DISCLAIMER I am of the diaspora so my opinions may be clouded by that background
I remember in second or third grade we learned about the Middle Ages. We were taught a basic history of feudalism (the main form of government in medieval Western Europe [I grew up in the West]). So with that, and reading stories like King Arthur and Robin Hood as well as field trips to Medieval Times, you were made aware of the anachronistic nature of feudalism. When you consider that, does it ever seem crazy or surreal that we have family members, friends, community people that were living through feudalistic conditions. Maybe it’s that childhood thing that never left me but it’s just amazing to think about. What do you guys think?
Not super relevant, but a nice historical footnote that barely gets any attention. TL;DR: Marx-the-liberal thought that Communism was a reactionary throwback to pre-capitalist social formations based in feudalism (which to a great extent, in his time, it was).
https://t.co/vcTLR3yvkp?amp=1
> Surprise, says Aristotle, is the beginning of philosophizing. You have ended at the beginning. Otherwise, would the surprising fact have escaped you that in Germany communistic principles are spread, not by the liberals, but by your reactionary friends?
> Who speaks of handicraft corporations? The reactionaries. the artisan class is to form a state within a state. Do you find it extraordinary that such ideas, couched in modern terms, thus read: "The state should transform itself into an artisan class"? If the state is to be a state for the artisan, but if the modern artisan, like any modern man, understands and can understand the state only as a sphere shared by all his fellow citizens -- how can you synthesize both of these ideas in any other way except in an artisan state?
> Who polemicizes about parceling out the land? The reactionaries. A recently published feudalistic writing (Kosegarten on land parceling) went so far as to call private property a privilege. This is Fourier's principle. Once there is agreement on principles, may not there then be disagreement over consequences and implications?
> The Rheinische Zeitung, which cannot concede the theoretical reality of communist ideas even in their present form, and can even less wish or consider possible their practical realization, will submit these ideas to a thorough criticism.
The title, basically. It is more or less clear where PTI is headed. The reformed MQM and JUI are also not feudalistic in nature but are minor parties.
Can I get some candidates (with some insight, as to why you think so) from the other two big dogs that can actually revitalize/modernize their respective parties?
(I recognize that Alexander II abolished serfdom in 1861, but am not sure if this was effectively implemented.)
How much out of their land's output for a year might a baron have to pay their earl? And would a serf or a cotter be able to save any of their wealth if they had an especially good year or would they have to hand over their extra output to the lord of the manor?
Most of us are familiar with Munshi Abdullah Abdul Kadir, the Peranakan Muslim whose ideas have been described as among the most revolutionary during the 19th century. But his own position and status in society was a problematic one. Being a Peranakan Muslim who was also a British colonial subject meant that he was seen as suspect by everyone both then and now.
However it must be remembered that Munshi Abdullah was first and foremost a modern colonial subject. He was a functionary within the apparatus of modern colonial-capitalism. Employed as a language-teacher and a translator by British company officials, his relationship with his colonial patrons was fundamentally a contractual one.
This modern professional lifestyle instilled in Abdullah an instrumentalist and pragmatic attitude. Contrary to what many of his critics have said of him, Abdullah's main concern was directed towards the Malay-Muslims of his society, and more importantly the need to reform their society and culture which was then deeply immersed in the values and practices of feudalism.
Abdullah's sustained critique of Malay feudal culture can be found in his writings, Hikayat Abdullah Munshi (Chronicles of Abdullah Munshi) and his Kisah Pelayaran ke Timur (Story of a Voyage to the East). In Kisah Pelayaran ke Timur, Abdullah paints a sordid and miserable picture of life in the Malay kingdoms of Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan which were then governed according to feudal norms and traditions which he regarded as antiquated and corrupt.
Distracted by their dreams of long-lost glory and splendour, the rulers of the Malaykerajaans had failed to check the ever-advancing power and influence of the Western powers that were consolidating their hold all around them.
While the process of decay was taking its toll, the Malay rulers were preoccupied with their own dynastic struggles and their attempts to win the coveted honour of being the sole inheritors of the Malaccan dynasty, the memory of which had long since passed from the public imagination and which was being kept alive only in the pages of the numerous hikayats (chronicles) and silsilahs (genealogy/family trees) that were being written by dutiful court scribes in the numerous petty kerajaans of the peninsula.
Beyond the walls of the istanas though, piracy and civil wars were tearing apart the socio-political fabric of the Malay world and further stagnating the development of the country.
It was during his stay in Kelantan that Abdulla
... keep reading on reddit ➡I am a huge fan of Space Opera, and especially Space Opera in the tradition of Dune. Massive empires that last thousands of years, a mix of high technology with a sense of mysticism and the archaic, a world at once reminiscent of our past while also beyond possibility.
This isn't scientific at all, but off the top of my head, I can name more feudal or hierarchical space opera societies than I can egalitarian societies. The only one I can really think of is the republic and new republic from Stars, but I would describe the original republic as more oligarchical than egalitarian. Although, I guess that would depend on how wide you define space opera
I thought it would be a fun thought experiment, so I figured I would share this question with the rest of the world building community
Just a basic question I don’t need paragraphs for an answer
DISCLAIMER: HUMAN ONLY LOW-MAGIC HARD MODE CAMPAIGN. NEEDS CONFIDENT SEASONED PLAYERS. GRITTY, POLITICAL WITH MAJOR VIOLENCE AND CRUELTY.
Flexible Game Times: This campaign will have a flexible schedule and played+streamed on either a biweekly or monthly schedule with varying times whichever is more convenient for everyone. We give you more time to do other things, as do we to ourselves. But mostly any game time decided upon for that period will be in the afternoon by CST times, so 5-8 is a reasonable start time period for the time we choose to play that month. We will never play in the morning.
**Setting Background:**We are a team so far that consists of 3 people in the main group as both a content creation group and a tabletop focused one. Our first major streamed campaign will be Novomundo: The New Dark Age: a post-apocalyptic swordpunk political intrigue and war focused campaign with heavy emphasis on roleplay and character representation. Taking place on the European continent somewhere between year 2500-3000 AD, or 35 AR by the current populations new calendar, having been untouched by humans who took refuge in their "castles" during the obscured catastrophic event. Leaving the world untouched allowed nature to flourish once again as the humans withered away in their self-contained air-tight communities. With their stockpiles waning after centuries of seclusion, the First Kings to Stand braved the unfamiliar world outside to find a plethora of resources to be had.......and new threats who sought to consume their flesh to be absorbed into the earths natural cycle.
The First and their Knights then retook large portions of their former home countries to give new names and build new fortifications to stand against the wilds with bullet and blade. Upon their newfound safety in the walls the scholars now had the opportunity to scour the libraries and databases for anything to give them insight to their fledgling kingdoms. What the scholars found were tales of great heroism, betrayal and conquering claimed to have been done long before any man today stood breathing. With names like Gern, Kel, Latii and Slae being the words written on the pages that tell of these legendary ancestors. As such the new kingdoms would continue the legacy of their progenitors that conquered the wilds and forged lasting empires to solidify their place on the Rock.
"*Only the gods and the things of the wild have the answer for whom will stand on the mountain before the
... keep reading on reddit ➡When 10,000 of the most wealthy people in world have more wealth than 3.9B people combined, over half the worlds population - it’s comparable to the Middle Ages when there was kings and lords. Feudalistic wealth distribution at the rate it’s going, millennials are waking up to the burn of being cheated and brainwashed away from the reality.
Many science-fiction works like to reinvent some form of an aristocratic society though they are almost always aping actual feudalism without adapting it for a futuristic setting. The only good example I can readily recall are the intersolar dynasties from Pandora Star (a world where almost everyone is effectively immortal and can be reborn).
In the primary setting of my world (primer: solar system abandoned. 10 generation ships. New world w/ inhospitable atmosphere. ~2000 starting population) corporate fiefdoms began to emerge a few generations after making Landfall. At Landfall, the Crown Estate owned everything and everyone was its employee in establishing the colony under a command economy. As the population grew to permit non-essential business and free-markets. The Crown Estate would begin incorporating its held monopolies and giving stocks to the then administration. The manager would be a given a commanding stake and the department heads given minority stakes. Without much in the way of dividends, these stocks just ensured other people a seat at the decision table. In this early stage, every family was only 1 generation into the new world so it established from the start immensely powerful Houses.
The stocks were barred from being publicly traded without board approval. As decades past and the economy and population grew. Marriages between families and bequeathing stocks to individuals was the only way to circumvent board control of selling and stocks were seldom broken up between children as it would only weaken their overall House over the generations.
300 earth years down the line to when the world is set, much of the private economy is controlled by these corporate-fiefdoms. The majority holder is effectively the lord, the board his council, its members the vassals, and the subsidiaries the baronies and territories granted as favors to the lords friends and allies within his fief. Holding that stock in the company determines who is the head of your House, since its the dividends from that that create your wealth to be distributed and support your house.
Quite often, minority stock holders (instead of leaving it too a single person) will form a holding company for that piece of stock and then have ownership of that company distributed between their extended house. This permits some of that stock to be effectively loaned from the holding company for a lifetime meaning that a single houses claim can be used to get multiple family members onto
... keep reading on reddit ➡In political legal studies, there are some interesting questions (never quite completely answered, which I will attempt to answer here):
- Why China historically hated lawyers, and why lawyers never became a huge profession in China?
- Why imperial China never really advanced much in property laws?
- Why imperial China didn't have patent laws?
To answer #2, you have to open a US or UK property law book, to discovered that the European based legal systems are packed full of tricky complex legal structures for various "property rights". So complex that most people would get headaches from terms such as "fee simple"/"fee absolute", "fee determinable", "fee simple subject to an executory limitation", "fee simple subject to condition subsequent", "fee tail", etc.
Perhaps to check simply, what is a "fee"?
For such a commonly used term in modern property laws, "fee" is actually very old term: "Fee" or "fief" or "feal" or "feud", derive from Latin word "feudum", meaning heritable property or rights granted by an overlord to a vassal who held it in fealty (or "in fee") in return for a form of feudal allegiance and service, usually given by the personal ceremonies of homage and fealty.
Obviously, such concepts come from a very feudalistic European era. As such, the complexity of European property laws began to develop during the time of Christian Romans. The concept of "Feudum" began in use around 1000AD in Rome, but it quickly began to evolve chaotically, and out of control. At the time, Western Roman Empire was in decline since the 5th century, and Eastern Roman Empire began its decline around 1080 AD. In other word, Feudalism came about as Roman civilization fragmented into smaller and smaller bits.
Property ownership became "fees", or "fiefs", as various warlords fought for control and allegiances shifted over and over again in all parts of Europe.
Out of all this: "Rights" are negotiable, Properties can be divided up into smaller chunks, negotiated between various owners of conflicting claims, and often 1 lord/king owned parts of the land, other lords can own the future of the same land. It's all born out of necessity of power and shifting geopolitical reality in Europe. Similarly, Noble and Royal Titles can be divided up based upon
... keep reading on reddit ➡This came up in a theology class I was in today because were were discussing the conditions early Christians lived in for the early church. We then began to discuss how slavery was different back then, but someone mentioned Rome started feudalism through the slavery system.
How accurate is this assessment? I never considered it before, and frankly I don't actually know where feudalism started from my memory of history.
