ryttarvasall

13:03 Aug 1, 2018 

I've corrected countless texts, and apparently understood the context better than the writer (or more likely simply been paying more attention to the words). but it's easy for us non-Swedes to confuse these things (I did here, as well, and too many other times), but perhaps the heat makes me think this one shouldn't get away with it.

12:27 Aug 1, 2018 

You're right Deane, and well spotted (I didn't even notice), but if I was the translator I would have no hesitation using 'knights vassal', since it is 99% certain from the context that this is what the author intended to write and 'rytter' and 'riddere' are two words that could easily be confused (I did).

12:20 Aug 1, 2018 

But it is still just guessing, since the Swe is obviously a mistake.

12:14 Aug 1, 2018 

Not all feudal systems were the same, but this is the basic idea: https://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https://static.wixstatic...

12:10 Aug 1, 2018 

The source text is about a ruler attempting to establish a feudal-style state, so using the term Royal Messenger would make no sense in my opinion. You need to use the ranks that were used in such feudal states. It seems to me that the author is definitely referring to 'knights vassal' (as Jane correctly stated).

12:08 Aug 1, 2018 

for the reasons I gave...

11:58 Aug 1, 2018 

I'm now playing with the idea of Royal Messenger as they simply didn't run but had horses and some delegated power. What do you think please?

10:36 Aug 1, 2018 

stupid. Ryttar = horseman, rider (horses), and in equestrian contexts, and more. As in Ryttar-VM 2018 ( https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryttar-VM_2018 ). Seems your Swe here confuses riddare (kneckt), and other medieval ranks or positions with the term for anyone riding a horse. So I'd say your word doesn't exist in the Swe language, and can't really mean anything. And this is confirmed by my in-house consultant.

So Knight is a rank and Vassal is a position ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal ), so here, a lord, duke, and such (ranks) could be a vassal and not a knight (or they could also be a knight), but the lord's duty to the king could include providing X number of knights.

Some more reading for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism.

You need to state this more diplomatically than I have, but your writer has been totally unclear.

10:28 Aug 1, 2018 

Given the period you're talking about, knights would indeed have worn armour (when appropriate).

Also, all knights were vassals, but not all vassals were knights. Here it's specifically stating that they're "ryttare", so I think "vassal knights" (or even "knights vassal" if you want to be posh) is the right term.

10:23 Aug 1, 2018 

Knights and Vassals are ranks in feudal society - I think you've been watching too much Disney mate :-)

10:21 Aug 1, 2018 

What about "Vassals on horseback" then? I'm not sure knights is correct (shining armour and all that, which is why I probably first suggested "dignitaries".

09:21 Aug 1, 2018 

Just wondering why you're not using "vassals"?