Hungary walls
Castle research describes a group of mostly larger early medieval fortifications in south and south-west Germany , Saxony and some other areas as the Hungarian walls . The castle complexes were built as a reaction to the Hungarian invasions at the end of the early Middle Ages , which lasted from 899 to the battle of the Lechfeld in 955.
Historical background
The fortifications were built in the 9th and 10th centuries as military bases and protective castles for the population. In 926 there was another devastating invasion of Hungary after the steppe riders had attacked Bavaria for the first time in 899 . King Heinrich I therefore issued a castle ordinance at the Worms Reichstag in which the construction of numerous large castle complexes was decided. Some of the castles were redesigned, but mostly older ramparts were expanded and modernized. In addition, the king ordered the fortification of previously defenseless cities and markets, and a dense network of military bases and refuges in the endangered areas quickly emerged. Of course, some castle walls had already been built before this time, for example in Eichstätt and St. Gallen .
At the same time, the establishment of a powerful tank cavalry began; the previous people's army and the few mounted, mostly aristocratic warriors could not offer sufficient resistance on their own. When setting up this cavalry troop, one could fall back on Carolingian traditions; Karl Martell had already defeated the Moors in the battle of Tours and Poitiers with the help of such an elite armored troop.
The old people's army consisted mainly of free people who were hopelessly inferior to the eastern cavalry warriors as foot soldiers . The construction of a heavily armored cavalry was a fundamental innovation that significantly changed the social and political development of Central Europe. The equipment of the elite warriors was extremely expensive, the few noble families could not provide the " knights " from their ranks alone. So the nobility provided the warriors with a fiefdom that could guarantee the economic security of the armored rider. For this purpose, monastery property was also secularized; The lands of the monasteries destroyed by the Hungarians were preferred to be confiscated and passed on to the vassals ( ministerials ). Later from these beginnings the service aristocracy and the Central European chivalry developed.
Heinrich I managed to negotiate a ten-year armistice in return for high tribute payments. During this time numerous, sometimes huge, state castles and also countless, smaller ramparts were built and the armored troops built up. In 933 tribute payments were stopped before the end of the armistice. In response, there were renewed attacks, mainly on Saxon and Thuringian territory. However, the attackers were already expected here by the imperial troops. Most of the population had been evacuated, the large state castles could serve as ideal troop bases for the new, armored elite troops. The Hungarians were put to flight by two German army groups on the Werra and Unstrut ; the heavy cavalry had passed its test against the eastern steppe riders. The defeats impressed the Hungarians so much that there were no further raids on East Franconian territory until the death of Henry I. Later, however, there were numerous new attacks, which could only be ended by the devastating defeat of the Hungarians on the Lechfeld near Augsburg .
Some of the large ramparts were used and expanded as seats of counts or bailiffs for a short time, but many abandoned and overgrown by the forest. Some high medieval castles use the Hungarian or originally older ramparts as additional obstacles, such as the Kallmünz Castle in Upper Palatinate or the Karlsburg above Karlstadt in Lower Franconia.
Castle ban and castle works
The short-term expansion of the large Hungarian fortifications with their extensive earthworks was only possible through tight organization. All free exiles who were subject to military exemption could also be used for the castle works. These pagenses, which had to be banned from castles , were called up and used by the counts . The real castle work naturally had to be done by the servants of the free. The optimates , i.e. the rich high nobility, were summoned directly by the king. The work to be performed is measured according to the property of the person responsible for the castle works. Each group (villages, hundreds) or each individual who is required to have a castle was assigned a work section based on the “foot measurement”.
Castle ban and castle maintenance obligations were widespread long before the Hungarian storms and not only in the East Franconian area. The king was able to relinquish the castle ban to the high nobility or exempt it from the castle maintenance obligation. Occasionally, castle maintenance obligations can still be proven in the early modern period. Particularly in times of crisis such as the Hungarian storms, the duty to build a castle was associated with a right of refuge. The builders of the ramparts were allowed to seek refuge in the weir with their relatives.
Most of the countless smaller, often very well-preserved village defensive castles, however, were probably built largely on their own initiative by the village communities. “Farm castles” are therefore not generally a late medieval phenomenon, as some researchers assume today. Here, the castle ban may not always have been fully observed by the landlords.
The chronicler Widukind von Corvey reports on agrarii milites , to which the supervision of the completed castle complex was given. Apparently there were nine men each, one of whom was mainly responsible for the maintenance and manning of the ramparts. The other eight had to take care of the Burgmann and relieve him of the daily field work. In the event of an attack, however, all agrarii milites had to take part in the defense.
More recent research assumes that these agrarii milites were free farmers, not unfree or even mounted ministerials . The duties of the groups of nine also included stockpiling the castle. As a rule, the independent defense farmers did not live within the ramparts, but ran their own farms in the vicinity. Only the actual castle man is likely to have lived within the castle complex, at least occasionally. Widukind's information mainly relates to the Saxon area known to him.
The Hungary walls
The great Hungarian fortifications differ significantly from older, prehistoric or early historical fortifications. Many of these castles could still be put into a defensible state within a few days, the earthworks are so well preserved. The walls are between 6 and 15 m high, and the trenches also reach corresponding depths. The systems are often on hill spurs and are additionally secured by mighty slope trenches. A special feature are the huge earth walls that protect the attack side in the manner of later shield walls . These front walls are also referred to as Hungary walls ; the term thus describes either the entire rampart or just the large main rampart. Sometimes there are still extensive outer castles in front of the deep trenches of the front walls , which occasionally remained unfinished after the Hungarian threat was removed. In front of the outer wall, elaborate approaches were often created, such as wolf pits and tree entrances . In some systems, especially in the Augsburg area, heaped earth bars have been preserved that were laid vertically in front of the outer ditch. These earth ribs (rider alleys) were certainly planted with thorn bushes or reinforced with sharpened wooden posts. The Magyar horsemen could not gallop directly along the trench and fire at the defenders with arrows from their reflex bows. Even foot fighters were deterred from storming the ramparts for a long time and could be more easily fought with stones and arches. The layout of the ramparts takes into account the special fighting style of the Hungarians.
The impressive walls are usually pure earth fillings, so they were not created by the collapse of wood / earth or stone walls. Most of the wall crowns probably only supported palisades , other structures mostly come from a later period. The embankments and moat slopes are very steep, and inwardly the ramparts raise the castle plateau by several meters.
In addition to the large state castles (firmitates), numerous smaller protective castles (ammunitiones) were built for the village communities and individual landlords. The characteristic features of the large castle walls can be found here in a reduced form. Widukind von Corvey , for example, speaks of such smaller castles on the right side of the Lech ; in fact, several ramparts here bear clear Hungarian features. ( Burgstall Burgadelzhausen , Pfarrerschanze and Eselsberg near Thierhaupten, Vorderer Schlossberg Mering and others).
In addition to the Haldenburg , the Birg near Hohenschäftlarn ( district of Munich ) is considered to be the “ideal case” of a Hungarian wall in the wider Lechfeld area . The extensive ground monument illustrates all the typological features of such a rampart, as already defined by Wilhelm Schneider .
The section fortification lies on a spur, protected by steep slopes, above the Isar . The eight to ten meter high main wall is preceded by a double trench with a central wall about four to five meters deep. In front of the wall system, several rows of short earth ribs can still be seen in the area. A low, probably prehistoric earth wall lies in front of these obstacles to the approach of riders. The typical slope trench runs around the west side of the 85,000 square meter ramparts, which, like most similar systems today, is largely flattened to a berm .
The Birg probably served as a refuge for the nearby Schäftlarn monastery , but it also offered enough space for the population of the surrounding villages. In contemporary documents there is talk of an oppidum apud sceftilarii . The rampart was also suitable as a troop meeting place. Only a few kilometers to the northwest, the extensive earthworks of another pre- to high-medieval castle have been preserved on the eastern high bank. This Römerschanze is also protected by a powerful, early medieval wall system.
Thorn and tree barriers as obstacles to approach
Many of the preserved protective castles were probably secured in advance or on the ramparts by thorn hedges or tree entrances. Older ramparts could be made ready for defense again with relatively little effort. The hornbeam , which quickly sprouts new branches, or the hawthorn and blackthorn were particularly suitable for setting up such simple defensive structures .
Such hedges were already mentioned by Caesar in his treatise on the Gallic War ( De bello Gallico ). The tribe of Nervii put systematically articulated - and Gebücklandwehren against enemy cavalry to its settlements.
Similar lines of defense were often laid out in the late Middle Ages . Numerous country enclosures made of wall, ditch and thorn hedge were created around the territories of cities such as Schwäbisch Hall or Rothenburg ob der Tauber .
It was more time-consuming to create tree trunks, either from whole trunks with their branches or from branches and chopped up scrub. As late as the 17th century, such entanglements or decay were used against horseman attacks. At that time, these obstacles were usually placed at a depth of about 100 meters.
Some fortifications from the Hungarian period probably consisted only of such approach obstacles without pronounced moats. Archaeological evidence of these castles is therefore very difficult. The relatively low ramparts of some of the smaller and medium-sized alleged Hungarian defensive castles can actually only have effectively fulfilled their function in connection with thorns.
Hungary walls in contemporary written sources
The Hungarian fortifications are only occasionally mentioned in contemporary written sources. Most documents of the 10th century contain only news of pious donations.
One of the most valuable written sources, besides the chronicle of Widukind von Corvey, are the stories of Abbot Ekkehard IV's St. Gallen monastery ( Casus sancti Galli ). Abbot Ekkehard reports here about a Hungarian attack on his monastery in 926. After the first rumors of an imminent Magyar attack were spread, work began on building a hill fort over the river Sitter . For this purpose, a hilly terrain spur was separated by a low moat. In addition, a tree fence secured the plateau against attacks by horsemen. A small wooden chapel was even built as a prayer house within the ramparts. The liturgical equipment and the church treasures were also kept in the chapel .
The small library of the monastery was transferred to the island of Reichenau for security reasons . The "young men and old men" unable to fight were brought to safety in the monastic "Wasserburg" (today's Wasserburg ) on the northern shore of Lake Constance .
In addition to the construction of the refuge, the monastery inmates also prepared active resistance against the Hungarians. Various weapons were made such as slingshots and spears , makeshift shields were made from wicker baskets and wooden boards, and armor was made from felt .
The Hungarians actually attacked the monastery, but quickly withdrew when they noticed the well-fortified protective castle over the Sitter. The defenders were able to kill some of the fleeing Hungarians in failures. However, the danger was not yet eliminated. Over the next few days, the Magyars continued to devastate and plunder the surrounding area. The fortification was therefore reinforced again with additional tree barriers and another ditch. In addition, a well was built .
After the country had been largely robbed, the Magyars finally crossed the Rhine after the besieged Constance had survived the attack, at least within its fortifications.
Similar to the information Widukind of Corvey (castle system on the Lechrain) the disclosures Ekkehard by the actual existence of an early medieval ramparts Waldenburg ( Häggenschwil . Kanton St. Gallen ) confirmed near the monastery. Despite its relatively weak ramparts, which were still recognizable, the refuge castle, which was built “in a hurry”, in conjunction with the tree cleavage presented, proved to be a safe refuge for the monastery's familia .
In his chronicle, the abbot mentions a few other smaller Hungarian walls in the area. He also reports on the failure of the monastic ministerials (milites), who are said to have been "concerned only for themselves".
The monastic castle above the Sitter is also mentioned in the Vitae sanctae Wiboradae . St. Wiborada had been killed in the Magyar attack because she had remained in her monastery cell as inclusa .
State of research
Research into this type of fastening is still in its infancy. The lay researcher Wilhelm Schneider made a special contribution here; his work (see literature) can still be used today as a basis for dealing with these castle complexes. Most of the results of his research were later confirmed by academic research. Many fortifications, which used to be classified as "early medieval" at best, are now dated as being from the Hungarian period.
However, some of these classifications, which can usually only be made “by appearance”, should be critically examined. Since the political turmoil of this time enabled the Hungarians and the Normans to launch promising attacks on the territory of the Reich, some of the castle complexes dated from the Hungarian period are likely to have been built or expanded primarily as a reaction to regional conflicts. The number of Magyar warriors who actually invaded Central Europe was, in reality, far lower than what is reported.
The assignment of individual fortifications to this type of castle is mostly based on the typological features described. As troop assembly points and protective castles, which are only used temporarily, such systems offer little meaningful archaeological finds. Most of these castles were probably never attacked by the Hungarians. The cavalry warriors probably circumvented the fortified places on a large scale.
In northern Bavaria, however, some Hungarian arrowheads have already been recovered in the area of such Hungarian walls (Turmberg Kasendorf , Weiherstein near Wonsees, etc.). Several thorn arrowheads were also found on the Round Mountain near Bad Urach ( Swabian Alb ), which are generally recognized as reliable evidence of a Magyar attack. Some horseshoes were also recovered here, which were probably used by the local cavalry troops to defend themselves against Hungary and which probably only became more widespread in the East Franconian area in the course of the Hungarian wars (the establishment of a powerful armored troop).
However, not every massive earthfill must indicate a final stage of expansion of the fortification from the Hungarian period. More recent investigations date the up to 12 meter high barrier wall on the Schlossberg near Kallmünz to the early La Tène period , the section wall on the Bogenberg over Bogen in Lower Bavaria to the more recent South German Urnfield period .
Such older, typologically similar ramparts may have been welcome refuges during the Hungarian storms and in the political turmoil before and during these attacks, which could relatively quickly be restored to a defensible state. Future archaeological research will probably continue to reduce the “catalog of real Hungarian walls” and provide valuable clues for the national historical evaluation.
The typical slope trenches of such ramparts were widespread in early medieval fortress construction since the Carolingian era . As a rule, castles presumably from the Hungarian period are located on rather moderately high mountain spurs in the hill country or the low mountain ranges . An additional slope protection in the form of a trench was absolutely necessary against cavalry troops. Surprise attacks on the mostly less secured flanks could thus be made more difficult.
Some authors, especially in connection with the Bavarian State Exhibition 2001: “Bavaria - Hungary a thousand years”, questioned the existence of a type of fortification specially designed for the Hungarian defense and a systematic castle building from the Hungarian period. What is particularly striking, however, is the accumulation of early medieval castle complexes with very pronounced wall-ditch systems and obstacles to approaching riders in the area of the diocese of Augsburg and neighboring areas. The often relatively fleeting execution and the enormous size of the preserved monuments point to the Hungarian period. Some of these facilities do not appear to have been completed. It is possible that the digging work was stopped after the Hungarian threat had been removed and the fortifications that were no longer needed were abandoned.
Examples of large alleged Hungarian fortifications
The large ramparts with features from the Hungarian period often go back to prehistoric and early historical settlements or fortifications. Early medieval fastening elements often extend or overlay much older earthworks here.
Baden-Württemberg
- Old Castle ( Fridingen an der Donau )
- Buigen ( Herbrechtingen )
- Buses ( Uttenweiler )
- Dreifaltigkeitsberg ( Spaichingen )
- Gräbelesberg and Schalksburg (both Albstadt )
- Heidengraben ( Grabenstetten )
- Ipf ( Bopfingen )
- Heuneburg ( Hundersingen )
- Heuneburg (Upflamör near Zwiefalten ) and Reiffersberg
- Rosenstein (Heubach) with the auxiliary works Hochberg and Mittelberg
- Round mountain ( Bad Urach )
- Frankenschanze ( Leingarten )
Bavaria
- Birg (Hohenschäftlarn)
- Birg (Kleinhöhenkirchen)
- Buschelberg ( Fischach )
- Burgstall Schwedenschanze (Cham) , first mentioned in 976
- Haldenburg ( Schwabmünchen )
- Kallmünz (early medieval fortress on the Schlossberg , which, however, uses a wall built around 1200 BC in the core)
- Wagesenberg ski jump ( Wagesenberg , Pöttmes )
- Weiherberg (Christgarten near Nördlingen )
swell
- Ekkehardus IV. Sangallensis: The stories of the St. Gallen monastery . ( Casus sancti Galli ). Translated and explained by Hanno Helbling. (The historians of the German prehistory, 3, complete edition 102). Cologne, Graz, 1958
- Widukind von Corvey: Res gestae Saxonicae
- Latin-German: The history of Saxony . Stuttgart, 1992. ISBN 3-15-007699-4
literature
- Bavaria - Hungary a thousand years: Catalog for the Bavarian State Exhibition 2002 . (Publications on Bavarian history and culture, 43) Augsburg: House of Bavarian History, 2001. ISBN 3-927233-78-1
- Klaus Leidorf, Peter Ettel: Castles in Bavaria - 7000 years of castle history in the air . Stuttgart 1999, ISBN 3-8062-1364-X .
- Walter Sage: Effects of the Hungarian Wars in Old Bavaria and their archaeological evidence . In: Annual reports of the Aventinum Foundation, No. 4. Abensberg, 1990. ISBN 3-88891-042-0
- Peter Schauer : Two "Hungarian walls" not far from the Lower Bavarian Danube. "Historical topography" based on visual and historical findings . In: Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, 34 . Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 2002, pp. 49–53
- Wilhelm Schneider: The southwest German Hungarian walls and their builders . (Work on Alemannic Early History, Book XVI). - Tübingen, 1989
- Michael Weithmann: Knights and Castles in Upper Bavaria - Forays into the medieval country between the Alps, Danube, Lech and Salzach . Dachau, 1999. ISBN 3-89251-276-0 ( refuges and refuges in Hungary of the 10th century , pp. 40–46)
See also
For the protection program for the cities, see for example: