Army King

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In historical research, a form of rule based on military capabilities is referred to as army kingship .

The name "Heerkönig" is documented in the sources in Old Norse in the form of the name herkonungr and is to be regarded as a parallel name for "Sea King" ( sækonungr ). The army kingship is therefore a special type of kingship that was mainly, but not exclusively, widespread among the Teutons . In this context, the legitimation and authority of the army kingship was not derived from an inherited claim to nobility, but from the abilities of the ruler to dispose of a large number of warriors and to lead them successfully. Successes resulted in material gains that flowed to the king's followers and tied them to him. In principle, the term army king is also applicable to non-Germanic rulers who exercised power in a similar way.

In research, the concept of army kingship , which was largely developed by Walter Schlesinger and later modified by Reinhard Wenskus , was mainly related to Germanic tribes of the Migration Period , whereby the aspects of conquest and land grabbing went hand in hand. Although they might have been of noble descent, the authority of these leaders rested not on dynastic claims but on military accomplishments. This is attributed to the development of kingship among the Germanic peoples, which was also reflected linguistically (in the Gothic the connection between the designation of kings and the exercise of actual political rule was broken), whereby Tacitus , for example, noted that the Germanic peoples between kings (in the sense of a cultic -dynastically legitimized kingship) and military leaders. At the time of contact with the Romans, many Germanic tribes had royal families, but often no more dynastically legitimized kingship that was partly on the fringes of the Germanic world. Leaders or rulers referred to as rex in the Latin sources have distinguished themselves as successful military leaders and exercised rule on this basis, but had to legitimize their claim to rule through constant further successes. Nevertheless, the army kingship should prevail over the older so-called “people's kingship” during the migration period: the army kings thus became the founders of new rulers.

External legitimation could also take place, for example in the case of Childerich I and Clovis I , who appeared not only as Germanic military leaders but also as Roman officials. The actions of the Gothic army king Alaric I , who always endeavored to reach a contractual settlement with Rome, can be classified similarly . Rome, in turn, used the title rex in a targeted manner in diplomatic dealings with Germanic military leaders. In this respect, Roman influences can be identified in the formation of the institution of kingship during the Migration Period and in the early Middle Ages . Early examples of army kings are Ariovistus and Marbod , in the context of the Migration Period and the early Middle Ages, for example, the Gothic king Theodoric the Great and later various Scandinavian rulers (as in the context of the Viking invasions ).

In recent times, however, Schlesinger's conception, according to which the sacred kingship is regarded as given in addition to the army kingship (which has long been the current research opinion), has been increasingly criticized; an older sacred kingship cannot be assumed. In contrast to the sacred kingship, the army kingship is better documented and verifiable in the sources, so that the existence of the army kingship is not disputed even in more recent research. Georg Scheibelreiter, for example, sees the military success of the early Merovingian kings, who led a very heterogeneous troop and ruled over a mixed pagan-Germanic and Christianized Gallo-Roman population, as the sole basis for legitimation. The “barbaric thinking of success” with its opportunism and combative attitude was not actually compatible with the Roman understanding of office (which was therefore increasingly being replaced by family relationships) or even with Christian values, but it was reinterpreted by later Christian historians. In this respect, the knowledge remains that military power and the successes based on it were a central source of legitimation for kingship in the upheaval phase of the Migration Period and in the early Middle Ages.

literature

  • Matthias Becher : "Rule" in the transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. From Rome to the Franks. In: Theo Kölzer , Rudolf Schieffer (ed.): From late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. Continuities and breaks, concepts and findings (lectures and research 70). Jan Thorbecke Verlag, Ostfildern 2009, pp. 163–188.
  • Stefanie Dick: The myth of the "Germanic" royalty. Studies on the organization of rule among the Germanic barbarians up to the beginning of the migration period. de Gruyter, Berlin 2008.
  • Walter Schlesinger : About Germanic army royalty. In: Theodor Mayer (Ed.): The Kingship. Its intellectual and legal basis (lectures and research 3). Jan Thorbecke Verlag, Lindau / Konstanz 1956 (several NDe), pp. 105–141.
  • Herwig Wolfram :  Army royalty. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA). 2nd Edition. Volume 14, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1999, ISBN 3-11-016423-X , pp. 115-118. (Article retrieved via Germanic Antiquity Online at De Gruyter Online)
  • Herwig Wolfram: Early royalty. In: Franz-Reiner Erkens (Ed.): The early medieval monarchy. Idea and religious foundations. de Gruyter, Berlin 2005, pp. 42-64.

Remarks

  1. ^ Walter Schlesinger: About Germanic army kingship. In: Theodor Mayer (Ed.): The Kingship. Its intellectual and legal basis. Lindau / Konstanz 1956, here p. 106.
  2. ↑ Cf. Herwig Wolfram: Early Kingship. In: Franz-Reiner Erkens (Ed.): The early medieval monarchy. Idea and religious foundations. Berlin 2005, here p. 47.
  3. ↑ Tacitus, Germania 7; see. to Walter Schlesinger: About Germanic army kingship. In: Theodor Mayer (Ed.): The Kingship. Its intellectual and legal basis. Lindau / Konstanz 1956, here p. 109ff.
  4. ↑ Herwig Wolfram: Heerkönigtum. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2nd Edition. Volume 14. Berlin / New York 1999, here p. 116.
  5. ↑ Herwig Wolfram: Heerkönigtum. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2nd Edition. Volume 14. Berlin / New York 1999, here p. 117.
  6. ↑ Cf. Reinhold Kaiser : The Roman Heritage and the Merovingian Empire. 3rd revised and expanded edition. Munich 2004, p. 110.
  7. ↑ Stefanie Dick: The myth of the "Germanic" kingship. Berlin 2008, pp. 203ff.
  8. ↑ Cf. Matthias Becher: "Dominion" in the transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. From Rome to the Franks. In: Theo Kölzer, Rudolf Schieffer (ed.): From late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. Continuities and breaks, conceptions and findings. Ostfildern 2009, here pp. 166–168.
  9. ↑ Overview with Herwig Wolfram: Heerkönigtum. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2nd Edition. Volume 14. Berlin / New York 1999, pp. 115-118.
  10. ↑ Cf. Stefanie Dick: The myth of the "Germanic" kingship. Berlin 2008, p. 1, note 1.
  11. ↑ See the explanations by Stefanie Dick: The myth of the "Germanic" kingship. Berlin 2008, p. 32ff. Against an inherited sacrality of the royal rule, Herwig Wolfram: Early Kingship. In: Franz-Reiner Erkens (Ed.): The early medieval monarchy. Idea and religious foundations. Berlin 2005, pp. 42-64.
  12. ↑ Cf. Matthias Becher: "Dominion" in the transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. From Rome to the Franks. In: Theo Kölzer, Rudolf Schieffer (ed.): From late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. Continuities and breaks, conceptions and findings. Ostfildern 2009, here p. 166; Walter Pohl : The Teutons . 2nd edition Munich 2004, p. 67f .; Herwig Wolfram: Early royalty. In: Franz-Reiner Erkens (Ed.): The early medieval monarchy. Idea and religious foundations. Berlin 2005, here p. 55ff.
  13. ^ Georg Scheibelreiter: The barbaric society. Darmstadt 1999, p. 297; see. also pp. 134, 168.