As the previous three chapters have illuminated, the royal government of Ottonian Germany drew upon a very wide range of economic resources as well as rights to the labor and service of the population based on the ruler's bannum. The Ottonian kings (and queens), like their Carolingian predecessors, had at their disposal a substantial congeries of royal fiscal estates, which benefitted to a great degree from the overall growth in population and agricultural production during the course of the ninth, tenth and early eleventh centuries. This population growth also led to a concomitant increase in the production of manufactured goods as well as mining and smelting operations, some of which reached an industrial scale in the manner described by Adriaan Verhulst in his discussion of the economy of the Carolingian Empire. These revenues from the real assets of the fisc were augmented to a significant degree by a wide range of governmental taxes and tolls, which were also in a growth phase due to the overall demographic expansion and the concomitant increase in markets and trade. These fiscal elements of the king's regalian rights had their counterpoint in the ability of the royal government to demand not only corvée labor, but also military service from the entire free population and, in at least some cases, the unfree population as well. Just as important as these first two pillars of royal power was the obligation on monasteries and bishoprics to devote immense resources to feed and house the royal court and participate in the defense of the realm. This latter duty included not only the provision of military contingents to join the royal army on campaign, and the obligation to “loan” assets to provide beneficia for the king's fideles and milites, but also the construction, maintenance, and garrisoning of fortifications.

The natural corollary to an investigation of the material assets and regalian rights of the Ottonian kings is the question of what rulers did with this wealth. Put somewhat differently, what were the expenditures of the royal government, and perhaps even more importantly, on what scale were these expenditures?

The previous two chapters have considered the resources provided to the royal government from estates held by the fisc and the taxes, tolls, and other regalian revenues and rights that derived from the authority held by the king by virtue of his office. A third, equally important, source of resources for the royal government was provided by the bishoprics and monasteries within the East Frankish and German kingdoms. Certain elements of ecclesiastical support for the crown, as distinct from spiritual and moral support of the king and kingdom through prayer, have garnered significant attention, often in the context of the historiographical construct of the Imperial Church System (German Reichskirchensystem). Notable in this context are the provision of logistical support for the itinerant royal court, which is denoted under the general rubric of fodrum and gistum, and the supply of military contingents for expeditionary military campaigns. Significantly less attention has been devoted to other aspects of ecclesiastical support for the royal government including the resources devoted to defensive military efforts, and the requisitioning of church lands and assets either to be held directly by the ruler or to be granted out as beneficia to help support royal officials. One further aspect of royal demands on and use of ecclesiastical assets concerns the government's role in imposing tithes as a universal tax. As will be discussed below, tithes provided an exceptionally important stream of revenue that served not only the specific interests of individual ecclesiastical institutions, but also was available in a variety of direct and indirect ways to the ruler as well. As has been true in the previous chapters, royal and ecclesiastical charters are the indispensible starting point for the discussion of royal use of the resources of individual churches, as well as the broadbased demands on “the Church” as a whole. Additional information is derived from historiographical texts, particularly the gestae of individual bishops and abbots, statutes of episcopal synods, as well as letters. The scale of the investments made by ecclesiastical officials in the construction of palaces, fortifications, and other public works, is made manifest in the considerable and growing body of archaeological studies.

As had been true of the Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, the rulers of Carolingian East Francia and their Ottonian successors drew upon a wide matrix of material resources to sustain their rule. These material assets were organized by both the Carolingians and Ottonians in fiscal units usually denoted as villae, although there was considerable variation in the ways that royal and imperial officials discussed landed properties. These estates comprised a bewildering array of economic resources, including farmland, vineyards, stud farms, stock farms with associated meadows for grazing, fisheries, quarries, industrial and mining facilities of the type discussed in the previous chapter, urban rental properties, woodlands, and also hunting preserves. The real assets of the crown also included large numbers of royal palaces, which often also possessed substantial economic elements such as craft and industrial centers, again of the type discussed in the previous chapter.

At any one time, a substantial portion of these real material assets was held directly by the royal fisc under the direct supervision of the king's agents. Another substantial and variable portion of the fisc was granted out as beneficia for a wide range of purposes. These beneficia, in turn, can be divided between those in which real assets were transferred into the hands of the benefice holder to be managed directly by the recipient, and those in which the benefice holder received the revenues drawn from fiscal assets, in a manner analogous to “money-fiefs” of the high Middle Ages.

Contrary to much of the speculation by scholars on this point, the fiscal resources granted out by the East Frankish and Ottonian rulers as benefices, as a rule, were not lost to the government but rather were recovered and reused for other purposes once the original grant had runs its course. Moreover, as discussed in the introduction to this volume, it is also a category error to think of fiscal assets granted as beneficia as being lost to the government even during the period in which they were the hands of royal fideles. The government granted these fiscal assets to achieve specific ends, such as providing the resources that office holders required to carry out their duties. So long as the recipients of the benefices carried out their duties, the ruler continued to gain benefit from the assets granted out, on a temporary basis, from the fisc.

Understanding the nature and scale of the material resources available to the royal government under the Ottonian dynasty and their Carolingian predecessors requires developing a perspective on the state of the overall economy, meaning the aggregate production of goods and services. Equally important is an understanding of the economic trajectory of Francia orientalis and the German kingdom over the course of the ninth, tenth, and early eleventh centuries. If, on the one hand, the centuries after the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire in 840 were marked by demographic and economic stagnation or even decline resulting from foreign invasions, civil war, and the breakdown of government, it would be necessary to develop a model of royal resources that was predicated on limited means and horizons. Similarly, if the greatest sources of income and resources for the king as well as secular and ecclesiastical magnates consisted of plunder and tribute, this would have profound implications for the political and governmental authority of the ruler. By contrast, if during the period extending from the mid ninth to the early eleventh century the lands of the eastern realm enjoyed sustained or even robust demographic growth, increases in agricultural production, with the concomitant expansion of markets and trade, then such a finding would have equally profound implications for the resources available to the royal government as well as the relationships among the king, the magnates of the realm, and the broad base of the population. The following chapter, therefore, examines both the scholarly treatment of and the sources for the economy of the Carolingian and Ottonian Empires. A significant volume of information regarding economic matters can be developed from a wide range of written sources including both royal and “private” charters, capitularies, letters, and historiographical texts. Even more important, however, in understanding questions of demography, the wide range of economic activity in the eastern lands, and the scale of this economic activity, is the ever-expanding accumulation of material information through archaeological excavations.

Demography and Agricultural Production

The scholarly tradition considering the economic conditions of early medieval Europe, beginning with Henri Pirenne's Mahomet et Charlemagne, has largely treated market exchange, and particularly longdistance exchange, as the primary measure for gauging the health of the economy.

The following appendix offers evidence for the size of the imperial fisc in the period 887–1106. These data appear in graph form in chapter two (Graph 1). This appendix is divided into eight sections, numbered 1.1–1.8, which correspond to the reigns of the five Ottonian rulers (919–1024) as well as their predecessor, Arnulf of Carinthia (887–899), and two kings of the Salian dynasty, Henry III and Henry IV. The charter evidence for King Conrad II (1024–1039) is less forthcoming with regard to the possessions of the royal fisc than is the case for his predecessors and successors, and consequently is not included here, and the charters for King Henry V (1106–1125) have not been edited completely.

Each section is divided into two sub-sections. The first deals with entire estates known to be in the possession of the royal fisc, which consisted of one or more villae. For the purposes of this study, monasteries and the fiscal districts associated with specific fortresses are included in this section. These fiscal units are listed only once for each reign although most, if not all, of them comprised several if not dozens of villae. The second part of each section deals with fiscal units that are identified in the sources simply as a place (locus), property (praedia), or by name without any further specification. It is likely that many of the fiscal units listed in the second sub-section were, in fact, villae (that is, large and complex estates). I have, however, chosen to list them separately in order to provide a conservative estimate of the overall wealth of the imperial government in this period. At the head of each sub-section I give the aggregate total of fiscal properties for that reign.

Presentation of the Sources

As discussed in chapter two, the evidence for the possession of fiscal properties is drawn primarily from editions of royal charters published in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) series. The numeral before the parentheses (given in the form “§1”) indicates the number assigned to the royal charter by the editor of the relevant volume of the MGH series. The numeral enclosed within parentheses is the number of unique fiscal properties that are identified in a particular charter.

As important as the estates of the fisc were in providing revenues, supplies, and labor for the use of the royal government, they were far from the only form of resources available to the East Carolingians and Ottonians. Revenues from what F. L. Ganshof described in the Carolingian context as “profits derived from the exercise of power” remained very important throughout the ninth, tenth, and early eleventh centuries. In comparison with the fisc, however, these sources of income and royal rights of the East Carolingian and Ottonian rulers have received very little attention, and are largely ignored in broader discussions of royal power and governance. This chapter, therefore, is intended to highlight the wide variety of ways in which the kings of East Francia and the early medieval German realm mobilized labor, money, and goods in kind to support their governments and implement their policies. The four main sections of this chapter consider in turn the fate of the late Roman fiscal regime and concomitant service obligations of the king's subjects, the problem of broad-based taxation in Carolingian East Francia and Ottonian Germany, the revenues associated with royal control over tolls, markets, and mints, and finally royal forestae. As was the case in the previous two chapters, much of the information about these sources of royal revenue as well as the labor and military service owed to the government by the king's free subjects comes from royal and private charters. These sources are complemented by historiographical works, letters, and legal texts, as well as by extensive material information developed through excavations.

The Fate of Late Roman Fiscal Obligations

The four main contestants in the lists regarding the fate of the late Roman taxation regime in the Merovingian kingdom and under the Carolingians into the ninth century are Jean Durliat, joined by Elisabeth Magnou- Nortier, Chris Wickham, and Walter Goffart, each of whom has attracted both considerable opposition as well as support for at least some of their major contentions. In broad terms, Durliat and Magnou-Nortier argue for substantial continuities in the late Roman fiscal system into the Carolingian period, although they do not insist on stasis or immutability as some of their critics have insisted. Wickham, conversely, argues for the inexorable breakdown of the Roman fiscal system, which he insists did not last much after the year 600.

Fundamental to understanding the obligations, duties, and power of any government is an assessment of the resources available to pursue its aims and objectives. This view, of course, is not simply a retrospective observation by modern historians, but was central to the conception of royal power and authority in early medieval Europe. Typical in this regard is the emphasis by Charlemagne's grandson Nithard (died 844) on the equitable distribution of the material assets associated with the imperial government of Louis the Pious (814–840). Nithard made these observations in the context of his discussion of the formal peace agreement among Louis’ sons Lothair I (840–854), Louis the German (840–876), and Charles the Bald (840–877) at Verdun in 843. As a senior office holder under both Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald and as an official whose service included helping to supervise the great inquest that paved the way for the divisio at Verdun, Nithard certainly understood the import of his description of these events. In a similar vein, it is no accident that when Widukind of Corvey, writing in the 960s, discussed the elements that were necessary to establish oneself as king, he emphasized the possession of fortresses, arms, and large numbers of soldiers alongside good fortune and an aptitude for rule. Toward the end of the early medieval period, William the Conqueror's Domesday Book similarly highlights the ruler's own view of the essential role of material resources in the carrying out of governmental policy.

The present study, with its focus on the material resources for royal rule, began as a single chapter in what was to be a book-length investigation of royal government in Carolingian East Francia and Ottonian Germany, with an emphasis on the actual practice of governance by royal officials both at the center, in the context of the court, and in the localities, particularly at the level of the pagus. Government, in this context, is to be understood as the actions by the ruler and those to whom the ruler delegated authority to carry out the public responsibilities of the polity. These responsibilities were enunciated in a succinct form by Widukind of Corvey in his depiction of the coronation ceremony for Otto I at Aachen on 7 August 936.

This appendix is organized in three sections. In the first section, I have listed in alphabetical order the fortifications that can be identified in royal possession on the basis of attestations in written sources produced during the reigns of Henry I and Otto I. In the second section, I have listed alphabetically the fortifications that are attested in documents after Otto I's reign that meet the following criteria. The fortifications were located in regions that were either held or conquered by Henry I or Otto I, and in regions that remained under royal control up through the twelfth century. In the third section, I have listed alphabetically those fortifications that do not appear in the written record from the tenth to the twelfth century, but which have been identified by scholars as either German, or specifically Ottonian fortified centers, dating to the tenth century in regions that were conquered by Henry I or Otto I. Place-names are all given in their standard German forms, where these are known. Otherwise, they are listed as they appear in contemporary documents.

Part I: Written attestations of fortifications in the possession of Henry I or Otto I in the period 919–973

Fortification total = 57

Allstedt (DO I, §5); Beneduces (DO I, §209); Biederitz (DO I, 1§05); Brandenburg (DO I, §105); Buckau (DO I, §14); Burg (DO I, §105); Calbe (DO III, §118); Chur (DO I, §191); Dahlum (DO I, §5); Debrogora (DO I, §152); Deventer (DO I, §152); Dornburg (DO I, §18); Drübeck (DO I, §56); Duisburg (DO I, §66) Eilenburg (DO I, §231); Elten (DO I, §358) Frohse (DO I, §14); Gebiechenstein (DO I, §232); Gommern (DO I, §105); Grabo (DO I, §105); Grodista (DO I, §152); Grone (DO I, §16); Halle (DO I, §231); Havelberg (DO I, §76); Kirchberg (DO I, §18); Krapfeld (DO I, §171); Landsberg (DO I, §231); Laublingen (DO I, §231); Leibnitz (DO I, §389); Löbejün (DO I, §231); Lobodunburg (DO I, §161); Loburg (DO I, §293); Lostau (DO II, §30); Magdeburg (DO I, §14); Memleben (DO I, §48); Merseburg (DO I, §1); Möckern (DO I, §105); Nitzow (DO I, §76); Pechau ( DO I, §105); Plot (DO I, §76); Pochlustim (DO I, §76); Pritzerbe (DO I, §105); Roseburg (DO I, §278); Rothenburg (DO I, §230); Saalfeld (DO I, §49); Schartau (DO I, §105); Spielberg (DO I, §172); Suib (DO I, §389);

At this point it should be clear that the Ottonians were extraordinarily wealthy. The overall demographic trend in the lands ruled by the Ottonians north of the Alps was positive. Indeed, as numerous archaeological studies have demonstrated, in many regions population growth was quite rapid, leading to extensive deforestation and the establishment of numerous new agricultural settlements as well as communities that were focused on industrial-scale production of raw materials and a host of finished goods. This population growth was also mirrored in urban sites, which demonstrated considerable growth, including the expansion of their walls at great cost. The Ottonians were well situated to take advantage of the virtuous cycle of demographic growth, increasing aggregate surpluses, concomitant specialization, and consequent gains in productivity. Of primary importance in this context is that Ottonian rulers were the absolute largest landowners in their realm, with enormous numbers of fiscal estates that rivaled in variety, complexity, and number those held north of the Alps by Charlemagne and Louis the Pious.

In addition to benefitting from the increasing size and productivity of their own estates, the control exercised by the Ottonian rulers over a wide range of “profits of kingship” meant that they also were able to take advantage of the good fortune of their subjects. The aggregate increases in agricultural production, industrial production, and craft activities led to the establishment of large numbers of new markets throughout the lands ruled by the Ottonians with concomitant increases in revenues from market taxes and tolls. The enormous upsurge in both silver mining from the 960s onward, controlled directly by the Ottonians through their ownership of the Harz mines, and the increasing production of coinage, further expanded the income flowing into the ruler's hands. So too did the extensive control exercised by the Ottonians over the right to hunt and the right to use resources in lands declared to be forestae by the government. Thus, for example, as the overall numbers of pigs and cattle within the Ottonian realm grew to support the expanding population, so too did the need to make use of woodlands and meadows to feed these animals, bringing further income into the royal coffers. Similarly, the increasing need for timber resources also benefitted the king.