[Discuss] Dukes and kings

[Josiah Allen]

On 3/13/07, Vinnie <vinnietje at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > No one could be king without the support of the lords during the feudal
> > ages.  Dukes had powerful private armies.  They were powerless only when the
> > King's decision was supported by enough other lords, power was what
> > mattered, not title.  This is why kings were either diplomatic enough to
> > keep support or overthrown quickly.
> >  Think 1200s, not 1600s.
>
>
> Kings were still dukes themselves.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

I agree with that the Dukes would usually elect a duke.

I was just rebutting Samuel's post that dukes are too powerful.


-- 
"Growth in wisdom may be exactly measured by decrease in bitterness"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070313/6ba16ff5/attachment.htm