While this question would seem to require a subjective answer depending on what one regards fairness as being, I think we can feel confident in saying the feudal system was not fair to everyone.
The idea that a person could advance based on his or her own merits was not really developed, there were slaves in some feudal societies, and serfs were not allowed to live where they wished.
There were tradeoffs. The serfs were theoretically protected by their lords, and this meant they should have been kept safe in times of war or famine, and they were defended from criminals. Whether this actually happened was another issue.
The lords were given lands in exchange for promises of loyalty and support. The amount of land depended on what the king wanted to give, and while the support was proportional to the ability of the land to produce, the loyalty was absolute regardless of the amount of land or the titles. Fairness did not actually come into the picture.
The monarchs had great demands placed on them and did not necessarily have much freedom. Their obligations to protect their people may have been clear, but the political pressures they were under usually were not. The system itself produced some of the problems they had, and if their lifestyles compensated them for this, I think they were lucky.
The writers of the time talked of three groups of people, one (peasants) feeding everyone, one (nobility) protecting everyone, and one (clergy) praying for everyone. They said this in part to illustrate the fairness of the system.
But to my way of thinking, the question should be whether the feudal system was fair to anyone at all.
It depends if you were the Lord or the serf.
If you were the Lord of the Manor, it was generally good. If you were a serf, not so good.
The peasants were expected to work the land and most of what they produced went to the local head man, Prince, Lord, whatever. Depending on how greedy the lord was, the serfs lived reasonably well, or barely got by.
In return for the goods and services provided by the serfs, the lord was expected to provide security in time of conflict and possibly aid in time of economic hardship.
well it was complicated and successful because everyone had some produce.
One thing that can be said about a feudal economic system is that it is more of a barter trade system.
Feudal economic system
The Feudal System was used during this time period in Venice.
Every estate was self-sufficient and produced or grew everything it needed to function.
Feudal economics are simply the economics associated with the decentralized hierarchical system of feudalism, and aspect of the middle ages. They did not differ appreciably from other economics of the middle ages, except that local nobility and bishops often coined their own money.
No, the feudal system was a medieval system.
feudal is the answer
It depends whether you were a serf or a lord. If you were a lord it was generally good. If you were a serf it wasn't a very good system
Chivalry was an outgrowth of the feudal system
They supported the entire feudal system by working the land.
a labourer who labours under a feudal system
the feudal system works how by William taking the mici out of people to be loyal to him.
The feudal system was weakened because of the crusades.
William created the feudal system to keep control of England
The feudal system was imposed on serfs (poor farmers) by Princes: the wealthy nobility.
One thing that can be said about a feudal economic system is that it is more of a barter trade system.
The Feudal System achieved political and social stability through ?