Feudalism was an unfair system of society in the middle ages would you agree or disagree with this statement?

You are making a fundamental mistake in judging history by the standards of today. By such standards feudalism is clearly 'unfair' in that there were a relative few 'have's and very many 'have-nots' and it was difficult, if not impossible, to move from one strata of Society to another. However, it was not conceived, or perceived, as such in the Middle Ages when it was the major form of economic organisation.

You are making a fundamental mistake in judging history by the standards of today. By such standards feudalism is clearly 'unfair' in that there were a relative few 'have's and very many 'have-nots' and it was difficult, if not impossible, to move from one strata of Society to another. However, it was not conceived, or perceived, as such in the Middle Ages when it was the major form of economic organisation.

First off, the system in India was the "caste" system, not "chaste," those are very different words and meanings... Before you judge the fairness of something, you need to look at the time in which it occurred and the mindset of the people involved. The feudal system sprung up because of the lack of protection for the common man from outside threats during that time. It was no longer enough for the tribal villages to huddle together to try and hold off raiders, they needed someone that specialized in war and governance to protect them instead of just trying to fight as farmers. So, the knight, lord, and king rose out of the need for full-time warriors. So, was it unfair for the people to choose to put up a nobility that protected them from death at the hands of vikings and other raiders. That's all perspective. They got the opportunity to live, which they might not have otherwise, but they had to give up freedoms to do that. I think it was the best that they knew at the time, so they worked with it.

Feudalism was very fair. The lord owed his vassal loyalty and protection. The vassal owed the lord loyalty, military service, support at the lord's court, and certain other customary services. The lord granted the vassal a fief of farmland with serfs to support him. The arrangement was perpetual. The lord could not refuse the homage of the son of his late vassal or turn him out of his fief.

Of course it was. It was like the chaste system in India. People were what they're parents were and you could almost never avoid that.

agree!

Feudalism was very fair. The lord owed his vassal loyalty and protection. The vassal owed the lord loyalty, military service, support at the lord's court, and certain other customary services. The lord granted the vassal a fief of farmland with serfs to support him. The arrangement was perpetual. The lord could not refuse the homage of the son of his late vassal or turn him out of his fief.

Of course it was. It was like the chaste system in India. People were what they're parents were and you could almost never avoid that.

agree!