I again make reference to “A History of Medieval Europe: From Constantine to Saint Louis (3rd Edition)”, by
R.H.C. Davis
Davis uses the architectural styling of various church
towers built throughout Europe to illustrate the decentralization of society
that began with the decrease in Roman influence. He begins with a review of monumental
architecture during the time of general Roman rule, preceding the early Middle
Ages:
Under Roman rule the general style
of monumental architecture had been recognizably uniform in all the provinces
of the Empire, from Britain to Africa and from Spain to Syria. In the Dark Ages, something of that
uniformity had been maintained…the buildings of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths,
Lombards, and Franks were built as imitations (though sometimes poor
imitations) of the Roman or Byzantine style.
But in the period from 900 to 1250 this uniformity ceased completely…in
the Latin West there was a whole medley of different styles.
One factor in this change, occurring over centuries,
certainly could have been the lack of communication amongst the various tribes
when compared to Roman times. However,
it certainly seems reasonable to expect that it is also the result of a lack of
a centralizing, top-down government.
He offers, as a means of verification of his statement, that
one takes a road trip:
It is only necessary to travel
across Europe, watching one type of church-tower give place to another as one
passes from province to province, or sometimes even from valley to valley.
He then goes on to describe the differences: from Saxony, to
the Rhineland, to Lombardy, to Rome, and France:
They stand as monuments to the
intense localism of the High Middle Ages, when every man’s ‘country’ (patria)
was not the kingdom, duchy, or county in which he lived, but his own town or
village. An echo of this sentiment may
still be caught by the French peasant who refers to his village as mon pays [my country], but in the Middle Ages it was all
pervading.
Even in this period during the tenth century, when the
beginnings of what would be known to German historians as the first Reich, the decentralizing tendencies were controlling. This Reich was
formed under Henry I, and later his son, Otto the Great.
Yet the Reich was not a kingdom
– not in any modern sense. There were
very distinct regions, each with distinct identities and customs. The Saxons, Franks, Swabians, and Bavarians
each constituted different duchies, and each claimed a distinct tribal
origin. A fifth duchy, Lotharingia,
while not claiming tribal origin, survived from the time of its partition to
Lothar II, the great-grandson of Charlemagne.
It too maintained a unique identity, and the people did not hesitate to
call themselves Lotharingians (in the area of Lorraine, German Lothringen).
The distinctions, region by region, extending to the area of
law:
Even the law might change from
village to village; a thirteenth-century judge pointed out that in the various
counties, cities, boroughs, and townships of England he had always to ask what
was the local customary law and how it was employed before he could successfully
try a case. The legal uniformity of the
Roman Empire had disappeared completely, and law, like the architectural style
of the church-towers, varied from parish to parish.
Davis describes medieval civilization as “firmly
rooted. It grew out of the earth, as it
were.”
By the middle of the thirteenth-century, these distinctions
began to fade, although even by this point there remained two distinct cultural
traditions in Latin Christendom: one in the north and west (primarily French),
and the other in the central and southern regions (German and Italian).
Italy and Germany, besides being home to both the Papacy and
Empire, maintained something similar to Carolingian feudalism – considered backwards
from the French point of view. In contrast,
France and England developed along the lines of feudal monarchies and
ultimately nation-states.
As we have seen the results of nation-states in the wars of
the 20th century (and the European colonialism in the centuries preceding
this), perhaps it was not the Germanic tradition that was “backwards.”
The decentralized form of political organization, a form of
panarchy, if you will, relied on local culture, tradition, laws and
justice. Not a perfect solution
certainly (check heaven for that), but in a world made up of individuals – each
with his own characteristics and desires – one size certainly does not fit all,
and decentralization offers to each the opportunity to find a home – and to feel
at home.