I mean, we've been told that it is a form of feudalism, but I'm not so sure. Feudalism is a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor.
Dragoner already pointed out that there are different types of feudalism and I'll remind everyone that Mr. Miller has stated in the past that he considers the Imperium to be a feudal technocracy.
Of course the real trouble is that government labels limited to a single word or phrase are so imprecise. Just mull over how many different kinds of governments can "fit" inside the label of "republic".
The closest real-world analog to this that I can think of is the manner in which the Catholic Church held power during the late medieval through the renaissance.
Funny you should mention the Roman Catholic Church, but I'll get to that after
Yet Another Whipsnadian History Haranguetm...
Back in the early 90s I came across something while reading Schoeder's
The Transformation of European Politics 1763 - 1848 which wrenched my eyes open. I'd been reading and enjoying history for decades before that but I'd never really thought about how "pre-modern" governments actually worked compared to "modern" governments. In the first chapter of the book, Schroeder explains how the revolution of 1789 in France allowed the political seeds laid by the Treaty of Westphalia over a century before to begin to mature. Westphalia had legitimized the concept of territorial sovereignty but it took the French Revolution and all that followed it to put the concept into general use. By way of explanation, Schroeder used the example of Three Bishoprics in France and the Austrian Netherlands as examples of the older concept of territorial supremacy.
We automatically assume "territorial sovereignty" when we read "nation" or "government". The term "territorial sovereignty" signifies that within a given territorial domain all jurisdiction is exercised by a state over the persons and property to the exclusion of other states while the term "territorial supremacy" signifies within a given territorial domain most jurisdiction is exercised by a state with other states exercising other varying levels of jurisdiction. Putting it another way, within it's domain a sovereign state is the one and only while a supreme state is merely the first of many within it's domain.
Prior to 1789, France was a crazy quilt of different legal codes, tax codes, and even measurement systems. Even odder to are modern eyes were ostensibly French territories like the Three Bishoprics. Verdun, Tours, and Metz had been annexed by France in 1550s with most other European powers acknowledging that in 1648. The Roman Catholic clergy who ruled the bishoprics (told you I'd get back to them) had roles in both the
Ancien Regime and the Church. The Church even had rights to taxes and other things within the bishoprics which trumped those of France. France enjoyed territorial supremacy within the bishoprics and not territorial sovereignty.
From 1714 to 1794, Austria "enjoyed" the same sort of control over most of what is now Belgium. The treaty which gave Austria control the region also gave other European powers specific rights there too. When Austria tried to reform and centralize it's administration in the region, it needed to negotiate with those other powers as the proposed changes impinged on the other powers' rights. Naturally, the other powers wanted compensation and Austria's reform efforts were stalled by the diplomatic horse trading. Like France, Austria was only supreme in the region and not sovereign.
After mulling over Schroeder's explanations, I realized that
an important part of the Third Imperium's feudal nature is that it is territorial supreme within it's territorial domain and not territorial sovereign.
Therefore:
- IMTU and like pre-1789 France, the Imperium is a crazy quilt of different territories knit together by conquest, treaties, colonization, and other methods.
- IMTU and like Austria in the Netherlands, the Imperium finds itself hamstrung on occasion by all the legalities, precedents, and traditions at work within all it's territories.
- IMTU the government of each member world - and IMTU the Imperium is made of governments and not citizens - has a unique relationship with the Imperium government, a relationship based on how the world first joined the Imperium and what has occurred across the ensuing centuries.
- IMTU - Imperial nobles play an important role as living treaties. Their duties and prerogatives in a given territory are closely linked to the duties and prerogatives the Imperium enjoys in the same territory.
Let me repeat one last point. We almost always assume "territorial sovereignty" when we read "nation" or "government". That assumption sits at the core of the problem many people have when attempting to understand the Third Imperium. Because we too often assume the Imperium is territorial sovereign, we too often craft an Imperium which is nothing more than a 57th Century version of the US or EU.
