Nobility is largely a result of military conquest, and military conquest is the result of tyrants. Military leaders as intellectuals is a relatively new concept. Previously, the alpha was simply the strongest member of a group. Charlemagne was illiterate and this wasn’t an uncommon trait, at least in the period during which he rose to power. One would have to possess a certain level of intellect to control large groups of people, but this wouldn’t make them MORE intelligent than most, just above average.
Need Help With Editing? Click Here
Also, noble families, particularly in Europe, are well known to have engaged in incest to keep the blood line “pure”, which means that the nobility was genetically inferior to the average serf. Since inbreeding has deleterious effects on genetic lines by perpetuating negative genetic traits, this can have a direct effect on intelligence. An obvious example of poor genetics in nobility is the notorious Hapsburg jaw and Tutankhamun was physically disabled with a deformity of his left foot along with bone necrosis that required the use of a cane. Beyond simply causing physical deformities. This can also lead to physical intellectual disability as incest is one of the major causes of mental handicap in a large amount of offspring. For this reason, nobility was likely LESS intelligent than the average person.
I feel like this question is ultimately asking indirectly if Social Darwinism is true, which it simply isn’t as society and genetics are too complex to directly affect each other.
What Is Social Darwinism?
Social Darwinism is a set of ideologies that emerged in the late 1800s based upon Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. It was used to justify a variety of political, social, or economic views. Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better.