AHC: Have the Middle Age Last until Now

Isn't this sort of the premise behind The Two Georges?

Your definition of the "Middle Ages" was actually business as normal in the Russian Empire until well into the 19th Century.

This ^

Since Modernity, or at least various facets of it, can't seem to exist along side feudal modes of governance (per the argument of many on this thread) those who argue this AHC is ASB, please explain how an why Czarist dogma could exist somewhat successfully well into the 1910s
 
Male rising universe maybe? Decentralized power, lots of monarchs?

I mean its not really traditionally feudal, but I swear I saw the creator describe it as "postmodern feudalism" at some point.
 
The thing is, most of the elements you mentions as decidedly medieval are only pervasive in some periods, and rarely at the same time.

The pervasiveness of Church power in Germany was a direct attempt to undermine the (semi-)feudal powerbrokers of Germany. Canossa made that not work too well for the Emperors, in the end, but others (like Philippe Augustus in France) managed to tie both the Church and, through the Church the country, to the ruler.
In so doing, they shifted from a feudal system of every landholder for himself and everyone for his landholder to one where the monarch or Church took serious power.

The last vestiges of the feudal system took longer to die out, sure, but gunpowder cannon, which meant a monarch could bring a rebellious noble to heel in days instead of months-to-years, firmly ended it (of course in some cases the ones wielding the cannon were rich cities rather than monarchs, but the center still could dominate the outskirts through organisation and weaponry).
 
Isn't this sort of the premise behind The Two Georges?

Your definition of the "Middle Ages" was actually business as normal in the Russian Empire until well into the 19th Century.

A feudal state is a decentralized state in which the monarch is, at best, the first among equals. AFAIK Czarist Russia was absolutist. There wasn't a Lord of Kiev who could call the farm's overseers (but not the actual farmers) into arms to serve him, instead of the Czar. Nor there was a military chaste like the one in the Middle Ages. There was a Russian Army which answered to the Czar. That's not medieval.
 
A feudal state is a decentralized state in which the monarch is, at best, the first among equals. AFAIK Czarist Russia was absolutist. There wasn't a Lord of Kiev who could call the farm's overseers (but not the actual farmers) into arms to serve him, instead of the Czar. Nor there was a military chaste like the one in the Middle Ages. There was a Russian Army which answered to the Czar. That's not medieval.

Yes, GH really needs to better define what he means by "feudalism", because feudalism is antithetical with an organized national state where it is the king or central government that commands the loyalty of subjects/citizens and has monopoly over the use of force. Once nation states evolve, feudal structures become at best meaningless and redundant or, at worst, are violently suppressed by the central government or monarch.
 
This ^

Since Modernity, or at least various facets of it, can't seem to exist along side feudal modes of governance (per the argument of many on this thread) those who argue this AHC is ASB, please explain how an why Czarist dogma could exist somewhat successfully well into the 1910s

Marx, Lenin, and the printing press seemed to have had something to do with its demise. And long before the revolution, the Czars were under constant pressure to reform and adopt more enlightenment ideas including freeing the serfs in 1863 and various reforms following 1905.
 
GH, If you're gonna post so many of these threads, then can you please define VERY SPECIFICALLY what the challenge is? Feudalism itself is almost undefinable and just making it last "to modern day with tech increases per otl"? That is ASB. I can see sort of what you mean but you really need to clarify what you want from us, you're starting to appear as a spammer. And that's a shame, I love your TL about Haiti (are you taking a break from it?).
 
Marx, Lenin, and the printing press seemed to have had something to do with its demise. And long before the revolution, the Czars were under constant pressure to reform and adopt more enlightenment ideas including freeing the serfs in 1863 and various reforms following 1905.

The point is that it evolved along side modern forces of technological innovation that so many are quick to say cant exist in feudal modes of governance. I really cant be any clearer on this point
 
With innovation in technology comes the need to reform your systems if you want to keep innovating.

And if the magical trigger known as modern nationalism and gunpowder empires lights up, then there will be no Medieval Age at that point.

Inevitably, even if you dumb down technological advancement and keep most of Europe the same, you're still going to have a China which was, albeit weak and corrupt, especially in the later dynasties, still innovative, and wealthy.
 
GH, If you're gonna post so many of these threads, then can you please define VERY SPECIFICALLY what the challenge is? Feudalism itself is almost undefinable and just making it last "to modern day with tech increases per otl"? That is ASB. I can see sort of what you mean but you really need to clarify what you want from us, you're starting to appear as a spammer. And that's a shame, I love your TL about Haiti (are you taking a break from it?).

The goal of my OP wasn't to be very specific on what exactly this AHC feudal society is suppose to look like in modern day. That for the person that wants to jump on the challenge to decide

rather it was suppose to clarify various paradigms that existed during the middle ages as means to show which ones made sense to focus on when trying to come up with PoDs to make them last until the present day.

Regardless of yours or anyone's interpretation of Middle Ages, there were various realities that defined that age. Feudalism, as means of governance, was one of them.

Up to this point, all I have been doing has been defending the fact that feudalism, as an extension of the medieval ages, could indeed survive, and has actually survived, along side innovation.

And a spammer, I am not.

You see so many threads because one, I have a ton questions on the subject that is AH, and two a lot posters seem to enjoy jumping into various topics that I start. Both of which only add more positive discussions to the forum. I dont flame bait.
And yes my TL is still active.
 
Not sure if this wound count, but maybe if European colonial powers set up a feudal-esque kind of indirect rule over Africa? So, the local kingdoms agree to be European vassals and to raise military units to serve with the colonial power's army, and the colonial power in turn agrees to defend the kingdoms against their rivals. So it'd be kind of like feudalism, only between states rather than individuals.
 
The point is that it evolved along side modern forces of technological innovation that so many are quick to say cant exist in feudal modes of governance. I really cant be any clearer on this point

And ultimately it collapsed. As did the French Aristocracy and most other feudal type systems. That one continued to exist does not prove it can be wide spread. It merely proves there are exceptions or that the system did not collapse simultaneously. Finally, Russia was among the most rural and least educated countries in Europe - hence why the dissemination of ideas was slower to progress. It makes my point for me.
 
The goal of my OP wasn't to be very specific on what exactly this AHC feudal society is suppose to look like in modern day. That for the person that wants to jump on the challenge to decide

rather it was suppose to clarify various paradigms that existed during the middle ages as means to show which ones made sense to focus on when trying to come up with PoDs to make them last until the present day.

Regardless of yours or anyone's interpretation of Middle Ages, there were various realities that defined that age. Feudalism, as means of governance, was one of them.

Up to this point, all I have been doing has been defending the fact that feudalism, as an extension of the medieval ages, could indeed survive, and has actually survived, along side innovation.

And a spammer, I am not.

You see so many threads because one, I have a ton questions on the subject that is AH, and two a lot posters seem to enjoy jumping into various topics that I start. Both of which only add more positive discussions to the forum. I dont flame bait.
And yes my TL is still active.
I think feudalism is a no-go, for reasons some people have already discussed.
Divine right of monarchs and a influential religion are, I think, possible. I guess absolutists monarchs would need to give in during the Enlightment and turn into constitutional monarchies, as the new economic elites will want political power.
Avoid the trend of secularization of the Western world and you can have an influential Church. I guess it would end up like the more religious parts of the USA but with the, for instance, Queen of Britain as a constitutional monarch with a divine right to wear a powerless crown.
Or you could have many parts of the world take the Iranian political system during the 17-18th century, although I think the political and legal power of the religious leaders would fade over time.
 
Top