Download Western Civ. IH

Western Civ. IH
France to the 1200s
England to 1300
Rise of the Papacy
Page 5
Page 9
Page 13
GERMANY TO THE 1200S
But by 1000, kings in various European countries had begun to try to reduce anarchy and gain greater control again. In coming weeks, I will discuss the efforts that
kings in different places made. In each country, I will start back at about 1000 and
carry the story up to around 1200. You have to pay attention to dates. Today, I want
to discuss the country where the first progress was achieved. That country was
Germany, the part of Charlemagne’s empire east of the Rhine River.
The government of medieval Germany was based on feudalism, but it had some unusual features that I need to
mention at the outset. Germany was divided into several large feudal states, each led by a great lord with many loyal
followers who would support him in war. Some lords were descended from administrators of Charlemagne, but the major
leaders could trace their positions back further than that. They were descended from early Germanic chiefs who led the
older independent Germanic tribes that Charlemagne had conquered. These men were called Stem Dukes, tribal leaders.
Each Stem Duke ruled a territory whose people had their own customs, their own laws, and sometimes their own
Germanic dialect. Their subjects felt a strong loyalty to them dating back to the time when they had been leaders of
independent tribes. As feudalism spread, this loyalty strengthened; the principal subjects became vassals of the dukes.
Germany also had a king who theoretically ruled the whole country, but there was no tradition of loyalty to him and,
at first, no institutions through which he could really govern. He had no authority unless he could get the Stem Dukes and
other great lords to go along, which usually wasn’t easy.. The king had some advantages. Under feudalism, he became the
suzerain of the other lords, who had certain duties to him as vassals. Moreover, the king was usually a Stem Duke himself.
He had loyal vassals in his tribal lands who would fight for him if he had to go to war to force the great lords to obey him.
But the lords had a major advantage too. Following German custom, they elected the king. They could use this power
to force candidates for king to grant them political concessions. One long-range goal of the German kings was to make
their position hereditary and to end the procedure of election. This would end their dependence on the great lords and
gradually create a feeling of loyalty among the different tribal peoples of Germany for one particular ruling family.
P a g e 1 o f 16
Because of the strong respect for family in the Middle
Ages, a king could usually arrange to have his son elected to
succeed him. So, the throne usually passed from father to
son. But that only worked as long as a king had an adult son
to replace him. If the family died out, a real election was
needed again. Unfortunately, the early royal families never
held the throne long enough to crate a strong loyalty to any
particular ruling family and to end elections.
Otto I (936-973)
Thus, the king’s power depended on personal ability.
The first strong, able king was Otto I. He was called Otto
the Great due to his skill as a general. Otto’s first concern
was to find a way to exercise some authority in the lands
ruled by the great lords. The device he used for this purpose
was church. In Medieval Europe, some of the most
important leaders were bishops and archbishops. They were
just like other feudal lords. Each bishop was given a benefice
or lands as pay for his office. The lands had vassals on them
for whom the bishop was suzerain.
With lands and vassals to rule, bishops and archbishops
differed from regular lords in only two ways, but they were
very important ways. They were usually better educated
than other nobles. That made them better administrators.
Since they did not marry, their offices did not become
hereditary and independent like those of other vassals.
Church offices were a potential source of power for
anyone who could control them. That is what Otto I set out
to do. Under church law, bishops were supposed to be
elected by the clergy and lay leaders in the church districts
that they led. But Otto insisted that, as king, he had the
right to nominate and approve candidates for election. He
came to control the choice of bishops and archbishops
throughout Germany. They were his men. This gave him
loyal vassals in the lands of the great lords, and he used
them to represent him in the many areas of his kingdom.
In foreign policy, Otto’s most important act was to
extend his power down into the region of northern Italy.
Charlemagne’s successors lost control of north Italy. The
region became divided into several independent states, one
of which was the Papal States ruled by the pope from
Rome. In 961, one of the other Italian states attacked
Rome. To protect the city, Otto crossed the Alps and
conquered all of northern Italy down as far as Rome. He
brought the whole region under his control. As a reward for
his help, Pope John XII (955-963), proclaimed Otto the new
Roman Emperor in the West in 962. This had lasting
results. For the next 900 years, the German kings also held
the title of Roman Emperor. They called their lands the
Holy Roman Empire.
P a g e 2 o f 16
impose control over these towns, especially to tax them. But
the Italian towns eventually formed an alliance called the
But the most important immediate result of Otto’s
Lombard League to resist his plans.
action was to create an uncertain relationship between
The other opposition came from the papacy. It was led
German rulers and the popes. Since Rome and the Papal
by
an
able pope, Alexander III (1159-1181). Alexander
States were part of their Empire, Otto took the right to
wanted
to keep Frederick from increasing his control over
approve the papal elections. For a time, the emperors
the Church and the Papal States. Frederick’s attempts to
controlled the choice of popes.
gain greater control over Italy failed He suffered a series of
At first, the German rulers generally supported strong,
defeats that greatly weakened his power in the region. The
able popes who could rule the Papal States effectively for
Lombard League and the Papal States remained in the
them. The danger in this policy was that the popes would
Empire in theory, but in practice, Frederick had to give
become too strong. They might ally with the German king’s
them virtual independence in running their own affairs.
other vassals to keep government weak and make the Papal
Frederick had much more success in trying to dominate
States independent.
Germany. He defeated his major German opponents and
I do not have time to discuss all of the later German
came to dominate Germany. But his control still depended
kings. I can only sketch what some of the major political
almost completely on the strength of his army and his
difficulties were. Otto I’s power rested largely on his rights
personal skill as a general.
as supreme suzerain enforced by his personal abilities as a
general. Later rulers tried to create new powers that the
king could exercise simply because he was king. Among
other things, they included the right to coin money, to
collect various fees and taxes, and to give legal decisions.
Had German kings been successful, they might have gained
great power, but they weren’t very successful. A number of
problems made it difficult for German kings, Holy Roman
Emperors, to gain greater authority.
Holy Roman Emperors and the Papacy
The main problem was the tendency of the royal
families to die out. When that happened, the lords of
Germany had to elect a king from a new family. The
elections caused fierce competition and sometimes civil war
between the rival candidates. There were a couple of really
nasty civil wars between Otto’s death and 1152. To get
support in the wars, candidates for the throne often had to
make concession to the lesser lords. Instead of increasing
the king’s power, the lesser lords got greater control over
their own fiefs. In the end, the German rulers always had to
rely on their military strength to enforce their wishes in the
Empire.
Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-1190)
The medieval Empire reached its height under the
most powerful later German ruler Frederick I Barbarossa
(1152-1190). If Frederick had focused his energy on
Germany, he might have been able to form the basis of a
true government there. But early in his reign, he went to
war in the other part of his empire – northern Italy.
Frederick wanted to tighten his hold over the region, but he
met with serious opposition from two sources. First, by the
1100s, many new cities had begun to develop in northern
Italy due to the gradual revival of trade. Frederick hoped to
Frederick Barbarossa from a manuscript dated 1188 in the Vatican
Library.
P a g e 3 o f 16
After Frederick Barbarossa
After Frederick died, events occurred that overturned all of his accomplishments. His son Henry VI (1190-1197)
largely ignored Germany and devoted his attention to trying to restore the control over Italy that Frederick had lost. But he
died after only a short reign at the age of 32. That was disastrous. Henry’s only son was too young to succeed him. A new
king had to be elected. And, as before, the election led to a civil war.
The war was made worse because Henry’s policies had inspired the opposition of the papacy. Shortly after Henry’s
death, a new pope named Innocent III (1198-1216) came to power. Innocent was the most powerful and able of the
medieval popes. He skillfully manipulated the conflict in the Empire to achieve his own goals. He supported first one
candidate for king and then another in return for concession to strengthen his control over the Church and to make the
Papal States more independent. In the process, he delayed the final choice of a new emperor for fourteen years while the
civil war continued to rage. By the time the war ended, the power of the German ruler had been weakened so much that
no later Emperor was ever able to recreate the dominance that Frederick I had enjoyed.
The fact that the title of Roman Emperor in the West passed from France to Germany after the death of
Charlemagne points up that the German rulers were the true successors of the Carolingian kings. Germany was the first
area to have any strong rulers in the period after the collapse of Charlemagne’s Empire. Various capable German kings
fought hard to overcome the power of their feudal subordinates. They were nearly successful enough to justify their claims
to be Roman emperors at least in the sense that Charlemagne had been.
But two factors arising from the claiming of this title eventually helped to undermine their efforts to increase the
power of their government. One was the costly involvement in Italy, which drained energies and resources that should
have been spent on Germany itself. The other was their involvement with the papacy, which, in the end, weakened rather
than strengthened their positions. As a result of their failure, both Germany and Italy failed to achieve any kind of unified
government until later in the nineteenth century.
P a g e 4 o f 16
France to the 1200s
Central government was very weak in France after 850. By 1000, France was divided into several large feudal states each headed by a great lord. Most of the states
were ruled by counts descended from the local officials appointed by Charlemagne.
A few of the lords had seized lands during the confusion between 850 and 1000.
There was also a king. Technically, he was feudal suzerain of the great lords, but it was hard for him to assert his power over
them. The great lords possessed extensive lands with lots of vassals who were loyal to them, not really much to the king. To make
matters worse, the great lords had the right to elect the king of France. They liked to elect kings who were pretty weak, who had
limited lands and few vassals to assist him in any struggle against the great lords. In 987, the great lords elected a man named
Hugh Capet (987-996). Hugh was count of Paris. He controlled a very small territory around the city of Paris. Hugh Capet was
an extremely weak king, but his descendants were gradually able to create a stronger government. They are known as the
Capetian family of kings. They ruled France from 987-1328. They had certain advantages over the feudal lords that the kings of
Germany, whom we have already seen, did not have. Unlike the German rulers, every Capetian king had a son to succeed him
from 987-1328. This was a long period of time. Moreover, until fairly late, every son was an adult when his father died, so the
Capetians could have their sons elected as their successors before they died. Now, remember that Medieval Europeans were
really big on tradition. Having a very long period of uninterrupted succession within the same family gradually established that
the king’s oldest son would succeed him. The lords eventually lost the power to elect the king.
Another reason for Capetian success was because, the king’s lands were located in the center of France. As Capetian lands
expanded, and they did, they were still in the middle of the country. Central location made it possible for French kings to rule
the nation from the center. Additionally, Paris became a great commercial center, which gave Capetian kings potentially great
wealth.
The process of building up royal power was gradual. The first six Capetian kings (987-1180) were not strong enough to
assert power over the great lords who ruled most of France, so they concentrated on strengthening their rule over their lands
around Paris. The kings suppressed bandits and forced their vassals in the county to live up to their obligations of the feudal
contract. They increased their control over administration by appointing minor clergymen and nobles to administrative office.
These men followed orders better than great feudal lords did. They also pursued a careful policy of marrying their sons to
women who were in line to inherit estates. When the women inherited, their land came to the Capetians and was added to royal
territory.
P a g e 5 o f 16
Capetians and Plantagenets
another of Philip’s French vassals. The vassal asked Philip to
help him get John to repay him for the loss of his fiancee.
Because Philip was the suzerain of both men, he had the
right to settle the dispute between them. He summoned John
to come to the French court to hear his decision. John
refused. By refusing, John violated the feudal contract. This
gave Philip the right to take back the fief – that is all of John’s
lands in France. Philip waged a series of wars to seize John’s
French lands. The Church and most French nobles supported
him because he had feudal law on his side. Philip won the
major battle at Bouvines in 1214. Philip was not able to
capture John’s lands in southern France, but he did conquer
Normandy and other areas in the north.
The first Capetian king to extend direct royal power
outside of Paris was Philip II Augustus (1180-1223). He was
a shrewd and determined monarch. His policy was to force
all his vassals, great and small, to live up to their obligations
to him. To this end, he engaged in a long series of struggles
with the Plantagenet family, who were his strongest vassals.
The Plantagenets were Dukes of Normandy. Normandy was
a feudal state that had been set up on the northern coast of
France by Vikings in the 800s. It was a large state, and later
dukes had added a lot to it. By Philip’s time, the Plantagenets
ruled many feudal states in France besides Normandy. In fact,
they were his feudal vassals in about two-thirds of the
Philip’s victories over John of England gave him direct
country. In addition, they were also kings of England, where
control over a much larger area in France, but that was not
they ruled in their own right. I’ll come back to this.
all. The Normans were good organizers, and they had a
During the early part of Philip’s reign, the Plantagenet
highly developed administration in Normandy. Philip took it
rulers were too capable for him to gain any lasting power over
over and extended it to all of his territories. The lands of
them. This changed when King John of England (1199-1216)
the king were divided into districts. Each district had a
became Duke of Normandy in 1199. John was not a very
traveling official assigned to represent the king’s interest.
able ruler, and he was unpopular with his subjects, as we
The official was called a bailli. The baillis collected taxes,
shall see next time. Philip gained political advantage over
made judicial decisions, and insured that the king’s feudal
John by insisting on his rights as John’s suzerain. John made
rights were enforced.
the mistake of marrying a woman who was engaged to
King Philip II Augustus of France is shown on the left. Below is a fanciful portrait
of King John of England, the Duke of Normandy as well as the ruler of England.
P a g e 6 o f 16
Philip usually appointed townsmen as baillis, and he paid
them in money, not in land. They could be appointed and
dismissed at his discretion. They gave him greater power in
the local areas. By his death, Philip had greater control over
France than any previous king.
Louis IX (1226-1270)
government – the power to tax. By this time, French
government was bigger and was doing more than it ever
had done before. As a result, it needed more money. The
right of a medieval king to tax was based on the right of the
suzerain to collect hospitality and other feudal taxes. Under
the feudal contract, the suzerain could not impose new
kinds of taxes unless his vassals agreed. But feudal law was
vague about how often the traditional taxes could be
collected. These taxes were paid on certain vaguely
specified occasions. Hospitality, for example, was paid
whenever the lord visited, and he visited when he wanted.
Philip gathered around him a group of shrewd, ruthless
administrators drawn mainly from the towns. They found
ways to collect the traditional taxes as often as possible.
The next great Capetian king was Philip’s grandson,
Louis IX (1226-1270). Under him the monarchy became
stronger. This was because a new conception of the royal
power began to develop. This new idea was that God had
given the king a religious responsibility to care for the wellbeing of his subjects, even if he had to violate the feudal
contract to do that. No king in the Middle Ages was better
suited to have such a responsibility than Louis IX. He was
But Philip’s government still needed money. He tried to
considered the perfect Christian king.
find ways to get completely new taxes established. As we
Personally, he was very pious and deeply committed to shall see later, they especially wanted to tax the lands of the
Christian principles. He never swore, avoided luxury, and Church in France, which had been largely immune.
lived a life of self-denial almost like a monk. In foreign Eventually the king and his administrators came up with a
affairs, he always supported the interests of the papacy in dandy idea to get new taxes. Under feudalism, the suzerain
Italy, and he tried to promote peace among other Christian could call together his vassals to agree to changes in the
states. He always avoided wars with other Christians. But he feudal contract. They decided to ask the vassals to agree to
did support wars in a Christian cause. He led a number of new taxes. In 1302, representatives of the vassals were
crusades against unbelievers. In fact, he died during a called to Paris for this purpose. This meeting was known as
crusade against the Moslems in North Africa. He was such the Estates General. The Estates General was composed of
a good Christian that in 1297, he was made a saint by the three groups of representatives – one from the nobility, one
Church. Louis IX was Saint Louis.
from the clergy, and one from the towns. In 1302, it
When Louis felt that it was his Christian duty, he often approved all of the new taxes Philip requested. Later, it
did things that he had no right to do under the feudal generally continued to endorse royal decisions.
contract. When feudal courts acted unjustly, for instance,
Louis would step in and reverse those decisions. Louis often
issued laws without consulting his vassals, if he thought it
was right, even though he was supposed to consult his
vassals. One law created a national system of money for
France. Another banned personal combat between knights
as a way of settling legal disputes.
Few Frenchmen objected to these actions because they
were wise and just and because Louis’s reputation for
holiness greatly increased the prestige of the French
monarchy. So, by the end of Louis’s reign, the king of
France was regarded less and less as a feudal overlord and
more and more as a true sovereign king.
Philip IV, The Fair
The last great Capetian king went far beyond the
traditions of feudalism in his exercise of power. He was
Philip IV, the Fair (1285-1314). His nickname refers to his
appearance, not his conduct of government. Saint Louis
created new powers to make government more just, but
Philip IV increased the most unpopular power of
Philip IV, the Fair. Fair of complexion, but not of behavior.
P a g e 7 o f 16
Now why on earth would the Estates meet and approve new taxes. There were many reasons for the weakness of the
Estates General, but most important was that the king’s power was too great to be challenged. By 1302, royal power in
France had been steadily increasing for over a century. Custom and tradition had created a French monarchy and a French
government that was far stronger than it could ever become under feudalism. In fact, what came about in France was a
true monarchy working within a feudal framework. Feudal government was stretched so thin under Capetian rule that
further expansion of royal power was necessary. Louis IX ruptured the feudal contract repeatedly, but he was so pious,
that his vassals let him get away with it. Philip used the Estates General to increase taxes and other royal prerogatives, and
he was so wily and so powerful that he got away with it. So, as a result, a new system of government emerged that gave
French kings much more control over their kingdom.
P a g e 8 o f 16
England to 1300
In the last lecture, I talked about the efforts of the Capetian kings in France to build
a strong central government. The struggle against feudalism in France ended differently from the struggle in Germany. In Germany centralization failed; in France it
won. Efforts to build a strong central government in England ended in a kind of
compromise. That’s what we are going to look at now.
I haven’t really said anything about England yet, so let’s begin with a quick tour of English history after the fall of the
Roman Empire. This period is known as Anglo-Saxon England (403-1066). What is now England had been a part of the
Roman Empire, but in 403 the last Roman troops were withdrawn to fight elsewhere. With this, the region was rapidly
overrun by two western Germanic peoples, the Angles and the Saxons. They give their name to the period.
At first, conditions were very primitive, but intellectual life recovered very quickly under the influence of Christian
missionaries. Politically, however, England remained divided into several separate Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. In the 800s and
900s, parts of the island were overrun by invasions of Viking Danes. To resist these attacks, the Anglo-Saxons were
combined into a single state by the king Alfred the Great (871-900).
Because it was separate from the continent, the organization of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom developed along Germanic
lines that weren’t really feudal. The kingdom was divided into thirty-four semi-independent districts called shires. Each
shire was under a local chief known as an earl. In addition, each shire had an administrator, called the sheriff, who
represented the king. He administered local justice and collected taxes for the king.
All able-bodied landowners were required to provide military service according to the old Germanic principle. There
were no feudal armies in England. The English army included not only great lords but also small farmers (yeomen). There
were more small independent farms in England than elsewhere in medieval Europe.
By 1050, English society and law were quite different from the feudal systems in place on the Continent. But in 1066,
that changed dramatically. That year, the last Anglo-Saxon king, Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) died, and his throne
was claimed by a distant relative, William the Bastard. William was the Duke of Normandy, the Viking state in northern
France. The Anglo-Saxons raised a king of their own, but he was defeated by the Normans at the Battle of Hastings in
1066. William became the new king of England and was thereafter referred to as William the Conqueror (1066-1087). I’m
sure you’ll agree that’s quite an improvement.
P a g e 9 o f 16
William’s Rule
Common Law and Royal Authority
Since William had conquered England, he owned the
entire kingdom outright and could do anything he wanted
with it. So, he reorganized it. In fact he made it the most
advanced state in Western Europe. He created a form of
feudalism that placed him firmly in charge of the nation.
He returned some land to Anglo-Saxon owners in return for
taxes, then he divided the rest into fiefs for Norman knights
who had supported the conquest. But he kept all castles and
forts in his own hands and forbade his vassals from fighting
private wars with each other.
Through the Middle Ages, the kings of England, like
kings elsewhere, were trying to extend their powers further.
But this effort was resisted, and there were some setbacks.
We must now look at their efforts. From these efforts, many
of the most enduring and characteristically English
institutions emerged.
He retained many of the older Anglo-Saxon institutions
which strengthened royal government. He kept the sheriffs
as his local representatives. He retained the draft on all
landowners, so that he had some military forces who were
not feudal knights or vassals. This arrangement gave the
kings of England powers and resources that other kings did
not have – a regular income from taxes, some non-feudal
military forces, and a centralized government.
He and his successors used the resources of England to
maintain and extend their control over Normandy and
other lands that they ruled in France.
One of the ways that the kings tried to extend their
power was by creating a new system of law. In William the
Conqueror’s time, most local courts used the primitive
Germanic law of the Anglo-Saxons which varied from
region to region. The great lords used feudal law to decide
cases having to do with fiefs and landholding. In the 1100s,
the Church began to introduce Canon Law for trying
clergymen and others who committed religious offenses.
The kings tried to introduce uniformity by gradually
creating a new law system that they could control. This new
law should be the same for everybody everywhere in the
kingdom — common law.
This scene from the Bayeux Tapestry shows Norman cavalry defeating Harold to give the throne of England to William of Normandy
at the Battle of Hastings, October 14th 1066.
P a g e 10 o f 16
A law system that they could control would strengthen the
king’s position in several ways. Everyone who wanted to obtain
justice would have to go to the king. This would strengthen his
power over his subjects. It would enable the king to exercise
greater control over the land revenues of the kingdom. It
would also enable the king to obtain more money in the form
of fines and legal fees. William’s son, Henry I (1100-1135)
began efforts to establish the judicial rights of the king.
Bouvines and lost many of his lands in France. The
Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton and the great
nobles cornered John and forced him to issue the Magna
Charta.
Henry II’s Reforms
1. The king could not impose new taxes without first
consulting with the lords of the realm.
Magna Charta
The Magna Charta was really an effort to put on paper
certain traditional feudal rights that English rulers had ignored:
The king who had the greatest influence on the growth of
common law was Henry II (1154-1189). It was an established 2. He could not avoid granting justice and could not
condemn anyone without following proper legal
principle that the king had the duty to maintain the peace in
procedures
the kingdom. Henry II took this custom to heart. He
aggressively investigated crimes everywhere in his kingdom. In 3. The charter, above all, placed the king within the
limitations of the law just like everyone else.
1166, he decreed that the leading citizens of each shire should
meet regularly with the sheriff and give information about
crimes committed in the shire. This is the origin of the grand
jury system.
He introduced a new method of securing proof in
various kinds of cases. In earlier times, evidence was provided
by compurgation, in which the parties to a case got many
friends and relatives to swear oaths in support of their
contentions. He provided that in certain cases, evidence would
be provided by twelve disinterested persons from the shire who
had investigated the case at issue. This is the origin of trial by
jury.
Henry suffered only one setback. At the end of his reign
he was forced to concede the right of churchmen to be tried
under cannon law by Church courts. In spite of this, he made
the common law the most widely used and most popular legal
system in England.
Richard and John
Many Englishmen liked and supported the common law.
But others resented the king’s efforts to extend his power in
other areas, particularly attempts to increase taxation. After
Henry II, the nobles of England started a reaction against
royal power. Henry II’s sons, Richard I (1189-1199) and John
(1199-1216), greatly increased taxes to finance foreign
adventures and wars in areas outside of England itself.
Richard was well liked and extended taxes to support
Crusades. But when he left to go on the 2nd Crusade himself,
he left the throne to his brother, John. John was not very
likeable, and to make matters worse, he got into trouble with
both Philip Augustus of France, and with Pope Innocent III.
His conflicts with these two cost him a great deal of
money, and in the end he lost . Leaders of the English Church
and the nobles resented having to pay to support John’s
European adventures. In 1213, just after John was defeated at
King John contemplates the terms of the Magna Charta
with undoubted distaste.
P a g e 11 o f 16
Beginnings of Parliament
By forcing John to issue the Magna Charta, the nobles raised a question that had not really faced England before: Who
would rule the land, the king or his nobles? The answer that was finally reached was that they would cooperate.
Cooperation was not fully worked out until the Middle Ages were over, but the first steps toward cooperation were taken in
the century after the Magna Charta. Parliament
There had always been a tradition in England that the king would consult with the leading men of the kingdom before
making decisions. Under feudalism, the suzerain had to preserve the interests of his vassals by asking them for advice.
Vassals could come to the king’s court to assist him in his decisions. To provide a mechanism for consulting with his vassals,
William the Conqueror had established the curia regis or the king’s council. At first, it was made up exclusively of the great
vassals of England. Later, administrative and financial officials also sat on the council.
In the 1200s, meetings of the curia regis were called conferences – in French Parliaments. The council helped the king
in various ways. It kept him informed about the ideas of the leading Englishmen, advised him on needed new laws, and
helped him to make judicial decisions.
In 1215, the nobles forced John to agree in the Magna Charta that he would consult with this body before imposing any
new taxes. This requirement hampered the king’s activities, and John’s son, Henry III (1216-1272) often ignored it and
bypassed the council. This caused considerable unrest. The next king, Edward I (1272-1307), tried different tactic. Instead
of ignoring the council, he expanded it.
The problem with the curia was that it was made up of great lords, who were likely to oppose the exercise of royal
power and to restrict new taxes. Edward diluted their influence by inviting representatives of the lesser nobility, the lesser
clergy, and the towns to meet with the curia. These groups benefitted from strong government.
The most famous parliament of Edward’s reign was called the Model Parliament of 1295. It was called the Model
Parliament because it included not only the great lords temporal and spiritual [explain], but also included two knights from
each shire and two representatives from each important town. This Parliament wasn’t really a legislative body. It only
advised the king. But this more representative body increasingly gave a stamp of legitimacy to royal laws. Gradually, over
the next 300 or so years, it became a legislative body. That is, Parliament passed laws that only needed the royal assent—
but the evolution of Parliament is for next semester.
Conclusion
If we compare the medieval development of England with that in France and Germany, we see that its outcome was
quite different from that elsewhere. In France, the central government triumphed. In Germany, it failed. In England, there
was a kind of compromise between the king and his subjects.
The decisive factor in the English development was the Norman Conquest, which gave the king an overwhelming
power, relatively, at an early stage of growth. The successors of William tried to build his success to expand their power
further. A major stumbling block was that the English kings had lands and interests in other areas besides England that
occupied their time and energies. Involvement elsewhere might weaken them temporarily in England itself. Royal power
grew by taking two steps forward and then one step backward. Thus, the final result in compromise between royal power
and the rights of the subjects.
P a g e 12 o f 16
Rise of the Papacy
As Medieval secular rulers between the 900s and the end of the 14th century worked
to expand their powers and authority over other competitors, a series of popes tried
to expand their control over the Church in the West and over the secular rulers of
the states of Europe as well. The popes became increasingly more formidable opponents to European kings because they came to have greater and greater control
over the Church in Western Europe after 1000.
First, let’s look at the position of the popes within the Church during the early Middle Ages (ca. 400-1000). Now,
remember that the popes had claimed to be the leaders of the Church ever since the late Roman Empire. They based this
claim on what they called the “Petrine Theory.” According to this theory, St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles and the
Bishops of Rome were the successors of Peter. Thus the pope should lead the other bishops and head the Church. Most
Western Christians sort of believed it by the 500s.
But this did not mean that the popes actually ruled the Church. They were simply revered as the main spiritual leaders
of the West. Their religious opinions were respected but not considered absolute. Most bishops, and even some secular
leaders, believed that they too had the right to make religious decisions for their territories. The popes had no way of
directly controlling other bishops of Western Europe. As long as the popes didn’t select bishops they had no real authority
over them. As we saw last time, bishops were elected, and often political leaders had most of the say in the elections.
From 850 to 1000, when political power was broken up among large numbers of local lords, the Church also became
increasingly divided. Even the office of the pope was affected. The pope was also elected, and before the time of Otto I,
the local nobles of the Papal States around Rome usually dominated the election. Then, after Otto brought Rome into the
Holy Roman Empire, the election of popes was controlled for a while by the emperors. So, if the popes were really to rule
the Church, they had to do two things. First they had to eliminate political influence over Church officials and especially
over their own position. Then, the popes had to bring the Church leaders under their own administrative control.
By 1000, some members and officials of the Church worked toward Church reform. The reform movement had
several religious objectives, but the major goal to remove secular political influence from the Church. It was called the
Cluniac Reform Movement because it was led by monks from the monastery of Cluny in southern France. In medieval
Europe, monks often took the lead in addressing religious problems in society. Because the monks had given up everything
P a g e 13 o f 16
for Christian life, they were usually more influenced by
religious principle than other people. They were the
natural leaders of this reform. Some political leaders
supported the reform too, up to a point. The most
important were the kings of Germany. Remember that
they were also Roman emperors. As emperors, they
thought that they had a special duty to oversee Church
affairs.
ceremony that placed bishops and archbishops into their
offices. Usually, the bishops were invested by the kings or
other lords who chose them. But, Gregory wanted to have
them invested by other Church officials. Gregory really
wanted to keep political leaders out of the election of
bishops and archbishops. Political leaders resisted this
because they wanted to be able to choose bishops who
could help them in run their government. Gregory VII
and his successors quarreled over these issues with almost
all of the major kings of Western Europe, but the most
serious disputes were with the Holy Roman Emperors.
Remember that the emperors relied very heavily on
Church officials to help them run the Empire. Also, the
emperors still believed that they, not the popes, had the
ultimate duty to supervise the Church, just as all other
Roman emperors had done.
The emperors supported Church reform by helping to
elect strong popes who promoted reform. The first such
goal was to gain greater independence for the papacy
itself. Reformers won a major victory in 1059, when Pope
Nicholas II (1059-1061) changed the way popes were
elected. Under the new method, the cardinal clergy, the
senior clergy of Rome would elect the pope. The Holy
Roman Emperor did not object to the change because at
first he had the right to approve the cardinals’ decision.
The struggle over investiture began when, in 1065, the
But this right had to be renewed for each new emperor. Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV gave the office of
Later, when friction grew between the emperors and the Archbishop of Milan to a supporter. This was in direct
popes, the papacy simply stopped renewing the right.
opposition to Gregory’s rule that secular rulers had no
right to give church offices away. Gregory
The Investiture Struggle
excommunicated Henry. Excommunication might very
This reform gave the papacy greater freedom. It well have ended Henry’s precarious reign and the German
allowed a very ambitious and strong-willed pope to press king knew it. Henry decided that he would need to win his
for an even more radical change. He was Pope Gregory way back into the pope’s good graces. In the winter of
VII (1073-1085). Unlike earlier reforms, Gregory’s reform 1076/77, Gregory was staying at a castle in northern Italy
provoked a long dispute between the papacy and most near the town of Canossa. Henry traveled to Canossa as a
political leaders in Western Europe. The dispute is called penitent, seeking forgiveness from the pope.
the Investiture Struggle because it dealt in part with the
The conception of the
Papacy as the center of
society was established in
the Middle Ages after the
victory of St. Gregory VII
over the pretensions of
the Emperor. In the picture, the latter is at the
right of and one step
lower than the Pope.
P a g e 14 o f 16
When Henry reached Canossa, the Pope ordered that
he be refused entry. According to the first-hand accounts of
the scene (letters written by both Gregory and Henry in the
following years), Henry waited by the gate for three full
days. During this time, he allegedly wore only his penitent
hair-shirt and fasted. Although no contemporary sources
report this, it has since been speculated that Henry spent
much of his time during these three days in the village at
the foot of the hill.
On 28 January (the feast of Saint Paul's conversion) the
gates were opened for Henry and he was allowed to enter
the fortress. Contemporary accounts report that he knelt
before Pope Gregory and begged his forgiveness. Gregory
absolved Henry and invited him back into the Church.
That evening, Gregory and Henry shared communion in
the Cathedral of Saint Nicholas inside the fortress, signaling
the official end of Henry's excommunication. This incident
was the first act in a series of dramas over investiture that
would be played out between several popes and several
rulers. But, it was definitely a solid win for the papacy.
Papal Powers to Enforce Policy
independent of government.
At this point the papacy began to try to bring Church
officials more fully under the direction of Rome. Another
important way that popes gained more authority was by
means of the canon law. Canon law is a religious law
governing the Church and its representatives. In the 1100s,
many new provisions were added to the canon law to give
the popes greater authority over the Church. Here are a few
of the more notable additions.
The papacy acquired the power to interpreted canon
law. Any dispute over the law could be appealed to
Rome, where a final decision was made.
The pope gained the authority to override the
decisions of earlier Church councils, such as the
Council of Nicea. He also had to approve any actions
taken by new councils in the future. This meant that
each pope could reinterpret Church doctrine.
The popes gradually gained the power to appoint
more and more lower clergy. Of course, this gave them
growing influence over the elections of bishops since
they appointed the men who voted in the elections.
The popes had powerful religious weapons to use
Popes even began to insist that the canon law was the
against those who opposed them. They claimed the right to
only law that could be applied to Churchmen.
prevent people from participating in the rites of the Church.
Regardless of what they did, clergy could only be tried
They could expel an individual from the Church
in Church courts controlled by Rome. Most
(excommunication), and they could close all churches in a
governments disputed this claim, but it did come to be
whole country (interdiction). Many people believed that
accepted in some countries, at least briefly.
they were damned if they were barred
from the sacraments. In this period,
salvation was so important that most
people would not risk that. A ruler’s
subjects might not support their king in
a dispute with the pope if it imperiled
their souls. This insured that the papacy
would eventually win the Investiture
Struggle. It was finally ended in
Germany by an agreement called the
Concordat of Worms (1122). This only
applied to Germany and Italy, but
similar agreements were worked out in
other countries of Europe as well.
Under it, bishops were elected solely by
the clergy in their areas. The emperor
had no direct role in the election unless
there was a tie. Then he cast the
deciding vote. The emperor could still
campaign for his candidate behind the
The Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV waits at the castle door, barefoot in the
scenes of course. But it was a major step
snow, at Canossa for forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII.
toward making Church leaders
P a g e 15 o f 16
Innocent III (1198-1116)
These developments led to the high-point in the history
of the medieval papacy under the able and influential Pope
Innocent III (1198-1216). Innocent believed that the pope
should exercise a “plenitude of power,” that is, complete
authority, over the Church AND over secular rulers! He
came closer to doing that than any of his predecessors.
Innocent argued that God had given
the papacy the special duty to
oversee the carrying out of His will
in the world. The pope, he said, is
below God but above man. Innocent
was the first pope to take the title
“Vicar of Christ,” which means the
pope is the representative or
lieutenant of Christ on Earth. This
view conflicted directly with the
ideas of secular leaders who claimed
to have authority over the Church.
Beyond that, the council officially endorsed for the first
time the doctrine of transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
This is the belief that, in communion, the bread and
wine are miraculously changed into the body and blood
of Christ. This greatly increased the awesomeness of the
sacrament, and it also enhanced the prestige of priests
who performed it.
Innocent III finally destroyed
any claim that the Holy Roman
Emperors had over Church affairs
in Germany and northern Italy or in
Western Europe. In fact Innocent
turned the tables on the Holy
Roman Emperors by insisting that
no one could be elected emperor of
Germany without papal approval.
Earlier popes had sometimes raised
this claim, but Innocent was able to
pressure all the German leaders to
accept it for the first time, at least in
theory. Innocent even revoked the
emperor’s right to vote in the
elections of bishops.
Conclusion
To sum up, between about 1000
and the 1200s, the popes gradually
progressed from being purely
nominal leaders of a church that
was actually disunited and
controlled by political leaders to
exercising an effective, direct
jurisdiction over all Church affairs.
Even under Innocent III, the pope
was still not as dominant in the
Church as he came to be in the later
Middle Ages or even in modern
times. But Innocent did bring the
papacy to new heights in the church
at a time when the church probably
had its greatest influence in
European life.
Much of this was accomplished
at the expense of political leaders,
especially the Holy Roman
emperors, and it is often
conventional to present the whole
process as an intense power struggle
between church and state. This can
be exaggerated. For a long time,
Church leaders and political leaders
cooperated in trying to strengthen
Innocent also made the Church
the Church because of religious
A picture of Innocent III, possible
more important in the life of the
convictions that they all shared. It
“doodled” from life in 1203.
average person. He achieved this
was only very gradually that conflict
through the decrees of the Fourth
developed as the goals of the papacy
Lateran Council (1215). The Council made several came to threaten more closely not only the political power
important decisions.
of kings, but also what they considered their religious duties.
The Council formally set the number of sacraments at The papacy was successful chiefly because of the great
seven; the sacraments were religious rites. It also stressed moral prestige that the popes possessed in the eyes of
the importance of participating in the sacraments for all Western Europeans. We shall see later that such prestige
would not endure when conditions began to change. Later
Christians.
the popes would still run the Church, but the Church would
The Council decreed that every Christian had to
not be as influential as before.
perform the sacrament of confessing his sins once a year.
This gave the Church greater opportunity to supervise
the moral lives of Europeans.
P a g e 16 o f 16