Yes, we go round and round in these civilizational circles. It's all based on where power lies within society. When power is disbursed and distributed, you get a middle class and rights, but when power is concentrated you get tyranny and feudalistic systems. Changes in technology cause changes in the allocation of power. Firearms made pe…
Yes, we go round and round in these civilizational circles. It's all based on where power lies within society. When power is disbursed and distributed, you get a middle class and rights, but when power is concentrated you get tyranny and feudalistic systems. Changes in technology cause changes in the allocation of power. Firearms made peasants far more dangerous and the elite far more vulnerable. You had to treat the common man better because they made up the bulk of your army, and later the bulk of your productive tax base. During the industrial revolution they needed us to run their industrial base and man their industrialized armies, so they bribed us with social welfare systems. Today, automation and social welfare systems have made the many of the common man unproductive, and since the elite don't need us, they will treat us worse than cattle. The only thing they need from us in the Western "democracies" is our consent through our vote, but soon they won't even need that anymore. The one thing that was prevalent (but rarely taught about) in old feudal systems and empires was rebellion, uprisings, and revolution. The Roman's spent far more resources quelling uprisings than conquering new lands. The history of medieval Europe is littered with uprisings. As the bard said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
Generally agree, but I'd quibble about the term 'feudal'. Feudalism isn't consolidated power like tyranny, and it could almost be argued to be the reverse. It's basically a loose hierarchy of landlords who each have to consider the concerns of their own peasants and vassals as well as their recognized overlord, whom they are not necessarily forced to obey. I think feudalism could be considered the political organization you get when the population is dense enough that there isn't enough spare land to allow farmers to just move elsewhere, but sparse enough that you don't have politically dominant populations concentrated in cities and making their living through commerce and administration.
I'll amend that. Feudalism is the consolidation of power by the aristocratic classes. There was division of power between the king and his lords, but the structure was very hierarchical. Peasants, who made up 95% of the population, had virtually no formal rights, and only some traditional rights. The gap between peasants and aristocrats was so great that aristocrats didn't even see peasants as people. Feudalism occurs when the population as a whole is not productive enough to support classes outside of those required for basic survival, plus the rulers. For urban areas to exist, farmers must produce a significant surplus. During the Middle Ages, towns began to grow as farming technology improved. The moldboard plow replaced the Mediterranean straight plow in Northern Europe, and monasteries produced new agricultural innovations. Wealthy towns were the bane of the feudal aristocratic elite. What made them dangerous was the accumulation of wealth, and thus power. In "The Prince" Machiavelli warns his pupil to destroy any free city within his realm. Lower-level aristocrats didn't have to obey their lords, but failure do so could result in death and land confiscation. The law, if there was any, was used as a weapon against your foes.
Yes, we go round and round in these civilizational circles. It's all based on where power lies within society. When power is disbursed and distributed, you get a middle class and rights, but when power is concentrated you get tyranny and feudalistic systems. Changes in technology cause changes in the allocation of power. Firearms made peasants far more dangerous and the elite far more vulnerable. You had to treat the common man better because they made up the bulk of your army, and later the bulk of your productive tax base. During the industrial revolution they needed us to run their industrial base and man their industrialized armies, so they bribed us with social welfare systems. Today, automation and social welfare systems have made the many of the common man unproductive, and since the elite don't need us, they will treat us worse than cattle. The only thing they need from us in the Western "democracies" is our consent through our vote, but soon they won't even need that anymore. The one thing that was prevalent (but rarely taught about) in old feudal systems and empires was rebellion, uprisings, and revolution. The Roman's spent far more resources quelling uprisings than conquering new lands. The history of medieval Europe is littered with uprisings. As the bard said, "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
Generally agree, but I'd quibble about the term 'feudal'. Feudalism isn't consolidated power like tyranny, and it could almost be argued to be the reverse. It's basically a loose hierarchy of landlords who each have to consider the concerns of their own peasants and vassals as well as their recognized overlord, whom they are not necessarily forced to obey. I think feudalism could be considered the political organization you get when the population is dense enough that there isn't enough spare land to allow farmers to just move elsewhere, but sparse enough that you don't have politically dominant populations concentrated in cities and making their living through commerce and administration.
I'll amend that. Feudalism is the consolidation of power by the aristocratic classes. There was division of power between the king and his lords, but the structure was very hierarchical. Peasants, who made up 95% of the population, had virtually no formal rights, and only some traditional rights. The gap between peasants and aristocrats was so great that aristocrats didn't even see peasants as people. Feudalism occurs when the population as a whole is not productive enough to support classes outside of those required for basic survival, plus the rulers. For urban areas to exist, farmers must produce a significant surplus. During the Middle Ages, towns began to grow as farming technology improved. The moldboard plow replaced the Mediterranean straight plow in Northern Europe, and monasteries produced new agricultural innovations. Wealthy towns were the bane of the feudal aristocratic elite. What made them dangerous was the accumulation of wealth, and thus power. In "The Prince" Machiavelli warns his pupil to destroy any free city within his realm. Lower-level aristocrats didn't have to obey their lords, but failure do so could result in death and land confiscation. The law, if there was any, was used as a weapon against your foes.
Just as an aside, you know monasteries were communes - communist.
True, but the Catholic Church is a hierarchy. Just like the communists.