I hope I can get some help with things that don’t sit quite right in my head about feudal system, I really tried to browse the internet for answers but not all of them satisfied me, so here are my questions:
if two noble houses within one kingdom ever got into conflict with each other, does the king know and allowed to interfere? or is there something that the king could gain from it that makes him simply watch as the nobles killing each other?
if one noble house got so successful and expanded far above king’s power, will they always declare independence and make their own kingdom? or loyalty and chivalry was really a thing back then?
can a noble house got attacked or banished by their own king? if yes, will their territory returned to the king or the king could assign other noble house to inherit the territory?
what will the king do if noble houses does not support his wishes? because some sources said that the king need the nobles to support them, which make it sounds like the king is a weak figure and need somebody else’s approval
of course I could always go off-road and make a fantasy version of the feudal system, but I’d like to know how the realistic version works before tweaking it here and there
I don’t mind if the answers are from non-european feudal system ( africa, middle east, asia )
The feudal system varied immensely over time and between different places. However, in general, in real history, a “noble house” in the Game of Thrones sense was not a thing. Each individual landholder had his (sometimes her) own obligations to his liege.
1: Usually it’s legally forbidden, but the king’s ability or will to enforce this may be limited, and in point of fact landowners raided each other all the time.
2: Varies wildly based on the situation. Most commonly, an overly-powerful magnate would remain a titular vassal of the king, but in practice either do what they wanted or seek to control the king from behind the throne.
3: Legally, not without a reason. In practice…well, depends on whether the king would piss anyone off.
4: Legally, the obligations of landowners to their liege are usually very strictly limited and spelled out. However, the rule of law is not a thing yet, so if the king decides to break the rules against a vassal who’s too weak to resist, well…
Feudal monarchs were “weak” by modern standards. By and large they didn’t have standing armies and relied on their vassals to raise them – so taking on a rogue vassal relied on the continuing loyalty of the others. They also had very limited taxation capacity, making it hard for them to fund military campaigns (against vassals or neighbors) without some degree of assent from the wealth-holders of their country.
Read about Richard II in England for a late medieval (so not entirely “feudal”) example of royal-noble conflict with a drama that’s fascinated people since Shakespeare. Richard briefly held a monopoly on power in his late reign, but the disregard for noble privileges he’d shown on the way there sowed the seeds for a revolt that successfully deposed him.
In the feudal system, kings often let conflicts between noble houses play out if it weakened both sides and didn’t directly threaten their power, stepping in only when the situation became too unstable or when their authority was at risk. While some powerful nobles might think about rebellion, it was always a dangerous move, and most would rather stay within the system, using their influence without challenging the king directly. If a noble house rebelled, the king could strip them of their lands, often redistributing them to loyal supporters to keep control. But when nobles refused to support the king, it put him in a tough position where he had to either negotiate, use force, or risk rebellion, since in the feudal world, royal power was closely tied to the support of the nobility, making it far from absolute.
The king probably didn’t know and would probably not interfere if he did. Vassals warred with each other all the time, especially the HRE which was basically thousands of fiefs combined. Succession wars of a title happened quite frequently which is why nearly every landowner had their own militia. The king has bigger things to deal with than local squabbles.
They would try if they got the opportunity to, however it would be highly unlikely. There’s far more going on than just power. You need the support of the people, the support of the majority of the noble houses (good luck with that), and enough support of the military to go against their own leader.
We call that dealing with rebellions. Often happened a lot when the king first comes into power, sort of a trial by fire. Usually just hands the title to another, more loyal noble or possibly a peasant landowner. The title is there for a reason, usually to break up and govern the territory more easily.
Usually absolutely nothing, unless you really piss the king off. If you piss off the king enough to come down and deal with you it’s already over.
For one thing, while there were many prominent families and dynasties there really wasn’t clear “houses” like in A Song of Ice and Fire.
Feudalism actually resulted in a fairly weak monarchy. A king (or emperor) had to rely on the contributions of his vassals, who could be powerful dukes holding vast fiefs or the mayor of a small town. Because feudalism meant that everything was decentralized, there was no standing professional army purely under the king’s command. He could only directly rely on his own retainers and levies from the lands he administered directly, and had to rely on his vassals to support him with their levies. This meant the ability for a feudal monarch to project his or her power was limited by the support they had from the nobility.
It was very difficult for a lord to simply declare independence. It certainly happened, but usually as a result of a greater power struggle rather than simply deciding to no longer be loyal to your king. For example, a lord might not recognize a certain claimant to the throne and refuses to swear loyalty.
This brings me to my next point in that titles were everything. A lord can’t call himself king after becoming “independent” because he is not of a royal lineage nor does he hold a royal title. A count is a count and will always be a count, and no one will recognize that count as a king. Religion also plays a part, particularly for Catholic kingdoms that require the support of the Pope to be seen as the rightful ruler.
As for fighting between vassals, it never really happened. Or at least not what you’re imagining. Rebellions and civil wars? Sure, those happened all the time. But the king allowing one fiefdom to attack another openly was generally unlawful.
This particular statement has a lot of asterisks to it. Outside of the Crusades and the Reconquista, the Duke of Bohemia was elevated to a king in 1198, and Charles the Bold nearly earned recognition as King of Burgundy near the end of the feudal period. So carving out a kingdom could happen, but usually what instead happened was a noble went to try to control the existing kingdom rather than cut loose on his own. (Bohemia’s situation was due to Holy Roman Empire politics, Burgundy was a result of the Hundred Years’ War. Prussia was also elevated to a kingdom, but that’s well after feudalism stopped being a thing.)
