How did church leaders become responsible for defending a medieval kingdom? In Ottonian Germany, bishops, abbots, and abbesses were entrusted with organizing fortifications and mobilizing local communities to protect the realm.
By David Bachrach
The last decade has seen the publication of numerous studies that have expanded the scholarly treatment of the participation of clerics in warfare beyond the traditional focus on the Carolingian Empire and the kingdom of Germany. Students of the intersection of religion and war in medieval Europe can now draw on detailed studies of Aragonese, Castilian, English, Polish, and Italian bishops by leading military forces on campaign and even participating directly in combat. These works have a great deal in common with the earlier focus by scholars such as Friedrich Prinz and Leopold Auer on the warrior prelates serving in the armies of Charlemagne and Otto the Great. Largely missing from both the older and newer scholarship, however, is the role played by prelates in the defense of the realm, particularly in the service of the ruler rather than in their own particularist interests. This lacuna in the scholarship is particularly evident in the German kingdom under the Ottonian dynasty, where bishops and abbots frequently shouldered the responsibility for overseeing territorial defense.
The Ottonian kings, following the practice of their Carolingian predecessors, maintained and enforced a monopoly on the right to build and license large-scale fortifications whose possession in the wrong hands could damage the security of the realm. Just as importantly, the Ottonian rulers maintained exclusive control over the Burgbann, the term used by governmental authorities to denote the authority to mobilize the population to construct and maintain fortifications. The Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the Burgbann was denoted in numerous royal charters as the trinodas necessitas, which obligated landowners to build and maintain the military infrastructure of the kingdom.
As is well-known, the West Frankish king Charles the Bald (840-877) formally enunciated the obligations on all his subjects to provide labor to maintain, and to garrison fortifications in the edict of Pîtres, which was issued in 864. Here, Charles referred to the old obligations (antiquae consuetudines), which were practiced both within the regnum Francorum and in neighboring realms, to build strongholds, maintain the transportation infrastructure and to serve in garrisons.
Far less well-known is the charter issued by the East Carolingian ruler Arnulf of Carinthia (887-899) on behalf of his loyal servitor Heimo, which makes clear that the obligations set out in the edict of Pîtres were also current in the East Frankish realm. Arnulf granted to Heimo the extraordinary privilege of providing a legal forum for his own dependents rather than having their cases brought before the local count. This is the only surviving privilege of this sort for a layman in either the Carolingian or Ottonian periods.
However, even the specially privileged Heimo and his dependents were obligated to provide labor to help maintain the fortifications that were under the authority and discretion of the local count, in both peacetime and in periods of conflict. Moreover, this charter states that these obligations were to be carried out in the “customary manner” pointing to their normative status. Contemporary grants of property by Anglo-Saxon kings to churches, which included a wide range of privileges, also expressly retained the obligation of the ecclesiastical recipients to perform the trinodas necessitas.
Map of the Kingdom of the Germans (regnum Teutonicorum) within the Holy Roman Empire, c. 1000 – image by Maksim / Wikimedia Commons
Under normal circumstances, the Burgbann within the Ottonian kingdom also was exercised by a count, who held this authority from the ruler. However, the Ottonian rulers often found it valuable to place the authority for the construction, maintenance, and garrisoning of fortifications in the hands of prelates.
In April 940, for example, Otto I (936-973) issued a charter on behalf of the monastery of Corvey, stating:
we grant that all of the abbots who are established over the monks at New Corbie who serve God and St. Stephen the protomartyr, and where now Folkmar is abbot over them, shall have the bannum over the men who ought to flee to this said monastery and to the fortification that is around this place, and to perform labor there, that is the men in the pagus of Ahagau in the comitatus of Rethard, and in the pagus of Nettegau in the comitatus of Dendus and Hampo, and in the pagus of Wetigau in the comitatus of Hermann. None of these counts, nor anyone else holding governmental authority shall exercise any power of the bannum, which they call the Burgbann, over them except the abbot of this same monastery or the one to whom he wishes to commit this authority.
As the charter makes clear, the authority for mobilizing men to work on the fortification at the monastery of Corvey, and presumably other strong points as well, had rested with the four counts named in the charter. Now, however, the king had transferred the authority of the Burgbann to Abbot Folkmar and his successors, who were now responsible for summoning the inhabitants of the three pagi, all of which were located in the region around Corvey, to fulfill the labor obligations that they owed to the res publica.
Corvey in the 19th century – Das Weserthal von Münden bis Minden. Cassel 1845
Otto undertook a similar action in July 965 with a charter that he issued on behalf of the monastery of St. Maurice at Magdeburg. In this case, the emperor (having been crowned in 962) stated: “we freely offer and grant in perpetuity the bannum of our royal and imperial dignity in the city of Magdeburg and also the labor for the construction of this fortification that is owed, according to royal and imperial law, by the inhabitants of the nearby regions to the church constructed for St. Maurice in this same city.” The king then issued an immunity for the possession of this bannum from any count or other public official, thereby making clear that the authority for the mobilization of labor for construction purposes would otherwise have rested with them.
Otto I’s successors also assigned authority to prelates to oversee the maintenance of fortifications and to ensure that they were properly garrisoned. In March of 980, Otto II confirmed a grant, previously issued by his father to Gandersheim, confirming the authority of the abbess to maintain and defend the fortifications around this convent. The king stated: “we confirm with this our command the fortress ban which they call the Burgbann in the vernacular, which our predecessors, both kings and emperors had granted to this same fortress, and in addition, we grant for the first time two fortress bans of our own lordship, one in Seeburg and the other in Greene.” As his father had done at Magdeburg, Otto II also granted an immunity from comital authority, stating that no count or any other official would have the authority to interfere with the abbess of Gandersheim as she exercised the power of this Burgbann.
In the next generation, Otto III transferred to Bishop Bernward of Hildesheim the authority and responsibility to maintain the fortress (castellum) at Königsdahlum. This fortification previously had been administered by Count Wichmann, a member of the prominent Saxon Billunger family. Otto III also granted to Bishop Bernward the authority to mobilize the local population to construct and help maintain the fortress at Mundburg, located at the confluence of the Oker and Aller Rivers near modern Wienhausen, which is about 50 kilometers north-northeast of Hildesheim.
It is notable that Bernward’s biographer Thangmar, writing in the early eleventh century, sought to emphasize his protagonist’s own initiative in building the fortress at Mundburg. Thangmar discussed Bernward’s constant readiness to fend off piratical attacks and to drive off this plague (pestis) on the state (res publica). It is clear that in describing these events Thangmar sought to show that Bernward was not operating in his own interest or merely in the interest of his diocese, but rather on behalf of the res publica, and that the building of a fortress served the public rather than a private good. Nevertheless, Thangmar makes no mention of the royal assistance provided to the bishop to carry out these tasks, which permits the inference that he did not want his hero to have to share the glory with the king for performing the essential governmental duty of providing for the common defense.
As these examples illustrate, and many more could be adduced, Ottonian prelates, including abbesses, had important roles to play in the military organization of the kingdom that went well beyond sending contingents on campaign. They also took direct part in the defense of the realm as representatives of the king, who held from him the delegated authority (Burgbann) to mobilize the population to build, maintain, and ultimately to garrison fortifications.
David Bachrach is a Professor at the University of New Hampshire, where he researches medieval military history, particularly in England and Germany.
How did church leaders become responsible for defending a medieval kingdom? In Ottonian Germany, bishops, abbots, and abbesses were entrusted with organizing fortifications and mobilizing local communities to protect the realm.
By David Bachrach
The last decade has seen the publication of numerous studies that have expanded the scholarly treatment of the participation of clerics in warfare beyond the traditional focus on the Carolingian Empire and the kingdom of Germany. Students of the intersection of religion and war in medieval Europe can now draw on detailed studies of Aragonese, Castilian, English, Polish, and Italian bishops by leading military forces on campaign and even participating directly in combat. These works have a great deal in common with the earlier focus by scholars such as Friedrich Prinz and Leopold Auer on the warrior prelates serving in the armies of Charlemagne and Otto the Great. Largely missing from both the older and newer scholarship, however, is the role played by prelates in the defense of the realm, particularly in the service of the ruler rather than in their own particularist interests. This lacuna in the scholarship is particularly evident in the German kingdom under the Ottonian dynasty, where bishops and abbots frequently shouldered the responsibility for overseeing territorial defense.
The Ottonian kings, following the practice of their Carolingian predecessors, maintained and enforced a monopoly on the right to build and license large-scale fortifications whose possession in the wrong hands could damage the security of the realm. Just as importantly, the Ottonian rulers maintained exclusive control over the Burgbann, the term used by governmental authorities to denote the authority to mobilize the population to construct and maintain fortifications. The Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the Burgbann was denoted in numerous royal charters as the trinodas necessitas, which obligated landowners to build and maintain the military infrastructure of the kingdom.
As is well-known, the West Frankish king Charles the Bald (840-877) formally enunciated the obligations on all his subjects to provide labor to maintain, and to garrison fortifications in the edict of Pîtres, which was issued in 864. Here, Charles referred to the old obligations (antiquae consuetudines), which were practiced both within the regnum Francorum and in neighboring realms, to build strongholds, maintain the transportation infrastructure and to serve in garrisons.
Far less well-known is the charter issued by the East Carolingian ruler Arnulf of Carinthia (887-899) on behalf of his loyal servitor Heimo, which makes clear that the obligations set out in the edict of Pîtres were also current in the East Frankish realm. Arnulf granted to Heimo the extraordinary privilege of providing a legal forum for his own dependents rather than having their cases brought before the local count. This is the only surviving privilege of this sort for a layman in either the Carolingian or Ottonian periods.
However, even the specially privileged Heimo and his dependents were obligated to provide labor to help maintain the fortifications that were under the authority and discretion of the local count, in both peacetime and in periods of conflict. Moreover, this charter states that these obligations were to be carried out in the “customary manner” pointing to their normative status. Contemporary grants of property by Anglo-Saxon kings to churches, which included a wide range of privileges, also expressly retained the obligation of the ecclesiastical recipients to perform the trinodas necessitas.
Under normal circumstances, the Burgbann within the Ottonian kingdom also was exercised by a count, who held this authority from the ruler. However, the Ottonian rulers often found it valuable to place the authority for the construction, maintenance, and garrisoning of fortifications in the hands of prelates.
In April 940, for example, Otto I (936-973) issued a charter on behalf of the monastery of Corvey, stating:
we grant that all of the abbots who are established over the monks at New Corbie who serve God and St. Stephen the protomartyr, and where now Folkmar is abbot over them, shall have the bannum over the men who ought to flee to this said monastery and to the fortification that is around this place, and to perform labor there, that is the men in the pagus of Ahagau in the comitatus of Rethard, and in the pagus of Nettegau in the comitatus of Dendus and Hampo, and in the pagus of Wetigau in the comitatus of Hermann. None of these counts, nor anyone else holding governmental authority shall exercise any power of the bannum, which they call the Burgbann, over them except the abbot of this same monastery or the one to whom he wishes to commit this authority.
As the charter makes clear, the authority for mobilizing men to work on the fortification at the monastery of Corvey, and presumably other strong points as well, had rested with the four counts named in the charter. Now, however, the king had transferred the authority of the Burgbann to Abbot Folkmar and his successors, who were now responsible for summoning the inhabitants of the three pagi, all of which were located in the region around Corvey, to fulfill the labor obligations that they owed to the res publica.
Otto undertook a similar action in July 965 with a charter that he issued on behalf of the monastery of St. Maurice at Magdeburg. In this case, the emperor (having been crowned in 962) stated: “we freely offer and grant in perpetuity the bannum of our royal and imperial dignity in the city of Magdeburg and also the labor for the construction of this fortification that is owed, according to royal and imperial law, by the inhabitants of the nearby regions to the church constructed for St. Maurice in this same city.” The king then issued an immunity for the possession of this bannum from any count or other public official, thereby making clear that the authority for the mobilization of labor for construction purposes would otherwise have rested with them.
Otto I’s successors also assigned authority to prelates to oversee the maintenance of fortifications and to ensure that they were properly garrisoned. In March of 980, Otto II confirmed a grant, previously issued by his father to Gandersheim, confirming the authority of the abbess to maintain and defend the fortifications around this convent. The king stated: “we confirm with this our command the fortress ban which they call the Burgbann in the vernacular, which our predecessors, both kings and emperors had granted to this same fortress, and in addition, we grant for the first time two fortress bans of our own lordship, one in Seeburg and the other in Greene.” As his father had done at Magdeburg, Otto II also granted an immunity from comital authority, stating that no count or any other official would have the authority to interfere with the abbess of Gandersheim as she exercised the power of this Burgbann.
In the next generation, Otto III transferred to Bishop Bernward of Hildesheim the authority and responsibility to maintain the fortress (castellum) at Königsdahlum. This fortification previously had been administered by Count Wichmann, a member of the prominent Saxon Billunger family. Otto III also granted to Bishop Bernward the authority to mobilize the local population to construct and help maintain the fortress at Mundburg, located at the confluence of the Oker and Aller Rivers near modern Wienhausen, which is about 50 kilometers north-northeast of Hildesheim.
It is notable that Bernward’s biographer Thangmar, writing in the early eleventh century, sought to emphasize his protagonist’s own initiative in building the fortress at Mundburg. Thangmar discussed Bernward’s constant readiness to fend off piratical attacks and to drive off this plague (pestis) on the state (res publica). It is clear that in describing these events Thangmar sought to show that Bernward was not operating in his own interest or merely in the interest of his diocese, but rather on behalf of the res publica, and that the building of a fortress served the public rather than a private good. Nevertheless, Thangmar makes no mention of the royal assistance provided to the bishop to carry out these tasks, which permits the inference that he did not want his hero to have to share the glory with the king for performing the essential governmental duty of providing for the common defense.
As these examples illustrate, and many more could be adduced, Ottonian prelates, including abbesses, had important roles to play in the military organization of the kingdom that went well beyond sending contingents on campaign. They also took direct part in the defense of the realm as representatives of the king, who held from him the delegated authority (Burgbann) to mobilize the population to build, maintain, and ultimately to garrison fortifications.
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:
Craig Nakashian, Warrior Churchmen of Medieval England 1000-1250 (Woodbridge, 2016).
Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval Clergy in Cultural Perspective, ed., Radoslaw Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and John S. Ott ( Leiden, 2018).
Top Image: UBH Cod. Pal. germ. 112 fol. 47r
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts