>>282996978
You are misrepresenting and moralizing. I have repeatedly told you to stop making assertions about the way you believe the world ought to be in an argument about the question what the world is (or in this case was) like.
I genuinely fail to see what you take offense with here.
If someone is taught to do a thing, are they not better at doing that thing than someone who hasn't been taught to do that thing? This is exactly what I say in the first two posts.
The reason there was little social mobility in these times was that it was difficult to acquire new skills and especially the skills of a higher social class. If you don't know math, how can you be a merchant? Where are you going to learn how to do math, if there are no schools? Your parent, obviously. So if your father was a merchant, you will be a merchant.
Why do you take offense with this descriptive statement, sensationalizing it in all sorts of ways? It seems rather obvious.
On the third point, the duties of a noble require capital. If you have no money, you can't raise an army or policing force and you can't purchase food in case of lost harvests.
You can't administrate a fief if you're poor, because administration and infrastructure cost money and you can't receive the king or emissaries if you can't afford feasts.
I have made zero assertions about whether nobles were good at their jobs or just or whatever. But I will say that they were generally "good enough", evidenced by the fact that the feudal system lasted for almost a thousand years.
It seems to me that you are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, without really thinking about what I am putting forth. I honestly even wonder if you even read my posts.
