The empire of the Ottonians and Salians – Imperial and National Consciousness
1. The Ottonian context
Since his coronation in 936 King Otto I, the later emperor sought consciously for the elements and key features of the royal might of Charlemagne. The ac-count of Widukind of Corvey (ca. 925-ca. 973) says clearly, that the sword as one of the regalia was regarded as a sign for the king as defensor ecclesiae, and his royal power shall be used also to the interest of the church as well.10 Ac-cording to the researcher of the topic, Josef Fleckenstein, this is meant to be as the cooperation of the mission and the royal power,11 while Helmut Beumann wrote even the combination of the imperial expansion and the conversion to the
7 Hans-Joachim Bartmuß, “Die Entstehung des ersten selbständigen Staates auf deutschem Boden.” In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 10. Sonderheft (1962), 359–374; ibid.,
“Ursachen und Triebkräfte im Entstehungsprozess des ’frühfeudalen deutschen Staates’.”
In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 10 (1962), 1591–1625; Bernhard Gramsch, Germanen – Slawen – Deutsche. Forschungen zu ihrer Ethnogenese. Berlin, 1969;
Eckhard Müller-Mertens, “Vom Regnum Teutonicum zum Heiligen Römischen Reich Deutscher Nation.” In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 11 (1963), 319–346.
8 Müller-Mertens, Regnum Teutonicum, 43.
9 Gertrud Bäumer, Die Reichsidee bei den Ottonen: Heinrich I. und Otto der Große, Otto III. und Heinrich II. Nuremberg, 1946; Gian Andri Bezzola, Das ottonische Kaisertum in der französischen Geschichtsschreibung des 10. und beginnenden 11. Jahrhunderts.
Cologne, 1956; Heinz Löwe, “Kaisertum und Abendland in ottonischer und frühsalischer Zeit.” In: Historische Zeitschrift, 196 (1963) 529–562; Hagen Keller, “Reichsstruktur und Herrschaftsauffassung in ottonisch-frühsalischer Zeit.” In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 16 (1982) 74–128.
10 Die Sachsengeschichte des Widukind von Korvei (Widukindi monachi Corbeiensis Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri III). Eds. Paul Hirsch and Hans-Eberhard Lohmann. Hanno-ver 1935. 63–66 (II, 1).
11 Josef Fleckenstein, “Zum Begriff der ottonisch-salischen Reichskirche,” In: Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft. Festschrift für Clemens Bauer. Ed. Erich Hassinger. Berlin 1974, 61–71.
Christian faith.12 The imperial self-confidence of Otto I. was primarily deter-mined by his role as the propagator Christianitatis. During his reign he also tried to meet this requirement unremitting: by the year of 948 five dioceses had been established by the will of the king: Schleswig, Ripe and Aarhus in Den-mark, as well Havelberg and Brandenburg at the Elbe river.13 The following wave of foundation occurred after the year of 955, when Otto prevailed against the marauding army of the Hungarians at the Lech, and the foundation-stone of the episcopal see of Merseburg was laid, while the third wave of the establish-ment of the episcopates occurred in 968 for behalf of Meissen and Zeitz, to-gether with the upgrade of Magdeburg as the archbishopric center of the Elbe Slavic territories.14 Except of the Danish bishoprics, the organization of the dio-ceses at the Elbe served for the conversion of the Elbe Slavic territories. The foundation of the episcopal seats in Oldenburg and Prague between 965 and 973 belong also to this missionary process.15
This expansive Ostpolitik combined with the mission policy was initiated al-ready by King Henry I, known as Henry the Fowler, the father of king Otto I.
About the late 920 he occupied the domains of the Havel and Dalamantian tribes living near the Elbe and expanded the German border of the East beyond the Elbe.16 In 934 Henry engaged into a military conflict with the Danish king
12 Helmut Beumann, “Imperator Romanorum, rex gentium: zu Widukind III 76,” In: Helmut Beumann, Ausgewählte Aufsätze. Aus den Jahren 1966–1986. Festgabe zu seinem 75.
Geburtstag. Eds. Jürgen Petersohn and Roderich Schmidt. Sigmaringen 1987, 324–360.
13 Die Konzilien Deutschlands und Reichsitaliens 916–1001. Teil 1: 916–961. Ed. Ernst-Dieter Hehl. Hannover 1987 (MGH Conc. 6,1), 137–138, 158.
14 Papsturkunden 896–1046. Vol. 1. Ed. Harald Zimmermann. Vienna 1984, 281, nr. 154;
Rudolf Köpkem, Ernst Dümmler, Kaiser Otto der Große. Berlin 1876, 333; Walter Schlesinger, Kirchengeschichte Sachsens. Vol. 1. Cologne and Graz 1962, 126–127;
Heinz Wolter, Die Synoden im Reichsgebiet und in Reichsitalien von 916 bis 1056.
Paderborn et al. 1988, 69–70; Ernst-Dieter Hehl, “Merseburg – eine Bistumsgründung unter Vorbehalt. Gelübte, Kirchenrecht und politischer Spielraum im 10. Jahrhundert,”
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 31 (1997), 96–119.
15 Wilhelm Biereye, “Das Entstehungsjahr des Bistums Oldenburg,” Zeitschrift des Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte 19 (1917) 37–50; Hans Sprangenberg, “Die Gründung des Bistums Prag,” Historisches Jahrbuch 21 (1900), 758–775; Jaroslaw Kadlec, “Auf dem Wege zum Prager Bistum (Zur Vorgeschichte seiner Gründung),” Geschichte der Ost- und Westkirche in ihren wechselseitigen Beziehungen: Acta congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati. Ed. Franz Zagiba. Wiesbaden 1967, 29–45.
16 Lothar Dralle, “Zu Vorgeschichte und Hintergründen der Ostpolitik Heinrichs I.,” In: Eu-ropa slavica – EuEu-ropa orientalis. Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag. Eds.
Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack. Berlin 1980, 99–126; Alfred Mirtschin, “Die Berechtigung der Rückeroberung des Meißner Erblandes durch Kaiser Heinrich im Jahre 929,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte des Stadt Meißen 12 (1937), 7–36.
Gnupa, and defeated him; this success was followed by the forced conversion of Gnupa to the Christianity.17 The politics of the conversion and conquest were linked in the policy of Otto I. towards Denmark more explicitly. The historiog-rapher Adam of Bremen (ca. 1050-ca. 1081/85) reports that the German king, after he defeated king Harald Bluetooth, forced also the Danish ruler to recog-nize the German suzerainty and to convert with his people to the Christian faith.
King Otto I. himself became the godfather of the son and heir apparent to the throne, Sven, the later king Sven Forkbeard.18 The fact of the baptism is con-firmed by the account of Ruotger in his biography about the archbishop of Co-logne and brother of Otto I, Bruno (925–965), as well by the rune-stone, which was erected by Harald at Jelling, calling himself as the apostle of Denmark.19 However it cannot be said that the German influence was of purely religious na-ture. The integration of the Danish bishoprics imperial church served not only for the objectives of the conversion, but these religious institutions were also important for Otto the Great, in order to wield his royal power directly over Denmark. In one of his charters issued in 965 Otto I. exempted the Danish bish-oprics (in Danorum marca with Regni) from all the services performed for the ruler.20 The same logic inspired the historiographer Thietmar of Merseburg (975–1018) more than a half century later, when Harald Bluetooth made an at-tempt to eliminate the German influence following the death of emperor Otto I.
17 Widukind, Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum, 59 (I, 40): Cum autem omnes in circuitu nationes subiecisset, Danos, qui navali latrocinio Fresones incursabant, cum exercitu adiit vicitque, et tributarios faciens, regem eorum nomine Chnubam baptismum percipere fecit. Perdomitis itaque cunctis circumquaque gentibus, postremo Romam proficisci statuit, sed infirmitate correptus iter intermisit.
18 Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte (Gesta Hammenburgensis ecclesiae pontificum). Ed. Bernhard Schmeidler. Hannover 1917, 56–58 (I, 57, 59): Deinde cum exercitu ingressus Daniam, Vurm regem primo impetu adeo perterruit, ut imperata se facere mandaret et pacem supplex deposceret... Postquam vero confessor Dei pervenit ad Danos, ubi tunc crudelissimum Worm diximus regnasse, illum quidem pro ingenita flectere nequivit saevitia; filium autem regis Haroldum sua dicitur praedicatione lucratus.
Quem ita fidelem Christo perfecit, ut christianitatem, quam pater eius semper odio habuit, ipse haberi publice permitteret, quamvis nondum baptismi sacramentum percepit.
Ordinatis itaque in regno Danorum per singulas ecclesias sacerdotibus sanctus Dei multitudinem credentium commendasse fertur Haroldo. Cuius etiam fultus adiutorio et legato omnes Danorum insulas penetravit, euangelizans verbum Dei gentilibus et fideles, quos invenit illuc captivatos, in Christo confortans.
19 Ruotgers Lebensbeschreibung des Erzbischofs Bruno von Köln (Routgeri vita Brunonis).
Ed. Irene Ott. Hannover 1951, 43 (c. 40): Siquidem eodem tempore et rex eorum Haraldus cum magna suę multitudine gentis regi regum Christo colla submittens vanitatem respuit idolorum.
20 MGH DD O I 411, nr. 294.
the Great in 973.21 This same, a bit anachronistic concept of the “imperial logic”
motivated also Adam of Bremen, as he presents the events of the uprising of the Elbe Slavs in 983 against the Holy Roman Empire, discussing about rebellious Slavs (Sclavi rebellantes), however, nearly about a hundred years later.22 The Annals of Hildesheim accounts also about riotous Slavs who destroyed the churches and killed the Christians alongside of the Elbe.23 Adam of Bremen and the major historiographer of the 12th century, Helmold of Bosau (ca. 1120-after 1177) make clear, that the rebellion against the Empire means also the break with the Christian religion and the return to their ancient heathen religious para-digms.24 Seeing the works of historians we may establish that according to these medieval historiographers the revolt against the Holy Roman Empire is the same as the turn against the new established Christian faith, and vica versa.
2. The change of the idea about the role of the Empire