Myths about historic European aristocracy

Refuting some of the most widespread myths about medieval and early modern European aristocracy. How aristocracy transformed from 15th to 18th century.

The image of pre-modern aristocracy in the imagination of modern people is that of a closed caste of a small number of wealthy people. It is seen as a homogeneous and stable social entity with common interests which was eventually deposed from power by the emerging middle classes in the age of rapid political and social changes beginning with the French Revolution in 1789, and then declined overnight.

But none of this is really true. In reality, there was a constant influx of outsiders into aristocracy and noble families kept dying out and being replaced. Historically, there was also a large number of poor nobles. The nobles also used to be much more numerous in different periods of European history and in specific parts of Europe. Most importantly, aristocracy was constantly changing and adapting to the changes around them. As such, aristocracy proved to be a very resilient force and survived various revolutionary upheavals, with aristocrats continuing to play a prominent role for much longer than most people assume.

In the past, aristocracy was not studied as much as a group, allowing many myths to persist. But in the period following the World War II, historians have devoted more time to this subject. I would especially recommend the book by Jonathan Dewald, The European Nobility, 1400-1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1996), which was the first comprehensive history of the European nobility between the Renaissance and the French Revolution. This was the book which first brought my attention to the myths I'm going to write about here and it has been of great help to me, especially since it also includes interesting statistical data.

Was the aristocracy a closed caste?

The first myth I would like to talk about is the myth that aristocracy represented some sort of pure-bred caste, as if it was a separate biological race. Such views became popular in Early Modern Era and influenced modern ideologies. One of the men who held them was Henri de Boulainvilliers, a French nobleman who wrote about history of France in early 18th century. He claimed that the French nobility was descended from the Franks, the Germanic race that had conquered the territory of France in the Early Middle Ages. In his view, the French nobles therefore had a right to inherit the conquest from the Franks, as he also believed that the aristocrats inherited the traits of the conquerors such as being bold and courageous. He viewed the non-nobles, the Third Estate, as descendants of the conquered Gauls and Romans and therefore undeserving to rule. He saw in them servile traits, inherited from the conquered population.

The reason why such theory was espoused and gained popularity among contemporary French nobility was in the dramatic way that the role of nobility changed in the Early Modern Era.

In the Middle Ages, the role of the nobility was defined as being that of a warrior class. Since the 11th century, medieval society was defined as divided among three orders: the clergy (“those who pray”), warrior nobility (“those who fight”) and the workers (“those who work”). But in the Early Modern Era, the warrior aspect of nobility was quickly fading. Already in the 16th century, warrior nobles were a minority among the nobility. The professionalization of the armies, the increased development of technology which made soldiers more expendable and the centralization of monarchies meant that there was really no need for having a specialized warrior class, and the number of nobles who participated in wars kept decreasing.

This meant that the entire existence of nobility and its purpose in society was under question. The nobles therefore had to redefine themselves and find an ideology to justify their privileges. The easiest way to do this was to claim that their noble ancestry made them deserving of these rights. The more useless the nobles were becoming in terms of their function in society as a group, the more they attached importance to their lineage. From 16th century on, they became more interested in their genealogies. This eventually led to outlandish theories such as the one espoused by Henri de Boulainvilliers about the French nobles being pure descendants of the Frankish race. This theory was seen as laughable even during his time, as people constantly saw noble families dying out and being replaced by new ones, continuously diluting any trace of “conquering Frankish blood” that might have been left. But despite this it continued to be relevant into the modern age as it was picked on by various modern ideologies. It was used during the French Revolution, ironically to attack the nobles, when in his famous pamphlet What Is the Third Estate? Abbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès suggested that they should “repatriate to the Franconian forests all the families who wildly claim to descend from the race of the conquerors” and leave the French nation to be “constituted solely of the descendants of the Gauls and Romans.” The French revolutionaries began claiming the Gallo-Roman identity as opposed to the Frankish identity claimed by the nobles, therefore perpetuating Boulainvilliers’ theory and creating a sort of dynamic that would be copied by nationalists elsewhere in Europe.

Boulainvilliers’ theory and the idea of aristocracy being some sort of pure biological race became popular because it was useful for various ideologies of 19th century. The idea of French aristocracy being descendants of Frankish race ruling over the Gallo-Roman Third Estate was picked up in 19th century by Arthur de Gobineau who was developing racist theories which later influenced the Nazis. For those who romanticized the aristocracy, it became a way to legitimize the aristocracy as some kind of biological link with the nation’s early past. There was this image of rural aristocracy being especially connected to the land, presenting a link to the past and serving as a symbol of resistance against industrialization and urbanization. And those who disliked aristocracy could claim that aristocrats belong to a foreign race which had exploited the population. This is how this myth of aristocracy as a pure-bred caste persisted and spread in the modern era through the narratives of various widespread ideologies, as well as romanticized works of fiction.

But such ideas were completely detached from historical reality. The reality was that noble families had been continuously dying out since the Middle Ages and were constantly being replaced by newcomers from the ranks of commoners. In some periods of history this was happening at an astonishingly fast rate, for example during the Late Middle Ages. I will list some examples from research conducted by modern historians that I found in Dewald’s book. Among the lesser nobility of 15th century France, about one-fifth of the family names disappeared with each generation. In the course of a century, most of the group had been replaced by new families. More or less the same happened in Germany. In lower Saxony, just over half of the noble families disappeared between 1430 and 1550. In two regions of the Rhineland, fewer than one-fifth of the 15th century noble families survived in 1550. In Spain, only six of the noble families prominent in 1300 survived to count among the fifty-five titled nobles of 1520. In England, out of 136 peerage families in 1300, fewer than half survived in the male line by 1400, and only sixteen survived in 1500.

During this period, a lot of nobles died a violent death as they were decimated in wars and power struggles. They still presented the warrior class and were integral part of the armies, leading to high mortality among them. Thousands of French nobles were killed during the Hundred Years’ War. All of the major powers in Europe also endured prolonged civil wars during that time. The growing power of the monarchs also led to many nobles being executed due to disloyalty. Nearly half the men in the 15th century English peerage died violent deaths. The fast replacement of noble families was in part also a result of basic facts of early modern life. Diseases and child mortality took their toll. The nobles were also not immune from economic pressures. Most families wanted to concentrate their resources, leaving the next generation as solidly established as possible so as to carry on the family’s name and political role. Very often this meant leaving younger sons and daughters in poverty, making it harder to sustain their place within the nobility. Therefore if the principal heirs failed to produce offspring, the families could die out as the impoverished members sunk into the peasantry.

Noble families dying out at such a fast rate meant that there was actually a lot of social mobility in the Middle Ages, with ambitious people from humble origins who could make the most of the opportunities presented to them constantly rising to the top. 14th and 15th centuries witnessed many cases of spectacular social advancement. Peasants and burghers consistently refilled the ranks of nobility. Princes and great nobles readily handed out titles of nobility as rewards, for they needed loyal and capable followers. In 15th century France, rich peasant families entered nobility by simply acquiring fiefs and entering the service of more powerful local landowners. There weren’t even any formal ceremonies of ennoblement. The new families simply started calling themselves noble. In England and Germany similar social movements were happening as well at the time. Intermarriage between nobles, burghers and peasants was also frequent. One of the most notorious examples of rapid advancement was the Boleyn family. Ann Boleyn’s great-grandfather was a merchant in mid-15th century London; his son married the daughter of an earl and established himself as a landed gentleman; his son, Ann’s father, married the daughter of a still more important earl, secured knighthood and high government positions; Ann Boleyn then married the king. A story of an advancement from the mercantile middle class to the dizzying heights of aristocratic society in mere three generations. Once people started climbing up the social ladder, things could happen very quickly for them.

In the words of 11th century bishop Gerard of Cambrai, “From the beginning, mankind has been divided into three parts, among men of prayer, farmers, and men of war.” But this medieval order would eventually become questioned in the Early Modern Era.

Wars provided the quickest opportunity to advance into nobility as the role of nobility was still associated with warfare. This was especially true in the troubled borderlands of the Western civilization which experienced constant frontier fighting and raiding. In those places, the number of nobles skyrocketed. While in 15-16th centuries nobles represented around 1% in the interior of Europe in countries such as France, Germany and Italy, they constituted about 10% of population in Castile, 8-10% in Poland and as much as 16% in some regions in Hungary. Noble status was sometimes achieved quite easily in the borderlands as sovereigns, who were in constant need of manpower, were eager to reward their loyal warriors with titles. For example in 1387, King John I of Castile, promised noble status to any horsemen who joined his army for two months. Prospects of great plunder achieved through frontier raiding also provided material foundation for advancement in society. A young warrior of humble roots who proved himself in battles and gained some loot on top of it could advance in society very fast.

Such high replacement rate of nobility therefore shows that any idea of European aristocracy being a pure-bred race descended from early medieval conquerors is a pure fantasy that has nothing to do with actual history. By the end of the Middle Ages, there were not that many families from the High Middle Ages left, let alone going all the way back to the Early Middle Ages. I think one of the reasons why this myth is so persistent is also because it’s coupled with the myth that there was almost no possibility of social mobility in the Middle Ages, whereas we have seen that this was clearly not the case. There was a constant influx of peasants and burghers into the ranks of nobility, and some could advance very high in society within few generations.

In 16th century, however, some restrictions started to be made and nobility tried to be more exclusive. The nobles started attaching more importance to matters of lineage and were less tolerant of newcomers. They became more interested in their genealogies. In the mid-16th century, German cathedral chapters began requiring evidence of noble ancestry for those who sought positions in them. Such restrictions became even more widespread in 17th and 18th century. It was during this time that nobility became more “caste-conscious” which eventually led to racial theories like the one by Boulainvilliers. As I mentioned earlier, this had a lot to do with nobility gradually losing its role as the warrior class, and the state becoming more centralized. While there were still many prominent nobles who fought in battles in various conflicts of the early modern era, they were a minority among nobility as such. The way that warfare was developing was increasingly unsuitable for the old ideals of chivalry and its concepts of combat. The individualistic way in which nobles liked to fight was replaced by disciplined cavalry and infantry formations, and veteran mercenaries from all ranks of society became the most valuable soldiers. The states began raising mercenary armies and stopped relying on noble retinues.

Wars were still a way to progress in society and a number of men of humble and obscure origins rose through the ranks in conflicts such as the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), during which soldiers of peasant origins such as Johann von Werth and Peter Melander became distinguished generals, the latter marrying into high nobility as a result. The Spanish Army of Flanders was very meritocratic during the leadership of the Duke of Alba in late 16th century, and he himself stressed that “in the military we have no regard for blood but for rank and seniority.” As a result, many notable Spanish commanders of the time were of very humble origins, coming from families of millers and bacon sellers. But the doors were closing. In the centralized monarchies, the monarchs increasingly wanted to regulate social mobility, and it was harder to get into nobility through traditional means. In 1600 the King of France Henry IV explicitly closed off ennoblement by military service. In 17th century, the French crown even undertook efforts to hunt out false nobles in the provinces and the ones who failed to prove their noble status were subjected to public humiliation. Likewise, the Spanish Army of Flanders went through a sort of “aristocratization” process in the first half of 17th century where the high ranks were given to men from important noble families, despite them having little military experience. The monarchs began introducing new prestigious categories of nobility such as the grandees in Spain. Creating new noble titles became a way for them to award loyal nobles and also to earn some money by selling titles to wealthy individuals seeking higher status.

Because of these developments, in the Early Modern Era nobility was becoming more elitist, more exclusive, and more obsessed with lineages and titles. But this did not mean that the process of replacement of nobility stopped. While the warrior nobility was disappearing, the Early Modern Era introduced a new type of nobility, the administrative nobility. The growing and increasingly sophisticated governments of the period needed more civil servants. There was a suddenly a much greater need for university-trained administrators. In the Middle Ages, such men typically came from the ranks of the clergy. But due to the conflicts between the church and the state, the early modern monarchs preferred to entrust such jobs to laymen. This resulted in a massive increase of civil servants as the governments kept growing. These administrators were often greatly rewarded and began to enjoy a special standing within society similar to the status of the traditional military elites. Many came from families who were already nobles, but many others did not. Some came from the bottom of the social hierarchy, from families of artisans and even peasants. Such people were now entering the ranks of nobility and collectively they became known as the nobility of the robe, in reference to the long robes usually worn by early modern judges and officials. State service became very attractive and an opportunity to earn wealth and prestige, as well as providing social mobility. Already in the 16th century many officials became rich, and in some cities they were the richest inhabitants as the monarchs regularly rewarded their civil servants with titles of high nobility.

The emergence of administrative nobility in 16th and 17th centuries challenged the conventional concept of warrior nobility even further. The administrative nobles were nobles who did not fight and achieved their positions through education. And while these newcomers were entering the ranks of nobility, many impoverished nobles were being pushed out of it. Money became increasingly more important to live a life suitable to noble status, and many nobles who couldn’t afford the expenses gradually disappeared from the aristocracy altogether. This is how the constant replacement of noble families continued into the Early Modern Era. Aristocracy was also becoming increasingly urbanized as nobles moved into cities and centers of power, or became courtiers. Traditional countryside nobility was becoming increasingly irrelevant and impoverished. In the cities, aristocrats blended into local elites and it was harder to distinguish them from the non-nobles.

The overall number of nobles kept decreasing dramatically in 17th and 18th centuries. This was in large part also a result of changing attitudes toward marriage and family life among aristocracy. Noble men and women wanted more personal fulfillment from marriage and more personal autonomy. They were less willing to marry solely to sustain their families’ prosperity, or to accept arranged marriages. They began to limit the numbers of their children, or failed to marry at all. The people noticed this dramatic decline in numbers. A late 18th century provincial French observer noted “There used to be many more nobles than there are now, up to twice as many.” He was correct in his observation. In 1789, on the eve of the French Revolution, there were only around 25,000 noble families in France, and the nobles amounted to only around 0.5% of the population, half less than in 15th century.

As you can see from all of this, the average French nobleman in 18th century was more likely a descendant of some provincial clerk who was ennobled due to his education and state service than a pure descendant of some medieval warrior knight from the Hundred Years’ War, yet alone of a Frankish conqueror. His ancestors were probably more likely university-educated intellectuals fascinated by the anti-military ideas of Erasmus than medieval crusader nobles honoring the ideals of warrior chivalry. As I have explained, an astonishingly large number of old medieval noble families died out before the 16th century, which were then replaced by commoners entering nobility. At the same time, due to a large number of impoverished nobles disappearing out of aristocracy and integrating into peasantry over the centuries, the noble blood was also spread among the commoners. Descendants of Franks and medieval nobles lived both among nobility and common people. The idea that aristocracy and common people represented some sort of different biological races, one of them being a warrior conqueror one and the other subservient, was therefore totally delusional and tells us more about the weird obsessions of modern ideologies than about pre-modern European history.

Inequality between nobles and different types of elitism

The second myth I would like to write about is the myth that aristocrats were almost as a rule very wealthy and represented a stable homogeneous social entity, collectively enjoying the material benefits of exploiting the rest of society. The most ridiculous representation of this myth is a depiction of medieval society as a pyramid with a clear hierarchical structure, where the nobles are collectively on top. This gives an impression that every noble was in a better material position than every peasant. But this was clearly not the case. Despite their claims of social superiority, nobles were not necessarily the richest people in their communities and there were huge inequalities within nobility. In fact, there was always a mass of impoverished medieval nobles who were poorer than many peasants around them. As I have already mentioned before, there was a lot of economic pressure on nobility, and younger sons and daughters of nobles were often left in poverty. The theme of impoverished nobles is a constant feature of the medieval world.

The nobility was never a single social class but included a hierarchy of wealth. The pyramid of inequality that people associate with feudalism can actually be more correctly applied to showcase the inequality within nobility itself. There was a small number of very wealthy nobles, a substantial middle class, and a mass of the poor. The economic differences between nobles were enormous. According to Jonathan Dewald, in terms of income, the difference between the typical lesser nobles and those at the top of the economic hierarchy within nobility might easily be on the order of one to 100. Even greater differences separated the richest nobles from the poorest. The problem of poor nobles existed since at least the 12th century when nobility started to include the mere knights, the military followers of greater nobles. To solve this problem, there were various social networks which provided security for such poor nobles, and certain relations which tried to unite the nobles into a single order of society, as it was intended to exist.

Medieval nobles. They were a far more complex and diverse group than people imagine.

In the Middle Ages, rich and poor nobles were united by bonds of patronage. Rich nobles offered financial support for lesser nobles in return for services and loyalty. It was a patron-client relationship. This was rooted in the military function of the warrior nobility. They were part of a decentralized system where powerful nobles sustained large retinues of knights. It was in the interest of wealthy nobles to have a large number of followers and provide for them. Thereby they could increase their might and prestige, and gain more political influence. Some nobles would have retinues of 200 and 300 men and even more. These men could be enrolled in military adventures either at home or abroad and such patronage networks remained at the center of royal armies in England and France. Much of a great nobleman’s standing lay in the fact that he moved around accompanied by large number of followers. Some of these followers were handpicked intimidating warriors who looked big and imposing so that they would make an impression. But there were also educated people like lawyers among the followers. It was expected that a great nobleman was surrounded by large number of people at home as well, giving his followers a place at the table. These followers were a source of his power. At the time, the nobles often waged private wars between them without assistance of the king and they needed to be ready to defend and expand their domains.

There were various ideological and cultural trends which kept this system together and glorified it. The ideals of loyalty meant that it was nothing demeaning for a nobleman to serve as a dependent of another nobleman. A lot of praise was given to followers who were willing to follow their lords to battle even in face of almost certain death. One of the most noble and honorable examples of loyalty in Middle Ages happened during the Battle of Crécy In 1346, when the aged and blind King John of Bohemia insisted on participating in battle against the English. His knights accommodated him, “because they cherished his honour and their own prowess”, and led him into the tick of battle. In order to not lose the blind king, they tied their horses to his. They next day they were all found dead lying around their king, “with their horses still fastened together.”

Many nobles also spent parts of their childhood in the homes of the nobles they eventually followed. They were sent from home early and were raised by other nobles to strengthen the ties between noble families. Frequent military campaigns also strengthened such bonds and provided opportunities for followers of lowly origins to prove themselves. For example in 1377 Duke Albert III on Austria went on a crusade to Prussia accompanied by around 2,000 men, including many squires who came with him in hopes of being knighted. The Duke and his friends paid most of the costs of obtaining equipment, travel and the lavish entertainment. He brought with him the famed poet Peter Suchenwirt who made sure their adventure would be adequately glorified in an epic poem.

This type of social and military system combined with frequent wars resulted in a lot of men being ennobled simply by sticking around and joining campaigns, without necessarily improving their economic status. This inevitably led to a large number of poor nobles who were completely dependent on the good will of their wealthy patrons. Even those who did make some money were often not good with it. The problem of old impoverished veteran noble knights roaming the land was often addressed because of how frequent it was. Italian crusader knight Philip of Novara warned young knights in 1260, “The young man of high origin and the knight and other people bearing arms should work to gain honor so as to become famous for their valor, and to have earthly property and riches and land, from which they might live honorably and so might their children, if they have any, and so they might help their friends and those who serve them and be able to retire in their old age.” But apparently only few listened to such warnings.

There were also some institutional networks that helped the poor knights. The French chivalric order called Company of the Star, founded in 1351, planned some sort of retirement home for old knights called the Noble House. According to chronicler Jean le Bel, “The idea was that when a knight became too old to travel the land, he would make his home there at the house, with two servants, for the rest of his days if he wished, so that the Company would be better maintained.” Kings also helped impoverished knights. King Edward III established Alms Knights of St. George following the Battle of Crécy in 1346. The members were the impoverished military veterans who were asked to “serve God continually in prayer” and pray for their patrons. Their duties included attending four services per day and praying for the sovereign and the knights of the Order of the Garter.

Far from being a homogeneous social class, medieval nobles included men of very diverse economic status and were only tied together by various formal and informal bonds, with many nobles being completely dependent on generosity of wealthier nobles.

But in 16th century, these bonds that held together the medieval society began to fall apart. As a result, poor nobles would start to slowly disappear out of aristocracy as there were no patrons to support them anymore. There were many reasons for such development. The increasing power of the centralized monarchy decreased the power of nobles and made them more dependent on the monarch. The nobles started to move into new centers of power, moving to the court of the king or into cities to enter the service of the state as administrative nobility. The monarchs started to increasingly depend on professionals and mercenaries in their armies and they no longer relied on retinues of nobles. This led to nobility losing its purpose as the preeminent military order and the core of armies. New technology such as improved gunpowder weapons made soldiers easier to train and more expandable. The increasingly powerful cannons could crush the once-impregnable castles and city walls, making sure that the monarch could enforce his will in his realm easier. The evolved military tactics placed more emphasis on discipline and cooperation of units on the battlefield. The era of chivalry and highly skilled individual warriors was over. While many nobles still served in the military and distinguished themselves, they had to adapt to these changes and differences between them and non-noble soldiers disappeared. When they joined the army, the nobles didn’t fight as part of some handpicked retinue of their lord but as mere cogs in a larger machine. Long gone were the days of the Hundred Years’ War where illustrious nobles all wanted to stand in the first rank, worrying more about pursuit of personal glory than the tactics of the army as a whole, and their commanders being powerless to enforce discipline.

The Early Modern Era saw the massive decrease of traditional rural aristocracy as aristocrats flocked to the cities in large numbers. The trend of urbanization of aristocracy in 16th century began in southern Europe in places such as Italy, which had already seen many urban nobles in the middle ages, and their numbers increased further in 16th century. In Spain the aristocrats were deserting the countryside in great masses as well. By the early 17th century, almost one-fourth of the Catalan nobility lived in the capital city of Barcelona. England and France were late to adopt this trend, as it was still seen “ignominious for noblemen to stay in cities”, but by mid-16th century there was a quick change in attitude there as well. Paris, London, and many provincial cities built new aristocratic neighborhoods, with elegant houses that were seen as suitable for even the most prominent nobles.

While patron-client relations remained into the 17th century, they started to crumble during this time. The nobles were far less likely to sustain large following. This meant less support for poor nobles, who were finding themselves in increasingly difficult situation and began to drop out of aristocracy. Even the nobles who were the equivalent of middle class in terms of economic means struggled to cope with costs of moving to the city, if they decided to do so. While the wealthy nobles could afford houses of their own, the lesser nobles lived in rented apartments. The cities were blurring the differences between nobles and non-nobles, as the wealthy middle classes could afford to live a better life than poorer nobles.

There were also profound changes in culture and lifestyle of nobles taking place. Nobles became more interested in privacy and began to design houses with smaller rooms, suited for intimate exchanges. They added hallways and abandoned the medieval practice of passing through one another’s bedrooms. The numbers of servants diminished and even those who could afford it did not have desire to have large number of followers in their homes. A new elite was forming, based on a new social criteria, and the impoverished nobles were no longer part of it, as they could no longer afford the kind of lifestyle that was seen as suitable for the elite, and the elite was not willing to provide for them anymore. They were in many ways seen as an embarrassment to the wealthy aristocracy. They continued to drift out of aristocracy altogether, and as a result aristocracy became less numerous and wealthier on average.

These profound changes that were taking place over centuries led to 18th century aristocracy developing into how people continue to perceive aristocracy today. Smug, wealthy, elitist, obsessed with lineages and purity of race and having no real function in society besides representing some sort of nostalgic biological link to the past, which, as we have seen, wasn’t even that strong. While this image certainly has a lot of truth in it for this specific period of European history right before the French Revolution, it is erroneously pushed back into earlier centuries when the situation was very different.

I would now also like to briefly touch on another myth and that is that aristocracy was totally crushed following the French Revolution and its consequences, being replaced by the rising “middle class” and bourgeoisie. This myth is really strong because it was used by various opposing ideologies that emerged in 19th century. Whether they liked aristocracy or not, they all wanted to present its demise as a clear-cut event which had immediate consequences and changed the course of history. The racial theories which I mentioned earlier liked to claim that historic European aristocracy “degenerated” as a “race” and thus lost its place to more vigorous part of population from the middle class and peasantry. The nationalist groups over Europe picked this up, especially those who followed a “folkish” interpretation of nationalism and glorified the peasantry. It was also in line with the popular ideas of the survival of the fittest where it was interpreted as one group annihilating the other. There were also the Marxist ideas of class struggle, in which aristocracy was one social class replaced by another. Meanwhile traditionalists and reactionaries saw this supposed abrupt end of aristocracy and its replacement by the bourgeoisie as a sign of troubled times in which honor and ancestral connection to the past was replaced by materialistic ideals of the merchant classes. In the end, all of these ideologies had an interest to exaggerate the demise of aristocracy, and it became a widely accepted narrative.

In reality, the demise of aristocracy was a very slow process which happened gradually over centuries. The wealthy and dynamic part of the aristocracy was able to adapt to changing historic circumstances and continue to thrive. The French Revolution of 1789 was not nearly as damaging to aristocracy as it is made out to be. While there was a strong anti-aristocratic rhetoric behind it and the revolutionaries did kill many nobles, most of aristocratic families and their properties were left in place, and the aristocrats continued to have a powerful presence in 19th century France. The image of French Revolution being some sort of mass execution and disposition of nobility is therefore deceiving. Only 20% of those executed in Paris were nobles and the number is even lesser in other revolutionary courts where it was only around 10%. Most people killed were commoners. The aristocrats remained even more entrenched in other parts of Europe like England and Germany where they remained a vital and dominant force up to World War I.

A large part of aristocracy accepted the liberal ideas of 19th century and played a prominent role in shaping of the modern society. 19th century aristocracy was not a reactionary force. The wealthy aristocrats were in a good position in the new order and their elite status was not threatened by the industrial society and emergence of modern nation-states. If we take a look at the reactionary uprisings and movements in 19th century Europe, such as the Sanfedismo in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Tyrolean Rebellion or Carlism in Spain, these movements were mainly driven by peasants who wanted to retain their old rights which were under question because of rapid political changes. Reactionary ideologies in 19th century Europe were very anti-elitist, mostly supporting some type of monarchism where a strong monarch would keep the elite in check and have a stronger connection with the ordinary people. This type of anti-elitism has remained a prominent feature of various conservative and traditionalist movements ever since. What actually happened in 19th century was that the remaining wealthy and powerful aristocracy merged with the non-noble elite. This was something that had long been in the making and there were already existing cultural and ideological foundations for that. The ideal or aristocrat was replaced by the ideal of the gentleman, an educated and elegant man of good manners and taste who was defined by his own abilities. This alternative model of social superiority was also accepted by aristocracy and began to define the new elite.

To conclude. From 15th to 18th century European aristocracy went through a complete transformation. The image people have of historic European aristocracy today is only a very small part of the story of this very complex group of people. I tried to do my best to keep this as short as possible and save more for later, as a lot more could be written about this subject.