Personality Cafe banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I'm curious since some studies basically show that introverts might be from that time or 6s? What opinions do you have of this system from those times back?

So under a feudal system or similar the idea the system revolves around would be loyalty to a powerful person who agrees to provide you with security in return. This means any form of security (Accomodation, ability to make a living and protection from crime/bandits/savages). Reason for classes is to prevent competition for resources and each class receives what's necessary to perform its role, every person 'weak' or 'strong' has a role to play. The monarch would be responsible for your prosperity and security whether its inside their realm or outside. Address the commonly shared values/interests of the people which he himself holds, shut down those who conduct things like scamming and so on.

Breaking things down the 'Realm' or 'Kingdom' is the enterprise of whatever monarch or duke owns it. If you are a 'peasant' then you are considered part of the property on their enterprise (Often you don't have to go to war since most of the time your taxes or produces taken off you are used to fund mercenaries who fight for them in their army or enforce the law('keep order'). But if you do then you go with loyalty to your 'liege' whom is your provider/protector), and their vassals are the 'employees' who work for them. A knight's primary job would be to fight for their provider/protector, express fealty and cut down their enemies in battle though, as well as to 'protect the weak' in society.

Fealty/Loyalty are highly valued and core tenants of the system. The key sentence that sums it up is loyalty to whomever provides you with security. I myself was raised with some old values and I tend to be fiercely loyal to whichever faction in society promises to provide security, if they ruled tbh yeah I would actually be willing to fight for them/carry out whatever they ordered me to do so.

Would you find ease in yelling "For my liege!" on a battlefield if you were fighting for them in an army, while remembering/knowing they are providing you with security? Imagine how 6s under Feudalism would feel if their source of security who was providing/protecting them (Which happens to be say, the king) was threatened by enemies during war I mean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Is being vulnerable to the whims of a much more powerful person truly secure? I don't see any security in power disparities.
Some arguments for Feudalism could be:

Protection from the ‘naturally’ dominant and aggressive, hoarder types of people in society from having too much of a say in your life who would arise in a ‘competitive acquirement of resources’ environment? (Their power & ambition can't exceed that of what the King/Queen has or permits).

If the Monarch is not good enough at providing/protecting then they won’t be really successful in attracting many vassals(lords) as employees to their realm. Thirdly: Protection from a State of Nature ('survival of the fittest') environment where its a state of war centered around "every human against every human".

Some examples of 6s living under Feudalism might be the peasants or knights also who were expected to be that way technically. The peasant villagers often lived in very communal ways depending on one another for security, while the knights were as mentioned in the original post. Thomas Hobbes himself who argued for the system was a 6 himself, particularly frightened of social strife and fierce competition? His argument for how to put an end to the cycle was to have a monarchy.

Would you feel safe or not living with 6 villagers where everybody knows who everybody is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
It might work out ok for me if I were lucky enough to wind up in a moderately wealthy merchant class where I have some resources thanks to my family and a bit of freedom - not low enough on the social totem pole to have to be completely obedient to others but not high enough to be under the close watch of the ruling class. Reality is as a female in historical feudalist societies I'd probably be relatively screwed no matter what social class I was in.

In general I think, like most "top down" political structures, feudalism is far too susceptible to corruption for comfort. I'm also not really keen on fighting others' battles for them if/when it's a cause I don't believe in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
It might work out ok for me if I were lucky enough to wind up in a moderately wealthy merchant class where I have some resources thanks to my family and a bit of freedom - not low enough on the social totem pole to have to be completely obedient to others but not high enough to be under the close watch of the ruling class. Reality is as a female in historical feudalist societies I'd probably be relatively screwed no matter what social class I was in.

In general I think, like most "top down" political structures, feudalism is far too susceptible to corruption for comfort. I'm also not really keen on fighting others' battles for them if/when it's a cause I don't believe in.
Even if I was lowest fact is I would have a one room ‘house’ and a small garden. Would modern ‘lords’ make their property subjects live in small blocks or just a small metal building elevated above ground like you see in some places? Archaeologists are finding out more and many or some of the bad things talked about were found to be not true. It was found e.g for that part:

“Women in the Middle Ages could inherit, buy and sell property, run a business, and had many legal rights (in fact some of these rights would diminish in the Early Modern Period). The idea that they were virtual slaves to their husbands is also false.”

15 Myths about the Middle Ages - Medievalists.net

So far as goes ‘owned’ might not be the right word but that you are a feature of the land they own?

The job of fighting was generally given to a class of people called ‘Knights’ who were expected to be an elite paramilitary loyal to the monarch/lord, alongside mercenaries(privately contracted soldiers) hired from a portion of your produce they take. It says in writings also peasants did not fight much or rarely and ran inside castles where the people who did the non-farm work already lived to be protected during an invasion, they would be hired maybe to do repair or reinforcing work in that case, sit around and other possibility is be drafted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,378 Posts
In the past, I've said I stand for Lawful Good, but it depends on the situation at hand. If order is oppression, then chaos becomes justice. Under those circumstances, I'd be an agent of Chaos like my namesake, Benjamin Franklin (who I was named after).

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benny the Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
Archaeologists are finding out more and many or some of the bad things talked about were found to be not true. It was found e.g for that part:

“Women in the Middle Ages could inherit, buy and sell property, run a business, and had many legal rights (in fact some of these rights would diminish in the Early Modern Period). The idea that they were virtual slaves to their husbands is also false.”

15 Myths about the Middle Ages - Medievalists.net
Erm, that article links directly to this paper: An Examination of Women’s Rights in Medieval England By Brittany Mae Thaxter

Introduction: In medieval England, Lisa Bitel writes, “women rise from medieval documents as shadows marked only by affiliation to individual men.” Before marriage, this affiliation was to fathers and brothers, and after marriage to husbands. As Bitel points out, “men […] generated rules for how women should behave and decided what was to happen when a woman erred”. This was necessary because, as one medieval source claimed, “women are timorous, feeble, needful of many things, busy about many trifles, full of words and like unto a ruinous house that must be underset and upholden with many small props.” It was the role of men to provide safety, care and security for the women in their families and surrounding community. The role of protector came to define a man’s masculinity, while being protected was the definition of a woman’s femininity. Since men were in charge of law making and governing, the laws of medieval England were ostensibly designed to ensure women were suitably “protected.” In fact, as this paper will explore, paternalism was used as a justification and was consequently articulated through the legal system in pre-modern England to reify the subjugation of women within society.

As I mentioned, I'm aware that women did have some freedom and rights especially in the merchant class, but on the whole women were still relegated to a lower rung of society - they had many more restrictions. I know of no Medieval society where there is an exception to this.

Anyway, I'm not interested in playing feminist SJW, but I don't get why you'd seek to downplay historical subjugation of women in feudalist society. In pure theory, it doesn't have to be part of the equation, but when I consider options for my life, I don't give points to a societal structure that has never granted full rights to part of a group I'm in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Erm, that article links directly to this paper: An Examination of Women’s Rights in Medieval England By Brittany Mae Thaxter

Introduction: In medieval England, Lisa Bitel writes, “women rise from medieval documents as shadows marked only by affiliation to individual men.” Before marriage, this affiliation was to fathers and brothers, and after marriage to husbands. As Bitel points out, “men […] generated rules for how women should behave and decided what was to happen when a woman erred”. This was necessary because, as one medieval source claimed, “women are timorous, feeble, needful of many things, busy about many trifles, full of words and like unto a ruinous house that must be underset and upholden with many small props.” It was the role of men to provide safety, care and security for the women in their families and surrounding community. The role of protector came to define a man’s masculinity, while being protected was the definition of a woman’s femininity. Since men were in charge of law making and governing, the laws of medieval England were ostensibly designed to ensure women were suitably “protected.” In fact, as this paper will explore, paternalism was used as a justification and was consequently articulated through the legal system in pre-modern England to reify the subjugation of women within society.

As I mentioned, I'm aware that women did have some freedom and rights especially in the merchant class, but on the whole women were still relegated to a lower rung of society - they had many more restrictions. I know of no Medieval society where there is an exception to this.

Anyway, I'm not interested in playing feminist SJW, but I don't get why you'd seek to downplay historical subjugation of women in feudalist society. In pure theory, it doesn't have to be part of the equation, but when I consider options for my life, I don't give points to a societal structure that has never granted full rights to part of a group I'm in.
I’m aware it wasn’t all perfect but my intention was not to downplay but provide some info just to make a point it wasn’t as bad as thought. Maybe a modern version if it happened might be different, who knows?

Some elements like one universal provider and protector acting as a parent-like figure for society including for men under their rule are good. The system has been around long enough to influence people’s subconscious, and thus the power vacuum left leads people to seek out replacements to fill this void where a said lord, prince, monarch previously ‘sat’ on.

What would happen if they were returned to their ‘thrones’ and filled this void again in society to reignite the source of security which people could once be strong/secure as individuals through?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,790 Posts
So under a feudal system or similar the idea the system revolves around would be loyalty to a powerful person who agrees to provide you with security in return. This means any form of security (Accomodation, ability to make a living and protection from crime/bandits/savages). Reason for classes is to prevent competition for resources and each class receives what's necessary to perform its role, every person 'weak' or 'strong' has a role to play. The monarch would be responsible for your prosperity and security whether its inside their realm or outside. Address the commonly shared values/interests of the people which he himself holds, shut down those who conduct things like scamming and so on.
[...]
Would you find ease in yelling "For my liege!" on a battlefield if you were fighting for them in an army, while remembering/knowing they are providing you with security? Imagine how 6s under Feudalism would feel if their source of security who was providing/protecting them (Which happens to be say, the king) was threatened by enemies during war I mean?
Lol no, I'm not fighting for anyone, especially for their whim at the time. I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason to actually declare war* in the first place, I think, let alone fighting in one. Conscription is kind of a jerk move, though I can understand the logic of it when absolutely needed, of course, such as "the needs of the many." I support other people doing this if they feel like they want to, but being forced into it crosses a line.
*Yes, there are reasons, don't nitpick this.

I'm also not fiercely loyal, nor one to obey a person just 'cause I'd get perks from it. I'm a critical sort of person, so blind loyalty in trade for so-called "protection" (I don't think dying for a probably-dubious cause is "protection" or "security," but moving on) isn't going to fly with me. And I have a few strong values, so I'm probably going to disagree with this fictional liege anyway, thus creating a sort of infinite loop of not feeling secure even if I had a place in society that wasn't inherently dangerous.

However, a more socialist-like society does appeal, wherein everyone is taken care of and has value regardless of "status." And I agree with the general idea of contributing to society if able. I just don't agree with most of the other stuff, especially the nationalism and what basically amounts to a caste-adherent dictatorship.


I should note history isn't really my best subject, so some of my assumptions may be a little inaccurate.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top