Honestly, Forcing someone to be under your rule when they don't want to be is basically imperialism. At this point we've basically put imperialism behind us, and if a nation wants to secede, I think they should have the right to hold a referendum on it.
The State of Israel, a modern country in the Middle East, at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. The Land of Israel, a region that is roughly coextensive with the State of Israel. (historical) An ancient kingdom that occupied roughly the same area in ancient times. (historical) An ancient kingdom that occupied the northern part of this area, as distinct from Judah. The Jews, taken collectively. A male given name, notably borne by Jacob (after Genesis 32:28).4
In my opinion, ethnicity is a specific combination of DNA and RNA haplogroups which is unique amongst a group of people. I believe that most of the seperatists in spain, france, etc. should get independence
GeneralPE, your ideas are ancient and non-viable. Feudalism cannot work at this point, any modern military would crush a feudal military, check Agincourt. The French feudal army at Agincourt was composed of primarily knights and men at arms, while the English had a much more modern paid army. Guess what, the French army was crushed, even though it outnumbered the English.
Then the French reorganized and created a more modern army and, lo and behold, defeated the English.
Also, Russia had a 10% population of Muslims. Shouldn't you hate Putin for that?
@chatul, I never said that ethnic and cultural groups correspond with only a single haplogroup. Every ethnic group is a combination of haplogroups and their cultures usually correspond with their ethnicities unless they have been influenced by other cultures or ethnicities. Most nationalists have patriotism for their country, ethnicity and ethnicity, whatever haplogroup combination their ethnicity may be
Reading up on Agincourt, I believe the reason the French lost was because they were technologically behind England and underestimated the use of longbowmen and archers which the English alone had. It had nothing to do with the English armed force's lay out vs the French armed forces lay out which is what feudalism is about.
The English longbowmen were peasants and farmers, the French charge was led by noblemen disobeying orders, and this had happened multiple times before, with the antiquated French knights being defeated. Until the French reorganization that was the catalyst for French victory.
It has nothing to do with the modernization of the military... It simply calls for drafts when needed.
Feudalism calls for the nobles to provide military service and for peasants/serfs to be barred from military service. This produced the situation of the Hundred Years' War where the English with superior organization consistently defeated masses of noblemen. In a modern situation where the countries are comparable in population, there would also be a huge disparity in numbers, with the feudal state having much smaller numbers and the non-feudal state having a much larger military.
This would produce situations where states like Turkey, which would not use the noble system in this scenario, would absolutely dominate it's European neighbors in warfare, and states with intelligent leaders would fight endless wars with their nobles, attempting to consolidate their land.
My system: No armies needed, so no need to have a good way to raise armies GPEs system: Inefficient army raising that will slowly give way to efficient army raising
