Feudalism Made Simple

[Super Squirrel]

I did some extensive research trying to figure out the difference between Kings, Barons, Dukes, Earls, Marquess, Counts, Viscounts, Lords, and Knights. Here is my abbreviated conclusion.

 

Counts are generally people who are in control of a region (or County) of a King's land. An Earl and a Count for pretty much all intents and purposes are identical as Earl is the Latin word for Count. I like it would seem with all titles, it various how it comes to be but for the most part, Counts are hereditary and gain position by favor from the King, usually for swearing allegiance.

 

Baron has meant many things in history but for the sake of a game system, Barons are primarily Noble ranks bestowed by a King. There is some debate over who has more power, a Count or a Baron. However Barons are appointed directly by the King himself and for that, I see them as holding more power.

 

Marquees is a title with little use in history and was usually given to those on the borderland of a King's land. They are below a Count in power. For game simplicity, it is best to drop Marquees. A Marquees could be used for the title of the ruler of land just outside the region of a King's control.

 

Dukes can be used are essentually relatives of the King given some measure of power and land control.

 

Viscount is literally a "Vice-Count". It isn't really needed for a game setting unless you want to have a very complicated structure setup. In which case you can make the Viscount run sections of a Counts land.

 

Lords are either the son of nobility or people appointed the right to own land by either a Baron or a King.

 

A Knight is a Nobleman who has taken the path of combat so to say. They have trained to fight on the battlefield. Knights being appointed directly by the King, as I understand it, is a recent tradition not something from a classic sense.

 

I run my game like this:

The King has control over so much land. He appoints Barons for each of his regions. The Barons appoints his Lords to act as land owners for the property within his region. Lords born of either a Baron or another Lord either are bestowed property by their family or are simply Lords who do not own land. Knights are just as Knights mentioned above but can also be appointed by the King. I have this rule only for the purposes of giving players a chance to become Knights if they seek that title.

 

I will use Counts in my world but as the game history has gone so far, it doesn't fit in with the King in charge. I dropped the rest of the titles as being unnecessary.

[AlHazred]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Historically (according to my understanding, anyway), Baronies were smaller than Counties, and Barons generally swore fealty to a Count or Earl, and through them to the King.

 

Note: I believe the title is "Marquess".

 

Regarding Dukes, they were generally people powerful enough to rival Kings; they were generally on the same standing as a Prince. Grand Dukes were nobles, typically under High Kings, who had relative independence.

[MitchellS]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

That's a nice breakdown. I'm sure it will help some people get an idea of what the titles represent. I don't know if Fantasy Hero has a similar breakdown in it or not. My personal breakdown is as follows:

 

* King/Queen [hereditary]: Person in charge.

* Prince/Princess [hereditary]: Hier to the King.

* Duke/Duchess [hereditary]: Blood relative to King or Queen and in charge of an expansive area. Not generally an heir.

* Baron [appointed]: Loyal vassel of a Duke and in charge of sections of land within the Duke's area.

* Count [appointed]: Loyal vassel of a Baron and in charge of "counties" within the Baron's area.

* Viscount [appointed]: Generally the child of a Count who is not the heir or an elevated Knight.

* Knight [appointed]: An elevated soldier. The status can be granted by a Baron, Duke, Prince, or King.

[Curufea]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

That is a bit of a simplification

 

I recommend having a look at my table as well - it is fairly historical, although based on Germanic titles

http://www.curufea.com/games/western/5e/irolan_s.php

 

Earl comes from the Norse word Jarl, also equivalent to thain or king. However the later English Kings (when you had Earls and Dukes) should better be called "king of kings" - as Earls and Dukes were equivalent to kings..

 

Anyhow, Kings and Queens rule by divine right (it's where the word sovereign comes from) - the only person more powerful than them, is God. Basically...

 

Counts rule Counties, and Marquess rule Marches (border Counties).

 

It is possible to have Princedoms as well as Duchies, Earldoms, etc..

 

"Knight" means different things at different times - and dates back to Roman times, where they were called "Equestrians" and were a social class.

 

In my setting, a Knight that has been given land (they weren't always) becomes a "Landed Knight" and if they hold the land for more than one generation, they become a Baron, and the land is a Barony.

 

A Knight Bannaret is a special class, usually meaning "honoured by the King".

 

There are many good documents on peerage available on the web, so feel free to look these things up too

 

Also, on heraldry - the first heraldic symbols were just simple charges - that is a single animal or object put on a shield. It is only after people started duplicating symbols that they introduced the field - the background colours, and the various ways the field can be divided, or the charge can be positioned.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Historically (according to my understanding, anyway), Baronies were smaller than Counties, and Barons generally swore fealty to a Count or Earl, and through them to the King.

 

Note: I believe the title is "Marquess".

 

Regarding Dukes, they were generally people powerful enough to rival Kings; they were generally on the same standing as a Prince. Grand Dukes were nobles, typically under High Kings, who had relative independence.

According to the sources I have been looking through, the concept of Baron originated out of Britain and were given land directly from the King himself. It did evolve over time to mean anyone of Noble birth with significant wealth of land ownership be it small or large.

 

You are correct, it is Marquess. I used the wrong double letter.

 

Duke depends on where you take it from. In Germany Dukes were very powerful. But in other places Dukes were as simple as field marshals. The title of Duke is one that is truly earned but because each Dukedom varies in size and power, the powerful of a title varies.

 

One of my primary sources for your reference is below:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm

 

I simplified the system based on what I had read mostly because the system is complicated and the rules are subject to change. In some cases, a Prince is meaningless and Lords can be more powerful and get better randoms than a Prince would.

[Curufea]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Yeah. It's difficult to know what to go by - becuase the titles changed meaning at different times. Using them in a fantasy setting complicates things, and you have "high tech" mixing with "low tech" (ie rapiers, and shields for example) so you don't really know which period of history you should be taking titles from.

 

For feudalism made simple, I'd just say "the King/Queen owns all land, anyone else merely holds the land in the name of the King/Queen and is responsible for it". And you just say that there is a two-way responsiblity between the liege and their vassal (worked out as a tree diagram with the King/Queen being the single trunk), similar to protection-rackets

 

On a side note, Sheriff comes from the term "Shire Reeve" (or Reeve of the Shire). A reeve being similar to a mayor, or town leader, or some other official position that isn't a peer (ie the German Graf).

 

Many folk playing fantasy games don't realise how little need there was for official law investigation- because villagers rarely travelled, and everyone knew everyone else. Most crimes were cut-and-dried. The concept of wandering adventures is a gigantic anomaly (in general strangers are always the first suspected of any crime)

 

But again, it depends on which period in our history you are basing your fantasy setting on.

[Inu]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

As Curufurea said, it depends where you're talking and when. Most of those titles never appeared in the same country at the same time.

 

Feudal titles can be simple or complex. If you're looking at England pre-1337, then you have Earls, Barons and the King. That's it.

 

Well, and knights, but that's almost as much a job description as anything else. There's also 'Lord', but I don't believe that's so much a title or rank as merely 'member of the aristocracy'. To understand feudal times you MUST keep the idea of class in mind. Particularly in early medieval feudalism, you had the aristocracy and you had everyone else. There was nothing inbetween. Some commoners might get wealthy, but they never became aristocracy. (As a rule, anyway - rules were made to be broken, right?)

 

A lot of the confusion comes when titles from different times or places are mixed. Marquis is French, as is Count and Viscount. Earl is purely Germanic. Duke didn't exist in England prior to 1337 (an easy date to remember, thanks to internet slang). Also, similarly to modern-day stuff, it's assumed that there is a hierarchy. King has dukes, dukes have earls, earls have counts, counts have barons, etc. You have it right, at least as England goes - barons owed fealty to the king and the king alone. Earls were just big barons, really.

 

So make it as simple or as complex as you like. Make the titles mean anything you want. Make it a hierarchy if you wish, even (though that reduces the power of barons). Sounds like your system is plenty good enough.

[Eosin]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

I tend to use this page as a thought generator and it helps me keep titles segregated by origin.

 

I tend to fall with Curufea in the Duke opinion - generally speaking they were powerful enough to rival the kings and in many places they may have held greater power than their liege. There were, of course, petty dukes but the ones we think of tend to be the powerful nobles.

 

The other title that I would bring up is Marchlord or Marquis - depending on the actual March they may be the single most powerful noble in the realm other than the king. Marchlords, due to their violent position often held stronger and better trained military machines than any other lord. The title was usually awarded to those noble who could manage the war effort - meaning that a Duke or very rich count might be given the title of Marquis since he could wage the war/defend the realm with minimal assistance from the crown. This title could be a great boon but just as often it could be used as a penalty to bring a powerful noble down a few pegs.

[Curufea]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Plus Margraves are more likely to have a regular standing army. Usually in feudal times, armies were gathered in the summer as needed by their liege lord for this or that conflict, and then dispersed again afterwards (so they could go bring in their crops). A March would be more likely to employ people to do nothing but soldiering.

[Eosin]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Plus Margraves are more likely to have a regular standing army. Usually in feudal times' date=' armies were gathered in the summer as needed by their liege lord for this or that conflict, and then dispersed again afterwards (so they could go bring in their crops). A March would be more likely to employ people to do nothing but soldiering.[/quote']

 

 

Exactly

[DrTemp]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

That is a bit of a simplification

 

That's probably necessary and unavoidable. The historical reality was really complex. No, even more complex.

 

For example, the region were I life was, for a long time, ruled by a Landgraf ("Land count") who was comparable in power to a Herzog (duke). There were Herzöge (dukes) in the Holy Roman Empire who had no right to elect the "roman" king, while the electors where a Markgraf, a Pfalzgraf, a Herzog, a king and three archbishops.

 

The latter offers also a funny observation: In fantasy fiction, you rarely see clerics hold secular power, while in the historical middle ages, half of Europe was, in fact, part of theocratic fief states at "County" level or below.

 

Anyhow, Kings and Queens rule by divine right (it's where the word sovereign comes from) - the only person more powerful than them, is God. Basically...

 

Well, of course, in Europe the Holy Roman Emperor was (theoretically) above the several Kings of Christendom, as was the Pope. (This was, of course, as much a matter of constant debate and struggle as the relationship between the Pope and the Emperor. Remember that law was not codified in a obligatory way, and dispute was thus common in such important matters.)

[Eosin]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Ya know, now that Dr. Temp reminded me - I was also going to comment on the religious titles/grants versus the temporal ones. However, that gets into things like actual land ownership (allod or invested with or without sub-enfeudiation (spelling?)), "death" taxes (or death of the chosen cleric in spiritual holdings), and diverse law enforcement.

 

I am working some of that up right now for my main fantasy country and had been reading up on it just by co-winky-dink.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Here's the heirarchy I've evolved and generally used. Also, since I tend to run pretty egalitarian fantasies, the office holders have an equal chance of being female or male, with equal power (unlike true history). I'm only listing the male form shearly because of convenience.

 

King The monarch. This is an inherited position, though as you might guess that can and does get "complicated" if there are several people 'close enough' to think they can claim the throne when the time comes. As often as not it's not who's the direct heir that ends up being important, but who can marshal the most political, theological, or military support for their claim.

 

Prince A child of the current monarch, and if there is more than one then one in particular (usually the oldest) is more than likely the designated heir. Princes usually hold one or more titles of nobility as well, such as "Duke of Sandoval". They tend to have a lot of power, though quite often not as much as those who are Dukes but not princes, since those others are usually older and have amassed more power and influence in terms of favors, political support, and so on. The power of a prince is also often kept in check by the monarch, who may not want his child getting too powerful.

 

Dukes Both an inherited and an appointed title. Usually there are two broad classifications: Ducal estates that are typically awarded to a member of the royal household (a prince) and may not in fact have any actual landed estates to go with the title and the "working" ducal estates, usually inherited, which most certainly do include estates. Typically the kingdom is divided up into 3-5 duchies with a Duke to administer each area. If the kingdom were a corporation and the monarch was the president of the corp, the dukes would be the vice-presidents -- each responsible for overseeing a large section and reporting directly to the president of the company.

 

Marquis or Margrave More a military title than a social one, if you will, though it does include lands; most often hereditary. Generally a marquis reports directly to a duke, though the lands the marquis controls, while supposedly part of the lands administered by the duke to which he's sworn fealty, enjoy a large degree of autonomy. The lands a marquis controls act as a buffer between the king's lands and the lands of neighboring kingdoms. There will usually be less agriculture carried out in the marquis lands and more career military personnel, with the food and other needs being met by supplements sent from the other lands of the duke. A marquis often regards the king (and/or "his" duke) as having the "ivory tower" syndrome -- removed from the day-to-day actuality of existence, having no idea of the "realities" that he and his men face on the border. They are some of the most independant nobles and many show borderline hostitility to the king they supposedly serve -- rather the way front-line soldiers do towards the "high command" safe in the back field. Whether the title is marquis or margrave depends on the area and likely dates from a time when a smaller kingdom or principality was absorbed by a larger kingdom, the forerunner of the current kingdom. Some monarchs attempt to curb the feelings of independence and hostility by making the title an appointed one rather than an inherited one, but the effect tends to be minimal.

 

Count or Earl Inherited title. Most duchies are subdivided into a number of counties (usually around a half dozen). The counts administer the counties for the duke the way the dukes administer the duchies for the king. The title may be either count or earl, the difference being only of historical significance. In terms of power, responsibility, etc. they are equal.

 

Viscount Usually an appointed title, not an inherited one, but the person appointed is most often a child or other close relative of the count. If a duchy contains only a couple of relatively large counties, the counts may subdivide their own lands and appoint viscounts to make the administration of the lands more efficient. Sometimes even in normal-sized counties you might find a viscount, but in that case there are usually no lands attached to the title -- it's simply a way to give some favor or acknowledgement to a count's child or other close blood relative without giving them any actual power. Thus whether or not the title holds any real influence or is just ceremonial will vary from duke to duke and count to count.

 

Baron Both an inherited title and an appointed one. Most counties are subdivided into various baronies, with barons administering baronies for the count the way the count administers counties for the duke. These baronial titles are inherited. Barons are usually the ones directly responsible for seeing the land gets worked, able-bodied men can be mustered for defense, and so on. In other words, a baron is "working class" nobility. Since the barons tend to be the closest in personal relationship to not only the people working the land but, more importantly, the knights who command the military forces, they often wield power out of proportion to their ranking in the heirarchy. The only thing that tends to keep their power in check is that it's unusual for a coalition of barons to work together long enough to become a real threat to anyone higher up. Appointed barons (often called baronets) have no lands or estates to go with the title. These kinds of barons are usually appointed directly by the king to act and speak in his name in some official capacity. Though it's never said directly, these kind of barons often wield more power than a duke in that they have the king's ear directly. A wise duke or count will treat such a baron with a great deal of respect and caution. This kind of baronial title cannot be inherited.

 

Knight The lowest ranking noble; appointed only. Knights are permitted to own land, and usually have small estates capable of supporting them and their needs (horse, armor, weapons, etc.) They act as military commanders in times of war, peacekeepers or enforcers of the nobles' will in times of peace and, depending on the area, may be made responsible for law enforcement and/or tax collection. Important locations (like bridges, main roads, border watchtowers and so on) are usually under the jurisdiction of a knight who has responsiblity for overseeing their upkeep and that they don't fall prey to anyone. Each one of the higher ranks of nobility except the appointed barons will usually have several knights in his service to carry out his instructions and will. Though all knights share a rank, it should come as no surprise that a knight attached directly to a duke has more authority than a knight attached directly to a count, and so on. Even more than a baron, knights are "working class" nobility. Though any noble of rank above that of knight may appoint knights, it's rare for a baron to do so, and if he does he'll usually have to explain himself to his count or duke.

 

Knight Bannaret A knight bannaret is, in some fashion, similar to a baronet. He has no lands or estates and is dependent on some other higher-ranking noble for the upkeep costs of his arms and armor unless he has other titles of nobility himself (almost unheard-of). A knight bannaret is usually appointed either to recognize some outstanding service done for a noble or the monarch, or to be a sort of traveling "eyes and ears" of a noble and with the authority to speak in that noble's name.

[Publius]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr. Anomaly again.

 

Since I cannot Rep you, I thought that I would post a kudos here. A very nice breakdown, simple and usable. The only thing that it might "lack" (note quotes) is the inherently messy qualities of the use of titles historically. Frankly, I think that it benefits rather than suffers for that.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Here is a link discussing the history of titles, royalty, peerage, and forms of address (all from a British perspective). It also has some other noteworthy links down at the bottom. I like what's been said so far but thought I'd throw this out there in case it was of any use to anyone.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr. Anomaly again.

 

Since I cannot Rep you, I thought that I would post a kudos here. A very nice breakdown, simple and usable. The only thing that it might "lack" (note quotes) is the inherently messy qualities of the use of titles historically. Frankly, I think that it benefits rather than suffers for that.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

One thing that I constantly struggle with is a sort of internal dichotomy -- as a programmer and mathematician, I like things nice, neat, orderly, well-defined; as someone who wants a "realistic" feel to the games and backgrounds he creates, I'm aware that real-life history and institutions are inherently "messy" and are seldom (if ever) completely cut-and-dried.

 

Setting out the levels of nobility as noted above is my "orderly" side coming out. Notes that barons often have power disporportionate to their rank, there being different types of ducal titles, and some viscounts being ceremonial and some being "working" is my attempt to "blurr the lines" a bit to give it a more "realistic" feel.

 

It's a line I'm constantly treading, but how successful I am at keeping balanced on that line varies from project to project.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

The very title of this thread can be misleading.

 

For most of history, there was no standardized heirarchy or ranking of the various titles. Many of them were simply the word for "king" in different languages. King = Konig (Germanic), Earl = Jarl (Scandinavian), etc. Duke, Prince, etc. were often the official titles of rulers of various lands, not answerable to any higher noble.

 

Likewise, there are many other noble titles from other languages that never got incorporated into the English system, due simply to the way history unfolded. Raja = Roy, Rey, Rex, Royal, Regent, Regal. Emir, Caliph, etc. Maharaja "Great King" (Maha- = Mega-, Maxi-) There are also familiar words like "chief" and "chieftain" which also mean the same thing.

 

It was all pretty much arbitrary until (IIRC) King Edward (I don't remember which Roman numeral to put after his name) of England, who codified a formal ranking system, which I believe is the same order as listed in the Fantasy Hero book, under the Leadership Perk. IIRC King > Prince > Duke > Marquis > Count/Earl > Viscount > Baron > Baronet. There are even traditional crown designs for each of these ranks; the higher ones are fancier, of course.

 

The female equivalents are Queen, Princess, Duchess, Countess, Viscountess, Marquise/Marchioness, Baroness. I point this out because I have occasionally seen people use "baronet" as a female baron (pronouncing the 't', like "baronette").

 

Likewise, the fiefs ruled by the various nobles were often not simply sub-fiefs of greater nobles' lands, but separate territories that were simply called "Duchies," "Counties," "Marches," "Principalities," etc., just out of tradition, which may not have had anything to do with their relative size or importance.

 

Eosin's pointing out the military might often posessed by Marquis makes me suspect that it may be related to the word "marshall".

 

I love etymology!

[Agemegos]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Earl is the Latin word for Count.

 

Actually, 'earl' is a distinctively English word. The French is 'comte', Spanish 'conde', Italian 'conti', all derived from Latin 'comes'.

 

There is some debate over who has more power, a Count or a Baron. However Barons are appointed directly by the King himself and for that, I see them as holding more power.

 

You face almost unanimous disagreement. 'Baron' is sometimes used to include all the great feudal landowners (such as dukes, earls, counts, and lords without specific titles). Less generally it refers to the barons who have no higher title. Now, the sieur de Coucy was one of the six greatest vassals of the King of France, and made some fuss of being a 'mere' baron. And in the late 14th century Enguerrand Vi de Coucy bought the county of Soissons for cash, But that doesn't make 'baron' a higher title than 'count'.

 

Marquees is a title with little use in history and was usually given to those on the borderland of a King's land. They are below a Count in power.

 

Where 'marquess' or its equivalent (French "marquis", German "margrave") was anything other than an arbitrary title, a marquess was actually the count of a borderland (mark, march), with special powers. The title wasn't used in England until the mediaeval period was over (but the earl of Chester, the earl of Shrewsbury, the Bishop of Durham etc. had equivalent powers). On the other hand, 'markgraf' was a well-used title in Germany, by no means historically unimportant. Austria started out ruled by a markgraf (promoted to duke in 1194, archduke in 1493, emperor in 1806). The margkgrafs of Meissen promoted themselves dukes of Saxe-Wittenberg (1423) and ended up as electors and eventually kings of Saxony. And the markgrafs of Brandenburg conquered themselves a kingdom in Prussia (1688) and ended up ruling Germany as emperors (1871). The markgrafs of Baden weren't insignificant either (they ended up as grand dukes after 1738).

 

There were some marquises in the South of France (eg, the marquis of Gothia, the marquis of Septimania) who ended up as vassals of the Comte de Toulouse. But teh County of Toulouse was an anomaly, and every order of precedence agrees in placing a marquis higher than a count.

 

Dukes can be used are essentually relatives of the King given some measure of power and land control.

 

Only in the dying days of feudalism (fourteenth century and later in England, never in Germany). In the early and high mediaeval periods dukes were the rulers of people whose lands had been incorporated into an Empire, but who retained a large measure of autonomy. The dukes in France were the dukes of Aquitaine, Normandy, and Brittany. They were unrelated to the royal family, and practically independent. The dukes in Germany (herzogs, actually) were te descendants of the kings of the German tribes, the Bavarians, Swabians, Franks, Saxons etc..

 

A GM is of course always free to set things up differently in his or her fantasy setting. It is just that the terminology of your setting is going to steer people astray when they encounter more traditional uses of the terms.

[Agemegos]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

Eosin's pointing out the military might often posessed by Marquis makes me suspect that it may be related to the word "marshall".

 

Nice idea, but a don't think it is going to pan out. The 'mar' in marshal has to do with horses. The 'mar' in 'marquis' has to do with borderlands.

 

The marshal was originally the 'mareschal', the "horse-servant" of the king's household. As the leading members of the king's household developed into great officers of state (Steward, Chamberlain, Chancellor), the marshal became a senior officer in the army (sometimes subordinate to the Constable (the 'count of the stables')).

 

A marquis, on the other hand, was originally a 'mark-graf': the count (graf) of a borderland (march).

 

Speaking of marshals instantly suggests sheriffs, and thereby hangs an interesting tale.

 

The Carolingian kings of the Holy Roman Empire ruled a kingdom that was assembled by subjecting neighbouring peoples. The leaders of those peoples became dukes (from Latin 'dux', meaning 'leader') and herzogs (from an old German compound meaning 'leader of the army'). (Later, when national groups such as the Normans migrated into the kingdoms and retained autonomy, their leaders also became dukes.) The kings then appointed trusty companions to exercise Royal authority in compact territories (which were usually within the national lands of the dukes. In French these appointed administrators were called 'comte' (from the Latin for 'companion'). In Germany they were called 'graf'. The graf of a town was a burg-graf, the graf of a 'land' was a land-graf, and the graf of a march was a mark-graf.

 

Now the kingdom of the English was also assembled by annexing and conquering lands that had originally been independent kingdoms. And the subject leaders of these peoples were called 'earls': the earl of northumbria, the earl of Mercia etc. The king divided his kingdom up into scirs (shires), and to run each shire he appointed a scir-geref (sheriff). So originally an English earl was equivalent to a French duke or German herzog, and an English sheriff was originally equivalent to a French comte or a German graf.

 

Then came independent deveolopment. Royal authority in German and France degenerated almost to nothing. The castellans of royal castles and the counts and grafs managed to make their offices and authority hereditary. Some became practically independent (eg. the Count of Toulouse). But in England the royal government held things together much better, and 'sheriff' remained an appointive office in the royal government, not hereditary.

 

Then the duke of Normandy (which was in France, but practically independent of the king of France) conquered England and introduced [a tidied-up, text-book version of] the feudal system. He created lesser vassals (called lords) and great vassals, whom he called earls. But the 'earls' were really equivalent to French counts, much weaker and more numerous than the French dukes to whom the earlier English earls had actually been equivalent.

 

The office of sheriff, though distinctly non-feudal in its character, was too useful to be got rid of. And of course it no longer resembled the French office of comte to which it had originally been equivalent. Like the earldoms, it was demoted one grade. As long as official records were kept in French, the sheriffs were described as "vicomte"--'deputy count'.

[Agemegos]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

The concept of wandering adventure[r]s is a gigantic anomaly (in general strangers are always the first suspected of any crime)

 

Good point. In English villages, for example, it was a crime (punishable by a fine of up to sixpence) to 'harbour' a stranger (ie. let a person who was not a member of the village eat a meal or sleep a night in one's house). So if you wanted to travel, you had to either sleep rough, stay overnight only in towns, or seek shelter from lords and religious institutions. And buy provisions only in towns.

[Agemegos]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

According to the sources I have been looking through' date=' the concept of Baron originated out of Britain and were given land directly from the King himself.[/quote']

 

Yes. And as such all earls were barons. When dukedoms were introduced to England (in the fourteenth century) dukes were barons, too.

[Agemegos]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

King The monarch. This is an inherited position' date=' though as you might guess that can and does get "complicated" if there are several people 'close enough' to think they can claim the throne when the time comes. As often as not it's not who's the direct heir that ends up being important, but who can marshal the most political, theological, or military support for their claim.[/quote']

 

Good point. Far too few people realise that kingdoms were originally not hereditary but elective. The Kingdom of Poland remained elective until its final partition, other kingdoms succumbed to other tricks.

 

In France, for instance, the kingdom moved back and forth between the Carolingian and the Robertian families until about 987, when the kings hit on the trick of summoning the nobles while they were still firmly in power, and getting them to elect a son or brother as co-king. In this way they ensured that the throne was never vacant, and that a free election never took place, The rigmarole of election of the king of France continued until 1179, by which time the hereditary nature of the kingship was firmly established.

 

The kingdom of England was nominally elective until 1066, besides which Henry II tried the trick in 1170 of getting the nobles to elect his son co-king. It took a long time before the idea of a law of succession got really established. From the conquest to 1216 no king of England was succeeded on the throne by his heir at law. And even after then, there was no clear rule as to who succeeded if the king's eldest son were not available. When Edward VI died the succession was determined by his father's will (even though he left a different, contradicting will himself). When Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, with no children, no brothers and sisters, no nieces or nephews, and no will, it was basically 'first in, best dressed' as among her cousins. The law of succession was not established until the Bill of Rights in 1689.

 

By my count, there have been fifty-nine kings or ruling queens of England since Alfred the Great. Only thirty-two of those succeeded to the throne as the lawful heir of their predecessor, and some of those weren't sons.

[Agemegos]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

The other title that I would bring up is Marchlord or Marquis - depending on the actual March they may be the single most powerful noble in the realm other than the king.

 

They may even be more powerful than the king. Where the kingdom is elective they might be the king from time to time.

 

Lots of marches developed into kingdoms in time.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Feudalism Made Simple

 

This one might help a little bit, at least as far as atmosphere and flavor go.