It was capitalism but it wasn’t as much an opposing force as a subsuming force. There was a strong class contradiction between the landed aristocracy and industrial bourgeoisie that often did lead to revolution most notably in the case of France. The urbanization of the labor force was detrimental to the productive capacity of the landed aristocracy and therefore their economic power/relevance. They protected their position through heavy taxation and regulation of business (regulating the parts that affected them not so much the common people) but the pressures created by the advancment of the means of production necessitated a change of the ruling class’s relation to production in that the ruling class must become the industrial bourgeoisie because the economic control they wielded became greater than that of the royalty/aristocracy. As a result the revolutions spawned from the class conflict functioned primarily as a handing over of the keys of power. This is not to say that the conflict between the feudal and capitalist systems was not the primary contradiction of the time but rather to insist no other system transition was feasible under these conditions. I would not call capitalism the enemy of feudalism, rather it was a evolutionary growth of the ruling class in response to changing conditions that sometimes required violent revolution to be accomplished fully.

I hope this is coherent, I was interrupted like 5 times while writing and lost my train of thought. If any clarification or expansion on a detail is needed please ask