well if you went back earlier to the classical era you could argue Sparta was a Fascist State, on Steriods so you would need some one who thought that was a great way to run a country. One could possibly also turn Venice into a proto fascist state with a little effort, even without a Spartan Example.
How would a Fascistic Society in the Middle Ages work?
- Thread starter Ellis MacVey
- Start date
closer to home a major driver for the reformation was the Vatican's disinclination to persecute alleged witches, Jews and other unpopular people. A more vicious far reaching reformation could create a nasty theocracy.
Isn't that pretty much what Oliver Cromwell's rule turned into IOTL. Of course persecuting Jews in England was quite hard in his days since they had already all been expelled from England several centuries earlier.
So this is a POD with huge butterflies and literally a millenia or so ago, but I wonder if a Potlemaic wank couldnt do the trick.
The Order state hardly qualifies even if just because it never had the dictatorial authority on its own territory as was quite clearly demonstrated by creation of the Prussian Confederation and the Thirteen Years' War.
The nationalism component is also somewhat dubious taking into an account the fact that the guests from all over Europe had been welcomed.
Fighting with the neighbors was nothing unique in the medieval Europe and in each specific case you should clearly define who was an aggressor and what were the circumstances.
Persecution of the Jews was a part of the Nazi platform, not of "fascism" in general: in Italy anti-Jewsih racial laws had been introduced only in 1938. Actually, Cromwell allowed resettlement of the Jews in England (it seems that besides the religious considerations there was a practical idea of attracting the rich Dutch Jews in expectation that they'll transfer their interests with the Spanish Main from the Netherlands to England).
Which was kind of difficult to put together ideologically because a big part of Genghis legacy was an absolute religious tolerance. So he appropriated mostly a convenient part related to the titles (never was "Khan" himself ) and life style (AFAIK, lived in a luxurious tent rather than palace)
Reminds me of Horrible Histories. And how they blamed Cromwell for things down in the Commonwealth era, all the while having other episodes mentoin how kings before and after him did the same thing, as well as mocking what he banned. Such as crossdressing actors, giant brawls that led to deaths and injuries (with kings actually requiring all the men and boys to not play any sports and to do archery on a regular basis), for keeping non-religious music out of churches, etc. anyways, Cromwell didn't mind Jews nor of various types of Christians, they just had to not try and bring the French and the Stuart's into the country. Charles I was basically a traitor to both England and Scotland, and if you count treason as crimes against a country or government rather than the monarch than he certainly deserved to die. By legal standards back then. He was rather of the Divinely Appointed mindset, in which the king was to be the absolute leader. For Cromwell we might better compare it to a Junta, with the Military Governors being his main allies.
But no one would expect it!
I think need for a nation state is really important in order for fascism to work. You'd have to rework the whole feudal system. The ruler can't simply own a demesne and have vassals that "borrow" the king's lands, there's too much chaos in it for a fascist state, theocracy or no theocracy. Besides, a Catholic theocratic fascist state would be hard considering the nature of Catholicism and Popes. Maybe a heresy that requires a fascist style state?
IMHO Cromwell's rule was whilst not much fun rather short of outright theocracy or fascism, it is more like a Military Dictatorship.
I think you could potentially get some form of Fascism developing out of an oligarchic republic such as Venice where the Social system is definitely not feudal, but is certainly not democratic. Alternatively I think one really needs an earlier POD back in classical times. Sparta pretty much ticks all of the Fascist boxes. It is possible Marian Rome could have developed a form of proto fascism had things worked out slightly differently, but the most likely Roman scenario would be a "Peronist" version where the Gracchi succeeded in over throwing the Senatorial establishment. Of course such states if successful in the long term could mean the middle ages as we know them don't occur.
Kaze
Banned
On the contrary it did have dictatorial authority to commit war crimes across the whole of the Polish corridor. There are accounts where the Teutonic Order would torch a village and kill their inhabitants for FUN - not because that a single person in the village might be a pagan or not Catholic.
Don't be anachronistic. Notion of the "war crimes" in the modern meaning does not apply to the Middle Ages and "Polish corridor" is also a modern term. Killing the civilians was an accepted reality of that period just as other things which we now consider to be unacceptable. Both Prussians and Lithuanians routinely raided their neighbors to get a loot and slaves and even in the more modern times devastation of the territory was a commonplace. Look at what was happening during the 30YW, Russian operations in the Baltic provinces during the GNW, etc.
More importantly, atrocities like that aren't exclusive to dictatorships, so it didn't even begin to contradict your prior assertion.
Well, I was mostly objecting to the anachronistic usage of the moral and geopolitical notions ("Polish corridor" simply did not make sense in the XIV - XV centuries) and the excessive demonization of one side based on the relatively modern grudges. Quite agree with what you wrote about the atrocities and dictatorships.
“Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4]characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”.
If we’re going by Wikipedia, then the idea of nationstates would need to be defined by that point while having the absolute leader in charge of everything.
If we’re going by Wikipedia, then the idea of nationstates would need to be defined by that point while having the absolute leader in charge of everything.
Which would be a rare combination. Off the top of my head, Genghis came close by expanding the term "Mongols" to all subdued people of the Steppe, dealing with the opposition harshly (including "Most Divine" shaman Kokochu who had unhealthy illusions about his own power). Regimentation of society (the nomadic part of it) was clearly there and quite literally: each male Mongol had its place in one of the regiments (
) and Yasa contained a list of the behavioral rules (no quarrels and theft among the Mongols, no bathing naked in the open water, etc.). Economy is trickier but there was a clearly defined percentage of the loot which each warrior had to give to the Khan (probably under the circumstances this could pass as a part of "economy"), there were regulations protecting the traders, state-maintained postal service, etc.OTOH, the national and legal stuff was applicable only to the nomads: the sedentary population continued to live under the pre-existing laws (with whatever modifications).