#历史开讲 #
Wen|White Jade
Editor|Ziang
The causes of the conflict between the English king and the great nobility are worth considering, among which the political factor is the most important and the most direct influence. In addition, the impact of economic factors cannot be ignored.
The origin of the contradiction between the king and the nobility
During the Norman dynasty, the king, as the richest man in the country, modeled on the feudal system of the European continent, and created a special aristocratic class in England - a class linked by land fiefdom and cavalry military service.
The system of vassalage practiced by William I the "Conqueror" differed from the principle popular on the European continent that "the vassals of my vassals are not my vassals".
Instead, it was divided into layers and interlocking chains, emphasizing that vassals at all levels must be loyal to the king and provide corresponding "cavalry service", so there is another situation we see, that is, the feudal principle of "my vassal's vassals are still my vassals".
If you analyze it deeply, you will find that the root of this implementation is that the king and the nobles have common economic interests, and only when the king effectively guarantees that the economic interests of the nobles are not damaged and has the special right to participate in political affairs, then the military service money and material collection provided by the nobles can be in place on time and guaranteed.
Therefore, the king wooed the nobles by granting rewards, not only exempting the nobles from taxes, but also granting them many privileges.
On the other hand, the nobility, as a fief, had to pay basic taxes, in addition to which the nobles also had to serve the king in the military.
Therefore, the nobility and the king are actually a symbiotic relationship that complements each other.
The British king has always been the supreme lord of the country, so he often rewards the great nobles with certain tax-free privileges according to his own ruling needs, and the king will be within a certain range when exercising power or taxation, and over time it has formed a custom or custom, and there are few objections or objections under normal circumstances.
But in theory, though, the reality can be more complicated.
The nobles often could not escape the temptation to consider their own interests or consolidate and expand their personal interests, and there would be opportunities to reduce or avoid their obligations and responsibilities, and it was bound to be difficult to escape the king's pursuit and punishment over time.
In turn, the king, in exercising his power, occasionally had permission to go beyond feudal conventions or customs, which immediately aroused the discontent and resistance of the nobility.
In the late Norman dynasty, the king often carried out economic grabs over the nobility, many times beyond the norm or convention, and the frequent occurrence of such situations inevitably led to a surge in contradictions between the king and the nobility.
For example, Wilhelm II, in order to punish the betrayer, did not hesitate to use economic means, not only confiscating the estates of the nobility but also imposing heavy fief inheritance payments, which clearly made more political sense than economic significance.
In order to maintain his rule, the support and support of the nobility was indispensable, so King Henry I issued the Coronation Charter in 1100 AD, in which he promised to restore the old system in order to eliminate the abuses of William II.
The 19th-century historians Maitland and Pollock spoke highly of it, believing that the Coronation Charter, as the predecessor of the Magna Carta, fully affirmed the restriction of royal power and the protection of human rights, creating a precedent for restraining royal power and opposing autocracy, which is a landmark in British legal history.
During the reign of King Stephen
Civil unrest was frequent, and even serious throne battles and civil wars broke out, with such impact that they concealed the economic contradictions between the royal power and the nobility.
Since the beginning of the reign of the Anjou dynasty, the political contradictions between the nobility and the king have not eased, but have intensified, mainly due to the struggle for the throne and the king's dictatorship.
On the economic front, the king intensified his efforts to gain noble rights, most often by levying heavy fiefdom inheritance money from his vassals, "because the king had arbitrary requirements for fief inheritance, and he could use this method as a political weapon."
On the one hand, some of the English nobility supported Matilda, but the opposition firmly did not believe that a woman could govern England, and it was difficult to rule England according to the ideas of the nobility, and protect the interests and privileges of the nobility.
On the other hand, most of the nobility supported Stephen, who arrived in England in time for Henry I's death and succeeded in succeeding to the throne. However, during the reign of King Stephen, civil war broke out for a long time, and the king was too busy with war to effectively control the domestic situation.
The nobles realized that a golden opportunity had arrived, and by selling land and privileges at a high price, some of the great nobles made a small fortune.
At the same time, a new number of nobles were born, their wealth and land increased, the privileges of the nobility were consolidated, and the trend towards independence from the royal family was developed.
The king was busy with the war and failed to withdraw from the expansion of the nobility's power, which has happened many times in history, reflecting the delicate relationship between the king and the nobles, both of which are ostensibly united in heart, but in fact they are based on their own interests, but it has to be said that this relatively peaceful way is much better than the struggle between the two.
When Henry II succeeded to the throne in 1154, as the destruction of feudal estates made it increasingly difficult to recruit "cavalry service", the king began to implement military reforms, mainly concerning the "shield tax".
The king was required to collect shield money from his vassals on a regular basis, and the vassals could also exempt the king from military service by paying shield money on time, and it was also a good option for nobles to pay taxes to exempt them from military service.
The king, on the other hand, could use shield money to recruit armies and prepare his country for its own army.
However, during the Anja dynasty, a series of measures were introduced to obtain more financial revenue by depriving the nobility of certain privileges.
Obviously, this practice violated the tradition of feudalism, and although it could make the king more wealth in a short time, it intensified the opposition of the nobility and made the contradictions between the two sides more difficult to manage.
After that, King Henry II conducted a survey of land use throughout the country, and the affected nobles began to jointly protest as the nobility was deprived of their privilege of using land.
Even once the confrontation against the royal power developed into a rebellion, the contradiction between the two continued to deepen, and the gap became more and more prominent, laying hidden dangers for the future collective rebellion of the nobles against King John.
In the early 13th century, the aristocracy was a living force in British politics, forming an antagonistic and unified relationship with the king, constituting the two main subjects of the British political power system.
During the reign of Henry III, the struggle for power between the king and the nobility did not improve.
For example, in 1234-1236, Henry III set up officials in the counties for his personal interests and assigned these officials a special task, that is, to manage land acquisition, which aroused the displeasure of the nobility.
In 1237, Henry III wanted to increase taxes for personal matters, which aroused strong opposition from the townspeople.
In 1238, Henry III's actions completely angered the nobles of both the clerical and secular worlds, and he violated his religious oath by illegally granting his sister permission to remarry, which was absolutely not allowed in religious circles.
The contradictions made the aristocracy unbearable and almost violent, and the king was forced to flee the Tower of London for refuge.
Finally, in 1258, a reform movement initiated by the nobility broke out, and the fundamental reason was that royal power touched the interests of the nobility.
This reform lasted for more than a decade, and in 1263 it escalated into a civil war, when the English king was erected and replaced by the emergence of aristocratic rulers.
Western historians have paid attention to this aristocratic reform movement and put forward many views, for example, some historians believe that the aristocratic reform movement that began in 1258 marked the end of the old cooperation between the king and the nobility.
This view obviously carries the thinking mode of Western traditional historiography, so we must go beyond the existing analysis mode of Western traditional historiography.
In the end, this political upheaval, which lasted for many years by the nobles, ended in the failure of the rebellion against the nobles, and the king restored all his authority.
Judging from the outcome, the king won the final victory in this struggle, but some of the king's excessive expansion of personal authority and the interests of the nobility were also curbed.
Britain has achieved political balance on a new basis.
The king and the nobles belonged to the same class, so the interests between the two had a common basis of class interests, and in the face of common interests, although the contradictions and struggles between the two sides were inevitable, extensive and close political cooperation was always the mainstream of the relations between the two sides.