AHC: make republicanism the dominant form of government in medieval Europe

As the title implies, have (with any PoD) the medieval period in Europe be defined by republicanism, instead of Feudalistic Monarchy. What would be the social, economic, political and philosophical implications of this? What types of republics would medieval states adopt? A lot of early medieval European cultures had people's assemblies (the Germanic Thing, the Slavic Veche), so I can definitely see that developing into a robust Republican framework (like it did in Greece and Rome).
 
Maybe have the early kings try to exert more control over the local lords and aristocracy left over from the Roman days than is possible or popular. Say a revolt happens in Gaul against the Frankish king and you end up with a three-way compromise - the monarchy allowing republican institutions to assuage the aristocracy, and the aristocracy granting some degree of franchise to the commoners to keep the commoners loyal.

The Franks being such an influential force in medieval politics - their model becomes something other European states emulate in the coming centuries.
 
The problem is, the sort of PODs required to pull this off (a very different third century in Rome, for a start, though you'd have to drastically reflavour Christianity as well) mean you don't see Medieval Europe as we know it. Warlordism - augmented by the notion that God was a King - is going to basically ensure monarchy, de facto or otherwise, becomes the norm.
 
'Easiest' way is to have the republican Rome collapse into many successor states instead of becoming the Empire at the height of it's power, with all of them claiming to be the "true" Republic, which I guess is possible with the many civil wars that took place in the time period leading to fragmentation
Now for a late POD you could have one of Europe's most powerful states turn into one much like what happened in the French Revolution, but following a model more akin to the italian republics(such as the Republic of Venice) and then not going on a comquering spree per see but still beating the crap out of the powers who oppose it like the french did, making a lot of nobles & pleasantry alike think "you know what, we dont need a king, this system works! Let's make it ours"
 
I don't think there being any other way than avoid rise of Roman Empire with way or anotherr. It was pretty much model for later government systems. Before rise of the empire republicanism was norm in Europe so no Roman Empire and probably you have more republics in era what we call as Middle Ages. But this world would be totally unrecognsib le for us.
 
I don't think there being any other way than avoid rise of Roman Empire with way or anotherr. It was pretty much model for later government systems. Before rise of the empire republicanism was norm in Europe so no Roman Empire and probably you have more republics in era what we call as Middle Ages. But this world would be totally unrecognsib le for us.
How a bout something less dramatic and expanding some of the models which had been working for a while in Italy, Novgorod and other places: real power belonged to some institution(s) filled by the oligarchs and backed up, when needed, by some kind of a popular assembly while there was an elected ruler with the limited powers like Doge of Venice or Prince of Novgorod. Of course, the tricky part was not to let the rulers (or hired emeralds) to concentrate too much of a military power in their hands (this “killed” the popular assemblies in the Russian princedoms and made military leaders rulers of most of the Italian city states). Specific forms can be quite different, from the simplistic Novgorodian model (invited prince, city administrator, council of the lords, lesser administrators and popular assembly) and all the way to extremely complicated Venetian model with its numerous councils and multi-stage elections).

Not an ideal “republic” but surely some elements of it and who said that all “people” must be equal? Universal voting rights became a reality in the XIX and even XX centuries: “France, under the 1793 Jacobin constitution, was the first major country to enact suffrage for all adult males, though it was never formally used in practice (the constitution was immediately suspended before being implemented, and the subsequent election occurred in 1795 after the fall of the Jacobin government in 1794 discredited most ideas associated with them, including that constitution). Elsewhere in the Francophone world, the Republic of Haiti legislated for universal male suffrage.”


How this model can be extended to work in the big medieval states is anybody’s guess but for a while (formally, in early XVI - late XVIII) it worked in Rzeczpospolita and nobody can deny that the model was actually very attractive for the nobility.
 
Quintus Sertorius pretty much set up a "Hispanian" Republic complete with a senate of 300. Perhaps he captures Pompey at Sucro, winning a decisive victory.

Is there a point where Rome would give up attacking him in Hispania, perhaps Sulla's death?
 
How about the reverse?

A far more through destruction of the Roman heritage? So complete that the new 'barbarian' tribes rely more on their own traditions of mass meetings and general assemblies?
 
As the title implies, have (with any PoD) the medieval period in Europe be defined by republicanism, instead of Feudalistic Monarchy. What would be the social, economic, political and philosophical implications of this? What types of republics would medieval states adopt? A lot of early medieval European cultures had people's assemblies (the Germanic Thing, the Slavic Veche), so I can definitely see that developing into a robust Republican framework (like it did in Greece and Rome).
While most have concentrated on Roman heritage and thus Roman PoDs in reply to this message, and while I can see their point, I'll go ahead and suggest a much later divergence is possible.

There was a communalist movement sweeping Europe in the High Middle Ages, beginning in the early 12th century and never really subsiding. It achieved the establishment of town councils, mayoral elections etc. Thing is, if you want the Middle Ages as you know them, you'd have to face the option of this being a sort of "feudal" make-up, too, as it was IOTL: the Free Cities owed the Holy Roman Emperor contributions just like any imperial knight, count or duke did. Now IOTL, much of this happened within the HRE, where "city rights" and granting the status of free imperial cities was an outlet, especially in the collapsed Duchy of Swabia. The peak of success of this movement was the establisment of the Swiss Confederacy, which, for centuries, still considered itself and was considered a part of the HRE, albeit a special one. And the members of this confederacy acted as feudal states in their own rights, acquiring right-less "possessions" for example.

When the success of the Swiss model became evident and conflicts between slowly consolidating territorial principalities evolving towards modern statehood and communes pushing to preserve and expand their liberties and privilegies escalated anew in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, "Helvetisation" was a slogan of the day. Italy was full of republics anyway (including Adriatic Dalmatia). If some of these conflicts had gone differently (i.e. towards the "Swiss" version), then it's quite possible for the HRE to become primarily a super-confederacy of leagues of towns, where territorial principalities would continue to exist but not be "the norm". Imagine the seven electors joined by eight new ones: from the Hanseatic League, from the Swabian League, from the Swiss Confederacy etc. Add more regular Reichstage, and you're on the way to a collection of republics electing themselves a proto-constitutional monarch.

The breakthrough for the communal movement which IOTL did not come but which would have been necessary here would be its success in France, too. I know too little about Medieval France to say how this could plausbly come about, my impression is that a centralisation of the monarchy only evolved during the last decades of the 100 Years War, but long before that, say in the 12th and 13th centuries, the conditions for more successful communes in France are unclear to me.

The social implications of this would be propertied farmers, crafters and merchants seeing themselves and being seen as the pillars and foundation of statehood and power. Look at the various guild wars and internal conflicts in the Old Swiss Confederacy for guidance as to how conflictual their relations would still be. But the conflict lines would run differently from OTL. IOTL, capitalism developed - depending on your theory - either in spite of or due to centralising territorial statehood. I have come to tend towards the former theory (this has been a long theoretical march for me) although I acknowledge the massive boost of the colonisation of the New World by territorial monarchies. Well: Going by this road, and assuming the Americas are still discovered by a Spain and Portugal which are less affected by the changes outlined here, then I'd say we might see developed capitalist structures earlier on. The dividing line between those participating in power and those without power would be more clearly along property lines.

The political implications of this are diverse. On the one hand, you'd have a lot more open political debate than IOTL. On the other hand, it would be a lot more parochial and pragmatic. Modern political philosophy evolved in the context of and in the struggle against absolute monarchies. Instead of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau etc., you'd have entirely different philosophers and philosophies - at some point in time, whether earlier or later depends really - emerging from and capturing the kind of struggles and challenges within and between city-republican states. I'd imagine less grand designs and abstractions, and more narrative integrations of achieved traditions and age-old conflicts and their resolutions.

As for philosophy, that is way over my head right now.

There would be a clear break between pre-medieval Things and these High and Late Medieval city states, as it was IOTL.
As for the Veches, well, for Eastern Europe you'll need an additional divergence probably. Mongol rule is a major factor here that cannot be glossed over.
 
I think this can be like the nobles, clergy and rich guys will the only guys who can vote meanwhile the serfs and the rest are like no no like they might form a quasi republic by voting who is king and etc
 
Top