth, and women.
Even the Soviet Union became dominated by individual strongmen
Collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
Pretty much a similar situation is occurring now and the rise of Feudalism shows why Anarchy is a meme ideology.
>Roman state slowly begins to collapse due to internal problems such as a rapidly growing state, overreaching government, democratization, and a government that refuses to reform itself.
>Many Emperors, particularly Diocletian, raise the taxes the point of suffocation economic and other political reforms strip away rights of the deserving and give them to the parasitical members of society. The Roman state slowly loses the ability to protect their citizens. Cities begin to depopulate as people runaway to the country side to get away from the tyranny of the Roman state and have some stability in their lives.
>Eventually Rome begins to disintegrate and in the power vacuum left by the Roman state, and the nobility of the sword rises from the ashes to start cementing themselves as the new rulers of Europe. People desperate for protection against bandits, barbarians, etc. turn to these strongmen for protection. Overtime what started as a mutual agreement turns into the Feudal system where the the protectors begin slowly taking the rights away from their defenseless clients.
>>536955
This
>>536927
invention of the stirrup
knights could fight on horseback
horses need plenty of food
peasants pay 10% of crop for protection
>Late Republic and Principate of Rome
>major population growth and urbanization
>large private fortunes arise, money often invested in provincial land, or large estates otherwise arise
>Crisis of the Third Century
>trade networks weaken, wrecking urban economies
>political instability causes poor to turn to local landlords for livelihood and protection
>they lose political rights because roman law is fundamentally oriented to heads of households, not including dependent laborers
>germanic invaders largely inherit the system, with legal changes, formalization, etc.
>regional differences accumulate over time (HRE system, English yeomanry, etc.)
>system remains basically intact until disrupted by rise of the bourgeoisie (which happens at different times and in different manners in various places)
Humans(and their precursors) have been living in dominance hierarchies all the way up the phylogenetic chain, the feudal system is a direct form of that system of organization
The fact that we STILL LIVE in pyramid shaped societies should be no surprise to anyone.
>536955
>barbarians come
>they threaten to burn and loot our village
>can't defend ourselves because we're pisspoor peasants
>they are rich, have armies and horses
>they offer to "defend" us if we hand our village to him and pay him taxes
>agree
Nobility is a Germanic protection racket.
Wake up sheeple!
Serfs of the world! Unite!
>>536927
In the 16th century a pair of French guys translated a lombard legal text, Libri Feudorum. In the 17th Century, this was taken by a Mr. Henry Spelman to form the legal and societal basis of English and Scottish society, beginning with the Normans (who predated the Libri Feudorum).
Play a game of antiquarian telephone and by 1800 the construct had been launched and the feudal system was born.
>>538000
>we STILL LIVE in pyramid shaped societies
We aren't bottom-heavy still. The middle is thicker than the base.
>>538643
There was always a small layer of people with even shittier lives than serfs, such as slaves, crazy people, etc., just like we have homeless people and niggers.
The pyramid analogy is not perfect.
>>538643
that's what you think. the bottom is always the thickest, always has been and always has to be.
>>538061
Am I reading this correctly?
These strongman explanations don't really seem plausible to me. Where did these warlords get their arms and training to fight "bandits" that the overwhelming majority of other people couldn't have access to? Spears don't materialize in an alternate reality accessible only to people that call themselves nobles
>>538726
Where do barbarians get their weapons?
>>538743
As I understand it, initially they tend to steal them from more economically advanced cultures.
Eventually they figure out metallurgy and start manufacturing themselves. But really the concept of a "barbarian" is a meme more than anything. Most "barbarians" are just different cultures with perfectly vibrant societies and economies all on their own. They are not really alien monsters from the hinterlands.
Anyways, cultures that have troubles with hostile neighbors are going to evolve defensive strategies like a local militia all on their own.
>>538726
If a bandit got successful enough, he would be called a warlord. Taxation replaced pillaging.
>>538726
Because you can just pick up a spear and get on a horse and be as good at it as someone who has made a dedicated career out of fighting, right?
Just like any other profession, soldiering gets more advanced with specialization of labor. It just so happens that this particular profession can use its advantage in violence to enact social changes in favor of itself.
>>536927
Bad fiscal and monetary policy combined with barbarians invading from all sides.
The trade routes have collapsed, the markets suffered shortages, agricultural production turned to self-sufficiency. Migrate to the countryside, already dominated by landowners, became the only viable alternative.
Finally, in an attempt to reduce the massive losses of the imperial collection, tax reforms have established permanent links between agricultural tenants (the coloni) and the leased land, effectively creating the foundations of the feudal system.
The barbarians only gave continuity to what they found.
>>536955
you forgot the sequel:
>bigger guy appears
>tells my big guy he can become a vassal or get his ass kicked
>repeat until you form an empire
>>537729
im not sure what does that picture of lindsay lohan means, im just gonna hope she is not underage in that picture and masturbate
>>537729
M8, the Knight wasn't a socio-economic upper class thing up until the high middle ages started rolling in.
During the Frankish Period, EVERY fighting man was of the same social class and had the same privileges (i.e. all of them had land). This is to free these cunts from being day laborers and into professional soldiery.
Technically a professional infantryman and a cavalryman were of equal rank & status in societies. But eventually, thanks to the wealth of the horse owning warriors, in addition to their increasing relevance in halting the raids of Steppe Nomads and Muslims, they became quite important militarily and eventually socially over the infantry.
>>540800
>EVERY professional fighting man*
>>536942
>britbong noble
my lands are shit, these peasants suck, i want a beer, fuck me ill just start a woolsewing business
>hungarian noble
all these rich lands and my peasants work 24/7 to make me rich
no way im leaving this place, cozy and comfy
western yurop was not suitable for making food
it was very much profitable in eastern parts and serfdom was the easiest way to exploit it
>>537729
