What even is a Prince?
Princes are often understood as the sons of kings, or as a dukes, or even as bishops. So who were they and what role did they play?
This article was adapted from my dissertation entitled CITADEL—Computational Investigation of the Topographical and Architectural Designs in an Evolving Landscape, available here.
General Definition
The princes of the Middle Ages represented the elite group of the nobles, composed of those belonging to the higher status positions and dynasties that governed the territories, steering both culture and politics. The term Prince is derived from the Latin princeps (plural: principes) meaning ‘leading man’ which first came into use during the period of the Roman Republic.[1]
It mirrors the German word for the same term, Fürst (plural: Fürsten), meaning ‘the first’.[2] Both Prince and Fürst allow for considerable flexibility when defining the terms over time, as they are very general and can refer to a litany of different statuses and people including counts, margraves, landgraves, dukes, crown-princes, abbots, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals. Provided the general meaning of the term, it was not restricted to secular powers alone, as bishops of the Church are also considered princes.
Princes of the Church
Provided the considerable involvement of ecclesiastical princes in the politics, culture and daily life of the Middle Ages, it is necessary to briefly expand upon who they were. It is worth noting that the number of ecclesiastical princes in the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) was considerably higher than that of the secular princes.[3] In fact, during the war campaigns of Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa) in the late 12th century, 67% of the total princes in his retinue were ecclesiastical.
The reason for their involvement in affairs of state and war is quite simple: they were the chief mediators between different factions. The Princes of the Church maintained the peace, or in times if war, assisted in limiting the destruction by imposing restrictions on what a secular prince was allowed to do. Furthermore, a bishop’s court was vastly influential.
Within the setting of a bishop’s court, there were a number of specific attributes that distinctly differentiated them from the secular courts. The most obvious difference was the lack of an inheritance passed from prince to son, as bishops were sworn to celibacy during the High Middle Ages and afterwards.
In a previous article, we explored the genealogy of the Carolingian scion, Pippin II, whose maternal grandfather had been the 7th century Bishop Arnulf of Metz—a married man. During the Early Middle Ages, a number of such cases influenced the politics of the Frankish kings and emperors, eventually building a key component of the Reichskirche (Imperial Church) of the HRE in the late 10th century.
The first Holy Roman Emperors of the Ottonian (962 - 1024 AD) and Salian (1024 -1125 AD) dynasties used their familial connections to the courts of bishops to influence territorial policies, because the estate of the bishopric could not be divided upon the death of the bishop. After all, the bishopric was the property of the Church and not the bishop or his family and thus indivisible. These estates provided an incredible stability in a world in which secular princes regularly partitioned, sold, or mortgaged their properties.
How did a bishop’s court work?
Eventually, the Cluniac reforms of the late 11th century—and specifically the Investiture Crisis led by Pope Gregory VII—prevented bishops from marrying, thus making secular influence over the bishoprics more difficult. In the event of a bishop’s death, the regular replacement by means of election was enforced. These successors would be elected from the canons of the cathedral chapter, in similar fashion as the princes who elected the Roman-German Kings. Unfortunately, these elections could at times lead to lengthy periods in absence of a bishop, known as sede vacantes.
Despite these clear differences, the governance within the bishoprics was modeled on the territorial lordship of secular princes. In the event of a conflict, the bishops held equal status with the laity (i.e. the secular princes) and acted accordingly in war or otherwise. Additionally, when a new bishop was elected, extensive replacements of court personnel was uncommon as the court stabilized the ecclesiastical principality, thereby consolidating its position within the kingdom or empire.
The members of a bishop’s court were composed of the court officials, the prebendaries among whom the canons sometimes belonged and were only periodically present, other temporary visitors to the court including the relatives of influential court clerics and clergymen, followed by monks, auxiliary bishops, and household aides—known as ministeriales.
The prebendaries who were not canonici (electors of the bishops) essentially extended the cathedral chapter to secular territories and other bishoprics, operating in the interest of the bishopric to which they belonged. By the 1400s, secular princes and kings began to mingle into the ecclesiastical affairs by influencing prebendaries, which had not been done before.
The result of this vast network radiating from each bishop’s court meant that it was much more connected than the secular courts, allowing bishops to often receive information before their secular counterparts. Yet, similar to the secular courts, access to a bishop’s court was more easily gained if a relative or close friend served there. These vast networks also facilitated links from the court to the monasteries, abbeys, and commandries of knightly orders.
In essence, a bishop’s court of the HRE was a socio-political venue linking both ecclesiastical and secular ways of life, offering a central location in which the political and cultural elites of the surrounding areas came into regular contact. It is important, however, not to conflate the role of the bishop in matters of state with his role as shepherd of his diocese. The court of a bishop was a separate building, attached to the cathedral in which two very different events took place.
The princes will be regularly discussed on this substack, highlighting their role in the shaping of the HRE and development of the imperial feudal system.
For more reading on this topic, be sure to look up these sources:
Freed, John B. “Reflections on the Medieval German Nobility.” The American Historical Review 91, no. 3 (June 1986): 553. https://doi.org/10.2307/1869131.
Generaldirektion Kulturelles Erbe Rheinland-Pfalz, und Bernd Schneidmüller, Hrsg. Die Kaiser und die Säulen ihrer Macht. Darmstadt: wbg Theiss, 2020.
Gramsch, Robert. Das Reich als Netzwerk der Fürsten: Politische Strukturen unter dem Doppelkönigtum Friedrichs II. und Heinrichs (VII.) 1225-1235. MIttelalter-Forschungen 40. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag der Schwabenverlag, 2013.
Huthwelker, Thorsten, und Jörg Peltzer, Hrsg. Princely Rank in Late Medieval Europe: Trodden Paths and Promising Avenues. Bd. 1. 5 Bde. RANK. Politisch-Soziale Ordnungen Im Mittelalterlichen Europa. Ostfildern: Thorbecke Verlag, 2011.
[1] A. Pabst, „Princeps“, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, Brepolis Medieval Encyclopaedias - Lexikon des Mittelalters Online (Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler, 1999 1977), http://apps.brepolis.net.ubproxy.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/lexiema/test/Default2.aspx.
[2] „Fürst, Fürstentum, A. Begrifflichkeit, Typologie und Grundzüge“, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, Brepolis Medieval Encyclopaedias - Lexikon des Mittelalters Online (Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler, 1999 1977), http://apps.brepolis.net.ubproxy.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/lexiema/test/Default2.aspx.
[3] Andreas Bihrer, „Research on the Ecclesiastical Princes in the Later Middle Ages: State-of-the-Art and Perspectives“, in Princely Rank in Late Medieval Europe: Trodden Paths and Promising Avenues, hg. von Thorsten Huthwelker und Jörg Peltzer, Bd. 1, 5 Bde., RANK. Politisch-Soziale Ordnungen Im Mittelalterlichen Europa (Ostfildern: Thorbecke Verlag, 2011), 49–70. P. 49.
An excellent article on a very important issue. Congratulations! I would be very happy to read a future article written by you in which you discuss and clarify the meaning of another key concept: "aristocracy."