Alternatives to feudal system

[Gurkhal]

I don't remember an actual melee in Martin, though I have to confess that after the third book or so it all sort blurs. It's another great opportunity for storytelling, though. There were actual rules, or at least guidelines <g> and the events were formally called and widely attended. William the Marshal famously made quite a career working the circuit in the late 12thc.

How about a wizard melee? Wheee!

There are melees in Asoiaf but GRRM runs them as a normally free-for-all fight rather than with teams for storytelling purposes. But King Robert is renowned for smashing people into the dirt during melees, or at least he used to do so, and when Catelyn comes to Renly's camp there's a melee where Brienne and Loras are the last ones standing. And there's a melee where Brienne seeks out and beats down the men taking part in a bet on who can get her into bed first, and so on.

But GRRM tends to, in my opinion, focus on jousts and probably because its a bit easier to write and perhaps highlight individual skill in a different way to the reader.

 

[skip.knox]

A melee is not just a free-for-all nor a sort of berserker moment in a battle. It was a set piece, with a defined battlefield area. There were two sides and at a signal they went at it. Sometimes on horse, often on foot. The main activity was to take down someone, not to kill them. Once they yielded, they hied themselves to the sidelines where they were to wait for ransom. A common payment was the armor the fellow was wearing, but other arrangements could be made for a later payment, on the sworn word (his parole) of the captive. A good fighter could make decent living this way, but for the most part it was just good fun with plenty of cracked heads and broken arms and the like. Some deaths.

The Church condemned this from the 11thc onward, to little effect. A noble might listen to his priest, but nobody listened to the Church.

Anyway, when I said I haven't seen a melee in fantasy fiction, this is the sort of thing I meant. I have a melee in A Child of Great Promise, but it's a rather small one and participation there is brief. I don't have a place for one in The Falconer, but maybe I can figure an angle for a short story.

 

[Aldarion]

A melee is not just a free-for-all nor a sort of berserker moment in a battle. It was a set piece, with a defined battlefield area. There were two sides and at a signal they went at it. Sometimes on horse, often on foot. The main activity was to take down someone, not to kill them. Once they yielded, they hied themselves to the sidelines where they were to wait for ransom. A common payment was the armor the fellow was wearing, but other arrangements could be made for a later payment, on the sworn word (his parole) of the captive. A good fighter could make decent living this way, but for the most part it was just good fun with plenty of cracked heads and broken arms and the like. Some deaths.

The Church condemned this from the 11thc onward, to little effect. A noble might listen to his priest, but nobody listened to the Church.

Anyway, when I said I haven't seen a melee in fantasy fiction, this is the sort of thing I meant. I have a melee in A Child of Great Promise, but it's a rather small one and participation there is brief. I don't have a place for one in The Falconer, but maybe I can figure an angle for a short story.

That I think depended on the period and the combatants. Generally, when there is a sense that a side is threatening the existence of a whole group (e.g. religious wars, or nationalist/ethnic wars of antiquity - Romans saw as the enemy not a state or governments, but people as a whole - Carthaginem esse delendam, but also look at what they did to some of barbarian tribes), you have much more brutal wars. Even in civil wars, casualties in terms of dead were massive.

Which, again, brings to question why exactly people believe feudal era to have been particularly brutal. It was actually much less brutal than most other eras. And that, I think, may answer your question on why actual medieval melee is usually not seen in fiction: fiction adopts medieval aesthetics (especially late Middle Ages with Gothic plate and stuff), yet mentality seems to draw either from antiquity, early modernity, or even full-blown (contemporary, as in, current day) modernity.

 

[skip.knox]

I hope you don't mind if I insist a bit here. A melee is a specific historical thing, belonging to the period roughly 1100 to 1500. Definitely not Roman and definitely not a part of a war, not a form of battlefield combat. A melee was no more part of a wartime battle than was a joust. I say this knowing full well that the term has become much broader in modern times and covers pretty much any sort of brawl. I only want to point out the historical aspect, in case anyone is interested.

As for what people believe about the European Middle Ages, that's a whole other thread. As one who taught medieval history for 35 years, I would have a hard time being brief on the topic.

 

[Gurkhal]

A melee is not just a free-for-all nor a sort of berserker moment in a battle. It was a set piece, with a defined battlefield area. There were two sides and at a signal they went at it. Sometimes on horse, often on foot. The main activity was to take down someone, not to kill them. Once they yielded, they hied themselves to the sidelines where they were to wait for ransom.

I am well aware of how a real melee worked, and I believe that so does GRRM. This is an example of changing something for the benefit of the story as opposed to ignorance of how something worked. And isn't that always what we say in regards to world building? Does it benefit the story or how does it work with the story?

 

[skip.knox]

Sure, totally understood.Changing things around is the core premise of my Altearth, so I can hardly object to the practice.

But my original and continuing question is, are there examples of an actual melee in fantasy fiction? The response so far would indicate not really. Kinda, sorta, but no one who has really taken advantage of that medieval institution.

Now that the topic as drifted around for a while, I find myself wondering if there were comparable practices in, say, India or Japan. That is, formalized encounters that were part war games and part status rituals.

 

[Aldarion]

Sure, totally understood.Changing things around is the core premise of my Altearth, so I can hardly object to the practice.

But my original and continuing question is, are there examples of an actual melee in fantasy fiction? The response so far would indicate not really. Kinda, sorta, but no one who has really taken advantage of that medieval institution.

Now that the topic as drifted around for a while, I find myself wondering if there were comparable practices in, say, India or Japan. That is, formalized encounters that were part war games and part status rituals.

Oh, warfare in Japan was definitely formalized. I haven't really studied it, though (with the exception of ninjutsu traditions, and even that was not much), so these might help:
Review on JSTOR
Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan
A Brief History of the Samurai

 

[skip.knox]

Thanks for the references, Aldarion. Warfare in most cultures is formalized in one way or another. What I was curious about (only idly so) is institutions like the joust or the melee, which took place outside of war. Some variant of jousting existed in India, IIRC, but I've not heard anything about a melee. It'd be cool if one of these other cultures had some other convention, other than one-to-one jousting or the sort of duel-en-masse than was a melee.

(aside: one great benefit of emeritus status is that I still have access to JSTOR!)

 

[Aldarion]

Thanks for the references, Aldarion. Warfare in most cultures is formalized in one way or another. What I was curious about (only idly so) is institutions like the joust or the melee, which took place outside of war. Some variant of jousting existed in India, IIRC, but I've not heard anything about a melee. It'd be cool if one of these other cultures had some other convention, other than one-to-one jousting or the sort of duel-en-masse than was a melee.

(aside: one great benefit of emeritus status is that I still have access to JSTOR!)

I am not sure Japanese ever utilized couched lance technique which would have been required for joust. Samurai culture was more focused on archery, as opposed to Western European "close in, smash heads" type of warfare. Spear and lance, if used at all, would likely be used with overhand or underhand stabbing technique, as opposed to European couched lance technique (Byzantine cataphracts also utilized spear for stabbing, though they may also have used couched lance as well). Closest thing to jousting for Samurai would likely be Yabusame, which was a mounted archery competition:
Yabusame - Wikipedia

There is also this, but I found no more details:
Untitled Print of a jousting tournament in Japan - Montanus (1669)

 

[Magicat]

I'm intrigued by having a setting work on a Bronze Age palace economy. Which is somewhat challenging to research, but seems to have a lot of similarity with communist dictatorships. it's a planned economy where all agricultural harvest goes to the palace and then apparently gets distributed to the people, and industry is state owned as well. These forms of government preceded the appearance of money, though continued well after that too.
Which raises great questions about how travelling heroes who are not visiting dignitaries get their food and supplies. Are there even stores and markets in such a world? Do taverns exist?

The Inca culture is interesting. They were a very well-organised, using research into managing micro-climates in the Andes to increase production (you can visit their "research station"), and collected surpluses in great stores along many of the 000s of kilometres of tracks they laid down The best example we saw was at Olleyantambo. They used "soft" power to enlarge their empire "here are all the benefits of joining with us, but if you don't we'll thump you". So yes, there were stores, and markets. Travellers could use the system of tracks. Our visit to Peru made me think about different government systems. The key to the success of Peruvian pre-Inca cultures was sophisticated management of water, this is also true of Cambodia.

 

[skip.knox]

Given that the "feudal system" never really existed, I'm curious as to what specifically people think of as alternatives to it. Not just naming another culture, but specifics.

Let's take something like liege loyalty. This is where a lord has multiple overlords. This happened when Baron X got one piece of land from Duke A and another from Count B. That Duke and Count might one day come into conflict was nearly guaranteed. If they fought--at law or on the battlefield--where do Baron X's loyalties lie? This led to scenarios that seem silly to us, such as Baron X fielding a dozen knights over to Duke A while another score take the field with Count B. Even then, where does the Baron serve in person?

That's where the liege oath came in. When swearing fealty to Duke A, for instance, he might add (the Duke would insist) that he recoginzed the Duke as his liege lord, to serve him in person, be it at court, at law, or in battle.

So, there's a specific. Do other cultures have an alternative?

If you're not searching for an alternative to liegemen (we get the word allegiance from this), what other aspects of medieval socio-political systems are you looking for? Color me curious.

 

[Gurkhal]

I don't know for sure if this is what you're looking for but to me feudal system at its core means;

That local power and control, including perhaps most importantly taxes and military, has been delegated from a central authority to a single hereditary position in the local area combined with an theoretical obligation for the local power holders to supply the central authority with local resources when needed but otherwise allowing a great deal of freedom in the operation of local power.

Hence alternatives to this arrangement means alternatives to feudalism. I may get blown out of the water but to me this is what is says when I think of "feudalism".

 

[Prince of Spires]

I think that the impact of most of the different forms of government that are used is limited, except for where writers explore some of the more extreme outliers. For a protagonist visiting a local lord, does it really matter if that lord is a Baron who got his title at birth and who owes allegiance to some Count or if that lord is a provincial governor appointed by a central government for a short period of time? In most cases, the behavior of this local lord can be exactly the same.

You could of course go more extreme, and then it can start to matter. One alternative I haven't seen mentioned is have a company run the country. For instance, the British East India Company was a large colonial power and had a private army which, at its height was larger than that of the United Kingdom. And yet it was a publicly traded company. Lots of room for conflict there.

 

[Aldarion]

Given that the "feudal system" never really existed, I'm curious as to what specifically people think of as alternatives to it. Not just naming another culture, but specifics.

Let's take something like liege loyalty. This is where a lord has multiple overlords. This happened when Baron X got one piece of land from Duke A and another from Count B. That Duke and Count might one day come into conflict was nearly guaranteed. If they fought--at law or on the battlefield--where do Baron X's loyalties lie? This led to scenarios that seem silly to us, such as Baron X fielding a dozen knights over to Duke A while another score take the field with Count B. Even then, where does the Baron serve in person?

That's where the liege oath came in. When swearing fealty to Duke A, for instance, he might add (the Duke would insist) that he recoginzed the Duke as his liege lord, to serve him in person, be it at court, at law, or in battle.

So, there's a specific. Do other cultures have an alternative?

If you're not searching for an alternative to liegemen (we get the word allegiance from this), what other aspects of medieval socio-political systems are you looking for? Color me curious.

"Feudal" system, as commonly understood, is a chain-effect land-based system. King gives land to large magnates in exchange for service, who give it to smaller magnates in exhcnage for their service, who then give it to landed knights in exchange for their service, who then have peasants and retainers of their own...

It is actually quite easy to change this socioeconomic system into something different:
1) Removing the intermediary between the state and the soldiers; essentially, have state give land directly to soldiers. This is what was done in Roman Empire during Middle Byzantine period, where soldiers received land (income from it) in exchange for military service (the themata system). Similar system (pronoia grants) existed in Late Byzantine period, but never achieved the extent of thematic system and mercenaries (unfortunately) remained the primary troops of Late Byzantine military.
2) Changing the nature of income. If state is more advanced, e.g. Antiquity or Late Middle Ages / Renaissance, you can give soldiers income stream instead of land - this was done with pronoia grants I referenced earlier, as (unlike thematic system) these could include income from mills, trade, road taxes and similar.
3) Having state utilize more sophisticated (not necessarily better, mind you) system, such as standing coin-paid military. This too can then be varied, and/or combined with systems 1) and 2):
- 3a) Centralized standing military where only central government has professional forces (e.g. Classical Roman Empire).
- 3b) Distributed standing military where each province / county raises, equips and maintains its own forces (similar to themata system)
- 3c) Distributed standing military where each city equips its own forces and places them at disposal to central government
- 3d) Varied standing military where various factors - independent cities, counties, feudal lords, Church - maintain their own standing forces
-- 3d1) Central government still has its own military (according to models 1) or 2)) but it is only a small portion of total armed forces of the state
-- 3d2) Central government / ruler is a feudal lord and raises his own forces according to one or more of already-noted systems
-- 3d3) Central government has no forces of its own

Of course, this is just general things. There could also be specifics:
1) Is service hereditary? If so, is land hereditary as well or ruler can (legally, if not necessarily in practice) transfer servicemen from one piece of land to another?
2) How important are mercenaries? Does state hire people from abroad for some or all of needed functions, or relies on its own populace and resources?
3) Anything else you can think of.

Note that, while I was writing about military service above, any kind of service can be modelled according to those lines. Pronoia grants in Byzantine times were also used to support state functionaries (administrators, bureocrats etc.), not just soldiers.

 

[Yora]

I think feudalism appears as a result of having people united under one ruler, but this kingdom not having the administrative infrastructure required to govern it. When the king does not know what's going on in much of the country, communication between the regional administrations and the royal court takes forever, and the royal court does not have the capacity to process all the national finances, a decentralized hierarchy with extremely autonomous local and regional governments is the only viable choice.
"Just pay the taxes for your domain and send me soldiers when I call for them. As long as you do that, you can run your domain how you want."

 

[Aldarion]

I think feudalism appears as a result of having people united under one ruler, but this kingdom not having the administrative infrastructure required to govern it. When the king does not know what's going on in much of the country, communication between the regional administrations and the royal court takes forever, and the royal court does not have the capacity to process all the national finances, a decentralized hierarchy with extremely autonomous local and regional governments is the only viable choice.
"Just pay the taxes for your domain and send me soldiers when I call for them. As long as you do that, you can run your domain how you want."

Precisely. But how often do you see feudal structures even in millenia-old empires that may well could have developed something more sophisticated? Feudalism develops when there is no necessary infrastructure to support other governmental systems.

Also, speed of communication has nothing to do with it. Roman Empire worked just fine without feudalism and without fast communications. Reliability of communication, however...

 

[Yora]

The best example of feudal structures outside of medieval Europe I can think of is Japan before the 17th century. A period were central government pretty much collapsed and it was every lord for himself. Of course they had alliances in which weaker lords pledged loyalty to more powerful ones, but those were often out of convenience and not necessarily very stable. Go a couple of centuries back and you find a Japan that was much more centralized with an administration modeled after the Chinese system.

I'm not too familiar with Russian history, but I believe they also had feudal structures in place. I think Russia was never centralized before that, but it's a gargantuan area with a low population. Again a situation where centralized administration is not feasible.

Though this does make me really curious about Poland. Poland has neither the remoteness of Russia, nor was it ever part of the Roman Empire. They had a pretty sophisticated form of government when they were the biggest and most powerful country in Europe, but a lot of what I heard sounds like it was rather different from how monarchies in western Europe worked.

 

[skip.knox]

The posts so far have feudalism being essentially about the army--military service in exchange for land (or other source of income for the soldiers). And that really is ubiquitous in fantasy. It's either a nobility supplemented by peasant levies, or it's some modern army system run by the state. Every once in a while there's a story with a city-state, but that's mainly just the state-run system hiring mercenaries rather than having a standing army. It would seem the field is ripe for alternatives there.

Some secondary elements identified above include taxes and administration. The key theme of the feudalism trope is decentralized authority. And one of its key requisites is the hereditary principle. Both of these, too, offer possibiliites, it seems to me.

Are there other aspects of feudalism people would like to add to the list?
And do you have any specific alternatives in mind?

 

[Aldarion]

The posts so far have feudalism being essentially about the army--military service in exchange for land

That is definitely not what feudalism is about. As I have already noted, there are several ways to have military service in exchange for land that are decidedly not feudal in nature. As you yourself noted, key aspect of feudalism is decentralization and hereditary principle. But even then, you can have decentralized, land-based system that is not feudalism (e.g. Byzantine themata and pronoia systems).

EDIT:
Personally, I would define feudalism through:
* Decentralization of authority: central state simply isn't capable of running things, and has to sell out its duties to the highest bidder. Thus private personages - feudal lords etc. - become intermediaries between the government and the common people.
* Layering of authority: said decentralization is done according to a pyramidal hierarchy. And it is not enough for this hierarchy to be pyramidal - after all, the same holds true for modern-day "representative democracies" - but rather, pyramidal itself has to be relatively steep with multiple very defined levels. Just having a king and a masses is not feudalism, it is chiefdom.
* Centrality of land: land is the "currency", and regardless of existence and spread of monetary economy, land is - directly or indirectly - the basis of wealth.
* Centrality of family: family is the basic social unit in any functioning society, but in feudalism family has not only social / societal, but also important political role. It is the basis of political power and relations. One's power is drawn largely from one's heritage; if land is not inherited but rather given by the state, system is not feudal.

 

[Gurkhal]

That is definitely not what feudalism is about. As I have already noted, there are several ways to have military service in exchange for land that are decidedly not feudal in nature. As you yourself noted, key aspect of feudalism is decentralization and hereditary principle. But even then, you can have decentralized, land-based system that is not feudalism (e.g. Byzantine themata and pronoia systems).

I have to disagree on the part that land-for-service wasn't the core of feudalism.

The exchange of land for military service was to my knowlege the core of feudalism. Just because this wasn't a unique thing to feudalism don't mean that it wasn't the core part of it. The difference between the feudal and Byzantine scenarios with land for military service was that in the case of feudal society this military service was combined with control over taxation and, unless I'm mistaken, local judicial authority, which together gives us the feudal lord; sword, coin and law (I forgot to mention this in my post above) under the control of a single person in a local area. And that by, in my opinion overuse of the land-for-service system the king ended up unable to prevent this power from being passed on hereditary until it became the normal system to run things. In Byzantium, to my knowledge, the land-for-service arrangements never allowed the soldiers to also put taxation and law under their permanent control and so feudal power didn't develop..

EDIT:
Personally, I would define feudalism through:
* Decentralization of authority: central state simply isn't capable of running things, and has to sell out its duties to the highest bidder. Thus private personages - feudal lords etc. - become intermediaries between the government and the common people.
* Layering of authority: said decentralization is done according to a pyramidal hierarchy. And it is not enough for this hierarchy to be pyramidal - after all, the same holds true for modern-day "representative democracies" - but rather, pyramidal itself has to be relatively steep with multiple very defined levels. Just having a king and a masses is not feudalism, it is chiefdom.
* Centrality of land: land is the "currency", and regardless of existence and spread of monetary economy, land is - directly or indirectly - the basis of wealth.
* Centrality of family: family is the basic social unit in any functioning society, but in feudalism family has not only social / societal, but also important political role. It is the basis of political power and relations. One's power is drawn largely from one's heritage; if land is not inherited but rather given by the state, system is not feudal.

Seems like a pretty good definition to me, althoug I would be somewhat questioning on the centrality of land part.