Whenever I see old maps of Europe, they often look like this with hundreds of tiny states. How much did these borders actually impact things like travel, commerce, and communication?
Edit: managed to get my laptop and add citations and extra details. Have left comment in original form however add citations at the bottom.
So am not a fully fledged historian, but have just completed a history and ancient history degree and did many modules about medieval Europe so have some knowledge on the topic. Anyone who might know better, or if I've gotten some of it wrong, feel free to correct me.
So borders back then mostly just dictated which territories/regions the local ruler would have authority over, I.e. with taxation (although taxation was much less in the middle ages than the ancient period), and with raising armies.
Civilians were generally free to travel as they liked especially if they were from similar cultural or religious backgrounds, such as Saxons from Mercia and Wessex, so long as the countries weren't actively in war or a period of high tensions. It was still possible, and actually more common than most people think, for people of one cultural/religious background to visit another. For example, there are several detailed accounts of (i believe they were Frankish although could been wrong) Christian priests travelling to Muslim controlled cordoba in Spain. These were generally peaceful and well received however there are accounts of violence towards the visitors such as when Christian priests started actively denouncing the Muhammed in Cordoba (yes, I know its ironic that I'm using cordoba for both an example of peaceful visits and violent visits but its one of the examples i remember most clearly in my course lol).
However, it was obviously very different for armies or bands of soldiers, as moving troops towards the edge of your own border almost always meant you expected a fight, either to potentially defend your own country from what you believe is an aggressive nation, or to launch an attack of your own. Either way, it was generally seen as an aggressive move and would likely result in a skirmish or war even if you were justified in moving troops to defend yourself from an aggressor.
One of the main reasons europe had so many individual, smaller territories and countries was because of the decrease in general taxation, meaning that rulers were generally weaker and couldn't rule over as much land without their power being undermined, resulting in their smaller size.
Sorry for not posting sources, I'd need to dig up some files from my degree however my laptop is playing up. I'll see if I can get it working tomorrow :)
So I managed to dig up the citations I was looking for and will clarify/correct some of the details I mentioned prior:
‘The embassy of John to Cordoba, 953-6’ in The Life of John, abbot of Gorze by John, abbot of Saint-Arnoul, trans. S. Hamilton, M. Parisse and R. Fletcher
This text depicts a priest called John of Gorze volunteering to visit the king of Spain, Abd-al-Rahman (Caliph of Cordoba, 912-61) on behalf of the East Frankish Emperor Otto I. He was sent to deliver “a letter with his demands and some imperial presents”. He first travelled to Barcelona, staying there for 15 days while a messenger was sent to Tortosa, “which was the first of the towns of the Saracen King.”. John and his companion ended up being delayed for over a month Abd-al-Rahman thought on how to proceed, until they were finally allowed to proceed onto Cordoba. Its believed that the letter contained potentially blasphemous details and John was even advised by some of Caliph’s subjects not to show the letter: “It is dangerous to go to see the king with this letter... I have no doubt of the severity of the law.”, showing that they were treated well and that some were even looking out for the Christians, although this is likely because “Christians were free to practice their worship” in Spain at the time. John was adamant to complete his mission and continued onwards, eventually meeting with the king, and despite the text breaking off towards the end of the meeting, we know from later references to John of Gorze that he lived and retired to a monastery in France. O
‘Liudprand of Cremona, Two embassies to Constantinople in 949 and 968 (Liudprand of Cremona, Retribution, VI.4- 10, and his Embassy) trans. Paolo Squatrini, Liudprand of Cremona, The Complete Works of Cremona (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007)
I didn’t mention this one before however just came across it again and realised it is also relevant:
Liudprand, a clergyman from Cremona in Italy, was sent as a diplomat to Constantinople “due to his knowledge of Greek”, by King Berengar II of Italy in 949. He was entertained by the Byzantine Emperor and allowed to stay there for a while after delivering a letter (although the letter supposedly contained grievous offences to the Emperor from Berengar of which Liudprand was ashamed of and then fell out with the Italian king over).
Liudprand, having exited the services of Berengar and entered the services of the German Emperor Otto I (ruled 962-973), again served as a diplomat to Constantinople in 968. This visit was far less friendly, with Liudprand having disagreements with the new Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (ruled 963-969) and his subjects, frequently being accused of lying about his intentions. Regardless, Liudprand survived to write about his travels, showing that foreigners were still respected even in the case of offending one of the most powerful rulers in Europe.
This concludes what I have to say on civilian travel between countries, and while the references I used are both examples of embassies sent by a foreign ruler, the treatment was still generally the same for the average person. At the end of the day, as long as you didn’t offend anyone and could pay your dues, you were free to travel as you liked during peacetime.
Have just pulled up an essay i wrote entitled ‘To What Extent should the Vikings and Magyars be regarded as “an integral part of European Political Culture rather than an alien and disruptive force” (Maclean)?’, thinking that I discussed the part of my answer about armies and borders but unfortunately did not discuss it in depth and so can’t properly cite it.
However, I did discuss how, depending on who the neighbour was and how aggressive their reputation was, fortifications began to be built on the edge of borders, for example Luitpold Margrave of Bavaria raised a fortress at an Enns crossing, augmenting Bavaria’s defensive network. (Charles Bowlus, ‘The Battle of Lechfeld and its Aftermath, August 955: the end of the Age of Migrations in the Latin West’, 82) With circumstances like this, where a country bordered a hyper aggressive group like the Magyars or Vikings, borders were pretty much completely restricted and it was often treated like a war zone, although this didn’t really have an impact as Christians from west Europe wouldn’t want to travel into Magyar or Viking territory anyway
The maps are, by necessity, much more precise than the actual situation. Also, many of these 'states' were parts of larger units - so all of Germany, and parts of France and the Netherlands were all part of the Holy Roman Empire and subject to its (admittedly loose) jurisdiction. Likewise, the Angevin domains in France were recognised as part of the Kingdom of France, and the various Russian princedoms all part of Kievan Rus. Specifically, travel was very little regulated, as merchants, students, clerics, pilgrims and others all moved between various centres (so to universities at Paris, Oxford, Prague, Wittenberg, Bologna, or the great fairs in Champagne or at Tours, or to Rome and Avignon or to the very many pilgrim sites). Merchants were taxed at toll points - bridges, fairs, town gates, by local authorities (this could be contentious - the Empire tried - unsuccessfully - to stop the Counts of Holland levying tolls on riverine trade). Communication was either by special messenger or just passed on in the ordinary business of travel.
The 'borders' were only clearly defined wherever there was some clear feature - a river or coast or similar. They were more the edges of zones of influence. In sum, it was all cheerfully messy.
