Is it true that "feudalism" was never actually a thing?
>>983799
and a non-noble non-peasant and non-knightly class and you've got a thing.
>>983799
where the hell have you heard that.
It is almost inevitable for an agrarian society to evolve into a feudal society, especially post-Roman societies.
To maintain an empire the size of Charlemagne's for example, feudalism was a requirement.
>>983813
What? I don't care about the struggle of the proletariat, it just happens unless the society is influenced by another that has progressed past feudalism.
It is the only logistical way for a society to function during those time periods, even China ran the exact same way.
nature is inherently hierarchical
equality is a pipedream
hereditary monarchy is the way to prosperity
>>983799
But OP, feudalism still exists today.
>>983811
I heard it from here
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4dqbus/why_are_historians_so_hostile_against_the_term/
>>983830
>hereditary monarchy is the way to prosperity
HOL UP
>>983837
Funny that a left winged academia frets so much over using a word that existed during the time period it describes, but in the same breath, will easily use anachronistic terms like ideology.
>>983799
People tend to confuse feudal as a mode of government with serfdom and the manorial system.
>>983855
>HOWW UBB
>AHH YU DAYING EE UR GINGS AN SHID?
>>983855
YOU BE SAYUN
>>983866
Fuck I laughed too hard
>>983867
WE WUZ MONARCHS???
It's useful when teaching plebs or kids, but it's better to talk about vassalage and the manor system.
I'll update my dick
>>983855
You keep posting a good king.
>>983855
Charles II was a competent king. Are you some shallow fucking teen girl who only listens to her leader if he's attractive?
>>984022
>>984011
nice double dubs and
>During the reign of Charles II, Spanish power and prestige declined at an accelerated pace, that started in the last years of Count-Duke of Olivares' prime ministership in the 1640s. The economy, on the whole, was depressed between 1650 and 1700, with low productivity, famines, and epidemics.
What did Hamilton mean by this?
>>984042
>What did Hamilton mean by this?
That >started in the last years of Count-Duke of Olivares' prime ministership in the 1640s.
> Recent studies of the "decline of Spain" argument, however, have questioned whether Charles's reign was truly as disastrous as it appears. While the court in Madrid was preoccupied with its internal power struggles, other regions of Spain experienced a gradual recovery. Although military dominance in Europe clearly passed to the French, recent research indicates that within Spain, population growth, agricultural output, and textile manufacture all began to recover under the reign of Charles II. In fact, much administrative and fiscal reform that has been attributed to the reign of the Bourbon kings in the eighteenth century may well have had its roots in the last decades of the seventeenth in the regions outside Castile. Even artistic production, which had declined in Castile because of a lack of court patronage, flourished in provincial cities such as Seville. Although Charles II is a king more often regretted than celebrated in the annals of Spanish history, the negative impact of his personal failings on Spain has been much exaggerated.
>>984117
Mmm...none of that sounds like a personal accomplishment. Got anything else?
>>984130
>se creó la Superintendencia General de la Real Hacienda, presidida por el marqués de Vélez. Sus objetivos fueron conocer el techo de gasto elaborando un presupuesto desde cero, condonar las deudas a los municipios para permitirlos recuperarse, reducir los impuestos y terminar con los gastos suntuosos, entre los más importantes.5
Feudalism absolutely is a useful concept for understanding economic and social systems surrounding agriculture at a wide rage of times and paces. In Europe, it was never uniform in structure and it was never instituted onto a blank slate, but it clearly describes a historical reality.
>>983830
Funny how democracies show higher rates of economic growth, then.
>>984161
All I'm seeing is that he failed to make Spanish the modern Lingua Franca.
>>984232
And we are seing that you like posting memes.
>>984281
Guilty
>>983830
>hereditary monarchy is the way to prosperity
to prosperity of the monarch, sure
>>983830
>nature is inherently hierarchical
I wish there was an image to laugh at you hard enough
>>983799
There were such things as "feudal relations", they just never became as structured as people believed them to be.
>>984042
Was Olivares the guy who got his position by being the queen's lover?
>>983799
Yes, I'd pay attention to this post >>983858 and I myself use the term 'manorialism' to refer to the dominant social structure of this era. Everything in OP's pic is flat out wrong and couldn't survive even a brief glance at how medieval society actually operated. There was no top-down hierarchy of lords as pictured, but a variety of vastly varying different systems and obligations. As far as the governance of a European kingdom is concerned it's best to view everything below the monarch as a horizontal mess.
>>985013
I think Game of Thrones popularity is going to cause threads about the subject to pop up more often. I don't say GRRM didn't do enough research but the end product of his writing is to neat, almost like a textbook "feudal" power structure that never really existed in the real world. It's to neat so to say.
>>983799
It's a basic, general description of countless distinct and parochial arrangements.
The period from 1400-1800 was one of Kings consolidating their power into bureaucracies that they controlled, it was in their interest to put forward the idea that the whole country belonged to them /in the first place/, so they aren't taking away any rights or property, only asserting their own.
>>985071
>the whole country belonged to them /in the first place/, so they aren't taking away any rights or property, only asserting their own.
Queen Elizabeth owns 1/6th of the Earth to this day so it's not that old of a notion?
>>983799
no.
>>983811
"Oh hi Marx"
>>983855
So here's the deal. Monarchy augments good and evil.
Good kings make great nations, Bad kings make horrible nations.
>>983799
Wait are you talking in that whole "middle ages never happened" conspie sense?
>>983799
No. It was a thing.
It obviously wasn't like in the american movies, it wasn't quite the same in 800ad as in 1400ad and it wasn't quite the same in northern France as in eastern Europe and never quite the same as in the idealized theory.
But it was a thing.
Just like a liberal parliamentary regime, aka 'democracy', is a thing even if they aren't quite the same now than in 1906 and not quite the same in Switzerland as in Alabama, and never quite the same as the idealized theory.
>>985858
It's good to be the king.
I'll leave you serfs alone for a while, I need to find some virgins to prima noctis.
>>987530
>It's good to be the king.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg
>tfw no part ii
