AHC: Vassal States exist in the Modern World

Tonifranz

By Vassal states, I mean, a country that, by formal treaty, recognized as part of international law.

1. Formally and actually hands control over its foreign relations to an larger country.
2. Gives regular tribute, taxes, or any resources to larger country.
3. The larger country in return protects that country in exchange.
4. If the smaller country violates its obligations, it is expected that the larger country could retaliate against the smaller country by means including invasion and toppling and replacing the leadership of that country.
5. That otherwise, the smaller country is independent.
6. That if the larger country becomes weak or unable to protect the smaller country, the smaller country can break its vassal relations (provided it can defeat the larger country).
7. That such a thing is seen as a normal part of international relations in 2020.
 
Last edited:

Arkenfolm

The best examples would be Central America during much of the 20th century (and to a lesser degree to this day), the French Françafrique policy toward Africa, and the status of Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, the three nations under the Compact of Free Association (COFA). These countries receive certain benefits from the US federal government despite being independent nations and the US controls many aspects of their foreign policy and is responsible for defense. Economically these nations are very dependent on the US.
 

West

you mean they don't exist in the modern era? Because several wise posters have already placed examples down.
 

Arkenfolm

Lukashenko's Belarus also basically qualifies for this these days, although it isn't quite the same as other Russian-backed states like South Ossetia, Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc. which are unrecognised internationally.

I'll add Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba until the Cold War (when the US lost control over Cuba and changed the means of how it controlled Haiti and the Dominican Republic). The US controlled their foreign policy and dominated their economy with Cuba in particular forced into accepting the Platt Amendment which granted the US further control there. During the 1910s-30s the United States regularly intervened militarily in those three countries (and also in Central America) in the "Banana Wars".
anotherlurker said:
Bhutan is pretty much an Indian vassal state, until 2007 very openly so.
Click to expand...
Sikkim as well before its annexation. And if we're talking about nowadays vanished states, Tannu Tuva lasted quite a while and Mongolia in the same timeframe was a Soviet vassal.
 
Aisha Clan-Clan

Aisha Clan-Clan

They do. It's called "Every non-United States country except possibly russia and china to limited extents" in practice.

If you want more explicit overlordship, something like the anglo-american/nazi war or the world after dropshot.
 

Taloc13

I think our dry modern lexicon deliberately obfuscates our understanding, so lets use more 'raw' pre-modern terms. Here we go.

1) Kingdom of Bhutan. India is responsible for their defense, and until 2007, their foreign affairs as well. However, they don't pay us tribute, we instead subsidise them to the tune of $400 million. Their only obligation in return is to not jeopardise our national security by siding with the Chinese. It is safe to call them a 'Protectorate'.

2) Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria), Republic of Abkhazia and Ossetia-Alania serve as dependencies of Russia. All five breakaway republics would not be able to pull it off without Russian military assistance, both direct and indirect. It would be fair to call such states a 'March' as they act as military buffer states for Kremlin.

3) Republic of Artsakh. Another breakaway state, their economy and whole existence is tied up with that of the 'parent country' of Armenia. A sort of pre-WWI Serbia-Montenegro or pre-annexation US-Texas dynamic going on. Hard to pin down, would put under 'March' for now.

4) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Yet another breakaway. See as #3.

5) Principality of Andorra. A diarchial vassal of France with the Bishop of Urgell acting as co-prince.

6) Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions. I hardly need to explain how the 'one-country two systems' arrangement is essentially a feudal set-up. Most akin to the free-cities of the HRE. Subject 'City State' is the best descriptor.
 

Orangecar

Banned
Lesotho and Swaziland to Sout Africa, both countries are totally dependent on South African customs for their budgets while in the case of Lesotho the government essentially provides water and labour to South Africa while the government occiosionly intervenes when there are coups or when parties can't agree to form governments. Honestly they would just be better off as provinces
 

Father Maryland

Taloc13 said:
I think our dry modern lexicon deliberately obfuscates our understanding, so lets use more 'raw' pre-modern terms. Here we go.

1) Kingdom of Bhutan. India is responsible for their defense, and until 2007, their foreign affairs as well. However, they don't pay us tribute, we instead subsidise them to the tune of $400 million. Their only obligation in return is to not jeopardise our national security by siding with the Chinese. It is safe to call them a 'Protectorate'.

2) Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria), Republic of Abkhazia and Ossetia-Alania serve as dependencies of Russia. All five breakaway republics would not be able to pull it off without Russian military assistance, both direct and indirect. It would be fair to call such states a 'March' as they act as military buffer states for Kremlin.

3) Republic of Artsakh. Another breakaway state, their economy and whole existence is tied up with that of the 'parent country' of Armenia. A sort of pre-WWI Serbia-Montenegro or pre-annexation US-Texas dynamic going on. Hard to pin down, would put under 'March' for now.

4) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Yet another breakaway. See as #3.

5) Principality of Andorra. A diarchial vassal of France with the Bishop of Urgell acting as co-prince.

6) Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions. I hardly need to explain how the 'one-country two systems' arrangement is essentially a feudal set-up. Most akin to the free-cities of the HRE. Subject 'City State' is the best descriptor.
Click to expand...

Arguably North Korea sort of for China. Though it's sort of a subsidy state of China with the Chinese helping to keep it going to avoid having to deal with the refugees the prospect of a reunified US friendly Korea. Sort of fair to call NK a "March" as well.

Generally the modern equivalent of "Vassal states" don't actually directly pay tribute. Instead their more often directly subsidy states that the "main state" directly subsidizes in some form for pride or practical reasons.
 
Last edited:

Father Maryland

SsgtC said:
No country does anymore. That's about the closest you'll find in this day and age
Click to expand...

The subsidy state has kind of taken the same role. Namely a country that another larger country subsidizes to some degree for strategic/ pride reasons. Like the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and Turkey.
 

naraic

BigBlueBox said:
None of those countries provide resources or tribute to the United States.
Click to expand...
Your probably looking for a nation that has allied bases on its territory and contributes financially to those allies units. Japan pays USA because of American bases in Japan.
 

Byzantion

Tonifranz said:
By Vassal states, I mean, a country that, by formal treaty, recognized as part of international law.

1. Formally and actually hands control over its foreign relations to an larger country.
2. Gives regular tribute, taxes, or any resources to larger country.
3. The larger country in return protects that country in exchange.
4. If the smaller country violates its obligations, it is expected that the larger country could retaliate against the smaller country by means including invasion and toppling and replacing the leadership of that country.
5. That otherwise, the smaller country is independent.
6. That if the larger country becomes weak or unable to protect the smaller country, the smaller country can break its vassal relations (provided it can defeat the larger country).
7. That such a thing is seen as a normal part of international relations in 2020.
Click to expand...
OTL Syria had its troops in Libanon until 2005 which always had been an international issue with Libanon de facto seen as being ruled by Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top