The first modern state?

I´ve continued my reading of the heavy scholarly tome "Peasants, Lords and State. Comparing Peasant Conditions in Scandinavia and the Eastern Alpine Region, 1000-1750", edited by Tove Iversen, John Ragnar Myking and Stefan Sonderegger. It´s probably still a common idea in some circles that the historical development of Sweden is somehow unique (and uniquely good and benign), for instance due to "peasant self-government" at the local level since time immemorial, and the peasant estate in the Diet since at least the 15th century. In this scenario, Sweden always had a strong and free peasantry, something that eventually led to the creation of our advanced modern democracy. While this view isn´t *entirely* out there, it´s interesting to note that many other European nations or territories have a strikingly similar self-conception: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Tyrol, England...and probably others still. So already on this level, there is nothing "unique" about Sweden. It´s of course an interesting question whether or not there is something "pan-Germanic" or "Indo-European" about this instead, at least on the level of ideology.

The tome under review doesn´t discuss this, however. Rather, it tries to take a more realistic and empirical look at the actual conditions on the ground, and these (inevitably) turn out to be a more messy story. One example is Tyrol, a historical region in western Austria and northern Italy. During the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, Tyrol was one of many self-governing territories within the "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation". During the Carolingian period, free peasants were heavily represented at the assemblies ("things") convened by the local counts. Of course, many peasants during this period were *not* free. The theory that these assemblies had evolved out of the "Markgenossenschaften", old areas managed and ruled communaly by Germanic tribesmen during the Migrations, has apparently been abandoned by modern historians. Be that as it may, whatever influence the free peasants may have had eroded during the eleventh century, when the nobility and the clergy usurped the powers of the "things". '

During the 13th century, the situation changed again. The peasantry was allowed to create local organs of self-government at the initiative of the princely rulers. The process is mostly associated with Meinhard II, who ruled Tyrol from 1258 to 1295. Meinhard´s goal was to create a centralized regime centered on the princely rulers, and one historian has actually dubbed Tyrol "the first modern state". This project led Meinhard into conflict with both the nobility and the clergy, who rather preferred the more erstwhile feudal system. Meinhard nearly extinguished the Tyrolean nobility, either by inheriting or ransoming their noble rights, or by simply driving them away from the territory altogether. He also gained control over the important ecclesiastical territory of Brixen and Trient. The salt and silver mining were both controlled by the prince, generating a substantial revenue. 

Meinhard´s so-called "concentration" (centralization) freed the peasantry from feudal control. In its place came a kind of local self-government at the village level, but also new dependencies on the emerging central power. The local assembly, known as Gemeinde, consisted of all household heads in the village. It´s most important function was to administer the Gemain, the communal land surrounding most villages. They also took decisions concerning field rotation, road maintenance, and the like. On these points, the Gemeinde apparently had a high degree of autonomy. However, the prince reserved the right to use some of the communal forests, since the timber was needed in the metallurgy industry. The Gemeinde also had to compile tax rolls, collect taxes and muster soldiers. Here, the local assemblies de facto functioned as the long arm of the central power! 

Shortly after the death of Meinhard, another important development took place, as the Gemeinde were fused with local courts known as Gerichte. These achieved "lower jurisdiction", and could hence pass judgements in cases involving local conflicts and finable offenses (violent offenses were part of the princely "higher jurisdiction"). 

For some reason, modern Tyrolean regionalists claim that a document often called "the Magna Carta of 1342", issued by the Emperor Louis the Bavarian, is the legal foundation of freedom, equality, democracy and peasant participation in the affairs of Tyrol. One of the contributors to this volume spends some time debunking this claim, pointing out that some copies of this document were never even sent to Tyrol, while others seem to have been rescinded shortly after being issued. The real champion of democracy in Tyrol turns out to be Frederick IV (Frederick of the Empty Pockets), who was Duke of Austria from 1402 to 1439. This is richly ironic. Yes, this is the very same Frederick who attacked the Appenzell Swiss when *they* demanded freedom, and lost the famous Battle of the Stoss in 1405! 

While Frederick apparently couldn´t get rid of the nobility in the way Meinhard had done, he took other measures to ensure popular support. The Gerichte were included in important political decision-making from 1410, and could select delegates to the the Tiroler Landtag from 1420. Note that the Gerichte were congruent with the Gemeinde, the local "things". In the Landtag (the local Diet), the peasants and burghers consistently sided with Duke Frederick against the noble opposition. Of course, in practice the peasant delegates to the Landtag were from the upper layers of the peasantry. Others were inkeepers. They had usually distinguished themselves as local officials or judges. One of the contributors to this volume believes that the Tyrolean peasants participated more in political events than peasants in other parts of the Holy Roman Empire, but less than in Graubünden or the Swiss confederacy. The situation changed again during the early 16th century, now to the detriment of the peasantry, as "aristocratic absolutism" gained strength. However, this book doesn´t discuss this later development.

The main take away from this volume (so far) is that Sweden, while being unusual in some ways, isn´t an entirely unique special case in Europe. Which is actually a good thing. Reading this study made me feel less claustrophobic!