I asked people to move the discussion over to Chit Chat, then I realized that I'm people, too. So here I am.
The secondary discussion I saw here was more general than strict democracy. It had more to do with how much power people had back then versus nowadays. I'll let others talk about modern times because I'm no student of modern times.
As for power in the MA, well, it varied. Wildly. At the most local level we talk about power within and among families. there were laws in various places and times that buttressed those relationships.
At the level of the village there were both formal and information institutions. I wouldn't say there's anything I'd call a democracy, but important families in a village had a fairly significant say in purely local matters, mainly because the more distant powers so rarely came around.
Then we come to local rulers--chieftains and barons of various titles, but we cannot overlook the authority of bishops and abbots. Both were in theory elected by their members--the cathedral clergy in the case of the former, the monks in the latter case. Many times this was done with the local baron having significant influence in the choice--a key point of contention in church-state conflicts. The authority held by these local powers again varied by time and place, but barons (I use the term to cover any vested lord who did not have vassals) were certainly not elected. Their powers were conditioned by powers reserved to their overlords and also by local custom, which could exert strong influence. But the peasants under this lord could do no more than petition and hope. Or rebel, which did happen, though almost never with the intent to overthrow or even to reform. Most such rebellions were driven by famine or overtaxation and their rallying cry was a return to some previous order.
Among the greater nobles the situation was much the same, with interesting wrinkles. A powerful duke or count might appear to wield much more power. They could raise armies, collect fines, raise what we somewhat inaccurately call taxes, administer capital justice. At the same time, though, their obligations and commitments were greater. Here we see the limitations of power--communications, finances, and mobility all severely limited how much power a great lord could actually wield. Once again, however, none of these were elected. In fact, principles of inheritance were perhaps strongest here. And popular rebellions were rarely aimed at this target.
With kings and emperors, the above is redoubled. The variations are still greater, the exceptions still more frequent, the limitations sometimes even more striking. Emperors, for example, were elected--not by the general population, but by a handful of great lords. At the same time, there was still a tradition of the ancient Roman acclamatio, and in any case most emperors weren't that until the pope crowned them--a slippery bit of negotiation at times. Hugh Capet was chosen by his barons, but heredity quickly took over in France. The nobles of Poland sometimes chose their king.
The practical limitations on royal power were many. One of my favorite illustrations of this is the circle of power that followed the English kings. This practice was established during the Plantagenets. It held that when the king traveled, royal power was asserted around his person for a radius of twelve miles. Within that radius, local law was overruled, local courts superseded. Any crimes committed went immediately to royal judges, and the king could requisition directly within that space without needing to resort to asking for donations.
So royal reach extended, essentially, one day out. Beyond that reach lay a tangled jungle of baronial privilege and local customs that no king could completely ignore. It was the clearing of that jungle that really characterizes absolute monarchies, and even then they only claimed to have absolute power. In practice they were still limited by the above-mentioned communications, travel, and finance. But they claimed absolute power whereas medieval kings accepted the weight of custom. The was a time in the central Middle Ages when at least some coronation oaths included the proviso that the king would introduce no new laws. Custom was the true king.
Then we come to the city-states of Europe. And we've not considered the many centuries and places where there were either no kings, only tribal chieftains, or there were chiefs who some chronicler named king. In none of these cases can we speak of democracy, but we can point to a greater level of direct participation. The election process in some of the late medieval Italian cities was a marvel of complexity, combining voting with drawing lots.
Anyway, there's a quick sketch, as best as I can manage.
The secondary discussion I saw here was more general than strict democracy. It had more to do with how much power people had back then versus nowadays. I'll let others talk about modern times because I'm no student of modern times.
As for power in the MA, well, it varied. Wildly. At the most local level we talk about power within and among families. there were laws in various places and times that buttressed those relationships.
At the level of the village there were both formal and information institutions. I wouldn't say there's anything I'd call a democracy, but important families in a village had a fairly significant say in purely local matters, mainly because the more distant powers so rarely came around.
Then we come to local rulers--chieftains and barons of various titles, but we cannot overlook the authority of bishops and abbots. Both were in theory elected by their members--the cathedral clergy in the case of the former, the monks in the latter case. Many times this was done with the local baron having significant influence in the choice--a key point of contention in church-state conflicts. The authority held by these local powers again varied by time and place, but barons (I use the term to cover any vested lord who did not have vassals) were certainly not elected. Their powers were conditioned by powers reserved to their overlords and also by local custom, which could exert strong influence. But the peasants under this lord could do no more than petition and hope. Or rebel, which did happen, though almost never with the intent to overthrow or even to reform. Most such rebellions were driven by famine or overtaxation and their rallying cry was a return to some previous order.
Among the greater nobles the situation was much the same, with interesting wrinkles. A powerful duke or count might appear to wield much more power. They could raise armies, collect fines, raise what we somewhat inaccurately call taxes, administer capital justice. At the same time, though, their obligations and commitments were greater. Here we see the limitations of power--communications, finances, and mobility all severely limited how much power a great lord could actually wield. Once again, however, none of these were elected. In fact, principles of inheritance were perhaps strongest here. And popular rebellions were rarely aimed at this target.
With kings and emperors, the above is redoubled. The variations are still greater, the exceptions still more frequent, the limitations sometimes even more striking. Emperors, for example, were elected--not by the general population, but by a handful of great lords. At the same time, there was still a tradition of the ancient Roman acclamatio, and in any case most emperors weren't that until the pope crowned them--a slippery bit of negotiation at times. Hugh Capet was chosen by his barons, but heredity quickly took over in France. The nobles of Poland sometimes chose their king.
The practical limitations on royal power were many. One of my favorite illustrations of this is the circle of power that followed the English kings. This practice was established during the Plantagenets. It held that when the king traveled, royal power was asserted around his person for a radius of twelve miles. Within that radius, local law was overruled, local courts superseded. Any crimes committed went immediately to royal judges, and the king could requisition directly within that space without needing to resort to asking for donations.
So royal reach extended, essentially, one day out. Beyond that reach lay a tangled jungle of baronial privilege and local customs that no king could completely ignore. It was the clearing of that jungle that really characterizes absolute monarchies, and even then they only claimed to have absolute power. In practice they were still limited by the above-mentioned communications, travel, and finance. But they claimed absolute power whereas medieval kings accepted the weight of custom. The was a time in the central Middle Ages when at least some coronation oaths included the proviso that the king would introduce no new laws. Custom was the true king.
Then we come to the city-states of Europe. And we've not considered the many centuries and places where there were either no kings, only tribal chieftains, or there were chiefs who some chronicler named king. In none of these cases can we speak of democracy, but we can point to a greater level of direct participation. The election process in some of the late medieval Italian cities was a marvel of complexity, combining voting with drawing lots.
Anyway, there's a quick sketch, as best as I can manage.
Maester
Auror
Sage
