I feel like feudalism as a system decayed over time as it existed. It started out as germanic tribes led by kings who would fight with their own men and probably looked like thor or something. But over time it slowly devolved into an ever complex and dysfunctional system, headed by bitch-boy nobles who lived lives of hedonistic luxury and were probably built like twinks.
>>18753035It didn't really decay as much as monarchies deliberately destroyed it in a very long and often violent process of consolidating royal power, via centralising military power into state armies and administrative control into a professional commoner middle class. Ultimately this same system of professionalised military and civilian administration came back to bite them in the ass as this machine didn't have any particular need for kings either.
>>18753035Feudalism formed because of the decay and effective dissolution of the Carolingian Empire. It was formed by nobles who effectively betrayed their kings and ripped the empire to pieces for their own power. When kings regained power they crushed feudal warlords because they were parasites.
Feudalism *is* monarchism. Monarchism is absolutism. If you really want vocabulary & dictionary specific for this particular example, these were tribal warbands, clan warbands respectively. The difference in the narrow-specific description is that, the chieftain of the warband doesn't have anything for the group to offer or delegate power. It's an ad-hoc dynamic. What he has is the personal traits (strength, energy, stamina, charisma...) that made him the leading group executive – assuming that's how they competed – to fulfill whatever promises they made to each other to uphold. “Warband”, “raider”, “marauder”, “nomad” are synonyms. >But over time it slowly devolved into an ever complex and dysfunctional system, headed by bitch-boy nobles who lived lives of hedonistic luxury and were probably built like twinks.The difference between “warband/marauder/nomad/...” and an itinerant court is very slight. Itinerant court implies that an infrastructure of power was already established/acknowledged, while temporarily being on the move. Itinerant court is similar to semi-nomadism. Don't bullshit yourself that these examples in history were misunderstood republicans. No, these were an outside force with their own rudimentary (ad-hoc) structure that is similar to feudalism/monarchism, but without fiefdoms & spoils system in place. “Petty/Primitive monarchism”. This term doesn't exist on papers but it's most likely this' the best term to understand it.
>>18753049>Feudalism formed because of the decay and effective dissolution of the Carolingian Empire. No. The Carolingian kingdom usurped from the Merovingian kingdom, which usurped from the previous dioceses/prefect provinces of the Roman Empire itself in the cusp of feudal structure since Diocletian. >It was formed by nobles who effectively betrayed their kings and ripped the empire to pieces for their own power. When kings regained power they crushed feudal warlords because they were parasites.There never was a king or kingdom without nobility. Add the primae noctus into the mix + siblings born after the firstborn, and you get a premonition why republicanism would effectively come into force. The concept of a king with nobility is like sunbathing on the Moon without the spacesuit. That is its limitation. And it never happened in history. Why or how would a king enforce this without ulterior promises of spoils to the ad-hoc leaders that, let's say, do his bidding? Again, hereditary frame is in the detail because it's a kingdom, not a republic. A king would trap himself if he doesn't promise titles & spoils to those – at least the leaderships in some way – that would crush hypothetically the previous nobles. Because then, why would they need that king for, otherwise? They'd skip and go for a republic, not a kingdom. The republic is inevitable. Always has been because feudalism/monarchism have a catch-22 entrapment paradox it'll never evade the same way republicanism does. Republicanism solves that paradoxal entrapment.
>>18753035wtf is that armour?
>>18753156What's the practrical difference between Monarchism and a dictatorial republic?
>>18753035>It started out as germanic tribes led by kings who fight with their own menFeudalism starts as a decayed form of autocratic monarchy, where the appointed governors of the king start ignoring royal authority and treating their jobs as personal property. It's got meaningful advantages when heavy cavalry are the dominant arm of the military and rival polities are engaged in constant raiding, since the king can field a powerful army without needing to maintain a system of administration and taxation capable of paying for it and it can be at war all the time without draining a central Treasury (for comparison, look how the Byzantine state faired against Turkish incursions in the high and late middle ages).>Decays into hedonistic luxuryThis happens when states form from feudal polities and build standing armies out of other manpower sources, and only sort of then. Feudal lords were fighting almost all the time in the middle ages, the fact that they could do that instead of serving the king in a unified army is arguably what makes them feudal lords instead of aristocratic officers. They might be hedonistic or live in luxury of they're especially rich, but they're still obsessively training for mounted combat or fighting as knights in battles.>German kings who look like Thor degenerating into twinksNevermind OP sucks cock or wishes he could, go to a nsfw board if you want to indulge your gay fantasies about german men
>>18753156>No. The Carolingian kingdom usurped from the Merovingian kingdomOk, and? That has nothing to do with feudalism.>the Roman Empire itself in the cusp of feudal structure since Diocletian.Yes, the feudal structures of Diocletian, like massive administrations, the complete destruction of local power in favour of the state and intolerance for any power not held by the state. Where the fuck do you get the idea of 'feudalism' from in Diocletian's empire?>There never was a king or kingdom without nobility. Early Greek city states had clans and hereditary nobility and weren't feudal. 18th century states were dominated by nobility and weren't feudal. You're not making a case here.>A king would trap himself if he doesn't promise titles & spoils to those – at least the leaderships in some wayWhat, like offering them temporary offices of power where all authority belonged the the state, or king and could and was revoked at any time? That's how the Merovingians and early Carolingians did it.
>>18753174>What's the practrical difference between Monarchism and a dictatorial republic?Monarchism is hegemonic hereditarianism. Absolutism, infailibile. Top-down/vertical power dynamic. It's the very definition of pharaonic, pharaonism. If you're not part of royalty/nobility, you're a slave. If you're not the firstborn son or firstborn daughter, you're a spare (an accident meant to die off if the firstborn inherits everything; a spare if the firstborn dies, but watch out if you have other younger siblings). Your “betters” can decide your fate on a whim.A dictatorial republic is a paradox. It doesn't exist on its own contradictory label. Perhaps you imply emergency or temporary directorial executive power? If that's the case, power is still not a hereditary practical function in its structural design/formula & ulterior development for why it became a directorial republic. It can be challenged by various factions, subfactions, factors & vectors. It doesn't promise blood inheritance, whether primogeniturist or secundogeniturist or whatever. There is no order of preference based upon blood relation or kin relation. If a country is a "dictatorial republic", it's not a republic – it's a monarchy masquerading as a republic ("deposed" royalty/nobility still in control) or a pseudorepublic that in effect is a functional & practical dependency to royalty/nobility in exile or a covert seigniorage network controlled de-facto by the "deposed" royalty/nobility or a senior royalty/nobility in relation to the deposed ones. A fiefdom masquerading as a republic, with a viceroy-lije leaseholder (chairman, president, supreme commander...) as the primary delegated power, with its top-down functionaries (administrative, military, judicial, management etc.).
>>18753191>Ok, and? That has nothing to do with feudalism.Feudalism did not formed because of the decay and effective dissolution of the caroligians. >Yes, the feudal structures of Diocletian, like massive administrations, the complete destruction of local power in favour of the state and intolerance for any power not held by the state. Where the fuck do you get the idea of 'feudalism' from in Diocletian's empire?It started with him, feudalism, and Constantine transformed the offices into hereditary positions. Diocletian wasn't a republican.>Early Greek city states had clans and hereditary nobility and weren't feudal. Ragebait. >clans >nobility >weren't feudal >18th century states were dominated by nobility and weren't feudal. Your brain is fried or you're ragebaiting. >What, like offering them temporary offices of power where all authority belonged the the state, or king and could and was revoked at any time?Monarchies are not states. There are no such thing as temporary offices of power in feudalism (monarchy).Temporary offices of power exist only in republics. >That's how the Merovingians and early Carolingians did it.Where are the Merovingians & Caroligian “states” now?
>>18753035>and were probably built like twinks.Yes. The Suffering Twink was the ideal body type of the High and late Middle Ages. Back then, men wore Yoga Pants an shite.The suffering twink was succeeded by the Fat Ugly Bastard, btw.
>>18753046>>18753035Monarchies did not destroy Feudalism in Europe. They enjoyed the arrangement and integrated it into the system of divide and conquer that allowed them to keep the nobility in check while striving towards centralized Absolutism. In any case, as a legal system, Feudalism kept going until 1848.
>>18753243>In any case, as a legal system, Feudalism kept going until 1848.Rubbish. As long as monarchies exist, feudalism will continue existing.
>>18753232>It started with him, feudalismHow?>and Constantine transformed the offices into hereditary positions. No state offices under Constantine were hereditary, the first hereditary offices would only emerge in the 13th century with the Pronoia, which were hereditary offices. You could not inherit a military or a civic position in the Roman Empire. You are confusing that for conscription in military roles and limited hereditary trades like bakers which as far as we know was limited to large urban areas like Rome and Alexandria. >Diocletian wasn't a republican.No, he was an absolutist. About the exact opposite of a feudal ruler.>RagebaitNot an argument. >Your brain is fried or you're ragebaiting. Nobility does not imply the existence of feudalism. The Roman Republic had a hereditary nobility known as the Patricians, yet all their power derived from state offices. Care to tell me how the Roman Republic was Feudal.>Monarchies are not states.The Romans would disagree.>There are no such thing as temporary offices of power in feudalism (monarchy).Says who? They clearly did under the Romans, they existed under the Chinese Emperors. Even Bronze Age rulers made use of temporary offices. >Where are the Merovingians & Caroligian “states” now?According to their own theory, yes.Can you even define what feudalism is?
>>18753035First tell us what is feudalism and when do you think I was practiced.
>>18753246Private and heritable judiciary and executive functions connected to ownership of specific pieces of real estate only were abolished after 1848. Land use regulations likewise were only widely reformed after that date.
>>18753259That boy has a feminine penis.
>>18753243Feudalism isn't when you "do aristocracy", it's a specific type of decentralized state based around obligations and land use. I suppose in theory you could have a highly centralized feudal state, but a centralized state would have far better options for governing its people than feudal obligations, and usually the process of centralization involves dispensing with feudal traditions since they are usually a means by which the central authority is deprived of control over its nominal state. The entire reason feudalism came about was due to the inability to govern far-flung territory with existing bureaucracy. Feudalism essentially codified the lack of control the sovereign had, and institutionalized the delegation of power to trusted subordinates, legitimizing what was basically a stop-gap to prevent constant rebellions.
>>18753326>Feudalism isn't when you "do aristocracy", it's a specific type of decentralized state based around obligations and land use.Land use was not the core, neither were the obligations. In practice, the idea Feudalism rests on is that rights are held by persons, private or incorporated, as grants or agreements with a sovereign. The holders can disposed of or divide their rightful property in an unlimited manner.The State only exist in a chain of mutual agreements, pacts and personal relationships between a sovereign king and the people and communes who have either declared themselves his subjects or have become so by right of conquest. The relationship, given that they are free persons, is always one of mutualism. It's how people were integrated into feudal relations.It's also why Liberal thinkers weren't completely in opposition to monarchism or feudalism, the system, after all, rested on its ability to guarantee liberties and rights to free persons.The mutualism and the fact that rights were held by persons in an unlimited manner were the two problems Absolutism tried to tackle. The mutualism was problematic because it bound sovereign and subject to the law and the lack of limitations meant that the subject's control over the rights admitted to them became theirs wholly, as a subtraction from the king's sovereign power. This included rights to judicial, legislative and executive powers, mind. The Absolutist ideal was that all three are to return to the sovereign alone but existing feudal property relations were generally not targeted.So, if you're going by land use and the legal structure behind it, nothing changed between 789 and 1789. The obligations of nobility were maintained under Absolutism as well. What changed was that, with the expansion of the non-agrarian economy, sovereigns simply had found other sources of capital to finance their armies, freeing them of having to call upon their nobility as hosts of war.
>>18753265Did monarchies stopped existing after 1848? No. Do monarchies still exist? Yes. It doesn't matter what your textbooks from school told you, it's tied to monarchism itself. That the barter system was changed with the currency/pecuniary one? It doesn't change the power dynamic of the system itself.
>>18753256>How?His reforms making professions & local administrations hereditary. Some labelled it as “protosocialism” & “protocommunism”, respectively the origins of the guilds.>No state offices under Constantine were hereditary, the first hereditary offices would only emerge in the 13th century with the Pronoia, which were hereditary offices. You could not inherit a military or a civic position in the Roman Empire. Wrong. As stated, it began with Diocletian and in less than a generation (or two?) it wound up all the way with Constantine making his offsprings heirs. >You are confusing that for conscription in military roles and limited hereditary trades like bakers which as far as we know was limited to large urban areas like Rome and Alexandria.What's the origin of the “count/earl”, “knight/equine” and “dux” nobiliary ranks, then? I'll make it simple, forget the last two, just the “count/earl”.>No, he was an absolutist. About the exact opposite of a feudal ruler.Feudal ruler is absolutist, Anon. I don't know why you think otherwise. >The Romans would disagree.A state implies the notion of a republic. If an entity isn't a republic, then it's not a state. >Says who? Says history & power, and the historiography behind it no matter what your political convictions are.>They clearly did under the RomansThey existed under the Romans as long as they were a republic, and arguably before the dissipation of the principate. >Chinese Emperors Feudalism. >Bronze Age rulers Feudalism. Next...>According to their own theory, yes.Ragebait.>Can you even define what feudalism is?Not the erroneous filter you seem to be convinced of. You probably think republics or capitalism are synonymous with feudalism, don't you...
>>18753156>Add the primae noctus into the mixLiterally a myth that never existed. No point in reading the rest of your post.
>>18753630>Literally a myth that never existed.Oh yeah? Type in any browser you want and you'll find articles with titles, such as “Europeans are related to X/Y/Z ruler” from the middle ages or antiquity. Now how did that happen, I wonder...
>>18753635I’m very familiar with those claims. I can trace my own ancestry to royalty. Those claims are based on statistics and mathematics accounting for pedigree collapse. They’re arguing that it’s statistically improbably not to be descended from royalty at a certain point, and they’re not relying on that myth to justify it but the natural downward trend of youngest sons and bastards over time. Now go actually look up jus primae noctis instead of watching Braveheart, and you’ll see there’s literally no basis for it having existed in Medieval Europe.
>>18753643>statistics and mathematics accounting for pedigree collapse.“Pedigree colapse”, an interesting cope. >They’re arguing that it’s statistically improbably not to be descended from royalty at a certain point, and they’re not relying on that myth to justify it but the natural downward trend of youngest sons and bastards over time. “No, the nobility heads didn't raped slave/serf women during their stay in their palaces/castles to remind the men who's boss, or during military campaign as their way of imposing power over the slaves/serfs themselves. No, no, all those known & unknown women that were burned at the stake or executed were definitely witches and didn't knew much, or were 'uncooperative'...”>Now go actually look up jus primae noctis instead of watching Braveheart, and you’ll see there’s literally no basis for it having existed in Medieval Europe.I don't know what you're referencing but I do know that all men are born equal.
>>18753643You should stop replying, you can tell by the formatting of his posts that he is deeply retarded or deeply mentally unstable.
>>18753673Capitalism isn't feudalism, chuck. People owning buildings or a business on land that otherwise would be useless isn't feudalism. Yes, that includes businesses on the stock market (not just the top 100).
>>18753035>Dysfunctional And yet those states would have shit all.over earlier feudal polities, with "we fight good" being the only justification for feudalism in the first place, so....
>>18753427>In practice, the idea Feudalism rests on is that rights are held by persons, private or incorporated, as grants or agreements with a sovereign... which is just another way of talking about obligations and land use.
>>18753622Can you actually define what feudalism is? Because as far as I can tell you think feudalism is all forms of state which have any form of inheritance. > His reforms making professions & local administrations hereditary. Care to share where he did that? Where is your evidence for administration being hereditary in Diocletians or Constantine’s empire? Because for all my reading I have never seen that. Even for trades, I’ve seen no evidence they extended beyond a few trades like bakers or outside of a few urban centres where the edict was sent to.
>>18753673>you can tell by the formatting of his posts that he is deeply retardedwhoa, we have a true modern social sojentist among us
>>18754321Not any form of inheritance but a particular type of inheritance. Is it primogeniture, secundogeniture, or egalitarian, or preferential? >What feudalism is? If it's a vertical (absolutist) power structure, it's feudalism. If it's a horizontal (republican) power structure, it's not feudalism. Power, absolute or republican, is the “primum mobile” that decides everything else. > Care to share where he did that? Where is your evidence for administration being hereditary in Diocletians or Constantine’s empire? Because for all my reading I have never seen that. Even for trades, I’ve seen no evidence they extended beyond a few trades like bakers or outside of a few urban centres where the edict was sent to.“The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A social, economic & administrative survey – Volume I”, Ch. “Diocletian; The Classes” by Arnold Hugh Martin Jones.
>>18755934>If it's a vertical (absolutist) power structure, it's feudalism.>If it's a horizontal (republican) power structure, it's not feudalism.So your definition of feudalism has nothing to do with the definition used by nearly everybody and is just made up by you? It is impossible to make an argument for ‘feudalism’ in any historical capacity if you’re using a framework which does not exist outside of your own ideas. >“The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A social, economic & administrative survey – Volume I”, Ch. “Diocletian; The Classes” by Arnold Hugh Martin Jones.I decided to read this and do your work for you, there is not a single passage in this entire chapter stating anything about inheritable offices. I can only assume you 'cited' this source and have never actually read it.
>>18756001>So your definition of feudalism has nothing to do with the definition used by nearly everybody and is just made up by you?Feudalism doesn't exist under republicanism. I repeat this for anyone to understand the short path explanation. Feudalism is a sociopolitical structure to describe absolutism/monarchy through the lenses of organized rudimentary production and/or extraction of goods specific to a barter economy. >It is impossible to make an argument for ‘feudalism’ in any historical capacity if you’re using a framework which does not exist outside of your own ideas.Feudalism is dependent upon a vertical power structure (aka. monarchism) to exist. Feudalism doesn't exist in a horizontal (aka. republicanism) power structure.
>>18756041Not the Anon that you're talking to, but your definitions are all wrong. First of all, all power structures are vertical by definition In theory that wouldn't be true in anarchy, but even then a structure is always gonna arise. If anything, a feudal society tends to be less vertical than a republican one, because in feudal societies you often see lords becoming more powerful than their liege. This is much less likely in a republican system where generally the army is controlled directly by the government.>Feudalism is a sociopolitical structure to describe absolutism/monarchy through the lenses of organized rudimentary production and/or extraction of goods specific to a barter economy. Blatantly wrong. Most of the second millenium was a struggle between kings who wanted centralization and their own vassals who wanted decentralization. Starting from the 14th century, king began winning increasingly until countries became modern states.
>>18756047>First of all, all power structures are vertical by definitionWrong. >If anything, a feudal society tends to be less vertical than a republican one, because in feudal societies you often see lords becoming more powerful than their liege.The “lords” are just as absolutist as a king, one level below the caste hierarchy structure (“hierarchy”, another term indicating absolutism) because “lords” are not republicans.What are “lords”? Hereditary. What are republicans? Non-hereditary. >This is much less likely in a republican system where generally the army is controlled directly by the government.“The army is controlled directly by the elected representatives in the government.”Say that again – slower.
