The Political and Economic Order in the High Middle Ages: Kingdoms, Regions and Cities.

The Problem: Though the constraints posed by fragmentation, the privatization of public power ("spear won land") and the nature of medieval "warfare" were considerable, some "states" began to emerge in the 11th and 12 centuries especially in France and England. In this section we look at the experience of several regions.

  1. Factors in the growth of national states (assuming such development is natural). In this period the process involves redefining loyalty. Slowly allegiance shifts from the PERSON of the king (through oaths) to the CROWN as the embodiment of national identity.
    1. A decline in the level of instability of life a.k.a violence.
      1. Role of the church and the truce of God (last lecture) in reducing private wars; and the demands of vassals to minimize their feudal obligations (note the response of the vassals of HRE Henry in his conflict with Pope Gregory VII).
      2. Export of violence through the crusades (next lecture) and the concern of kings to establish justice and peace [DWP Ch 6, doc 6] in their kingdoms. But compare.
    2. Slow development of an institutionalized and secular apparatus for governing. States adopted and improved administrative techniques developed by the church, and profiled themselves in opposition to the church. Specifically:
      1. introduction of primogeniture...the king no longer able to treat his kingdom as personal property, cannot dispose of it as he wishes, but must ensure the continuity of the state.
      2. foundation of universities (more educated bureaucrats) and not be dependent on the Church to supply educated administrators,
      3. the revival of Roman law [DWP Ch 7, docc 7 and 8] played a critical role as an alternative to dependence on the church [and canon law], enforceable nowhere it [Roman Law] ruled not for the reason of the Empire, but for the Empire of reason. Next lecture...
        1. On ordeal. Note its use in DWP, Ch 6, doc. 6. 
        2. Salic law: How does it compare to Roman law?  To trial by ordeal? Note that there are no principles of justice or equity expressed in Salic law (cf. the end of the lecture on Roman law).
        3. Roman law: largely lost until one copy of the Digest was brought back from the 4th Crusade.  The kings adopted Roman law as a device to support their own authority (princeps super legibus) and because they needed a legal system that could support the expansion of trade and the growth of cities. The Germanic tradition provided no assistance.
    3. Slow improvement in standards of life: revival of trade, commerce, cities especially after AD 1100. Evidence seen esp in DWP Ch. 9. Population growth. Discussed more fully in next lecture.
  2. Holy Roman Empire (incorporating Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Northern Italy): an attempt to create an organization that could meet external threats and provide for domestic peace. By 1400 the HRE had had failed for several reasons
    1. Fascination with Italian part of the empire constantly undermined resources needed elsewhere; to hold Italy meant sacrificing [aka, selling off] the feudal resources of the emperor in the German-speaking areas, his power base. Cities and principalities both in Italy and in Germany gained more rights, but the "rights" contributed to the institutionalization of fragmentation. Neither Italy nor Germany will be unified until the 1870s.
    2. Exclusion of lower magnates [aka 'electors' = Fürst] from imperial election [DWP Ch6, doc.8] process (reduced from 26 to 7) => alienation of others. That is the HRE become less "inclusive", and less able to act decisively.
    3. Rise of independent Italian city-states (principalities and republics) encouraged and supported
      1. by pope for political reasons in the conflict with the HRE
      2. wealth based on commerce (increase in trade in the Mediterranean area) competes very effectively the traditional feudal wealth based on land. The city of Florence (with100,000) could support an army the size of that of England. The real test ultimately is that wealth allowed one to hire mercenaries, and wealth based on commerce was more flexible than wealth based on land.
  3. England: despite the Norman (French) conquest, by 1350 a national identity had been established --no minor achievement given the divisions of 1066. Factors
    1. Normans and Saxons achieved an accommodation, whereby those Saxon nobles who submitted to William of Normany retained most of their property [DWP Doc 6, 1].
    2. Interest in Roman law and, by implication, in the centralized Roman system of government; Rome provided a model for unification of a divided society (Saxon and Norman). See next lecture on this theme.
    3. By 1100 the great barons had won hereditary title to fiefs; lesser nobles wanted the same advantage; commoners and the cities wanted rights and justice. King sided with the lesser nobility, the cities and commoners and used those alliances as a weapon against the great barons.
      1. In particular, the crown gained power through the royal courts: they were cheaper and provided greater equity because the king was typically not a party to the dispute.
        Know ye that I [Henry, the king] have granted to my citizens of London, so that those citizens may choose any sheriff they wish from themselves and any judge they wish from themselves to take care of pleas of my crown and to decide them; and let no other judge be over these men of London.
      2. Crown as guarantor of peace. [DWP Ch6, doc 6] against the threat of private warfare and brigandage.
    4. By allowing cash payment for military service and collecting a tax on wool exported to cloth making Flanders (next lecture), the king acquired ever greater financial resources. See also DWP Ch 9, Docc 3-5; 14-15. Resources that could be used to hire soldiers without having to provide them with a fief.
    5. Introduction of primogeniture kept the kingdom together.
  4. France: centralization runs a somewhat different course; succeeds, but even at the end of the course [1350] private warfare still possible.
    1. Primogeniture. Required for political stability.
    2. Survival of Carolingian notion that defense of the fatherland required service of everyone; those who did not serve paid a tax. Basis of national identity.  Capitulary of Lestinnes "Because of the threats of war and the attacks of certain tribes on our borders, we [the king] have determined, with the consent of God and by the advice of our clergy and people, to appropriate for a time part of our ecclesiastical property for the support of our army."
    3. Monarchy = the Crown viewed as the fountain from which liberty flowed; kings won popular support by giving rights to churches and communities that were not in their jurisdiction [e.g., the charter of Ipswitch quoted above].
    4. Worked with the Church to forbid private warfare.
    5. Assumes the towns are growing in wealth and ambition; demanded rights and justice. The Crown (not the individual king) could offer a more disinterested justice because the Crown was typically not immediately involved
  5. In sum: the kings of France and England gained power/authority by
    1. working with the Church to reduce violence and private wars;
    2. selling feudal obligations to individuals and communities, and generating cash income (aka taxes) used to hire knights; create a national army,
    3. developing secular institutions for administring their territories effectively and efficiently. In France and England, the Crown was associated with the guarantee of civic rights and prosperity.
      1. offering a higher standard of justice at a low cost,
      2. by granting rights and privileges to communities and individuals
      3. by supporting the development of institutions (e.g., universities, centers of administration) that had previously been controlled by the church.
      4. re-introduction of Roman law at least as a model.
    4. and by accepting primogeniture and appealing to a new national identity [aka: the Crown], they reversed the trend toward fragmentation and privatization.

Assize of Clarendon (in DWP ch6, doc 6)

Here begins the Assize of Clarendon, made by King Henry II, with the assent of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and barons of all England.

1. In the first place, the aforesaid King Henry, with the consent of all his barons, for the preservation of the peace and the keeping of justice, has enacted that inquiry should be made through the several counties and through the several hundreds, by twelve of the most legal men of the hundred and by four of the most legal men of each manor, upon their oath that they will tell the truth, whether there is in their hundred or in their manor, any man who has been accused or publicly suspected of himself being a robber, or murderer, or thief, or of being a receiver of robbers, or murderers, or thieves, since the lord king has been king. And let the justices make this inquiry before themselves, and the sheriffs before themselves.

And let anyone who has been found by the oath of the aforesaid to have been accused or publicly suspected of having been a robber, or murderer, or thief, or a receiver of them, since the lord king has been king, be arrested and go to the ordeal of water and let him swear that he has not been a robber, or murderer, or thief, or receiver of them since the lord king has been king, to the value of five shillings, so far as he knows. ..