Good Medieval Governance in England, HRE and Italy

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 14^th 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.