h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

European politics were hardly as complex as they are in today's world.

The various Kings around Europe owed their Kingship to the Pope. (at least in the eyes of the Pope). The major players were Spain, France and England. While Scandanavia, Germany and even Italy were hardly countries at all at that point.

Alliances were invariably linked to what a particular ruler thought of the Pope (and vice versa). Papal politics were complex in comparison. The Pope insisted on sending Italian Bishops to England. Can one ask why? A political answer would be the most accurate one.

I don't know that I agree without reservation that European politics were less complex. They were simpler in the sense that you needed fewer people and cash to participate but the individual stakes even for the most intelligent and skilful players were very, very high. How many Lord Chancellors of England in the 16th Century were dweebs and how many died in their own beds? I would believe zero and zero but I may have missed a few.

Moments in history like the Smalkaldic League make me reluctant talk about what a country was in the 16th century. It was a curious league that sought political and religious independence even though it remained Roman Catholic in parts (note also that France sided with the League but England didn't!)

I really don't know that the Pope was in the centre of people's thinking (except for religious reformers). The Pope was effectively the chaplain of the Emperor: appointed by the Emperor and the Pope did the will of the Emperor. The notion of the King not being part of God's world order was meaningless to pretty much everyone including the Pope. If the King or Emperor said jump, the bishops, clergy and Lord Chancellors all asked "how high". If this is taken it is logical conclusion you end up with Wycliff's and Cranmer's position of the complete subjugation of the church to the King (and both to God).

I meet people (present company excluded) who like to read the 19-20th century internationalism and independence of the Papacy back into previous centuries. Unfortunately the Popes often had no idea of what happened outside of Rome so caught up were they in local Roman politics.

It was called the Holy Roman Empire wasn't it? Well it was hardly holy in any sense of the word, but the second word "Roman" forces us to look to Rome for all the political intrigue. Kings were crowned by the Pope and ruled under the Papal authority. Unlike today the Pope could gather an army and use it to invade countries to punish them that failed to agree with him. I recall the Bohmeian wars as an example.

The Lollards , who in spite of the Papal authorites, preached to the masses, did so with that authority in the back of their minds. Read Fox's book of martyrs each of these people felt the direct force of the Pope in their lives.

Probably the so called average citizen felt little influence of the Pope since life was hard and getting an income from it difficult. Meeting varous priests on the road and dealing with their Italian or Latin might have given them a sense of "otherworldliness" since superstition held sway over their minds for the most part. A few words in Latin could assuage their fears.

Even such small potatoes such as the Smalkaldic league must have based their strategies on what the pope did or didn't do. (what they thought they could get away with, without generating the ire of the Pope).

The one thing that mediated against the Pope's authority was the time and cost of transportation. It took much longer for a person to travel from Rome to England than is does today and yes people could get away (physically) from the Papal legates but still I think that it remained the most important issue of the day.