The writers of the article treat the territorial basis of sovereignty as a largely unproblematic concept at this point in history, a position that bears more critical examination. This paper will place Peter’s actions in the context of his family’s long presence in the area, arguing that he did not conceive of his role there as defending sovereign territory, but instead as safeguarding a kinship network constructed through ties of marriage and wardship that were renewed with every succeeding generation. Later chroniclers making the case for the territorial authority of the French crown, however, framed Peter’s authority pre-crusade in essentially territorial terms, coloring later interpretations. Ultimately, this paper aims to question whether traditional historical narratives linking territorial government with sovereignty can hold up in the light of recent works such as Kathleen Davis’s Periodization and Sovereignty and Michael Mitterauer's Why Europe?, which suggest that the dimensions of time and family structure need to be taken into account as well.
See more of: AHA Sessions