>>16807761
>Some people are more comfortable serving and living a comfortable life.
I'm sure if you went back in time and offered a humble medieval peasant the lifestyle of a Lord he would decline. Surely.

>>16807761
Toiling in the fields and being dominated and abused by sadists isn't a comfortable life you retarded tranny. If you want to be a peasant that's fine but most people don't and it's literally objectively not "more comfortable"

>>16808064
>Toiling in the fields and being dominated and abused by sadists
Is it Game of Thrones that makes people think that nobles just went around raping and whipping peasants all day with no consequences? What makes you think this was reality?

>>16808072
I get abused right now in modern times by anyone with power over me and in the past there were even less constraints on their behavior idiot you're completely delusional if you think nobles in the past didn't behave worse than modern people with power

>>16808064
They don't mean a life of leisure. They mean a life that is decent enough to raise a family.

The point people are trying to get across is that in our modern era people don't have children where as these serfs were having children so clearly they had a lifestyle that was more in tune with human flourishing.

>>16807761
It's bad for the individual because it denies them the freedom to realize their potential and it relegates them to a lifetime of hard manual labor with no real out and for no other reason than they happened to be born into it. It's bad into society because it created a suppressed underclass whose potential remains unrealized, making your state less competitive, less wealthy and less stable in the long run. There are indeed people who would want to turn off their brain and do menial work for the rest of their life in exchange for some comforts, but there should be enough social mobility for exceptional people to ascend to the middle and upper class.

>>16808099
The only requirement to reproduce is to have access to enough food to not starve and enough shelter to not freeze if you live in a cold place, it's absolutely not a measure of the quality of life, "decency", "comfort", "human flourishing" etc. The idea that people should exist and reproduce for the sake of existing and reproducing is completely asinine.

>>16808077
>in the past there were even less constraints on their behavior
Are you insane, or just stupid. The sadistic and the powerful of today have INFINITELY fewer constraints on their ability to inflict suffering on the proles.

>>16807761
>someone claims to own a piece of land even though he doesn't live or work on it
>I live and work on it instead
>they claim that I have to give them a good chunk of my produce because ackshually they own it
>if I disagree, they kill me
>they are supposed to protect me from threats, even though those "threats" are people just like them who would do the exact same thing they do if they defeated them; they would just collect taxes but otherwise leave me alone (sometimes they would even lower taxes after conquest)
>but they claim that they have more right to collect those taxes that than someone else because... ties of blood, birthright, divine right to rule
>concepts merely used to confuse and subjugate the unlearned
Doesn't sound all that comfortable to me. And yes, this applies to modern nation-states (to a much lesser extent) as well.

File: tumblr_p6ky6007Pm1rwjpnyo1_500.jpg (90 KB, 435x576)

90 KB JPG

>>16807761
Because it is.
Because fuedalism is banditry pure and simple.
>You would pay me taxes or I would brake you legs
>Oh you thought you would come to my house and burn it? Jokes on you I have castle as house!
There is no other state system that illustrates states genesis as stationary bandit genesis better.

>>16808199
True in a certain way, personal relationships being replaced with institutional relationships greatly weakened the concept of social responsibility. Then again, in my opinion you are the fool if you still try to abide by it when it's apparent everyone else has clearly stopped. There is no going back.

>>16808200
>>they are supposed to protect me from threats
Fun fact: they don't.
Peculiarity of the Feudalism is the assymetrical oppressive fortification architecture. Feudals have protected fortified homes (castles). Peasants don't. That is not the bug,cit the feature of peasants oppression. Feudal can road, robe, kill and pillage peasants houses where they are vulnerable as he pleases and peasants couldn't return favor back because feudals have castles.
Everyone else hahad walls to protec their homes: towns had mandatory walls, monasteries had walls. Only peasants had no walls, and it illegal (sic!) to fortify your home without permission of authorities.
You may say: "peasants couldn't afford walls" and you wouldn't be more wrong. Wh ha e masses of archeological remans of late neolithic and bronze age walled settlements and during that time trade of majority of population would be agriculture.
Greek city-states grew directly from the walled agricultural settlement and main trade of the citizen was considered agriculture.
But then it was figured out that you can use architecture as oppression tool. You build fortress for yourself and prohibit it for others and you can oppress them hiding behind safety of your walls. This ish how feudalism was born.

>>16808105
>and it relegates them to a lifetime of hard manual labor with no real out
Truth be told there were some social lifts:
Becoming soldier, and eventually becoming nobles after distinguising yourself in combat.
Becoming rich from your peasants trade.
Running away into city and settling there.

>>16808258
>Becoming soldier, and eventually becoming nobles after distinguising yourself in combat.
This would be such an exceptional event that its almost pointless to count it as social mobility. Without using google, can you even name three people that rose from serfdom to becoming part of the landed aristocracy?
>Becoming rich from your peasants trade
If you were a serf then you would not become rich from your 'trade'
>Running away into city and settling there.
This is not social mobility within the system, this is social mobility through breaking the law in order to ESCAPE the system - and that is assuming you didn't care about the people you leave behind and could escape to a city that would shelter you and have guilds that would take you in despite nobody knowing you and you having no marketable skills. It's like saying the Soviet Union had a great living standard because some people managed to flee to the west where they could live well.

>>16808231
Doesn't contradict anything I've said
The nobles were there ostensibly to protect the peasants. If the peasants can raise walls and protect themselves then there is no longer a need for nobles, is there?

>>16808320
>breaking the law in order to ESCAPE the system
Not the case everywhere and not all of the time. In Ottoman Greece a peasant could legally move to a city after paying a fee for leaving his farm. But you're probably gonna say that wasn't feudalism, even though they kept the late Byzantine system largely in place with minor modifications to make sure they could control the Orthodox Church as well as both Greek nobles and commoners effectively all at once.

>>16808328
>The nobles were there ostensibly to protect the peasants.
No. Nobles were here to protect THEMSELVES not peasants. Also they were here to PREVENT peasants from protecting themselves.

>>16808351
Yes, but they said something else. I don't claim that what they said was true in case you haven't noticed.

>>16807761
you personally are born to be a peasant

>>16807761
The serfs toil in the fields, toiling until their bones crack. They work under the scorching sun, sweat dripping from every pore. Their lives are filled with the stench of mud and the pain of hard work. They are whipped and exploited by their overlords, their humanity stripped away like the bark of a tree. And yet you say that their comfort lies in their obedience and their chains? What sort of twisted logic is this?

the ultimate unpleasant truth is that Farmers are pieces of shit who created the agrarian revolution glorifying weaklings.
agriculture promotes weaker men and the rise of women. The only activity farmers need to do is get up in the morning and planting stuff. Woah. And farmers are naturally centralized which gives women more power by giving them a bigger pool of beta cuk devotees.
So there you have it: beyond hunter gatherer, the ruling class appears and it's full of merchants controlling the money market and women controlling the sex market.

>>16808501
>agriculture promotes weaker men and the rise of women. The only activity farmers need to do is get up in the morning and planting stuff. Woah
You've never done any work around a farm in your whole life and it shows, it can be brutal labor.
>And farmers are naturally centralized which gives women more power by giving them a bigger pool of beta cuk devotees.
Agriculture gave rise to civilization which gave rise to ritualized monogamous marriages.

>>16807761
>>Being a peasant/serf is bad
Being a Serf is literally the worst position you could be in, in any Western European society after the functional end of slavery. Serfs were exempt from royal legal protection (which included the majority of laws, take Magna Carta in England, none of the protections granted applied to Serfs) and couldn't petition the royal courts. You paid more effective taxes, as rates were higher for a Serf than a freeman simply paying rent, you were subject to dues which acted as additional taxes or mandatory work, contrary to what people might say here, Serfs paid the Manor for the Lord to feast rather than the other way around. You had little to no freedom of movement, you were subject to a higher rate of arbitrary rulings and legal proceedings were conducted by the Lord, which is an obvious conflict of interest if they are the abusing party.

In every way possible, it was better to be a free man than a Serf.
>>16808258
>Becoming soldier, and eventually becoming nobles after distinguising yourself in combat.
You could not become 'Noble' by participating in warfare. The best anybody could ever hope for would be a pension from somebody else which the majority of the time was given to other aristocrats. One of the few examples of somebody becoming Nobility in their lifetime was a wealthy London banker, who in exchange for reliving all of his owed debts from the Crown was given a titular Barony which would cease to exist when he died. For those who were careerists they could become Knight Bannerets which were given a pension from the Crown but that was also very rare.
>Becoming rich from your peasants trade.
Trades were regulated and usually too expensive to even start doing unless you had inherited it. The only people becoming rich off of their trades were Masters and their families while acting as leaders in their Guilds, already well to do merchants and industrial owners like the heads of textile Guilds in the Low Counties.

>>16808109
And yet now we don't even have that bare minimum

>>16807761
Try living like a fucking peasant. There's reasons why there were so many peasant rebellions in the Middle Ages.

>>16807761
>t. Has never done agricultural work

>>16808594
>And yet now we don't even have that bare minimum
Yeah dude the 21st century sucks, who even cares about having hot running water on demand, electricity, heating, a refrigerator and freezer, dishwasher and washer/dryer? We got totally cucked out of having to make a fire just to cook some food, who even wants to use a stove/oven, or worse, a microwave to prepare a meal in minutes?

>>16808545
>England is the only country that exists
Well, that quote is true.

>>16807761
Being a Serf is akin to being a slave. What you want is to be a free peasant, not that manual agricultural labor is easy, mind you.

>>16808614
NTA. The issue is not that life today is worse than it was at the time when serfdom existed, the issue is that it's worse than just 30 years ago. That is the reason why that Anon and many others feel the way they do. People had been taught that the material luxuries you mentioned are the be all end all. That it is what distinguishes their civilization, makes it superior from savages: technology and progress. It naturally follows that quality of life should increase with each subsequent generation. But that failed to come true. What will a member of a culture who values those material conditions above nearly all else do when it's time to have children of their own in that case? Will they: a) accept that the material quality of their child's life is going to be worse than theirs; b) prevent that from happening by working overtime, bringing about emotional suffering instead; c) sidestep the issue entirely and simply not have children? This is the disease racking the West. It will be destroyed by what helped build it: the idea of progress.

>>16808620
These were also true in France and most of Germany.

Being a serf in of itself wasn't bad. The problem with feudalism was it was a system resulting from Jewish finance. Usury and money manipulation impoverishes the farmers first, the people that borrow on credit to plant. If you crank up interest rates as the Jewish lenders did, sometimes nearing 50%, you were ruined financially and probably had to become a serf

The monarchy liked this because usury benefitted them while also providing them with an endless pool of labor

>>16808655
Overall, I think the quality of life has still increased. What has changed is that younger people are delaying the creation of families and there's an increasing perception among young people that home ownership has become or is becoming increasingly difficult, borderline impossible. From what I know it is true that housing prices have noticeably outpaced average wage growth the rate of urbanisation has also increased. An apartment in downside San Francisco is unattainable but I sincerely doubt that two working professionals in their mid 20s can get a loan for a house in Nebraska - but they don't want to live there, they want to live exactly where everybody else wants to live. I think a lot of people have a rosy idea of what conditions were like during ye olde golden days - when they hear a man used to be able to get a home and support a family on a single wage they imagine some modern suburban home with all modern amenities, they don't picture real working class conditions, which would be closer to a family of 4-5 living a shoebox apartment, kids sleeping in bunk beds and inheriting each other's clothes. That shit is not from the 1800s, I'm not 30 yet and that stuff happened during my parent's generation. I agree that the west has problems, but material conditions are not one of them. If you're middle class then you are living better and more comfortable than 99% of people that have ever existed. Our problems are more those of loneliness and lack of purpose, not the fact that you have many times the comfort of your grandparents' generation but with a worse housing market.
>It will be destroyed by what helped build it: the idea of progress.
What alternative do you propose?

>>16808693
>The problem with feudalism was it was a system resulting from Jewish finance
Feudalism came from the collapse of the Carolingian Empire
>Usury and money manipulation impoverishes the farmers first, the people that borrow on credit to plant.
Most lending was done by locals, and the largest foreign lenders were the Italians. Usury was done. So in any case you should be blaming the Florentines more than the Jews especially since the Italians were immune to much of the legal weapons used by various Crowns against the Jews.

>>16808706
>I sincerely doubt that two working professionals in their mid 20s can get a loan for a house in Nebraska - but they don't want to live there, they want to live exactly where everybody else wants to live. I think a lot of people have a rosy idea of what conditions were like during ye olde golden days - when they hear a man used to be able to get a home and support a family on a single wage they imagine some modern suburban home with all modern amenities, they don't picture real working class conditions, which would be closer to a family of 4-5 living a shoebox apartment, kids sleeping in bunk beds and inheriting each other's clothes.
But notice the disparity between those two situations: "two working professionals" implies that not only they are middle class but also that both the mother and father have to work. Your second situation implies that the family is lower class, yet only one person needs to work and a wage job at that. No matter how you look at it: houses are more expensive than they were back then and this is a huge problem because people buy them on credit, like you've said. It's not a one-time payment that they make and then forget about. It's something that cuts into their monthly income and that income needs to keep up or else! "Their" houses are effectively not theirs for up to dozens of years and they better pray something bad doesn't happen during that time because evicting them together with their children is completely permissable by law.
>Our problems are more those of loneliness and lack of purpose,
Which are brought about because of people choosing option b).

>>16807761
>they owned nothing and were happier

>>16808706
>What alternative do you propose?
I have none and I'm not even sure if there is one at all. It's much easier to tell what is happening than to try to come up with something to counteract it, be confident enough and have enough faith in it to believe that it will really help instead of making things worse and last but not least, convince people to listen. I don't think I can do any of those things.

>>16808758
Working class parents in the 1970s and before absolutely had to work, women had factory jobs, even then there's the stereotype of the woman being a cleaning lady or doing piano lessons. What people are idealizing is the suburban life propagated by postwar advertisements that didn't really happen.
>>16808706
It happened in my generation as well.
>>16808693
>j0000000000s
Lord Farquad was not getting a loan from the local Jew on his serfs. Serfdom and feudalism originated from the villa system already in place at the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the laws enacted by Diocletian against people leaving the land.
>>16808655
If anything material conditions are better than 30 years ago. There's just more people which drives up the prices of housing.

File: 718-body.png (54 KB, 1216x761)

54 KB PNG

>>16808788
I was talking about the 90s, not 70s.

>>16808797
>chart shows wages increasing since the 90s
Anyway material conditions are undoubtedly better.

>>16808758
>But notice the disparity between those two situations: "two working professionals" implies that not only they are middle class but also that both the mother and father have to work. Your second situation implies that the family is lower class, yet only one person needs to work and a wage job at that.
When I said that I meant two people essentially working full time at stable jobs (as opposed to the mother being a full time mom or just working random small part time jobs), not that they were university/college level educated white collar professionals.
>It's not a one-time payment that they make and then forget about. It's something that cuts into their monthly income and that income needs to keep up or else! "Their" houses are effectively not theirs for up to dozens of years and they better pray something bad doesn't happen during that time because evicting them together with their children is completely permissable by law.
This is nothing new, your parents, grandparents and their parents also took out loans to buy homes.
>Which are brought about because of people choosing option b).
I don't think loneliness in the west is a problem of people working too much.

>>16808804
Nope. Not what cumulative growth means. "Cumulative" i.e. "including all previous." Real wages stagnated about at the turn of the century.

>>16808788
>Serfdom and feudalism originated from the villa system already in place at the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the laws enacted by Diocletian against people leaving the land.
Feudalism is a political and social structure which didn't exist until the end of the Early Middle Ages. It is erroneous to apply it to the Roman Empire. Nor is it Serfdom, Diocletian and Constantine applied massive legislation to tenant farmers but they were not Serfs. Tenant farmers have existed in almost every single pre-modern agricultrual society on Earth but you wouldn't exactly call the Athenian Empire a Feudal state with Serfdom. There was a massive problem with tenant farmers in the Roman Republic due to large manors around Eturia which was the main political motivation for the Gracchi and their legislation, but again, they were not Feudal or practiced Serfdom.

>>16808830
I'd call it a feudal empire if there were noble titles granted and those noble titles meant you had such and such an amount of land as was effectively the case under the Roman Republic and the Dominate.
Even in the barbarian kingdoms that arose after the fall of the Western Empire there was proto feudalism, as feudalism as we know it was based off of Germanic customs of dividing land, and there was definitely serfdom.

>>16808719
Carolingians had laws against excessive jewish usury, especially in relation to buying farm produce, jews were already lending money in the earliest stages of northern europe coinciding with the collapse of the romans.

>>16808805
I don't know, I feel like "professional" who I'd expect to earn a salary definitely carries much different connotations than a "wage worker." In any case, even pay for college graduates has been falling.
>This is nothing new, your parents, grandparents and their parents also took out loans to buy homes.
The difference being that it was much easier for them to actually pay them off.
>I don't think loneliness in the west is a problem of people working too much.
Then what is it? Technology? If you think so, then I think that it happens mainly because parents would rather leave their children with it on their own instead of actually raising them and in many cases it happens not because they are bad parents but because they are too tired when working a job simultaneously.

>>16808841
>I'd call it a feudal empire if there were noble titles granted and those noble titles meant you had such and such an amount of land as was effectively the case under the Roman Republic and the Dominate.
You are not describing either the Roman Republic or Dominate because in the Republic, public land was held by the state and no office or title gave anybody any land. The same was in the Dominate, all offices and titles only came with a salary and not any land. In fact that doesn't even describe much of the Post-Roman states until the 9th century since in Francia and England titles only came with a salary and temporary stewardship or military control of a region which could be taken away at any time, and not with any held lands because of it.

>>16808788
You're mentally retarded, you became a serf because you got a loan from a jew and couldn't pay it back

>>16808869
Senators got to administrate the ager publicus and provinces, along with slaves.
Under the Germanic kingdoms titles absolutely came with land, and serfs.

>>16808871
that's not what serfdom was at all else jews would have had titles and land in the medieval period and they couldn't get that then

>>16807761
>Some people are more comfortable serving and living a comfortable life.
Unfortunately if you're a serf it doesn't whether you're one of those people or not since you don't have a choice.

>>16808877
*doesn't matter

>>16808875
>that's not what serfdom was
serfdom was the settlement of a debt by your lord in exchange for you and your descendants becoming serfs for life

jews put people into serfdom

>>16808895
>j000000000000s
well these jews didn't get any of the serfs, these were people already on the land when the king decided this was lord farquad's land
serfdom already existed in republican athens and the Roman Dominate to an extent, are you saying that the jews controlled athens and the Empire?

>>16808847
>I don't know, I feel like "professional" who I'd expect to earn a salary definitely carries much different connotations than a "wage worker." In any case, even pay for college graduates has been falling.
>The difference being that it was much easier for them to actually pay them off.
Regardless of details like these, in my country it's still not prohibitively expensive for a family to buy a normal home outside the big cities. It is a loan that you will spend a lot of time repaying (though now you're a home owner and you benefit from the ever increasing cost of housing, so your net worth is increasing) but unless you want some magic house with a lakeside view, juuuuust the right distance from the rest of the community (but still full modern amenities like high optic fiber!) and all that shit then houses are still affordable. I live in a small town in northern Europe and normal houses here go for about $200k. They only become really expensive if they're new or have gigantic yards/nice locations. If you really want to buy a home with your partner then you absolutely can. We are far from apocalyptic levels of unaffordable housing compared to our parents' generation.
>Then what is it? Technology? If you think so, then I think that it happens mainly because parents would rather leave their children with it on their own instead of actually raising them and in many cases it happens not because they are bad parents but because they are too tired when working a job simultaneously.
Technology probably plays the biggest part. If you're from a rural place one or two generations ago there was fuck all to do except hang out with other people. My dad's generation more or less just got drunk and hung around some local kiosk, played football or went swimming because there just wasn't much to do. I grew up with my own computer and had more or less endless digital entertainment to act as a substitute for socializing with people in real life.

>>16808900
Being a tranny really does rewire your brain. It doesn't matter if jews didn't get serfs if they put the serfs into debt slavery through usury in the first place.

>>16808872
>Senators got to administrate the ager publicus and provinces, along with slaves.
They didn't own the land or were allowed to make private gains out of said land or taxation of the land. It belonged to the state and the wealth generated went to the state coffers.
>Under the Germanic kingdoms titles absolutely came with land
Merovingian and Carolingian Counts were court officals. They had to rely on their salary to do their job. The land they would administer was royal, and like with the Roman public land, all wealth generated was expected to be directed to the court. The same was in Wessex, where the Earls and smaller Shire officals were expected to pay most of the income generated by the royal lands they administered to the King. They did not come with any private land for the office holder. Nor did any of these come with Serfs other than the tenants already on royal lands which were not theirs. All of these positions were temporary and could be taken at any time.

>>16808932
yes, this is why barons and dukes had... land and serfs

>>16808940
Barons did not exist during the Carolingian period or Anglo-Saxon England and Dukes as you desribe them are from the 12th century. Which is completely unrelated to the Later Merovingian Duke, who was more or less a rebel Count who managed to appropriate their offices into their own. Which is why they were all destroyed by the early Carolingians.

>>16808966
Serfs were on fiefs granted to lords
The Germanic Franks most definitely had serfs on their land; the Frankish Salic Law referred to people who we would call serfs, in this context called lito who was bound to the land
So it's not at all a post Carolingian invention.

>>16808977
Debt slavery is as old as time. It's still common in third world shitholes. If only we knew where people got all their credit we could pinpoint who was responsible

>>16808977
>fiefs granted to lords
Which didn't exist at the time? There were no fiefs to be granted. There were titles, which did not entitle anybody to land and did not operate like the later Medieval titles did at all. You're confusing the High Middle Ages with the Early Middle Ages.
> the Frankish Salic Law referred to people who we would call serfs
There is not actually a single reference to Serfs. Only freemen are mentioned in the text.

>>16809029
Obviously the fiefs existed as they were granted to lords even before the Carolingian Empire was established and this is attested in the Salic Law and what historians of the period said the Germanic kingdoms were doing.
"Lito" is the reference to what were called serfs.

File: damocles.jpg (189 KB, 800x1020)

189 KB JPG

>>16808046
Sure he would.

>>16809033
>Obviously the fiefs existed as they were granted to lords even before the Carolingian Empire was established
You just keep saying that.
>and this is attested in the Salic Law
No it isn't.
>and what historians of the period said the Germanic kingdoms were doing.
What historians? I can easily cite historians that say the exact opposite like Bernard Bachrach or Jennifer Davis who argue for the administrative nature of the Carolingian Empire.

>>16809060
Various historians at the time.
They were called "villeinus" in Late Latin, btw.
In the Salic Law they were called lito, as in the passage "maltho thi afrio lito": "I free you, half-free" - used when freeing a serf!
The Salic Law dates to about the year 500, long before the Carolingian Empire was established. Serfdom was in place to an extent under the late Dominate and was cemented in place by the Germanics.

Can we stop this babblery about serfdom and acknowledge that the servant class had it best in Northern Europe? Brown meds had not serfs, but slaves. And don't get me to the rest of the planet. In Arabia and in India, servant classes would wait until the masters were done eating and get the leftovers on the table.
Meanwhile in feudal Europe every serf had his own house. All he had to provide his master was a rent.
Meanwhile in capitalism normal people can barely afford a pod, let alone a house.
But the serfs had it so bad under feudalism! Ahh yes, because the regime should have been communist, then everyone would have had a house, except in feudalism literally everyone had a whole darn house!

>>16809086
These "houses" weren't very good and the living conditions were shit too.
The Meds had serfs as well in Italy, France, and Spain, and spread the practice with them when they conquered Greece and set up the Crusader states.
The serf was tied to the land and was banned by law from emigrating to get better conditions in the city.

>>16809071
>Various historians at the time.
You can't name a single one. So I'm going to assume you're just making up said historians.
>They were called "villeinus" in Late Latin, btw.
This is a general term for all people unfree for quite literally over 1000 years, they do not mean the same thing in every circumstance even in the same time and place. In Merovingian nomenclature it refers to slaves, servants and tenants among others.
> Serfdom was in place to an extent under the late Dominate
Tenants aren't Serfs. Especially considering Roman tenants were not unfree. In law they were granted the same protections as any other Roman citizen of normal status. Being 'unfree' in the Roman world was considered either slavery or bankruptcy from debt. It was not similar to Serfdom other than the general fact they were both tenant farmers.

>>16809095
"villein" was a specific term for people tied to the land... like serfs
They also weren't tenants, they were legally bound to the land. Germanic lords considered them to be under their dominion and were serfs under the rule of a lord, as opposed to freemen who were not conisdered to be property, and this was before the Carolinigian period too.

>>16809092
> These "houses" weren't very good and the living conditions were shit too
Old European farm houses are quite opulent.
> The serf was tied to the land and was banned by law from emigrating to get better conditions in the city.
Most inhabitants of medieval cities were former serfs.

>>16809128
Those weren't houses serfs had.
>Most inhabitants of medieval cities were former serfs.
Go look up the laws involved. Serfs were legally banned from leaving the land.

>>16808686
But not in Eastern Europe. Many distinguished soldiers in Poland did in fact become nobles through warfare.

>>16809140
Still better than you average pod.
And yes, some serfs were 'property' of the lord, but those barely made up 1/3 of the total population of farmers. Others rented land or owned it themselves (karls/ burgeois peasants).
And yeah, my point wasn't that being a serf was particularly good, still globally the best of all forms of servantry in that time.

>>16809179
It's not "better" by far.
All serfs were property of their local lord. That's literally what serfdom was.

File: 655px-Allan_Ramsay_-_King(...).jpg (209 KB, 655x1023)

209 KB JPG

>>16809086
>But the serfs had it so bad under feudalism! Ahh yes, because the regime should have been communist

>>16809182
> All serfs were property of their local lord
They weren't slaves, couldn't be bought, sold or beaten.
Neither was it that widespread.
> In Finland, Norway, and Sweden, feudalism was never fully established, and serfdom did not exist; in Denmark, serfdom-like institutions did exist in both stavns (the stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788) and its vassal Iceland (the more restrictive vistarband, from 1490 until 1894).

>>16809140
>Go look up the laws involved. Serfs were legally banned from leaving the land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtluft_macht_frei

>>16809086
>Meanwhile in capitalism normal people can barely afford a pod, let alone a house.
Europeans live like kings compared to their ancestors, stop drinking the commie kool aid

>>16809207
Feudalism not existing in Scandinavia is more down to their remoteness

>>16809543
> Feudalism not existing in Scandinavia is more down to their remoteness
Care to explain? The Franks and the Lombards originated in Scandinavia too, why did they implement feudalism in Europe?

>>16809215
That doesn't disprove what he's saying. A serf can be legally banned from leaving the land and still knowingly break the law. That concept only states that they become free after 366 days if a city shelters them, but for the first 365 days they're still breaking the law and their own can legally reclaim them.

>>16809207
They were property tied to the land.
>From the 11th century onwards
>With the Statutum in favorem principum ("Statute in Favor of the Princes"), this regulation of customary law was officially abolished for the Holy Roman Empire in 1231/32. According to the statute, cities under royal jurisdiction were forbidden to protect serfs originally owned by the regional princes or their vassals.
Did you even read the link you posted?

>>16809695
That's not what I'm arguing tranny

>>16809552
feudalism and serfdom were in part fueled by wars, the continent was in constant strife with relatively little natural barriers separating them. Feudalism only arrived in England because of the french invasion. Feudalism and serfdom persisted for far longer in russia because of their remote nature, they didn't even start feudalism until the middle 1600's which was like 800 years after its start in france

>>16809745
> serfdom didn't exist in Scandinavia because of it's remoteness
> serfdom persisted in Russia because of it's remoteness
Makes sense, yeah, care to elaborate?

File: Volok_by_Roerich.jpg (97 KB, 595x479)

97 KB JPG

>>16809755
ebb and flow
The idea starts in one area then slowly spreads across the continent, the only time the idea ever made it over the water was the relatively small jump from France (the hub of feudalism) to england. Russia was tribal for a very long time, then they got conquered by Varangian vikings, just to give you an idea of how backwards they were if vikings managed to topple people a thousand miles inland

by the time feudalism arrived there it was already rapidly deteriorating in the west

>>16809792
>Russia was tribal for a very long time
I already got suspicious when you said remoteness caused both lack of serfdom and abundance of it, but now you have blatantly exposed yourself as a shit-eater. Russia, during the times Varangians discovered it, was, in fact, full of urban centers and cities. All it lacked was a central state, for the different city-states and other interest groups couldn't find an agreement, so they called a Scandinavian King (or got conquered by Varangians depending on sources).... anyways I don't want to go on a tangent current Russia was full of cities before the foundation of Russia itself by Rurik.

>>16809798
tribal doesn't mean you lack cities

>>16809799
actually all tribal means in this context is pre-feudal

>>16809799
>>16809804
Slavs weren't pre-feudal, their societies consisted burgeois and petty nobility city-states and country side rednecks.
I'd even go as far and argue that they were post-feudal during the arrival of the Varangians, but that's too elevated a topic for you probably.

File: proxy-image (4).jpg (150 KB, 750x1000)

150 KB JPG

>>16808046
>noblman, swerve

>>16809726
so... what are you arguing then?

>>16808231
Walls were a necessity when fighting the other noblemen and their retainers, so initially they were intended for that purpose. A nobleman may not care about his peasants that much, but he certainly had a vested interest in defending his cash cows, and often took the field to beat off invasions that mostly damaged his unwalled villages and caused him great economic damage via depopulation, plunder, and property destruction.

File: iu[1].png (1.31 MB, 960x720)

1.31 MB PNG

>>16808231
they did have walls

>>16809848
That's a town, not peasants living next to their fields.

>>16809810
feudalism has nothing to do with the existence of nobles. feudalism is the absorption of most land into hereditary manors which eventually resulted in manorialism or serfdom.

nobles existed in tribal settings, the development of men who were essentially tribal raid leaders into tribute collectors that created nobility. Feudalism is the massive organization of society from the top down deleting the tribal understanding of communal lands and instead giving those communal lands to someone that supports the king.

For example in the ottoman empire many people still lived like europeans did 1000 years before, on communal tribal lands. This is in part due to their remoteness away from the epicenter of roman and european power and their low population density.

>>16809853
> feudalism is the absorption of most land
You explain this process as a slow subversion by the upper classes, when in reality the feudal estates were fiefs military generals would receive as spoil after a successful conquest. As such, feudalism has existed from the earliest antiquity, and there's no reason to believe that it has existed in pre-Varangian Russia as well.
> nobles existed in tribal settings, the development of men who were essentially tribal raid leaders into tribute collectors that created nobility
I don't understand why you divide societies into some being tribal and others somehow not. Aren't all societies tribal? Especially in feudalism the noble classes behaved very much like a tribe, not marrying with commoners etc.
> communal tribal lands
There's no evidence that Slavs, Celts and Germanics didn't have private real estates, even in the tribal state. Tacitus describes us the primitive Germans as every family man having an own house and lot. The democratic societies of the Slavs, wich prevailed into the 20th Century of our era in the places where feudalism didn't penetrate, divided the tribal land among the men, each owning a lot he would individually work.
So yes, a society can totally implement private property on land even in the tribal state.

>>16809875
Manors existed during the saxons, so did hundreds, which were sections of a shire. The rights that one enjoyed within these territories and how many manors there were what was changed. I'm sure the normans establishing a manor next to your village and gobbling up the land was exciting

>>16809980
> I'm sure the normans establishing a manor next to your village and gobbling up the land was exciting
It's the reward for being a military loser. Even if my ancestors were military losers (they weren't, they were Swiss freemen and nobility) I find the 'punishment' proportionate to the causes wich lead to it.

>>16810083
You don't think that manors were established on lands already worked and lived on by freeholders by their own government?

>>16810097
I don't care, in Medievality, government positions were held by men with balls, by winners etablishing systems that favoured them, not by the loser cucks kek. And ultimately their superiority was based on military superiority.

>>16810112
Well the entire conversation is the difference between tribalism and feudalism. If the difference is the taking of land from commoners and their obligation of labor to their local church and manor along with myriad of social restrictions by the Lord (if he wants everyone to farm sheep by God you're farming sheep) there's a clear distinction there.

>>16810127
> If the difference is the taking of land from commoners
It's the taking of land from another group by the means of attacking them militarily. The loser group would either continue fighting until it's complete extermination, or surrender and submit in order to stay alive. Ultimately it boils down to wether a group values freedom over life or vice versa. The Sal-Franks chose extinction. The Allemanic nobilities chose extinction. That's why they are based and the serfs less so. They chose their misery over dia (death in action).

>>16807761
You don't get to pick

>>16808077
in the past we would know exactly who is abusing us and could literally form a mob, walk up to their little mansion and kill them
now they live in fucking ireland or new zealand or something

>>16810152
>attacking them militarily
So you think when the Norman's took over they stook everyone in the country's land? Even the peasants? Then just didn't inform anyone of this until they started moving in?

>>16810218
Well the Normans came a bit late to the game, the tribal warfare period was long over, they fought against the Frankish and English armies mainly.

>>16810170
That never worked. Peasants almost always lost to rich people's professional bodyguard retinue. Rich people today are much more vulnerable from a purely physical standpoint, and defend themselves mainly by keeping disaffected young males drugged on cheap dopamine drip entertainment.

>>16807761
>Some people are more comfortable serving and living a comfortable life.
Too bad being a serf was not comfortable. Your own passage highlights how they had to pay fees to the barons who also had special rights, including special rights that made them a lot of money off the backs of people without those rights.

>>16810239
it worked quite well actually, hence why they usually didnt fuck the peasants "too" hard and why states like switzerland, friesland and dithmarschen had such specifically harsh responses from the nobility
ain't no local nobles to string up now for when shit blows up though
fortunately nowadays we have movies, no wait they made those suck for ideological purposes
tv sho- no
video ga- no
well at least food is chea- no

>>16807761
>BRO mass enslaving your whole population to the benefit of the 1% that benefit no one and do nothing is totally good bro

File: 1714949542437382.jpg (78 KB, 650x1024)

78 KB JPG

>>16807761
>people here are so deprived of sex and so autistic to gain any attention from women that they'll literally sell themselves as african slaves so they can have the chance of breeding like livestock
>still get cucked by another serf or the lord anyways and lives as a slave without any children

>>16808072
I am descended from aristocracy and I will never forgive the Amerimutts for what they turned my ancestors into. I am not a descendent of rapists