>>216007671
>Can you explain how this dynamic worked? I've heard of it happening in other countries, but I've never really understood what the dynamic looks like.
So basically serfdom was illegal in Sweden, but you still would in most cases have a lord over you who you paid rent to. In general the nobility tried to maximize their own profits and power, meaning they tried to extract as much value out of the peasants who worked their land. Meanwhile you could also be on "crown land" in which you were under the king directly. The king generally tried to maximize economic health and population growth (future soldiers and taxpayers) so the working conditions on crown land were in general always better than being under a noble. In Sweden feudalism didn't really develop to the same extent as in other countries. So the king wasn't that dependent on a class of knights he had to give out land to. Instead Sweden relied mostly on levies and later a conscription system to produce its fighting capability. The end result of this was that the nobles tried to constantly undermine the king, whilst the king tried to centralise power around himself. The king could rely on the peasantry to support him, and many peasants revolts etc. were instigated by the king basically calling on the peasantry to come and fuck shit up.
>Can you explain how this dynamic worked? I've heard of it happening in other countries, but I've never really understood what the dynamic looks like.
So basically serfdom was illegal in Sweden, but you still would in most cases have a lord over you who you paid rent to. In general the nobility tried to maximize their own profits and power, meaning they tried to extract as much value out of the peasants who worked their land. Meanwhile you could also be on "crown land" in which you were under the king directly. The king generally tried to maximize economic health and population growth (future soldiers and taxpayers) so the working conditions on crown land were in general always better than being under a noble. In Sweden feudalism didn't really develop to the same extent as in other countries. So the king wasn't that dependent on a class of knights he had to give out land to. Instead Sweden relied mostly on levies and later a conscription system to produce its fighting capability. The end result of this was that the nobles tried to constantly undermine the king, whilst the king tried to centralise power around himself. The king could rely on the peasantry to support him, and many peasants revolts etc. were instigated by the king basically calling on the peasantry to come and fuck shit up.