Failure of feudalism in the Holy Roman Empire

[Labienus]

Medieval Germany was known as the Holy Roman Empire, which was a very decentralized collection of small duchies and principalities. Like other contemporary European states, the Holy Roman Empire was based on feudalism.

However, unlike France, England and other European kingdoms, the Holy Roman Empire did not evolve into a modern state by the 16th-17th century and became a collection of more of less independent kingdoms.

Why did feudalism work in other European kingdoms but not in the HRE?

Discuss.

 

[clement]

Firstly, because the organization of power was not the same. In France, the king had to fight against other powers, and he won. This increased his own power, this allowed him to establish a state (see my blog entry on this matter) with its own decorum, institutions and prestige. Moreover, the territory directly ruled by the king increased in size. The king was not one prince among others who was elected, he was the center of the whole system and thus had significant prestige among other lords. And even more importantly, he had to fight to assert his power, and this gave him the occasion to annex great territories. Already in the 1210s, except for the particular case of the duke of Aquitaine (king of england), no other feudal lord could rival the royal power.

On the other hand, in the HRE, the emperor was named (elected) among the princes of the empire. Thoses princes never tried to unify the country under their own direct control, unlike the king of France. In fact even the most powerful emperors tried to maintain this feodal system.

 

[irishcrusader95]

many of the other european states like england and france had quite a few civil wars and rebellions in their history as opposing lords refused loyalty to the king or whatever, was this ever a case in the HRE because being that the different kingdoms were largely independent they had no reason to rebel

 

[DreamWeaver]

Overmighty subjects. Imposing ones will on other magnates requires a considerable territorial and thus financial ability. Royam demsenes and possessions must be greater than those of the other magnates. In other European stats this was (or eventually was after some effort and struggle) the case. In the HRE the other greater magnates rival the Emperor in such terms.

An elected monarchy as such in the HRE inherently undermines the prestige and power of the office. Unlike in other realms where hereditary kingship is clearly and firmly established.

Strong kingship uniting the relam produces great offices of state to manage and administer the realm in the name of the crown, to act as its government, and thus eventually act as a unifying factor. While offices serving the emperor did exist, they werent in the same situation as other realms again.

 

[irishcrusader95]

it still puzzles me how different the system of lordship in the HRE was to other states where the authority of the king was absolute. i wonder how disputes between the different kingdoms in the empire were resolved?
and was attacking one kingdom the same as attacking all of them?

 

[DreamWeaver]

The option to appeal to the Emperor as overlord was there, but with the political consequences of actually acknowledging him and his authority in tow. Otherwise they couldbe settled the same way as other disputes with 'foreign' powers.

 

[irishcrusader95]

which leads to the question of whether it deserves the title of empire and if people at the time ever though of it as such, when people referred to one of the kingdoms in it at the time they probably would have named the kingdom or city rather then saying 'the holy roman empire'

 

[Labienus]

Thanks for the responses guys, it is much appreciated.

 

[Kirialax]

I know that the power of the emperor suffered under the minority and reign of Henry IV, but how badly fragmented was the Holy Roman Empire before that time?

 

[DreamWeaver]

Ottonian Germany I believe was in a better state than its later incarnations. Stronger central authority and fewer states within its 'borders.' Some though not all of the great magnates connected to the royal house.

Inheritance procedures split larger bodies up, rather than just the eldest inheriting, as a result cadet branches of families form establishing sovereign territories. Hence by the end of its life there were so many many statelets in the HRE. More states so more trouble for the Emperor as all have to be dealt with. So much easier when you only have to deal with like 6.

 

[irishcrusader95]

Ottonian Germany I believe was in a better state than its later incarnations. Stronger central authority and fewer states within its 'borders.' Some though not all of the great magnates connected to the royal house.

Inheritance procedures split larger bodies up, rather than just the eldest inheriting, as a result cadet branches of families form establishing sovereign territories. Hence by the end of its life there were so many many satellites in the HRE. More states so more trouble for the Emperor as all have to be dealt with. So much easier when you only have to deal with like 6.

nice maps and they really say it all about how decentralized germany became over the centuries, why is it the the lords of the lands were not able to keep their kingdoms together as so many areas broke away and formed their own states?
and with the lands so split up you would think that would make then easy targets for expansion by their neighbours.

 

[DreamWeaver]

Inheritance practices, breaking up larger entities into smaller units, while connected technically seperate from each other, later powerful magnates could acquire the territories and add them to their own lands. Thus one might be Lord of X and Duke of Y at the same time. Hohenstaufens, Wittelbachs, Habsburgs etc all form into power blocks that rise and fall, contending for the imperial crown.

 

[Kirialax]

The lack of fragmentation in Western Francia probably exacerbates the appearance of fragmentation in the Holy Roman Empire. The stability and relative virility of the Capetian house certainly contributed to its slow rise over the centuries as to the dominant landholder in the region, whereas the Holy Roman Empire never had that set of circumstances.

 

[Whyte]

The lack of fragmentation in Western Francia probably exacerbates the appearance of fragmentation in the Holy Roman Empire. The stability and relative virility of the Capetian house certainly contributed to its slow rise over the centuries as to the dominant landholder in the region, whereas the Holy Roman Empire never had that set of circumstances.

Oh, there was plenty of fragmentation in Western Francia. In 900s, it was practically ruled by petty lordlings, each controlling a patch of land roughly half-a-day's ride away from their castle. Those then started to coalescence slowly into larger units again.

I do agree with you about the 'luck' of the Capetians being able to sire sons a generation after generation, and slowly - again a good word choice there - enlarging their patrimony, until they were able to challenge their vassals, mainly the Duke of Normandy AKA the King of England.

 

[gaius valerius]

Why did feudalism work in other European kingdoms but not in the HRE?

Discuss.

I think you're missing a rather important point =======> Feudalism did not fail in the HRE, it failed outside of it, in countries such as France. Mind you, forms of feudalism remained (tithes, lords ruling dominions, peasants performing chores blablablaaaaaah you know all that), but if with feudalism you mean the system where power is dissipated to a variety of lower echelons and subsequently the sovereign ends up the weaker link, then feudalism failed precisely in countries such as France and prevailed in constellations such as the HRE. The political - not the social - exponent of feudalism was precisely a hindrance to state formation while overcoming it was the first step to national sovereignity by the dynast.

 

[Labienus]

I think that the phrasing of my question was incorrect, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Desikratis]

I think you're missing a rather important point =======> Feudalism did not fail in the HRE, it failed outside of it, in countries such as France. Mind you, forms of feudalism remained (tithes, lords ruling dominions, peasants performing chores blablablaaaaaah you know all that), but if with feudalism you mean the system where power is dissipated to a variety of lower echelons and subsequently the sovereign ends up the weaker link, then feudalism failed precisely in countries such as France and prevailed in constellations such as the HRE. The political - not the social - exponent of feudalism was precisely a hindrance to state formation while overcoming it was the first step to national sovereignity by the dynast.

Feudalism did not fail in the absolute sense of the word. It was because of feudalism nations could develop at all in a europe without an effective form of currency and economy following the fall of the western empire.

You could however say that feudalism proved to be insufficient in the 14th-century and onwards, since now developed monetary and banking system allowed princes and kings to become less dependant of their vassals.

The HRE went through the same development in this sense that, for example, France and England did. However - the concentration of power came to effect the dukes (who became less dependant of their own vassals, and because of this growing independance distanced themselfs from the Emperor and fragmented the already unstable Empire) rather than the Emperor.

I would like to say that feudalism did not fail. Rather - I like to think that it evolved into something new.


But the question remains - Why did the HRE "fragment" (Or whichever word you'd like to describe it ) whilst other countries did not?

I think it becomes more clear if you don't regard the Holy Roman Empire as a German Nation at all. In fact - it was only called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after 1512. Rather - think of it as a conglomerate of ancient tribal groups which later developed into dukedoms that had no traditional bonds between them before the conquest of Charlemagne and the formation of West Francia.

I think this helps to explain the events in the HRE. Feudalism did not fail in the HRE, if you regard each duchy as a nation in itself "Germany" followed the exact same pattern as her western neighbours. It is a plausible theory, no?

Cheers!

- Desikratis