High Middle Ages and Their End

 

So now we finally reached the Middle Ages proper, High Middle Ages. A period in time between 1066 and 1350s. I did partially cover it in my article about 100 Years War, but there center focus was not the High Middle Ages themselves, but transition from it.

There are two often conflicting narratives as to what era was like. One like to talk about chivalrous knights, fair ladies and quests for Holy Grail and so forth. The other likes to portray it as dark and backward age, where backwards robber barons oppressed even more backward peasants as legacy of Rome lay dormant until Renaissance. The truth is both are far from reality. The former is nothing more than a fictional fairy tale and the latter is exaggeration. 

Reality is that High Middle Ages had a lot more in common with High Roman Empire than initially apparent. Suddenly after all these tumultuous times we were back where we started. Autocratic rule together with bread and circuses. Just like during Julian dynasty Roman Empire there was stable stratified military government. The same unmoving social hierarchy. Even the same circuses to keep people distracted. Instead of gladiator fights there were jousting tournaments. Even slaughter of Christians was back on. Sure, population was thoroughly Christianized by now, but various Christian heresies started to spring. Thus, Catholic Church, in the interest of unity of faith of course (/irony), took it upon themselves to purge these heresies and burn all heretics in public squares just like Roman Emperors of the past did. Extensively decorated medieval Churches of Gothic style, such as Notre Dame de Paris were also made to keep people impressed and entertained.

Unlike High Roman Empire this era is closer to our current times, so issues are apparent. Supporters cannot whitewash it like they did with Roman times.

There were certain differences with Rome, however. Some might argue that more bureaucratic Roman style government did not return until Renaissance, but that would be misreading. Roman government that we know so much about only applied to the city of Rome itself and not to every province out there. We know little of how countryside used to run; most likely it was as autocratic as Medieval Feudalism. On the other hand, during Middle Ages cities did enjoy many statuary rights and a more democratic governance compared to feudal countryside. Once again, a lot of similarities.

Under Medieval Law cities had a governance outside of the usual feudal pyramid. Medieval lords understood importance of proper republican (democratic) governance in cities to ensure the craftsmen would do a proper work. Cities typically had elected counsels and mayors. In some cases, the whole city population could vote and in others only members of certain guild that was the major industry in that city.

While cities with Magdeburg rights did enjoy a certain level of privilege and democratic governance, the country lived different. 

A centerpiece of country life was manor, which functioned a lot like Roman villa. Manor means not just the lord's mansion but all the fields and other structures that was needed for successful production of agricultural harvest. 

Manor was run by a baron or his representative, vogt, who had to know enough about agriculture to effectively produce harvests every year. Baron or vogt would tell peasants when to plant, when to harvest as well as supervise their work to make sure it's done properly. Peasants were the actual manual laborers who worked the fields and did other rural manual labor. 

Peasants were considered serfs legally, which meant they had certain obligations to the baron, whose territory they dwelled. Their labor was considered a payment for the protection from viking raiders and other thieves, the baron and his knights were providing. In that sense it was different from Romans who used slaves owned by villa owner as manual labor. 

Peasants were divided into two distinct categories. First were villeins, who had to work on lord's fields and were provided with food and shelter. Second, more privileged one, were cotters who worked their own field but had to give their lord share of harvest from it. To be a cotter one had to be able to afford their own equipment and had their own agricultural skills.

Manors produced food and cities manufactured goods. That's how High Medieval economy worked. It was very well oiled and functioned stably and predictably. Population grew and many were likely content with how things were. That is until overpopulation became an issue.

Now we will come to the last part of the Medieval Society and top of the feudal pyramid, warrior nobility. Nowadays Kings are more of symbol of country than its military leaders. Sure, royals still get military education and serve in the military, but nowadays it's more of a tradition than necessity. Back in Middle Ages that was different. Kings and every peer had to fight very often; many spend a lot more days on military campaign than elsewhere. That applied to both Kings, every single baron and knights. 

Barons were not just beneficiary owners of their estates, far from it. Just like peasants under them they were subjects to the King. Just like they collected fraction of harvest from cotters they themselves had to pay King his dues every year. To too this all up they also had to fight in King's wars if summoned to do so as well as maintain a certain number of battle-ready knights together with their horses and equipment. Disliked by peasants and dubbed robber barons, they themselves were helpless middlemen between peasants of their manor and count or earl that sit over them in the feudal pyramid.

Erls or counts in continental Europe were barons' direct superiors. Each Earl supervised several manors and barons there were his vassals. Area each Earl or count supervised was called county, hence the name. They were middlemen between barons, collected taxes from them and passed them on to their own superior duke.

Dukes were final middlemen between Earls and King himself. Many but not all of them, were of royal blood: sons, brothers and cousins of the King. Despite that their place in the hierarchy was one step below king. King was the ultimate superior of everyone in the Kingdom and owner of all land. Dukes were tenants under King and owed him taxes and service. Earls were subtenants under Dukes and so on down the pyramid.

Yet not even King would be the ultimate lord of it all: it would be God. Pope would be God's middleman between him and Kings of Earth. That feudal pyramid gave Pope a lot of authority. That is why Kings would have to ask Pope for divorce and other such things. That also explains why church figures like to praise Middle Ages as something good. They current power is but a shadow of what they used to have.

List of peers also includes Markies and viscount, but these two were special cases of basic count. Markies was a count of a county on a border with a foreign power. Markies was except from tax because he has to keep his county fortified. Welsh marcher lords were one such example. Markies often retained their privileges even when their county ceased being border one. 

Viscount was created if a King would allow a count to split his county between his two heirs. In that case a splinter county would not be considered a full county, and its lord would only be called viscount, one step below count. The main heir would still be count though.

Why Middle Ages Ended

With much more sound economic system than High Roman Empire, Middle Ages could have been here to stay, yet they ended just like any other era out there. That raises question why? The main reason is the flaws with the Medieval Pyramid of power, I outlined in the last paragraph. There were many flaws with the system that would allow shrewd noblemen to game the system to their advantage.

Each Duke, count and even baron held both economic and military power at the same time. Because of that it was King who actually depended on barons and not the other way around. Barons could easily withdraw their support, and King would be powerless to do anything about it. Barons had manor to produce food to feed his soldiers as well as soldiers loyal to him to oppose the King. 

Because of that loyalty was the most important intangible resource of Middle Ages. Kings that could keep barons loyal could achieve great things. Kings who could not, were mere figureheads much like current constitutional monarchs.

There were other problems as well. Population growth is one of them. Kings, other noblemen and even peasants would have more than one child. Every so often more than one would survive into adulthood. However, number of counties, manors and other titles these children could inherit was limited. First born would take the title after his dad dies, but what of his younger brothers. 

Church attempted to solve this problem by calling Crusades to the Holy Land. Second children would either win themselves new kingdoms in the Holy Land or die trying. Either way the problem with excessive gentlemen would be solved.

That worked for a time and Pope kept calling for more and more crusades, but overtime participation waned and landless gently kept accumulating.

The other problem was strategic marriage system in order to increase one's dynasty holdings. While some noblemen would have excess of children the others would have either complete lack of thereof or only female children. Under Salic law women cannot inherit, thus putting question of succession to the forefront of problems for the father of these daughters. Shrewd nobles, who wanted to improve their lot would seek to marry these brotherless daughters in order to inherit their land after their father's death.

The most notorious example of that was second Burgundian dynasty, who over the course of several generations accumulated enough holdings to rival actual Kings in power. They got close to declaring their collection of holdings a Kingdom in their own right, but untimely death of Charles the Bold with the only surviving daughter, in turn made their holdings into a grand prize of strategic marriages game.

They were not the only one. Dukes of Normandy, both first and second Angevin dynasties and many more did the same thing. Overtime this strategic marriage game turned cohesive feudal pyramid into an unworkable mess of overlapping allegiances and jurisdictions. Eventually this led to 100 Years war.

It was not better on commoners' level as well. Population growth among peasants gave barons ever increasing power over peasants. The amount of land that produced food did not increase but the people it needed to feed did. That eventually led to a discontent among the peasantry and many peasant uprisings followed. 

Later parts of High Middle Ages is what gave us idea that it was times of exploitation of common men by robber barons. With too many peasants around barons could demand more work and harvest and simply kick everyone they did not like as there was a labor surplus.

Fate of peasantry however improved after the Black Death in Late Middle Age. The plague decimated the population so those few who survived it could in turn demand higher pay and conditions from barons as post Black Death world was a labor shortage one.

End of Middle Ages

My article about 100 Years War does reasonably good job of covering the end of Middle Ages. There were several factors that contributed to the end. Black Death lead towards shortage of labor and different labor relationship between barons and peasants. 

100 Years War, War of the Roses and other Late Middle Age wars reduced number of warrior nobility as well. Many perished in these wars and those who were left opted to not recreate the old feudal system but giving away the same ducal titles to their own relatives. 

Instead, they opted to adopt a more modern style bureaucracy where one set of people manage revenue, and other others serve as officers in military. That way they could avoid issue of disloyal barons. Officers in modern military depend on the state for paying and supplying themselves their soldiers. In turn bureaucracy depends on military and police for security and law enforcement. Unlike feudal lords they no longer could survive on their own.

Final factor of change was discovery of the new world as well as alternative routes to Asia. That unlocked more opportunities to expand and enrich themselves and alleviated many internal issues by making people focus outward. It was much easier to make fortune for themselves in the New World or Asian trade than to fight your fellow Europeans for remaining scraps of land in Europe.

With that Middle Age came to an end and we entered much more familiar and normal by our standard Modern Era. Historians called it Modern precisely because structurally it's still having a lot in common with our contemporary life in 21st century. That era is much better understood and covered elsewhere but there are many important aspects that are overlooked. Because of that I will write about it in a separate article.

Dark Ages and How they Ended

 

Modern historians took tendency to ignore Dark Ages altogether. They just start Middle Ages from collapse of Western Roman Empire, ignoring Dark Ages altogether. That is of course incorrect. Times of Visigoths and Lombards after the collapse of Western Roman Empire were as different from times of Richard Lionheart of High Middle Ages, Middle Ages are compared to modern times. In my article about 100 Years War, I outlined just how different Middle Age was compared to modern times. Skip twice as much back from Middle Ageas and only then you will get to Dark Ages. It is its own unique period of human history. I further clarify, by Dark Ages I mean period between last Western Roman Emperor and Charlemagne 476 to 800.

Collapse of Rome produced a very unique and interesting environment. An environment of constant flux where old structures and ways died out. 

It was a fast and constantly changing times. Over the course of 100 years entire unique civilizations with unique languages and cultures would emerge from beyond Roman borders, conquered themselves new kingdom, reach its zenith, then go in decline and be conquered by yet another such civilization from even further beyond. Visigoth, Ostrogoth, Vandals, Lombards, Venedi and so on. We know little of any of these people, yet the mark they left on our world continues even to modern times.

With nothing more to unite once one Roman people, many of them went their own way and created their own Kingdoms and countries. Modern France, Spain, Portugal and Romania are all franments of once united Rome. Fragments that one day simply decided they do not need Rome anymore and went to be independent. Overtime each develop their own unique language and culture. Much like countries of Latin America, that used to be provinces of Spanish colonial empire are not independent nations. They still speak the same language, but regional variations already start to develop. I would not be surprised that in 500 years' time we will talk about Mexican or Chilean languages.

Various barbarian tribes, such as Lombards, Goth or Vandals invaded Rome and its core Italian lands. These events often viewed negatively as destruction of Roman society and way of life but that is simplification. As one Goth leader once said: "A poor Roman play Goth, a rich Goth play Roman" That means that Goth and likely other invaders were interested to learn from Rome and pick its habits and way of life. Rich and privileged Goth actually wanted to be like Romans, hence play Roman part of the quote. Romans in turn were adopting some of the Goth own culture. Such fusion of Roman original culture with those of many barbarians that came to invade it eventually gave birth to our modern countries and cultures. 

If anything, it is Roman culture that made its way out of boundaries of Rome and made its way to far corners of the world. Even Lithuanian Dukes of 1200 used Latin as their official language. It was not as much of barbarians who invaded Rome, so much as Romans went out to take over every place in Europe and rule over it. Rome stopped being Rome or contained within its organized boundaries, it spilled out of it and spread everywhere like pandemic.

One of such spearheads was Catholic Church, that Christianized the Europe as far as Ireland and Norway, places far out of reach of Roman legionaries. With that old division between Rome and outside was undone.

In general migration level was very high. People would either relocate voluntarily or be displaced by invasions and such. Vandals alone managed to get from somewhere around Baltic Sea all the way to what is now Tunisia. Such migration lessened differences between people. If before one can say that this or that people lived here or there, then afterwards it became increasingly superfluous. 

A new fused cultural and social space eventually have birth to our modern countries. In times of High Roman empire there was no cohesive idea of what French or German was, much less Pole or a Finn or even Spanish. Roman used to divide the world in different cultural and geographic regions. For example, what is now northern Italy was called Cisalpine Gaul and France Transalpine Gaul instead. For a Roman differences between northern Italy and France were less so than between themselves and northern Italy. However, that have changed the course of Dark Ages.

The importance of Dark Ages in shaping our modern world and out understanding of it is vastly underestimated. Thing that we understand exist since times immemorial actually came to be during this time. Unfortunately, there are very little documented sources from these times as Roman bureaucracy have collapsed, and it was not immediately replaced by something else.

Dark Side of Dark Ages

However Dark Ages are called this way for a reason. For an average former Roman citizen, it was a horrible time to live. Society he got used to was no more. Protection and prosperity that Roman Empire has provided have disappeared. World became dangerous, one could never know it another invader over the horizon would appear to conquer and then kill, rape and steal. Population has declined, social institutions stopped functioning. 

People begun relocating to defensible hard to reach areas for protection. Places like Venice were founded precisely because it was hard to reach by invaders. In fact, Byzantine (Eastern Roman) empire only survived because its capital was in such hard-to-reach place. Many invaders would take all their lands but would fail to breach walls of Constantinople, giving Byzantines time to rebuild and strike back.

There were still attempts to restore Rome to its former self. For example, when Justinian of Byzantine empire reconquered Rome in 530 but that did not last. After celebrations ended, Roman elites and Justinian soon clashed over appointment and other issues. Eventually Ostrogoth took it back.

However, stability will not return. Neither would prosperity. Christians would close and partly disassemble Coliseum because they considered games there anti-Christian. However, even without Christian interference it was likely impossible to supply coliseum with more gladiators for games. This would be just one of examples of how life had diminished for ordinary Roman. 

Good times were thing of the past. Dark Ages were an unhappy and unpleasant times for a Roman. A time they thoroughly resented and pass on this resentment to us in calling these times Dark Ages.

These negative traits of Dark Ages are what would eventually lead to their end. Post-Roman world wanted stability and safety from barbarians and constant invasions. Eventually that stability came in the form of one other invader, the Franks.

End of Dark Ages

Franks begun like many other barbarian tribes before them, they conquered and eventually carved themselves a kingdom in what was once a Roman Empire. They displaced Goth and took control of what is now France and around half of what is now Germany.

However, from there things went different. Frankish leader Charlemagne reached some sort of deal with the Pope and Pope crowned him Holy Roman Emperor. That was another attempt to bring Rome back. It is debatable as to how much of Rome it brought back, but it did give birth to a new era. Early Middle Ages.

Charlemagne and Franks did bring with them a new period of order and stability. It was a feudal and rather oppressive order, but it did put an end to occasional barbarian invasions. Charlemagne feudal pyramid created enough security in areas under his rule.

By High Middle Ages a feudal nobility would devolve into infamous robber barons. However, in Early Middle Ages they were protectors from Viking Raids and other such invaders.

Pope's crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor gave him enough sanction to govern not only Franks but Romans as well. That gave him at least some acceptance from Romans as well.

Good will between Pope and Franks managed to create a new system for the next 700 or so years.

The Charlemagne's feudalism would gradually spread to other parts of Europe. First by Franks own conquests of different Germanic Tribes. Then by their offshoots feudalism would get to Spain, Poland and eventually England.

Just like other transitional eras, Early Middle Age was characterized by a conflict between old ways and new ones. Just because Charlemagne because Holy Roman Emperor barbarians would not stop raiding and pillaging. They had to be stopped.

However, Franks were fully intendent to actually stop them. By force when they could, by cunning and deals when force did not make it. Franks begin with other Germanic tribes, such as Saxons, Swabians, Bavarians or Jutes. They were gradually subjugated or were forced to exile to. Some went for modern England. Feudalism first reached Elbe, then continued past it.

There were setbacks too, for example Viking raids in Normandy. Vikings were too mobile for Franks to simply defeat on the battlefield. Viking would steal everything fast and then sail away before Frankish knights could get to the area. 

To stop Viking raids in Normandy Franks gave one Viking leader a Ducal title (together with power and land of course), turning him against his brethren. That was effective, as agile and swift Vikings found it impossible to raid territory of someone who was as apt at Viking style warfare as they themselves were

Despite occasional setbacks here and there, the feudal system was gradually spreading, destroying or assimilating its opponents. Vikings were the last who stood in its way. In modern England they raided England and even attempted to rule it, establishing so called Danelaw. Danelaw however met opposition from Saxons who were already there. In ensuing battles, they mutually exhausted each other, giving William the Conqueror opportunity to invade and capture England, brining feudalism with him.

Norman conquest of England could be considered the end of transitional period between Dark and Middle Ages. Afterwards the feudal system with its inflexible laws and ways-controlled society for next 300 years. I will write about it in next article.

What High Roman Empire was Like and Why It Ultimately Fell

 

I wrote about actual post Crisis of 3rd Century collapse of Rome before, there that period is covered in more detail. Here I will also write about golden age of empire as well as broader context of evolution of society.

High Roman Empire

I left previous article on how Ceasar and Augustus managed to capture institutions of Roman Republic and turn it into a de facto dictatorship/empire. Here I will write what was it like to live in that "Empire" in its golden age. Reality of it was far from universal idyllic age of enlightenment and civility as traditional historians like to portray it. However, to all its flaws it was a much better age to be a typical Roman plebian citizen compared to what was before and what came after. That would explain why public was on board with Ceasar and Augustus way of doing things. As to why it ultimately collapsed, then I will cover it in due time. After that you would not ask why it collapsed, but rather how that managed to last for the nearly 500 years.

Remember an (in)famous phrase "bread and circuses" that sometimes used to describe politics. This phrase and these methods originated precisely by Ceasar and Augustus. To keep public content with their autocratic rule these two and all Emperors after them up until Crisis of the 3rd Century used bread and circuses. 

How that worked exactly, simple. An Emperor would lead his army against yet another Gallic village, defeat and enslave its inhabitants, loot its wealth and annex its territory into empire. Then wealth from the whole process would be used to provide common Roman citizens in City Rome only with free food and entertainment. Captured wealth will pay for all that. 

Captured Gauls can be used as both working slaves as well as gladiators in the arena. The gladiators would fulfil the circuses' part. They even build a gigantic arena that stands to this day for the sole purpose of holding battles to death between captured slaves to keep public of Rome entertained. The arena is Coliseum of course.

As per Roman tradition an Army and General that returned with victory are entitled to a special celebration. Ceasar and his successors cleverly used this tradition to endear public to their cause to the point where public would care for a victorious general next return and the following feasts and games more than for anything else. Because of that they were much more concerned with losing these festivities than with losing the Republic when Senate decided to curtail Ceasar's glory and ambition.

There was one other thing that helped Emperors to hold tight grip on power: Plebians in Rome always resented the special privileges the Senatorial class had. Emperor rule managed to win some popular sympathy through abusing these renown citizens. Emperor who would exterminate an entire family of one renown Senator and use the money taken from them to hold feasts and games for all would be applauded by the crowd. 

This fact only further solidified Emperor's grip on power. Any senator that displeased Emperor could now be exterminated to the ovation of the mob. Very convenient for an emperor, but nightmarishly horrible for Senators. Emperor could easily remove anyone who plots against him or even someone who just displeased him in the slightest. In contrast senator could lose his life over some accident beyond his control. 

To make matters worse, as empire's times continued, Emperors increasingly used this method to supplement dwindling income from looting Gaullish settlements. 

Ever since Roman Republic was captured by a line of successive emperors. Public voted in candidates nominated by them into every elected office, making this capture complete and unshakable even by the death of the puppet master.

Politics became stagnant. Senate was reduced to a rubberstamping body. Senators stopped conserving themselves with politics and only cared for avoiding angering Emperor or his clients to avoid being purged.

Rome stopped evolving and reached its next stable state, that of the autocratic empire. Emperors would change, but methods through which they rule will not. In that regard it was a static era with unchanging (informal) rules and principles.

Thus, senators lived in fear of Emperors In contrast, plebeians slumbered in sweet borderline lethargy from which they did not want to wake up from. However eventually came the day when they were rudely awakened from it. 

Crisis of the 3rd Century and Beginning of the End

As with many other collapses, economy was the reason. Empire run out or Gauls to defeat, loot, capture and turn into slaves. There was no one else to loot or enslave either. Despite that public still expected their bread and circuses and soldiers and officers their pay for their hard work. 

Eventually unpaid soldiers had enough of promises and killed the emperor and declared their commanding officer a new emperor. With that a century of civil war has begun.

Newly installed emperor lacked any sense legitimacy. What was more important however is that he lacked both understanding the bread and circuses system that was carefully managed by his predecessors, as well as capacity to payroll it. 

Despite that he expected to be obeyed and honored as his predecessors. Not because he could pay for the election complain of his loyalists like his predecessors, but merely because he killed his predecessor and think it is all that it takes. That did rouse some eyebrows in Roman elites.

However, it was regular plebeian Roman citizens that spelled new Emperor's end. Without their regular bread and circuses, Roman crowds soon became restless and begun rioting. Eventually they killed the emperor and drove his legions out of Rome. Was it over.

Loyalty of army was one of the keys to keeping power in Imperial captured state system. Without money to pay them they will have no reason to stay loyal. Angry mob of plebeian crowds was another, without their support one cannot rule Rome. The two pillars that held system together fell and there was no way to keep them up. Because of that system fell like the house of cards. The new system was needed.

System could not continue however no one wanted it to end. A paradox or a contradiction of sorts. Crowds still wanted their bread and circuses; military generals wanted their emperorship laurels. What happens then. A futile attempt to somehow patch up and reboot the system.

Emperors temporarily stayed out of Rome until they could find enough money to afford usual spoils, Roman citizens got accustomed to. However, nothing more permanent that temporary, so successive emperors kept all their tenue in such temporary arrangement. They were called Barracks Emperors.

Murder of the last emperor produced legitimacy crisis. Suddenly just stubbing your superior makes you a new head honcho. Other military leaders with some loyalty among their legions all refused to acknowledge new emperor and instead declared themselves emperors. A civil war between them were supposed to settle it, but it did not. 

Even if one such warlord could defeat all his opponents and become the only emperor, such occurrence would last only for so long. Eventually he will either die or be killed by his lieutenants and new round of civil war will be on.

System was no longer returning to how it was. Just like when Rome became and Empire. It was not like some hiccups of the past, like Caligula's assassination, where things returned to how it was under new emperor. Rome begun a transformation that, despite best efforts from all sides, could not be stopped, cancelled or altered.

Collapsing Rome

However, collapse of Rome did not happen overnight. It was a long a painstaking process of trying everything one can think of to save the dying state. Unlike transformation from a city state republic that was at first enthusiastically embraced, this one was universally opposed. Because of that everyone worked to make it work somehow.

Constant civil war was solved by creating tetrarchy, where there will be 4 co-emperors, each ruling a section of the empire. It did not completely eliminate infighting but at least reduced and localized it somewhat. As pretenders would typically only overthrow emperor of their section of the empire and will not continue to other parts of the country.

Lack of volunteers to serve in the army that could not pay them as much as before was solved by hiring German and Spanish mercenaries to do this job instead. Recruiting from the conquered people who can be paid less was also practiced. Without Gauls to fight and pillage there was not that much need for new legions anyway.

Lack of fresh Gauls to kill each other for crowd entertainment was solved by using a marginalized religious sect of Roman society, called Christians. At first Christians posed a great problem for the organizers as they refused to fight and preached their faith instead. Christian unwavering believe that their God will save them or send them to heaven as martyrs was a problem here. That often caused their human opponents to refuse fighting them or even convert to their religion. However eventually they worked this out by putting Christians against wild beasts. Christians were still unwilling to fight so show was not as good as it was back then, but that was at least something.

There would be shpw executions of Christians and other criminals by nailing them to cross. Romans always thought crucifixion was a good form of punishment. They thought that publicly displaying dying agony of criminals would deter crime because people would not want to end up like that for stealing some bread. After Spartacus rebellion they even covered both sides of the intercity road with crucified bodies, Hitler and Pol Pot got nothing on these guys when it comes to cruelty.

Eventually Constantine would decide that Christian lack of fear of death would make them useful as soldiers to prop up undermanned legions so he will make Christianity an official religion of Rome.

Finally discontent plebeian crowds of Rome could be solved by building a new Rome, with Blackjack and Hookers. Even several new Romes, as other emperors of tetrarchy needed their own new Rome. Thus Constantinople, Mediolanum, Ravenna and others became new administrative capitals of different parts of the empire. New emperors found themselves in a situation where they no longer just exploit new regions for resources, but actually build something there.

All that created semi-balance of solution, but ultimately did not solve anything. If anything, the solution only speeds up the dissolution of Rome.

Emperors and generals, who created themselves new administrative capitals felt that there was no need for Rome at all. Turned out that all comforts and conveniences of Roman life could simply be moved to provinces. Locals can be taught to fight good enough to replace actual Roman recruits.

With all that together now every general stationed anywhere in the empire can simply declare himself a king or emperor and just rule his area. They did just that. In the end of the day most other emperors had neither strength, nor money, nor desire to stop them.

The closest thing to that was collapse of Spanish colonial empire, that was like Rome 2.0 in many regards. Suddenly every Roman province is now an independent nation, just like captainships and viceroyalties of Spain in early 19th century. The only difference is that no one laments collapse of Spanish Empire as tragically shattering earth-shaking event that destroyed culture and progress. Despite the fact that Spain improved lives of the colonized people much more than Rome and exploited them much less.

Byzantine Rome became somewhat of a spiritual successor to the original Rome. Until final the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 and even some time after the rest of the Christian Europe acknowledged them as such. However, that was only a terminology question. In the same logic they also acknowledged Pope in Rome as spiritual leader, a successor to the Empire of sorts.

Finally, city of Rome itself and other Italian city states refuted all emperors and just hired the same German mercenaries to guard them, bypassing the middleman emperors. 

If it were modern days city of Rome and Byzantine Empire would have held long litigations on who has rights on the name Rome itself, but back then there were no international courts. Both two of them and many others ended up using this name as their own, like baby Standards.

Rome did not need emperors; emperors did not need Rome. Everyone moved on into a new era that is now known as Dark Ages. I will cover it in the next article.

On Changing of Eras

 

In my previous article about 100 Years War, I wrote in great detail on how Medieval mindset and ways of doing things were gradually eclipsed by the new Renaissance (Modern Age) mindset and way of doing things. The changes were extensive and gradually completely reshaped society into a completely different and arguably more advanced form.

However, this change did not come abruptly as picture above might suggest. It came gradually. Old ways gradually died out over the course of sometime couple of hundred years as new age tried to take hold. If you take 100 Years War and War of the Roses combined it would almost be 200 years.

It was the same with other eras as well. In between every stable era there was a transitional period where new ways encroached on the old ones as the old fervently resisted change and desperately tried to preserve the "ancient old" order.

For example, Rome did not collapse abruptly in 476. Rome was falling apart from the year 235 in what was known as Crisis of the 3rd century. For more than 200 years supporters of the Roman order desperately tried to preserve this order from erosion by external threat as well as by internal strife of their own military.

The so call Roman Empire era (era of the dictatorial rule of emperors who usurped the republic) also did not come in a flash. Senate did assassinate Ceasar in order to preserve the Republic. Only Augustus could consolidate the autocratic rule as new reality and new system at around year zero. He was born in BC but died in AD, a very fitting trait for a person who ushered a new order for the next 200 years.

However, even before Augustus and Ceasar there were people who wield great de-facto power over Roman Republic. They went short of usurping power completely, but they were cracks in the Republican system that eventually led to its downfall.

People who have interest in Rome often lament its collapse. They also completely fail to pay any great attention to the fact that Ceasar destroyed democratic institutions of Rome and imposed his rule by force of his legions paired with the support from crowds on the streets.

However, each of the transformations of life in Rome, including its collapse, came to be due to different internal factors. It it the same for systems that existed after Rome's collapse. Every time things changes; they did because the previous system was no longer adequate to the reality of life on the ground. Thus, a new different system was needed to address a new reality.

I will write a separate article about each era and its transformation. I would start with classical Roman Republic. There were eras and changes before them, but these are harder to trace as states were more autonomous of each other and each lived by their own eras.

All in all, there are the eras:

Before 250 BC 

Classical Roman Republic - Stable City State that lived off protection money from Foederati and provides security for them.

Between 250 BC and 0 AD 

Transformation of Rome from a City State Republic into an Autocracy ruled by an Emperor.

Between 0 AD and 235AD

Stable Autocratic Empire that more or less controls and exploits large swathes of land.

Between 235 AD and 476 AD

Transformation (disintegration) of Rome into a several individual states. Roman and later non-Roman warlords destroy Roman Order.

Between 476 AD and 800 AD

Stable Dark Age. Era of conquerors and pillages who carve themselves kingdoms by the sword only for their descendants to fall to some other conquerors. Massive population migration.

Between 800 AD and 1066 AD

Transformation into a Medieval Order. Early Middle Age. Medieval Feudal Order spreads across Europe as a bulwark against warlords.

Between 1066 AD and 1337 AD

Stable Medieval Order. High Middle Ages. Universal feudalism and mostly peace. Crusades.

Between 1337 AD and 1492 AD

Transformation of Medieval Order and into bureaucratic elite run states (Westphalian Sovereignty).

Between 1492 AD and 1776 AD

Era of Westphalian States, Exploration, Colonialism, Religious Wars, Consolidation of Power. Piracy.

Between 1776 AD and 1871 AD

Transformation from elite run states into masses driven nation states. Industrialization and population growth.

Between 1871 AD and 1975 AD

Stable Industrial Era. Massive states, factories and conscripted armies. Huge destructive wars.

From 1975 onwards

Transformation from industrial era into a new information age. Computers and Internet.

Dates are approximate as no change happens overnight. In some places shift would end earlier and in others later. However, the principles I have outlined are clearly accurate. 

How Rome Turned from Republic into Empire

Classical Republic

Roman transition from Republic into Empire begun with Punic Wars and ended with Ceasar's coup, his death and later Augustus's consolidation of power.

People often pay little attention to what Rome was before Punic Wars, but it was this period that Romans themselves understood as normal and natural state of their society. Without understanding this period, it is not possible to understand Rome. 

Early Rome was a city state, one among many other city states in what is now southern Greece and Italy. It that regard it was much like Greek Athens or Delphi. Each such city state was in various ways different from its neighbors, but all of such city states had certain traits in common that set them apart from say Persians or Egyptians, whose societies were organized in a fundamentally different non-city state way.

City states were fundamental building blocks of such society. Each would have a distinct body of citizenship, their own institutions, laws, elected or otherwise offices and so on. However, such city states would exist in a sort of international community where they would have diplomatic relationship with other city states, forming various international organizations, such as Achaean League or Italian Foederati for pursuit of their interests.

In that regard they were similar to modern 1st world countries. Foederati or Achaean League were very similar to modern day NATO. Much like then there are differences between say the United States and Estonia, but they still have more in common compared to say China.

Map of these times like to depict Rome as in control of southern Italy but that is misleading. Rome did not rule over all this places in the same manner a modern Italy would. Instead, they were Roman Foederati. They paid Romans tribute and Rome in exchanged guaranteed their security and would interfere to defend them should an outsider invade them. That is how they got in war with Cartage in the first place. 

Siracuse (then a city state) decided quit Cartage security network and join the Roman one instead. Rome sure welcomed a new client as that meant more money for them. Cartage however saw Siracuse and whole Sicily is their sphere of influence and wanted it to stay this way. 

Cartage did try to reach a demarcation agreement with Rome where they would each stay out of their agreed upon spheres of influence and lock city states in each area into paying security racket money (tribute) to one or the other side, but Romans refused.

Punic Wars that triggered Change

War over whom Siracuse owes protection money ended up much larger than each side originally anticipated. To cover the cost, victorious Romans imposed a high reparation of Cartage to cover these costs. Romans also took Sicily as their sphere of influence, after all city states there would rather pay tributes to winners than to losers, it's safer this way. 

To cover these costs Cartage decided to abandon the whole security rachet business, fire all the soldiers they had less those needed to guard the city of Cartage itself and instead focus on their traditional business, trade and colonization. 

Needless to say, such turn of events upset Carthaginian military. Now unemployed and poor they vowed revenge in Rome which they attempted without agreement with Carthaginian government. The resulting Second Punic war was even more brutal than the first one. Ultimately Romans once again prevailed but they had countless of angry clients to deal with aftermath. 

Other Italian city states paid Rome for security and that meant keeping their farms and cities safe and undestroyed. That Rome failed to do as Hannibal was only defeated after he destroyed pretty much everything of value in Roman client states. To compensate their clients and restore their protection business Rome once again imposed reparations of Cartage as well as restrictions on military.

Transitional Expansionist Rome

However, after Second Punic War Roman thinking begun to evolve. During Second Punic War Romans fought not just in Italy Sicily and Cartage itself but this time also in Spain. In Spain they saw not the city states they were accustomed to but rather colonial possession of Cartage that Cartage cleverly exploited. That was the secret of Carthaginian wealth and Romans wanted the same. 

At the end of Second Punic War Rome took Spain from Cartage. That made Rome wealthier. Most important however it gave Rome a source of wealth alternative to the money they got form Foederati and Rome wanted to exploit it. They started thinking that other areas around them can have such wealth somewhere, so they decided to sponsor military expeditions to these areas.

Thus, begun expansionist transitional stage of Roman history. With that Rome begun to expand in every direction imaginable. First Gaul (modern North Italy and France), later Greece then Anatolia and eventually the crown jewel of Roman Empire crown, Egypt.

In this state Rome was constantly evolving and changing. New provinces kept adding more and more wealth and diversity to live. Romans finally understood that city states and their relationships were not all there was to life. Other places live differently, and Rome had to adopt to work with that if they were to benefit from wealth there.

Traditional commitments to Foederati were becoming increasingly unimportant in a greater scale of things. New provinces were much more wealthy than Italian city states. Relationship with Foederati continued, however.

However new provinces demanded ever increased military and political attention. Unlike Foederati they did not govern themselves, so Romans had to govern them on their own. 

Unlike Foederati city states or even Rome itself, Romans would govern provinces in an authoritarian manner. A Senate appointed military governor would control both civilian and military affairs in any given province.

Romans did not put too much thought into how to govern and simply game military all the authority. A decision that would come to bite them later on. However, in their defense, in the world of city states no one had any ideas on how to govern anything beyond a city state. All governance was limited to a city state level.

There were some areas like Judea and Egypt where Romans at first worked with local rulers, but eventually Rome assumed direct rule. More often that happened due to local governance collapse rather than due to Roman willful abolition of their rule.

It was this era that eventually culminated in a huge red map where Rome is shown in control of all of the Mediterranean and half of Europe. That map too is misleading. It does not mean that everything in red lived just like Rome itself. Far from it. Roman law, its rules, sophisticated political system and way of life never extended beyond the city of Rome itself. Some semi-balance of international law existed south of Rubicon River in Italy but north of it was mostly a martial law meets law of the jungle.

Romans never saw a need to expand its way of life to provinces. They saw provinces as nothing more than source of wealth and slaves for their city state society in Rome itself. In that regard you can compare Rome relationship with provinces to Spain's relationships with its numerous colonies. However, Romans were much more exploitative that Spanish ever were. 

How Expansion Changed Rome

However, all this expansion eventually begun changing Rome itself. Province and military that ruled it became increasingly more and more important. Military governors and their legions controlled ever increasing wealth and played ever increasing role in Roman society. That role was far greater than Roman Republic originally envisioned. With the wealth they controlled they were nearly more powerful that Republic itself

Eventually Roman Senate itself started to realize that a few individuals who made it big in the provinces gradually evolving from heroes who brought Rome wealth and fame into a threat to Roman society and political system. 

By the late Republic Rome needed provinces more than provinces needed Rome. A few powerful warlords from provinces carved spheres of influence and formed triumvirates to control Roman society from shadows. Senate was increasingly concerned with safety of the republic system but at the same time increasingly powerless to do anything about them.

End of the Republic

Eventually a concerned Senate decided to revoke a rule of a certain governor of Gaul and ordered him to return to Rome, surrender command of his legions and resume civilian life. One governor against the whole Rome. There is nothing one can do in his situation or is it. 

Nonetheless, after some hesitation on the banks of Rubicon River, the governor took the gamble and defied this order. 

That governor was of course Julius Ceasar, and he delivered Roman Senate a rude awakening on the level of real power they now possess.

Sure, Ceasar won the resulting civil war and installed himself dictator, but that was not the most revolutionary thing he did. There were other dictators for life who did rule for a time but eventually either died or sometimes surrendered their power and Rome returned to being a republic again.

What Ceasar did differently was managing public support. Ceasar used was wealth he acquired in Gaul to win over Roman public. Ceasar used his wealth to organize feasts and entertainment for Roman public for free.

With average Romans (plebians) behind him Ceasar was much more powerful than any dictator before him. Ceasar backed candidates would win every single publicly elected office there was, including vaunted Public Tribune who could veto Senate's decisions. Ceasar got his aide Mark Anthony elected to this office and he used to block anything that his boss did not like. Mark Anthony filibustered Senate until they agreed to make Ceasar sole Consul, Dictator for life and Pontifex Maximus (in charge of religion). That was like adding insult to injury.

In a futile attempt to restore republic Senators assassinated Ceasar, but they could not destroy the political machine Ceasar has created. Mark Anthony and Ceasar's heir Octavian Augustus simply inherited the political machine and used it with the same efficiency. 

Augustus even refined it, so it produced better outcomes without as little outrage as possible. Unlike Ceasar Augustus opted to not elect himself to all these offices, but simply staff them with loyalists just like Ceasar did to Public Tribune office to preserve a facade of the republican rule.

However, in reality it was Augustus who held all the strings. After Augustus defeated Mark Anthony, his unilateral autocratic rule was complete. Rome became an autocratic military dictatorship.

I will write about Roman Empire in a separate article.

On 100 Years War

 

On of the good historical examples of times when mindsets and rules that govern society change would be 100 years' war. It begun during Late Middle Ages for reasons and causes so peculiar to Middle Age society that its somewhat hard to explain them to a modern person. If Middle Age would have continued Egland or House of Lancaster to be precise would have won over House of Valois and future Lancastrian Kings would have ruled both Kingdom of France and Kingdom of England from Paris.

However, as the War progressed, Middle Age came to a close Renaissance have begun and more modern understanding of what countries and Kings begun changing calculations and actions of people involved. Eventually not so much War turned against England, so much England's own barons withdrew their support for it. As much as King would like to cry treason on their actions there was good reasons for them to do so: King getting a second crown on his head might have benefitted him, but it would have been not so beneficial for England or the barons. New way of thinking changed the outcome.

However, what was that have changed over the course of 100 years. To begin with I will describe mindset of Middle Ages.

Middle Age Society

During Middle Ages there was no modern understanding of countries as territory with body of people, language, unique history and culture. Sure, people would use terms England and France even then, but for them these would only denote vague geographic areas, much like suburbs nowadays. 

To take this even further, Kings, Dukes and other nobles saw themselves as owners and beneficiaries of the titles, land and people rather than representatives of certain people or culture. Because of that they always welcomed the idea of acquiring more of these titles to themselves, much like building an investment portfolio.

Kings of Middle Age did not govern of even administer things in modern sense of the word. For example, King Richard I Lionheart simply appointed someone to collect taxes in England for him as he spent his time crusading in Middle East. Even when he was not crusading, he lived in Duchy of Maine in France rather than in England. That would not be acceptable by modern standards, but for his times that was not only normal but even praiseworthy.

It was not uncommon to find double triple or quadruple Kings, ruling over disparate swatches of land here and there. Above mentioned Kings of England also held duchies of Normandy, Aquitaine and Anjou in modern France. All that was acquired over the course of High Middle Ages through marriages, conquests and so on, it would take a separate article to cover that. 

English Kings were not unique in that. First Angevin dynasty, that held Duchy of Anjou before English Angevins managed to acquire themselves two Kingdoms: Sicily and Hungary in addition to lesser titles such as Duke. Later Count of Provence inherited these titles from them together vaunted Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem from another extinct noble house, becoming at least nominally triple King of places as distant as Middle East simultaneously with Marselle in modern France and Budapest in Hungary.

The most exorbitant example of Medieval property portfolio building has to be Burgundy. Over the course of several generations with the help of strategic marriages, threats and forgery they managed to acquire so many wealthy counties and duchies, that could rival a Kingdom in size. Add to that best for its time army and even Kings were afraid of power of Burgundian duke.

To sum up the whole situation one French King coined term Ile de France (French Island) to describe lands around Paris he has direct control over. The rest of what was theoretically France was controlled by powerful local nobles, some of whom (like Burgundy or Angevins) had much more power than their theoretical superior. Middle Age France was much less of a country then post Peace of Westfalia Holy Roman Empire. Needless to say, these dukes did not heed Kings authority in the slightest. That is how it was de facto.

However, in parallel to de facto reality there was also a de jure one. There was set of rules that was supposed to be upheld. For example, kingdoms consisted of duchies and duchies of counties. Each kingdom had a list of consistent duchies and every duchy a list of consistent counties.

Just like territories themselves, people who held them had a place in medieval hierarchy: they vassals to their superiors and a liege to their subordinates. Counts were subordinates of Dukes and Dukes of Kings. 

There were obligations of office too: vassals were supposed to pay homage to their liege, serve under them in times of war and provide them with soldiers and annual pay. Their titles could be revoked for not fulfilling them.

This system was originally created at the end of Dark Ages by the Charlemagne and the Franks who appointed his lieutenants as Dukes and lesser commanders as counts, barons and so on. Then it was gradually spread to other places as Dark Age gave way to Middle Age.

Reasons for War

The disparity between de jure and de facto reality of Middle Ages created nearly unworkable conflict of interest. For example, King of England held three Duchies in France. In his capacity of King of England, he was French King's equal but in his capacity as Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Maine he was French King's subordinate instead. That meant that in theory English King was supposed to fight against himself as in the event of theoretical war between France and England. House of Burgundy too held titles in both Holy Roman Empire and France so too would have to face conflict of interest.

The reality is that "conflict of interest" gave them freedom to be independent player who could pursue their own agenda.

Sometime before the 100 Years War begun, the mainline Capetian dynasty of French Kings came to an end and they were succeeded by their closest cadent branch, House of Valois. New rulers decided to bring some order to the Kingdom, for example to revoke de jure Franch duchies, de facto held by English Kings. Technically English Kings, in their capacity as Dukes of Normandy, Aquitaine and Maine were vassals to French King, but they simply ignored this fact and their feudal obligations. That gave new Valois Kings an excuse to take some of their continental possessions away.

At first Edward III wanted to negotiate his way out of it and keep the land, but French King was unrelenting. When all was futile Edward III consulted with some shrewd lawyers of his time and their figured an interesting plan. Edward III was a grandson of the late Capetian King of France, in that regard his proximity in blood to the late Capetian King was closer than that of the Phillip VI of House of Valois. Sure, French succession law clearly excludes women from succession, but it says nothing of their descendants.

From de facto reality there was all to gain and nothing to lose to Edward promptly declared himself a rightful successor to the French throne. Back in the days they did not have international courts to dispute succession, like John Hancock or Rupert Murdoch descendants would. So, Edward III mustered his forces and as double King of France and England landed on French soil.

However, such a bold claim would put various French nobles before an interesting question: who they recognize as rightful King. While most stayed loyal to the Valois King, there were some who instead took Edward's side. most importantly abovementioned Duke of Burgundy. 

There was also a pretender to the Duchy of Brittanny. Brittany was in the same kind of succession struggle as France was. Two different claimants, both of whom were named John, picked different sides in war between Edward III and Phillip VI. Edward III helped his loyalist take the Brittany from his rival but from there on Brittany was less enthusiastic in supporting Lancastrian claim.

Burgundy too was not doing it because them believe it was a right thing to do but because they wanted to use this situation so strengthen themselves. They would occasionally switch sides between two pretenders and complicate life for everyone. 

This behavior combined with relative strength of so-called Burgundian State would explain many rather dramatic changes in fortune between sides. Sure, English Longbowman did well in Battle of Agincourt. This battle showed that centerpiece of Medieval military, order and life in general, knights of heavy cavalry, are not as invincible as they once were. However, tactics cannot beat strategy and on strategic level it was Burgundian meddling. 

Burgundian Dukes wished to carve themselves a Kingdom of their own or usurp French crown just like Edward III but with no legal ground and only force of their arms they did not felt confident to take on House of Valois and the rest of French nobility combined. End of so-called Burgundian State and the following partition of their lands between Austrian Habsburgs and French Kings could be considered end of Middle Ages in France.

Why War Ended as it Did

Lancasters had many battlefield successes. At one time they held Paris and most of northern France. Herny V was treated by Holy Roman Emperor as rightful King of France. In early1400 it seemed that Lancasters won and union between France and England is a new geopolitical reality.

What were against it however are interests of both England and France. Modern person would find it easier to understand French side however it's England that would suffer most. Out of two Kingdoms the French one was bigger, richer and more prestigious. Because of all that it was natural that Kings of the union would spend more time in France than in England, they will likely have Paris as their residence. French nobility, including the powerful Duke of Burgundy would play a large role in such union and would sideline English dukes. 

Similar situation happened to England several hundred years later when Steward dynasty of Scotland inherited English throne, we all know how it went from there. Nowadays its Scotland who wants to be independent from the UK. During the course of 100 Years War England almost end up playing Scotland's role in union with France.

That was not what English peers wanted. When their resized that is what awaits them if their King wins, they withdrew support and returned their troops home. After all King cannot win wars alone, as CGPGrey said.

Long Term Implications

That however marks not just the end of war but also end of medieval mindset, logic and the way of doing things. Nobility in both France and England started to see themselves not just as subordinates to a King, bound by personal loyalty, but as collective body with distinct interests. These interests won the day.

These interests also created a sense of statehood that later gave birth to nationhood. People stopped see various landed titles as simply valuable real estate but as countries with their distinct body of people and certain intangible interests. 

At this stage it was still a body of elites and not the population as whole. Popular nations would only become a thing in 19th century.

Nevertheless, by the end of War of the Roses the elites created a bureaucratic state out of collection of fiefdoms with overlapping obligations. A state with parliament, various officers responsible to it. They also reformed an army from a collection of small units each maintained and loyal to a local baron into a one cohesive body that answers to the state. 

Many of the things that we consider normal nowadays and cannot think of a different way of doing things were created during the change of eras as Late Middle Age gave way to Renaissance.