New answers tagged

1

Wars are not fought between entire species, they are fought between various social groups. And wars are fought for good or bad reasons, that are usually a lot stronger than merely "Some other group of people exists so let's attack them". History has examples of cooperation between groups belonging to different species. For example, there are instances ...


3

How completely different is completely different? If you make them really quite different then their desires and priorities can be far enough apart that there isn't any conflict. Medieval kingdoms tended to be all about land. Perhaps this other species only cares about shallow coastal waters and has no interest whatsoever in the dry bit in the middle. Or ...


0

Has no one here watched Counterpart? Counterpart Basically a portal opened connecting 2 exact world. One difference in an event rippled through and caused most things to change ... Anyways the thing is that the 2 worlds are mostly same and how they interact with each other was truly fascinating. Almost like what you guys discussed above like their govt ...


3

Why do you assume that they would go to war? War is costly and often devastating, we don't wage wars simply because other countries exist. Your two worlds would benefit from mutual trade and the exchange of ideas. By allowing free movement people can enjoy the economic and social benefits of peace. The two worlds don't want to jeopardize that peace through ...


0

Two different options, depending on the size of the wormholes. If the wormholes are big enough for use to deploy planes/missiles through them, then they are also big enough for the aliens to launch similar weapons. Both sides would realize that it is a case of Mutually Assured Destruction, and you would end up with a Cold War-style "Well, I can always kill ...


8

The same reason why most countries don't go to war with each other all the time. When we do wage war, it's often (not always, though) because it's necessary, or else if the balance of power is considerably different. If the balance of power is roughly equal, then war is often devastatingly costly. Sure, you can potentially reap the benefits of newly ...


0

There isn't much intrinsically connecting scientific advancement with the absence of autocratic government. I'd say that, with our worlds history as a model, what you need for innovation is a consistently effective government, where effective here means "keeps (most of) the people (in power) from suffering (or talking to each other about it)", an effective ...


4

I would say "no", but for economic reasons. The apparent surface link between technology and politics is underneath mediated by economics. In Western history, the three have always been intertwined. And it's difficult to imagine an alternative history where the ruling class in a feudal society have the incentive or even the notion to innovate ...


-1

No. As long as people are not free to innovate (with their own means/discretion), in general you will not have innovation. Henry Ford said "A business absolutely devoted to service will have only one worry about profits. They will be embarrassingly large." The symbiosis and brotherhood brought to life by private property rights, and the failure of every ...


2

Short Answer: Yes it is possible for an advanced country to have a monarchy. Yes it is possible for an advanced country to have a federal political system that is partially feudalistic, with hereditary lords and vassals. No, it is not possible for an advanced country to have serfdom, so if you are thinking about serfdom as a vital feature of feudal ...


1

you are asking about the relationship between political systems and the velocity of technological development. there is middleman, a link between these two worlds, and that is the economic system. from that perspective technological development´s main dependance is the extent/magnitude of -> accumulation of capital present in the current economy. whether ...


2

I think what you ask for is quite feasible. You assume that enlightenment sparked the desire for freedom, resulting in democracies. But in my opinion, that is not correct. Let's take a look at two of the first democracies, namely France and the united states. The driving factors that mobilized the masses were literacy, i.e. the ability to spread information ...


4

Steam engine is one of the most important technological advancements. Let's compare how James Watt created his steam engine in Britain and at the same time Ivan Polzunov created one in Russian Empire. Watt was a free person - he went to different cities, partnered with the best iron-makers, metalworkers, factory owners. He not only developed his machine, ...


3

We've actually had one of those: The Zaibatsu era of Imperial Japan. These were large conglomerates (and quasi-dependent smaller companies) that controlled so much of the country's economy that everyone and everything in the country was essentially subservient to their interests. This is essentially a pseudo-feudal system where loyalties to large companies ...


2

In addition to the answers already posted, one significant factor to consider is how your hypothetical society musters and applies military force. Although geography and communications played a role in creating societies with feudal systems, military technology appears to have also played a highly significant role. Western European feudalism, Japanese ...


1

Arguably they already do: anything with a strong Mafia presence has feaudal-ish feel to it, one swears loyalty a lord, who then allows one to work the land (or run a store, within said land). That lord also offers protection against other lords. And, of course, plenty of technologically advanced countries are not democratic. Really the main difference in ...


-2

Yes. But only if it reached it's advanced technologies in more democratic state and transformed into autocracy. Or that it has more democratic neighbors from which it can import advances in technology. Monarchies are autocracies. That means that small group(s) of hereditary rulers rule over huge swaths of peasants. To keep the regime stable, people need to ...


2

Yes. Techonological advancement is a function of specialization and specialization is a function of the energy sources your society has access. It has nothing to do with political liberalism. If you have more energy you have the greater the farming output and with it more people that can become specialized knowledge workers. What you need is that your ...


32

I've read a book series before which had a technologically advanced feudal society in a very believable way. While the reasons for feudalism's developement were complicated, one very large reason was the difficulty of direct control. After the breakdown of the Roman Empire, and with it both its military might and its intricate postal system, it became ...


24

The main feature of a feudal monarchy is the "vassalic contract". It means that one vassal serves it's liege while the liege provide protection. It can be on a small scale : organizing a local police force to protect from day to day violence, or it can be on a huge scale... organizing intergalactic diplomacy to prevent war between the carebear monarchy and ...


12

"Could a society exist with the technological advancement we have today, but not the social or political advancement": a few examples of modern(-ish) societies which cannot be called democracies, and most certainly are not similar to "western" polities: National-Socialist Germany, also known as the Third Realm, 1933-1945. The Empire of Japan, 1868-1945. The ...


6

Who controls the money controls the power The rise of the middle class broke the aristocracy, the problem being that the aristocracy were obsessed with land because that's where all the money had been up until the industrial revolution. In practice it mostly remained in the land for a considerable transition period as well. However if you get an ...


3

One of the key aspects of feudal systems is that all is property of the king, and the underlings are "animated property". What the farmer produces belongs to the king, none of the eventual surplus in production will remain with him. Based on the current theories on capitalism, the lack of incentive given by the lack of profit for the individual leads to ...


1

What follows is the most plausible scenario I could come up with. I would appreciate community help refining it. It is, I acknowledge, a long shot. Lunar Crater is ~75 miles away from the Area 51 base. There are volcano remnants all over the area, and mild seismic activity was briefly detected in 2018, although it has been ~32000 years since last eruption. ...


1

A meltdown at a reactor like Chernobyl or Fukushima is not concealable, period, as several other answers have eluded: radiation will get out, and radiation is both very carefully monitored for by countries all around the globe, and the signature of the radiation (in terms of what isotopes are released and in what ratios) very distinctly identifies the type ...


1

I see only one solution: Test many different nukes at various parts of your country around the reactor, and dress these as official weapons test, and intentionally mix in materials which create a signature hiding the nuclear reactor signature. (You asked for "cover up", not for "hide")


0

How deep underground is it? Nuclear reactors tend to "runaway" rather than explode, but let's assume we have an explosion. Most countries these days model their nuclear weapons rather than test them, the one exception being North Korea. That test was 800m below ground, with the shaft "plugged with gravel, sand, gypsum and other fine materials", stopping ...


0

They could pretend it was an attack on the US. Its more commonly a non-accidental thing: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PretextForWar , but it could be used to cover it up the fact that a reactor was stolen by claiming it was a nuclear strike on the us.


2

No, even if they cleverly lied about it It's quite impossible to conceal the detonation of a nuclear reactor. There are a few reasons for this, namely, the spread of radiation, the fact that the energy from the reactor was being used to power things and is now gone, and the fact that this would literally cause an earthquake where earthquakes aren't supposed ...


0

Not possible for total cover up, look at Chernobyl, you may try to cover up the cause but there are going to be inquires by all agencies and investigation committees. Any discovered attempts at covering up or lying will have ugly results: court martials, shutting down entire departments, scrutinize and freeze budgets to any ongoing projects, investigations ...


6

Short answer: no. There is a network of radiation monitoring stations all across the globe. If there is any release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, these monitoring stations will pick it up. This is how the accident at Chernobyl was detected in the West before Soviet Union acknowledged it happening. A monitoring station in Sweden picked up ...


0

When placing nobility during worldbuilding you first have to ask where did the nobility came from, how it appeared. In the western civilization the nobles are the descendents of warlords, barbarians invaders and brigands that took control of the countryside, built their fortresses and fought against each other until someone became a king, not so different ...


1

You may as well use the British monarchy as a role model. By tradition young royals serve time in the military (Prince Harry served in the British Army, Prince William in the Royal Air Force, Prince Charles served in the Royal Navy etc.) They follow a typical junior officer's career path, although are typically not sent on high risk missions in order to ...


5

Short Answer: Officials of all classes start out lower and if competent are promoted to higher ranks. But officials who come from higher ranking classes start out at higher ranks than officials who come from lower ranking classes. And even the most democratic politicians accept that class bias because the number of levels in the government hierarchy ...


1

Assign a regiment (or equivalent) to each royal, "Prince Gregory's Light regiment of foot". A strong tradition of military service will help ensure that they are competent, descendants that are no so inclined can can receive courtesy ranks in non essential staff positions. Financing for each regiment will depend on the civilian government, providing a check ...


3

Officer vs Enlisted The whole idea of officers is a hold over from feudal times where a knight would have a group of commoners fighting underneath his command, generally his serfs that he rounded up. As armies got larger there was a need for senior enlisted, someone who was still a plebe but trusted in warfare. He wouldn't order around a knight but would ...


3

Give them a competent Chief of Staff. That was the model in Imperial Germany, which had a share of Imperial or subsidiary princelings with martial ambitions. Judge if they can be trusted to listen to their CoS. If so, they can have major armies and fleets. If not, judge the political fallout of shuffling them to a secondary front.


2

Divide and conquer. For the nobility, assign them positions where the troops under their command aren't from their base of power. If the noble family is from Tatooine, they might be assigned command of forces drawn primarily from Vulcan, while the nobles from Vulcan are in command of troops from Geidi Prime, and so on. That reduces a natural base of support,...


0

The agreement could allow for the nobles to maintain their own private armies, which would then work in coordination with the national military when needed. This is essentially how the feudal structure of medieval Europe operated.


7

This problem is central to the organisation of one of the best-known settings: Warhammer 40.000 Once upon a time the then-new Imperium of Mankind had fully combined arms and was commanded by a single Warmaster: Horus Lupercal Horus rebelled and went traitor in an event you might have heard of: the Horus Heresy. This was the largest war the galaxy had seen ...


0

Nobility can be of several kind. The most common being Robe, Land and Sword. The first kind are, more or less, pen pusher and title-buyer. The second kind has political power because they oversee the land and those who inhabit there. The last category won its titles in war. They often have (relatively) less political influence and overall wealth. There might ...


11

History has many different examples to choose from. The British Royalty has a long tradition of being very "hands on" militarily speaking. We can go back to Henry V or Richard III as true warrior kings fighting on the field of battle, to the more modern example of the House of Windsor sending their sons and daughters into service (and actually performing at ...


26

Small Elite troops. "So the problem i'm facing is what position/rank should they have where the command large armies but cant screw the military over and/or take over the government" In military arms you will have Infantry/Air which in your case all may merge with Naval spaceships. If you place lots of troops under their command, historically the political ...


0

An army doesn't have a single representative in each high grade. There are plenty of position to accommodate the most promising or most influent elements of the nobility in the high ranks. Moreover, with an army capable of conquering entire worlds, I am pretty sure you are not handling only battalions in your world. Again, plenty of positions available. ...


Top 50 recent answers are included