>>2670082>Arguably it entered "early feudalism" with crisis of 3th century.It's interesting to point out that Julius Caesar described Gaul society as suspiciously feudal. The commoners were treated "almost like slaves" by the nobles. I wonder if our assumptions of feudalism being temporaly tied to the Middle Ages is erroneous, and in fact, feudalism arises whenever you have a lack of a (strong?) state with currency, institutions, infrastructure, etc. and men equipped for violence take advantage of that.
Anon
>>2669863 argues there is no difference between banditry and a state.
Thinking about it more, a king offering "protection" from bandits but nothing else, versus a state offering "protection" from bandits PLUS currency, institutions, infrastructure, social spending… It doesn't make sense to equate the two. It's reductive.
It's very hard to argue Byzantium's "feudal" turn was progress, and the "feudal" transformation was never truly complete as the state was still centralized and trade was still more developed compared to the West. Keep in mind, apparently, Byzantium's currency, the solidus, was possibly the world's first "global reserve currency" ("dollar of the Middle Ages"), defacto the coin of trade, showing up as far as Scandinavia and India, and apparently, it held the same value for
700 years.
Is the answer geography? What would have Byzantium developed into if it wasn't for the "feudal" turn and fall?