Medieval Europe, Feudal-theocratic?

[Dimentio]

What segment in Medieval Europe had most political power? The nobility, or the church?

I would actually argue that it varied, and that it between about 1080 and 1305 in general was the Catholic Church which was the supreme - though not uncontested - power.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

As you say it depends frome time to time, or country to country. Many times they where highly integrated wich each other and hard to seperate, like the Medici family in Italy.

[ComradeOm]

The nobility without question but with one or two exceptions*. The Church reigning supreme? Pffft, for most of the period in question the Pope was doing well if he had uncontested control of the city of Rome

The key role of the Church, and I might try to dig out an interesting essay by Engels on this topic, lay in legitimising and facilitating feudal rule. This did provide the Church with a power in its own right (which did wax and wane) but it was always in conjunction with temporal rulers. If only because the latter were the ones who controlled both the land and the means to secure it (ie, pointed metal objects). Relations between secular and spiritual authorities were complex as they both reinforced each other (throne and altar) but this should not hide the fact that it was the nobility that exercised the real power in the temporal realm. The period you've highlighted was marked by repeated failed attempts by the Papacy to correct this

(Probably my favourite expression of this temporal assertion would be Boniface VIII who proclaimed in 1302 that "It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff". Unsurprisingly this did not go down well with the European monarchs and Boniface died a year later, shortly after being captured and beaten by French soldiers)

*The military orders spring to mind. In particular, the realm of the Teutonic Order. Although given that this was effectively independent of the Church and that the last Grandmaster converted to Protestantism and declared himself a hereditary noble, I'd question how well it fits your categorisation

[Noinu]

The nobility without question but with one or two exceptions*. The Church reigning supreme? Pffft, for most of the period in question the Pope was doing well if he had uncontested control of the city of Rome


I only quote that part, 'cause otherwise this post will be far too long for my liking.
So, you think the Church was there to just basically get power from the nobility and not vice versa during the Middle Ages? And that the church was only doing well if they got to reign Rome, 'cause the didn't get to reign anything else anyways? And that the reformation only supports these things?
Alright, when you look at a time after the start of the Church reforms in the 14th Century, you're quite right. The Roman Catholic church lost most it's power after Protestantism was created. (I say was created, 'cause I just can't think of anything better).

But, most of the Middle Ages weren't in that time, the Middle Ages (a period from the 5th century to the 15th) was predominantly Roman Catholic.
And from what I can gather, there were many kings who gave the Catholic Church almost uncontested power over all their areas (the King's areas):


The Carolingian kings strengthened the relationship between kings and the papacy: in 754 Pippin the Younger was crowned in a lavish ceremony (including anointing) by Pope Stephen II. Pippin then vanquished the Lombards and added more territory to the papal state. When Charlemagne came to the throne he quickly consolidated his power, and by 782 he was considered the strongest of the western kings with the strongest sense of Christian mission. He received a papal coronation in Rome in 800, and he interpreted his role as protector of the church with rights of intervention.After his death, however, the degree with which a ruler had the right to intervene with the papacy was treated in an inconsistent manner.


(Wiki on the Catholic Church; sources Bauer pp. 372-374, 388, 393 Duffy p. 91, 97)


In 1905, Byzantine emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Urban II for help against renewed Muslim invasions, which caused Urban to launch the First Crusade aimed at aiding the Byzantine Empire and returning the Holy Land to Christian control. The crusades saw the formation of various military orders such as the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights. In 1208, after they were accused of murdering a papal legate, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, a gnostic Christian sect in Languedoc. Up to a million people were killed in a conflict that combined both religious and political struggles. To root out those with Cathar sympathies, Gregory IX instituted the Papal Inquisition in 1231.


(Still the same wiki, sources: Riley-Smith p.8, Norman pp. 62-66, Henry Charles Lea, A history of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (Volume I) p.145, Malcolm Barber, The Cathars p1 Longman ISBN 0-582-25661-5, John M Robertson, A Short History of Christianity (2004) pp.253-254, Laurence Wade Marvin, The Occitan War p.1 Cambride University Press ISBN 0-521-87240-5, Morris p.214.)
So basically, the Roman Catholic Church was requested for help, which would kinda mean they have the power, wouldn't it? At least they were the ones to get the people going, not the kings. If the kings had all what they needed for a war, people and weapons and a murderous attitude, why would they ever need the Church to help? Even if they just wanted a religious cause, all they'd really need is the Church's permission, no?

And just so you don't think I've only quoted on Catholic history, which of course can be biased, here's what's written in the history of Universities:


The university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting. Prior to their formal establishment, many medieval universities were run for hundreds of years as Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools, in which monks and nuns taught classes; evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the 6th century AD.

(Wiki on Universities, sources:
Walter Rüegg, “Foreword. The University as a European Institution” in A History of the University in Europe, Vol 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2 pp. XIX-XX
Verger 1999
Pierre Riché (1978): “Education and Culture in the Barbarian West: From the Sixth through the Eighth Century”, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, ISBN 0-87249-376-8, pp. 126-127, 282-298)
I'd say they have a darned lot of power when they're responsible for the education of the people. For a long time, all schools (at least in the North) were run by the church and in monasteries. There was no other way of getting an education, but that of the church. So how does the church not have that much power?
(Source of the history of Finnish education: SUOMEN VARHAISHISTORIAN AIKAKIRJA, ISBN-13: 9789513735692).

[Rotfront]

You can't seperate church and nobility so clearly in medieval times. Many bishops and archbishops were territorial rulers, the archbishops of Cologne, Trier and Mainz even elected the king of the Holy Roman Empire.

[Dimentio]

I would claim that The Catholic Church at least had much more power over international relations than the UN is having today.

[ComradeOm]

So, you think the Church was there to just basically get power from the nobility and not vice versa during the Middle Ages?No, if you read my post you'll see that I explicitly stated that the clergy served to "legitimise and facilitate" the rule of the nobility. The Church played a vital role in the medieval state. This did not however translate (outside of Archbishoprics and other Church lands) into direct secular rule. A number of Popes did attempt to change this - I've been deliberately using the Church's terminology of 'temporal' and 'spiritual' - but they uniformly failed


And that the church was only doing well if they got to reign Rome, 'cause the didn't get to reign anything else anyways?What? I used the Church's continued troubles with securely governing the seat of its headquarters as an example of its impotence. Wherever the Church, as an institution, was influential or powerful it was at the sufferance and with the cooperation of secular authorities

I am however glad that you brought up the Reformation, which I at no point alluded to, because the exact same mechanics were at work in the new Protestant churches. The difference was that the Protestant lords cut out the middleman (ie, Rome) and simply dictated to their new state-run churches


And from what I can gather, there were many kings who gave the Catholic Church almost uncontested power over all their areas (the King's areas):Not only is that false, it isn't even borne out by the example that you've provided. Leaving aside the ambiguity around Charlemagne's coronation (some sources argue that the entire affair was a surprise to him), he at no point granted the Church "almost uncontested power" in his realm. Quite the contrary in fact - the "right of intervention" was Charlemagne's right to interfere in the election of new Popes. Indeed the entire affair only highlights the weakness of the Church and its inability to defend its own interests - Peppin was needed to save it from the Lombards while Charlemagne was courted as an alternative to the Byzantines

Now this was to be expected from the Church at the time, which was really just the bishopric of Rome. The same practice of looking for foreign patronage/protection would continue right up to the demise of the Papal States however. France in particular would take on the role for centuries. Which is one reason why its ironic to see you referencing the campaign against the Cathars - this lead to a massive expansion in the influence of the French Crown as it expanded its landholdings in the south of the country

No feudal lord would simply hand over control of his realm to the Church. Even Louis IX (ie, Saint Louis), probably the monarch who was most personally invested in religion and the Church, did not dream of relinquishing control of the state apparatus. Rather he took the conventional view that it was his duty as an earthly lord to uphold Christian teachings. Again, note the distinction - the Church might support this intent but it fell to secular authorities to execute it. Nor did Louis simply take orders from Rome


So basically, the Roman Catholic Church was requested for help, which would kinda mean they have the power, wouldn't it?A 'kind of power', yes. This is what I was referring to when I said "a power in its own right". Again, I point out that this was 'power' reserved for the spiritual sphere and activities associated with this. Most importantly its job was to buttress the existing social (read: feudal) order. What obviously follows on from this is an understanding that, despite occasional (read: near constant) feuds between Rome and the Western monarchs, the two were actually tightly intertwined and shared many common goals. This was not however a relationship of equals and over the centuries the evolving secular state relied less and less on Church support


I would claim that The Catholic Church at least had much more power over international relations than the UN is having todayAnd? To be honest, that's an inane comparison for too many reasons to list

[Raúl Duke]

I think it depends on the particular region and such.


So, you think the Church was there to just basically get power from the nobility and not vice versa during the Middle Ages?

I don't think ComradeOm said exactly that per se

Overall, the nobility and/or monarchs ruled but they needed the approval of the Catholic Church to establish their right to rule.


I would claim that The Catholic Church at least had much more power over international relations than the UN is having today.

It did, at some points in history. But the countries' did what it asked because they had something to benefit from, even if it was just to be looked more favorably by the Catholic Church.

[JazzRemington]

It should be worth pointing out that William sought permission from the pope (and not the French king) to invade England in 1066 and that sometimes the Church became a member of the ruling class via being given land and distributing it amongst landless knights and warriors.

But for the majority of the Middle Ages, there was a struggle between the Church and the ruling class. The Church wanted the ruling class to be nominally subservient to the Church and Christianity while the ruling class wanted to be more or less left alone to their own devises (though they relied heavily on Christianity and the clergy to legitimate their rule, as pointed out above). In general the ruling class had tight control over how the clergy operated on their lands, as in many places a lord had the right to elect or remove a local priest from the church on his lands. If I recall, the Church had more authority in the cities and towns, and in northern Italy.