AHC: Feudal Superpower

Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to make a feudal state a superpower. It can be a reformed or reworked version of feudalism but the country must be recognizably feudal. PODS can be from 1200 to 1800.
 
Depends on how we're defining superpower. I've heard the Ottoman Empire referred to as feudal, and it was one of the most powerful states in the world from 1600-1800.
 
If you talk about something like British Empire, I think that it would be bit difficult. Stable super power would need centralised government.
 
Defines superpower and feudal.
If we're talking of a feudal state able on its own to influence decisivly international politics, that's a no go.

Even late "feudalism" (to be understood as a rather diverse ensemble based on similar premises) was still based on personal links and exchange of services, where state is made from the different directly tied to an important noble or communautary structure (as in medieval city-states) and while organized, still defeated imposing its full bureaucratic authority even on directly relevant entities.

I could see a more or less bureaucratic states with feodality inheritences still existing to a more or less larger extent (such as french Ancien Régime), but the principle of a super-power still largely feudal is in itself quite a contradiction.

Depends on how we're defining superpower. I've heard the Ottoman Empire referred to as feudal, and it was one of the most powerful states in the world from 1600-1800.

I would tend to think it's a wrong use of the word. Feudalism itself is admtitedly hard to define, being a proteiform ensemble of political, economical and social rites; but Ottoman Empire was far more close to Byzantine empire legacy (which could be called as "semi-feudal" in a quite large and vague sense).

Ottoman Empire used a too much unified system to be called as such.
 
Defines superpower and feudal.
If we're talking of a feudal state able on its own to influence decisivly international politics, that's a no go.

Even late "feudalism" (to be understood as a rather diverse ensemble based on similar premises) was still based on personal links and exchange of services, where state is made from the different directly tied to an important noble or communautary structure (as in medieval city-states) and while organized, still defeated imposing its full bureaucratic authority even on directly relevant entities.

I could see a more or less bureaucratic states with feodality inheritences still existing to a more or less larger extent (such as french Ancien Régime), but the principle of a super-power still largely feudal is in itself quite a contradiction.



I would tend to think it's a wrong use of the word. Feudalism itself is admtitedly hard to define, being a proteiform ensemble of political, economical and social rites; but Ottoman Empire was far more close to Byzantine empire legacy (which could be called as "semi-feudal" in a quite large and vague sense)

Superpower for the purpose of the AHC- A state able to influence international opinion greatly and exerts a major presence on the world stage. A superpower will likely have a sphere of influence and be the leader of an international coalition.

Feudal -
Strong- A state where power is vested in local lords ruling by hereditary right over various territories.

Weak- A state where the ruler vests power in local governors/lords/nobles who rule their territory in his stead.
 
Strong- A state where power is vested in local lords ruling by hereditary right over various territories.
Couldn't become a super power, as the power was too much divided. Even during late feudal settings, where kings managed to get the best of it and became the first prince in their kingdom, they were still stuck by the delegation of their power into independent entities whatever lords or commuauties (as city-states).

Don't get me wrong. A feudal state could be really powerful on its own, but couldn't have a broad influence at global scale, even assuming that the royal or more important princes power stop growing and turn bureaucratic (something that was already in the wagons by the 12th century).

Weak- A state where the ruler vests power in local governors/lords/nobles who rule their territory in his stead.
That's not feudalism at this point, rather what existed in Europe after the XVIth. Unified bureaucratic states, with more or less important traces of "feudalism" but that were adapted and quite modified by the new background.
 
Couldn't become a super power, as the power was too much divided. Even during late feudal settings, where kings managed to get the best of it and became the first prince in their kingdom, they were still stuck by the delegation of their power into independent entities whatever lords or commuauties (as city-states).

Don't get me wrong. A feudal state could be really powerful on its own, but couldn't have a broad influence at global scale, even assuming that the royal or more important princes power stop growing and turn bureaucratic (something that was already in the wagons by the 12th century).


That's not feudalism at this point, rather what existed in Europe after the XVIth. Unified bureaucratic states, with more or less important traces of "feudalism" but that were adapted and quite modified by the new background.

What if a sizable enough external threat, perhaps a revolutionary anti-feudal republic, presented itself to a feudal state that threatened everyone in the state from King to Baron. Could the lords band together temporarily in order to defeat the external threat. Involve a coalition led by the most powerful feudal government and you could get a temporary feudal superpower.
 
That's not feudalism at this point, rather what existed in Europe after the XVIth. Unified bureaucratic states, with more or less important traces of "feudalism" but that were adapted and quite modified by the new background.

In other words, France under Louis XIII-XVI.
 
What if a sizable enough external threat, perhaps a revolutionary anti-feudal republic, presented itself to a feudal state that threatened everyone in the state from King to Baron. Could the lords band together temporarily in order to defeat the external threat. Involve a coalition led by the most powerful feudal government and you could get a temporary feudal superpower.
I couldn't really see such republic appearing out of nowhere. Remember that feudal conceptions were deeply rooted in medieval society. Even cities functioned this way (A municipal council could be rightfully considerated as a lord or an agglomerate of lords).

Anti-feudal republic would be so much of a OOE (Out of Era) thing, that I can't honestly see where to put it.

Safe a "Space Crusader" twist, such an universal threat would either crush feudal states; or gives even more room for a royal bureucratisation.


In other words, France under Louis XIII-XVI.
Basically, even if the process began quite earlier. But it's admitted it ended with Henri IV, when the last feudal holdings in France were absorbated by the royal demesne.
 
Superpower for the purpose of the AHC- A state able to influence international opinion greatly and exerts a major presence on the world stage. A superpower will likely have a sphere of influence and be the leader of an international coalition.

Feudal -
Strong- A state where power is vested in local lords ruling by hereditary right over various territories.

Weak- A state where the ruler vests power in local governors/lords/nobles who rule their territory in his stead.

Maybe a more united Holy Roman empire could do the trick. Say that the Outsider lands (non German) are left as the Sphere of influence while the german parts are more centralised. Through wars and diplomacy they take puppets and break any challengers (France, England, Poland and any Russian state that rises up0. They remain Feudal slowly spreading through europe until they have a massive effect of the Middle East and North Africa (international covered).

Might not be Plausible.
 
Centralisation and Feudalism mutually exclude themselves, as the second implies full delegation of power over a territory.
Either each feudal state centralize, and you have a lot of small bureaucratic states (as in OTL HRE); or the imperial power dominates and breaks nobiliar power one way or another doing it and became an imperial bureaucratic state.
 
Heres a rough and probably implausible idea.

What if Martian Luther was just outright killed by the Holy Roman Empire. As a result the Peasant's war is much worse for Germany. If possible give the peasant's some success on the battlefield. This could then spread to other parts of Europe and eventually a more radical, peasant based, reformation would take place. Peasants, with help from defecting military personal, could possibly overrun several important states (Perhaps Austria, Bohemia in Germany.)

With their existence threatened by "marauding hordes of peasants, the most prominent nations form a coalition to defeat the peasants. The trick here would be to stalemate the war and allow the !Protestant! peasants to maintain power for quite some time (probably nearly impossible). With the new feudal league of Europe cracking down on anything that smacks peasant republicanism we have a lot of dissent building up over time.

Sometime in the 1800s or even the 1900s that dissent explodes into a full blown war when one of the member nations is overthrown and turned into a !Protestant! peasant Republic. New feudal league probably led by either France or the HRE forms and is one of the worlds major super powers.

This of course assumes several things that would probably go differently.
Namely:
Without Martin Luther's moderating influence the reformation would be much more violent and radical.

If the reformation gets scary enough the Catholic Church would not attempt to counter them with a counter-reformation. In reality a counter-reformation like event that got rid of things sucTh as indulgences would likely happen with a POD in the 1300-1400s.

The feudal league would be able to maintain power for such a long time without breaking up.

The increasing number of peasant wars would prevent reform within the feudal nations.

Technology would develop as in OTL.
 
Peasants rebellions have this huge issues that they were spontaneous, epidermic, more marking a reaction against a given situation. Granted this precise revolt managed, with huge difficulties, to make a political program. But their division, they absence of real coherent plan to enforce their demands doomed it.

Furthermore, in a time where "military personal" was either nobiliar or mercenaries, and in the best of case a payed standing army from former nobiliar and mercenaries background, I simply don't see them deserting to join them.
Granted, lesser nobility and knights joined up with the revoltees OTL, and may have assured their initial success against the first armies, but we're essentially talking of an unexperienced peasant army that would turn to fields at some point would it be only to eat.

Having Peasant's Revolt managing to hold in Swabia would be miraculous on its own.

What's interesting is that it happened in a context of reinforcement of german princes authority, as it happened in France two centuries ago for the king : remember that lesser nobles and knights joined up with the revoltees, mainly because the upper nobility power was increasing, and began to broke the feudal system itself by unifiying power on their behalf as well economical features.
So, the "feudal league" would nevertheless go less and less feudal the time passing by, critically with the western states (far more bureucratized at this point) being part of. (How do you like your Germany? Anglicized, Francized, Spanicized?)

Without Martin Luther's moderating influence the reformation would be much more violent and radical.
Or someone else take his place. You had already quite a lod of Reformation thinkers by then : Mélantchon, Zwingli, etc.
Of course Luther was influent because of his rethoric and litterary skills, but he would be replaced.
And without him there's no way that german princes would go smooth on Peasants. If something, they would be even more mercilessly and bloodly crushed. (As in more than 100 000 peasants outright killed).

If the reformation gets scary enough the Catholic Church would not attempt to counter them with a counter-reformation. In reality a counter-reformation like event that got rid of things sucTh as indulgences would likely happen with a POD in the 1300-1400s.
Why getting rid of indulgences by then? It wasn't criticized at all : its abuses were (and we're talking 1400-1500 there) but the principle itself wasn't (and Catholic Church still gives indulgence even nowadays).
If the reformation gets that scary (but that's quite implausible) all the more chance to do a counter-reformation events, would it be only to counter-attack.
 
Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to make a feudal state a superpower. It can be a reformed or reworked version of feudalism but the country must be recognizably feudal. PODS can be from 1200 to 1800.

During the 19th century, the European colonial powers seek to expand their influence in Africa, but without taking on the burden of ruling all these new territories directly. Instead they "persuade" native African chieftains to accept European overlordship on terms not too dissimilar to mediaeval feudalism.
 
How much does Second Reich qualify as "feudal"?

How much more feudal would Second Reich have to be in order to qualify as "feudal" for you?
 
How much does Second Reich qualify as "feudal"?
Something between "None" and "Wut".

At this point of unification of power on national institutions, and not territorial ones, you can't consider it as such.
Not even considering the cultural and social backgrounds that are as much feudal than Fox News is informed, or the fact it had a standing army.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Feudalism and Superpower is incompatible...to be a superpower, you need a certain degree of centralization. This is why Rome was considered a Superpower back in its prime, because it was centralized enough to be called such. It's incompatible with Feudalism because from what I understand with Feudalism, while the King is the de jure overlord, de facto he only rules a small tract of land and his "vassals" so to speak have their own armies, foreign policies...essentially they're independent in all but name, not exactly superpower quality.
 
Because from what I understand with Feudalism, while the King is the de jure overlord, de facto he only rules a small tract of land and his "vassals" so to speak have their own armies, foreign policies...essentially they're independent in all but name, not exactly superpower quality.

It's more complex than that. The king suzerainty is still a powerful institution, that his vassals and their vavassors are bound to respect if they want to have their estates held together.
Basically, their own legitimacy is based on the respect of a "feudal contract", on which they agree to acknowledge royal/imperial overlordship. Short of that, they're giving ideas to their own vassals.

The most clear exemple, often quoted, is when Henry II Plantagenet preferred to renounce to besiege Toulouse, having learn that Louis VII was in the city (with a relativly reduced troop), rather than going trough all the issues it could have caused.

Suzerainty wasn't some trinket, but an actual institutional "weapon", that allowed almost all feudal kings to get the upper hand eventually.

I know it's a bit hard to visualize, when we're so used to nation-states, or at least unified ones, but the direct rule (understanding by that, having vassals without vavassors or not territorial ones) of a land by the king (that wasn't much reduced : German emperors benefited at least from a duchy, Capetians had a territory comparable to northern frankish estates and quite more wealthy, the "I'm poor, I'm weak, I'm blue" being a stereotype of royal chronicles in order to point out how awsome they were to still go against that), didn't implied effective renounciation to enforce its authority elsewhere.
 
Top