Early medieval armies didn’t just fight battles—they had to keep order on the road, policing theft, violence, and disobedience as they marched. Explore how rulers and commanders tried to enforce discipline on campaign, and what those rules reveal about power and everyday military life in early medieval Europe.
By David Bachrach
The later Roman Empire imposed a wide range of rules and regulations on its soldiers, which can be understood in aggregate as a body of military law. These military regulations covered numerous aspects of what modern scholars refer to as ius in bello, that is the regulation of military behavior while on campaign. The imperial government prohibited, among many other actions, the unauthorized exercise of violence against non-combatants, and taking supplies and other property without payment unless they were authorized to do so by their commanders.
For the most part, these regulations dealing with the behavior of Roman soldiers were intended to maintain proper order and discipline and were not generally focused on upholding a moral code. This was true even after the Christianization of the Empire, although some aspects of Christian law did filter into military ordinances. As with so many other elements of the institutional inheritance of Rome, particularly with regard to military affairs, the requirements and legal norms imposed on Roman soldiers also were maintained by the various successor states that emerged in the Empire’s erstwhile western provinces.
Among the earliest surviving witnesses to the maintenance of Roman military law can be seen in the Lex Baiuvariorum (Law of the Bavarians), which was imposed on the people living in the emerging duchy of Bavaria during the sixth century. The Bavarian law was instituted by the Merovingian kings, who developed this region as a frontier march to control entry and egress from the eastern alpine passes.
Lex Baiuvariorum, early ninth-century manuscript, University Library Munich
As the German legal historian Stefan Esders has demonstrated, much of the Law of the Bavarians consisted of late Roman military law. The regulations in this code included a wide range of penalties for soldiers who violated legal norms while on campaign. Any soldier, for example, who committed a scandalum in an army that had been mobilized by either the king or the duke had to pay a fine of 600 solidi, which was an immense amount of money. Any soldier who struck anyone, wounded anyone, or killed anyone without authorization by his commander, had to make proper restitution.
The Bavarian law also set out penalties for any soldier who plundered, who took fodder or grain, or who committed arson without having been commanded to do so by a properly constituted authority. The commanders of the fighting men, who were identified as either counts or sub-comital officers — centuriones and decani — that is commanders of 100 and 10 men, respectively, were required to ensure that men under their command did not violate the laws in the Bavarian code.
To this end, counts were made personally responsible for investigating the crimes committed by the soldiers under their command. If they failed in this task, the officers were personally required to make good all of the damages that their soldiers had caused. There were additional titles in the code that dealt specifically with the theft during campaign of horseshoes, horse tack, and horse harnesses. A slave who stole such items would lose his hands, and his master was responsible for replacing the equipment. A free man who stole this equipment could redeem his hands for 40 solidi and also had to make restitution for the stolen property.
A Frankish Parallel: Gregory of Tours and the Law
A 14th-century depiction of Clovis in battle against the Visigoths – Wikimedia Commons
The information provided in the Bavarian law has a clear analog in the account by the late sixth-century writer Gregory of Tours. In describing the campaign by Clovis (481-511) against the Visigoths in 507, which ended with his major victory at the Battle of Vouillé, Gregory emphasized that the Frankish ruler issued a letter to the bishops of all of the dioceses through which his army was to march that he had commanded his men not to take anything from the prelates or from their people. Clovis swore that if any damages were done, he would personally make restitution.
Gregory states that when the Frankish army marched through the Touraine, Clovis issued strict orders to his troops that nothing should be taken from the people other than grass and water. Notably, this command was consistent with late Roman military law, which likewise permitted soldiers to take water and grass. When two of Clovis’ men violated this command, the Frankish king immediately had them executed.
Gregory reports that Clovis’ successors also maintained the same strict controls over their troops. When Sigibert I (561-575) learned that his mercenaries, whom he had recruited from the lands east of the Rhine, had plundered villages in the area around Paris, he had them stoned to death. King Chilperic I (561-584) executed the count of Rouen for failing to keep his men from plundering the area around the city of Bourges after a peace agreement had been reached with Chilperic’s brother Guntram (561-592). Gregory’s comments in this regard are particularly notable because he despised Chilperic and frequently condemned him for his evil actions. But in this case, he noted with approval the king’s enforcement of military discipline.
Carolingian Reforms and Campaign Discipline
An army depicted in a late 9th /early 10th century manuscript – Bib. Saint-Omer Ms. 764 fol. 9v
During the Carolingian period, we are even better informed about the ongoing efforts of the rulers of the regnum Francorum to maintain military discipline. Charlemagne commanded that anyone in the army who took more supplies than had been dictated by the army leadership would have to pay three times the value of these goods to the victim. Similar to the model set out in the Bavarian code, a free man who took property without authorization had to pay a fine equivalent to the sum that was owed by someone who failed to go on campaign when summoned. A slave who stole goods while on campaign was to be beaten savagely.
Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840) included several ordinances dealing with military discipline in his General Admonition to All Ranks of Society, issued in 825. In the first of these, Louis commanded that anyone who had lost property unjustly to soldiers serving in the royal army was to receive restitution. Secondly, again very similar to the Bavarian law, Louis stated that all military commanders were responsible for the behavior of the men in their units, and this was the case whether these men were their own dependents, or others who were serving with them only for the duration of the campaign. The military commanders were made responsible for any damage done by their men and also were given instructions to present these men to an appropriate judge for trial.
Ordinances of this type were issued as well by Louis the Pious’s son Charles the Bald (840-877), and by his grandson Louis II of Italy (844-875). The disciplinary ordinances also were issued by post-Carolingian rulers in the West, including the dukes of Normandy.
Overall, the military ordinances issued from the sixth century onward demonstrate a remarkable degree of continuity in the efforts of political and military leaders to prevent unauthorized plundering, arson, and more generally the harming of non-combatants within friendly territories. Another consistent element in early medieval military law, which again draws on the Roman legal tradition, is making military commanders personally responsible for the behavior of their men.
David Bachrach is a Professor at the University of New Hampshire, where he researches medieval military history, particularly in England and Germany.
Elisabeth Magnou-Nortier, “The Enemies of the Peace: Reflections on a Vocabulary, 500-1100,” in The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000, ed. Thomas Head and Richard Landes (Ithaca, 1992), 58-79.
Stefan Esders, “Late Roman Military Law in the Bavarian Code,” Clio Themis: Revue électronique d’histoire du Droit 10 (2016), 1-24.
Top Image: Scene from the Stuttgart Psalter – Württembergische Landesbibliothek Cod.bibl.fol.23 fol. 3v
Early medieval armies didn’t just fight battles—they had to keep order on the road, policing theft, violence, and disobedience as they marched. Explore how rulers and commanders tried to enforce discipline on campaign, and what those rules reveal about power and everyday military life in early medieval Europe.
By David Bachrach
The later Roman Empire imposed a wide range of rules and regulations on its soldiers, which can be understood in aggregate as a body of military law. These military regulations covered numerous aspects of what modern scholars refer to as ius in bello, that is the regulation of military behavior while on campaign. The imperial government prohibited, among many other actions, the unauthorized exercise of violence against non-combatants, and taking supplies and other property without payment unless they were authorized to do so by their commanders.
For the most part, these regulations dealing with the behavior of Roman soldiers were intended to maintain proper order and discipline and were not generally focused on upholding a moral code. This was true even after the Christianization of the Empire, although some aspects of Christian law did filter into military ordinances. As with so many other elements of the institutional inheritance of Rome, particularly with regard to military affairs, the requirements and legal norms imposed on Roman soldiers also were maintained by the various successor states that emerged in the Empire’s erstwhile western provinces.
Among the earliest surviving witnesses to the maintenance of Roman military law can be seen in the Lex Baiuvariorum (Law of the Bavarians), which was imposed on the people living in the emerging duchy of Bavaria during the sixth century. The Bavarian law was instituted by the Merovingian kings, who developed this region as a frontier march to control entry and egress from the eastern alpine passes.
As the German legal historian Stefan Esders has demonstrated, much of the Law of the Bavarians consisted of late Roman military law. The regulations in this code included a wide range of penalties for soldiers who violated legal norms while on campaign. Any soldier, for example, who committed a scandalum in an army that had been mobilized by either the king or the duke had to pay a fine of 600 solidi, which was an immense amount of money. Any soldier who struck anyone, wounded anyone, or killed anyone without authorization by his commander, had to make proper restitution.
The Bavarian law also set out penalties for any soldier who plundered, who took fodder or grain, or who committed arson without having been commanded to do so by a properly constituted authority. The commanders of the fighting men, who were identified as either counts or sub-comital officers — centuriones and decani — that is commanders of 100 and 10 men, respectively, were required to ensure that men under their command did not violate the laws in the Bavarian code.
To this end, counts were made personally responsible for investigating the crimes committed by the soldiers under their command. If they failed in this task, the officers were personally required to make good all of the damages that their soldiers had caused. There were additional titles in the code that dealt specifically with the theft during campaign of horseshoes, horse tack, and horse harnesses. A slave who stole such items would lose his hands, and his master was responsible for replacing the equipment. A free man who stole this equipment could redeem his hands for 40 solidi and also had to make restitution for the stolen property.
A Frankish Parallel: Gregory of Tours and the Law
The information provided in the Bavarian law has a clear analog in the account by the late sixth-century writer Gregory of Tours. In describing the campaign by Clovis (481-511) against the Visigoths in 507, which ended with his major victory at the Battle of Vouillé, Gregory emphasized that the Frankish ruler issued a letter to the bishops of all of the dioceses through which his army was to march that he had commanded his men not to take anything from the prelates or from their people. Clovis swore that if any damages were done, he would personally make restitution.
Gregory states that when the Frankish army marched through the Touraine, Clovis issued strict orders to his troops that nothing should be taken from the people other than grass and water. Notably, this command was consistent with late Roman military law, which likewise permitted soldiers to take water and grass. When two of Clovis’ men violated this command, the Frankish king immediately had them executed.
Gregory reports that Clovis’ successors also maintained the same strict controls over their troops. When Sigibert I (561-575) learned that his mercenaries, whom he had recruited from the lands east of the Rhine, had plundered villages in the area around Paris, he had them stoned to death. King Chilperic I (561-584) executed the count of Rouen for failing to keep his men from plundering the area around the city of Bourges after a peace agreement had been reached with Chilperic’s brother Guntram (561-592). Gregory’s comments in this regard are particularly notable because he despised Chilperic and frequently condemned him for his evil actions. But in this case, he noted with approval the king’s enforcement of military discipline.
Carolingian Reforms and Campaign Discipline
During the Carolingian period, we are even better informed about the ongoing efforts of the rulers of the regnum Francorum to maintain military discipline. Charlemagne commanded that anyone in the army who took more supplies than had been dictated by the army leadership would have to pay three times the value of these goods to the victim. Similar to the model set out in the Bavarian code, a free man who took property without authorization had to pay a fine equivalent to the sum that was owed by someone who failed to go on campaign when summoned. A slave who stole goods while on campaign was to be beaten savagely.
Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840) included several ordinances dealing with military discipline in his General Admonition to All Ranks of Society, issued in 825. In the first of these, Louis commanded that anyone who had lost property unjustly to soldiers serving in the royal army was to receive restitution. Secondly, again very similar to the Bavarian law, Louis stated that all military commanders were responsible for the behavior of the men in their units, and this was the case whether these men were their own dependents, or others who were serving with them only for the duration of the campaign. The military commanders were made responsible for any damage done by their men and also were given instructions to present these men to an appropriate judge for trial.
Ordinances of this type were issued as well by Louis the Pious’s son Charles the Bald (840-877), and by his grandson Louis II of Italy (844-875). The disciplinary ordinances also were issued by post-Carolingian rulers in the West, including the dukes of Normandy.
Overall, the military ordinances issued from the sixth century onward demonstrate a remarkable degree of continuity in the efforts of political and military leaders to prevent unauthorized plundering, arson, and more generally the harming of non-combatants within friendly territories. Another consistent element in early medieval military law, which again draws on the Roman legal tradition, is making military commanders personally responsible for the behavior of their men.
David Bachrach is a Professor at the University of New Hampshire, where he researches medieval military history, particularly in England and Germany.
Click here to read more from David Bachrach
Further Readings:
Elisabeth Magnou-Nortier, “The Enemies of the Peace: Reflections on a Vocabulary, 500-1100,” in The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the Year 1000, ed. Thomas Head and Richard Landes (Ithaca, 1992), 58-79.
Stefan Esders, “Late Roman Military Law in the Bavarian Code,” Clio Themis: Revue électronique d’histoire du Droit 10 (2016), 1-24.
Top Image: Scene from the Stuttgart Psalter – Württembergische Landesbibliothek Cod.bibl.fol.23 fol. 3v
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts