Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 7 down vote favorite
1

I'd be the first to admit that I don't exactly know much about this topic and the initial research I've done on it has simply led to greater confusion. My current understanding (which I'm pretty sure is wrong) lies around the thought that feudalism was in decline due to the changing nature of Europing becoming more "centralized" and needing less fragmentation.

What I said above should've hinted that my knowledge is extremely flaky so if possible use pleb terminology. :)

share|improve this question
4  
Could you clarify what you mean by "the rise of national monarchies in the high middle ages"? – Mark C. Wallace Nov 7 '12 at 17:09
1  
I'd venture to guess improving agriculture and technologies providing extra surplus to create centralized armies, and improving weapons technology to allow such an army to overcome independent feudal lords' resistance. But no references, thus a comment. – DVK Nov 7 '12 at 18:35
Umm national? Could you use a less "loaded" term, one that can be clearly defined? Do you mean these states were: single-language, single-culture, common ancestry, common economy, geographically large, or some combination of these? – kubanczyk Nov 8 '12 at 13:25
I'd suggest either rephrasing the title a bit, or providing a link to something that defines the term "national monarchy" for us. Its kinda squishy. (Suspicously like a school essay question would be). – T.E.D.♦ Nov 8 '12 at 14:39
1  
@T.E.D. - I have a sneaking suspicion this refers to things like Louis XI's reign, where France turned from "power of Dukes" to "Power of the King", for lack of a better wording. – DVK Nov 8 '12 at 17:12
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

up vote -2 down vote

Europe was a pretty big place in the Middle Ages; but to put it simply, and I can only speak for the British Isles, there was always a "national" monarchy in some form or another. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Bede name a number of Northumbrian kings as Bretwalda, meaning that they were considered to essentially be the Emperors of the Anglo-Saxons.

Cnut the Great, a Viking who conquered England and became its king, didn't have much of a cultural impact and has come to be regarded as something of an Anglo-Saxon convert. The only really big societal shift came with the Norman Conquest. That should be recent enough that it need not be rehashed outside of high school English.

So, in essence, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Norman Conquest, there was (in theory) an absolute ruler with powers above that of his fellow kings in Britain.

If you're asking how our contemporary European nation-states came to be, then a better suited question would be how the end of the Viking incursions into Europe allowed for political and social settlement.

share|improve this answer
Downvote: I am not sure that this answer really answer the question. For one thing, as you point out yourself in the last sentence, the question was about a much later period. – Felix Goldberg Dec 9 '12 at 14:18
The problem I had with that is that there were established, central monarchies ruling over people with strong national identities long before the high middle ages in Europe. I thought that maybe showing that would give the real answer: there wasn't a rise of "national" monarchies in the high middle ages, as a blanket concept. – SAHornickel Dec 9 '12 at 21:48

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.