Bernd
09/28/2020 (Mon) 06:05:54
No.40353
del
09/28/2020 (Mon) 06:05:54
No.40353
del
>>40349
>I don't think the economy is the defining part of feudalism or even that important to it
Well, maybe your idea of feudalism is something completely different as well that could almost be attributed to anything even the current times we live in.
>>40348
>>40349
>Aren't many historians consider rennessaince era something no medieval?
>The renaissance is not medieval but still.
That's a periodization problem, how to divide up history to smaller, digestible segments. I used "medieval" in the sense how Holcombe used it as a quasi synonym of feudal.
So periodization. Where to draw the line? Few possible suspect exist one of them is renaissance which is kinda a soft line since one exact date cannot be pinned on it, make it into an intermediate "era". Others include the age of exploration (here it's pinned to the blunder with America, 1492) or the reformation (1517).
The first thing that led to modernity was born in the "Dark Ages", the scholasticism, which led to the universities, which led to scientific thought. The second event seems a random accident, the plague that culled England's population freeing up cultivated lands in the mid 15th century. The third a feudal war, again in England, that exterminated the nobility there in the second half of the 15th century, and allowed the emergence of a new aristocracy with the spirit of enterprise which made them not to hand out the empty lands to tenants in feudal fashion, but use it to amass capital. They exploited the fourth event, the result of the great explorations, the flow of riches into Europe, sucking it up to England exchanging the products of their enclosures for the gold of the Spaniards and amassing the said capital. This allowed them to make couple of times of subsistence, which allowed some people not taking part in production, or serving in the army, or doing administrative work, letting them to neet all day with their thumbs in their asses, making up shit like machines for spinning and weaving or exploiting the power of steam. Which led to the industrial revolution. This rise of England also made the powers on the continent to scramble behind it, trying to reach them and tear their power down, which led to France accidentally founding the US. Meanwhile the feudal frames proved to be a hindering factor in the process and it needed to be discarded. So changes were introduced in the society too. Abolishment of serfdom, or hereditary land ownership.
How much role renaissance had in this? Considering it's a retrograde counter-culture reaching back to antiquity. Maybe humanism?
Or how much role the reformation had? Considering it's a retrograde counter-culture reaching back to the Bible and with that to antiquity, just not in a Catholic flavor how renaissance did? Maybe planting civic thought in the wider population, self-governance?
>I don't think the economy is the defining part of feudalism or even that important to it
Well, maybe your idea of feudalism is something completely different as well that could almost be attributed to anything even the current times we live in.
>>40348
>>40349
>Aren't many historians consider rennessaince era something no medieval?
>The renaissance is not medieval but still.
That's a periodization problem, how to divide up history to smaller, digestible segments. I used "medieval" in the sense how Holcombe used it as a quasi synonym of feudal.
So periodization. Where to draw the line? Few possible suspect exist one of them is renaissance which is kinda a soft line since one exact date cannot be pinned on it, make it into an intermediate "era". Others include the age of exploration (here it's pinned to the blunder with America, 1492) or the reformation (1517).
The first thing that led to modernity was born in the "Dark Ages", the scholasticism, which led to the universities, which led to scientific thought. The second event seems a random accident, the plague that culled England's population freeing up cultivated lands in the mid 15th century. The third a feudal war, again in England, that exterminated the nobility there in the second half of the 15th century, and allowed the emergence of a new aristocracy with the spirit of enterprise which made them not to hand out the empty lands to tenants in feudal fashion, but use it to amass capital. They exploited the fourth event, the result of the great explorations, the flow of riches into Europe, sucking it up to England exchanging the products of their enclosures for the gold of the Spaniards and amassing the said capital. This allowed them to make couple of times of subsistence, which allowed some people not taking part in production, or serving in the army, or doing administrative work, letting them to neet all day with their thumbs in their asses, making up shit like machines for spinning and weaving or exploiting the power of steam. Which led to the industrial revolution. This rise of England also made the powers on the continent to scramble behind it, trying to reach them and tear their power down, which led to France accidentally founding the US. Meanwhile the feudal frames proved to be a hindering factor in the process and it needed to be discarded. So changes were introduced in the society too. Abolishment of serfdom, or hereditary land ownership.
How much role renaissance had in this? Considering it's a retrograde counter-culture reaching back to antiquity. Maybe humanism?
Or how much role the reformation had? Considering it's a retrograde counter-culture reaching back to the Bible and with that to antiquity, just not in a Catholic flavor how renaissance did? Maybe planting civic thought in the wider population, self-governance?