Feudalism in the Roman Empire?

The Roman Empire lay the ground for feudalism in its last centuries, when long-distance trade volumes plummeted, local trade partly reverted to barter, townsfolk moved to the countryside and became landless, dependent coloni (serfs) and the centralisation of the military complex broke down (into regional usurpations and separate empires, but also through increased dependence on barbarian foederati).

For feudalism not to occur, the (Western) Roman Empire would not only have to withstand the barbarian invasions, but also reform its political constitution, invest heavily in safety, restore trade and redistribute land.
 
I would not say so.

Just consider what happened in the Byzantine empire or in the spanish kingdoms, or even in norman England. There was not at all the same kind of territorial political organization than the kind of feudalism that developed in the former Carolingian area.
 
Matteo,
In the ERE, the splintering into endless fiefdoms did not occur BUT characteristics of feudalism like peasant serfdom existed in all named regions from Diocletian's time on; the role of the nobility changed, the classical class of "citizens" finally ceased to be a reality, with the new distinctions of monarch, nobility, clergy and (mostly unfree) peasantry taking their place. Long-distance trade and urbanisation in the ERE never reached the relative degrees of antiquity (let's not even talk about 12th century England etc.).
 
Serfdom emerged in the WRE as well as in the ERE. It was not a characteristic of feudality since it existed before.
 
The defining characteristic of feudalism is the exchange of land for a promise of future military service. This is different from the Roman view of military service and is developed from the rewards by lords to followers in the Germanic cultures.

It may be that a surviving WRE is dependant upon foederati and so a kind of feudalism is built up based on their practices, but I believe it would be more limited in scope and reach than in OTL
 
It depends.

If the West doesn't falls and keeps all it's territory, they would have to develop some form of feudal monarchy. It would be impossible for the Emperor to administrate all the Empire, let alone face all possible attacks on the borders.

Eventually the Ducces would receive large amounts of autonomy to face those attacks, with the border areas being divided into some kind of personal domain of the Ducces (maybe called Duxia or Ducia?).

So the borders would become under the control of the Ducces, with the Emperor controlling the safer, and more richer, lands.

Imagine a kind of Theme system, but only in the borders, and with the Dux in charge with much autonomy.

But if the West survives, but LOSES all the lands except Italia, the Southern Gallic coast and the Iberian Mediterranean coast (you might add northern Africa, but only the part near Italia, if you wish), then they can keep the governor system.

The main borders would be more close to the capital, and the Imperial Army, and Navy, would be able to fend off attacks more easily, without having to give the commanders huge amounts of autonomy. The ones that would have to get extra powers would be the ones in Africa and in some areas of the Iberian coast, but they wound't have the same powers than those I mentioned in the first case.

So it's possible some kind of feudal system is born, but it must have special circumstances, and it would never developed like in the Carolingian Empire.
 
Serfdom emerged in the WRE as well as in the ERE. It was not a characteristic of feudality since it existed before.
Having existed before can hardly be a criterion for exclusion from the list of defining traits. The defining characteristic of feudalism as given by larpsidekick below:
The defining characteristic of feudalism is the exchange of land for a promise of future military service.
has also existed before; it was common in the Sasanian Empire, it was practiced in Zhou China etc.

But perhaps our differences here stem from what philosophy we`re coming from. If you look at it from a point of view that focuses purely on military structures, then the feudalist/mercenary/conscript distinction is sharp enough and makes sense.
On the other hand, I come from a philosophical background which focuses ("underlying", as I would say, but I know others disagree) political-economic structures in historical formations, and to me, "feudalism" describes a complex system which unites military, social, economic, political and cultural structures. If one of them is absent, say: a Medieval European state relying (temporarily or permanently) on mercenaries than on enfeoffment, that doesn`t make the state non-feudal. Others may differentiate differently.

Perhaps we should ask burgoynewulfe what he meant by his question.
 
It is very possible, that the WRE establishs a kind of feudalism, if it does not fall. Actually it was already pretty feudal. The big landlords (based on serfdom) of the WRE became very independent. These landlords were one important reason for the desintegration of the WRE long before Augustulus.

And they feeded the army with recruits. Some of them were high officers themselves. Later we see roman commanders and landlords with big private armies (bucellarii). From here feudalism is just a view steps away. No problem, because the romans of the late empire were willing to adopt elements of german military culture.

I recommend to read: Dick Whittacker, "Landlords and Warlords in the Late Roman Empire"

edit: PS. And the ERE, having a different internal social and economical structure, established just 200 years later the Tagma-Organisation as a combined military and civil concept. Another step into feudalism. That does not mean, that feudalism was unavoidable.
 
Last edited:
It depends.

If the West doesn't falls and keeps all it's territory, they would have to develop some form of feudal monarchy. It would be impossible for the Emperor to administrate all the Empire, let alone face all possible attacks on the borders.

Eventually the Ducces would receive large amounts of autonomy to face those attacks, with the border areas being divided into some kind of personal domain of the Ducces (maybe called Duxia or Ducia?).

So the borders would become under the control of the Ducces, with the Emperor controlling the safer, and more richer, lands.

Imagine a kind of Theme system, but only in the borders, and with the Dux in charge with much autonomy.

But if the West survives, but LOSES all the lands except Italia, the Southern Gallic coast and the Iberian Mediterranean coast (you might add northern Africa, but only the part near Italia, if you wish), then they can keep the governor system.

The main borders would be more close to the capital, and the Imperial Army, and Navy, would be able to fend off attacks more easily, without having to give the commanders huge amounts of autonomy. The ones that would have to get extra powers would be the ones in Africa and in some areas of the Iberian coast, but they wound't have the same powers than those I mentioned in the first case.

So it's possible some kind of feudal system is born, but it must have special circumstances, and it would never developed like in the Carolingian Empire.

Why would the West necessarily have to evolve into a feudal structure ? Feudalism was not an unavoidable evolution.

The empire never was centralized. It was very decentralized with provincial governors that enjoyed a large autonomy and, inside the provinces, there were cities, villages and federations that enjoyed a large autonomy.

It was just that the governors and local magistrates were kind of civil servants that were named for a limited term.

This could perfectly have gone on if the WRE had survived, quite a similar way the the chinese administration lasted.
 
Why would the West necessarily have to evolve into a feudal structure ? Feudalism was not an unavoidable evolution.

The empire never was centralized. It was very decentralized with provincial governors that enjoyed a large autonomy and, inside the provinces, there were cities, villages and federations that enjoyed a large autonomy.

It was just that the governors and local magistrates were kind of civil servants that were named for a limited term.

This could perfectly have gone on if the WRE had survived, quite a similar way the the chinese administration lasted.

I never said that they would eventually evolved to a feudal structure.

At best the border provinces would get a very high degree of autonomy. And the Roman Empire was very centralized, the governors had autonomy yes, but they all received mandatas from the Emperor. All they had to do was keep the peace and the tax flowing to the treasury, military power (in the late Empire) was out of their reach.

The early Empire was decentralized but the late Empire was heavily centralized because of the several Caesars. Each one of them had a court, with their own bureaucrats. Centralization was heavy so that they could ensure biggest tax revenues to pay to the Army.

If the Empire was to survive the governors would have to be replaced by military commanders. It's inevitable.

China spent several parts of it's early history divided between several warring states.

In Rome the civil wars lasted less, but were much more destructive. More Rome had to deal with constant raids on his frontiers. Civil servants would be unable to keep the barbarians at bay. The Roman Military Dictatorship was unavoidable, but it can be controlled.

The choices to Rome were either to adopt a kind of theme system in the borders (that only CAN, evolve into some kind of feudalism), or abandon the parts that are to far way from the capital (with the borders close to the seat of power, the Emperors can have effectual control over all the army and administration).
 
I think you are making a countersense on the border provinces. The border provinces were the ones where the imperial power's direct intervention was most frequent and most important because they were the territories of conflict with the neighbours, the territories from which, to name it quickly, the imperial army intervened to protect the frontiers, roll-back agressors or force the nieghbours into submission.
 
Top