Hello! I'm new here and working for a while on a alternate scenario for the fall of WRE and the ascension of the ostrogothic kingdom of italy. I'm asking about tips on the development of the socio-productive relationships and structures on a western europe ruled, even loosely, for a people other than the franks. Think of a brainstorm about the blossom of early post-roman societies.
Alternate Feudalism Flavor
- Thread starter D.marc
- Start date
Feudalism and manorialism would probably develop similarly, if we're talking mostly about the Early Middle Ages rather than "classic feudalism" of the High Middle Ages.
It was a very long-running process that had its roots in the late Roman era. Bigger factors determining the rise of feudalism were not really the Frankish rise in a vacuum, but the economic regionalization and the seclusion of provincial nobility/ascendance of foederati, new agricultural techniques that gradually emerged over preceding centuries, and the Catholic Church promoting semblances of Roman institutions. If the Franks didn't rise, I would expect a largely convergent feudalism, but maybe with more numerous and smaller kingdoms forming. Instead of France, Germany/HRE, and Lombard Italy, maybe there'd be Burgundy, Armorica, Gothia, Frisia, Saxony, Bavaria, Avaria, etc.
It was a very long-running process that had its roots in the late Roman era. Bigger factors determining the rise of feudalism were not really the Frankish rise in a vacuum, but the economic regionalization and the seclusion of provincial nobility/ascendance of foederati, new agricultural techniques that gradually emerged over preceding centuries, and the Catholic Church promoting semblances of Roman institutions. If the Franks didn't rise, I would expect a largely convergent feudalism, but maybe with more numerous and smaller kingdoms forming. Instead of France, Germany/HRE, and Lombard Italy, maybe there'd be Burgundy, Armorica, Gothia, Frisia, Saxony, Bavaria, Avaria, etc.
Last edited:
Well, for the most part, late imperial structures remained in place, altough they were undergoing a clear evolution from this point especially in Spain and Gaul that participated to what could be described as a post-imperial romanity early on while Italy and Africa were keeping more of a distinct late imperial background which if it evolved as well and convergently with their western counterparts, at least in Italy provided strong continuities in administrations and management (based on urban structures, for instance, in Lombard Italy).
Historically these evolutions were in western Romania bolstered by the end of monetary payment in exchange for administrative service as soon as the VIth century, with Barbarian rulers having to accomodate this change either trough direct palatial nurture, either (first in peripheries, then more current in centers) by giving in tenance part of fiscus to their militia (their civil/military administration) which increasingly took its power from themselves rather than royal service or delegation and seems to have practiced the same for their own clients.
Still the distinction between honores and beneficii, meaning the distinction between political power and landowning, was kept if largely associated until the late VIIth century until the gradual Carolingian takeover which is the rough point we can talk of feudality, which is something they actually practiced a lot to allow and enforce their own dominance.
Until the VIIIth century, tough, we observe relatively similar practices in Gothic Spain and Lombard Italy, mostly differing by the respectively anti-dynastic and semi-dynastic kingship role in distribution of both honores and beneficii, and their relationship to potentes; but the blurring distinction of public and private estate at the benefit of potentes still happened if on dissimilar grounds (in Spain, mostly trough nobiliar systematical assertion of their grants; in Italy it was partly accomodated by a strongly urban-based rule).
Arguably, the situation was overall more favorable in Gaul due to a relatively more important stability (both institutional and economical), which limited and delayed regionalisation in its centers.
Now, it all depends what happens ITTL : how much Ostrogoths manage to take and hold Italy, and prevents the crisis that represented the heavy-handed Justinian reconquest and its consequences. While regionalisation is still a plausible prospect, the strength of post-imperial structures in Italy, the relative distinction betweeen Romans landowners and royal administration that might be more maintainable culturally for a while (even if not completely and even less infinitely) and the possibility of a strong dynastic kingship might changes things in the making of a Gothic Italy looking more as a mix between ERE and Francia, and (if it's roughly similar to IOTL), dominating its neighborhood.
Could you provide more details?
Historically these evolutions were in western Romania bolstered by the end of monetary payment in exchange for administrative service as soon as the VIth century, with Barbarian rulers having to accomodate this change either trough direct palatial nurture, either (first in peripheries, then more current in centers) by giving in tenance part of fiscus to their militia (their civil/military administration) which increasingly took its power from themselves rather than royal service or delegation and seems to have practiced the same for their own clients.
Still the distinction between honores and beneficii, meaning the distinction between political power and landowning, was kept if largely associated until the late VIIth century until the gradual Carolingian takeover which is the rough point we can talk of feudality, which is something they actually practiced a lot to allow and enforce their own dominance.
Until the VIIIth century, tough, we observe relatively similar practices in Gothic Spain and Lombard Italy, mostly differing by the respectively anti-dynastic and semi-dynastic kingship role in distribution of both honores and beneficii, and their relationship to potentes; but the blurring distinction of public and private estate at the benefit of potentes still happened if on dissimilar grounds (in Spain, mostly trough nobiliar systematical assertion of their grants; in Italy it was partly accomodated by a strongly urban-based rule).
Arguably, the situation was overall more favorable in Gaul due to a relatively more important stability (both institutional and economical), which limited and delayed regionalisation in its centers.
Now, it all depends what happens ITTL : how much Ostrogoths manage to take and hold Italy, and prevents the crisis that represented the heavy-handed Justinian reconquest and its consequences. While regionalisation is still a plausible prospect, the strength of post-imperial structures in Italy, the relative distinction betweeen Romans landowners and royal administration that might be more maintainable culturally for a while (even if not completely and even less infinitely) and the possibility of a strong dynastic kingship might changes things in the making of a Gothic Italy looking more as a mix between ERE and Francia, and (if it's roughly similar to IOTL), dominating its neighborhood.
Could you provide more details?
Last edited:
Problem is that "early medieval feudalism" doesn't have much grounds to base itself on, unless twisting the definition of feudalism hard enough to make it fit the historical situation (but at this point, it would be wide enough to define pretty much anyhting including late imperial structures).
Feudalism understood as the mix of landowning and political power is a product of Frankish history : while you had similar blurred distinction between public fiscus and private property (either royal or nobiliar) elsewhere, it matured in early Carolingian Francia due to political events and the aristocratic origin and networking of the dynasty.
The general trend of regionalisation in western Romania itself wasn't a primary cause, and feudality emerged in once of the less regionalized parts of it interestingly enough : one might argue that the absence of a strong enough kingship in Spain and Italy, and the greater aristocratic destructuration of these regions actually delayed the transmission and legitimisation of mixed political/landowning rule.
I'm not sure what you mean by that : if it's about how traditional/senatorial landowning elites and Barbarian elites lived together but separate with each other, it was something that either didn't really appeared as such (especially in Francia) or was essentially over by the VIIth century. Italy might be an interesting distinction, in the sense that Roman elite still pretty much identified itself as tied to both prestigious past and Constantinople as with palatial power. But even there, you had an early-mix up and I don't see a good reason why it wouldn't have fused more or less homogenously at least in the cores region of Gothic Italy (altough I agree there's a lot of room for peripherisation of other regions, most especially in Pannonia and southern Italy, while for really diverging reasons)
The irresistible ascendence of Barbarian aristocracy (which is whichever mix of foederati and Romans happening since the Vth), overall, isn't obvious even in parts of Italy : Frankish aristocracy might be an exception for some reasons (an already geographically concentrated elite since the IVth, and an earlier inclusion of Franks within imperial structures since the IVth?), but for the rest, economical regionalization you well mentioned was accompanied by potentes having a lesser geographical and political power.
It's one of the reasons IMO, Gothic Italy ended up as a long battlefield between Goths and Romans in the VIth.
Now, depending on the PoD and how the TL unfolds, it's possible we could end up with a different set-up for Italy on these matters : the maintance of Gothic dominion as it was under Theodoric in its immediate neighborhood (probably not Spain, that said) could be a good counterpart to Francia IATL.
That's essentially true of Northern part of the Barbarian kingdoms, tough : more you go south, more you see the continuation of late imperial agriculture in a technological respect : socially, however, the growing autonomisation of peasantry and their re-clientelisation is arguably a good departure point.
There, I couldn't disagree more : Barbarian institutions and administrations were essentially the continuation of the late imperial ones. That it went trough specific evolution (the aformentioned demonetarisation and the focus on palatial redistribution, notably) doesn't changes that.
Last edited:
ITTL Odoacer get hard times, Augustulus only is deposed in 477, a roman puppet is instaled nominally and the rebellious foederati settled in Histria, Flaminia and Liguria mainly. This Roman guy (Ecdicius Avitus buttlerfying death) restore a last time WRE beating the dalmacian actual pretender (a general loyal to Nepos in a time of omission from ERE) and sitting in purple until 491 when Theoderic gets the control of the ostrogoth expatriates from thracia and the claim to act as vicar/consul/patrician of Italy. From 74 to 91 ITTL Theodoric gets a very different approach of the diplomatic game and build no strong ties into every arian kindom around, but won a triplet of boys to carry the legacy of amalingian goths from a germanic-random-woman. Before he can launchs the campaign in name of Zeno, he strucks dead and the ostrogoths lays outside Italy until 502 (and a very annoying sucession struggle) going more cohesive settled into the old foedus in pannonia and with bettler positions over herulis, rugis and gepids. I'm wondering how the gothic society will emerge without the "great man" work of Theoderic and with a delayed and more practical clash of costumes and laws (as visigoths in hispania? Idk). Guess I have the TL covering from the various POD's in 74-76 straight to an amaligian empire in 520~.
I'm not too sure about this : mutinees asked for a very large part of Italian fiscus, and were dissatisfied with their settlement in Liguria.
Now, settling them in eastern Italy makes a lot of objective sense on this regard, strategically at least, but it wouldn't met their demands. If they are to be at least negotiated, I'd rather thee the hospitas and fiscus usufruct being localised in southern Italy, maybe Adriatic italy up to Ravenna.
Now I do think these demands (a third of Italy's fiscus) were unreasonable to begin with, but Orestus and his blank check are to blame there : maybe a good PoD would be him not being this formally generous thinking mercenaries and federates would "get the joke".
This is really unlikely : his father's claims were never supported by Italian senatorial elites, which provided the basic grounds for Gallo-Roman being at odds with whoever ruled Italy at this point, and if his choice as commander by Nepos is understable giving that he had to fight in Gaul, he wouldn't have any real support in Italy at this point. If he survives, I'd rather seeing him playing a role in Gaul under Barbarians than in Rome.
Anyone desesperate enough to propel him as emperor would be quickly disappointed when it comes to political results.
I'd rather see whoever rules in Dalmatia at odds with Constantinople being chosen instead, or maybe Nepos returning in Italy with the support of, say, Odoacer and then being replaced by a rando.
Theodoric's diplomatic approach is essentially tied to his role as effective imperial lieutnant in Italy : how he recieved imperial regalia IOTL stresses this. One couldn't rule Italy and not claim some sort of dominance in western Romania as first among equals.
Butterflying Theodoric's kingship in Italy is an interesting change, but whoever would get it would at least try to act the same.
At this point, I'd expect Constantinople to change their stand : they wanted to curb Odoacer's ambitions and leaving Dalmatia under his dominance was a big no-no IOTL. Even with the changes already happening ITTL, I don't expect ERE to accept that an usurper (would it be styling himself as emperor) would keep the region. If the sons are too young, that's too bad for them, but a king would be supported to do the job : either another Amal, either a non-Amal, but someone.
Honestly? Not too dissimilar than how it happened IOTL, probably, at least for what matters Gothic Italy : you'd have a pretty much romanized already elite being integrated within the frames of post-imperial Italy, and acting as primates of western Romania up to a point.
This being said, the delayed conquest would mean that Franks would stregnthen their dominance in the region earlier and possibly deeper than IOTL. Without Goths to act as a counter-power in Central Europe thanks to the aformentioned primacy and power in Italy, or to play as arbitles against Clovis' conquest...Well, there's a fair possibility Gaul would be unified earlier than IOTL, including Septimania and Provence, maybe Burgundy quicker than IOTL, while dominating kingdoms as Thuringians or proto-Bavarians earlier than IOTL (historically, the collapse of Gothic Italy allowed Franks to replace Gothic influence there).
In fact, Constantinople could find convenient enough to search the Frankish rear alliance as IOTL, but not as much against Goths than whoever rules Italy.
While your ideas and proposed changes are really quite plausible or workable, IMO if they have to lead for a dynastical wank up to imperial establishment (which would be relatively problematic, for various reasons), it would really be more so for Merovingians than Amali.
Most of the clashes came from a pretty much aggressive expension in the late Vth century : Alaric II attempted to draw significant political and religious compromise policies, but defeat face to Franks and the disappearance of the Amali dynasty in Spain provoked the appearance of an anti-dynastic and potentes-heavy Gothic Spain. The problem was much less laws (Barbarian Laws are essentially Roman laws on Barbarians) or culture (materially undistinguishable) than political in the broader sense.
EDIT : By the way, welcome on the board!
EDIT : If you want a significant enough departure from what existed IOTL in Late Ancient Italy, you might want to get inspired by Genseric's exemple : while most of Barbarians large settlement in the Vth century didn't involved requisitions or expropriations, Vandals confiscated a lot of lands in the "sors Wandalorum" in Africa Proconsularis, making a quick and radical change there.
Now, Vandal Africa wasn't cut from the general post-imperial ensemble, but Genseric's political stance on this and on religious grounds (which were, while not fanatical, definitely exceptional among Barbarian kingdoms) could be an inspiration for an alternate Barbarian state in Italy.
Let's imagine that Goths (or whoever takes the lead in Italy) are led by someone either inspired by this exemple, or inspired by a figure like Severinus mixing political role and religious prestige, and doing this and it might be a good step for a different regional set of specificities if not a whole departure from what existed IOTL.
It's not the most plausible setting, I agree, but as a tought experiment and a prospective TL, it could be interesting : such stuff would probably antagonize both Barbarians and part of Romans (mostly expropriated ones and Constantinople) as it happened with Vandals, which is something that you searched (even if it wouldn't make social evolution radically different than in Barbarian kingdoms ITTL or IOTL).
Last edited: