When was the relative decline of feudalism as oppose to National armies as is the course in all of EU's time period???
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The first time national conscript armies were used with much success was during the french revolution, right before Napoleon took controld of France.
The feudalism probably lasted untill 1795, when Poland was completely annexed by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. The reason why Poland fell apart, was because of the liberum veto exercised by the magnates, and this allowed foreign countries to control the polish government. So Poland was the last power in europe, where the magnates or the feudal rulers, had considerable power in governing the country, not obeying the king.
The feudalism probably lasted untill 1795, when Poland was completely annexed by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. The reason why Poland fell apart, was because of the liberum veto exercised by the magnates, and this allowed foreign countries to control the polish government. So Poland was the last power in europe, where the magnates or the feudal rulers, had considerable power in governing the country, not obeying the king.
Conscription is implemented in eu1 already, but the downfall of Poland is not. It appears that the downfall of Poland will be modelled in events in eu2. Even if it's not, it is possible for users to create their own events.
Sorry, but it power of polish magnates have nothing to do with feudalism...
different things.
different things.
Originally posted by Maur13
Sorry, but it power of polish magnates have nothing to do with feudalism...
different things.
Perhaps not but I think it was the system in eastern europa were nobels held incredible power (russia anybody?) over peoples day to day life can be as feudal as anything else. Though in official terms feudalism was mostly gone when the game starts in 1419 thanks to increased centralisation and the Black death in the 14th century.
Remember that feudalism had as much to do with the economics of a country than political aspirations of the nobles. The entire feudal system revolved around the land owning serfor lack there of
There was pretty much no national army until the French Revolution. Before that, we have royal armies, which are very different both from national and feudal armies.
Feudalism was an social and economic system which arose in response to the decline in trade and precious metal supply in Europe following the collapse of the Roman era. Kings couldn't pay for armies anymore in a non-monetary economy so they struck deals with their lieutenants granting them usufruct rights to land in return for providing them with their own military service as well as that of their retainers.
The increase in trade and return to a monetary economy in the High Middle Ages (starting as early as the late 11th century) eroded feudalism b/c it was more convenient for rulers to pay armies with coin then rely on the fedual levy (which contained contractual limitations on deployment and campaigning). By 1419, feudalism was long dead in Western Europe as an socio-military system.
Even in countries that maintained serfdom past the high Middle Ages, the landowners tended to monetize the yield from their lands to the extent possible. Recent historical reasearch concerning the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern period has turned up surprising evidence to the extent to which even peasants and others low on the social scale participated in monetary transactions.
Recruiting armies in the early modern era was straightfoward; you could deploy as many troops as you could afford to pay. Soldiers could be conscripted (as in Prussia) or hired from elsewhere as mercenaries (e.g. the Swiss) but the key was access to cash. That's why the history of the 30 years war basically consists of the various combatants scrambling to grab the money to keep their armies in the field and prevent mutinies. EU1 did a pretty good job of modeling this by requiring an upfront recruiting cost (reflecting the costs of initial training) and varying morale (and thus effetiveness) with the degree to which you pay maintenance (which presumably includes the soldiers' wages, food and board). EU2 explicitly gives the option to hire mercenaries which completes the picture.
The French revolution gave rise to two major twists (a) it rendered recuitment easier by appealing to a new revolutionary "national" ideology and (b) developed tactics suited for raw peasant conscripts lacking disciplined training in 1700s-style drill. This made raising large numbers of troops from one's own country much cheaper in theory -- but maintenance in the field still required cash. Hence Napoleon's mimicry of the 30 Years War-style cycle of plunder, though superimposed on a wealthier, more bountiful Europe. It will be interesting to see how EU2 models this (perhaps allowing Rev France to recruit infantry more cheaply?)
The increase in trade and return to a monetary economy in the High Middle Ages (starting as early as the late 11th century) eroded feudalism b/c it was more convenient for rulers to pay armies with coin then rely on the fedual levy (which contained contractual limitations on deployment and campaigning). By 1419, feudalism was long dead in Western Europe as an socio-military system.
Even in countries that maintained serfdom past the high Middle Ages, the landowners tended to monetize the yield from their lands to the extent possible. Recent historical reasearch concerning the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern period has turned up surprising evidence to the extent to which even peasants and others low on the social scale participated in monetary transactions.
Recruiting armies in the early modern era was straightfoward; you could deploy as many troops as you could afford to pay. Soldiers could be conscripted (as in Prussia) or hired from elsewhere as mercenaries (e.g. the Swiss) but the key was access to cash. That's why the history of the 30 years war basically consists of the various combatants scrambling to grab the money to keep their armies in the field and prevent mutinies. EU1 did a pretty good job of modeling this by requiring an upfront recruiting cost (reflecting the costs of initial training) and varying morale (and thus effetiveness) with the degree to which you pay maintenance (which presumably includes the soldiers' wages, food and board). EU2 explicitly gives the option to hire mercenaries which completes the picture.
The French revolution gave rise to two major twists (a) it rendered recuitment easier by appealing to a new revolutionary "national" ideology and (b) developed tactics suited for raw peasant conscripts lacking disciplined training in 1700s-style drill. This made raising large numbers of troops from one's own country much cheaper in theory -- but maintenance in the field still required cash. Hence Napoleon's mimicry of the 30 Years War-style cycle of plunder, though superimposed on a wealthier, more bountiful Europe. It will be interesting to see how EU2 models this (perhaps allowing Rev France to recruit infantry more cheaply?)
Perhaps more importantly, how is the change from feudalism/ semi feudalism to national armies implemented? Is it just tech levels or will we see various additional aspects. Oh and how is the timor system in the Ottoman empire tackled? One of the problems with EU is the Ottoman army usually returned home every year limiting the advances in the East and West, this isn’t currently dealt with at all. Is there an improvement in Eu2?
Originally posted by NeoFreak
Remember that feudalism had as much to do with the economics of a country than political aspirations of the nobles. The entire feudal system revolved around the land owning serfor lack there of
Yes, but Polish army was not a feudal one. It was a royal army from mid 16th century(financed with Diet approval, mainly from taxes from royal lands leased by magnates) , with feudal levy playing rapidly decling role - the last time it was used was in 1655 during the Swedish Deluge - with catastrofal effects.
Re: Re: National Armies Vs. Feudalism
In Austria, some pesants were in feudal relationship with the nobles as late at 1848. That year it ended, though.
McHrozni
In Austria, some pesants were in feudal relationship with the nobles as late at 1848. That year it ended, though.
McHrozni
Re: Re: Re: National Armies Vs. Feudalism
No fief = no feudalism
Just because peasants are tied to the land doesn't mean the overall economic system is feudalism. All of Austria was part of a commercial early capitalist society in 1848.
If you define feudalism as peasants being tied to the land and engaging in barter, you'll get anomolous results.
Example: Commmunist Russia
-- Peasants tied to the land
-- All payments made in barter currency (roubles)
So was Communist Russia a feudal society?
Doesn't make sense.
So for definitional purposes I would tend to confine feudalism to that system in which military defense is arranged by personal ties of loyalty between leaders organized in a determinate hierarchy, with services exchanged in return for usufruct rights to land, in the absence of a functional monetary economy. That would mean that feudalism was in decline by the 13th century and dead and gone in most of Europe by the 15th.
No fief = no feudalism
Just because peasants are tied to the land doesn't mean the overall economic system is feudalism. All of Austria was part of a commercial early capitalist society in 1848.
If you define feudalism as peasants being tied to the land and engaging in barter, you'll get anomolous results.
Example: Commmunist Russia
-- Peasants tied to the land
-- All payments made in barter currency (roubles)
So was Communist Russia a feudal society?
Doesn't make sense.
So for definitional purposes I would tend to confine feudalism to that system in which military defense is arranged by personal ties of loyalty between leaders organized in a determinate hierarchy, with services exchanged in return for usufruct rights to land, in the absence of a functional monetary economy. That would mean that feudalism was in decline by the 13th century and dead and gone in most of Europe by the 15th.
IIRC, peasants in the Empire of Austria (specially in Hungary) were forced to labour in behalf of the magnates in the lands they were assigned, the so called robot. And the magnates themselves monopolized the Hungarian diets until 1848. After that they still had power, although the reasons for it were a bit more "democratic" (our friend the limited suffrage). Although it was not old school feudalism as in the X century it certainly worked as a limitation of the central power (either King or Parliament) by an hereditary regional personality.
Fair enough. But the implication here is that feudalism = de-centralization and this is what I object to from a historical standpoint.
Historically feudalism had a centralizing effect. "kings" obtained real power by subjecting their powerful retainers to personal oaths of loyalty and organized them into a single system. This had a powerful centralizing effect.
True - feudalism meant that the King didn't exercise direct administrative control over regions; but this was never a consideration in the early Middle Ages. Simply would not have been possible. The development of feudalism at least allowed the king to obtain central control over military organization and foreign policy.
The historical reasons why central control under feudalism began to disintegrate were:
1) Subinfeudation, which meant that the bulk of the people supposed to do the actual fighting didn't owe direct loyalty to the ultimate lord. Many monarchs counteracted this be requiring vassals all the way down the chain to pledge loyalty directly to them as well and/or by limiting subinfeudation.
2) The usufruct character of the fief degenerated into a hereditary holding confirmable by the payment of standard transfer fees. In the early Caroligian period, important vassals were moved around and not allow to retain key fiefs for long period. Once lineages of noble families began to view their fiefs as permanent family domains, they took a more independent view of their potential freedom of action.
3) The Big One: the return of international commerce and a money economy. This undermined the whole point of the feudal system. In the long run it led monarchs to abandon administration by their own personal household in favor of a state bureaucracy under their control.
But basically, the common view that feudalism consituted some kind of trend toward decentralization is mistaken -- the product of the French Revolutionary propaganda which depicted a nationalist, centralized, revolutionary France in opposition to a "feudal" patchwork Ancien Regime.
So e.g., fact that Hungarian grandees sapped power from the Austrian Kaiser does not mean that the Empire was "feudal". It just means that the Empire was weak and relied on confederative structures to keep its disparate elements together.
In the same sense, the US under the Articles of Confederation or the Hansa during the late Middle Ages/early modern were not fedual either.
I didn't imply that the Empire was "feudal" in a Xth century sense, just that it was so weak that it hadn't been able to totally overcome it in the XIXth century, as the Hungarian magnates were a rest of it.
Great post you have a above, BTW.
I'm no sure what is meant by "national armies."
By this do you mean standing armies of full time professional soldiers--as opposed to armies raised specifically for such and such a campaign?
By this do you mean standing armies of full time professional soldiers--as opposed to armies raised specifically for such and such a campaign?