Military Ranks Feudal Hierarchy

Feudal Hierarchy

Mediaeval Western Europe was largely governed through feudalism, which was a system substituted for the professional administration and paid military that would have been possible if there had been much of a cash economy, education, or communication. Where there was mostly nothing but subsistence agriculture, and little trade, travel, money, or education, rule through personal loyalty and rents in kind from agriculture was very nearly the only thing possible. The feudal contract between a Lord and a Vassal was then to confer a "living," i.e. land with people and produce, in return for ruling the land and providing military service for the Lord. The power to rule the land was a loss for the Lord, but in the absence of paid administrators, there wasn't much alternative (although for a while the German Emperors were able to use the Church). Whether the military service was actually provided largely depended on the prestige of the Lord and the loyalty of the Vassal.

The ultimate feudal rank was Emperor, but this was also anomalous. The original Emperor, the Roman Emperor, resided in Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Rome had rejected Kings. Julius Caesar refused a crown. So Augustus was merely the imperator, i.e. "commander." In Mediaeval Romania, some level of cash economy remained, and the device of conferring land for livings was at first restricted to soldiers who would till the land themselves, not conferred on a nobility that could become disloyal. The Emperor was the only sovereign -- the File:Example.png and File:Example.png. Since basileus had been the Classical Greek word for "king," Latin rex was adopted, as File:Example.png, for Mediaeval Greek [[[note]]]. The Emperor was the "Equal to the Apostles" (File:Example.png, isapóstolos) and thus had a traditional role in the governance of the Church ("Caesaro-Papism"). For instance, it was the Emperor who called Church Councils. Members of the Imperial Family are always portrayed with halos, like the Saints. This exalted status for the Emperor was never found in Western Europe, though the Emperor Sigismund did call the Council of Constance (1414-1418) to end the Great Schism -- which he was able to do since there were three rival Popes; later Popes denied that the Emperors had such a power inherently. This and other innovations in Papal claims, including assertions of secular authority, mean that the term "Caesaro-Papism" might be better applied to the Papacy, which assumed imperial pretentions, rather than to the Emperors, whether in Constantinople or in Germany, who exercised no eccelesiastical authority beyond what Constantine had.

When the Pope crowned the Frankish King Charlemagne Emperor, the claim was still that this was the only Emperor, whose authority was universal, if by leave of the Pope, whose ultimate authority was also universal. The Emperors in Constantinople at times accepted that they had a Western colleague, as in Late Antiquity, but there could have been a subtle and clever spin on it. Since the Tetrarchy, "Caesar" had been used as the title of subordinate Emperors. It was still used in Mediaeval Romania -- File:Example.png in Greek. Well, in German and Russian, the Emperors were called Kaiser and Tsar, respectively, which are obviously the words for "Caesar" in those languages. So the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople could remain the only true "Augustus," File:Example.png (or File:Example.png, Sebastós, the equivalent in Greek), the senior Emperor, with the Germans and Russians (prospectively, since there weren't Russian Tsars yet) regarded as Caesares. However, this sort of distinction does not seem to have been made. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (d.959) said that Charlemagne "reigned as emperor," ebasíleuse, over "Great Francia," File:Example.png [De Administrando Imperio, Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 1967, 2008, p.108]. The verb basileuô is based on the noun basileus, File:Example.png, which, as we have seen, was used for the Roman Emperor. The Porphyrogenitus was thus not thinking of Charlemagne as a mere "Caesar."

The universal authority of the Wester Emperor was not always acknowledged in Mediaeval Western Europe -- the Kings of France always denied it -- but there never was more than one duly crowned one -- the Pope would not have stood for it -- despite the occasional king, as in Spain, who thought it might be nice to an emperor. When the customary right to be thus crowned settled on the German Kings, the institution of the Imperial Electors arose from the traditional electoral nature of the German Kingship. This was then thought to nicely parallel the electoral nature of the Papacy. But an electoral monarchy in Germany, as in Poland, spelled disaster for the power of the Throne.

In time, rivals to the Emperor in Constantinople (and where the writ of the Pope did not run) arose, in Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey, and in the form of the Latin Emperors who ruled in the Constantinople taken by the Fourth Crusade. Later, after Fall of the city to the Turks, Russia claimed the Imperial legacy. In Western Europe, however, no rivals to the traditional Emperor arose until Napoleon claimed the status in 1804. He at least had the Pope hand him the crown. Soon, however, there were other Empires in Europe (Austria, 1804; France again, 1852; and then Germany, 1871), without even a nod to the Papacy. Other European sovereigns found foreign Empires, like Brazil for Portugal in 1822, Mexico for France/Austria in 1864, India for Britain in 1876, and Ethiopia for Italy in 1936.

Feudalism, however, was not basically a matter of the Emperors. It began with the Germanic Kings who replaced the Western Roman Empire. The Kingdom became the basic unit of rule in Western Europe. The words for King in Latin (rex) and Gothic (reiks) were from the Old Indo-European root of sacred kingship (e.g. Sanskrit raja). In later Germanic languages, king (German könig) was the ruler of the kin, the leader of the tribe or people. In Eastern Europe the word for "king" is noteworthy. In Czech it is král, in Polish król, and in Hungarian király. For comparison, the same word in Croatian is kralj, in Slovakian král', in Russian kor´l, and in Lithuanian karalius. Just as the Latin name Caesar gives us the word for "emperor" in many of these languages (and in German), here it looks like Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne, has given us the word for "king." Kings, however, were also Princes (Latin princeps, "first, foremost"); and the term "prince" came to mean a basic, independent sovereign. There are still sovereign Princes in Europe, of Monaco and of Liechtenstein.

Feudalism, then, meant that the King divided his realm between trusted retainers. Latin comes meant "companion" (literally, "go with"), and they were originally the retainers of the Emperor in the Late Roman Empire, who were then often entrusted with the adminstration of dioceses, major divisions of the Empire, like Britain or Spain, or sometimes important provinces (Africa, Egypt). During the Middle Ages, the Latin comes continues in Greek, as , right through to the end of Romania. In the Latin West, the comes palatii or palatinus, Count Palatine or Pfalzgraf, could have, like the original official, various legal, judicial, administrative, or gubernatorial functions. In Germany, a comes urbanus, Burggraf, was a Royal official in episcopal or imperial cities, and a comes provinciae, Landgraf (Landgrave), was a new Royal agent created by the Emperor Lothar II (1125-1137) -- eventually becoming a low level of landed authority, as in the Landgravate of Hesse-Homburg, which survived as a German state until 1866. The classic Mediaeval meaning of comes, however, is in the sense that companions of a King received the basic territorial division of the Kingdom, a County (like Flanders or Holland -- comitas in Latin). England still consists of Counties. In English a comes is a "Count," but English counts are always called "Earls" (Old English eorl, "warrior, nobleman"). The wife of an Earl, however, is still a "Countess." In German, "count" is Graf. There is no more striking contrast between Roman and later usage of the title than that there should have been a "Count of Britain" (Comes Britanniae) in the former, while "Britain" today combines the Kingship of England and Scotland (with Wales as a Principality more or less within the Kingdom of England).

Some Counts are more important than others. Counties at the edge of a Kingdom may be threatened with invaders, or may be expanding into outside territories. These are the "Marches" (Mark in German, marca in Latin) and the Count of a March is a "Margrave," from German Markgraf, or "Marquess" (in English, "Marquis" in French) -- comes marcae, marchicomes, or marchio in Latin. The wife of a Marquis is a "Marchioness" (in English, "Marquise" in French, marchionissa in Latin), which preseves the origin of the word more clearly. The most famous Margravate was Brandenburg, which became the Kingdom of Prussia. A Marquis thus has a higher noble rank than a Count. True feudal Counts and Margraves have sovereign powers over their own subjects, entitled to "meet justice," bear arms, and collect taxes; but they are also vassals, of their sovereign Lord. Their vassalage, of course, is in terms of a feudal contract, i.e. they owe military service for a certain part of the year. Usually this does not extend to furnishing any tax revenues to their Lord, which, as produce, could hardly be transported or stored well in the early days; but appeals of justice might be made over their heads to the King or Prince.

In Germany a higher level of noble rank developed. Latin dux meant "leader," and this was the Late Roman title for a frontier military commander, which we then see in Greek, as , until the end of Romania. There was thus a Duke of Britain as well as a Count of Britain. The Count, as a Companion of the Emperor, and as commander of one of the comitatenses (the mobile field armies), had the higher rank. As the East Frankish, German Kingdom formed in the 9th century, the leaders of the old German tribal regions (Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, etc.) and some comparable territories (Lorraine) came to be called dux (German Herzog). Their domains are known as the "Stem Duchies" (where there is more discussion of the derivation of Herzog). This elevated the title well above its Roman status, so that Dukes came to be regarded as superior to Counts and Margraves. Soon, other domains adopted the title Duke. In France these were sometimes ethnic areas on analogy with the German tribes, like Gascony or Brittany, and later were large, semi-independent realms (e.g. Burgundy) often entrusted to Royal brothers (e.g. Charles of Anjou). Originally, both marchio and dux were seen more as functions or offices than as titles, and a Count (comes) might claim temporarily and alternatively either or both of the higher titles. The higher title might stick in some places, like Gascony, which became a Duchy, but not in others, like Barcelona, which remained a County, although clearly a March in function. In Eastern Europe, a rank comprable to dux developed, "voivode," which is discussed with the rulers there.

In Eastern Europe, the rulers of Kiev, Vladimir, and Lithuania have traditionally been called "Grand Dukes," while newer treatments call them "Grand Princes." The word is Knyaz in Russian, Kunigaikshtis in Lithuanian, kníze in Czech, knez in Croatian, ksiaze in Polish, and knieza in Slovakian. In all these languages, a word for "duke" is also often borrowed from German, like Russian gertsog (i.e. herzog) and from Latin for "prince," Russian prints. All the originally Slavic (or Baltic, for Lithuanian) terms can be translated either "duke" or "prince." The preference for "duke" seems to come from the circumstance that in modern times a brother of the Russian Tsar was always a Velikii Knyaz, and this was always translated "Grand Duke" by analogy to the tradition of giving the title Duke to the brothers of the Kings of England and France. Merely calling them "princes" would have made them sound less significant (even like children). "Prince," however, is more of a sovereign title than "duke" (see above); and, with the Romanov Grand Dukes mostly gone from the scene, the tendency seems to be to dignify the rulers of Kiev and Vladimir, if not Lithuania, early Poland, etc., with that translation.

The title of Duke was not introduced in England until 1337, used by Edward III for his sons, and never went with such semi-independent domains as the French Duchies. No Duchies were originally in principle independent (except in Eastern Europe); but as the Holy Roman Empire declined, the Stem Duchies, multiplied by division among brothers, became more and more independent. English "Duchies," although consisting of estates from which rents were collected, never came anywhere near to being organized, let alone independent, states. The French Duchy of Burgundy for a while was a rival to the French Throne itself, but it reverted to the Monarchy when the male line of Dukes died out in 1477. Fully independent German Duchies and Grand Duchies (like Baden) emerged when Napoleon abolished the Empire (1806). After the Congess of Vienna, they remained independent, subject only to the meagre powers of the German Confederation. German Duchies, Grand Duchies, Kingdoms, and Principalities all lost most of their sovereignty to the new German Empire in 1871. There is one remaining independent Grand Duchy in Europe, Luxembourg. Elsewhere, brothers of the sovereign King or Emperor were made Dukes (England) and Grand Dukes (Russia), without the traditional kind of sovereign feudal domain. The brother of the Prince of Wales in England, therefore, is traditionally dubbed the Duke of York; but this did not confer an independent sovereign status, and Yorkshire remains a County. Other English titles, like that of the Duke of Marlborough (or, for that matter, Earl Mountbatten of Burma), employ purely honorific place names.

In Italy, the direct descendants of the original Roman dux title could be seen in the Doges of independent cities like Venice and Genoa. Dux also came down in Italian with its original meaning, "leader," as duce, which was used as a title by Mussolini.

There was exactly one Arch-Duchy, which is what the Hapsburgs promoted Austria to, before they promoted it to an Empire. Later the title was used for heirs, like the Arch-Duke Francis Ferdinand, whose assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 touched off World War I.

The children of independent sovereigns are usually called "princes" and "princesses." This is would not be used for the children of Counts, Margraves, or of vassal Dukes -- who in England can be called "lords" (or "ladies"). The children of independent and sovereign Dukes, however, in Germany, were also "princes" and "princesses." The title of Prince of Wales in Britain did have a sovereign territorial association, with the Principality of Wales, but it is not clear that any practical sovereignty and independence ever went with it.

The lowest ranks of landed feudal nobility, of "Peers" in Britain, are that of "Viscount" (vicecomes, i.e. "vice-count") and "Baron." Viscounts and Barons are not "of" anything, like higher nobility (e.g. "Count of Toulouse"). Viscounts and Barons could hold estates within Counties, but there is no traditional formal feudal division of a County, Duchy, Prinicpality, or anything else associated with them. They are simply addressed by their names, e.g. "Viscount Palmerston." "Baron" is rarely used in address or reference in Britain -- "Lord" alone is used (e.g. "Lord Byron," the 6th Baron Byron). "Baron" itself thus tends to sound like a German title, as it is (Old High German baro, into Mediaeval Latin as baro, baronis), although in German Herr is often used for basic noble rank -- as Seigneur is in French. The "Barons" in general can mean all the landed feudal nobility up to and including Dukes. The "Barons" are thus to be contrasted with the "Princes."

Under the Barons is non-landed gentle status. A "gentleman" traditionally was anyone with no regular trade or occupation (but, of course, an income or living). Since gentlemen by definition didn't work, below them would be the "working class" -- those with a regular trade or occupation. The term "working class," however, came in Marxist discourse to exclude capitalists or industrialists, not just gentlemen, even though such people definitely are "in trade" and were looked down upon by true gentlemen, gentry, or noblity. The Marxist idea was that capitalists were unnecessary parasites who thus did no work themselves. Although even Lenin realized quickly that "the workers" could not manage factories on their own, this absurd falsehood spelled stagnation and tyranny for the Soviet Union and for command or socialist economies. But the rhetoric about the "working class" (or "working families") continues as a regular part of political discourse in the United States, and anti-capitalist propaganda is generally required reading at American universities -- presented, not as historical retrospective, but as gospel truth. It is worth noting well who uses the term "working class" -- such language betrays their ideology and purposes, which otherwise may not candidly be stated -- or, if they are not actually anti-capitalist themselves, it means that they are confusedly using a tendentious terminology whose origin they do not understand.

The "gentry" had a bit more status than the mere gentleman (and usually their own land), consisting of the titles of "Baronet," "Knight," and "Esquire." Knights originally fought for the Barons, had the power to "meet justice" and bear arms, but did not collect taxes off of landed estates, except as employed by their Lords. They might, however, own land and so collect rents; but this was a private matter, not a function of rule. Esquires (squires, scutaria, "shield bearer") were apprentices and attendants of Knights. The title of "Baronet" was created by James I in 1611 simply to sell and raise money. Both Baronets and Knights are addressed as "Sir," usually using their first names, or both first and last names (e.g. Sir Karl Popper). The equivalent of Knighthood for women uses the title "Dame" (e.g. Dame Agatha Christie). The most famous Baronet may be the fictional Sir Henry Baskerville, of the Sherlock Holmes novel The Hound of the Baskervilles. The title of a Baronet is hereditary, while that of a Knight is not.

A basic Knight is a "Bachelor," but Knighthoods could also belong to Chivalric Orders, like the Bath or Garter. Chivalric Orders could be a large, independent, even sovereign military organizations, like the Hospitalers, Templars, or the Teutonic Knights. The Hospitalers remain a sovereign entity, although with no sovereign territory since the loss of Malta. Or, Orders could be restricted to nobility, or contain Ranks that didn't even involve Knighthood. Thus, the highest Japanese Order, of the Chrysanthemum (1876), was restricted to "sovereigns and members of princely families." The British Order of the Garter (1348) contains only one Rank, like the Chrysanthemum, and actually has a limited number of positions, intended to be like Arthur's Round Table. The British Orders of the Bath (1725) and of St. Michael and St. George (1818) have three Ranks, the Grand Cross, the Knight (or Dame) Commander, and the Companion. Companions, however, are not Knights. More elaborate is the Order of the British Empire (1917), with a Grand Cross (GBE), Knight (or Dame) Commander (KBE or DBE), Commander (CBE), Officer (OBE), and Member (MBE). Only possessors of the GBE or KBE/DBE are Knights.

At times, 19th century British Chivalric Orders might strike people, even those claiming them, as silly. Thus, the Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, a CMG, might be read as "Call Me God," the Knight Commander, KCMB, as "Kindly Call Me God," and the Grand Cross, GCMB, as "God Calls Me God."

The title of "Esquire" is somewhat informal, traditionally used by some, like Barristers (and all American lawyers), to indicate a certain respectability, and otherwise to indicate something more than mere gentle status. In Britain, a Barrister is a lawyer who actually argues cases in Court, as opposed to a Solicitor, who is hired by clients and who arranges for the services of a Barrister. Barrister's fees were honoraria and thus not really wages, which would be demeaning. Thus, a Barrister was a gentleman, while a Solicitor, a professional, was not. The fiction that a Barrister was not a professional was shared by others whose occupation would originally have been regarded as clerical, i.e. actual Clergy or any kind of Academic. Calling a physician a "Doctor" is an extension of this, since doctor literally means "teacher" and is an academic title. In the Middle Ages, Doctors, whether medical or otherwise, did not perform professional services for clients -- the practice of mediaeval medicine was often in the hands of barbers and other casual practitioners. Among the first professional physicians were surgeons, who long retained the title "Mr." Before anesthesia and antisepsis, surgeons could not perform anything like modern surgery. They were specialists who did what now would count as minor surgery, e.g. "cutting for stone."

Below gentry and gentlemen were the non-gentle commoners, the villains, the peasants, the serfs -- all those who were expected to till the land and pay the taxes but did not have the right to bear arms. This used to be a very significant difference. For instance, English press gangs, who seized men for naval service, were supposed to leave "gentlemen" alone. Dress and speech would ordinarily serve to distinguish gentlemen, but presence in the wrong kinds of establishments could compromise this. Now, however, even though the Peerage still exists in Britain, all honest citizens would be regarded as "gentle"; and the term "lady" has tended to substitute for the earlier "gentlewoman." The "good man" and "good woman" used to politely address peasants and laborers have passed out of use, except to deliberately sound somewhat condescending.

What didn't fit into the original system very well were the inhabitants of the cities that began to grow with the end of the isolation of Western Europe and the advent of trade and money, mainly starting in the 11th Century. These were the "Burgers," the "Bourgeoisie," who outrageously acted like nobility, ruling and defending themselves, sometimes even welcoming peasants into their protection ("City air makes free"). Cities generated cash wealth that could be taxed, usually in exchange for charters and privileges, enabling Kings, or whoever, to acquire a cash income, with which professional bureaucrats and professional armies could be hired, avoiding the circumstances that necessititated feudalism in the first place. With a professional army, and no need for a feudal levy, Kings could even expect the nobility to buy their military commissions. This domesticated the Barons in England and, with a little more difficulty, in France. In Germany, however, as we've seen, many feudal vassals became independent sovereigns -- until scooped up, mostly, by Prussia.

The table at left summarizes the feudal hierarchy. "Arch-Duke," since it is unique and anomalous, has been left out. "Grand Duke" straddles the boundary between Princes and Barons since we do have cases of independent Grand Duchies, as in Germany or with Lithuania -- where the alternative is to call them "Grand Princes." The complication of Orders of Knighthood that extend to persons who are not knights has been avoided, and alternative versions of the titles are not given.

"Hierarchy" is itself a curious word, since it literally means "sacred (hierós) rule (arkhé)." Feudal hierarchies are not particularly sacred, but of course the term has been borrowed from something that was regarded as sacred, the (Christian/Roman) Church. The structure of priests, bishops, archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, with the Pope later claiming complete supremacy, was the original and proper "hierarchy," as the Church became an organized institution that actually was ruled. Judaism originally had authoritative priests, and so a real hierarchy; but in the Middle Ages this had been lost, and Jewish religious authorities were only influential to the extent of their reputation for learning and holiness. Something similar was the case in Islâm, where the Caliphate was a religious office but basically a secular authority with religious duties. The Islâmic state was based on the establishment of the Islâmic religion, but rulers did not themselves have much religious authority and, over the centuries, became increasingly merely military. True religious authorities might exercise power as judges, but the real influence of either judges or non-judges depended, again, on their reputation for learning and holiness. This reflected the principle of (Orthodox) Islâmic Law that religious authority was ultimately by Consensus. The Caliph was not even a priest, much less a Pope.

The full elaboration of European feudalism thus, one suspects, developed by deliberate analogy to the Church. The analogy was maintained in the doctrine of the "Three Estates," by which society was seen as consisting of three parts, the Nobility, the Churchmen, and the Commoners. Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals might, significantly, be called "Princes" of the Church. But while feudalism has come and gone, taking most of the nobility with it, the Church still exists, with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, especially, now extending right around the world, with Popes still elected as they have been for centuries.

Notes

• Military Ranks taken from this website