Was this a freely made agreement between equals or was it a situation where one man owned the land through inheritance and the other had no option other than to work in the service of the lord. Where there the lord got to decide the terms of the agreement and if the peasent did not agree the power of the state would come down upon him. Feudalism was not a free market state. It was in fact just the opposite. The rise of trade unions helped to destroy feudalism
First, as previously stated, peasants are outside the feudo-vassalic relationship. They belonged to something known as manorialism. Second, should the would-be vassal disagree with the arrangement, its not the power of the state he has to worry about (the modern concept of the State, indeed, did not exist in the middle ages) but the power of his lord. Why should the king care about the troubles between a baron and his vassal, unless it proved to be a serious disturbance to the peace?
The would-be vassal can disagree with the terms as long as he realizes there are consequences to disagreement. Usually this meant ejection from his lands, forcefully if he did not vacate them (because then whatever rents or resources he collected becomes stealing).
Damon.
------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Now Building: Tamiya's M26 Pershing ------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
