What Did <i>Comitatus</i> Mean in the Ottonian-Salian Kingdom?

Abstract Hartmut Hoffmann’s seminal essay ‘Grafschaften in Bischofshand’ made clear that the grants of comitatus to episcopal authorities by Ottonian and Salian rulers from the later tenth to the early twelfth century did not provide the basis for the emergence of ecclesiastical polities during the later twelfth and thirteenth century. However, in discussing the transfer of these comitatus Hoffmann assumed that each grant consisted of the royal judicial bannum , previously held by a count. On the basis of this assumption, Hoffmann revived the model of a scattered county ( German Streugrafschaft ) first developed by Walter Schlesinger in the context of the New Constitutional History, which denied the existence of public or governmental authority in early medieval Germany. Hoffmann, by contrast, accepted that the Ottonian and Salian kings did exercise public/governmental authority but saw the comitatus in this period as divorced from the territoriality of the earlier Carolingian period in which a count’s judicial bannum was exercised over a circumscribed area, usually coterminous with one or more pagi . However, when one examines the grants of comitatus discussed by Hoffmann, it is clear that this term was polyvalent in meaning. In some cases, it is evident that rulers transferred to bishops the royal judicial bannum , as Hoffmann argued. In other cases, the grant of a comitatus did not entail the transfer of the bannum but rather of royal fiscal assets. As a consequence, it is possible to reject Hoffmann’s assumption that the identification in the sources of a comitatus spread across several pagi necessarily entailed the existence of a Streugrafschaft whose holder exercised the judicial bannum and, in turn, Hoffmann’s views regarding the deterritorialization of a count’s administrative and judicial authority over a pagus or pagi with specific boundaries. Ultimately, these findings permit a reopening of the question regarding the fate of the Carolingian-style comital office that was based on the specific and circumscribed territory of a pagus or pagi , and whether this type of office actually disappeared under the later Ottonians or even under the Salians.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Frühmittelalterliche Studien
Published
2025-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/fmst-2025-0005
Primary Topic
Byzantine Studies and History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What Did Comitatus Mean in the Ottonian-Salian Kingdom?

David S. Bachrach
Frühmittelalterliche Studien
Byzantine Studies and History
article

What Did Comitatus Mean in the Ottonian-Salian Kingdom?

David S. Bachrach
article en

Abstract

Abstract Hartmut Hoffmann’s seminal essay ‘Grafschaften in Bischofshand’ made clear that the grants of comitatus to episcopal authorities by Ottonian and Salian rulers from the later tenth to the early twelfth century did not provide the basis for the emergence of ecclesiastical polities during the later twelfth and thirteenth century. However, in discussing the transfer of these comitatus Hoffmann assumed that each grant consisted of the royal judicial bannum , previously held by a count. On the basis of this assumption, Hoffmann revived the model of a scattered county ( German Streugrafschaft ) first developed by Walter Schlesinger in the context of the New Constitutional History, which denied the existence of public or governmental authority in early medieval Germany. Hoffmann, by contrast, accepted that the Ottonian and Salian kings did exercise public/governmental authority but saw the comitatus in this period as divorced from the territoriality of the earlier Carolingian period in which a count’s judicial bannum was exercised over a circumscribed area, usually coterminous with one or more pagi . However, when one examines the grants of comitatus discussed by Hoffmann, it is clear that this term was polyvalent in meaning. In some cases, it is evident that rulers transferred to bishops the royal judicial bannum , as Hoffmann argued. In other cases, the grant of a comitatus did not entail the transfer of the bannum but rather of royal fiscal assets. As a consequence, it is possible to reject Hoffmann’s assumption that the identification in the sources of a comitatus spread across several pagi necessarily entailed the existence of a Streugrafschaft whose holder exercised the judicial bannum and, in turn, Hoffmann’s views regarding the deterritorialization of a count’s administrative and judicial authority over a pagus or pagi with specific boundaries. Ultimately, these findings permit a reopening of the question regarding the fate of the Carolingian-style comital office that was based on the specific and circumscribed territory of a pagus or pagi , and whether this type of office actually disappeared under the later Ottonians or even under the Salians.

Frühmittelalterliche StudienVol. 59(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Byzantine Studies and History
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.