Union state

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As persons member State some historians describe the state of the early and high Middle Ages , in which the rule on a mutual, personal relationship of dependence between lord and vassal reasons.

Theodor Mayer developed the concept of a person association state and contrasted it with the “ institutionalized land state ” (the territorial state ) of modern times, in which rule is exercised with the help of public institutions and in a contiguous territory. This approach was also supported by Gerd Tellenbach in 1940 and Walter Schlesinger in 1941 , with which they fixed the post-war image for a long time. Their interpretation had thus shifted from an older view of the law and the constitution as well as supra-personal institutions, which was proven to be anachronistic, to a perspective based on the principle of personal rule, according to which the state was formed by personal ties based on loyalty and allegiance to a leader. According to Theodor Mayer, “Union states [...] could quickly be brought to greater clout by outstanding leaders who found a following and formed community, but their existence was also tied to the effectiveness of these leaders. Large union states are supported and run by ingenious men who sometimes succeed in creating a community that extends beyond their lives and a lasting tradition. ”According to Anne Christine Nagel, this has taken on board the contemporary legal theories of Carl Schmitt and Ernst Rudolf Huber to a large extent .

The Czech historian František Graus raised the first criticism of this "spooky image", which also described loyalty as a typical trait of the Germanic "people" to Roman antiquity , by proving from the sources that loyalty was not due to the Teutons was restricted behavior. In the meantime, younger historians have replaced the term in medieval studies with other terms or terms. The controversy between Johannes Fried and Hans-Werner Goetz in the 1980s was about the ideas of the Carolingian era behind the term regnum (kingship), how much of a transpersonal state there is in it. In his research on group formation and group consciousness in the 10th century, Gerd Althoff published new perspectives in 1990 (Relatives, Friends and Faithful) and 1992 (Amicitiae and Pacta) : ties of a kinship and friendship-cooperative nature among the nobles were more important than ties to the ruler . The duties to the king were withdrawn. The ties were further strengthened by a religious oath (coniuratio) . In his analysis of the political order of the Ottonian Empire, Hagen Keller assumed a polycentric system of rule. A count of the royal courts as well as royal property, duties, customs duties and other income does not adequately describe the state order and the possibilities for political development in the 10th and 11th centuries. The yardstick for the achievements of the Ottonian rulers was not the acquisition and increase in power, but their integration function. According to Keller, the monarchy had the task of integrating the individual aristocratic lords "through the organization of personal relationships and thus giving them the quality of a rule and legal system".

literature

Remarks

  1. ↑ Gerd Tellenbach: The emergence of the German Empire. On the development of the Frankish and German states in the 9th and 10th centuries. Munich 1940.
  2. ^ Walter Schlesinger: The emergence of sovereignty. Investigations mainly based on Central German sources. Dresden 1941.
  3. ↑ Theodor Mayer: The state of the dukes of Zähringen. Freiburg im Breisgau 1935. Reprinted with abbreviations in: Ders .: Medieval studies. Collected Essays. Sigmaringen 1959, pp. 350-364. Quoted from Anne Christine Nagel: In the shadow of the Third Reich. Medieval research in the Federal Republic of Germany 1945–1970. Göttingen 2005, p. 173.
  4. ^ Anne Christine Nagel: In the shadow of the Third Reich. Medieval research in the Federal Republic of Germany 1945–1970. Göttingen 2005, pp. 89–91 and 126 f.
  5. ^ Frantisek Graus: About the so-called Germanic loyalty. In:  Historica  Vol. 1 (1959) pp. 71-122.
  6. ↑ Johannes Fried: The Carolingian rulership association in the 9th century between "church" and "royal house". In: Historical magazine. 235: 1-43 (1982); Hans-Werner Goetz: Regnum. On the political thinking of the Carolingian era. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History. German Department. 104: 110-189 (1987).
  7. ^ Gerd Althoff: Relatives, friends and faithful. On the political significance of group ties in the early Middle Ages. Darmstadt 1990; Gerd Althoff: Amicitiae and Pacta. Alliance, unification, politics and prayer commemoration in the early 10th century. Hanover 1992.
  8. ^ Hagen Keller: Basics of Ottonian royal rule. In: Karl Schmid (Ed.): Empire and Church before the Investiture Controversy. Gerd Tellenbach on his eightieth birthday. Sigmaringen 1985, pp. 17–34, here 26.