1

Recently, I started to read about history as a hobby like I used to when I was a kid. I realized that reading about "generic history" does not do it for me anymore. Instead I have some particular interests that I would like to follow up on, but I do not know where to begging.

Are there examples of two or more medieval kingdoms trying to unify/merge? Yet, they failed to do so because of internal strife, internal resistance, or cultural/religious differences?

From what I remember, I know that kingdoms merging because of marriage or free association was rare. I also remember that there was something about Queen Mary I of England marrying the heir apparent to the crown of Spain, Philip, in 1554, but that is about it.

Any interesting examples, that I could read about (with literature recomendatiosn if poossible)?

ghost
  • 35
  • 1
  • What do you mean by "kingdoms"? Many sovereign states existed as principalities, grand duchies, duchies, etc., across the entire breadth of the (dissolved) Carolingian Empire. (In this context, one might interpret "sovereign" as meaning the family members could marry "royalty" without rules on morganatic issue being triggered.) – Pieter Geerkens Oct 09 '22 at 02:35
  • @Pieter Geerkens Your comment has the worse definition of "sovereign" I have ever seen. – MAGolding Oct 09 '22 at 04:39
  • 1
    @MAGolding: Then proposing a better one should be trivial. I'm open to suggestions in that regard. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 09 '22 at 11:48
  • @Pieter Geerkens. Try looking up dictionary definitions of"sovereign" to see whether it mentions anything about marriages between rulers. There are many cases where sovereign rulers married women belonging the families of their own vassals who were clearly not sovereign. – MAGolding Oct 10 '22 at 17:14
  • I take it that you aren't including two countries trying to conquer each other and failing? – Mark Olson Oct 11 '22 at 00:30
  • @PieterGeerkens I mean "kingdom" by the basic definition of "kingdom" - "a country, state, or territory ruled by a king or queen" not a baron or count, but a king who has vassals beneath him. – ghost Oct 11 '22 at 15:53
  • @MarkOlson No, unification cannot happen because of military action. Two or more kingdoms try to unify/merge without using violence by any other means. Those other means can be going into a union, converting to the other's religion, marrying both royal lines, etc., but then a third party, internal strife, or a similar process - gets in the way and ruins all attempts of unification. – ghost Oct 11 '22 at 15:58
  • @ghost: The majority, indeed perhaps even the overwhelming majority, of independent sovereign states in Medieval and post-Medieval Europe were not kingdoms by that definition. You are excluding, for starters: Burgundy, Bavaria, both Saxonies, Brunswick, Nassau, Cleves, Brandenburg, Teutonic Knights, Hanover, Wurttemberg, Pomerania, and all the independent Arch-Bishoprics in the Holy Roman Empire. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 11 '22 at 16:01
  • Further, you are excluding sovereign 13th to 15th century Italian states of Venice, Genoa, Siena, Florence, Lucca, Bologna, Milan, Medina, Mantua, Savoy, Papal States, as well as the Byzantine Empire and a haf dozen Balkan principalities. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 11 '22 at 16:06
  • Here is a great map of Europe in 1444, with the independent sovereign states indicated. Very, *very* few f these are kingdoms. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 11 '22 at 16:15
  • The best answer to your question might be that of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Joined in a personal union for a considerable time, this ultimately failed so badly it ended in the dismemberment of the Commonwealth in the Partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century. But you disqualify this because Lithuania was a Grand Duchy instead of a kingdom. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 11 '22 at 16:27
  • @PieterGeerkens Out of curiosity, even if I would agree that maybe the pool is too small and needs expanding by including the Papal States, duchies, empires, etc. - would more examples appear of what I am looking of? From what I see in other comments (including yours), if the pool is increased, the only other example is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. – ghost Oct 12 '22 at 12:42
  • @ghost: I expect no-one, including myself, has even begun to look at the many and varied attempts to reunite the various German stem duchies between 900 and 1805. By 1805 there were over a hundred, perhaps even two hundred, fragments of the original 8 or so (depending on just how and when one counts). In 1698 the House of Nassau alone had 10 sovereign princes. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 12 '22 at 15:24

2 Answers2

6

The Rough Wooing (Wikipedia) might be an example of what you are looking for. Mary had inherited the Scottish Throne as she was just 6 days old. While she was still a toddler, the plan was hatched to marry her to the English crown prince Edward (about 5 years older than Mary) and thereby unify England and Scotland. This was the Treaty of Greenwich (Wikipedia).

The Scottish Parliament ultimately decided against it, and did not ratify the treaty. The English tried to make them. It got ugly, very ugly. It didn't work.

Arno
  • 1,175
  • 10
  • 15
  • 2
    By what time scale do you count this as "medieval"? Typically, all events surrounding the christian Reformation movements are considered to be part of the early modern period. – ccprog Oct 08 '22 at 19:26
  • Thank you! I will look into this. – ghost Oct 08 '22 at 19:28
  • 3
    @ccprog As the question mentions the marriage between Mary of England and Philipp of Spain as potential example, I simply assumed that "medieval" was to be understood very liberally here. – Arno Oct 08 '22 at 20:45
  • It did work, just not right then – Richard Oct 09 '22 at 09:12
1

Think that in tipical medieval, feudal times, the King was just the primum inter pares (first among equals). He would not have direct control but over his own personal fiefdoms, for the rest of the country he would rely on the loyalty of other nobles that were his vassals (but, if those were powerful enough, could decide to ignore or even oppose him).

In this situation, usually the King would be unable to change the institutions, and the mobility would have wanted to keep their power.

So, the concept of "merging" kingdoms (or duchies, principalities, whatever) would be alien to those people. What you would have would be the same king holding simultaneously the titles to several entities, but each of them would remain separated. Spain it is a good example, after Isabel and Fernando the kings were always common, but the kingdoms of Castille and Aragon did exist, did have different institutions and laws, and each new king would need to be confirmed as king of each kingdom. And we are talking here about the Modern Age (with formal unification coming only after the Spanish War of Succession, 1714), when the power of kings was considerably increased in relation to the nobility.

As a result, kings and other nobles would amass long lists of titles covering all of their rights to the land they held (and some that they did not held but that they did claim), and that they had got through inheritance or conquest.

That does not mean that the nobility of a country would be uninterested in their king becoming king of other country, but it was... complicated. On one hand, it could mean that these nobles maybe could use the king's influence to get holdings in the new country. In the other hand, it could mean that the king could try to drag them into supporting his campaigns to defend his new kingdom. Or that the king could develop a new support base in the other country and use it to be less dependent on local nobility.

As a side note, perhaps the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a better study case, since as stated elsewhere, the "Spanish" personal union was too late to be considered medieval.

SJuan76
  • 12,416
  • 3
  • 41
  • 49
  • Lithuania was a Grand Duchy; so your final example is specifically excluded despite my attempts to have OP make a sensible extension of his question. – Pieter Geerkens Oct 11 '22 at 16:45