sturm

So, my question is how would you rate the system of Feudalism? Was it a good and working political system in your opinion? Where are the weaknesses of that political systems, and what are the good sides of it?

pikeshot1600

Feudalism as a phase of social evolution certainly was a useful institution. When there was no central legitimacy, poor communication and there were threats to life and land from bandits or invaders, the system functioned in the absence of the first, and because of the third.

Of course if you were living under it, you may not have been impressed. As with a lot of impersonal institutions, it was efficient in the abstract (it worked), but not so attractive in detail.

sturm

There are surely some advantages in the Feudal system, for example the lord having its own personal army which he was arming with maybe the best weapons and armours there is. Also theres been a quite a bigger aristocracy, and richer aristocracy, because the lord is free to do changes in his fief, rising the taxes for example, richar aristocracy would mean that this personal army of his would be equiped better and better.
Of course theres a problem, often some lords used that "personal army" of theres against other lords.
However kings attority was often questioned by some lords.

Ri Fhionngaill

Okay, this is where everyone thinks I sound like an arse. And you'll be quite right. But I think I'm justified in saying this; it's almost self-justifying, the number of times I've said it. If the world had followed the equality of Celtic law rather than the hierarchy of feudalism, the world would be a better place.

Not that Celtic law wasn't without its faults - some of them completely ridiculous - but there was no hierarchy as such, and no need to involve religion in political decisions, as they were in many feudal parliaments. If nobles were seen as the administrators rather than the owners of land, and were legally equal to their clansmen, then they'd have been unable to impose upon them strict rules and punishments, or to exploit them for their own benefit.

Of course, most Celtic states were politically disunited; but others were able to rule over large areas of land and still not have civil wars. The High Kingdom of Ireland was far more united than we give it credit for; if the sennachies hadn't called their patrons 'kings,' then there'd only be five provincial kings in the entire island, not one hundred and fifty. The Picts were divided into two provincial kingdoms, with their own sub-kingdoms, under one high king, and there are few recorded civil wars. The division was largely due to religion. The Lordship of the Isles only had two civil wars, only one of them to do with the political divisions rather than an ambitious relative who thought that the equivalent of £84,000 wasn't good enough, and no religious or ethnic conflicts in its entire history.

So, feudalism, as a method of keeping order and lands and raising an army, was very effective. For the nobility. The peasants didn't have a say in it, and the religious beliefs that feudalism's connections with the clergy imposed upon them made an unequal society, and a bitterly divided one. From their perspective, then a Gaelic or Welsh society would have been an improvement, even if it was only a personal one.

Which was more productive; asking for an unpopular sovereign to be removed, legally, through the council, or having to plot against him? The former could lead to war, but, in that event, the sovereign would lose his right to rule, anyway, and the title definitely wouldn't go to his heir. But only the latter would lead to either execution and forfeiture, or a civil war.

He'd then decide that the sovereign, or other nobles in the area, were easy to defeat. It would also impoverish the population. The nobles of feudalism ruled for themselves, as they held the land by right of the sovereign, and there were no local judges to remove them from power. The 'nobles' of the Gaelic world ruled as administrators, and their families usually did not inherit their tacks - however, if they had held them for four generations, it became theirs by right, and they were recognised as clan chiefs. They didn't collect taxes from individuals - they collected annual rent from the 'houses.' These were actually quite substantial plots of land, based on their productivity and the number of inhabitants.

Kampfringen

Fuedalism(like all types of governments) relies alot on having good leaders.

Governments only real role is to provide security from within and without. That is the only right of the people that the government is to uphold. Everything else is a perk.

sturm

Im not very familiar with the celtic law and political system, so i cannot comment on that, however i for one thing that the Byzantine Empire was a lot advanced then the rest of Europe (before X century), and maybe there system was a lot better, then the feudal system, though the byzantine empire wasn't as good in rising strong and advanced armies like western Europe. But on the other half there was a lot less problems between the emperors and the patriarchs, while in western europe the Holy Roman Empire for example, was tied into a endless conflicts with a lot of popes. Not to mention the university in Constantinople, and the value of education.

Yes somtimes it is better to be actually able to take down sovereign who was not acting in the favour of the empire then to let him rule (as for example Nero and Caligula in the Roman empire who maybe had a lot of enemies but nobody managed to take there power).
Wars inside an empire are destabilizing it and making it look weak thus giving a chance for others to attack and use the moment to conqure territories, such examples are many and such things happened a lot.
Also many of the rulers in France, the Holy Roman empire were choosing there hair while they were still alive, sometimes crowning them and giving them territories.
I agree.

corrocamino

Feudalism is alive and well in Pakistan. So, have a look at the live animal.

Edgewaters

Serfdom was a much better deal than the agrarian system that it developed from: servi (slaves) working on the latifundia rather than serfs on the manor. Peasants and serfs had at least some rights, and held feudal title - they were tied to the land and couldn't be sold or otherwise removed from it. And of course the death of feudalism, by the process of things like the Enclosures in England or the assault on the Crofters in Scotland, was an unmitigated disaster for commoners.

From a modern perspective it stinks, of course, but in context it was progressive (just as the advent of capitalism, despite the horrific conditions in industrial centres like London, and the global terror that attended the imperialism it spawned, was ultimately a progressive force in its context and time as well).

In short it was good in a relative sense, in an absolute sense it was rather poor.

Sargon of Akkad

Feudalism is interesting as opposed to an empire. In an empire, power is entirely concentrated around one man. While he can gain a lot of power, if he is defeated by a powerful opponent, the empire is practically lost (Alexander vs the Persian Empire, for example) and the winner gains it all.

Under a feudal system, this is hard to do, as you have to conquer the country piece by piece from a number of powerful lords who all have armies and strongholds of their own. While you can defeat the king, that doesn't mean the kingdom is conquered at all.

It also allows local lords to repell raids and minor invasions without having to spend months mobilising a large army, and thus gives a greater measure of protection to your average peasant.

So while less powerful than a centralised empire, it is also a more difficult form of state to fully conquer.

Zeno

Then again, if you face all the loirds one by one, you have your 'divide et imperare' for free. Nevetheless i liked your take on the matter Sargon, keep 'em coming.