I think that it would suit Cheliax and its puppet states, Talador and Brevoy, albeit in lesser way (serfs having more rights than in southern lands).
Molthune could have nationalized serfdom (i.e. serfs are bound to the state instead of nobles).
Also I would see Andoran and Galt having serfdom prior to revolutions but abolished as part of changes. Well, Galt could have nationalized serfdom like Molthune, with constant and empty promises of freeing serfs as soon as objective dificulties are overcome.
|
I think that it would suit Cheliax and its puppet states, Talador and Brevoy, albeit in lesser way (serfs having more rights than in southern lands).
Molthune could have nationalized serfdom (i.e. serfs are bound to the state instead of nobles).
Also I would see Andoran and Galt having serfdom prior to revolutions but abolished as part of changes. Well, Galt could have nationalized serfdom like Molthune, with constant and empty promises of freeing serfs as soon as objective dificulties are overcome.
I think the people of Taldor would be deeply offended to be described as puppets of Cheliax.
While Brevoy is indeed in thrall to Cheliax's infernal powers Taldor is very much an independent state.
However, Taldor seems like a very clear example of a feudal state on Golarion.
Cheliax, Taldor, Ustalav and Nidal have serfs for sure.
|
|
The majority of Taldan-influenced Avistan is (or was until very recently) Feudal, with only the handful of Ulfen and Kellid nations in the north operating on a more Scandinavian model of Carls and Chiefs.
And honestly? It's very difficult to be Feudal without serfs. Someone has to be the mud into which the inherently unfair society of authoritarianism is stuck. In fact, it's possible that since Cheliax is so open about being a slave-based economy, that they may be one of the few nations in southern Avistan that doesn't have serfs or former serfs (in the case of Andoran and Galt). Why bother to dress up your land-based slavery with titles like 'serf' or 'villein' when you have outright slaves to be had?
It's just that PC adventurers don't really have the time or inclination to find out if the filthy Commoner whose hut said adventurer just burned to the ground was bound to the land which he farmed, or was free to come and go (or talk like Kurtis Blow). And most adventurers don't (can't because of how equipment-or-education reliant the classes are) come from a background where it's important to know the difference.
I think that it would suit Cheliax and its puppet states, Talador and Brevoy, albeit in lesser way (serfs having more rights than in southern lands).I think the people of Taldor would be deeply offended to be described as puppets of Cheliax.
While Brevoy is indeed in thrall to Cheliax's infernal powers Taldor is very much an independent state.
There is coma for a reason there, you know, and not because the following are listing of the puppet states (which I omited). If the following were to be listing I would use : or - instead.
Cheliax puppet states are Nidal and Isger. Brevoy is certainly not a puppet of Cheliax and has even less links to Cheliax than Talador.
I'm fairly certain the theocracy of Zon-Kuthon that rules Nidal would have some words to say about being described as a puppet state of an Asmodean nation.
Oh, I am certain they would... And they work hardly to reduce influence of Cheliax over Nidal but they haven't freed themselves of Cheliax yet.
I think that it would suit Cheliax and its puppet states, Talador and Brevoy, albeit in lesser way (serfs having more rights than in southern lands).I think the people of Taldor would be deeply offended to be described as puppets of Cheliax.
While Brevoy is indeed in thrall to Cheliax's infernal powers Taldor is very much an independent state.
There is coma for a reason there, you know, and not because the following are listing of the puppet states (which I omited). If the following were to be listing I would use : or - instead.
Cheliax puppet states are Nidal and Isger. Brevoy is certainly not a puppet of Cheliax and has even less links to Cheliax than Talador.
Where's a stuffy grammarian when you need one? Well, I'll take a shot:
Geraint's reading of Drejk's sentence is grammatically valid. Drejk omitted the Harvard, or Oxford, comma which would have clarified matters:
"...Cheliax and its puppet states, Taldor, and Brevoy."
/QUOTE]
Where's a stuffy grammarian when you need one? Well, I'll take a shot:Geraint's reading of Drejk's sentence is grammatically valid. Drejk omitted the Harvard, or Oxford, comma which would have clarified matters:
"...Cheliax and its puppet states, Taldor, and Brevoy."
Well, apparently comma usage in English is different than in Polish. We generally do not put comma before and.
And yes, I made mistake in writing word comma.
And honestly? It's very difficult to be Feudal without serfs. Someone has to be the mud into which the inherently unfair society of authoritarianism is stuck. In fact, it's possible that since Cheliax is so open about being a slave-based economy, that they may be one of the few nations in southern Avistan that doesn't have serfs or former serfs (in the case of Andoran and Galt). Why bother to dress up your land-based slavery with titles like 'serf' or 'villein' when you have outright slaves to be had?
You can have feudalism without serfs. All you need is peasants. Not all peasants are serfs. Serfs are tied legally to the plot of land they farm; they are not free to leave or change occupation (without leave from their feudal lord). Peasants are, technically, free. They are farming someone elses land and have deep ties to the local village / feudal manor, but they are not bound to the land. Yeoman farmers (as existed in England) may in fact own their own land and generally have feudal military obligations (in England as longbowmen) just as a knight does.
Think of it as a spectrum from least free to most: slave, serf, peasant, yeoman. And, of course, townsmen / burghers are a wholly seperate issue. The classic way for a serf to free himself from his obligations was to run away (often to the city) and live away for a year. Presto, no longer a serf. A freeman, and townsman in all likelihood.
Feudalism is inherently heirarchical, but not necessarily overly oppressive -- at least no more so than any other aristocratic or oligarchic class based society.
It's just that PC adventurers don't really have the time or inclination to find out if the filthy Commoner whose hut said adventurer just burned to the ground was bound to the land which he farmed, or was free to come and go (or talk like Kurtis Blow). And most adventurers don't (can't because of how equipment-or-education reliant the classes are) come from a background where it's important to know the difference.
Most adventurers should come from either the upper end of the feudal order or the educated (or underhanded) townspeople / burghers. They should be reasonably aware of the differences between serf and peasant. Everybody likes to feel superior to somebody :D And if they just burned some peasants hut to the ground, in a feudal setting, they better be ready for a visit from the local feudal heirarchy... even the ones who mistreat the local serfs / peasants (nobody mistreats the yeomanry) don't let anyone else tread on their turf.
|
|
I think that it would suit Cheliax and its puppet states, Taldor and Brevoy, albeit in lesser way (serfs having more rights than in southern lands).I think the people of Taldor would be deeply offended to be described as puppets of Cheliax.
While Brevoy is indeed in thrall to Cheliax's infernal powers Taldor is very much an independent state.
There is coma for a reason there, you know, and not because the following are listing of the puppet states (which I omited). If the following were to be listing I would use : or - instead.
Cheliax puppet states are Nidal and Isger. Brevoy is certainly not a puppet of Cheliax and has even less links to Cheliax than Talador.
My mistake, sorry about that. I assumed that you had inserted the names of puppet-states into the sentence: "I think that it would suit Cheliax and its puppet states albeit in lesser way (serfs having more rights than in southern lands)."
I think the confusion stemmed from using a comma before albeit. The comma before a connective is redundant and much less popular (as far as I can gather) in the UK than elsewhere.
I apologise also to the good folk of Brevoy for confusing them with Isger.
I think the confusion stemmed from using a comma before albeit. The comma before a connective is redundant and much less popular (as far as I can gather) in the UK than elsewhere.
And that was my mistake - I made a calque from Polish where comma is always put before albeit.
I apologise also to the good folk of Brevoy for confusing them with Isger.
Taking into account the expected political problems steming from the vanishing of previous dynasty and rais of House Surtova... Who knows what future will bring.
Back to topic: As R_Chance said serfdom is not abolutely required for feudalism. Feudalism focuses on hierarchy and obligation but its primary component are mutual obligations between landowner and the king or landowner and higher ranking landowner. King gives the landowner the lands into administration (usually together with judicial control over the territory) for military servitude or taxes. Landowner might divide the land again and give it into usage to knights. Finally the land is either lended into use to free peasants or comes with serfs that are bound to land and require landsowner permission for many decisions in their life (such as marriage, moving, sending child to apprenticeship, etc.).
I didn't say it was impossible, just very difficult. And that said, I can't think of any TRULY Feudal societies that DIDN'T have land-slaves.
England. They had peasants and yeomen. No serfs. It's not difficult at all. Feudalism is a system of personal relations in which one party contacts to do the hard work of raising food and the other contracts to do the hard work of protecting the food producers from a hostile world. A specialized protector (the knight) is a more efficient soldier. The peasants / serfs can get about raising crops without worrying about being murdered in their fields. Both benefit. You could have a feudal system with just serfs, or just peasants, or just yeomen *and* a nobility / gentry. Or any combination (of the three food producing groups and the nobility / gentry). Serfs and free peasants coexisted in any number of feudal areas (large areas in France for example). There were, of course, areas where the feudal system consisted largely of serfs and nobles of course. The yeomanry were largely an English thing but similar institutions existed in other areas where groups could make an effective military contribution. The feudal nations in my own campaign setting tend to display different combinations of these.
I didn't say it was impossible, just very difficult. And that said, I can't think of any TRULY Feudal societies that DIDN'T have land-slaves.England. They had peasants and yeomen. No serfs. It's not difficult at all. Feudalism is a system of personal relations in which one party contacts to do the hard work of raising food and the other contracts to do the hard work of protecting the food producers from a hostile world. A specialized protector (the knight) is a more efficient soldier. The peasants / serfs can get about raising crops without worrying about being murdered in their fields. Both benefit. You could have a feudal system with just serfs, or just peasants, or just yeomen *and* a nobility / gentry. Or any combination (of the three food producing groups and the nobility / gentry). Serfs and free peasants coexisted in any number of feudal areas (large areas in France for example). The yeomanry were largely an English thing but similar institutions existed in other areas where groups could make an effective military contribution.
It strikes me that the feudal trade off of money or food for protection would be even more important in a world like Golarion than in ours. Bandits and Robber Barons are one thing... but monsters? This sort of extra danger also would help keep the aristocracy honest, at least on the frontier.
It strikes me that the feudal trade off of money or food for protection would be even more important in a world like Golarion than in ours. Bandits and Robber Barons are one thing... but monsters? This sort of extra danger also would help keep the aristocracy honest, at least on the frontier.
Exactly. The danger of an FRPG world would, combined with heroes who level up and are vastly superior combatants to "ordinary people", make feudalism an obvious system to use. And yes, it would keep the nobility more functional and focused on their military obligations. That's one of the cool things about it. Knights and chivalry are functional in this type of world. Not something to be made obsolescent and pushed into the dustbin of history.
I can hardly think of any 'truly feudal' societies. 'Feudalism' as a model for medieval Christendom has a lot of problems, and has generally been rejected or at least heavily modified by present day historians.Of course, Golarion isn't Earth and this is just a game. If people want to use 'the feudal system', they oughtn't be bothered by recent historiography.
I could see serfs or some other sort of 'unfree' labor in a lot of places.
Revisionism as often exists to justify new generations of thesis / doctorates as it does to correct our views of history. The argument over whether or not feudalism or feudal society are appropriate terms to apply to medieval European society or how the classic view should be modified (or expunged, etc.) is ongoing at the usual glacial pace of historical debate. Despite attempts to reinterpret medieval history / society "Feudalism" as a historical term still has broad usage. Give it another few decades and we might know how it turns out...
England. They had peasants and yeomen. No serfs. It's not difficult at all.
Actually Medieval England had serfs as well (villeins) but the percentage of people bound to land was smaller than in the rest of Western Europe of that times and generally went lower with time while in rest of Europe changed and either keep steady or even increased.
Feudalism is a system of personal relations in which one party contacts to do the hard work of raising food and the other contracts to do the hard work of protecting the food producers from a hostile world. A specialized protector (the knight) is a more efficient soldier. The peasants / serfs can get about raising crops without worrying about being murdered in their fields. Both benefit.
Thats another view of what feudalism is all about in comparison to what I described above - in fact term feudalism can be used to refer to both of these relations: landowner - sovereign and landowner - peasants.
Actually Medieval England had serfs as well (villeins) but the percentage of people bound to land was smaller than in the rest of Western Europe of that times and generally went lower with time while in rest of Europe changed and either keep steady or even increased.Thats another view of what feudalism is all about in comparison to what I described above - in fact term feudalism can be used to refer to both of these relations: landowner - sovereign and landowner - peasants.
Agreed. Feudalism and feudal society have a number of definitions / uses.
Despite attempts to reinterpret medieval history / society "Feudalism" as a historical term still has broad usage. Give it another few decades and we might know how it turns out...We'll never "know how it turns out", because the process is ongoing.
;)
Pretty much. I sometimes suspect revisionists have a leg up by virtue of being younger in general. Their opponents die off. Then, of course, they become the establishment and someone else becomes the new revisionist. Circle of life and all that :)
Agreed. Feudalism and feudal society have a number of definitions / uses.
I propose that for the purpose of this discussion we use term High Feudalism when refering to system of granting fiefs by sovereign to his vassals in exchange for military service and Low Feudalism when refering to relation between landowner and his peasant tenants with Serfdom a specific (if very common historically) type of Low Feudalism with tenants being bound by law to land and subject to landowner control but without the outright ownership as in case of slaves.
This breaking down earlier comment I would see certain nations in the following way:
Talador: High and low feudalism. Serfdom very common. Slavery either uncommon or nonexistent.
Cheliax High feudalism everywhere. Low feudalism and serfdom exists but is less common than slavery and slave-based latifundia. I think that great land owners are currently trying to repress and subdue free farmers in similar way to middle to late Western Roman Empire.
Isger High and low feudalism. Serfdom dominants. Slave-based labor much less. Slavery exists mostly for trade with Cheliax.
Nidal Not sure yet. Low feudalism would match the fear caused by the umbral court in the hearts of peasants and the noble power there.
Molthune High feudalism is replaced with military administrator-aristocrats. While very similar in practice to feudalism (administrators have obligations and privilages matching those of noble lords and receive similar status) they are often moved between different regions to prevent them from creating strong local ties and power base. Similar model existed from time to time in Japan, where magnates were switched between fiefs at the whim of shogunate.
Brevoy Low feudalism but with limited serfdom and large number of free peasants. I am thorn between classical high feudalism and completly different model of noble republic/monarchy - where nobles are legal owners of the most land instead of being it granted in fiefdom by sovereign.
More lands to be discussed later.