Differing Courses of Political Development in Medieval France, Germany, and Italy

¶ … Paths

The Differing Courses of Political Development in Medieval France, Germany, and Italy

The European Middle Ages spans a vast amount of time - from the fall of the Roman Empire in the Fifth Century, to the gradual disappearance of the feudal world in the Fifteenth Century. Extensive in terms of both time, and place, the typical medieval culture embraced much of Europe. Feudalism with its lords and vassals; its castles and knights; serfs and clerics appeared, at first sight, a universal and unchanging order. The hierarchies of Heaven were imposed on the less-than-perfect peoples of the Earth. Yet, for all that the nations of Europe shared there existed also a bewildering number of local variations on the same feudal theme. For feudalism, while essentially a system of mutual obligations was, as well, a system in which government was decentralized. Ancient Rome had ruled over a great empire; a single state under a single emperor, and a single set of laws. Medieval Europe instead, was a patchwork of small jurisdictions. Though a number of large states emerged, the powers of their rulers varied considerably. Two of the largest of these states (in terms of territory) were the Kingdom of France, and the Holy Roman Empire - a multiethnic state with German rulers that embraced not only Germany and Austria, but also Italy and the Low Countries, as well as parts of what is now France. In France, and in the lands that made up the Holy Roman Empire, political development followed an up and down course throughout the Middle Ages. France, Germany, and Italy each tackled the problems of political order in its own way.

The story of all three nations begins at single point - with the reign of Charlemagne who, in 800 was crowned by the Pope as the first Emperor of the West since the fall of Rome in 476. Charlemagne's empire included modern France and Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Northern Italy (and also a small part of Spain). A very real attempt at imposing a single government, and a single system of laws, on the European Continent, the Empire of Charlemagne did not long outlast him. Though his brief hegemony managed to reestablish the importance of Roman Law and custom to the development pf political institutions, his "universal" state was soon divided among various heirs. France re-emerged as a distinct kingdom, and by the Tenth Century the idea of a "universal" Christian Empire had been revived in the person of Otto, the German ruler who was installed as the first Holy Roman Emperor. In its early stages, this new Holy Roman Empire included virtually all of the former territory of Charlemagne that had not become part of the Kingdom of France. But this apparent unity was soon to change... France quickly became disunited except in name, and Germany and Italy were soon to follow.

The political development of Medieval France was the story of the gradual substitution of a centralized government for a chaotic collection of semi-independent, and nearly independent, feudal territories. Following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, France broke up into an assortment of duchies, counties, and viscounties. The ruler of each of these fiefs owed allegiance to the King of France, but in reality, was often virtually an independent ruler, and frequently, even a rival to the King. The problem of overly powerful local lords was to plague France throughout the entire medieval period. In addition to Burgundy, and other pieces of the Holy Roman Empire that were drawn into the French orbit, the Kings of England became leading players in the battle for control of the French-speaking world. William the Conqueror was Duke of Normandy - and a vassal of the French King - when he invaded and conquered England in 1066. William's seizure of the English throne created an interesting situation: the Kings of one nation were also the feudal subordinates of the kings of another nation, in this case, France. Over time, and largely as the result of judicious marriages, England's kings came to rule over huge sections of France. They became embroiled in the French king's battles to extend his hegemony, and to ensure obedience to his rule. For much of the High Middle Ages, France was locked in a series of deadly conflicts between the Crown at Paris, and the many powerful feudatories (including the King of England). Around the year 1000, the effective rule of the French kings had been reduced to the small territory of the Royal Domain - the area around Paris. The territory under the rule of the kings of France expanded and contracted according to the fortunes of war.

Meanwhile, the government of these territories remained divided. Different systems of law and justice prevailed in the North and the South of the country. Northern law was based primarily on Germanic custom, while in the South, Roman law was most important. The French kings increasingly tried to bring some order out of this chaos. They served as the ultimate arbiters of all law, whether through their own personal decisions or through the parlements and assemblies that grew up in response to the fragmented conditions. Taxation too, varied widely throughout France. The Gabelle, a tax on salt, was paid at different rates, and in different amounts, in different provinces of the country. The Estates General - an assembly of all the three estates of the realm - attempted to regulate royal power and to protect, and if possible advance, the rights of each class. The growth of the bourgeoisie, especially their great increase in wealth as conditions became more settled, and greater trade became possible, strongly influenced the Estates General. This Third Estate became the primary source of additional revenue, and so, by controlling the king's purse strings, was able to exert a strong influence over royal decisions. Yet in France, the restoration of unity and order was not to mean the establishment of a government by freely elected institutions. Rather, the extension of royal territorial control was coupled with an upsurge in real political power. Ultimately, this was even cemented financially, by the crown's acquisition of a perpetual right to levy the important tax called the Taille. Thus by the end of the period, France had become an absolute monarchy, and as a nation, was moving more and more toward centrality and unity.

On the other hand, Germany's political development took the opposite course to that of France. The Holy Roman Empire began as a reasonably unified entity under Otto; its powers and extent increasing under the Hohenstaufens. Unlike in France, the German monarchy was not hereditary. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected by an assortment of great magnates, both lay and ecclesiastical. A strong emperor could ensure that his own son succeeded him, and that the throne remained in the hands of the same dynasty. Still, it was a difficult task. A ruler needed to ensure a loyal government. It was in the nature of the feudal system that individual lords would desire to increase their own territories and powers, and to pass on these gains to their heirs. A political or administrative office - if it became too closely associated with a single family (or even a single, powerful individual) - could easily become hereditary in that family. In order to avoid this situation, the Holy Roman Emperors turned, more and more, to the Church for their administrators. Bishops, archbishops, and abbots frequently served as counselors to the Emperors, and were awarded feudal territories as well. It was in this way that many of the later German States came to be ruled by prelates, thus creating a dichotomy in the Empire between ecclesiastical territories and rulers, and lay territories and rulers.

During the time of Frederick I and Fredrick II, the powers of the emperor seemed to increase. but, as the emperor sought to augment his own power, he came into direct conflict with the Church. The period of greatest Imperial power was also the period of greatest papal authority and influence. The battle between the two became so intense that Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the Emperor Henry IV. In a show of the primacy of papal power - and of the inability of the emperors to govern without the Church - Henry IV was forced to travel to Canossa and, kneeling in the snow, beg forgiveness from Gregory VII. Though emperors like Frederick I and Frederick II remained very powerful, the pattern had been set, and especially after Frederick II, power began to shift away from the center. The waning of imperial power witnessed the further breakdown of order in the German world. Local princes and prelates became ever more independent of the central authority. During the course of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, local rulers won the right to perform many (if not most) of the functions of true sovereignty. These local rulers convened their own courts of law, coined money, made war and peace, and named clerics to their posts. The Golden Bull of 1356 fixed the number and identity of the electors. And while the Empire finally received an orderly method of choosing its sovereigns, the power of these sovereigns had largely passed from the center to the periphery. The old empire existed in name only.

Italy too is part of the story of the German rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. The part of Italy north of the Papal States was an actual part of the Holy Roman Empire, while Sicily, in the extreme south, was at times under the rule of the Emperors. In particular, Frederick II was famed for the glorious, and learned, court he maintained in Sicily. Italy was very strongly affected by political developments North of the Alps. The same divisions between Church and State that plagued the rest of the Empire were prominent in the Italians city states as well. For Italy, like Germany, was divided into many different parts. However, unlike its neighbor to the North, Italy's different political entities were base primarily on the numerous cities that were to be found on the peninsula. Never quite snuffed out after the fall of Rome, Italy's cities gradually came into their own again as they engaged in a vigorous trade and commerce with the Mediterranean World and Northern Europe. Home to merchants and tradesmen, the Italian cities jealously defended their independence against marauding warrior bands, and rural lords. Groups of urban businessmen formed the communes that governed the city as an independent state. The cities fought with each other; the winners claiming surrounding villages and towns... And sometimes their rival cities too. Italy's cities were essentially oligarchies - their communes composed (especially as time went on) of the wealthiest citizens of each locality. Democratic to an extent, the limitations imposed by wealth effectively kept out the lower classes. The battle for supremacy that was so often ignited by these arrangements was therefore one that was waged between the wealthiest and most enterprising of these urban families.