Fragile Fürstenherrschaft im spätmittelalterlichen Europa
| Title in English | Fragile princely rule in late medieval Europe |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2026 |
| Type | Editorship of scientific publication |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | Fragile princely rule? A pleasing phrase for a cumbersome topic? Although it may appear so, the phrase is not due to alliteration, even though this is quite obvious; one could also have spoken of fluidity or flexibility. When we began discussing the topic that now forms the basis of our conference, we initially focused only on the Middle Ages, on fragile power relations in Western and Central (or Eastern Central) Europe, and on kings whom contemporaries or later historians claimed were personally weak, or fragile. Peter Mora's classification of ‘small kings’ in the late German Middle Ages is particularly well known in this regard, i.e. those who reigned for only a very short time, were hardly able to assert themselves or showed significant weaknesses, and therefore encountered resistance and failed, which is why one of them was even deposed. It was always undisputed in this model that the ‘small kings’ stood out as such precisely because they were supposed to rule a large empire and failed to do so. Did the ‘smallness’ of these kings rub off on the empire? It was a fragile king and a fragile form of rule that could bring about fragile conditions in the empire. However, the empire itself and its political and legal orders did not become fragile as a result. At least, that is how it can be described for the German king and the Holy Roman Empire. |
| Related projects: |