How different
were the ideals and practice of good governance and rule 1150-1450? Consider
England, Holy Roman Empire, and Italy.
From
the time period of 1150 until 1450 there were standards in every country in
Europe that were considered for good governance and rule. Overall, these
kingdoms all practiced the government and societal form of feudalism. The king
ruled over his nobles while the nobles ruled over the peasants. The phrases
“those who worked, those who prayed, and those who fought” rightly describes
the system. The class of those who worked consisted of the peasantry; those who
prayed were the clergy and church; those who fought were the kings, nobles, and
lords who defended the other two classes. While each of these countries have
similarities with their governance, they also have many differences. The
differences between England, Holy Roman Empire, and Italy are vast and start
with England’s rapid development of beuaucracy.
In
England, the Christian king oversaw his entire country. Before 1150, William
the Conqueror developed the first form of beurocratic governance that would
hold in England for the rest of the middle ages. The Doomsday
book kept records of all the subjects, their estates, and what taxes they owed
the king. Later, in 1154, Henry II came to power and instated an exchequer to
keep track of the finances in the kingdom. Within the Dialog of the Exchequer,
a thorough explanation of the duties explained the complex role the exchequer
played in English governance. With John I, abuse of feudal rights led the
barons to up rise and force John to sign the Magna Carta, a treaty between the two stating all the rights, obligations,
limitations and customs that would define the relationship between the king and
the nobles. During the reign of Henry
III, the English Parliament becomes a more prominent force in the government
and is used more regularly. The Good
Parliament of 1376 is a perfect example of how England’s medieval
government functioned with a system of checks and balances by this time. The
king called upon his vassals, the vessels called upon the clergy, the clergy
called on the lower nobles and the lower nobles called on their subjects, all
to decide whether or not they should help the king in his matters. This goes to
show that the government in England relied heavily upon checks and balances between
noble classes and offices (exchequer, chancellors) in order to retain peace and
prosperity. If a king or noble did not do this, acting alone and wrongly, he
was accused and forced to do the right thing; John I is the main example of
this.
Unlike
England, the Holy Roman Empire (mainly Germany at this time), did not rely
heavily upon a line of succession. The nobles voted in their leader from the
royal line who was not the direct heir. For centuries, the goal of this leader
was to unify Germany. All the leaders were challenged with this task and all of
them failed, leaving the pope and the subjects disappointed. Frederick I
Barbarossa attempted to hold Italy as well as the German states which caused a
great tension between the Pope and himself. In the Diet of Besancon (1157), we see the dispute between the two and the
description of what a good Holy Roman Empire lord would be: dignified and
honorable. Overall, good governance in the Holy Roman Empire consisted of
strong lords and nobles (Princes) overseeing their counties or cities. In 1356,
Charles IV wrote laws decreeing the way to choose the leader, as well as their
rights, and the rights of the subjects beneath them. The Golden Bull describes the governance of the 14th
century in the HRE and Bohemia. The Emperor is elected by a council of
electoral princes and possesses full rights to all the mines discovered on
their lands upon many other things. The electoral princes cannot be tried in
their own courts, but by the Diet that was in the HRE government. Overall, the
government in the HRE was much different than that of England. The Emperor was
elected by princes, the princes controlled their own little territories, the
diet was their form of a parliament, and they tried to rule over more than they
could handle (Italy).
Italy’s
governance is similar to that of the HRE in the aspect of the city governance.
The HRE’s princes ruled over their cities, and the emperor over them; in Italy,
local bishops or nobles ruled over a city, but no one ruled above them, save
the Pope in religious matters. In Bruni’s Panegyric
to the City of Florence, he depicts the way in which the city chose their
leader and the goals of the government. In Florence, no one stands above the
law. Like the English, the Florentines use a system of checks and Balances.
Unlike England, they do not have a sole ruler. There are 9 magistrates elected
for only 2 months. The goals of the government in Florence are to allow liberty
to flourish and to protect its people. In Machiavelli’s opinion (On the Republic), the single ruled city
republics are better than a monarchy because the people are better than princes
because a prince could be corrupt while the people are good and glorious. In
simple terms, princes lead to tyranny.
The governments of England, the HRE, and Italy are all
vastly different with one remaining factor: feudalism. England and Italy both
practice checks and balances. Italy and the HRE elect their leaders from
prestigious families. The HRE and England have a main king (Emperor) that
oversees the lesser nobles while also having a parliament (diet) to oversee the
laws and trials in the country. Good governance in these kingdoms all need a
strong central leader, checks and balances (to some effect in the HRE with the
princes checking on the Emperor), and a leader who follows the rules that the
good government has in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment