![]() ![]() Meaning “contractor,” it referred not only to the captains of mercenary bands but was also used as a general term for all the mercenaries in Italy during the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Thus was born the condottieri (singular condottiero or condottiere). Known as the podestà system, this odd method of running a government began to be common by the late 13th century, but this administration would need troops of its own and naturally hired outsiders, often non-Italians, to keep the peace. The only way to avoid this was to bring in neutral, outside administrators all factions could agree on to handle local affairs in a supposedly impartial manner. City militias often got embroiled in the factional disputes that were rife in Italian urban politics, to the extent that the militia might take one side or another, or be so divided as to be ineffective against external enemies. Other factors limited the use of homegrown armies. Large bodies of men could not be spared for fighting, so if a city-state wanted to expand, it needed to hire an army to bolster the ranks. Ironically, their very success was an impediment, as most prosperous city-states had far more money than available manpower because so many people worked in essential jobs in agriculture, crafts, or public works. The Church tried to encourage lords to live in accordance with Christian virtue, but the fact of the matter was that it was the nobility’s vocation, their very social role, to fight, and thus all too often “politics” was synonymous with “armed struggle” during the Middle Ages.Since several large city-states such as Milan and Venice growing rich on the prosperous Mediterranean trade routes, they had the money to commission grandiose cathedrals and works of art that still astound people today, but they also had the resources to hire armies and constantly fight to expand their power. Pledges of loyalty between lords and vassals served as the only assurance of stability, and those pledges were violated countless times throughout the period. Ultimately, the feudal system represented a “warlord” system of political organization, in many cases barely a step above anarchy. Even though the rulership of a given king was always understood to be the will of God, new kings had little trouble arguing that God obviously favored them over the former monarch. ![]() ![]() Nevertheless, there are many instances in medieval European history in which a powerful lord simply usurped the throne, defeated the former king's forces, and became the new king. ![]() One (amusing, in historical hindsight) method that kings would use to punish unruly vassals was simply visiting them and eating them out of house and home - the traditions of hospitality required vassals to welcome, feed, and entertain their king for as long as he felt like staying. It would take centuries before the monarchs of Europe consolidated enough wealth and power to dominate their nobles, and it certainly did not happen during the Middle Ages. In turn, the problem for royal authority was that many kings had “vassals” who had more land, wealth, and power than they did it was very possible, even easy, for powerful nobles to make war against their king if they chose to do so. The system was never as neat and tidy as it sounds on paper many vassals were lords of their own vassals, with the king simply being the highest lord. This system arose because of the absence of other, more effective forms of government and the constant threat of violence posed by raiders. William claimed that Harold had pledged fealty to him, which justified his invasion (while Harold denied ever having done so). \): Depiction of a feudal pledge of fealty from Harold Godwinson, at the time a powerful Anglo-Saxon noble and later the king of England, to William of Normandy, who would go on to defeat Harold and replace him as king of England. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |