How important were 'capital cities' in the exercise of power in this period? (300-1050)

diversity (Catholic and Orthodox, as well as pagan) and it is only on a local level - the Catholic religious 'capital city' is considered to be Rome, the Orthodox one - Constantinople and there is no major religious city for the pagans. Furthermore, Ravenna's main religious person during its Byzantine period was an exarch, which is a title awarded for a very small territory and is not very high in the Orthodox herarchy. Nevertheless, Ravenna was a part of a Byzantine 'province' and there was no power that was actually exercised from there - all the orders came from Constantinople. Therefore, Ravenna's importance as a city in which power is exercised could be recognised during Roman and Ostrogothic times, but there is absolutely no reason to support the argument that it was such in later periods as well.The same applies for the Frankish kingdom. Aachen was first regarded as a capital during Pipin the Short's rule and remained as such during his son's rule as well. But after that it seems to be dropped off the map - not until it became the capital of the Holy Roman Empire. As we know, Charlemagne is thought to have spent his winters in Aachen, but the enormous building projects that were realised are evidence for something more than a holiday resort. If that is a capital is doubtful - nothing else but a palace and a cathedral was found in Aachen from this period and there are some sources that certify that there was a lot of political activity going on (3), but only when the king was there. As it is obvious from the many wars that were fought during Charlemagne's rule, the king was definitely not there at most of the times. That is supportive to the theory that all the buildings that are present heritage from the Dark Ages in Aachen were build for prestige - just to show to the ambassadors how powerful the Frankish empire was. However, in case Aachen was important in the exercise of power of any kind that is different from political, then there would not be such a reluctant lack of evidence for such.In the sense of religious power, it was exercised mainly in two religious capitals: Rome for Catholics and Constantinople for Orthodox people. However, Rome did not establish itself as the religious capital until the late Early Medieval Period, because of the strong barbaric presence there. During the 6th century, Rome had a population of twenty thousand people, which was a strong contrast to its millions before. There was no economic, political or any other activity in Rome apart from religious throughout most of our period, which makes the idea of Rome being a capital sound rather ridiculous. On the other hand, Constantinople was the undoubted religious capital for the East, which boosts its importance for the exercise of religious power. However, this type of power was exercised on a local level in the West, the major places for this being monasteries. There was no major religious city that could be called a 'capital' throughout the period, but religious power is not to be underestimated: unexceptionally, the major ecclesiastical place of the city was located next to the palace, which is evidential support for the argument that religious power was a major component and advisor in the exercise of political power.The power of education was similarly executed. Monasteries were the place to store important documents and manuscripts, and also monks were amongst the most educated people in the West. However, this was not so in the East. However, there is evidence suggesting that Charlemagne learned how to read and write in the old days of his life from monks, at a time that Byzantine rulers knew philosophy and high level Mathematics. The first university in the world was established in Constantinople in 848, formerly known as the University of the Palace hall of Magnaura (founded in 425), was the place where a number of important names for the medieval world were educated. In this sense, educational power was also important for Constantinople for the same reasons education is important today.The case of Constantinople is, surprisingly, extremely clear. There is absolutely no argument against Constantinople being a capital and a city way ahead of its time. 'The Queen of the Cities', as contemporaries called it, was designed in an impressive fashion and in a strategic position so that it could give easy access to the military units of the Roman Empire. The city was indisputably the economic and cultural capital not only of the Byzantine Empire, but also of the known world for most of the Early Medieval Period. Urban activity in Constantinople dates from three centuries before the Western Civilisation ever thought of having a capital of its own; there is no other defense structure as the triple walls of Constantinople anywhere in the West until much later times, long after our period, not to mention Hagua Sofia, which is a very massive piece of art even for today. Hagua Sofia was and still would be the biggest Orthodox Cathedral, situated in the centre of the Orthodox capital of the World. Furthermore, since Constantinople's creation, most of the emperors stood behind the walls of the city and sent their generals to fight. Therefore, most of the political activity in the country was done inside Constantinople. However, there is a significant economic and military decline throughout the period of 565-717, caused by the Arabs and the Balkan tribes and resulted in the two sieges of Constantinople (first one between 674 and 678 and the second one in 717, both Arab sieges), but these were repelled successfully. Thanks to the new system of economic control over the capital (the trade was supervised by the Eparch), urban life was able to blossom again (4). The recovery period (717-1025) was marked by reconquests of most of the lost territories during the decline and of economic boost. However, each and every city had its periods of decline and recovery, but the way Constantinople dealed with its difficulties shows that this is an economy way ahead of its time. The importance of Constantinople in the exercise of power during the period is significant and crucial to the development of the Medieval World, because it was undoubtedly the centre of the political, economic and religious activities not only in Byzantium, but all around the globe, as it was one of the major cities of its time.However, the World throughout most of the Medieval period was divided into cultures: Muslims, Byzantines and the Western peoples. That also makes a major difference between these peoples' economic assets, religious views and political values. Nevertheless, power in its different viewpoints was exercised from various places, depending on its type. Political power was executed from the place where the current ruler resides, religious beliefs were spread from the precise major cities for each religion and centres of the economy depended on if an economy was actually developed. In this sense, major cities varied from country to country, but the importance of power was not deprived from the place, but from the people who exercised it. However, it is no secret that usually where these people reside is the centre of economic power as well. However, this needs to be permanent, otherwise no economic centre could be developed if a monarch spends ten years of his life in the capital. Therefore, it is likely to deduce that the one and only important capital in the Early Medieval World was Constantinople.NOTES:1. A. Paloucci, Ravenna, London, 1978, pp 6 2. O. G. v. Simson, Sacred Fortress: Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna, Princeton, 1987, p. 111 3. Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963 4. Vasiliev, A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453. Second edition. Madison, 1952; pp 343-4.BIBLIOGRAPHY:1. A. Paloucci, Ravenna, London, 1978 2. O. G. v. Simson, Sacred Fortress: Byzantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna, Princeton, 1987 3. Sullivan, Aix-la-Chapelle in the Age of Charlemagne, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963 4. Vasiliev, A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453. Second edition. Madison, 1952 5. C. Mango and G. Dagron, eds., Constantinople and its Hinterland, Aldershot, 1995 6. R. Krautheimer, Rome: Profile of a City,312- 1303, Princeton, 1980 7. M. De Jong, F. Theuws and C. Van Rhijn, eds., Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages, Leiden, 2001 8. Colin McEvedy, ed., The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History, Penguin Books 1992