Could medieval style feudalism have been brought to the Americas?

If the age of discovery happened a couple centuries earlier during the high middle ages, could more traditional aspect of medieval culture like feudalism and castles and mounted armored knights have been brought to the Americas?
 
The further development of guns changed medieval European warfare and later it proved to be one of the causes of the European supremacy over the New World. There wouldn't be any colonization without early modern technology, European borders wouldn't be enough consolidated to form true centralized nation states capable of sponsoring long-distance voyages through the oceans.
 
The further development of guns changed medieval European warfare and later it proved to be one of the causes of the European supremacy over the New World. There wouldn't be any colonization without early modern technology, European borders wouldn't be enough consolidated to form true centralized nation states capable of sponsoring long-distance voyages through the oceans.

The Vikings were able to reach North America albeit in limited numbers during the early middle ages. Couldn't similar expeditions have been even more successful a few centuries later?

Would true early modern nation states have been needed for a significant European presence to develop in at least Eastern North America?
 
The Vikings were able to reach North America albeit in limited numbers during the early middle ages. Couldn't similar expeditions have been even more successful a few centuries later?

Would true early modern nation states have been needed for a significant European presence to develop in at least Eastern North America?

I'm not an expert on Vinland, but wasn't the climate an issue for the Nordics to maintain their presence also in Greenland? Would the technology of the day capable of crossing the Arctic without stopping in Greenland? And, above all, there would be an economic interest to maintain contact with Europe?
 
If the age of discovery happened a couple centuries earlier during the high middle ages, could more traditional aspect of medieval culture like feudalism and castles and mounted armored knights have been brought to the Americas?
Wasn't feudalism in Spanish colonies the case ?
 
I'm not an expert on Vinland, but wasn't the climate an issue for the Nordics to maintain their presence also in Greenland? Would the technology of the day capable of crossing the Arctic without stopping in Greenland? And, above all, there would be an economic interest to maintain contact with Europe?

The Spanish first reached the America's in carracks which were first developed in the 14th century so within the realm of the late middle-ages.

I'm not sure how much contact would be needed with Europe once a population was first established? Again this would be a feudal system and not an early modern world systems of economics.
 
Even if the Europeans reach Europe in say 1360, as in carlton_bach's fun timeline, feudalism won't be the norm. Feudalism works when you have a captive peasantry, but who would voluntarily move to America to remain a serf?
 
Didn't the French have a seigneurial system in Canada? So, no castles, but still a feudal style of land distribution and management.
 
I actually had a timeline idea where Europeans reach the Americas in the late 1300s (the Portuguese do it) and everybody begins to settle in relatively similar areas with just a century head start (vastly oversimplified, but for all intents and purposes).

What we call Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, and South Carolina were colonized by the English and became much more densely populated faster, with large swaths of land being handed over to the younger sons of nobles (who would not be inheriting anything in Europe) while being broken up by settlements that began as forts or trading posts that would grow into cities (later called free cities).

Initially, these New World nobles buy Native American slaves from other Native Americans, bring over European peasants, although there was always the risk of them fleeing to free cities (thus the name), European endentured servants (much more manageable, but had the drawback of usually only being a few years to a decade long), and, slightly later, black Africans. For a while, most of the European lords did not treat slaves any differently from peasants and servants, which caused a mixed race class of people to emerge. As time went on, a hierarchy emerged where endentured servants were often house workers and overseers of black slaves (as Native Americans were not numerous enough to continue to exist in this hierarchy. The mixed race group was seen as a distinguishably different class of people, even if they by and large remained slaves for the time being.

As the centuries go on, the question of where mixed race people, with Native, European, and African blood was finally decided when colonies began to decree that any new mixed race person born would be born free. They would go on to populate the outskirts of the free cities and often end up working as endentured servants anyway.
 
The Vikings were able to reach North America albeit in limited numbers during the early middle ages. Couldn't similar expeditions have been even more successful a few centuries later?

It's certainly possible that later expeditions could occur (though IMO the Black Death would end any economic reason and probably most ideological reasons to undertake such expeditions). It's quite another to say that these expeditions would transplant a feudal society. North America north of the Rio Grande was not very densely populated, and Native Americans could scatter instead of submitting to nobles in castles, as could any imported European peasants. Armored knights could prove militarily powerful in the Americas-as they did IOTL with the Conquistadors, who considered themselves knights-but they are not an insurmountable force in this scenario.

Would true early modern nation states have been needed for a significant European presence to develop in at least Eastern North America?

IMO, yes. The initial colonies needed strong military support from the motherland to avoid being destroyed by Native attacks before the colonists could develop the critical mass necessary to resist such attacks themselves. For that matter, they needed support to survive natural disasters such as drought or disease. It would take an early-modern type of organization to support such colonization.
 
Even if the Europeans reach Europe in say 1360, as in carlton_bach's fun timeline, feudalism won't be the norm. Feudalism works when you have a captive peasantry, but who would voluntarily move to America to remain a serf?
Who said the movement had to be voluntary?
De-facto feudalism survived longer in the New World than it did in OTL Western Europe.

If the age of discovery happened a couple centuries earlier during the high middle ages, could more traditional aspect of medieval culture like feudalism and castles and mounted armored knights have been brought to the Americas?

The further development of guns changed medieval European warfare and later it proved to be one of the causes of the European supremacy over the New World. There wouldn't be any colonization without early modern technology, European borders wouldn't be enough consolidated to form true centralized nation states capable of sponsoring long-distance voyages through the oceans.
The Incas and Aztecs weren't very impressed with conquistador firearms. They were however, scared shitless of the armoured lancers the Spanish relied on, who were basically just men-at-arms with somewhat lighter armour and thinner lances. They actually survived much longer in the New World than they did in Europe, where they were replaced by heavily armoured pistoleers instead.
The Indians would get trashed by disease anyway, making them easy prey, and the steel weapons and armour of European troops would give them a decisive advantage even without firearms.
 
The Incas and Aztecs weren't very impressed with conquistador firearms. They were however, scared shitless of the armoured lancers the Spanish relied on, who were basically just men-at-arms with somewhat lighter armour and thinner lances. They actually survived much longer in the New World than they did in Europe, where they were replaced by heavily armoured pistoleers instead.
The Indians would get trashed by disease anyway, making them easy prey, and the steel weapons and armour of European troops would give them a decisive advantage even without firearms.

I wasn't talking about warfare in the Americas. Guns changed warfare in Europe, consolidating borders and ultimately centralizing a government that is capable to sponsor interoceanic travel.
 
If the age of discovery happened a couple centuries earlier during the high middle ages, could more traditional aspect of medieval culture like feudalism and castles and mounted armored knights have been brought to the Americas?

Feudalism as an economic system was default in Latin America since independence to the second quarter of 20th century with a wave of industrialist nationalist politics. In many countries, only land-owners were allowed to vote, disregarding the petite bourgeoisie and peasants. Peasants were paid with food stamps.
 
The issue is that the sheer amount of land has the potential to "overload" the Feudal system, since there was just so. much. land. and so many resources, and all without pesky nobles trying to get their hands on it. It is too easy for a King to gain so much power from the New World that it cripples the power of the nobles in the Old.
 
The issue is that the sheer amount of land has the potential to "overload" the Feudal system, since there was just so. much. land. and so many resources, and all without pesky nobles trying to get their hands on it. It is too easy for a King to gain so much power from the New World that it cripples the power of the nobles in the Old.
No, it isn´t. The King needs some way to rein in the Conquistadors setting up to make themselves Skraeling chiefs without reference to the King. If he cannot, then the conquistadors become nobles.

For comparison:
Iceland never had castles. There were Icelandic horses, but Saga age and Sturlung age nobles do not seem to have feuded in armour.
Norway had castles - almost all of them royal. So did Finland. Yes, you can have a medieval stone castle in a sparsely settled forest - see Olavinlinna. There was nobility, too. Did frälse of Sweden wear armour?
Further east, Novgorod always traded with Europe. How were Novgorod boyars based?
 
Feudalism as an economic system was default in Latin America since independence to the second quarter of 20th century with a wave of industrialist nationalist politics. In many countries, only land-owners were allowed to vote, disregarding the petite bourgeoisie and peasants. Peasants were paid with food stamps.

That is a way of seeing it. It is all a matter of how we define feudalism.

Personaly, I think that large estates ("latifundios") in the hands of a few powerfull landowners is not enough to consider there was feudalism in Latin America. The Crown, and, later, even the unstable post-independence governments, were way more powerfull than any landowner. Landowners didn't make laws in their lands, could not do justice (at least not formaly), couldn't start private wars and would have serious trouble if they questioned the government's supremacy.

The Spanish monarchs were afraid that Conquistadors such as Cortez or Pizarro would proclaim themselves Kings, or be such powerfull vassals that they would be de facto Kings. That was they tried to limit their power, and take them out of the sceen. Especialy after Gonzalo Pizzarro's rebellion (suppressed by the Crown's emmissary). By the second half of the XVI century, conquistadors were gone or had retired from power, and a system of Vicerroys and other government officials had been established. Vicerroys were mere government officials, born in Spain, who exerted power only for small periods of time, and who were subject to trail after their mandates (juicio de residencia) to make sure they had not stole from the treasury (or at least not stolen a lot), and then sent back to Spain. Their power was limited by other government officials (like the oidores).

In practice, would have problems if they tried to radically challenge local Criollo aristocracy (for example, by implementing the laws that granted a more humane treatment of Natives). But in terms of matters really important to the Crown (such as keeping the Americas Catholic, Spanish and as a part of Castille's inheritance), they made no concessions, and anything percieved as treason to the monarchy was seriously Spanish. No matter how rich the Criollo in question was.

This is why I don't think we can call the Spanish system in América "feudalism" (even if it is true that in some marginal regions of Spanish América the Criollo elite was very powerfull, and even defied the Central government ocassionaly -in areas that didn't question the State's religion and the Supreme authority if the monarchs, of course).
 
The issue is that the sheer amount of land has the potential to "overload" the Feudal system, since there was just so. much. land. and so many resources, and all without pesky nobles trying to get their hands on it. It is too easy for a King to gain so much power from the New World that it cripples the power of the nobles in the Old.

Wasn't the same true in Russia?
 
Are you thinking of Latin America, or Quebec?

Well, both. There were traces of feudalism everywhere in the Americas. People just don't happen to suddenly change all their economic and legal traditions just because historians created an artificial line between the Middle Ages and the Modern Era.

There was also the patroon system in New Netherland and surely there was some traces of feudalism in English America as well. But, feudalism as we know it? Nah.

This is why I don't think we can call the Spanish system in América "feudalism" (even if it is true that in some marginal regions of Spanish América the Criollo elite was very powerfull, and even defied the Central government ocassionaly -in areas that didn't question the State's religion and the Supreme authority if the monarchs, of course).

I agree with you, it's hard to compare feudalism with the situation in Latin America. What is somewhat comparable is the degree decentralization, power sharing and extreme inequality in a rural economy. Also, it's important to mention that our common conception of what feudalism really was was only applied in Northern and Western Europe. Heck, even most of Iberia didn't experience feudalism as we normaly tend to define it.
 
Didn't the French have a seigneurial system in Canada? So, no castles, but still a feudal style of land distribution and management.
Oui. If you have a look at satellite imagery of those areas of Eastern Canada that France colonized, such as:
https://goo.gl/maps/moQ2KtcJ6ip
The narrow strips you see along the St. Lawrence River are a consequence of the seigneural system in Canada. Before Québec reformed its administrative structures in the late 1970s, a significant portion of its counties reflected this old system further since they were patterned on the old seigneuries. Of course, as applied to New France, the system was a little bit looser than in France itself because of the lucrative potential in the fur trade (hence the legends of the voyageurs, the coureurs de bois, etch.) and/or even "going Native" (the end result being Canada's Métis community). In addition, there's also a complication in that when Samuel de Champlain founded Port-Royal (the first bona fide French settlement in North America, a couple of years before the founding of the habitation in Québec) he wanted in that settlement to create a community that was the opposite of what he experienced, as a Huguenot, in France. So in that case, not only were Native peoples a welcome part of his community, but even the settlers who would later become Acadians were freeholding peasants, who held their land in common, alongside the Aboriginal communities. This spirit of egalitarianism is pervasive throughout l'Amérique française, and hence influenced how the seigneural system was established in New France. Even then, it was not until the 19th century that the seigneural system was finally abolished in what was then Lower Canada, but traces of it persist in the geography of the former New France - including Acadia (if you know where to look and what the signs are, even though the Acadians were more or less "free" settlers who were a pain in the posterior of Versailles).

So yeah, feudalism did exist in North America at one point or another, though with the exception of Latin America (and even then only certain parts of it, primarily those areas of Latin America and the Caribbean who were in direct contact with the métropole) the system in the Americas in general was largely always looser than the rigidity of the systems in the métropole. Part of the difficulty of defining what feudalism consists of is because even within Europe itself there was not one template that was copied all over the place (to the point where there are scholars who believe that "feudalism" as a term should be discarded as it's too vague and doesn't really have a definition). So in some areas what feudalism could be would be patterned after the ancient patterns in the Roman Empire, and yet in the Nordic countries you have a different where most of the peasants were largely freemen who gathered together every once in a while in a þing or assembly, and so on and so forth. Even in China, once the Communists took over in 1949 scholars there tried to justify Marxist historiography by defining the Imperial period up to 1911 as being a period of feudalism, which not only stretches the concept (if there ever was one) but also calls into question the term itself. What we in the Anglosphere, whether we are native or are second-language speakers, tend to believe is the "classic" model of feudalism is shaped by the experiences that England had under Norman rule once they imported their manorial system (among many other things), so our definition of feudalism is largely coloured by this experience. By this thinking, for the most part feudalism has existed at some point or another within the Western Hemisphere, whether it be the manorial system we associate with feudalism (Canada), or with a very hierarchical system where everything and everyone knew their place derived both from the ancient world and from the writings of the Christian saints and philosophers (Latin America, the Caribbean, and the US South - complicated even further in the case of Latin America by the coinciding system of fueros, or privileges/autonomy), or during the Industrial Revolution, with the prevalence of company towns and the like (which many areas of the Western Hemisphere has experienced at one point or another), and then some. So one does not need to have the whole medieval garb transported across the Atlantic to make feudalism work - it already existed in some form or another.

Now, having said that, if you wanted an earlier colonization of the Western Hemisphere - earlier than when the Spanish and Portuguese began their colonization efforts - then if given the right amount of technology it could be possible. But even so, depending on the country, the time period, and even the area of the Americas that was colonized, what you might get would not really be feudalism as such. For example, say if - for some reason or another - Spain decided to embark on an earlier colonization of the Americas than IOTL. If you go back early enough in time, not only would the centres of power be further north than OTL - for example, at one point the Kingdom of León was one of the more important Christian kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula before the Castilians started getting ideas - but the nature of colonial rule would also be different. In the case of, say, Leonese colonization of the Americas, not only would it be a different language transported across the Atlantic but you'd also be following the trading routes of the fishermen from northern ports. The nature of land tenure would be different - what is now northern Spain actually had more independent land ownership schemes than in the south, which was further enhanced by the widespread use of the fuero. In exchange for certain duties and obligations that each corporate unit had towards the King, each settlement, each land owner, the Catholic Church, etc. etc. would be granted liberties and privileges, and furthermore had representation in the Cortes - the feudal court/assembly. If given enough time and development, thess systems of mutual obligation and medieval corporatism could be transformed into a democratic system of sorts - not in the liberal, individualistic, modern sense most of us are familiar with, but a more organic, communitarian, corporatist model of democracy. Yet it would not be following the French-influenced "template" of medieval-style feudalism that we'd expect from an Anglosphere-centric view of things, even if it still remained feudal in a broader concept. It would not be a variation of what we'd see in ASOIAF/Game of Thrones, but a uniquely Iberian system in a variation that would be equally Leonese, or Galician, or Asturian, et. al.
 
Top