Roman | Posse Comitatus Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Roman’

A test of fate

Saturday, May 12th, 2012

One may use examples from history, e.g., the Roman battle against Hannibal, drawing the conclusion that we think we are just as hard as the Romans who in the end defeated Hannibal, despite his early victories. Each people will face trials during this gigantic battle. It is “a little question of fate as to whether the faith and confidence of our people is strong enough, or whether it will fail as it did in 1918!”

That fact that this meeting room is so packed is proof that the German people has already passed this test. Sacrifices have to be made in this struggle. If someone loses his nerve, that has no impact on the efforts of the whole people. A company must continue the attack even if its captain falls; someone else must take over leadership. A factory, too, does not stop working if the director falls.

A people’s comrade should remember that fate during such a war tests not only the average person, but also men in high and the highest positions.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Adolf Hitler, Führer, German, Germany, Hannibal, History, Roman, World War I
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Visigoths

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

The first Germanic people to penetrate the frontiers of the empire were the West Goths , or Visigoths. The Goths had originally lived in southern Scandinavia and around the Baltic. But moving south in the second century they had split into two groups, the East Goths, or Ostrogoths, who had remained in southern Russia to live off the land as an army of conquerors, and the West Goths, or Visigoths, who drove the Romans out of Dacia (modern Rumania). The Goths were receptive to Roman ways of life, developed a taste for Roman luxuries, and adopted the Arian form of Christianity. Many were recruited into the Roman army, and even took offices of state in Constantinople itself. Thus, when the westward drive of a Mongolian people called the Huns from the steppes of Russia overwhelmed the Ostrogoths, the emperor Valens of Constantinople was not unwilling to permit the Visigoths to move into the empire in 376 to defend its Danubefrontier. Apparently outraged at the treatment they had received from imperial officials, the Visigoths took up arms against the emperor, who was defeated and killed at the battle of Adrianople in 378. His successor Theodosius I placated the Visigoths with gifts of land and payment of tribute, and they in return furnished recruits to the imperial army. Relations with the Visigoths deteriorated after the death of Theodosius I in 395, when the empire was divided again between his two sons, Arcadius (reigned 395-408) who inherited the Eastern Roman Empire and Honorius (reigned 395-423) who inherited the Western Roman Empire. Furious at the conditions of military service imposed on his people, Alaric, the leader of the Visigoths, led his troops against Constantinople in 395, but was persuaded to divert his army into Greece, capturing Athens. Alaric, after declaring himself king of the Visigoths, led them north into Illyricum ( Yugoslavia ). InItaly , Honorius sought seclusion and luxury in the city of Ravenna , which was well protected by broad marshes, leaving his regent, the Vandal soldier Stilicho, to deal with Alaric’s invasion of Italy after 403. Stilicho used strategic cunning as well as bribery to keep the Visigoths away from Rome; but, after Stilicho was unjustly executed on charges of treason, Alaric was able to besiege and finally in August 410 to capture and sack Rome. It was eight hundred years since a foreign invader had broken through the walls of Rome . “The world sinks into ruin,” wrote St. Jerome . “Yes! but shameful to say our sins still live and flourish. The renowned city, the capital of the Ro- man Empire, is swallowed up in one tremendous fire; and there is no part of the earth where Romans are not in exile.” Fortunately, Jerome was exaggerating. Few people were killed; the houses of nobles were plundered. The Forum was set ablaze, but all the churches were spared. Alaric even organized a fine procession to Saint Peter’s to present the treasures he had saved for the pope. Alaric died shortly afterwards, and a river was temporarily diverted to provide a secure grave for him in its bed. The Visigoths then moved on to southern France and Spain , where they finally settled. Al- though they were tolerant of the Catholic worship in the areas they con- trolled, they were isolated from the Latin population for almost two centuries by their refusal to give up Arianism. They were finally converted toward the end of the sixth century.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Alaric, Goth, Jerome, Roman, Roman Empire, Rome, Stilicho, Visigoths
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Huns

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

The Huns, who had set in motion this vast movement of peoples, moved westward from the center they had established on the plains of Hungary . Both Romans and Germans were terrified of these savage warriors whose only interest was plunder and bloodshed. Joining momentarily together in 451, the Romans and Visigoths defeated the Hun leader, Attila, at the battle of Chalons; and within a couple of years the Huns had withdrawn from Europe . Their disappearance, however, only facilitated the entry into the empire of several more Germanic tribes: the Ostrogoths, the Franks, and the Anglo-Saxons.

The purpose of the great defense walls of the Roman Empire , the limes that ran across central Germany , Hadrian’s Wall in England , and the fortifications along the Danube , and also of most campaigns fought in Europe from the time of Augustus had been to protect the area of “civilization” within the empire from the “barbarians” outside. InScotland and Ireland , the barbarians were Celtic, an artistic, warlike, and highly emotional people, who for several centuries had been withdrawing ever further northwards to the coastal fringes of northwestern Europe from the lands they had once held, in France and Germany . On the continent between the Rhine-Danube frontier,Scandinavia , and the Black Sea , lived the Germanic tribes. In spite of the danger they represented to the empire, these tall fair-haired warriors, dressed in skins and draped in gold armbands and chains, fascinated the urbanized Romans. Tacitus claimed to see in them a noble simplicity and vigor that had been lost by the effete Roman of his own day. The way of life of all the Germanic tribes, at least before the influence of Rome affected those closest to the empire, was fairly similar. They had begun to give up a nomadic life and to settle in small village communities separated from each other by the forest. Their political institutions were primitive but important for the future. Law was administered through a tribal court, called a moot, in which all the warriors of the community judged complaints brought by one member of the tribe against another. The court usually settled the matter either by allowing the defendant to take an oath of innocence provided he was supported by friends who swore to his reliability, or by putting the defendant to ordeal. In this case, he might be made to walk through fire. If he were innocent, his wounds would begin to heal in a few days. The chief was chosen by the warriors for his fitness to lead them in war. The warriors in turn swore personal allegiance to the chief, and became members of his comitatus, or group of warrior companions. Elective monarchy was thus ac- companied by the principle of personal loyalty to one’s lord, which became one of the primary social bonds in medieval European society. Beyond these facts, little is known about the German tribes before they began to press again on the weakening Roman Empire in the late fourth century.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Anglo-Saxons, Black Sea, German, Germanic peoples, Hun, Middle Ages, Roman, Roman Empire
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

German History

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

More than 2,000 years ago a tall and fair-haired people roamed Europe. The ancestors of these fierce Teutonic warriors may have come from Northern Europe. The Romans later called them the Germani. As these Germanic tribes migrated south- and westward, they clashed with the Romans. In 113 BC German tribes–the Cimbri and Teutoni–began invading the Mediterranean regions. The Roman general Gaius Marius defeated them in 102 and 101 BC.

To discourage further invasions, Julius Caesar crossed the Rhine in 55 and 53 BC. After the Germans under Arminius destroyed Quinctilius Varus’ army in AD 9, Augustus decided not to conquer Germany. The Romans built a line of fortifications, called the Limes Germanicus, from the Rhine to the Danube. When Roman power weakened, waves of German tribes migrated to various regions of the empire. The Franks crossed the Rhine into Gaul (now France). The Goths migrated to the Balkans. The Alemanni moved into the Rhineland and the Burgundians and Vandals into the Main River valley.

In the 4th century AD Huns from Asia swept into Europe. They conquered the Ostrogoths, or East Goths, and drove back the Visigoths, or West Goths. They invaded the Rhineland and Gaul.

By the beginning of the Middle Ages, German barbarians occupied the western part of the Roman Empire. These tribes accepted Christianity and adopted much of Roman culture.

Between present-day Netherlands and Denmark were the Frisians. Between the Rhine and Elbe rivers were the Saxons. In central Germany were the Thuringians. On the upper Rhine in Swabia were the Alemanni and on the lower Rhine the Franks.

In 486 at Soissons, Clovis extended Frankish rule over northern Gaul. Under Charlemagne the kingdom covered most of Western Europe, including Germany to the Elbe. In 800 the pope crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

Charlemagne died in 814. The Treaty of Verdun in 843 divided his empire into three parts. Louis the German acquired the eastern part, which became Germany. Charles the Bald ruled the west, which became France. Lothair obtained the middle part. With the rise of feudalism Germany was cut into five tribal, or Stamm, duchies–Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, Swabia, and Lorraine

In 911 the Carolingian rule of Germany ended. Conrad I of Franconia was the first German king. The Saxon House began with the rule of Henry I from 919 to 936. The strongest Saxon king was Otto I the Great (936-973). He revived the Holy Roman Empire, which did not include France.

Share on Facebook

Tags: German, Germany, Holy Roman Empire, Middle Ages, Rhine, Roman, Roman Empire, Visigoths
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Roman Influence

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

At the dawn of history in Europe, the Celts in present-day France were known as Gauls. Their descendants were described by Julius Caesar in his Gallic Wars. There was also an early Celtic presence in northern Italy. Other Celtic tribes invaded Italy, establishing there a city they called Mediolanum (modern Milan) and sacking Rome itself in 390 BC following the Battle of the Allia. A century later the defeat of the combined Samnite, Celtic and Etruscan alliance by the Romans in the Third Samnite War sounded the end of the Celtic domination in Europe, but it was not until 192 BC that the Roman armies conquered the last remaining independent Celtic kingdoms in Italy.

Under Caesar the Romans conquered Celtic Gaul, and from Claudius onward the Roman empire absorbed parts of the Celtic British Isles. Roman local government of these regions closely mirrored pre-Roman ‘tribal’ boundaries, and archaeological finds suggest native involvement in local government. Latin was the official language of these regions after the conquests.The native peoples under Roman rule became Romanized and keen to adopt Roman ways. Celtic art had already incorporated classical influences, and surviving Gallo-Roman pieces interpret classical subjects or keep faith with old traditions despite a Roman overlay.

Roman influence lead directly to the decline of the druidic priests. Prior to Roman conquests, the druids exercised enormous spiritual and political power among the celtic peoples. The druidic religion was seen as a major impediment to the “Romanization” of the newly conquered celts. Thus began a deliberate policy on the part of the Roman conquerors to replace the old celtic political structure with Roman institutions. The elimination of the druidic class was instrumental to cementing Roman authority.

This led the birth of many Romano-celtic deities, as old celtic gods took on new latin names and aspects of Roman divinities, and began to be worshipped alongside the more traditional Jovian pantheon.

Gallo-Roman Culture describes the Romanized culture of Gaul under the rule of the Roman Empire. This was characterized by the Gaulish adoption or adaptation of Roman mores and way of life in a uniquely Gaulish context. The well-studied meld of cultures in Gaul give historians a model against which to compare and contrast parallel developments of Romanization in other, less-studied Roman provinces.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Ancient Rome, Celt, Celtic, Gallo-Roman culture, Gaul, Julius Caesar, Roman, Roman Empire
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Feudalism: Its Frankish Birth And English Development Part Four

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Analysis of the Feudal System – Its local Extent – View of the different

Orders of Society during the Feudal Ages – Nobility – Their Ranks and

Privileges – Clergy – Freemen – Serfs or Villeins – Comparative State of

France and Germany – Privileges enjoyed by the French Vassals – Right of

Coining Money – And of private War – Immunity from Taxation – Historical View

of the Royal Revenue in France – Methods Adopted to Augment it by Depreciation

of the Coin, etc. – Legislative Power – Its State under the Merovingian Kings

and Charlemagne – His Councils – Suspension of any General Legislative

Authority during the Prevalence of Feudal Principles – The King’s Council -

Means adopted to supply the Want of a National Assembly – Gradual Progress of

the King’s Legislative Power – Philip IV. assembles the States-General – Their

Powers limited to Taxation – States under the Sons of Philip IV. – States of

1355 and 1356 – They nearly effect an entire Revolution – The Crown recovers

its Vigor – States of 1380, under Charles VI. – Subsequent Assemblies under

Charles VI. and Charles becomes more and more absolute – Louis XI. – States of

Tours in 1484 – Historical View of Jurisdiction in France – Its earliest Stage

under the first Race of Kings and Charlemagne – Territorial Jurisdiction -

Feudal Courts of Justice – Trial by Combat – Code of St. Louis – The

Territorial Jurisdictions give way – Progress of the Judicial Power of the

Crown – Parliament of Paris – Peers of France – Increased Authority of the

Parliament – Registration of Edicts – Causes of the Decline of the Feudal

System – Acquisitions of Domain by the Crown – Charters of Incorporation

granted to Towns – Their previous Condition – First Charters in the Twelfth

Century – Privileges contained in them – Military Service of Feudal Tenants

commuted for Money – Hired Troops – Change in the Military System of Europe -

General View of the Advantages and Disadvantages attending the Feudal System.

The advocates of a Roman origin for most of the institutions which we

find in the kingdoms erected on the ruins of the empire are naturally prone to

magnify the analogies to feudal tenure which Rome presents to us, and even to

deduce it either from the ancient relation of patron and client, and that of

personal commendation, which was its representative in a later age, or from

the frontier lands granted in the third century to the Laeti, or barbarian

soldiers, who held them, doubtless, subject to a condition of military

service. The usage of commendation especially, so frequent in the fifth

century, before the conquest of Gaul, as well as afterwards, does certainly

bear a strong analogy to vassalage, and I have already pointed it out as one

of its sources. It wanted, however, that definite relation to the tenure of

land which distinguished the latter. The royal Antrustio (whether the word

commendatus were applied to him or not) stood bound by gratitude and loyalty

to his sovereign, and in a very different degree from a common subject; but he

was not perhaps strictly a vassal till he had received a territorial benefice.

^a The complexity of subinfeudation could have no analogy in commendation.

[Footnote a: This word "vassal" is used very indefinitely; it means, in its

original sense, only a servant or dependant. But in the continental records of

histories we commonly find it applied to feudal tenants.]

The grants to veterans and to the Laeti are so far only analogous to

fiefs that they established the principle of holding lands on a condition of

military service. But this service was no more than what, both under

Charlemagne and in England, if not in other times and places, the allodial

freeholder was bound to render for the defence of the realm; it was more

commonly required, because the lands were on a barbarian frontier; but the

duty was not even very analogous to that of a feudal tenant. ^b The essence of

a fief seems to be, that its tenant owed fealty to a lord, and not to the

state or the sovereign; the lord might be the latter, but it was not, feudally

speaking, as a sovereign that he was obeyed. This is, therefore, sufficient

to warrant us in tracing the real theory of feuds no higher than the

Merovingian history in France; their full establishment, as has been seen, is

considerably later. But the preparatory steps in the constitutions of the

declining empire are of considerable importance, not merely as analogies, but

as predisposing circumstances, and even germs to be subsequently developed.

The beneficiary tenure of lands could not well be brought by the conquerors

from Germany; but the donatives of arms or precious metals bestowed by the

chiefs on their followers were also analogous to fiefs; and, as the Roman

institutions were one source of the law of tenure, so these were another.

[Footnote b: If Gothofred is right in his construction of the tenure of these

Laeti, they were not even generally liable to this part of our trinoda

necessitas, but only to conscription for the legions. Et ea tamen conditione

terras illis excolendas Laeti consequebantur, ut delectibus quoque ob noxii

essent et legionibus insererentur (Not. ad Cod. Theod. l. vii. tit. 20, c.

12). Sir Francis Palgrave, however, says, - "The duty of bearing arms was

inseparably connected with the property." (English Commonwealth, i. 354.) This

is too equivocal; but he certainly means more than Gothofred; he supposes a

permanent universal obligation to render service in all public warfare.]

It is of great importance to be on our guard against seeming analogies

which vanish when they are closely observed. We should speak inaccurately if

we were to use the word feudal for the service of the Irish or Highland clans

to their chieftain; their tie was that of imagined kindred and respect for

birth, not the spontaneous compact of vassalage. Much less can we extend the

name of feud, though it is sometimes strangely misapplied, to the polity of

Poland and Russia. All the Polish nobles were equal in rights, and

independent of each other; all who were less than noble were in servitude. No

government can be more opposite to the long gradations and mutual duties of

the feudal system. ^c

[Footnote c: In civil history many instances might be found of feudal

ceremonies in countries not regulated by the feudal law. Thus Selden has

published an infeudation of a vayvod of Moldavia by the King of Poland, A.D.

1485, in the regular forms, vol. iii. p. 514. But these political fiefs have

hardly any connection with the general system, and merely denote the

subordination of one prince or people to another.]

The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds, in fact, may

be considered as almost confined to the dominions of Charlemagne, and to those

countries which afterwards derived it from thence. In England it can hardly

be thought to have existed in a complete state before the Conquest. Scotland,

it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her neighbor. The Lombards of

Benevento had introduced feudal customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which

the Norman conquerors afterwards perfected. Feudal tenures were so general in

the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the monarchies which were

founded upon that basis. ^d Charlemagne’s empire, it must be remembered,

extended as far as the Ebro. But in Castile ^e and Portugal they were very

rare, and certainly could produce no political effect. Benefices for life

were sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia. ^f Neither of

these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under the description of

countries influenced by the feudal system. ^g That system, however, after all

these limitations, was so extensively diffused, that it might produce

confusion as well as prolixity to pursue collateral branches of its history in

all the countries where it prevailed. But this embarrassment may be avoided

without any loss, I trust, of important information. The English constitution

will find its place in another portion of these volumes; and the political

condition of Italy, after the eleventh century, was not much affected, except

in the kingdom of Naples, by the laws of feudal tenure. I shall confine

myself, therefore, chiefly to France and Germany; and far more to the former

than the latter country. But it may be expedient first to contemplate the

state of society in its various classes during the prevalence of feudal

principles, before we trace their influence upon the national government.

[Footnote d: It is probable that feudal tenure was as ancient in the north of

Spain as in the contiguous provinces of France. But it seems to have chiefly

prevailed in Aragon about the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the Moors

south of the Ebro were subdued by the enterprise of private nobles, who, after

conquering estates for themselves, did homage for them to the king. James I.,

upon the reduction of Valencia, granted lands by way of fief, on condition of

defending that kingdom against the Moors, and residing personally upon the

estate. Many did not perform this engagement, and were deprived of the lands

in consequence. It appears by the testament of this monarch that feudal

tenures subsisted in every part of his dominions. - Martenne, Thesaurus

Anecdotorum, t. i. p. 1141, 1155. An edict of Peter II. in 1210 prohibits the

alienation of emphyteuses without the lord's consent. It is hard to say

whether regular fiefs are meant by this word. - De Marca, Marca Hispanica, p.

1396. This author says that there were no arriere-fiefs in Catalonia.

The Aragonese fiefs appear, however, to have differed from those of other

countries in some respects. Zurita mentions fiefs according to the custom of

Italy, which he explains to be such as were liable to the usual feudal aids

for marrying the lord's daughter, and other occasions. We may infer,

therefore, that these prestations were not customary in Aragon. - Anales de

Aragon, t. ii. p. 62.]

[Footnote e: What is said of vassalage in Alfonzo X.'s code, Las siete

partidas, is short and obscure; nor am I certain that it meant anything more

than voluntary commendation, the custom mentioned in the former part of this

chapter, from which the vassal might depart at pleasure. See, however, Du

Cange, v. Honor, where authorities are given for the existence of Castilian

fiefs; and I have met with occasional mention of them in history. I believe

that tenures of this kind were introduced in the fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries; but not to any great extent. - Marina, Teoria de las Cortes, t.

iii. p. 14. Tenures of a feudal nature, as I collect from Freirii Institut.

Juris Lusitani, tom. ii. t. 1 and 3, existed in Portugal, though the jealousy

of the crown prevented the system from being established. There were even

territorial jurisdictions in that kingdom, though not, at least originally, in

Castile.]

[Footnote f: Daniae regni politicus status. Elzevir, 1629. Stransky,

Respublica Bohemica, ib. In one of the oldest Danish historians, Sweno, I

have noticed this expression: Waldemarus, patris tunc potitus feodo. Langebek,

Scrip. Rerum Danic. t. i. p. 62. By this he means the duchy of Sleswic, not a

fief, but an honor or government possessed by Waldemar. Saxo Grammaticus calls

it more classically, paternae praefecturae dignitas. Sleswic was, in later

times, sometimes held as a fief; but this does not in the least imply that

lands in Denmark proper were feudal, of which I find no evidence.]

[Footnote g: Though there were no feudal tenures in Sweden, yet the nobility

and others were exempt from taxes on condition of serving the king with a

horse and arms at their own expense; and a distinction was taken between liber

and tributarius. But any one of the latter might become of the former class,

or vice versa. - Sueciae descriptio. Elzevir, 1631, p. 92.]

It has been laid down already was most probable that no proper

aristocracy, except that of wealth, was known under the early kings of France;

and it was hinted that hereditary benefices, or, in other words, fiefs, might

supply the link that was wanting between personal privileges and those of

descent. The possessors of beneficiary estates were usually the richest and

most conspicuous individuals in the state. They were immediately connected

with the crown, and partakers in the exercise of justice and royal counsels.

Their sons now came to inherit this eminence; and, as fiefs were either

inalienable, or at least not very frequently alienated, rich families were

kept long in sight; and, whether engaged in public affairs or living with

magnificence and hospitality at home, naturally drew to themselves popular

estimation. The dukes and counts, who had changed their quality of governors

into that of lords over the provinces intrusted to them, were at the head of

this noble class. And in imitation of them, their own vassals, as well as

those of the crown, and even rich allodialists, assumed titles from their

towns or castles, and thus arose a number of petty counts, barons, and

viscounts. This distinct class of nobility became coextensive with the feudal

tenures. ^h For the military tenant, however poor, was subject to no tribute;

no prestation, but service in the field; he was the companion of his lord in

the sports and feasting of his castle, the peer of his court; he fought on

horseback, he was clad in the coat of mail, while the commonalty, if summoned

at all to war, came on foot, and with no armor of defence. As everything in

the habits of society conspired with that prejudice which, in spite of moral

philosophers, will constantly raise the profession of arms above all others,

it was a natural consequence that a new species of aristocracy, founded upon

the mixed considerations of birth, tenure, and occupation, sprang out of the

feudal system. Every possessor of a fief was a gentleman, though he owned but

a few acres of land, and furnished his slender contribution towards the

equipment of a knight. In the Libri Feudorum, indeed, those who were three

degrees removed from the emperor in order to tenancy are considered as

ignoble; ^i but this is restrained to modern investitures; and in France,

where subinfeudation was carried the farthest, no such distinction has met my

observation. ^j

[Footnote h: M. Guerard observes that in the Chartulary of Chartres,

exhibiting the usages of the eleventh and beginning of the twelfth centuries,

"La noblesse s'y montre completement constitutee; c'est a dire, privilegiee et

hereditaire. Elle peut etre divisee en haute, moyenne, et basse." By the

first he understands those who held immediately of the crown; the middle

nobility were mediate vassals, but had rights of jurisdiction, which the lower

had not. (Prolegomenes a la Cartulaire de Chartres, p. 30.)]

[Footnote i: L. ii. t. 10.]

[Footnote j: The nobility of an allodial possession, in France, depended upon

its right to territorial jurisdiction. Hence there were franc-aleux nobles

and franc-aleux roturiers; the latter of which were subject to the

jurisdiction of the neighboring lord. Loiseau, Traite des Seigneuries, p. 76.

Denisart, Dictionnaire des Decisions, art. Franc-aleu.]

There still, however, wanted something to ascertain gentility of blood

where it was not marked by the actual tenure of land. This was supplied by

two innovations devised in the eleventh and twelfth centuries – the adoption

of surnames and of armorial bearings. The first are commonly referred to the

former age, when the nobility began to add the names of their estates to their

own, or, having any way acquired a distinctive appellation, transmitted it to

their posterity. ^k As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems

somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and peace. The

shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins or seals, bear no distant

resemblance to modern blazonry. But the general introduction of such

bearings, as hereditary distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to

tournaments, wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;

sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations and languages

stood in need of some visible token to denote the banners of their respective

chiefs. In fact, the peculiar symbols of heraldry point to both these sources,

and have been borrowed in part from each. ^l Hereditary arms were perhaps

scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the thirteenth

century. ^m From that time, however, they became very general, and have

contributed to elucidate that branch of history which regards the descent of

illustrious families.

[Footnote k: Mabillon, Traite de Diplomatique, l. ii. c. 7. The authors of

the Nouveau Traite de Diplomatique, t. ii. p. 563, trace the use of surnames

in a few instances even to the beginning of the tenth century; but they did

not become general, according to them, till the thirteenth.

M. Guerard finds a few hereditary surnames in the eleventh century and

many that were personal. (Cartulaire de Chartres, p. 93.) The latter are not

surnames at all, in our usual sense. A good many may be found in Domesday, as

that of Burdet in Leicestershire, Malet in Suffolk, Corbet in Shropshire,

Colville in Yorkshire, besides those with de, which of course is a local

designation, but became hereditary.]

[Footnote l: Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscriptions, t. xx. p. 579.]

[Footnote m: I should be unwilling to make a negative assertion peremptorily

in a matter of mere antiquarian research; but I am not aware of any decisive

evidence that hereditary arms were borne in the twelfth century, except by a

very few royal or almost royal families. Mabillon, Traite de Diplomatique, l.

ii. c. 18. Those of Geoffrey the Fair, Count of Anjou, who died in 1150, are

extant on his shield; azure, four lions rampant or. Hist. Litteraire de la

France, t. ix. p. 165. If arms had been considered as hereditary at that

time, this should be the bearing of England, which, as we all know, differs

considerably. Louis VII. sprinkled his seal and coin with fleurs-de-lys, a

very ancient device, or rather ornament, and the same as what are sometimes

called bees. The golden ornaments found in the tomb of Childeric I. at

Tournay, which may be seen in the library of Paris, may pass either for

fleurs-de-lys or bees. Charles V. reduced the number to three, and thus fixed

the arms of France. The counts of Toulouse used their cross in the twelfth

age; but no other arms, Vaissette tells us, can be traced in Languedoc so far

back. T. iii. p. 514.

Armorial bearings were in use among the Saracens during the later

crusades; as appears by a passage in Joinville, t. i. p. 88 (Collect. des

Memoires), and Du Cange's note upon it. Perhaps, however, they may have been

adopted in imitation of the Franks, like the ceremonies of knighthood.

Villaret ingeniously conjectures that the separation of different branches of

the same family by their settlements in Palestine led to the use of hereditary

arms, in order to preserve the connection. T. xi. p. 113.

M. Sismondi, I observe, seems to entertain no doubt that the noble

families of Pisa, including that whose name he bears, had their armorial

distinctions in the beginning of the twelfth century. Hist. des Repub. Ital.

t. i. p. 373. It is at least probable that the heraldic devices were as

ancient in Italy as in any part of Europe. And the authors of Nouveau Traite

de Diplomatique, t. iv. p. 388, incline to refer hereditary arms even in

France to the beginning of the twelfth century, though without producing any

evidence for this.]

When the privileges of birth had thus been rendered capable of legitimate

proof, they were enhanced in a great degree, and a line drawn between the

high-born and ignoble classes, almost as broad as that which separated liberty

from servitude. All offices of trust and power were conferred on the former;

those excepted which appertain to the legal profession. A plebeian could not

possess a fief. ^n Such at least was the original strictness; but as the

aristocratic principle grew weaker, an indulgence was extended to heirs, and

afterwards to purchasers. ^o They were even permitted to become noble by the

acquisition, or at least by its possession for three generations. ^p But

notwithstanding this ennobling quality of the land, which seems rather of an

equivocal description, it became an established right of the crown to take,

every twenty years, and on every change of the vassal, a fine, known by the

name of franc-fief, from plebeians in possession of land held by a noble

tenure. ^q A gentleman in France or Germany could not exercise any trade

without derogating, that is, losing, the advantages of his rank. A few

exceptions were made, at least in the former country, in favor of some liberal

arts, and of foreign commerce. ^r But in nothing does the feudal haughtiness

of birth more show itself than in the disgrace which attended unequal

marriages. No children could inherit a territory held immediately of the

empire unless both their parents belonged to the higher class of nobility. In

France the offspring of a gentleman by a plebeian mother were reputed noble

for the purposes of inheritance and of exemption from tribute. ^s But they

could not be received into any order of chivalry, though capable of simple

knighthood; nor were they considered as any better than a bastard class deeply

tainted with the alloy of their maternal extraction. Many instances occur

where letters of nobility have been granted to reinstate them in their rank.

^t For several purposes it was necessary to prove four, eight, sixteen, or a

greater number of quarters, that is, of coats borne by paternal and maternal

ancestors, and the same practice still subsists in Germany. ^u

[Footnote n: We have no English word that conveys the full sense of roturier.

How glorious is this deficiency in our political language, and how different

are the ideas suggested by commoner! Roturier according to Du Cange, is

derived from rupturarius, a peasant, ab agrum rumpendo.]

[Footnote o: The Establishements of St. Louis forbid this innovation, but

Beaumanoir contends that the prohibition does not extend to descent of

marraige, c. 48. The roturier who acquired a fief, if he challenged any one,

fought with ignoble arms; but in all other respects was treated as a

gentleman. Ibid. Yet a knight was not obliged to do homage to the roturier

who became his superior by the acquisition of a fief on which he depended.

Carpentier, Supplement. ad Du Cange, voc. Homagium.]

[Footnote p. Establissemens de St. Louis, c. 143, and note, in Ordonnances des

Rois, t. i. See also preface to the same volume, p. xii. According to Mably,

the possession of a fief did not cease to confer nobility (analogous to our

barony by tenure) till the Ordonnances des Blois in 1579. Observations sur

l'Hist. de France, l. iii. c. 1 note 6. But Lauriere, author of the preface

above cited, refers to Bouteiller, a writer of the fourteenth century, to

prove that no one could become noble without the king's authority. The

contradiction will not much perplex us, when we reflect on the disposition of

lawyers to ascribe all prerogatives to the crown, at the expense of

territorial proprietors and of ancient customary law.]

[Footnote q: The right, originally perhaps usurpation, called franc-fief,

began under Philip the Fair. Ordonnances de Rois, t. i. p. 324; Denisart,

art. Franc-fief.]

[Footnote r: Houard, Dict. du Droit Normand Encyclopedie, art. Noblesse,

Argou, l. ii. c. 2.]

[Footnote s: Nobility, to a certain degree, was communicated through the

mother alone, not only by the custom of Champagne, but in all parts of France;

that is, the issue were "gentilhommes du fait de leur corps." and could

possess fiefs; but, says Beaumanoir, "la gentilesse par laquelle on devient

chevalier doit venir de par le pere," c. 45. There was a proverbial maxim in

French law, rather emphatic than decent, to express the derivation of

gentility from the father, and of freedom from the mother.]

Carpentier voc. Nobilitatio.]

[Footnote u: [Note Note XII.]]

It appears, therefore, that the original nobility of the Continent were

what we may call self-created, and did not derive their rank from any such

concessions of their respective sovereigns as have been necessary in

subsequent ages. In England the baronies by tenure might belong to the same

class, if the lands upon which they depended had not been granted by the

crown. But the kings of France, before the end of the thirteenth century,

began to assume a privilege of creating nobles by their own authority, and

without regard to the tenure of land. Philip the Hardy, in 1271, was the

first French king who granted letters of nobility; under the reigns of Philip

the Fair and his children they gradually became frequent. ^v This effected a

change in the character of nobility, and had as obvious a moral, as other

events of the same age had a political, influence in diminishing the power and

independence of the territorial aristocracy. The privileges originally

connected with ancient lineage and extensive domains became common to the

low-born creatures of a court, and lost consequently part of their title to

respect. The lawyers, as I have observed above, pretended that nobility could

not exist without a royal concession. They acquired themselves, in return for

their exaltation of prerogative, an official nobility by the exercise of

magistracy. The institutions of chivalry again gave rise to a vast increase

of gentlemen, knighthood, on whomsoever conferred by the sovereign, being a

sufficient passport to noble privileges. It was usual, perhaps, to grant

previous letters of nobility to a plebeian for whom the honor of knighthood

was designed.

[Footnote v: Velly, t. vi. p. 432; Du Cange and Carpentier, voce Nobilitaire,

&c.; Boulainvilliers, Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement de France, t. i. p. 317.]

In this noble or gentle class there were several gradations. All those

in France who held lands immediately depending upon the crown, whatever titles

they might bear, were comprised in the order of barons. These were originally

the peers of the king’s court; they possessed the higher territorial

jurisdiction, and had the right of carrying their own banner into the field.

^w To these corresponded the Valvassores majores and Capitanei of the empire.

In a subordinate class were the vassals of this high nobility, who, upon the

Continent, were usually termed Vavassors – an appellation not unknown, though

[Footnote t: Beaumanoir, c. 45; Du Cange, Dissert. 10, sur Joinville;

Share on Facebook

Tags: Crown, Feudal System, Feudalism, France, History, Kings, Military service, Roman
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Developments In The Arts

Sunday, April 15th, 2012

The quantity and diversity of artistic works during the period do not fit

easily into categories for interpretation, but some loose generalizations may

be drawn. At the opening of the century, baroque forms were still popular, as

they would be at the end. They were partially supplanted, however, by a

general lightening in the rococo motifs of the early 1700s. This was followed,

after the middle of the century, by the formalism and balance of

neoclassicism, with its resurrection of Greek and Roman models. Although the

end of the century saw a slight romantic turn, the era’s characteristic accent

on reason found its best expression in neoclassicism.

In painting, rococo emphasized the airy grace and refined pleasures of

the salon and the boudoir, of delicate jewelry and porcelains, of wooded

scenes, artful dances, and women, particularly women in the nude. Rococo

painters also specialized in portraiture, showing aristocratic subjects in

their finery, idealized and beautified on canvas. The rococo painting of

Antoine Watteau (1684-1721) blended fantasy with acute observations of nature,

conveying the ease and luxury of French court life. Watteau’s successors in

France included Francois Boucher (1703-1770) and Jean Fragonard (1732-1806).

Italian painters, such a Giovanni Tiepolo (1696-1730), also displayed rococo

influences. English painting lacked the characteristic rococo frivolity, but

the style affected works by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792) and Thomas

Gainsborough (1727-1788), whose portraits tended to flatter their aristocratic

subjects.

Eighteenth-century neoclassicism in painting is difficult to separate

from some works in the era of Louis XIV. Both Charles Le Brun (1619-1690) and

Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665) had earlier projected order and balance, often in

grandiose scenes from antiquity or mythology. Jean Chardin (1699-1779) carried

some of this over into the 1700s. The neoclassic approach, however, often

expressed powerful dissatisfaction and criticism of the existing order,

sometimes in stark realism and sometimes in colossal allegory. The most

typical representative of this approach was Jacques Louis David (1748-1825),

whose most famous work, Death of Socrates illustrates his respect for

Greco-Roman tradition. His sketch of Marie Antoinette enroute to the

guillotine clearly represents his revolutionary sympathies. The best examples

of pure realism and social criticism are the London street scenes by the

English painter William Hogarth (1697-1764) and the Spanish court portraits of

Francisco Goya (1746-1828).

The number of women painters increased during the eighteenth century, but

they were so limited by traditions and so dependent upon public favor that

they could hardly maintain consistent styles. Very few were admitted to

academies, where their work might be shown; in France, they were not permitted

to work with nude models. The result was their practical restriction to

still-life and portraiture. Among rococo painters, the two best-known were

Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750), a court painter of flowers in Dusseldorf, and

Rosalba Carriera (1675-1757), a follower of Watteau, who was admitted to the

French Academy in 1720. Two very famous French portrait painters and members

of the Academy, were Vigee Le Brun (1755-1842) and Adelaide Labille-Guiard

(1749-1803). If possible, they were overshadowed by Angelica Kaufmann

(1741-1807), a Swiss-born artist who painted in England and Italy. All three

were celebrated intheir time. Each produced grand scenes in the neoclassical

style, but their market limited them to flattering portraits, at which they

excelled.

Neoclassicism also found expression in architecture and sculpture.

Architecture was marked by a return to the intrinsic dignity of what a

contemporary called “the noble simplicity and tranquil loftiness of the

ancients.” The Madeleine of Paris is a faithful copy of a still-standing Roman

temple, and the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin was modeled after the monumental

entrance to the Acropolis in Athens. In England, where the classical style had

resisted baroque influences, the great country houses of the nobility now

exhibited a purity of design, which often included a portico with Corinthian

columns. Mount Vernon is an outstanding example of neoclassicism in colonial

America. The trend in sculpture often revived classical themes from Greek and

Roman mythology; statues of Venus became increasingly popular. Claude Michel

(1738-1814) and Jean Houdon (1741-1828) were two French neoclassical sculptors

who also achieved notable success with contemporary portraits. Houdon’s

Portrait of Voltaire is a well-known example.

At the opening of the eighteenth century, music demonstrated typical

baroque characteristics. These were evident in instrumental music, especially

that of the organ and the strings. The most typical baroque medium was opera,

with its opulence and highly emotional content. The era culminated in the

sumptuous religious music of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), a prolific

German organ master and choir director. Bach’s equally great contemporary, the

German-born naturalized Englishman, George Frideric Handel (1685-1759), is

known for his grand and dramatic operas, oratorios, and cantatas; he is best

known today for his religious oratorio, Messiah (1742).

Composers of the late eighteenth century turned from the heavy and

complex baroque styles to classical music of greater clarity, simpler

structures, and more formal models. Plain, often folklike melodies also became

common. With the appearance of symphonies, sonatas, concertos, and chamber

music, less interest was shown in mere accompaniment for religious services or

operatic performances. The general emphasis on technical perfection, melody,

and orchestration is summed up in the work of the Austrian composers Franz

Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791). Haydn wrote

over 100 symphonies, along with numerous other works. Mozart wrote more than

600 works, including 41 symphonies, 22 operas, and 23 string quartets,

climaxing his career with his three most famous operas: The Marriage of Figaro

(1786) Don Giovanni (1787), and The Magic Flute (1791).

Musical expression at the turn of the century was touched by the genius

of the immortal German composer Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827). The passion

of his sonatas and symphonies expressed a revolutionary romanticism, which

challenged the sedate classicism of his time.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Art, Baroque, Facebook, Hudson Valley, Painting, Rococo, Roman, Twitter
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Roman Monarchy, 753-509 B.C.

Friday, April 13th, 2012

Rome‘s political growth followed a line of development similar to that of
the Greek city-states: limited monarchy of the sort described by Homer,
oligarchy, democracy, and, finally, the permanent dictatorship of the Roman
emperors. We shall see that in moving from oligarchy to democracy, the Romans,
unlike the Greeks, succeeded in avoiding the intermediate stage of tyranny.

According to tradition, early Rome was ruled by kings elected by the
people. After the Etruscan conquest, this elective system continued, although
the last three of Rome’s seven kings were Etruscan. The king’s executive
power, both civil and military, was called the imperium, which was symbolized
by an ax bound in a bundle of rods (fasces). In the 1920s the fasces provided
both the symbol and name for Mussolini’s political creed of fascism.

Although the imperium was conferred by a popular assembly made up of all
arms-bearing citizens, the king turned for advice to a council of nobles
called the Senate. Senators had lifelong tenure, and they and their families
belonged to the patrician class. The other class of Romans, the plebeians, or
commoners, included small farmers, artisans, and many clients, or dependents,
of patrician landowners. In return for a livelihood, the clients gave their
patrician patrons political support in the assembly.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Ancient, Etruscan civilization, Greek, History, Homer, Roman, Roman Emperor, Rome
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rome’s Origins

Friday, April 13th, 2012

According to ancient legend, Rome was founded in 753 B.C. by the twin
brothers Romulus and Remus, who were saved from death in their infancy by a
she-wolf who sheltered and suckled them. According to Virgil’s Aeneid
Romulus’ ancestor was Aeneas, a Trojan who after the fall of Troy founded a
settlement in Latium. The Aeneas story, invented by Greek mythmakers, pleased
the Romans because it linked their history with that of the Greeks.

Turning from fable to fact, modern scholars believe that in the eighth
century B.C. the inhabitants of some small Latin settlements on hills in the
Tiber valley united and established a common meeting place, the Forum, around
which the city of Rome grew. Situated at a convenient place for fording the
river and protected from invaders by the hills and marshes, Rome was
strategically located. Nevertheless, the expanding Etruscans conquered Rome
about 625 B.C., and under their tutelage Rome first became an important
city-state.

Some aspects of Etruscan culture were borrowed from the Greek colonies in
southern Italy, and much of this, including the alphabet, was passed on to the
conquered Romans. (Etruscan writing can be read phonetically but not
understood.) From their Etruscan overlords, the Romans acquired some of their
gods and the practice of prophesying by examining animal entrails and the
flight of birds. From the conquerors, too, the conquered learned the art of
building (especially the arch), the practice of making statues of their gods,
and the staging of gladiatorial combats. Even the name Roma appears to
be an Etruscan word.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Aeneas, Aeneid, Greek, Italy, Latium, Roman, Rome, Virgil
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rome To 509 B.C.

Friday, April 13th, 2012

The history of Rome extends from 753 B.C., the traditional date for the
founding of the city by Romulus, Rome’s legendary first king, to A.D. 476 when
another Romulus, Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West, was
deposed. The first period in this span of more than a thousand years ended in
509 B.C. with the expulsion of the seventh and last of Rome’s kings, Tarquin
the Proud, and the establishment of a republic.

Geography And Early Settlers Of Italy

Geography did much to shape the course of events in Italy. The Italian
peninsula is 600 miles long and about four times the size of Greece and
two-thirds that of California. A great mountainous backbone, the Apennines,
runs down almost the entire peninsula. But the land is not so rugged as
Greece, and the mountains do not constitute a barrier to political
unification. Unlike in Greece, a network of roads could be built to link the
regions. Furthermore, the plain of Latium and its city, Rome, occupied a
strategic position. It was easy to defend, and once the Romans had begun a
career of conquest, they occupied a central position which made it difficult
for their enemies to unite successfully against them. The strategic position
of Rome was repeated on a larger scale by Italy itself. Italy juts into the
Mediterranean almost in the center of that great sea. Once Italy was unified,
its commanding position invited it to unify the entire Mediterranean world.

Italy’s best valleys and harbors are on the western slopes of the
Apennines. The Italian peninsula faced west, not east. For a long time,
therefore, culture in Italy lagged behind that of Greece because cultural
contact was long delayed.

Both Greeks and Romans were offshoots of a common Indo-European stock,
and settlement of the Greek and Italian peninsulas followed broadly parallel
stages. Between 2000 and 1000 B.C., when Indo-European peoples invaded the
Aegean world, a western wing of this nomadic migration filtered into the
Italian peninsula, then inhabited by indigenous Neolithic tribes. The first
invaders, skilled in the use of copper and bronze, settled in the Po valley.
Another wave of Indo-Europeans, equipped with iron weapons and tools,
followed; in time the newer and older settlers intermingled and spread
throughout the peninsula. One group, the Latins, settled in the plain of
Latium, in the lower valley of the Tiber River.

For ages history had bypassed the western Mediterranean, but it was soon
to become an increasingly significant area. During the ninth century B.C. the
Etruscans, a non-Indo-European people who probably came from Asia Minor,
brought the first city-state civilization to Italy. Expanding from the west
coast up to the Po valley and south to the Bay of Naples, the Etruscans
organized the backward Italic peoples into a loose confederation of
Etruscan-dominated city-states. After 750 B.C. Greek colonists migrated to
southern Italy and Sicily, where they served as a protective buffer against
powerful and prosperous Carthage, a Phoenician colony established in North
Africa about 800 B.C. Yet the future was not to belong to these various
invaders but to an insignificant village on the Tiber River, then in the
shadow of Etruscan expansion. This was Rome, destined to be ruler of the
ancient world.

Share on Facebook

Tags: Etruscan civilization, Greece, Greek, Italy, Roman, Rome, Romulus Augustulus, Tiber
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Posse Comitatus Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Roman’

A test of fate

The Visigoths

The Huns

German History

Roman Influence

Feudalism: Its Frankish Birth And English Development Part Four

Developments In The Arts

The Roman Monarchy, 753-509 B.C.

Rome’s Origins

Rome To 509 B.C.

Micetrap Distribution LLC

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Counter Traffic