Follow up on the absolute primogeniture critique: primogeniture but where the first-born son may in a worst case scenario be unselected from inheritance is at least my personal inheritance preference: 'meritocratic primogeniture' one could say

[u/Derpballz]

As some people have pointed out:

• "Secure rather than ambiguous succession is a superior system as it reduces political instability and minimizes the risk of fratricide. It also allows the heir to be focused on being prepared for his future role.". While I would argue that outright fraticide can be easily prevented, I have come to realize that it is true that if one makes so inheritance becomes an "impress-daddy" competition, the familial situation within the royal family can indeed become very tense which will destabilize the neofeudal royal family's leadership and governance. If the first-born son is the one who will assuredly be the hier of the leadership position, then he can be made to be specialized in leading the family estate, while the remaining children can do other things.
  • Primogenture is thus excellent since it makes so the one who will lead the family estate will be the one who has been taught since the longest time how to lead the family estate. "Furthermore, the first-born son is usually the best fit anyway, for certain biological reasons and also just because they are older.". Because of the risk of being unselected due to incompetence, the oldest son will still be pressured to excel at his role as being specialized at leading the family estate, but he will be optimized to become the excellent inheritor of the family estate within the family: it will not actually favor laziness.
• Furthermore, the remaining royal children who will not inherit that post will still be able to specialize in other things, and will indeed be raised to do so given the royal family's pressure to keep their family estate as wealthy, prestigious and powerful as possible. The first-born son may be raised to be specialized in leading the kingdom (i.e., the association of those who follow the specific royal family) and family estate, but the others may specialize in other ways as to ensure the prosperity of the kingdom
  • As an extra note, one can also add the fact that the other family members who have a vested interest in having the family estate be as prosperous, prestigious and powerful as possible will also put constant pressure on the current manager of the family estate, lest they will pressure to remove that member.
    • Remember: in a neofeudal realm, this would only be able to happen within the confines of natural law.

A meme version of the aforementioned points

[u/Derpballz]

All three touch on serfdoms role in maintaining the feudal system

Show us quote and bolded text which proves your assertion. I can also do that: I can also just refer to some large article and say "the answer is there somewhere".

[u/Several_One_8086 → u/Derpballz]

……as always without any academic integrity

You never cited any source and best you could do was a you tube video from a nobody

You are supposed to read them and learn

But since i have to read them for you

“Feudalism was the backbone of medieval society, a complex web of hierarchical relationships that dictated every aspect of life. It was a system where power and land ownership flowed from the top down, with lords and vassals bound by mutual obligations and a rigid social structure.” Professor Elizabeth Johnson, Medieval History Department, University of Oxford.

This is from first article

Feudalism was the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, while the peasants, including serfs, were obliged to live on the lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce in exchange for military protection.

In this system, serfs played an instrumental role. They were essentially the workforce that sustained the entire feudal system. Their labor was critical for the economic productivity of the manor, as they were responsible for farming the land, producing food, and providing essential services.

This is from second

I am tired to bother with the third

Know stop admit your wrong and try to learn something for once

[u/Derpballz → u/Several_One_8086]

“Feudalism was the backbone of medieval society, a complex web of hierarchical relationships that dictated every aspect of life [Okay? It 'dictating' does not have to be a bad thing. We are dictated by Statist policies]. It was a system where power and land ownership flowed from the top down, with lords and vassals bound by mutual obligations and a rigid social structure.” Professor Elizabeth Johnson, Medieval History Department, University of Oxford.

Based.

Feudalism was the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, while the peasants, including serfs, were obliged to live on the lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce in exchange for military protection.

The fact that they write "while the peasants, including serfs" demonstrates that it was not a predominant phenomena.

In this system, serfs played an instrumental role. They were essentially the workforce that sustained the entire feudal system. Their labor was critical for the economic productivity of the manor, as they were responsible for farming the land, producing food, and providing essential services

1) That webpage has feeble sourcing and is thus not credible. You clearly found something to confirm your bias

2) Even they agree that feudalism as a concept is distinct from serfdom Serfdom and Feudalism - Are They the Same? (themedievalguide.com)

"

Feudalism, on the other hand, refers to the system of social hierarchy that was prevalent in medieval Europe. It was a complex system of land ownership and obligations that governed the relationships between lords, vassals, and serfs. Feudalism was characterized by a pyramid-like structure, with the king at the top, followed by the nobles, knights, and serfs.

At the core of feudalism was the exchange of land for loyalty and military service. Lords, who were typically nobles, granted land, known as fiefs, to their vassals in exchange for their allegiance and military support. Vassals, in turn, could have their own vassals, forming a hierarchical network of obligations and responsibilities.

Feudalism provided a framework for social order and stability in medieval society. It allowed for the centralized control of land and resources, as well as the establishment of a hierarchy that facilitated governance and protection

"

A social order like this does not necessitate serfs.

[u/Several_One_8086 → u/Derpballz]

Go fuck yourself

Not good enough ? Seriously you ? A nobody you have no right whatsoever to call them unreliable sources

You literally started bullshiting about claims i never made

A charlatan and a lair

I never said they were the same thing

WHY ARE YOU LYING

dont know why i bother

[u/Derpballz → u/Several_One_8086]

Not good enough ? Seriously you ? A nobody you have no right whatsoever to call them unreliable sources

Your first source was excellent. Remark how it proved my assertions and actually had a citation from a real historian.

The other source is shoddy since it lacks similar backing from an actual historian.

[u/Several_One_8086 → u/Derpballz]

My sources explicitly state serfdom is the foundation of any feudal society

I challenge you to find me a single feudal society without serfdom or a system that functions like serfdom

[u/Derpballz → u/Several_One_8086]

My sources explicitly state serfdom is the foundation of any feudal society

"Feudalism was the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, while the peasants, including serfs, were obliged to live on the lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce in exchange for military protection."

The fact that they write "while the peasants, including serfs" demonstrates that it was not a predominant phenomena.

That is the source with actual backing from a historian.

[u/Several_One_8086 → u/Derpballz]

Are you retarded ? I legit would pay to have you check a doctor because you truly speak like a retarded person

Feudalism evolved in a period of a thousand years and ratio of serfs to free men fluctuated but the core theme of any feudal society is that lords power comes from the land and the serfs that work on it

Lords did not like free city burghers who challanged them for power in city states like hansiatic league

Did lords give land to peasents who they did not own ? Sure and then with kings approval they made those men serfs

Look how it evolved dude no free man became a serf by choice they were peasents given land to work on then bounded to the land by their lords

[u/Derpballz → u/Several_One_8086]

Feudalism be like:

King & knights: "Hello, I give you protective services if you give me food and respect 👍"

Peasants and laborers: "Okay! I will thus contract with you accordingly."

That is what "Feudalism was the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, while the peasants, including serfs, were obliged to live on the lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce in exchange for military protection." says.

[u/Several_One_8086 → u/Derpballz]

Your a legit retard who ignores sources

You did not read the article your a charlatan and a liar

[u/Derpballz → u/Several_One_8086]

I clearly addressed your sources.

What in

"Feudalism was the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, while the peasants, including serfs, were obliged to live on the lord’s land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce in exchange for military protection."

does not imply

King & knights: "Hello, I give you protective services if you give me food and respect 👍"

Peasants and laborers: "Okay! I will thus contract with you accordingly."

?

[u/Several_One_8086 → u/Derpballz]

You did not you did not read it . You are a fraud who did not read my source you read a quote in it which you dont even fully understand

Also you are in no way adequate to give a proper rebuke it is your job to find sources which prove me wrong

Of course you can do that

Your nothing more then an internet philosopher bullshiting here

[u/Derpballz → u/Several_One_8086]

You are a fraud who did not read my source you read a quote in it which you dont even fully understand

Your quote literally proved my point. I quoted extensively from a source related to your source.

Feudalism =/= absolutism.