tell me about the lands of the czech/bohemian crown
like, what is the meaning behind proclaiming that entity?
as far as i can tell nothing had actually changed, they were a bunch of realms with a joint ruler
(some of which might have had some other ties, i.e. bohemia+moravia)
or any 'lands of X crown' concept basically
is it just the ruler saying 'alright things might have been kinda independent until now but from now on all of yous are one single together thing'? is it just some crusaderkings-tier 'prestige thing' with no actual real tangible impact? or conversely is that like a proper political and legal thing with real consequences?
Late Middle Ages in area east of Germany (Bohemia, Hungary and Poland, in fact even Denmark and Sweden) was characterized by emergence of nobility and the diet as the most important entity in the state.
Curiously a lot of monarchs of those countries had massive problems with siring sons, which led to constantly changing families on the throne. Personal unions and elections of the kings became endemic.
Oftenly king was a foreigner, lived outside the kingdom in some other realm of his, was mistrusted or unpopular.
Noblemen were native, they had seen themselves as the true representatives of their country's interests, unlike an alien monarch with various interest somewhere else.
Thus the concept of the "Crown" was established, which disattached existence of the state from the person of the monarch and his dynasty. It was supposed to preserve state's territory and protect domination of the native nobility through various ancient privileges and the parliament which noblemen firmly controlled.
>>978667
so the concept of a crown of bohemia was some sort of a 'proto federation' or a 'unified state'? as in uniting various realms together in an administrative/political way so that in the event of a crisis in succession these would not be broken apart
how did that work then? were the people (or rather the ruling nobility) all for it?
because i have a hard time imagining the concept being kept alive without their consent - what's stopping them from saying 'bye lads i'm out, t. duke of [some part of the realm]'
i just have a hard time picturing what it actually, 'tangibly' meant
>>978752
>what's stopping them from saying 'bye lads i'm out, t. duke of [some part of the realm]'
An army
>>978943
what army? who's to say the rest of the united realm is against the duke? what about duke's new friends don't they also have an army? or indeed the duke himself?
>>978752
Brandenburg, Luxemburg, Oberpfalz - these areas were indeed ruled by bohemian kings at some points, but that was all they really shared; they were never part of Bohemia. Bohemian crown = Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia
>were the people (or rather the ruling nobility) all for it?
Of course. The whole idea was to preserve a very advantageous status quo. Bohemian kings through centuries gave noblemen lots of privileges and laws. They wanted to keep it that way.
>'bye lads i'm out, t. duke of [some part of the realm]'
There was nobody who could have done this, neither in Bohemia proper nor in Moravia. Silesian dukes were jealously kept out of kingdom's business by the bohemian nobility. Besides they were always dividing their principalities among sons, thus they were permanently crippled by debts and mismanagement. Their only alternative would have been to submit to Poland, which they were not keen to, maybe because they had seen themselves as the rightful heirs to that kingdom. Large part of Silesia by 15th c. was ruled directly by the king of Bohemia, this included Breslau, biggest city in the province. Whenever some ducal line extinguished, their lands were automatically annexed by the monarch. There was a period when king of Bohemia was older brother of the king of Poland, and then another one (Sigismund) held principalities in Silesia as a vassal of Bohemia. Later Sigismund took polish throne and gave up those silesian lands without any problems.
>>979025
so basically the nobility would be guaranteed power under this scheme, which in turn meant they would support its 'unity', which then in turn meant a more reliable power base for the king - could you perhaps expand on that part? like, what exactly was in it for the kings themselves, was it just the hassle of not having to juggle a dozen different parts of the state and instead having the benefit of them sort of being united?
thanks for the informative answers!
/his/ really is a homework board now.
>>978361
Okay, you're not getting it, and other guy isn't explaining it well.
The point was to make the Kingdom of Bohemia a permanent immutable state. It could not be divided up. So if a dynasty died out, instead of having a bunch of claimants carving up the county and possibly incorporating the parts they got into their own country, Bohemia would always have one king, and be one kingdom.
This was highly beneficial for the nobility as it preserved their legal rights and powers, and made it so they would never be subject to a different kingdoms laws. It was good for the king, because it basically gave him a stale unchallenged kingdom.
>>979086
>Bohemia would always have one king, and be one kingdom.
The constituent parts of the Czech Crown Lands are not the same thing as the Kingdom of Bohemia.
>>979067
I'd rather a dozen threads like this than one more Holocaust/WW2/Bismarck/Voltaire/Christianity memery.
>>979140
No, but effectively they were.
>>979140
>>979166
i still kinda dont get one thing lads...
what made the proclamation of the lands of the boh crown different to, i dont know, wenceslas the 123rd ruling the kingdom of bohemia, ruling moravia, ruling silesia etc. just like before
i mean as far as i can tell nothing changed in this regard - these realms were ruled by him (or owed fealty/were vassals etc.) in the exact same way as before
like, "in practice" would have anything changed? what did it mean in terms of politics?
you say
>So if a dynasty died out, instead of having a bunch of claimants carving up the county and possibly incorporating the parts they got into their own country, Bohemia would always have one king, and be one kingdom.
but how is that different from the way things were before? the heirs would not have changed, the guys with a claim to the various realms would not have changed...
what is stopping foreign powers from ignoring that?
>>979194
Have you tried reading wiki? It explains it pretty well.
Anyway, difference is, in the example given earlier about the czech crown being held be the king of polands older brother. Under normal dynastic laws, if the older brother died, the king of poland would inherit all the lands. Now the kingdom of bohemia would remain as is, but moravia and silesia would be folded into poland. With the Czech Crown, whoever got the crown got all the lands as one lump, and that lump could not be divided.
There were several factors stopping people from ignoring this. One was a simple obsession with law and tradition. Even kings generally would not dare to alter traditional boundries of kingdoms or duchies. Look at the king in prussia for another example.
Second, if they tried the nobility would probably revolt en masse, so that would be problematic.
Third, why? Since the crown itself could be inherited dynastically, allowing it to be split up would not be beneficial, as you would see your lands likely slowly shrink over generations, as opposed to every heir inheriting a complete kingdom.
4th, when a dynasty did die out, usually the new king was elected by the nobility, so the new king would owe as much to the nobility and the status quo as they did to him.
>>979194
oftentimes there was no direct heir from the dynasty as it died out by the sword.
so instead of risking the break up of country (Moravian dude tells himself that he could now establish his own
shit independant on K. of Bohemia, so he splits of and so on)
they made the whole thing of Bohemia, Silesia and Moravia directly inheritable by the next elected monarch,
thus making vassals before the death of past king directly the vassals of the next elected king)
I think
>>979227
i have read the wiki but it did not really clear up about the "practicality" of it
i sort of got the theoretical "indivisibility" parts of it, but not really what it actually meant, like "why would anyone bother with it when they ruled all the individual lands anyway" - hence the questions about a duke "just leaving" etc.
many thanks for the answers guys!
