AHC : Feudal Byzantium

I'm not speaking of an instant change to a feudal system. More likely are a slow progession towards this, starting with a feudal-like system.

Well, if BG is right, we could have feudal byzantine states, but not a feudal Byzantine Empire.

Maybe the fall of Constantinople in 718 would provoke the apparition of multiple statelets in the Balkans and a feudalisation-like evolution? After all, the Arabo-Muslims wouldn't have enough reserves to conquer the whole peninsula (for the same reason they wouldn't be able to take over western Europe after the fall of Spain) beyond Salonica.
 
I have to agree that a feudal ERE is not posible. Byzantium didn't turn feudal even after 1204, and I can't imagine it happens in a plausible way.

Feudalism came out from the political ideology of the germanic peoples (warlords, clans, etc). It's contrary to the political ideology of ERE, so it's not a matter of just changing a dynasty or something...
 
I have to agree that a feudal ERE is not posible. Byzantium didn't turn feudal even after 1204, and I can't imagine it happens in a plausible way.

Feudalism came out from the political ideology of the germanic peoples (warlords, clans, etc). It's contrary to the political ideology of ERE, so it's not a matter of just changing a dynasty or something...

Not just ideology but the structure of the state itself as a center-centric state, as distinct from how Feudalism is all about decentralization and delegation.
 
I have to agree that a feudal ERE is not posible. Byzantium didn't turn feudal even after 1204, and I can't imagine it happens in a plausible way.
I've trouble to understand this argument. It didn't happened OTL, so it wouldn't exist ATL?

I agree that it would be very very hard and probably require the ERE being screwed at a large point, but there's nothing written in iron as "Byzantines can't go feudal" if we have a right POD.

The more easy would be germanic invasions touching as well the ERE, but it wouldn't be funny as it wouldn't be the real Byzantium yet.

Feudalism came out from the political ideology of the germanic peoples (warlords, clans, etc). It's contrary to the political ideology of ERE, so it's not a matter of just changing a dynasty or something...
Actually, it's more complicated.

Feudalism came from the fusion of germanic vassality based on war, and from roman clientele based on land-owning. And it's even more complicated than that, as you had already something close to vassality in Gaul society that probably remained on educlorated form during Gallo-Roman times, helping to mix the two influences.

As the ERE already known this latter, having the establishment of vassalic links is realtivly hard but doable thanks to a great foreign influence (slavic probably, but not only. Just the slavs are the more likely in the east to devellop a vassalic based system) and with the crush of everything east of Agean sea.
 
I've trouble to understand this argument. It didn't happened OTL, so it wouldn't exist ATL?

I agree that it would be very very hard and probably require the ERE being screwed at a large point, but there's nothing written in iron as "Byzantines can't go feudal" if we have a right POD.

The more easy would be germanic invasions touching as well the ERE, but it wouldn't be funny as it wouldn't be the real Byzantium yet.


Actually, it's more complicated.

Feudalism came from the fusion of germanic vassality based on war, and from roman clientele based on land-owning. And it's even more complicated than that, as you had already something close to vassality in Gaul society that probably remained on educlorated form during Gallo-Roman times, helping to mix the two influences.

As the ERE already known this latter, having the establishment of vassalic links is realtivly hard but doable thanks to a great foreign influence (slavic probably, but not only. Just the slavs are the more likely in the east to devellop a vassalic based system) and with the crush of everything east of Agean sea.

1204 was a huge shock and ERE was screwed massively: the empire was actually dismantled, the imperial idea was shaken, the newcomers, either as sovereigns or neighbours were feudal. So, since ERE didn'd go feudal at this occassion, I can't see in what other occassion it would. I mean that there should be a lot of PODs and not just one to make this happen, and this IMHO is not plausible, although anybody can build such a case.

Regarding your second point, of course I don't claim that the appearence of feudalism si that simple, but I tried to make a basic point about that.
 
1204 was a huge shock and ERE was screwed massively: the empire was actually dismantled, the imperial idea was shaken, the newcomers, either as sovereigns or neighbours were feudal. So, since ERE didn'd go feudal at this occassion, I can't see in what other occassion it would. I mean that there should be a lot of PODs and not just one to make this happen, and this IMHO is not plausible, although anybody can build such a case.
.

Actually 1204 would have been the worst POD.

1)Byzantines certaintly wouldn't have copied the institutions of Latins, regarding the circumstances of the capture of Constantinople.
Not only they are used to see themselves as superior on every point (whatever it was true or false in the facts), but the invaded one never take so fast the institutions of its invaders.

2)And even these institutions were more parodies of feudalism than actual ones. Critically the part where reciprocity is needed. At the contrary of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, by exemple, where Edesse or Tripoli were, if independent de facto, still relevant in the facts with on the king, the kingdoms and principalities of Latin Empire didn't cared too much about it or about the emperor at the point of refusing to help him almost systematically.

3)Feudalism is not only institutions. It's a deep societal thing from peasants to ruler. Even if they would have taken the institutions it wouldn't have let a mark on byzantine society.

For these reasons, I didn't ask in the OP how can Feudalism could be importated in Byzantium, but how an original byzantine feudalism could appear.

Regarding your second point, of course I don't claim that the appearence of feudalism si that simple, but I tried to make a basic point about that.

The issue with oversimplyifing it into "that was a germanic thing", is that reduce so greatly how feudalism can appear other than OTL. If the feudalism took a germanic face OTL as well particularities, giving we have a roman clientele base in the ERE and Byzantium, nothing prevent the apparition of a feudalism equivalent regarding the absence of germans.
 
Genuine question: Why isn't the theme system feudal?

Not really. As said, the feudal system imply the mix of administrative, military land-based, and fiscal powers.

Themes had only the two first, and their autonomy in these was limited in the contrary of feudal system where it was de facto, if not de jure, let to the nobles.

Limited by the power of Emperor in itself of course, the non-systematical inheritence, the naming of subordonates by Constantinople in order to hijack too powerful families.

It prevented the great families in charge to have a real local domination, even if they had it partially.

I would say it was kind of close of the vassalic system, if you didn't had the concept of vassality as "I give you that in exchange of your service". It was a function.

On the other hand, it was about giving lands to peasants in order to motive them to defend them, while in the feudal system, it's about making the peasant entering into a clientele or the vassality of their suzerain. The tendency was more about having less free (meaning, without suzerain, even if having a suzerain didn't meant being a serve) peasants.

Again, maybe the closest thing OTL, but it doesn't mean much.
 
Top