Earth is overpopulated, and economical elites are simply cynical know-nothings

Uh yeah Russia took longer to conscript serfs and industrialize

near as I can tell they only would have had makeshift weapons

Tokugowa banned guns and the peasants didn't know how to make them

Russia and Japan had feudalism because they didn't industrialize until they were basically forced to by the Communists/Admiral Perry

After that they dumped the old strictures and caught up pretty rapidly

Also medieval European feudalism lasted longer than pikes since armed knights need a combination of them and projectile weapons to take down

The Cruz being that Lord's who armed their peasant populations often beat Lord's who didn't

Crux

cruz missile incoming

Aimed directly for close relatives

Political beliefs don't invalidate a person's thinking. It's like saying Spengler was wrong because he was a conservative

More specifically regarding his profound understanding of historical cycles

there is a lot of myth there

Russia did not posses large industrial base, but it had industry, which after all was necessary for war effort. Russia had a somewhat thin railroad network, unlike Austria, Germany and France

Japan was opposed to *trade*

Americans came to force Japan to import foreign goods, much like with Chinese

As far as historical cycles are concerned, *mobility* ended feudalism

Russia collapsed in the instant of allowing *labor* to become a thing

Mostly because Nicholas II was a devout Christian, and not basically a Right Wing MechaHItler that many of his loyal supporters were. He was a bad decision maker, but he had chance of winning and saving Russia from full proletarian overtake, which Civil war proves

Obviously mobility is another factor but what does that have to do with what I was talking about

Mass conscription hardly made Russian army better, which was considered quite fierce and efficient in the old days, when it would be bludgeoning Turks, French and Prussians

What I mean to say is that feudalism did not end because some 500 peasants repelled a cavalry charge somewhere in FLanders

thats the typical reductionism

the world-historic, political and material is underestimated in the whole affair. those "breaking points" are never to be found in any single event

What actual difference does it make? If you can find a good reason why something happened that doesn't mean it was the Only Cause.

Yes, but what HAS Happened ? Can you tell me ?

This is what I mean by a sloppy approach in historical study

When you start answering that question, you see that this whole thing "liberation of serfs" is hardly a single, discernible historical event

I already mentioned stuff that has happened

Banning cars a la mobility is easy since most people can't make one for themselves

So you think that is directly correlated with the phenomenon of caste revolt

The fact that a certain innovation was made

One that upsets balances of power required for the system to function

OK what if I told you that pikes were used in antiquity , and that the "medieval" knight had an equal counterpart in the "Cataphract" of the Cappadocian and Mesopotanian empires

Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, fought in tight pike formations, much like rennaisance Europeans have

I know they were

I had Greece in mind

When I mentioned them

And even Barbarians who invaded Europe from Eurasia, like Goths, Sarmatians, Slavs, also used tall pikes

and armored lancers were used also by Mongols who were nomadic