Previously

Today:

You know the drill: this is the thread for all your history-related outpourings that are not necessarily questions. Minor questions that you feel don't need or merit their own threads are welcome too. Discovered a great new book, documentary, article or blog? Has your Ph.D. application been successful? Have you made an archaeological discovery in your back yard? Did you find an anecdote about the Doge of Venice telling a joke to Michel Foucault? Tell us all about it.

As usual, moderation in this thread will be relatively non-existent -- jokes, anecdotes and light-hearted banter are welcome.

In this footage of the Battle of Berlin there are two flag carriers seen at 0:32. Did the Red Army actually have dedicated flag carriers in battles during WW2 or were these scenes directed by someone?

So from how I understand it, based on u/Miles_Sine_Castrum's excellent response to one of my old questions:

Barons was the general term for any person, who by either virtue of dynasty or personal favour, held a specific set of lands as granted by the king. Holing such lands (per baroniam) meant the ability to adminster justice via baronial court, the right to demand things like socage, merchet, corvee, etc.; this could also include the ability to parcel out a portion of this barony and create a new title and thus make his own vassal. For all intents and purposes, they owned these lands (and the serfs living in it), although technically the true owner was still the monarch.

These lands, the right to benefit and utilize them, along with the accompanying titles/signorage (which afforded rank and precedence), and the inherent services that the person must now render to the king (court duties, military levies of knights or scutage, taxes) is called the fief. A Baron's fief's territory is called a Barony (while the fief itself would be called a baronship). Therefore, a baron was any tenant-in-chief/vassal-in-chief.

Now, some Barons, due to being of even higher esteem by the monarch, are granted fiefs which encompass a larger privilege and responsibility—i.e. countships/earldoms or dukedoms. Such fiefs involved much larger swaths of land (shires/counties and duchies). However, this didn't translate to per baroniam tenure—a count did not have the same control over all the manors (and serfs) in his county the same way a baron did in his barony. Further, the barons who held baronies in that county or duchy did not automatically become his vassals—they were still the king's direct vassals. What the count or duke did have was a gubernatorial position—they administered and controlled this territory on behalf of the king, which I guess included promulgating the King's policies such as taxes, laws/decrees, administering his justice, etc.

Of course, a Count or Duke was still held his own baronies, of which he did have near-sovereignty; and for the purposes of convenience and custom, most times a Count was given a county in which most of his baronies were located (since a Count needed to have local infrastructure to do his duties).

So my question is thus—what were the powers of a magnate (count, duke, marquess) have over his territory? Was I correct in saying he could "skim off the top" when collecting taxes that go directly to the king (from other tenants-in-chief with baronies in his territory)? Was he also able to impose his own taxes on top of that (ergo a commoner rendered taxes to his baron, his count, and his king)? Could he create his titles/vassals from some land in his county that did not belong to his baronies or other noble's baronies? Did a count automatically become the commander of all the knights/militia raised from their county (regardless if the knight never swore fealty or paid homage to said count; as they were all technically serving the King)?

Now, I understand that what I'm describing might be construed as the ideal (and I think it's very Anglocentric). As far as I know, many counts and dukes would eventually consolidate their power (i.e. either by getting into bed with the barons who held baronies in his territory, or by outright making them submit and pay homage to him directly, or usurping said baronies by marriage or force) to the point that they did in fact 'own' all the land within his county's territory (not just a governor, but as a sovereign). And this led to the general paradigm shift wherein magnates operated as their own small kingdoms (and indeed, some gained independence once they grew powerful enough to make and enforce such a claim or be acknowledged as such).

So am I correct in my understanding? Or am I way off the mark?

Episode 68 is up!

The AskHistorians Podcast is a project that highlights the users and answers that have helped make /r/AskHistorians one of the largest history discussion forum on the internet. You can subscribe to us via iTunes, Stitcher, or RSS, and now on YouTube. You can also catch the latest episodes on SoundCloud. If there is another index you'd like the cast listed on, let me know!

NEW: The AskHistorians Podcast is now on Google Play!

This Episode:

Historian of nuclear weapons and secrecy, Dr. Alex Wellerstein (/u/restricteddata), discusses the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Specifically, the conversation focuses on the high level, and highly classified, debates over how best to employ these new weapons. From there, the episode segues into the inherent difficulties of doing historical research on classified materials and how that has shaped the historiography of the bombings. (75min)

Dr. Wellerstein is the author of Restricted Data: the Nuclear Secrecy Blog, where his NUKEMAP can also be found (among many other items of note). He and his work have also appeared NPR, FOX News, and The Daily Show, as well as in The New Yorker, where his article, "Nagasaki: The Last Bomb," can be found.

Questions? Comments?

If you want more specific recommendations for sources or have any follow-up questions, feel free to ask them here! Also feel free to leave any feedback on the format and so on.

If you like the podcast, please rate and review us on iTunes.

Thanks all!

Coming up next episode: /u/alvisefalier discusses Italian city states, particularly Milan, during the Medieval Communal period.

Coming up after that: /u/sunshine_bag looks at the intersection of Italian Fascism and Football.

Previous Episodes and Discussion

Want to support the Podcast? Help keep history interesting through the AskHistorians Patreon.

A friend has started a fun history blog about cats at sea- http://seafurrers.com/
I wondered whether any historians had happened on interesting early accounts of ships cats.