See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318430413

Personal contract or political construct? A historiographical examination of

vassalage in medieval France

Article · December 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 156

2 authors:

Christopher Berg Melanie Shaw

Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design Northcentral University
23 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Student Expectations of Faculty Engagement in Online Learning View project

The Palgrave Handbook of History and Social Studies Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Berg on 14 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© 2009 The eLearning Institute.
All rights reserved.
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

Personal Contract or Political

Construct? A Historiographical
Examination of Vassalage in
Medieval France
Christopher Berg, Ph.D. Student

State College of Florida

bergc@scf.edu

Melanie Shaw, Ph.D.

Walden University

Melanie.Shaw@waldenu.edu

ABSTRACT
Relationships were of great importance during the late medieval period. There
was little more valued or honored than a relationship entered upon by mutual
assent and trust. The rise of feudalism required that such oral contracts, rich in
symbolic meanings, be entered upon to the benefit of both parties. Loyalties were
secured for the promise of protection, a necessity in uncertain times. This
construct, termed vassalage, was the mechanism by which feudalism operated and
flourished. In this essay, the concept of vassalage is investigated by discussing
the scholarship of distinguished historians like Stephenson, Bloch, and Ganshof
and juxtaposing their work against the revisionist study by Reynolds. This
research is important for educators teaching history in K-12 settings.

1
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

Introduction

This historiographical essay contains an investigation of the concept of vassalage in medieval

France. A review of Stephenson’s (1942) Mediaeval Feudalism, Bloch’s (1961) Feudal Society, Ganshof’s

(1961) Feudalism, and Reynolds’ (1994) Fiefs and Vassals is undertaken to better understand vassalage.

All of the authors, save one, share the same opinion on the general points of feudalism and the

institution of vassalage. Reynolds; however, broke rank with mainstream trends and offers a new

conception of vassalage, if there was indeed such a thing, and its role in feudal society. The scope of this

paper will cover the following points of interest: the origins of vassalage, the relationship between lord

and vassal, the ritual and significance of homage and fealty, ordinary and liege homage, as well as the

idea of aid and counsel due a lord, and a revisionists’ deconstruction of long held feudal-vasso relations.

This information is important for any teacher of history in K-12 settings and even those teaching in

higher education. This information broadens the historical knowledge base of teachers and helps

promote historical literacy, as many misconceptions arise from lack of understanding medieval history

and unfamiliarity with the subject. The information presented in this article will allow students the

opportunity to sharpen their "historical thinking" skills by grappling with a contentious historical debate

and engages them with the material as participants rather than passive spectators. Finally, the

information presented here is an essential aspect in a humanistic history education program.

Stephenson’s (1942) work is used as the skeletal framework of this paper and the discussion is

restricted to the essential points of vassalage in France. Bloch (1961) and Ganshof’s (1961) works will be

used to supplement Stephenson’s, in order to come to a more complete understanding of historical

scholarship in the 1940s and 1950s. Reynolds’ (1994) revisionist study, the first of its kind, analyzes and

critiques the work of these eminent historians and offers fresh, unconventional conclusions of her own

based on a decade of research. Her conclusions may be controversial, but they are based on evidence, a

point that Stephenson would appreciate.

2
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

Literature Review

Stephenson (1942) dated the beginning of vassalage in the Carolingian period. Vassalage, in

Stephenson’s estimate, was not a Roman idea but derived from the German comitatus. This is not to be

confused with clientage. “Clientage,” Stephenson notes, “involving no military service and implying

nothing but social equality, was unlike the Germanic comitatus” (p. 6). The term vassal was primarily a

Frankish word and was used frequently in Frankish sources. Bloch (1961) believed vassalage was rooted

in the Merovingian period: “Everywhere the weak man felt the need to be sheltered by someone more

powerful. The powerful man, in his turn, could not maintain prestige or his fortune or even ensure his

own safety except by securing for himself, by persuasion or coercion, the support of subordinates bound

to his service” (p. 148). Vassalage, according to Bloch, emerged from a mixed Germanic and Roman

heritage. However, he is not concerned with vassalage origins. “Let us not at this point fall into the

error of seeking either in vassalage, or, more generally, in feudal institutions a particular ethnological

origin; let us not imprison ourselves once more in the famous dilemma: Rome or ‘the forests of

Germany’” (Bloch, p. 148). Ganshof (1961), like Bloch, dated vassalage to the Merovingian period and

the institution itself to Germany and Rome. While Bloch was indifferent towards the origin, Ganshof

feels “it is not possible to say whether they owed more to Rome or to their Germanic predecessors” (p.

4). The concept of vassalage, according to Bloch and Ganshof, took hold in the Merovingian period,

though Stephenson (1942) ties it to the Carolingians, since feudalism flourished under Charlemagne.

Stephenson (1942) viewed vassalage and feudalism as political devices used to “preserve and

strengthen” Carolingian authority (p. 11). However, the bonds that bound one man to another were

personal. Bloch (1961) concurred with Stephenson’s point but takes it one step further in characterizing

vassalage in the more intimate guise of friendship. Vassalage was a “protective relationship” initially,

according to Bloch, but evolved into an economic relationship that promoted the growth and execution

of military service (p. 163). Ganshof (1961), in a similar vein, describes vassalage as a direct relationship

3
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

between two men, but also states that vassalage was “a coveted status, a mark of honour [sic.]”(p. 19).

In its infancy, vassalage, according to Ganshof, was a personal relationship in Carolingian times. It

evolved from a personal relationship, in Ganshof’s opinion, to a property relationship with the

development of feudalism as an institution and in fief-holding.

Stephenson (1942), Bloch (1961), and Ganshof (1961) agreed that these personal-vassilic

relationships were formed because they were beneficial to both vassal and lord. The lord needed loyal

men to fight for him when called upon. In return, the lord promised to protect the vassal. This

relationship proved effective and did not escape the notice of the Carolingian rulers. It would be the

perfect governmental mechanism to ensure that every free born individual would be subject to the king.

This form of government control would give rise to the institution of feudalism and universal vassalage.

Universal vassalage ensured the king’s position and cemented his hold over his subjects. As more

people were incorporated under the Carolingian yoke as vassals, the word’s etymology changed. The

adoption of vassalage under the Carolingians witnessed a rise in prestige and status associated with the

title. The title of vassal was no longer a stigma but a sign of status and social rank.

A potential vassal would undergo a public ceremony rich in spectacle and symbolism called

homage. Stephenson’s account of the basic structure of the ceremony is devoid of life; Bloch’s (1961)

imaginative and descriptive reconstruction is evidence of his masterly storytelling:

Imagine two men face to face; one wishing to serve, the other willing or anxious to be

served. The former puts his hands together and places them, thus joined, between the

hands of the other man—a plain symbol of submission, the significance of which was

sometimes further emphasized by a kneeling posture. At the same time, the person

proffering his hands utters a few words—a very short declaration—by which he

acknowledges himself to be the ‘man’ of the person facing him. Then chief and

subordinate kiss each other on the mouth, symbolizing accord and friendship. Such

4
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

were the gestures—very simple ones, eminently fitted to make an impression on minds

so sensitive to visible things—which served to cement one of the strongest social bonds

known in the feudal era. (pp. 145-146).

Stephenson (1941), Bloch(1961), and Ganshof (1961) mentioned the kiss between lord and vassal as

part of the act of homage. Stephenson attaches no special importance other than the fact that it was a

basic component of the ceremony. Ganshof, like Stephenson, believed the ceremonial kiss was the least

important aspect of the homage ceremony. “It was simply a way of confirming the obligations

contracted by the two parties,” Ganshof concluded, “just as it was used to confirm other forms of

contract; a sort of analogy to it is the drink or hand-clasp by which a bargain is still often sealed today”

(p. 78). Bloch, however, suggests that this rite was significant in that it displayed the deep intimacy now

present between lord and vassal. The most important feature of this ceremony was the visual spectacle

of the vassal’s clasped hands sealed by his lord’s hands. According to Ganshof, the act of immixtio

manuum, “the name given to the rite in which the vassal, generally kneeling, bareheaded and

weaponless, placed his clasped hands between the hands of his lord, who closed his own hands over

them,” (pp. 72-73) is the primary element in the act of homage. Like Bloch, Ganshof emphasized the

importance of the physical aspect for all participants. However formal the ceremony was, it was

intended to draw an audience to witness the formal contract in a medium they understood. “When one

remembers the legal atmosphere of the time and takes into account the incapacity of early medieval

man for thinking in abstract terms, and when one recollects his taste for the concrete and actual,”

Ganshof adds, “one can understand how in his eyes the essential element in becoming a vassal was that

of making some gesture of the hands” (p. 73).

The act of homage was a two-fold ceremony. The second part was made up of the oath of

fealty. In Stephenson’s (1942) classic, concise style, he stripped fealty down to the following points: it

always followed the act of homage and never preceded it; it was not a separate, distinct ceremony, but

5
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

was incorporated as part of the act of homage. It gave Christian sanction to the oath. Bloch (1961) and

Ganshof (1961) concurred with Stephenson’s analysis. Ganshof, however, felt that “the fusion of these

two elements (homage and fealty) which created the contract of vassalage was so complete that the act

of homage was at once followed by the oath of fealty” (p. 77). Bloch, like Stephenson and Ganshof,

viewed homage as the primary element that bound one man to another. On the other hand fealty, in

Bloch’s mind, was incidental: “Unlike homage, which bound the man at a single stroke and was generally

held to be incapable of renewal, this promise—almost a commonplace affair—could be repeated several

times to the same person” (p. 146). Fealty was a hackneyed and meaningless rite used simply as a

religious instrument to bind people to their oaths or face God’s displeasure. They may be quick to break

their oath to their lord but they would think twice before breaking faith with their God.

The basic relationship of homage was between one lord and one vassal. As feudalism gained

momentum in France, homage evolved into a means of securing more wealth. Stephenson (1942),

Bloch (1961), and Ganshof (1961) asserted that in its primitive form, homage was an exclusive

relationship. However, as feudalism became more popular in France, homage evolved into a means of

securing more wealth. In order for a vassal to acquire more benefices, he must pledge homage to

several lords. The personal bond shared between lord and vassal was thus diluted. Stephenson, Bloch,

and Ganshof concurred that the general consensus amongst historians is that fief-holding was the

culprit. The insatiable desire for more benefices, more prestige, and general aggrandizement weakened

the core principles of homage. Bloch asks a question that is overlooked by Stephenson and Ganshof: “It

nevertheless remains to be explained why the lords so readily accepted, and even sometimes solicited,

these halves, thirds or quarters of a man’s loyalty, and also how the vassals were able, without scandal,

to make so many contradictory promises” (p. 212). Though he offers no further illumination on this

topic, the question is intriguing. Moreover, what was a vassal to do when he was in a precarious

position between two lords who were at odds? Would he excuse himself, thus avoiding service to either

6
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

at the risk of being labeled a felon? How did a vassal decide whom to serve in such trying

circumstances? Stephenson, Bloch, and Ganshof posit the same general rules of thumb prevailing at the

time: the vassal would honor homage to the lord who held his homage first; the vassal would honor

homage to the lord who granted the most generous benefice; the vassal would choose which homage to

honor considering the immediate circumstances, i.e., he would be more inclined to help defend his lord

from an imminent threat because the situation was dire. Another option, mentioned by Bloch, was for

the vassal to voluntarily relinquish his fief to his lord until such a time that it was no longer a conflict of

interest.

The solution was to differentiate between a primary, or liege, homage and ordinary homage.

The former could be pledged only once and it was normally given to a powerful magnate or king. The

latter could be repeated as often as the vassal wished; one vassal was recorded to have had pledged

homage to more than 40 lords! It is understandable to see how complex the act of homage had become

and how necessary it was to institute varying degrees of homage. Stephenson (1942) dates the

emergence of liege homage to the twelfth century whereas Ganshof (1961) dated it in the middle of the

eleventh century. Judging by the examples used in Bloch’s work, it is reasonable to suggest that he

would place liege homage in the eleventh century. Although Stephenson and Ganshof failed to address

the consequences of having several lords and its effect upon feudal tenure, Bloch plainly vents his

frustration and disdain for the practice. Recalling the words of St. Louis, Bloch wrote, “No man can

serve two masters”(p. 212).

Once the contract of vassalage had been satisfactorily concluded, the vassal and his lord would

be bound to render services to one another. The primary obligation of the vassal to his lord was military

service. Moreover, there were two further obligations that were of consequence: aid and counsel. The

vassal was normally required to fulfill x amount of days per year of military service. As vassalage

emerged as the primary element of feudalism, the term of service was capped at 40 days per year at the

7
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

vassal’s expense. If a campaign were to exceed that limit, the lord would incur the cost beyond the 40

day term. Bloch and Ganshof state that vassals wanted to limit their service to their lords and the result

was a standard quota that was fixed from the beginning of the contract. In return for military service,

the lord would give his vassal a benefice, which normally took the form of a fief to alleviate the expenses

of military service. In respect to royal vassals, the requirements were more detailed and the obligations

to both parties were often drawn up in legal documents. However, this would only be necessary

between a powerful magnate and the king, making such agreements exceptional. The fief was most

often held for life and would only revert back to the lord upon the vassal’s death.

A royal vassal, a man of formidable rank and standing, would often times be granted large

benefices and honorific titles to persuade him to remain loyal to his lord, i.e., the king. The benefices

given to royal vassals were vast, and in order to meet the quota demanded by the king, the royal vassal

used subinfeudation to meet his obligations to his lord. This method would partition the royal vassal’s

lands into smaller sub-units given as benefices to his vassals. They, in turn, would pledge homage and

fealty to the royal vassal as his ‘men’ and would serve him in a military capacity or pledge x number of

men. In addition to military service, aid, according to Stephenson (1942), included the following:

knighting of the lord’s eldest son; marriage of the lord’s eldest daughter; and ransom of the lord when

captured (p. 30). Bloch (1961), in his analysis, adds a fourth condition: “to enable the lord himself to

make a purchase of land”(p. 223). Furthermore, Stephenson and Ganshof (1961) alluded to the rare

instance when aid may be requested for crusade. Hospitality was also expected when a lord toured his

estates and it was incumbent upon the vassal to host his lord on his sojourn that could be a costly

enterprise. In the late medieval period, cash payments were made in lieu of hospitality.

‘Suit to court,’ as Stephenson (1942) called it, was required attendance at the lord’s residence to

hear matters of governmental import, participate in trials, and bear grievances. “The object of such

deliberation might be any subject on which the lord desired to know the opinion of his vassals”

8
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

concludes Ganshof (1961, p. 222). Stephenson and Bloch (1961) are silent as to which aspect of counsel

is most important. Ganshof, however, considers the act of judgment (or trial), with the lord presiding, as

the superlative function of counsel. The lord did not possess broad-sweeping powers. He had no

authority to tax, legislate, or impose judgment—those were the powers of the vassals as a collective

entity. Stephenson fails to mention the potential benefit and reward of attendance at court. “Military

service was an obligation and little else,” notes Bloch, “but attendance at court carried with it many

advantages: gifts from one’s lord, a groaning board and a share in the exercise of authority” (p. 222).

Bloch is the only author to delve into the economic component of the obligation of counsel and

highlights the disparity in the vasso-relationship. These ‘benefits’ that a vassal enjoyed was scarce. A

lord held court infrequently so the benefit enjoyed by the vassal was minimal. The lord, as the superior

in the relationship, enjoyed the greatest benefit. The vassal did his best to maximize any potential

benefit: “All these advantages were prized; nevertheless in the long run the vassal’s obligations

outweighed the benefits he received . . . the inequality of the obligations seemed all the more flagrant,

and those who suffered from it were all the more anxious to limit their burden” (p. 224).

In recent years, a distinguished medievalist has questioned and challenged long held beliefs

promulgated by such illustrious historians as Stephenson (1942), Bloch (1961) and Ganshof (1961).

Reynolds (1994) is suspect of feudalism in general and is explicitly hostile to the idea of vassalage. Her

first contention is that vassalage was not a “genuine partnership” but rather one of superior and

inferior. A personal element may have been present between a count, duke, or magnate and a king;

however, it was not necessarily present between lesser lords or free men in general. The sheer volume

of free born men who took part in the feudo-vassalic relationship would make the institution itself

highly impersonal in practice. “When a king or lord had many vassals his relations with each of them

cannot have been all that close. If vassalage was widespread it would be diluted. It could not therefore

be the strongest bond in a society” (Reynolds, 1994, p. 27). Why would historians, then, characterize

9
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

early and high medieval society as a highly integrated social network from the top down? What did the

sources contain that gave that impression? Reynolds offers an inter-personal perspective to help us

understand the psychology of the time: “People often like to represent their relations with distant

superiors as personal and affective, and to think that the person cares about them. That people in the

Middle Ages were brought up to obedience and loyalty as well as other military virtues is highly relevant

to the understanding of their society” (pp. 27-28).

Stephenson (1942), Bloch (1961), and Ganshof (1961) concurred that vassalage was either

Germanic or Roman in origin. Reynolds (1994); however, thought that such a view is incompatible with

the evidence available. Certain parts of the feudo-vassalic relationship, Reynolds maintains, should not

be directly linked to the German comitatus: “Loyalties and obligations of vassalage are held to be

derived from those of the barbarian war-band, but these are obscure” (p. 17). The re-writing of history

to conform to preconceived interpretations is “retrospective conjecture” and nothing else. Stephenson,

Bloch, and Ganshof have been led astray; their romanticized ideas about close-knit clans, of loyalty and

strict obedience, are rubbish according to Reynolds.

An issue that has been glossed over by many prominent historians is terminology. All of the

authors looked at in this paper use a variety of words that they have deemed equivalent in meaning to

the word vassal. Reynolds (1994) is appalled that such esteemed historians, particularly Ganshof (1961),

could possibly attribute meanings to words that have no correlation to vassalage in the sources.

Ganshof’s vassi and vassalli, notes Reynolds, “are not nearly so common in the sources” (p. 22). The

problem is that the various words taken to denote “vassal” are vague in meaning: “The point that needs

to be emphasized, says Reynolds, is that when vassals are mentioned in modern world about the history

of northern Europe between about 1100 and 1300, in translations of texts from that time, or in

comments or indexes made by editors of texts, the sources nearly always use non-committal pronouns

(cum suis, ad suos, etc.) or words like fideles or homines” (pp. 22-23). A letter written by Fulbert of

10
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

Chartes, considered a reputable and valuable source by Bloch and Ganshof, outlined the obligations of a

vassal to a lord in exceptional detail for the time. This text is used liberally by the authors examined in

this paper, and is reproduced in its entirety by Ganshof. What is peculiar to Reynolds is that in the

original text, neither the word “vassal” nor a derivative is used! Fulbert omitted the word vassal from

his letter outlining the duties and obligations incumbent upon lord and vassal. How, then, can so much

be deduced from a letter that makes not explicit reference to vassal, much less the feudo-vassalic

relationship? This was not an anomaly; all of Fulbert’s letters, to Reynolds’ knowledge, lack any

reference to “vassal.” Reynolds regards Fulbert as little more than a “supposed theorist of feudo-

vassalic values” (p. 35). The reason why vassalage and the vassal relationship are ingrained in our minds

is due to a miscarriage of historical scholarship and sensibilities. Blame, however, is not to be laid at

anyone’s feet. Reynolds concedes that there is an abundance of new source material not available to

earlier historians that shed considerable light on vassalage. Historians like Bloch and Ganshof drew their

conclusions from a misguided understanding of the scant documentary evidence available. “We cannot

be sure that we have got our ideas about vassalage right,” concludes Reynolds, “if we rewrite medieval

texts in this way” (p. 23).

If vassalage, as we understand it, was not a personal relationship, then how does Reynolds

(1994) characterize it? In Reynolds’ estimation, Bloch (1961) and Ganshof (1961) are wide of the mark

but Stephenson (1942) is right on target. Vassalage was a political relationship. The evidence available

from Carolingian times and thereafter refers to vassi, i.e., royal vassals, according to Reynolds. Those

were the political relationships that mattered. The problem is that historians view this type of construct

as the prototype of all other vassal relationships. The fact is that no two vassal arrangements were the

same. Each was unique in its obligations, duties, and scope. To apply a universal model of vassalage

strips the concept of its individuality. In this period, the prevailing means of subsistence was through an

agricultural economy. By controlling the land, whether allodial or benefice, you controlled the people

11
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

dependent upon it. “All kingdoms,” writes Reynolds, “whether the king was described as king of a

people or king of a land, involved both people and land. In agricultural societies, power over people

meant power, however indirect or mediated, over their land” (p. 35). This line of thought mirrors that of

Bloch. It is reasonable to suggest that political control may have begun between king and royal vassals,

but in time evolved into an extensive political system that placed people in two categories: those who

controlled land and those who worked on land. This framework stands in stark contrast to the personal

relationship championed by Stephenson, Bloch and Ganshof.

Reynolds (1994) gives a summary statement outlining her position:

Nothing that I have said here is intended to cast doubt on the obvious truths that

interpersonal relations between powerful people in medieval Europe mattered; that

nobles placed a high value on the military virtues of loyalty and courage; that

ceremonies like the form of homage described by Bloch were important symbols of the

obligations of lord and man; that in an age of low literacy, few records, and poor

communication, great men needed to use personal loyalties, ceremonies and ad

hominem rewards to maintain and extend their power over the land; and that since

rulers, nobles, and most free men lived off the work of a dependent peasantry, rulers

could maintain, control, and reward their followers by delegating control over land and

peasants to them. (pp. 46-47)

Reynolds is convinced vassalage was a political phenomenon foremost that may have a kernel of

personal intimacy at its core, though in most cases the contrary was true. The relationships were not

strictly lord and vassal. They included the following types of relations: ruler and subject; patron and

client; landlord and tenant; employer and employee; general and soldier; and local boss and victim. The

assortment of Reynolds’ archetypes is intriguing and begs the question why historians have not

considered a similar classification before? The obvious answer lies in their narrow understanding of

12
Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

vassalage. Vassalage is a “conceptual black hole” (p. 34) in Reynolds’ opinion. Feudalism needs to be re-

examined and vassalage needs to be reconstructed in light of new evidence. “Vassalage itself is a term

that no longer matches either the evidence we have available or the conceptual tools we need to use in

analyzing it” (p. 34). “Above all,” Reynolds suggests, “we need to get away from the word vassal,

especially where it is not used in the sources” (p. 32). Reynolds’ intense desire to maintain the integrity

of the source material is admirable; Stephenson would expect nothing less.

Conclusion

Vassalage was the supporting feature of feudal society. It was the glue of feudalism. A lord

offered protection in return for loyalty and service. In such a turbulent period, it was a source of peace

of mind for lord and vassal. The authors surveyed offer their opinions and understandings of a complex

period in history and taken as a whole, offer a compelling account of vassalage and feudalism. As

Stephenson (1942) is apt to point out, no one should be too didactic in their interpretations because

history is a fluid discipline open to debate. What holds today may not be sustainable in twenty years

time. Vassalage has come under intense scrutiny by a leading medievalist and many of the basic, core

principles of vassalage have been challenged. Her learned opinions and extensive research should be

carefully weighed against such notable works as Stephenson’s, Bloch’s (1961), and Ganshof’s (1961).

13
 Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education 2012 • December • Volume: 3 • Issue: 12

References

Bloch, M. (1961). Feudal society, Volume 2: Social classes and political organization. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Ganshof, F. L. (1961). Feudalism. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Reynolds, S. (1994). Fiefs and vassals: The medieval evidence reinterpreted. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Stephenson, C. (1942). Mediaeval feudalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

14
View publication stats