File: images - 2026-06-19T221845.774.jpg (14 KB, 250x363)

14 KB JPG

>>18538984
The same goes for religion, they didn't loose hope in the religion itself when a pope was dragged through the streets for fucking another man's wife. They hated the pope, the person, they saw him as a liar, hypocrite, whatever, but never for a second did they question the idea of God or the papacy.

Wich in turn makes me think, how many institutions we don't even consider being replaced that people in the future will be baffled at how our frustrations didn't lead to their abolishment

>>18538990
Yeah, like popular elections and money.

>>18538984
What system could they overthrow? There was no system outside of their Manor. The Manor itself was protecting them from wider molestation. The fact they were tied to it allowed them protection in a world without police, without cell phones, without cctv etc etc. They also weren't allowed to be kicked off their land. They had it better than 99% of modern wage slaves.

In addition to this there was also a reluctance, one that still persists in authoritarian systems today, that if the people are being oppressed it is not due to their king being a tyrant but rather due to corrupt advisors to the king. This is something you see in the peasant's revolt in England in 1381, which was the first mass uprising of the commoners in English history that sought to end serfdom, end poll taxes, destroy all written tax records, outlaw labor as a form of taxation to lords, end the legal limits on the amount a commoner could charge for their labor, and as the revolt continued and became more radical they demanded a second series of reforms including the dissolution of the monasteries and the church reorganized under the crown so that clergy were prohibited from owning private property and given only enough support to maintain a life of virtuous poverty, and that all "corrupt ministers, lords, justices of the peace, and lawyers" be executed. But they nonetheless maintained they were loyal servants of the king.

When the rebels took over several counties they decided to march on London which they were able to capture, and began destroying many of the fine manors of these "corrupt" nobles. The king and the magnates were in the tower of london, and remarkably the King, Richard II negotiated with the rebels and agreed to their first series of demands. The rebels then started attacking more monasteries and universities, killing abbots and justices of the peace, thinking they now had royal sanction. The king had hoped this would disperse the rebels, and to a degree it did, but those that remained and gave the second set of demands were betrayed by the king and crushed. Over the next several months the king's promises were walked back and hundreds of rebel leaders were arrested in their homes and executed, in an early example of the authoritarian tactic of "agree to the mob's demands now, arrest and execute them all later one by one when they've dispersed"

>>18538984
That’s wrong. Medieval people knew there was a system and generally supported it (there were republics in medieval Europe btw). They didn’t try to take up arms against bad rulers because they believed God would sort them out.

>>18539000
>They had it better than 99% of modern wage slaves.
not this meme again. If you actually believe this then you genuinely do have a slave morality.

>>18539003
Modern wagie has to pay for a car, gas, housing etc.
Has to clock in at the required time. Has to do everything the boss says, when they say it.

Serf? Nigger just make sure the crops grow. You can keep the extra.

>>18539005
Except when he has a bad harvest, he still gets molested by his lord. You retards really should live in Africa or the poorer parts of asia who live off of subsistence farming. You're too comfortable in your first world cities with playstations and nintendo consoles, which makes you spew diarrhea like this

>>18538984
The problem is that to change your local lord you had to basically killed him, risking your life and family. And then the new lord was appointed by the same king so if the king elected a bad lord because he is incompetent or evil you didn't achieved anything. You then had to kick out or killed the king, risking your life and family again.

>>18539006
>Except when he has a bad harvest
When he has a bad harvest, so does everyone. And is he going to evict ALL of his serfs?
I can tell you've never ran a business.

>>18539011
"And is the *manor lord* going to evict ALL his serfs" I mean.
But anyways you dont really grasp that the manorial system was a method of extracting wealth from land rather than from laborers.
Most of the time a lord would let his serfs use the commons and shit for running hogs, sheep, etc. It's just about using LAND.

>>18539011
>is he going to evict all his serfs?
No, he's going to squeeze them for all they're worth which means take his valuables to make up for the quota the lord demanded.
>never ran a business
Nigger, aristocrats aren't running a business. It was never always about money for them. I can tell you've never read a book

>>18539015
>Nigger, aristocrats aren't running a business. It was never always about money for them.
...
>take his valuables to make up for the quota the lord demanded.

uhh... ummm... duhh...

>>18539005
>Has to clock in at the required time. Has to do everything the boss says, when they say it.
Do you not know what corvee labor is? A manor lord had the absolute right to demand that his serf work his fiends, repair his fences, do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. And why do you think paying rent in kind with a portion of your harvest is better than paying for necessities in cash as a modern worker?

You are genuinely ignorant of the life of a serf, because if you hate your job or your boss you can quit. If a serf is abused by his lord he can do NOTHING. If a lord on a nearby manor badly needs workers or is a better person, so treats his serfs much better, or has better land to work, the serf can't leave and go there. A modern worker can negotiate for better terms of employment or even collectively bargain. A serf is legally not allowed to demand anything, and his max payment is set by law.

>>18539017
>know taking a peasants valuables would make him resent the lord and impoverish him
>still do it anyways to teach him a lesson and instill fear in the population
Let me guess? You're an ameriburger who worships money as the end all be all

>>18539019
>And why do you think paying rent in kind with a portion of your harvest is better than paying for necessities in cash as a modern worker?
because in the feudal, manorial system, it would be disincentivized to charge rent in excess of what someone could actually pay, because their occupancy on that property was necessary for YOUR ongoing wealth.
whereas today, the rental economy is based on kicking poor people out of decent housing in favor of rich kids.

>>18539023
>incentives
>necessities of the wealth of the peasants
Lmaoo this negro thinks medieval lords were educated enough on economics and capitalist thought

>>18539023
ok, now address the rest of the post before I respond

>>18539025
he's right though, a serf might be chained to a field in perpetual destitution, but at least they weren't homeless because they were allowed to build their own mudhut on the lord's land!

>>18539025
You dont have to be educated to be incentivized to do things.

>>18539026
>ok, now address the rest of the post before I respond
"Overtime" is just corvee labor added on top of regular wageslavery. everything you hate about serfdom is worse in the modern world but we've washed over everything with rightthink where we've "officially banned slavery" etc etc etc

>>18539029
this but unironically.
are you just upset that a world where everyone has a mansion can never exist?
the average person in America either lives crammed with their parents or "roommates." The average person *in the world* today lives in conditions worse than a medieval hut.

>>18539032
>inb4 lifespan, child mortality
This is a result of the development of medicine. This is not related to broader economic systems. They had medicine in the Middle Ages, it was just retarded.

>>18539031
>"Overtime" is just corvee labor
explain

I am still waiting for you to address the rest of my points as well.

>>18539032
feel free to go live in a mudhut on someone else's land then if that's what you think

>>18539037
>go live in a system that does not currently exist, THAT'll show you!
???

>>18539038
I'm sure you can find someone to be your manor lord and be their slave if you want

The truth about feudalism is that it's a workable system of government which people can readily understand (even if they've been detached from it for generations) and establish for themselves.

Because it operates on personal oaths of fealty and relationship between client and patron, not the labyrinthine bureaucracies, legal mumbojumbo, and financial con slight of hand shell game quackery of modern nation states and liberal economies.

This makes it not just an ideological punching bag or antiquated laughingstock, but an actual threat because it is a viable means even now for popular self determination in government which may be established parallel to or as a replacement in the event of a collapse in the current power structure.

Maybe the kinds change, and subsistence agriculture isn't the bedrock of an exchange system anymore. Doesn't necessarily need to be, since it was always fundamentally about service, duties and privileges. Not saying a back to the land regenerative movement wouldn't be beneficial both to people and environment or anything, but you can have the basic form of the thing without the same material trappings.

Problem is the mass disseminated contemporary modern culture has produced a society with values and behavior patterns that are frankly incompatible with core principles required for that kind of life. Fidelity might as well be dead as chivalry. People think you're talking about monitor resolution, earphones or something.

>>18539038
The modern economical equivalent would be something like getting a loan at the bank, buying up some farmland and slowly repaying the loan with a share of your revenue.
You'll have to worry about more than just taking care of your crops, but also work in general will be less physically demanding due to modern technology. But yeah, culturally it will be very different.

What about the Jacquerie? Or the English peasant's revolt? Or Switzerland?
You describe a common medieval worldview, for sure, but it's hard to tell how far it reached down the social scale vs. just "they have knights, we don't, so if we rebel we'll lose and die"

>>18539315
>Or the English peasant's revolt
that was fundamentally a royalist revolt, they wanted to abolish serfdom but their perspective was that corrupt advisors to the king were ruining things, not that monarchy had to go

>>18538984
this is modern world mindset, where one can theoretically talk your way into getting things your way, where a peasant can talk to the government about rights and shit.
There reason why a king/lord is a king/lord and collects taxes from the peasants is because he holds the power, through soldiers, violence or threat of violence.


>the very awareness that there was a system didn't exist,
there was no "system" that you think of. They were fully aware of the state of reality

>>18540075
what about divine right? Monarchs argued they had the right to rule because this was a divinely appointed order.

>>18540148
That was not a medieval concept, "divine right of kings" was the justification used for absolute monarchy, a mode of government that came about in the modern era. In this case "modern" means "post-renaissance", so from the 1600s onward.

Medieval kings did not rule absolutely and did not rule by divine right. For most of the medieval period, European kingdoms were feudal states, meaning that kings ruled indirectly through their many vassals. This was due to the fact that for most of the medieval period, literacy was very low, and most bureaucracies were small. This made it hard to effectively administrate a large territory like a kingdom. They could still administrate smaller parcels of land, though. So that's what they did: they carved the kingdom up into fiefs, administrative districts that were possible to assess and tax with their limited bureaucracy. The consequence of this, though, was decentralization of power. The king only actually "ruled" a fraction of his kingdom, and the rest was ruled by his vassals, who then paid him homage.

So far from ruling by divine right, medieval kings basically ruled by maintaining personal relationships with important vassals. It was as true then as it is now that you can't please everybody all the time, so it was usually a question of who the king could afford to ignore or piss off, and who he had to keep happy, in order to ensure he still had a firm grip on power. If he alienated too many powerful vassals, they'd rebel against him.