We can all agree that a Bourg Republic is better than a Bourg Monarchy and both are most certainly better than a Feudal Monarchy, but is a Feudal Monarchy actually better than a Feudal Republic? There were a lot of Republics in before the Age of Revolutions (Venice, Genoa, Florence), but they were closed off to all but less than 1% of the population, that being the Nobles of course. So that begs the question: Was it better to be a Peasant in a Feudal Republic like Venice or a Feudal Monarchy like France? Were Republics in Feudalism just glorified Monarchies where the Nobles held total control?
Bonus Question: What Country in the pre-Capitalist age had the best conditions for Peasants? Pre-Agricultural civilizations don't count.
Not really a country at all but taxes and conditions for peasants were significantly better for those that survived the plague. Half the population gone means the price of your labor is sky high
Tlaxcala supremacy
>>2855361Apparently in Ellen Meiksins Wood's book the 'The origins of capitalism' Feudal republics were the end point of history if it wasnt for unique set of circumstances that fostered the growth of capitalism in England.
>>2855363>price of your laborpeasants weren't wage workers
>>2855394You’re right, each peasant had more land to till and thus a bigger surplus and the plague wiped out half the nobles too, so that’s only 1/4 of your harvested grain surrendered instead of 1/2 or 2/3 in the century before the plague
>>2855384lol she absolutely did not argue they were the end point of history
but yes it is a fantastic book and should be in the 2nd tier of required reading after the marx essentials
>>2855386only have the epub, plenty of good free ereader software around tho
Literally 0 people actually answered the main question
>>2855361feudal republics were better mainly due to the fact that you could actually leave the fields and do other shit with your life
>>2856930How could that be the case when nobles had a higher level of control over the government?