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.
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)
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).Strong- A state where power is vested in local lords ruling by hereditary right over various territories.
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.Weak- A state where the ruler vests power in local governors/lords/nobles who rule their territory in his stead.
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.
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.
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).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.
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.In other words, France under Louis XIII-XVI.
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.
Or someone else take his place. You had already quite a lod of Reformation thinkers by then : Mélantchon, Zwingli, etc.Without Martin Luther's moderating influence the reformation would be much more violent and radical.
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 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.
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.
Something between "None" and "Wut".How much does Second Reich qualify as "feudal"?
One which is applicable to Second Reich. The monarchs of member States were hereditary.Feudal -
Strong- A state where power is vested in local lords ruling by hereditary right over various territories.
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.