The Peace of God and Royal Authority

The Peace of God movement, initiated by churchmen in the late tenth century, sought to limit violence by protecting non-combatants and establishing periods when warfare was forbidden. This movement, arising from below rather than imposed from above, reflected widespread desire for order in a society plagued by private wars. For the Capetians, the Peace of God offered opportunities to extend royal influence under the guise of protecting Christian society.

Early Capetian kings positioned themselves as supporters and enforcers of the Peace. Robert the Pious attended peace councils and swore to uphold their provisions. His successors continued this association, presenting royal power as the ultimate guarantee of peace and justice. This alignment with popular religious movements enhanced royal prestige and provided justification for intervention in disputes beyond the domain.

The related Truce of God, which prohibited warfare during religious seasons and on certain days, offered similar opportunities. Kings could pose as defenders of the Truce, punishing violators and mediating disputes. While enforcement remained sporadic, the ideological association between monarchy and peace-keeping proved valuable. It positioned kings as protectors of the weak against aristocratic violence, a role that resonated with clerical ideals and popular aspirations.

However, the Peace of God also revealed royal limitations. Enforcement depended on local authorities—bishops and counts—rather than royal officials. Kings could proclaim support for peace but lacked mechanisms to impose it throughout the realm. The movement's very existence testified to the absence of effective central authority capable of maintaining order. Nevertheless, by associating themselves with peace-keeping, Capetian kings laid ideological groundwork for later expansions of royal justice.