I didn't specialize in medieval history in school, but a lot of history books I've read on the subject start out with just what a problematic term feudalism really is. A lot of scholars don't even agree with what defines feudalism with some historians seeing it as a mainly military and legal relationship limited to the nobles, others arguing that even serfs were part of the system, and a growing number of historians arguing that feudalism is a fictitious concept that has little to do with the reality of life in the medieval world. Feudalism, however we choose to define it today, was present in numerous societies spread out over a long period of time and and how it was practiced varied wildly based on the kingdom and the year. Tsarist Russia in the late 16th century wasn't the same as England in 1086 which wasn't the same as Bavaria in 1300.You see it in gaming discussions all the time. People absolutely lose their poop over the Wall of the Faithless - the game telling players to make characters with religious leanings - but have zero problem with the whole feudal life thing that D&D is set in. Let's be honest here, millions of people died to end feudalism. Feudalism is about as evil as it gets. There are very good reasons for ending feudalism and absolute monarchies.
@Hussar wasn't just pointing to the burden on welfare ("miserable existence"). He was pointing to a host of features of the social system, including a lack of equality before the law, a lack of free choice of occupation, an absence of speech rights, political decision-making linked confined by reference to inherited class/caste/status, little or no access (via markets) to significant parts of the economy, etc.And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.
As someone who did specialize in Medieval Studies, the characterization is inaccurate, and you are right.I didn't specialize in medieval history in school, but a lot of history books I've read on the subject start out with just what a problematic term feudalism really is. A lot of scholars don't even agree with what defines feudalism with some historians seeing it as a mainly military and legal relationship limited to the nobles, others arguing that even serfs were part of the system, and a growing number of historians arguing that feudalism is a fictitious concept that has little to do with the reality of life in the medieval world. Feudalism, however we choose to define it today, was present in numerous societies spread out over a long period of time and and how it was practiced varied wildly based on the kingdom and the year. Tsarist Russia in the late 16th century wasn't the same as England in 1086 which wasn't the same as Bavaria in 1300.
And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.
In the context of scholarship, including historical inquiry, there is also the element of trying to discover and reveal what took place, and what led to what. You don't have to be amoral to undertake such inquiry. But making moral judgements isn't at the core of it.Yeah, "compartmentalization" is probably the right word.
<snip>
Never underestimate people's abilities to ignore things that might make them uncomfortable.
Well, let's look at this way. Show me another system where I, as a member of a higher strata of society, can, completely legally, murder someone of a lower strata, without any sort of repercussions as we would see in Feudal Japan? We spend the better part of a thousand years ending feudal systems, to the cost of millions of lives. And, even some of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century aren't even close to the horrors of feudal systems in history. Ghengiz Khan anyone? Feudal China?I didn't specialize in medieval history in school, but a lot of history books I've read on the subject start out with just what a problematic term feudalism really is. A lot of scholars don't even agree with what defines feudalism with some historians seeing it as a mainly military and legal relationship limited to the nobles, others arguing that even serfs were part of the system, and a growing number of historians arguing that feudalism is a fictitious concept that has little to do with the reality of life in the medieval world. Feudalism, however we choose to define it today, was present in numerous societies spread out over a long period of time and and how it was practiced varied wildly based on the kingdom and the year. Tsarist Russia in the late 16th century wasn't the same as England in 1086 which wasn't the same as Bavaria in 1300.
And while I certainly wouldn't care to live under a feudalistic system (however we define it), I'm hard pressed to categorize it among the ranks of as evil as it gets. Depending on the time period and the kingdom, even being a serf wasn't necessarily a miserable existence.
Let me tell you the story of my revolutionist dwarven forge cleric dedicated to a gender-fluid god of labor / goddess of agriculture, wielding hammer and sickle while trying to establish labor unions, overthrow tyrants, and liberate slaves on a penal colony.But, my point is, at no point EVER do D&D players step back and declare, "Nope, I'm going to play a Marxist revolutionary! Death to tyrants!!!" It's always, "Hey, isn't it grand that we're playing in a setting filled with horror and misery, but, we'll just lampshade all of those uncomfortable bits".
Genghis Khan wasn't "feudal" in any sense or form. Neither was China. And even Japan is debatable. And we didn't spend "thousands of years" ridding ourselves of feudalism, it was practically dead before the end of the Middle Ages in Europe. (As soon as Kings decided they'd prefer to collect scutage than "call in the banners", so to speak).Well, let's look at this way. Show me another system where I, as a member of a higher strata of society, can, completely legally, murder someone of a lower strata, without any sort of repercussions as we would see in Feudal Japan? We spend the better part of a thousand years ending feudal systems, to the cost of millions of lives. And, even some of the most repressive regimes of the 20th century aren't even close to the horrors of feudal systems in history. Ghengiz Khan anyone? Feudal China?
There may be social organizations that are more responsible for death, misery and incredible hardship, but, they're pretty few and far between.
"Not necessarily a miserable existence" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement here.
But, my point is, at no point EVER do D&D players step back and declare, "Nope, I'm going to play a Marxist revolutionary! Death to tyrants!!!" It's always, "Hey, isn't it grand that we're playing in a setting filled with horror and misery, but, we'll just lampshade all of those uncomfortable bits".