>>21391274I don't have specific examples offhand, but it was not an uncommon source of contention. I'm not really a student in medieval history specifically, and don't have any book recommendations. I just read a lot and am going off memory.
Picrel, the first page of Yandex results: fiefs weren't taxed. You'll want to search for good history books by area, download off Anna's archive, then control f: tax the nobles, or tax their fiefs. It happened later on in medieval times, generally due to war debts.
Formenting wars, territorial tensions, and subsequently debt amongst the medieval lords was definitely the first major foothold crypto kikes (foreign traders, jesuites, even Catholic priests) got into European affairs in our history by impressing the courts with their wealth and exotic goods, and gaining the confidence of monarchs. Miles Mathis has some great articles about that stuff where he goes through the specific lineages in examples and shows which "noble" families are actually jews who game of throned their way into the European courts.
Again, it wasn't some utopia and it's not a black and white: this is how it was everywhere, all the time for 1000 years, but, the "dark ages" weren't really "dark". That's a psyop to make us believe we have it "better" now.
To go back even further, the Romans psyopped us with their history about the northern "barbarians". Those living in the proto euro monarchies very likely had better lives than many roman empire residents (the majority of which were slaves who didn't enjoy the freedoms of citizens and worked waaay more than the barbarians). Barbarians still had laws and culture etc...but much like the medieval serfs, were not subject to heavy taxation or any real requirements to participate in a monetary system for basic survival (peasants and barbarians just bartered their goods, unless they were traveling).
