Compare the caste system of ancient india ot the feudalism durning the middle ages?

Question

Compare the caste system of ancient india ot the feudalism durning the middle ages?

Answer 1

The Hindu caste system, which goes back maybe 3000 years or more and still exists to some extent today, was very rigid.  People remained in the caste they were born into, married within it, and followed the occupations of their parents.  The highest caste was the Brahmins, who were priests and scholars; close below therm were the Kshatriyas, who were the rulers and warriors; then the Vaisyas--merchants and farmers, essentially the middle class; and last the Sudras, laborers and craftsmen.  Outside the four castes, below the Sudras, were the Untouchables.  The main characters of the great Indian epics are Kshatriyas, and the impression given in the epics is that they, rather than the Brahmins, were at the top of the caste order.  This tension between the priestly and aristocratic classes has deep roots in Indo-European society and is also seen in the power struggle between secular rulers and the Church in medieval Europe.

The feudal system developed much later, after the fall of Rome.  One theory about its origin is that, as the Empire crumbled before barbarian assaults, people gathered on country estates for mutual defense and that a divison of labor took shape, with the warrior class protecting and ruling the workers, who eventually became serfs, bound to the land.  Somewhat outside this system were the middle-class town dwellers (burghers or bourgeois).  The feudal system had more room for mobility--and serfs who obtained their freedom could rise into the middle class, and well-to-do burghers might occasionally marry into the aristocracy or be knighted.  By the end of the Middle Ages (1400-1500), serfdom was extinct in most of Western Europe, and more and more power was in the hands of great merchants and bankers.

The Church in medieval Europe was to a large extent outside the class system--perhaps partly because priests were strongly discouraged and eventually prohibited from marrying and therefore could not establish a hereditary priestly class.  Men of very humble origins could become priests and rise in the hierarchy to powerful positions; at the same time, most powerful, aristocratic families had a member in holy orders.  Still, many kings learned the hard way that opposition to the Church could bring them literally to their knees.

In short, there are some definite similarities, but in general the feudal system was more flexible and much shorter-lived.

Answer 2

having seen documentaries and read articles on the subject they are very similar which is widely credited among  scholars and academics as the reason that britian and india merged so easily

Answer 3

Castes were created in 12th century.

Hinduism's caste system is a religious-based system of separating groups and keeping one class (the Brahmins) over everyone else.

In America there is no system in place today that forces people to remain separate or keeps one class subservient to another. If you were born the son of a street sweeper, but excelled, you could become a doctor or lawyer or some celebrity or entrepreneur - and at the same time you would be fully accepted by your peers.

Not so in India. The caste system freezes everyone in place. It is extremely difficult - almost impossible - for someone from the lowest caste to rise in education and social status.

A Dalit would never be allowed to marry into one of the higher castes and would never be accepted as an equal. And for a Dalit to make it into medical school or become a member of high society in India is very rare indeed.

Only by escaping from the grasp of Hinduism do they have much of a chance....

Answer 4

in feudal times the serfs were owned by the lord.  In the caste system the untouchables are not owned.

Answer 5

this is in thw wrong section...try government

Answer 6

Sorry, I cannot help you.....just more than I'm up to answering.  Your best bet might be to ask this in the History or Homework sections, this is the Royalty section.

best of luck to you!

Answer 7

There is no comaprison really.  The caste system of India is extremely rigid, whereas the social classes in Europe in the middle ages were quite flexible.  People could better themselves, they could rise to another class if they really wanted to.  Serfs could become free men by buying their freedom, by going to live in town, or by joining the army or the church.  

About one peasant boy in ten became a clergyman, which was a good path to social advancement.  Suger, the twelfth-century clergyman who became Abbot of Saint-Denis and adviser to two kings of France, was born oa peasant, and so was William of Wykeham, who became Keeper of the Privy Seal to Edward III, was twice Chancellor of england, and founded Winchester College and New College, Oxford.

Girls could improve their social status by marrying someone of a higher class, it was not unknown for knight to marry peasant girls for instance.  

People could become rich by doing well in business, and advance themselves socially that way.

Society in the middle ages was not fixed and static, and there was plenty of social mobility.