Bachrach, David S., The Benefices of Counts and the Fate of the Comital Office in Carolingian East Francia and Ottonian Germany

Abstract

The long-standing historiographical controversy about the nature of the comital office in East Francia and Ottonian Germany has turned on the same set of questions for more than a century: over whom did the count exercise jurisdiction, what was the basis of count's jurisdiction, and what was the source of the material assets that allowed counts to perform their duties? Left out of these discussions, however, has been the related problem of the control exercised by the king over the assets attached to the comital office, denoted variously as the res de comitatu, the count's ministerium, or simply the comitatus. The following study examines this question from the reign of Emperor Louis the Pious (814–840) through the death of Emperor Henry II (1002–1024), and concludes that the Carolingian and Ottonian rulers maintained tight control over the fiscal assets assigned to counts, and were able to recover them and reassign them as the royal government saw fit. This conclusion is at odds with much of the scholarship on the comital office in East Francia and Ottonian Germany that presents counts holding erstwhile fiscal assets in allodial tenure and the de facto transformation of the comital office into a hereditary possession.

Economic and military aspects of the Frankish conquest of Saxony

“…The most important of these from a military perspective were probably counts. The origins, development, and fate of a comital system in Saxony has been debated extensively over the last century (Bachrach, 2019), but the appointment of these officials was clearly a priority for the Franks and was one of Charlemagne's earliest constitutional acts in the course of the conquest. In 782, according to the Annales Laureshamenses , Charlemagne appointed “counts of Saxon birth from amongst the most noble” ( Annales Laureshamenses , a.…”

“…71-110;Verbruggen, 1965). Specifically, scholars have occupied themselves with questions about the Frankish military's origins as foederati in Roman Gaul and subsequent development through the Merovingian and early Carolingian periods; its arms and armour; the significance of the development of Frankish cavalry; the role of the siege in Frankish warfare; and, not least, the size of Frankish armies (the best recent summaries of these issues are Bachrach, 2001;Halsall, 2003, pp. 71-110;Schäpers, 2018, p. 353).…”

“…The organizational and functional character of the Frankish army in the Carolingian period has long been a subject of debate (Bachrach, 2001(Bachrach, and, 2013Halsall, 2003, pp. 71-110;Verbruggen, 1965).…”

“…For example, it is uncertain whether the payment known as herebannum-frequently mentioned in royal capitularies-should be understood as a punitive fine levied for a treasonous failure to attend to a summons to war, or rather, a mere fee to be paid voluntarily in lieu of service and gladly received by the crown (Coupland, 1999, p. 63). The origins of this obligation 6 of 12 -LANDON to serve militarily, it should be noted, remain fundamentally unclear, though a recent article by Walter Goffart has suggested that they may be found in the remnants of the Roman tax system in Gaul (Goffart, 2008; see also Bachrach, 2001, on the general Roman background to the Frankish army). According to Goffart, the mansus mentioned in Frankish legislation as the basis for military service should not be understood in the usual sense of a unit of land, but rather as a financial unit (albeit doubtless related to the productive potential of an agricultural mansus) liable for taxation in the form of military service.…”