Modern discussions of feudalism have been bedevilled by disagreement over the definition of that term. There are three main competing conceptualizations. (1) Feudalism refers strictly to those social institutions which create and regulate a quite specific form of legal relationships between men. It constitutes a relationship in which a freeman (vassal) assumes an obligation to obey and to provide, primarily military, services to an overload, who, in turn, assumes a reciprocal obligation to provide protection and maintenance, typically in the form of a fief, a landed estate to be held by the vassal on condition of fulfilment of obligations (Bloch, 1939–40). (2) Feudalism refers, more broadly, to a form of government or political domination. It is a form of rule in which political power is profoundly fragmented geographically; in which, even within the smallest political units, no single ruler has a monopoly of political authority; and in which political power is privately held, and can thus be inherited, divided among heirs, given as a marriage portion, mortgaged, and bought and sold. Finally, the armed forces involve, as a key element, a heavy armed cavalry which is secured through private contracts, whereby military service is exchanged for benefits of some kind (Strayer, 1965; Ganshof, 1947). (3) Feudalism refers to a type of socio-economic organization of society as a whole, a mode of production and of the reproduction of social classes. It is defined in terms of the social relationships by which its two fundamental social classes constitute and maintain themselves. Specifically, the peasants, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the producing population, maintain themselves by virtue of their possession of their full means of subsistence, land and tools, so require no productive contribution by the lords to survive.