Basis of Power
RevisionNotes.Co.Uk - Free Revision and Course Notes for UK Students
Home: University: History: Early European: Western Empire: Carolignian France: Basis of Power
Revision Notes
GCSE
A-Level
University
IB
User Options
Search
My Revision Notes
Bookmark Page
Contribute
Contribute Work
Other Sites
AcademicDB
Essay Writing Help

Basis of Power
Bookmark this page

ul type=disc>

  • Throughout Europe core of royal lands remaining in tact over long periods, outcome King’s efforts for a single heir, failure in assassinations and usurpations – divisions of royal lands 0 Charlemagne and his brother 768 and three sons Louis the Pious 843.
  • Carefully managed – food stocks in the winter, not necessarily all visited, sometimes single residence emerges – 794 onwards Aachen Charlemagne’s domain
  • Royal fisc fluid – confiscation, granting o land “The wherewithal to reward followers” – area Charlemagne’s land “amplified” Einhard to 1,2000,000 sq KM 0 power radiating from central core –weaker at the periphery – distance increased difficulties of control.
  • Power nonetheless real – paradox early medieval sates depended on chronic instability 0 kings made constant efforts to expand their territory at neighbour’s expense “If a Franks is your friend, he’s certainly not your neighbour” – maintenance loyalty of aristocracy and competition
  • Using Aquitaine as a sub kingdom – some groups never on Frankish side, but Septimanians liked royal support as threatened by Spanish-Muslim neighbours. Charlemagne put little Louis in Aquitaine but Charles the Bald managed from a distance, never visiting after 850s.
  • Pippin continues Charles Martel’s strategy of expropriating church lands, controlling key churches and installing noble support in various sees. Pippin controlling bishoprics, reinforcing corporate involvement, requiring military service of men, endowing with grants of ecclesiastical land – major churches also part of Carolingian power based – bishopric lands enabled securing of Burgundy control in 750s. Jurisdictional immunity to monasteries needs to be understood - still firmly under royal protection devolution, not disengagement – strong flavour private interest, church policy overall built public authority.
  • Royal demands grew at certain times – Louis the Pious gifts, military service and prayers, could be conditional – Charles the Fat granted lands to St. Gall if commemorated his father – loyalty and perhaps efficiency of ecclesiastical dignitaries generally more reliable than that of secular office-holders.
  • Use of church v. important in expansion of the Carolingian empire – dual service to God and King generally more reliable than secular office holders – not usual on Lombardy until after Carolingians.
  • Military service and prayers from the church, also confidence in success – Western Frankish Kings lost power of church to Episcopal tyranny whilst Eastern Ottonian kept Carolingian system of churches.
  • Dhondt argues squandering of Carolingian fisc. With Charlemagne’s successors – land-grants positive instrument of royal power – concessions to rivals of disgraced made rule of distant lands manageable – ecclesiastical alongside secular so not losses to the state or collapse from within.
  • Charlemagne’s huge treasure board – proof of authority and means of wielding it – massive Avr loot, 793 rewards non-defectors with gold / silver – plunder and tribute. As Danish kings show – treasure not necessarily sustainable form of power.
  • Charlemagne’s empire – utmost natural limits by 806 – ceased to expand, treasure hoard dispersed 814 death, yes serious dynastic disputes but no implosion, fought off external aggressors. Internal redistribution of wealth alternative to external expansion – through workings of inheritance splitting kingdom 840 and 855 allowed expansion between Carolingian kingdoms – Louis the German and Charles the Bald extend realms by exploiting infertility of one nephew’s queen and sonlessness of another – dip into church treasuries, granting abbacies, more vigorous management – extracting more from peasants – economy of plunder to economy of profiteering.
  • Aristocracy did well – participation in the spoils of war, aggressive landlordship – balance between aristocratic and monarchical wealth? Some levies, prices for offices, if total cake expanding increased proceeds from economic activity and thus increasingly active government.
  • Coinage oiled the wheels of trade and tolls contributed significantly to royal income- more coins peasants had the more kings could extract – fiscal as opposed to economic – 858 Charles plundered his own people
  • Renovatio monetae of 864 West Frankish kingdom – renovation of money bought 10% to King and owners of mint, - Charles the Bald 864 licensing of markets to control taxes etc. Charles the Bald unable to increase internal or external income – fiscality of royal government, as of landlordship, was precarious as it was limited. Roman\ ways (taxing aristocracy alluring, faced rebellion 877) – practical politics drew kings other directions.

    • Other Notes in this Category

    1. Basis of Power
    2. Carolignian Geneaology
    3. Carolignians and Italy
    4. Chronological Analysis
    5. Church
    6. Communications
    7. Did growth lead to a more systematic style of government?
    8. Domestic government and power bases
    9. Ideology of Power
    10. Importance of the West 814 - 898
    11. Kingship and Royal Government - Janet Nelson
    12. Logistics of Power
    13. Nobility and Expansion Dynamic
    14. Nobility and Expansion Dynamic - Effect on surrounding peoples
    15. Plunder and Tribute in the Carolignian Empire
    16. Society and Politics
    17. Sociology of Power
    18. The Carolignian Experiment - EF James
    19. Vikings

    Didn't find this useful?

    • Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays

    © UK-Learning 2001-3. Disclaimer, Feedback, Other Stuff.