How would a Fascistic Society in the Middle Ages work?

The Uchronian

Halagaz said:
Honestly, the very meaning of the words "xenophobic" and "nationalism" (also "radical", "authoritarian", and "militaristic") is so deeply rooted in modern politics and concepts, that - once you try to transplant them to the middle ages - they no longer mean anything at all.
Click to expand...

Well, you may be mostly right when it comes to nationalism(that actually is mainly a more recent concept, though as @SeaCambrian points out, precursors did exist in earlier eras), but I'm afraid you are incorrect when it comes to xenophobia in particular-after all, we need only look at how the Romans viewed the Germanic peoples to their north, and certainly existed in the Middle Ages, even if not quite in the same form as in the 18th Century and later. And there is some room for debate in regards to authoritarianism, militarism and radicalism, especially the latter.

Interwar Hungary tried to create a modern knight class by handing out lands and estates to right-wing decorated war veterans and granting them a noble title (the Vitezi Rend, "Order of Knights"). This represents an interesting flirtation between residual feudalism and right-wing authoritarian politics...but, I don't know if there's a way to have that in the middle ages.
Click to expand...

It's not impossible. It would be different than what we know, of course, I won't dispute this.....but the question is how such a thing would come around.
 

Max Sinister

Banned
Sparta makes most sense. It was a small state, that's why surveillance kinda worked.

But fascism proper also includes corporatism, which doesn't make much sense in medieval ages.

Even integralism would make more sense.
 

Sol Zagato

Scorpio Retindar said:
Okay, so I just had a thought:

What if one removed the centralized and reactionary elements of fascism, instead making it a bizarre left-wing-ish proto-fascism (i.e. radical ultranationalism, militarism, xenophobia all in one bizarre medieval-tech-leveled bundle), maybe with military officers replacing feudal lords?
Click to expand...
In large part, you just described something that resembles the Hussites. They had factions that were left-ish (down to redistribution), lead by popular military officers, and ethnically cleansed many Germans out of Bohemia.
 

alexmilman

ArchimedesCircle said:
Maybe one of the crusader states could do it, if their territory was small enough to control in totality.
Click to expand...

Well, to achieve this the state should have a strong dictatorial power, enforcement of the rigid social and economic regulations and nationalism. While it is possible to imagine the first two conditions, nationalism part would be tricky because, short of a complete genocide of the local population, the state is doomed to be multi-ethnic (locals and the "Franks"). As a result, no nationalism as unifying factor.
 
Vuu

Vuu

Banned
First of all, people can't satisfactorily define fascism, second of all, you could say that some eastern european/byzantine influenced states were proto-nationalistic at best, but that's due to the different, less feudal system of governance
 

Sol Zagato

Max Sinister said:
I always liked Umberto Eco's definition of ur-fascism. If he can't define it, no one can.
Click to expand...
As someone much smarter than me put it, Eco came at it from the perspective that Facism isn't actually an ideology. If you think Facism is an ideology, then Eco is worse than useless here.
 

AussieHawker

Banned
Said definition / noted hallmarks

  1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
  2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
  3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
  4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
  5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
  6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
  7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
  8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
  9. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treatyto NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
  10. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
  11. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
  12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
  13. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
  14. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning
Click to expand...

Middle age society, already has some of the hallmarks of Fascist society and others that don't really make sense, such as rejection of modernism, needing to subvert Democratic institutions or mass education.

Fascism also implies war focused economics, which is already a somewhat hallmark of Middle Ages states. Mass looting and enslavement is par for the course.

I think the nearest thing you can get is trading nationalism for religion. Perhaps a apocalyptic style end of day narrative, needing to set the stage for the return of whoever once the heretic and heathens have been purged. And this society will need some advantage to propel its expansion and thus righteous of its narrative. So perhaps it is a eager adopter of gunpowder warfare, allowing for rapid gains with seige craft and battle field victory.
 

TRH

Tripledot said:
No one mentions the original model upon which fascism was based, the Roman Empire?
Click to expand...

One regime appropriating iconography from another one doesn't make them the same or even all that similar, especially with two millennia's distance. The Khmer Rouge weren't exactly a faithful approximation of the medieval Khmer either.
 
ennobee

ennobee

RMcD94 said:
It's difficult to implement an authoritarian society in a decentralised and low tech state.

You basically need the community to be your surveillance but they still lack the admin to manage it
Click to expand...

The Church was centralized enough, and it had surveillance agents in every parish. Therefore my first reaction to the post was "Aah, you mean something like the Spanish Reconquista? (*)"

(*)Spanish Inquisition optional. I know, it's a bit late for the Middle Ages, but the Church had purges like this pretty much throughout the whole time from the Crusades up to the Contra-Reformation
 
Last edited:
Tripledot

Tripledot

TRH said:
One regime appropriating iconography from another one doesn't make them the same or even all that similar, especially with two millennia's distance. The Khmer Rouge weren't exactly a faithful approximation of the medieval Khmer either.
Click to expand...
I'd say that the early empire at least has some elements of fascism- cult of the leader, populism, legitimacy through war, etc. At least, moreso than medieval feudal states.
 

TRH

Tripledot said:
I'd say that the early empire at least has some elements of fascism- cult of the leader, populism, legitimacy through war, etc. At least, moreso than medieval feudal states.
Click to expand...

But without the cult of tradition and the cult of action, a lot of this just falls apart. As was said, those two feed directly into the suppression of criticism and dissent, among several other items on the list. This is the problem with over-diagnosis of fascism - if you treat it as a checklist where all the items carry equal weight, then you can point to any old authoritarian or militaristic society, calculate that it fits maybe half of the listed criteria, and conclude that it was quasi-fascist. But because all of the points are intimately connected and build on each other, you can't make that case without missing Eco's point. The way I see it, that list up there is all or nothing.
 
Clandango

Clandango

Hmm. Can we get any with a real religious bent to it? Or only a facsimile. There were one or two clerics-fascist regimes, though it was more coopting the Catholic Church. Except maybe innthe cade of Slovakia, but they were a puppet state. Actually, can we consider the dictators of Poland and the Baltic States as fascists for this? As well as the monarchs of Southeasr Europe. Just so we have a base line. Also, what are the exact dates we should count as medival? If we manage to go to the Tudor period then Henry VIII will count as the perfect authoritarian leader. He cut down the only remaining Duke and margrave (or something similar. And might have been Lizzie who got the duke) in England and their families, redistributed church lands in his favor, had the nobility start treating him as King and not first among equals... Elizabeth might also count to an extent. Heck, she practically supplanted the Virgin Mary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top