Kings and Aristocracy

Questions: Explain the disappearance of the senatorial aristocracy (ONE geog area if you wish) (2000).

Explain the growing involvement of bishops in secular government (2000).

How far, and why, did the senatorial aristocracy survive into the seventh century in the former empire in the West? (1997)

In what ways did barbarian rulers rule? (1995)

Were heavenly patrons more important than worldly lords? (1995)

1. TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIAL ORDER

Changing face of the aristocracy: (Ward-Perkins)

w Classical authority valued honourable office (e.g. Boethius’ joy when his two sons are both made consuls). and education (culture dominated by exchange of elaborately written letters – involvement required education – not archaic rambling but reinforcement of membership of class). Demilitarised class.

w Early medieval aristos were militarised. Greater interest in personal goods (e.g. Sutton Hoo treasure / e.g. liking for exotic goods – silk in Scandinavia and fur in the caliphate). Germanic tradition of valuing possession of weaponry – fighting skills integral to social status. For old Gallo-Roman aristocrats, new attitude an inevitable consequence of society in which war was endemic. (e.g. Italy – demilitarised until Ostrogothic era; wars of reconquest generalised militarisation in C6 (reports of Procopius).

w Contrast – example of feasting – Romans recline on couches; good food and wine to kindle intelligence and powers v. Beowulf-style images of drunken feasts backed by warrior ethos. These are stereotypes.

w A more moral and Christian society – but aristocracy dominated access to higher learning and retained unchanging sense of superiority throughout the period.

w Contempt for those at the bottom of society common to both – (e.g. Symmachus’ letter indicates his outrage at prisoners who inconsiderately committed suicide instead of performing at the gladiatorial games / Sidonius Apollinarius compares the educated and ignorant to men and beasts).

...

This is a preview of the whole essay

w A more moral and Christian society – but aristocracy dominated access to higher learning and retained unchanging sense of superiority throughout the period.

2. SKILLS REQUIRED OF CAROLINGIAN KINGS TO CONTROL NOBLES:

Nelson:

· Practical politics; note importance of kinship + dynastic hold; basis for political relationships and inheritance. Social duties.

· Importance of women - link men, peace-weavers, focus of court interest groups. Critical nature of marriage alliances. Focus for loyalties (e.g. Charlemagne’s marriage to Hildegard served to assuage Alemannic resentment at Carolingian takeover). Needed by kings - key role in running household.

· Conflict between rival dynastic branches à vulnerability to rivals. Importance of names in indicating legitimacy. Charles the Bald tried to exclude legitimate heirs by tonsuring them. Neither = effective bar - Arnulf became king of E Francia 887 despite illegitimacy

· Sons of Charlemagne + Louis the Pious resented father’s interference (e.g. Louis redrew boundaries of sub-kingdoms).

· Kings had unique Palace entourage - e.g. Adalhard 840s; years of influence under Louis the Pious à so influential that Charles married his niece. Adalhard became ‘potens’ through proximity to the ruler. Owed much to royal favour, but ploughed it back into their social influence - could be trusted to further royal interests. Kings kept control.

· Court full of young nobles - learning soc/ pol / mil skills / networking. Also young non-nobles and clerics; king had access to various social groups.

· Kingship + lordship reinforced each other.

Expansion dynamic:

· More threat in C8/9. Halsall’s cemetery evidence indicates increasing aristocratic power since C6/7 (backed up by saints’ lives sources) – e.g. Pippinids / Arnulfings.

· RE controlled by taxation / army / prestige of admin jobs in state structure. C6 this system unattractive to Franks à never developed. No returns – economic conditions not right for it. No standing army for protection.

· How then could the aristocracy be controlled? Was the centre of any relevance? Rewards could be used, but it would be totally short-sighted for kings to just squander the fisc. Problem esp acute at the periphery – Aquitaine / Bavaria / Franconia. Poss perpetual redistribution, but short-term solution only.

· Hence importance of expansion – absence of taxation à ‘necessary’ (Reuter). Used loot from Avars / Pavia (Po valley very rich). Saxons were poor, but looting still valuable; a theatre of politics to occupy the magnates. Nobles who didn’t go to war risked being usurped by empowered kinsmen – didn’t dare not to turn up – land control was a roulette wheel – a paranoid existence. King’s power = as arbiter of inheritance.

3. ELITE DOMINANCE OF SOCIETY – through example of saints’ cults

w Phenomenon of saints’ cults was an issue of élite social control. Whole system reliant on patronage. Cults were of political importance (e.g. Vulfolaic seen to pose a threat to local authority).

w By C6, G of T often wrote lives of those close to him - hence Gallic aristocrats dominated the saintly population. Bishops like Gregory able to define cults and heighten episcopal power through them (e.g. Gregory promoted Martin because he was dead and Gregory could represent him as Bishop of Tours).

w A good write-up and an audience were required. Saints’ cults indicate the control of the aristocracy over the lower classes. Popular base for cult facilitated or denied by attitude of the authorities (e.g. Cosmus and Damian – 2 Syrian martyrs who brought their healing cult to Co – allowed to flourish by ecc authorities).