>hey bro you need to give me 50% of your grain and I'll

>they have castles and swords
>you don't

Gee, I wonder.

>be dumb peasant
>literally raised and taught only farming and obedience
>never get educated
>never learn your being bullshitted and pretty much a slave
>live your whole life thinking and believing this

Education is pretty important

Feudalism makes perfect sense actually. The King owns the land that you farm, he's just letting you use it for a fee (rent). The King owns the land because he can send his goons to kill anyone who says otherwise. Anyone who starts achieving any amount of power relative to the king recieves an offer of becoming the kings vassal. If he accepts he recieves a fief like a town or a village (he doesn't own his fief, he just gets the right to take their rents, the king can take it back if he wants). If he declines the offer of vassalage the king sends his goons to kill him. Anyone may at any point in time attempt to kill the King but attempting this is not a good idea because the king has many strong vassals and many angry goons under his command. And so your options are either: 1: Farm the land and pay rents. 2: Become a famed warlord and become the kings vassal. 3: Be killed by the king's goons. I learned most of this from playing Mount&Blade.

>>1762283
That's literally Anarcho-Capitalism TM.

>>1762248
you act like it's any different today

>>1762295
Yes, i know. That's really funny / interesting actually. Feudalism is not actually a system, it's rather "lawlessness", or a lack of any system. A system arises out of the lack of a system. Order from chaos.

>>1762283
>I learned most of this from playing Mount&Blade.

I was about to say, it sounded way too much like M&B's system

I don't know if it's 100% historically accurate but I still believe it

>>1762303
M&B is modelled on 13th century feudalism in Europe. So it's pretty accurate.

Most serfs never fought anything.

There was literally nothing wrong with Feudalism or being a Christian for that matter :)

>>1762248
Because feudalism is extremely stable, surprisingly flexible, and is optimized for protecting people from localized threats. From the fall of Rome straight into the modern era, localized threats were all the world was about.

Why do you think that "lawless" areas allways fall into feudalism or moder forms of pseudo-feudalism, without fail, even today? Because its the natural sociological reaction to localized threats and also why warlords allways happen.

(And also the reason why any form of anarchism, ancap abomination or the original, would never work. History simply proves us otherwise)

Relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

you haven't described feudalism at all

>>1762248
>why did people tolerate feudalism for so long?
they didn't, rebellions were common throughout the medieval era

File: manoralism.png (84KB, 1850x570px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1850x570px

>>1762248
I think you misunderstand manoralism

If you haven't noticed humans, at least a some portion of them, have a servile streak. Some people naturally look up to "leaders" and try to justify them having a greater standard of living and their own abusive service to the "leaders" as right and caring. Some people are just naturally battered wives looking for a thug to treat them the way destiny is pulling.

I mean, look at how Capitalism is still around and how people desperately apologize for the rich and wealth inequality. These are just the peasants of the past in new clothing. What motivates them? imo a sense of stability and justice in the world by pretending abuse isn't abuse. And, ironically, a sense of community and empathy that prevents people from naturally just walking up to peer member of their community and crushing his head with a rock - even if they have a serious grudge.

The trick of leaders is keeping people divided, poorly educated, confused and making sure the natural sycophants are seeded properly across communities while given places of power and influence.

>>1762283
Completely wrong.
First, it is impossible for one to ascend socially. You are born a servant, you die a servant. All you get is a massive amount of taxes, slave-tier work, so a lazy fuck can sit all day long and do nothing.

File: Screenshot 2016-08-13 at 19.49.50.png (2MB, 1433x921px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1433x921px

>>1762376
>it is impossible for one to ascend socially. You are born a servant, you die a servant.

What about those who did ascend?

>>1762376
You can ascend. Just pick up a sword and fight. Bandits were all around but most of them never rose to power. Some of them did, and a few of them became kings. The King is simply the most powerful bandit leader of the land.

Feudalism worked to a certain extent. The lord was motivated to watch out for the peasants, because he didn't want to till the fields himself.
If he didn't watch out for them then they would either revolt or just die.
It wasn't a great system, but it was workable.

>>1762385
A servant? Ascending? Are you sure, mate? A poor noble at minimum.

Peasants weren't sent to war as much as you believe. Populations were small, you couldn't just let all your good farmers die in some stupid battle. If you couldn't farm the land, your land was worthless. Sometimes that shit-caked peasant was worth more in the field with a scythe in his hand than on a battlefield with a spear.

>>1762385
Like...?

File: medieval-straw-hats.png (553KB, 716x421px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 716x421px

>>1762412
serfs ended up as yeoman, yeomans as gentry and gentry as knights.

>>1762422
People make money, get their kids ahead. That kind of stuff.

>>1762434
No. They couldn't end up yeomans.

>>1762434
>make money
To spend on what?
>get their kids ahead
Where would they go?

>>1762487
Buying extra land or getting him and education. Get uncle to teach him how to become a weaver or carpenter.

File: PicsArt_09-19-09.40.38.jpg (321KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 900x1200px

>>1762434

>>1762487
Anon is wrong. They couldn't fucking make money.
Anon, are you dumb or what?

>>1762494
You couldn't buy land until Capitalism...what are you doing here, little anon?

File: land market.png (245KB, 520x470px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 520x470px

>>1762510
You could not buy property in the modern legal sense no.

To be honest all British/commonwealth people are still tenants and not technically owners of the land they live on.

>>1762494
>land
Can't, lord doesn't wanna rent you it. He also doesn't accept cash as payment.
>education
From where? Also don't have freedom of movement
>Uncle
He's a farmer too.
>>1762501
I know that, I enjoy talking to retards tho

File: Screenshot 2016-02-15 at 17.21.03.png (94KB, 613x605px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 613x605px

>>1762529
>>1762523
Hol' up

>>1762529
What are you even trying to achieve with this shitpost?

>>1762529
You're fun.

>>1762529
Actually you could get away if you got permission and paid a small fine to your landlord.

Villages had a surplus population and could not magically make land grow, second and third sons could not simply carve up every farm until five thousand farmers each occupy a single square meter of ground.

On the other end of the scale cities had a negative birthrate and needed a constant fresh influx of rural workers to keep the population up, these people had to come from somewhere.They didn't import paki's back then.

>>1762248

>why did people tolerate feudalism for so long?

They didn't have much choice. Lord Albrecht owns the land and he only allows you to farm it on the condition that he gets half of what you produce. If you don't like you, then you have to go get your own land to farm.

>was everyone just a lot dumber back then?

In a sense, yes. There were no computers, very few books, and there was definitely no public education.

File: pureideology.jpg (157KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 803x688px

>tfw people today are accepting industrial feudalism
OP we are just as stupid now :(

>>1762570

Who is this supposed to represent?

>>1762574
Zizek, probably.

>>1762570
not really
now we're just conformists

>>1762570
judging by the *sniff* it's undoubtedly Zizek, slovenian """""intellectual"""""

>>1762574
slavoj zizek, well known meme philosopher

>>1762539
Actually I wasn't aware of that, interesting. More sources?
>>1762545
I'm bored
>>1762553
That's not freedom of movement. Even if you manage to accumulate the sum, it's still completely dependent on the whims of the local lord.

>>1762647
The sum was quite often some trivial bullshit like five chickens or cash equivalent.

Now don't ask me what the legal standing of such an agreement was but if it was written down and binding you could enforce it against a lord.

>>1762647
>>1762669
Oh ps, some Lords didn't bother to enforce it after the Black Death. You end up with an old farmer selling all his land to some other farmers while both his sons moved to a city where they were blacksmiths.

>>1762593
I swear to god he is a huge coke head, thats why he sniffs. My friends knows his dealer.

>>1762669
I dont think the legal system was quite as effective as you think.

If the king wanted the contract broken, then so did god, and the contract would be broken.

Pretty sure you would be thrown in a dungeon without fair trial if you tried to hold the king accountable.

>>1762701
What contracts would the King like to break? I mean if Obama wants to lock up some random fucker he can put him in a CIA blacksite, but how often does that happen?

>>1762376

Lowly servants of a king were relatively more mobile than others. I read about cooks and jesters being granted freeholds for their service.