Questions about medieval land ownership

[cincpac overboard]

During the High and Late Middle Ages, was it a common practice for the nobles of one nation to have land holdings and other property in foreign nations? If so, how was this land taxed and what typically happened to a noble's foreign land holdings after a war between his home nation and a foreign nation with said holdings? Were they ever returned?

 

[naraic]

During the High and Late Middle Ages, was it a common practice for the nobles of one nation to have land holdings and other property in foreign nations? If so, how was this land taxed and what typically happened to a noble's foreign land holdings after a war between his home nation and a foreign nation with said holdings? Were the ever returned?

The most common example would be English nobles. A lot of English nobles had lands in Normandy. That said Normandy was only part of France in the sense that the King of England was the Duke of Normandy.

Nobles holding lands in multiple countries was a factor in the popularisation of scuttage (or cash taxes in lieu of service) as a Scottish king might not want an English knight providing service in his armies.

I'd imagine that a victor's land holdings would universally be respected while the loser in a war may lose their land holdings in the enemy countries depending on the treaty.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Happened all the time with the HRE, and on border regions where princes could pay homage to more than one prince and in more than one capacity.

The Dukes of Bar IIRC swore fealty to France for some of their lands and the HRE for other parts. The Dukes of Foix (?) were nominally independent in some of their lands and subject to the French King in others. Ditto for the shortlived Kingdom of Mallorca's Occitan holdings.

 

[Avrorrange]

Unless you are a semi-independent ruler in charge of the territory in question, you can’t really rule it. There were notable cases during the clashes between England and France were the territory could not be kept. Simon de Montfort became Earl of Leicester because it was proving impossible to hold land on both sides of the channel and his older brother decided to give him claim over it instead of letting the English crown seize control over it. Enguerrand de Coucy, who was Edward III‘s son in law decided to give up all of his English wife’s dowry in order to live in France as a French noble. I am guessing that the balkanised nature of English holdings meant that nobles are more inclined to give up their English lands than vice versa.

 

[johnreiter]

During the High and Late Middle Ages, was it a common practice for the nobles of one nation to have land holdings and other property in foreign nations? If so, how was this land taxed and what typically happened to a noble's foreign land holdings after a war between his home nation and a foreign nation with said holdings? Were the ever returned?

It was absolutely normal

Nobles paid taxes to the king from whom they received the land in question. If I am Earl of Chester, and Duke of Aquitaine, then I pay taxes to the king of England from the tax I collect on the people of Chester, and I pay taxes to the King of France from the taxes I collect from the people of Aquitaine.

In a war, you lands int he other country would be attacked, and possibly seized if you can't bring enough forces to defend them. After the war. . . it really depends on how the war goes. If the enemy country wins overwhelmingly, they may give you lands to their supporters. If your side wins overwhelmingly, you might see your lands enlarged. Anything in-between is also possible. If the victory is less than decisive, most of the more powerful nobles will lose little or nothing of their land, since the winning king doesn't want to antagonize them into rebelling again in the future.

 

[cincpac overboard]

In a war, you lands int he other country would be attacked, and possibly seized if you can't bring enough forces to defend them. After the war. . . it really depends on how the war goes. If the enemy country wins overwhelmingly, they may give you lands to their supporters. If your side wins overwhelmingly, you might see your lands enlarged. Anything in-between is also possible. If the victory is less than decisive, most of the more powerful nobles will lose little or nothing of their land, since the winning king doesn't want to antagonize them into rebelling again in the future.

Any good examples of a war settlement where the nobles of the opposing sides swapped titles to limit cross-national holdings between countries with a long rivalry?

 

[Tyler96]

The Earldom/Honour of Richmond in England had long associations with the Breton ducal house, and was always getting forfeited when the Bretons sided with French kings.

Nobles holding lands in multiple countries was a factor in the popularisation of scuttage (or cash taxes in lieu of service) as a Scottish king might not want an English knight providing service in his armies.

Speaking of England and Scotland - I presume the Scots dynasts in the 12th/early 13th who were earls of Huntingdon retained some interests/property north of the border?

 

[johnreiter]

Any good examples of a war settlement where the nobles of the opposing sides swapped titles to limit cross-national holdings between countries with a long rivalry?

I don't know that it ever happened in such an organized way. Certainly not in war. In peace, maybe. Emperor Charles V divided his empire between his son (raised in Spain) and his brother, a German, because the Spanish did not want to be ruled by a foreigner. Similar things would happen from time to time, when an inheritance that was too spread out and hard to connect would be divided among family members

 

[cincpac overboard]

Happened all the time with the HRE, and on border regions where princes could pay homage to more than one prince and in more than one capacity.

The Dukes of Bar IIRC swore fealty to France for some of their lands and the HRE for other parts. The Dukes of Foix (?) were nominally independent in some of their lands and subject to the French King in others. Ditto for the shortlived Kingdom of Mallorca's Occitan holdings.

In a hypothetical war between France and the HRE, is there some legal mechanism that determines which sovereign the Duke of Bar must fight for?

 

[The Undead Martyr]

In a hypothetical war between France and the HRE, is there some legal mechanism that determines which sovereign the Duke of Bar must fight for?

Short answer is that they pick a side and may or may not lose their lands.

Somewhat longer answer, the Last Argument of Kings, ie strongest rules. In practice, France probably has greater sway, depending on who the emperor is, and also what the precise war is about. But Bar was pretty firmly in the French orbit, and only got eaten alongside Lorraine in the 1700s as part of a general landswap deal with Austria.

Contrast the city of Metz, which passed to France in the 1500s by treaty, or the affiliated Three Bishoprics, which were de facto already controlled by France from the 1300s due to their power to appoint the bishops. Legally they stayed part of the Empire until Westphalia.

So not really any mechanism, but the HRE has legal claims that could persist for quite some time, and Emperor Charles did famously besiege Metz after it submitted to France.


Better example is the Hundred Years War. Edward claimed the French throne in part to make it easier to justify Flanders' revolt against France, since then they could claim to be acting on behalf of their rightful liege. Various vagrant types would rove through Occitania and France, giving loose allegiance to one side or the other.

Many of these same concerns were raised during various peace negotiations between England and France, and were a big part of why the conflict lasted as long as it did. The French were willing to be quite generous to the English King if he was willing to accept French suzerainty on the Continent, even restoring most of Aquitaine to English control, but the issue of sovereignty made the matter too difficult for England to accept, since they wanted to know what would happen if (or rather, when) England and France went to war again and the French King demanded his "loyal" vassal the Duke of Aquitaine levy troops/taxes to support the war effort. Since the whole conflict was sparked precisely by the French King sending his agents to meddle in English fiefs, and the clear tendency was for France to try and assert its royal sovereignty over English possessions.