The formation of dynasties

The first major step towards the impersonal state was, paradoxically enough, the introduction of dynasties. The dynasty is of course no institution, but rather the opposite, a family.

Medieval and early modern Europe differs from its predecessor, the Roman Empire, as well as from its neighbouring civilization, Byzantium, in practising dynastic succession to the throne; which suggests that the origins of this practice should be sought in the Germanic tribes. However, there is no evidence of strict dynastic succession among them in the early period, apart from what may be regarded as a natural tendency in humankind to leave one’s power and possessions to one’s offspring. No ruler in the early period would be able to do this without support from his followers. Dynastic succession would thus seem to be the result of a gradual development of more stable political units after the Roman Empire had been replaced by Germanic kingdoms.

Both the Spanish Visigoths and the Frankish Merovingians developed hereditary succession, but in both, all the king’s descendants had an equal right to the throne, whether they were born in marriage or not — to the extent that this distinction made sense at all in contemporary society. In both kingdoms, the kings were pro­miscuous and there was no clear distinction between mistresses and lawful wives. There was fierce competition between the kings’ sons and between their mothers on their behalf, both of which resulted in frequent murders and internal conflicts, in which allies within the aristocracy often proved decisive.²³ The Visigoths were defeated by Arab invaders in 711—20, whereas the Frankish kingdom continued to exist.

Even if the advantages of primogeniture and legitimate birth might seem obvious in hindsight, it is not easy to identify any groups that had a particular incentive to support its introduction. The ruling king wanted to be succeeded by his offspring, but might find it difficult to favour one son over another. It would seem that the impetus for primogeniture therefore came from the aristocracy. The Merovingian kings had maintained a distance from the aristocracy. They married foreign princesses, in addition to having various mistresses, but they did not use marriage or sexual connections as a way of forging links with leading aristocrats. This policy changed with the Carolingians, who frequently married aristocratic women and who also involved the aristocracy to a greater degree in the govern- ment.²⁴ It is thus with the Carolingians that we can identify the beginnings of a strong connection between the royal government and the local aristocracy that characterized the West at least up to the period of the French Revolution. The king now ruled through a tight aristocratic network that risked being dissolved or disturbed by a divided succession.²⁵ In addition, the size of political units was reduced through the division of the Carolingian Empire; there was simply less land to divide. Ideologically, the development of primogeniture found support in ecclesiastical doctrine: the Church demanded legitimate birth from the king and was normally in favour of individual succession. In addition, bishops and other churchmen formed an important part of the aristocracy.

As in most other places, European rulers were normally men. Because of the importance of hereditary monarchy, monogamy and the nuclear family, the chances were nevertheless fairly high that a woman might succeed to the throne. In some countries, however, female succession was rejected, notably, as we have seen, in the Holy Roman Empire, where it could easily be avoided because the monarchy was elective. More surprisingly, it was also rejected in France, where monarchy was hereditary, with reference to the so-called Salic Law which was actually an invention by the lawyers in the mid-fourteenth century. In practice, this was a means for Philip V to succeed his brother Louis X in 1316 instead of Louis’ daughter Jeanne, aged 7, as well as a weapon against King Edward III of England, who claimed the throne of France through his mother, the daughter of King Philip IV.²⁶

As we have seen, the French dynasty was the most successful in producing heirs, with son succeeding father for more than 300 years. Although most others were less successful, peaceful succession gradually became the norm, determined either by hereditary rules or election by assemblies with the authority to decide the matter. Whereas approximately 94 of 431 or 22 per cent of the kings in Western Christendom were killed by their subjects in the period 600—1200, this applies to only 25 of 333 or 7.5 per cent in the period 1200—1800.²⁷ We can also date this reduction fairly precisely. In the central parts of Europe — essentially the Car­olingian Empire — it had already taken place by the ninth century.

The victory of dynasties in the old kingdoms in the post-Carolingian period forms the logical conclusion to a gradual consolidation. It seems more surprising in the new kingdoms in the north and east that were created during the expansion of Chris­tianity from the ninth and tenth centuries onwards. As far as we can see, dynasties were established relatively quickly in all of these and remained in power for several centuries until they became extinct, mostly from the fourteenth century onwards. Although little is known about the exact circumstances, it would seem that Chris­tianity was an important factor in this, giving the king and his descendants a sacred status.

The introduction of rules of individual succession, primogeniture and legitimate birth largely seems to have solved the problem of rivalry over the throne between the king’s sons, but it created a new one, namely, the risk that there would be no heir at all. With medieval and early modern child mortality, it might often happen that a king died without leaving a son. The risk increased with the European rules of monogamy and ban against divorce. Admittedly, the latter could in most cases be avoided by having the Church annul the marriage, usually because the partners were or claimed to be too closely related,²⁹ but there was no remedy for the former. Although monogamy in practice did not prevent the king from having children with mistresses, these children had no right to the throne. This differs markedly from many other civilizations, such as China and the Muslim kingdoms and empires, where the rulers had harems. In the early Middle Ages, the kings’ success or lack of it in this respect largely determined the degree of stability of royal succession. Lack of royal offspring might lead to internal conflict, as well as dynastic unions, which became frequent, particularly from the later Middle Ages onwards.

Thanks to the Capetians’ luck in having male successors, France was the most stable. England, with less dynastic stability, eventually solved the problem by leav­ing the decision to Parliament, if there was doubt. Other countries developed various compromises between hereditary and elective succession.³⁰ Not surpris­ingly, Germany developed elective monarchy. From the late thirteenth century, the election was left to seven of the most important princes of the realm: the Archbishops of Cologne, Mainz and Trier, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of Rhineland, the Duke of Saxony and the Margrave of Brandenburg. Whether monarchy was officially regarded as hereditary or elective, the king’s eldest son, if there was one, would in most cases succeed his father. From the point of view of the aristocracy, the advantage of elective monarchy was in most cases not the possibility of electing anyone else than the nearest heir, but the ability to pose conditions for the election.

Depending on the kings’ greater or lesser luck in having offspring, election might either be eliminated or strengthened. In both cases, however, there was a significant amount of dynastic continuity and at least a reduction of crises com­pared to the early Middle Ages. In both cases, although to different degrees, the king’s authority increased and special rules were introduced to protect him against murder and rebellion. In another way, the distance was reduced. There is an obvious similarity between the royal dynasty, ‘owning’ a particular territory, and every other landowner, down to the peasant owning or even leasing his little plot. The similarity in the positions held by the king and the aristocracy is also expressed in the fact that primogeniture was introduced within the European aristocracy at about the same time as it was applied to royal succession, although without becoming a universal rule to the same extent.

There is not only a similarity between the king and other landowners or even tenants but also some common interest. The people — notably the aristocracy — needed the king to organize the defence against common enemies and to mediate or judge in internal conflicts. No doubt, there were numerous rebellions by pea­sants and aristocrats or groups of them, but rather than aiming at eliminating royal government, they aimed at reforming it or in gaining specific rights for the rebels. Although the importance of such events should not be neglected, the history of Europe from 1200 to 1648 is not the history of a continuous struggle between petty principalities eventually resulting in the victory of some ancestor of the national state. Rather, it is the history of a limited number of dynasties, partly competing with each other and partly consolidating their rule over specific terri­tories through a combination of alliances and struggles with subordinates within them. The success of these dynasties varied greatly. As we have seen, the most striking contrast was between French success and German failure.