One thing to correct: Feudalism actually makes kings very, very weak. Kings during that age were considered as a representation of all nobles in the country. It is an Absolutism which makes kings mighty.
Kings usually have their own fiefs to govern as well. I'm almost sure you watched another video about the same topic but I don't think it is correct. England has elective monarchy, and all the candidates were nobles who had land. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy The HRE was rules by land owning nobles as well, most notably the Habsburg's. France was a bit different but all the rulers were land owning nobles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_France#Louis_XIV.2C_the_Sun_King The list goes on.
Yeah, unlike in ancient empires before the 'Dark Ages' the power in feudal states was much more decentralized. That's the main reason why battles in medieval Europe were ridiculously small compared to those during the time of the Roman Empire.
feudalism didn’t make kings strong, it made them extremely weak; also you could’ve gone into more depth about certain noble titles since those were extremely important to understand the concept of feudalism, as the king didn’t usually give barons or minor lords land, but it was more of a ‘I give the guy below me land and he gives the noble below him land’ which is a very simple but decentralizing administrative tactic
One of the biggest things that caused the end of feudalism was the revival of financial economy. Kings didn't need to give land to nobles anymore because they were able to pay the soldiers money to the soldiers again.
Common belief that women had no rights in this time era In the Scandinavian kingdoms women were allowed to divorce their husbands for many of reasons Ex. Getting another women pregnant Forcing a miscarriage Raping Or not performing his husband like duties in some tribal/chiefdom societies mostly for thanes or peasant civilians As in providing for the house
Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour.
It lowered the population in the time Feudalism was prominent, this was another key factor in it losing power. Technically on the definition side it has nothing to do with it, but historically it’s very important to remember.
Great video, I just have a question Why would you say that kings in feudalism had almost unlimited? Because actually they had conceded a lot of their power to noboes, and comparing to non-feudalistic absolute monarchs they didn't possess significant power.
Well, since you're getting technical. The Eastern Empire lasted hundredS of years until the Muslims conquered it. JS :) And it was no longer Eastern Roman Empire; it was the Byzantine Empire.
Europe was not over populated. I having so many in the serf class it naturally devalued them. But to suggest that they were overpopulated is incorrect. They had enough food to go around. They only had a problem with food was when there was no one to provide it to them. The decline of serfs because of the black death caused by fleas. It just made the remaining serfs more valuable.
its essentially the same system, with the spanish conquistadors acting as lords of "conquered" people (such as native americans), who were forced into working for them and also were forcibly converted to catholicism.
Cheer~~~the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.😊
Sir I can't get the exact idea of feudalism. It's explanation is different in every vedio. I am confused. Sir can u give simple explanation to me if u can. Or else please post any site which clearly explains it. Sorry for troubling u sir.
Haritha m first there is serfs and peasants who work land and pay taxes to barons barons pay tax in both man power and money to a count A count rules over many barons and pay taxes in money and solders to a duke A duke rules over many counts and pays taxes in money and solders to a king A king rules over many dukes The result is that the Kings army's and treasurys are tiny as let's say a baron collects 100 dollars He pays 10% to the count who pays 10% to a duke who pays 10% to a king after all that the king gets a single penny sure if a king rules over loads of dukes who rules over loads of counts who rule over loads of barons he will still be rich and powerful but not nearly as strong as an absolute monarch like a Roman emperor. This is why army's are tiny compared to the days of west Rome. Btw knights are simply soldiers who work for a baron and function just like money so a baron has 100 knights and gives 10 to a count who gives 1 to a duke and so on. There were no standing army's and solders were trained by many different people making each soldier unique hurting unit cohesion and each knight would serve a different lord making them undisciplined as there loyaltys were to deferent lords it invited civil war as the king was horrendously weak
Okay...so there’s this thing called an accent, right? Some people happen to be bilingual, Rajesh. Now go back to your scam office and call some more innocent people under an extremely white name.
One thing to correct: Feudalism actually makes kings very, very weak. Kings during that age were considered as a representation of all nobles in the country. It is an Absolutism which makes kings mighty.
