The end of regicide signals a major social change, the introduction of an authority above the contending parties which embodies the idea of an ordered society. This idea did not protect the king from opposition or even—in special cases—from deposition, but it did give him special status that made it more difficult to oppose him or to remove him than other members of society. The exalted picture of the king in sources like The King’s Mirror may seem an exaggeration to us and might to some extent have been so even in the thirteenth century, but it nevertheless expresses an essential element in the understanding of kingship at the time. The king was the guarantee of the borders of the country, which were defined as a “king”dom, and he was the guarantor of the rule of law and public justice. Thus, contemporary ideology gave him considerably greater power than his modest resources would indicate, while at the same time making him subject to some amount of control. This was in a way like squaring a circle; there was no definite answer to how to deal with the king’s abuse of his authority, but eventually the idea emerged of lawful opposition, and, in the worst case, lawful deposition. This idea was eventually stated explicitly in the election charters.
Administration
İskandinavya’da Şansölyeliğin Yükselişi
However, we do note movements in the direction of Moore’s bureaucracy in Scandinavia from the late twelfth and particularly the thirteenth century onwards. The central administration in Scandinavia, as well as in the rest of Europe, had its origin in the king’s household, as the titles of the various officers indicate: “marshal” or “constable” (head of the stable), “steward” (kitchen manager), etc. These offices continued to exist later in the Middle Ages, but they were sometimes kept vacant. A new officer appears from the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, the “chancellor,” who was responsible for the king’s correspondence and kept his records and accounts. The development of the chancery in the following period made the chancellor the most important royal official and gave him a role resembling that of Moore’s bureaucrats in England and France. Clerical chancellors played an important part during the authoritarian regimes in Denmark under Erik Klipping and Erik Menved, as well as in Norway under Håkon V.
Burokrasinin kralin householdundan devlet sistemine evrimi
Alman Baskısı ve Danimarka’nın Doğuşu
The conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne made the Carolingian Empire Denmark’s neighbor to the south and exposed the country to Carolingian conquest or penetration, while at the same time presenting a model for an ambitious conquering king. In a similar way, the final conversion of the country to Christianity around 965 is clearly connected to the rise of Ottonian power to the south, coming just after Otto I’s victory over the Hungarians at Lech in 955 and his invasion of Italy and imperial coronation in 962. It also coincides with the conversion of Poland, traditionally dated to 966, and was preceded by the conversion of Bohemia some decades earlier and followed by that of Hungary some decades later. After Otto I’s death in 973, war broke out between Harald and Otto II. First Harald attacked Saxony. Otto made a counterattack in the following year and conquered Dannevirke and possibly larger parts of Jutland, which, however, Harald was able to regain after the Saracens defeated Otto in 983. The Christianization of Germany’s neighbors, about which we have very little information, may alternatively be regarded as the result of increasing German influence or as a countermeasure to avoid being absorbed by German power, thus in both cases as provoked by increasing German strength. The unification may be regarded in a similar way. Germany may have served as a model for the conquering king, who could then use German pressure to gain support for himself; the magnates and petty kings being forced to choose between submitting to the Germans or to a national conqueror.
Kilisenin Feodal Sisteme Dahil Olması
Since the church was so much a part of medieval life, it could not escape inclusion in the feudal system. The unsettled conditions caused by new invaders—Vikings from the north and Magyars from Asia—forced church officials to enter into close relations with the only power able to offer them protection: the feudal barons in France and the kings in Germany. Bishops and abbots thus became vassals, receiving fiefs for which they were obligated to provide the usual feudal services.
Dört Büyük Patriklik Arasındaki Rekabet
The bishops in the chief towns of the imperial provinces came to be called archbishops. The term for the official center of a bishop’s jurisdiction and authority is see. Those bishops in the premier cities of the empire—Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch—were considered highest of all and were called patriarchs. Throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, these four patriarchs were attempting to extend the prestige and influence of their spiritual offices. Generally speaking, Alexandria and Rome tended to support each other, and Antioch tended to align with Constantinople. On Alexandria’s part this reflected the jealousy that the proud and ancient city felt at the rise of Constantinople, the upstart capital in the East. Rome, too, while for the time content to extend its influence over the imperial dominions in the West, was not happy with the growing arrogance of the “New Rome” in the East. On the other hand, Antioch and Alexandria had long been rivals in the East. If Antioch could not gain preeminence, it preferred to see it go to the church in the new capital rather than to its old rival on the Nile.
Kilisenin Devletle Bütünleşmesinin Bedeli
The advantages for the church were real enough, but there was a price to pay. Constantine ruled Christian bishops as he did his civil servants and demanded unconditional obedience to official pronouncements, even when they interfered with purely church matters. There were also the masses who now streamed into the officially favored church. Prior to Constantine’s conversion, the church consisted of convinced believers who were willing to bear the risk of being identified as Christians. Now many came who were politically ambitious, religiously disinterested, and still half rooted in paganism. This threatened to produce not only shallowness and permeation by pagan superstitions but also the secularization and misuse of religion for political purposes.
İmparator Kültü ve Hristiyanların Sadakat Sorunu
The supreme cause of Roman persecution of Christians arose from the tradition of emperor worship. This conflict between Christ and Caesar did not break out overnight. Only gradually did the worship of the emperor assume a central place in the life of the empire. The roots of the practice lie in the merits of Roman rule. When the Romans took over the government of a country, impartial Roman justice arrived, and citizens were freed from the capricious authority of unpredictable and often savage and bloodthirsty tyrants. When Roman administration came, the roads were cleared of robbers and the seas of pirates, and a new security entered into life. This was pax Romana, the Roman peace. The result of this security was a deep and heartfelt gratitude to the spirit of Rome. It was an easy step for the spirit of Rome to become the goddess Roma, and by the second century BC, there were many temples in Asia Minor to the goddess Roma. But the human mind and heart need a symbol; it was a further easy step to see the goddess Roma and the spirit of Rome incarnated in the emperor. He embodied Rome; he was Rome; in him the spirit or genius of Rome resided and had its earthly dwelling. The first temple actually built to the godhead of the emperor was built in 29 BC at Pergamum in Asia Minor. At first the emperors were hesitant to accept this reverence. Claudius (AD 41–59) refused to have temples erected to him because, as he said, he did not wish to be offensive to his fellow citizens. But slowly an idea began to form in the official mind. The problem of the Roman Empire was the problem of unification. The empire stretched from the Euphrates River to the shores of the Irish Sea. It stretched from Germany to North Africa, from Spain to Egypt and Syria. Here were all kinds of peoples and languages and faiths and traditions. How could they be welded into a unity? How could the consciousness of one empire be brought into the lives of such diverse peoples? There is no unifying force like the force of a common religion, and Caesar worship lay ready at hand. None of the local and ancestral faiths had any hope of ever becoming universal, but Rome was universal. As a result, Caesar worship became the keystone of imperial policy. It was deliberately organized in every province in the empire. Everywhere temples to the godhead of the emperor appeared. Little by little people within the empire came to believe that any allegiance in conflict with loyalty to the emperor, and therefore to the empire, could lead only to the disintegration of order. Worship of another Lord could only open the floodgates of chaos. Emperor Decius (249–51) took another important step. Caesar worship was made compulsory for every race and nation within the empire with the single exception of the Jews. On a certain day in the year, every Roman citizen had to come to the Temple of Caesar, burn a pinch of incense there, and say, “Caesar is Lord.” When a person had done that, they were given a certificate documenting that they had done so.
Thus we see that Caesar worship was primarily a test of political loyalty; it was a test of whether a person was a good citizen. If anyone refused to carry out the ceremony of acknowledging Caesar, they were automatically branded as a traitor. Exaltation of the emperor, then, created a problem for the Christians. They had not failed to pray for the emperor in their meetings, but they would not pray to him in private or in public.
Roma’nın Dini Toleransı ve Hristiyanlar
Imperial authorities were remarkably tolerant of religions from those lands overrun by the Roman legions. If the national religions of the conquered countries would add homage to the emperor to their other ceremonies, Rome almost never interfered. In one notable instance, Rome even dropped the requirement of burning incense to the emperor. The Jews, with their fanatical loyalty to their one true God, and their readiness to turn their homeland into a blood-soaked wilderness before they acknowledged any other deity, were the exception. As long as Roman authorities considered Christians as just one more sect of Jews, followers of Jesus enjoyed this same immunity from imperial pressure. But when the Jews made it known in no uncertain terms that they would have nothing to do with the new movement, the situation changed dramatically. Once the Romans discovered what the Christians were up to, they were confronted by the problem of toleration in a more exasperating form than even the Jews had presented. The Jews, after all, were “a sort of closed corporation, a people set apart from others by the mark of circumcision, who lived and worshiped largely by themselves, and did little active proselyting.” The Christians, on the other hand, were always talking about their Jesus. They were out to make Christians of the entire population of the empire, and the rapidity of their spread showed that this was no idle dream. Not only did they, like the Jews, refuse to worship the emperor as a living god, but they were doing their utmost to convince every subject of the emperor to join them in their refusal. From time to time, then, Christians felt the wrath of the empire and its people.
Resmi Belgelerde İngilizce’den Latince’ye Geçiş
In one crucial respect, however, the Normans deliberately spurned the linguistic tradition they encountered. As we’ve already noted, English was highly unusual in being a written as well as spoken language. In England, not only were books and chronicles composed in the vernacular; so too were official documents – the charters, writs and diplomas issued in the name of the king. But in or around 1070 the use of English for such documents suddenly ceased. This must have been a decision taken at the highest level, and the coincidence of its timing with the arrival of Lanfranc might lead us to identify him as the prime suspect. That said, the purge of the Church hierarchy that same year, along with the steady attrition of English secular officials, must have made the abandonment of written English a fairly obvious development: what, after all, would have been the point of addressing orders to Continental newcomers in words they could not understand? From 1070 onwards, therefore, all royal documents were written in Latin, a language that was familiar to both literate Normans and educated Englishmen.
Fatih William’ın Kuzey Kıyımı
As Orderic explains, the king left York and divided his army into smaller contingents that could comb the mountains and forests where the rebels were hiding. They spread out, we are told, over more than a hundred miles of territory, slaying many men and destroying the lairs of others. This, however, was only the beginning of William’s strategy. ‘In his anger’, continues Orderic, ‘he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind should be brought together and burned to ashes with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance.’ The Conqueror’s aim was to ensure that no future army, English or Danish, would be able to support itself against him and, as Orderic makes clear, this scorched-earth policy was brutally effective. ‘As a consequence, so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless people, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old alike, perished of hunger.’