Damon wrote:
>
> > So feudalism was just a lot of private contracts? O.K..
> >But if one's choice is "accept a serfdom contract or starve", isn't
> >this in fact coercion?
>
> Technically serfdom is outside the bounds of feudalism because a serf does
> not do homage or swear fealty for his lands. Reguardless, using feudalism
> to coerce one into a subservient role does not, by itself, imply that
> feudalism is inherently a system of pyramid shaped rulership.
So how exactly IS promising goods and services to a lord
in exchange for land different from my leasing a house? I probably
could do it as barter if I had to--but money is easier. Your
definition of feudalism might stretch so far that it is meaningless.
> There are plenty of examples where, in fact, where lords either released
> their tenants from servile status, or infact held no land fiefs at all
> ("bastard" feudalism).
I'm sure there were "good" lords, just as there were "good"
slave masters. But we're talking about the system of feudalism AS
A WHOLE, aren't we? So the correct thing to do is to average
coercion used over all lords, to produce an average coercion
coefficient for the system as a whole. Or something like that.
---David
So did you learn the correct definition of feudalism in school,
or something? Let's have it verbatim, then... : )
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
