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
shōguns, 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,
India, and the
American South of the nineteenth century.
Byzantine Empire 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). This system was adopted by
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 the
Russian principalities. In addition, there were few landlords and a lack of political or judicial institutions that could bind peasants to the land. The Russians developed its system of land/lord/worker, loosely called feudalism, after it had created a strong central power in the 15th century. 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. 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.
Armenia 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 states, 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.
Pakistan, India and Bangladesh The
Taluqdari,
Jotedari or
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 Feudalism is the model that modern Chinese Marxists and
Tokyo school historians use to identify China's recent past,
neologized from the Chinese concept of
fengjian a term used to designate the multi-state system which existed in China under the
Zhou dynasty, eradicated following
Qin's wars of unification in favour of the
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
local state was governed independently with taxes, currency, and laws set by the aristocratic clan chief in charge of the territory,
Early Chinese titles were a mixture of political and kinship terms, and did not attain systematization until the late
Spring and Autumn period. The collapse of central authority led to a geopolitical situation marked by considerable infighting by the landed aristocracy and their successors, often ministerial lineages. After the last King of
Qin, known to posterity as the
First Emperor of Qin, defeated his rival states, founding the
first empire, he formally abolished the largely defunct system, replacing it with a bureaucratized system of literate civil servants. Despite the rapid collapse of the Qin and an abortive attempt at reinstitution of 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. Han dynasty scholarship would decry the First Emperor as a tyrant whose crimes included deconstructing the 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 system would not again be implemented in China.
Tibet Whether Tibet constituted a feudal social system or if peasants could be considered serfs is still debated. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. == Modern traces ==