>>40252
The birth of feudalism was falling back to self-sufficiency (from the Roman era imperial economy, as the circulation of commodities slowly dwindled), relying on local production of the goods making possible to keep local men in arms and raising local levies seasonally. Basically a decentralization of the weight of the state defense.
While the Mediterranean was less effected with this (some circulation of goods still remained) an army fitting for an empire in size couldn't be supported by the economical means of the era just by doing the same, relying on local administrators to make local peasantry keeping up local men in arms.
In classic feudalism the land was given to the lord to make him (and his retinue) able to live and serve as a soldier. The timar was given to the holder to make him (and his retinue) able to live and serve as a soldier. Why? Because the central government wasn't able to produce enough wealth to live off.

Although I have to change my standpoint of marginalizing the characteristics. Now I believe there are a couple of those, let's say equally important, but these can be left out and still be a feudal system.
Why the change? I remembered something.
There were local variations of feudalism, the classical Frankish is just a model which was copied more ore less. For example on the Hungary from the 13th century they preferred the system of familiarity where they didn't hand a fief to the vassal, but for his swear of fealty (and service - be it military or administrative) he got paid in either money or in kind. Furthermore the familiar could terminate this "contract" as he saw fit.

>Feudalism requires way more micromanaging
What do you mean by this?