Evolution of European States: From Feudalism to Liberalism
ITEM 2. Liberal State Training
I. The Formation of European States
The state, as a political and institutional complex within a given territory, capable of effectively producing standards, using public force, and legally coercing individuals or society under its jurisdiction, is not a new invention, nor is it exclusively European. All these features are present in ancient civilizations. Even in our era, we find states, with their highs and lows, emerging and enduring for long periods in places as diverse as Byzantium, pre-Columbian America, and China. During the sixteenth century, the King of France sought the support of the Sultan in Istanbul to weaken the Emperor’s naval hegemony in the Mediterranean. Spain sent an embassy shortly after to the Shah of Persia, the Ottoman Sultan’s competitor in the Middle East, with proposals of alliance.
In the same century, a Portuguese fleet was capable of creating and defending trading posts in the territory of the Shah, and in India and China. The Aztec state succumbed to a small expeditionary force from Castile. Gradually, all non-European empires fell under the sway of a few Western states, or under the Russian monarchy.
1. From <<The King Among Lords>> to <<The Gentlemen from the King>>
The medieval West possessed a number of features that allow historians to speak of a certain homogeneity. It consisted of barely living kingdoms and politically cohesive principalities, composed of fiefdoms and cities. The feudal territories, predominantly rural, were under the rule of lords, who imposed taxes, administered justice, and maintained private armies. This system continued to lag behind.
The kingdoms were not unified power structures. Public coercion was scattered among many centers. The feudal lord, representing himself, did not exercise his power to control orders under the king’s generic authority. The feudal lord was king of his servants. The king ruled the land belonging to him materially. It was with this heritage that he supported his right to claim the crown and exert his influence on the rest of the kingdom, which depended on his personal relationships with the most powerful nobles.
The feudal nobility was organized through private partnerships, linking pacts of allegiance by which lords were obligated to other lords, and so on up to the king. The king was the first among equals, being the noble peers. An army consisted of feudal knights who came to fight with their own arms, squires, and horses. Groups came together, with a great lord at the head, to whom the knights were bound by covenant of vassalage. Perhaps the king headed the operation, or perhaps another great lord took the initiative. Influence was proportional to input, and victory entitled one to greater gain. War was the profession of feudal lords and the means of acquiring new domains. Viewed from the thirteenth century, the armies of the future would be public, centralized, and bureaucratic, as opposed to the private, unregulated, and consolidating feudal retinues.
In feudal armies, gentlemen from different realms often fought together. The national idea mattered relatively little. El Cantar de Mio Cid serves as an affirmation of Castilian values against the duplicity of León and Aragón. Medieval Spain is a perfect example of the versatility of feudal loyalties.