Rewatching Robin Hood

Upon watching Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood—any medieval (historical) movie or reading any medieval (historical) novel—one might assume several things about medieval life. Medieval kings were all-powerful tyrants bent on forcing subjects to bend to their will. The idea of separation of Church and State is often voiced by rogue knights and members of the clergy. Another common theme present is the closeness of Church and State, both working in tandem to terrorize the good folk, who are oppressed by heavy taxes of the State and tithes of the Church. However, many of these assumptions are historically inaccurate.

Medieval Kings were not tyrants, nor were they all-powerful. We see this with the development of what historians refer to as the State-Church system in Germany under Emperor Otto I. (The system is also referred to as the Ottonian State-Church system or the Ottonian System.) Similar systems were developed in France, England, and elsewhere in Europe.

To better understand the political and economic position of monarchs during the medieval era, it is prudent to look at medieval France, Germany, and England. France is a large geographical area that has in recent history become a nation-state. During the medieval period, France can simply be described as a kingdom in name, but not in reality. The reality of the situation often boggles the minds of modern readers of history. Medieval France mirrors the United States went it was under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, although even this doesn’t aptly describe medieval France’s political situation. The monarch of France, a hereditary king, was confined to what historians refer to as the Il de France (Island of France), which made up Paris and the surrounding real estate. The Il de France was the king’s land and he held considerable sway in that territory; outside of the Il de France, the king was virtually powerless. Legally speaking, the French king owned all lands in France. This has ties to history going back to Charlemagne and his successors, where original land grants and titles were given for some time and would eventually become inheritable by the officeholder’s male heirs. Inheritance of titles and land grants came at a time in French history when the nobility was needed to defend against marauders of all stripes attacking Charlemagne’s kingdom from all sides. (From the south, the French had to worry about the expansionist Muslims; to the east, the Magyars; and to the north and west, the Vikings.) Why allow inheritance of positions and land grants? Simple. Both acted as incentives for medieval nobility. Why defend a piece of land when you don’t have a personal attachment to it? Having land grants and titles incentivized defending different areas of the French kingdom and turned France into a militarized area, with armed men aplenty and fortifications dotting the landscape. However, such socio-economic incentives were also what led to what many historians observe as the period of decentralization that best characterizes the medieval period in Europe.