Glorious_Leader

So often you hear historians listing the accomplishments of great Kings. However, in a time where our administrators rely so much on communications technology to do their jobs as leaders, I find myself curious as to how exactly Kings got the job done. Contemporary media seldom shows them doing more than occasionally riding into battle. But what of peacetime? What could, for example, Louis the XVI have done to solve the financial burdens of France? Would he have just been expected to find someone else and tell them to do it?

I suppose a shorthand way of explaining my question is: How did kings accomplish their accomplishments? What exactly did they do after getting out of bed on the decisive morning of some great historical event?

kimi

They accomplished it by having people that felt loyalty towards them. Or, in more modern terms, by spending political capital.

DreamWeaver

Varies with time period to some extent, and the role of the King in his particular society.

Essentially he did the same job as any governm,ent today might do, Countries dont run themselves.

The king was an administrator. A manager of the secular nobility, and sometimes the church too. In a feudal structure authority descends from the king at the top. The management of the relam depends on those below him, for such a thing is beyond one man. Dealing with these other magnates in the running of the country, discussing and passing legislation for that effect, appointing officials to carry it out etc etc. Henry I in England brings in lots of educated men, clerics to help run and admin the country, much to the annoyance of others, who resented these men from the dust beign given such positions. The job that modern faceless bureaucrats and administraorts in civil services do is exactly the same in many respects to what kings and their associates would formally have done. The difference being is that modern state running machinery is much bigger, and so requires more people. In the past it would have been smaller, and more personable. People had faces and were known.

Same job, just fewer people doing it.

As nations grew in complexity and size the machinery needed was less and less, the establishemtn of professional or regular governmental classes begins. Thus relieving the king of some of the work he has to do. The monarchs role is thus reduced. Hence I guess the images of partying all the time or riding off into battle.

Glorious_Leader

So the ideal king can be a complete fool when it comes to running his country, as long as he has a talent for appointing the best man to fill each position below him?

DreamWeaver

To an extent.

Medieval Kingship is a bit different to early modern ones.

In the medieval, kingship and thus the administration of the relam is highly personable. Its based around very real interpersonal relationships. Thus the character and nature of the kings is very crucial. Richard I, not a good admin chap but very good with people. Considered an alright king. John, great at admin not to good on the getting along with people, considered a bad king. Edward II, weak willed and prone to favourtisim, annoyed people. The individual character of the king thus accounts for alot, since the management of the realm is very hands on and between so few people.

By the Early Modern period, things are a bit different. Countrys are large and more developed. Administration is harder and so needs people capable of running it. The exact nature of the king is thus less important as there are competent people running the show. His personality will still have an effect anmd take a toll, but the running of the country by then had moved to a larger number of people, the infleuce of the king is diluetd.

Glorious_Leader

Interesting.

But in both periods his physical duties are nothing more than telling others what to do in general, and letting these men he has appointed roll up their sleeves, put on their thinking caps, and do all of the actual work, yes?

The administration you stress in the medieval period, what did it consist of?

DreamWeaver

Administration is of course just one aspect of kingship, a pretty big one though it was.

In medieval terms, there is more to it. For while the king can appoint people to govern and admin the relam in his name, he actually has to enforce that what is being done is actually what he wants. The King though offically above his magnates, was often at their mercy, especially the more powerful ones. The management of people is thus very important. It makes sure that what the king want to happen gets done, rather than what his vasslas think or want to do gets done. Many examples of these over mighty subjects just doing their thing with no care for the crown. The Marcher Lords of Wales for example, were lords unto themselves, and the kings law did not apply there. Thus a conflict of interests over sovreignty. Annoying ones powerful magnates could result in rebellion against you. John, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II etc. Being king was something of a juggling game, trying to reamin on top of all the others who might bring the whole thing down, while passing about influence and not letting people fall off who couldnt afford to be dropped etc.

Also the king is the centre and highest point of authority in the kingdom (under god). He is the ultimate arbitraitor of disputes, it is from him that authority derives. Thus access or control over the king is often very desirable, since he can grant considerable patronage. He's the centre of legislation, the guy who decides social, fiscal and foreign policy. Though as time goes on increasingly limited by some sort of offical body, like parliament.

He is also the general of ones army, the highest military guy in the country, he leads armies, and success in warfare was a crucial aspect to medieval kingship. Poor military reputation often went hand in hand with a porr postion as a king. Stephen, John, Henry III.


In medieval terms then its more than just sitting back and picking the right people and watching the work get doen. Though it was possible for that to haoppen, Edward I certainly had moments like that. For though one could allow people to run the country for you, you had to make sure they didnt take it to a new level, and try to replace you or circumvent you entuirely. The managing of nobles in the nmedieval as a king was a very hefty and full time job.

In the early modern period it changes. Dedicated staff can run much of the country at all levels for you. Yet the highest levels still need to be appointed and managed adequately. Monarchs were still the centre of power and authority, though they might be more tamed by representative bodies like parliament.Yet the threat of overmighty subjetcs was considerably less, so one could afford to appoint capavle people and then sit back and wathc a bit more while other did the actual work. Yet still the crown was at the top, and so could be ultimate arbitraitor in many affairs. Likewise, ideas of domestic, fiscal and foreign policy still stemmed from the crown, be it increasngly advised by professionals or limited by parliaments etc

sylla1

That's an oxymoron; if the King (or Queen) is able to select the best man (or woman) for each position, then he/she would hardly be any "complete fool" .

jeroenrottgering

Well the King can actually be compared with a captain of a ship. He isn't the brain behind all the solutions, but like a captain he gives orders to solve the problems. For example when a King has an economical crisis then he calls his council and his minister of finance and let them advice him and in that way finds a solution. But in the end it is his decission alone and if he want to make changes to it then he is free to do so (at least before the Democratic revolutions). But of course their are also Kings and Emperors who think of solutions themselfs without any council, but those kind of Monarchs are seldom. So as answer to your question: Yes Kings have made great accomplishments in the past, but 9 out of 10 tems he was counciled so he could make proper decissions. No man can rule alone.

sylla1

In traditional absolutist monarchies, Kings & Queens can do absolutely anything, must do absolutely nothing.

Nowadays, most Kings & Queens are just useless expensive toys for nostalgic stubborn people that can figure no better way to use their resources.