Saxon military revolution, 912–973?: myth and reality

Abstract

For more than a generation Karl Leyser's influential thesis, which credited Henry I with undertaking a military revolution which made possible the Saxon dynasty's rule of Francia orientalis, has dominated the scholarly literature. According to Leyser, Henry radically reformed the Saxon military by building a large force of heavily armed mounted fighting men. These men provided the means necessary to assure Saxon domination. It is argued here, by contrast, that this Saxon military revolution is a myth and that the continental Saxons, as contrasted to those in England, saw the gradual development of a heavily armed mounted fighting force following their conquest by Charlemagne in 805. The real Saxon military revolution was Henry's creation of the agrarii milites and the building of frontier fortifications.

Economic and military aspects of the Frankish conquest of Saxony

“…Leyser's thesis has recently been challenged, however, by Bernard S. and David Bachrach, who have suggested that the true Saxon military revolution took place within the context of the Saxons' integration into the Frankish state. Through an analysis of the numerous references to Saxon military participation in the ninth century, the Bachrach have debunked Leyser's assertion that the Saxons occupied an inferior position within the Carolingian army by illustrating that Saxon troops were not in fact referenced negatively in Frankish sources and by showing that there is no compelling evidence that Saxons were inadequately trained or equipped (Bachrach & Bachrach, 2007). Indeed, as Bachrach and Bachrach note, Nithard, for example, famously reports on Saxons participating on an equal footing with Franks and other peoples of the empire in war games during the time of Louis the Pious (Nithard, III.6, in Müller, 1907, p. 38).…”

Quasi una gens: Saxony and the Frankish world, c. 772–888

“…In the field of religion, Hedwig Röckelein has illuminated the Christianization of the region, with particular attention paid to the role of relics in society, and Theo Kölzer has refined our view of Carolingian involvement in fledgling Saxon foundations through the diplomatic analysis of imperial charters (Kölzer, , , ; Röckelein, , , , , , , , , ). The last 20‐odd years have also marked the emergence of interest in Carolingian Saxony by English‐language historians such as Ian Wood, Eric Goldberg, Eric Knibbs, and Robert Flierman, among others (see here especially Appleby, ; Bachrach & Bachrach, ; Carroll, ; Flierman, , , forthcoming ; Goldberg, ; Hen, ; Karras, ; Knibbs, ; Mayr‐Harting, ; Palmer, , , ; Rembold, , , forthcoming , ; Shuler, ; van Egmond, ; Wood, , , , ). Finally, it is worth noting that the role that published conference proceedings and exhibition catalogues have played in the field, especially those resulting from an 1999 exhibition and associated conferences organized by the Diözesanmuseum Paderborn, and likewise from a conference held in the same year by the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress in San Marino (Green & Siegmund, ; Hässler, Jarnut, & Wemhoff, ; Stiegemann & Wemhoff, ).…”

“…Yet the focus of these authors—and hence many modern historians—was on the development of Christianity and Christian infrastructure in Saxony. Some have read against the grain of both these and other sources in order to develop a political history of the region; one may point, for example, to the work of Bernard and David Bachrach, whose 2007 article charted the role of Saxons in Carolingian warfare as reconstructed from assorted annalistic entries (Bachrach & Bachrach, ). Particular interest has centred around the process of Saxon ethnogenesis and the rise of the Liudolfings, more commonly known from the 10th‐century on as the Ottonians.…”