Ruling the Realm

 By: Kai Le

Portrait of Charlemagne (742 - Aachen, 814), King of Franks and Lombards and Emperor of Holy Roman Empire, standing with model of Palatine Chapel, Painting by Scheuren

Rulership. One word conjures up a dynamic tapestry of human civilization, ranging from the earliest chieftains of the Mesolithic to the presidents and prime ministers of today. The concept of a ruler has permeated the fabrics and narratives of religions and cultures all over the world. When historical figures employed immense amounts of power ineffectively or unjustly, it was often to the detriment of their subjects. 

In this context, the Middle Ages prove a particularly fruitful ground. While medieval rulers may evoke visions of crown-wearing, iron-fisted tyrants whose reigns were characterized by self-indulgence and incompetence, a deeper dive reveals a nuanced understanding of governance by many leaders and high-ranking officials. The texts of many of these high-ranking officials disprove the misconception of rulers governing without direction or adherence to prior political traditions. A well-defined conception of virtuous and effective leadership permeated from the lowliest hamlets to the loftiest walls of the palace. People could identify bad rulership in satirical folk tales or political treatises.  

To understand the principles of effective leadership, rulers often sought guidance from the works of great political scholars and theorists. In particular, the works of Hincmar of Reims and Nizam Al-Mulk remain illuminating examples. The former was the Archbishop of Reims and a key advisor in the reign of Charles the Bald and his eldest son Louis the Stammerer. The latter was a powerful vizier in the Seljuk Empire. Their writings explore the qualities and virtues that distinguish a good ruler - a leader capable of steering a realm toward prosperity and stability. To this end, we can first examine Hincmar’s work, On the Governance of the Palace. 

From the start, Christian religious virtue remains one of the key facets of good rulership in his view. Hincmar emphasizes the subservience of the monarch to God arguing, “In every respect, without obstinacy, he should honor the ecclesiastical laws, if he does not wish to offend the King of kings”(Herlihy 213). This idea was common, reflected in the Gelasian Doctrine - or the Doctrine of Two Swords - which expresses the Christian belief that all secular authority must bend before God.

In this vein, the king must rule with pious righteousness, selecting judges and bishops only with consideration toward their love for God and justice. This approach to rulership, epitomized by Hincmar's emphasis on divine responsibility and the structured organization of the court, stands in stark contrast to the "might makes right" philosophy prevalent in modern understandings of political power. Instead, it is almost a "what would Jesus do" principle, lauding virtuous leadership guided by religion and ethics rather than raw power. 

Hincmar also presents an ideal royal administration and palace, based on his knowledge of the court under Charles the Bald and Charlemagne, offering insight into medieval rulership while also highlighting its relevance in modern governance.

Hincmar's delineation of court positions and emphasis on the competence of individual officials mirrors modern management principles. For instance, akin to a United States president appointing their cabinet, Hincmar underscores the importance of a well-structured administration to ensure effective governance - "the strength of the realm rested upon these other officers" (Herlihy 217) - emphasizing the critical role played by competent and specialized officials in managing the affairs of the kingdom. In essence, Hincmar's approach anticipates modern management theories that advocate delegation to leverage the collective judgment and expertise of a ruler's advisors and officials.

Hincmar elaborates on the delegation of duties, suggesting that the king should reserve his attention for matters of utmost importance while entrusting his councilors to deal with lesser affairs. The organization of two annual meetings further demonstrates Hincmar’s belief in structured governance. The first assembly determined the status of the entire realm for the remainder of the year, while the second assembly, held with important men and principal councilors, began the consideration of affairs for the coming year. This system allowed for thorough deliberation and thoughtful planning, ensuring the realm was effectively managed, while also effectively shielding the king from more public scrutiny, delegating those activities to his officials. 

Hincmar’s sensibilities concerning governance are strikingly reminiscent of those advocated by Nizam al-Mulk, vizier of the Seljuk Empire, albeit with some notable differences. While Hincmar emphasizes the delegation of duties and structured governance within the court, Nizam al-Mulk, in his renowned work, the Book of Government, focuses more directly on the role of the king in dispensing justice and maintaining order within the realm. 

In the Eastern tradition, Nizam al-Mulk emphasizes the king's personal involvement in matters of justice and governance. For instance, the ruler is expected to be far more visible. In contrast with the two-year annual meetings that Hincmar describes, Nizam al-Mulk asserts that “It is absolutely necessary that on two days in the week, the king should sit for the redress of wrongs”(Al-Mulk 13). Al-Mulk justifies this point with evidence of one of the Samanid kings, Isma’il ibn Ahmad, who remained on horseback in the city square of Bukhara until the midday prayers to hear the issues of his realm. His centrality and appearance to the public effectively neutralized dissent and the fomenting of insurrection. 

In addition to personal involvement in the dispensation of justice, Nizam al-Mulk emphasizes constant inquiry into the affairs of tax collectors and officials. He warns against negligence in overseeing the actions of these individuals reflecting Nizam al-Mulk’s emphasis on the king actively monitoring and regulating the actions of his subordinates to ensure the welfare of his subjects. That is not to say that Nizam al-Mulk rejected the concept of a thriving court life.

Al-Mulk advises having constant conservations with wise men and enjoying the intimacy and companionship of so-called “boon companions”. These boon companions, close sycophantic “yes-men” for the king, should allow the king to relax and consult in businesses of pleasure and entertainment. However, the king should still exercise caution and ensure that he is not getting too carried away with matters of pleasure to attend to his kingdom. 

The story of Bagram Gor serves as a cautionary tale in this regard. While Gor was busy “drinking and hunting” (Al-Mulk 23), his vizier plundered the country, impoverishing the peasantry and alienating the nobles. Only when Bagram Gor returns to his responsibilities as a king, does he regain control and his nation prospers. The story underscores the importance of active, vigilant management of one’s realm, where a lack of active engagement and responsibility paves the way to  for disaster. 

Akin to the previous analogy, Hincmar's approach aligns more closely with the role of the President of the United States. For the president, the focus is on strategic planning, delegation, and ensuring that competent individuals are placed in key positions to execute tasks effectively. On the other hand, Nizam al-Mulk's style resembles a visionary leader like Steve Jobs, known for his hands-on involvement in all aspects of his company's operations. Nizam al-Mulk's insistence on direct oversight by the king in all matters reflects a more personal and involved approach to governance, akin to Jobs' micromanagement of every aspect of Apple's products and operations.

Ultimately, these historical insights serve as a timeless reference for leaders navigating the complexities of governance. Whether in the Oval Office, Silicon Valley, or a Medieval Palace, the choice between being a strategic conductor or a hands-on visionary shaping every detail defines two different styles of leadership, each with its strengths and challenges.

Sources:

Al-Mulk, Niẓām, et al. The Book of Government or Rules for Kings: The Siyar al-Muluk or Siyasat-Nama of Nizam al-Mulk. Routledge, 2015. 

Herlihy, David. The History of Feudalism. Humanity Books, 1998.