4.9. Political Changes

Developments in the political sphere paralleled social processes. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, European kings strengthened their military and financial power. The powerful new states they created were as significant for Europe as the economic changes that were occurring. Historians have therefore called these kings ‘the new monarchs’. Louis XI in France, Maximilian in Austria, Henry VII in England and Isabelle and Ferdinand in Spain were absolutist rulers, who started the process of organising standing armies, a permanent bureaucracy and national taxation and, in Spain and Portugal, began to play a role in Europe’s expansion overseas.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, European kings began to solidify their authority. This was essential because it allowed them to create strong centralized states. This phase of governance is referred to as the era of 'new monarchs'. Key figures such as Louis XI of France and Henry VII of England began to form professional armies, gather taxes systematically, and establish a bureaucratic system to manage their growing states. Additionally, these monarchs sought to extend their power overseas, especially seen in the conquests and colonization efforts by Spain and Portugal.

Consider a modern day CEO of a multinational company. Just like the kings of the past, the CEO needs to strengthen the company’s hierarchy, ensuring there’s a solid structure in place that includes management teams and departments that focus on finance, sales, and operations. By doing so, they can efficiently drive the company’s growth and expand into new markets, much like how monarchs expanded their influence beyond their borders.

The most important reason for the triumph of these monarchies was the social changes which had taken place in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The dissolution of the feudal system of lordship and vassalage, and the slow rate of economic growth had given the first opportunity to kings to increase their control over their powerful and not-so-powerful subjects. Rulers dispensed with the system of feudal levies for their armies and introduced professionally trained infantry equipped with guns and siege artillery (see Theme 3) directly under their control. The resistance of the aristocracies crumbled in the face of the firepower of the kings.

The decline of feudalism played a crucial role in the rise of centralized monarchies. Previously, the feudal system, characterized by lords and their vassals who had personal loyalty ties, was the social structure of Europe. However, due to slow economic growth and social changes that unfolded over the centuries, kings saw a chance to assert more power over their subjects. They replaced feudal armies with professional soldiers who were better equipped and trained, which made it difficult for the traditional noble class to oppose them effectively. This shift marked the beginning of a stronger centralized state authority.

Think of a local sports team transitioning from amateur players, who play informally and depend on community support (similar to feudal lords managing local vassals), to a professional sports organization that employs a full-time team of skilled athletes. This professional team has a structured management and coaching staff that directly controls the players, much like how kings gained control over armies rather than relying on the local nobility.

By increasing taxes, monarchs got enough revenues to support larger armies and thus defended and expanded their frontiers and overcame internal resistance to royal authority. Centralisation, however, did not occur without resistance from the aristocracy. A common thread running through all types of opposition to the monarchies was the question of taxation. In England, rebellions occurred and were put down in 1497, 1536, 1547, 1549 and 1553. In France, Louis XI (1461-83) had to wage a long struggle against dukes and princes.

To strengthen their power, kings raised taxes which provided the finances necessary to build standing armies. These armies helped protect the territories and, when necessary, expand them. However, this centralization of power faced pushback from traditional aristocratic elites who were likely to resist increased taxation that threatened their own wealth and influence. Throughout England and France, several rebellions erupted as nobles opposed these changes, signifying their dissatisfaction with losing power and control over feudal resources.

Imagine a scenario in a small community where local leaders have always managed public resources. If a new mayor attempts to implement higher taxes to build a new park, the local leaders might protest since they would lose some authority over how resources are allocated. This example reflects the real struggles between the monarchy seeking to centralize power and the aristocracy resisting that change.

The nobility managed a tactical shift in order to ensure their survival. From being opponents to the new regimes, they quickly transformed themselves into loyalists. It is for this reason that royal absolutism has been called a modified form of feudalism. Precisely the same class of people who had been rulers in the feudal system – the lords – continued to dominate the political scene.

Understanding that resistance against the monarchy could lead to their downfall, many nobles adjusted their strategies and pledged loyalty to the new kings. This adaptation allowed them to maintain their status and some power within the new political frameworks. Consequently, while the absolute monarchy represented a shift away from traditional feudalism, the underlying social structures and the leading aristocracy remained influential.

This situation is similar to how employees might adapt in a company when leadership changes hands. If a new CEO is appointed, some managers might initially resist but soon realize that aligning with the new leader is the best way to retain their positions and influence within the company. This helps them stay relevant in an evolving corporate environment.

The king was no longer at the apex of a pyramid where loyalty had been a matter of personal dependence and trust. He was now at the center of an elaborate courtier society and a network of patron-client relationships. All monarchies, weak or powerful, needed the cooperation of those who could command authority. Patronage became the means of ensuring such cooperation. And patronage could be given or obtained by means of money.

As kings centralized power, they shifted from a system reliant on personal loyalty to a more complex web of relationships involving courtiers and patrons. The king became part of a court society where loyalty was often secured through financial means rather than mere personal allegiance. By offering positions, wealth, or privileges, kings could maintain support from not only aristocrats but also from emerging classes like merchants who were gaining influence and wealth.

Consider how modern politicians build their support systems. They often do so by engaging with various community leaders and business owners, ensuring that they receive backing in exchange for favors or support in their initiatives. This relationship mirrors how monarchs used financial incentives to bolster their support base.

The later history of France and England was to be shaped by these changes in the power structures. In the reign of the child-king Louis XIII of France, in 1614, a meeting was held of the French consultative assembly, known as the Estates-General (with three houses to represent the three estates/or orders – clergy, nobility, and the rest). After this, it was not summoned again for nearly two centuries, till 1789, because the kings did not want to share power with the three orders.

The evolving power dynamics between the monarchy and the aristocracy significantly influenced governance in France and England. Particularly in France under Louis XIII, the Estates-General provided a platform for various estates to have a voice. However, the monarchy chose not to convene this assembly regularly, indicating a desire to operate independently without the nobility's influence. This centralization of authority was a defining aspect of the evolution toward absolute monarchy in France, ultimately leading to significant political transformations centuries later.

This is similar to a business where a CEO decides to operate without consulting a board of advisors regularly. By doing so, the CEO can make decisions more swiftly but risks losing the insights and support from experienced individuals who have valuable input. In the political realm, this can lead to complexities and eventual challenges, just as it did in France.

What happened in England was very different. Even before the Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxons had a Great Council, which the king had to consult before imposing any tax. This developed into what was called the Parliament, which consisted of the House of Lords, the members of which were the lords and the clergy, and the House of Commons, representing towns and rural areas. King Charles I ruled for 11 years (1629–40) without calling Parliament. When he was forced to call it, because he needed money, a section of Parliament decided to go to war against him, and later executed him and established a republic.

In contrast to France, England's governance evolved to include a parliamentary system early on, wherein the leader had to consult a council regarding taxes. The Parliament included two houses, representing both the nobility and the common people. This structure provided a counterbalance to royal authority. When King Charles I attempted to rule without Parliament's consent, the ensuing conflict ultimately led to his execution and a brief stint of republican governance, emphasizing the power and significance of representative bodies in England.

Think of a school where the principal tries to implement new policies without discussing them with the student council. If students feel unheard, they might protest or push back. In England, Parliament played a similar role where the king’s decisions were checked by this legislative body, reflecting a broader shared governance approach.

--