The king’s power was complete enough in theory to merit being called absolute, for in him rested supreme legislative, judicial, and administrative authority over the realm as a whole. In fact the royal authority did not extend equally over all the land. On his own properties and usually in conquered regions the king was indeed an absolute monarch, but as concerned the lands of the nobles and the church there were important limitations on his authority. On their estates the nobles enjoyed rights of an economic nature and also those of a sovereign, with almost as much power in theory and in fact as the king had in theory over all the land. They raised troops at will, and fought with one another and even against the king; they had judicial authority over most of the cases arising within their lands; and they collected taxes for themselves. The protection which they owed to all on their estates was not very faithfully accorded, but on the contrary they oppressed not only their own dependents but also those of other lords,--a practice which was a fruitful cause of private war. The nobles, too, were veritable highwaymen, robbing travellers, business men, and pilgrims, and contributing more than any other class to the lawlessness of the times. Bishops and abbots occupied a position similar to that of the great nobles. The church had acquired estates through gifts of individuals and grants of the king, and the same rights and duties attached to them as in the case of the nobles. Thus, for example, great churchmen raised troops, which at times they commanded themselves. The royal power was still further limited in fact, because of the necessity of relying upon nobles or churchmen to govern distant lands or to hold other posts of an administrative and even of a judicial nature. The rulers of administrative districts were the counts (_condes_) appointed by the king, and these individuals often gave him considerable trouble,--as witness the uprisings (at length successful) of the counts of Castile. The very necessities of civil strife obliged the kings to yield privileges to one set of nobles in order to get their aid against another. Nevertheless, great as was the nobles’ authority, it was not so excessive as elsewhere in western Europe. Feudalism, the essence of which was the grant of lands in perpetuity with rights of sovereignty attached, in return for which the grantee owed fealty and some form of service, perhaps military, to the grantor, did not exist in its fullness in northwestern Spain. By special grants the king might agree to refrain from exercising his sovereign privileges, but in such cases certain limitations were usually expressed. When judicial authority was conferred on a noble, some attributes were retained,--for example, the trial of crimes of murder and the right of appeal to the royal authority from the cases in seigniorial courts. Again, when the lords made laws for their territories they did so by special grant of the king, who frequently intervened to change the seigniorial statutes or to enact others of his own. The difference from European feudalism, however, was perhaps more juridical than actual.