Could someone explain dukes and princes to me? They're a bit confusing. For example, Monaco is ruled by a prince. So whos the king? And in the middle ages, there were all the dukes of italy. But to have a duke, you need a superior, even if if its only in theory. So who were the superiors?

In Monaco there is no king, the prince is the ruler. The only part of Italy I can remember that was specifically a duchy that ruled itself was Milan (I don't know anything about Savoy, Modena, or Siena though), whose rulers were Hapsburgs, so perhaps the were the Holy Roman Emperor was there superior? The other city-states were pretty much independent for a long time. What I think is the reason is that those titles were around before the independence of the Italian states and the rulers just kept the titles.

You have empires, kingdoms, principalities (ruled by a prince), duchies etc.

The dukes of nothern Italy would technically be the subjects of the Holy Roman Emperor. Just like the dukes of France were technically the lieges of the king of France. The actual power these monarchs could wield might be purely nominal at times though.

As for the Grimaldis in Monaco iirc they won their midget principality in a daring coup in 1297. The Grimaldis were supporters of the papacy against the HRE. The place was originally Imperial land but had been ceded to the city republic of Genova in the 13th c. by emperor Henry VI. The Grimaldis took it by force and in 1319 broke withe Genova, asserting their independance. And then they were kind of quietly overlooked.

In my view duchy=principality, the difference was only about name of ruler. Counts were parts of these parts.

That's just title of increasing importance in a feodal society at first.

Here is the list for France and England
Knight - Baron - Viscount - Count/Earl - Marquis - Duke - King

For instance, Savoy was a county, vassal of the Holy Roman Empire. When the emperor visited the capitale, Chambery, the count of Savoy gave such festivities that impressed by its wealth, the Emperor decided to turn the County into a Duchy.

The titles may vary a bit depending on the countries.

The Princes is a bit different, as it can have two meaning.

A prince can either be the sons of the king, or they can be the leader of a principalties.

Principalties are currently very small (the two remaining in Europe are Lietchenstein and Monaco), while a Duchy could be big.

Well I started be interested in it, in wikipedia list of former principalities are also "states" called "duchy". Its true that its little strange for me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_principalities

Not just former. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, which I guess is like a regular duchy, only more impressive.

A third meaning of "prince" is as a generic term for a feudal ruler. Thus, kings and emperors may sometimes be refered to as "princes" along with dukes, margraves, and what have you.

A margrave, BTW, was originally a count ruling a border region (a march, whence mar- - grave is the continental Germanic term for a count, Mod. German Graf) who was given extra powers the better to deal with any foreign raids. Later it came to simply designate an extra spiffy count.



Hm. Anyone know whether an archduke outranks a grand duke? :crazyeye:

That's just title of increasing importance in a feodal society at first.

Here is the list for France and England
Knight - Baron - Viscount - Count/Earl - Marquis - Duke - King

For instance, Savoy was a county, vassal of the Holy Roman Empire. When the emperor visited the capitale, Chambery, the count of Savoy gave such festivities that impressed by its wealth, the Emperor decided to turn the County into a Duchy.

The titles may vary a bit depending on the countries.

The Princes is a bit different, as it can have two meaning.

A prince can either be the sons of the king, or they can be the leader of a principalties.

Principalties are currently very small (the two remaining in Europe are Lietchenstein and Monaco), while a Duchy could be big.

almost correct. earl is an english title with the same value as count. marguis is a french title and only exists there. more comparable to duke.

Milan was a city, typically a city is ruled by a duke. Even if its a big ultra-powerful city. And in england, the largest territory was ruled by the king, while the 2nd largest territory was split up among the earls. A baron was in command of a single castle. These territorial trends however in no way suggested the political influence of the people. A single baron could easily hold more political and military power than some kings. And the titles went through a lot of adjusting depending on where and when. Germany, for example, was never really all that unified, so the royalty there for this or that reason could be more linguistically bewildering. Suffice to say, you can disregard any concept of title and power, the two did not correlate. more common is title to amount of actual land owned in percentage of entire kingdom. In feudal society everything revolved around the all-important land, even tho some land actually was infinately more valuable than others...
Counts and earls were possibly administrative helpers to the king, may or may not have actual heredetary lineage. a duke was someone who had to have some kind of hereditary lineage, but you see them called dukes only in one city style kingdoms, while kings technically were also dukes.

Counts and earls were possibly administrative helpers to the king, may or may not have actual heredetary lineage. a duke was someone who had to have some kind of hereditary lineage, but you see them called dukes only in one city style kingdoms, while kings technically were also dukes.
That's just wrong. Count is also hereditary. They are not "administrative helpers to the king", they just rule their own land. The duke were not only in" one city style kingdoms", and the kings are not "technically also dukes".

Look at the Duchy of Savoy in 1600

http://www.euratlas.net/AHP/grand/gr1600.jpg

Or Duchy of Milan, Britanny or Burgundy in 1400
http://www.euratlas.com/big/europe_1400.jpg

They are a bit bigger than "just one city", aren't they?

@steph
where did you get these maps? I want them. :D
@iddleness, counts and earls and other nobles only became pure help in administrative positions when nobility became in decline and there was no more land to give. in other words there where more nobles than landdeeds. No title demandend an heritage linieage. If the king wanted he could give any title, as long as it was in his power.

@steph
where did you get these maps? I want them. :D

Don't you find the (c) www.Euratlas.net right at the bottom left of each image is big enough?

In that case

www.Euratlas.net

Current main nobliliary tittles in Spain, from most important to less important.

--Royal Titles, only for the Royal Family:

-Only for the King and Royal heirs:
* Rey
* Príncipe de Asturias
* Príncipe de Gerona
* Príncipe de Viana
* Duque de Montblanc
* Conde de Cervera
* Conde de Barcelona
* Señor de Balaguer

-For other members of the Royal Family who are not Royal Heirs:

* Infante

--Not Royal tittles:
Just below Infante, the most high tittle is "Grande de España" so, Great of Spain. They receive the same protocolary privileges and treatment as the Infantes.

* Grande de España
* Duque (every current Duke is also Great of Spain)
* Marqués (only some are Great of Spain)
* Conde (few are Great of Spain)
* Barón
* Señor

That's just wrong. Count is also hereditary. They are not "administrative helpers to the king", they just rule their own land. The duke were not only in" one city style kingdoms", and the kings are not "technically also dukes".
Actually, the original counts were non-hereditary royal agents. But, I suppose, it's only when the title became a hereditary title of status that it properly became a noble title.

Well counts do not HAVE to be hereditary although often they were. In fact often they were jealous brothers of the king. But its my understanding that 'duke' referred to hereditary title. That was the essense of what made a person a duke, and the other things were rather variable. It was a tendency that the ruler of smaller 'kindoms' were called dukes but the reason for this is to me unclear. And of course, the duke of milan was,for example, often 10 times more powerful than the king of norway.
The size of the duchy of milan, may have been a direct result of expansion due to its relative power, while the name remained the same. I think sometimes people are called 'archdukes' or 'grand dukes' because they rule a particularly rich peice of land, such as flanders, and are even sometimes treated spereately, for example, in forgien policy among other nations to the king himself, who is supposed to have authority over them....But the difference between and archduke and grand duke is very different depending on which country you are talking about. Concerning flanders, it kinda meant 'possible autonomous kingdom in uncertain future'.

Earls were British not English. The Scotish Earls and all that. Dukes were hereditry but Wellington started out as plain Wellsley. Knights covered a broad spectrum from rulers of castles and sizable eclaves to itinerant soldiers - and had/ have a complex ranking system of their own.

almost correct. earl is an english title with the same value as count. marguis is a french title and only exists there. more comparable to duke.

Yes, but there's also the British title of marquess, which is exactly equivalent to the French marquis (i.e. between an earl and a duke). The -ess does not indicate that the holder is female; a female marquess is a marchioness (or something like that).

Looking at the second map posted by steph what is this tiny bit of land "Roman Empire" at the bottom left below the black sea?

That's what remained of the Byzantine Empire at the time, pretty much only Constantinople (which the Ottomans took in 1453).

In some Slavic languages a ruler is called a ˝knez˝ or ˝knjaz˝, ˝knaz˝, etc... And principality is called ˝knezevina˝ and similar. Aristocratic titles go like this: King, Prince (a heir to the king),
Knez (ruler of principality),
Duke (in some languages Vojvoda, Vajvuda, etc..),
Count,...

Principalities had a different meaning in Slavic Middle Ages. They tended to be quite large entities, sometimes also independent.

So I guess difference between principality and duchy could sometimes be that principality was not in feudal relation with a kingdom or empire?

Every feudal ruler in the Middle Ages had a title. But they didn't just get to choose their title, whether they were independent or not. The modern principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein, or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are testament to this. All titles had to be based on a claim and a birthright. eg: the Duke of Savoy, despite being independent for all intents and purposes, could not just up and declare himself a king - he instead had to obtain a kingdom first (Sardinia, then Sicily).

@Kosez: no, the difference is the rank and the title. But the ranks of Dukes and Princes are reversed in Slavic Europe if what you said is correct.

That's what remained of the Byzantine Empire at the time, pretty much only Constantinople (which the Ottomans took in 1453).

They also still owned a good chunk of the Pelopennese, also shown on map.