How European Kings Defeated their Nobles - Medieval History DOCUMENTARY
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Thanks to Kingdom Maker for sponsoring - Download Kingdom Maker on iOS & Android and start ruling today: pixly.go2cloud...
Kings and Generals animated historical documentary series on medieval history and history of Europe continues with the video on how centralization of various Western European kingdoms took place and how the kings defeated the nobles kickstarting the evolution from feudal kingdoms to nation-states
Medieval Battles: • Medieval Battles
Hansa - Northern Silk Road: • Hansa - Northern Silk ...
Why and How Feudalism Declined in Europe: • Why and How Feudalism ...
Roman History: • Roman History
Fugger - Banker Who Brought the Habsburgs to Power: • Fugger - Banker Who Br...
Oldest Businessmen in History: • Oldest Businessmen in ...
Roman-Indo-Parthian Trade: • Roman-Indo-Parthian Trade
Roman Trade with Africa: • Roman Trade with Afric...
How Roman trade with India made the Empire rich: • How Roman trade with I...
Why Was Egypt Crucial for the Roman Empire?: • Why Was Egypt Crucial ...
Roman-Chinese Relations and Contacts: • Roman-Chinese Relation...
How Medieval Cities Defended Themselves: • How Medieval Cities De...
Hundred Years War: • Battle of Crecy 1346 -...
First Crusade: • First Crusade: Battle ...
Third Crusade: • Third Crusade 1189-119...
Fourth Crusade: • Rise of Bulgaria - Eve...
Support us on Patreon: / kingsandgenerals or Paypal: paypal.me/kings... or by joining the youtube membership: / @kingsandgenerals
We are grateful to our patrons and sponsors, who made this video possible: docs.google.co...
The video was made by Michael Merc bit.ly/340tcO2 while the script was researched and written by Johan Melhus. Illustrations - Vadym Berkutenko j_blackwood.artstation.com/
✔ Merch store ► teespring.com/...
✔ Patreon ► / kingsandgenerals
✔ Podcast ► www.kingsandgen...
✔ PayPal ► paypal.me/kings...
✔ Twitter ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Facebook ► / kingsgenerals
✔ Instagram ► / kings_generals
Production Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound: www.epidemicsou...
#Documentary #Feudalism #Medieval
Download Kingdom Maker on iOS & Android and start ruling today: pixly.go2cloud.org/SH3EI
Can you do a video about the songhai empire or the ethiopian one?
Please continue the series on crime syndicates
Make a video about the history of the Russian mafia and then the Mexican cartel
Not available in my country..
Please make videos on India Pakistan war.
that Plantagenet Dynasty is when everything changed for us Insurgency / usurped
leading to trouble in UK until they stamped out or replaced all the faithful followers of the Old rule
i am starting to think this is All about controlling the Silk road and being done through Insurgency to consolidate power
If only the european monarchs knew to just spec into the intrigue branch and maximize on dread so your vassals wont form factions against you.
Lol if it was ck3 that’s what I would do
Is that what intrigue is for? I level intrigue to stab any sucker unlucky enough to still have confederate partition laws.
Or go diplomat and get the skill that increases opinion gain on gift and just send gifts to everyone.
lol!
@@ziggytheassassin5835 Nah, Martial is the most fun path
As a 15th century noble myself, I'm happy to see our repression finally being covered.
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needed for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
@@huuduyvu9714
You've obviously studied quite a bit. Thank you for the quick lesson senpai
@@neganrex5693 i agree with you. the mongol horse archers used hit and run tactics to a great degree draining their foes and as far as the technological advancement goes gun powder wasn't that reliable and was hard to produce. much of their success is directly related to their military tradition where a young kid would grow up on horse backs and practice archery.
@@neganrex5693 Mongol campaigns in Europe were of a different character than China. In both cases they were superior on the field of battle but in China they recruited large swaths of the Chinese population into their war machine.
Had the mongols integrated Germanic and Slavic populations into “their group” and pursued sustained campaigns there is no reason to think they could not have achieved similar success in toppling European kingdoms.
But I would like to see someone make a detailed comparison of European defenses vs Chinese defenses at the time of the mongol conquests.
Certainly it’s a complicated topic and an interesting one to compare mongol conquests in China vs Europe, and there is a desire to look for seeds of eventual European global political dominance that far back, but are they really there? I have doubts.
@@neganrex5693 the Mongols would never be able to go further in Europe, it was too far from their homeland and the weather / conditions were not ideal for them, so they chose to retreat and walk away
The bourgeoisie became the economic engine of many european kingdoms. Gradually, royalty started to see them as supporters instead of the nobility.
That's where they borrowed the money from
I kind of think a whole history of the western world could be written in terms of who the governments of the day owed money to.
Yes, until bourgeoisie realised that they don't need even kings and beheaded a French one
@@alphaomega938 In modern world, the Zionist bourgeoisie (different from Jewish people) are not even the top dog of the capitalist food chain: The Anglo-Saxon bourgeoisie come in first place, the Hua-Han bourgeoisie stand the second position, then the third stage is of them Zionist financial bourgeoisie. In feudal time, the Zionist bourgeoisie also didn't stand there on the pyramid of socioeconomical power order's tip. It was belong to those who own global merchant fleets, and it varied from times to times: First the Iberian Latino, second the Germanic Dutch, third the Frankish French, fourth the Anglo-Saxon until today.
@@huuduyvu9714 hmm you say zionists are the problem but the Magna Carta was against STATELESS Jews living in foreign nations. Jews living in England had more purchasing power than the English crown hence the provisions. Jews in Spain same reason
You do know Germanic Dutch is almost a colloquialism for a jew lol
The true Jew is a wanderer, and our comments are shadowbanned for no other reason than their inclusion
This is crack. More videos on the political/economic/military transformations of states during the medieval, renaissance, and early modern periods would be greatly appreciated!
I concur!
Yes these periods are often glossed over too much
I'm completely addicted
The Habsburgs expropriated most of the old nobility during the Reformation time. The fact that most of the traditional nobility turned Protestant gave them a perfect pretext. Very few old families in Austria, Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia could keep their postition and estates. Later they created a completely new nobility in their lands by promoting seasoned soldiers and civil service bureaucrats, people like Wallenstein, the Starhembergs, the Liechtensteins or the Eszterházy family. Some rumors say that even the infamous case against Erzsébet Báthory was made up, to get hold on the vast wealth of this last heir of the formerly most powerful Hungarian magnate family.
In the HRE though, they were not successful with this strategy, it only worked in the lands directly controlled by them. Therefore Germany never was centralized in any way.
1. Laws, royal courts
2. Marriage
3. Nobles
4. Standing, professional Armies
5. Church
6. Gunpowder
7. More crown Land
8. Taxation
9. Foreign ambassadors
10. Resolving issues between the ruler and the ruled
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needed for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
You ignored, The word " Stabilization"
= Kill the opposition
Sounds like an average game of EU4, especially if it came from ck2
@@huuduyvu9714 stop spamming the same comment
@@huantruonginh2946 none of your problems.
You could have spoken about Portugal,we are always quite forgotten,D.João II story in how he centralised the Portuguese realm that was practically in nobles hands after his father king Afonso V,gave them so much power to the nobles that D.João II called his father"King of the roads of Portugal",he had noble opposition in every way,and he discovered a huge noble and clergy conspiracy to assassinate him,the ringleader was his wife brother and the king cousin Duque of Aveiro that said the he would stab the king himself,when the king(that had created a spy network)discovered he summoned him and killed him with his own hands by stabbing him to death and put the rest of nobility and clergy behind bars,also he lead and austere live with few courtesan living with him to reduce spending,increased the bureaucracy and fought corruption among the noble and avoided expansionist policy to avoid to end like his father that wasted the realm treasury and king powers to have nobles support to his campaigns in North Africa and Spain with money and soldiers,instead going for the unpopular(Nobles loved war)maritime exploration and route to India.
Yeah, haven't watched the video yet, but Portugal is one of the early cases of successful Absolutism implementation. It has a really fun story. When studying the creation of Absolutism (Portugal, Spain, France) and the transition from it to the bureaucratic machine (more depicted by the German states, while Britain is a mix because the Parlament was already very powerful), it's very interesting to witness the evolution. You're right, it's a shame it always gets overlooked. Kings & Generals is very good sometimes at spotting less explored waters, but for the most part, they are very basic.
@pyropulse your whole premise is wrong, monarchs don't really end to be far better rulers than nobles or aristocrats or modern politicians. Balance of power exists for a reason.
@@NeoZeta True we are the forgotten corner of Europe😐😐😐,even thought Portugal was one of the most successful in centralising power with few hiccups,than per example Spain or France that had literally tons of noble civil wars,while Portugal had very few.
@pyropulse well I wouldn't mind returning Portugal to a monarchy,but I would hate have a Windsor like royal family,and also most people don't care and see the monarchy as a archaic system .
I'm writing a similar fictional story. Thanks for this. I'm doing more reaserch of King John the second of portugal
Nice video.
When I was younger I imagined these kingdoms to be a lot more centralized. All authority from the king, one army, the king's royal army. And everyone being in step with the king. I was very surprised to learn that these various kingdoms were anything but centralized. Armies were not the king's army, but armies raised by various lords who had their own interests. I remember being very surprised by how fractured France was before the time covered in this video.
But as this video showed, eventually these kindgoms gradually shifted to be more centralized, closer to what I imagined them to be. Even then a lot more development still had to take place. But for hundreds of years before, goodness, it was pretty darn loose.
If countries had a standing national army, Harold Godwinson would probably have beaten William the Conqueror. Part of his problem was, other than his brothers, no one was interested in fighting for him. Two Earls actually ran down after his defeat to London to be proclaimed King after, but alas they elected a 17 year-old - and no-one wanted to fight for him! Harold's army had already been hurt at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. I'm pretty sure he'd have won if England had a standing army.
Hello, Johan researcher for the video. I am going to post the sources for the video:
The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300-1500
-The new monarchies and representative assemblies; medieval constitutionalism or modern absolutism? Arthur Joseph Slavin
-Monarchy Transformed, Prince and their Elites in Early Modern Western Europe, von Friedeburg and Morrill
-The Formation of national states in western Europe, Charles Tilly
-Conquest: The English kingdom of France, Juliet Barker
-The Valois Kings of France 1328-1589, Robert J. Knecht
The video’s inspiration is the “new monarchy” theory where some monarchs transformed European countries in the 1500’s from medieval to modern states. The theory has long fallen out of favor among historians but we still look at some of the evolution states had in the period, with some broad generalizations (as it’s a long, heterogeneous period, where different countries had different evolutions, and scholars don’t always agree) with a few examples. Hope you enjoy!
Johann, nice video. I do wonder however why Ireland is marked as 'England' - English power in Ireland was practically non-existant outside of Dublin until the final break of the Gaelic Order in 1601 at the Battle of Kinsale (Ireland was similarly a seeming after-thought in the video about Celts, in which mention of the last free 'celtic' society was inexplicably ... thin).
Thanks for the info
@@theoldkitbag - Maybe they're going by the official "claim", which might explain why Denmark suddenly has the entire Scandinavian peninsula. lol
@@theoldkitbag - Maybe they're going by the official "claim", which might explain why Denmark suddenly has the entire Scandinavian peninsula. lol
Don't get me wrong I absolutely love your videos, been watching for several years now. However, can you please finish a series before starting new projects? I have been waiting for the conclusion to he 2nd triumvirate and Alexander's for months now. They were a fortnightly treat! Thanks.
Didn't they just release a video on the post-Caesar civil wars? Also, I don't think this is a start of a new series
@@dominicguye8058 Last one on 2nd triumvirate was over a month ago. I said "Projects", as in standalones, not "series" bud.
Great video. Fun tidbit: Provincial courts are still called "Audiencias" in Spain, and there is also the "Audiencia Nacional", which is a court that deals with cases of terrorism and those kind of things (as well as people making jokes about Carrero Blanco's death in 1973).
What kind of jokes?
@@samiamrg7 Let's just say that he was killed when terrorist put a bomb under his car, but they put too much explosive, so they sent the car flying and he became a meme.
@@samiamrg7 Spain was the third country to send a man in space. :P
One of the most interesting case study of governmental evolution in Western Europe has to be the development of England and France. Two nations (which were both former Roman provinces, subsequently conquered by Germanic invasions, and then another sort of governmental reunion with the Franco-Norman conquest) grew in time to be the polar opposite of each other with the English pseudo-republican monarchy in contrast to the absolute monarchy in France.
Perhaps this is why I find Mr. DeLolme's book (On the Constitution of England, 1771) to be so interesting and engaging in this matter. The central argument centers around these questions: Why did England and France diverge, and more importantly how can this trend be applied to any European government? Why did Sweden, though having the next most liberalist form of government after England fail to achieve the same liberties as England? Why was England able to revive its liberal constitution despite being introduced and enacted the same restrictive feudal laws as in France under the Norman conquest? Why was France able to achieve absolute monarchy despite the ruling class coming from a Germanic origin whose custom had always been to hold elective government (see the continued tradition under the Holy Roman Empire)? What did divine right and the sacred person of the king truly signify? And lastly, how does this comparison apply to countries outside of France and England in antiquity and modernity?
Such a book whose influence on English governmental theory during the Enlightenment Era ranked only behind that of David Hume's has regrettably fallen into obscurity. His work has been cited in the Federalist Papers (#70) as the model for the executive branch, included in Thomas Jefferson's reading list (8/30/1814), praised as "the best defense of the political balance of three powers that was ever written" by President John Adams (which then inspired his later magnum opus, The Defense of the US Constitution, 1787), by Jeremy Bentham "it is to a foreigner we were destined to owe the best idea that has yet been given of a subject so much our own. Our author [Blackstone] has copied; but Monsieur DeLolme has thought" (Fragment on Government, 1776), and more recently as the "English Montesquieu" by Issac Disraeli (1812).
It introduces a "novel" perspective to those who are used to analyze simply through political marriages, economic development, and other forms of dramatic/romantic intrigues. DeLolme himself puts it best: "As the Mathematician, the better to discover the proportions he investigates, begins with freeing his equation from coefficients, or such other quantities as only perplex without properly constituting it,-so it may be advantageous to the inquirer after the causes that produce the equilibrium of a government, to have previously studied them, disengaged from the apparatus of fleets, armies, foreign trade, distant and extensive dominions, in a word from all those brilliant circumstances which so greatly affect the external appearance of a powerful Society, but have no essential connection with the real principles of it." "In general, the Science of Politics, considered as an exact Science [with history as empirical evidence], that is to say, as a Science capable of actual demonstration, is in- finitely deeper than the reader so much perhaps as suspects."
His work still remains invaluable to any scholar willingly to study upon this subject, and I highly encourage it. His Political Science marks a shift from philosophical metaphysics to a more grounded reality.
"Instead of looking for the principles of Politics in their true sources, that is to say, in the nature of the affections of Mankind, and of those secret ties by which they are united together in a state of Society, Men have treated that science in the same manner as they did natural Philosophy in the times of Aristotle, continually recurring to occult causes and principles, from which no useful consequence could be drawn, Thus, in order to ground particular assertions, they have much used the word Constitution, in a personal sense, the Constitution loves, the Constitution forbids, and the like. At other times, they have had recourse to Luxury, in order to explain certain events; and at others, to a still more occult cause, which they have called Corruption: and abundance of comparisons drawn from the human Body, have been also used for the same purposes: continual instances of such defective arguments and considerations occur in the Works of M. de Montesquieu; though a man of so much genius, and from whose writings so much information is nevertheless to be derived."
P.S.
For those interested in the evolution from the Imperial Roman Empire to the post-germanic France, Mr. Fustel de Coulange's History of the Political Institutions of Ancient France is widely respected in the same manner (though this work of Mr. Coulanges has remained untranslated from the original French... at least for now 😉)
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needs for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
what is your background? I am astonished by the amount of knowledge you possess. by the looks of it, you have read a substantial amount of books and not just conventional books but looks like books used in educational institutions. if so what did you study in uni or is it all just passion?
One factor might be the English Civil War in which the monarchy lost but the government had already gone through a long era of centralization. So instead of the country becoming more decentralized, the parliament (made up of mainly noblemen and other men of means) asserted itself as a more prominent part of the preexisting central government.
@@antoinemozart243 I think what was more incredible about the defeat of King John was the absolute authority he held (much similar to his Norman predecessors) in comparison to that of France. Perhaps it is because of his exponential and sudden increase in power that ruined him in contrast to the Kings of France. Many of the complaints in the Great Charter (Magna Carta) or the Charter of the Forest deals with these complaints.
King John gave himself the sole power of taxation and delegated to himself the power of the entire executive and judiciary. Furthermore "He reserved to himself an exclusive privilege of killing game throughout England, and enacted the severest penalties on ALL who should attempt it without his permission. The suppression, or rather mitigation of these penalties, was one of the articles of the Charta de Foresta, which the Barons afterwards obtained by force of arms, Nullus de cetero amittat vitam, vel membra, pro venatione nostraˆ. Ch. de Forest. Art. 10. [[“No man henceforth shall lose either life or limb for killing our deer.”]] (DeLolme 28). The idea of forest in this sense included almost any kind of usable land, and at its maximum included nearly 1/3 of southern England.
We see that the power of Parliament was not established until after the signing of the charters. In which the Lords formed the upper chamber, the deputies of each town a lower chamber, and the king an executive.
The first only held the ability to aid and counsel, the second "To do and Consent." And that it was not until the reign of Edward I that the power of taxation became firming rooted within the nobility and free deputies. “Nullum tallagium vel auxilium, per nos, vel haeredes nostros, in regno nostro ponatur seu levetur, sine voluntate & assensu Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, Comitum, Baronum, Militum, Burgensium, & aliorum liberorum hom’ de regno nostro.” Stat. an. 24 Ed. I. [[“No tallage or aid shall be taken or levied by us or our heirs in our realm, without the good will and assent of archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other freemen of the land.”]] All of the rights and privileges granted were conferred to all freemen regardless of noble status.
We see similar developments in France with its Three Estates and in Spain with an equal assemblage "at Toledo, in the month of November 1539, [of] the Grandees, the Ecclesiastics, and the Deputies of the Towns.” (Historia de España by Juan de Ferreras,1652-1735). However, the difference noted is that the people or peasantry in those countries never gained any privilege and thus were not able to help the nobles in their fight against the king (a lack of separation of powers into three, we see similar developments in Poland). The historians of England like to say that all banners against King John rose up all at once in unison from the lowest freeman to his own courtiers, yet we never see such unison and concern between vassal and lord in other countries. In the treaty between Louis XI and multiple peers of France, we never see a word hinted at even helping the bondman or serf in contrast to the equality of conditions demanded by the English barons around the same era (Traité fait à St. Maur enter les ducs de Normandie, de Calabre, de Bretagne, de Bourbonnais, d'Auvergne, de Nemours, les comtes de Charolais, d'Armagnac, et de St. Pol., et autres Princes de France, soulevés sous le nom de bien public d'une part, et le Roi Louis One d'autre, le 29 Octobre 1465) (DeLolme 24).
I think the connection between the common man and nobility in England is a thing that was most crucial to help set up an effective parliamentary system against the king through the Charters and statues. In France, not only did we see division among the barons acting in self-interest, but also hatred (see the Jacqueries).
@@HelluvaAnt I just read history books for a passion and have no academic background. The Covid pandemic gave me a lot of free time to explore topics.
I’m really proud of what this channel has become and how it has expanded beyond just the shattering tiles to also discussing political, social, and economic history topics in a respectfully complex but also accessible way. Also the artwork has continued to improve in a really impressive way. Keep at it!
"The monarchies of 15th century Western Europe, such as France, England, and the forming Spain"
They always forget the first centralized state in Western Europe. Portugal 🇵🇹
didn’t portugal centralize in the 12th century
@@shawnv123 Portugal became independent in the 1100s, but centralized in the 1300s. So, yes, before everybody.
Nice! I did not know that
That's actually the reason it's not mentioned: they didn't follow that 15th century phenomenon, which England, France and Spain are prime examples. Especially France since that kingdom was so decentralized during most of the middle ages, barely different from the Holy Roman Empire.
The Animation just keeps getting better, Great job 👍👊♥️
Musical scores are improving exponentially along with everything K&G gang!!!!! Thank you for everything!
Very informative video. Thanks Kings and generals!
Great video! I would like to suggest a video about the Siege of Trebizond in 1461 and perhaps the subsequent siege of Theodoro. Thank you for your great work.
The siege of Trebizond would really be amazing! Theodoro is also an almost forgotten part of history. Great that some still do remember :)
We will never forget
The true ends of Rome. Ironic that in Theodoro, it was the final end of the Goths and Romans. Both done in by the same foe.
This is one of the most interesting videos I have watched on your channel. Would it be possible to see a video on Central/Eastern europe with this topic for this video?
So, Portugal was "de facto" a nation-state, with central rule, long before all otheres, yet not a word about it.
It is either that you at Kings and Generals are reading my mind, or I'm so into your episodes that I end up reading about what you are going to publish. I love this channel, it has widen my perspective. Thank you very much.
Is there anyway that you can make a playlist of just videos like this
Thanks for the video it was great
I’ve been watching these videos for about two years and I have never been disappointed. Out of all the good content I’ve seen, this might be my favorite one yet. Thanks for the great content! I look forward to more of it!
man, such great content in every single video! The narration, the maps, the small animations and the thorough research - thank you very much!
This is exactly the subject for my test upcoming Monday. Thanks for the informative video!
@anysimmers Thank you, I'll try!
Good luck buddy, Make sure you update us with the grades!
@@JJ-is2we Thank you. I got an 8! which I think is equivalent to around a A?? So thanks very much to Kings and Generals I'm sure the video helped!
Great video as always guys. Little nitpick though, Anne of Brittany was married to Charles VIII not Charles VII. Keep up the great work!
England had already established royal-judicial structures before most of their European peers. For example, Henry II standardized the English judicial system into the English Common Law, which established the creation of legal handbooks, the appointment of royal justices to tour the country as well as popularized the use of juries to sit in criminal courts. His descendant expanded on the judicial framework he set up, such as how Edward III created the post of Justices of the Peace to keep the peace, while much later on Henry VII spread them to every county, as well as creating the Star Chamber, which was a separate law court set up to ensure fair enforcement of laws against people of certain rank and power to convict them of their crimes.
In wallachia the nobility was defeated in two ways: impalenent and more impalement
There should be a parallel video on the subject, focusing on states, like the Holy Roman Empire, where attempts to centralize failed.
The main thing this missed is that specifically in this period represented a change in armies and how they functioned. The Early Armies were often only glorified feudal levies and the late armies were fully professional mercenary armies. This changes how states work. The feudal relationship becomes less important and the ability to raise funds becomes more important. Those who failed in this process had their countries annexed and conquered.
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needed for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
Dude, that same thing is said in the second half of the video
That was absolutely discussed in the video, near the end.
This is something I’ve been looking into for a long time, but always found a bit confusing. I can’t reiterate how awesome it is to have it presented in this condensed and straightforward form.
I was reading about this yesterday. Amazing timing as always!
In Portugal the centralisation of the royal power it begins almost in early portuguese kings. Several Kings creat laws, officials who applied the law or other actions which leater diminish the power of the nobles.
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needs for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
The artwork is just amazing
The most Kings and Generals related video ever.
very cool.
always great to see you guys tackle more obscure or conceptual topics.
It's a bit sad that the video didn't touch on Portugal... such centralization also happened there and was the main reason its kings could send ships time and again to explore a way to reach the Indies
Was probably the first one actually and in a different way.
Benefit of being a small country?
@@alvinlin8140 atnthe time was one of the biggest. Spain and France didn't exist yet.
Small obscure nation doesnt pay of to research its history for videos like bigger more maisntream or famous nations
@@miguelsilva1446 Portugal wasn't obscure at all back then. They had royal and noble marriages with many nations in Europe
It wouldn't be a medieval history video if Portugal wasn't completely nonexistent! Great video!
Perfect pronunciation of "audiencias" in Spanish. Amazing attention to detail!
No mention of John II of Portugal? He was perhaps one of the most distinguished examples of the concepts you exposed in this video.
True,he brought the Portuguese realm from literal anarchy and incompetence of Afonso V ("the king of the roads of Portugal" according to João II)to a absolute monarchy in Machiavellic way by discovering a noble and clergy plot and resorting to even murder to nobles in his way,stripped Cortes of power and invested in Crown financial independence by reducing expenses and increasing revenue through commerce and discover the route to India and fight corruption ,sadly his reforms were all revert by Manuel I except discovering the route to India
Another great video :) This whole process was actually really important for all of us. Or, well... At least those who live in Europe or north America :D
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needs for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
And South America.
The birth of firearms gradually changed the social composition within the armies. In the feudal era, elite men-at-arms and knights were the bulwark of the armies; these elite soldiers needed to take years if not life-time of training (riding horse while jousting, shooting arrows from a bow all take lots of skill practice and muscle training). But fire arms units are way easier to train, and the energy that fires the bullet comes not from muscular power but gun powder. This means as long as the king has the money to buy muskets and ammunition, he can train up large amount of peasant armies into fierce fighting force (with firearms along with pike) within much shorter period of time. Suddenly, the medieval noble knights become less important.
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
The gradual development in how power shifts from different groups into different forms, is a type of history which reminds me of how history is merely an ongoing interconnected tale of our race.
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needs for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
In Polish-Lithuanian crown it was reverse in general... Kings were not strong enough to take back lands and estates given or borrowed to various vassals.
If memory serves, historian Paweł Jasienica, was sourcing the weakness in crusade against Ottomans and disaster at Warna. Nobility had to be extra paid to conduct war outside country and king Władysław used renting or selling the crownlands. But getting them back by the crown was generally a failure.
Sejm was powerful and often refused either increased taxes or even levying the nobility. Then only some mercenaries could wage war and we had example of great victory against Sweden but men were not paid and in general victory was not giving any gain...
Check out the "golden liberty".
Very interesting subject. Congrats
I absolutely love watching history videos like this partly because I am a huge history fan and also I like to understand how western society was developed because though I am not a westerner but my country (Nigeria) and its culture, socio-political, and economic systems were greatly influenced by the west (Great Britian)
Hi! I would love a video on the Médicis of Florence. Thank you!
The centralisation of power also resulted in the creation of common law and civil law systems. Common law, generally to protect against the monarch (Magna Carta), Civil Law, monarchs using law to develop or act.
Incorrect by about two centuries. Common Law had been established firmly by Henry II a in the 12th century. England had a head start on centralization long before the “New Monarchies”.
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needs for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
Interesting as always, I don't get the loud music in the background.. many youtubers and TV shows put extremely loud and distracting music while talking. Why?
Also Poland, after the 12th century split into feudal principalities, finally united in the fourteenth century and formed into a nation-state!✌️
It seems that Poland was united by King Ladislaus the Short???
@@shantirelaxingmusic5285 Yes
calling 14th century Poland a nation-state is a bold statement.
Yeah there where somehow divided and have not centralized.
All these things in this video had a common kickstart in 13th and 14th centuries, with conquests and diseases each after another. For the first time since the Western-Eastern Roman split, Europe as a continent felt their own vulnerability, but this time on a much bigger scale than what the semi-agrarian German tribes ever did; because of advanced Chinese technologies at that time submitted to an effective, ruthless nomadic Mongol war machine, after the collapse of Chinese kingdoms that they fell to the elite troops from open steppes. For the first time since the worst year in 6th century, Europe experienced deadly consequences brought to them by their newfound enemy: Bubonic Plague. Then, the Black Death infected territories after territories, expanded their list of victims cities after cities, therefore it practically wiped out its roughly half population across the whole continent (of which numbers were already reduced during the previous wars). The “good” side effect is, with a sudden, sharp reduction in numbers of all the people who were alive at once, now there is also a sudden source of accessible surplus values appeared, which means a new material source now arose - as material rewards to motivate the mass, into doing organised labors and trading engagements, in order to gain more matters - as well; hence the primitive capitalist seeds were settled during this era. Also, with the fall of feudal lords, a new labor force were freed from collapsed territories, this force further helped urbanisation and unification of trading markets - all the formulas needs for the newly bourgeoisie class, to emerge from the ashes of old socioeconomic order are up; hence inevitably, those guys who later would press the industrialization process forward were also the ones who would eventually change the course of world’s history forever, by waging revolutions against feudal order later, just some centuries after this said era. Another thing which favored their capitalization process this time (also indirectly caused by Mongol conquests), was after being conquered, Eastern civilizations began isolated themselves from historical technological advancements, that acted as a passive self-defense mechanism from possibly any similar alienated destructions which could probably emerge again from the steppes, in the upcoming future (ironically, it also led to their backward and downfall, but this time not from the steppes anymore). That taught us one thing: In order to pre-emptively prevent disastrous outcomes, don’t solely build guesses around the exact same threats every times, and don’t let the afraid of losing what we are having take a hold of our mind; because, once it is settled in our minds, we will deny our best way to intercept unwanted results, and that way is discovering new things over all the times, non-stop.
The Crown of Aragon was the closest thing Europe had to a representative form of government. The Crown was made up of 7 different kingdoms (Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinia, Sicily, Naples and Tlemcen), 1 principality (Catalonia) and 2 distinct counties (Roussillon and Cerdagne). Each of these entities had their own separate institutions, laws and customs. The only common factors they possessed was the Monarch, the General Cortés and the Crown Archive.
The Monarch was "invested" instead of crowned, and during a time when Kings were larping about a divine right to rule, the oath given by the court to the King went something like; *"We, who are worth as much as you, make you our King and Lord, as long as you keep our fueros (laws) and liberties, and if not, not."*
When the Habsburgs took over Spain, the Crown of Aragon managed to survive their blatant ineptitude thanks to these tough checks & balances. Whereas the Crown of Castile, which was more centralized was stripped bare by the Habsburgs. There were Habsburgs like Philip the Prudent and Philip the Planet King who tried to get rid of these but they were strongly rebuffed.
It was only when Philip of Anjou acquired Spain in the War of the Spanish Succession, and followed his grandfather's (Louis XIV of France) absolutism model via the Nueva Planta Decree of 1715 did these checks & balances disappear. And we all know what happened to Spain in the 18th and 19th centuries.
So basically if the Spanish War of succession had gone any other way, those institutions that kept the Monarch's power in check, could've continued into Spain making it practically an actual constitutional monarchy?
That doesn't sound like representative gov't. That sounds like oligarchy. Poland, Hungary, and Venice had more representative governments IMO (and yeah those were oligarchies too)
Thanks, great work!
Fantastic video on an often ignored topic. I look forward to more like it.
Thank you , K&G .
So years ago, I took a real estate course that was taught by a retired lawyer, and he taught the course in a bit of unusual way, he based it on history english and spanish property laws, and how they evolved, and how they impacted those countries in a good and bad way, he touched on nobility, peasants, women's property rights, all while actually following the curriculum of the real estate course I was supposed to take, it was actually a fascinating course to take. He said it is something that all lawyers learn in law school, sadly it's not taught anywhere else.
That opening with England over Ireland. Well that's wrong right away, Ireland was under the Irish parliament and assembly system. Only Dublin under crown control. Henry VII even called the Fitzgerald's "kings all but in name" talking about there control in Ireland at the end of the wars of the Roses.
Hey nice vid, very interesting topic.
However, you should write "Kalmar Union" instead of "Denmark" on map for this era. It's a bit like if you had written "Germany" instead of "Holy Roman Empire".
7:48 - that would be an heck of a video I guess. You could even link it up with the "last duel" guy (that links up with Bayezid in some way).
I'd like to see some stuff on the Mali Empire, and their wealth. Great Video.
I cannot imagine the budget you guys have for all the commissioned art that appears in each episode
Thank Patreon and sponsors
Meanwhile, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would go in the opposite direction. The nobility would gain more power at the expense of the crown. The magnates would form their manufactories and private armies leaving the king at their mercy almost until the very end, carved up by the centralized states around them.
A new Kings and Generals vid is the Best. Birthday gift. Ever.
Great video. Very nice and informative.
This was so interesting that I didn't realised time passed so fast...
Great video loved it
Next video on this topic should, I think, try to connect this video with the "Why was the 17th century so terribble" because in that video you mentioned that the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism was a key role in the unstability during the 1600s and since the reforms dissolving Feudalism began in 1400s (as mentioned in the video above) it would be nice if you made a video connecting both.
Continue your work :)
excellent video
though the continuous rumble every 30 seconds makes my subwoofers go crazy!
Portugal was one of the first monarchys starting this process
Great video. One of the reasons why England was continually invaded by the vikings in the early middle ages was its relative centralisation and ability to collect taxes, and hence pay danegeld
What I've never understood is that we know the rulers of Medieval fiefdoms and how large they were in the HRE and France for example, but England's fiefdoms are never represented on any map
Anyone more interested in this era of History should listen to the Podcast “Tides of History” by Patrick Wyman and Wondery. It’s goes into great detail on this subject.
Lovely video as always, favourite era as an EU4 boomer. Bit weird to use English coat of arms for a battle icon. But you do you Kings and Generals.
Very interesting series
Great video, thanks! Why Ireland is part of England though? It should happen later
Even in the mid 16th century, Charles the fifth still had to get his new taxes agreed in a ad hoc basis in the different parliaments of the countries he ruled (Castille, Aragon, the Low Countries etc). They turned him down on a few occasions, needless to say he borrowed a lot from german and genoese bankers..
its crazy how Roman laws where still being used so many years later!
That animation is amazing!
Centralization in the 15th century was especially big in France, since that kingdom had been so decentralized (compared with England for example) in the middle ages. Even if the work kinda started in the 13th century. In a parallel timeline, France could have well been another Holy Roman Empire, with barely any unity.
2:40 Social, Political & Religious reforms
10:28 Military reforms
Loving this new angle.
This is a super interesting topic. I would love to see more in-depth coverage of these processes of change in individual "countries" over a longer span of time, perhaps starting from a more or less "pure" medieval situation with virtually no republican nationstate looking institutions up to arrival in the modern international system sometime between the spans of the 18th - 20th centuries. Actually, another great topic would be the contributions of inspiration from the lifeways of indigenous peoples in the Americas to the founding ideas and frameworks of emerging modern states in the Western world.
Nice video. It was very informative. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
Thank you for the video 👍🏻
in europe first permenant army was ottoman army, first centralized empire in europe after roman empire was again ottomans, this is most important thing about why ottomans in early expantion Unstoppable, in wars 16 century european armies were leading by nobals,but in ottomans army generals and other militariy staff were commander of army, even after 1453 in ottoman empire there was no nobles duke or baron empire was heavly centralized, there was only governors(atabey)
Basically, it all came down to the King’s and royal courts cutting the nobility out of the process of governing.
Hey man, love you
Can you do one on common men becoming knighted
Nobility on the west: loses power
Nobility on the east: laughs in Polish
The popular conflation between the terms of "country", "state" and "nation-state" will forever weaken people's ability to grasp various aspects of governmentality & history.
@James Okoh It doesn't really make you ignorant. Even some scholars of nationalism have sometimes conflated the terms 'nation' and 'nation-state,' for instance. Maintaining a clear conceptual distinction between these terms can be difficult because the vast majority of people throw around these words as if they mean the same thing.
Awesome video!
I recomend reading Lineages of the Absolutist State by Perry Anderson.
Meanwhile in Poland, these reforms didnt happen until the period between 16th and 18thage which was "too little, too late".
A king does not expect gratitude, but he demands loyalty from his subjects.
Great video! Can we hear more about the black army of Hungary?
Lol, Kingdom Maker finally getting some attention, I started playing couple days ago
One could argue against the map for the 1450/60s as it shows Burgundy as part of France which would be only true from a purely legalist point of vue as they were independent de facto and arguably even more powerful. They at times allied England vs France
I always heard that at that time, France was the most powerful state in Western Europe despite that the end of the Hundred Years' War was still relatively new to both France and England. So when Sultan Mehmed II besieged Constantinople, why the King of France did not send help? After all, King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I managed to sponsor Christopher Columbus three months later after they spent a lot of their money in the conquest of the Emirate of Granada. So why France cannot do the same a generation earlier?
The west did eventually send help to Constantinople but the negotiations took too long and they arrived too late when the city had already fallen and then turned back.
Well you're right in a way. France had all the keys to become a major power in Europe at that time (geograpical position, army strength and most importantly economy and demographics, France was litteraly the China of Europe). But it had just got out of the Hundred Years War and the State needed consolidation, so it was more a time of reforms in order to achieve the transition from a medieval state to an early nation-state (through the consecration of french as the sole administrative language, territorial consolidation with the annexation of burgundy, brittany and Provence).
But to answer your question, why did they not send help to Constantinople ?
-Like the other nations of Europe, it was impossible to think of Constantinople falling, it had stood for a thousand years, and had acquired a near mythical reputation.
-The sheer distance between Western Europe and Thrace, plus a French army would have needed to cross hostile territories (northern italy, the HRE or the balkans which were at this point already under Ottoman occupation. Plus, travelling by sea like in the times of the Crusades was dangerous with barbaric corsairs and the Ottoman Navy which started to seriously compete with the Venetians in the Aegean Sea).
perhaps, France didn't like Constantinople.
France was a Catholic kingdom while Constantinople was mainly an Othordox city. France had also finished fighting the a hundred years war so the french public was in no mood for another war especially one that involved saving an Othordox city. Let's just say the French were not particularly eager to save Constantinople.
Not mentioned here is that Castile in 1494 had the lowest interest rate (7.14%), France something around 10%, and England after civil wars was stuck with 20%. The bullion coming from the New World also guaranteed that Spain was the most liquid for crises. Unlike paper which is just stamped/printed, precious metal had to be mined, melted, hammered, so you can imagine how money based on silver and gold is impractical and difficult. You can have many lands, but when the debt collector comes and you have no cash, and cash in gold at that, you would be in a crisis.
Hence Castile was absolutely capable of financing its wars for a century.
I think this can kinda be seen from the change of gameplay between ck3 and eu4
Hapsburgs: Industrialisation? Abolition of Serfdom? No.
ANIME THEMED FAMILIAL RELATIONS
Could you please include your sources? What articles and books you used? More often than not I find myself left with a want to read more after watching your stellar videos.
- The new monarchies and representative assemblies; medieval constitutionalism or modern absolutism? Arthur Joseph Slavin
-The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300-1500
-Monarchy Transformed, Prince and their Elites in Early Modern Western Europe, von Friedeburg and Morrill
-The Formation of national states in western Europe, Charles Tilly
-Conquest: The English kingdom of France, Juliet Barker
-The Valois Kings of France 1328-1589, Robert J. Knecht
The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300-1500 had probably the biggest influence on the video
@@johanm_16 thanks for the sources!
@@johanm_16 Thank you so much! Could a list like this be produced for any K&G video? That would be rich.