The World's Progress, Vol. 5

Angebote / Angebote:

Excerpt from The World's Progress, Vol. 5: With Illustrative Texts From Masterpieces of Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Modern European and American Literature The result of this development was completely to trans form the face of Europe. Instead of one great centralized despotism, such as had existed in the time of Rome, Europe was divided into several nominally independent states, which, in turn, were made up of a myriad of still smaller states, over which the king's authority was hardly more than nominal. Thus in France, after 987, when one of the great feudal nobles seized the throne (to the exclusion of the last of the descendants of Charlemagne), the king had real authority only around Paris and its vicinity, where lay the royal domain. Outside of this domain, the various great dukes and counts, though nominally holding their lands from the king, were practically independent. Nor was this the worst. Many of the dukes were in their duchies in much the same position that the king was in his kingdom. Their power was in turn limited, indeed oftentimes defined by their vassals, the lesser lords of various degree. Generally these states, great and small, and states within states, were subject to con¿icting claims, and hence war was the normal condition of things. The feudal lords great and small alike - fought with one another or their king, as the occasion or their interests dictated, and all - king and lords alike - sought, as Opportunity offered, to extend their power. In some countries the kings, being more advantageously situated than the feudal lords, began in the end to get the upper hand. Thus in France the king was able slowly to over come the nobility. Taking advantage of the mistakes of his opponents and adroitly using for his purposes the feudal law he gradually added one territory after another to his royal domain until at last his power had so increased that he could impose his will upon all his subjects and organize an efficient government for his kingdom. In Germany and Italy, however, this tendency toward the formation of a national monarchy out of the discordant atoms Of F eudalism was checked and hindered by the con¿ict Of two great institutions, each of which continued the traditions of universal sovereignty which had been characteristic of the Roman Empire. In 800, Charlemagne, then master of West ern Europe, had revived the title of Emperor. After his time, the unity of his empire had indeed been broken up, but the title still lived on, borne now by one king and then by another, until at length Otto the Great, king of Germany, invaded Italy, and, in 962, was crowned emperor in Rome. Henceforth, the title remained associated with the German kingship, and in the end the universal dominion, which the imperial title implied, proved fatal to a national monarchy, both in Ger many and in Italy. For this failure there were many reasons. For one thing, the geographical formation of the two countries rendered their union under one sovereign impracticable. It was physically impossible for one man to watch closely the course of events in both. Then, too, the emperor was Often forced to make concessions to the nobles in Germany, in order that he might turn his attention to an invasion of Italy. The invasion undertaken it not infrequently happened that events in Germany recalled the monarch before his task in Italy was thoroughly accomplished. Thus each of the two countries served to distract the emperor's attention from the other and in the end he was unable to establish a firm control in either. Yet, undoubtedly, the greatest obstacle of all lay in the Papacy. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com