How did the crazy social system of the Middle Ages ever end?

[Jaak]

Okay, Westeros is based pretty strongly on medieval Europe, right? I'm talking about stuff like politics, ruling, laws, value systems, technological advances, beliefs and so on.

And when it comes to those things, Westeros seems downright terrible to me, in many ways. The lack of democracy, the lack of women's rights, the morbid feudal system, etc. As bad as our society is today, I certainly prefer it to a medieval one.

But my question is, how did that kind of society ever start to progress? I can't wrap my head around it.

I mean, let's say it started from below. A group of peasants decided that they wanted the same liberties as noblemen, and started a revolt. Such a revolt would immediately be struck down, right?

In most times and places, yes. Not always, though.

Swiss were exactly peasants who revolted and won. Over time, they managed to expand from the original three forest cantons to 23... but rest of Europe did not follow suit. Maybe a scattering elsewhere, though, like Sweden.

But the peasants of Swiss Alps were still poor, until 20th century or so. And as for women´s right, well, they got vote sometime in 1970s and later. 50 years after women´s vote in rest of Europe.

Or say it started from above. A king finds himself thinking that it seems unfair that he gets to sit on his arse all day and eat the best food and sleep in silken beds without doing zilch, and decides to abdicate and let a government rule in his stead. A Varys or a Littlefinger would end his life within a fortnight.

Whose? King´s?

Hardly. Varys or Littlefinger would want to become the government the King left behind. The ex-King can be left unmolested unless he is a problem.

A few Kings in Middle Ages did actually abdicate, to go to monasteries. To what effect? Another King, their heir. Like Jorah Mormont.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

We remember control by kings and lords wasn't so absolute in the real world, especially in cities and town where some kind of "democracy" has existed since the early middle ages.

You should also consider that the king would generally have some kind of council or parliament of peers, who would have some legislative role.

In England nobles lost their power after the wars of the Roses, so many were dead and those that were left were unable to resist royal power. The Tudor monarchs tore down many of the castles belonging to nobles and ended the right to raise a private army, once those are gone nobles are unable to defy the king any more than peasants.

After that I suppose the "middle class" starts gaining power due to the increase in mercantile power.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

The rise of the middle class, brought about by increasing wealth due to foreign trade. The sooner merchants and tradesmen had money, the sooner they were able to somewhat compete for power with the feudal aristocracy which was based on martial power. More money meant more education, more peace, more prosperity.

Second was the end resolution of the inherent internal instability of feudal societies. Either the monarch became an absolute ruler (France, Russia), or the monarchy came to share power with the nobility through a parliamentary system (England). Once this happened, there was less internal instability and war, more peace, more prosperity, more trade, more money.

Final was the errosion of the very abilities which put the feudal aristocracy on top in the first place, their martial ability. Peace brought continued inheritance of nobility rather than won through battle. Successive generation of inheritance and peace led to an un-martial aristocracy. Peace and prosperity led to better education and innovation which led to military inventions that leveled the playing field. Gunpowder, cannons, and mass produced musketry made obsolete the staples of the middle ages. The highly trained, heavily armored knight which anchored the feudal military system; and the castle, the very symbol of medieval times. Why grant power and land to a dedicated military class when you can do as well with conscripts with guns? When the peon can defeat the knight, the knight loses his political power.

Innovation, education, politics, peace. It all flows back to having the economic surplus. More money. New markets.

It has been discussed many times before that Westeros has basically been stuck in a medieval period for hundreds if not a thousand years. Wealth, innovation, and population growth are difficult when everybody is being killed off every 10 or so years by winter and famine. Not to mention it is a fantasy world.

The problem with saying that these fantasy worlds and medieval worlds are so horrible, is the fact that we are usually drawn to these worlds. There is something about these fantasy worlds, and these medieval times, that we have lost in the present times. Despite all the horror, the gore, and the uglyness, there is an amount of romance that cannot be shaken from Knights, swords, chivalry, dragons, Princesses, and war. Otherwise the most popular movies in recent history would not be a group of science fiction movies where the medieval concepts are cleverly transposed onto a science fiction universe.

[Jaak]

You should also consider that the king would generally have some kind of council or parliament of peers, who would have some legislative role.

Wide variability about that.

England had peers called to council often and systematically ever since 10th century. Whereas in France, councils of peers were rare and occasional. The other realms fell somewhere in between.

[King Tommen Baratheon]

Yeah, burning ppl alive, dying from wars, famine and plagues was much more humanistic, than living in urbanised country...

Not more humanistic, just different. People still die from wars, and although less frequent they are on a larger scale. The middle and lower class definitely have higher (better) standards of living in western countries than they did in those same countries, but that doesn't mean everything is all around better. Lots of things are better today, some things are worse. It's a balance.

[Facebookless Man]

Wars are less frequent?

I'd say they're just more remote, and less people suffer from them... on the "western" side

as for living standards, isn't that more a function of science and technology than political system?

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I have a question to all who says this variant.

Why feudalism survived the mass invention of gunpowder for 2 or 3 centuries, if it was gunpowder?

Or why especially gunpowder? Why not siege warfare(trenches+machine guns+artillery)? Why not archery? Why not tanks? Each of those technologies made previous analogue obsolete.

It was the fact that gunpowder leveled the military playing field. The conscripted peasant was just as good as the Knight now, and far cheaper.

Why did it take 2 to 3 centuries. Because society does not turn on a dime, despite that young people seem to want it to. First you had to wait until the weaponry and training was perfected. Then you had to wait until the power of the feudal aristocracy slowly erroded, there was no large scale peasants rebellion. It takes time.

Why not archery? The use of the Longbow took almost as much skill and training as it takes to be a Knight. It takes enormous amounts of physical ability and long training. The only advantage of the Longbow was that it was cheaper in the long run than outfitting a guy with plate and a horse. You still had to have dedicated professionals using the Longbow. So the innovation was not large enough.

Why not machine guns and tanks? That's ridiculous. By that time the feudal system was long gone.

The key here was that the entire feudal system rested on the warfighting abilities of the aristocracy. They seized power and maintained it because they were the ones with the swords and armor. When their monopoly of military power erroded, so did their political power.

[Lion of the West]

Same planet that survived fall of meteor, large enough to create moon?

Or Ice ages? Or great extinctions?

Difference is this. Previously some shit happend, and then it was over, and a recovery could start. Humanity is just growing, and growing and growing and growing in its impact and constantly finding news ways to fuck things up, on top of the old ones. This is a kind of thing the planet has never faced before.

Not saying there isn't any hope, but it will take a great deal of work to undo the harm.

[H0X0]

Wars are less frequent?

I'd say they're just more remote, and less people suffer from them... on the "western" side

as for living standards, isn't that more a function of science and technology than political system?

No and no. Globally, the likelihood of any person dying from war (and pretty much anything that isn't heart disease) is at an all time low. But among poor countries, leading causes of death are highly preventable. That is a direct result of non functioning governments

[Weirdo]

The french revolution was not started by the bourgoise. The only revolution, at the top of my head, where the bourgois took power somehow was in England. The bourgois where the ones profiting from REFORMS because at the beginning they were the only ones allowed to vote. And because they were the upper class serving the nobles.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, those were all also not very democratic. Neither the communist, nor the fascists. No democratic reforms or revolutions were ever really started or fought by the bourgoise. The situation did not get much better for the smallfolk in England with the constitution either, neither did they get more power nor a better life, only the bourgoise. Also, while you where a bit more free in america, you could still only vote as a rich landowner.

The American revolution was entirely bourgeois in conception, and it benefitted the bourgeoisie. Most colonists did not participate.

Feudalism was worn away by the rise of the merchant and banking classes. It took a few centuries, but they won, and their power has only been meaningfully challenged by socialism since that time. The labor class is to thank for advances in working conditions, but not for American or European revolutions.

Hey, at least that's how I read history. I'm no historian.

[Jaak]

It was the fact that gunpowder leveled the military playing field. The conscripted peasant was just as good as the Knight now, and far cheaper.

Why did it take 2 to 3 centuries. Because society does not turn on a dime, despite that young people seem to want it to. First you had to wait until the weaponry and training was perfected. Then you had to wait until the power of the feudal aristocracy slowly erroded, there was no large scale peasants rebellion. It takes time.

There were big and rapid changes, though.

Why not archery? The use of the Longbow took almost as much skill and training as it takes to be a Knight. It takes enormous amounts of physical ability and long training. The only advantage of the Longbow was that it was cheaper in the long run than outfitting a guy with plate and a horse. You still had to have dedicated professionals using the Longbow. So the innovation was not large enough.

And bowmen, although a bigger elite than knights, are still elite.

Why not machine guns and tanks? That's ridiculous. By that time the feudal system was long gone.

The key here was that the entire feudal system rested on the warfighting abilities of the aristocracy. They seized power and maintained it because they were the ones with the swords and armor. When their monopoly of military power erroded, so did their political power.

It isn´t really ridiculous. What do you call "feudal system gone"?

[TerrorVoid]

Not more humanistic, just different. People still die from wars, and although less frequent they are on a larger scale. The middle and lower class definitely have higher (better) standards of living in western countries than they did in those same countries, but that doesn't mean everything is all around better. Lots of things are better today, some things are worse. It's a balance.

Example. Everything got better, yeah.

It was the fact that gunpowder leveled the military playing field. The conscripted peasant was just as good as the Knight now, and far cheaper.

Why did it take 2 to 3 centuries. Because society does not turn on a dime, despite that young people seem to want it to. First you had to wait until the weaponry and training was perfected. Then you had to wait until the power of the feudal aristocracy slowly erroded, there was no large scale peasants rebellion. It takes time.

Why not archery? The use of the Longbow took almost as much skill and training as it takes to be a Knight. It takes enormous amounts of physical ability and long training. The only advantage of the Longbow was that it was cheaper in the long run than outfitting a guy with plate and a horse. You still had to have dedicated professionals using the Longbow. So the innovation was not large enough.

Why not machine guns and tanks? That's ridiculous. By that time the feudal system was long gone.

The key here was that the entire feudal system rested on the warfighting abilities of the aristocracy. They seized power and maintained it because they were the ones with the swords and armor. When their monopoly of military power erroded, so did their political power.

Nope, he wasn't. Cavalry still rocked battlefield. And artillery countered peasants. Still the same.

Lol, so after it has developed, it had yo develop once again for another 2-3 centuries? Its all about timing.

No, I mean ancient archers, who fought guys with clubs. This is also one of several weapon revolutions. And, as gunpowder, also happened not in times, when feudalism has ended.

Machineguns and tanks are as close to the end of feudal system as gunpowder.

Cool. 1700. Ppl fight with guns, yet no one knows that feudal times have ended.

Difference is this. Previously some shit happend, and then it was over, and a recovery could start. Humanity is just growing, and growing and growing and growing in its impact and constantly finding news ways to fuck things up, on top of the old ones. This is a kind of thing the planet has never faced before.

Not saying there isn't any hope, but it will take a great deal of work to undo the harm.

Humanity never seriously fucked up any things. On planetary scale their achievements are nothing.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

Nope, he wasn't. Cavalry still rocked battlefield. And artillery countered peasants. Still the same.

Then why did the heavily armored knight suddenly dissapear from the battlefield? Artillery countered peasants? Then why didn't the infantryman fade from memory after it's development?

Lol, so after it has developed, it had yo develop once again for another 2-3 centuries? Its all about timing.

Introduction is not the same thing as perfection and distribution. The computer and the telephone were invented in the early 20th century. But the internet did not come around until late in the 20th century.

Cool. 1700. Ppl fight with guns, yet no one knows that feudal times have ended.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The feudal system of government was on the way out by 1700 in Europe, and completely gone in some areas. Gunpowder weapons and methods were still in their infancy.

Machineguns and tanks are as close to the end of feudal system as gunpowder.

Where are you getting your history? Television?

[Light a wight tonight]

Well that isn't true in the slightest in a lot of places

Not everyone has exited the Middle Ages. They may have cell phones and Kalashnikovs but the also have a jakes out back and are bound to the local equivalent to a nobleman.

[Jaak]

Nope, he wasn't. Cavalry still rocked battlefield.

It was significant force till 19th century.

And artillery countered peasants. Still the same.

And handguns, batons and tear gas countered peasants, too.

Lol, so after it has developed, it had yo develop once again for another 2-3 centuries? Its all about timing.

No, I mean ancient archers, who fought guys with clubs. This is also one of several weapon revolutions. And, as gunpowder, also happened not in times, when feudalism has ended.

Machineguns and tanks are as close to the end of feudal system as gunpowder.

Cool. 1700. Ppl fight with guns, yet no one knows that feudal times have ended.

People knew a lot had changed. But were feudal times over, or was it different feudal time?

Women´s rights and general democracy are 20th century phenomena. Often late 20th century.

Classical "feudalism" like we see in Westeros was 15th century or earlier.

There were many centuries between 15th and 20th. 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, early 20th. All of them were different from the Westeros/pre-15th century. And also different from 21st/late 20th century. Which of them would you call "feudal"?

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

Okay, Westeros is based pretty strongly on medieval Europe, right? I'm talking about stuff like politics, ruling, laws, value systems, technological advances, beliefs and so on.

And when it comes to those things, Westeros seems downright terrible to me, in many ways. The lack of democracy, the lack of women's rights, the morbid feudal system, etc. As bad as our society is today, I certainly prefer it to a medieval one.

But my question is, how did that kind of society ever start to progress? I can't wrap my head around it.

I mean, let's say it started from below. A group of peasants decided that they wanted the same liberties as noblemen, and started a revolt. Such a revolt would immediately be struck down, right?

Or say it started from above. A king finds himself thinking that it seems unfair that he gets to sit on his arse all day and eat the best food and sleep in silken beds without doing zilch, and decides to abdicate and let a government rule in his stead. A Varys or a Littlefinger would end his life within a fortnight.

So how did that society change?

Note than I'm pretty much an idiot when it comes to history. What little I know about it comes from fiction.

Peasants revolt 1381

[Raving Stark the Mad]

It was significant force till 19th century.

"Cavalry" isn't the kicker. The armored knight, a specific kind of cavalry, IS. The armored knight, the very heart and symbol of feudalism, dissapeared long before the 19th century. Regular cavalry did not require the same amount of equipment, training, and have such a dominating position on the battlefield that the armored knight did. The idea of a "warrior class" dissapeared because the gun made it easy for anybody to kill anybody.

[TerrorVoid]

Then why did the heavily armored knight suddenly dissapear from the battlefield? Artillery countered peasants? Then why didn't the infantryman fade from memory after it's development?

Introduction is not the same thing as perfection and distribution. The computer and the telephone were invented in the early 20th century. But the internet did not come around until late in the 20th century.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

The feudal system of government was on the way out by 1700 in Europe, and completely gone in some areas. Gunpowder weapons and methods were still in their infancy.

Where are you getting your history? Television?

Plz, history, not fairy tails. Do Cromwell's ironsides, cuirassiers, other elite unites of cavalry ring any bells?

Still. Why do you think, that perfected and usable everywhere gunpowder needs another centuries of perfection to start social revolution?

Looool.... So you mean that great french revloution happened not in 1789? Or you mean that 1789 was way out by 1700?

Arithmetic. Musketeers - 1600. Social revolution - 1800. Tanks and siege warfare - 1900.

Women´s rights and general democracy are 20th century phenomena. Often late 20th century.

Classical "feudalism" like we see in Westeros was 15th century or earlier.

There were many centuries between 15th and 20th. 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, early 20th. All of them were different from the Westeros/pre-15th century. And also different from 21st/late 20th century. Which of them would you call "feudal"?

Industrial revolution is the timer. It requires social revolution we are speaking about. Mostly it is late 18-early 19 century.

[TerrorVoid]

"Cavalry" isn't the kicker. The armored knight, a specific kind of cavalry, IS. The armored knight, the very heart and symbol of feudalism, dissapeared long before the 19th century. Regular cavalry did not require the same amount of equipment, training, and have such a dominating position on the battlefield that the armored knight did. The idea of a "warrior class" dissapeared because the gun made it easy for anybody to kill anybody.

Cuirassier.

Cavalry had the same role. Just their armour was less effective.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

In England, Peasants Revolt. Magna Carta. Black Death I guess. But honestly if you look at history, tyranny does not prevail. There are more good people willing to act than evil. They just wait for their time. These things are sometimes slow, gradual, and you can't pin point a moment when modernity starts, history doesn't work that way. Did the end of the Wars of the Roses do it? The Renaissance? The English Civil War? Are we still in the clutches of it, after all we still have a monarch and an aristocracy.