Is a empire ruled by a Warrior aristocracy automatically a feudal society?

Is a empire ruled by a Warrior aristocracy automatically a feudal society?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rvusy/is_the_military_worship_of_the_spartans_really/dl8nsnh/
youtube.com/watch?v=hMQmU0epVr4
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/66pjm1/were_the_cultures_of_5th_century_bc_athens_and/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_header
nottingham.ac.uk/classics/people/stephen.hodkinson
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Of course not

Not necessarily. If they're any good they'll conquer enough territory and chill for a bit. Just look at Japan. I mean, yeah, it can get feudal from time to time, but any sort of aristocracy acn go that way.

No, feudalism is defined by the systems of personal allegiances and hereditary land ownership more than by the type of people who gained that power.

There are oligarchies

nope it can be a nobel republic like poland

LOL, you are going to have to explain to me why a society isn't feudal just because the nobles get to elect their king. They still had heaps of land and serfs chained to that land, they were still feudal.

There's one part missing: the feuding.

and perhaps the economic system is something else. the ruling class isn't determining the economic system. and the political system isn't feudal if it's a republic

Feudalism is defined more by perpetuities.

Poland was actualy a kingdom. It just happened that the king had very little power

It would seem inevitable. Maybe you could have an aristocracy that is supported thru taxation rather than land ownership, such a system would be awfully unstable tho and would likely transform into an oligarchy.

>Just look at Japan.

...one of the most feudalistic societies on Earth? What about them?

Classical Sparta seems like the obvious counterexample

>what are helots

>slavery = feudalism
(You)

Prussia effectively ended feudalism in 1807 but still had a military government drawn from the aristocracy.

The purpose of feudal society was in large to support a military elite. A warrior elite is thus a necessary but not sufficient condition for feudalism.

Class structure is not the same as feudalism. Slaves, while similar, are not the same as serfs. Spartan society doesn't have layers of landed nobles that owe fielty to their overlord, it has three classes of people that work more like castes, each with a different job and background.

The Spartans weren't a warrior aristocracy. They were a leisure class.

No, they could be merchant warriors and be a martial plutocracy.

Well it could be that the nobles don't automatically get to own real estate.

This is the stupidest thing I've read all day.

There's a term "military democracy" introduced by Lewis H. Morgan that describes early Kievan Rus and some other ancient societies. Knyazs (the rulers, often called "princes" by English-speaking scholars, which is wrong) rule, supported by their druzhinas (essentially the same thing as Norse hirds, armed companions and most trusted men) and get regular tributes from villages. Although the druzhina could be considered the ruling elite, every grown man who can bear arms had a voice in most local matters on the gathering (veche). Moreover, every member of druzhina (save "younger" druzhinnkis) could also vote on Knyaz's decisions, including who to raid etc. Villagers were NOT Knyaz's serfs (serfdom came later, and had a lot of peculiar characteristics in the history of Rus), and druzhinnkis were NOT Knyaz's vassals. Again, not until the whole idea of Great Knyazs came into being, brining Rus more in line with traditional feudal states.

No, sweetie.
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rvusy/is_the_military_worship_of_the_spartans_really/dl8nsnh/

>Trying to analyze social developments realistically
>Then add magic or other fantasy elements
Everything gets thrown to the wind.

>Linking Reddit

I'm not involved in this conversation but I just wanted to say there was a time you would have been banned for that

Chill bruh. That place is legit, it has certified historians and a strict moderation team consisting of actual historians so it's not cancerous like most of reddit. The guy who wrote that is a historian with a PhD who is up to date with the current knowledge about Ancient Greek history in general.

youtube.com/watch?v=hMQmU0epVr4

Here's the video that came from the same guy's findings.

Yeah thw guy that made that video worked with the guy who wrote the reddit post.

Honestly don't know how to feel about the development either way. Pisses me off that apparently my big book on The Spartans by Cartledge is now outdated.

Immediately discredited when we find out most of our sources for the Spartans are from their enemies.

going "Our sources don't mention X" isn't evidence of your own hypothesis.

>has nobility
Cool. No clergy, no peasantry, no feudalism.

I honestly hope you're right user, I much prefer the Spartans as they are, then how this is showing them to be.

It's pretty much true.

You can't say "Spartan strength of arms was a meme made by modern people"

When Athenians are going "Spartans a rough dickheads who killed their children for War"

I mean you forget, things like the 300 are chronicled by the Athenian Scholars.

I think the issue is that said Historian couldn't find any mention of the Spartan's fierce military reputation before the events of Thermopylai. It would only be after that there was records of the Soldiering Might of Sparta, following into the years of The Peloponnesian War. If I recall, he cites that at a time, Sparta was known more for it's women, then it's soldiers.

You might also find this post interesting.
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/66pjm1/were_the_cultures_of_5th_century_bc_athens_and/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_header
Again most of what he says is recent development in academia. So it stands to reason its going against what most people were taught. You could always ask there for clarifiction.

And again that points out how much of a fucking retard this Historian is.

A lack of evidence does not contradict a point. Galatians have the same "Little" scripture about their Warrior prowess, and much of it shows their Warriors abandoning a fight due to an Omen like an eclipse, But so much of the wording from Greek sources says "Galatians are fucking awesome fighters" so we must take context with substance.

If the Athenians were their greatest Political Rivals, and infamous for their Propaganda tier historical recording, why would they forsee the Spartans as Savage Warriors.

Or I can just ignore some half-rated Historian whose greatest call to fame is trying to discredit things for fun.

Like Niel Degresse Tyson, he sounds like a faggot just trying to make his mark on the world a "Well Actually it's not THIS" moment.

Oh, and while I am ripping on this guy. His description of Athens is hilarious.

Ideologically, meanwhile, the greater freedom of adult male citizens went at the expense of proportionally greater oppression of women, immigrants, and slaves..

The guy sounds like a NuMale of today, applying the lens of modern sensibilities to an ancient society.

In short, possible the worst kind of Historian.

And Just to cut into this faggot even more, this is his source for 90% of his stupid opinion.

nottingham.ac.uk/classics/people/stephen.hodkinson

A Historican who studies Spartan Economics and Slavery.

Famous for nothing; his biggest contributions to history being "Did Spartans do Animal Husbandry?"

Closing statement: Sure, Spartan has been made a fantasy by Historians of the past and people of the future, but trying to sound smart by pointing this out makes you look like a boring little cockhead.

While I generally agree with your thoughts on the Spartans, none of that makes Pluto a planet.

gee. talk about a feudal argument.

>No Carlos pic

ONE
JOB

CAAARLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS

I don't see why people are so butthurt in the comments. He's not calling them weak and he states they remain unbeaten in pitch battles in 150 years. It just tells us that Sparta may not have been as militaristic as we thought but the video states they had a leg up over the other city states. I mean hoplite were levied militia, not professional soldiers so in that context the Spartans performed amiable compared to the poorly trained militia of the other city states

...

None of the mezoamerican cultures were considered feudal so no I quess.

Landed aristocracy doesn't imply in warrior aristocracy, and there's little difference between oligarchies and aristocracies.

Feudalism is about alliances.

Good example would be Poland AD 1000 to 1900.

They begun with slave-based economies, after Genghis Khan fucked world slave market, they moved to economy based on crafts and new, dynamic cities, the feudalism, then classic feudalism morph into feudal oligarchy and finally succumbs to countries with more imperial approach and "modern" economy. Then idustrial revolution came out, but nobles from former warrior families was still behind all of this.