Government Types in the Middle Ages?

[Yair]

I would like to note that the city of Novgorod, in the 13th century, was practically independant of feudal reign. Its rich merchants effectively chose which prince would rule it, and if he did something they didn't like - they ousted him, and voted for another. (Although in practice this led to a conflict between said princes during which neither ruled). In practice, the prince had little power over the city, and served essentially as its elected mercenary-leader (of sorts).
I suspect other powerful cities at this, and later, time shared similar status, and stood as independant entities well outside of the feudal order. Especially rich and large cities, major trade centers.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

A bigger question than titles here is what exactly you mean by rule or government.

A lot of the ideas we have about clarity, hierarchy, and purpose to power and organization derived from medieval systems that later periods found confusing/inconvenient and simplified and codified. It should be noted that most of this codification came about in a manner that did not benefit the people lower down in the social hierarchy.

When the unified nation of Italy, for instance, attempted to modernize the medieval property systems large areas of the land become unworkable and unliveable. All of the inhabitants were forced to emmigrate and now the area is going through the slow process of being reclaimed by wolves.

I would guess that the important thing to recognize is that by the high middle ages all European governments are extremely legalized. In the modern understanding the government creates the law, but this doesn't have to be the case in a culture that recognizes a universal church and a universal history.

As a result most governments were brought about in accordance with the laws and most laws were brought about inaccordance with the prior claims of powerful local institutions, guilds, nobles, peasant practices and associations, monastaries, and powerful universal institutions, Roman law, the various emperors, the church, larger cultural tropes such as royalty and nobility, and realities such as agricultural systems and armed men.

I mean in one area you might have trial by combat and in another you might have orderly jury trials and in another you might have the right to appear before your king when he sits underneath a certain tree and he will then be obligated to give your answer before the week is out. And all of these systems might apply not only to different areas but to different people and to different degrees and to settle the same or different questions. And all of that is perfectly rational and ok as long as its properly recorded, precendented, justified, and remembered and a group of people are willing to do it.

That's why kings were important. It had very little to do with power, they were simply specified by law.

Even Republics such as Venice, who didn't need to cobble together laws in order to keep local institutions in line since they self formed from relatively equal parts and rudely conquered everything else they owned, preferred to rely on laws to create institutions rather than vice versa. Thus all the insane regulations on how Venetian governmental institutions and families are allowed to act and present themselves.

So in most places you are going to find a mix of a wide variety of incredibly different systems, structures, powers, and rights united by one overriding idea of legality.

Mind you, one of the reasons this idea of legality didn't last is because it has an odd idea of enforcement, which makes random looters working in the right cause happy, and involves way too much negotiation, which makes clergy and intellectuals happy.

Even if it is very good about contracts and property.

 

[Dogbrain]

The Middle Ages are a very long period. During this time, titles and their meaning changed. Around the years 900 to 1000, there were only a few noble titles in use in Germany. The kingdom consisted of 7 very powerful duchies ("Herzogtümer"), and the dukes were the leaders of their respective Germanic tribes.

Tribes? By the period you cite, tribes had been gone for centuries. Germany was no less modern and no more "tribal" than was France of that exact same pariod.

 

[Turjan]

Tribes? By the period you cite, tribes had been gone for centuries. Germany was no less modern and no more "tribal" than was France of that exact same pariod.

Okay, how do you want to put it then: peoples? You are right in the sense that the borders did not exactly match the population borders, except maybe in Bavaria, Swabia, Austria, or the core parts of Carinthia. The Franconians, on the other hand, did not only live in Franconia, but together with the older inhabitants in both of the Lorraine duchies (which were not "tribal", but mixed). They had also moved in greater numbers to Saxonia, where the original population had suffered heavily during the wars against the Franconians. Dukes, of course, could be exchanged by the kings, if they had the power to do so (which was not always the case).

By the way, these language and cultural borders still match the old duchy borders even nowadays in most cases, although the political borders have long changed since. This illustrates that there were not many population movements after the early Middle Ages in the old German core lands.

 

[Desdichado]

No, it does not. It means "land of the Deutsch", and the "Deutsch" were all the German people, not just "Dukes". "Deutsch" is related to "Dutch", obviously.

Both "Dutch" and "Deutsch" come from the Proto-Indo-European root *teutaa (aa="long" a), meaning "tribe". This root is also the origin of "total" and "tutti" (as in "tutti frutti").

The word "duke", on the other hand, comes from the Latin duc-, meaning "leader", from the Proto-Indo-European *deuk-, meaning "to lead". This root is also the origin of "tug", "tow", and "taut". ("Educate" also comes from this root, in combination with the root *egh-, meaning "out".)

I love a guy who can talk about Proto-Indo-European roots. Rock on, man!
\m/ \m/

 

[Desdichado]

It's Deutschland, and Deutsch simply means German. Duetschland = land of the germans. The german word for duke is Herzog!

Isn't herzog a Hungarian word by extraction though? I can't remember...

 

[Dogbrain]

Okay, how do you want to put it then: peoples?

You singled out Germany as being specifically and especially "tribal". It was no more "tribal" than was the France of that era or the England of that era. It was certainly less "tribal" than the Novgorod of that era--and there wasn't even a "Russia" proper at that time.

 

[Turjan]

You singled out Germany as being specifically and especially "tribal". It was no more "tribal" than was the France of that era or the England of that era. It was certainly less "tribal" than the Novgorod of that era--and there wasn't even a "Russia" proper at that time.

Well, I just used Germany as an example for governmental units. My statement implied that most of those duchy borders at 900-1000 AD matched the tribal groups that formed the ethnicities still living within those borders, e.g., the duchy of Bavaria was inhabited by the members of Bavarian tribes, etc.
"Tribal duchies" is the historical correct term as used in historical textbooks.

 

[Turjan]

Isn't herzog a Hungarian word by extraction though? I can't remember...

No, it's good old anglo-saxon: AS. heretoga, heretoha; here army + teón to draw, lead.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Thanks - a lot of good and helpful responses.

I would say that I would define the European Middle Ages as from 1000 AD to the fall of Constantinople (1453?) - however, for D&D gaming purposes, I would end the Middle Ages a bit earlier, as gunpowder weaponry was being used on European battlefields for a good 100 years by then... and D&D does not usually include the use of gunpowder, though China had been using gunpowder for even longer than that (didn't they start using gunpowder around 1000 AD?)