What is Rank?
In a previous post, we explored the high-ranking princes of medieval society. However, how do we determine the rank of an individual in the first place?
Much of this text is adapted from my dissertation entitled: CITADEL Computational Investigation of the Topographical and Architectural Designs in an Evolving Landscape, which can be found here.
Was a king simply a king?
The social landscape of the medieval world in Europe was culturally, linguistically, and politically diverse—especially in the Holy Roman Empire (HRE), which contained dozens of principalities across a vast stretch of territory. These differences included the nearly innumerable dialectal variations of German, from both Low-German and High-German derivations, and the architectural identities due to variations in types of stone, wood, and mortar.
Most importantly—with regard to rank—the perception of a person’s status was inextricably linked to their origin, as it determined the core of their relations and influence. It is essential to bear in mind that even if two people from different realms are referred to using the same hierarchical term (e.g. duke) in medieval texts, it does not necessarily mean that they were actually perceived as being the same.
For example, a Norman Duke had no equivalent in England prior 1337 because the English did not even have the status of duke until then. When directly compared, a French count held considerably more power and influence than a German count, partially as a vestige of the Early Middle Ages in which the comes were more powerful than the grafio as previously discussed. Even at the highest level—in the context of the High Middle Ages—the King of Bohemia had far less power and influence than the English King, who in turn paled in comparison to the might and influence of Roman-German King.
When the lower status levels are examined with regard to one another and within the context of a meeting of many princes, interpretations of their individual rank are nearly impossible to reach without identifying a method in which to do so. Considering that rank played a major role in the history of the HRE—and Europe in general—it is important to maintain a consistency of terms. After all, the aim of any science is to be both precise and accurate, which is precisely what we aim to do on this substack!
How do we describe medieval society?
It is necessary to keep in mind that interpretations and portrayals of the Middle Ages are heavily impacted by the specific terms used in order to describe the social structure. In his 2010 work regarding the nobility and the ministeriales in the Middle Ages, Werner Hechberger outlined six terms that are often used to describe the phenomenon of medieval society, which warrant particular attention towards their implied connotations:
Caste, a stylistic device used in order to emphasize how one thinks about the delineations between social groups.
Status, a legal term used in order to convey awareness and appreciation.
Ordo, often attributed as a metaphysical, theologically determined functional component.
Class, referencing a group’s relationship to authority and the means of production—a Marxist term that arose only within the past two centuries.
Rank, an ethno-sociological categorization accentuating the hierarchical order of people or families based largely upon reputation or prestige.
Group, a more neutral term, yet with regard to the nobility a differentiation between natural (family and relations) and agreed upon communities (aristocratic societies) can be clearly drawn.[2]
When describing specific facets of medieval society, it is best to use legal/neutral definitions, such as the terms status and group, in order to avoid the modern implications of the term class, the more stylistic caste, and the highly ambiguous rank.
The term ordo ought only to be used in discussions of religious orders, such as the Benedictines or Teutonic Knights, especially within a medieval context. However, the term order can also be used more fluidly, specifically with regard to frames of reference.
Implicit within early medieval society were the concepts of social and legal inequalities that provided the scaffolding for what is often assumed to have been a fundamentally static hierarchical structure. Although notions of inequality were at times legitimized by medieval contemporaries with the support of Old Testament stories and allegories, such as the Fall of Man, the unrighteousness of Cain, and Noah’s curse of his own son, Ham, the overall concept of inequality was regularly challenged.
Even among the lower social status groups, the idea of vertical movement through the social hierarchy, and challenging one’s earthly station was very much alive, as discussed in an earlier article. The romantic idea of the Tugendadel (virtuous noble), who gained nobility not by birth but by action, manifested itself in the Early Middle Ages.
Such examples include William Longsword, an early 10th century Count of Rouen who, although born to a pagan father, lived to be the model of a Christian prince. The development of the virtuous noble led to the expectations of noble behavior described as preudomme,[3] from which the concept of chivalry arose, appearing first in France between the years 1170 and 1220 AD.
The spread of chivalry provided the subject matter for the German high medieval adoration of mythic heroes in poetry by the Minnesänger,[4] such as Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival.[5] This had the effect of romanticizing the opportunity of the virtuous noble, thus encouraging young knights and squires to behave in a manner worthy of nobility.
The general concept of unfreedom encapsulating servitude, bondage, and slavery, would prove more difficult to legitimize from a Christian perspective. Yet its greatest counter-argument came from the many monastic orders who sought to lead a brotherly lifestyle in which each person was equal, though performed different tasks and opposed the oppression of particular groups of people.[6]
What certainly can be stated with regard to all medieval societies is that they allowed for considerable social movement resulting in a dynamic society—more so than other areas of the world at the same period of time.
What is rank then?
‘In general terms, rank can be defined as creating the relation between an order, i.e. the common frame of reference, and the particular position of the individual in that order. Rank can be defined on two levels: firstly, as membership of a certain group and thus a relationship of equality. Secondly, rank can be defined as a hierarchical relationship and consequently in terms of difference and inequality.’[7]
This statement highlights two important aspects above all else when analyzing the rank of an individual: an individual’s relationship to a group as a result of equality or of inequality. Both aspects should be taken into consideration when evaluating a specific individual’s or a group’s position in medieval society, as they could at once be equal to second individual, while still subservient to a third.
To discuss an individual’s rank at any point in time would therefore necessitate a closer examination of their relation to their rulers as well as their personal proceedings. This emphasizes that rank was a product of a multitude of components predicated upon the various interwoven factors that impacted an individual’s standing in society in relation to other groups. These factors included the title of their status, the obligations required of their commission, their social network, their affiliation with the clergy, and certainly not least of all the building type and size of their residence.
Social status played an enormous role in medieval society, yet there lacks a general consensus of how to distinctly differentiate rank across time and region. This was the topic for many of the contributions in the five volume work entitled Rank, in which the authors from volume one of the series posed challenges for future research concerning rank.
Thus, rank can be discussed on two levels:
As a broad interregional and changing phenomenon resulting in superficial interpretations of medieval society;
On a smaller scale, in higher detail, to assess a person’s—or group’s—relationships during a certain period of time, thereby revealing a more accurate interpretation within a particular historical context.
For more reading on this topic, check out these sources:
Crouch, David. The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France 900-1300. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited, 2005.
Hechberger, Werner. Adel, Ministerialität und Rittertum im Mittelalter. Herausgegeben von Lothar Gall. 2. Aufl. Bd. 72. München, Germany: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010.
Huthwelker, Thorsten, und Jörg Peltzer, Hrsg. Princely Rank in Late Medieval Europe: Trodden Paths and Promising Avenues. Bd. 1. 5 Bde. RANK. Politisch-Soziale Ordnungen Im Mittelalterlichen Europa. Ostfildern: Thorbecke Verlag, 2011.
[1] Werner Hechberger, Adel, Ministerialität und Rittertum im Mittelalter, hg. von Lothar Gall, 2. Aufl., Bd. 72 (München, Germany: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010). P. 2.
[2] Ebd. P. 4. All six terms are defined on this page in this order.
[3] David Crouch, The Birth of Nobility: Constructing Aristocracy in England and France 900-1300 (Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited, 2005). P. 29.
[4] Richard Zoozmann, Hrsg., Der deutsche Minnesang: Liebeslieder des Mittelalters (Cologne: Anaconda Verlag GmbH, 2011).
[5] Wolfram von Eschenbach, Parzival, übers. von Wolfgang Spiewok (Köln: Anaconda Verlag GmbH, 2008).
[6] Hechberger, Adel, Ministerialität und Rittertum im Mittelalter. P. 1.
[7] Jörg Peltzer, „Introduction“, in Rank and Order: The Formation of Aristocratic Elites in Western and Central Europe, 500-1500, hg. von Jörg Peltzer, 1. Aufl., Bd. 4, 4 Bde. (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2015), 13–28. P. 14.
Years ago, I did a job which involved arranging events involving various functionaries and local nobles. For meals, the seating plan was determined by status, which could complicated if the person in question had a dual status, e.g. was Lord Lieutenant of the county and also had a title. It's the only job I've ever done where a copy of Debrett's was kept in order to identify correct address and precedence.