 Ganshof's arguments connect these ties to a military-tenure relationship, however this is never represented in primary material, and instead is only implied and likely derived from an understanding of 'feudalism' in the High Middle Ages.Recent historians like Paul Fouracre have criticised Ganshof's review for being two simplistic, and in reality, even though these systems of vassalage did exist between lord and populace, they were not as standardised as older historiography has suggested.For example, Fouracre has drawn particular attention to the incentives that drew lords and warriors into the Carolingian armies, arguing that the primary draw was 'booty' and treasure gained from conquest rather than 'feudal' obligation.