As I say, we don't actually know, but here's the Wikipedia article, for what it's worth. Their conclusion is that systematic warfare was exceedingly rare prior to the neolithic and associated sedentism. Could be wrong.
Raymond believes that this period of "Paleolithic warlessness" persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 315,000 years ago, ending only at the occurrence of economic and social shifts associated with sedentism, when new conditions incentivized organized raiding of settlements.
Of the many cave paintings of the Upper Paleolithic, none depicts people attacking other people explicitly, but there are depictions of human beings pierced with arrows both of the Aurignacian-Périgordian (roughly 30,000 years old) and the early Magdalenian (c. 17,000 years old), possibly representing "spontaneous confrontations over game resources" in which hostile trespassers were killed; however, other interpretations, including capital punishment, human sacrifice, assassination or systemic warfare cannot be ruled out.
. . .
Systemic warfare appears to have been a direct consequence of the sedentism as it developed in the wake of the Neolithic Revolution. An important example is the massacre of Talheim Death Pit (near Heilbronn, Germany), dated right on the cusp of the beginning European Neolithic, at 5500 BC. Investigation of the Neolithic skeletons found in the Talheim Death pit in Germany suggests that prehistoric men from neighboring tribes were prepared to brutally fight and kill each other in order to capture and secure women. Researchers discovered that there were women among the immigrant skeletons, but within the local group of skeletons there were only men and children. They concluded that the absence of women among the local skeletons meant that they were regarded as somehow special, thus they were spared execution and captured instead. The capture of women may have indeed been the primary motive for the fierce conflict between the men.
So that's the CW.
One more thing: I don't want to reach back to posts that are a couple of weeks old, it's easier to renew the dialogue. It is true that Quing China did not have a feudal system like that of medieval Europe, with various ranks of tributary nobility. Nonetheless some people do apply the term "feudal" to it, as here:
After the middle period, all kinds of social contradictions increasingly surfaced and Qing began to decline. Under the corrupt ruling of the later rulers, various rebellions and uprisings broke out. In 1840 when the Opium War broke out, the Qing court was faced with troubles at home and aggression from abroad. During that period, measures were adopted by imperial rulers and some radical peasants to bolster their power. The Westernization Movement, the Reform Movement of 1898 and the Taiping Rebellion were the most influential ones, but none of them had ever succeeded in saving the dying Qing Dynasty.
Finally, the Revolution of 1911 led by Sun Yat-sen broke out and overthrew the Empire of Qing, bringing two thousand years of Chinese feudal monarchy to an end.
That's just semantics, and it's fine with me if you don't want to use the term. But the relevant point is that Mao did not restore the former system, in that no new class emerged to replace the landlords. It is true that China had a centralized government prior to the revolution. The Chinese people are certainly better of materially today than they were prior to the revolution, but that's true just about everywhere. For me though, there's no sense worrying about the counterfactual of a Kuomintang victory. Who knows what would have happened? History is what it is.