Let's say the nukes flew and hit their marks or some other apocalyptic event hit the world

[Swank]

I din't think it's a case of occupation - quite the opposite. The first thing to go after a catastrophic event will be law and order. People will rob and murder you for what you have, and there will be no state to protect you.

The feudal system gives you land, makes you part of an organised community, and most of all gives you protection. People won't need to be subdued; they'll accept the offer of food and protection willingly.

Part of the reason for the end of the feudal system was that peasants could earn money and become wealthy enough to own their own land and cattle. Not only to feed themselves and their family, but to make more money to buy more land. Suddenly you don't need to be subservient to a local governor/overlord/thug/bully.

Of course, there will be those independant, self reliant people who refuse to have anything to do with it. But they will likely be prey for roving bands of outlaws.

The feudal system was almost destroyed by "roving bands" like the Mongols. The feudal system was fixed to a time and technology level, when world upsetting inventions like stirrups and the long bow decided where borders were.

It also hinges on relatively high labor farming methods people are unlikely to need to duplicate again. Not because growing food will be easy, but because too many farming methods have been invented since the middle ages.

The feudal system wasn't some natural state of human existence. It required belief that only certain people could raise and command an army. Modern people aren't going to swallow that, and absolute monarchs that pop up aren't going to have an aura to protect them.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think it will largely depend on what type of disaater it is.

Transportation is likely to be at best problematic, and certainly fraught with danger. The vhances are that no one is going anywhere very fast. And why would you? Things are likely to be just as bad elsewhere. And a horde of refugees is unlikelt to be welcomed by people who will already be struggling themselves.

You can also bet that certain enterprising individuals will flourish in this new environment, and it won't take long for all of the valuable commodities such as food, fuel, drugs and other necesseties to be gathered up.

This is how feudalism starts. You have nothing; at least nothing that can't easily be taken from you by force. The choices are to either live out an existance by fending for yourself, or go work for the man who has all the stuff and the muscle to go with it.

Feudalism is a matter of convenience as much as anything else. The worker gets a roof over their head, food, medical trwatment and protection from troublemakers. The lord/boss/chief gets a worker who will do his bidding and make his life more comfortable.

I agree it will be a very diffrrent form of feudalism to that of 1000 years ago. The worker probably won't need to till his own patch of land etc., but the principle will remain the same. Communities owing allegiance/obeyance to an overlord in return for food and shelter.

Over time it's quite likely that the local 'lord' will answer to a regional commander (who has more muscle and bigger/better weapons) who eventually will answer to a king/ruler who has even more.

Of course things could go yhe other way, with major destruction and ghe population reduced to extinctikn levels. Then you have a situation as depicted in 'The Road'.

 

[Swank]

I think it will largely depend on what type of disaater it is.

Transportation is likely to be at best problematic, and certainly fraught with danger. The vhances are that no one is going anywhere very fast. And why would you? Things are likely to be just as bad elsewhere. And a horde of refugees is unlikelt to be welcomed by people who will already be struggling themselves.

You can also bet that certain enterprising individuals will flourish in this new environment, and it won't take long for all of the valuable commodities such as food, fuel, drugs and other necesseties to be gathered up.

This is how feudalism starts. You have nothing; at least nothing that can't easily be taken from you by force. The choices are to either live out an existance by fending for yourself, or go work for the man who has all the stuff and the muscle to go with it.

Feudalism is a matter of convenience as much as anything else. The worker gets a roof over their head, food, medical trwatment and protection from troublemakers. The lord/boss/chief gets a worker who will do his bidding and make his life more comfortable.

I agree it will be a very diffrrent form of feudalism to that of 1000 years ago. The worker probably won't need to till his own patch of land etc., but the principle will remain the same. Communities owing allegiance/obeyance to an overlord in return for food and shelter.

Over time it's quite likely that the local 'lord' will answer to a regional commander (who has more muscle and bigger/better weapons) who eventually will answer to a king/ruler who has even more.

Of course things could go yhe other way, with major destruction and ghe population reduced to extinctikn levels. Then you have a situation as depicted in 'The Road'.

You're calling any form of collective economy and defense "feudalism". But there is no intrinsic requirement for a population to permanently agree to that situation in lieu of all the other sorts of government schemes available. What sort of special power or persuasion does the would-be feudal lord have, and how did they get it?

As governments keep finding out, taking over and holding populations against insurgencies is nearly impossible. That's because modern people have access to better arms and do not have the mindset of serfs. Egypt, Libya, East Timor, Afghanistan, Siria, Balkans, America, Haiti, Columbia, etc.

 

[DAgent]

And that film mentioned in the first post is this 1969 classic

The Bed Sitting Room (film) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's the one! I was probably far too young to appreciate it when I first saw it more years ago than I care to admit!

 

[psikeyhackr]

And assuming there are survivors, just how far back would the survivors regress in terms of society, technology and so on?

Would we just get bombed back to the Stone Age, or might we just be on a more recent level like the medieval era or later?
......

Likewise, for a bit more spice, let's say Earth was on a more advanced level, say any period of Star Trek, Archer, Kirk, TNG era as a whole or DISCO in the 30/31st century. Let's say the entire Sol system got bombed to ruination and no one came to help rebuild, just how far back would any of them be likely to regress to?

This question reminds me of the TOS episode Taste of Armageddon. Civilized warfare that kills people without destroying civilization goes on for 500 years

Kirk violates Prime Directive AGAIN!

Maybe it is just a plot device for Kirk to violate and show his contempt for Authority. Take that Star Fleet.

 

[paranoid marvin]

This question reminds me of the TOS episode Taste of Armageddon. Civilized warfare that kills people without destroying civilization goes on for 500 years

Kirk violates Prime Directive AGAIN!

Maybe it is just a plot device for Kirk to violate and show his contempt for Authority. Take that Star Fleet.

In a war that neithrr side can win, why not kill a percentage of your own people each week instead of the enemy having to do it? No damage to property, no painful deaths and no damage to the economy. It was scarily logical from a certain perspective.

 

[DAgent]

In a war that neithrr side can win, why not kill a percentage of your own people each week instead of the enemy having to do it? No damage to property, no painful deaths and no damage to the economy. It was scarily logical from a certain perspective.

It's an incredibly scary way to make war a more "civilised" process, and the more I think about it, the more horrific it could become. What would stop someone in government from getting rid of a political rival by saying they were part of a group "killed" in a simulated gas leak due to the results of a simulated "explosion" in a nearby section, and making sure the computer simulations "proved" that? Or even worse, someone decided the population needs culling so an entire school gets taken out during morning assembly or an old folks home during lunchtime.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's an incredibly scary way to make war a more "civilised" process, and the more I think about it, the more horrific it could become. What would stop someone in government from getting rid of a political rival by saying they were part of a group "killed" in a simulated gas leak due to the results of a simulated "explosion" in a nearby section, and making sure the computer simulations "proved" that? Or even worse, someone decided the population needs culling so an entire school gets taken out during morning assembly or an old folks home during lunchtime.

And of course with such a tidy arrangement in place, there's no real incentive for the governments to male peace. Which is what the crew of the Enterprise suggested.

 

[Foxbat]

An interesting article on why nuclear war might not be the mutually assured destruction we think it is.
As to the legitimacy of this presenter - I can't say so take with a pinch of salt.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So Putin has no more of an idea what works than we do.

How dumb can nuclear war get?