This is a one of the reasons I like the High Middle Ages more than Late or even the Renaissance. Thanks for the video, I always like hearing about the culture of this time, not just the events.
The french revolution, which is often held to be the symbol of modern democracy against medieval absolutism, was actually brought about by a medieval democratic institution, the "États généraux "(Etates-general) which had been ignored by modern absolutist french kings, untill it was summoned by King Louis XVI who wanted to use it in order to bypass Parlement of Paris ( the court of final appeal of the judicial system, and typically wielded much power over a wide range of subject matter, especially taxation) which opposed the financial policy of the king . Instead, a dipsute about how to vote inside the Estates general was the beginning of the french revolution.
This was great. Answered how law and 'courts' worked back then. I'm starting to think RUclips is eavesdropping on me coz how the hell did it know how to suggest this video to me right now just 3 hours after I asked this very question in the live stream? 🤔
King St. Louis IX is a great example of a noble monarch. Reading his quotes are a great source of balanced leadership. The Benedictine concept of "servant leadership" was also influential in many circles of Christendom
Can you please make a video describing El Cid. He is often known as the first knight of la Reconquista and Spanish knights tactics, armor, and weapons.
Medieval monarchies were different from later ones because they were not centralized nation states but rather collections of lords who were sworn to loyalty to an overlord. The overlord was dependent on the lords to rule, rather than the power of the state itself, as such he or she could not do whatever they felt like doing, they had to consider the opinions of their vassals (or someone else would become king). Later on power was held by the state, that is what allowed the king to have absolute rule. He no longer relied on his lords for his position.
Jethrel Barely anyone does, but the key point of the Northern Crusades was converting Norway/Sweden to Catholic over Norse and Somunosuke(If I spelt the religion, correctly). Unlike the Eastern, meant to reclaim lost land. The Northern was based on conversion. Similar to the Western being based on Defense in France and Spain.
High Medieval kings were simply not that strong. They were basically glorified dukes with the blessing of the Papacy. Burgundy, for example, was far more powerful than the Kingdom of France for most of its history.
HolyknightVader999 Well what year ranges are you talking about? The HRE was quite fragmented, under the best of circumstances, bishops or no. And remember - about 80%+ of bishops were from guess where? The nobility.
TheLoyalOfficer Before the Investiture controversy. The Bishops were lesser nobility who were the second sons of the noble houses. Also, many of these bishops were created by the Emperor, so they're the type of people that rely on him for support.
That's very correct. Before the invention of the cannon, the most minor lord could launch a rebel and hold out in a castle from the royal army for weeks or if not months. The cannon gave the kings much power since it was very expensive and it allowed for the royal army to blow down walls instead of battering them. The other thing is that in France and Spain, the powerful duchies and counties were absorbed into the royal domain through marriage, inheritance, or conquest. Spain united through the marriage of its Castillian queen and Aragonese king. England was always centralized from the days of William I, but it became more so because the power of the nobility was weakened from the Wars of Roses. The funny thing is that Germany and Poland went in the opposite direction. The principalities and the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire grew more powerful even as the Hapsburgs consolidated their hold on the Imperial throne. The power of the Polish nobility and the weakness of the crown, lead to it's disintegration in the 1700s.
Great Channel . Dear uploader can you please consider some information on Kilikian ( KILIKIA ) King Levon of Armenia that the Crusades stopped on the way to Jerusalem during the crusades this important History that some are not aware of in fact King Levon was the God father of King Richard as well any uploads would be greatly appreciated Christopher Aintabtsi keghamminas ***** keghamminas
The founding fathers of America often said the American system could only exist among a religious and therefore moral people. Same can be said to the high medieval checks and balance system: it could only be sustained by a religious and moral ruling class. You can see, as the monarchs of Europe became progressively secular, their rule became progressively despotic. Pay attention to my wording: progressive.
Right on the money my friend. It's a shame people can't think critically in regards to the importance of religion in not just the social fabric of our lives, but also to the systems that govern them. It does however all depend on the religion in question, but Christianity worked absolute wonders for making genuine progress without making it the entire motif.
I suddenly became aware of the English word knight. It appears it's a cognate to German word knecht meaning servant and it was originally even pronounced the same (if we pronounce gh like the Scottish people still do today). In my mother tongue after it came from German it evolved into kmet meaning peasant as peasants serve the lord. Interesting how words evolve trough time.
To my mind Philip IV of France seems like the archetypal tyrant king, setting the tone for later autocracies. His bullying domination of his parliament (the estates general) and his assaults on church authority and seizures of church property more or less directly preherald the domineering activities of Henry VIII.
i think him accidentally killing the pope was a nice improvement from the canossa incident, and he wasn't a tyrant to his people but crushed on the power of the felonic nobility of france(including the templars) his displays of power are a show of progress of the notion of statehood in france with his dynasty and is regarded with pride in france dispite being controversial. i'm not disregarding your view just trying to show you there is another side of the coin...get it :) coin(he counterfeited currency).
boss180888 You're wrong. The Templars were beloved. He introduced heavier taxation and harsher oppression. There was no improvement whatsoever in his rule.
Real Crusades History there were several improvements during his reign in fact in government and administration, the templars had no more obvious purpose for their existence and the crusades were over, they were a threat and their activities(related with money) were dubious as with their loyalty, since they chose to park their bus in a land and not acknowledge it's owner(example king of france)
Great video! However, I've often wondered what exactly led to the consolidation of political power in the monarchy. How and why did kings become so much more powerful in the Late Middle Ages than they were in the High Middle Ages?
War, of course. The 100 Years' War led to stronger kings in France and England, and Spain's crusading monarchs united most of the land under them with help from the local Church.
I always thought of the early Monarch the head of a band of gangsters (his nobles). Beginning with Charles Magnus (Charles the Great), Charlemagne, in popular terminology, the Church/Pope worked together with Charles and later monarchs, with the Church lending validity to the titles. I know this evolved in many ways into Parlimentary government. It is interesting that in Poland, any one of the Council of Lords could veto actions, no wonder Poland was such a mess politically.
Real Crusades, Interesting video. Could you do a video on tribe structure, customs and law in Western Europe? The council is similar amongst Celtic groups. The play, Macbeth, is about the old system where a council appoints Macbeth king against the beginning of an absolutist kingship. To the absolutist Tudors Macbeth was a bad person and had no rights to the throne. Could you produce a video on tribal law such as Brehon law?
First I want to say that I am not a expert on medieval history but I read a fair bit about political economy. Political Economy teaches that all rules have some group of people that the need to bind to them in order to stay in power. In the high middle ages it of course the land-owning nobility and knights. To what degree a ruler is able to do this depends on time and place. In the late early/high middle ages we generally see very weak kings that are often barley able to bind the nobility at all. I don't think democratic tradition does not have much to do with it, its more the weakness of the rulers. In the eastern world has the same political restrictions but the show themselves differently. In china you often have a high class of civil servants (literati) that you need to controll. In the east you often have important tribal leaders and so on. The same is true for every society, you can still model modern dictators this way. The amount of wealth a ruler can control depends on how much he can extract from the population/land, and how much it costs him to bind the majority of the ruling elite. After the high middle ages you see kings becoming more powerful because knights and castles lose efficiency and the king gets more power because he can employ a small army. Source: Check out 'The Logic of Political Survival' or the popular version of it 'The Dictator's Handbook'.
Thanks for the video, it clarified my questions, well, almost all of them. But my the last one is: What was the name of this type of Monarchy? How it was called??? Everywhere I look for the types of monarchy I only find it citing the absolute and constitutional monarchy, but these were only created from, basically, as you said, in the late middle ages. The constitutional even later. Thank you in advance!
Hey RCH, I know I keep asking you this, and I just hope that it doesn't make you mad, but what happened to your "Sacrifice of the Crusaders" vid? It wasn't that comment that I left it on that you took it down was it?
Real Crusades History Ok man, just wanted to make sure, hey once again I'm very sorry I kept asking you so much, if you want I can delete the messages I left ;)
Blake Hardeman Don't worry about it! I actually appreciate multiple messages, because that reminds me to answer questions! Sometimes questions can get lost in the shuffle.
I thought there was something familiar with your explanation of the justice council you recounted! When you said "first among equals" it clicked; the Kings of the High Middle Ages and their courts are very much like the Papacy and the Cardinals and (when in a council), the Bishops. That's very interesting.
I find the view of Henry VIII presented to be oversimplified, unfairly hostile, and not just a little bit "Romanized." The Pope at the time and Henry VIII both hated eachother and accused one another of being tyrants. Accepting the Roman critique of Henry VIII leads to a historical reading as valid as accepting Calvin's critique of Leo X. Regardless of Henry's authoritarianism, he never attempted to subvert national sovereignty in other people's lands as Pope Paul III did when he attempted to supplant Henry with Reginald Pole. The affair that followed was unfortunate and bloody. The Pope's meddling ended up costing several people their lives. Moreover, I believe England is the precise wrong example solely because it was the least monarchic of all Medieval societies. This is the country that established the Magna Carta in 1215, after all. The various houses were so powerful that every move the monarch made was in check by the possible refusal of any of the Dukes. Late monarchic France would be a much more fitting example of the Divine Right of Kings with Louis XVI who was, by all historical accounts, a kind and wise man who ruled with compassion until the nobles whose attempts to subvert and curtail his authority ultimately led to his and their own deaths.
I was mainly talking about the fact that he was responsible for thousands of executions on relatively flimsy grounds. His body count is really startling. I am not accepting the Roman critique, I think he just governed like a tyrant, and he always got his way on everything. The England of 1215 was quite different than the England of the 16th Century.
Real Crusades History Even Henry VIII had to carry out his reforms through Parliament, though his parliaments were quite subservient. In both England and France the wars between the factions of the nobility in the 15th century led the other classes to favour a strong crown in the interests of peace and order.
William Cooke Another factor was the undue respect for all things 'classical' that came over Western Europe with the Renaissance. Among other things, it led to a renewed interest in Roman law as codified by Justinian, according to which the emperor was the source of the law and his will *was* the law. That ran quite counter to the Germanic tradition, in which the king was *under* the law and as much bound by it as his vassals.
Henry VIII wanted to execute an insane woman for treason because she'd offended his pride. English law prohibited the trial and execution of the insane. So Henry got a law enacted allowing for the trial and execution of insane persons. And so, she was beheaded. That, my friend, is a tyrant.
Modern people have to remember something; most, if not all Medieval European Kings sought to be perceived as just rulers. What better way to do this then to have the consent of great men in their common realm? Civil wars begin when Crownheads are impulsive. When a King goes to war, he wants to ride knee to knee with a coalition of the willing, not the whipped.
Love your series Steve! @realcrusadeshistory! Can you enlighten us as to how the Norman invasion of England may or may not have affected the First through Third Crusade, why didn't the Normans use their might in 1066 to take back lost areas of the Holy Land vs whipping out the Anglo Saxon rulers of England. Did the Normans participate in the Crusades at all? We hear mostly of the Franks but occasionally its interchanged with Normans. Lastly, why wasn't more support given in the form of manpower from Europe to take back Jerusalem after its lose in ,1099? thanks for your response in advance sir!
@RealCrusaderHistory at the 10:37 mark you make reference to western European "Latin" civilization. Is the Latin there in reference to being from what used to be the Roman Empire? Or because they spoke Latin? Or because they were loyal to the Catholic church? I thought the Franks were germanic
This term is commonly used among scholars, and was also used during the period by western Christians themselves. It does refer to the heritage of the Roman Empire. The languages spoken by these people were mostly rooted in Latin, and they were, also, loyal to the Roman church, which used Latin as its official language. It's quite accurate to refer to much of western and central Europe during this time as Latin Christian civilization.
We even see a lot of war-hungry monarchs extending democratic rights to their people. Philip the Fair empowered the Estates General to rally the French people against the Pope. Edward III of England helped expand the power of Parliament to get support for his wars in France, arguing that "what touches all, must be approved by all."
One example of how limited was the power of the King in the 13th century was the case of Sancho II King of Portugal who was deposed for being a bad, unjust ruler by the pope
But could king have gone against the decision of council if he so wanted? Or would he not even have the power or right to so? As in was he just entertaining this legal system or was he dependent on it?
Vald III was Viovide (often translated as Prince) of Wallachia. A prince could be- and there one still is today- sovereign over a territory. In terms of ranks it is fifth, below Emperor, King, Grand Prince, and Gran Duke.
I wouldn't call Henry VIII a "psychopath" I'd call him more of Hobbes' "Leviathan". Would you prefer the weakling Charles I who couldn't even hold his throne?
I think i would prefer a more Frederick 1 Hohenstauffen or Otto the great type of monarch (at least if we go by medieval/early modern standards of state morality)
That was more like a form of medieval republicanism than democracy. Council of knights has nothing to do with democracy but it sure has a lot to do with republicanism. Roman republic was obviously a republic too. Only the council of "nobles" (at the later period the wealthiest, even the plebeians that got rich) ruled Rome for real. Even after those poor plebeians demanded equal share of the pie with their popular tribunes. Early and high Medieval councils of knights come from Germanic tribal traditions not from the Roman traditions itself. Roman emperors at the late empire renounced their princeps (the first among equals) titles and acquired and claimed the dominus titles(despotism - dominate). Senate became kinda ceremonial and decided only in absence of the dominus. It appears the same gradually happened in Medieval period.
Actually, no. Absolute monarchs had to play the part of the heroic paladin, because if he didn't, he'd have all the eyes in the kingdom focused on his sins and vices.
Love your series Steve! @realcrusadeshistory! Can you enlighten us as to how the Norman invasion of England may or may not have affected the First through Third Crusade, why didn't the Normans use their might in 1066 to take back lost areas of the Holy Land vs whipping out the Anglo Saxon rulers of England. Did the Normans participate in the Crusades at all? We hear mostly of the Franks but occasionally its interchanged with Normans. Lastly, why wasn't more support given in the form of manpower from Europe to take back Jerusalem after its lose in ,1099? thanks for your response in advance sir!
Love your series Steve! @realcrusadeshistory! Can you enlighten us as to how the Norman invasion of England may or may not have affected the First through Third Crusade, why didn't the Normans use their might in 1066 to take back lost areas of the Holy Land vs whipping out the Anglo Saxon rulers of England. Did the Normans participate in the Crusades at all? We hear mostly of the Franks but occasionally its interchanged with Normans. Lastly, why wasn't more support given in the form of manpower from Europe to take back Jerusalem after its lose in ,1099? thanks for your response in advance sir!
Before the Normans invaded England, some Normans went to serve Lombard and Byzantine landholders in Southern Italy as many Normans had passed through there enroute to pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Since Saracens had taken Sicily and conducted coastal raids on the Italian coast, many Lombards and Byzantines took in these Normen into their ranks with great thanks. Eventually, many of Normans inter-married with the Italian/Lombard population and created estates of their own, one of these families was the Hauteville family, whom Roger II of Sicily was crowned King of Sicily in 1130. Before him came many of his family name had also made a name for themself in Italy, Robert Ironarm, Roger Borsa, Robert Guiscard (father of Bohemund of Antioch). The Normans also received the blessings of the Pope who was quite often at odds with some landholders in Southern Italy. So in answer to your question, YES, Normans did participate in the First Crusade, however, most of them were established in Southern Italy at this point in time. Not only that, most of the forces of the First Crusader were you could consider 'Frankish' but, Raymond of Toulouse commanded the largest of army of all, and he would be described as 'Occitan' rather than Frankish due to the geographic position of Southern and Northern France.
This is a one of the reasons I like the High Middle Ages more than Late or even the Renaissance. Thanks for the video, I always like hearing about the culture of this time, not just the events.
The french revolution, which is often held to be the symbol of modern democracy against medieval absolutism, was actually brought about by a medieval democratic institution, the "États généraux "(Etates-general) which had been ignored by modern absolutist french kings, untill it was summoned by King Louis XVI who wanted to use it in order to bypass Parlement of Paris ( the court of final appeal of the judicial system, and typically wielded much power over a wide range of subject matter, especially taxation) which opposed the financial policy of the king . Instead, a dipsute about how to vote inside the Estates general was the beginning of the french revolution.
62peppe62 Sources?
BigHouse just google French Estate Conference
@@alexanderchenf1 Google isn't reputable anymore.
@@jpmisterioman If you understand french, watch the channel of Marion Sigaut.
This was great. Answered how law and 'courts' worked back then. I'm starting to think RUclips is eavesdropping on me coz how the hell did it know how to suggest this video to me right now just 3 hours after I asked this very question in the live stream? 🤔
Its that damned METADATA ... YOU ARE THE BEST PLUNDERER TO PLUNDER FROM !!
King St. Louis IX is a great example of a noble monarch. Reading his quotes are a great source of balanced leadership.
The Benedictine concept of "servant leadership" was also influential in many circles of Christendom
Very true! Thanks for the comment.
Can you please make a video describing El Cid. He is often known as the first knight of la Reconquista and Spanish knights tactics, armor, and weapons.
Medieval monarchies were different from later ones because they were not centralized nation states but rather collections of lords who were sworn to loyalty to an overlord. The overlord was dependent on the lords to rule, rather than the power of the state itself, as such he or she could not do whatever they felt like doing, they had to consider the opinions of their vassals (or someone else would become king). Later on power was held by the state, that is what allowed the king to have absolute rule. He no longer relied on his lords for his position.
Do you have any information on the three Swedish Crusades? Even we Swedes have no idea about them it seems
Jethrel Barely anyone does, but the key point of the Northern Crusades was converting Norway/Sweden to Catholic over Norse and Somunosuke(If I spelt the religion, correctly).
Unlike the Eastern, meant to reclaim lost land. The Northern was based on conversion. Similar to the Western being based on Defense in France and Spain.
High Medieval kings were simply not that strong.
They were basically glorified dukes with the blessing of the Papacy. Burgundy, for example, was far more powerful than the Kingdom of France for most of its history.
HolyknightVader999 Well what year ranges are you talking about? The HRE was quite fragmented, under the best of circumstances, bishops or no.
And remember - about 80%+ of bishops were from guess where? The nobility.
TheLoyalOfficer
Before the Investiture controversy.
The Bishops were lesser nobility who were the second sons of the noble houses. Also, many of these bishops were created by the Emperor, so they're the type of people that rely on him for support.
That's very correct. Before the invention of the cannon, the most minor lord could launch a rebel and hold out in a castle from the royal army for weeks or if not months. The cannon gave the kings much power since it was very expensive and it allowed for the royal army to blow down walls instead of battering them. The other thing is that in France and Spain, the powerful duchies and counties were absorbed into the royal domain through marriage, inheritance, or conquest. Spain united through the marriage of its Castillian queen and Aragonese king. England was always centralized from the days of William I, but it became more so because the power of the nobility was weakened from the Wars of Roses. The funny thing is that Germany and Poland went in the opposite direction. The principalities and the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire grew more powerful even as the Hapsburgs consolidated their hold on the Imperial throne. The power of the Polish nobility and the weakness of the crown, lead to it's disintegration in the 1700s.
Great Channel . Dear uploader can you please consider some information on Kilikian ( KILIKIA ) King Levon of Armenia that the Crusades stopped on the way to Jerusalem during the crusades this important History that some are not aware of in fact King Levon was the God father of King Richard as well any uploads would be greatly appreciated Christopher Aintabtsi keghamminas ***** keghamminas
The founding fathers of America often said the American system could only exist among a religious and therefore moral people. Same can be said to the high medieval checks and balance system: it could only be sustained by a religious and moral ruling class. You can see, as the monarchs of Europe became progressively secular, their rule became progressively despotic. Pay attention to my wording: progressive.
Right on the money my friend. It's a shame people can't think critically in regards to the importance of religion in not just the social fabric of our lives, but also to the systems that govern them. It does however all depend on the religion in question, but Christianity worked absolute wonders for making genuine progress without making it the entire motif.
I suddenly became aware of the English word knight. It appears it's a cognate to German word knecht meaning servant and it was originally even pronounced the same (if we pronounce gh like the Scottish people still do today).
In my mother tongue after it came from German it evolved into kmet meaning peasant as peasants serve the lord.
Interesting how words evolve trough time.
Great Harry came up with using “ Majesty “ So was Queen Elizabeth I and king Phillip and holy Roman emperor “emperor “ mainly Charles
To my mind Philip IV of France seems like the archetypal tyrant king, setting the tone for later autocracies. His bullying domination of his parliament (the estates general) and his assaults on church authority and seizures of church property more or less directly preherald the domineering activities of Henry VIII.
Exactly!
i think him accidentally killing the pope was a nice improvement from the canossa incident, and he wasn't a tyrant to his people but crushed on the power of the felonic nobility of france(including the templars) his displays of power are a show of progress of the notion of statehood in france with his dynasty and is regarded with pride in france dispite being controversial.
i'm not disregarding your view just trying to show you there is another side of the coin...get it :) coin(he counterfeited currency).
boss180888 The majority of the Templars who suffered were servant brothers, not nobles.
boss180888 You're wrong. The Templars were beloved. He introduced heavier taxation and harsher oppression. There was no improvement whatsoever in his rule.
Real Crusades History there were several improvements during his reign in fact in government and administration, the templars had no more obvious purpose for their existence and the crusades were over, they were a threat and their activities(related with money) were dubious as with their loyalty, since they chose to park their bus in a land and not acknowledge it's owner(example king of france)
Great video! However, I've often wondered what exactly led to the consolidation of political power in the monarchy. How and why did kings become so much more powerful in the Late Middle Ages than they were in the High Middle Ages?
War, of course. The 100 Years' War led to stronger kings in France and England, and Spain's crusading monarchs united most of the land under them with help from the local Church.
Nice video thats why i like the high middle ages
Valbuena? qiubo
@@snoward1112 siiiiiii el pubg man
I always thought of the early Monarch the head of a band of gangsters (his nobles). Beginning with Charles Magnus (Charles the Great), Charlemagne, in popular terminology, the Church/Pope worked together with Charles and later monarchs, with the Church lending validity to the titles. I know this evolved in many ways into Parlimentary government. It is interesting that in Poland, any one of the Council of Lords could veto actions, no wonder Poland was such a mess politically.
How was law enforced in the middle ages?
David Timothy traveling judge delegated by the king. That’s where the circuit court system of the US came from - medieval England traveling judge.
@Anton Babani absolutely, what a better way to show democracy and fair rule than hanging criminals
Real Crusades, Interesting video. Could you do a video on tribe structure, customs and law in Western Europe? The council is similar amongst Celtic groups. The play, Macbeth, is about the old system where a council appoints Macbeth king against the beginning of an absolutist kingship. To the absolutist Tudors Macbeth was a bad person and had no rights to the throne. Could you produce a video on tribal law such as Brehon law?
First I want to say that I am not a expert on medieval history but I read a fair bit about political economy. Political Economy teaches that all rules have some group of people that the need to bind to them in order to stay in power. In the high middle ages it of course the land-owning nobility and knights. To what degree a ruler is able to do this depends on time and place. In the late early/high middle ages we generally see very weak kings that are often barley able to bind the nobility at all. I don't think democratic tradition does not have much to do with it, its more the weakness of the rulers.
In the eastern world has the same political restrictions but the show themselves differently. In china you often have a high class of civil servants (literati) that you need to controll. In the east you often have important tribal leaders and so on. The same is true for every society, you can still model modern dictators this way.
The amount of wealth a ruler can control depends on how much he can extract from the population/land, and how much it costs him to bind the majority of the ruling elite.
After the high middle ages you see kings becoming more powerful because knights and castles lose efficiency and the king gets more power because he can employ a small army.
Source: Check out 'The Logic of Political Survival' or the popular version of it 'The Dictator's Handbook'.
Thanks for the video, it clarified my questions, well, almost all of them. But my the last one is: What was the name of this type of Monarchy? How it was called???
Everywhere I look for the types of monarchy I only find it citing the absolute and constitutional monarchy, but these were only created from, basically, as you said, in the late middle ages. The constitutional even later.
Thank you in advance!
feudal monarchy maybe?
AWESOME ONCE AGAIN.
Now do a video about monarchy in the early medieval period (500-1000AD)
pretty much the same thing
Hey RCH, I know I keep asking you this, and I just hope that it doesn't make you mad, but what happened to your "Sacrifice of the Crusaders" vid? It wasn't that comment that I left it on that you took it down was it?
No my friend, not at all. There were some technical issues with it. Hopefully we'll get them patched up and re-upload it at some point. All the best!
Real Crusades History Ok man, just wanted to make sure, hey once again I'm very sorry I kept asking you so much, if you want I can delete the messages I left ;)
Blake Hardeman Don't worry about it! I actually appreciate multiple messages, because that reminds me to answer questions! Sometimes questions can get lost in the shuffle.
I thought there was something familiar with your explanation of the justice council you recounted! When you said "first among equals" it clicked; the Kings of the High Middle Ages and their courts are very much like the Papacy and the Cardinals and (when in a council), the Bishops. That's very interesting.
I find the view of Henry VIII presented to be oversimplified, unfairly hostile, and not just a little bit "Romanized." The Pope at the time and Henry VIII both hated eachother and accused one another of being tyrants. Accepting the Roman critique of Henry VIII leads to a historical reading as valid as accepting Calvin's critique of Leo X. Regardless of Henry's authoritarianism, he never attempted to subvert national sovereignty in other people's lands as Pope Paul III did when he attempted to supplant Henry with Reginald Pole. The affair that followed was unfortunate and bloody. The Pope's meddling ended up costing several people their lives.
Moreover, I believe England is the precise wrong example solely because it was the least monarchic of all Medieval societies. This is the country that established the Magna Carta in 1215, after all. The various houses were so powerful that every move the monarch made was in check by the possible refusal of any of the Dukes.
Late monarchic France would be a much more fitting example of the Divine Right of Kings with Louis XVI who was, by all historical accounts, a kind and wise man who ruled with compassion until the nobles whose attempts to subvert and curtail his authority ultimately led to his and their own deaths.
I was mainly talking about the fact that he was responsible for thousands of executions on relatively flimsy grounds. His body count is really startling. I am not accepting the Roman critique, I think he just governed like a tyrant, and he always got his way on everything. The England of 1215 was quite different than the England of the 16th Century.
Real Crusades History Even Henry VIII had to carry out his reforms through Parliament, though his parliaments were quite subservient. In both England and France the wars between the factions of the nobility in the 15th century led the other classes to favour a strong crown in the interests of peace and order.
William Cooke Another factor was the undue respect for all things 'classical' that came over Western Europe with the Renaissance. Among other things, it led to a renewed interest in Roman law as codified by Justinian, according to which the emperor was the source of the law and his will *was* the law. That ran quite counter to the Germanic tradition, in which the king was *under* the law and as much bound by it as his vassals.
William Cooke Parliament under Henry VIII was pretty much a joke. He had all the power. Somebody looked at him cross-eyed and they died.
Henry VIII wanted to execute an insane woman for treason because she'd offended his pride. English law prohibited the trial and execution of the insane. So Henry got a law enacted allowing for the trial and execution of insane persons. And so, she was beheaded.
That, my friend, is a tyrant.
Modern people have to remember something; most, if not all Medieval European Kings sought to be perceived as just rulers. What better way to do this then to have the consent of great men in their common realm? Civil wars begin when Crownheads are impulsive. When a King goes to war, he wants to ride knee to knee with a coalition of the willing, not the whipped.
Love your series Steve! @realcrusadeshistory! Can you enlighten us as to how the Norman invasion of England may or may not have affected the First through Third Crusade, why didn't the Normans use their might in 1066 to take back lost areas of the Holy Land vs whipping out the Anglo Saxon rulers of England. Did the Normans participate in the Crusades at all? We hear mostly of the Franks but occasionally its interchanged with Normans. Lastly, why wasn't more support given in the form of manpower from Europe to take back Jerusalem after its lose in ,1099? thanks for your response in advance sir!
@RealCrusaderHistory at the 10:37 mark you make reference to western European "Latin" civilization. Is the Latin there in reference to being from what used to be the Roman Empire? Or because they spoke Latin? Or because they were loyal to the Catholic church? I thought the Franks were germanic
This term is commonly used among scholars, and was also used during the period by western Christians themselves. It does refer to the heritage of the Roman Empire. The languages spoken by these people were mostly rooted in Latin, and they were, also, loyal to the Roman church, which used Latin as its official language. It's quite accurate to refer to much of western and central Europe during this time as Latin Christian civilization.
"Once it's done it's done"
Well, not really, that's why amendments exist.
Actually what You're referring to is the lack of the institution of court appeal in the this time period that appeared later on.
am I allowed to share on google+ are you still preferring that we do not?
We even see a lot of war-hungry monarchs extending democratic rights to their people. Philip the Fair empowered the Estates General to rally the French people against the Pope. Edward III of England helped expand the power of Parliament to get support for his wars in France, arguing that "what touches all, must be approved by all."
One example of how limited was the power of the King in the 13th century was the case of Sancho II King of Portugal who was deposed for being a bad, unjust ruler by the pope
The *"Divine Right of Kings"* was originated by Martin Luther in 1500's. It really meant *absolute monarchy.*
But could king have gone against the decision of council if he so wanted? Or would he not even have the power or right to so? As in was he just entertaining this legal system or was he dependent on it?
Sibylla did when she made Guy king of Jerusalem.
Constance did when she married Raynauld of Chatillon and made him Prince of Antioch.
Wasn't Vlad The Impaler an absolute ruler( even though he was technically a prince)?
Vald III was Viovide (often translated as Prince) of Wallachia. A prince could be- and there one still is today- sovereign over a territory. In terms of ranks it is fifth, below Emperor, King, Grand Prince, and Gran Duke.
Henry 8th was an absolute monarchist cause his father killed all of his rivals.
I wouldn't call Henry VIII a "psychopath" I'd call him more of Hobbes' "Leviathan". Would you prefer the weakling Charles I who couldn't even hold his throne?
I think i would prefer a more Frederick 1 Hohenstauffen or Otto the great type of monarch (at least if we go by medieval/early modern standards of state morality)
I would like somone like Richard of York who was strong yet honorable/merciful.
Sadly it was that kindness that got him killed though.
No it would be done in secret not public bc didn’t have any advantage to monarchy
You def see change too with change of torture well documented torture n confession not being acceptable
China.
Islam.
Africa.
S.America
Mexico.
Where is torture not found ?
Judeo-Christian Nstions.
Mostly.
That was more like a form of medieval republicanism than democracy. Council of knights has nothing to do with democracy but it sure has a lot to do with republicanism. Roman republic was obviously a republic too. Only the council of "nobles" (at the later period the wealthiest, even the plebeians that got rich) ruled Rome for real. Even after those poor plebeians demanded equal share of the pie with their popular tribunes.
Early and high Medieval councils of knights come from Germanic tribal traditions not from the Roman traditions itself. Roman emperors at the late empire renounced their princeps (the first among equals) titles and acquired and claimed the dominus titles(despotism - dominate). Senate became kinda ceremonial and decided only in absence of the dominus.
It appears the same gradually happened in Medieval period.
So I guess Westeros is in the Late Middle Ages, what with King Joffrey's behaviour :)
Actually, no. Absolute monarchs had to play the part of the heroic paladin, because if he didn't, he'd have all the eyes in the kingdom focused on his sins and vices.
QUE HUBO PAPI !!!!!
The kings of Jerusalem were constitutional rulers who were voted in by nobles. If he rocks the boat, he's done.
Love your series Steve! @realcrusadeshistory! Can you enlighten us as to how the Norman invasion of England may or may not have affected the First through Third Crusade, why didn't the Normans use their might in 1066 to take back lost areas of the Holy Land vs whipping out the Anglo Saxon rulers of England. Did the Normans participate in the Crusades at all? We hear mostly of the Franks but occasionally its interchanged with Normans. Lastly, why wasn't more support given in the form of manpower from Europe to take back Jerusalem after its lose in ,1099? thanks for your response in advance sir!
Love your series Steve! @realcrusadeshistory! Can you enlighten us as to how the Norman invasion of England may or may not have affected the First through Third Crusade, why didn't the Normans use their might in 1066 to take back lost areas of the Holy Land vs whipping out the Anglo Saxon rulers of England. Did the Normans participate in the Crusades at all? We hear mostly of the Franks but occasionally its interchanged with Normans. Lastly, why wasn't more support given in the form of manpower from Europe to take back Jerusalem after its lose in ,1099? thanks for your response in advance sir!
Before the Normans invaded England, some Normans went to serve Lombard and Byzantine landholders in Southern Italy as many Normans had passed through there enroute to pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Since Saracens had taken Sicily and conducted coastal raids on the Italian coast, many Lombards and Byzantines took in these Normen into their ranks with great thanks. Eventually, many of Normans inter-married with the Italian/Lombard population and created estates of their own, one of these families was the Hauteville family, whom Roger II of Sicily was crowned King of Sicily in 1130. Before him came many of his family name had also made a name for themself in Italy, Robert Ironarm, Roger Borsa, Robert Guiscard (father of Bohemund of Antioch). The Normans also received the blessings of the Pope who was quite often at odds with some landholders in Southern Italy. So in answer to your question, YES, Normans did participate in the First Crusade, however, most of them were established in Southern Italy at this point in time. Not only that, most of the forces of the First Crusader were you could consider 'Frankish' but, Raymond of Toulouse commanded the largest of army of all, and he would be described as 'Occitan' rather than Frankish due to the geographic position of Southern and Northern France.