Family, Friends and Followers: Political and Social Bonds in Early Medieval Europe

by Gerd Althoff, Christopher Carroll

Overview

This work, originally published in German, documents and describes just how extensively crucial personal and social bonds influenced political life in Europe in the Early and High Middle Ages. Political life in the Middle Ages was significantly influenced by the bonds people had to one another, and the bonds of kinship, friendship and lordship were by far the most important. Gerd Althoff, a renowned medieval scholar, demonstrates how the nature and importance of these bonds changed, as did the rules and norms which governed them.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780521770545
Publisher:	Cambridge University Press
Publication date:	06/03/2004
Series:	Cambridge Medieval Textbooks (Hardcover)
Pages:	208
Product dimensions:	6.22(w) x 9.29(h) x 0.75(d)

About the Author

GERD ALTHOFF is Professor of Medieval History, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany.

Read an Excerpt

Cambridge University Press
0521770548 - Family, Friends and Followers - Political and Social Bonds in Medieval Europe - by Gerd Althoff
Index

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

THE GROUP BOND IN THE MIDDLE AGES

When describing political or 'public' relationships, medieval sources frequently mention bonds or obligations that nowadays we would consider to be essentially 'private'. It is certainly true, however, that such bonds could be diverse and complex.It is not the intention of this book to provide any novel insights into the variety of 'natural' and 'artificial' groups, both large and small, which made up society in the middle ages, however.¹ The aim is rather to describe the impact of such bonds on the shape and structure of political life.

This involves asking a number of questions. What were the demands which different groups placed on their members? In what ways were such groups formed, and what rituals were involved? How did they go about creating what might be called a 'group will'? How were relationships governed both within and between groups? And, last but not least, was there such a thing as group consciousness? Special attention will also be paid here to the status of each of the different types of medieval group bond in the field of politics, and the extent to which there was a basic conflict between certain types of bond. For example, if a man entered into a co-operative bond for a particular reason, while also being bound to his lord as a follower or vassal, then the question arises as to which bond enjoyed precedence when there was a conflict of interests. The question of how far bonds of kinship, co-operation and lordship were able to complement and influence one another will also be considered.

Every part of medieval life, everything from the 'mentality' of the medieval individual, through to the activities of the so-called 'state', seems to have been shaped by personal bonds. And, of course, if an individual's own personal connections exercised the most decisive influence on his or her life and political position in the middle ages, then this poses something of a problem for the concept of a medieval state. Nevertheless, some form of state may perhaps be said to have existed in this period if there was a generally accepted hierarchy of bonds. This might have been the case, for example, if a vassal or bondsman conceded that his 'public' ties, that is, his bonds to his lord and king, in other words to the 'state', were more important than his 'private' ties, that is, his bonds to his family and friends. The influence of the different bonds in actual historical situations will be assessed to see if this was the case.

In the middle ages, a child became a member of a number of different communities and groups the moment he was born. He was not only born into his own kindred, he was also born into his father's network of associations, including friends, lords and vassals. These connections were inherited as if they were property. He was also able to enter new groups himself ; in fact, it was almost compulsory for him to do so. He could tie himself to new lords, or bind to himself new vassals, and he could form new political allegiances and new friendships. All such connections would have an impact on his life. The most important bonds, however, are mentioned in the title of this book. An individual had relatives, friends and, if he was a vassal and had entered into a bond of submission, a lord. Alternatively, he was himself a lord of men. This network of personal ties and associations was geared towards one end. In a society that was essentially hostile, these bonds guaranteed security and support in every area of life. Group members were not only obliged to support one another; they were entitled to expect support from one another too.

It is typical of the middle ages, however, that these obligations and rights can be defined only in the most general manner. A man obviously had to behave in the right way, that is, 'rightfully', towards his relatives, friends and vassals, but to do so required consensus about what was 'right' in any given situation.² In order to discover what was acceptable and what was not, it is necessary to examine carefully the wealth of recorded conflicts that took place both within and between groups. The causes of these conflicts, the nature of the disputes and the ways in which they were resolved must all be considered if a better understanding of the reality of life within medieval groups is to be achieved.

And there were certainly a great many conflicts in the middle ages, especially when some offence had been given with regard to honour or status. The idea of rank, for example, shaped the internal structure of groups, as well as relations between individuals and groups. A person's rank determined whom they married, how they behaved towards other people and how they themselves expected to be treated. This was all reinforced by ceremonial, legal, ritual and symbolic actions. These unwritten Spielregeln or 'rules of the game' governed life in the middle ages by playing on the 'subtle differences' that existed between both people and groups.³

This work builds on a great deal of previous research dealing with groups, associations and communities, including the lordship of the feudal system and the co-operative structure of the early medieval guilds.⁴ On the whole, however, the literature has focused on the role played by certain groups in constitutional and social history.⁵ The contribution made by different groups to medieval history is well known, but the analogous nature of these different groups has never really been considered, and the degree to which the different bonds influenced one another in their form and content has also often been overlooked. Of course, there were some major differences between the different types of groups too. Groups made up of relatives or friends were very different from groups made up of lords and their men. Every member of a kin-group or group of friends had a duty to every other member, but, in the case of lordship, these obligations only existed between the lord and each of his men individually, not between the men themselves. Groups made up of lords and their men therefore involved fewer bonds than other groups. The consequences of this fact will be considered here also.

THE PERSONENVERBANDSSTAAT

In the nineteenth century, the study of political history was essentially the study of constitutional history. Work therefore focused on the institutions of the medieval state, not the structure or political value of medieval groups.⁶ It was not until the 1930s that medieval groups and associations eventually achieved greater prominence in the literature, when Theodor Mayer published his concept of the medieval Personenverbandsstaat : a 'state' of people and groups rather than a modern 'institutional state'.⁷ This idea was also very much a product of its time, however. Under the influence of National Socialism, historians in the 1930s and 1940s criticized previous teaching on the medieval state: the old liberal constitutional view was considered inappropriate; the new teaching highlighted the Germanic character of the middle ages and the concepts of Reich und Volk, Führer und Gefolgschaft and Adelsherrschaft. This all served to give a historical basis to the contemporary idea of an individual having personal obligations to the ruler.⁸ Heinrich Mitteis, who was only moderately influenced by National Socialism, summarized these ideas in his 1940 book, The State in the High Middle Ages:

Any observation on the historical origins of the state in Europe cannot be made on the basis of that rigid dogmatic concept of the state which has held sway over modern teaching on the state for a long time, and which is now being rejected. The historian simply cannot expect to find in the middle ages all of those elements which make up the modern state. In history, the state is what enables each order of the people to reach their political goal. In other words, there is the bureaucratically structured Anstaltsstaat ['institutional state'] of the modern period, the 'state' that is founded on actual institutions, authorities and officials, and the Personenverbandsstaat of the early and high middle ages, which was founded essentially on personal ties, on authority and subordination, leadership and followings. It is the task of legal history to learn to understand these historical [!] manifestations of state authority.⁹

Even though Mitteis' interpretation of the Personenverbandsstaat was in large part shaped by the time in which he lived, he was correct to point out that medieval constitutional history had a very great deal to do with personal bonds and very little to do with institutions.¹⁰ A more questionable feature of his argument, however, was the idea that this 'state' was composed of a hierarchically structured group whose members owed obligations to their lord and ruler alone.

After all, groups and associations certainly were not exclusively, or principally, related to government. The people of the middle ages can be seen everywhere acting as representatives, members or advocates of a whole range of different groups; they understand and define themselves as such and are described or characterized in this way by others. There were certainly efforts to make people view their bond to the 'state', in other words, to the king, as their most important bond, but these efforts generally reflected the ideas of the ruler rather than the ruled and, whenever there was a conflict between bonds, there is little indication that people felt a greater obligation to their lord than to anybody else.¹¹ Despite the fact that the state, over the course of many centuries, constantly attempted to impose its claims in this matter, people in the early middle ages often had rather different priorities because their life and position depended on connections other than those they had with the 'state'.

Regardless of whether they were members of a monastic community, the following of a lord, or some co-operative union, membership of a group had a profound effect on a person's life and consciousness in the middle ages. Membership of a group was not simply a prerequisite for survival; such bonds also demanded a degree of personal commitment and therefore shaped the life of each group member in a way that is still difficult for us to conceive today. Even if we are not especially well informed about these things, the importance of being part of a group cannot be doubted. After all, group members frequently promised on oath to help and support one another, even though such sworn associations were prohibited by both secular and ecclesiastical authorities.¹²

People rarely belonged to one group alone. It was actually in the interests of almost all people to be part of as large a network as possible, by belonging to as many groups as possible. Such bonds guaranteed protection and help in every possible area of life. After all, medieval society was hostile. It therefore made sense for an individual to establish peaceful and mutually supportive relationships with as many people as possible. This could be achieved by entering into bonds of lordship, friendship or co-operation. What is more, protection and help were not only needed in this world, they were needed in the next world too: souls needed to be saved. Consequently, medieval people not only had a duty to provide help and protection for each other in this life, they were expected to provide help in the next life too by praying, or having prayers said, for one other. Indeed, they might even enter into an association for this very purpose.¹³ The idea of a medieval Personenverbandsstaat therefore needs to be qualified because all areas of life in the middle ages, not just those relating to the 'state', were characterized by the existence and activity of groups or associations. It may also help greatly in understanding the politics of the middle ages to find out what people did when there was a conflict between their various bonds.

NORMS OF BEHAVIOUR WITHIN MEDIEVAL GROUPS

There are therefore a number of problems with the concept of the Personenverbandsstaat, not least that the idea itself is very much a product of the 1930s and 1940s. Consequently, the accounts of how these groups were supposed to have functioned served principally to give historical legitimacy to the ideas of unconditional loyalty and the leader principle then being propagated. These ideas also influenced arguments about Germanic  continuity and gave rise to the concept of a special form of 'Germanic' loyalty.¹⁴ According to this concept, vassals did not have any right of counsel or consultation, but rather conceded counsel and support to their lord freely, as a voluntary expression of loyalty.¹⁵ Recent research has swung the pendulum right back the other way, however: a lord had to work to win over his vassals; he could not simply rely on them furnishing their consent. Indeed, historians have wrestled for a long time with the question of how power was actually distributed in the lord's group in the middle ages. The two interpretations outlined above are diametrically opposed on this issue and show just how difficult it is to interpret general comments in medieval sources about obligations and rights within the various types of bond.

This highlights one of the fundamental problems with studying medieval groups and their internal cohesion. In the early and high middle ages, all bonds brought with them rights and obligations, but these were defined only in a very general manner, if they were defined at all. For example, a liege lord had to give vague guarantees of protection and shelter to his vassal, and promise to show him favour and loyalty, and the vassal in return was simply obliged to offer his lord 'support' and 'counsel'. In the case of friendship alliances, each party promised the other to behave in future as a friend should 'rightfully' behave towards a friend, nothing more.¹⁸ In the treaties and alliances between kings and either foreign rulers or their own subjects, each party only promised to act 'as far as possible' ( pro posse suo or pro viribus regni) or 'saving the honour of the kingdom' (salvo honore regni). What is more, formulae like these still appeared in the twelfth century.¹⁹ What all of these terms and phrases have in common is their vagueness; it is not entirely clear what obligations were actually owed. There are a host of things that 'rightfully' or 'saving the honour of the kingdom' might mean in any given context.

It is therefore only possible to understand medieval group life by accepting that the bonds on which this life was founded were very general indeed, although without doubt there would have been some consensus about what was expected. Obviously a person today would ask for exact details of rights and obligations before entering into a bond, but in the early and high middle ages there was an unshakeable and, what seems to us, naïve belief that everybody knew what rights and obligations applied in any given situation. However, this may have been less the result of a naïve belief in the existence of such consensus than a simple inability to construct theoretical norms of behaviour. After all, people in the middle ages were well aware such bonds could be abused and were not entirely reliable. This is why vassals always tried to bind themselves to two different lords: so that they might play off one against the other.²⁰ It is also why allies often had to swear to fulfil their obligations 'without being deceitful or disingenuous' (sine fraudo et malo ingenio).²¹ It was a long time before such rights and obligations came to be written down so explicitly, however.

Just as law was founded on real cases rather than theory, these behavioural norms were founded on custom rather than written rules.²² The same customs that governed the obligations and rights of individuals and groups also governed group meetings. The sources offer very little insight into the customs followed during these consultations, however. We know very well, for example, that principles of rank and honour had to be respected, but this is not actually stated anywhere. After analysing a great many cases, we can also say that honor and offensio represent opposite concepts, but the subtleties of these terms are still lost to us.²³ The process of meeting and consultation may have been an integral part of medieval life, but reconstructing the conventions of this process is very difficult indeed.

CONSULTATION AND WILLENSBILDUNG

The medieval individual often found himself involved in some sort of process of advice or consultation. A wealth of source material from the court makes possible from various perspectives an insight into the situations when such consultations were necessary and the problems that accompanied them. The example of the court is particularly informative because representatives from a number of different groups assembled here in order to give advice. The court therefore offers the best source of evidence about the so-called Spielregeln or 'rules of the game' that governed the interaction between individuals and groups. This variety of interests and claims at court made good advice very hard to come by, however, so a high value was put on 'good advice' in medieval theorizing on the proper organization of royal government. The more authoritative writers believed in the absolute necessity of 'old, wise and sober counsellors' (senes et sapientes et sobrios consiliarios).²⁴ In his work, De ordine palatii, Hincmar of Rheims even goes so far as to assign particular roles to officials: 'So, one of the advisers should emphasize the legitimacy of a plan, a second should stress compassion and goodwill, and a third should correct any dishonesty and imprudence.'²⁵ Hincmar of Rheims also argued that the commitment of royal advisers to their king should be total: nothing and nobody should sway them, neither friends, nor enemies, nor relatives, nor people who gave them gifts, nor people who flattered or threatened them.²⁶ Ideal and reality could be very different, however. Hincmar was also clearly aware that the interests of the king and his advisers could be very different too.

---

© Cambridge University Press

Table of Contents

Preface; 1. Introduction; 2. Kin-groups; 3. Co-operative groups; 4. Lords and their men; 5. Rituals; Conclusion.

Editorial Reviews

"the study is devoted to a fascinating topic, and Althoff's observations are insightful..." - Eric Fournier, History, UC Santa Barbara

From the Publisher