AHC: Feudal Superpower

One which is applicable to Second Reich. The monarchs of member States were hereditary.

So, United Kingdom is a feudal power? I heard that their head of state and some of the House of Lords inherited their position.

Let's be serious : feudalism, while a quite various and heteroclit concept, doesn't equal hereditary.
At shortest, it implies full delegation of power over a territory, exchange of services between two people, and military role of the nobility. (And overall, a division of society along their social roles, rather than an individual approach)
 
So, United Kingdom is a feudal power? I heard that their head of state and some of the House of Lords inherited their position.

Let's be serious : feudalism, while a quite various and heteroclit concept, doesn't equal hereditary.
At shortest, it implies full delegation of power over a territory,

Ask it this way: when did England stop being a feudal power? Was she ever?

"Full delegation of power over a territory"? Being a Duke of Devonshire has never conferred automatically any power, let alone "full power" on a hereditary holder. Seat and vote in Lords, yes, in Westminster, but back in Devonshire the Duke is formally an equal member of Commission of Peace, if even as much. Yes, the position of Lord Lieutenant of a county used to be de facto hereditary... but never de jure. And was Lord Lieutenant ever holding "full delegation" to your standard?

Now, Welsh Marcher Lords WERE hereditary and holding what was called "palatine" jurisdictions. So maybe it counts. But this was Marches. The majority of interior England never was under palatine jurisdiction, and king´s writ has run at least since 12th century, continuously.

So, was England ever a feudal country? And if yes, precisely what changes made it into something else?
 
"Full delegation of power over a territory"? Being a Duke of Devonshire has never conferred automatically any power, let alone "full power" on a hereditary holder.
Your confusing nobility, titles and feudalism.
Critically for a title appearing in 1694, one could think it have little to do with medieval feudalism, would it be only for chronology's sake.

Nobility, in its larger meaning, predated and existed after feudalism, and all nobles didn't had titles.

In its classical and general definitions (while pointing out once more that we're talking of a proteiform concept), feudalism covers :

1) Institutions and uses creating and managing bilateral obligations between a suzerain and a vassal, one of the obligations of the suzrain being to support his vassal by giving him a good, the fief. On the other hand, the vassal was to give support by military means as well advice duty: that's the feodal regime or better, feodalo-vassalic relationships.

2) In the largest sense, society based on this relations, and more generally, carcaterised by the hierarchisation of people and lands, domination of a warring aristocracy, shattering of public authority and of property rights : that's the feudal society.

And regarding something as

to your standard

I'd precise that is less "my" standard, than a definition that's making the more consensus.
You can disagree with of course, but then we're not talking about the same thing.

Let's take a look at the english situation, in Middle Ages and not after (again for coherence purposes).
What appeared after the Norman Conquest was a quite rigid and idealized feudal system, sort of paramount of continental usages but for a quite reduced nobility (representing less than 1% of the total population, compared to the 4, 6 or even 10% elsewhere).

It certainly had a mark giving the specificities of english feudalism, critically a less important feudal territorial fragmentation, which made what's called in english "tenant" less important, and therefore the delegation of power (as in delegate : commit or entrust to another something)

Nevertheless, a much comparable system than continental one existed in medieval England. The Armenian Genocide page about is surprisingly correct, so I'll advise you instead of copy/paste docs.

So, was England ever a feudal country? And if yes, precisely what changes made it into something else?
The same way Antiquity didn't stopped the precise day of 4th Setember 476, but was a longer process.
It's generally assumed that The Abolition of Tenues Act of 1660 represent a key date in this process.
 
Last edited:
In its classical and general definitions (while pointing out once more that we're talking of a proteiform concept), feudalism covers :

1) Institutions and uses creating and managing bilateral obligations between a suzerain and a vassal, one of the obligations of the suzrain being to support his vassal by giving him a good, the fief. On the other hand, the vassal was to give support by military means as well advice duty: that's the feodal regime or better, feodalo-vassalic relationships.
Englishmen still held estates in land, of the king. They just hold them by tenure of socage, no longer by knight service.
But the duty to give support by military means is no longer conditional on holding a fief. Landless labourer or unemployed welfare recipient is just as liable to conscription as a landlord, if physically fit for service. And landowners pay taxes for their land - just as they used to pay scutage; they no longer have the obligation to recruit other people into military units to be led into Queen´s service, nor the right to do so (such recruitment is done by appointed and salaried officials).
I'd precise that is less "my" standard, than a definition that's making the more consensus.
You can disagree with of course, but then we're not talking about the same thing.
You are in better position to describe your own opinion than whatever the consensus is. But yes, describe what you think the consensus is.
Let's take a look at the english situation, in Middle Ages and not after (again for coherence purposes).
What appeared after the Norman Conquest was a quite rigid and idealized feudal system, sort of paramount of continental usages
So you accept that this was "feudal"...
but for a quite reduced nobility (representing less than 1% of the total population, compared to the 4, 6 or even 10% elsewhere).

It certainly had a mark giving the specificities of english feudalism, critically a less important feudal territorial fragmentation, which made what's called in english "tenant" less important, and therefore the delegation of power (as in delegate : commit or entrust to another something)

Nevertheless, a much comparable system than continental one existed in medieval England.
So the differences from continental one did not then amount to "not feudal"...
The same way Antiquity didn't stopped the precise day of 4th Setember 476, but was a longer process.
Yes, but the original question was a yes/no one. Precisely "feudal" enough, or precisely not "feudal" enough.
It's generally assumed that The Abolition of Tenues Act of 1660 represent a key date in this process.
Does it mean that under the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act of 2000, Scotland was a "feudal" country as of 27th of November, 2004?
 
Englishmen still held estates in land, of the king. They just hold them by tenure of socage, no longer by knight service.

Socage wasn't part of feudal ties, but subsequent to it.
You're confusing property and power of juridiction over a given land that is forming the feudal link, and what's called manioralism.

Contrary to modern England, where property is exclusive, it was divided there : "useful property" (as in, the farmer's property of the land's production, against obligations) and "direct property" (as in, effective property of the land).

"Free" farmers didn't recieved the land from their lord, but the right to use it as theirs. It's enough to put them outside a feudal relation that was based on the complete cession of the land against said services.


You are in better position to describe your own opinion than whatever the consensus is. But yes, describe what you think the consensus is.
I admit it. I found my diploma in a suprise pocket, and all these years of study were a lie.

Thank god an anymous guy on the internet without any grasp on chronology whatsoever opened my eyes.

So you accept that this was "feudal"...

So the differences from continental one did not then amount to "not feudal"...
I don't have the faintest idea about what you're talking about.

I was mentionning the differences we had into a quite unformal and distinct system (only in medieval France, we can have 4 or 5 variations), unerlinying the necessessity of a quite large definition (given above).

The difference in english feudalism (as mentioned, a quite reduced nobiliar class, a lesser feudal fragmentation, and I could've added an earlier formal jurisprudence) are quite notable, but enough to qualify as non-feudal.

Yes, but the original question was a yes/no one. Precisely "feudal" enough, or precisely not "feudal" enough.
For talking about feudal society or state, the least is that we can speak about having fief being the marker of such thing.

From the moment state ressources aren't based on it (and the redevences it bear) anymore but on taxes, that this state is able to enforce its authority over not-directly tied fiefs, unify the power not on a decentralized institution but on his court, or that military service is replaced by standing private armies...
Basically once the state power isn't anymore based on the aforementioned exchange of services and authority, such a state cease to be feudal.

Of course, not all of that happens in the same time, or even in a continuous line. And yes, remnants of feudalism (especially in juridical matters) can last.
But that's not enough.

Does it mean that under the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act of 2000, Scotland was a "feudal" country as of 27th of November, 2004?
What's the part of "process" that you missed? Or "English" feudalism, by the way (as Scotland was distinct from England at this moment.)
 

RousseauX

Donor
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.

Feudalism is a very specific form of social-economic system in which the vast majority of the wealth, population and military power resides in the countryside rather than the cities.

The defining economic holding is land, and where the vast majority of the population are sustenance farmers bound to various legal degree to the land they are held on. There is a very specific ritualistic relationship between a vassal and his lord. In other words feudalism is not a catchall for any sort of decentralized hierarchical society.

The features which makes a country "recognizably feudal": serfdom, castles, hereditary aristocrats holding the powers is incompatible with a modern state and a modern economy.

Modern economies are centered in cities and features an educated and politically conscious third estate which will not accept serfdom for themselves. Hereditary wealth and power do not survive as well in Capitalist markets because the mover and shakers can come up from the Middle class (see the fall of American automakers and the rise of the tech giants) and usurp their economic position.

But most of all, rural based wealth and power can't exist to the same degree past the industrial revolution because real, actual wealth, power and population are in the cities and are represented by holding Capital. The days when you can rise armies in your country estates and take the throne simply cannot exist anymore.
 
Ok, how about this -- you have a "kingdom" where the local lords run their territories and command the bulk of the realm's armed forces, but still pay regular taxes to the crown, who in turn uses a large share of said money to pay for a royal navy capable of wielding power overseas. (Inspired by Westeros)
 
Ok, how about this -- you have a "kingdom" where the local lords run their territories and command the bulk of the realm's armed forces, but still pay regular taxes to the crown, who in turn uses a large share of said money to pay for a royal navy capable of wielding power overseas. (Inspired by Westeros)

Well, you pretty much described Hundred Years War french setting. Not that money was reserved to navy, but more to pay mercenaries or raise non-nobiliar armies, and the taxes were more wholly payed rather than by nobility alone.

Things is, such imposition was considered "extraordinary" in Middle-Ages. Ideally, a feudal prince should have enough to live with the ressources of its own estates : military service, taxation, etc. and anything beyond that wasn't well tolerated neither by nobility, towns, peasants, etc.
Either such taxation would be short, but that not your point; or it last and the military role of the nobility would decrease (such taxation being understood as a mandatory fine), more or less importantly depending on the threats presents.

Eventually creating such important fiscal structure would increase the bureaucratisation of the state, would it be only to manage these sums, critically when the king is the only one able to take on this task (as head of the kingdom).
 
Eventually creating such important fiscal structure would increase the bureaucratisation of the state, would it be only to manage these sums, critically when the king is the only one able to take on this task (as head of the kingdom).

So "normalized" taxation would require a level of bureaucratization and centralization that, by definition, would be the end of feudalism; that it?
 
So "normalized" taxation would require a level of bureaucratization and centralization that, by definition, would be the end of feudalism; that it?

Basically, yes. Of course, you didn't had "normalized" taxation happening in one day (the OTL unification of finances in France wasn't achieved before the late XVIth); but rather the appearance of an "extraordinary" (as in "temporary and exceptionnal") taxes on all the kingdom that eventually lasted with the "extraordinary" offices that were tied to.
So it's more fiscality and centralizing bureaucratisation that evolved side by side. With of course increased role of Parliment and Estates to discuss taxes, at least in a first time.

"Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the expanding needs of the bureaucracy", as they say.
 
a modern state and a modern economy.

Modern economies are centered in cities and features an educated and politically conscious third estate which will not accept serfdom for themselves.
Does Saudi Arabia have a modern economy? Did Soviet Union?
But most of all, rural based wealth and power can't exist to the same degree past the industrial revolution because real, actual wealth, power and population are in the cities and are represented by holding Capital. The days when you can rise armies in your country estates and take the throne simply cannot exist anymore.
Yes, but rural based wealth may be differently organized.
Like German Confederation, where lots of cities existed... but the wealthy capitalists of cities paid taxes to the government of the local prince, and the government, administration and army paid for by these taxes were staffed mostly by and run mostly for benefit of hereditary nobles whose private wealth was in landed estates.
 
Would a more decentralized USA be considered feudal?

Unless big landowners have entiere property of a given lands, no.
By entiere property I mean property of slaves, but also lands of small and dominated farmers and possibly on cities as well, with a personnal power over them (Fiscality, justice, obigations,etc.). Of course, this power doesn't need to be autocratic in the strictest meaning, but every right have to be granted rather than being considered either issued from popular decision, or even an essential right.

Now, yes, Southern USA was interestingly reminiscent of manorialism both in conception and in practice. But we're talking of XVII/XVIIIth manorialism rather than medieval, that outlived feudalism, and both shouldn't be confused (even if they were historically, as during the French Revolution where manioralism was often called feudalism)

Basically : Feudalism ≠ Manorialism ≠ Political decentralization (while it does implies an economical decentralization).
 
Last edited:
Top