Dear reddit historians,
I know that Charlemagne's court was peripatetic; He moved from one palace to another in his realm. I also have the general impression that many medieval European monarchs used to tour in their kingdoms to attend religious ceremonies, resolve disputes, and hear grievances.
In China, Qin Shi Huang toured in eastern China with his entourage multiple times. However, It seems to me that many Chinese emperors in later times just stayed in the palace and rarely left the capital. The emperors were often portrayed as distant and inaccessible to the common people.
My questions is in the title: how peripatetic were monarchs before modern era? How often do monarchs travel and tour around? Is being peripatetic an established form of governing in the Western tradition?
I thank you for your answers in advance.
In China, from Qin Shi Huang to the end of the dynastic system, there was never a tradition that the Emperors should travel around the country. There were a few times in the Tang when the Emperors would go from the capital at Chang'an to the secondary capital at Luoyang when there were supply issues at Chang'an. A few Emperors also left the capital for battle, with a few times occurring in the Tang, Song, Ming, and possibly other dynasties. However, being peripatetic was not a customary way of governing in China.
In Japan, the Emperors would occasionally move between mansions in Kyoto, as opposed to staying in one palace. However, they still stayed in the capital.
It is important to understand that the reasons behind these mobile courts was not necessarily because it was preferred by the monarchs that used them as much as dictated by the necessity of the situation in that particular state. Establishing a capital from whence a polity can be ruled means that you also must have certain mechanisms in place, most notably some form of bureaucracy through which instructions and power can be delegated. A monarch living in a capital and ruling from said capital is not on the front lines of government. Those court cases you mention are one such front line; if the monarch is not going to judge them, then someone must be appointed to do so. This may seem simple, but by granting that power to someone else it means that the monarch is by necessity reducing their own power.
The feudal system, and more importantly, the idea of traveling to court to pay homage, is really the end game of this problem. As polities get larger, you need to delegate obviously. So, the solution is to establish a centralized court to which the nobility of your kingdom, performing the duties you might have performed otherwise, must travel to and acknowledge your superiority. This of course frees up the king's time for other duties, and in theory provides better governance for the entire realm. Still, establishing a permanent capital and court requires some measure of security and authority on the part of a monarch to begin with, and a great deal of work and oversight on the part of the monarch to maintain. Otherwise, those nobles you appointed to act in your stead will simply go the whole nine yards and really act in your stead.
I also think it is important to note the difference between a traveling monarch and a traveling court. For example, during Hadrian's travels through the Roman Empire, the capital still remained in Rome, and from there the bureaucracy continued to operate the levers of state. On the other hand, an early Frankish king is going to be moving his whole court around, and the 'bureaucracy' such as it is, is going to move along with him.
Edit: I'm genuinely confused by the Downvoting. Idjet clearly misread my post. I invite someone who hasn't misread my post the way Idjet did to comment?