No, if I remember correctly, a lord was a wealthy landowner, and a king was the ruler of the land. An equivalent of a lord today would be anyone who owns a house. A king's equivalent would be a communist ruler or monarch.
a vassal owed aleigance to his lord
The set of unwritten rules that determines the relationship between a lord and his vassal is that the vassal must protect the lord and the lord must provide protection for the vassal. This was a rule that most vassals and lords lived by.
King Zedekiah doesn't listen to the LORD correct? I think that would be right. I'm having a hard time finding that but I think that is the answer.
the magna carta
He promised to fight for the king and serve him.
a vassal owed aleigance to his lord
a vassal owed aleigance to his lord
The lord gave land to the vassal, the vassal promised his loyalty and service.
a prince is a son of a king A lord is a just an aristocrat
well the knight and the king are both royalty and the knight is brave like the king. knights had chainmAIL AAnd so did lords. they were boyh vassals.blah blah blah sexy and i know it.
The set of unwritten rules that determines the relationship between a lord and his vassal is that the vassal must protect the lord and the lord must provide protection for the vassal. This was a rule that most vassals and lords lived by.
he is his great uncle
pen!s
Heaven
Jamil was son in law of lord mahavira.
This relationship between lord and warrior was prominent in feudal societies, where warriors would pledge allegiance and loyalty to a lord in exchange for land and protection. This system was common in medieval Europe and Japan, where warriors would fight for their lords in battle and receive rewards in return.
King Zedekiah doesn't listen to the LORD correct? I think that would be right. I'm having a hard time finding that but I think that is the answer.