Question

Conclusion of feudalism debate in indian history?

Answer 1

Answer:

Indian feudalism refers to the feudal society that made up India's social structure until The Mughal Dynasty in the 1500s. The Guptas and the Kushans played a major role in the introduction and practice of feudalism in India, and are examples of the decline of an empire caused by feudalism.

Explanation:

plzz mark me as brainlist

Answer 2

Answer:

The articles in this book reflect Rodney Hilton's work remarkably well. They show us a multi-faceted set of approaches, illuminating medieval England and continental Europe from a great variety of directions, but at the core of them is a set of common assumptions and problems: that the study of the peasantry is central, that one of the most illuminating ways into understanding medieval society is through the study of conflict, that the socio-economic dynamism of the central and later middle ages had very complex roots, and that it is crucially important to tease them all out and then try to work out how they related to each other. Rodney himself, indeed, across his working life, increasingly recognized how complex the causal elements of medieval social and economic change were, while never renouncing his core principle, that 'conflict between landlords and peasants, however muted or however intense, over the appropriation of surplus product of the peasant holding, was a prime mover in the evolution of medieval society'.1 I do not think that any of the contributors to this book would disagree with that—indeed, not many medieval social or economic historians at all would disagree with that, whether Marxist or not, although non-Marxists would put it in a different language. But it is the complexities that emerge most strongly from this volume, and its contributors have in some cases moved away from both Rodney's main interests and from his interpretations, always coming back to the Hilton oeuvre in order to interact with it, but then moving on again. This is as it should be: Rodney Hilton's Middle Ages is not a closed system, but an ongoing debate.

That complexity also means, of course, that there are many ways in which a conclusion could bring these articles together. I shall do so here under three broad headings: lords and peasants; revolts; and the economic dynamism of the middle ages. These seem to me, at least, the best ways into the richness of the debate, both at Birmingham in 2003 and in this volume.