Feudalism in the Americas in the 1300s

[Parsifal]

Most timelines who deal with the 1500s tend to fall into colonialism when it comes to America. This is quite likely when the PoD is set somewhere around 1400, maybe earlier, but capitalist colonization of the Americas is hardly the only possible way to deal with the continent.
If we were to try more original approaches, maybe we might consider a way for Europeans to arrive a few centuries earlier, when capitalist motivations were not yet developed, and the new continent would be seen as serving a very different purpose: feudal land owning.
Two PoDs come to mind here: one where the Black Death does not strike Europe, and the classic one where Gengis Khan is out of the game. In either case, European population would probably be very high by mid or late 1300s (even higher in the no-GK TL), which would drive noblemen and some of their serfs in the search for lands elsewhere. The usual place for this was the Holy Land, but what if notice of vast lands across the sea, based on old accounts of 10th century Normans, became heard of and were taken as more than legends?
Let's say a nobleman, fifth in his lineage, were given the French king the right to travel west and were granted the lands that he happened to find and conquer. He then reaches what is OTL Canada's Maritime Provinces (or the Caribbean, if we want to give him an easier time), and manages to build a settlement and claim the land for the King of France. But the ship he sends back to France to inform the king on his success sinks due to a storm and the king is never aware of the accomplishment. In this case, the colonist is left alone in the new continent, until he's able to send another expedition.
Any ideas? Is this any likely?

 

[Aishio]

Well, with those kinds of POD's it is quite plausible. Who knows, you could also make something like Malians arrive in Brazil or something. The end result is similar, that being earlier Old Word presence in the new one without colonialism, if I understood right. A POD like "Abu Bakr II travels to Brazil and settles there" or "Breton/Irish/Some other minor noble-s make independent entities in the New World while everyone is busy" would be kinda cool. Sorry if I deviated a bit from what you saidI was just expanding the list of possible Pod's.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Did we forget about Vineland? Just have the Vikings maintain their survival and connection to Denmark until the time is right to move onto the continent. Then have a successful New England Viking (or... Danish by now) settlement. The natives then copy it.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Meh. No.

There's too much wilderness as an escape valve. You try having peasants in a feudal setting in America, and they can flee into the woods if the situation gets too bad.

Could you get Lords with territories and castles and such, especially along the East Coast? Yes, you could. But your society would have to provide a LOT more rights for the 'peasantry' (or equivalent) than European feudalism.

So I suppose it might technically be feudalism, but it would not be nearly as organized, hierarchical or oppressive.

It might look a lot like OTL Wales or the Scottish highlands or Ireland - lots of feuding lordlets, definite 'nobility', but not nearly as much social distance between top and bottom.

 

[Parsifal]

Who knows, you could also make something like Malians arrive in Brazil or something.

(...)

A POD like "Abu Bakr II travels to Brazil and settles there" or "Breton/Irish/Some other minor noble-s make independent entities in the New World while everyone is busy" would be kinda cool. Sorry if I deviated a bit from what you saidI was just expanding the list of possible Pod's.

These timelines may be interesting, although I can't figure a realistic PoD here. There is no reliable account of Malian expeditions, let alone a motivation for settling in Brazil.
Actually my favorite half-unlikely TL would be the Chinese in contact with Mesoamericans around 1430. This might be possible without Gengis Khan, but it's still a long shot.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

There's too much wilderness as an escape valve. You try having peasants in a feudal setting in America, and they can flee into the woods if the situation gets too bad.

I have a hard time imagining the situation getting bad enough that starving to death in the woods would seem like a preferable alternative.

 

[Parsifal]

Did we forget about Vineland?

Not at all, that's where the "old accounts from 10th century Normans" come from. But since they didn't actually establish a feudal system there, and since they are an easy choice, I sort of tried to think of an uncommon PoD. Though maybe this would be the best call.

But Vinland would provide another interesting development, since it could have its ties to Europe virtually severed after the end of Medieval Warm Period, maybe to the point they are forgotten.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

But since they didn't actually establish a feudal system there, and since they are an easy choice, I sort of tried to think of an uncommon PoD. Though maybe this would be the best call.

But Vinland would provide another interesting development, since it could have its ties to Europe virtually severed after the end of Medieval Warm Period, maybe to the point they are forgotten.

If they were tied to the Europeans much longer, they might have inherited the European society and then I explained a possible sequence of events that fits the OP.

I have a hard time imagining the situation getting bad enough that starving to death in the woods would seem like a preferable alternative.

How about a plague that kills 70% of people? I don't mean 70% of people it infected, I meant people.

"Breton/Irish/Some other minor noble-s make independent entities in the New World while everyone is busy" would be kinda cool. Sorry if I deviated a bit from what you saidI was just expanding the list of possible Pod's.

That sounds nice

 

[Fabius Maximus]

How about a plague that kills 70% of people? I don't mean 70% of people it infected, I meant people.

OK, maybe, but that situation's too extreme to really support the "Feudalism would never work in America because the peasants would just leave if things got too bad" thesis.

 

[samcster94]

Meh. No.

There's too much wilderness as an escape valve. You try having peasants in a feudal setting in America, and they can flee into the woods if the situation gets too bad.

Could you get Lords with territories and castles and such, especially along the East Coast? Yes, you could. But your society would have to provide a LOT more rights for the 'peasantry' (or equivalent) than European feudalism.

So I suppose it might technically be feudalism, but it would not be nearly as organized, hierarchical or oppressive.

It might look a lot like OTL Wales or the Scottish highlands or Ireland - lots of feuding lordlets, definite 'nobility', but not nearly as much social distance between top and bottom.

Very unlikely. The Norse doing better in what is now Canada is possible, as is Greenland, but that is not really feudalism. What the OP wants is something along the Capetian model, which does not seem like a good model, even with the right kind of ships, for colonizing North America. I can see a VERY different(read:not nicer) relationship with Native Americans if it did happen(like making a few of them nobles or something).

 

[Admiral Brown]

Meh. No.

There's too much wilderness as an escape valve. You try having peasants in a feudal setting in America, and they can flee into the woods if the situation gets too bad.

Could you get Lords with territories and castles and such, especially along the East Coast? Yes, you could. But your society would have to provide a LOT more rights for the 'peasantry' (or equivalent) than European feudalism.

So I suppose it might technically be feudalism, but it would not be nearly as organized, hierarchical or oppressive.

It might look a lot like OTL Wales or the Scottish highlands or Ireland - lots of feuding lordlets, definite 'nobility', but not nearly as much social distance between top and bottom.

What if, instead of European peasants/serfs, Native Americans fill in (or, more precisely, are forced to fill in) that niche. Something similar to what happened in Spanish colonnies where the Spanish were few, such as Paraguay. Or, what happened in medieval Ireland.

A few Europeans settle in forts/castle, but they do not cultivate the soil. Native Americans do that for them. Since Europeans are mostly men, they marry with native women, usualy the daughters or sisters of Native chiefs. Alliances are formed, and eventually some chiefs become nobles on their own...

Eastern North Americans new agriculture, so they technically could have become peasants for a new labour force. They would resists, since they were not used to sustain idle lords, and they didn't produce a high surpluss of food (unlike mesoamericans or Andean peoples). But I think such a model of colonization might have been possible.

 

[CeeJay]

"Feudalism" was an adaptable system that transformed to take advantage of opportunities; the medieval period anticipated far more of what's "modern" than we like to think. I think it could be argued that New France and the Spanish colonies in the New World basically were what feudalism confronted with the Americas would look like. Certainly the system in New France was based heavily on the ancien regime seigneurial system from France, especially in terms of land management.

 

[Parsifal]

Could you get Lords with territories and castles and such, especially along the East Coast? Yes, you could. But your society would have to provide a LOT more rights for the 'peasantry' (or equivalent) than European feudalism.

So I suppose it might technically be feudalism, but it would not be nearly as organized, hierarchical or oppressive.

What the OP wants is something along the Capetian model, which does not seem like a good model, even with the right kind of ships, for colonizing North America.

"Feudalism" was an adaptable system that transformed to take advantage of opportunities; the medieval period anticipated far more of what's "modern" than we like to think. I think it could be argued that New France and the Spanish colonies in the New World basically were what feudalism confronted with the Americas would look like. Certainly the system in New France was based heavily on the ancien regime seigneurial system from France, especially in terms of land management.

Agree to all of this. The kind of feudalism would depend to some extent on which country made the occupation, but adaptations would be inevitable (as they actually were IOTL). It would most certainly be 'lighter', at least because the workers have voluntarily agreed to travel (or have they?). Relationship with natives would be crucial, and surely the colonization effort would be secured by religious missionaries. In some places natives might be essential to help the colonists survive, as they were in North America; in some other places they would be used as laborers, such as in Jesuit missions; many others would simply die of diseases, as they didi OTL.

I know this sounds too similar to what actually happened - this reminds me of an old discussion among historians about the feudal character of European colonization, especially the Iberian cases - but maybe there is no way out of this. Still, I think the key point is: would it be possible, in another historical moment, to promote an occupation of the continent in other terms than slave-based plantations?

 

[CeeJay]

Still, I think the key point is: would it be possible, in another historical moment, to promote an occupation of the continent in other terms than slave-based plantations?

I see what you mean. The trouble is, the labour shortages that made African slaves tempting in the New World IOTL would only be worse at an earlier point in time, and it is not possible for someone to be able to reach the New World without being aware of Africa as a possible reservoir of slaves (the Islamic world had already been exploiting sub-Saharan Africa in this way for some time). So either European New World colonies would try to exploit whatever labour sources they could, eventually including African slaves, or if unable to do so they would (likely) wither and fade like the early Viking colonies did.

 

[Parsifal]

So either European New World colonies would try to exploit whatever labour sources they could, eventually including African slaves, or if unable to do so they would (likely) wither and fade like the early Viking colonies did.

Hence the idea of a major overpopulation issue in Europe. That might be the only way to convince people to withstand such a long trip overseas. Take for instance a world without Gengis Khan: no turmoil in Eastern Europe, no Silk Road, no Black Death. No Silk Road means a smaller demand for luxury goods, and a slower development of Italian cities. No Black Death means overpopulation and no changes in the feudal structure. European population was an estimated 100 million OTL before the Plague (would probably be larger without the Mongols), which means an ever greater population by 1380, and fewer commercial options available. A major social crisis was imminent, and then Lo and Behold!, a new continent! With a smaller demand for luxury products (or a lack of technological skills to produce them), colonies could be envisioned more like the Classic Greek model. Plus, any difficulties with recruiting colonists might end as soon as gold was found...

As for African slaves, that might be a possibility, but African slave trade was very tightly attached to the development of capitalism OTL, so it's hard to predict how things would turn out. The first slaves that the Portuguese bought in Africa were actually sold further along for gold. Of course back in 1425 there was no demand for workers, which would not be the case ITTL; but even so, maybe Africans could be brought not as slaves per se, but as workers.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Meh. No.

There's too much wilderness as an escape valve. You try having peasants in a feudal setting in America, and they can flee into the woods if the situation gets too bad.

Could you get Lords with territories and castles and such, especially along the East Coast? Yes, you could. But your society would have to provide a LOT more rights for the 'peasantry' (or equivalent) than European feudalism.

Quebec did have feudal seigneurs. Though they were usually not rich enough to build castles - the forts like Quebec, Montreal etc. seem to have been held by royal governors.
The peasants in British North America could flee into the woods because the Indian population level was very low. The fugitive peasants in small bands could fight off or conciliate the small bands of surviving Indians, who had a lot of empty forest to spare.
Suppose an earlier settlement of New World, where the European diseases come as a slower trickle, giving Indians time to adapt and recover. E. g. OTL Mexico Valley had about 1 000 000 Indians in 1519, multiple epidemics reduced it to about 70 000 by 1620 - then despite the illnesses being still around, the Indians recovered to 250 000 by 1810. Now suppose a slower arrival of illnesses and more recovery - that would mean a higher population bottom.

In that case, a more numerous remnant Indian population would mean that a fugitive peasant will find numerous Indians in the woods, who have the numbers and organization to repel a small band, and cannot afford the land for newcomers. The unhappy peasant can stay in the seigneury and pay his taxes, or join his seigneur in a numerous and well-organized army to fight off Indians and conquer a new seigneury.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I have a hard time imagining the situation getting bad enough that starving to death in the woods would seem like a preferable alternative.

It could lead to the formation of a sort of "Cossack" group of mixed Amerindian-European heritage. And with the example of the Russian frontier, plenty of serfs there escaped.

What if, instead of European peasants/serfs, Native Americans fill in (or, more precisely, are forced to fill in) that niche. Something similar to what happened in Spanish colonnies where the Spanish were few, such as Paraguay. Or, what happened in medieval Ireland.

A few Europeans settle in forts/castle, but they do not cultivate the soil. Native Americans do that for them. Since Europeans are mostly men, they marry with native women, usualy the daughters or sisters of Native chiefs. Alliances are formed, and eventually some chiefs become nobles on their own...

Eastern North Americans new agriculture, so they technically could have become peasants for a new labour force. They would resists, since they were not used to sustain idle lords, and they didn't produce a high surpluss of food (unlike mesoamericans or Andean peoples). But I think such a model of colonization might have been possible.

Spain never made it work when they tried in California, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, etc. Even in New Mexico, where Spain was the most successful in the lands of the current US, they only succeeded in the territories of the Puebloans, and never against the Navajo, Apache, Utes, or any other group. Yes, the mission system isn't quite what's being asked here, but I think it illustrates the problems with making Indians your serfs. As does the examples of enslaving Indians in Eastern North America--just didn't work. If you actually can make Indians your serfs, you will have pretty much smashed and destroyed their capacity for resistance, which means you've beat them in warfare (more than once, definitely), and they've been decimated by disease in any case. To do all this, you've brought over so many Europeans that you might as well use them as serfs as you would in Europe, since the Indian group you've smashed will be few in numbers that you'll need more than just them to farm your land.

In that case, a more numerous remnant Indian population would mean that a fugitive peasant will find numerous Indians in the woods, who have the numbers and organization to repel a small band, and cannot afford the land for newcomers. The unhappy peasant can stay in the seigneury and pay his taxes, or join his seigneur in a numerous and well-organized army to fight off Indians and conquer a new seigneury.

But why wouldn't it be like with African slaves, which could find refuge with Indians in the woods? I think there would be a lot of whites "driven native" by conditions.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Quebec did have feudal seigneurs. Though they were usually not rich enough to build castles - the forts like Quebec, Montreal etc. seem to have been held by royal governors.

Yes, yes, they did.

However, les habitants were anything but serfs or peasants. They had an independent minded streak - again, because of that pressure valve.

To be honest, I think that's about as 'feudal' as you'd likely get, mostly.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Yes, yes, they did.

However, les habitants were anything but serfs or peasants. They had an independent minded streak - again, because of that pressure valve.

To be honest, I think that's about as 'feudal' as you'd likely get, mostly.

Start Quebec earlier, like 14th century rather than 17th, and you might run out of the frontier pressure valve sooner.
Another possibility - WI Gonzalo Pizarro won?
OTL, the conquistadors wanted to become feudal lords, like they had known from 15th century Spain.
Somehow, the Spanish monarchy managed to defeat them. Gonzalo Pizarro was beheaded. Cortez was fired as governor, and his son exiled to Spain, with just the profits of his Marquesate. Viceroy Mendoza was unable to bequeath Viceroyalty of Mexico to his son. Kings of Spain managed to create a centralized administration of nonhereditary, appointed viceroys, oidors and corregidors. Even encomiendas were limited to a few lives and resumed by Crown.
So WI 16th century Spain loses - the Conquistadors run out of control, defeat all Crown attempts to suppress them and hold Indies as loose confederation/s of hereditary feudal lords?

 

[Prism]

If Vinland succeeded,maybe.With a successful Vinland,you already have an European population. Even than it would be difficult. They would need either large amounts of colonists from Europe or sponsorship from one of the Italian City-States like Genoa or Venice and good-will of the more powerful Native tribes.For large amounts of colonists,the situation with the Spice Road would have to be a lot worse, or the Mongols even more devastating in their invasions. As for goodwill with the Natives,the more powerful North American tribes at the time would be either the early Iroquois or Mississippians. Plus,some of the Native tribes would raid the feudal lands for captives,horses and steel,so it would not be like European feudalism nor would it be like the Mission system,but something else. And I have no idea of ho devastating the Black Death or Bubonic Plague would be on Native people,but it certailnly was with Europeans,so there's another factor. It can be done,but won't be an exact replica of Europe.