Is feudalism bad

Answer 1

Modern historians don't like to make moral judgments about the past.

It's easy to say that feudalism was horrible by modern standards: it meant that the vast majority of people were peasants spent their lives in terrible back-breaking labour, received no reward from it but just enough food to stop their families from starving (if they were lucky), while their rulers lived in what at that time must have seen like wealth and luxury, although by modern standards even the feudal nobility would probably qualify as poor and unhealthy.

It's easy to say it's terrible; it's much harder to say what form of society medieval people should have adopted, since they had none of the modern technologies we rely on, and basically could not afford to do anything but grow enough food to feed themselves.

Answer 2

Personally, I would say it was neither good nor bad. It might have been necessary, but it is hard to tell. This is a value judgment that is far more complicated than it appears.

Most people today, given the choice to live in a feudal society, would probably decide not to do it unless they were the head of that society, or at least near the top.

But to the people of the time, feudalism provided a measure of security that was a lot better than some of the alternatives, which included chaos and anarchy. The centralized monarchies of Western Europe were not strong enough to provide stability from the top. The stability had to come locally. Feudal lords and freeholders provided a level of organization and protection to the serfs they otherwise would not have had.

Answer 3

Feudalism was pretty good for kings, lords, and knights. However, for serfs and peasants, life pretty much sucked. So, it depends on your point of view.