Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 1529391" data-attributes="member: 6533">Actually the cities were always pretty independent.  That was one of the 'benefits' of the Empire, and cities, falling apart.  Their size, importance, and wealth did vary.  And it's certainly true that the development of cities was used as means to greater power by the upper aristocracy at the expense of the lesser.Though there are the major exceptions of Great cities, a status which rarely depended on size, such as Rome, London, various German and Spanish cities at various times, Paris at times, and the great cities of the East such as Constantinople or Alexandria.Cities are an incredibly problematic military/political circumstance during the middle ages, though in Italy and, to a lesser extent Germany, they are the norm.  Or at least very small ones are.From the raising troops standpoint they're interesting because they pretty much automatically defend themselves.Cities were nearly universally obligated to provide the troops and arms necessary to defend their walls, but as a result they were extremely reluctant to serve as recruiting grounds for armies that would drain their own military reserves.  At times, laws and nobles could convince them to draw up regular militias who would accompany properly designated authorities through part of the year and they could be good resources for fund raising and material, but, again, the real power was in the country.The nice thing was they were really good at holding important points, if they happened to be located on them, or protecting important people, if those people could get inside them.As a result, cities and their governments became important allies of military commanders even if they were largely irrelevant from the armies point of view.</blockquote>

Verification