[help me] the administration hierarchy - History Forum ~ All Empires

The titles are only signifiers, only clues. The problem is that in post conquest Britian a feudal hierarchy existed. Its all based around personal relations and direct contact. Who is friends, in contact with, has the ear of whom.

You must also bear in mind that we are dealing with a land based economy and land dictates power. From land one gains rents, good in kind, supplies and power. These are ones fiefs, ones demesne.

The whole concept of a structure noble hierarchy (King to Baron etc) is a largely later invention when feudalism begins to wane, using already esxiting titles. Though saying the hierarcy goes King, Prince, Duke etc etc etc may very well be true today and has been for quite sometime, spplying it to the actual period in question is misleading. Its ther inter-personal relation ships between a King and his nobles that counts. The King is for the most part a manager of these nobles.

The term Count and its uses was something the Normans introduced to Britain when they came over.

Earl is a Saxon term of administration, the ruler of the an English Shire. When the Normans arrived they merely intergrated into the already existant Anglo-Saxon administrative system. which as afr as tax collecting was concerend was better than what could be found ini Normandy and the continent. Its only found in England.

Baron, often a catch all term for a member of the nobility.

Titles often go hand in hand with a designated area of land. Earl and the Shire for example. Though they can purely just be a title, a designation of rank and importance. The areas of land are not set nor do they have to be of a specific size, Dukedoms are invariably larger than counties because 1 duke may command the vassalage of several counts.

In England it has tended to proceed as in importance of titles as poste by other above. But the King is just the manager of all these nobles. They are tied to him through bonds of kinship and fealty. Though a Duke may command the felaty of Maquises and Marquises of Counts etc, they dont neccessarily stack and proceed from one to the other. The personal ties and relationships between individuals play very important aprt.

A lowly noble, with a small fief and small income who has a relatively low social standing as a relatively low standing as a result may hold a title granted to him by the King persoanlly. Sneschal, Chamberlain, Marshall, Constable, Justicar etc. These are administrative terms with tasks and roles attached to them. Suddenly this relatively minor person may command greater respect and importance in administration that a Duke, even though his actual fief and lands dont back him up.

Also the number and size of ones lands are important. You can be a relatively unimportant noble but by controling a large demesne you can increase your effective power even if its not backed up by your title. Richard Neville the Earl of Warwick in the later 15th Century was the most powerful man in the Kingdom, he was called the Kingmaker, though only an earl he possessed so great a number and size of lands around Britian that he was very very powerful. Henry II of England, was King of England, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aqutaine Count of Anjou, Count of Touraine, and Count of Maine amongst others. His relationshi as Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine to the King of France made him subservient but he possessed more lands and influence and wealth than the French Crown, aswell as being King of a different country.

For example. The Count of Evreux rules the county of Evreus in Normandy. Under him he has numerous knights and vasslas to whom he has given land and property. In reutnr they serve him. Ofcourse he has his own property to support him. The Count of Evreux in turn is the vassal of the Duke of Normandy, who may very well have given him the county (or in the past his family by the dukes ancestor etc). He ofcourse owes him fealty and service. The Duke of Normandy in turn owes his serviceto the King of France as his vassal (this is the cause of many of the probloems between England and France in the Middle Ages). Though the Count of Evreux maintains a lower position than say the Duke of Burgundy, thats is purely social and prestigious. If the Count of Evreux owes no fealty or allegiance to the Duke of Burgundy, then he is his superior only in name and prestiege. If the Count of Evreux was then made Marshall of France by the king, because they knew eachother and got on well, then he in theory would maintain a position greater than the Duke Burgundy, or Normandy.

Essentially the titles are a social marker and often those social markers tie up with actual geogrpahic and economic relaity. But not always so, they arent set in stone. The state of ones inter-personal relationship with the King or ones superiror is the governing factor and must be borne in mind.

As far as sizes and compositions of Baronies, Dukedoms and Counties are concerned. The titles obviously relate to a geographic area. It is not uncommon to find wihin a Duchy a certain number of Counties (and therefore Counts) these counties would be broken up smaller into other areas with lesser members of nobility ruling them. All would be tied by fealty and kinship to their Count and thus their Duke and thus their king etc. However the number of smaller units with in the larger ones are not static or defined. Thus there will not always be 6 counties in 1 Duchy etc. Each is specific and unique to its particular circumstances. Nor do there have to be any, The Count of Anjou or the Count of Toulouse have a county but they not part of a Duchy. They exists as their own territorial units. Thus they are the pinnacles of local administration before the King. Whereas the Duke of Aqutaine does include the County of Bordeaux or Lusignan.