Thoughts on Medieval and Early Modern England
Much is said today, in a rushed world, without the appropriate understanding of historical events. No, I daresay even the knowledge of their existence has left the field deemed necessary to grasp reality. However, no man faced with a present reality can understand it without knowing how it came to be. The social sciences all aim to understand phenomena that extend through time, even when they use static models. In greater or smaller form, the historical facts are essential, in a narrative, in a series of numbers, in archeological evidence, even in their distorted versions within the memoirs of the peoples. No attempt can be made to understand economics, sociology, politics or whatever other aspect of society without the clear notion of time.
Having said so much about the demand social scientist should have for history, it should come without saying that this essay aims to clarify basic knowledge about a partition of history. That being the English medieval world, as well as an interpretation of what happened then and is still relevant today. I have already written here another essay called Thoughts on the Roman Republic and it is in about the same manner I intend to proceed here.
From the Romans to William the Conqueror.
The history of England before the Norman conquest in 1066 is almost utterly ignored. The fact is England has not always been one, and the English Channel has not always kept it safe. In the times of the Roman Empire, England (then known as Britannia) became a province of the empire and when it was abandoned by its conquerors, it had been separated into 4 different provinces. The Britons found themselves, after centuries, back at the head of their land. However, a people which had not shielded itself for centuries could no longer hold its ground in war. And war came.
The Saxons, a Germanic people, came and conquered Britannia. They formed the heptarchy — the Seven Kingdoms, the historical setting which inspired Westeros' political landscape. While Italy and Germany only became national States during the XIX century, England was unified by Alfred the Great, king of Wessex, who became the first king of the English. Said unification was only possible because of a war against the Dane invaders, for they had destroyed the harmony of power in the Heptarchy and given the English reason enough to become brothers in arms.
When studying Wessex and the other Saxon kingdoms, one should note a very interesting institution: the Witenagemot. The witan (shortened name) was, for the Saxons, the epitome expression of the primus inter pares. Altough its authority changed during time and in accordance to the specific kingdom, the fact is the king was by no means all powerful. The king's will would mean nothing if the witan would not approve of his heir, for example. One may find that the witan and the parliament have no actual connection, but the fact remains that in one way or the other, they are clearly similar traditions, tied by the same ideas. The series Last Kingdom depicts Alfred's Wessex and one may also find there a fictional portrayal of the witan.
The Turning Point — Hastings.
The Battle of Hatings happened in 1066 and was the moment when Saxon rule was over. The Duke of Normandy had conquered and, thus, had become William the Conqueror, king of England. Due to his position as a vassal of the French king, things would continue to be in bad terms with the French until the XIX century, beyond many dinasties, wars and more — this is the impact of historical memory. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts one of the advantages the invaders had: cavalry.
The Normans brought feudalism from Continental Europe, for while the continent had developed this institution, England had followed Saxon paradigm. But no more, or not entirely anymore. The fact that this land was reconverted to christianity and was reintegrated into the Roman inheritance is primal. In many ways, England has been alike its continental counterparts, yet one may find a great number of traditions that are conserved from outside the normative trio of Western Civilasation — those being Roman Law, Greek Philosophy and Christianity. The English Channel has been successful not only in physically protecting Great Britain, but also in conserving institutions. Said disposition is supported in exactly what the channel did: conserve. These institutions and their éthos were conservative. By which I mean that they did not seek the same legislative agenda in which the continent would drown. While Robespierre would chase social engineering and the idealism of citizenship, the English and their heirs remain(ed) — to different degrees — realists. Hume understands this very clearly, he knows the English legislators to have been realists, altough he had no idea that there would be this vast consequences in his future. While England sought to stablish the Rule of Law inside conflict, the continent continued to chase the impossible reformation of humanity — as continues to this day. The very power of the monarchy was kept at bay, not by some high ideal of liberty (in no demerit to it), but to the willing action of the noble peers. By excellency, until Henry VII, the king of England was The primus inter pares. However, even once the crown surpassed the powers of the decaying feudal nobles, there could never be a true English Absolutism.
The constitution of the English government can be proud of the fact that since the invasion of this isle by the Saxons, in no moment the will of the monarch has been entirely absolute and unrestricted. (HUME, 2017, p.129 free translation)
The reigns of Henry VII and VIII are the most notable to those who turn their attention to the powers of the king. After the War of the Two Roses, Henry VII (founder of the Tudor dynasty) had many new powers. The aristocracy could not resist against the changes in their inharitance law, or the new economic rules put in place by the crown. By any resonable economic stance, the first Tudor had the perfect formula for disaster: price and salaries controls, as well as guild monopolies. Thankfully for the English economy, this rules were generally only de jure. In practive, the real change was insecurity, for while the laws were generally not applied, they might be if the right oficials wanted. In other words, none should displease the crown's delegates if they did not wish to be caught outside the lawful boundaries.
As for Henry VIII, his religious independence in the creation of Anglicanism, his marriages, and many discritionary legislative and financial factors should lead us to know that he stood in the pinacle of the crown's power. However, none of these elements can be said to come close to the power projection of the Sun King. This was by no means absolutism. The Anglican Curch continued to cause major problems until the Glorious Revolution, and continues to conflict with catholic Ireland to this day. The real factor of power was the legislative vacum left by the removal of Canon Law. Regardless, the discritionary powers which came from this could not take power from existing political institutions, so they did not unbalance the scales of power in England.
Reccomended readings in English:
