Jaak

Members
  • Content count

    3,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Jaak

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

4,218 profile views
  1. And? The underlying attitude - that knighthood was socially preferrable but not a strict legal requirement, and that non-knights could legally fill the roles of knight with only some social embarrassment - was a widespread even if not universal one in medieval Europe. There is no strong evidence that it is not shared by Westeros, and quite some evidence that it is.
  2. In a literal sense, yes. Which is why it´s inconvenient to talk about "landed knights and masters" when masters are few in number. Do masters lack any rights and privileges that landed knights have? Members of Parliament representing counties are called "Knights of the Shire"... yet they are not actually required to be knights, and esquires also qualify.
  3. We have the story of Lord Stackspear doubling the taxes on his smallfolk without permission of Tytos. Implying that he did need a permission - it was not purely his own business as a landholder and lord.
  4. Or masters are rare, and rarely attract mention. Compare the number of lords mentioned against the number of landed knights mentioned. There are a number of southern lords who expressly are not knights - fairly few. Lord Petyr is not a knight. We hear that Lord Tytos wasn't. Willas is not knight, and accepted as heir.
  5. Or else the rules of property never actually care about knighthood, and a Master is simply a title for a male landowner who does not have a higher one (Lord or Knight). Petyr asserts that Sandor would inherit. And he at least knows enough about Cleganes to be informed about loathing. Plus, Sandor's lack of title would easily be noted hearing him referred to. Also, Petyr as a Lord, but no knight, is probably very aware what are the social embarrassments of non-knights and what are or are not the legal disabilities, if any.
  6. Certainly when Eddard (himself no knight) and ser Loras discuss attainder of ser Gregor, they do not disparage inheritance rights of Sandor. And Glovers of Deepwood Motte are neither lords nor knights.
  7. Just how is it obvious? Ser Gregor Clegane is not a lord. He is a knight - a landed one, after his father had a hunting accident. Sandor Clegane is not a knight. If Ser Gregor has died without children, and Sandor were not ineligible as Kingsguard - could Sandor as a non-knight inherit the Clegane lands? As a non-knight landholder, would Sandor be able to call banners etc., just as ser Gregor as a landed knight could?
  8. And? Is that a privilege connected to knighthood?
  9. The only express legal privilege is the high justice of lords. We do not actually hear of any legal privileges of landed knights. It they cannot, there could not be rich commoners. How else would a man with three hides of land, a wife and a baby - as ser Bonifer promised to Mountain´s men - be able to cultivate these three hides? He himself could cultivate just one hide. It´s true that lord Baelish and ser Eustace don´t personally work their land, though the lands are not quite vast. Two possibilities. Either nobles prevent commoners from getting rich. Or else rich commoners are treated close enough to poor nobles, and easily enough become poor nobles, that they do not have distinctive political interests. Roman emperors routinely confiscated the lands of political opponents, without claiming to have owned them before.
  10. Not everywhere in Europe. And in Westeros, we also have large groups whose status is ambiguous. Um, that´s a claim made by William the Bastard in England. Not accepted by a lot of Europe.
  11. The question here is how the Westerosi draw the line between a poor noble and a rich commoner. Vast tracts, or small pieces? We do have an example where vast tracts of land were sold - Borrell reports that Starks took Manderly gold. How many Reach hands was the market price of the whole fief of White Harbour?
  12. Anguy was advised to buy land with his winnings from tourney. Jaime offered land to Clegane´s men - an offer that Rafford disliked. Yet no mention of knighthood. For his comrades who did take Jaime´s offer - were they noble? Having an ownership right to land, placing them above smallfolk they had previously been...
  13. I did not imply there were that many. Another example from Reach: Ser Eustace Osgrey mobilized a force of 11 men against Rohanne - namely 8 smallfolk and 3 knights, 1 of whom (himself) was surnamed and landed. Lady Rohanne had 20 times as many smallfolk, so could have mobilized 160 men, if banners were called. She showed up at Chequy Water with 13 knights and 20 archers, leaving her smallfolk unmobilized. Ser Lucas Inchfield certainly had a surname. Did he have lands of his own? And did the other 12 knights of lady Rohanne have surnames, or were they surnameless like ser Eustace´s two?
  14. And that´s England - a country that unlike most of the rest of Europe does not have nobility, precisely because in England the cadet branches do not have the eternal entitlement of noble status, like most of European countries have. Yet those places did feed the 1600 men who sailed with Aegon. We only know that Tyrells were hereditary "stewards". No such information about Vayon Poole, or Cole, or Wayn. And Lothar Frey is a steward, but not a hereditary steward. For example, we hear of House Cassel - late Martyn, Rodrik and Jory. They have no visible means of support other than the household of Winterfell. Then again, Lord Petyr Frey rarely needs to discuss Drearfort while at court. He does have Umfred, Bryen etc. at Drearfort, and possibly they remit a small profit to court - a profit completely insignificant compared to his salary, let alone his profits from trade. Vayon Poole or Cassels may or may not be affiliated with some small tower or unfortified hall in Winterfell countryside, whether it´s occupied by servants like Drearfort, or by a brother or cousin who only shows up at court when banners are called. Vayon Poole is unarmed, but so is Petyr. Again - are "Pooles" hereditarily stewards, or is the job one which a Cassel who happens to be lame like Lothar could take equally well?
  15. We don´t - but it´s relevant. And that´s something which was widely variable in medieval Europe. The concept of nobility as an inborn status that was kept indefinitely by younger sons of younger sons was widely but not universally recognized. For example, Luwin stresses the difference between South, where knighthood is widely conferred, and North which does not have a legal status of knight - yet heavy horsemen, who are militarily equivalent to knight though untitled do exist. Narrow Sea had not just Lords but also "middle class" - whether or not they were knighted at the time. If anything, the supposed status of Dragonstone as a centre of trade on Narrow Sea would have promoted Dragonstone having a bigger "middle class" than a typical rural fief on mainland - not just landed knights, but also well-off merchants and artisans. Or they record, but do not bother summarizing. Ser Criston Cole at least had a surname, and we know who his father was (but not the name of father). Ser Qarl Correy had a surname, too.