Addendum au message precedent.
J'ai beaucoup appris de "Butter milk" Medieval society and culture: dans le lien suivant:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/c ... _become_a/Why did the Holy Roman Empire become a decentralized patchwork of states while France became a centralized, unified kingdom?
Pourquoi le Saint-Empire devient une couverture en patchwork décentralisée pendant France devenait un royaume centralisé et unifié?
The better explanation of the differences between the two kingdoms comes from the political situation of their kings. The French king started out as a figurehead. After the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, the French nobility elected Hugh Capet, a great magnate in the Île-de-France, to be king in 987. This election saw the beginning of the Capetian line of kings. However, at the beginning, the Capetians had no real power outside of the Île. They were largely figureheads. This began to slowly change, beginning with Louis VI (reigned 1108-1137) who began to move to solidify royal power in the rest of his theoretical kingdom. This process was accelerated by Philip II (1180-1223), who reclaimed Normandy from the English kings and otherwise massively expanded the royal demesne.
Premier paragraphe
Le roi français commençait comme un symbole (figure de proue?) Après l'empire Carolienne, la noblesse français a élu! Hugo Capet comme roi...Les Cpétiens n'avaient pas de pouvoir réel en dehors de l'île-de-France...graduellement le pouvoir royal est élargi...
These expansions led to the implementation of a stronger bureaucracy, as the kings now needed to send representatives in order to carry out basic functions of government like the collection of taxes. Since the seat of power for the Capetians was still in Paris, this meant that France eventually became very centralized, with Paris as the focus. A secondary but important point, the Capetians were a long and very successful dynasty, followed by the Valois, were a cadet branch that also was very long and very successful. This meant that there were a minimum of succession crises, the royal power was consolidated in one region, and fathers and sons might work together and carry on specific political goals.
Second paragraphe
par ces expansions réalisation d'une bureaucratie plus forte...parce que le siège des Capétiens en Paris centralisation de la France autour de Paris. Un deuxième point mais important les Capétiens étaient une longe dynastie réussie, prolongée par les Valois. Alors moins de crises de succession, le pouvoir royal est consolidé dans une! région et les pères et fils peuvent collaborer et construire des buts politiqes spécifiques.
Now in Germany, things started out similarly, maybe even a bit more favorably toward centralization than in France. Henry I, the Fowler, was elected king in 919, and he went on to found the Ottonian dynasty (named after his father, Otto duke of Saxony). The Ottonians had their power consolidated mostly in Saxony, which was actually larger than the Île-de-France. They also seem to have had more serious influence outside of their personal territory. The Ottonians fought several wars with the help of the rest of the German nobility, and they largely weren't challenged for control.
Troisième paragraphe
Maintenant en Allemagne les faits commencaient similairement et peut-être un peu plus favorable vers centralisation qu'en France. Henri I élu! roi en 919...la dynastie Ottonienne... plusieures guerres avec l'aide de la noblesse allemande et ils ne sont pas défiés concernant le controle (par cette noblesse).
However, Otto II (the third king in the dynasty) died suddenly, and the rule of Otto III was less stable because of this. Otto III died young and without heirs, and the next king was actually a cousin from Bavaria, Henry II. Henry II was also childless. This meant that there was no clear successor to the German throne. A new election was held, and Conrad I was elected king, marking the beginning of the Salian dynasty, originally based in Franconia. These dynastic shifts continued throughout the Middle Ages, moving the center of power around Germany as they happened. On top of this, the fact that the king had to keep being re-elected meant that the king couldn't necessarily alienate the other great magnates in Germany. All of this led to less centralization in Germany than in France.
Quatrième paragraphe.
Néanmoins Otto II (troisième roi de la dynastie) mourait instantément et le pouvoir de Otto III était moins stable par ça...et ainsi de suite...on n'avait pas un successeur clair sur le trône allemand. Et une nouvelle élection! est tenue...ces changements dynastiques sont continuées pendant tout le moyen âge, déplaçant le centre de pouvoir partout en Allemagne pendant ces changements. En plus, le fait que le roi devait être rééelu à chaque fois, se traduisait par le fait que le roi ne pouvait pas aliéner les autres grand magnates en Allemagne. Tout ça conduisait à une centralisation moindre en Allemagne qu'en France.
Because Germany was less centralized, a centralized government did not form. Instead, the kings ruled by traveling, a form of kingship known as peripatetic kingship (in English sometimes called the Royal Progress). Although they had bureaucrats just like the French, they didn't all centralize into one location. Instead, the king went to where the problems were, and his bureaucrats came to him. This meant that no centralized institutions of power, like the exchequer in England for example, developed. It also meant that more power was retained locally by the local lords.
Cinquième paragraphe
Parce que l'Allemagne était moins centralisée, un gouvernement centralisé n'est pas formé. Au lieu de ça on avait un gouvernance connu comme "peripatetic kingship"...pas de centralisation dans une location...le roi se trouvait où les difficultés se produisent et les bureaucrates venaient chez lui...ça voulait dire aussi que le pouvoir était retenu localement par les magnates locales.
Avant d'aller dormir je voulais encore demander quelques questions:
J'ai rencontré le concept du "double body" Demain je voulais élaborer plus concernant ce sujet.
Aussi plus sur le sacré...Nous ne réalisons pas comme important toutes ces choses étaient pour le public mediéval dans le temps...la question de progéniture mâle...etc
Les trucs? des rois français pour aggrandir leur pouvoir...
comme la cooperation avec l'église par exemple l'ébranlement du sud de la France pour avoir plus de pouvoir là bas par le biais des Cathares?...
Cordialement, Paul.