The modern idea of a state involves clear geographical boundaries, complex interdependent economies and institutions, standing armies, ideas of national identity and a powerful framework of impartial law. The Roman state shared many of these characteristics. By comparison, however Mercia and Francia seem to follow a different logic, although Francia under Charlemagne seemed to be emerging into something more recognisable. In both states the position of the king was of paramount importance, to such an extent that the state could be identified with his person. A simple model of the king's power was a self-sustaining system based on three interlocking ideas: loyalty; military strength and land. The loyalty of the lords was essential as the king was dependant upon them as his main source of military capability and strength. The king was able to secure this loyalty by grants of land. .
Land was the key resource and the most important form of wealth in both kingdoms. Fouracre asserts that, "it was essentially the income from the soil which supported the social elite. The additional income which came form the spoils of war must have played an important part in giving particular nobles an edge over potential rivals, but by securing and improving their status it reinforced, rather than subverted the landed basis of political power". The distribution of land was the prime mechanism of social organisation and the ability to distribute and redistribute land was a key source of power. Ultimately the king held a monopoly of the land and he would grant it as a reward and in return would require onerous obligations. These could include taxes, obligations to maintain the area's infrastructure, particularly bridges and forts, and providing men and equipment to serve in the army when required. Lords in their turn had the ability to grant portions of the land, or rights to use the land to sub-benefices also in return for obligations.
