Difference between feudal kingsdom and Eastern Roman empire

[Osteles]

More specifically, the inheritance wars and incessant infighting.
Why was it such a problem for the Byzantines (and Western Rome alike) and was it much less a problem in the feudal kingdoms?
Why wouldn't some overambitious French or English general do what his Roman counterparts did? These nations were in that respect much more stable. IIRC, the Byzantines also had this, under the Makedons, why was that and why couldn't it be repeated under the Komnennoi or Paleogoi, the latter having the ideal chance of re-creating a Greek empire after the retaking of Constantinopel.


It is something which has always baffled me and something I hope you guys will know much more about!

 

[AegonVLLI]

It didn't happen? William the Conqueror, Henry II Plantagenet, the whole 100 Years War, the War of the Roses all consisted of people seizing or trying to seize a throne through dubious dynastic legitimacy and not at all dubious military power. And then there are dozens of ambitious man and sometimes women who actually held the reigns but never deposed the king. And that's only England alone.

 

[JodelDiplom]

England had the notion that inheritance of the crown was a family matter. Someone claiming to be rightful heir wouldn't get much support unless he had a credible connection. William the conqueror could claim family ties to the late king Edward and could with reasonable credibility claim that Edward who had no sons had bequeathed the crown to him, in the way that a biblical patriarch picks a favored son to succeed him as family head. William thus wasn't just some ambitious guy barging in on the succession with an army, he was family, in the views of his time.

(England also had a competing inheritance law, the elective succession of the Witanagemot noble assembly. The assembly picked Harold Godwinson to succeed Harold. William winning his war for the crown thus demolished the principle of elective succession in England for the next 700 or so years.)

In the Roman Empire, inheritance of the crown was a public affair so anyone could reasonably take a shot at it and if he was successful people would respect him. Roman laws had at their root the laws of the ancient city state of Roma, who had decidedly refused the monarchic-familial principles in the 6th century BC and therefore held to respect for the tribal-familial laws that the Germanic law codes of the post migration kingdoms were based on.

 

[AegonVLLI]

That does not make it more stable, though. At worst, the would be ruler has to look for a puppet king with the right blood.

 

[Eusebio]

It didn't happen? William the Conqueror, Henry II Plantagenet, the whole 100 Years War, the War of the Roses all consisted of people seizing or trying to seize a throne through dubious dynastic legitimacy and not at all dubious military power. And then there are dozens of ambitious man and sometimes women who actually held the reigns but never deposed the king. And that's only England alone.

Yeah, within 50 years of William the Conqueror you had a disputed succession and a 20-year civil war. Then 50 years after that you had the barons try to depose the king and install the head of a French army. Then 50 years after that the barons rebelled and imprisoned the king and his heir and Simon de Montfort ruled England unopposed for a year.

 

[Kovax]

It's not like wars over the succession didn't happen constantly in Europe, it's just that the relatively few surviving kingdoms are the most well know and documented, and they've got their own histories of internal struggles. We don't see nearly as much information about the hundreds of smaller city-states and kingdoms which vanished as a result of civil wars and succession crises.

 

[JodelDiplom]

It's not like wars over the succession didn't happen constantly in Europe, it's just that the relatively few surviving kingdoms are the most well know and documented, and they've got their own histories of internal struggles. We don't see nearly as much information about the hundreds of smaller city-states and kingdoms which vanished as a result of civil wars and succession crises.

Yeah, no. Habsburg Austria had zero wars of succession, Brandenburg/Prussia had none. Since the 14th century Spain had one, when the Spanish Habsburgs died out. France had... One? Sweden... One? England is the anarchic little outlier with plenty of succession wars.

Byzantium was really a very special place in terms of how terrible and self destructive they were with the Imperial succession. That they lasted as long as they did, especially in the sorry post-4th-crusade state, was a miracle.

 

[AegonVLLI]

Yeah, no. Habsburg Austria had zero wars of succession, Brandenburg/Prussia had none. Since the 14th century Spain had one, when the Spanish Habsburgs died out. France had... One? Sweden... One? England is the anarchic little outlier with plenty of succession wars.

Byzantium was really a very special place in terms of how terrible and self destructive they were with the Imperial succession. That they lasted as long as they did, especially in the sorry post-4th-crusade state, was a miracle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession

 

[yerm]

Any time individuals are able to garner enough power or potential to physically take the throne, and also have enough legitimacy (or think they do) to declare themselves emperor (or whatever appropriate title), you have the potential for civil wars. When you have only the former, you can get divisions or infighting or just a really weak state broken by autonomous warlords. When only the latter your state is susceptible to outside influence where the pretender needs foreign aid, usually resulting in internal disaster.

Rome was plagued because any successful leader with the support to do so could be acclaimed emperor. They took VERY heavy steps as a republic to try to mitigate it, but once they became sufficiently large such that there were always multiple fronts and legions in different places, the civil wars kicked off and rarely stopped. Once they were reduced to the Byzantine rump state it didn't end, it just sometimes traded internal for external sources. The 4th crusade was invited by a pretender, for example.

The contrasting neighbors and their relatively-speaking more stable rulers are the result of either having a more stringent requirement to being legitimate, or a more concentrated military not divided among potential usurpers often thanks purely to being nowhere near Rome's size.

England was arguably as prone to civil wars as the Romans outside of their really bad periods (eg 3rd century). France spent a long time bogged down by autonomous nobles who disrespected the crown. Germany was a fragmented empire of independent powers for most of history (until Bismark). Poland was constantly manipulated and undermined by a vulnerable government and bullied extensively by neighbors. Scandinavia split apart and struggled with holding foreign territories or colonies for long. Russia was similar to France in too strong nobility for a long time. North Africa really never unified. Egypt couldn't seem to catch a break before a new foreign conqueror showed up. Turkey/Ottomans granted extreme autonomy to their empire to the point of deliberately arbitrary legal codes. Habsburgs played muscial kingdoms trying to keep everything together and frequently dropped or even lost stuff like the low countries. Persia was constantly susceptible to manipulation and reliant on nobles pre Islam, and was heavily isolated and contained post Mongols. I think I've rambled enough here. China, the best comparison to Rome, had warlords and civil wars and divisions akin to how Rome broke into parts... the huge difference is they always managed to eventually put the region back together.

Rome was more or less just the natural order of a state becoming sufficiently large that its leader cannot monopolize military control. Either similar levels of civil war, or, instead widespread loss of central authority and weak soverign control hit EVERY pre modern nation in a similar situation. Rome is just the most famous.

 

[JodelDiplom]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession

That was a war inflicted by others on Austria. Nothing like the internecine wars that the byzantine and Romans inflicted on themselves.

 

[Avernite]

Rome was more or less just the natural order of a state becoming sufficiently large that its leader cannot monopolize military control. Either similar levels of civil war, or, instead widespread loss of central authority and weak soverign control hit EVERY pre modern nation in a similar situation. Rome is just the most famous.

I think that's the biggest difference right there; Rome, somehow, managed to maintain central military control where pretty much everyone decentralized (or never got centralized; the Sassanids seem to have suffered fewer disastrous inheritance wars but were also apparently less centralized).

So the Duke of Somewhere could absolutely acquire power, but he'd be satisfied to play big-duke while ignoring the Crown and did not have to gamble everything on a mad dash to Paris/London/insert-relevant-overlord.

Mind, eventually this very principle also gave a pile of added legitimacy to the inheritance since it went undisputed a lot (such that the Dukes of Burgundy, even when they controlled Paris, shied away from trying to impose themselves as Kings at the cost of the legitimate Valois heir or the legitimate Plantagenet heir), making most crises occur when there was an inheritance dispute due to vague laws/priority.
This also explains places like Hohenzollern Brandenburg - they were not so much uniquely stable in principle, they just had piles of easy father-son inheritances (none other between 1471 and 1786, if I read wiki right).

 

[yerm]

I think that's the biggest difference right there; Rome, somehow, managed to maintain central military control where pretty much everyone decentralized (or never got centralized; the Sassanids seem to have suffered fewer disastrous inheritance wars but were also apparently less centralized).

So the Duke of Somewhere could absolutely acquire power, but he'd be satisfied to play big-duke while ignoring the Crown and did not have to gamble everything on a mad dash to Paris/London/insert-relevant-overlord.

Mind, eventually this very principle also gave a pile of added legitimacy to the inheritance since it went undisputed a lot (such that the Dukes of Burgundy, even when they controlled Paris, shied away from trying to impose themselves as Kings at the cost of the legitimate Valois heir or the legitimate Plantagenet heir), making most crises occur when there was an inheritance dispute due to vague laws/priority.
This also explains places like Hohenzollern Brandenburg - they were not so much uniquely stable in principle, they just had piles of easy father-son inheritances (none other between 1471 and 1786, if I read wiki right).

I think the French and Sassanians are a good comparison because they are just so similar in many ways, from absurdly strong nobles dominating and enforcing cultural control and elite cavalry, to geographic constraints and susceptibility to "radical" ideology toppling both.

Rome actually did take the approach that other "blobs" like the Franks or Achamaenids did when faced with similar problems: divide the empire into semi autonomous regions only nominally under central rule. There we get differences: Iranians held onto very tight legitimacy rules and bled the periphery, Rome abandoned them and civil warred to unify, Franks ended up becoming contiguous but seperate states.

I guess at the end of the day I see three options (before modern technology):
1. Maintain central authority and hope to deal with warlords and power struggles. (Rome, China, and much much smaller states)
2. Delegate heavily and keep legitimacy/stability of the monarch at the cost of considerably less central power. (Ottomans, Polish commonwealth, most successful blobs really)
3. Fail to survive a succession intact. (Mongols, Macedonians, many short lived blurbs of history fall here)

Really a lot of the success of modern nations and the dominance of the powers that came out on top today can be seen as the outcome of efforts to centralize by combining both stable government with dominant central authority. Nations that pulled it off would go on to literally rule the rest of the world, those who failed to stabilize (Qing), or failed to centralize (Ottomans, Austrians, Indian powers, etc) fell behind. Until modern times though? Rome/Byzantines are normal.

 

[IsadorBG]

feudal kingdoms were also prone to incessant fighting as already said probably moreso than Rome ever was actually altough the scale was often less destructive for various reasons. Succession wars were indeed far less common (except perhaps in England) or at least they were in the high middle age.

Before then it is arguable if the Germanic kingdoms that took roots in the west were more stable. in general most practised gavelkind successionship as Germans understanding of statehood was that all lands in the kingdom was the King personal propriety and thus should be equally divided between his heirs.
This system was very prone to conflict as brothers were kind of greedy of their bros toys.

The former was also mixed with some kind of elective rule that originated from earlier eras were warriors elected their King. It's by using this system that for exemple Merovingians were supplanted by Carolingians and later those were supplanted by Capetians.

It's only later during the high middle age that primogeniture started to replace the gavelkind/elective system. And it indeed gave a very stable succession system. succession wars were the exception rather than to be excepted each time a King died.


On the other hand in the Roman Empire the Emperor originally was a mix between a military dictator and a magistrate. It became an actual hereditary monarchy with time but it never shook of the original perception of the office.
For exemple an imcompetent Emperor was NOT acceptable. If the Emperor could not command the respect of the army and the court (in that order) then he wasn't fit to be the ruler.
This included children and women who often times had to accept co-emperorship at best or be usurped at worst.

In comparison while a child becoming King could be tricky in the west it was not an automatic usurpation like in the East.

Also while hereditary legitimacy was an actual thing in the post theodosian Roman Empire (otherwise said theodosian dynasty or the macedonian dynasty would have never endured that long) the succession was also understood differently.
While it was considered preferable that a son should suceed his father (not neccessarily the first born), a brother/cousin or even a son in law/brother in law (through their wives) also had a legitimate claim to the throne.
Especially if they occupy high office when the Emperor dies. (which thus in Roman understanding makes them more competent or more legitimate to assume the throne).
So the longer a dynasty last the more claimants it has and the more unstable it becomes. This primarily why Roman dynasties were never long lasting.

And of course a sufficiently popular warlord could just usurp the emperor. For whom controls the army owns the empire.

That is also a difference with the west but mostly because armies worked differently. The way the feudal contract make more difficult that kind of usurpation. First you had to convince your vassals to join an oath-breakers such as yourself to depose his liege (which also creates a bad precedent on yourself) but also prevent the other liege's vassals to defend him despite their moral if not utilitarian reason why they should oppose you.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

The Church played its role too. Monarchy is by Divine Right. The Church not only had a determining hand in coronations and anointing of dynastic heirs, but also in the extraction and enforcement of oaths of loyalty and vassalage. You can't publicly break an oath without serious consequences. Your prospects are not helped by becoming an excommunicate.

While the Eastern Church also had its stables of bishops, they were not as independent. If a particular bishop isn't playing ball, you just replace him with another. In the West, replacing bishops requires the Pope's consent. And nobody really controls the pope. So if you make a bid for the crown, you had better be sure your paperwork is correctly filed with the Lateran (or Avignon - if you're lucky, you might have a couple of options).

If you insist on being a dick, the Pope will not only excommunicate you, he will also dissolve your vassals of any and all oaths of loyalty to you - which makes your life kinda complicated in a hurry. Try raising and running an army without any law of obedience.

Of course, the Reformation called the Pope's bluff and weakened his authority. But until then, it was a serious factor.

A Medieval king's power rested almost entirely on oaths. He could not buy loyalty - he had no money nor lands to give away (it was all given away already).

 

[demanvanwezel]

Yeah, no. Habsburg Austria had zero wars of succession, Brandenburg/Prussia had none. Since the 14th century Spain had one, when the Spanish Habsburgs died out. France had... One? Sweden... One? England is the anarchic little outlier with plenty of succession wars.

Byzantium was really a very special place in terms of how terrible and self destructive they were with the Imperial succession. That they lasted as long as they did, especially in the sorry post-4th-crusade state, was a miracle.

england also has a crazy amount of kings with only daughters left which seems to be the trigger for 90% of succession wars

also does henry II really count, his sons were never fighting over putting them on the throne instead of henry, richard and joffrey were fighting to get a bigger slice of the pie, not to take the place of one of the henry's

john and louis on the other hand is a real outlier and I think his utter lack of legitimacy is ultimatly why louis failed

 

[Zaleukos]

Yeah, no. Habsburg Austria had zero wars of succession, Brandenburg/Prussia had none. Since the 14th century Spain had one, when the Spanish Habsburgs died out. France had... One? Sweden... One? England is the anarchic little outlier with plenty of succession wars.

Byzantium was really a very special place in terms of how terrible and self destructive they were with the Imperial succession. That they lasted as long as they did, especially in the sorry post-4th-crusade state, was a miracle.

A fellow forumite said that the first Swedish king to inherit AND pass on the throne legally was Gustavus Adolphus in the 17th C. I think there were around five civil wars or coups in the 16th century. The 15th was worse. The 14th saw around 4.

 

[Barsoom]

In a decentralized state the throne has little more influence than any other local power holder and is not much more worth fighting over than any barony, county or duchy. Because the state has limited resources it can't effectively suppress local wars. On the other hand, such local wars are of limited interest to anyone except direct neighbors so they tend not to escalate. Civil wars will be frequent but limited in their extent and their impact on the state as a whole.

In a centralized state any individual wanting power needs to control the center, either directly by planting himself on the throne or indirectly by setting himself up as the power behind the throne. Because the state monopolizes the means of warfare, it is hard to build up the resources necessary to start a war. On the other hand, only control of the center will ensure that the parties at war are safe from retaliation and likely nothing less will satisfy their appetite for power. Wars will be infrequent but intense and liable to spread to every corner of the state. Because this is risky for each of the parties involved and damaging to the state they aim to take over, they may prefer another route to power, namely intrigue at court or a coup d'etat.

Of the examples named in this thread, the Byzantine Empire is very centralized for its time while most feudal kingdoms are closer to the other end of the scale. Post-Conquest England is among the most centralized of feudal kingdoms. Early medieval France is one of the least centralized until Philip Augustus restores a modicum of royal power.

 

[gagenater]

It's not like wars over the succession didn't happen constantly in Europe, it's just that the relatively few surviving kingdoms are the most well know and documented, and they've got their own histories of internal struggles. We don't see nearly as much information about the hundreds of smaller city-states and kingdoms which vanished as a result of civil wars and succession crises.

Yeah, no. Habsburg Austria had zero wars of succession, Brandenburg/Prussia had none. Since the 14th century Spain had one, when the Spanish Habsburgs died out. France had... One? Sweden... One? England is the anarchic little outlier with plenty of succession wars.

Byzantium was really a very special place in terms of how terrible and self destructive they were with the Imperial succession. That they lasted as long as they did, especially in the sorry post-4th-crusade state, was a miracle.

@JodelDiplom - you are actually proving @Kovax point - to the degree that your statement is correct, it only proves that the ones that survived and are well documented are in fact the ones that mostly avoided being torn apart in civil wars in succession problems.

By contrast, for every Austria or Prussia, there are a hundred of burgundy, armagnac, normandy, leon, galacia, tyrol, friesland, bishopric of mainz, elsace, kurland, brabant, anjou, salzburg, avignon, maine, tyrone, krakow, luxembourg, and many many many others which are lesser known because they failed to hold together in a large and easy to understand form for centuries.

 

[NorthernXY]

those who failed to stabilize (Qing), or failed to centralize (Ottomans, Austrians, Indian powers, etc) fell behind. Until modern times though? Rome/Byzantines are normal.

I'd argue that they couldn't, too many competing cultures.

 

[Xeorm]

I'd argue that they couldn't, too many competing cultures.

Alternatively, it means that you need to integrate various cultures into a singular culture. Identity needs to be the central authority first, others second.