Zompist Bboard Again

I've got the impression that most people who care about history these days don't think much of historical determinism, and I'm not generally that impressed by it myself. But there's one thing about 19th century history that gives me pause on that matter, and it's this:

Around the middle of the 19th century and a bit later, there were five different countries that had internal violent conflicts in which, to some extent or another, the forces a a centralized industrial state won over the forces of decentralized agrarian feudalism: there was the Sonderbund War in Switzerland, there were the Wars of the Risorgimento in Italy, there was the Civil War in the United States, there was the Austro-Prussian War in Germany, and there was the Boshin War in Japan. I'd say it would have been a bit weird if, somehow, things had gone one way in one of these cases and the other way in the other four cases.

(I also find it interesting that about one human lifetime later, three of the five countries in question formed the core of a fascist alliance that tried to take over the world, another one ended up as one of the most important members of the alliance that stopped them, and only the smallest one stayed mostly out of the whole matter. Perhaps a comparative history of all that might be interesting - but ideally, it would have to be written by a historian who, in addition to having the necessary interests and specializations, would also have to be fluent in at least four languages, which seems unlikely.)

Anyway, my question is: was there any case I haven't heard about yet at that period in history in which, in a comparable conflict, the agrarian feudalists won?

What comes to mind first is the civil wars in Argentina, from 1819 to 1861. These mostly pitted "Centralists" in Buenos Aires (then as now the most powerful city) against "Federalists", though apparently it was more complicated than that. The Federalists won several times, resulting in Buenos Aires seceding, then being forced back into the union. However, it can be said that the last stage in 1861 was a victory for Buenos Aires.

Possibly the Turkish revolution (1919-23) counts, as Mustafa Kemal's power base was outside Constantinople, which was occupied by the Allies, and he pointedly relocated the capital to Ankara.

Depending on our definitions and time scale, Napoleon's invasion of Russia? Or the Russo-Turkish War?

Honestly, though, I think this might be one of those patterns that exist mostly in the mind. Prussia was a heavily rural state with smaller cities and fewer railroads than Austria. The Confederacy and the Union had nearly identical government and economic structures (up to and including slavery), and the Boshin War, in so far as it was lead by a loose coalition of peripheral feudal malcontents, certainly did not represent the triumph of a more centralized state. When we find, or think we've found, patterns in history it can be very compelling, calling out for explanation. But that is not always the case upon further inspection.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:01 pm was there any case I haven't heard about yet at that period in history in which, in a comparable conflict, the agrarian feudalists won?

Certain social organizations are known to usually triumph over others at certain levels of technology. At one time, the greatest warriors were nomadic horsemen. This doesn't necessarily imply a direction to history in the 19th century sense. Paul Cockshott models this as a directed graph where edges represent transitions with certain probabilities.

Once modern technology was gaining currency, societies with a greater capacity for mass production would be more likely to win. At this stage, victorious agrarians are probably: (i) not serious about their feudalism (IIRC the Tsars were committed to comprehensive Westernization before Napoleon's invasion), (ii) defending their home turf, (iii) using non-violent resistance like Gandhi (who wanted agrarian socialism), etc.