Editing Examples of feudalism (section)

== "Semi-feudal" (non-Western European) feudalism ==
Outside of a medieval European historical context, the concept of feudalism is generally used by analogy (called '''semi-feudal''), most often in discussions of [[Japan]] under the ''[[shōgun]]s'', Thai [[sakdina]] and, sometimes, nineteenth-century [[Ethiopia]]. However, some have taken the feudalism analogy further, seeing it in places as diverse as [[Ancient Egypt]], the [[Parthian Empire]], [[Indian feudalism|India]], and the [[History of the Southern United States#Antebellum Era (1783–1861)|American South of the nineteenth century]]{{Broken anchor|date=2025-05-30|bot=User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration|target_link=History of the Southern United States#Antebellum Era (1783–1861)|reason= }}.

=== Byzantine Empire ===
{{Main|Pronoia}}
[[Pronoia]], the 11th-century system of land grants in the [[Byzantine Empire]], makes a useful contrast to feudal tenure in the European West. Another distinction between the European West can be made in that paroiki (people who lived and farmed on the land of the Pronoiars) owed no debt or loyalty to the pronoiars (the recipients of the Pronoia).<ref name="Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900-1200">{{cite book |last=Harvey |first=Allen |date=1989 |title=Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900–1200 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-0521521901 |pages=1–13}}</ref> This system was adopted by [[Kingdom of Serbia (medieval)|Serbia]] and then the [[Ottoman Empire]] after the fall of the Byzantine Empire at their hands, which called their land grants ''[[timar]]'' and the recipients of the land grants "[[timariots]]".

=== Russia ===
In contrast to [[Western Europe]] where feudalism created a strong central power, it took a strong central power to develop feudalism in Russia. A lack of true central power weakened and doomed the Russians to outside domination. The Russians developed its system of land/lord/worker, loosely called feudalism, after it had created a strong central power. Lacking a feudal system of [[vassal]] loyalty made it impossible for any prince, early on, to gain enough influence and power to project a strong force against any invaders.

In contrast to other European forms of [[serfdom]] and [[feudalism]] there was a lack of vassalage and loyalty to the lord whose land the serfs worked. It took a much longer period for feudalism to develop but when it did it took on a much harsher form than elsewhere in Europe. Serfs had no rights whatsoever; they could be traded like livestock by their lords. They had no ownership of anything, including their own families, all of which belonged to their lord.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Roth |first1=Mitchel P. |title=An Eye for an Eye A Global History of Crime and Punishment |date=2014 |publisher=[[Reaktion Books]] |isbn=9781780233819 |page=98}}</ref>

Another major difference was the lack of independent principalities; this was due to the lack of vassalage. Separate lords did not command their troops to protect their lands.<ref name="Blum">{{cite book |last=Blum |first=Jerome |title=Lord and Peasant in Russia: From the 9th to the 19th Century |title-link=Lord and Peasant in Russia |location=Princeton |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |date=1961 |isbn=9780691007649}}</ref>

=== Armenia ===
{{Main|Nakharar}}
The [[Nakharar]] system used by the [[Armenian nobility]] throughout [[Medieval Armenia]] has often been described as feudal, with hereditary houses of nobles owning large estates, each headed by its own [[tanuter]], and with the estates themselves divided amongst the family. For Armenia as a whole, a [[Sparapet]] (supreme commander), King, and chief [[Aspet]] were each taken from individual noble houses. However, Armenian feudalism differs from the feudalism of most of Europe as the estates were owned by families, not lords, and could not be split or given without the family's permission. Also, if a [[tanuter]] died heirless, he was succeeded by a different branch of the family, rather than by a noble who was sworn to him. [[Cilician Armenia]], through contact with [[crusader state]]s, had a system even closer to Western feudalism. The economic and political systems of medieval Europe in which people exchanged loyalty and labor for a lord's protection{{clarify|date=October 2016}}

=== Pakistan, India and Bangladesh ===
{{Main|Feudalism in India|Feudalism in Pakistan}}
The [[Taluqdar|Taluqdari]], [[Jotedar|Jotedari]] or [[Zamindar|Zamindari]] system is often referred to as a feudal or feudal-like system. Originally the system was introduced in the pre-colonial period to collect taxes from peasants, and it continued during colonial British rule. After independence Zamindari was abolished in [[India]] and East Pakistan (present day [[Bangladesh]]), but it is still present today in [[Pakistan]]. In modern times historians have become very reluctant to classify other societies into European models and today it is rare for Zamindari to be described as feudal by academics; it is still done in popular usage, however, but only for pejorative reasons to express disfavor, typically by critics of the system.

=== China ===
{{Main|Fengjian}}
Feudalism is the model that modern Chinese Marxists<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wong |first=Wynn |date=2024-01-02 |title=A New Discourse on<i>Fengjian</i>: the Redefinition of Fengjian and the Demonization of Federalism |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/1547402x.2024.2327206 |journal=The Chinese Historical Review |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=81–102 |doi=10.1080/1547402x.2024.2327206 |issn=1547-402X|doi-access=free }}</ref> and [[Tokyo school]] historians use to identify China's recent past, [[Neologism|neologized]] from the Chinese concept of ''[[fengjian]]''<ref name="BrookBlue2002" /> (which means to allocate a region or piece of land to an individual, establishing him as the ruler of that region),<ref>{{cite book |last1=Levenson |first1=Joseph |last2=Schurmann |first2=Franz |title=China-An Interpretive History: From the Beginnings to the Fall of Han |url=https://archive.org/details/chinainterpretiv00leve |url-access=registration |year=1969 |publisher=[[Regents of the University of California]] |location=London, England |isbn=0-520-01440-5 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/chinainterpretiv00leve/page/34 34–36]}}</ref> a term used to designate the multi-state system which existed in China under the [[Zhou dynasty]],<ref name="BrookBlue2002">{{cite book |first1=Timothy |last1=Brook |first2=Gregory |last2=Blue |title=China and Historical Capitalism: Genealogies of Sinological Knowledge |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rAFF94exLscC&pg=PA136 |date=5 September 2002 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-0-521-52591-6 |page=136 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> eradicated following [[Qin's wars of unification]] in favour of the [[Administration of territory in dynastic China|commandery–county system]].

During the [[Zhou dynasty]], each lord was given land, and his power was legitimized by nominal allegiance to the central Zhou king; politics thus revolved around these noble households. Each [[Ancient Chinese states|local state]] was governed independently with taxes, currency, and laws set by the aristocratic clan chief in charge of the territory,<ref>{{cite book | isbn= 978-0-521-88447-1 | pages=235–270 | author-last= Li |author-first= Feng
| date = 2008
| author-link = Li Feng (Sinologist)
| author-mask= Li Feng  | title= Bureaucracy and the State in Early China
| publisher= Cambridge University Press}}</ref> but the nobles were required to pay regular homage to the Zhou kings as an act of [[fealty]] and acknowledgement of the king's ritual authority. In times of war, the nobles were required to provide armed service to the king. 

Broadly, while ''fengjian'' shared several similarities with later Western feudalism, the local chiefs were afforded greater autonomy in their own territories, but the king owed them no mutual defense.<ref>{{ cite journal
| author= Li Feng | year=2003
| author-link= Li Feng (sinologist)
| title= "Feudalism" and Western Zhou China: a criticism
| publisher= Harvard-Yenching Institute
| volume= 63 | number= 1
| journal= Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 
| pages = 115–144
| doi=10.2307/25066693
| jstor=25066693}}</ref> The matter was further complicated by a bifurcation in territorial administration, where the western heartland of the Zhou royals was more directly governed, but certain lineages enjoyed greater independence from the royal house, which was junior to their own lineages within the [[Ji (Zhou dynasty ancestral surname)|Ji ancestral temple]] community.<ref>{{multiref2|{{ cite journal
| last = Khayutina| first = Maria
| title= Marital alliances and affinal relatives (sheng 甥 and 婚購) in the society and politics of Zhou China in the light of bronze inscriptions
| journal= Early China| volume=37
| year=2014 | pages=39–99
| publisher= Cambridge University Press
| doi = 10.1017/eac.2014.7
| place = Cambridge
| jstor=24392462
}}|{{cite journal
|last=Khayutina |first=Maria
| title = <!-- Citation bot no --> King Wen, a Settler of Disputes or Judge? The “Yu–Rui case” in the Historical Records and its Historical Background
|journal=Bochum Yearbook of East Asian Studies 
| publisher= Ruhr-Universität Bochum
| place= München
|date=2015 | volume=38 | pages=261–276
}}}}</ref>

[[Zhou dynasty nobility|Early Chinese titles]] were a mixture of political and kinship terms,<ref>{{multiref2 |{{ cite journal
| last= Goldin | first= Paul R.
| journal= T'oung Pao | volume= 107
| publisher= Brill | pages= 475–480
| place= Leiden | date= 2021
| doi = 10.1163/15685322-10703005
| title= Etymological Notes on Early Chinese Aristocratic Titles
| issue= 3/4
}}|{{ cite journal
| last = Pines | first=Yuri
| author-link= Yuri Pines 
| title= Names and Titles in Eastern Zhou Texts
| journal= T'oung Pao| year = 2020
| volume= 106 | issue=5/6
| pages = 714–720
| publisher= Brill | place = Leiden
| doi= 10.1163/15685322-10656P06
}}}}</ref> and did not attain systematization until the late [[Spring and Autumn period]].<ref>{{ cite book
| author-last= Li |author-first= Feng
| date = 2008
| author-link = Li Feng (Sinologist)
| author-mask= Li Feng
| title= Perceptions of Antiquity in Chinese Civilization
| editor1-last = Kuhn | editor1-first = Dieter
| editor2-last = Stahl | editor2-first = Helga
| chapter= Transmitting Antiquity: The Origin and Paradigmization of the 'Five Ranks'
| pages = 103–134
| publisher= Würzburger Sinologische Schriften
| place = Würzberg}}</ref> As the Zhou dynasty's control weakened, the regional magnates caused further title inflation by referring to themselves as Kings; the inflation was such that under the [[Han dynasty]], many local lords were established with the title of "king"; in imperial China, the character is thus more normally rendered as "prince". The notion of "prime minister" {{nowrap|{{zhi|太宰}}}} in early China came from the aristocratic meaning of "chief housekeeper" or "butler" of a noble household, in a similar way to the development of such European titles as "[[constable]]".

At the transition from the [[Western Zhou]] to the [[Eastern Zhou]], the political power of the Zhou royal house fell sharply.<ref>{{cite journal
|first2=Yuri |last2=Pines
|author2-link=Yuri Pines 
|author1=Chen Minzhen (陳民鎮)
|pages=1–27
|title=Where is King Ping? The History and Historiography of the Zhou Dynasty's Eastward Relocation 
|journal=Asia Major
|year=2018
|volume=31
|issue=1
|publisher=Academica Sinica
|jstor=26571325
|ref={{harvid|Chen and Pines|2018}}
}}</ref> The collapse of central authority led to a geopolitical situation marked by considerable infighting by the landed aristocracy and their successors, often ministerial lineages.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gernet |first1=Jacques |title=Ancient China – from beginnings to Empire |date=1964 |publisher=[[Faber & Faber]] |location=London |pages=99, 105–6, 115, 122}}</ref>

After the last King of [[Qin (state)|Qin]], known to posterity as the [[First Emperor of Qin]], defeated his rival states, founding the [[Qin dynasty|first empire]], he formally abolished the largely defunct {{lang|zh|fengjian}} system, replacing it with a bureaucratized system of literate civil servants.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Loewe |first1=Michael |author1-link=Michael Loewe |title=The Government of Qin and Han Empires |date=2006 |publisher=Hackett |location=Indianapolis |pages=21, 37, 41}}</ref> Despite the rapid collapse of the Qin and an abortive attempt at reinstitution of {{lang|zh|fengjian}} by [[Xiang Yu]], the following [[Han dynasty]] maintained the vast majority of Qin's bureaucratic reforms, establishing them as the new standard of government for the next two thousand years of imperial Chinese history.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lewis |first1=Mark Edward |title=The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han | author1-link= Mark Edward Lewis |url=https://archive.org/details/earlychineseempi00lewi |url-access=limited |date=2007 |publisher=[[Harvard University Press]] |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |page=[https://archive.org/details/earlychineseempi00lewi/page/n65 53] |isbn=9780674024779}}</ref> Han dynasty scholarship would decry the First Emperor as a tyrant whose crimes included deconstructing the {{lang|zh|fengjian}} system, which was misunderstood in anachronistic overly systematized form as an integral component of the idealized society of the [[Western Zhou]]. While most Chinese dynasties began with imperial relatives being granted control of some local territories, and there were many instances of aristocratic clans surpassing the power of the imperial house, officially devolved power for a military elite present in the {{lang|zh|fengjian}} system would not again be implemented in China.

=== Tibet ===
{{Main|Serfdom in Tibet controversy}}
Whether Tibet constituted a feudal social system or if peasants could be considered serfs is still debated.<ref name="TibetBarnett">{{cite book |last=Barnett |first=Robert |date=2008 |chapter=What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform? |title=Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions |pages=81–83 |editor1-first=Anne-Marie |editor1-last=Blondeau |editor2-first=Katia |editor2-last=Buffetrille |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |isbn=978-0-520-24464-1}}; {{ISBN|978-0-520-24928-8}}</ref> Studied districts of Tibet between the 17th and 20th-century show evidence of a striated society with land ownership laws and tax responsibility that resemble European feudal systems. However, scholars have pointed out key differences that make the comparison contested and only limited evidence from that period is available for study.<ref>{{cite book |last=Childs |first=Geoff |date=2003 |chapter=Polyandry and population growth in a Historical Tibetan Society |title=History of the Family |pages=423–428}}</ref> Scholar Geoff Samuel further argued that Tibet even in the early 20th century did not constitute a single state but rather a collection of districts and a legal system of [[Lhasa]] with particular land and tax laws did not extend over the entire country.<ref name="TibetSamuel">{{cite journal |last=Samuel |first=Geoffrey |date=February 1982 |title=Tibet as a Stateless Society and Some Islamic Parallels |journal=[[Journal of Asian Studies]] |volume=41 |number=2 |pages=215–229|doi=10.2307/2054940 |jstor=2054940 |s2cid=163321743 }}</ref>

However, according to [[Melvyn Goldstein]], for the 20th century, the Tibetan political system can not be categorized as feudal since Tibet possessed a centralized state.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Melvyn |last=Goldstein |title=On the Nature of Tibetan Peasantry |journal=The Tibet Journal |volume=XIII |number=1 |date=1988 |pages=61–65 |quote=I did not argue in the paper in question that the Tibetan political system of the 20th century should be categorized as a feudal system, and in fact, have specifically rejected that argument in dissertation and in a later paper in which I argued that Tibet possessed a centralized type of state.}}</ref>

=== Japan ===
The [[Tokugawa shogunate]] was a feudal military dictatorship of Japan established in the 17th century lasting until 1868. It marks a period often referred to loosely as 'feudal Japan', otherwise known as the [[Edo period]]. While modern historians have become very reluctant to classify other societies into European models, in Japan, the system of land tenure and a vassal receiving tenure in exchange for an oath of [[fealty]] is very close to what happened in parts of medieval Europe, and thus the term is sometimes used in connection with Japan.<ref>{{cite journal |first=John |last=Whitney Hall |title=Feudalism in Japan—a reassessment |journal=Comparative Studies in Society and History |date=1962 |volume=5 |number=1 |pages=15–51 |doi=10.1017/S001041750000150X |jstor=177767|s2cid=145750386 }}</ref> [[Karl Friday]] notes that in the 21st century, historians of Japan rarely invoke feudalism; instead of looking at similarities, specialists attempting comparative analysis concentrate on fundamental differences.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Karl |last1=Friday |title=The Futile Paradigm: In Quest of Feudalism in Early Medieval Japan |journal=[[History Compass]] |volume=8 |number=2 |date=2010 |pages=179–196|doi=10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00664.x }}</ref>