This proved to be the zenith of the empire. Charlemagne reign is also referred to as the Carolingian Renaissance because of his patronage of learning, commissioning translations and copies of texts from Greece and Rome. Regarding himself as successor to the Roman emperors, he wanted to preserve as much of the Roman heritage as he could. Emulating Roman order and establishing political unity, he did much to create an enduring notion of Europe as a common home across national boundaries. He is often credited with laying the foundations of modern Europe. However, he failed to establish rules for passing the crown on to his heirs. The old Frankish custom of subdividing the kingdom led to Charlemagnes sons competing for supremacy, each ruling a portion of the empire although in theory is remained united. Civil was marked the rest of the empires days until Charlemagnes grandson, Charles the Fat died in 888. The subdivision that followed his death ended any illusion of continued unity, although the title of Holy Roman Emperor was sustained, initially for the Italian branch.
The main reason for the empires collapse into numerous kinglets was competition for succession. However, there were some problems associated with internal cohesion that exacerbated this situation. The basic organization was counties, with counts appointed by the emperor, who chose local nobles who were tasked wit dispensing justice and collecting taxes. Centrally employed officials, one clerical, one lay. They traveled the regions in the emperors name performing a supervisory function. This led to conflict with the Counts, who saw these officials as threat to their interests. The administrative system worked well enough under Charlemagne. It balanced local interests, represented by the Counts with the centers interests policed by the traveling officials. They were the face of the kings public authority. However, when disputes arose between rival members of the dynasty, the Counts took sides, even encouraging competition. They hoped that their candidate would win and reward them.
Disunity was mainly due to the counts ambitions and later of the dukes who asserted more and more personal authority, usurping the kings prerogatives. The Carolingians attempted to control use of arms, for example but this was increasingly impossible given the power of nobles and the kings own dependence on their military support. Where the Carolingians failed was that they were unable to achieve a better balance between the centers authority and the Counts and allowed themselves to be pushed into fruitless territorial expansion that benefited the Counts more than the center. The counts also benefited from territorial expansion and pressured the kings to continue this so that they could gain booty and battle honors. Counts who thought themselves passed over or neglected sometimes rebelled or formed dissident circles. All this contributed to internal strife, speeding the break-up process that splintered the empire and ended he dynasty. The heirs were too busy fighting each other to deal with the clash of interests that undermined their own authority with Counts claiming rights of their own. When the empire collapses, several counties had become semi-independent Duchies, such as those of Saxony and Lorriane.
The great achievement of the Carolingians was establishing the notion of the King as a divinely anointed ruler, whose authority derived primarily than from his coronation and the Churches sanction. Pippin may have felt that lack of royal blood required some legitimization and it was his coronation by Pope Adrian that supplied this, invoking Biblical notions of Davids anointment. A king might seize or claim the throne but only the church could anoint his rule. Adrians success re-anointed Pippin and his sons and also declared that only an heir of Pippin could be chosen king, thus establishing the dynastys claim to perpetual royalty, solving the problem of ancestry. The symbol of office, a crown representing spiritual and temporal authority, also signified the patriarchal aspect of kingship. The king was a patriarch, ruling his household, the kingdom and even the church, appointing bishops and other officials. Patrimony worked from top to bottom.
One difference between the Merovingian kings and the Carolingians was that the former tended to promote people as counts to gain their loyalty, rather than appointing local magnates as counts. The Carolingian aim was to discourage revolt by appointing those who were already locally established as leaders. The Merovingian practice allowed for more flexibility and rewarding merit. There was some movement from the bottom up. The Carolingians strengthened the aristocracy and ideas of power and authority as family possessions. This allowed the wealthier counts to usurp central authority by raising their own status. The Carolingians developed a more unitary legal system, while the Merovingians allowed local variations. By claiming to succeed the Romans, the Carolingians adopted a grander vision of kingship and also of the life of the empire as a community knit together by common values, with the emperor at the top, supported by the counts whose own authority derived from his patronage. Theoretically, authority was vested in a single person and others acted on his behalf. This system of patronage was perhaps never fully accepted by the counts, who though that they had authority of their own at the local level. However, they benefited from royal patrimony too and accepted the dynastys claims, which they never attempted to overthrow as such although they did switch loyalties to different members, pursuing self-interest. Successor dynasties in France continued the notion of kings rights and patriarchy as a top down system of authority, with each layer demanding loyalty and compliance from below. Ultimately, this led to absolute kingly power, discouraging the development of more shared governance. Were the Carolingians better rulers than their predecessors Issues of succession plagued both but the former did more to establish a recognizable state system that, eventually, became the country of France.
How did the pattern of political and cultural development in Anglo-Saxon England differ from that of the Continent What were the main stages in the evolution of England up to 1066 What were the roles of the Vikings in the shaping of the English nation Compare and contrast Alfred the Great with Charlemagne.
The main difference between the political and cultural development in England prior to the Norman invasion of 1066 and the Continent was that there was much less centralization. In Anglo-Saxon feudalism, barons were landlords with serfs bound to them, laboring on the land. They exercised considerably autonomy but were not obliged, unless contracted, to fight for the king, whose authority was limited. Lesser knights could choose their lord. There was little centralization, no common taxation system. Barons saw the king as a senior baron, rather than as automatically their superior. They had a say in confirming the succession. There was less of a desire to unify the small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms until this became pragmatic in the face of constant Viking raids. The eventual unification of England into a single kingdom was largely a reaction to the threat of Scandinavian domination, although with the exception of Canute, the Vikings came, raided and usually went away.
Alfred the Great, who ruled Wessex 971 to 901 C.E. came to power in the context of driving out the Danes. Like Charlemagne, he saw himself as a Christian king and lawgiver, consolidating the legal system. Like Charlemagne, he established the foundations of what became a unified kingdom, eventually a worldwide empire. Some suggest that what Charlemagne did for France and arguably for Europe, Alfred did for the off shore island, Great Britain. Like Charlemagne, he patronized learning and may have wanted to restore the Roman heritage. Alfred visited the Pope in Rome, where he was invested as a Consul and possible crowned as well. This might have taken him closer to the Carolingian idea of the patriarchal king. However, Alfred and his successors saw themselves as servants and peacemakers, not as conquerors. Edgar (959975) took a coronation vow to serve the people, an idea that that differed radically from the right of kings dogma of the Continent. Known as the peaceful he is said to have ruled like a good shepherd. In Anglo-Saxon England, the emphasis was on the covenant between King and people, as a partnership, not a top down imperial system. When Canute decided to stay, he married the previous kings widow but chose to rule as a Saxon king, observing local traditions. He also arranged a coronation stressing responsibility to uphold justice, not his personal power. This distinctive recognition of the peoples right to justice, of justice as above the king, not his possession, represented the Anglo-Saxon view of kingly power. After the Norman Conquest, this reasserted itself in the early development of parliament as a check on kingly power, involving commoners as well as nobles in asserting a right to share governance.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment