Talk:Suzerainty
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suzerainty Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Image requested
Generalising
The introductional description of suzerainity is generalizing too much and is wrong for many feudal contracts. In many situations the overlord gave the (leading) rules for the governing. The definition makes it look like there does / did exist a kind of global law for all contracts that didn't change over ages. What exactly the rules in a certain relationship were, did differ very much, over the ages, depending on the region, on local (feudal) law / customs or the de facto powerpositions of overlord and vassal etc. It is a must to mention that the relationship in the middle ages mostly was based on an individual contract. Maybe give a few examples that differ much in time, place and content. 2001:9E8:4431:8B01:42E:47BB:A8AA:A1FF (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- You cannot just focus on the medieal meaning, to the exclusion of the present day meaning. Please feel free to add a section on the medieval usage, and we can think later about how to summarise it in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)