Subinfeudation - Revision history

Paul Matisz at 17:09, 3 March 2011

2011-03-03T17:09:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 4 March 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.		This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.

	[[Christine de Pizan]] addresses such situations in ''The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry'' with the advice that a conflicted ~~vassals~~ still owed service to ''both'' [[suzerain]]s: he would be required to furnish troops for to each of his overlords, personally commanding the contingent sent to the lord to whom he owed "higher" service and a trusted lieutenant (preferably a close kinsman or son) commanding the other; his overlords in turn were obliged to ensure that their vassal's troops never faced each other in [[battle]]. (It is unclear whether this theoretical solution was ever put into practice.)		[[Christine de Pizan]] addresses such situations in ''The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry'' with the advice that a conflicted vassal still owed service to ''both'' [[suzerain]]s: he would be required to furnish troops for to each of his overlords, personally commanding the contingent sent to the lord to whom he owed "higher" service and a trusted lieutenant (preferably a close kinsman or son) commanding the other; his overlords in turn were obliged to ensure that their vassal's troops never faced each other in [[battle]]. (It is unclear whether this theoretical solution was ever put into practice.)

	Another problematic aspect of subinfeudation was the obligation of the lord to the vassal and whether or not that obligation extended to the vassals of his vassal, a debate which had serious implications in [[period]].		Another problematic aspect of subinfeudation was the obligation of the lord to the vassal and whether or not that obligation extended to the vassals of his vassal, a debate which had serious implications in [[period]].

Paul Matisz at 17:08, 3 March 2011

2011-03-03T17:08:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:08, 4 March 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a [[suzerain\|greater lord]], and receiving fealty from [[vassal\|lesser ones]].		'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a [[suzerain\|greater lord]], and receiving fealty from [[vassal\|lesser ones]].

	This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.		This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.

			[[Christine de Pizan]] addresses such situations in ''The Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry'' with the advice that a conflicted vassals still owed service to ''both'' [[suzerain]]s: he would be required to furnish troops for to each of his overlords, personally commanding the contingent sent to the lord to whom he owed "higher" service and a trusted lieutenant (preferably a close kinsman or son) commanding the other; his overlords in turn were obliged to ensure that their vassal's troops never faced each other in [[battle]]. (It is unclear whether this theoretical solution was ever put into practice.)
⚫	Another problematic aspect of subinfeudation was the obligation of the lord to the vassal, and whether or not that obligation extended to the vassals of his vassal, a debate which had serious implications in [[period]].

		⚫	Another problematic aspect of subinfeudation was the obligation of the lord to the vassal and whether or not that obligation extended to the vassals of his vassal, a debate which had serious implications in [[period]].

	[[category:Feudalism]]		[[category:Feudalism]]

Paul Matisz at 16:59, 3 March 2011

2011-03-03T16:59:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 4 March 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation ~~common~~ in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a [[suzerain\|greater lord]], and receiving fealty from [[vassal\|lesser ones]].		'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a [[suzerain\|greater lord]], and receiving fealty from [[vassal\|lesser ones]].

	This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.		This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.

Paul Matisz at 06:20, 1 August 2008

2008-08-01T06:20:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 1 August 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation common in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a greater lord, and receiving fealty from lesser ones.		'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation common in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a [[suzerain\|greater lord]], and receiving fealty from [[vassal\|lesser ones]].

	This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.		This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.

Paul Matisz at 00:16, 18 July 2008

2008-07-18T00:16:21Z

New page

'''Subinfeudation''' was the [[feudal]] custom of [[vassal]]s holding [[vassal]]s of their own. In the multiple layers of feudal obligation common in [[medieval]] Europe such subinfeudation was common, with lords owing [[fealty]] to a greater lord, and receiving fealty from lesser ones.

This is not to say the the situation was always -- or even often -- that simple. In many cases, a medieval lord would owe [[leal service]] to multiple overlords, and could find himself in a sticky situation -- in a worst case owing conflicting service to two overlords at odds with one another.

Another problematic aspect of subinfeudation was the obligation of the lord to the vassal, and whether or not that obligation extended to the vassals of his vassal, a debate which had serious implications in [[period]].

[[category:Feudalism]]