Exactly right. And such feudal systems have been as stable as most other forms of government, historically -- I see no reason why it wouldn't work in the future.

Another potential governing dynamic for a slow-communication polity is the "federal empire", in which the central power is relatively hands-off with individual regions, especially on the periphery, as long as they pay their taxes (in money, or in troops, or whatever) and don't disturb the peace. This was Rome's model, for example. Conquered/annexed territories could keep their existing governments, religions, and most of their autonomy if they played nicely.  The Aztec empire was very similar. Of course, neither of these lasted especially long -- ~400 years for the Roman empire, and ~100 for the Aztec.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 2:26 PM Kenneth Barns <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 06:29, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
The UK had 'Royal Govs' to, presumably, keep the 'colonials' in line. They were NOT hereditary however & they could very well be 'colonials' themselves.
(BenFranklin's son was the gov of NJ)

The 'sending out nobles to run  things' idea breaks down if they can become ensconced as hereditary 'mini-emperors'.

After a period of time they become the 'locals' that they were originally sent out to  deal with.

'Feudalism' in the medieval sense just doesn't cut it.

A post-modern society will require a post-modern solution & there may very well be some trappings of 'feudalism' involved.
But there will also be aspects of many other systems that will make the 3I more like the current UK.
'Feudal' aspects? Yes, but not just 'feudal'. 
Much more than just that.
Enough to question the label.

Royal Governors and Governors-General are (bureaucratic) appointees, who have power delegated to them by those making the appointment.  They have never been "feudal".  Yes, on many occasions they may have an aristocratic title, in the era of the British Empire, the Royal Family itself had little practical power, and the aristocracy even less so.  Parliament has been the institution of power explicitly since the Glorious Revolution (1688), and de facto for some time before that.  (The English Civil War was triggered by Charles I failing to recognise this fact.)

A state with rapid (a few days at most) can have a centralised military command and coordinated military responses.  Local leaders can be appointees, responsible to (and reliant on) the centre of government.

A state without rapid communications relies upon local leaders with the power, and the incentive, to response vigorously to internal and external threats to the state.  They need to be able to deploy this power without reference to the central government.  Of course, this then begs the question of why those local leaders just don't "go it alone" ... which means the leader of such a state needs to provide incentives for the local leaders to cooperate rather than defect.  How successful the central leaders are at doing this is the tale of human social history through until the arrival of the modern nation state (which depends upon the existence of rapid communications).

One option for power local leaders is a system of royal appointments, where the Governor has no power of his own, but is able to call on the power of the central government.  However, this needs: (a) a metropole more powerful than the peripheries; and (b) an ability to project power from the metropole to the peripheries.  Otherwise, the position of governor is going to wind up occupied by a colonial who has been appointed at the direction of the colonial government (see the British Empire; either via insurrection (1776) or else via peaceful evolution (the Dominions)).

The other option is feudalism, where the military power is raised from, and led by, local forces.  (Or else enfeoffing a subject who will go about building local forces, and identifying the local area as "his").  And, ALL of the canon history of the Imperium (both distant and recent past) describes prominent public figures with distinguished lineages, with clear local bases of power than have been in the family for centuries, and troops personally loyal to them and their family.  What keeps them in check is a strong tradition, and a social expectation, of shared loyalty to the next person above them on the totem pole and to the Emperor as "the one above all".  That is almost the definition of feudalism!

Cheers!
KenB

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PltOdItWBSgOP4y0Q6abkGbDI1eus0lz



--
"What is now proved was once only imagined." - William Blake