How Common was Tyranny in the Medieval Holy Roman Empire?
Modern entertainment outlets and stories of the Middle Ages are replete with examples of tyrannical nobles mistreating their serfs. Was this really so common?
The obvious starting point for such a conversation is to bear in mind that no system—democratic or otherwise—can ever completely protect its people from themselves. Likewise, the base inclination of those in power is to maximize the advantages made possible by that power. In absence of a legal structure, those following a defined moral code have clear limitations as to what one can do, whereas those without a such a code do not experience the same constraints—thus stressing the importance of a legal structure.
Most people of the European Middle Ages were guided by the religious, moral, and philosophical teachings of the Catholic Church, which sought to provide a unified faith, a structured understanding of morality, and an agreement on the diginity of mankind as created in God's image.
However, there were always individuals who objected to reason, who oppressed others, who protested the obedience required for a functioning state, and who rejected the prescribed moral teachings in favor of self-determination. These ranged from kings to counts, and even the occasional priest.
In hindsight, some defenders of these offenders claim they were battling the tyranny of the Catholic Church, failing to see that they were perhaps battling the tyranny of a member of the Catholic Church, and more often than not became tyrants themselves. Other times, they fought against the tyranny of the king, only to replace it with a worse tyranny, like in the French Revolution.
The late Evangelical apologist, Norman Geisler, once made the simple yet effective argument that to reject Christianity on account of an individual Christian who provided a poor witness of his faith, is akin to rejecting Beethoven on account of a poor performance of a pianist intending to play Beethoven. The same applies to the Catholic Church and its handling of medieval affairs—but also to a multitude of other cases.
To be fair, there were certainly times in which the number of such ‘poor performers’ within the Church were higher than other times, and in positions of power that they corrupted for their own benefit. However, that does not mean that the Church—which has managed to survive nearly 2000 years of such imbeciles—is itself corrupt or a system of tyranny.
History is filled with abuses by leaders over the centuries, giving the impression that this was a common occurrence, but centuries of history are not defined by a handful of abuses. For examply, sixteenth century Europe is not defined by Ivan the Terrible’s filicide, the churlish lust of Henry VIII, or the ignorant pleasure-seeking of Leo X. History is far more complex than to be reduced to examples of, “This bishop abused his power here, which means that he and the system he represented consistently encouraged abuse”; or “This king treated women as property and so did everyone else.”
In fact, the opposite is usually true: tyrants are made famous as tyrants because they are recognized as tyrants. If their actions were not tyrannical, few would record them as such. Further still, tyrannical actions stood out because they were not the norm, just as Nazi Germany stands out for its particularly depraved role in German history, not because Germany had always been depraved.
The medieval European feudal system as a whole suffered the tenure of tyrannical kings and others as well. However, it was not everywhere the same. With regard to the legal structure of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE), it encompassed vast lands featuring dozens—if not hundreds—of different cultures and languages. A single ruler was hard-pressed to exact his will upon the others without considerable opposition, whether that will was tyrannical or not. The empire simply could not boast the unity and hierarchy of other medieval states where tyranny was a more common occurrence.
The legal maintainers of the HRE were keenly aware of its deficiencies and limitations, the proclivities of its dukes to abuse power, and the desire of patricidal princes to usurp their fathers. They were also aware that such behavior trickles down. In order to counteract these base appetites, the chroniclers, lawyers, and chancellors of the HRE—who were almost always Catholic clergymen—enforced the elections of the Roman-German kings, arranged for overlapping territories to encourage compromise, restricted feuding among the princes, and limited the power of the emperors.
So what did a medieval territory look like in terms of legal arrangements? Who represented whom and how did they communicate? Why was tyranny at large scales so uncommon in the medieval HRE?
.jpg){kind=link}
How were imperial estates structured?
In the simplest of terms, the HRE possessed two general types of territories throughout its 844 year history: secular and ecclesiastical. The secular states were run by counts, landgraves, margraves, dukes, and kings; whereas the ecclesiastical states were managed by abbots, bishops, and archbishops. Some of its princes embodied a union of the secular and ecclesiastical as prince-bishops, who ruled both a secular territory (e.g. a county) as well as an ecclesiastical territory (e.g. a diocese).
The most famous of the prince-bishops were the three Archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, and Trier who doubled as Prince Electors. However, these various states did not have clear boundaries, with a multiplicity of stakeholders and institutions involved in nearly every parcel of land.
For example, people who lived in the village of Hohenecken, Germany, at the turn of the 14th century were subjects of the Lords of Hohenecken and the Counts of Leiningen as these lords and counts co-owned the castle that oversaw the village. The village itself was part of a larger feudal network controlled by the castle that lay within the royal domain (fiscus) whose administrative center was the city of Lautern (modern-day Kaiserslautern). Thus, there were two noble families and a royal administrator who oversaw and maintained the village of Hohenecken from the secular side of things.
Furthermore, the royal domain of Lautern featured multiple monastic lands including at least three Cistercian abbeys, one Benedictine abbey, one Teutonic Knight Commandry, and three Premonstratensian convents—among others. The main Cistercian Abbey of Otterberg possessed suffragan monasteries not only within the royal domain, but also in other neighboring secular counties and duchies, and was itself a suffragan of another abbey in a different part of the empire.
Beyond that of the monastic realms, the dioceses of Worms and Speyer both overlapped within the royal domain of Lautern, and both were suffragans of the Archdiocese of Mainz—alongside 13 other dioceses. Thus a villager of Hohenecken lived in a territory where a local lord, a regional count, a royal administrator, a Cistercian abbey, a Teutonic Knight Commandry, a bishop and an archbishop all had some sort of jurisdiction. To complicate matters further, part of the royal domain was mortgaged in 1357 to the Electorate of the Rhine—whose ruler was the official steward of the empire.
Key legal questions that arise
Who had the final jurisdiction in religious conflicts?
Who had the final jurisdiction in political conflicts?
To whom could villagers go if they were suffering abuse?
How did the different lords, counts, administrators, and clergy interact?
The HRE possessed an intricate system of checks and balances among the various secular and ecclesiastical estates. For one, the courts of the bishops were regularly attended by members of secular courts and vice versa. The more permanent members of episcopal courts—i.e. the cathedral canons—employed family and friends who lived in the villages under the diocese’s control to regularly report upon news, abuses, or anything of relevance directly to them. These agents were known as Pfründner, or as prebendaries in England, where they were typically the canons themselves.
The prebendaries of the HRE had official designations as agents of an episcopal court, yet were sometimes non-clergy. They received payment from the diocese for various services including the delivery of messages from the deans (known in the Middle Ages as arch-priests) scattered throughout the hinterland and their respective bishops. They also could be sent to secular courts and estates to issue warnings in the event of a reported abuse from the villages that was communicated through these networks. In this manner, the dioceses were well informed of the state of their territorial jurisdiction and could escalate matters, if necessary, to the next level of the Catholic hierarchy—even so far as the pope.
On the secular side of things, lords and counts often served as administrators of the royal/imperial domains (fisci) in a variety of capacities including: local judge, sheriff, forester, bailiff, etc. In this manner, they had the most immediate secular jurisdiction and interaction with local monasteries where trials often took place. As members of the lower-nobility (i.e. counts or barons) these positions elevated their status, allowing them access to higher courts and thus potential political or marital alliances with landgraves, margraves, and even dukes.
The secular management of the estates was regularly observed and even audited by royal or imperial legates. In the event that a town had a royal palace, the itinerancy of the Roman-German kings meant that the king (or emperor) himself could be present for a hearing or audit. Considering that the HRE possessed over 70 such palaces in the Middle Ages during the tenure of each king, they were present at a lot of hearings! Most importantly, the emperors, kings, and their legates reserved the right to demote, replace, or even banish secular feudal lords who failed to properly maintain their realms.
Finally, the monasteries, commandries, and abbeys provided support for villagers as well. Cistercians were well-known for procuring granaries and banks, supporting widows and orphans, and for acting as representatives at markets that few were willing to cheat—as opposed to a farmer who could be easily mistreated by clever merchants. The members of the monastery who conducted these sales and deposits were the lay brothers (called conversi), oftentimes supported by the cellar master and/or prior. Above all, the monasteries and local parishes provided the religious structure and teaching for every area within the HRE.
With regard to protection, local lords were obligated to provide security for their tenants, but the presence of a Teutonic Knight commandry and its host of warrior-monks was a considerable deterrent as well—not only to outsiders but to abuses by local lords. Thus, every institution within the royal domain of Lautern, for example, worked as part of a complex, yet balanced system in which representation was checked at every level.
Tyranny could quickly be uprooted, as the case was for a certain Johann von Hohenecken and his sons who routinely abused their tenants and co-owners of Castle Hohenecken in the second half of the 14th century. This father and his sons stole and cheated nearly everyone one around them. As they were local administrators, they controlled much of the estate but nothing they did quite necessitated a royal visit or audit. Nevertheless, their constant nuisance was scandalous forcing the bishops to get involved and force them to submit, and even humiliated Johann's sons in Mainz through a public act of penance. So much for executions and dungeons, as we commonly see in films.
When the distant relatives of these knavish brothers embarked upon a career as robber-knights some decades later, two prince electors, a landgrave, and multiple other princes—who were typically inimical—rallied together and dispersed the knights after destroying their castle. This only came after repeatwd attenpt at peace for nearly 20 years. Such uprisings could be peacefully snuffed out in the HRE and feuding parties were required to meet with a mediator or referee to discuss terms. Furthermore, if an individual were to be on trial, the jury was of his peers in order to ensure honest judgement.
Did court intrigue always trickle down?
Feuding nobles rarely involved the destruction of villages, or the sacking of livestock and other resources—with the exception of robber-knights. The reason for this is quite simple: they were typically feuding over those precise things! To destroy them would subvert the very intent of the feud, which usually involved land claims. As a result, the common folk was often oblivious to the actions of the nobles, unless it affected the local markets or taxes.
Nobles who coveted the lands and titles of other nobles had little interest in sacking the stables containing hay or the quaint houses of the feudal tenants. Their eyes were usually set on a larger prize. Otherwise, the charters would be filled with descriptions of destroyed villages, but they simply are not. The court intrigue remained within the courts, but poor behavior could trickle down and encourage rowdy tenants to consider malignant behavior as well.
However, medieval tenants knew many things, and one thing they were keenly aware of was the weight of the legal system of the HRE. Perhaps they could not clearly define it—as no one apparently could—but they certainly knew that it was there. The built environment in the form of castles, commandries, palaces, and abbeys reminded them each day of that reality. There was also a confidence among nobles and commoners alike in the fact that when so many intertwining stakeholders are collected in one place, the best thing to do is to retain the status quo, and not to play the tyrant.
Sources
Burkhart, Ulrich, and Stefan Ulrich. ‘Montfort’. In Pfälzisches Burgenlexikon, 3rd edn, edited by Jürgen Keddigkeit, Ulrich Burkhart, and Rolf Übel, 3 I-N. Beiträge zur pfälzischen Geschichte herausgegeben vom Institut für pfälzische Geschichte und Volkskunde Kaiserslautern, 12.3. Institut für pfälzische Geschichte und Volkskunde Kaiserslautern, n.d.
Dolch, Martin, and Michael Münch. Urkundenbuch der Stadt Kaiserslautern II. Teil II: 1322 bis 1450. Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs Kaiserslautern 4. Verlag Arbogast, 1998.
Würzburg, Staatsarchiv Mainzer Ingrossaturbücher. ‘RggEbMz Nr. 2553’. Die Regesten Der Mainzer Erzbischöfe. Accessed 8 September 2022. http://www.ingrossaturbuecher.de/id/source/9908.