Nature Of Authority In Medieval England

The nature of authority went through a gradual transformation from the beginnings of Western civilization to the early modern period. These changes occurred through many centuries of European history in how authority was exercised, its centralization, and the way that people would not tolerate tyrannical authority, and these are manifested through several specific instances. History is often said to repeat itself, and as members of society it’s important to reflect on the plasticity of authority since we will always subject the people who are in charge, no matter what setting. By looking back on another people’s history we can learn a few lessons not only about how authority manifests itself, but also that the nature of authority is subject …show more content…
Governing of the land became more decentralized, as is shown by the predominance of feudalism during this period. This happened in spite of the efforts at organization by Western rulers such as Charlemagne. Feudalism is a complex system in which people worked for nobles and provided military service in exchange for protection and land use. A majority of people were peasants, which were the lowest class. They could not leave the land they lived on and worked under a lord that was obligated to take care and protect them. The decentralization of this system is seen in that there were many lords that controlled the lands, also known as fiefs. Kings did not have much power during the medieval era. Despite this, unlike the ancient period, lords were not often cruel to the people they were over. Workers often were well cared for and had periods of time off throughout the year. In this way, one could conclude that the nature of authority became less harsh by the medieval era. The Hundred Years’ War, which was fought between England and France, would go on to effectively bring an end to feudalism and governments eventually became more centralized. More power was given to the monarchies and common people instead of lords that controlled lands. This is because not only did kings no longer rely on the nobility for their armies and build them up themselves, but the common people did most of the fighting in the 100 Years’ …show more content…
This event happened because of differences in beliefs about how England should be ruled. The war was between those that supported King Charles I and the Parliament. King Charles wanted to raise taxes without any consultation and many people were opposed to this idea. The war continued on for several years, initially with neither sides succeeding. Later, the English Civil War took a turning point at the Battle of Naseby when Parliament’s side gained a major victory under the lead of Oliver Cromwell. After surrendering to the Scottish, being sold to Parliament, escaping, and then being tried for treason after his side was defeated at the Battle of Preston, King Charles I was tried for treason and then executed. This event showed that the people of England would not put up with being ruled arbitrarily. People wanted a greater say in government and knew that absolute monarchy would not provide them with this opportunity. By the middle of the seventeenth century, we see that political legitimacy rested more with the people as is shown by the English since they were able to overthrow a tyrannical