feuds

The feud was a means in the Roman German Reich to enforce its own law. From the early to the late Middle Ages, the feudal system has undergone numerous changes. For a long time kingship was unable to completely suppress feudal conduct and to concentrate legitimate use of force on the princeps (or principes) level. In the late Middle Ages, the widespread feudal practice was opposed not only by the Roman-German kings, but also by the rulers and cities through laws and covenants seeking to secure peace within and between the nascent territories (land peace, land bids, and land regulations in Bavaria). At the same time, however, they also incurred a considerable amount of mischief and violence. In addition to the initiatives of kings, princes, and cities, changing social and political structures, inner-city coalitions, and theologians and lawyers contributed to the delegitimization of the feud. The proclaimed at the Worms Reichstag of 1495 "Eternal land peace" forbade the feud in general; in fact, it persisted into the 16th century.

Approach to the term "feud"

Feud after Christoph H. F. Meyer (born 1966) "a state of enmity between two parties living within the same political entity or society" (Meyer, 215). So does the "Edictus Rothari", A 643 collection of Lombard legal habits, in Chap. 45 and 74 feud ("Qaeda") With "inimicitia" (Enmity) (in: Leges Langobardorum 643-866, by F. Beyerle [Teutonic rights N. F. West Germanic law 8], Witzenhausen 1962, 25, 28). In later times, too, feud and enmity extend to the pair formula "vehement and friendly" related to each other. As "faidosi" were referred to persons who had enmity or enmity. Enmity in turn expressed itself primarily in acts of revenge and damage to manslaughter. Efforts of the early medieval kingship, such "feuds" however, curbing penalties or the compulsion to accept fines by the injured could not effectively suspend action in the categories of personal power.

The development of the Fehdewesens in the East Franconian or Roman German Reich

Legal and social norms

In spite of the constantly close relationship between feud and enmity, it is of an equanimous equation that the early medieval one is "feud" to warn with the High Medieval or late medieval feud, because the feudal system has undergone numerous changes. Feud followed in the Carolingian period an orally transmitted rules, which – as far as it goes "Descriptions of concrete events and events" (Althoff, Demonstration, 233) – violence limited and conflict settlement structured by rituals. The divine and land peace movement of the High Middle Ages, however, went on to formulate feud-limiting facts such as local, personal ("pax") and special temporal peace ("Treuga") and their protection by execution mechanisms as well as to spiritual and criminal sanctions. Feud that as "pro werra propria, pro amico, per parent" (as a separate feud, feud for a friend, for a relative) or for any other reason (see Land Peace Act against the arsonists of 1186/88, MGH DD FI, No. 988, p. 275, Z. 18f.) , should be temporarily suspended, channeled and contained in their forms of discharge. use of force "traditional ruler" (Wadle, Delegitimierung, 82) in the exercise of their official function, but also the punitive actions of comrades against peacemakers were, however, not put under a verdict.

Characteristic of the situation in the Roman-German empire of the Hohenstaufen period, however, is that the kingdom failed to completely suppress feudal leadership and to concentrate legitimate use of force in the monarchy or at least to endorse the church sanctioned arson permanently in the context of feuds with a ban. The influence of scholarly law on land peace legislation north of the Alps remained limited in the time of Frederick I (reigned 1152-1190) and Frederick II (reigned 1212-1250). Concessions to the "consuetudinibus antiquitus traditis" (Old traditional habits, MHG Const. 2, No. 196, p. 241, Z. 33f.), which made a complete abolition of the feud impossible, even characterize the Mainz Reichsfrieden of Frederick II of 1235 with its much wider scope Claiming to abolish the feud. Feudal leadership, which still in the High Middle Ages too "Court and legal proceedings" in the relationship of "complementarity" (see Wadle, Delegitimierung, 83), was subsequently pushed into subsidiarity (see the land peace for the Prince Bristle of Brixen of 1229 [MGH Const. 2, No. 426, § 7, p. 569]; Mainz Reich Peace of 1235).

Precisely because the peace of God and land did not abolish feuds, but only partially abolished or restricted them, they contributed significantly to a gradual and progressive formalization and juridification of the feud and to its positioning in the legal system of the Roman-German Empire. According to Fischer, the Hohenstaufen country peace aimed, "transform the originally probably unregulated self-help into a formalized use of force" (Fischer, Reichsreform, 29). It should be remembered, for example, that the deadline of three days was set in the Land Peace Law against the arsonists of 1186/1188. Other attempts at containment of violence, such as restricting hostile actions to the person of the opponent, if these were encountered outside specially protected places or times (see, for example, the Peace of Mainz of 1103, MGH Const. 1, No. 74, p ), and the ban on "Reisa"/"reysa", one of the Visitation related military campaign (eg Saxon Peace of Land of 1221, MGH Const. 2, No. 280, p. 395 [17], p. 395), on the other hand, were not included in the established scheme of action. Instead dominated at least since the Mainz Imperial Peace of 1235 after Gernhuber again the "damage costumes", were exposed by the possession and domination of the opponent damaging acts, while the opponent itself was spared as a rule.

In the late Middle Ages, feud, after still prevailing opinion, ultimately based on Otto Brunner (1898-1982), was a subsidiary means "the law enforcement", Yes "arbitrary prosecution in the broad sense" (Fischer, Reichsreform, 13), if there was a just cause, defined forms – especially the timely cancellation – were respected and feudal nature of the feudal leader was given. In the feudal rules of the Golden Bull of Charles IV (r. 1346-1378) 1356, the formulation of the principle of subsidiarity was even completely dispensed with. In the case of denial of justice, the wording of the castle that was lent to it, was repeated again and again in late Medieval lending documents "help yourself", also proves the permissibility of personal power. Own power in the form of the feud therefore corresponds to a self-help idea that goes beyond the narrow self-help concept of today’s BGB (§ 229ff., § 859f.). The criteria for a permissible feud thus only partially coincided with those which supported the doctrine of the "Just war" for a "bellum iustum" formulated ("auctoritas principis", "causa iusta", "recta intentio").

Practice of feud

Leader leaders won their helpers on the basis of fief and service relationships, by activating social networks including relatives and by free recruitment. The feudal groups differed considerably depending on the status of the feudal leader. Feuds were concocted through atonement, in which the mutual relations were placed on a new, now contracted basis.

In practice, feudal leadership was an option for action that could be claimed by the nobleman, institutions of a magistrate character, or even the prince, and – without legal legitimacy – also claimed by non-noble layers. As long as jurisdiction was not clearly established, the impartiality of the courts could be doubted, jurisdiction was an instrument of domination, and subjection to jurisdiction was a criterion of subordination, as long as serious legal enforcement deficiencies persisted, then feudal leadership retained its social acceptance. A political use of feudal leadership by rulers and king – as in the course of territorialization policy – is addressed by the research, and even in such cases, a postulated infringement should have provided the justification for the feudal leadership. Until the late Middle Ages, not only the lower nobility but also kings, princes and cities suffered a considerable amount of mischief.

Crucial to the political-military use of the feud, however, is not only the result obtained by the use of force, but the written translation of this result by atonement, which regulated the relationship of both sides for the subsequent period. Fuehrer leadership and reconciliation contributed so no less to the training of sovereigns as the aspirations of the expectant sovereigns for inner peace. However, feudal leadership was by no means only an instrument of power of socially superior actors, it was rather practiced right down to the lower strata of the population.

In the late Middle Ages, not only the Roman-German kings, but also the rulers of the land were opposed to widespread feudal practice by laws and alliances which sought to secure peace within the nascent territories and between them within the limits mentioned above. For the Bavarian duchies is to refer to the land peace of the 13th and 14th centuries, as well as the land rules and regional orders of the 15th century. However, like princes’ alliances, inner-league unions also had elements of peacekeeping, such as the renunciation of a conflict-related conflict between members. Cities also opposed actual or alleged peace breakers. Nevertheless, feudal leadership of princes, low nobility and cities was widespread not only in the splendidly fragmented Franconia or in Swabia and the Upper Palatinate, but also in the Bavarian duchies until the 15th century. As one of the last major disputes can be pointed to the 1491/92 fought conflict of the Löwlerbundes with Duke Albrecht IV of Bavaria-Munich (reigned 1465-1508).

In addition, learned jurists and theologians contributed to the delegitimization and finally to the abolition of the feud; changed social and political structures – not least the gradual consolidation of the country’s rule – also provided the essential framework. The proclaimed at the Worms Reichstag of 1495 "Eternal land peace" However, it was only from retrospective that it formed the decisive caesura. In fact, the practice of feud persisted into the sixteenth century.

research problems

A methodological challenge is based on the conceptual blurring of the sources. While in German the term "feud" the range of concepts of "inimicitia" covers, so too "enmity" means, can the factually relevant term "urliuge" Next "feud" also "war" mean. Frequently the phenomenon becomes "feud" circumscribed by a combination of terms (wars, urleuge, misshelunge, vfleufe). Also the term usage in Latin is nonspecific; here you will find guerra, bellum, rixa, inimicitia and in the early Middle Ages also faida. Whether the possible German terms or the nature of their combination always stands for different degrees of escalation of conflicts, as assumed for the Kurtrier of the 14th century (Eulenstein), remains to be investigated. So, first of all, a concept of "feud" in order to be able to decide which source terms supply relevant building blocks. As a research term appears the use of the term "feud" nevertheless makes sense, since the concept of the "war" is too far. Also the term "private war", which is used by Kortüm, for example, in the style of English and French-speaking research, appears problematic, since it implicitly presupposes a monopoly on the state’s power and clear allegiance to subjects, which was not the case in the late Middle Ages.

Since the 1990s, Brunner’s misunderstanding has also come under criticism. The current research controversies are based on a demanded paradigm shift; On the other hand, however, they are stronger than sometimes reflected, and are also conditioned by the selection of the sources used and their conceptual blurring. Regarding research assumptions, parts of the research consider the question of the social logic of the feud and the social consequences of the feud to be central, and the time-based character of Otto Brunner’s theses is problematized (see, eg, Algazi, Morsel, Zmora, Kortum). The indefinable nature of war and feud postulated by Brunner and widely accepted in research is also partly denied (cf Kortüm, cited above) and criticized Brunner’s treatment of the sources. However, at times, too little attention is paid to the fact that the sources address feudalism and feudalism from different perspectives due to their nature. The generic dependence of the source perspective prohibits the mixing of discourses and, for For example, it seeks to dispute the legal character of feuding by complaining of the victims’ suffering in historiographical sources. All the more important is the demand of Graf to include contemporary discourses such as the honor discourse in the consideration. As far as the jurisprudential appraisal of feudal practice is concerned, the regional peculiarities of the land peace and thus of the feudal law must be considered even more than before.

Leaning in old Bavaria – historical lexicon of Bavaria

Leaning in Old Bavaria Already in the early medieval duchy of Bavaria elements of feudalism (vassals, benefices) are attested; the classical expression…
Haus bavaria – historical lexicon bavaria

House Bavaria Emerging term in the late Middle Ages, which also includes the geographical area of the state of Bavaria, as well as the ruling dynasty…
Robber knights – historical lexicon of Bavaria

Raubritter Raiding knights are understood to be nobles who allegedly had been in need in the late Middle Ages because of the general social change and…
Pharmacopoeia of the ortolf von baierland – historical lexicon of Bavaria

Pharmacopoeia of Ortolf von Baierland Around the 13th century, the Würzburg physician Ortolf von Baierland (about 13th / 14th century) wrote the…