Bernd
09/23/2020 (Wed) 19:58:56
No.40257
del
09/23/2020 (Wed) 19:58:56
No.40257
del
>>40255
>>40256
As far as i know in feudalism the contract wasnt invalidated with the death of the holder.
Hereditary nature of timar or pronoia fiefs was a practice especially in later periods, but land never became de facto property of the holder unlike in feudalism. And this is what later allowed ottomans to abandon the system pretty seamlessly, land just returned under imperial domain.
Timar and pronoia were more of a degradation of the state salary systems in highly centralised, autocratic state, while feudalism was by nature more "free market", way more decentralised.
>What do you mean by this
Under feudalism things like a king being at the same time equal (as a king of neighbouring country) and a vassal of the king (through inheritance) was possible.
>>40256
As far as i know in feudalism the contract wasnt invalidated with the death of the holder.
Hereditary nature of timar or pronoia fiefs was a practice especially in later periods, but land never became de facto property of the holder unlike in feudalism. And this is what later allowed ottomans to abandon the system pretty seamlessly, land just returned under imperial domain.
Timar and pronoia were more of a degradation of the state salary systems in highly centralised, autocratic state, while feudalism was by nature more "free market", way more decentralised.
>What do you mean by this
Under feudalism things like a king being at the same time equal (as a king of neighbouring country) and a vassal of the king (through inheritance) was possible.