As I understand it feudalism was a system where the King owned everything and then delegated land down to the nobles who in turn delegated it to the knights who delegated it to the peasants, in return for service said steven. The best example of this of course is 1066 when William took all of England by right of conquest. He owned all of it, but divied up parts to various Norman followers who were essentially tenants. They could hold the land for generations, paying rent for the right to freehold it for the King, but did not own it themselves. Which over the centuries I guess lead to the war of the roses as ties with Normandy/France became religious rather than administrative and land suddenly was seen as no longer owned by the King, in exceedingly loose terms I'm describing this gerational process here. With regards to the Fuedal business I guess I was thinking too of the mechanics of the situation. for example the Duke of Normandy was also King of England, therefore a powerful individual in his own right. (also the religious conotations of being King...endorsement from the Church, divine rule the healing power of touch etc.) Along with him were similarly powerful territories with the Dukes of Burgundy, Brittany, Aquitaine and the likes of the Counts of Anjou, Flanders...yada yada. essentially there existed a state of conformity and compliance to the King of France, however equally they could defy and be in disagreement with him. they didn't like him poking his authority into their demesne. In the case of the Duke of Normandy he was just as likely to be at war with the King. This is why I used the analogy of the moloch episode. The King in his Doomsday Book, knew quite precise details about the territories of his tenants and knew what value they were worth and what he should be getting from them in "rent" if you like. I recall servalan knowing what grose's resources to be, and being surprised by evidence to the contrary, which was to be a threat to her hold on power. a Duke about to poke about in her demesne, which was severly weakened by the end of the glactic war.
Still your warlord theory holds merit Steven and it's quite possible that generals et al made use of the weakened position of the federation to set up a powerbase somewhere, given the uncertain times. Further research into this matter will continue. nathan.
A 'strange coincidence', to use a phrase/ By which such things are settled nowadays. Byron.
------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ Peep! .:. http://twinfusion.com/comic/peep/ .:. An Epic Webcomic
--- Nathan Hook nhook@bemail.org wrote:
As I understand it feudalism was a system where the King owned everything and then delegated land down to the nobles who in turn delegated it to the knights who delegated it to the peasants, in return for service
Yes.
The best example of this of course is 1066 when William took all of England by right of conquest. He owned all of it, but divied up parts to various Norman followers who were essentially tenants. They could hold the land for generations, paying rent for the right to freehold it for the King, but did not own it themselves.
Yes. But as time went on various people promised various bits of the country to others "in perpetuity to them and their heirs" creating the compromise system known as 'bastard feudalism', traces of which survive today. Esp. in London, strangely.
Which over the centuries I guess lead to the war of the roses
Not, really the War Of The Roses (which was really no such thing) was a series of quite nasty *dynastic* battles fought over forty or so years. Not a lot to do with ownership of land. More to do with blood and recognition of it.
ooooh, it's all that Richard II's fault...
wf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--- Wilson Fisk wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com wrote: >
Yes. But as time went on various people promised various bits of the country to others "in perpetuity to them and their heirs" creating the compromise system known as 'bastard feudalism', traces of which survive today. Esp. in London, strangely.
Which over the centuries I guess lead to the war of the roses
Not, really the War Of The Roses (which was really no such thing) was a series of quite nasty *dynastic* battles fought over forty or so years. Not a lot to do with ownership of land. More to do with blood and recognition of it.
One theory when I studied the period at university was that bastard feudalism had led to political instablility because the great magnates (In particular Richard, Duke of York) owned a sufficient amount of land to rival the power of the king. The Tudor settlement (which was invented by Edward IV, just to confuse matters) ensured that the majority of land was owned by the King and his supporters or family and ensured that the great magnates couldn't put armies in the field against him. The dynastic battles on this reading only became possible because of the system of bastard feudalism.
The theory was falling into disfavour, as it was being argued that what Edward IV and Henry VII did was manage Bastard Feudalism effectively rather than invent something new. The wars were then attributed to misgovernment by Henry VI.
Ob B7: The new High Council in season IV were obviously the equivalent of the Tudors - rebuilding a broken system. Star One was obviously the Federation equivalent of a strong monarchy. Was Servalan deposed because she spent all her time gadding around the galaxy chasing Avon, or did she lay the groundwork for the expansion of the Federation only to find the new lot take over in her absence and nick the credit ?
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
-
Nathan Hook -
Stephen Date -
Wilson Fisk