Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Probably more than you needed to know about Brittany...

Expand Messages
  • Steven Proctor
    It was full liege homage, according to several of my sources. Meaning he acknowledged the King of France as his overlord in Brittany. It s not like the Dukes
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      It was full liege homage, according to several of my sources. Meaning he
      acknowledged the King of France as his overlord in Brittany. It's not
      like the Dukes of Brittany were fully independent of the French Crown
      even before that, despite what later 'separatists' may say in basis of
      that claim. This was just the step from peripheral client state to full
      vassalage.

      You don't have to be granted lands to be a vassal. You may also become a
      vassal by subjugating your current lands to another, theoretically more
      powerful, noble. This is what the Dukes of Brittany did...

      I was incorrect about the year. It was 1297...

      Morgan





      caoilte wrote:

      > What did the contract say? If he became a vassal to the king of by
      > being
      > given fiefs that were not in Brittany or were not all of Brittany,
      > hdet hde
      > status of Brittany was not affected. Your saying that the Duke
      > surrendered
      > Brittany and recieved it back as a fief. Is this what happened? The
      > actual
      > fief that was granted to the Duke in exchange for his service is all
      > important here.
      >
      > Dorje

      --
      The countdown had stalled at T minus 69 seconds when Desiree, the first
      female ape to go up in space, winked at me slyly and pouted her thick,
      rubbery lips unmistakably -- the first of many such advances during what
      would prove to be the longest, and most memorable, space voyage of my
      career.
    • atterlep@cs.com
      ... When you say that the Duke s oath of fealty and homage to the King of France made Brittany part of France, it seems to me that you re combining two
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Steven Proctor <sproctor@b...> wrote:
        > It was full liege homage, according to several of my sources.
        > Meaning he acknowledged the King of France as his overlord in
        > Brittany. It's not like the Dukes of Brittany were fully
        > independent of the French Crown even before that, despite what
        > later 'separatists' may say in basis of that claim. This was just
        > the step from peripheral client state to full vassalage.

        When you say that the Duke's oath of fealty and homage to the King of
        France made Brittany "part of France," it seems to me that you're
        combining two totally different political paradigms. When we think
        of "France" we're thinking of a modern nation-state, something that
        arguably didn't exist in 1300. Even when the idea of "France" as a
        nation became clear, it didn't necessarily include all the lands
        whose lords swore fealty to the King of France. Didn't someone just
        point out that Joan of Arc talked of "going into France" when she
        travelled north from her hometown?

        The lines of fealty in the 13th century were tangled--for example,
        King John was a vassal of the Pope, but no one claims that England
        was "part of the Papal States." There's obviously more to nationhood
        than independent fealty.

        Fairfax
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.