@@TIB3R She points out that the terms and relationships that we associate with feudalism never existed in the medieval context and really only start appearing in 15th/16th century Italian legal documents. She effectively examines four regions in this regard: England, Germany, France, and Italy; finding no evidence that this structure we had been using was even a consideration for these people. Certainly not systematically or structurally. Her argument is widely accepted among medievalists, but "feudalism" as a concept is so ingrained societally people have a very hard time abandoning the structure. It's a dense and difficult read, but probably one of the most important works in medieval historiography in decades.
@@jimhysell2508 I appreciate the answer! Quick question does her argument say that they never used the term "feudalism"? Which seems a given its like the Byzantine never called themselves the Byzantine Empire its just our modern name to understand them. But they were definitely still what we recognize as an Empire. Or is she saying that even the system that we understand of obligations to your lord wasn't used.
@@DennisForPresident846 nice thanks doesn't disturb you that most of your comments are suggestions ? also do you think the political compass is useful to represent an ideology or a philososophy ?
Susan Reynolds argues, very effectively, in her book Fiefs and Vassals that Feudalism never actually existed.
I'm curious how so?
@@TIB3R She points out that the terms and relationships that we associate with feudalism never existed in the medieval context and really only start appearing in 15th/16th century Italian legal documents. She effectively examines four regions in this regard: England, Germany, France, and Italy; finding no evidence that this structure we had been using was even a consideration for these people. Certainly not systematically or structurally. Her argument is widely accepted among medievalists, but "feudalism" as a concept is so ingrained societally people have a very hard time abandoning the structure. It's a dense and difficult read, but probably one of the most important works in medieval historiography in decades.
@@jimhysell2508 I appreciate the answer! Quick question does her argument say that they never used the term "feudalism"? Which seems a given its like the Byzantine never called themselves the Byzantine Empire its just our modern name to understand them. But they were definitely still what we recognize as an Empire. Or is she saying that even the system that we understand of obligations to your lord wasn't used.
@ mostly that the concept of fief and vassal were not present or understood in the way that would be needed for feudalism to function.
hi buddy can you do objetivism after ?
My next video is about the Buddhist Theocracy, but after that I do Objectivism
@@DennisForPresident846 nice thanks doesn't disturb you that most of your comments are suggestions ?
also do you think the political compass is useful to represent an ideology or a philososophy ?