www.historyisnowmagazine.com
How did Medieval European Kings Differ from later Monarchs and Roman Emperors?
Many modern history buffs associate the function of Medieval Kings with monarchs of the later Renaissance period, or the pagan Roman Emperors that preceded them. However, during the "early" and "high" Middle Ages kings ruled in very different ways from those other monarchs. The Middle Ages provided a unique form of politics enabling self-government and liberty at a level that surpassed every other system of governance, including democracy.Jeb Smith explains.
Henry I of England, who ruled from 1100-1135. From the illuminated Chronicle of Matthew Paris.
In my book, Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK), I seek to correct many of the common misunderstandings Americans – and indeed others - have regarding the political systems of the Middle Ages. Many believe kings had absolute power (something even the monarchs of later centuries never achieved) and made law as they wished. They were the law! Anything they desired or declared became law. This is much more in line with certain modern dictatorships, but it does not align with Medieval Europe; quite the opposite.For example, the Medieval king was under the law, and his limited, specified authority was derived from it. He could not violate the law or customs of the people in any manner or create new laws for his advantage. Instead, he was given a duty to perform by the people for their benefit. He existed to serve them, not the other way around. In fact, there were often no professional legislative bodies to adjust the law at all! Unlike in democracies ruled by politicians, the law was conservative, maintained over hundreds of years untouched by rulers, and devoid of any mechanism to adapt, add to, or take away from it. It belonged to the people, not to those in power who were meant to serve them. Part of the peopleFurther, the king was not elevated above his people but was one of them. He was the "king of the Anglo-Saxons" or the "king of the Franks," not a monarch who has authority over subjects within his geographical realm like the Roman emperors of old, the monarchs of later ages, or the politicians of today. Thus, kingdoms came and went, and borders were loosely defined since the law followed the people, not the king, who was replaced at death by another servant who must uphold the people's customs.The law allowed the king only a minimal influence on affairs. Politicians, unelected bureaucrats, and capitalists have significantly more power and control over your lives than a medieval king over a peasant. The king had no authority (nor did anyone, for that matter) to legislate new laws or manipulate his people's economy, politics, and rights. There was no legislation! The law was practiced and enshrined over many generations, and it was the king's duty to protect and uphold it. If he did not, if he attempted to violate it, expand his powers, or enact new laws, it was the obligation of everyone in the realm, from priest to prince to peasant, to stand up and resist him, overthrow him, to reestablish justice and the supremacy of the law.The most powerful political position in a society was never weaker than that of the feudal kings of Europe. Frequently, a king’s authority amounted to control (again within the limitation imposed by law that predated his birth) of his family lands. He was often a symbolic king only. Some of his vassals openly ignored him, failed to take an oath of allegiance, or resisted him. Other great lords within his “realm” were more powerful than he was and could muster a stronger force than the king. Most of what was considered his realm was ruled by various dukes, lords, knights, monasteries, churches, etc. The Middle Ages were extraordinarily decentralized. For example, in 800 A.D., Ireland was made up of perhaps 150 separate kingdoms, and by 1200 A.D., there were 200 autonomous city-states in Northern Italy. The kings ruled only minor sections and often had difficulty controlling even those areas. WarfareLikewise, the king lacked infrastructure and the ability to tax his people heavily; the level of taxation was minuscule compared to today. He lacked the Roman Emperors’ and modern states' ability to maintain standing professional armies. This made military operations smaller-scale and less devastating than modern or ancient warfare, which regularly drafted conscripts and was supported by national taxes.I am unsure of any better anti-war policy than to start having our politicians fund their own wars out-of-pocket and lead their armies to the front lines for the conflict. Then, have those who vote for them make up their armies rather than drafting conscripts. It will not take long for diplomacy to start working more efficiently. People are much more likely to engage in war when they spend other people’s money, and send others to die for their personal gain.However, kings led their loyal, oath-bound followers and friends into war during the Middle Ages, making each loss mean something. Conscripts do not have personal relationships with their politicians and presidents; feudal warfare meant everyone was valuable, and so they tried not to lose men in war and not carelessly sacrifice them. In Roman times professional soldiers, mercenaries, slaves, urban warriors, prisoners, criminals, and the landless masses made up the bulk of the armies. By contrast, having extra time to train and advancements in equipment, the rural aristocratic Christian lord became a knight and dominated the battlefield, replacing the brutality of an earlier age with much less sanguinary and more modest warfare. Lords needed fewer soldiers because aristocrats could afford the time to train and to upkeep expertly crafted armor, and their horses could dominate multiple hired soldiers. The treatment of soldiers drastically improved because the warriors were valuable. They were loved and loyal, oath-bound, personally known vassals of a lord, not conscripted masses sent to be slaughtered. The lords would not easily sacrifice those they loved but instead dealt carefully with them; further, because they were valued, they were worth more alive when captured.When conducted by faithful oath-bound followers of the lord rather than draftees and conscripts, war became detached from the rest of society. The warfare between noble and royal houses and oath-bound vassals often left the rest of the population unaffected. Medieval wars were not nations at war where production and the population at large were engaged in conflict. Instead, the lord's followers and the money he gained from his lands sustained the wars; thus, they were much smaller and less lethal. The aims were smaller, and so were the costs. Because the lord paid for the war and valued his loyal vassals, who were not easily replaced, battles often resulted in few deaths. Casualties for an entire war were usually only a few hundred. Some battles could feature just a dozen or so knights. From King to MonarchIn my book, I argue that the Middle Ages passed away during the 14th century. Many factors contributed to its demise. The great plague, the rise of merchants, trade, towns, cities, money economies, the loss of power of the Church and the Pope due to schisms, and the centralization of secular powers all played a part. However, the most impactful force during the transformative 14th century was the widespread return of Roman law. As secular Roman law returned, kings slowly transformed into monarchs, rulers above their people, able to legislate new law, rulers over geographical areas, and they began to tax more widely and heavily. They were imposing new restrictions and obligations on vassals and peasants. The ancient political systems under Rome, which ruled its subjects by force and cohesion, returned. Government was no longer viewed as to benefit man, but man to benefit the ruling elite. The situation only worsened during the 17th century as the Protestant “divine right of kings” was instituted, and later, under democracy, when the modern nationalist blind obedience to the state reared its ugly head. Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UKYou can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
