During the Middle Ages, it was a popular belief that kings were chosen by God, through an idea later called divine right. Pippin the Short broke this tradition when he was elevated by the pope from mayor of the palace to king in the eighth century, deposing Childeric III of the Merovingian dynasty. While Pippin started the Carolingian dynasty, it represented a moment when kings no longer have to follow the convention of divine right coming directly from God. Although a twenty-first century individual would find no fault in Pippin's actions, because of their wider long-term cultural perspective. In contrast, Hobbes would not have approved Pippin usurping the Merovingian kings, because of the negative short-term consequences of war, as people
…show more content…
Hobbes considers that a state will only survive if the sovereign has the obedience of the people, whereas a change in government will ultimately destroy it (Hobbes 222). Hobbes would have seen Pippin the Short's actions of usurping Childeric III as having a negative effect upon the society. Even though Childeric III only gave the impression of being king, the people in the country would not have known that Pippin was running their government, and they would have seen Childeric III as their sovereign. Hobbes would have seen Pippin's act as an injustice upon the sovereign, since individuals make a covenant with a sovereign, but a sovereign does not make a covenant with each person (Hobbes 111). Moreover, the Carolingians brought war to the Frankish kingdoms. Hobbes saw war as one of the greatest evils in life (Hobbes 219), as he lived through the English Civil Wars, and saw the consequences that war enact towards the populace. Hobbes writes that when war is introduced there is "no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes 76). Hobbes sees war as a means of starting chaos in a society, since there is no power to keep the people in awe, and instead they fall …show more content…
Bouchard writes that "Pippin and especially Charlemagne ruthlessly pursued anyone who tried to contest their rule. It is surely significant that the territory they sought forcibly to conquer was identical with the old Merovingian regnum" (Bouchard 94). The Carolingians used force in order to rule their empire. One can see how this would have affected the people. Anyone who would have contested their rule would have been killed. Hobbes writes "that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Hobbes 80). He felt that peace was achieved under a sovereign that removed individuals from their need for self-preservation. Charlemagne, however, did not undertake peace, and instead he used his power to fight religious wars against barbarians in Europe. Hobbes writes that "successful wickedness hath obtained the name of virtue, and some that in all other things have disallowed the violation of faith, yet have allowed it when it is for the getting of a kingdom" (Hobbes 90). Hobbes would have applied this thought to Charlemagne reasoning to conquer parts of Europe in order to convert the barbarians. War would have placed soldiers and the common people that could have resisted this change in monarchy back into a state of nature. Einhard recounts that a
Hobbes considers that a state will only survive if the sovereign has the obedience of the people, whereas a change in government will ultimately destroy it (Hobbes 222). Hobbes would have seen Pippin the Short's actions of usurping Childeric III as having a negative effect upon the society. Even though Childeric III only gave the impression of being king, the people in the country would not have known that Pippin was running their government, and they would have seen Childeric III as their sovereign. Hobbes would have seen Pippin's act as an injustice upon the sovereign, since individuals make a covenant with a sovereign, but a sovereign does not make a covenant with each person (Hobbes 111). Moreover, the Carolingians brought war to the Frankish kingdoms. Hobbes saw war as one of the greatest evils in life (Hobbes 219), as he lived through the English Civil Wars, and saw the consequences that war enact towards the populace. Hobbes writes that when war is introduced there is "no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes 76). Hobbes sees war as a means of starting chaos in a society, since there is no power to keep the people in awe, and instead they fall …show more content…
Bouchard writes that "Pippin and especially Charlemagne ruthlessly pursued anyone who tried to contest their rule. It is surely significant that the territory they sought forcibly to conquer was identical with the old Merovingian regnum" (Bouchard 94). The Carolingians used force in order to rule their empire. One can see how this would have affected the people. Anyone who would have contested their rule would have been killed. Hobbes writes "that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Hobbes 80). He felt that peace was achieved under a sovereign that removed individuals from their need for self-preservation. Charlemagne, however, did not undertake peace, and instead he used his power to fight religious wars against barbarians in Europe. Hobbes writes that "successful wickedness hath obtained the name of virtue, and some that in all other things have disallowed the violation of faith, yet have allowed it when it is for the getting of a kingdom" (Hobbes 90). Hobbes would have applied this thought to Charlemagne reasoning to conquer parts of Europe in order to convert the barbarians. War would have placed soldiers and the common people that could have resisted this change in monarchy back into a state of nature. Einhard recounts that a