Talk:Feudalism/Archive 3

Feudalism
The section called "Challenges to the feudal model" should be moved to the top and called "The current rejection of Feudalism as a historical concept." This entire article is governed by debunked historiography, as worthless as theories of the Flat Earth. Why does Wikipedia present old and false historical theory as an option, but reject the Flat Earth as an cosmological alternative model? NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN OF THE MIDDLE AGES BELIEVES IN "FEUDALISM" ANY MORE, UNLESS THEY ARE HACKS WHO HAVE NOT READ ANY SERIOUS SCHOLARSHIP SINCE THE 1970s. I hold a Ph.D. in medieval history from U.C. Berkeley and until I resigned my professorship was full professor of history, with four published books from major academic presses, at one of the top five U.S. state universities. This entire article is as worthless as on in favor of phlogiston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.20.22 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Eh. Reading the Encyclopedia Britannica article by Elizabeth Brown, our article isn't too far off. They both give a rough account of the classical meaning of feudalism. Other articles take a similar approach. It's a difficult topic to write about, particular on Wikipedia where anyone can edit and multiple POVs have to be presented fairly. In the end our article is pretty clear in the lead and historiography section that Feudalism has been seriously questioned by historians. That Feudalism has been entirely eliminated from professional discourse ("unless they are hacks") there is no evidence for that, sounds like wishful thinking. --  Green  C  05:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

If feudalism didn't exist, what did?
I'm a bit confused by the "no such thing as feudalism" argument. What are the people arguing this saying was actually the case? As far as I understand from this and other articles, "feudalism" has traditionally been used by different groups of scholars to refer to either a) "the political and military setup typical in medieval Europe, where knights and minor lords owed military service to higher lords in exchange for land and protection", or b) "the political and economic setup typical in medieval Europe, where serfs were owed goods and services to their lords in exchange for the use of land". Are the people arguing "no such thing as feudalism" claiming that "medieval Europe wasn't actually like that"? (In which case, what are they saying it was like?) Or is it a more semantic argument ("You can't use the same word to mean two different things" / "It wasn't a formalised system, therefore terms like feudalism or feudal system are inappropriate")? Whatever the answer, I think the article needs to explain this better. Iapetus (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

7 day edit dispute
The edit dispute needs to stop and consensus reached on the talk page. As noted the new wording is highly problematic in a number of ways:


 * For the sentence "The European concept of feudalism was analogous to various systems outside of Europe"
 * This is an unnecessary repetition of the word Europe, it does not improve on the original. It also speaks in the past-tense "was analagous" which is confusing because we are talking about how people perceive things today, not in some remote period of time. It confuses history with historiography. It also misspells analagous and has done so repeatedly. -- Green  C  23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For the sentence "with strict interpretations often including the systems of feudal Japan under the shōguns"
 * The source says nothing of the kind and demonstrates further lack of reading comprehension. Yes, the word "strict" appears in the source, but not in relation to feudal Japan under the shōguns"! It's unclear the writer of this sentence understands what the source says. -- Green  C  23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The term semifeudal simply means anything with feudal-like characteristics, the topic of this paragraph, we are not restricted to using that single (dead website) source for this section there are plenty of reliable sources that provide a definition there is no reason to remove semifeudal it comes across as pointy.  --  Green  C  23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Irresponsible Nitpicking to Justify Unverifiable Claim
It is not, the term European(in Europe) and the phrase "outside of Europe" are distinct separate semantics, you cannot omit one or the other. Also "analogous" has no implication of time period or grammatical tense, in fact, the items compared in any analogy are inherently compared by a third party. If your qualm was a misspelling, you should have fixed that and not nitpicked acceptable material. Are you a native English speaker? These nuances are easily digested by the general English speaking audience.
 * This is an unnecessary repetition of the word Europe*

Let me quote the literal source in question: "Others, using a narrow definition, have seen feudalism only in medieval western Europe, Japan of the shoguns, and, possibly, nineteenth-century Ethiopia.". The source also makes explicit mentions of "Japanese feudalism" not "Japanese semi-feudalism", or any other mentions that there are distinct degrees of feudalism. The original wiki article sentence is (to a native English reader) explicitly implying that historians group all non Western feudal societies into a distinct group termed "semi-feudal". When the source itself makes no mention of this term, and repeatedly acknowledges feudalism in a non European context. The old sentence twisted the motive of the source, practically fabricating misinformation out of thin air.
 * It's unclear the writer of this sentence understands what the source says.*

You also added a dictionary definition of "semi-feudal" as if it were relevant or a helpful source. Yes, of course the term "semi-feudal" exists, just as you could coin a lot of terms by prefixing them with semi- (semi-amphibious, semi-diurnal, etc), but does the category "semi-feudal" with the definition "any non European feudal system" exist? Do historians use it with this exact or even rough meaning? In fact, the very fact the 2004 source explicitly mentions historians supporting Japanese and Ethiopian feudal societies, is verification that these weren't "semi-feudal", and your dictionary citation is now not only irrelevant, but also contradictory.

Your Britannica source has no mention of "semi-feudal" and even acknowledges feudalism in a non European context by later historians. To quote: "Following Millar’s precedent, some later historians continued to look for feudal institutions in times and places outside medieval Europe, most notably Japan.".

I've not seen the term semi-feudal used in this strict sense outside two pages on Wikipedia (This page and Examples of feudalism. Elsewhere "semi-feudal" is used only pejoratively or in hyperbole, not as a geographical distinction of cultures with fiefdom. As the first Google result for "feudalism" and the gateway to info on this matter, it is incredibly irresponsible to be spreading another unfortunate instance of circular reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3005:1400:1600:89F4:B329:191:F059 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Response to a certain user who replied elsewhere on this page with an unsigned comment in a separate section above
That's all very interesting original research but semi-feudal means what the Webster dictionary says, societies that have some characteristics of feudalism. Some' historians support Japan etc.. because they have some characteristics of European Feudalism which is the definition of semi-feudal. That does not mean Japan is always called "semi-feudal" only that is might be called that (Example). It is a term that is sometimes applied to this category. Britannica discusses feudalism "outside" of a European context which is why it is sourced where it is mid-sentence and not at the end of the sentence, since you kept changing that first portion of the sentence you left little option but to add additional sourcing. How people use the term semi-feudal maybe some use it to mean a pejorative (I've never seen that) but at its core it's very simple as Webster says and your disagreement with Webster is not Wikipedia's problem. This particular passage about Feudalism has been there for over 10 years maybe 15 years and of the millions of people who have viewed it not a single one has had a problem, maybe the problem is not with the passage but "strict" interpretations. -- Green  C  04:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

History section is confusing
The History section as it stands confuses me--it starts like it's talking about how feudalism arises from the lack of infrastructure: "Feudalism, in its various forms, usually emerged as a result of the decentralization of an empire: especially in the Carolingian Empire in 8th century AD, which lacked the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to support cavalry without allocating land to these mounted troops. Mounted soldiers began to secure a system of hereditary rule over their allocated land and their power over the territory came to encompass the social, political, judicial, and economic spheres."

But the subsequent paragraph implies that this is not the origin of feudalism, but its demise: "These acquired powers significantly diminished unitary power in these empires. Only when the infrastructure existed to maintain unitary power—as with the European monarchies—did feudalism begin to yield to this new power structure and eventually disappear."

Is this correct, or does it need to be fixed? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The word "infrastructure" is used twice, but implies different things. In the first case the 8th century Carolingian Empire didn't have the bureaucratic systems needed to raise large armies of cavalry, so they instead gave land to warriors in exchange for a promise to levy (fight) when asked - a fairly simple and primitive method but effective for the purpose. In the second case it says once the states had developed more sophisticated bureaucratic systems ie. the ability to raise standing armies - the need for feudalism began to fade. You are right that it was both the origin and demise of feudalism, a transitional period during the evolution from tribe to nation. -- Green  C  18:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So how can we edit the section to make that more clear? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Why include the American south?
"Some have taken the feudalism analogy further, seeing feudalism (or traces of it) in places as diverse as China during the Spring and Autumn period (771-476 BCE), ancient Egypt, the Parthian Empire, the Indian subcontinent and the Antebellum and Jim Crow American South." I fail to see how some people making the Antebellum and Jim Crow American South into an analogy of feudalism is relevant enough to make it into a WP article about actual feudalism. The Antebellum and Jim Crow south were both industrial and capitalist. Anyone can analogize anything into anything, so if we are going to include non-feudal systems just because someone made an analogy, they should at least bear a VERY close resemblance to actual feudalism. Having some people own the land and having slaves work the land is not close enough, otherwise you would have to include nearly the whole world before slavery was abolished and the many countries that still use slaves today, which only raises the question, why go out of your way to include the Jim Crow south? Scottiekaz (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You would probably have to read the works by the people being implicitly cited in the sentence. I know I've certainly heard the political economy of the pre-Civil Rights South described this way before. -Furicorn (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should move this article from Feudalism to European feudalism because this only talks about that. Thanks, Cupcake547 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

Problematic definition
Communist Chinese cultural countries like China, Korea, and Vietnam use the term "feudalism" to mean a different thing, namely "" which is the opposite of European feudalism. But because of Marxist theories of history this is how mainstream history text books in Communist countries like China, Korea, and Vietnam are presented. If you want a good way to identify historical negationism in Vietnam I would direct you to "Historiography in the Soviet Union" "Chinese historiography", specifically:


 * Primitive-communism
 * Slave society
 * Feudal society
 * Capitalist society
 * Socialist society
 * The world communist society

The official historical view within the People's Republic of China associates each of these stages with a particular era in Chinese history.


 * Slave society – Xia to Shang
 * Feudal society (decentralized) – Zhou to Sui
 * Feudal society (bureaucratic) – Tang to the First Opium War
 * Feudal society (semi-colonial) – First Opium War to end of Qing dynasty
 * Capitalist society – Republican era
 * Socialist society – PRC 1949 to present

Now project this onto Vietnamese history you get:


 * Primitive-Communist society - Hồng Bàng dynasty (most of which is invented by North Vietnamese historians) until the Âu Lạc were conquered by Nam Việt.
 * Slave society – Northern domination.
 * Feudal society (bureaucratic) – Ngô dynasty period to the Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập period.
 * Feudal society (semi-colonial) – Pháp thuộc in combination with the Nguyễn Dynasty.
 * Capitalist society – French Indochina and South Vietnam.
 * Socialist society – Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Republic of South Vietnam, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 1949 to present.

The same applies to North Korean historiography, notice how common the term "Phong kiến" (封建) appears in Communist Chinese, Communist Vietnamese, and Communist Korean historiographies, Joseon is called "Triều Tiên Phong kiến Vương triều" (朝鮮封建王朝) in North Korea. Meanwhile go over any South Korean history text book and look for the term "Phong kiến", it's simply much rarer.

But because most pages on the English-language Wikipedia link to this page when discussing "Feudalism" link here I think that the second definition (perhaps under the name of "bureaucratic feudalism") should be added here, otherwise readers might think that the concept of "noble birth" and "attain a high status in society through education" are the same thing. Or perhaps just a section about "Feudalism in Marxist historiography" as Western understandings of feudalism differ from Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese understandings of feudalism.

Important note here, the Japanese system is basically a one-to-one match with the European system, but the Chinese system of "feudalism" isn't even remotely comparable. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Vietnamese-language Wikipedia has this, specifically at "§ Phương Đông và phương Tây". But currently we have articles about Chinese and Vietnamese history discussing "Feudalism" from a Marxist blindfold lens that use a very different definition but the articles still link here. --Donald Trung (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is actually an article called Fengjian in English Wikipedia. Ltn12345 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The article says at the top: This article is about the classic, medieval, Western European form of feudalism. If people are linking here inappropriately is a problem with linkage not the article. There is a section in this article for the Marxists it says "Some later Marxist theorists (e.g. Eric Wolf) have applied this label to include non-European societies, grouping feudalism together with Imperial Chinese..". So we recognize a historiographic tradition, but is beyond the scope to invent some sort of global encompassing definition, it would be confusing, controversial - this is exactly the problem Brown discusses that has made the concept nearly meaningless. Suggest create a new article for other Feudalism, whatever it might be. See Examples of feudalism which has sections for China, Japan, etc.. build from there. -- Green  C  01:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 's analysis. The definition is fine, and the title is fine, too, as in English this is how this term is understood. That does not mean that other languages may use the translated equivalent term differently, and it might be worth a short paragraph way down the article to briefly mention this, but the hatnote at the top already pretty much says everything that needs to be said about it in this article. The article title specifies what *this* article is about, and distinguishes it from other articles, and there is no confusion about the current title or definition, or what this article is about. Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Why include Karls Marx PoV
If an example of an influential thinker is needed who thought about feudalism, why not choose a less controversial person, who's ideology didn't lead to millions of death and uncountable starvation? 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Perspectives are chosen because they are encyclopedically significant, not because of how "controversial" they are. Marx was an influential economist, historian, etc. and his perspective is encyclopedically significant according to reliable, independent sources. As for the rest, you can reject Marxism and still recognize that it is simplistic to hold Marx personally responsible for events that happened decades after his death. Grayfell (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)