Was feudalism successful

Answer 1

A plethora of reasons show that Feudalism was a positive influence in Europe. To illustrate, Feudalism restored trade. Before Feudalism, travel was difficult. Roads were bumpy and uneven. Often, thieves would steal many goods and sell them on the "Black Market." After Feudalism, lords oversaw the repair of trade routes, such as roads and bridges. Knights enforced the law, seizing bandits, and acting as local sheriffs. As a result, travel became easier and safer. Evidence shows that these little changes that Feudalism has brought caused trade to revive itself. Knights secured Western Europe and kept out invaders. It is clear that Feudalism encouraged trade and made people feel safer knowing that the knights were enforcing the laws. This positive attribute caused an increase in the economy and caused more people to have faith in Feudalism. Trade was vital to the success of a civilization. Trade brought items they had little of right at their fingertips. It also brought wealth to towns. During this time, a money system was not quite set up, so they bartered for items worth trading. This also brought more jobs. Trade made the middle class (merchants, farmers, artisans, crafters) wealthy. Therefore, towns were able to support a larger population with more jobs and more rare items available.

Answer 2

It worked to get us through medieval times but it has not been working for our modern standards wich democracy has been able to fit in most. Now a days most of us would laugh at a king.

Answer:

The Feudal system was a top down system that existed in Europe.

Basically the king was on top, supported by the Church and "The Crown" (a tradition of having the right to rule)

The King was supported by the nobility, nobilty by the Knights and the Knights by the peasants. Everyone had an understanding of their duties to the people over them and expectations to people below them. The wealth and power of the upper class were beyond the comprehension of the peasants. There were no democratic processes.

This is very similar to existing corporate setups today:

* They are not democratic * The CEO is "king" he is suppoe\rted by Head Office and the Company Policies * CEOs and VPs have salaries and benefits beyond the comprehension of thw workforce.

* Regional managers, Office mangers and supervisors have replaced the Barons and Knights

* Management above each level can arbitrarily impose their will on their "subjects" * Messages and orders from the CEO and "Head office" are never questioned * Movements in the organization are controlled So, as the Feudal System still seems to be in place today (even if the name has been abandoned), it would be deemed successful

Answer 3

Depends on who you're talking to. When feudalism ended, the poor had many more opportunities to class jump out of the lower classes and managed to create a middle class. Also, feudalism stifled creativity more so than most forms of government. So feudalism didn't work for the majority of people. However, if you were rich, you could do anything you wanted. Education was strictly reserved for the rich, which helped enable them to dominate the lower classes for centuries to come. Not to mention the fortunes that were made (most of them still exist in familial bloodlines to this day). So the upper class had little reason to believe that feudalism did not work.

Answer 4

I think it would be fair to say feudalism was a system that made an attempt at fairness. Everyone in the feudal pyramid had obligations both to those above and those below. Nothing was simply taken without something being given in return. For example, where serfs had to work for their lords and provide a part of the harvest to him, he was obliged to provide them with a place to live, fields to farm, and protection in times of war or famine.

This all sounded fine to many thinkers of the time. Where it breaks down, from a modern point of view, is that there was practically nothing in terms of self determination. If you were born a serf, your choice was likely to be either to stay a serf or become a monk, with no other possibility available. If you were born to wealth or title, then you were also born to greater obligation. Freedom was not really available to anyone.