In the sense that most people were manorial serfs and didn't use money and also the merchant class was despised by the ruling landowner/warrior class before they were overthrown by the merchants around 1800.

Now, sure, that manorial land was technically the means of production, and those in charge of these manors technically owned it (maybe much more like we are used to in civilizational phases, like with the Roman empire ?), but isn't this really stretching the intuitions we have around "capitalism" ?

personally, i adopt the marxist analysis of capitalism being a particular mode of production where private productive property is owned and controlled by the owners/shareholders and labor is exchanged for wages.

if we are going to make a distinction between feudalism and capitalism, surely we can similarly make a distinction between capitalism and X, instead of simply defining capitalism uselessly as "free markets" or "human nature." it's inclusive of the institutions which uphold these relations.