See also the practice of "Enclosure" for an additional example.
In addition, being a peasant often had some properties of slavery: no freedom of mobility or choice and sometimes lack of pay, with the express approval of the local lord required for many things. See the Revolt of 1381.
The Lord-Peasant relationship is really not a positive example of preventing homelessness, but either way, let's face it: It was the Government supporting those people. Arguing from the historic example of feudalism as a method that prevented homelessness would mean you're arguing that the government should be directly supporting the homeless.
2. I’m not arguing that feudalism was good. I’m arguing that homelessness is a historically embedded phenomenon, and was essentially non-existent in pre-modern times and then it became markedly more prevalent in the last 40 years. I’m not sure about all the causes of or solutions to homelessness, but I do think if it were the priority, homelessness could be resolved at the price of imposing some other trade off problems (which might be worse on net).
It's notable that neither of these factors that had been keeping homelessness rates low were the result of a hands-off free market, but instead the product of social safety nets that, when removed, simply didn't catch people.
I'm not sure if it's deliberate on your part, but there are also more categories to homelessness than crazy and indolent. A significant portion simply "fall on hard times". Take this article [0] about the causes of homelessness in Seattle. Between eviction & loss of job, about 35% of homeless are find themselves there through economic issues. The other causes are worth reviewing as well. Crazy & Lazy simply don't cover it.
[0]https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/why-are-p...