Was feudalism a regression of civic organization compared to the Roman civic machinery? Were the Byzantines a feudal kingdom?
>Were the byzantines feudal?
Yes, but with more written laws and tradition.
>>854014
What was the point where they became feudal? They weren't feudal from their inception were there?
>>854044
heraclius reforms
How many prerogative authorities did mesne lords tend to have?
>>853910
>Was feudalism a regression of civic organization compared to the Roman civic machinery?
That depends entirely on how you view "progress" from a socio-political standpoint.
Feudalism was definitely more decentralized, but whether or not that's a bad/regressive trait is a topic of debate.
>>853910
Rome was a bureaucratic despotism. It suits Rome, but not the numerous kingdoms that spawned inside it. It's also why ERE and Muslim caliphates' administration was built from Roman administration.
Didn't worked for the Latins because of the elite nobles, who would influence/bicker/plot/betray with the kangs until the Early Modern centralizations.
>>853910
Feudalism was a pretty complex mesh of contracts and obligations between all layers of society. It might have been less complex than the bureaucracy that ran the Roman Empire, but I'd say it was more socially advanced.
Why did the Roman 'throne is yours if you can take it, dude, we.'ll accept you' model of succession never take off in the kingdoms that formed after its fall in the West? Eastern Romans continued that chaotic tradition right up to John Cantacouzenos, when the empire had less land than modern day Greece, yet from near the very start of Rome's decline the new states all tried to set legitimacy to rule with one family, with a personality cult around them and their royal blood and set up dynasties that lasted for centuries. Were they actively trying to avoid the instability and civil wars that plagued Rome, or did it just sort of happen?
>>856696
Romans had a big stigma against even the appearance of being a King. Dynastic successions smack of Kingship, so it was a general turn off to them. It was considered much more honorable and safe for an Emperor to mentor a guy he was close to and groom him for the job. Commodus was born in the purple, and look how he turned out.
>>854068
>>856696
Rome simply had a larger population with influence. When an emperor died, many factors could determine the next emperor from whether a general vying for the Imperial Purple has troops inside the city or whether he was a supporter of the Blues or the Greens to earn the support of the Deems.
Feudal Europe had a much smaller influential base, being that of aristocratic nobles from only a few families, the clergymen, and other minor nobility. The Pope also played a role with the ordainment that a King's bloodline is ordered by God to rule, to disrupt the family is to strike against God and other such rhetoric that went on until the Magna Carta.
