medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
On Tuesday, September 9, 2008, at 11:12 am, Cecilia Gaposchkin wrote:
> ... I mean, I suppose that all "knights"
> are supposed to fight for their lord out of fidelity, and I have always
> understood that for the crusades this was no mere analogy but an actual
> amplification of knighthood's obligation to the Lord.
Will "knights" have always fought _for_ their lord ('lord' with lower-case 'l')? That formulation seems to imply a personal relationship of vassalage (vel sim.). Was that the norm in e.g. Genoa or Pisa or (ex-Roman) Venice, all of which contributed militarily to the Crusades starting with the one that we now call the First? Wouldn't the primary earthly allegiance of _milites_ there have been to the state and not to the doge who directed its military operations?
One wonders too about also ex-Roman Naples (autonomous until after the death of Sergius VII in 1137), where the _dux_ (who in this case had for a long time come from the same dynasty) was, as in Venice, also the _magister militum_. Did the militia fight _for_ him or merely under his direction? I don't think there's documentation to answer that question for Naples. But there might be for one of the more northerly city states.
Best,
John Dillon
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|