In order for us to properly understand how such a system would manifest itself as the world developed, we would first have to cover how such a thing could possibly enroll itself in modern civilization. The most likely argument would be that slavery never inspires European imperialists in the future and that the Middle Ages simply never develops a more humanistic attitude toward the idea of enslaving fellow Europeans under an extremely divisive caste system that favored nobles predominately. The likely way in which this would occur in this alternate timeline would be the abolishment of the Magna Carta or the idea never being proposed as a charter of rights. Nobles would continue to dominate over their social hierarchies in Europe; acting as a slave owner class to various serfs, peasants, and plebians of the now developing world. This system would continue on past the Middle Ages into the 15th and 16th centuries, in which its popularity would finally take a blow. With the nailing of the 95 theses and the rise of Lutheran rejection in faith-based government insurrection, the Feudal system would finally take enough of a humanistic beating to finally collapse. On top of that, the age of enlightenment would begin approaching, in which many noble classes or intellectual classes begin to question the ethical nature of enslaving tenets of your own blood bonded land for the sake of sustaining a 'noble' title. The ideas of liberalism would begin to take hold in Europe, eradicating the idea that one class could determine the fate of an entire generation of uninherited submissive peasants. While this movement would prosper in Europe, the case would be drastically different for the new European colonies established overseas at this time. In the 16th Century, the English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese settlers would bring with them as noble classes, new tenet establishments of land that would establish the same hierarchical order that existed in Europe. Feudal peasants would find incentive to move to the New World; particularly the West Indies and North America in hopes of prospering; only to be stuck in the same perpetual system as before. The European governments would be disgusted at this course of action; however, they would tolerate the rise of Feudalism, mostly because the nobles desired for its continuation as a tradition. In addition, Feudalism would be hard to replace in the colonies, since the colonists in this timeline would be predominately nobles who bought tenets of land in order to cultivate crops and new means to economic settlement in the New World; meaning the predominant economic system in the colonies was Feudalism. This would be very similar to slavery in our timeline, as many abolitionists in Europe would advocate for the death of the Feudal system, some even advocating for African slavery as a proper substitute. However, Nobles would widely prefer the system of Feudalism as it was of tradition, economic importance, and sustained the influential positions of the noble families that dominated over the colonies, giving them more socio-economic and political representation in the new vastly developing colonies. This only worsened the growing divide between European and colonial interests regarding Humanism and rights. Colonists desired for the Feudal system to only be strengthened, while Europeans began to view it as a dehumanizing idea. Many former members of Feudal peasant classes even moved in masses to the colonies, due to them not knowing any other proper system that would support their uneducated, poor, and lack of labor skills. Feudalism would only grow even larger than it did in Europe with the advent of the rapid colonization of the Americas; with Feudalism only growing in numbers as there became more members of the feudal caste system. The English colonies would attract many foreign English, Irish, German, Scottish, Spanish, and Eastern European feudal castes into the newly developing colonies, growing their influence at increasingly rapid rates. In addition, the level of poverty in the colonies due to the unsanitary nature of the feudal system would lead to disease spreading faster and wider in this timeline throughout the continents, meaning that disease would ravage the Native populations far faster. Racial and Ethnic tensions would begin to develop, as German and English merchants would begin to dominate the noble classes, and Slavic peasants would quickly be absorbed into the wider Feudal peasant class predominately. As the 1700's come onto the world stage, things appear drastically different. North America, similar to in our timeline, is divided economically between North and South. The south, as you guessed it, is the neediest for the Feudal system out of all self-governing territories under royal charters. The economic cotton-picking south demands for a cheap source of labor and a means to keep the aristocratic south in predominant power over the west indies trade with Europe and the rest of the Americas; making feudalism a prime source of economic development. By the mid-1700s, the number of peasants has drastically outgrown the number of noble classes in immigration and domestic growth alone. The rapid impoverished conditions of disease and closely nit tenet lands that are designed under feudal cities/lands greatly permitted the rapid growth of an impoverished population that only fueled the society. In addition to this, rapid amounts of starvation and typhus epidemics occurred throughout the colonies that many nobles attempted to cover up from the sentimental nature of European nobility. Similar to our timeline with slavery, the North would have less need overtime for feudal societies, so would establish itself as more freedom based and liberal; while the economically inclined south would continue the system of feudalism for some time. The Royal Governors of the New England and Middle Colony territories would simply abolish through charter agreements feudalism in the northern territories; leading to an influx in the south and new western settlements. As time would go on, the Spanish would be internationally pressured to abolish their feudal system in Latin America; except in the West Indies where it would remain in cooperation with the o-American southern aristocracy. As the time of humanistic and liberalistic revolution encroaches, the aristocratic south would be the most loyalist out of all the American colonies, simply due to the economic trade with Britain. The southerners feared that the new England interests would abolish feudal society, which America had grown dependent on. In short, however, America does win the American Revolution and formerly gains independence on 1783. However, the constitutional issue of feudalism and property pertains. This issue is divided among the constitutionalists who desire for the state to interfere in feudalism to accumulate a class of new free Anglo-American laborers; and aristocratic nobles from both sides who claim that the peasant classes are too dependent upon the system through mutual benefit to abandon it so quickly. These nobles desire to protect the property rights of the nobles and claim to speak on behalf of the 'peasant' classes. By this point, the southern states in total comprise of at least 90% of peasant classes. These individuals don't hold property, cannot vote most of the time and have no political representation. The constitution simply abandons the issue and considers the 'peasant' classes as under the property jurisdiction of the wealthier noble classes. However, feudalism as a concept at the Constitutional Convention is abolished formerly. However, in order to not cause a Civil War and anger the formerly disgruntled nobles, a compromise is settled. All the former peasants would still be in the exact same conditions with the exact same property; however, they would be labeled as 'unskilled laborers' or 'indentured servants.' The noble classes would be rebranded as 'higher class.' Their votes would serve to represent the entire body of the tenets they controlled, including all the individuals on their tenets. This means that the peasant classes would still have absolutely no rights or will to freedom, and would serve as an ective property to their slave owners. This compromise would be known as the Settlement Act of 1783, taking full effect on 1784. The last ratifying state that would accept the agreement would be in 1799, making feudalism technically in continuance in that state until then. As America would expand west into the 1800s, the continuing class conditions of Feudalism would spread throughout. The exact same tenet laws would be established with the same principles and prejudice. It wouldn't be until the 1870's until the now United States officially abolished feudalism in new western territories, leading to an oar among settlers. It wouldn't be until 1924 until America finally passes the Human Rights Act. This Act establishes a clear set of inalienable rights to those held under custody or property by states, leading to they are granted political and social representation within the United States. I can make a part II if it's liked, but that's it for now. Feudalism starts out European then quickly sustains itself in the American colonial system, eventually becoming an old fashioned burden on American society and class equality in America.
What If The Feudal System Lasted
- Thread starter John Davis45
- Start date
Can I suggest some paragraphs to make it easier to read what your argument is?
For the sake of brevity, my responses:
No Magna carta =/= less democracy
Protestantism =/= less fundamentalism or religious authoritarianism
ARW =/= fount of all liberalism.
For the sake of brevity, my responses:
No Magna carta =/= less democracy
Protestantism =/= less fundamentalism or religious authoritarianism
ARW =/= fount of all liberalism.
Due to a severe case of tl;dr, I do have to ask what kind of feudalism? The system itself* was different in different countries and at different times.
*not to mention arguments as to what systems are considered feudalism or not
*not to mention arguments as to what systems are considered feudalism or not
Yes, AFAIK, even the term “feudalism” is not very fashionable nowadays by the reason you mentioned.
Magna Carta was strictly English document but “feudalism” did not cease to exist after it was signed.
Feudalism as a term is pretty much meaningless but it has nothing to do with imperialism, colonialism or slavery.
Serfs are not the same as the slaves and both have nothing to do with the plebeians.
Spanish colonies were not feudal system.
Serfs did not have freedom of travel.
Feudal US split to the North and South ....
And the list is going on.
If you don’t mind me adding a couple more:
Tenets =/= tenants (not sure what “tenets of land” is supposed to mean)
Uninherited submissive peasants =/= to any meaning I could come with. Help in deciphering this and “Faith-based government insurrection” would be greately appreciated as well as an explanation what exactly the feudal system had to do with a sanitation.
