01-07-2022, 01:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2022, 01:54 PM by FaceInTheCrowd.)
There was nothing said about any of the royal families owning or controlling territory in any country. But when in history can we find a ruler who could raise an army but didn't rule over some amount of land with people living on it?
As you said, if they hadn't had any land, they couldn't have had knights. So since there's no dispute about the knights historically serving the royals they had to have had land.
As you said, if they hadn't had any land, they couldn't have had knights. So since there's no dispute about the knights historically serving the royals they had to have had land.