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

[Blow My Horn]

That damned da Vinci started it all.

[RedShirt47]

It was the First World War that really ended the last vestiges of the old Feudal systems only one hundred years ago. That was the war to end Empires:

Austro-Hungarian Empire gone.

Tzarist Russian Empire gone.

German Empire gone.

Ottoman Empire gone.

British Empire fatally wounded.

The British upper class (the officer elite) were decimated. The empire never really recovered and started losing its colonies in Ireland, Africa, India from that point.

The upstairs-downstairs society of Masters and Servants ended at this time.

Women (and many men) got the vote in Britain and USA just after this war.

This is when war stopped being a game of Risk for Emperors and became global annihilation on an industrial scale.

[I swear by Ice and Fire]

Land for military service? As in what? Military service ongoing, or military service completed?

What are you getting at? Thats the basic premise for Feudalism, that and that the noble vassals themselves held own vassals in this case serfs.

[Oafkeeper]

It was the First World War that really ended the last vestiges of the old Feudal systems only one hundred years ago. That was the war to end Empires:

Austro-Hungarian Empire gone.

Tzarist Russian Empire gone.

German Empire gone.

Ottoman Empire gone.

British Empire fatally wounded.

The British upper class (the officer elite) were decimated. The empire never really recovered and started losing its colonies in Ireland, Africa, India from that point.

The upstairs-downstairs society of Masters and Servants ended at this time.

Women (and many men) got the vote in Britain and USA just after this war.

This is when war stopped being a game of Risk for Emperors and became global annihilation on an industrial scale.

Yes, that's not what feudalism is and has nothing to do with feudalism.

[RedShirt47]

Yes, that's not what feudalism is and has nothing to do with feudalism.

yes, but the question in OP was about how we got to our modern situation where women have equal rights. The decline of the Feudal system was covered pretty well in most of the previous posts. I was just commenting on how those last details such as not everyone having the vote were finally put to rest.

That being said, many of the officers in the Great War were of noble stock. Much of society resembled medieval structures. Although as has been pointed out gun powder, printing press, Renaissance, age of enlightenment, rise of the middle class etc. meant it was very different but still had vestiges.

[Jaak]

What are you getting at? Thats the basic premise for Feudalism, that and that the noble vassals themselves held own vassals in this case serfs.

Serfs were often regarded as something else than "vassals". There were unfree nobles, yes - notably ministerials of Germany.

As for subinfeudation, England forbade further subinfeudation with Quia Emptores in 1290.

What was I getting at? That land for military service was a common offer, into 20th century. Was everyone getting small homesteads for having fought as a common soldier a "feudal", into 20th century?

USA did give Bounty Lands in West for Revolutionary War service - both in northwest and in southwest. And the bounty land recipients in southwest could and did own Negro slaves. (I understand that USA did not quite distribute Negro slaves for military services - little public supply of Negro slaves. The bounty land recipients had to buy the slaves if they wanted and had a use for them.)

Were the Bounty Land recipients in Dixieland who held Negro slaves "feudals" for you? Was a slaveowner thereby "noble"? Was giving bounty lands to veterans who might get slaves therefore "feudalism"? And yes, Federal government was honoring bounty land promises till Civil War - the Indian War veterans, the fighters of Mexican War could wait for years till they chose to ask for the promised land to settle, etc.

[King Tommen Baratheon]

Lies.

Ppl do not have significant influence on environment.

Humanity didn't killed much of species. Compared to numbers that have died by themselves.

Warming has nothing to do with humanity, it is cycle of nature.

Income inequality is considered as problem for last 50 year. Before that it was the way things are, and no one argued that it is bad.

There are no new diseases. Just AIDS or cancer affect only healthy and longliving species.

Same was said for TV, for books, for drawings on a walls of the cavern...

Deforestation is a temporary problem, its not so long before it will stop.

There is no such thing as overpopulation. Humanity regulates its own count.

Each and every of those things are just creepy stories from TV.

And yeah. I repeat my question. What did humanity did in a planetary scale?

We can. Laws do not require brains. Neither does medicine. Any humanitarian thing - too. Technology defines progress. Look at the history. There is a direct proportion between amount of technology and progress.

You're stating rebuttals without any actual fact behind them.

When will deforestation stop? When the trees are all gone? When people see the error of their ways and stop cutting down trees, causing the entire wood industry to collapse? None of those are good.

You can't say whether or not cave paintings were rejected, unless you have a time machine. Which you might. Books were disliked by some for a completely different reason, consolidation of knowledge in the upper classes led to a weaker lower class. I don't know if TV had resistance becoming popular, and yet it became a huge deal. It's not at all in the same category as books and cave paintings. Books revolutionized everything. As some people here have pointed out, the printing press was one of the causes for the decline of the feudal era. TV changed consumerist patterns and some aspects of family life, but that's a far cry from books and cave paintings (presumably).

Yes, there are stages of demographic transition, and it's theorized that by the time most countries get to stage four, there'll be a population decrease, and presumably a stage five and onward- but we aren't as a global collective going to make it past stage two before Malthus' (grossly overestimated) eventually come true, or some other unpleasant alternative.

Just because we didn't kill most species doesn't mean we aren't bad. Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, some died of other causes- that doesn't make him not at fault.

Income inequality is only a problem because we view it as such? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but it seems like you're implying that objective issues don't exist? Or only certain issues exist objectively, the rest existing in a subjective state? William Shakespeare mentioned it in King Lear, and Plutarch (he's from more than 50 years ago, I think :P ) discussed it. It's always been a thing. Just because you weren't around 50+ years ago to notice it being a recognized issue doesn't mean that it didn't exist, or wasn't in the public eye.

Global warming clearly isn't a cycle of nature that has nothing to do with Humans. The only lie here is that, which people say because they are averse to change. You yourself agree that bankers etc. loose money in large industry transitions, what about gas companies, or companies that restrictions might be imposed on their manufacturing processes? Even if we disregard all scientific evidence and discourse, we can logically assume that people act with a motive. What's the motive for "inventing" global warming as a man made issue? Compare that to the motive for inventing the "it's nothing we did" line. It's clear which one is a lie.

I don't watch TV, and haven't for a while- so that's not influencing me one bit. However, just because something is creepy doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for TV. Just because somethings on TV, it's not necessarily false. I find that 99% of stuff on TV is bias and terrible, and as such I choose not to watch it.

Laws actually do require brains. So does medicine. I'm not sure what you're saying, again.

Brains work in more than one way contrary to your belief that they only serve one (ei. developing technology, and therefor spurring progress). Legal thinking is completely different from technological thinking. There's some overlap, but there's still lots of different kinds of smartness. Einstein was great at mathematical theory, but sucked at mathematical operations. Mozart never invented anything, but I'm still sure many people would consider him a genius.

Any direct relationship between technology and progress that may exist (although I started work on a paper once trying to prove that it doesn't), doesn't automatically imply technology is the cause of progress, while ruling out the vice versa.

South Korea currently has more technology than 15th century England, but the suicide rates are way higher.

Take ancient Rome for example, and then look at the middle ages. The middle ages actually had more technology (despite the popular misconception of it being dark and devoid of learning), but that doesn't mean it had a higher standard of living than Republican Rome did, except in the uppermost classes. (ooh looks like income inequality existed then too!).

[Raving Stark the Mad]

No. The question is: Why did society change?

What is the end of Feudalism? - Social revolution by changing existing order.

How do we get SR? - We need a lot of people who want the changes.

Why would they want changes? - They understand that the way things are is bad.

Why do they understand it? - Because they have brains.

How or rather For what reason do we create a lot of people with brains? - To get industrialisation going.

That's it. Motivation. People can't break their shackles if they don't see them.

I understand that you have a very Marxist view of history, but Lenin and Trotsky are going to agree with me, and Marx never accomplished shit. It wasn't a bunch of people seeing their shackles and deciding to break them. It was because the aristocracy could no longer monopolize military power.

Feudalism is the system where you bend before authority, not before money. (Which is capitalism).

All forms of government are based on authority, not just feudalism. Capitalism is not even a form of government, it's a form of economics. You're way out of your depth here.

Yeah. I see it now. Just literary every general wasn't from the warrior cast. Napoleon Bonaparte for example. Oh, wait. He was from military cast. Then may be Cromwell? Crap, he is also nobleman. I don't get it. Where is your middle class? Why nobleman everywhere I look?

Who made up Napoleon's Armies? What weapons did they use? Generals do not equal armies, they are just the head. Fuck Napoleon. What did Napoleon's dad do by the way? Sure, he was a nobleman. An extremely minor one with no hand in government. What did he work as? A lawyer. He wasn't exactly part of the ruling elite of France, Italy, or even Corsica.

Mistake. Progress of humanity is the progress of technology. Even GRRM has written that changes are bad for trade. So ppl behind revolution are scientists and engineers, not lawyers and bakers.

Name me one scientist or engineer who has been a part of a revolution. How many scientists were on the 2nd Continental Congress? I know of only one: Benjamin Franklin, who was there primarily due to being a philospher and politician rather than a scientist. How many scientists and engineers were behind the French Revolution? The Russian?

On the other hand, the majority of members of the Second Continental Congress were either lawyers or farmers or merchants.

Technological progress does not equate social progress unless the technology upsets the balance of power.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

What was I getting at? That land for military service was a common offer, into 20th century. Was everyone getting small homesteads for having fought as a common soldier a "feudal", into 20th century?

Are you purposely trying to be obtuse? Do you see no difference between the "land for military service" of a knight and the land given to a union veteran after the American Civil War?

Let's make it more clear. These people were not given 160 acres. They were given huge amounts of land and appointed to run it, tax it, and basically own everyone who worked on it.

[TerrorVoid]

You're stating rebuttals without any actual fact behind them.

Hard to oppose speculation with facts.

Economics. The less trees there are, the costlier they are. And even now green zones are being created.

And internet changed ppl relationship.

In modern countries population is already decreasing.

Natural selection. Human is the first species, who gives a crap about others.

I imply that 200 years ago there was no such thing as human rights. Kings drowned in gold, peasants - in famine, and anyone who knew the word "Equality" was burned at stake.

AFAIK Scientists do not believe in global warming. Politicans do.

Shamans did the medicine and it was ok. No technology is being developed. Only when guys with brains sit down an start invent drugs and medicine we have a progress.

Laws a-priori do not require brains. It is all about abusing gaps in a law. In science if the law has gaps it is called bullshit.

Brains work only one way. Mathematical thought. Anyone who says something different is humanitarian. Who can't into maths.

Loooool. Plz, look at any of Einstein theories. It is pure math.

Music is not a brain work. It's a hobby.

Technology is progress. Dixi.

Aaaand? First, we don't know suicidal rates of 15th century. Second, ppl will to live has nothing to do with progress.

Better technology? Omfg... Word Renaissance? Rings any bells? Like "Recreation of the things created in Rome and Greece"?

Rome had better standarts of living strictly because it was technologically advanced.

[TerrorVoid]

I understand that you have a very Marxist view of history, but Lenin and Trotsky are going to agree with me, and Marx never accomplished shit. It wasn't a bunch of people seeing their shackles and deciding to break them. It was because the aristocracy could no longer monopolize military power.

Aristocracy still monopolised it. Every general or officer was noble.

And yet, revolutionary masses didn't gave a damn.

Riots became successful not with invention of gunpowder. But with people understanding, what they are rioting for.

All forms of government are based on authority, not just feudalism. Capitalism is not even a form of government, it's a form of economics. You're way out of your depth here.

Socio-economical formation.

Varys riddle. At first it was authority. Then - money. Nowadays - idea. Of course, they are not perfect, but that's how they are intended.

Who made up Napoleon's Armies? What weapons did they use? Generals do not equal armies, they are just the head. Fuck Napoleon. What did Napoleon's dad do by the way? Sure, he was a nobleman. An extremely minor one with no hand in government. What did he work as? A lawyer. He wasn't exactly part of the ruling elite of France, Italy, or even Corsica.

Why every army followed nobleman? You really need to be a foot solider to have military power?

Plz, name a peasant who commanded and army.

Name me one scientist or engineer who has been a part of a revolution.

Plekhanov.

The Russian?

RKKA. That part that was "workers".

Although Russian revolution is bad example because it isn't revoltion we are speaking.

You have misunderstood the concept of Industrial revolution. It doesn't mean that tools, factories and engines suddenly uprise to bring down the oppressors. It is changing production processes and related social and economical mess.

[Raving Stark the Mad]

I imply that 200 years ago there was no such thing as human rights. Kings drowned in gold, peasants - in famine, and anyone who knew the word "Equality" was burned

So human rights were invented and discovered by scientists?

And internet changed ppl relationship.

Don't forget about the porn.

AFAIK Scientists do not believe in global warming. Politicans do.

:eek:

Laws a-priori do not require brains.

Well, that would explain modern politicians eh?

Music is not a brain work. It's a hobby.

So writing a symphony is simply a hobby?

Rome had better standarts of living strictly because it was technologically advanced.

Rome had better standards of living because it won it's wars. Rome won it's wars because they had a better military, not because it was technologically advanced. The greeks were basically more technologically advanced, especially in places like Syracuse where they had Alcibiades making gigantic cranes for them and greek fire. When the Romans took Syracuse, a legionary found Alcibiades doing a math problem in the sand. The legionary told Alcibiades to get up and move along to a holding area. Alcibiades told him to wait until he was done with the math problem. The Roman ran him through with a sword. The lesson: the sword, and the person who is holding it, is more powerful than math itself.

[juanml82]

No. The question is: Why did society change?

What is the end of Feudalism? - Social revolution by changing existing order.

How do we get SR? - We need a lot of people who want the changes. We need technological changes that shake the socio-political sphere by making it inneficient. IE, the rise of a merchant class which can produce more efficiently if the nobility isn't running the show and burdening them with taxes. Which, in turn, can only happen by increasing the overall productivity of the economy, otherwise the merchant class can't fullfill its need of human resources because everyone is in subsistence farming.

Why would they want changes? - They understand that the way things are is bad.

Why do they understand it? - Because they have brains.

How or rather For what reason do we create a lot of people with brains? - To get industrialisation going.

That's it. Motivation. People can't break their shackles if they don't see them.

Can we just get the timeline right?

Up to 1453-1492: Middle Ages. Feudal system. Little central authority. Definitely no absolute monarchs. The bourgeois is slowly growing.

From 1500: Renaissance. Rise of the central authority, tied to the development of effective gunpowder weapons. The bourgeois is still growing and only rules in specific places, like the Italian City States. Probably a shittier time to live than the 15th century. Many of the atrocities commonly attributed to the Middle Ages actually happened, or were worse, here.

c. 1700: Enlightment. We now have absolute monarchs in many European countries. Only Japan boasts a very high urban literacy rate.

After c. 1750: The start of the First Industrial revolution.

1776-1789: The American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution. First monarchies overthrown by the bourgeois and replaced with non-aristocrat rulership.

c. 1850: Second Industrial Revolution: Mass education, trains, telegraph, and an overall scientific explotion

1914-1945: World Wars, industrialized killing. Communist revolution in (former) Russia.

1945-1990: Cold War. Only NATO, NATO allies and few other countries have stable democracies.

Post 1991: The post-modern world we live in.

Feel free to post inaccuracies, as I'm half asleep

[TerrorVoid]

So human rights were invented and discovered by scientists?

Greek, I believe.

So writing a symphony is simply a hobby?

Tons of technicians write poems and music. There never was a musician who had hobby of solving equations.

Rome had better standards of living because it won it's wars.

Not because of well developed social system?

So rights, hygiene or architecture do not count?

Rome won it's wars because they had a better military, not because it was technologically advanced.

And of course no military science for strategy and tactics, no technical science for armour, weapons and siege engines?

The greeks were basically more technologically advanced, especially in places like Syracuse where they had Alcibiades making gigantic cranes for them and greek fire.

Greeks were philosophers. Rome used applied science.

The lesson: the sword, and the person who is holding it, is more powerful than math itself.

Gauls from Alesia cannot agree. Military science pwned their swords pretty hard.

[kimim]

Tons of technicians write poems and music. There never was a musician who had hobby of solving equations.

...

There's a difference between a doodling technician and Shakespeare.

In the good old days, artists were trained. Seriously trained, in the technology of their art, along with the art itself. Trained, for years, and years, and years. What they did, they did for a living, not as a hobby.

For a writer whose hobby was science, see Goethe, and his theories on color perception.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Lots of wrong stuff in this thread.

First of all it is important to remember that ASOIAF is not an historically accurate depiction of the Middle Ages, and that "feudalism" wasn't as extreme in reality as it is in the series.

As for the end of it kings and nobles remained very powerful in large parts of Europe into the 20th century, there wasn't really a dramatic change between the Middle Ages and following periods in that regard, but rather very gradual.

The gunpowder argument doesn't make much sense either. While a peasant with an arquebus and almost no training "can" kill an armoured and well trained noble in a 1v1 fight, war is not fought by having a series of 1v1 duels until one side runs out of men, but between armies.

Regardless of if peasants have firearms or not, they still have no logistical network, no skilled officers, no other kinds of troops than "light infantry", and perhaps most importantly don't know how to fight in organized groups (such as in field battles). So they still can't really fight against the aristocracy without getting butchered (such as in the German Peasant's War). Plus, during the Middle Ages most soldiers were non nobles as well.

What actually happened in the 16th century when handheld gunpowder weapons were starting to become prevalent was not a social revolution where every man became a free, gun owning citizen soldier with voting rights and whatever, but rather a golden age for mercenaries in Europe which was to persist for around 200 years (for example the famous Spanish Tercios only contained something like 20% actual Spaniards, and the Thirty Years War in the 17th century was also fought between mercenaries to a huge degree).

In fact, it is only with the French Revolution we start seeing the massed "citizen armies" people here speak of, but this was way, way after gunpowder weapons had become widespread. In fact, it would be more correct to say that the transition to gunpowder weapons strengthened the aristocracy (though only the king) rather than weakening it. Since cannons, cannon armed warships and so on were so expensive that only monarchs could afford to field them, plus that army sizes in general went up.

[juanml82]

Lots of wrong stuff in this thread.

First of all it is important to remember that ASOIAF is not an historically accurate depiction of the Middle Ages, and that "feudalism" wasn't as extreme in reality as it is in the series.

As for the end of it kings and nobles remained very powerful in large parts of Europe into the 20th century, there wasn't really a dramatic change between the Middle Ages and following periods in that regard, but rather very gradual.

The gunpowder argument doesn't make much sense either. While a peasant with an arquebus and almost no training "can" kill an armoured and well trained noble in a 1v1 fight, war is not fought by having a series of 1v1 duels until one side runs out of men, but between armies.

Regardless of if peasants have firearms or not, they still have no logistical network, no skilled officers, no other kinds of troops than "light infantry", and perhaps most importantly don't know how to fight in organized groups (such as in field battles). So they still can't really fight against the aristocracy without getting butchered (such as in the German Peasant's War). Plus, during the Middle Ages most soldiers were non nobles as well.

What actually happened in the 16th century when handheld gunpowder weapons were starting to become prevalent was not a social revolution where every man became a free, gun owning citizen soldier with voting rights and whatever, but rather a golden age for mercenaries in Europe which was to persist for around 200 years (for example the famous Spanish Tercios only contained something like 20% actual Spaniards, and the Thirty Years War in the 17th century was also fought between mercenaries to a huge degree).

In fact, it is only with the French Revolution we start seeing the massed "citizen armies" people here speak of, but this was way, way after gunpowder weapons had become widespread. In fact, it would be more correct to say that the transition to gunpowder weapons strengthened the aristocracy (though only the king) rather than weakening it. Since cannons, cannon armed warships and so on were so expensive that only monarchs could afford to field them, plus that army sizes in general went up.

My understanding isn't that gunpowder granted power to the peasants. AFAIK, the artillery and the armies its use required granted power to the Kings and helped solidify central, despotic, authority.

It's not that a lowly peasant can kill a knight. Is that artillery can take down a castle walls and thousands of peasants under command of the king can take down knights.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

My understanding isn't that gunpowder granted power to the peasants. AFAIK, the artillery and the armies its use required granted power to the Kings and helped solidify central, despotic, authority.

It's not that a lowly peasant can kill a knight. Is that artillery can take down a castle walls and thousands of peasants under command of the king can take down knights.

Artillery can be said to have helped kings centralize military power to themselves, but the nobility did not go anywhere, and they kept being landowners that peasants had to rent from much like before. Also "knights" or cavalry looking a lot like knights, were used for a long time after gunpowder became common. For example, here are cuirassiers from the English Civil War (1642-1651) and the Thirty Years War (1618-1648)

http://www.andantetravels.com/images/products/large/1391526073xcicivilwar4.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul_gylyan.boielle/cuirassier01.jpg

http://www.forensicfashion.com/files/1627FrenchCuirassierArmorMet01.jpg

http://www.hobbymax.ro/images/poze/english_civil_war/mari/ecw_034.jpg

They were basically knights with pistols. Both on the battlefield and in regards to what kind of social group they tended to come from.

[bogdevil]

i did not read the whole thread, so I am sure it has already been said. Rise of middle/merchant class, age of exploration, invention of longbow/gunpowder weapons, etc. I recommend reading Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard. It deals with the rise of the middle class and decline of feudal russia.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

Scientists do not believe in global warming. Politicans do.

This forum is for people who read books. I doubt your oil-funded Fox-propogated BS is going to be well received.