Charles R. Bowlus - Franks, Moravians and Magyars

title:Franks, Moravians, and Magyars : The Strugglefor the Middle Danube, 788-907 Middle AgesSeries

author: Bowlus, Charles R.publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press

isbn10 | asin: 0812232763print isbn13: 9780812232769

ebook isbn13: 9780585116297language: English

subject Europe, Central--History, Danube River Valley--History.

publication date: 1995lcc: DAW1046.B69 1995eb

ddc: 943

subject: Europe, Central--History, Danube River Valley--History.

******Created by ebook converter - www.ebook-converter.com******

******ebook converter DEMO - www.ebook-converter.com*******

Page i

Franks, Moravians, and Magyars



Page ii

University of Pennsylvania Press

MIDDLE AGES SERIES

Edited by Edward Peters

Henry Charles Lea Professor of Medieval History

University of Pennsylvania

A listing of the available books in the series appears at the back of thisvolume



Page iii

Franks, Moravians, and MagyarsThe Struggle for the Middle Danube, 788907

Charles R. Bowlus

University of Pennsylvania PressPhiladelphia



Page iv

For Barbara

Disclaimer:This book contains characters with diacritics. When the characters can berepresented using the ISO 8859-1 character set(http://www.w3.org/TR/images/latin1.gif), netLibrary will represent them asthey appear in the original text, and most computers will be able to show thefull characters correctly. In order to keep the text searchable and readable onmost computers, characters with diacritics that are not part of the ISO 8859-1list will be represented without their diacritical marks.

Copyright © 1995 by the University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataBowlus, Charles R.Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: the struggle for the MiddleDanube, 788907 / Charles R. Bowlus.p. cm. (Middle Ages series)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-8122-3276-31. Central Europe History. I. Title. II. Series.DAW1046.B69 1994943 dc20 94-33236 CIP



Page v

Contents

List of Maps and Charts ix

Preface xi

1. Hypotheses and Methodologies 1

Introduction 1

The Central Danubian Basin 2

Moravia's Geographic Location 5

Carolingian Warfare 18

Geographic Considerations 20

Logistics 25

Methodology 30

Conclusion 32

2. Ducal Bavaria and the Southeast 33

3. The Conquest of the Southeast, 791-826 46

Introduction 46

The Avar Wars 46

Liudewit's Revolt 60

Early Marcher Commanders, 788-826 71

Conclusion 87

4. Reorganization of the Marches, 826-846 90

Introduction 90

The Bulgar Invasions 91

The Reorganization of Carantania 98





Page vi

The Marcher Lordships 101

Slavic Clients: Pribina and Rastislav 103

Conclusion 111

5. Marcher Rebellions and Moravian Wars, c. 850-864 114

Introduction 114

The First Campaign Against Rastislav 115

Carloman's Revolt 119

The Campaign of 863 128

The Charter Evidence 133


Conclusion 151

6. The Critical Decade, 865-874 153

Introduction 153

The Push to the Southeast 154

The See of Saint Andronicus 162

The Trial and Incarceration of Methodius 165

Disaster Overtakes the Franks 173

Conclusion 185

7. Expansion of Zwentibald's Realm, 874-885 187

Introduction 187

Zwentibald, the South Slavs, and the Papacy 188

Carolingian Marcher Organization, 874-881 197

The Wilhelminer Fehde, 882-884 208

8. Arnulf and Zwentibald, 887-892 217



Introduction 217

Arnulf's Early Reign 217


More Charter Evidence 230

Conclusion 234



Page vii

9. The Hungarian Conquest, 892-907 235

Introduction 235

Early Evidence of the Magyars 236

The Magyars, 892-896 239

Moravia Under Siege 242

Reappearance of the Magyars 244

Bavarian Defenses 251

The Hungarians in Italy 253

Hungarian Conquests North of the Danube 256

The Hungarian Victory of 907 258

Conclusion 266

10. Marcher Society at the End of the Carolingian Era 268

Introduction 268

The Wilhelminer 269

The Margrave Engildeo 287

The Ministerialis Heimo and His Kin 290

Zwentibald and Moimir 299

The Aribonen 305

The Walpot Hartwig 307

The Sighardinger 310

The Liutpoldinger 314

Summary 316

Conclusion 319

Appendix 1. The Wilhelminer Fehde 333



Appendix 2. Letter of Archbishop Theotmar et al. 336

List of Abbreviations 341

Notes 343

Bibliography 379

Index 405



Page ix

Maps and Charts

Maps

1. Routes to the Watergate 22

2. The Avar Wars 50

3. The Expedition of 820 64

4. The Southeastern Marches, c. 850 112

5. The Campaign of 863 130

6. Salzburg's Possessions 138

7. Expansion of Zwentibald's Realm 198

8. Zwentibald's Invasions of Pannonia, 882884 210

9. Arnulf's Routes, 888892 219

Charts

1. The Administration of the Marches, 788828 74

2. The Probable Command Structure of the Marches, 788826 86

3. The Command Structure of the Frontier Region, c. 846 113

4. The Wilhelminer 278

5. The Liutpoldinger-Wilhelminer Connection 284

6. The Witagowonen 296

7. The Sighardinger 312

8. The Liutpoldinger 315



Page xi

PrefaceThe genesis of this book took place in the office of my academic mentor andfriend, the late Archibald R. Lewis, on an early September afternoon in 1971in Amherst, Massachusetts. I had just returned from a year in Europe.Inspired by some new conceptual methodologies that Bernard S. Bachrachwas then pioneering, my project was to study Carolingian attempts to controlmilitarily the middle Danubian basin, a region in which the capabilities ofCharlemagne's war machine should, theoretically at least, have been taxed tothe limit. Frankish heavy cavalry, I imagined, surely could not have functionedvery well in a region that had been dominated by steppe peoples forcenturies, and Western European forces with their grain-fed horses surelywould have encountered insuperable difficulties logistically. For such armiesto operate in this region would have required the transport of fodder foranimals in addition to rations for troops. Yet Charlemagne succeeded indefeating a steppe people, the Avars, in a series of campaigns at the end ofthe eighth and beginning of the ninth century, and his successors managed tomaintain a precarious hold on the region until the Magyar conquests aroundthe year 900. The question that I wanted to resolve was, How did CarolingianFranks accomplish those tasks militarily?

In order to deal with this question, I had to look closely at the so-called GreatMoravian empire, a Slavic polity that in the course of the ninth centurybecame a serious rival of the Carolingians for control over the Danubianbasin. However, this Moravian polity caused me great difficulty. I, like almosteveryone, assumed that ninth-century Moravia was centered on the MoravaValley (a northern tributary of the Danube) that roughly forms the boundarybetween the modern Czech and Slovak republics. Yet on the basis of thisassumption, I found it virtually impossible to explain Frankish militaryoperations in this region. Close scrutiny revealed that the Carolingian marcherorganization was oriented toward the southeast, in the direction of modernBelgrade, not toward an enemy north of the Danube. What is more, whenCarolingian armies moved against the Moravians, they launched theircampaigns south of the Danube, and they seem



Page xii

to have marched in a southeastward direction, away from the presumedlocation of ninth-century Moravia.

The difficulties in dealing with Moravia brought me to Professor Lewis's officein early autumn 1971. Before I could outline my dilemma to him, however, heannounced that he had just reviewed a book by Imre Boba, Moravia's HistoryReconsidered (The Hague, 1970), which located the heartland of this earlySlavic polity somewhere near ancient Sirmium in modern northwesternSerbia, hundreds of kilometers southeast of its presumed location. At first Iwas appalled by Boba's thesis, but, at the same time, I sensed that asouthern Moravia might well explain why I was having so much difficultyreconstructing the Frankish military organization in this region. I then wrotean article as a test case of the Boba hypothesis, based on evidenceconcerning a Frankish marcher clan, and sent it to the late Professor Karl Boslat the University of Munich for his comments. He was kind enough totranslate my study into German and to publish it in the Zeitschrift fürbayerische Landesgeschichte, without, I hasten to add, formally endorsingBoba's hypothesis or my interpretation of it. He simply thought that thepossibility of a southern Moravia was worth exploring. Encouraged by thispublication, I hoped that my article would make a modest contribution towhat I expected to be a major scholarly debate over the Moravian question.As it turned out, however, few specialists ever acknowledged the existence ofBoba's hypothesis and, for the most part, his book went unreviewed. I wasdisappointed, but assumed that somewhere in the written sources or in thearchaeological discoveries there must be evidence so damning for the notionof a southern Moravia that such an idea was simply unworthy ofconsideration. In 1973, after receiving an academic appointment at theUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock, I decided to give up on the Boba thesisand to turn my attention to other matters. After all, I was then a youngscholar trained primarily as a western European medievalist, and, as such, Ihad no business dealing with the mysteries of the Slavic and Byzantine east.

Yet I could never quite put the idea of a southern Moravia out of my mind. Inthe 1980s, when I discovered that some other scholars were exploring Boba'sideas and giving them at least some cautious support, I made up my mind toreturn to it myself. I soon became convinced that I, as a western medievalist,could actually make a contribution, for more thorough investigations broughtto my attention that the Frankish sources constituted the largest body of



ninth-century written evidence concerning early Moravia. I was reasonablycertain that these materials, when analyzed systematically, tended to supportthe southern Moravia hypothesis. Moreover, I came to realize that my notionof the existence of extensive Slavic



Page xiii

materials that might prove Boba wrong was a product of my imagination. Ieven concluded that archaeological finds uncovered in what was thenCzechoslovakia had not been decisive in establishing a northern Moravia.Thus, in 1985, I put other research aside to give my full attention to a taskthat I had begun and had abandoned in the 1970s. Optimistically, I thoughtthat I could complete my book within two years. Nine have now passed. Afterreconsidering all the evidence and after reconnoitering the landscape (byfoot, bicycle, automobile, and every other means of conveyance) where thoseevents occurred over a millennium ago, I am finally prepared to publish myconclusions in book form.

The arguments in this book depend to a great extent on how passages inninth-century sources have been translated into modern languages. Since Iam writing in English primarily (though certainly not exclusively) for an Anglo-American audience, I have attempted to bring English translations of relevantpassages from the sources and from the historical literature into the text. Inso doing I have cited some modern translations of medieval sources such asLewis Thorpe's translation of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne and BernardScholz's version of the Frankish Royal Annals. I would like to acknowledge theUniversity of Michigan Press for allowing me to reprint substantial passagesfrom Scholz's Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard'sHistories (Ann Arbor, 1970). English translations of later Frankish annals byJanet Nelson and Timothy Reuter, however, did not become available untilthe first of many drafts of this book had been completed and after I hadtranslated all of the relevant passages in these sources myself. I havedecided to stick with my translations. This decision is a particularly importantone in regard to the Annales Fuldenses (translated very skillfully by Reuterunder the title, The Annals of Fulda) because this source deals extensivelywith the Frankish-Moravian wars of the ninth century. Reuter is very muchaware of the controversy over ninth-century Moravia's geographic location.Nevertheless, he (wisely in my opinion) decided to avoid the thickets of thiscontroversy in his translation. His purpose was to introduce an importantFrankish source to English readers, not to bog them down needlessly inscholarly debates. Thus, he translated passages concerning Moravia verydifferently than I would have.

Of course, my purpose in writing this book is to bring those controversies tothe fore. Therefore, I want to demonstrate to the reader the plausibility of



translating the sources in a way that locates ninth-century Moravia in thesoutheast. Moreover, most of the Latin sources relevant to these Carolingianmarches and to ninth-century Moravia have never been translated intomodern English. Therefore, unless I have noted otherwise,



Page xiv

the reader may assume that English translations of the Latin texts are mine.On those few occasions when I use the translations of others, I indicate that Ihave, and, when necessary, I point out where I disagree with thesetranslations. I have also provided my own English translations of somepassages from the works of modern scholars writing in German. Only ahandful of scholarly monographs and articles touching on the subjectsexamined in this book are available in English.

While I am confident of my ability to translate Carolingian Latin into modernEnglish, I recognize my limitations in dealing with Byzantine Greek and withOld Slavic. Although the primary arguments in this book rest on Latin sources,at times I have found it necessary to cite passages from Greek and Slavicauthors. For the most part I have utilized excellent, readily availabletranslations of these sources, and I clearly indicate that I have. For a crucialpassage from the Old Slavic Life of St. Methodius, however, Professor HoraceG. Lunt of the Department of Slavic Languages at Harvard University hasallowed me to publish his English translation, which otherwise does notappear in print. I gratefully acknowledge his contribution, and I thank him forthe advice that he generously gave me during the course of writing this book.He has prevented me from making many major errors.

The methodologies that I have utilized presented many difficulties in makinga clear presentation. As the reader will soon realize, this book dependsheavily on geographic arguments. The geography of the middle Danubianbasin is, however, little known to most Anglo-American readers, and it isdifficult to develop an English language vocabulary to deal with it. Almostevery locality that one encounters in the sources and in the scholarlyliterature has from three to four names, in German, Hungarian, Slavic, andLatin. Only a few major cities such as Vienna and Belgrade have anglicizedappellations. Rivers, lakes, plains, mountains, and other physical features ofthe landscape are often designated by terms that are very different in thevarious languages of the region.

To make matters worse, there are often variant spellings of some commongeographic and ethnic terms within the same modern language. For example,the Sava River is normally spelled ''Sawe'' in German, a logical variation ofthe Slavic Sava. Sometimes, however, it is written as "Save," or even as"Sau," particularly by German speakers in Austria, Bavaria, and Switzerland.



In English, it is normally written in the Slavic manner, "Sava," but R. J. H.Jenkins, an important British scholar, chose to transliterate it from Greek(also Sava) into English as "Save." This fact only came to my attention whenI found it necessary to cite Jenkins. I had tried to be



Page xv

consistent in the use of "Sava," only to find that a prominent English-speakingscholar preferred "Save." The names of ethnicities are also spelled differentlywithin the same modern language. In German, Bavarians can be written as''Baiern" or as ''Bayern." The "Alamanni" can be the "Alamanni" or the"Alemanni" in modern German. This German inconsistency has been carriedover into English. One finds "Alamanni," "Alemanni," "Alamans," and"Alemans" used to designate the same people. Once again, I have tried to beconsistent, to pick a designation and to stick with it, unless, of course, I foundit necessary to quote another scholar directly. Except for a few major citiesfor which there are modern English equivalents, I have tried to use the namesfor places that are being employed by the majority population within theboundaries of current states. I have departed from this practice in the case ofSirmium, an ancient city now called Sremska-Mitrovice (today a provincialtown) by modern Serbs. As the reader will see, Sirmium plays such a majorrole in this book that I feel justified in using its ancient designation. Rules arealso difficult to observe because I am writing about the ninth century, notabout the twentieth, and in this region many ancient localities are nowdesignated by names that hardly go back a century. As everyone knows, thepolitical boundaries in and the demographic composition of the middleDanubian basin have changed much in this century, and they continue tochange as I write. Nevertheless, places (cities, towns, and villages) present aminor problem when compared with rivers, lakes, mountains, and so forth,which are often located in more than one country, indeed, which frequentlyform the boundary between countries.

Prosopography, a methodology that I have employed in this study, can alsobe difficult to follow for the uninitiated reader. Prosopographical studies ofthe early Middle Ages have attempted to identify the leading personalities ofthat era by closely studying the documents in which they appear, such ascharters, deeds, memorial books, and so forth. Since, however, there was nostandardized spelling in the ninth century (or for many centuries thereafter),the names of even the leading figures of this period and region appear in abewildering array of variations. Specialists use methodologies that allowthem to bring some order to this chaos; nevertheless, medievalprosopography can be confusing to readers, even when it is well done.Without going too much into this prosopographical thicket at this time, let mesay that I have tried very hard to be consistent in using only one name for



individuals who in the sources have a variety of designations.

I mention these methodological problems, for they have caused much



Page xvi

agony in the editing of this book. I would like for this study to be read bypersons other than specialists, but could never have achieved the necessaryclarity without outside assistance. I have read the words "Sava," "Sawe,""Sau,'' and ''Save" so many times in the last decade that all threedesignations appear the same to me; yet, I realize that variant spelling willcause my readers problems. I am afraid that I have become so obsessed bymy subject that I find it difficult to identify with the problems that literatenonspecialists might encounter in my work. Fortunately, I have had muchhelp in producing a readable text from the University of Pennsylvania Press,from Edward Peters, the series editor, Jerry Singerman, the acquisitionseditor, and especially from Mindy Brown, two referees, and long-sufferingcopy editors, who frequently had to inform me that I simply was notcommunicating.

Indeed, the present work could not have been completed without the helpand support of many persons, family, friends, colleagues, and institutions. Icannot possibly give all of them the credit they deserve. Three special friendsand colleagues are William E. Kapelle of Brandeis University, William Urban ofMomouth College, and James W. Parins of the University of Arkansas at LittleRock (UALR) who had the patience to listen to my ideas at a time when theywere worth little more than the cheap beer that we were drinking. John B.Freed, Illinois State University, also listened, and, more importantly, he gaveme the benefit of some of his vast knowledge of Salzburg and its territoryduring the Middle Ages. He and Thomas F. X. Nobel, University of Virginia,another friend and colleague, read a near final draft of the entire manuscript,making excellent comments and corrections that were taken to heart. GeraldHanson, UALR, gave me much appreciated assistance in preparing maps. TheMedieval Academy of America allowed me to republish two maps from anarticle I wrote for Speculum in 1987.

European colleagues also were of much help to me. Professor Dr. WilhelmStörmer, University of Munich, introduced me to the methodological problemsinvolved in trying to understand how armies were moved around in thedifficult terrain of central Europe during the Middle Ages. Professor Bosl,whom I have already mentioned, was supportive over many years. ProfessorFerdinand Seibt, University of Bochum, gave me an opportunity to defend myviews in a public forum at an early stage of their development, as didProfessors Heinz Dopsch, Heinrich Koller, and Otto Kronsteiner, University of



Salzburg. Recently, I have had the opportunity to become acquainted with Dr.Martin Eggers, University of Munich, who completed



Page xvii

a highly competent dissertation under Friedrick Prinz's direction on theproblem of Moravia's geographic location. Dr. Eggers gave me permission tolook at his work prior to its publication and to summarize it in myintroduction, and he gave me some much-needed assistance in making lastminute corrections of my maps. A good friend in Germany, Gerhard Böttcherof the Bavarian Youth Council, generously allowed me to fax messages fromMunich to the University of Pennsylvania Press during the final stages of thepreparation of this book.

Of course, I realize that there are many colleagues who disagree with themain arguments in this book. Let me say that I have come to my conclusionshonestly, as I am sure they have. Scholarship is often the beneficiary ofheated controversy, and in this spirit, I would like to thank Professor Dr.Herwig Wolfram, University of Vienna, for debating with me some of theissues addressed in this book at the International Congress on MedievalStudies at Western Michigan University in 1992.

During the last decade I have utilized the resources of many libraries in theUnited States and in Europe. I cannot mention all of them, but a few deservespecial mention. On many occasions I visited the excellent collections of theUniversity of Kansas at Lawrence and the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana. The most important resources for my work, however, I have found inthe library of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) in Munich,Germany. In the last nine years I have visited this paradise for medievalhistorians on seven occasions for visits that ranged from one week to severalmonths. Professor Dr. Horst Furhmann, the immediate past president of theMGH, provided me with an excellent place to work, and his able staff gaveme invaluable assistance. Of course, I must thank Dr. Donald Sweet and hisoverworked and underpaid staff at UALR for their willingness to seek outmaterials for me through interlibrary loan.

Institutional support also came from UALR and from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities (NEH). The Faculty Research Committee at UALR awardedme substantial grants in 1986 and 1988, which allowed me to travel widely inthe central Danubian basin and which freed me from the financial necessity ofteaching summer school. Support also came from the highest levels of myuniversity's administration. Provost Dr. Joel E. Anderson sought out ananonymous donor who made a significant contribution to the production of



this book. Especially I would like to thank the University History Institute, aprivate foundation that supports historical research at UALR. The members ofhis unique institution are citizens in the Little Rock community who subscribeto lectures given by



Page xviii

history department faculty; funds raised in this manner are used to supportvarious research projects. The History Institute awarded me a substantialgrant in 1988 to purchase library materials, and in 1994 its board voted tocontribute funds for the present publication. The NEH partially funded mytravel to the MGH in Munich at a critical stage of my research. This institutiondeserves my thanks as well.

Throughout the years Archie Lewis was a great supporter, mentor, and friend,whose scholarly breadth continually inspired me to explore new concepts. Iam very sorry that he is not present to witness the publication of this book. Iam further indebted to Lynn H. Nelson, University of Kansas, who firstintroduced me to the methodological rigors of medieval studies. And, ofcourse, I must mention Imre Boba, who wrote that "appalling" book that gotme into controversies that I did neither seek nor want. Although I havecursed the name of Imre Boba many times over the past twenty years, wehave become friends. He forced me to return to the sources of ninth-centuryhistory and to reexamine every assumption upon which modern historicalconstructs have been based.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family. My long-suffering childrennot only endured endless discussions of Franks, Moravians, and Magyars atsupper time, but they also made numerous contributions to these topics. Bothhave accomplished much in the equestrian arts, and, as such, they functionedas experts-in-residence concerning technical matters of horsemanship,essential knowledge for anyone wanting to write medieval military history.My daughter Cordelia not only managed to survive these family discussions,but also to develop a genuine interest in central and eastern Europeanlanguages and history. Christopher is studying animal science. He eventuallyhopes to utilize his knowledge more profitably than advising his historianfather on such matters as the proper nutrition for pack and war horses. Mywife Barbara, an accomplished scholar in her own right, has accompanied mealong every step of this journey. Without her constant support, herknowledge, and her sensitivity, the present work would have remainedunfinished. I dedicate this study to her. Needless to say, the errors in thisbook are my responsibility alone.

Munich, April 1994



Page 1

1.Hypotheses and Methodologies

Introduction

This book takes a new look at Carolingian attempts to control the centralDanubian basin and the struggles that consequently arose there between theFranks and other peoples, most prominently Avars, Moravian Slavs, andMagyars. Although Carolingian efforts to organize this region have beenstudied by many talented scholars, the history of the basin during this era hasbeen subject to misinterpretation because few have questioned prevailingassumptions concerning the geographic location of ninth-century Moravia, apolity often designated as "the Great Moravian Empire." 1 Most modernscholars believe that Moravian Slavs settled in the northern Morava Valley(modern Moravia, a part of the current Czech Republic). Since the publicationof Imre Boba's southern Moravian hypothesis more than twenty years ago,however, the geographic assumptions supporting the traditional view can nolonger be taken for granted.2 As we shall see, the emergence of ninth-centuryMoravia must have occurred several hundred kilometers to the southeast,near the modern Serbian-Hungarian-Romanian border, a geographic fact that(if true) alters dramatically our understanding of the dynamics of therelationships that existed between the peoples of the region.

It is necessary to insist on the possibility that the Moravians settled in thesoutheastern portions of the central Danubian basin because many scholarshave been unwilling to reread the scarce and laconic written sources withopen minds. The traditional location on Czech and/or Slovak territory isviewed not as a possibility whose plausibility needs constant scrutiny, but asa proven fact, an immutable point of reference. Unless one admits that thisdogma rests on arbitrary assumptions and tenuous argumentation, noreinterpretation of the spotty and ambiguous evidence is possible. I suggestthat the Carolingian sources, scrutinized thoroughly according to modernhistorical methodologies, offer considerable support for a southern location ofMoravia. The organization of this Carolingian



Page 2

frontier can be explained most cogently if we locate the origin of the realmsof such Moravian rulers as Rastislav and Zwentibald somewhere nearBelgrade, not in the vicinity of Brno or Olomouc.

Above all this book reconstructs a frontier military organization that facilitatedthe movements of monarchs, margraves, and their armies. Since, in thecourse of the ninth century, numerous wars were waged by the Franksagainst the principality of Moravia, careful scrutiny of the militaryinfrastructure that supported campaigns against the realms of Moravianleaders reveals much about the comprehensive plans that Carolingian kingshad for the central Danubian basin, for they organized there a system oflogistics capable of supporting armies operating in a distant region, far fromthe Frankish heartland in the Rhine, Main, and Meuse watersheds. A study ofFrankish operations against the Moravians and the logistics involved in theseexpeditions leads to the conclusion that their efforts to organize the middleDanube were more far reaching than could be presumed on the basis ofnorthern Moravian assumptions.

The Central Danubian Basin

The central Danubian basin became the southeastern frontier ofCharlemagne's sprawling empire in 791. The region consists of flat and rollingcountry between the highlands of the eastern Alps, the Carpathians, and theBalkans, encompassing today all of Slovakia and Hungary, as well as parts ofAustria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia. In theninth century control over this region was contested. The basin has practicallyalways been an open frontier, a "frontier" in the North American sense of thatterm, an ecological and cultural transition zone between the worlds of settledagriculturalists and nomads from the Eurasian steppe, between Indo-European and inner-Asian speakers, between Eastern and Western branchesof Christianity, and between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 3 The frontierconcept is useful for the Carolingian era because (1) distinct ecological zonessupported sharply contrasting economic and military activities between theFranks and peoples with whom they came into contact, (2) Franks,Moravians, and Magyars each colonized portions of the regiona salient featureof frontier societies, and (3) "frontier" implies a zone of interaction betweenindigenous and intruding cultures, some having centers situated well beyondthe regiona condition also present in this case.





Page 3

This interaction consisted of struggles (primarily, but by no meansexclusively, military ones) for control over or influence in the basin. In theninth century the most immediate participants in these contests were Franks,Moravians, and Magyars; but this tug-of-war also involved, from time to timeand in varying degrees, such neighboring centers of power and influence asthe Bulgarian khanate, the Byzantine Empire, and the Roman papacy.Magyars eventually emerged the victors when, in the early tenth century,they succeeded in defeating first the Moravians, then the Franks, and,subsequently, they achieved hegemony over the entire basin, whence theylaunched raids that terrorized Europe for roughly fifty years. Their victory in907 ended Frankish attempts, begun by Charlemagne with his first Avarcampaign in 791, to organize the middle Danube. Yet, in spite of theirultimate failure, Carolingian efforts to control this region were importantbecause they represent the first systematic effort since the late sixth centuryto wrest the central Danubian basin from the domination of inner-Asiannomads, to secure a dangerous frontier that had been left unguarded forcenturies, to convert the peoples residing there to Christianity, and toreestablish a terrestrial link between the Latin West and the Byzantine East.

Physically the basin is dominated by the Danube river system and itssurrounding mountains. In addition to the Danube, the Drava and the Savaflow from the eastern Alps, the Tisza from the Carpathians, and the Drina andsouthern (Serbian) Morava from the Balkans. These rivers, natural arteries forthe movement of men, goods, and ideas into the region from severaldirections, all join the Danube less than 150 kilometers from Belgrade, thecapital of modern Serbia. The confluences of these rivers with the Danubeform what I shall call the watergate of the basin.

From east to west the basin may be subdivided as follows: (1) Transylvania,a mountainous region of modern Romania consisting of the western slopes ofthe Carpathians; (2) Great Alföld, an open plain extending westward fromTransylvania to the Danube; (3) Transdanubia, the rolling and hilly country ofwestern Hungary, including parts of modern Slovakia, Croatia, and Slovenia,as defined by the Danube, Drava, and Sava watersheds. Of these regions,only the Great Alföld may be regarded as a part of the greater Eurasiansteppe, a suitable habitat for nomads who periodically threatened theagrarian-based civilizations of the Mediterranean, the Iranian plateau, theIndian subcontinent, and northern China. Although Transdanubia contains a



smaller plain, the Little Alföld, stretching eastward from Neusiedler Lake(Lake Fertö) to the Raba River, the latter is insufficient to support a viablenomadic culture. Transdanubia with its moderate



Page 4

climate, ample rainfall, and rolling countryside is suitable for agriculture andsettled husbandry, but not for nomadic forms of herding. Thus, the GreatAlföld, though it is by no means as extensive as the steppes of inner-Asia,was the only region that could provide a base from which nomadic peoplescould pose threats to Mediterranean civilizations.

For this reason the Romans sought to pacify it. Tiberius conqueredTransdanubia in the first century, naming it Pannonia, organizing it as aprovince, and establishing a frontier defense (limes) along the Danube.Although the Romans did not occupy the Alföld, from time to time theyemployed Sarmatian horsemen there as confederates, allowing them to settleand construct earthen ramparts for their protection. By these means theRomans hoped to screen Pannonia from unexpected intruders from farthereast.

In the fourth century, Roman efforts to defend Pannonia resulted in theremarkable growth of Sirmium (now a small city, Sremska Mitrovica, fifty-fivekilometers west of Belgrade). Located on the left bank of the Sava, near itsconfluence with the Danube, in the vicinity of this threatened frontier,Sirmium became one of the most important cities of the empire during thetetrarchy, and, though frequently occupied by barbarians, it somehowendured as a major center throughout the troubled centuries that followed. Inspite of heroic efforts to hold this imperial outpost, which, as the seat of ametropolitan bishop, became a symbol of Romanitas in Pannonia, successivewaves of barbarians finally brought Roman and Byzantine rule to an endthere in the late sixth century. First came the Huns, who were succeeded byrevived Ostrogoths. When the latter migrated into Italy at the end of the fifthcentury, other Germanic peoples such as Gepids and Lombards occupied it.After Justinian's destruction of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the Lombardscrossed the Julian Alps to become their heirs, and Avars, steppe nomadsaccompanied by Slavs, delivered the coup de grace to Byzantine attempts toregain control over Pannonia in 582, when they finally conquered Sirmiumafter a prolonged siege of three years.

This conquest at the end of the sixth century led to Avar occupation of theAlföld and Roman Pannonia, where they established a hegemony that lastedapproximately two centuries. Avar overlordship in the middle Danubian basinwas finally ended by Charlemagne, whose armies destroyed their empire



circa 800. This Carolingian reconquest resulted in the establishment of afrontier military organization that we shall call the southeastern marches(Südostmarkgrafschaften). In addition to creating Frankish marcher lordships,Carolingian rulers recognized certain Slavic princes (duces) as clients.



Page 5

The leaders of the Moravian Slavs became the most important of theseclients during the course of the ninth century.

Moravia's Geographic Location

The ninth-century principality of Moravia has been the focus of attention ofhistorians of Slavic central Europe because of the Byzantine missionaries andteachers, Constantine (Cyril) and his brother Methodius, who came to Moraviaat the invitation of Prince Rastislav. There they created the first Slavic writtenlanguage, Old Church Slavonic, which was the basis for the development ofSlavic orthodox culture in the Balkans and in medieval Russia. Methodiussubsequently was appointed to head the revived metropolitan see of Sirmiumand became involved in a notorious conflict with the Frankish clergy under theBavarian archbishop of Salzburg and his suffragans, who also claimedecclesiastical jurisdiction in the region.

Foremost among modern scholars of the Cyril-Methodian missions to theSlavs was Francis Dvornik, who in 1927 published his dissertation, Les Slaves,Byzance et Rome au 9ème siècle, a theme to which he returned many timesduring a distinguished career that culminated in the publication of hismagnum opus, Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs in 1970. 4 As the titles ofhis works indicate, Dvornik emphasized Byzantine contributions to theChristianization of east-central Europe, while at the same time taking intoaccount initiatives of the Roman papacy in the region. Relations betweenByzantium and Rome were far from cordial in the ninth century, especiallyduring the famous dispute between Pope Nicholas I and Patriarch Photius;nevertheless, as Dvornik pointed out, it was Pope Hadrian II, not a Byzantinepatriarch, who appointed Methodius archbishop of Sirmium in 869. And thispontiff's successor, John VIII, freed the prelate from Frankish captivity in 873.In Dvornik's view, Methodius was an ecclesiastical leader who bridged thewidening gap between Byzantine and Roman Christianity. The Franks, wholed the unbending opposition to these Greek missionary-teachers, earned forthemselves no place in the titles of any of Dvornik's books.

Dvornik, himself a Moravian and a Roman Catholic priest, was a greathistorian of the nascence of Slavic civilization. He had enormous erudition, asure mastery of the sources, the confidence that allowed him to makesweeping generalizations on the basis of laconic evidence, and the self-assurance to brush aside hypotheses incompatible with his grand scheme of





Page 6

east-central European history in the early Middle Ages. Throughout his workshe emphasized that Eastern Christianity penetrated central Europe throughByzantine-controlled territory on the Adriatic. Thus, it was via southernDalmatia that Greek influences reached the court of Rastislav. AlthoughMethodius was the titular archbishop of Sirmium, a location relatively close toByzantine Dalmatia, like most scholars Dvornik believed that he actuallyresided in Rastislav's principality in what is now the Czech Republic north ofthe Danube, a region cut off from eastern imperial territory on the Adriatic bya band of Frankish marcher lordships in the eastern Alps and on the plains ofPannonia.

As a result of this geographic incongruity, nagging questions remainedconcerning the circumstances that allowed these missionary-teachers withtheir entourage to travel through Frankish territory to a Moravian principalitylocated in what is now the Czech Republic. 5 Boba's monograph answeredthese questions by arguing that the heartland of Rastislav's realm wassituated several hundred kilometers southeast of the alleged centers of ninth-century Moravia. According to him, this realm arose in modern Serbia in thevicinity of ancient Sirmium. Thus, Rastislav's court could have been reachedby Byzantine envoys without traversing the Frankish marches. A summary ofBoba's hypothesis is as follows.

Charlemagne's defeat of the Avars dramatically altered power relationships inthe central Danubian basin. The khanate disintegrated and a series of Slavicprincipalities emerged to take its place. Among these was Moravia, derivingits name from a city called Morava (occasionally in Latin Maravia) which,Boba believes, was situated on the right bank of the Sava opposite the ruinsof Sirmium. He points out that the Latin, Slavic, and Greek sources neverrefer to the Moravians in the ethnic sense: they are Slavs (Sclavi, Sloveni)with modifiers indicating that they reside in Morava, or else Moravians interms indicating relationships to a city. The terms regnum Marahensium andMorav'skaia oblast' are consistent with the medieval practice of defining thedominion of a prince by the burg or urban center from which the potestas(regnum, oblast') emanated. The Slavic Morav'skaia oblast' "domain of (thecity of) Morava" and Morav'skaia zemlia "land of Morav" are like the old EastSlavic Novgorod'skaia oblast' ''domain of (the city of) Novgorod" or Polishzemia Krakowska "land of Krakow." In Latin, we find Maraviam venit, "hearrived in (the city of) Moravia,'' the accusative case used without a



preposition (for cities, as in Roman venit).6

The territory that in the ninth century became the realm of the Slavs hadbeen the scene of political and ecclesiastical conflict during late antiq-



Page 7

uity, as Constantinople and Rome vied with one another for jurisdiction overthe Prefecture of Illyricum, a conflict that ended temporarily with Avaroccupation of the region. The Frankish conquest of the region terminatedAvar rule, but renewed and complicated ancient east-west rivalries. What hadbeen a rivalry between Constantinople and Rome for hegemony in the centralDanubian basin, now became a three-way struggle with the activeinvolvement of the East Frankish kingdom, especially in the latter half of theninth century, when the papacy freed itself from the domination ofCharlemagne's successors. As Moravian princes came to understand thenature of this rivalry between the superpowers of the ninth century, theybecame adept at playing one against another to advance their interests.

Like most historians of this region, Boba believes that the high point in thehistory of ninth-century Moravia was achieved by Prince Zwentibald (c.869893). 7 Boba differs from traditional historians in that he holds thatZwentibald's original principality had been situated in the Drina Valley southof the Sava; whence he expanded to the north when he eliminated his uncleand rival Rastislav in 870 by betraying him to the Franks. In 871, however,Zwentibald turned on the Franks and ambushed unsuspecting marcher lordswho had occupied Moravian fortifications. In 874 a peace with the Franks wasarranged which gave Zwentibald a free hand to consolidate his realm insoutheastern Pannonia in return for paying tribute to his Frankish overlords.Later he extended his control over large parts of the central Danubian basin,and, in 890, Bohemia and modern Moravia (both now in the Czech Republic)came briefly under his control. According to Boba, it is important to note,Zwentibald's conquests were accomplished by expanding his power from thesouth.

During these decades Zwentibald's realm became ecclesiasticallyindependent of Franks and Byzantines alike. His victory forced the Franks tomake peace and to release (at papal insistence) Methodius, whom they heldin captivity in a Swabian monastery. Methodius was then reinstalled as thearchbishop of the principal see of Pannonia (Sirmium). Although Zwentibaldhad his differences with Methodius and personally preferred the Latin ritual,prince and prelate reached a modus vivendi that lasted until the latter's deathin 885. Considering himself free of the threat of Frankish military power,Zwentibald apparently found it unnecessary to rely on Methodius's Greek-influenced disciples, and he began to move openly toward the Latin church.



With papal cooperation, Zwentibald had established his de jure politicalindependence in 884, when he was recognized by Rome as king of the Slavs,a realm nominally subordinate to the pope.



Page 8

Zwentibald's regnum was, however, short-lived. In 887 Arnulf of Carinthia, ina coup d'état, replaced his phlegmatic uncle, Charles III, as king of the EastFranks. While consolidating his power, the new king managed to keep peacewith Zwentibald, who had earlier been his rival. In 891, however, Arnulf wona great victory over Scandinavian war bands who had ravished the Rhinelanda triumph that established his reputation as an effective Frankish war-king.With a consolidated kingdom behind him, he now had a free hand to dealwith the Moravian ruler. In 892 Arnulf launched an invasion of the Moravianheartland between the Drava and the Sava, entering the city of Morava,breaking Zwentibald's hold on this strategically important center, andeffectively dividing his realm. With the help of Magyars recruited from east ofthe Carpathians, a series of Frankish invasions of Moravian territory broughtthis Slavic empire to an end about 900.

Although no ninth-century source locates Moravia unambiguously, two tenth-century sources place it in the south. The first of these is a collection ofnonauthentic papal letters attributed to Bishop Pilgrim of Passau (971991),commonly known as the Lorch Forgeries. 8 These epistles deal with thedefinition of the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Passau. It is commonlybelieved that they were written because of intense competition betweenPilgrim and Archbishop Frederick of Salzburg for ecclesiastical jurisdiction inthe central Danubian basin as the Magyars began to settle down and convertto Christianity. These forgeries were intended to justify Passau's claims, whileFrederick produced his own fabrications to buttress Salzburg's.9 Pilgrim'sepistles assert, among other things, Passau's rights to four bishoprics inMoravia, and they situate Moravia in southeastern Pannonia and Moesia, farfrom Czech Moravia. Modern authorities do not contest that the letters clearlyplace Moravia in the southeast, but the testimony of the Lorch Forgeriesconcerning Moravia's location has been dismissed on the grounds that thesedocuments were the fabrications of Pilgrim or a scribe serving him.10 In thecomplete absence of unambiguous evidence that Passau had ecclesiasticaljurisdiction north of the Danube, there is no reason to dismiss Pilgrim'sdefinition of Moravia. Surely it represented where the bishop of Passauthought that Moravia had been situated less than a century earlier.11 Passau'sregion of missionary activity is generally believed to have been between theVienna Woods and the Raba River, extending from there into Moravianterritory north of the Danube. This argument is based on another document,



a charter that is also an acknowledged forgery, a much later one than BishopPilgrim's spurious



Page 9

epistles, and even if this source were authentic, it offers no testimony thatPassau's diocese extended north of the Danube. 12 There is an authenticletter (c.900) that states that Moravia was part of the diocese of Passau, butit also gives no indication that the jurisdiction of this see was north of theDanube; in fact it states that Nitra in modern Slovakia was outside ofPassau's territory.13

A more important tenth-century source is the so-called De administrandoimperio (DAI) compiled by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (945-959).14 Chapter 13 of DAI locates "Great Moravia" (megale Moravia) to thesouth of the "Turks" (Magyars) who, by Constantine's time, controlled thecentral Danubian basin. In chapter 38 the DAI reports that the Magyars weredriven west of the Carpathians by the Pechenegs and "in turn (the Turks)expelled the inhabitants of great Moravia and settled in their land.'' Chapter40 describes landmarks along the lower Danube as follows: "there is thebridge of the emperor Trajan, where Turkey begins; then, a three days'journey from the same bridge, there is Belgrade, in which is the tower of theholy and great Constantine, the emperor; then again, at the running back ofthe river [Ister, lower Danube and Sava], is the renowned Sirmium by name,a journey of two days from Belgrade; and beyond lies great Moravia, theunbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, over which in former daysSphendoplokos [Zwentibald] used to rule." In chapter 41, Constantine wroteof the three sons of Prince Zwentibald: "After the death of this sameSphendoplokos they remained at peace for a year, and then strife andrebellion fell upon them and they made a civil war against one another andthe Turks came and utterly ruined them and possessed their country." Finally,in chapter 42 we read, ''From Thessalonica to the river Danube where standsthe city called Belgrade, is a journey of eight days, if one is not traveling inhaste but by easy stages. The Turks live beyond the Danube river, in the landof Moravia, but also on this side of it, between the Danube and the Saveriver." Thus, Constantine clearly thought that Zwentibald's Moravia waslocated somewhere near Belgrade and that it had been occupied by theHungarians. Since modern Moravia is several hundred kilometers fromBelgrade and since there is no evidence that the Hungarians ever settledthere, the DAI contradicts the views of most modern scholars.15

Constantine must have been informed concerning events leading to Moravia'sdestruction, for the most reliable Frankish source, the Annales Fuldenses,



independently confirms some of its details.16 Its author states that thePechenegs expelled the Magyars from the region of the Black Sea,



Page 10

forcing them to move west. He reports that Zwentibald's sons quarreled afterhis death, resulting in an armed conflict between them. On several occasions,the annalist describes Magyar devastation of Moravian territory. According tohim, the Moravian ruler had two sons, not three, but this point is hardlysufficient to discard Constantine's testimony.

Boba has, however, amended R. J. H. Jenkins's translation of the DAI in twoimportant respects. First, he is convinced that the Greek expression megaleMoravia (which appears in no other source) should be read "old" or "former"Moravia, not "great" Moravia, the adjective Czech and Slovak nationalistsprefer. 17 As proof he points out that megale is only used in passagesdescribing Moravia following its occupation by the Hungarians. In contrast,Constantine did not employ this adjective in chapter 41, which deals withMoravia before the Magyar conquest. Second, Boba would amend the Englishversion of chapter 42, which seems to contradict chapters 13, 38, and 40.Jenkins translated a sentence in chapter 42 as, ''The Turks live beyond theDanube river, in the land of Moravia, but also on this side of it, between theDanube and the Save river,'' a translation that locates parts of Moraviasomewhere north of the Danube north of Belgrade on the Nagy Alföld, but notin the modern Czech Republic. Boba argues that the logic of Constantine'stext dictates that this passage must be translated, "The Turks live on theother side of the Danube river but also on this side of it, in the land ofMorava, between the Danube and the Sava river," a translation that isgrammatically possible and consistent with other chapters dealing withMoravia.18

Although few historians have placed the Moravian heartland south of theDanube, the DAI is such an important source that scholars could notcompletely ignore Constantine's observations. The early Hungarian historian,Péter Hunfalvy, for example, used the emperor's testimony as evidence thatZwentibald expanded Moravian power southeast from a heartland north ofthe Danube, eventually conquering Sirmium.19 While others were not so boldas to assert that Zwentibald had actually established his lordship over theancient capital of Pannonia, there was a consensus among Hungarianscholars that the Moravian prince's hegemony stretched over much ofTransdanubia by the 880s at the latest. They also emphasized that Arnulfonly succeeded in bringing this Moravian hegemony in Pannonia to an end byallying himself with their ancestors, the Magyars.



Czech historians, insisting that the term megale Moravia implied a Pan-Slavicstate of imperial dimensions, also found the idea attractive that Zwentibald'srealm had extended well beyond the boundaries of modern



Page 11

Moravia north of the Danube. Without citing any evidence to support hisposition, Dvornik argued that Rastislav, expanding his power from bases inthe north, had already succeeded in conquering the region between the Tiszaand the Danube before Zwentibald seized power. The latter then widenedthose conquests into Pannonia. Other Czech scholars generally agreed that, inthe 880s, the territory under Zwentibald's overlordship included most ofTransdanubia, and some, on the basis of very thin evidence, have evenextended the Moravian realm far to the north, well into modern Poland. 20

The late Slovak historian, Péter Ratkos, who believed that the Moravianheartland was primarily in Slovakia, argued that Moravia not onlyencompassed most of Roman Pannonia, but also reached across the Alföld tothe salt mines of Transylvania.21

On the other hand, two non-Slovak scholars formerly associated with theUniversity of Bratislava have come to the conclusion that the evidence of asource such as the DAI, an official treatise on Byzantine statecraft written byor for the emperor himself, cannot be ignored. The first is Péter Püspöki-Nagy, an ethnic Hungarian residing in Bratislava.22 Drawing on the testimonyof the so-called Bavarian Geographer, who distinguished between theMarharii, identified as neighbors of the Bohemians, and the Merehanii, whobordered on the Bulgars farther to the east, Püspöki-Nagy argues that therewere two Moravias. The land of the Merehanii he calls "Great Moravia," as itwas described in the DAI, with an east-west extension from the southernMorava River to the Drina, including not only Belgrade and Sirmium, but alsoparts of the Alföld (the plain of the lower Tisza from the confluence of theMaros).23 In the northwest, this realm began where the Drava joined theDanube, which other sources identify as the southeastern boundary of theEast Frankish kingdom. The "Great Moravian" heartland was, then, identicalwith the central Danubian water-gate, bounded by the confluences of thegreat rivers of the basin with the Danube. Püspöki-Nagy calls the land of theMarharii "Little Moravia," a term that appears in no source. It was a region,identical with modern Moravia, eventually conquered by Zwentibald, who, likehis uncle Rastislav, resided in the southern realm. In addition to Püspöki-Nagy, Senga Toru, as a Japanese student in Bratislava, examined theMoravian question.24 To explain the existence of a southern Moravia in theDAI, he also proposed that there must have been two Moravias in the earlyninth century, a regnum ruled by Zwentibald located east of the Danube in



the Alföld, opposite the confluence of the Drava (the megale Moravia of theemperor Constantine), and a second realm north of the Danube, where



Page 12

Rastislav reigned. It originated in the current Czech Republic, but expandedto include modern Slovakia.

These "two Moravias" these of Püspöki-Nagy and Senga Toru must bepartially correct, for sources do indeed indicate that Rastislav and Zwentibaldruled separate realms (regna) until the latter united them in 871, a fact thatBoba had already pointed out. Moreover, there is evidence that one of thoserealms extended into the Alföld. Püspöki-Nagy's views, however, cannotaccount for the peoples living in what he calls "Little Moravia" beforeZwentibald's conquest, and Toru's thesis encounters difficulties in explainingaway Boba's arguments that Rastislav's realm was also in the south.Moreover, Senga Toru fails to deal with a substantial body of evidenceassociating Zwentibald with the Drina watershed south of the Sava.

Until recently, German-speaking scholars have been more reluctant to trustConstantine on the matter of Moravia's geographic location, claiming that theAnnales Fuldenses and other Carolingian sources give testimony incompatiblewith the notion that Moravia encompassed significant portions of Pannonia,which they considered to be under the control of Franks and their Slavicsurrogates. Although Ernst Dümmler accepted the notion of a Moravia thatcame to include much of Transdanubia, he was exceptional. More typical wasJoseph Marquart, who insisted that the Byzantine ruler confused Zwentibald'srealm with the "principality of Kocel," a Slavic ruler of southeasternTransdanubia (c. 860876), whose father had been established as a Frankishclient in Pannonia. 25 Hans Pirchegger believed that Carolingian sources,which he considered more reliable than Byzantine or Slavic ones, clearly showthat following Kocel's death, southeastern Pannonia fell to Arnulf.26 Accordingto him, although Zwentibald succeeded in devastating the region south of theDanube (882884), he did not occupy it. Thus, Moravian territory neverextended into Pannonia. In the tradition of Marquart and Pirchegger, HerwigWolfram has recently dismissed Constantine's commentary on Moravia asconsisting of "unfortunate" statements, indicating that there was littleknowledge of this region in the Byzantine capital less than a half-centuryafter the destruction of Zwentibald's realm.27 In general, German-speakingscholars have considered Frankish sources for ninth-century Moravia to besuperior to Greek and Slavic ones. The Frankish evidence, they insist, clearlysituates Rastislav's realm north of the Danube, in the modern Czech Republic.



Martin Eggers represents an exception to this trend among German-speakingscholars. He has recently proposed a plausible "two regna" the-



Page 13

sis. 28 Both realms must have been situated far to the southeast of modernMoravia. Like Boba, Eggers insists that Zwentibald's principality crystallizedsouth of the Sava in modern Bosnia.29 On the other hand, he rejects Boba'sthesis on three major points: (1) that both realms were within the old Romanlimes, (2) that Rastislav controlled only territory south of the Danube, and (3)that Sirmium was his principal residence. Eggers believes that the center ofRastislav's realm was located in the Great Alföld, thus, east of the Danube,beyond the Roman limes, and he views Sirmium only as the nominal see ofMethodius. The Carolingians, he argues, enlarged the concept of Pannonia toinclude the entire central Danubian basin.30 Rastislav's Moravia in the Alföldwas, then, within this expanded definition of Pannonia.

Utilizing archaeological evidence, as well as an impressive array of writtensources in Latin, Greek, Old Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic, and so on, Eggersposits that, following the defeat of the Avars, Carolingian rulers and frontiercommanders shored up preexisting bulwarks in the Great Alföld to protect thecentral Danubian basin from intruders, Avar remnants, and other nomadicpeoples living beyond the Carpathians.31 These measures consisted ofrejuvenating extensive earthen ramparts that the Romans had constructed fortheir Sarmatian confederates, but which had been utilized by various peoplesthroughout the early Middle Ages. These ramparts, 550 kilometers in length,formed an arc east of the Danube and the Tisza that enclosed 65,000 squarekilometers. Over much of this distance, these defenses consisted of parallelwalls (sometimes three or four deep) that were separated from one anotherby distances that varied from three to twenty kilometers. Beginning to thenortheast of Budapest, the walls ran eastward, crossing the Tisza nearNyíregyháza, then bending sharply southward in the direction of Debrecen,passing the towns of Arad and Timisoara (both in modern Romania); theyfinally reached the Danube just opposite the confluence of the southernMorava with the Danube.

There is no evidence that these ramparts were designed to accommodategarrisons along their entire length. Nor have the remains of watchtowersbeen discovered. They were not, then, the same sort of defensive works thatcharacterized the Roman limes. They served as blockades that impeded theingress of large armies hauling supplies and the egress of raiding partiesencumbered with booty. Especially they would have seriously hampered massmigrations (Völkerwanderungen) that included women, children, and wagons.



Nevertheless, for these impediments to be effective, garrisons had to bestationed in forts behind them to pounce on intruders



Page 14

whose progress had been slowed and whose organization had been disruptedwhile passing through them.

Lacking manpower to garrison strategic locations behind the ramparts withFranks, Carolingian leaders, like their Roman predecessors, settledconfederates in the Alföld. These settlers were Moravians, who, like manyother South Slavs, immigrated onto the Great Alföld from beyond the Danubefollowing the defeat of the Avars. This northward migration of South Slavs isevident in the archaeological record by the spread of the so-called Bjelo-Brdoculture throughout the southern portion of the central Danubian basin in theninth century. The Moravians were known by names such as Sclavi Margensesand Moravljani because their tribal formation originated somewhere near theconfluence of the southern (Serbian) Morava River with the Danube, whencethey migrated north onto the Alföld. The classical name for the southernMorava was Margus, in contrast with the northern Morava, which was knownin antiquity as the Marus. At the confluence of the southern Morava River withthe Danube is a plain, still designated Velika Morava on modern Serbianmaps, the site of the ancient city of Margum.

But this city was not the grad Morava. Eggers believes that Rastislav's capitalwas a fortress in the Alföld that appears in the Vita maior S. Gerhardi as theurbs Morisena, later Maroswar (modern Hungarian Marosvar). The urbsMorisena was situated on the Maros, a river whose name has the same Indo-European origin as the two Morava rivers. In the early eleventh century KingStephen I renamed this city for one of his commanders, a certain Sunad. 32

Today it is known as Csanad in Hungarian, Cenad in Romanian though it wasfrequently called Maroswar in later medieval Hungarian sources. In this areathe system of ramparts reached its greatest complexity. The first knownleader (dux) of the Sclavi Margenses was Moimir, whose nephew, Rastislav,succeeded him in 846. Rastislav's nephew, Zwentibald, ruled over other Slavsin another regnum south of the Sava that is, until he defeated his EastFrankish overlords and united the two realms in 871. Agreeing with Boba,Eggers believes that Zwentibald subsequently expanded his rule over most ofthe central Danubian basin before Franks and Magyars finally crushed theMoravian polity circa 900.33

The Lorch Forgeries, which place Moravia in southeastern Pannonia andMoesia, tend to support Eggers's conclusions. Moreover, his hypothesis makes



it unnecessary to amend Jenkins's translation of chapter 42 in the DAI, inwhich Constantine located the "land of Moravia" north of Belgrade. Hisconclusion that Moravians guarded ramparts in the Alföld is



Page 15

buttressed by two Latin narratives in the tenth century, Widukind of Corvey'sRerum gestarum Saxonicarum and Liudprand of Cremona's Antapodosis. 34 Aswe shall see below, in Chapter 9, both authors indicate that the Moravianshad the task of defending the Alföld against nomadic peoples farther to theeast. They blame Arnulf of Carinthia for destroying their defenses and, thus,allowing the Magyars to enter the central Danubian basin and to attackChristian Europe.

Although I accept Egger's conclusion that Moravians were settled by theFranks on the Alföld as bulwark against eastern intruders, in this study it willnot be necessary to decide who is correct (Boba or Eggers) concerning thelocation of Rastislav's capital and Methodius's episcopal see. I have come tothe conclusion that it is impossible to resolve this issue on the basis of theevidence available as I write. Perhaps the osteological remains of an earlymedieval bishop discovered in the church of Saint Ireneus on the left bank ofthe Sava will prove to be the bones of Methodius, perhaps not.35 From theviewpoint of the military organization of the Carolingian marches, however, itis of little consequence whether this residence was on the Sava or the Maros.In reality the differences between Boba and Eggers are slight, especiallywhen compared with the gulf that exists between their revisionism and thescholarship of most historians who have dealt with this topic during the lasttwo centuries. Both reject the possibility that Moravia orginated in the currentCzech Republic. Each has advanced compelling arguments that the realms ofRastislav and Zwentibald germinated southeast of the Carolingian marches.Although Boba clearly believes that Moravia was centered on Sirmium, in theCroatian version of his book, he recognized that Rastislav's realm includedportions of the Alföld.36 Eggers, for his part, agrees with Boba thatZwentibald's realm was in the Drina Valley south of the Sava. Since these twoprincipalities were obviously situated in close proximity to one another, theycould easily have had a common border in the vicinity of Sirmium. In anycase, the ancient capital on the Sava would have been a point of greatstrategic importance.37 As we shall see, in the lower reaches of thatwatershed, Arnulf of Carinthia launched a successful campaign that dividedZwentibald's far-flung agglomeration of territories in an expedition thatmarked the beginning of the end for Moravia.

Egger's most important contribution is his judicious use of archaeologicalevidence to support his version of the southern Moravia hypothesis.38 In



addition to making the case that the Franks settled Moravians in the Alföld toform a buffer against the east, he also uses archaeological



Page 16

evidence to refute the notion that ninth-century settlements uncovered inmodern Moravia were within the original Moravian heartland. His results aresignificant because excavations of wall-forts (Burgwälle) in northern Moraviaat such sites as Staré Mesto, Mikulcice, and Pohansko, as well as such Slovaksites as Dévin and Nitra, have long been regarded as ultimate proof that"Great Moravia" originated north of the Danube.

His critique of the northern Moravian excavations argues powerfully that thematerial culture of wall-forts north of the Danube (known as the Blatnica-Mikulcice horizon) was a "continuation of late Avar culture." He argues thatthese forts were constructed after 811 by hard-pressed Avars to protectthemselves against Slavs who were immigrating into the region. Thesuggestion that these sites were a continuation of Avar culture had actuallybeen made by some archaeologists, but was largely ignored simply becausethis was the presumed location of Rastislav's realm and the culture thereforewas "Great Moravian." 39 Only Boba saw it as an affirmation of his views.40

Although the inhabitants of this region were undoubtedly a mixture of Avarsand Slavs, Frankish influences became stronger with Christianization of theregion during the ninth century. The archaeological evidence demonstratesthat the ninth-century material culture found in modern Moravia was verymuch in the Frankish sphere, not in the Byzantine one.

In retrospect it is possible to say that archaeology never yielded convincingevidence supporting the northern Moravia hypothesis. Well before Eggers'scritique, there was reason to doubt that the wall-forts north of the Danubewere Moravian. As the late Herbert Schelesniker, one of Boba's mustenthusiastic supporters, pointed out several years ago, the traditional viewarbitrarily subordinated historical and philological evidence indicating asouthern Moravia to archaeological findings, which demonstrated only thatthe northern Morava Valley was inhabited in the ninth century, as it had beenfor millennia.41 In spite of extensive excavations, nothing has beendiscovered north of the Danube definitely linking the ruins of these wall-fortsto missions led by Constantine and Methodius.42

Archaeologists have in fact grasped at straws to find evidence of Byzantinemissions north of the Danube. An example is the discovery in Staré Mesto ofearrings of the "Byzantine type." Since similar earrings have been discoveredat the site of the fortress of Zalavár near Lake Balaton, scholars have used



these finds as proof of Byzantine influence in both centers. Agnes Sós,however, has pointed out that earrings of the "Byzantine type" have alsobeen discovered at many excavations in southern Transdanubia.43 That



Page 17

some of these items made their way to Staré Mesto by means of commerce isnot surprising. But since they could have been transported there bycommercial intermediaries, their discovery north of the Danube can hardly beused as proof of Byzantine missions. The same can be said for a type offinger ring that has been uncovered in the northern Morava Valley, as well asin Transdanubia. 44 As for ceramics, some types have been discovered whichaccording to Czech archaeologists are definite evidence of Byzantinecraftsmen in the train of Constantine and Methodius. This type of ceramic,however, has also been found all over Transdanubia and in sites dating fromthe Avar period. Sós has interpreted this evidence as a sign of the continuityof ancient crafts in Pannonia, and a process of technological diffusion fromTransdanubia to the region north of the Danube could account for thepresence of these objects in modern Moravia, rather than the suddenappearance of Byzantine craftsmen.45 Another interesting fact is that onlythree Byzantine coins have been discovered in modern Moravia, and each ofthese were isolated finds. One does date from the reign of Michael III(842867), the Byzantine ruler who sent Constantine and Methodius on theirmission to Moravia. A single coin, however, means little or nothing, for itcould just as well have arrived there in the period of the Hungariansettlement (Honfoglalas).46 The defenders of the northern Moravianhypothesis normally respond to such criticism by postulating a "catastrophictheory," according to which evidence of Greek missions north of the Danubewas destroyed by Magyar invaders.

Martin Eggers firmly believes that his conclusions resolve a "mystery"concerning Frankish-Moravian relations in the ninth century.47 Moravia northof the Danube consists of open country that would have been relatively easyfor the Franks to dominate. How, then, were Rastislav and Zwentibald able tofend off massive Frankish invasions of their territories? The traditional answeris that Moravian fortifications were adequate to defend this region against aFrankish military that was decaying rapidly during the second half of the ninthcentury. The wall-forts north of the Danube, however, were hardly strongenough to have resisted determined sieges that Franks were able to conduct,even at the end of the ninth century. Nor were these fortresses imposingenough to have inspired the awe of Frankish annalists. Moreover, how could itbe that the wall-forts constituted a suitable system of defenses against theFranks, yet they quickly succumbed to Magyars, as proponents of the



"catastrophic theory" would have it? The early Hungarians were nevereffective at taking fortifications, whereas Franks conducted some notablesieges of massive fortresses.



Page 18

Eggers believes that his southern Moravia hypothesis explains this dilemma.He states, "the secret of Moravia's ability to resist [the Franks] lay, therefore,not in the wall-forts of the type found in Mikulcice or Staré Mesto, as hasoften been maintained since the excavation of these fortress-like sites." 48

The answer lies in the distances involving Frankish military operations againsta Moravian realm located on the Great Alföld and the difficulties experiencedby the Franks in maintaining communication and logistical systems over suchdistances. To demonstrate his point, Eggers examines narrative accounts ofmost Carolingian campaigns in the central Danubian basin; however, hemakes no attempt to reconstruct systematically the military infrastructure ofthe region based on recent research concerning the nature of Frankishwarfare and the logistical system that supported it. I am convinced, on theother hand, that the military infrastructure of the southeastern marches ofthe Carolingian Empire can be reconstructed on the basis of evidence derivedfrom a careful study of logistics, itineraries, land grants, and prosopography.Such a reconstruction will tell us much about the nature of this marchermilitary organization and will lend additional support to the southern Moraviahypotheses.

Carolingian Warfare

Traditional military histories of the Middle Ages conclude that there was verylittle "art" involved in early medieval war.49 Though battles were sometimesbloody brawls, lack of discipline and the tactical inability to take fortressesresulted in indecisive campaigns. Should an invader manage to amass asuperior force, his opponent simply withdrew behind the strong walls offortifications and waited, perhaps making occasional sallies, until the invadingarmy had exhausted available food from the surrounding countryside. Oncethe aggressor had used up his resources, he retreated. The defender, withstores of food carefully tucked away behind those walls, generally starved outthe invader.

The dean of Carolingian scholars, the late François L. Ganshof, did not sharesuch views concerning the primitive nature of early medieval warfare. Hebelieved that heavy cavalry was decisive in the creation of the Frankishimperium. "Although few in number," Ganshof wrote, "the units of armoredcavalry had an extremely important role, tactical and perhaps strategic: theyassured the Carolingian armies of superiority over the Saxons, the Slavs, the



Avars, and probably the Danes."50 Ganshof, however, left it to his



Page 19

student, J. F. Verbruggen, to formulate a comprehensive view of Carolingianstrategy. 51 Although the latter praised the studies of earlier scholars andinsisted that Carolingian armies consisted of relatively small contingents ofcavalry, Verbruggen also demonstrated that warriors of this period fought asunits, that tactical flexibility was possible, and, most importantly, thatcommanders in the age of Charlemagne were capable of a grand strategythat was based on encircling pincers into enemy territory.52 Given the currentstate of research, it is no longer possible to assert that Carolingian warfarewas chaotic and backward, and Karl Ferdinand Werner has shown that, onoccasions at least, Carolingian armies must have been considerably largerthan five thousand troops, which Ferdinand Lot thought was the most thatCharlemagne ever had available for mobilization.53

The most important critic of the traditional interpretations of Carolingianwarfare is Bernard S. Bachrach.54 While admitting that Carolingian rulersalways took care to ensure themselves mounted troops, Bachrach has shownthat even the dominance of cavalry in Frankish armies has been grosslyexaggerated by scholars at the expense of forces that performed otherfunctions. To demonstrate his point, Bachrach has called attention to theenormous logistic problems that Carolingian commanders dealt with andsolved. He wrote:

If any element of Charlemagne's armies must be identified as tactically decisive and such anexercise is inherently distorting when massive combined operations are undertaken over a period ofmore than four decades in diverse theaters of operation I would have to suggest that seriousconsideration be given to the "artillery," the "engineers," and those responsible for logistic support.It is inconceivable that such massive fortifications as those at Pavia, Barcelona, or Tortosa couldhave been taken without a siege train of significant size and sophistication.55

As a result of recent studies, a consensus concerning the nature ofCarolingian warfare is emerging that stresses the organizational and strategicfunctions of Charlemagne's war machine.56 According to current models,Carolingian conquests began with massive invasions of hostile territory, forwhich troops were summoned from the various Frankish realms. Carolingianpincers converged on enemy forces from several directions, which divided theenergies of the defenders and which eased problems of supply. The objectiveof these operations was to ravish the opponent's territory, to drive him fromhis fortifications, and to establish strategic strongholds from which Frankishgarrisons under the command of margraves could assert





Page 20

effective control over the region. Once these tasks had been accomplished,the men constituting this large array returned to Francia for demobilization.From fortresses in occupied territory, smaller units (scarae) could thenperiodically be sent out by marcher commanders to reconnoiter and to harassresisters. 57 After a region had been conquered, larger armies were necessaryonly when rebellions threatened the authority of the margraves.

This model of Carolingian warfare is based on the realization thatCharlemagne's accomplishments rested upon strong foundations in thescience of war. Military science is social science in that it requires a highdegree of social organization to wage war. In the age of Charlemagne,success depended on tactical flexibility, good leadership, careful planning,steadfast perseverance and discipline in the execution of operational plans,and, above all, a sound system of logistics that allowed commanders toachieve battlefield superiority while operating far from their home bases. Inspite of the many institutional weaknesses of the Frankish kingdom, CharlesMartel, Pepin III, and Charlemagne commanded a formidable militarymachine that, at its best, was tactically flexible, had a hierarchy of command,and was capable of subjugating enemy territory after prolonged campaigns.Its men had a sense of group purpose, and its commanders were capable ofstrategic planning. Since it is no longer possible to believe that Carolingiancommanders were swashbuckling adventurers who launched campaigns intodistant regions without carefully considering operational problems, any studyof Carolingian warfare in a given theater must begin with a discussion of thegeography of the region under investigation and the tactical and strategicpeculiarities presented by that terrain.

Geographic Considerations

Although much of the central Danubian basin was wild and inhospitable in theearly Middle Ages, the course of the Danube and its major tributaries, theDrava and the Sava, facilitated the movement of armies from west to east.The frontier lordships that we are considering were mostly organized fromBavaria, but they also included the northern Italian march of Friuli, at leastuntil the end of the third decade of the ninth century.58 Although forcesoperating from northern Italy were important in crushing the Avars and inputting down Slavic rebellions, Friuli declined in importance after the disgraceof the margrave Balderic in 828, and Bavaria became the base from which all



major military expeditions into the central Danubian basin proceeded.



Page 21

The importance of Bavaria in Frankish attempts to control this regionmilitarily is rooted in physical and historical geography. Wilhelm Störmer haspointed out that one should not look at ninth-century Bavaria from the pointof view of the modern state in the Federal Republic of Germany, for in theearly Middle Ages the duchy bearing that name was oriented much moretoward south-central Europe than is the current Bundesland. 59 In many waysthis southeastern orientation of Carolingian Bavaria was predestined by theformation of the eastern Alps and its great rivers and by the modifications ofthis natural landscape through the genius of the Romans. Scattered evidencefrom late Roman and early medieval sources indicates that there was muchnavigation on the Danube and its major tributaries. In addition, the Bavariansinherited from imperial Rome an excellent network of overlandcommunications, linking the province of Raetia Secunda with southeasternEurope via roads leading through intricate systems of Alpine passes.60

In the development of this system of communications, however, the power ofimperial Rome bowed to the imposing terrain through which these roadspassed. The main roads, which served primarily military purposes, followedcourses dictated by rugged Alpine valleys. The structure of the Alps is suchthat it is difficult to proceed from north to south without ascending two ormore passes. The Alps consist of several high ranges separated by deepvalleys, cut by the raging torrents of the upper reaches of such great rivers asthe Rhone, the Rhine, the Inn, the Enns, the Drava, and the Sava. Becausemajor valleys in the Alps run east-west, they do not facilitate north-southmovement. In spite of their reputation for building arrow-straight roads,Roman engineers in the Alps constructed highways conforming to the east-west configurations of the valleys. Even at that, the Romans did not succeedin establishing a system of communications that utilized all of the majorAlpine passes over which roads have been constructed since the twelfthcentury.

The eastern Alps posed formidable problems for the Romans when they triedto establish direct south-north connections from Italy to the Danube. Themorphology of the Alps east of the Brenner consists of a series of ridges thatradiate outward to the north and to the southeast like the ribs of an open fan,necessitating an intricate system of passes. Although the eastern Alps are notas high or as imposing as their western counterparts, their north-southextension is twice the width of the barrier in the west, requiring a more



complicated intra-Alpine network of highways with multiple pass crossings(see Map 1). On the other hand, the difficulties in building roads in this regionwere somewhat lessened, because gaps be-



Page 22

Map 1.Routes to the Watergate.



Page 23

tween ridges form relatively low passes; however, these mostly connectparallel valleys with east-west orientations, facilitating movement in thesedirections rather than from south to north or vice versa.

During the early Roman Empire even the Brenner, today the lowest and oneof the most accessible passes leading from Italy to the north, had an east-west rather than a south-north orientation. In those days it connected the Innvalley with Venetia, Istria, Pannonia, and the Balkans rather than with the Poplain and, thence, with Rome. In fact, a direct north-south military road (viamilitaris) over the Brenner did not exist until the desperate circumstances ofthe third century forced Severi emperors to open one. Earlier commandersand officials had preferred the higher and longer, but more comfortable, viaClaudia Augusta that ran northwest from Bolzano to Merano, over theReschen Pass to the Inn River at Landeck, and then over the Fern Pass toAugsburg. The Bolzano-Innsbruck route over the Brenner was evaded earlierbecause of a steep defile formed by the Isarco river between Bressanone andBolzano. Only the necessity of establishing a shorter route to the Danube toRegensburg finally motivated the sustained effort necessary to overcome thisgeographic obstacle.

Even after the opening of a road linking the Brenner directly to the south, thispass remained a primary avenue of communication with points farthersoutheast, particularly as pressure increased along the middle Danubianfrontier and as Constantinople eclipsed Rome as the first city of the empire.Because of its contemporary function as a main artery from north to south,we tend to forget that the Brenner was for millennia an important conduit forthe movement of men, goods, armies, and ideas from east to west and viceversa. Yet such was the case. The Roman roads led from Aquileia on theAdriatic up the valleys of the Piave and the Tagliamento over passes to theDrava in the province of Noricum Mediterraneum. Routes running east-westcrossed a narrow divide from the Drava-Gail river system to the PusteriaValley (beginning near Dobbiaco) whence a gentle descent to Bressanone ledultimately to the Brenner road and to the Inn.

From the vantage of northern Europe, the Brenner led to a network of roadsthat ran southeast to Sirmium. 61 The important Roman towns on this easternroute through Noricum Mediterraneum were Dobbiaco, Spital, Virunum (nearKlagenfurt), Celje, and Ptuj. At each of these locations, the east-west route



was joined by roads connecting Venetia and Istria with critical points near theDanube. From Spital, for example, the Severi constructed a road over theKatschberg and Radstädter Tauern passes to the



Page 24

upper Enns. In the Mur Valley this route merged with another one fromKlagenfurt via the Gurk Valley and the Turracherhöhe. From the upper Enns alink was established to Salzburg in the province of Noricum Ripense. Inaddition, the Romans established a second connecting link from Klagenfurt tothe Danube by way of Friesach, the low pass near Neumarkt, the RottmannenTauern and the Pyhrn passes, and finally terminating either in Wels or inLorch. From the Drava crossing at Ptuj, an ancient bridge-head, an extremelyimportant road skirted the eastern foothills of the Alps to Szombathely, acrucial junction, whence it branched to the garrison localities of Vienna andPetronel. Another road from Ptuj crossed Pannonia to Budapest via LakeBalaton, where it linked up with one leading from Szombathely to Sirmium byway of Pécs. 62 Finally, an additional route ran southeast from Ptuj followingthe course of the Drava to Sirmium.

This discussion shows that the roads through Noricum facilitated movementfrom west to east (and vice versa) rather than from south to north. The roadsfrom the Danube through the Alps via Salzburg or Wels ran southeast towardPannonia and the Balkans, taking advantage of the west-east contours ofsuch valleys as the Enns, Mur, Gurk, and Drava. From Noricum Ripense allroads did not lead to Rome, many led to Sirmium, and, thence, toConstantinople. The southeastern orientation of roads through the easternAlps also explains why the bishop of Lorch was in late imperial times thesuffragan of the metropolitan of Sirmium.

It is also important to note that there were no Roman roads crossing the Alpseast of the Pyhrn Pass. The via militaris from Ljubljana to Vienna ran east ofthe Vienna Woods. Hence, there were no connecting links between Virunum,the chief city in Noricum Mediterraneum, and those parts of the modernprovince of Lower Austria between the Enns and the Vienna Woods. Nor wasthe Semmering Pass, which connects the Mur with the Leitha Valley,traversed by a road in Roman times. The lack of connecting links between theDrava and Lower Austria west of Vienna is due to the physical geography ofthat region. Although the Alps east of the Enns are not particularly high, theyare extremely rugged and inhospitable. Deep gorges and craggy limestonebluffs constituted formidable obstacles to road construction even in latertimes. Descriptions of the remote character of this region in modern guidebooks do much to explain why it was bypassed earlier. In fact, it wascolonized late and has never supported a large population. Whenever



possible the Romans avoided such terrain and constructed their roads throughrelatively gentle valleys that received ample sunlight, where the inhabitantscould support themselves with agriculture



Page 25

and settled husbandry. Only valleys friendly to human habitation couldprovision large armies on the march.

Lower Austria did have a large Romanized population, but it wasconcentrated along the Danube and in the lower reaches of the fertile TraisenValley. The only Roman road in Danubian Lower Austria ran through thesedensely populated riverside areas from Linz to Melk, whence it skirted thesteep hills opposite the Wachau and reached the Traisen at Sankt Pölten,then turning once again toward to the Danube at Traismauer, where acavalry unit was garrisoned in the late imperial period. From this point theroad followed the Danube by way of Tulln to Vienna, where it was joined bythe routes leading southeast via Baden or Sopron to the important junction atSzombathely. Thus, the connection between Noricum Ripense and Sirmiumran along the Danube to Vienna, then through Pannonia via Szombathely,Lake Balaton, and Pécs. Points along this ancient route to Sirmium appearprominently in the Carolingian sources.

Frankish Bavaria, then, inherited an elaborate system of Roman roads that,following the natural contours of the Alps, led southeast. If Frankishexpeditions in the ninth century were directed against a Moravia that laysomewhere near the watergate of the central Danubian basin, Carolingianarmies would certainly have utilized these routes and commanders wouldhave taken great pains to establish support facilities along them. Armies arecities in motion, and, as such, they have basic needs that must be satisfiedeach day. The momentum of an army, like that of a battleship, makes itdifficult to change its direction. While armies can maneuver, of course, theirfreedom of action is always limited by considerations involving the availabilityof food and fodder; they run great risks when they venture into regions wheremen and animals cannot be sustained. Evidence of logistical infrastructuresalong routes leading from Bavaria in the direction of Belgrade provides apowerful argument supporting the southern Moravian hypothesis, for such amilitary organization would only make sense if Carolingian objectives involvedcontrol of the central Danubian watergate.

Logistics

In a stimulating book on the logistics of the Macedonian army, Donald Engelswhose salient findings are also relevant to the age of Charlemagnedemonstrated the dimensions of the supply problem that Alexander the



Great's armies faced when invading hostile territory. 63 He con-



Page 26

cluded that three days was the maximum survival time for an army that hadto carry all of its own food, fodder, water, tents, and armor through the mostdifficult terrain possible. To survive for four days a huge train of pack animalswould have been necessary. Even at that, on the fifth day a crisis wouldoccur, for by then men and beasts would have consumed all of the increasedburden that the pack animals could have carried, even at half rations. Engelsalso discovered that the ratio between the army's consumption rate and itscarrying capability remains constant no matter how many personnel or packanimals are used to transport supplies, so a smaller force would find it noeasier to carry its own supplies than a larger one. Moreover, it would not helpif cavalry mounts packed supplies, for war-horses used in this manner cannotbe ready for combat when they arrive at their destination, ''after the fourthday, they would be so much meat on the hoof.'' 64 By the fifth day the armywould have suffered heavy casualties, leaving it in no condition to conduct asiege or to fight a battle. Thus, Engels limits the effective range of an armyoperating under such difficult circumstances to three days, or roughly ninetykilometers.

However, this is a worst-case scenario that assumes that there were noprovisions along the line of march, that the land was either barren or that itwas not harvest time and/or it had been deserted by indigenous peasantswho had taken their food supplies with them. This model also posits thatthere was no potable water along the route. While Alexander the Great, whooperated in the arid Near East, dealt with such extremes, Carolingian armieswould never have faced similar prospects in the central Danubian basin; thus,they had a greater range. Moreover, it should be obvious that a change inany variable of this model results in a considerable augmentation of thedistance that an army could cover before running out of supplies. Engelsestimates, for example, that if the army did not have to carry its own water,it could triple its range to nine days or three hundred kilometers.65 Moreover,large-scale Carolingian military operations against Moravia generally did takeplace in the summer and were accompanied by the pillaging of territory, sosome forage must have been available for troops and animals. Theavailability of forage would, of course, have considerably increased thedistances over which Carolingian armies could strike.

The territory that an army could effectively dominate also varied with thephysical features of the landscape. Navigable rivers exponentially increased



the range of armies. Greater amounts of food, fodder, and water can beconveyed by boats (which need no nourishment) than by a train of pack ordraft animals, each devouring a daily ration of ten pounds of grain and an



Page 27

equal amount of hay, which also had to be transported. 66 Barges movingdownstream with the current proceed more quickly than a supply train, and,unlike animals, barges do not tire. The availability of rivercraft would alsohave facilitated the movement of such heavy equipment as siege engines,tents, arms, armor, picks, shovels, and so on.67 As we shall see, rivercraftoperating on the Danube, the Drava, and the Sava considerably eased theproblem of supply in the central Danubian basin. Terrain also determined therate of march, a significant consideration for an army carrying all or even aportion of its supplies. Because daily rates of consumption are invariable, it isimportant for an army on campaign to reach its destination or some point ofresupply as quickly as possible.

Assuming the validity of a southern Moravian thesis, there were four routesfrom Bavaria to the Danubian watergate. One, of course, was the Danubeitself. This route would have been the best assuming that Rastislav's realmwas centered on the Alföld. There were, however, some strategic problemswith it, involving suitable localities for troops to disembark between Budapestand Belgrade. Also, river convoys could have been easily ambushed unlessthey were supported by terrestrially based forces moving along both banks ofthe river. Such forces would have had to endure a long and difficult march.And, once troops and supplies had landed, they still faced a march of severaldays over difficult terrain that would have favored the indigenous defendersbefore reaching the centers of a Moravian realm east of the Tisza. Assumingthat Frankish forces landed near either Osijek or Novi Sad, they would havehad two hundred kilometers in front of them (seven days) to reach Cenad, ifthat is where Rastislav's capital was located on the Alföld. If they did nothave to carry water, such an objective could be achieved. Nonetheless, thearmy would have been exhausted and isolated from its sources of supportbefore arriving at its destination. A final difficulty involved the necessity ofleaving some forces behind to guard the rivercraft. As we shall see, suchforces and their boats were extremely vulnerable to surprise attacks. Onstrictly theoretical grounds, then, Eggers's conclusion that it would have beendifficult for Carolingian forces to have exercised a great deal of control over aMoravian principality east of the Tisza is plausible.

A second route (a land one) was the most direct. It went diagonally throughmodern Hungary from Sopron to Pécs. This route would have been suitablefor campaigns against a realm located either on the Alföld or near Sirmium.



From Vienna this route followed the Roman road to Szombathely, then skirtedthe swamps west of Lake Balaton and veered south-



Page 28

eastward in the direction of Pécs. An army using this route would have had totransport its supplies or otherwise acquire them along the way. Since thisroute through Hungary was used by many crusading armies in a later andbetter documented era, we have some knowledge of the rates of march ofthose forces. 68 During the Third Crusade, for example, Frederick Barbarossa'sarmy arrived in Vienna on May 26 or 27, but only reached Belgrade on June29. This army, however, encountered frequent delays, so we need notassume that Carolingian units would have required an entire month totraverse four hundred kilometers from Vienna to Belgrade. The crusadersencountered different circumstances in the more developed twelfth centurythan those which Carolingian armies had to face in the ninth. For example,crusaders purchased their comestible supplies along the way. This fact didnot, however, increase their rate of march; on the contrary, many of thedelays experienced by these forces resulted from problems and expensesinvolved in the procurement of necessities. Yet Barbarossa's army sometimesadvanced at a rate of 18.8 miles per day, which roughly corresponds toEngels's estimated daily average of thirty kilometers. On the other hand, it isprobable that Carolingian armies on a prolonged march through Pannoniacould have averaged no more than twenty-five kilometers.69

If we assume that Carolingian forces were able to maintain a pace of twenty-five kilometers each day on the march through Pannonia, it still would havetaken them fifteen days to reach Sirmium from Vienna (between 350 and 380kilometers). Thus, Sirmium was well beyond the range of a self-sufficientarmy that had to carry its supplies from bases near Vienna. Frankish forcesusing this route could, then, only have invaded the region bounded by thelower reaches of the Drava and the Sava if there were adequate supportfacilities along the way. A Carolingian army operating from Szombathely, onthe other hand, would have been 85 kilometers closer (approximately elevendays from Sirmium); a base near the western end of Lake Balaton wouldhave been 65 kilometers closer still (within the nine days); and a place ofresupply at Pécs would have been only 120 kilometers (five days) from theancient capital on the lower Sava. As we have seen, a force that did not haveto carry its own water could sustain itself for nine days. Thus, an armymoving through Pannonia and supported by existing facilities as far as Pécs(or even Zalavár) would have been within striking distance of Sirmium, evenif it had to carry its own food and fodder from that point on. This task,



however, would not have been necessary, for, southeast of Pécs, forces couldhave been refurbished by boats operating on the Drava and Sava rivers.



Page 29

Since an army marching overland from Sopron to Sirmium via Pécs could beresupplied by rivercraft on the Drava at Osijek and provisions and siegeengines could be transported on the Sava to the very walls of Sirmium itself,we must conclude that the ancient capital was within reach of an army thatbegan its march to the southeast from Vienna, provided that the key points ofsupply in Pannonia (Sopron, Szombathely, Zalavár, and Pécs) were in thehands of Frankish margraves or indigenous Slavic leaders who supportedthem and that the upper reaches of the Drava and Sava in Carantania were infriendly hands. From localities in Transdanubia the troops could berefurbished with food, fodder, and potable water. Siege and noncomestibleequipment could be ferried down the Drava and Sava in the company oftroops entering Pannonia from bases in Carantania. If Carolingian armieswere indeed able to conduct effective military operations against a Moravianprincipality situated between the lower Drava and Sava, or one east of theDanube and the Tisza, there must have existed a logistical infrastructureextending along the overland route from Vienna to Szombathely andextending via Zalavár as far southeast as Pécs. A point of supply near thewest end of Lake Balaton (Zalavár), two and a half days from Szombathely,would have eased considerably the movement of an army in the direction ofPécs, approximately one hundred kilometers farther southeast.

The pivotal strongholds in such a system of logistics would have been Sopronand Szombathely, where the hills of Burgenland give way to the rollingcountry of western Hungary. Szombathely would have been especiallyimportant. In addition to controlling the road leading southeast to Balatonand Pécs, it also straddled the ancient via militaris leading southwest to theDrava crossing at Ptuj, a march of four days (slightly more than one hundredkilometers). Ptuj, the locality that would have ensured communicationsbetween forces moving southeast from Carantania with those operating inPannonia, was also a point from which the Pannonian army could have beenresupplied by rivercraft on the Drava. A communication and supply systemlinking forces advancing through Pannonia with those moving along the Dravaand Sava from Carantania would have been indispensable to support armiesinvading the region near Sirmium.

This discussion leads us to a consideration of the two remaining routes.These were the ones leading from Bavaria through the Alps to the regionknown in ninth-century sources as Carantania (the modern Austrian provinces



of Carinthia and Styria and the South Slavic Republic of Slovenia), whenceone route followed the Drava and the other the Sava south-



Page 30

east. Although these rivers could only be reached after grueling marches overpasses, once their headwaters had been attained, the routes along them hadan advantage insofar as fluvial navigation could then be utilized to supplyarmies proceeding southeast. Utilizing the Drava and the Sava, armies couldadvance rapidly toward the central Danubian watergate. Control over thesetwo routes was, then, absolutely essential for Frankish military operationsagainst a Moravian principality located in southeastern Pannonia. As we shallsee, Carolingian expeditions against the realms of Rastislav and Zwentibaldhad little chance of success when East Frankish kings lost control ofCarantania.

Methodology

Methodologies developed by German-speaking historians in the last half-century can be employed to reconstruct the military organization of thesoutheastern marches. The first of these has yielded insights into themechanics of moving armies about during this period. 70 By combining athorough knowledge of physical geography with data concerning theavailability of Roman roads and the location of early medieval settlements asthey appear in royal charters (diplomata) and in the deeds (traditiones) ofvarious ecclesiastical institutions, historians can establish the itineraries ofkings and margraves and the routes traversed by their armies. For theCarolingian southeast there are a respectable number of charters andextensive collections of the land transactions (Traditionsbücher) of theBavarian episcopal sees owning property in or near the marches. Thesesources, as grants of land that kings and other magnates donated to their layand ecclesiastical supporters, provide an abundance of pertinent informationconcerning the logistics of Carolingian campaigns. Since they contain the dateand place of issue, charters allow us to identify the location of staging pointswhence campaigns proceeded. Even though monarchs rarely issued chartersduring campaigns, the weeks immediately before and after hostilities oftenshowed pronounced activity on the part of the royal chancery, as kings soughtto reward supporters or to punish rebels. Thus, dates and places of thesecharters furnish a wealth of information that allows us to determine wherecampaigns had been staged and to what point armies returned oncehostilities ended.

Land transactions often shed considerable light on the logistics of military



expeditions. For the last several decades, German-speaking histo-



Page 31

rians have emphasized the importance of ecclesiastical property for earlymedieval kings when moving from place to place with their courts and theirarmies. In a series of important studies, Störmer has shown the significanceof ecclesiastical estates in solving logistical problems in Bavaria's easternmarches. 71 Because these localities provided food and fodder for men andanimals on the march, problems connected with maintaining long supplytrains were reduced. Maps locating these ecclesiastical possessions revealthat they were always situated on or near roads, passes, and water-waysleading southeast. The patterns of these settlements are compelling. Theyexplain how Carolingian armies must have conducted military operationsagainst a Moravia which lay somewhere near the central Danubianwatergate.

Land transactions also reveal a striking relationship between Frankish militaryoperations against the Moravians and major grants of property on or nearroutes leading southeast. As we shall see, whenever Carolingian rulersundertook, completed, or even contemplated campaigns against theMoravians, they issued documents favoring supporters who controlled roads,passes, or waterways that would be crucial in military operations against anenemy located near the central Danubian watergate. The most important ofthese is Louis the German's donation to the see of Salzburg at the beginningof the Moravian wars of the 860s, but Freising, Regensburg, Passau, andother ecclesiastical institutions, as well as lay lords, were also rewarded withsubstantial grants along transportation arteries leading southeast at criticalperiods in the history of the marches.

The second methodology that is particularly useful in reconstructing themilitary organization of the southeastern marches is prosopography(Personengeschichte), which seeks to establish the inner dynamics of thearistocratic kindreds that dominated the Carolingian age economically,politically, militarily, and ecclesiastically.72 From charters, deeds, the lists ofpilgrims to important shrines, memorial books, narratives, and other sourcesit is possible to determine who the margraves were, with whom they wererelated, where their landed possessions were situated, and the approximateboundaries of their lordships. This prosopographical research has been donevery well by Michael Mitterauer.73 His research demonstrates that themarches were oriented toward the central Danubian watergate. However,neither Mitterauer nor any other scholar has attempted to explain this



southeastern orientation. I believe that his research proves that Carantaniawas the center of gravity of the system of marcher lordships that girdedBavaria's eastern regions. Carantania was the base from which Louis



Page 32

the German's son Carloman staged a major revolt against his father inalliance with the Moravians in 861. It was also the lordship from whichCarloman's illegitimate son Arnulf usurped the throne from his uncle in 887.Prosopographical research based on a relatively large body of reliableevidence in Frankish charters and deeds demonstrates that members ofleading marcher kindreds can be documented in Carantania and even in Friuli.The most important of these marcher kindreds was the so-called Gramanclan, whose members (especially those of its Wilhelminer branch) often heldimportant lordships against the Moravians. In addition to the Gramans, theLiutpoldinger clan first emerged from obscurity in Carantania to found a newducal line in Bavaria in the early tenth century. The importance of Carantaniain the marcher military organization was due to its control of the upperreaches of the Drava and Sava watersheds. Control of these rivers wouldhave been important to support forces operating against a southern Moravia,but hardly against a northern one.

Conclusion

To summarize the argument presented in this book: In the course of the ninthcentury, Carolingian rulers developed a military infrastructure aimed atsupporting expeditions to ensure Frankish control of the central Danubianwatergate, the confluences of the Drava, Sava, Drina, Tisza, and southernMorava rivers with the Danube. Itineraries suggest that many Carolingiancampaigns against Moravia were launched from royal palaces in upperBavaria, not from localities along the Danube. As for expeditions that didproceed along the Danube, those forces marched southeast from Viennatoward Baden and Pitten in the direction of Ptuj or via Sopron towardSzombathely and, then, on to Lake Balaton and Pécs. Military operationsagainst the Moravians were often accompanied by grants to royal supportersinvolving land along routes leading southeast, the very routes that armiesmarching toward the Danubian watergate would have taken. Finally, it can beshown that Carantania became the most important lordship in this Frankishmarcher organization. Prosopographical research demonstrates that almostall of the major figures in the marches were closely connected withCarantania. The preeminence of Carantania in the military system of theCarolingian marches is difficult to comprehend, if Moravian centers werelocated in the modern Czech Republic.





Page 33

2.Ducal Bavaria and the SoutheastWith the following words the author of the pro-Carolingian Annales regniFrancorum describes the final disgrace of Tassilo III, the last duke of theBavarians from the Agilolfinger house the ducal family that had presided overthis southeastern appendage of the Frankish kingdom since the late sixthcentury.

Anno 788: Loyal Bavarians began to say that Tassilo egged on by his wife, was breaking fealty andshowing himself as downright treacherous. . . . Tassilo could not deny it, but confessed later thathe had made overtures to the Avars, had ordered the vassals of the Lord King (Charles) to cometo him, and had made an attempt on their lives. 1

Thus, by entering into a conspiracy with the Avars against Charlemagne, hisking and lord, Tassilo had forfeited any claim that he, or members of his line,had to lead the Bavarians.2 Although the assembled warriors had clamoredfor his execution, the "generous" king of the Franks allowed him to take thetonsure and to enter a monastery.

Like so many of the great dukes of the regnum Francorum, since the mid-seventh century the Agilolfingers had pursued policies that were virtuallyindependent of their nominal overlords.3 Traditional scholars have shownlittle sympathy for the independent aspirations of the Bavarian dukes. Theyregarded Tassilo and his predecessors as reactionaries who attempted toswim against currents that inevitably led to the ascendancy of the Carolingianline. Recent scholars, however, have been more evenhanded. Wolfram, forexample, made the observation that Tassilo III simply had a "bad press."4

Not only did the "official" Annales regni Francorum have little good to sayabout him, but even the Bavarian bishop, Arbeo of Freising, produced duringTassilo's lifetime Saints' Lives that must be considered pro-Carolingian, anti-Agilolfinger propaganda.5 In harvesting a rich cache of deeds documentinggifts to Bavarian ecclesiastical institutions, current historians have beensuccessful in penetrating the veil of Carolingian bias found in the officialannals, and they have reached a consensus that



Page 34

Tassilo III presided over a duchy that was prospering in the eighth centuryand that his independent policies had a chance of bearing fruit.

There was a close relationship between the ability of the dukes to steer acourse independent of the Frankish kings and their position as militaryleaders in the southeastern marches. Friedrich Prinz has argued that whileCharles Martel and Pepin III succeeded in developing in western Bavaria apro-Carolingian party that consisted of churchmen and nobles sympathetic totheir cause, east of the Inn-Salzach line, the region roughly bounded by themodern Austrian provinces of Upper Austria and Salzburg, the duke,surrounded by loyal supporters, enjoyed a greater measure of independence.6 This eastern frontier region, remote from the sources of Frankish influencein western Bavaria and free of a Carolingian fifth column, gave the dukes anopportunity to organize their lordship and to establish a power baseunencumbered by their powerful western neighbors. Prinz's thesis, however,can no longer be accepted without modification, for the presence of somepowerful aristocrats who belonged to the great clans of western Bavaria canbe documented east of the Inn.7 Nevertheless, Prinz's basic premise that theducal power base lay east of the Inn-Salzach line has a firm foundation in thesources.

Using ingenious arguments that reveal an intimate knowledge of thetopography of the eastern Alps, Störmer has demonstrated the importance ofBavaria as a frontier province guarding the southeastern marches of theFrankish kingdom, particularly against Avars settled in the Carpathian basin.When Bavarians first appear in the sources, they had already occupied theRoman province of Raetia Secunda, and, by the end of the sixth century, theywere beginning to push into the Alpine province of Noricum Mediterraneumthat had recently been settled by Slavs under Avar over-lordship.8 Althoughthey enjoyed some initial success, Avars defeated them early in the seventhcentury and chased them back into Raetia Secunda. Despite occasionalclashes, a relatively stable frontier came into existence between Bavaria andthe vast region under Avar hegemony to the east. All of Pannonia, as well asNoricum Mediterraneum and most of Noricum Ripense, were inhabited bySlavs and residual Romanized peoples who recognized the rule of the Avars.As for the Bavarians, they were confined largely to Raetia Secunda thoughtheir eastern boundary extended into Noricum Ripense to the confluence ofthe Enns with the Danube.



In spite of the stabilization of boundaries, however, the southeasternorientation of the Bavarian duchy remained. The Bavarians were not a purelyGermanic people who has wandered from some distant ancestral



Page 35

homeland into the Danubian provinces of a crumbling Roman Empire. 9 Theevidence suggests that the Bavarian duchy was formed from a mixedpopulation of Celto-Romans and Germans on the initiative of the Franks forthe purpose of protecting the emerging regnum Francorum from easterninvaders. The duke was not simply a war leader who had been hoisted on theshields of free warriors and proclaimed dux; he was an official legallysubordinate to the Frankish king. Although our evidence concerning events inBavaria and southeastern Europe in the seventh century is spotty, it suggeststhat the focus of Bavarian interest was to the southeast. Bavarians didparticipate, along with Lombards and Alamanni, in the first Frankish campaignagainst Samo's kingdom, when this realm extended south of the Danube.Later, however, Frankish operations against Samo, whose center of power layin Bohemia, were launched from Franconia and Thuringia (not Bavaria).Bavarians, on the other hand, played a role in conflicts between Avars andBulgars, conflicts that obviously occurred in the former Roman province ofPannonia.

By the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century,missionaries and ecclesiastical organizers flocked to Bavaria and its marches,and, consequently, our sources become more abundant. These sources revealthat the attention of Bavarian dukes, nobles, and ecclesiastics was firmlyfocused on southeastern Europe. Military operations against the Avars oragainst South Slavic peoples of the eastern Alps, who were living under theirhegemony, were staged from Salzburg, Wels, or from the Pusteria valley inthe South Tyrol. Around 740 the Carantanian Slavs rebelled against Avar rule,and they invited Duke Odilo, Tassilo's father, to protect them. Odilo enteredCarantania, drove out an Avar army, and brought the Carantanians under hishegemony. Cacatius and Cheitmar, the sons of the Carantanian duke Boruth,were taken back to Bavaria, where they were instructed in Christianity in themonastery of Chiemsee. When Boruth died, the Bavarians, at the commandof the Franks, sent Cacatius back to Carantania, installing him as dux.10

The latter event probably took place early in the minority of Tassilo III, whosucceeded his father in 748. The young prince, who was only six at the timeof his father's death, grew up under the watchful eye of Pepin, his uncle.When he reached maturity, he was forced to swear an oath of fealty to theking of the Franks and to his sons Charles and Carloman. Despite thesebonds, in 763, when he was twenty-one, he defied Pepin's authority,



deserting the Frankish army that was preparing to march on Aquitaine. Heexcused himself "because of illness" and returned to Bavaria with his forces,



Page 36

never again to take part in Carolingian military operations. The slowness ofPepin's conquest of Aquitaine, combined with difficulties that Saxons andLombards still presented to Carolingian armies, must have encouraged theyouthful Bavarian ruler to assert his independence and to forge his ownalliances to the south by taking a Lombard princess as his wife.

In 768 the death of Pepin created unsettled conditions among the Franks,giving Tassilo opportunities to maneuver. 11 In 769 he was in Lombardy tonegotiate with Desiderius. On his return from Pavia, he paused in Bolzano, onthe border of his realm, where he founded the monastery of Innichen.12 Onthe frontiers of Carantania, Innichen was established to combat a paganreaction among the recently converted Slavs. In 772 Tassilo made apilgrimage to Rome for Whitsun, where Pope Hadrian I christened andanointed his son Theodo an act with political implications that Charles couldnot have overlooked.13 Returning from Rome, Tassilo invaded Carantania andreasserted Bavarian authority over that region, attaining a victory that somecontemporaries ranked with Charlemagne's successes over the Saxons.14

Tassilo was even compared with Constantine the Great.15 In some ways histriumph was greater than Charlemagne's, for we hear no more of Carantanianresistance to Bavarian hegemony, while Saxon revolts broke out sporadicallyfor decades. But Tassilo won more from this conquest than the acclaim ofcontemporaries. A vital result of Tassilo's victory over the Carantanians washis securing of the Brenner Pass that guaranteed his links to Lombardy.

In this respect it may seem surprising that Tassilo did not send forces toassist Desiderius in 773. As Wolfram has pointed out, however, the Bavarianduke's control over the eastern Alps probably forced Charlemagne to crossinto Italy by way of western passes, the Mont Cenis and the Great SaintBernard.16 It is notable that the Frankish king in this case did not send pincersthrough Churraetia and over the Reschen Pass. Tassilo's inactivity in 773 maybe explained by the fact that he needed his forces to guard the easternpasses against Frankish aggression. It is also likely that neither he norDesiderius anticipated Charlemagne's brilliant campaign in the western Alps,when the Franks entered Lombardy swiftly and surrounded Pavia, which theyisolated and finally captured after a long siege.17 Once the king of the Frankshad gained control over the Lombard plain, there was little Tassilo could doto relieve his father-in-law.



At the very moment when Charlemagne removed Desiderius from his officeand assumed the crown of the Lombards for himself, a major church wasconsecrated in Tassilo's realm. What archaeologists call ''Virgil's Cathe-



Page 37

dral,'' constructed in Salzburg during these years and one of the largestchurches in Europe with dimensions comparable with the Carolingian centerof Saint Denis, was built largely with ducal resources. 18 Some scholars haveeven speculated that the cathedral may have been planned as a coronationchurch for Tassilo. Bishop Virgil, for his part, may have lent Tassilo hissupport in his desire to become archbishop, for there was as yet nometropolitan see in Bavaria.19 Prinz has compiled a map that demonstrates,among other things, how well the duke had endowed the see of Salzburg.20

Certainly "Virgil's Cathedral," one of the three largest churches in LatinEurope, would be fitting for an archbishop, as well as for a coronation. Thereis no doubt that it symbolized the importance the southeastern corner ofTassilo's duchy had attained by the second half of the eighth century.

There are, then, many indications that the Bavarian duke's fortunes were onthe rise throughout the 760s. The foundation charter for Innichen, forexample, reveals in its list of witnesses that Tassilo had managed to garner,at least for awhile, the support of some of the most powerful of Bavaria'snoble kindreds.21 This document also demonstrates that by 769 the SouthTyrol, earlier claimed by the Lombards, was now under Bavarian lordship. Itwas at this time that the episcopal see of Säben (later Bressanone) became apart of the Bavarian episcopal organization. As for the Bavarian bishops,Tassilo maintained excellent relations with all of them, except for oneimplacable Carolingian sympathizer, Arbeo of Freising. Virgil, the Irish bishopof Salzburg, who had close relations with Pepin and who had opposedTassilo's father on at least one occasion, became not only docile in the yearsfollowing 763, but even actively supported the Bavarian duke.22

In the early 770s Tassilo asserted his authority over the Bavarianecclesiastical structure in many ways. The opposition of the bishop of Freisingdoes not seem to have seriously troubled him, for he alienated possessions ofthe latter and may have even removed Arbeo from his office.23 Moreover, inthe early 770s two provincial synods took place in Bavaria under Tassilo'sdirect supervision. He presided over these as princeps, a title thattheoretically at least, gave him a rank equal to that claimed byCharlemagne.24 "Modernized" Agilolfinger monastic foundations prospered,and Tassilo vigorously supported mission activities in the southeast throughnew foundations, notably the monasteries of Innichen, Kremsmünster, andprobably Molzbichl in the Drava valley near Spital.25



Tassilo's monastic foundations along his eastern frontier did more than



Page 38

spread Christianity and promote economic development they were militarilyimportant as well. In Agilolfinger Bavaria, monastic institutions functioned asrest and assembly points for armies on the march over Alpine passes. 26

Innichen and Kremsmünster straddled the routes to the Drava and Murvalleys, respectively. Innichen, as we have noted, was dedicated to theCarantanian mission, and it was hardly a coincidence that this monastery,only a short march from the headwaters of the Drava and passes leading tothe Sava and to the Lombard march of Friuli, received its foundation charterat Bolzano in 769, three years before Tassilo's reconquest of Carantania. IfInnichen was a center for mission activities in Carantania, it also served as abase of military operations. Place-name evidence in the Val Pusteria nearInnichen indicates a concentration of ducal estates from which resourcesmust have been drawn to support armies conducting military operations inthe upper Drava Valley. As for Molzbichl, it was probably founded as amonument to Tassilo's success following his triumph in 772.27 It must also benoted that Molzbichl enjoyed a strategically important location at the junctionof the Pusteria-Drava route with the crossing from Salzburg over the Tauernvia the Katschberg Pass.

When Tassilo achieved his victory over the Carantanian Slavs, Charlemagnewas involved in one of his endless campaigns against the Saxons, andDesiderius still ruled Lombardy. It was, therefore, far from clear that the kingof the Franks would be able to extend his hegemony over Europe. Tassilo'ssuccess brought him considerable fame, and he won the support of theBavarian nobility. The fact that he was able to alienate lands from the pro-Carolingian bishop of Freising without noticeable opposition is an indicationthat he had been able to neutralize Charlemagne's supporters in Bavaria. Inthe face of the growing power of the duke, which was based on his successfulactivities in the southeast, the pro-Carolingian aristocracy wavered.Moreover, Tassilo's reservoir of support was so deep that even afterCharlemagne's victory over the Lombards, the Frankish king moved cautiouslyagainst his kinsman. Another fifteen years passed before he finally removedhim from power. When he did act, Charlemagne made certain that theaccusations against Tassilo were brought by Bavarian nobles, and, even so,the Frankish monarch felt lingering insecurity as late as 794 when he orderedthe former duke to be dragged from his monastic confinement to confessonce again.28 The fact that Charlemagne proceeded with such caution against



his Bavarian cousin means that the latter's support was real, causing eventhis powerful monarch to watch his step.

In reviewing the career of Tassilo III, several facts stand out. He had



Page 39

inherited an unfavorable situation vis-à-vis his Carolingian relatives. DukeOdilo, his father, had been humbled by the Franks on the Lech in 743.Following Odilo's death, Griffo, an illegitimate son of Charles Martel,attempted to use Bavaria as a base in order to raise a rebellion against hishalf brothers. As a result, Pepin invaded Bavaria, defeated Griffo, and tookyoung Tassilo under his tutelage, forcing him to swear an oath of fealty tohimself and his sons. By the beginning of Tassilo's majority, many Bavariannobles had developed Frankish sympathies, and most high ecclesiasticaloffices were held by Carolingian loyalists. Nevertheless, between 763, whenTassilo deserted the army of Pepin, and 781, when Charlemagne compelledhim to renew his oath, the Bavarian duke steered an independent course,established some measure of control over the Bavarian church, silenced for awhile the opposition of pro-Carolingian nobles, and presided over a duchywhich showed marked economic and cultural progress. Throughout Tassilo'scareer, his activities in the eastern Alps played a predominant role. The "highpoints" in his life were all directly connected with the southeast: his victoryover the Carantanian Slavs, his mission efforts, his relationship to the see ofSalzburg and to Bishop Virgil, "the Apostle of the Slavs."

In the eighth century Bavarian dukes had succeeded in extending theboundaries of their duchy eastward, well beyond the limits of the Romanprovince of Raetia Secunda, by incorporating that part of Noricum Ripensewhich lay between the Inn-Salzach line and the Enns. As we have seen, in the740s Bavarian forces intervened successfully in Carantania where theyestablished a client state under native dukes. In addition to a hegemony overthe Carantanian Slavs, the sources suggest that the parts of modern Austriaunder direct Bavarian control by the late eighth century consisted of theprovinces of Upper Austria, Salzburg, north of the high comb of the Tauern,and the Tyrol (north and south). Styria (Steiermark), then a part ofCarantania, was inhabited by South Slavs, whose princes, under Bavarianprodding, were new converts to Christianity. Lower Austria, in contrast, wasstill known as Avaria. The boundary between Bavaria and the region underAvar lordship was the Enns River, referred to as the limes certus. 29 Althoughsome scholars have tried to make a case for Bavarian colonization of theregion east of the Enns, there is little evidence for it. Nor is there reason tobelieve that many Bavarian settlements existed in the Drava Valley at thattime, for the foundation charter for Innichen suggests that the boundary



between Bavaria and Carantania, the terminus Sclavorum, was marked bythe water-divide between the Drava and the Pusteria.

In the eighth century, the southeastern frontiers of Bavaria became



Page 40

relatively free from invasions from the east. The last major Avar raid occurredbetween 680 and 700. 30 It may have resulted in the destruction of outposts,but accounts of extensive destruction are probably exaggerated.31 Thedamage, however great it may have been, was being repaired at the end ofthe seventh century as fortified localities sprang up between the Traun andthe Enns. Bavarian-Avar relations were close during most of the eighthcentury. Accounts of clashes are rare. Of course, the Bavarians did "liberate"the Carantanians from Avar rule, and two sources report that an Avar forceapproached the Enns in 783, but both agree that it did no damage.32 There isa report of several battles between Bavarians and Avars in 786, but theseraids may have been motivated by Avar fears concerning their own future, forCharlemagne was tightening the noose around Tassilo's neck, and they musthave known that they would be next.33

As for the allegations against Tassilo, there is no source other than the pro-Carolingian Royal Annals that suggests a Bavarian-Avar conspiracy againstthe Franks, although common interests may have motivated one.34 It ispossible that Tassilo's bride brought with her to Bavaria the Lombardtradition of alliance with the Avars. Bavarian arms have been found in Avargraves, and it cannot be doubted that extensive cultural and commercialcontacts between these peoples existed in the eighth century.35 Probablylands to the east provided the dukes with mercenaries and confederates inwars against the Franks. Accounts of Slavic incursions into Bavaria are rare.One incident around 720 involved a Slavic raid on a monastic cell nearBischofshofen in the Pongau, in the mountains south of Salzburg, but as inthe case of Avar attacks, the damage was repaired quickly and the raidsceased.36

The ability of the Bavarian duke to exercise hegemony over the Slavs in theeastern Alps was enhanced by an excellent system of logistics that developedthere during the eighth century. Störmer makes convincing arguments as tothe logistic functions of monastic foundations and ecclesiastical endowmentsin the eastern Alps during the Agilolfinger period. Monasteries and cells wereinvariably located on main roads and waterways, mostly in strategic placescommanding gorges and narrows. Their landed possessions also lay along themain routes so that surpluses from them could be easily conveyed toassembly points. Thus, monastic establishments functioned as strong pointsand staging places where troops and animals could be fed and quartered



before setting out to march over the passes. Kremsmünster, for example,served as an assembly point for the march over the Pyhrn Pass, and Innichen,as we have seen, was only a short



Page 41

march from the headwaters of the Drava, called the terminus Sclavorum in itsfoundation charter. Mondsee as well was within easy reach of the Pyhrn andof the relatively low Pötschen pass in the upper Traun Valley, which, like thePyhrn, led to the middle Enns, whence well-developed Roman routesconveyed troops to the upper Mur. Near Salzburg ecclesiastical institutionsand property formed a network of strong points. The Maximilian cell, in thePongau near Bischofshofen, controlled the route to the headwaters of theEnns and, thence, to the Radstädter Tauern Pass. Place-names in the upperSalzach Valley emphasize this region's importance for communications. Theword Pongau, for example, derives from the Latin pons (bridge). In thedeeply cut Salzach Valley the ducal function of building and maintainingbridges was of crucial importance. Near Bischofshofen is an ancientsettlement dating from the Bronze Age. On a hill above this settlement is acastle called Sinnhubschlößl; thus, the name of the hill must have beenSinthuben in the early Middle Ages. This name reveals the function of thelocality, for Sint is equivalent to way or route. 37 As we have seen, in the 720sa Slavic raid destroyed the Maximilian cell. It was, however, rebuilt by DukeOdilo and his chaplain Ursus. We are informed about the existence of this cellbecause of a dispute that broke out over it. The very fact that jurisdictionover this cell was so vigorously contested indicates that it was an importantlocality.

Other cells that occupied similar positions were Zell am See, Elsenwang, andKufstein, where the Inn breaks through the Alps onto the upper Bavarianplateau. Convents, which often had resources sufficient to support their owntroops, also played a role in guarding crucial routes. Especially importantwere landed possessions controlled by the Bavarian convent ofFrauenchiemsee such as Seebruck (on a crucial approach to the Alps wherethere had been a Roman castellum), localities to the west such asLangenpfenzen and Urfan (near Wasserburg), both of which were crucial Inncrossings, and Föhring, an Isar crossing. Frauenchiemsee had also beenendowed with lands in Tyrol, on both sides of the passes.38 The Salzburgconvent on the Nonnenberg also possessed substantial endowments alongroutes in the direction of the Lueg Pass, an alternate route to the upper Enns.

Ecclesiastical institutions were of economic as well as military importance inthis Alpine frontier region. In fact they could have been of no use militarily,had they been unable to produce the surpluses necessary to support armies.



Mondsee was an Agilolfinger monastic foundation that was extremely activein frontier economic development. The resources of Mond-



Page 42

see, the first monastery in Upper Austria, were sufficient to support a largenumber of troops, as evidenced by the fact that Carolingian rulers laterdesignated it a monastery of the first rank. 39 Most of its possessions lay eastof the Inn-Salzach line, in the Mattiggau, Attergau, and Salzburggau. Ancientsalt routes had crossed this region since prehistoric times. The possessions ofthe abbey lay not only on the route up the Salzach to the upper Enns, butalso along the salt road to Hallstatt, on the route to the Pötschen Pass andthen on to the Schober and the Rottmannen Tauern passes. Mattiggaubecame a favorite staging area for Carolingian armies during the Moravianwars. Judging from the vigorous dispute that took place over possessions ofthe Maximilian cell near Bischofshofen, this locality was obviously engaged inimportant economic activity. There was a copper mine nearby which musthave been in operation, and records indicate that the cell was involved in saltproduction, for it owned at least four salt pans.40

Heinrich Koller has studied increased salt production in eastern Bavariaduring the eighth century.41 It is not by accident that the river Iuvavo becameknown as the Salzach at this time and that the Roman town of Iuvavum cameto be called Salzburg. Tradition has it that Saint Rupert discovered sources ofsalt when he came to the ruins of ancient Iuvavum, circa 700. Cogentarguments have been developed by Koller that Rupert indeed brought animproved salt technology from Rhine Franconia to Bavaria, where hesuccessfully implemented it. The economic recovery of this region certainlydoes seem to have begun with Rupert. He maintained excellent relations withthe Bavarian duke, probably based on their mutual interest in salt, for thelatter liberally endowed Rupert's see with exactly those landed possessionsthat were necessary for its development.

Koller, however, questions the economic motivation for increasing saltproduction in the eighth century. He insists that economic demand for saltwas insufficient to have motivated the rather striking increase in itsproduction. He suggests that religious motives overrode economic ones.Traditionally, salt played an important role in many religious ceremonies,especially within a mission context. Since Bavaria was only superficiallyChristianized and Carantania was still largely pagan, as were the lands underAvar overlordship, increasing salt production must have been connected withthe intensification of missionary activities in the southeastern Alps that beganabout the same time.



Nevertheless, it is a mistake to underestimate purely economic motives in thedevelopment of salt production in the eighth century. Salt is a



Page 43

commodity with a great elasticity of demand. Cultures habituated to itsconsumption will go to great lengths to obtain it. Pastoralists, whose way oflife is based on large herbivores, are especially dependent upon salt. Herdingcultures, always essential to the economy of the central Danubian basin,provided a natural market for Bavarian salt. 42 The geographic situation ofBavaria must have favored its competitive position vis-à-vis other sources,such as southern Poland, Transylvania, and Venetia. Cheap fuel that wasprovided by the vast forests of Alpine northern Europe made Bavarian saltcompetitive with salt won from evaporation techniques.

Most important, however, transportation infrastructures favored thedevelopment of Bavarian sources of salt. All of the rivers of the region emptyinto the Danube, a natural artery to transport salt east. Technologically,Bavarian shipping was equal to the task, for there is much evidence ofshipbuilding and water transport in this region in the eighth century. SaintRupert, for example, went from Regensburg to Lorch by ship on the Danubearound 700, and, according to the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum(hereafter the Conversio), Rupert even traveled by boat as far as the frontiersof Lower Pannonia.43 Although it could be asserted that the author of theConversio exaggerated the extent of Rupert's personal travels in order tobuttress the claims of the see of Salzburg to ecclesiastical jurisdiction inLower Pannonia, he was, nevertheless, describing an event that must havebeen technically possible. He was attempting to justify Salzburg's claims forecclesiastical jurisdiction in south-central Europe, and, thus, he had to makehis arguments believable.

If salt from the Traungau and Salzburg found markets among the herders ofthe Carpathian basin, Bavarian domestic demand must also have been great.Lordships cannot be carved out of a wilderness by ducal decree. Salt madepossible the development of the resources of lakes, streams, and highlands ineastern Bavaria. In fact, throughout Alpine Europe, Bavarian salt was in greatdemand. Even as far west as Kempten, for example, salt from easternBavaria was a necessary commodity. Salt is just as important to an Alpineeconomy as it is for the transhumance practiced in the Alföld. Milk productsare best conserved as cheese that has been pressed out and salted. Dry-salting of fish was an ancient practice that predates by several millennia itssuccessful commercialization by the Hanse. Judging from the sources, fishingrights were among the most sought after privileges in this region with its



glacial lakes and streams that were teeming with fish in the eighth century.

The combination of salt production with herding and fishing was, no



Page 44

doubt, at least partially responsible for generally improving living conditionsin eighth-century Bavaria. It is worth noting that the size and health of apopulation is always related to food production. Salt was essential to the typeof economy best suited for Alpine Bavaria, the heartland of Tassilo's duchy.Salt was required for the production of cheese. Without salt, fish, game, anddomesticated meat could not have been stored and necessarily would havehad to be consumed immediately, meaning that a time of dearth relentlesslywould have followed hard upon a time of plenty. 44 Salt made it possible toimprove the distribution of protein in the diet throughout the year. Spoilagedecreased, and food production became more efficient, which led to anincrease in total food supply. Thus, demographic growth became possible,especially since other factors such as war, internal disorder, and pestilencewere minimal during the Agilolfinger period.

Demographic growth and the ducal organization of the southeastern frontierof Bavaria must have gone hand in hand.45 Labor was needed to buildfortresses, to repair and defend them, to increase food production, to buildchurches and monasteries, to cut and gather wood for salt pans, and to workthe mines and reduce the ores they yielded. Labor was also needed to buildsuch monuments as "Virgil's Cathedral," for, although some architects andstonecutters may have come from Lombardy, the men who hauled the stonesand put them into place were undoubtedly natives. Is it an accident thatSalzburg, in ruins at Rupert's arrival in 700, became the seat of the Bavarianmetropolitan in 794? Neither can it be a coincidence that Kremsmünster andMondsee had become wealthy monasteries by the end of the eighth century.The intensive efforts of organization and development on the part of theAgilolfinger dukes (supported by a Bavarian ecclesiastical structure) createdon the eastern flank of Bavaria a prospering region that exerted a powerfulinfluence over its neighbors in the mountains to the southeast.

In spite of the rapid economic development of the lands between the Inn andthe Enns in the eighth century, Bavarian colonization of Lower Austria had notyet begun. Joseph Deér, in a tightly reasoned essay, demonstrated that notonly did the Enns form the military and political boundary between Bavariansand the Avars, but that it was the settlement boundary as well.46 From themilitary point of view it is not surprising that Bavarian expansion did not gobeyond the Enns in the eighth century. As we have already pointed out, theonly areas in Lower Austria capable of supporting a large population lay along



the Danube and in the fertile Traisen valley. The rest of Lower Austria wasrugged and inhospitable. No roads would their



Page 45

way through mountain passes connecting it with Pannonia or Carantania.Although it might have been useful for the Bavarian duke to have gainedcontrol of the Danube as far as the Vienna Woods, a campaign to seize thatterritory would have cost him dearly. If the Avars lacked the military capacityto attack Bavarian positions in Upper Austria successfully, they were certainlyin a position to defend their territory in Lower Austria, for they too hadfortifications and assembly points along the Danube, as we shall see. Thenature of the terrain between the Enns and the Vienna Woods is such that aninvader has little room to maneuver. Thus, an invasion force from Bavariawould have found it necessary to take Avar fortresses one by one.Charlemagne's invasion of Avaria was a massive effort, involving forces frommany parts of his empire. Never could the Bavarian dukes have musteredsuch a force.

Besides, the Bavarian duke was more troubled by the activities of hisCarolingian kin than by his eastern neighbors. In fact, Bavarians and Avarshad many common interests. The lands east of the Vienna Woods were richin herds and poor in salt, a commodity that Bavaria could provide. Arms madein Bavaria have been found in Avar graves. Charlemagne's famous capitularyof Thionville shows that the arms trade down the Danube was extensive; in itthe Frankish king took steps to curb the export of weapons on this waterway,setting up a checkpoint at Lorch. 47 Avars may have actually served theBavarian duke, as the grave of an Avar chieftain, which has been found nearLinz, indicates.48

Thus, the allegation of the Annales regni Francorum that Tassilo hadconspired with the heathen Avars may have been technically correct. He hadmany interests in common with them, not to mention their mutual desire toresist Carolingian expansion. The point, however, is a moot one, for, Avaralliance or not, by the beginning of the 780s Tassilo had been isolated withinthe Frankish kingdom, and it was a matter of time before his cousin wouldmove against him. That moment came in 787 when Carolingian armies, whichhad been divided into three pincers, invaded Bavaria. Charlemagne led themain army based in Augsburg near the Bavarian-Swabian border; his sonPepin marched from Lombardy into the South Tyrol toward the Brenner Pass,while an army composed of Franconians, Thuringians, and Saxons advancedfrom the north toward Regensburg. Agilolfinger rule in Bavaria was coming toan end, and the stage was being set for the Frankish conquest of a huge



expanse of territory in the middle Danubian basin, the territory that had fortwo centuries been under Avar rule.



Page 46

3.The Conquest of the Southeast, 791826

Introduction

This chapter tells the story of conquests, rebellions, and the creation of amilitary organization that allowed Frankish armies to intervene deep into thecentral Danubian basin. The relatively tranquil period that characterized therelations between the Bavarian duchy and its Avar and Slavic neighbors cameto an abrupt end in 788, when in a series of wars, Carolingian armiesdestroyed the Avar Empire and established a hegemony over most of thecentral Danubian watershed. In Upper and Lower Austria and on the westernfringe of Transdanubia, Frankish marcher lordships were created. Carantania,on the other hand, remained under the control of native dukes, as it hadduring the Agilolfinger period. Carolingian commanders settled survivingAvars, who had converted to Christianity, as clients on a reservation in the KisAlföld, and in southern Pannonia and in Dalmatia, they recognized Slavicdukes as underlings. In 818 one of these duces, a certain Liudewit, led amajor revolt against Carolingian rule that Louis the Pious put down with greatdetermination, sending large armies into Pannonia over a period of manyyears. Throughout this era Charlemagne and his heirs were intent onconquering and exerting hegemony over the former Roman province ofPannonia. On the other hand, although Carolingian armies occasionallymarched through and raided Bohemia, their leaders exhibited little interest inthroughly subjugating regions north of the Danube.

The Avar Wars

The removal of Tassilo III from his ducal office and the final absorption ofBavaria into Charlemagne's Reich led to serious hostilities along the Avar-Bavarian border for the first time in more than a century. 1 Fearful of the



Page 47

Carolingian juggernaut that had now reached their frontiers, the Avars in 788launched simultaneous invasions of Italy and Bavaria. The southern force wasabruptly halted on the borders of Friuli by a Frankish-Lombard army, whilethe northern incursion was turned back by Bavarians with Frankishreinforcements. In a third encounter two commanders, Graman and Otachar,led an army east of the Enns into Avar territory, where they won a celebratedvictory on the Ybbsfeld. As yet unbroken, the Avars regrouped for a fourthattack on the Bavarian marches. According to the official Frankish sources,they were badly mauled once again. This time surviving Avars drowned in theDanube while attempting to flee. 2

Although the accounts of these engagements make them seem convincingFrankish victories, Charlemagne's commanders were unable to follow up theirsuccesses by destroying Avar forces and breaking their power to resist; norwere they able to advance the border between Bavaria and Avaria east of theEnns. In spite of the fact that Carolingian forces had invaded Avar territory,the Enns remained the limes certus in the east.3 One of Alcuin's letters datedfrom early in the year 790 indicates that Avar forces attacked both Italy andBavaria in 789.4 A delegation from the khan did show up the following year inWorms for negotiations, but hostilities on the frontiers continued.5 By theclose of 790, it had become apparent that only a determined Frankish effortsimilar to Charlemagne's Saxon campaigns would compel Avar submission.

Early in the summer of 891, the king arrived in Regensburg to prepare for aninvasion of Avar territory; he assembled a large and well-equipped armyconsisting of forces drawn from the regna east of the Rhine.6 Moreover, evenhis son Louis (the Pious) arrived with a following from Aquitaine.7 Thepreparations for the offensive had obviously been thorough, for Charles didnot leave Regensburg for the Enns boundary until mid-August. Einhard madea point of the ruler's extensive preparations for the Avar campaigns, which hedeclared were his most important ones, except for those against the Saxons.8It is significant that Einhard emphasized the king's role as commander-in-chief and as a military planner rather than as a field general. ''He waged it[the Avar war] with more vigor than any of the others and with much greaterpreparation,'' Einhard wrote, "[but] he himself led only one expedition intoPannonia. Everything else he entrusted to his son Pepin, to the governors ofhis provinces, and to his counts and legates."9



In this first Avar campaign, Charlemagne overwhelmed his enemies, utilizingwhat had become his typical strategy of sending out pincers from



Page 48

various bases that bordered on hostile territory. 10 At Regensburg he dividedthe army into two parts. A northern one, consisting of Ripuarian Franks and alarge number of Frisians, plus contingents of Saxons and Thuringians, wascommanded by Count Theoderic, a relative of the king, and the chamberlainMeginfried. A portion of this army probably marched along the north bank ofthe Danube to the vicinity of Lorch, where Meginfried (but not Theoderic)witnessed two property transactions just prior to the invasion of Avarterritory.11 Some northern contingents, however, must have proceededthrough Bohemia to the confluence of the Kamp with the Danube near Krems,for the revised version of the Royal Annals reports that the forces underTheoderic and Meginfried "returned through Bohemia, the route by whichthey had come."12 This statement has sparked a debate concerning theinvasion path of the northern army. Some scholars, assuming the accuracy ofthe revised version of the Royal Annals, believe that this army marched fromRegensburg through southern Bohemia to the Kamp.13 Others, however,noting the presence of Meginfried at Lorch, insist that it followed the courseof the Danube. Peter Csendes and Walter Pohl point out, for example, that aDanubian route makes more sense logistically.14 An army as large as the oneCharlemagne gathered in 791 could only have been sustained by enormousquantities of supplies, more easily transported by boats on the Danube thanby pack animals trudging through the rugged forests and mountains ofBohemia.

Nevertheless, Frankish armies did have the capacity to traverse Bohemia, anoperation that they successfully accomplished on several expeditions; thus,there is no reason to assume that they could not have done so in 791. It isunwise to disregard the testimony of the Revised Annals, especially since thestrategy of sending pincers from Regensburg through southern Bohemia tothe Kamp is consistent with the conduct of similar expeditions. Moreover,archaeological evidence indicates that Avars had established fortifiedoutposts on the upper Kamp, where crucial routes intersected.15 Thegarrisons of these forts would have been in a position to harass Carolingianforces besieging the main Avar fortress on the lower reaches of that river. Atleast a portion of the northern army under Theoderic may well have beendispatched through Bohemia to neutralize these northern garrisons. Such anoperation would have deprived those Avars who defended more elaboratedefensive works near the Danube of any possibility of relief. As we shall see,



they evacuated their carefully prepared positions without a struggle, a factconsistent with this hypothesis.

A plausible solution to the conflicting testimony of the sources is,



Page 49

then, that a part of the northern army under Meginfried stuck to the northbank of the Danube, while other, probably smaller and more mobile,contingents went through Bohemia under Theoderic's command, explainingwhy the northern army had two commanders in the first place (see Map 2). Inthis regard it must be noted that a division of the northern invasion forcewould also make sense from the point of view of logistics, for any columnmoving along the north bank of the Danube would necessarily have becomeelongated in the narrows between the settlements of Grein and Ybbs,drastically slowing its rate of march. 16 The larger the army, the more itbecomes strung out under such circumstances a situation that ablecommanders throughout the ages have avoided at all costs. This problemcould have been solved simply by sending pincers through Bohemia.

A second army (Franks, Bavarians, and Alamanni) was under the personaldirection of Charlemagne. It marched south of the Danube from Regensburgto the town of Enns, while a Bavarian fleet moved eastward with supplies onthe Danube. The southern forces would have avoided the narrows bymarching via the road from Amstetten to Ybbs, rather than moving directlyalong the river. At least some of the elements of this army would have alsofollowed a route away from the banks of the Danube (Melk-Sankt Pölten-Traismauer) farther to the east, thus avoiding the problem of elongating theircolumn in the passage between Melk and Mautern, where the DunkelsteinWoods narrow the course of the river.

In addition to these two Danubian armies, Charles had already commanded astrike force (scara) to attack the Avars from Italy (see Map 2). This force(undoubtedly a highly mobile one) included King Pepin, Duke John of Istria,two counts, numerous royal vassals, and a bishop. In August they enteredAvar territory (defined as Illyricum and Pannonia) where they achieved animportant victory in which they plundered an Avar fortification and returnedwith much booty and 150 prisoners.17 S. Márki believed that the Avarfortification in question must have been Sirmium.18 Although his hypothesiscannot be proved, Márki is certainly correct in arguing that the theater for thiscampaign was between the Drava and the Sava, for the scara was sent outfrom Istria.19 This force probably had considerable support from South Slavsdissatisfied with Avar rule, for otherwise it is difficult to see how anunsupported army based in Istria could have penetrated as deeply into Avarterritory as this one apparently did.



In early September Charles's Danubian army reached the Avar frontier.Encamped on the Enns, the king received the news of Pepin's victory. Afterthree days of prayer and fasting, he began hostilities by crossing the Enns



Page 50

Map 2.The Avar Wars.



Page 51

into Avar territory. With contingents operating on both sides of the Danubeand with a river fleet to furnish logistics and to ensure communicationsbetween them, Carolingian hosts constituted a formidable array. In order tofrustrate an invasion of their territory, the Avars had established fortificationsin Lower Austria. The locations of two major ones are known. One was northof the Danube near the confluence of the Kamp River with the Danube, justbelow Krems. 20 The second was the civitas of Comagenos near Tulln. Inspite of these defensive works, however, the Avars, terrified by the prospectof dealing with two large armies simultaneously and probably aware ofCharlemagne's ruthlessness, fled their fortifications, which the Franksdestroyed.21 According to the Lorsch Annals, "[Whoever] had constructedentrenchments or defence-works of some sort, whether in the mountains oron the rivers or in the forests, no sooner did he [Charles] or his army arrivethere than they forthwith surrendered, or were killed, or scattered in flight."22

From the Vienna Woods the army pressed on to the Raba, and, aftermarching up the watershed for several days, the forces returned to Bavariaby way of Szombathely (see Map 2). As we have seen, this was a crucialjunction of Roman roads, where the hills of Burgenland give way to the rollingcountry of Transdanubia.23 Charlemagne's southern army devastated Avarterritory for fifty-two days, as did the northern one under Theoderic andMeginfried, which then returned at the king's command through Bohemia, asit had come.24 Everything did not go smoothly, however, for the RevisedAnnals report that pestilence struck the horses in Charles's army, killingseveral thousand.25

In spite of the enormous attention that Charles gave personally to thisexpedition, it did not break the power of the Avars. As the Annales Mosellanistate matter-of-factly, "After he [Charles] had devastated a great part of thatland but not subjected it in its entirety, he returned home."26 That the Avarshad not yet been conquered is also demonstrated by the Frankish ruler'spresence in Bavaria during the entirety of 792 and most of 793 in the face ofserious problems in other parts of his empire famine, renewed rebellion inSaxony and Frisia, a putsch led by nobles who had coalesced around the royalbastard Pepin the Hunchback, plus trouble with Duke Crimoald of Benevento.

During his prolonged stay in Regensburg, the king became preoccupied withthe utilization of rivercraft to support tactical and strategic operations againstthe Avars. For example, in 792 he ordered the construction of portable



bridges that could be taken apart and reassembled as needed so that forcescould be conveyed quickly back and forth across



Page 52

rivers. 27 Even more impressive was the king's unsuccessful attempt toconstruct a canal for the purpose of connecting the Danube with the Main-Rhine watershed. Had this link really been feasible, it would have eased theproblem of conveying supplies and men from the Frankish heartland in theRhine-Meuse region to the distant frontiers of Pannonia.28 The fact thatCarolingian technology was unable to accomplish this task is of lessimportance than the light this incident sheds on the strategic thinking of theFrankish king concerning the importance of fluvial navigation to support hisfar-flung military operations. Charles was, in fact, so serious about his canalproject that he remained in Bavaria until December 793, when he reluctantlyleft his faltering canal and went by ship on the Main to Würzburg, where hecelebrated Christmas and continued on, by ship, to Frankfurt.29

Although the Avar Confederation had not been destroyed when Charles leftBavaria late in 793, we must not jump to the conclusion that the king'scampaign of 791 was any less successful than the annalists and Einhardwould have us believe.30 This operation was a very necessary one, which theAvars had been unable to fend off only because of the sheer size of theexpedition. As a result, smaller, more mobile Frankish units could, insubsequent years, be sent out from the Bavarian marches more effectivelythan would have been the case had the Avars managed to hold theirfortifications along the Danube in modern Lower Austria. The effectiveness ofsmaller contingents of mounted forces lies in their ability to make rapid andunpredictable strikes or raids into hostile territory.31 Cavalry is, however, at adisadvantage when it must deal with systems of fortifications. Mounted unitscan bypass any particular fortress, but in so doing they take great risks. If theinvading army must contend with a well-organized system of fortifications,such as those of the Avars in Lower Austria, then the question of whether tobypass any one of them becomes a serious tactical problem, for if a fortress isavoided, its garrison (perhaps together with other garrisons) can sally outfrom time to time to harass intruding forces. Cavalry, plundering deep intoenemy territory, is at risk once it encumbers itself with booty, especially if itmust return to its bases by passing through territory studded with numerousenemy strongholds. Moreover, since aggressor cavalry must occasionallybreak up to forage, the men are particularly vulnerable to sallies by garrisons.To leave some mounted forces behind to observe bypassed forts is, however,an unproductive option, since troops remaining behind to watch these



enclosures lose their greatest asset, their mobility. For these reasons, as longas Avars held forts in Lower Austria, most of Transdanubia and all of theAlföld were effectively out of



Page 53

range for cavalry operating from Bavaria. This fact explains Graman andOtachar's failure to follow up their victories in 788. Until Lower Austria wassafely in Frankish hands, Avar centers of power near the central Danubianwatergate could not be attacked by forces based in Bavaria, but only byLombard scarae from the marches of Friuli and Istria, which were supportedby South Slavic confederates in Carantania and Dalmatia.

In dealing with such a well-organized system of fortified enclosures as that ofthe Avars in Lower Austria, it was tactically necessary to bring up infantry toinvest each fort along the way. The inclusion of infantry and siegeparaphernalia demanded a very large force, which explains Charlemagne'scareful preparations. Because of logistical considerations, ships operating onthe Danube played an important role in this operation. As the sourcesindicate, the Frankish king had gathered his troops from most of the regionsunder his control. With all of the men and equipment he could muster, andwith ships manned by Bavarians furnishing logistical support from the river forthis large array, he was obviously prepared to besiege and take every Avarfortress along the way. Realizing the extent of his preparations and probablyfamiliar with his ruthlessness, the Avars saw the futility of holding their fortsand withdrew.

It is clear that the campaign of 791 was designed to expel the Avars fromtheir enclosures along the Danube. When they gave up their forts,Charlemagne had accomplished his objective, since by driving them out ofLower Austria, he had captured bases whence future raids by smaller, moremobile units under marcher commanders could be launched. The logic of theexpedition of 791 is confirmed by Einhard's statement that subsequentcampaigns were prosecuted vigorously by subordinate commanders. Theseoperations, which were on a much smaller scale, probably consisted ofmounted units whose mission was to plunder Avar territory, to disrupt enemyforces, and to prevent them from recovering from defeats. In the operationsof 791, however, cavalry was of secondary importance. Ships furnishinglogistical support and ferrying services must have been of greater tacticalsignificance than cavalry in persuading the Avars to give up their strongholds.As for the thousands of horses that were stricken, their loss meant thatCharles was unable to follow up his victory by destroying fleeing Avarcontingents. Of course these horses (at least some of them) wereundoubtedly pack animals, in which case their loss (plus the season late



autumn) explains why Charlemagne found it necessary to turn back afterreaching Szombathley.

It is also significant that the king carried the campaign as far east as the



Page 54

confluence of the Raba with the Danube, where the late Roman camp(castrum) of Arrabona had been located. From there the king's army followedthe Roman road to Szombathely, which had been the headquarters of thegovernor general of Pannonia Prima. 32 That the Frankish monarch pressedhis forces on to Szombathely was no accident. There the Roman road fromArrabona was joined by the route from Vienna to Pécs, which continued in thedirection of Osijek at the confluence of the Drava with the Danube (see Map1). Also joining these roads in Szombathely was the old military road leadingtoward Ptuj, the Drava River crossing. At the junction of these roads, in thecenter of Szombathely, ruins of an elliptical stone castellum of Carolingianvintage still remain. In fact, it was only demolished at the end of theeighteenth century. Recent excavations have revealed its foundations,adjacent to the city's baroque cathedral.33 Control of the crossroads atSzombathely, where this castellum was raised, gave margraves an importantbase of operations against Avar forces who had been driven to places ofrefuge farther southeast, while, at the same time, it ensured communicationswith friendly forces operating from Carantania and Friuli. In view of logisticsand communications, Szombathely was a necessary outpost from whichcoordinated strikes could be launched by marcher commanders. But there isyet another reason why Charlemagne would have chosen Szombathely as aprimary base of operations in Pannonia. He was very much aware of the factthat this was the ancient city where Saint Martin, a special saint in theCarolingian iconography, was born. Its capture and garrisoning were, thus,symbolic of the Frankish presence in the former Roman Pannonia.34

In any event, after the campaign of 791, the Avars must have been harassedby highly mobile armies sent out in pincers by marcher commanders. Strikeforces (scarae), whose purpose it was to plunder and devastate Avaria, couldbe launched simultaneously from Friuli, Carantania, and from the outpost ofSzombathely east of the Vienna Woods. Because Avar forces had been drivenfrom their fortresses west of the Raba, Bavarian scarae could return homewithout fear of ambush by enemy garrisons.

Unfortunately, the annals do not provide any details concerning militaryoperations against the Avars during the years 792794. We should notconclude from the silence of the sources, however, that inactivity prevailedamong marcher commanders. The annalists were concerned primarily withthe activities of the crown and reported military operations of lesser



commanders only when they were notable successes or notorious failures.



Page 55

Although Charles himself remained in the palatium in Regensburg (fourhundred kilometers west of Szombathely), his initiative in constructingpontoon bridges as well as his attempt to open a Main-Danube canalillustrate his interest in the continuing military operations. Raiding partiesfrom Bavaria and Friuli must have been regularly sent out against the Avars,whose confederation was in the process of dissolution. One source informs usthat civil wars had broken out among Avar princes, and that two leaders, thechagan and the iugurro, had been murdered by their men. 35 How can weexplain this rapid deterioration of Avar discipline and morale, unless weassume relentless Frankish pressure? Csendes and Pohl believe that thedevastation of Pannonia east of the Vienna Woods by Charlemagne's forces in791 was enough to demoralize the Avars.36 But only continuous pressure onthe part of the Franks could have caused such dissension in their ranks. HadCharles simply plundered western Pannonia and then withdrawn his forces,the Avars could have regrouped and recovered their confidence by 795, whenserious internal conflicts among them are reported.

In 795 a notably successful raid into Avar territory was reported. Eric, themargrave of Friuli, dispatched a force of his men under the command of theSlav Wonomyr (see Map 2).37 The mention of Wonomyr is strong evidencethat South Slavic support must have been instrumental in earlier Carolingianattacks on Avaria. Frankish annalists were not in the habit of mentioninganyone but the most notable imperial aristocrats unless they performedexceptional feats. This army despoiled the famous Avar "ring" of some of itsvast treasure, which Eric conveyed to the royal court and which astonishedthe annalists. One suspects that it was the spoliation of the ring and theacquisition of the treasure that caused this raid to be reported, whereasnumerous others must have been more routine and, hence, unworthy ofnotice. Early in 796, another Avar leader (called the tudun) journeyed with alarge following to Aachen, where he formally submitted to Charles andreceived baptism.38

The Avar war was far from over, however, for King Pepin led a largeexpedition in the summer of the same year, one that was certainly more thana raid (see Map 2). In contrast with the successful assault of the previousyear, which had apparently involved only the margrave of Friuli and his SouthSlavic allies, the young king gathered an exercitus in Italy, while his fathersent out Bavarians and Alamanni to join him.39 Unfortunately, there is no



reference in the sources concerning the routes that northern contingents tookto the middle Danube. However, we can assume that some forces marchedalong the route that Charles had himself opened in 791,



Page 56

through Lower Austria to the Vienna Woods and then southeast toSzombathely. Other contingents (especially the Alamanni) may have movedthrough the Tyrol and via the Brenner-Pusteria route to Carantania and thenfollowed the course of the Drava to Pannonia. As we have seen, Carolingianoffensives were generally multipronged affairs.

In any case, the northern armies united with the Italian exercitus somewherein Lower Pannonia to invade the Alföld, where the ring was situated, for theAnnales Laureshamenses state that the army crossed the Danube to attackthe ring (see Map 2). 40 The necessity of crossing the Danube in order tomount an offensive against the ring must have been the reason forCharlemagne's preoccupation with pontoon bridges. The involvement ofBavarians in a Danubian crossing in Lower Pannonia during this campaign isworthy of special notice at this point. If Bavarian ships and portable pontoonbridges were utilized in Lower Pannonia to transverse the Danube and assaultthe ring in 796, similar forces would have supported invasions of Moravianterritory in the same region, a point to which we shall later return. It issufficient to note here that the campaign was a successful venture involving alarge number of troops. This operation included troops from Italy and fromthe southern German provinces of Alamannia and Bavaria, and theexpedition's purpose was to annihilate hostile forces. Frankish armiesconverged on the ring, entered for a second time, and on this occasiondestroyed it.41

Following his victory, Pepin called a synod "on the banks of the Danube,"probably in the vicinity of Pécs, for the purpose of discussing theChristianization of Avar territory.42 It was at this conclave that the young kingdesignated the Drava as the boundary between the jurisdictions of the seesof Salzburg and Aquileia.43 The bishops who assembled on the banks of theDanube in 796 also dealt with problems concerning the existence of aresidual Christian population in Pannonia that had continued to live thereunder Avar rule. The synod came to the conclusion that some had beenproperly baptized in the name of the Trinity, but that others had not, and,thus, they would have to be rebaptized. Still others, the bishops concluded,had received the sacrament from untrained priests; they too should berebaptized.44

In autumn 796 Pepin arrived in triumph at his father's palace in Aachen,



bringing with him the remainder of the fabulous Avar treasure. The campaignof 796 had constituted a devastating blow to any hopes the leaders of variousAvar factions may have had for revitalizing their crumbling confederation;nevertheless, pockets of resistance remained. Some



Page 57

war bands escaped the carnage by fleeing to the east, beyond the range oftheir Frankish tormentors. Although annalists report no more expeditions onthe scale of those of 791 and 796, we can be sure that pacification of theAvars had not yet been achieved.

Einhard's assertion that the conflict lasted for eight years is incorrect. Heseems to have reckoned that it began in 788 and ended in 796. The RoyalAnnals, however, indicate that it only terminated in 803. 45 Einhard's accountis internally inconsistent, too, for he attributes the deaths of Eric of Friuli andGerold, prefect of Bavaria and Charlemagne's brother-in-law, to clashes withthe Avars.46 Since we know that both of these commanders fell in 799, theconflict must have continued into the ninth century.47 Moreover, the royalbiographer's assertion that, except for these two casualties, the Avar war was''almost bloodless'' for the Franks is certainly an exaggeration. As late as 802,the Annales Sancti Emmerammi maiores report that the marcher countsCadaloc and Goteram were killed along with many others at the castellumGuntionis.48 The following year Charlemagne sent a Bavarian exercitus intoPannonia under the command of the new prefect of Bavaria, Audulf, and themargrave Werner.49 Although the annalists do not report the details of thiscampaign, it must have also been a large expedition because the emperorfelt compelled to leave Aachen for Bavaria to await its outcome. We know fora fact that he ventured as far eastward as Salzburg, where he received anembassy from Jerusalem in October.50 In November he was back inRegensburg, where an Avar leader "Zodan," identified as the princeps ofPannonia, and many Slavs and Avars submitted themselves to the king.51

Since this expedition lasted well into late autumn, we must assume that itwas a major undertaking. Also, the fact that it was led by Audulf and Werneris significant, for these men were among the most important imperialaristocrats active in Bavaria and its marches.

The campaign of 803 sounded the death knell for the Avar Confederation.Early in the year 805 the khan (with the Greek name of Theodorus), who wasa convert to Christianity, arrived at Aachen to petition Charlemagne to granthis people a territory (some would say a reservation) between Szombathelyand Petronel on or near the Kis Alföld.52 Because they were being attacked bySlavs, he complained, it had become impossible for Avars to continue to livein their former territories (the Nagy Alföld). The emperor granted Theodorus'swish, but the latter died soon after returning to his people. His successor then



sent one of his magnates to Charles with the pressing request that theFrankish ruler recognize the pristine position of the khan as ruler of the Avars.This request was also



Page 58

granted and the new Avar leader, taking the name of Abraham, was baptizedin the Fischa River and installed as a Frankish client over what little territoryremained for the once proud Avars, a people who had dominated theDanubian basin for two centuries. 53

This story is an important one, for it is the first indication that new formationswere beginning to emerge under the leadership of Slavic war bands in LowerPannonia near the confluences of the Drava, Sava, and Tisza rivers with theDanube, the earlier center of Avar power. The Franks salvaged whatremained of Avar war bands, established them in Upper Pannonia oppositethe confluence of the northern Morava with the Danube, and recognized themas confederates under a client-prince. This Avar "reservation" extended fromPetronel in the north to Szombathley in the south, on the fringe of territorythat resembles the Nagy Alföld, but too small to support nomadic practices.

Also in 805, the year that the Avars requested new territories in Pannonia, acampaign was organized against the Bohemians.54 Once again pincers weresent into enemy territory. The main army under the command of theemperor's eldest son, Charles, followed the upper Main, attacking through theBohemian Forest. Bavarian contingents led by Audulf and Werner invadedfrom the south, while an army based in Saxony forced its way through theErzgebirge in the north. The three armies, plus numerous confederates whohad been gathered from among Slavs living along the Elbe, united in theBohemian basin and lay siege to their principal stronghold of Canburg. Theannalist complains that the Bohemians holed up in inaccessible places,refusing to accept battle with this large array, which plundered their territoryfor forty days before returning home. There is reason to believe that thisexpedition did not succeed in all of its aims. Although Canburg was besieged,it was not taken. Logistical problems related to the support of such a largearmy in hostile territory undermined operations, for the Annales Mettensesreport that the expedition was forced to return for lack of "fodder for thehorses and food for the army."55 In the following year contingents ofBavarians, Alamanni, and even Burgundians were sent again into Bohemia.The annalist's assertion that they returned "without any serious incidents"probably means that the Bohemians continued to remain in their fortresses,refusing to accept battle.56 Carolingian forces thoroughly pillaged the regionuntil they ran out of supplies and returned to their bases. Again the besiegedhad starved out the besieger.



The campaigns of 805 and 806 illustrate many characteristics that were tobecome typical of Carolingian military operations against the Bohe-



Page 59

mians, who were separated from the Franks by a rim of densely forestedmountains. This geographic barrier meant that it was much more difficult tosupport armies operating there than in Transdanubia, where the Danube andits major tributaries, the Drava and the Sava, plus a network of Roman roadsserved as conduits for men and supplies. Logistical considerations made itextremely difficult for Carolingian forces to control Bohemia. 57 Althoughcommanders conducted punishing raids into this region almost at will, theywere unable to maintain forces there for long enough to pacify it completely.The Bohemians refused pitched battles and accepted combat only whenambushes gave them the advantage of surprise.

Because of Bohemia's geographic situation, responsibility for militaryoperations in this theater fell on the shoulders of Frankish commanders fromthree provinces. First of all, Franconian frontier commanders had the primarytask of guarding the upper Main and preparing major expeditions intoBohemian territory. Second, Saxon responsibilities are documented as well,not only in the narrative sources, but also in the Capitual de causis diversis,which outlines Saxon obligations to serve in various theaters. It states, forexample, that in wars against the Avars five Saxons were to band together tosupport a sixth who would join the host.58 In contrast, for campaigns againstthe Bohemians, two Saxons were obliged to support a third. Thus, the Saxonswere required to send twice as many forces into Bohemia as they were intoAvaria. This point is important, because it indicates that these theaters wereconsidered to be geographically remote from one another, at least from aSaxon point of view. To participate in an Avar campaign was considered to beequally arduous for Saxons as taking up arms against the Spanish Muslims.Saxons did participate in later campaigns in Pannonia, but there is muchevidence that they did so only reluctantly, as we shall see.

The third province that had responsibilities for military operations against theBohemians was, of course, Bavaria. In the case of Bavarians, they, like theFranconians, were obliged to join the host for operations against Bohemia inorder to defend their territory (ad patria defendenda), which meant that allmust serve. From Bavaria there are two invasion corridors into Bohemia: onefrom Regensburg by way of Cham and through the marcher lordship ofNordgau; a second was based in Lorch leading through the mountains toBudejovice.59 Thus, Bavarian warriors had basically two frontier militaryresponsibilities. The primary one was in Pannonia, under a commander who



had his headquarters in Lorch near the confluence of the Enns with theDanube, but there was also a marcher organization to guard



Page 60

against incursions from the north and to conduct strikes into Bohemianterritory. This military organization was based in Regensburg and came undersupervision of the prefect of Bavaria, who must also have had somecommand responsibilities in the event of war in Pannonia. From the famousCapitulary of Thionville, which was issued at the time of the invasion ofBohemia in 805, we learn that Audulf was the commander in Regensburg andthat Werner had his command post in Lorch. 60

It is difficult to determine how the situation developed along the middleDanube during the last eight years of Charlemagne's reign. As he grew old,he spent most of his time at Aachen. Moreover, events on other frontiers,plus the probing raids of Scandinavians, occupied the attention of annalists.However the Capitulary of Thionville does inform us that Charles wasconcerned about the exportation of arms for sale in Slavic central Europe. Inthis document the emperor set up several check points from which to controltrade into this region. Audulf and Werner, the commanders of the expeditionsof 803 and 805, were responsible for overseeing this traffic through Bavaria,Audulf from posts at Forchheim and Regensburg and Werner from Lorch onthe Danube. The Capitulare Bononiense, though not explicitly concerned withthe eastern marches, expresses grave concern lest Frankish arms should fallinto hostile hands.61

Under the year 811 the Royal Annals report that an expedition was sent "intothe Pannonias in order to bring to an end a dispute between Avars andSlavs."62 In late autumn two Avar leaders (the khan and the tudun) appearedat Aachen with a large entourage. Some of the Slavic duces who had opposedthem were also present. This scanty report reinforces our impression thatCarolingian leaders were attempting to prop up Avar remnants as clientsagainst yet unnamed Slavic groups that were crystallizing around various warbands roving the central Danubian basin. In the conflicts between Avars andtheir Slavic neighbors, the author of the Annals reveals a distinct bias in favorof the former, referring to the khan as the princeps Avarum, mentioning thepresence of another leader, the tudun, and designating the men in the khan'sentourage as primores. In contrast, the Slavic chieftains appear simply as"war-lords (duces) living somewhere along the Danube."

Liudewit's Revolt

Restlessness among Slavic war bands in Pannonia and Dalmatia increased



following Charlemagne's death, as is evidenced by a serious rebellion



Page 61

against Frankish rule. In autumn of 818 envoys from a number of Slavicconfederations appeared at the court of Louis the Pious at Herstal. Amongthem were representatives of two rival South Slavic dukes, Borna andLiudewit. Borna, dux of the Guduscani and of the Timocian Slavs, ruled aprincipality that extended from the Kulpa River to the Dalmatian coast. 63

Liudewit, whom the annalist characterizes as a "schemer and agitator," ruledover Slavs living in Pannonia inferioris. He had his center in Sisak on theSava, and his warriors were under the tutelage of Cadolah, the margrave ofFriuli. When Liudewit appeared before the emperor in 818, he accused themargrave of "brutality and arrogance." His charges were, however, ignored.But while Louis went off to Aachen for the winter, the duke returned toPannonia to prepare for revolt.

In the summer of 819 a full-scale insurrection (carmula) erupted. The Annalesregni Francorum report that Cadolah led an army from Italy against therebels. He failed to put down the uprising, however, and succumbed to fevershortly after his return to Friuli.64 A second exercitus was dispatched fromBavaria at the same time though the narrative sources make no mention ofit. We only know about this expedition because of some surviving fragments,two of which are preserved in the Freising records.65 Before joining the hoston May 6, a Bavarian named Uo made a donation to the see, and, twomonths later, Meginhard, a royal vassal (vassus dominici), made a gift toFreising while campaigning against Liudewit. Furthermore, we know that aRegensburg cleric began copying a book on June 2 when he was with thearmy somewhere in Avar territory. He returned to Sankt Florian (southeast ofLinz) on September 12.66 Thus, for Bavarian contingents the campaign musthave lasted four months, a fact that has led some to conclude that theirparticipation in the expedition was at a leisurely pace.67

The campaign, however, must have faced real difficulties. The CarantanianSlavs had joined the revolt, barring Alpine passes to the upper Drava andSava watersheds, which in turn meant that those rivers could not be used tosupport an invasion of Liudewit's territory in Pannonia inferioris. Thus, theBavarian army was forced to take the only route available from Vienna toSopron and Szombathely in the direction of Ptuj, where the bridge over theDrava was the crucial link to Sisak, Liudewit's capital.68 Such an overlandexpedition through potentially hostile territory required dangerouslyelongated supply lines. In addition, the Drava and the Sava's being in hostile



hands made it impossible to utilize these arteries to move heavy siegeequipment, and, since Sisak was on the middle Sava, not even Frankishcontrol of the Danube was of strategic consequence. On the



Page 62

march through Upper Pannonia, such an army would have been exposed toharassment by war bands of nearby Carantanians who had joined withLiudewit. Furthermore, since Carantania was in hostile hands, there was noway that this exercitus could have maintained contact with the southernpincers embarking from Friuli. Undoubtedly, there had been a plan for thesetwo armies to rendezvous, or at least to establish communications beforemoving on Sisak. Under the circumstances, however, it must be assumed thatBavarian commanders had no idea that Cadolah's forces had retreated. Theymay well have been encamped for some time in Upper Pannonia, awaitingword from the southern pincers, which never came. In the aftermath of theexpedition of 819 the Franks must have faced a serious situation becauseLiudewit sent ambassadors to the court of Louis the Pious to dictate theconditions under which he would agree to submit to imperial authority.

Meanwhile, Balderich, Cadolah's successor in Friuli, led a small force (parvamanu) into Carantania, surprising some of Liudewit's contingents anddefeating them near the Drava. 69 Although the author of the revised RoyalAnnals gives the impression that the rebels were driven from the province,this was not the case at all, for forces loyal to Liudewit were still in control ofCarantania when the campaign of 820 began. Thus, the official annalist wasobviously attempting to turn a minor victory into a major triumph in order toembellish what had been a disastrous year for Carolingian arms.

In any case, Liudewit also won an encounter against Borna in 819, drivinghim out of his territory and winning over the Guduscani, who deserted theDalmatian leader before the battle took place.70 Borna, however, protectedby his bodyguard, managed to escape to his strongholds in Dalmatia, whichprompted Liudewit to undertake a plundering raid against that region. Thedescription of this invasion merits our attention because it illustrates the typeof warfare routinely practiced in this region. According the the Royal Annals,"When Borna saw that he was no match for Liudewit, he stored all he could inhis castles, and attacked Liudewit's army with crack troops. Hampering himnow in the rear and now in the flank, he wore him down day and night andwould not let him stay in his province."71 In the end, Liudewit was forced toretreat. "Three thousand men of Liudewit's army were killed, more than threehundred horses captured, and baggage and all sorts of spoils seized." Thispassage is an excellent illustration of the tactical use of elite forces operatingfrom castella to wear down a numerically superior invader.72 Borna stored



provisions in fortified enclosures,



Page 63

from which he sallied out at opportune moments to harass Liudewit's troops.To force Liudewit out of Dalmatia, Borna's forces concentrated their attackson the enemy's baggage train. Fortifications permitted Borna to conserve hislimited manpower and to assail the interlopers when conditions gave hisforces the advantage. Liudewit's men were bent on pillaging Borna's territory,but when they encumbered themselves with plunder, they became vulnerableto assaults from mounted troops who attacked them from these strongholds,then quickly returned to the protection of their enclosures.

While Borna prevented Liudewit from spreading his rebellion into Dalmatia,the situation remained serious for the Franks in Pannonia and Carantania. InJanuary 820, the emperor summoned Borna to an assembly in Aachen foradvice. The decision was reached "to dispatch three armies from threedirections at once in order to lay waste Liudewit's territory and curb hispretensions." 73 Once again this was a large invasion force including troopsrecruited from most of the East Frankish provinces. "When winter was overand grass could provide fodder for the pack animals (iumenta)," the revisedRoyal Annals report, "three armies were sent against Liudewit."74 It should benoted that the text states that grass was needed for ''pack animals," not formounts or war-horses. Some modern scholars have mistakenly used thispassage as evidence that the Franks fought primarily as heavy cavalry.75 Theauthor of the text, however, intended to emphasize the logistical aspects ofthe campaign; hence, he chose the word iumenta.

The first of the invading armies proceeded from bases in Friuli through theJulian Alps, the second set out from Bavaria to invade Carantania (alsoinvolving an Alpine crossing), and the third marched from Bavaria along theDanube and through Upper Pannonia (see Map 3). The passage describingthe expedition of 820 deserves to be quoted:

The two [armies] which moved on the right and left went slowly, since one was hindered in theAlps by enemy forces, while the other was slowed down by the length of the route and by the riverDrava, which had to be crossed. But the one in the center, which entered by way of Carantania,although meeting resistance in three places, luckily overcame it each time, crossed the Drava, andarrived at its destination more rapidly. Liudewit undertook nothing against this force but lay low withhis men behind the bulwark of a castle that he had built on a steep mountain. He reportedly saidnothing about war or peace, either in person or through his envoys. But when the armies hadunited, they ravaged almost the whole land with fire and sword and then returned home withoutsuffering any serious losses. But the army which marched through Upper Pannonia sufferedmisfortune when crossing the Drava. From the





Page 64

Map 3.The Expedition of 820.



Page 65

unhealthy land and water, it was also severely stricken with dysentery, to which a considerable partof it succumbed. These armies had been recruited in Saxony, East Francia, and Alamannia, as wellas Bavaria and Italy. After their return home the people of Carniola, who live along the river Savaand border almost on Friuli, surrendered to Balderich, and so did those of the Carantanians whohad defected from us to Liudewit. 76

This passage illustrates the key position that Carantania was to play in themilitary organization of the southeastern marches. If Carolingian commandershad become complacent about the situation in Carantania during the Avarwars, Liudewit's rebellion must have alerted them to the importance of thisregion, for the revolt seriously threatened the military organization of theentire southeast, primarily because Carantanian warlords had joined it, and,in so doing, they had carried the uprising over the high comb of the Tauernrange that separates Bavaria from Carantania and Friuli. With hostile forces inthe upper Drava, Mur, and Enns valleys, the entire pass system of the easternAlps was in jeopardy. Even the Brenner route, the most direct link fromsouthern Germany to northern Italy, was threatened, leaving the circuitousFern-Reschen route as the only secure passage from Bavaria to thesoutheast.

Scholars have been puzzled by a statement in the Royal Annals that impliesthat Carantania was placed under Balderich's command, because thisprovince, at least north of the Drava, had been under the jurisdiction of thecommander of the Bavarian marches. The passage, however, does not statethat he retook all of Carantania, but rather that he captured that part of thisregion that had been under his jurisdiction, clearly south of the Drava. Aknowledge of the military geography of Carantania makes it easy tocomprehend why at the height of the rebellion it became Balderich's task toattack Liudewit's allies in southern Carantania. The rebels had moved quicklyto secure points which would make it difficult for Bavarian forces to enterCarantania. The fact that they controlled the middle and upper Enns (as wellas the upper Drava) meant that they were in a position to dominate thecomplex system of routes from Bavaria to the Drava basin in centralCarantania, and it would be difficult to dislodge them. Given these difficulties,an attack from the south by Friulian forces was tactically sound, especiallyconsidering that a southern army would have to cross only one pass (ratherthan two or even three as a northern one would) to gain access to the Drava.Somewhere along the southern bank of the Drava, Balderich's forcessurprised troops, whom Liudewit had sent there to reenforce the



Carantanians. Although this small force from Friuli did not succeed in



Page 66

regaining control of the entire upper Drava watershed, the assault, no doubt,caught the attention of the rebels, compelling them to allocate more troopsto guard their southern frontier by withdrawing forces guarding the northernpasses. The importance of Balderich's foray into Carantania must have beenthe weakening of this province's northern defenses. Thus, when the majorexpedition did occur in 820, the central (Bavarian) army attacked thisweakened northern frontier and achieved its goals first.

The success of these units determined, in fact, the outcome of the entirecampaign. According to the Royal Annals, these forces encountered resistancein three places, a statement which gives us a clue concerning the executionof the invasion. The subdivision of the central army into three routes fromBavaria to Carantania (see Map 3). One is the easy Brenner-Pusteria systemthat leads directly to the upper Drava. The second winds its way fromSalzburg through the Pongau to the upper Enns, then over the RadstädterTauern to the Mur and on to the Carantanian basin via the Turracherhöhe andalong the river Gurk, a tributary of the Drava. The third led from theTraungau to the middle Enns by way of the Pyhrn Pass, then on to the Murvia the Schober or the Rottmannen Tauern, and finally on to the Drava byeither proceeding down the Mur or by crossing a low pass via Neumarkt andFriesach.

Such a three-pronged invasion of Carantania makes tactical sense. Whileoperating in mountains, smaller units have tactical advantages over largearmies. A small number of determined men can hold a pass or a gorgeagainst vastly superior numbers, as dislodged boulders and fallen trees formbarriers that slow the passage of troops and animals. Since large armies aredifficult to feed from the limited resources of Alpine communities, numerousforces are actually at a disadvantage until the narrows have been sweptclean of enemy resisters. Another consideration is speed of passage throughmountains, since delays can seriously endanger the mission. Supply trainswith baggage carried by pack animals (which also must be fed) createproblems. Columns of such armies become elongated in narrows, andconsequently, they can be easily ambushed and broken at any point. If thesupply train were set upon, for example, the van in such circumstances wouldhave great difficulity in wheeling to protect the rear guard. An ambush of thisnature is precisely what happened to Charlemagen's army at Roncevalles inthat famous encounter in which Count Roland perished. 77



In contrast, when invading Lombardy in 773, Charlemagne followed thetactically correct procedure by dividing his army into smaller units.78



Page 67

When one of these units succeeded in breaking out of the narrows, Lombardsguarding other clausae hastily withdrew rather than allow themselves to beentrapped there. It might also be added that in the Lombard campaign,Charles employed a task force (scara) trained for warfare in the mountains. 79

We may presume that similar mountain scarae were also decisive in openingthe passes in Carantania during the campaign of 820.

A point that also needs to be emphasized is the diversity of Carolingian forcesthat operated in mountains. Certainly an army largely made up of cavalrywould have been of little use in such an operation.80 Mounted forces wouldonly have become valuable after the tripartite invasion force had reached theregion around Ptuj, where the Drava broadens. Although we must assumethat cavalry was utilized in this operation, the Carolingian army definitely didnot consist entirely of heavy cavalry.

The statement in the annals that the central army met resistance at threeplaces suggests that the Carolingian army invading Carantania must havebeen subdivided into three units in order to make use of all of the availableroutes through the Alps. These three contingents would have reunited in thefertile Drava valley, where ample surplus existed to support the whole army.Units would have been in a position to attack Liudewit's forces on the upperSava, relieving the pressure on the right wing under Balderich's command andallowing it to advance down the Sava. According to the Royal Annals, theCarolingian army operating from Friuli had been ''prohibited from crossing theAlps by enemy forces." Once the central army had regained control ofCarantania, the position of the rebels who had been defending the passesfrom Friuli to the upper Sava would have become untenable, as they couldnow be attacked from the rear. Moreover, since the Royal Annals make amajor point of the central army's crossing of the Drava, this force must haveseized the bridgehead at Ptuj that would have opened a route for a directassault on Sisak, also making untenable the positions of rebel forcesdefending the clausae against Balderich.

The passage under scrutiny indicates the importance of the reconquest ofCarantania in yet another way. The left wing of the Carolingian exercitus,which proceeded along the Danube to Vienna, then south through Pannoniain the direction of Sisak, encountered difficulties because of the length of themarch and the necessity of crossing the Drava. This army also suffered from



dysentery, "to which a considerable part of it succumbed." From thisdescription it is obvious that the left wing did not follow the road along thefoothills of Burgenland and Eastern Styria in the direction of the bridge atPtuj. This army must have struck out from Szombathely in the



Page 68

direction of Lake Balaton to cross the Drava (disastrously) somewherebetween Ptuj and Osijek (see Map 3). Such a route would have led throughthe swampy country around Lake Balaton, which might explain the annalist'scomplaints about the bad water leading to disease. There is no doubt thatthis left wing encountered logistical difficulties. It did not carry adequate foodand water, and it had problems crossing a major river as well. As far asSzombathely, the army could have obtained necessities locally, but southeastof there troops would have had to rely on a supply train. Commanders couldnot even have counted on being resupplied once the army reached the Drava,for they would have had no knowledge of the success of the central pincer inregaining Carantania. Since the troops consumed bad water and subsequentlysuffered from dysentery, we may assume that the supply train carriedinsufficient supplies of potable water. Moreover, the supply train must haveimpeded the process of crossing the Drava, where, the annalist wrote, "theyencountered misfortune." Had Carantania remained in Carolingian hands, thecampaign against Liudewit would not have caused so many difficulities, sincerivercraft, operating on the Drava from Ptuj, could have furnished logisticalsupport and ferrying services for troops downstream.

There is yet another point worthy of note. According to the Royal Annals,"these armies had been been recruited in Saxony, East Francia [Franconia],and Alamania, as well as Bavaria and Italy." Obviously the Italian contingentsinvaded Pannonia through Friuli. It makes sense that the Alamanni and themajority of the Bavarians would have constituted the center, with the formercrossing the Alps via the Fern Pass and/or the passes in Churraetia, thenmoving through the Tyrol to the Brenner-Pusteria route, and the latterutilizing the passes from Salzburg and the Traungau. Saxons and Franconiansmust, then, have constituted the left wing though they were probably givenlogistical support by other Bavarian contingents along the Danube and byboats in that river. This army (or at least a part of it) may have reached theVienna basin by way of Bohemia, as had been the case in 791. Thus, just toreach Vienna still two hundred kilometers from Sisak, would have been ataxing march, particularly for the Saxons. As we have seen, they had littleenthusiasm for campaigns in the former Avar territory, and they had evenpersuaded Charlemagne to issue a capitulary limiting the number of Saxonswho could be summoned for service there. Whether Louis the Pious observedhis father's directive, we cannot know. Yet, there is no doubt that it was this



wing of the army that suffered the greatest losses in Pannonia in 820; it



Page 69

should, therefore, not surprise us to find that later Frankish monarchs haddifficulties cajoling Saxons to partake in Pannonian campaigns.

In spite of all of these problems, however, the three armies eventually unitedin Lower Pannonia, where they ravished Liudewit's territory and returned totheir bases. The Slavic duke holed up behind the walls of a castellum(Sisak?), which the Franks were not prepared to take. Nevertheless,Carolingian forces had already accomplished a major objective in regainingcontrol of Carantania and Carniola. In this respect the statement in the RoyalAnnals concerning the pack animals is indicative of the complex logisticalproblems that the commanders of the expedition of 820 faced. An enormousnumber of pack animals would have been required in order to support forceswhose mission was the recapture of rebellious mountain provinces and thecrossing of swampy parts of Transdanubia (both of which were in hostilehands) before an invasion of Liudewit's territory around Sisak could evenbegin. Once the crucial routes had been regained, however, the task ofsupporting forces logistically was solved. Like Charlemagne's Avar campaignin 791, the expedition of 820 established control over bases from which futureoperations into the core of enemy territory could be launched. Especiallyimportant must have been control of the river systems of the Drava and Sava,from which Carolingian forces could be supported while operating deep inLiudewit's principality.

The Carolingian annalist realized the importance of the expedition of 820, forhe has left us with a relatively detailed account of it. In contrast, subsequentoperations against Liudewit were only summarily reported. Before Easter of821, Louis the Pious instructed the counts who were to lead the Pannonianinvasion of that year. They entered Liudewit's territory (once again a three-pronged invasion), wasted it, and returned to report to the emperor inOctober. 81 The Royal Annals do not elaborate further. A final attack on thecivitas of Sisak was launched in 822, this time only Italian forcesparticipated.82 Liudewit found refuge with the Serbs south of the Sava. A yearlater he was murdered by Borna's uncle, to whom he had fled after leavingthe Serbs.83 Once again the annalist gives us little information.

There is, however, a report of an incident that yields valuable details. Thepatriarch Fortunatus of Grado was accused of being involved in this rebellionand was summoned before the emperor. Specifically he was charged with



"encouraging Liudewit to persist in his treacherous revolt and of helping himconstruct castella by supplying craftsmen and builders."84 Ignoring theimperial summons, Fortunatus fled to Zadar, where he was received by theByzantine prefect of Dalmatia, who sent him by ship to



Page 70

Constantinople. This point is an important one in the context of this study, forit demonstrates eastern Byzantine interest in halting Carolingian expansion insouthern Pannonia.

Also we must note the fact that Fortunatus had been accused of sendingbuilders to Liudewit to construct fortifications. As we have seen, the largearmies that had invaded Liudewit's territory in 820 had been unable to drivehim from his castellum. Forces operating hundreds of miles from their homebases would have been hard pressed to conduct prolonged sieges. It is,therefore, significant that Liudewit's revolt lasted five years and that marchercommanders had been unable to suppress it on their own. The rebellion wasonly terminated after large numbers of troops from various East Frankishprovinces and from the Italian kingdom had retaken Carantania and Carniolain 820, and, even at that, one more major expedition had to be sent intoPannonia in 821, as well as a smaller one in 822. But now armies could bedispatched from bases much nearer to Liudewit's centers of power whichcould be supported by river boats on the Drava and Sava.

Liudewit's revolt also showed that if Carolingian marcher commanders wereto maintain their control over Pannonia, it would be crucial to integrateCarantania fully into the marcher military organization. A Freising transactiongives us an indication of greater Bavarian penetration into Carantania nearthe end of Liudewit's revolt. 85 In 822, the year in which Liudewit was drivenfrom his civitas on the Sava, Matheri, a Bavarian noble, donated extensivepossessions in eastern Carantania (between Griffen and Trixen) to Innichen,the strategically located monastery in the Val Pusteria. The location of thesedonations is of great importance, for these estates lay at the junction ofroutes from the Traungau and Salzburggau to the Drava road from the ValPusteria.86 From Trixen, roads lead south over the low passes to the upperSava. Near the gateways to southeastern Europe, much of the property in thisregion later fell to the bishopric of Bamberg, the emperor Henry II's favoritesee. To this day remnants of massive fortifications still testify to the enduringstrategic importance of this location. The deed demonstrates that by the820s, Bavarians were occupying strategic locations in Carantania on the roadsleading southeast.

A final point must be made. In spite of the difficulties that the supression ofLiudewit's revolt involved, it is important to note that Louis the Pious showed



determination in committing the resources necessary to bring it eventually toan end. Year after year he dispatched large expeditions to a distant region.These were not campaigns to punish the leaders of petty war bands that hadmade raids into Frankish territory, but rather they were



Page 71

determined efforts to maintain control over this vast territory thatCharlemagne had conquered. It is obvious that Louis, like his father,considered the central Danube to be within a sphere of vital Frankishinterests.

Early Marcher Commanders, 788826

Charlemagne divided command responsibilities for military operations in thisregion between the margrave of Friuli and the prefect of Bavaria. Eric, thefirst margrave of Friuli, was subordinate to Pepin, king of the Lombards;Gerold, the Bavarian prefect, was directly responsible to the Frankish king, hisbrother-in-law. In 799 both of these marcher commanders fell in battle,Gerold while rallying troops against rebellious Avars in Pannonia, Eric duringan uprising in Istria. 87 The latter's immediate successor was probablyCadolah, the margrave at the onset of Liudewit's revolt in 818. When heperished during this rebellion, Balderich, who held the post until 828,succeeded him. Gerold was followed in the office of prefect of Bavaria by theimperial aristocrat Audulf. The consensus is that in 799 (or perhaps 803 atthe latest) Charles appointed a special marcher commander, who was semi-independent of the prefect of Bavaria in the day-to-day administration of thefrontier region. Mitterauer posits the creation of a virtually independent"prefect of the east"though no commander with such a title can be found untilmuch later.88

A major problem in reconstructing the command structure of the marches isthe inconsistent terminology of the sources. The terms comes and missus areused interchangeably for all high-ranking commanders, including the prefects.The word praefectus, on the other hand, is rarely found. Even Gerold andAudulf are generally designated comites. For this reason it is difficult todetermine the chain of command and the degree of subordination thatexisted among the counts. Frequently commanders are given no titles at all.When, for example, Bavarian forces invaded Bohemia in 805, Audulf andWerner (without titles) are mentioned as the leaders of this expedition, but insuch a way that it is impossible to know with certainty whether Werner wasan independent praefectus of the east or a military leader subordinate toAudulf, prefect of the Bavarians.89 Leading figures also often appear with thetitle missi dominici, so frequently that it has been argued that ad hoc missioperated there as Charlemagne's personal agents serving in the marches on



a permanent basis.90

Our best source, the Conversio, uses the term comites confinii to desig-



Page 72

nate those who were responsible for the administration of the marches afterGerold's death. In chapter 10 the Conversio reports, "the first confinii comescommissioned by the emperor was Goteram, the second was Werner, thethird Albrich, the fourth Gotafrid, and the fifth Gerold." 91 This passage isunambiguous: the comites confinii succeeded one another as supremecommanders of the marcher military organization. The theater of theirresponsibilities included Carantania and Pannonia, where Salzburg wasengaged in missionary activities. The author continues, "While the countsnamed above governed this eastern region, there lived in those parts, whichpertained to the see [of Salzburg], chieftains (duces), who were subordinatein the service of the emperor to the above mentioned counts. Their namesare Priwizlauga, Cemicas, Ztoimar, Etgar. After these native leadersBavarians (named Helmwinus, Albgarius, and Pabo) began to govern theabove mentioned territory as a comital lordship (comitatus) given them bythe king."92

A ninth-century reader of the Conversio would have had no difficulty locatingwhere this mission activity was taking place. This "white paper" (as it hasbeen called) was written for the purpose of defending Salzburg's ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, and, consequently, numerous passages are geographicallyexplicit. In chapter 6, for example, the author writes that Pepin, following thecampaign of 796, granted Salzburg the authority to teach the faith and toorganize ecclesiastical life "in that part of Lower Pannonia around LakeBalaton and beyond the Raba to the Drava and from there to where theDrava flows into the Danube."93 This authority was confirmed byCharlemagne when he came to Salzburg during the campaign of 803. In aseparate document of 811, in which the emperor settled a dispute betweenSalzburg and Aquileia, the Drava watershed was once again designated asSalzburg's southern boundary.94 In chapter 7 of the Conversio, we are toldthat Archbishop Arn of Salzburg sent priests into Slavic territory (Sclavinia) "inparts known as Carantania and Lower Pannonia."95 The conformity ofecclesiastical boundaries with the authority of the supreme militarycommander is also emphasized in chapter 8 of the Conversio. In the year798, Archbishop Arn, accompanied by the prefect Geold, traveled to Sclavinia,where together they installed the auxiliary bishop (chorepiscopus) Theoderic,who oversaw ecclesiastical life in the ''region of the Carantanians and theirneighbors in the western part of the Drava [valley] to the confluence of the



Drava with the Danube.''96 The testimony of the Conversio is, then,unequivocal: the command responsibilities of the comes confinii includedCarantania and that part of Pannonia between the Raba and the confluenceof the



Page 73

Drava with the Danube. While indigenous peoples continued to live there asconfederates under their native leaders, the comes confinii possessed animperial mandate to intervene in their affairs. Eventually, Carantanian duceswere replaced by Frankish comites. As for the territory west of the Raba, it isreasonable to assume that it was governed directly by the come confinii andhis subordinates.

Mitterauer has not, however, accepted the list of comites confinii exactly as itstands in the Conversio. He believes that its author, who wrote this defenseof Salzburg's claims for ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this region approximatelyseventy years after Gerold's death, was careless in his enumeration of thecounts and that his presentation does not constitute be it willfully or throughcarelessness or ignorance a true picture of the command structure thatexisted in the marches early in the ninth century. 97 According to hisreconstruction, the list of comites confinii in the Conversio simply gives us thenames of some, but by no means all, of the marcher lords who served on thesoutheastern frontier early in the ninth century. Mitterauer believes thatultimate responsibility for the frontier region was bestowed on a supremecommander (the prefect of the east) who was assisted by two subordinatemargraves. The prefect's command post was situated at Lorch on theDanube.98

As we can see from Chart 1, Mitterauer thinks that the two subordinatecounts in this early marcher organization were the count of the Traungau andthe count of the "lordship between the Enns and the Vienna Woods"(Grafschaft zwischen Enns und Wienerwald). Yet, while the Traungau is foundin a source dated as early as 799 and is referred to regularly in ninth-centurydocuments, Mitterauer invented the lordship between the Enns and theVienna Woods to describe a margravate that he assumed existed under theadministration of a count who was subordinate to the prefect of the east.There are, however, at least four major problems with this reconstruction ofthe organization of the marches.

One may doubt that the author of the Conversio either deliberately falsifiedor accidentally confused his list of the comites confinii. Although one mightsuspect that he altered some facts to promote Salzburg's case forecclesiastical jurisdiction in the east, as of about 870, it is difficult tounderstand how it would have suited his purpose to have falsified the list of



marcher commanders in the early ninth century. Since he was concerned withestablishing his credibility, the Salzburg author of the Conversio would havebeen as clear and factual as possible. The bureaucratic nature of his languageindicates, as a matter of fact, that he was working from docu-



Page 74

Chart 1. Mitterauer's Reconstruction of the Administration of the Marches, 788828.*Prefect of Bavaria and of the East

Gerold I, 788799Prefect of BavariaAudulf, 799c. 818Prefect of the East

Werner, I, 802/3806Goteram II, 808

Gerold II, c. 811832Counts/Margraves (Subordinate to Prefect)

In the Traungau In the Grafschaft zwischen Enns und WienerwaldGraman, 788791 Otachar, 788? Goteram I, c. 802 Cadolac, c. 791802? Whoever was prefect ? AlbrichWilhelm I, 820853 Gotafrid, 806823

Avar and Slavic Leaders/Duces (Subordinate to Counts)In Avar Principality In Slavic Principality(Upper Pannonia) (Carantania, Lower Pannonia)Theodor, 805 PriwizlaugaAbraham, 805? Cemicas

ZtoimarEtgar, ?828

* According to Michael Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 7.



Page 75

ments. 99 Thus, we may rule out the possibility that he was simply ignorant ofthe situation that existed at the beginning of the ninth century. Second, thereis no mention in any document of an independent lordship between the Ennsand the Vienna Woods, the margravate to which Mitterauer arbitrarily assignsmany of the comites, whose lordships he cannot account for. The thirdproblem with Mitterauer's reconstruction is its failure to establish who thecommander of the Traungau was for almost two decades (802820). Finally,his insistence that Gerold II, the fifth comes confinii listed in the Conversio,became prefect of the east as early as 811 is questionable. Since five prefectsbetween 799 and 811 seem an excessive number, he assumed that three ofthe five comites confinii of the Conversio were subordinate commanders,serving in either the Traungau or in the elusive margravate between the Ennsand the Vienna Woods.100

Wolfram, on the other hand, has argued more plausibly that there is noevidence that Gerold II was elevated to the position of prefect before 826,after Louis the German had become king of Bavaria.101 If this is the case,there is no reason why the four other comites confinii listed in the Conversiocould not have been his predecessors. In light of these objections, it,therefore, seems wise to accept the matter-of-fact statement in theConversio that five comites confinii succeeded one another as supremecommanders of the marches between 799 and 826 and that Gerold II was thelast of these to hold that office (c. 826c. 833).

In Mitterauer's view, the first independent prefect was Werner, not Goteram.Werner is indeed mentioned in numerous sources. Together with Audulf heled the invasion of Pannonia in 803 and the Bavarian attack on Bohemia in805. He was also designated as the official responsible for the supervision ofcommerce on the Danube. Without doubt, during the years 803806, Wernerwas the supreme commander of the east, but, as Wolfram has pointed out,there is no reason to challenge the Conversio's assertion that Wernerfollowed Goteram as comes confinii, for the Annales Sancti Emmerammimaiores report, in fact, that a Goteram was killed defending the castellumGuntionis in 802.102 Thus, it is likely that Werner was indeed his successor.

Mitterauer, however, thinks that Goteram must have been a subordinatecount in the Traungau prior to his death. The author of the Conversio, hebelieves, mistook this Goteram for a second count by this name, who



succeeded Werner as prefect circa 808.103 A second Goteram does appear ina document of 808, in which three brothers donated property in Pannonia"among the Avars" to Saint Emmeram in Regensburg to support prayers



Page 76

for their deceased father. 104 Since this Goteram was the second witness ofthis donation, immediately following the Bavarian Prefect Audulf, Mitterauerassumes that he must have been the prefect of the east.

Wolfram, on the other hand, has argued that Count Goteram II was second incommand (secundus) to the prefect Audulf of Bavaria, and, on the basis ofanother document, he insists that his lordship must have been located inBavaria, not in the eastern marches.105 This source reports a legal proceedingin which Goteram, who is not designated count, was forced to return propertynear Erding, which he had seized illegally, to a priest, Otker, who thendonated it to the see of Freising.106 This incident proves only, however, thatGoteram claimed lands in western Bavaria, not that his lordship was actuallylocated there. As is well known, the allodial possessions of the aristocratickindreds who dominated the regnum Francorum were scattered over wideareas. Those men who held lordships in the marches continued to concernthemselves with the disposition of ancestral lands in Bavaria and elsewhere.Hence, Goteram's dispute with the priest Otker over estates near Erdingcannot be taken as proof that his lordship was in Bavaria rather than in themarches. Nor is Wolfram's argument convincing that Goteram was thesecundus to Audulf in Bavaria simply because his name appears immediatelyafter the prefect's in one document. Were such an assumption true, weshould expect to find his name appearing frequently in the rich cache ofBavarian documents dating from the late eighth and early ninth centuries.However, as Mitterauer pointed out, Goteram is a name that rarely appearsin Bavarian sources.107 Although Mitterauer has not developed enoughevidence to justify modifying the Conversio and to list Goteram II as one ofthe comites confinii, Goteram II undoubtedly did have interests in themarches, which offers the best explanation for his name appearing secondamong a list of nobles witnessing the donation of lands among the Avars toSaint Emmeram in 808.

But Goteram II need not have been prefect of the east. A more likely scenariosuggests that he was a subordinate count commanding forces based inSzombathely. Most authorities date the origin of this lordship from 837, whena certain Rihheri, who definitely held this office, first appears in thesources.108 Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that this lordshipwas an integral part of the early military organization of the southeasternmarches. Because of its location, control of Szombathely would have been



indispensable if Carolingian forces based in Bavaria were to interveneeffectively in Lower Pannonia. Due to Szombathely's possibilities as a base forlogistical operations in Pannonia, it is difficult to discount



Page 77

the presence of a garrison there under a Frankish margrave immediately afterCharlemagne's campaign of 791. As we have seen, between 800 and 805 acastellum at Szombathely was raised that became a center of comitaladministration at that time. 109 All of the evidence, including its designationas a civitas (as well as the fact that it was still known by its Roman name ofSavaria in the ninth century), points to a continuity of settlement there fromlate antiquity through the Carolingian period. We must also remember that in791 Charlemagne had found it expedient to gain control over the city of SaintMartin, before turning back. As we have argued, Szombathely, just east of themountains of Burgenland, would have been a necessary advance base fromwhich to launch strikes against Avars beyond the Danube, as well as againstLiudewit and his followers on the Sava. The unfortunate left wing of the armythat was sent out against the rebel duke in 820 must have used the roadsthrough Szombathely in its invasion of Lower Pannonia.

The first Goteram died in 802 fighting Avars at the castellum Guntionis.Earlier scholars assumed that this fortification was at Köszeg (Güns), twentykilometers north of Szombathely. Although Walter Steinhauser and (morerecently) Tóth have proved this assumption false, it is virtually certain thatCarolingian commanders were constructing stone castella beyond the ViennaWoods in the early ninth century.110 Goteram perished with Count Cadolah atthe castellum Guntionis. Who was the latter? Where was his lordship? IfGoteram had been the first comes confinii, as the Conversio states, it islogical that Cadolah was his subordinate, the margrave in Szombathely.When, after Goteram and Cadolah died in 802, Werner, an imperial aristocratwith no previous connections with these marches, was appointed to replaceGoteram I as the comes confinii, Goteram II, an imperial aristocrat from anillustrious kindred, may well have been furious, necessitating an effort toplacate him with an appointment to command the garrison in Szombathely,which Cadolah's death would have left vacant. Goteram II's role as a witnessto the deed of 808 could, then, be plausibly explained, for this documentdeals with lands "among the Avars," who settled between Szombathely andPetronel in 805. The count of Szombathely must, then, have been mandatedto oversee this Avar "reservation," and, thus, Goteram II would have beenthe logical official to have guaranteed the transfer of ownership of thisproperty to Saint Emmeram in Regensburg.

It is also likely that Gerold II succeeded Goteram as count in Szombathely,



circa 811, only becoming comes confinii much later. Mitterauer and



Page 78

others argued that Gerold must have become prefect in 811 because he waspresent in Aachen, where Charlemagne assembled Avar and Slavic chieftainsin an attempt to settle their differences. 111 Count Gerold appears on thatoccasion in a royal charter, in which, at his request, forty homesteads (mansi)in Avaria were granted to the monastery of Niederaltaich.112 These mansiwere, however, located near Melk, now Lower Austria. During the early yearsof the ninth century, Avaria seems to have been a term that was used for thelands east of the Enns, lands that had been under Avar occupation.113

Nevertheless, it is significant that the count of Szombathely, the lordship thatbordered on the territory inhabited by the Avars, was present at an assemblyin which Avar affairs were high on the agenda.

Certainly, we are on safe ground if we accept Mitterauer's argument that thetwo Goterams were closely related and that they belonged to a kindred thathad clustered around Otachar, the famous missus Audaccrus, who, with CountGraman, defeated the Avars on the Ybbsfeld in 788.114 Otachar may havebeen one of the most illustrious figures in the second half of the eighthcentury. Perhaps he was the Otachar who appears with the imperial aristocratFulrad of Saint-Denis in a source dating from 751 and who in 754 escortedPope Stephen to Francia on the mission that resulted in Pepin's coronation.The same Otachar also partook in the successful Lombard campaign of 756,and a papal document of 760 referred to him as gloriosissimus dux. Thoughobviously a fidelis of Pepin, he distanced himself from Charles. There was anOtachar (or perhaps two) involved in the conspiracies between Carloman,Tassilo, and the Lombard ruler Desiderius. In 769 an Otachar accompaniedTassilo south of the Alps to negotiate with the Lombard king. On the returntrip Tassilo's entourage stopped in Bolzano to issue the foundation charter forInnichen, a document in which an Otachar appears as a witness.115 AnOtachar, no doubt the gloriosissimus dux, supported Carloman, and he fledinto exile with the latter's widow in 771. Nevertheless, by 778 he hadmanaged to restore himself to Charlemagne's grace.

It is impossible to determine whether Carloman's supporter was the sameOtachar who was in Tassilo's train in Bolzano in 769. There certainly was anOtachar who resided frequently in Bavaria, where, in 779, he and his brotherAdalbert founded the monastery of Tegernsee, which was closely affiliatedwith the Franconian abbey of Fulda. There was another Otachar whoeventually became a Fulda monk himself. He, however, was not the same



person as the gloriosissimus dux or the Bavarian Otachar.116 Nevertheless,the Otacharen in Bavaria must have been closely related (on their



Page 79

paternal side) to the Franconian branch of this kindred, which was prominentaround Mainz. It is among this "Fulda group" that the name Goteram is found,and it must have been because of close ties with the Bavarian Otachar thatthe two Goterams came to the marches in the first place. On the maternalside, however, the founders of Tegernsee were related to the great kindredsof Bavaria.

If the Bavarian Otachar was the same man who became a prominent figure inthe regnum Francorum in the early 750s, he would have been nearing theend of his eventful career at the beginning of the Avar Wars. As the éminencegrise of this kindred, Otachar would have attracted ambitious relatives. Heprobably died in the 790s, for Eric Zöllner has argued convincingly that hefounded the monastery of Sankt Pölten in the fertile Traisen valley shortlyafter the conquest of Lower Austria. 117 In any case, before his demiseOtachar must have promoted the interest of at least the first Goteram in themarches, for without this connection it is difficult to explain why this Goteramrose to such prominence there early in the ninth century. On the basis ofZöllner's conclusion that Otachar founded Sankt Pölten, Mitterauer arguesthat he was the first count of the margravate between the Enns and theVienna Woods. But all that we know with certainty is that he was one of twocommanders against the Avars in 788, before the conquest of Lower Austriahad even begun.

Mitterauer's argument that Cadolah succeeded Otachar in the margravate isalso unconvincing. Cadolah does appear as comes in 791 the year of theconquest of Lower Austria.118 How could he possibly have succeeded Otacharas count in Lower Austria in the very year in which it was taken from theAvars? On the other hand, this Count Cadolah must have been the one whoperished at the castellum Guntionis in 802. Yet, nothing in these tworeferences permits us to identify Cadolah with the hypothetical margravatebetween the Enns and the Vienna Woods. The simple fact that his nameappears before that of Graman in a list of witnesses in a deed does not, byitself, prove that Cadolah was the commander of the Lower Austrian lordship.As Mitterauer himself admits, except for his death, Cadolah's career is"otherwise completely in the dark."119

Nevertheless, Cadolah must have been an important person. The nameChadalhoh with numerous variants was a prominent one in the Alamannian



ducal house, the so-called Alaholfinger kindred, and, as we have seen,another count by the name of Cadolah arose to become margrave of Friuli atsome date before Liudewit's revolt. Testifying to the Bavarian Cadolah'simportance is the fact that he was listed just before Graman in the docu-



Page 80

ment mentioned above. Mitterauer reasons, correctly I think, that thisCadolah was one of those magnates whom the prefect Gerold had broughtwith him to the marches from his homeland near Lake Constance inAlamania. Just as Goteram (a Franconian) was attracted to this march by thepresence of Otachar, the leading member of his kindred, Cadolah sawopportunities in frontier service due to the presence there of his kinsmanGerold. Following the campaign of 791, the prefect would have been inclinedto give the responsibility of fortifying and garrisoning the crucial junction atSzombathely to a trusted subordinate, who was also a promising member ofhis own kindred. As the commander of Frankish garrisons in and aroundSzombathely on the borders of Pannonia, he would have had the opportunityto display his martial talents and to become one of the leading figures in themarches before his untimely death at the castellum Guntionis in 802.

Mitterauer identifies Albrich and Gotafrid as Cadolah's successors in themargravate between the Enns and the Vienna Woods. 120 Like Goteram,however, these two are listed in the Conversio as comites confinii. Zöllner, inan imaginative essay, argues that Albrich must have been Aubri le Bourgoingof the Old French epics, a Burgundian noble who won fame for himself inBavaria fighting against the "peoples of the east."121 Albrich (Alprih) is one ofa number of Burgundian names that appear in Bavarian sources in the eighthand ninth centuries. Members of his kindred must have come to Bavariaearlier, however, for the name Alprih is common in Freising land transactionsduring the eighth century.122 His Burgundian heritage obviously came fromhis father, whose name, Cundpato, is found often in Burgundy.123 His motherKepahilt, however, came from a prominent Bavarian clan.

Because the Alprihs in the Bavarian sources were particularly well endowedwith property in the upper Isen Valley, they must have been members of thekindred that clustered around Graman, the count in the Traungau and theother hero of the battle on the Ybbsfeld in 788.124 In 844 a noble Cundpato, ason of Albrich, donated property to Freising.125 Mitterauer has noted thatamong the witnesses are men who, the Conversio reports, were present atthe consecration of Saint Mary's church at Moosburg near Lake Balaton fiveyears later.126 Thus, these men must have been potentes who were active inPannonia. The first witness was Amalrich, who later testified at an inquest inthe palace of Baden (just south of Vienna), in 869, concerning disputedproperty rights near Pitten, on the route through Burgenland to



Szombathely.127 Another witness was Arfrid, who was cer-



Page 81

tainly among the magnates of the east. He was a vassal of ArchbishopLiudepram of Salzburg and advocatus of the monastery of Mondsee. 128 In845 Cundpato made a second donation to Freising. On this occasion the firstwitness was the comes Pabo, a member of the Gramans, and the leadingfigure in Carantania at that time.129 Later in the century a deacon Cundpatodonated lands in Pannonia inferioris to Regensburg.130 All of this evidencepoints to the conclusion that the nobles who were closely associated withAlbrich had wide-ranging interest in the southeast, in Upper Austria, inCarantania, and in both Upper and Lower Pannonia. The far-flung activities ofhis kinsmen in the southeast are an indication that Albrich must have beenone of the five comites confinii enumerated in the Conversio, not simply acount in Lower Austria.

It is virtually certain that Albrich, through his mother, belonged to the samekindred as Gotafrid, the fourth comes confinii in the Conversio.131 As we havenoted, Albrich's mother was Kepahilt. In 738 another woman by that nametogether with her husband Cotafrid (a variant spelling of Gotafrid) founded aconvent on the Inn near Braunau. This cloister, in which their daughterCotalind took the veil, was a private family foundation of a branch of theGraman kindred. The prefix Cota (or sometimes Gota) was common in thisfamily, for in 803 a second Cotalind, with her brother Popili, possessed thisconvent. From a number of documents in which Popili appears, it is apparentthat he was associated with the Wilhelminer group of the Gramans. ACotahelm, for example, was a kinsman who witnessed the donation of one oftheir convents, Rotthalmünster, to Passau (c. 790).132 During advent of 806,an assembly of lay and ecclesiastical notables took place in the palace ofAltötting on the Inn. In a Freising deed issued on this occasion, a Cotafridappears for the first time with the comital title.133 He must have been animportant person, for his name is third among the counts, following those ofAudulf and Werner.

Since Werner was obviously still commander of the marches in 806,Mitterauer assumes that Gotafrid in the Conversio list was his subordinateand assigns him, like so many others, to the margravate between the Ennsand the Vienna Woods. There was, however, another marcher command postunaccounted for in 806, the Traungau, which had been held by Graman,Gotafrid's famous relative. Even if we assume (as Mitterauer does) thatGoteram I succeeded Graman in the Traungau, for almost two decades it is



impossible to identify the holder of this important lordship.134 As we know,Goteram died in 802. Yet only in 820 can Wilhelm, another member of theGramans, be documented as count in the Traungau.135 It stands to



Page 82

reason then that the Count Cotafrid listed behind Audulf and Werner in theFreising deed of 806 was identical with the Count Gotafrid in the Traungau,rather than a hypothetical margrave between the Enns and the ViennaWoods. This Gotafrid could then have followed his relative Albrich to becomethe forth comes confinii, just as the Conversio states. Since a Count Gotafridappears as an important person in a Regensburg deed of 822, 136 it seemslikely that this Gotafrid was the fourth commander of the marcher militaryorganization.

If we take into account that Gerold II can only be documented as thecommander of the east from 826, both Albrich and Gotafrid could easily haveheld the post of comes confinii in the two decades after Werner disappearsfrom the sources, circa 807. Such a succession to the highest command postin the marches would explain why Aubri le Bourgoing of the epic earned hisreputation as a warrior against the ''peoples of the east.'' Mitterauer insiststhat Albrich must have held his command during the Avar Wars, around thefin de siècle, because "these years were much more active than was therelatively calm period between 806 and 811."137 If, however, Albrich's tenurelasted until circa 820, then he would have played a major role in puttingdown Liudewit's revolt (818823), a widespread rebellion, which, as we haveseen, engulfed the entire central Danubian basin and even lapped over thehigh comb of the Tauern range, seriously threatening the militaryorganization of the marches. As comes confinii in the year 820, he wouldhave been the commander of those Bavarian units that forced their waythrough the passes into Carantania. As stated earlier, it was this centralthrust of the Carolingian exercitus that broke the back of the revolt.

The above discussion makes it clear that the Graman clan, of which Albrichand Gotafrid were both members, must have played a leading role in themilitary organization of the marches. Within this large and rather amorphouskindred, it is convenient to isolate the so-called Wilhelminer group, whichvery nearly developed into a dynasty in the course of the ninth century, as weshall later see. The earliest identifiable ancestor of this group was a Wilhelmwho founded Rotthalmünster.138 In the eighth century the possessions of theGramans seem to have been primarily located on the upper Isen and aroundSalzburg. In Graman's lifetime the family property was apparently divided.While he took over possessions near Salzburg, his brothers inherited estateson the Isen. After 777 Graman disappears from the Isen group, which was



closely associated with the see of Freising, and, subsequently, he was listed(along with Otachar) as one of the chief benefactors of Salzburg. Graman'srelationship with Salzburg can probably



Page 83

be traced to the elevation of Arn to the episcopal dignity after Virgil's death in784. 139 Arn, also a member of this kindred, had left Bavaria as a young manfor the Frankish heartland, where he developed a special relationship withAlcuin and, through him, with the king. When, in his middle years, hereturned to Bavaria at Charlemagne's insistence, he was well prepared towork for the realization of Carolingian goals.

Mitterauer argues effectively that Graman was one of those Bavarian nobleswhose defection made Tassilo's cause a hopeless one.140 The fact thatGraman, along with Otachar, was given command responsibility against theAvars in 788 (the year when Tassilo was deposed) means that he was apowerful and respected leader of Bavarian military forces. Along with hislordship in the Traungau came landed possessions in that region where thekindred had not been prominent earlier. As count, he occupied one of the keycommand positions in the marcher military organization. Due to the salttrade, the Traungau was the base for a large concentration of rivercraft, andwe can assume an infrastructure of boatwrights and river pilots. TheTraungau count would, then, have been responsible for the organization oflogistics on the Danube. In addition, he would have been the logical choice tosupervise the roads over the relatively low Pyhrn and Pötschen passes to themiddle Enns, the Carantanian frontier. The services of the Traungau countwould have been crucial in supporting invasions of both Pannonia (via theDanube) and Carantania (via the passes).

Because of logistical considerations, we must add another count to the list ofcommanders of the early marcher military organization. This is Count Rihheri,who was in charge of the lordship of Mattiggau and who was another memberof Graman's kindred. He first appears without a comital title circa 790.141 Inthis document a noblewoman, Irmiswint, with the permission of her kin,donated the convent of Rotthalmünster (built by Wilhelm) to Passau. Rihheriwas the first of these blood relatives to witness this document, which meansthat he was an esteemed member of the clan. As count, he was present atthe manumission of two slaves in Mattighofen in February of 802.142 InOctober of the same year, he was in Salzburg, where he received fiefs in theMattiggau from the bishop of Passau.143 He was also among the notableswho assembled at Altötting in December of 806.144 His position as the fifthcount on a list that includes Werner and Gotafrid indicates that he was animportant leader in the frontier region.



Rihheri served as count in the Mattiggau until at least 822.145 He must havehad the crucial task of assembling supplies, pack animals, food, and fodderfor armies on the march over the passes toward Carantania. Mat-



Page 84

tighofen, the center of his lordship, lies only eight kilometers fromStraßwalchen where there was a junction of Roman roads, one leadingsoutheast toward Atterhofen and the passes to the middle Enns, while thesecond branched southward in the direction of Salzburg, through the Pongauand over the Radstädter Tauern Pass. Straßwalchen was also the point wherethe road from Wels intersected these routes. 146 In a document of 802Mattighofen was designated as a part of the royal domain (fiscus publicus).Surrounding it was a huge complex of fiscal property, which bears testimonyto the king's interest in the Inn-Salzach region.147 Provisions from royalestates must have been gathered by comital agents and collected at centralpoints along roads where storage facilities existed. In addition toMattighofen, Altötting and Ranshofen became Carolingian palatia during thecourse of the ninth century, and, as we shall see later, Altötting actuallybecame the favorite residence of Louis the German's son Carloman, who isburied there. The latter's illegitimate son Arnulf was also frequently in thisdistrict preparing for Alpine crossings. Royal itineraries, which we shallexamine later in detail, suggest that kings, when moving toward thesoutheastern marches, followed a route that led from Regensburg toAltötting, Ranshofen, and then Mattighofen. Because of its importance in thecommunications infrastructure of this region, Mattighofen may also have beenelevated to the rank of royal palace.

The inclusion of Count Rihheri on our list of marcher commanders isimportant, for it leads to an assessment of the roles that various kindredsplayed in the marches. The picture derived from this analysis is very differentfrom Mitterauer's. If we include the count of the Mattiggau in the organizationof the marches, the role that Graman's clan must have played in thecommand structure is considerably more prominent than has been thought. IfAlbrich succeeded Werner as the comes confinii and was in turn followed byGotafrid, another member of the same clan, then Graman's kin literallydominated the military organization of the marches during the first twodecades of the ninth century, especially if we recognize that the venerableArn, who served as archbishop of Salzburg until 821, also commandedsignificant military forces. It seems likely that Gotafrid was count in theTraungau before succeeding Albrich as comes confinii. But even if we rejectthe latter possibility as unwarranted speculation, it is certain that Wilhelm,another member of this kindred, had become count in the Traungau by 820.



All of this indicates that the Gramans must have been the most importantcommanders of Carolingian forces during the rebellion of South Slavs, knownas Liudewit's revolt. Since these commanders would have drawn



Page 85

upon the martial energies of other kinsmen in the suppression of therebellion, it is obvious that this kindred became involved in hostile conflictswith South Slavs early in the history of the Carolingian marches. As we shallsee, most scholars assume that the hostility that existed later between theGramans and the Moravians was based on the role that the Wilhelminerplayed in Lower Austria north of the Danube. 148 If, however, ourreconstruction of the early command structure of the marches is correct, theWilhelminer would have come into hostile conflict with South Slavs residing inCarantania and Lower Pannonia long before any scholar has been able todate their activities in Lower Austria north of the Danube.

This assessment of the role of the Gramans in the marches differs sharplywith Mitterauer's, who argues that no kindred succeeded in dominatingmarcher commands during the first phase of frontier development.149 In hisopinion various clans, such as the Otacharen and the Gerolden, as well as theGramans, competed for these lordships, leaving kings in the enviable positionof being able to dispense these offices in a way that allowed them to play thegreat kindreds off against one another. This position is only tenable ifMitterauer's reconstruction of the early marches and their respectivecommanders is correct. His hypothetical marcher organization, however,discounts the testimony of a major source, the Conversio, which clearly statesthat there were five successive comites confinii, following one another inoffice beginning with Goteram and ending with Gerold. Mitterauer reducedthis number to three, beginning with Werner. Without apparent reason, heassigned Count Goteram I to the lordship of the Traungau. As for Albrich andGotafrid, Mitterauer made them counts of the margravate between the Ennsand the Vienna Woods, a lordship to which no source attests. In allprobability, however, the district between the Enns and the Vienna Woodswas not an independent lordship, but was held directly by the comes confinii.Mitterauer dates Gerold II's tenure as prefect of the east from 811, in spite ofthe fact that he can only be documented as holding that office in 826. To fillthe gap between 807, when Werner last appears, and 811, Mitterauer dubsGoteram II as the second prefect of the east, once again ignoring thetestimony of the Conversio. Finally, his reconstruction is unable to account forthe well-documented lordship of the Traungau, at least during the first twodecades of the ninth century.

Although Chart 2 is hypothetical in regard to subordinate counts, it is an



alternative explanation of the military organization of the marches that doesaway with the need to disregard the testimony of the Conversio and to inventan independent margravate between the Enns and the Vienna Woods.



Page 86

Chart 2. The Probable Command Structure of the Marches, 788826.Prefect of BavariaGerold I, 788799Audulf, 799c. 818

Prefect of the East/Comes ConfiniiGoteram I, 799802Werner I, 802/3806

Albrich, after 806c. 820/2Gotafrid, 822c. 825Gerold II, 826832

Counts Subordinate to Prefect of the EastIn the Mattiggau In the Traungau In Szombathely (civitas Savaria)Rihheri, 802822 Graman, 791? Cadolah

Gotafrid, 806? Goteram II, 806?Wilhelm I, 820853

Avar and Slavic Leaders/Duces (Subordinate to Counts)In Avar Principality In Slavic Principality(Upper Pannonia) (Carantania, Lower Pannonia)Theodor, 805 PriwizlaugaAbraham, 805? Cemicas

ZtoimarEtgar, ?828

Chart 2 assumes that the five individuals listed as comites confinii followedone another as supreme commanders for the entire region bounded by theconfluences of the Enns and the Drava with the Danube. The comes confiniiwas responsible for the overall conduct of military operations in this theaterand for the supervision of Slavic and Avar confederates who resided undertheir duces in Carantania and Pannonia.

The marcher commander was assisted by two subordinate counts in



Page 87

Upper Austria (see Map 4). The first of these was the count in the Traungau,who controlled the route along the Danube and the roads over passes leadingto the middle Enns. The second was the count in the Mattiggau who wasresponsible for the administration of a dense complex of royal estates in theInn-Salzach region on the road to passes in the Salzburg region. This modelsuggests that Danubian Lower Austria was administered directly by thecomes confinii and was a considerably larger lordship than Mitterauerthought, expanding from the Enns to the point where the eastern slopes ofBurgenland give way to the rolling country of Transdanubia. As we shall see,Ratpot, Gerold II's successor, held a lordship whose eastern boundary ranalong the eastern slopes of Burgenland where it bordered on the county ofSzombathely. Although it must be admitted that Ratpot's lordship cannot bedocumented before the 830s, the source in which it first appears does notgive the impression that it was a new creation at that time. Moreover, from amilitary point of view, it is unlikely that such a strategically importantfortification at a junction of roads would have remained without a garrisonunder the command of a count in the early years of the ninth century, whenFrankish forces were striving to extend their hegemony over Avars and Slavsin Pannonia and when they had to deal with such a significant threat as thatposed by Liudewit's revolt. Moreover, archaeological investigations tend toconfirm our assumption that Szombathely became a margravate shortly afterCharlemagne's Avar wars.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have examined the Carolingian conquest of Avaria, thesuppression of the first major challenge to Frankish hegemony in the centralDanubian basin, and the command structure of the marches that wereestablished there. In each segment we noted that the orientation of thesemarches was toward the southeast. Throughout this period Carolingianleaders exhibited little interest in the region north of the Danube.

The conquest of Avaria and the suppression of Liudewit's revolt indicates thatCharlemagne and Louis the Pious were determined to establish and maintaina military hegemony over a vast region of southeastern Europe thatencompassed the former Roman provinces of Noricum Mediterraneum, bothPannonias, as well as parts of Dalmatia and perhaps of Moesia. Ernst Klebelnoted many years ago that the eastward penetration of





Page 88

Carolingian power into the central Danubian basin was notably greater in thisregion than it was in areas to the north. 150 Along the Elbe and Saale riversand along the fringes of Bohemia, marcher military organizations werecreated that allowed commanders to intervene in the affairs of confederatepeoples on the other side of the border. But in these theaters the strikingdistance of marcher armies was limited to approximately ninety kilometers.In contrast, the distance in air miles from Linz to the centers of Avar power ismore than 400 kilometers, and it is 350 kilometers from Salzburg to Sisak.Even from Cividale it is more that 250 kilometers to Sisak as the crow flies.The Friulian armies that were sent out against the Avars under King Pepinhad to traverse 500 kilometers to reach the ring.

In the conduct of such large-scale military operations, Carolingiancommanders obviously paid careful attention to geography and logistics. Thefour main invasion routes to the southeast that we discussed in theoreticalterms in Chapter 1 can be documented in the sources for Charlemagne's Avarwars and for Louis the Pious's campaigns against Liudewit. The first was theDanube itself. The second followed the Danube to Vienna, then southeast toSzombathely. The third (including three subroutes) went through the easternBavarian clausae to the Drava, and the fourth from Friuli to the upper Sava.Waterways must have been important in the logistical support of armies. Thesources indicate that Charlemagne realized the potential that the Danubeoffered. But he was also determined to regain control over a network of roadsleading to the southeast. This task he accomplished when, in his firstcampaign, he marched into Szombathely, the city of Saint Martin, wherenumerous Roman roads intersected, roads that constituted the ancient landroutes through Pannonia. From the description of Liudewit's revolt in theRoyal Annals, it is apparent that the routes from Bavaria through the Alpswere extremely important for the military domination of Pannonia. In fact,control of Carantania was absolutely essential if communications betweenBavaria and Friuli were to be maintained during any invasion of Pannonia.The Carolingian marcher military organization that developed on the bordersof these two major regions was obviously able to support armies operatingfar from their home bases and over difficult terrain in the eastern Alps and inPannonia. Equally apparent is the fact that this organization was orientedtoward southeastern Europe, toward the region where the Drava, Sava,Tisza, Drina, and southern Morava merge with the Danube. In this theater



both Charlemagne and Louis the Pious demonstrated that they were willingto commit major resources over many years to accomplish their objectives.



Page 89

Finally, scrutiny of the command structure of the marches during these yearsleads to the conclusion that the list of comites confinii in the Conversio can betrusted. Between 800 and 830 there were indeed five men who succeededone another as supreme commanders of the military organization of thefrontier. Subordinate to the comes confinii were three Carolingian counts, inthe Mattiggau, the Traungau, and Szombathely. The comes confinii himselfexercised direct control over a lordship that stretched from Lorch in the westthrough the hills of Burgenland to the margravate of Szombathely. Avarremnants were settled on a reservation on the Kis Alföld, a plain too small tosupport nomadism. Throughout this period the Carantanian Slavs remainedunder their dukes, but the comes confinii had a mandate to intervene in theiraffairs. Important command posts in the marches were held by imperialaristocrats from such kindreds as the Gerolden and the Otacharen. However,a large Bavarian clan, the Gramans, controlled important positions as well.We shall see that the Gramans came to dominate the marches during muchof the ninth century; indeed much of the remainder of this book chronicles therise and fall of this frontier kindred.



Page 90

4.Reorganization of the Marches, 826846

Introduction

The difficulties that Carolingian arms encountered in dealing with Liudewit'srebellion underlined the necessity of reorganizing the military structure ofthese marches. The policy of establishing hegemony over Slavic clients, whoinhabited the eastern Alps and Transdanubia, could not ensure effectivedomination of those parts. Although Carolingian forces did have the capacityto intervene, Liudewit's revolt had demonstrated that such interventions werecostly affairs, involving repeated invasions over an extended period.

No reorganization was carried out, however, immediately following Liudewit'srebellion. The consensus is that no important changes took place until after828; then, it is believed, a series of organizational transformations reshapedthe marches within a few years (828833). 1 The argument is as follows.Beginning in 828, under the watchful eye of the young Louis the German thenking of the Bavarians who had established his court in Regensburg in 826,attempts were made to devise a more effective means of subordinatingPannonia and Carantania. New marcher lordships were created beyond theAlps and the Vienna Woods, and even the lordship on the upper Sava wasdetached from the march of Friuli and placed under the jurisdiction of theBavarian king. A Slavic duke no longer ruled Carantania. Instead, power therewas given to Bavarian commanders (duces), who governed this region as aFrankish comital lordship (in comitatum).2 The overall commandresponsibility, however, continued to be in the hands of the prefect of theeast, who moved closer to the frontier, where he also controlled directly thenewly created county of Upper Pannonia, and it was around this time (mostauthorities believe) that the county of Szombathely took shape. It is alsoasserted that the most important offices and commands in this reorganizedfrontier region were given to a group of Franconian magnates, whom Louishad brought with him to Bavaria and its



Page 91

marches. Finally, it is assumed that the events triggering these developmentswere connected with Bulgar invasions of Pannonia, which began in 827 andcontinued until 832.

Although this version of the reorganization of the frontier has won wideacceptance, there is surprisingly little evidence to support it. It rests upon thehypothesis that it was the Bulgar invasions of 828 that motivated thechanges. In fact, the Royal Annals mention only that the march of Friuli (butnot the Bavarian marches) was restructured as a result of Bulgar attacks. 3For the part of the frontier that bordered on Bavaria, which was under thesupervision of Louis the German, we only know that the Slavic duke ofCarantania was replaced by a Bavarian circa 830, and the Conversio draws noconnection between this event and the Bulgar invasions. On the other hand,there is reason to believe that problems of an internal nature involvingconflicts within the ruling family were more important factors in thereorganization of the Bavarian marches than were the Bulgars. Indeed, it wasstruggles within the stirps regis that motivated Louis to organize comitallordships in Carantania and to detach the lordship on the upper Sava from themargravate of Friuli. Once these tasks had been accomplished at the end ofthe 830s, the East Frankish ruler began the process of restructuring Pannoniain the 840s, appointing Pribina as dux in the region east of the Rabaextending to the confluence of the Drava with the Danube and intervening inMoravia to establish Rastislav as the leader of the Sclavi Margenses.

The Bulgar Invasions

In 827, Bulgars, operating from ships on the Drava, began a series of raidsinto Pannonia, where they did some damage and succeeded in replacingSlavic duces, who had been loyal to the Franks, with their own underlings(rectores).4 Although the precise causes of this conflict are uncertain, theannalist indicates that they arose because of border disputes which numerousBulgar legations had brought to the attention of the emperor without success.The first of these embassies arrived in Francia as early as 824.5 Initially Louisthe Pious was impressed with the ambassadors and immediately dispatchedan envoy, a Bavarian named Machelm, to the khan. However, when Bulgarrepresentatives returned for a second time within the same year, theemperor in Aachen for Christmas had obviously lost his willingness to dealwith them. He told them to wait in Bavaria "until





Page 92

just the right moment,'' which did not occur until five months later mid-May ofthe following year. 6 Although Louis finally received them, little wasaccomplished, and another legation arrived in Aachen in 826, this time withfirm instructions from the khan to inform the emperor that frontier disputesbetween them should be resolved without further delay.7 Yet, delay Louis did,excusing himself because of a rumor that the khan had been overthrown.

Also from the Royal Annals, under the year 824, we learn that a people''commonly called Praedenecenti" were involved in conflicts with the Bulgars.8In Aachen their representatives appeared secretly before the emperor, whohad been informed of their arrival, while Bulgar envoys were in Bavaria,awaiting their summons to the court. The Praedenecenti complained aboutBulgar aggression against them and requested the emperor's assistance.Louis ordered them to go to their quarters and to return when he was readyto receive the Bulgar legates. It seems that the emperor wanted to confrontthe Bulgars with the accusations of the Praedenecenti. Unfortunately, theannalist does not follow up on the results of this confrontation, if it occurredat all, for the Praedenecenti vanish completely from the sources.

Although they obviously played some role in Frankish-Bulgar relations, little isknown about the Praedenecenti, who appear only twice in the Royal Annalsand are not mentioned in any other source. The only certain knowledgeregarding them is that they lived "in Dacia adjacent to the Danube near theBulgarian border." This report troubles some historians, for the annalistseems to indicate that the Praedenecenti were Abodrites, a people known tohave been settled hundreds of kilometers to the north, bordering on theSaxons, east of the Elbe and near the Baltic Sea.9 Also puzzling is theannalist's comment that the Praedenecenti are "commonly" called by thatname, a curious designation, for all other Sclavi are known by their ethnicnames. Nevertheless, historians write that the Praedenecenti were Abodriteswho had migrated to the southeast, though the annalist makes no suchassertion.10 It is generally presumed that they were designatedPraedenecenti to avoid confusing them with other Abodrites residing fartherto the north.

The only other occasion when Praedenecenti are mentioned in the annals isunder the year 822. This event was a general convocation of Slavs who didhomage to Louis the Pious following the capture of Sisak.11 Immediately



preceding the Praedenecenti, Moravians (Marvani) are mentioned for the firsttime in a Frankish source. Besides these two peoples, Abodriti, Sorabi, Wilzi,and Beheimi are listed as are "Avars residing in



Page 93

Pannonia," a statement implying that other Avars lived elsewhere. The Slavsin this text are listed from the north to the southeast along a line formed bythe Elbe, the Bohemian Forest, and the Danube, with the Abodrites and theSorbs being the tribes nearest the Baltic and with the Moravians and thePraedenecenti residing somewhere in the central Danubian basin. Thus, fromthe order in which these peoples are enumerated, one is led to believe that in822, the Marvani occupied territory somewhere between the Bohemians(Beheimi) and the Praedenecenti, who, according to the entry under the year824, resided in Dacia and were neighbors of the Bulgars. From the report of822, as it has been edited in the Scriptores of the Monumenta GermaniaeHistorica, two points are of interest. First of all, in this case, thePraedenecenti are not identified as Abodrites at all, but rather as a distinctpeople separated from the latter by four other Slavic peoples, includingBohemians and Moravians.

Boba has called attention to the fact that this text, as it appears in modernprinted editions, is misleading. 12 He notes that the editors of the MonumentaGermaniae Historica were cavalier in capitalization and punctuation,interpolating medieval text according to modern standards. The use of theterm Praedenecenti, in the entry under the year 822, is an example of suchediting. Capitalized as an ethnic designation (equivalent in this text to suchother ethnicities mentioned as Abodriti, Sorabi, Wilzi, Beheimi, and Marvani)the word Praedenecenti has led modern historians astray. Its usage in thisway goes back to Pertz's folio edition in the MGH Scriptores 1 (1826).13

Although Kurze in his edition, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usumscholarum (1895), accepted Pertz's text, he did add the useful note that thetwo oldest manuscripts, the Codex Bertinianus and the Codex Vindobonensis,do not have the designation Praedenecenti at all, but rather the abbreviationspred. and pdenec., respectively.14 Both of these are indicated with a period.Since ethnicities are otherwise never abbreviated in the Royal Annals, andsince none of the others are in this particular text, Boba concluded that pred.(pdenec.) cannot be an ethnic designation. In the case of each manuscriptthe abbreviation must stand for an adjective modifying Marvani.

Boba has reconstructed the text, without modern capitalization orpunctuation, as follows:

822 in quo conventu omnium orientalium sclavorum id est abodritorum soraborum wilzorumbeheimorum maravanorum pred. (or pdenec.) et in pannonia residentum abarum legationes cum



muneribus ad se directas audivit.15



Page 94

He suggested that praedenecenti was probably an ethnic slur, which theFrankish annalist created for the Marvani from the noun praeda, meaningbooty or loot, and the verb necare, meaning to kill, to put to death, or todestroy. Boba pointed out that the Latin sources contain direct references tothe predatory nature of the Moravians, at least from an ethnocentric Frankishviewpoint. Thus, the sense of marvani praedenecenti might be translated as"those booty-taking, murdering Moravians."

As for the entry under the year 824 equating the Praedenecenti withAbodrites, Boba suggests that scholars have misinterpreted this text byconcerning themselves only with a "truncated fragment": "legati Abodritorum,qui vulgo Praedenecenti vocantur." Omitting the punctuation of moderneditors, the entire sentence reads, "Caeterum legatos abodritorum qui vulgopraedenecenti vocantur et contermini bulgaris daciam danubio adiacentemincolunt qui et ipsi adventare nuntiabantur ilico venire permisit." Boba arguesthat in this case qui does not function as a relative pronoun, referring to thelegati of the Abodrites. 16 In Latin qui can sometimes be used in place of aconjunction and demonstrative pronoun, in which case it is equivalent to ethic and is used to link coordinate thoughts. Logically and grammatically inthis case, qui begins a main clause.17 Thus, the text should be read, legatiAbodritorum et hic vulgo praedenecenti vocantur. Thus, they were notAbodrites at all, but were a people "commonly called booty-taking murderersand settled in Dacia on the Danube bordering the Bulgars." Praedenecenti,then, is not an ethnic designation for a band of Slavic Abodrites who hadwandered into Dacia from their ancestral homeland on the shores of theBaltic, but it is an ethnic slur for Moravians, probably devised by the author ofthe Royal Annals, who was the only annalist who ever used it and who onlyemployed it on two occasions. As for the Abodrites, they appear in the RoyalAnnals no less than thirty-two times and are always associated withterritories east of the Elbe and along the Baltic littoral. As Boba put it, ''A fairconclusion to be drawn . . . is that in Aquisgranum-Aachen [anno: 824] therewere two embassies: one from the Abodriti in the North, who made frequentvisits to the Frankish realm (e.g., 816, 818, 819, 822, 823, 826), and one bythe 'qui vulgo Praedenecenti vocantur' from the Frankish-Bulgarian bufferzone in the South.''18

If this is correct, the marvani praedenecenti must have resided in the Alföldnorth of the Bulgars during the period 822 to 824. However, it is impossible



to determine from these passages if the Moravians were also settled in partsof Roman Pannonia. Under the year 822, the annalist mentions that Avarswere living in Pannonia. Yet this statement does not



Page 95

preclude the possibility that some Moravians might have been living there aswell. Since we know that some Avars were confined to a "reservation" nearSzombathely, there was plenty of room in the rest of Pannonia toaccommodate Slavs, including Moravians. In any case, wherever the Marvanimay have been situated, after 824 they vanish from the Frankish annals formore than two decades, an indication that they were on the fringes of theFrankish world.

As for the Bulgars, their efforts to negotiate a settlement were consistentlyrebuffed, and in 826 the emperor sent the count palatine Bertrich to conferwith Balderich and Gerold, identified as "the counts and guards of the Avarborder in Carantania." 19 The mention of Gerold II in this context is important,for it is convincing evidence that Balderich was not the commander of all ofCarantania. Later in the same year these two commanders appeared beforeLouis in Mainz, assuring him that they had witnessed no Bulgar militaryoperations against Pannonia. In spite of these assurances, in 827 the Bulgars,weary of negotiations, launched attacks up the Drava.

Although the annalists do not inform us as to the specific actions ofCarolingian commanders, it is possible to glean some information from theFreising sources.20 On August 21, 827, Bishop Hitto and the Traungau count,Wilhelm I, acting on the orders of the prefect Gerold, held an assembly(placitum) with some Slavs near Linz.21 That Hitto and Wilhelm played animportant role in Bavarian operations against the Bulgars is shown by a set ofdocuments for Innichen.22 The first of these was issued on December 31, 827,and it was confirmed twice, on January 17, 828, and again six months lateron July 4. The locations where this deed and its two confirmations took placeare also significant. The first was issued at the monastery itself, near theheadwaters of the Drava, the second at the fortress of Sterzing, thirteenkilometers south of the Brenner heights, and the third at Bressanone, allimportant links between Bavaria and Carantania.

The purpose of these documents was the transfer of property to Innichen.The donor was a certain Quartinus (a Romance name), who defined himselfas nationis Noricorum et Pregnariorum. In exchange for his rather largedonation to Innichen, Quartinus received a relatively minor benefice nearToblach. The most important property given to Innichen was the castellum adUuipitina (Sterzing), a fortification that defended the Brenner, but also



included were numerous settlements surrounding the castle, as well asvineyards, forests, fields, pastures, and water rights that



Page 96

extended as far south as Bolzano. That this was a major donation isdemonstrated by the fact that the original deed was confirmed twice, a factthat might lead one to suspect that this transaction may not really have beena gift on the part of Quartinus.

It is equally noteworthy that Bishop Hitto was in Innichen on December 31,827, in the mountainous Val Pusteria on the borders of Carantania, ratherthan celebrating the holy season in comfortable surroundings at his cathedralin Freising or at the royal court in Regensburg. The first confirmation of thistraditio shows that Count Wilhelm had arrived at the castle of Uuipitina onJanuary 17, for he appears as the first to witness the confirmation of thatdate. He and Hitto must, then, have been in charge of advanced preparationsfor an expedition that would bring forces from Bavaria via the Brenner andVal Pusteria to Carantania, whence pincers would be launched in a generaldrive to expel the Bulgars from Pannonia. The acquisition of importantlocalities which could supply an army marching along this route was no doubtone of the first steps in the preparations for the coming expedition.

These documents also reveal additional facts. Most striking is the importantrole that Freising, a western Bavarian see, must have played in expeditionsutilizing the Brenner to Carantania. Although Carantania had been assignedto Salzburg for mission activities, Freising clearly had military responsibilitiesthere. As we have seen, Innichen had acquired properties in Carantania afterLiudewit's revolt, and Freising received many valuable estates in the upperDrava basin later.

Second, we should take cognizance of the presence of members of theGraman kindred in these documents. In addition to Count Wilhelm, Rihheriappears as a witness. This Rihheri (one of the most common names amongthe Gramans) was probably not the count of the Mattiggau, whom we havemet before, but rather the warrior who later became the margrave inSzombathely. Another name worthy of note is Witagowo (Uuitaguuo). In the850s he was the count on the upper Enns, and, in this capacity, he controlledthe passes from the Traungau and Salzburggau to the Carantanian heartland.We shall have much to say about him and his kin later. Though probably notbiologically related to the Gramans, Witagowo is identified in a royal charteras a member of the entourage of the Graman Pabo, count in Carantania inthe 850s. 23



The campaign against the Bulgars, which was led by the young king of theBavarians, began in mid-July of 828, shortly after a large number ofmagnates had assembled in Bressanone, where the second confirmation



Page 97

of the Freising traditio mentioned above was witnessed. Since expeditions ledby members of the stirps regis tended to be large ones, the logistical tasksthat Bishop Hitto and Count Wilhelm encountered in bringing an armythrough the mountains to the upper Drava must have been formidable, and itexplains the presence of these two major figures in the South Tyrol duringthe early winter of 827-828. Quartinus's donation of a strategically significantfortress, plus villages, vineyards, fields, pastures, and water rights, all ofgreat logistical importance, provides a rare insight into the careful planningthat must have preceded campaigns in this region.

What is more difficult to determine is the extent of Bulgar penetration intoFrankish territory. Wolfram, citing Joseph Deér, believes that the Bulgarsraided Frankish Pannonia from bases in Sirmium, but there is no evidence of aBulgarian occupation of Sirmium. 24 Deér remarked that the Bulgarianpresence in Pannonia was "a brief interlude," and he introduced no evidencethat a "Bulgarian danger" forced a major reorganization of Carantania or thesystem of margravates along the Danube.25

In the march of Friuli, on the other hand, the Bulgar invasion of Pannoniaresulted in the immediate removal of Balderich from his command and thedivision of this lordship among four counts.26 The author of the Royal Annalsreports that the Bulgars had been able to devastate Pannonia at will"because of his ignavia." Since he was a commander of demonstratedcompetence, one suspects that more than laziness or inactivity triggered hisremoval. In fact, the division of the march among four counts seems anunusual action if the Bulgars remained a threat, for Carolingian rulersnormally guarded against external dangers by granting broader powers toindividuals charged with frontier defenses. By dividing the march among fourcounts, the emperor actually lessened the possibility of a coordinateddefense. As the so-called Astronomer in his biography of Louis the Piousbluntly put it, Balderich's "power was dissected."27

If the division of Friuli in 828 was extraordinary in view of the fact that theBulgars remained a threat, we must assume that Louis feared the power ofthe margrave of Friuli more than he did the Bulgars. By dividing Balderich'shonor among four counts, Louis the Pious made it less likely that any one ofthem would ever be strong enough to revolt or to consort secretly with theenemy. The emperor, no doubt, had much to fear from powerful margraves,



and even from his son Louis the German, who showed little interest in dealingvigorously with the Bulgars after 828. In fact, there is every reason to believethat the younger Louis used his command responsibilities in the east togather forces to rebel against his father, for it was with



Page 98

an army of Bavarians and as many Slavs as he could muster that he attackedthe imperial party in 832. 28

There is little reason to believe that any changes in the organization of theBavarian marches resulted from the Bulgar invasions. Wolfram argues thatthe lordship on the upper Sava was separated from Friuli after Balderich's falland placed under the jurisdiction of the Bavarian king and his marchercommanders; yet the first hint of a Bavarian count on the upper Sava datesfrom a decade later.29 In Carantania, Louis the German appointed Helmwin toreplace the last Slavic duke, but the Conversio makes no connection betweenthis event and the Bulgars. In fact, the Conversio indicates a connectionbetween Helmwin's appointment and Ratpot's elevation to the post as overallcommander of the marches, an event which did not take place until circa 833.

The Reorganization of Carantania

It is very likely that Helmwin, who held Carantania in comitatum, owed hisoffice less to troubles with the Bulgars than to the civil wars disrupting theCarolingian imperium in the 830s. The strife among descendents ofCharlemagne made it imperative for Louis the German to ensure control overthe eastern Alpine passes, especially the Brenner. Should Carantania fall intohostile hands, the system of passes that linked Bavaria to northern Italy andthe Adriatic would have been in jeopardy; thus, it may have been in thiscontext that the younger Louis decided to place Carantania under theadministration of a count.

The plausibility of this view becomes readily apparent if we scrutinize Albgar,who succeeded Helmwin as the second count in Carantania. He has beencarefully studied by Tellenbach and Mitterauer, who concluded that he camefrom the powerful Unruoch kindred, whose members were among Lothair'sfirmest supporters.30 Eberhard, margrave of Friuli, was a member of this clanas well. In spite of the division of Balderich's lordship, the command of aunited march on the northeastern fringe of Italy remained a rich prize forambitious men. In 836 Lothair, who was being hard pressed by his father andbrothers, granted this lordship to his brother-in-law and fidelis Eberhard, oneof the most celebrated nobles of the era. Near the end of the century, fromhis position as margrave of Friuli, Eberhard's son Berengar rose to play aleading role in the affairs of Italy. When Lothair was driven south of the Alpsin 835, many imperial aristocrats followed him,





Page 99

including the Unruochs. Because Albgar's relatives were consistent supportersof Lothair, Tellenbach assumed that Carantania was under the jurisdiction ofthe margrave of Friuli when Albgar became count there. Eberhard must haveinvaded Carantania, chased Helmwin and his followers from that province,and appointed his relative to replace him.

On the latter point, Mitterauer disagrees. Since the Conversio consistentlyconnects Carantania with Bavaria, the realm of Louis the German, heconcludes that the Bavarian king must have appointed Albgar count inCarantania, but that Albgar rebelled against him and joined with Lothair andEberhard of Friuli, circa 836. A few years later, circa 839840, the Bavariansreconquered Carantania, and Louis appointed Pabo, a member of the Gramankindred, as count.

There are some flaws in this argument, however. First, in 838 Ratpot led alarge army against the South Slavic duke Ratimar, driving him from the Savavalley, a military operation that would not have been possible had Carantaniastill been in the hands of Lothair's supporters. 31 Second, the question raisedby Tellenbach remains: Why would Louis the German have appointed Albgaras count in Carantania, when the loyalty of this powerful noble was in doubtdue to his close connections with Lothair's supporters? As count inCarantania, Albgar could have combined forces with his cousin Eberhard ofFriuli and gained control of all of the important eastern Alpine links betweenBavaria and the Adriatic, including the Brenner. It is, therefore, moreplausible that circa 836 Eberhard invaded Carantania from Friuli, expelledHelmwin and installed his kinsman there.

This explanation fits into the general pattern of events between the years835 and 838, which we can reconstruct as follows. In 835 there was a peacebetween Louis the Pious and his younger sons, a peace that excluded Lothair,who controlled Italy. In 836 Eberhard of Friuli tried to negotiate thedifferences between Lothair and his father, but his efforts failed, and hereturned to Italy. In 837 the emperor and his sons, Louis and Pepin, plannedan Italian expedition against Lothair, who "quickly moved to secure theAlpine passes, to set up quarters for troops, and to ensure that provisionswere at hand for the support of an army."32 As a result of this action thecampaign never took place. Hence, it must have been in the spring of 837,when Lothair had secured the passes, that Eberhard invaded Carantania and



established Albgar there. Louis the German probably spent the remainder ofthat year regaining control of this province. By March 838, however, theBrenner must have been in his hands once again, for at that time he led anarmy to Trent, where he negotiated a true with his brother.33



Page 100

This agreement came to naught, however, and, sometime during the sameyear, Bavarian forces under Ratpot, now obviously in full control ofCarantania, attacked Duke Ratimar of the Sava, adding to Louis the German'srealm large parts of Pannonia south of the Drava which had hitherto beenunder the jurisdiction of the Friulian count. The Bavarian campaign againstRatimar on the Sava was probably motivated by the fact that Lothair wascourting such South Slavic leaders as the Croatian duke Trpimir, who in 837had issued a charter while visiting Lothair in Italy. 34

It is, then, far from clear that Bavaria's southeastern marches werereorganized as a response to Bulgar invasions of Pannonia in 828. Instead, itis more likely that Friuli was divided among four counts because themargrave there had become too powerful. Meanwhile the Slavic dux ofCarantania was probably replaced by Helmwin, when Louis the German,anticipating war with his father (and perhaps his brother), took steps tosafeguard the Brenner route by establishing a loyal comes in Carantania.Changes must therefore have occurred because of struggles within theCarolingian dynasty and the Frankish imperial aristocracy. It seems plausiblethat Louis and Lothair would have contested Carantania and that the countyon the Sava could not have become a part of Louis's realm until 838, whenthe Bavarian king gained full control of Carantania and sent Ratpot to expelRatimar from southern Pannonia. The latter event led to the establishment ofCount Salacho on the upper Sava, posing a potential threat to Eberhard'sflank.35 The situation in 838, however, had changed fundamentally from thatin 837, for Louis the German, who had earlier sided with his father, nowturned against him. As a consequence, the Bavarian ruler was now inclined tonegotiate further with his brother Lothair, especially after winning controlover all of Carantania and securing a foothold on the Sava.

Since at that instant it was in the interests of both brothers to form a unitedfront against their father, it is noteworthy that they did not reach an accord.This failure was probably due to the strength of Louis's position in the easternmarches. Unwilling to give up his hold on all of Carantania and the lordshipon the upper Sava, Louis must have angered Eberhard and Albgar, two ofLothair's most important supporters. They probably insisted that the Bavarianruler return these pivotal lordships to them. Although no agreement wasreached, Louis the Pious became so angry with the younger Louis when helearned of the negotiations that he attacked him and kept him on the



defensive during the next two years, forcing him to concentrate his forcesnorth of the Alps. Nonetheless, Louis the German had strengthened hisposition considerably; by regaining Carantania and extending his



Page 101

power to the upper Sava, he had secured his control over the eastern Alpineroutes to Italy, forcing Lothair to use the western Alpine passes when hemarched north following the death of his father in 840.

The Marcher Lordships

If we turn to other aspects of the military structure of the frontier after 828, italso becomes apparent that Louis the German made no drastic changes ineither the organization or the personnel of the marches. Gerold II, forinstance, remained comes confinii of the east until he died, circa 833, andonly then did Ratpot succeed him. We know that Ratpot's comitatus extendedeast of the Vienna Woods and bordered on the county of Szombathely, whereRihheri presided in 844. 36 But, as we have observed, the lordship under thecontrol of the supreme commander in the marches may have extended thatfar to the east as early as the days of Gerold I, immediately after the firstAvar campaign. Mitterauer argues that, at the time of his appointment asprefect of the east, Ratpot also took over a newly created lordship of UpperPannonia in order to deal with the growing Moravian threat north of theDanube.37 There is, however, no direct evidence that he was established eastof the Vienna Woods because of a Moravian state to the north. Rather, it issimply assumed that Ratpot governed Upper Pannonia because Moravia wasnorth of the Danube. All we know for sure is that Ratpot controlled the roadthat led southeast from Vienna to Szombathely and that he held allodialproperty near Pitten, also located to the south of Vienna.38 Moreover, there isno reason to believe that the earlier comites confinii did not directly hold allof the Danubian lordships from the Enns to the borders of the county ofSzombathely.

In the 830s the headquarters for the supreme commander in the east mayhave been moved from Lorch to Tulln. From royal charters we know thatRatpot was the leading figure in the region around Tulln, where he controlledthe royal fiscus.39 He also held some allods in this area, which he donated toSaint Emmeram in Regensburg.40 According to the two royal charters dealingwith these transactions, the Tulln basin was in provincia Avarorum and inPannonia, respectively, indicating an earlier association with Avar territory.Throughout the ninth century important meetings were held in Tulln,justifying the assumption that by Ratpot's time, the command post of theprefect must have been established just to the west of Vienna. Nevertheless,



the existence of fiscal lands near Tulln in no way



Page 102

indicates that Ratpot's major responsibilities consisted of defending themarches against some enemy to the northeast. Royal resources around Tulln,as well as a command post there, would have been just as useful in the eventof hostilities in southeastern Pannonia. There is no doubt that Ratpot didhave command responsibilities in the southeast, for, after all, it was he whodrove Ratimar from the Sava Valley in 838.

As for the illusive margravate between the Enns and the Vienna Woods,postulated by Mitterauer, it is impossible to determine if it really existed asan independent lordship. According to Mitterauer, it was administered at thistime by Werner II, a subordinate count. However, the only evidence is theRegensburg deed, cited above, in which Ratpot donated allods near Tulln toSaint Emmeram. In this document Werner (Vuerinheri) appears second on thelist of witnesses, but without comital title. On the other hand, we shouldprobably discount this fact, for only two persons are given this designation,namely Louis the German's highest ranking subordinates, Ratpot and Ernst,the latter being commander of the march against the Bohemians and the firstwitness on this list. Wilhelm and Rihheri were also present, but appearwithout titles, in spite of the fact that Wilhelm was already count in theTraungau. Hence, we cannot discard the possibility that Werner may havepresided over a lordship along the Danube, perhaps one extending eastwardfrom Lorch, but excluding Tulln, where Ratpot was ensconced. Thus, it isconceivable that by this time there was a subordinate count between theEnns and the Vienna Woods.

Mitterauer has also argued that Louis the German utilized the energies of"new men," Franconian nobles, whom the young king had brought with him toRegensburg in 826. 41 An analysis of the origins of those men who heldimportant honores in the eastern marches between 828 and 846, however,demonstrates that this conclusion is an exaggeration. For example, asMitterauer himself has shown, the Bavarian Helmwin, who replaced the SlavEdgar as the leading figure in Carantania, was related to Bavarian nobles whowere situated in the upper Isen Valley, where the Gramans were prominent.42

The same is true of Salacho, whom Ratpot installed as count on the upperSava.43 Although Albgar, who succeeded Helmwin, was a Swabian withFranconian connections, his appointment had nothing to do with Louis theGerman, as we have seen. A fourth Bavarian from the Graman kindred wasRihheri, the count of Szombathely, and another was Wilhelm, the commander



in the Traungau from at least 821 until his death circa 853, when his son,Wilhelm II, succeeded him. Finally, yet another Graman, Pabo, became theleading count in Carantania, circa 840. Thus, it



Page 103

is apparent that the Gramans, a Bavarian kindred, actually managed tostrengthen their hold on major marcher commands during the period underexamination.

Three men from non-Bavarian kindreds did hold important marchercommands during the early years of Louis the German's reign. Of these,however, only Ernst, a loyal supporter of Louis the German, was really anewcomer to the Bavarian regnum and its marches. He was the margraveagainst the Bohemians and became the ruler's secundus in Bavaria in 840.Ernst enjoyed great prestige and married his daughter to Carloman, KingLouis's eldest son.

Werner II, who may have been count in Lower Austria, was also ofFranconian origin, but his relatives had been active in the marches since theearly ninth century, and his daughter married one of the sons of CountWilhelm, thereby linking him with the Gramans. 44 Ratpot, who becameprefect of the east, was of Frisian origin, but his kindred had been in Bavariaand its marches for so long that many very good prosopographers haveconcluded that he came from a Bavarian clan.45 Thus, on the basis of theirfamily connections with Bavaria and its marches, neither Werner II nor Ratpotcan be classified as "new men." Nor can Witagowo, who became count on theupper and middle Enns.46 Although a Franconian kindred originally, theWitagowo clan became rooted in Bavaria before 800.47

The significance of the origins of Carolingian marcher families will bediscussed later; at this point it is only necessary to stress that the early yearsof Louis the German's reign witnessed no great wave of Franconian noblesobtaining honores, estates, or other opportunities in the marches. Moreover,the influx of Swabians, who had been so prominent as a result of Gerold I'sappointment as prefect in 791, completely ceased after 828. Only Albgarcame demonstrably from a Swabian kindred, but he owed his position toLothair, not to Louis. There was obviously no sudden wave of immigration ofFranconian and Swabian nobles as a consequence of Louis the German'sestablishing his court in Regensburg in 826.

Slavic Clients: Pribina and Rastislav

A glance at Louis's relationship with Slavic clients also reveals that significantchanges occurred after 838, a decade following the Bulgar invasions. Until



that year we have very little concrete information about the organiza-



Page 104

tion of the southeastern marches. Between 838 and 846, however, thepicture becomes much clearer. As we have seen, in 838 Ratpot attackedRatimar and drove him out of the Sava Valley. Shortly thereafter, at therequest of his magnates (fideles), Louis established the Slavic prince Pribinain Lower Pannonia. 48 Then, in 845, the king accepted the homage offourteen Bohemian duces who simultaneously received baptism.49 Finally, in846, he invaded the territory of the Sclavi Margenses and installed Rastislavas duke.50 Between 838 and 846, then, Louis the German attempted toestablish in the middle Danubian region Slavic princes who were bound tohim by firm ties of loyalty based on oaths and who had formally acceptedChristianity. Hence, Louis commanded the baptism of Pribina when he firstcame to his court, as well as the baptism of the fourteen Bohemian dukeswith their followings. As for Rastislav, it is now generally accepted that hewas already Christian when he became duke of the Sclavi Margenses in 846.

The case of Pribina is particularly instructive, for the Conversio gives arelatively full account of his establishment as a Frankish client in LowerPannonia.51 According to this source, shortly after Ratpot had taken over thedefense of the frontier, Pribina was driven off by Moimir, dux Maravorum, andcame supra Danubium to Ratpot. At the command of Louis the German, hewas baptized in the church of Saint Martin at Traismauer on the Danube.Before long, however, Ratpot and Pribina fell out, and the latter, fearing forhis life, fled with his son Kocel to the Bulgars. Yet he did not remain there, forhe soon departed for the region of Ratimar on the Sava. When Ratpot movedagainst Ratimar in 838, Pribina fled again, crossing the Sava with his men,after which Count Salacho took him in and reconciled him with Ratpot.Subsequently, at the request of his fideles, Louis the German granted Pribinalands near Lake Balaton in beneficium, and ''he began to live there, to build afortification in the forest and swamps of the Zala river, to bring togetherpeople from the surrounding region, and to be enriched greatly in this land.''Liudepram, the archbishop of Salzburg, consecrated, at Pribina's request, anumber of churches in Pannonia as far southwest as Ptuj (ad Bettobiam) andto the southeast as far as Pécs (ad Quinque Basilicas). Finally the Conversiostates that in 847 Louis the German, once again at the request of his fideles,converted all of Pribina's benefices into allodial property.

Because the account in the Conversio seems clear and straightforward, therehas been little disagreement over the events that led to Pribina's



establishment as a Frankish client in Lower Pannonia. Most scholarly works



Page 105

state matter-of-factly that sometime after 833 Pribina was expelled from hishomeland near Nitra (in modern Slovakia) by Moimir, the duke of theMoravians. The author of the Conversio, however, simply wrote that "Priwinaexulatus a Moimaro duce Maravorum supra Danubium venit ad Ratbodum."The place from which he had been expelled is unspecified in this text. Theassertion that he came from Nitra north of the Danube is based on a separatepassage in the Conversio. It states that Archbishop Adalram of Salzburg(821836) had consecrated a church on the allodial lands of Pribina in Nitravaultra Danubium. 52 Thus, modern scholars tell us, Moimir, the duke of theMoravians, who was in the process of creating the "Great Moravian Empire,"defeated Pribina, a rival Slavic warlord, whose lordship was based in Nitranorth of the Danube. Following his defeat, Pribina fled across the Danube tothe south to Ratpot, who presented him to King Louis the German; the lattercommanded that he be instructed in the faith and baptized in the church ofSaint Martin in Traismauer on the Danube. Interpreted in this manner, thepassage has been used to ''demonstrate" that the southern Moravian thesis isuntenable.

On the other hand, the passage concerning the church in Nitrava is suspect. Aglance at the Conversio makes it apparent that it is completely out of placeand disrupts the continuity of the text.53 After recounting Pribina'sconstruction of a fortification in the swamps and forests on the Zala (after838), the text erratically jumps backward in time to the consecration of thechurch in Nitrava (presumably before 833), then it continues to discuss thecompletion of the fortress of Zalavár and the consecration of a churchdedicated to the virgin there (c. 850). This discontinuity has been recognizedby all of the editors of the Conversio, but knowledge of it has not preventedmuch speculation concerning the church at Nitrava. Since it presumed thatthe church was consecrated before Pribina's expulsion from Nitra north of theDanube, it is reasoned that the Slavic leader must have overseen theconsecration of a church on his property before he had been baptized (whichhappened after his expulsion) a speculation that has given rise to conjecturesthat Pribina must have had a Christian (Bavarian) wife, a Graman.54 We shallexamine this contention more closely in another context. At this point it isimportant to emphasize that the passage concerning Nitrava was not a partof the original version of the Conversio and, thus, it is best not to base any ofour hypotheses on it.



If we discount the passage concerning the church at Nitrava, it is impossibleto say where precisely Pribina's original residence was located. The phrasesupra Danubium hardly allows us to pinpoint the territories of



Page 106

either Pribina or Moimir. It is not at all clear whether supra in this contextshould be translated "above," "beyond," or "across.'' Nor is it certain that itdoes not mean beyond the Danube in the sense of east of the Danube and/orthe Tisza, on the Alföld.

In fact, the passage "Priwina exulatus a Moimaro duce Maravorum supraDanubium venit ad Ratbodum" may be translated in several ways, eachhaving a significantly different meaning. The simplest, for example, "Pribina,driven across the Danube by Moimir, duke of the Moravians, came to Ratpot,"leaves the question unanswered: where was he driven across the Danube?But the sentence might also be interpreted, "Pribina, driven up the Danube[supra in the sense of above or up river] by Moimir, the duke of theMoravians, came to Ratpot." This translation is very plausible, for the ninth-century author of the Conversio did not know the conventions of moderncartographers. For him, ''above" was simply up river. If this translation is thecorrect one, the sentence would mean that the territories of Pribina andMoimir were both down the river basin in Lower Pannonia or on the Alföld.Since Ratpot's lordship was located up the river on the higher ground,between the high rim of the Vienna Woods and Szombathely, in Pannoniasuperioris, Pribina would have come to him from Pannonia inferioris, thelower part of the basin, which would mean that he came up the watershed.Of course, this sentence can also be translated as the defenders of thetraditional view would have it, "Pribina, driven off by Moimir, duke of theMoravians, across the Danube, came to Ratpot." There is, however, noreason to prefer this translation, for without some point of reference it isimpossible to prove from this passage where the lordships of either Pribina orMoimir were located.

The passages concerning Pribina in the Conversio, when considered as awhole, do, however, give us some concrete points of reference supporting thesouthern Moravia thesis. First of all, there is Pribina's fortress of Moosburg,which has been excavated at Zalavár near Lake Balaton, almost two hundredkilometers southeast of Vienna, hardly on a route to the presumed centers ofMoravian power. 55 Although it is hotly debated where many of thesettlements listed in the Conversio were located, there is a consensus that adBettobiam is Ptuj, where the ancient Roman road from the Adriatic toSzombathely crossed the Drava, and that ad Quinque Basilicas can only referto Pécs (German Fünfkirchen) which had been the important Roman frontier



town of Sopianae, in southeastern Pannonia, where numerous routesintersected, including the road from Szombathely to Sirmium.56 Pécs isapproximately three hundred kilometers southeast of Vienna. Wolf-



Page 107

ram believes that Pribina's property in Dudleipin was probably located nearStraß-Mureck, on the current Austro-Slovenian border, and he is convincedthat Pribina's lordship stretched as far southeast as the Fruska Gora, east ofOsijek. 57 Osijek is within striking distance (a march of three to five days)from Sirmium. Taken together, these localities, all situated east of the Rabaand hundreds of kilometers south of the alleged centers of Moravian power inthe northern Morava watershed, form a wedge, connected by Roman roads,the apex of which points in the direction of Sirmium. Wolfram, in fact, haswritten that Pribina's principality formed a triangle with "an anti-Moravianapex."58 If, however, the known localities in Pribina's principality constitutedan anti-Moravian apex, then it must be noted that this apex pointedsoutheast in the direction of the central Danubian watergate.

Commanding strongholds at Zalavár, Pécs, and Ptuj, it is clear that Pribinacontrolled all the roads leading southeast through Pannonia, including theconnection from the Vienna basin to Szombathely and points farthersoutheast. He also controlled the Drava route that linked Carantania to thecentral Danubian watergate. In the event of Frankish military operationsdirected against an enemy in the vicinity of the watergate, Pribina wouldhave been the client prince charged with the responsibility of providing forlogistical support of Carolingian forces operating far from their home bases.Pribina must have played a major role in the expedition against the SclaviMargenses in 846, for he was handsomely rewarded by Louis the Germanboth before and after this campaign. On January 10, 846, Pribina was inRegensburg, where the king gave him one hundred agrarian units (mansi) onthe Valachau River, probably near the confluence of the Drava with theDanube around Osijek, thus, within striking distance of Sirmium.59 Accordingto the Conversio, in 847 (after the expedition) Pribina was once again richlyrewarded for his service to the East Frankish king. "It had become evident tothe most pious King Louis," the author wrote, "that Pribina had goodintentions to serve God and him."60 For this reason the king converted all ofPribina's fiefs into allods.

Pribina's service to God and king must have been directly connected with alarge-scale Carolingian offensive against Slavs residing in southeasternPannonia and/or Moesia, which led to the establishment of Moimir's nephew,Rastislav, as an East Frankish client. The principal source of this event is theFulda annalist who uses the term Sclavi Margenses to describe the people



over whom Rastislav was established duke. This passage has beenmisinterpreted so often that it deserves to be quoted here, accurately and infull.



Page 108

[Hludowicus] circa medium mensem Augustum cum exercitus ad Sclavos Margenses defectionemmolientes profectus est. Ubi ordinatis et iuxta libitum suum conpositis rebus ducem eis constituitRastizen nepotem Moimari; inde per Boemanos cum magna difficultate et grandi damno exercitussui revertus est. 61

As we have seen, Margus was the classical name for the southern (Serbian)Morava River, whereas the ancient name for the northern Morava was Marus.Sclavi Margenses must then be translated "Margensian Slavs"; hence, theSclavi, over whom Rastislav's uncle Moimir had ruled, must have at one timeinhabited territory in Dacia or Moesia. It is, therefore, reasonable to assumethat Pribina, whose lordship bordered on this territory, must have played amajor role in the campaign of 846 and that his cooperation formed the basisfor his handsome royal rewards.

Dopsch, on the other hand, insists that this account of the campaign of 846 isone of those examples that prove Moravia's northern location. He argues thatBohemia was a "staging area against Moravia."62 In fact the passage reportsthat Louis the German returned from Moravia "through the land of theBohemians with much difficulty and with great losses for his army."

This passage contains no information posing difficulities for a southernMoravia hypothesis. Louis's invasion of Moravian territory in 846 was a majorundertaking involving forces from several regna. Northern Germans Saxonsand Thuringians had participated (however unwillingly) in similar operationsin Transdanubia in 791 against the Avars and in 820 against Liudewit. FromCharlemagne's capitularies, we know that Saxons could be called up forservice in Pannonia, though they were not required to provide as many troopsas for regions adjacent to their borders.63 Thus, the assertion that theparticipation of Saxons and Thuringians in campaigns into the region ofSirmium would "hardly have been possible" flies in the face of concreteevidence.

As a matter of fact, it is virtually certain that Saxon forces participated in thiscampaign against the Sclavi Margenses. The shortest route for an army fromSaxony to Pannonia led along the right bank of the Elbe to the Bohemianplateau, then it crossed the Danube in the region of Traismauer, Tulln, orVienna. But before this route could have been used, it would have beennecessary to win the support (or at least the neutrality) of the numerous andturbulent petty chieftains of Bohemia. A Saxon army that had to force its waythrough Bohemia could not have been expected to take part in operations



that involved a march through Pannonia. The Annales Fulden-



Page 109

ses provide evidence that the king took steps to ensure safe passage throughBohemia for Saxon forces in preparation for the campaign against the SclaviMargenses, for a year earlier he had received fourteen Bohemian duces withtheir retinues in Regensburg, where he commanded their baptism, an act thatwas symbolic of their pacification, if only temporarily.

An examination of the king's other activities in 845 allows us to understandsome of the outlines of his preparations for the Moravian campaign of thefollowing year. Louis spent the entire spring and summer in Bavaria, theregion that would bear the primary responsibility for an invasion ofsoutheastern Europe. In autumn, however, Louis held a placitum atPaderborn in Saxony, where he received legations of Scandinavians, Slavs,and Bulgars. 64 Although the Annales Fuldenses give us no details concerningthese negotiations, topics relating to the expedition planned for the followingyear must have come up. A Frankish army which wanted to invade territory insoutheastern Pannonia would have found such an undertaking risky, indeed, ifno prior accord had been reached with the Bulgars. Also, Saxons would havebeen even more reluctant to participate in such a distant expedition had theynot been assured that their frontiers were secure from marauding bands ofNorthmen and Transelban Slavs, while their best fighting men were with thehosts in Pannonia.

Confirmation of the fact that Saxons took part in the campaign of 846 is foundin the reliable Annales Xantenses: "Louis went from Saxony against the Slavsbeyond the Elbe."65 Its author also reports that the army later engaged inhostilities against the Bohemians "but with great peril." This passage cannotmean that Louis led a Saxon army against adjacent Slavs residingimmediately across the Elbe, for numerous sources agree with the AnnalesFuldenses that the expedition of 846 took place farther to the southeast.66 Sothe author of the Annales Xantenses is simply stating that the king led anarmy of Saxons against Slavs (Wendi) somewhere beyond the Elbe. From theviewpoint of this author, it is important to note, the Saxon host, following theshortest route, would have gone ultra Albiam whether ninth-century Moraviahad been located in Serbia or, for that matter, in modern Moravia. And ineither case it could have returned through Bohemia, where, all of the sourcesagree, it was ambushed by war bands. Thus, the presence of Louis's army inBohemia cannot disprove the southern Moravia thesis.



The Annales Xantenses do not contradict the Annales Fuldenses. The latterstates that Louis's army attacked the Margensian Slavs, then, returninghome, it suffered great losses at the hands of Bohemians. Other narra-



Page 110

tives state matter-of-factly that the campaign took place in Pannonia and thatthe army returned through Bohemia. The annalist of Xanten adds thesignificant detail that the king set out from Saxony, which means that alogical route would have been through Bohemia, whether Moravia waslocated north of the Danube or in southeastern Pannonia. Finally, the WestFrankish Annales Bertiniani also mention losses against some unnamed Slavs.This source, however, adds that there was discord within the ranks of theking's army (intestino suorum conflictu), which implies that discipline wasbreaking down among the returning forces. 67 Of course, it is hardly surprisingthat there were disciplinary problems within a Saxon army that was returninghome after a campaign in distant southeastern Pannonia. The breakdown oforder among the Saxons would, however, have made them easy targets forpredatory Bohemian war bands.

A plausible reconstruction of the campaign of 846 is as follows: In 845 Louisthe German forced the submission of the Bohemian duces, commanding themto receive baptism, thus making it possible for a Saxon army to transverseBohemia on its way to southeastern Pannonia. Early in the following year hemoved to strengthen the position of his client Pribina, who controlled theterritory (specifically called Lower Pannonia in the Conversio) east of theRaba extending at least as far southeast as Pécs and as far west as Ptuj nearthe Carantanian border. To Duke Pribina, whose principality was ideallysuited to support any invasion of southeastern Pannonia, Louis made anadditional grant of one hundred mansi somewhere in the Drava watershed.The king spent the spring and summer in Bavaria, close to the magnates whowould bear the primary responsibility for raising troops to invadesoutheastern Europe. In autumn he went to Paderborn in Saxony, where hepresided over an assembly, partially for the purpose of persuading the Saxonsto partake in military operations far from their homeland. In Paderborn hereceived legates from Northmen, Slavs, and Bulgars. The negotiations withthe Bulgars at least must have been directly related to a planned Pannonianexpedition against the Sclavi Margenses, who must have been neighbors ofthe Bulgars.

When the campaign finally began, Louis accompanied the Saxon army, whichwent up the Elbe watershed and through Bohemia, crossed the Danube nearVienna, then, as in 820, moved southeast via Szombathely through Pribina'sterritory. Because of Pribina's activities in organizing his lordship southeast of



the Raba in Lower Pannonia, however, the provisioning of these forces musthave been much easier than in 820, when Saxon troops had suffered losses inthe region due to bad food and water. Armies



Page 111

from Bavaria and Carantania, the provinces nearest the theater of operations,also participated in this expedition, but their efforts went unrecorded becausethe king was with the Saxons. Louis found it necessary to accompany theSaxons, for it had been difficult to persuade them to become involved in sucha distant adventure, and he feared that without the royal presence theymight desert. Among the Saxons the memory of the disasters that befell theirmen during the Pannonian invasions of 820 no doubt still lingered. Thus,Saxon discontent must have led to dissension and eventually to thebreakdown of discipline among the troops. The Annales Bertiniani confirmthat Louis's returning forces suffered losses because of discord within theranks. As we shall see in Chapter 6, this Saxon reluctance to participate incampaigns against a distant Moravia was also demonstrated in 872, whenthey and their Thuringian companions quit an invasion of Moravian territoryand returned to their homes because "they did not have the king with them."

Conclusion

In many respects, the disaster suffered by forces returning to Saxony was aharbinger of things to come. By installing Rastislav as leader of the SclaviMargenses, Louis the German had extended his sphere of influence deep intothe central Danubian basin. But as he and his successors would discoverpainfully, it was not easy to control the development of the principalities ofRastislav and his nephew Zwentibald. Intervention in southern Pannonia wasonly possible when Carolingian kings were strong enough to gather armiesfrom all of their provinces. Yet the distances and dangers involved incampaigning in Pannonia made Saxons (and undoubtedly also Thuringians,Franconians, and even Alamanni) reluctant participants in such operations. In846, however, the pitfalls related to the extension (or overextension) of EastFrankish interest into the central DAnubian basin would not have beenobvious to Louis the German, now reaching the full vigor of his manhood. Forthe moment he could rest on his laurels. He had inherited a motley collectionof client principalities on the fringes of Bavaria, which were invaded by theBulgars shortly after he had become king. Somehow Louis managed to regaincontrol of the central Danubian basin and to establish a peace with theBulgars that lasted throughout the ninth century. During the civil wars of the830s, he brought Carantania into the Frankish comital system, and, at theend of the decade, he seized the





Page 112

Map 4.The Southeastern Marches, c. 850.



Page 113

Chart 3. The Command Structure of the Frontier Region, c. 846.Prefect of Bavaria

ErnstPrefect of the East/Comes Confinii

RatpotCounts Subordinate to Prefect of the East

Upper Pannonia Lower Austria?East of Tulln Traungau West of Tulln Szombathley Upper SavaRatpot Wilhelm I Werner? Rihheri Salacho

Slavic Leaders/Duces (Subordinate to Prefect)Lower Pannonia The Moravian Realm(Pannonia inferioris) (Regnum Sclavorum Margensium)Pribina Rastislav

lordship on the upper Sava, which had belonged to the margrave of Friuli, asubordinate of the Italian king. Shortly thereafter, he created Pribina'sprincipality in Pannonia inferioris, which stretched from Lake Balaton to theconfluence of the Drava with the Danube. Duke Pribina attracted settlers tothis region and began to develop it politically, militarily, and economically(see Chart 3 and Map 4). Louis's final achievement was the installation ofRastislav as duke of the Margensian Slavs, who, the Fulda annalist says, were"planning to defect," and with this act he set the stage for the struggle forcontrol over the central Danubian basin which would dominate the history ofthe marches during the second half of the ninth century.



Page 114

5.Marcher Rebellions and Moravian Wars, c. 850864

Introduction

The installation of Rastislav as a Carolingian client duke in 846 proved anineffective means of extending Frankish power beyond Transdanubia, for heand later his nephew Zwentibald were notoriously disloyal to their nominaloverlords, and they succeeded in creating powerful principalities thatchallenged Carolingian authority throughout the central Danubian basin. Todeal with the growing power of Moravia, the center of gravity of the marchermilitary organization shifted to Carantania, which was to become the mainstaging area for invasions of Moravian territory. Yet it proved difficult to bringRastislav to heel, for the military situation was complicated by Louis theGerman's inability to command for long the loyalty of the margraves, whosetask it was to defend the frontier. The king granted broad powers to them,but their increased prerogatives made it easier for them to ignore or defyroyal authority. Beginning in the 850s, one margrave after another revolted,including the prefect Ratpot and the king's son Carloman, who was grantedthe title of praelatus in Carantania in 856. Although Louis the German wassuccessful in dealing with rebels, it often took years to put uprisings down.Carloman's revolt was particularly difficult to surpress because he ensconcedhimself behind the mountain fortress of Carantania. He and other disgruntledsubordinates formed alliances with Rastislav, and on numerous occasions,after their rebellions had collapsed, margraves and others, who for onereason or another had lost the gratia of the king, took refuge in Moravia, andcontinued to trouble the marches, even to the point of leading Moravianarmies against Frankish ones.

The first margrave to revolt was none other than the prefect of the easthimself. 1 Although we have no details concerning the nature of Ratpot'suprising, he must have conspired with Rastislav, who also rebelled in thesame year. The king had sufficient power to deal swiftly with the prefect,dismissing him from his command, but he was unable to move against the



Page 115

Moravian duke until a year later, and even then, he could not bring him toheel. This rebellion illustrates the dilemma that Louis would have to face timeand time again; namely, when marcher commanders joined with Moravians inrebellion, several years of Frankish intervention would be necessary torestore the status quo ante.

The First Campaign Against Rastislav

In 855 Louis gathered a large army to invade the land of the SclaviMargenses. This campaign, however, must have been a near disaster, a factthat the Fulda annalist had difficulty masking. "King Louis," he wrote, "led anarmy against Duke Rastislav into the land of the Sclavi Margenses, who hadrebelled against him, but with little success, and he returned home withoutvictory, because he would rather leave an adversary alone for a time,especially one who protected himself with such stout walls than to sustain theloss of his warriors in such a dangerous operation." 2 From fortified enclavesMoravian forces sallied out against the king's camp. Although the annalistwrites that the Franks turned the attackers back, he emphasizes that thearmy was overextended, and the men were in grave danger. After ravishingRastislav's lands, Louis retreated. In hot pursuit of the withdrawing Franks,Rastislav and his forces avenged themselves, "destroying many localitiesalong the Danube.''

Charter evidence indicates that the expedition of 855 reached Moravianterritory through Carantania, an impossibility had Rastislav's principality beenlocated north of the Danube. Two royal diplomas from this year demonstratethat the campaign was staged at the southern Bavarian palace of Aibling,whence two routes connected Bavaria with Carantania, one leading to theBrenner-Pusteria route, the second, a Roman road, linking Augsburg withSirmium. The latter ran straight east from Aibling, crossed the Inn atRosenheim, went on to Salzburg, and then wound its way through the passesto the Drava. Although more than a century ago Dümmler recognized thatthis placitum must have been called in preparation for the Moraviancampaign, it did not occur to him to ask why Louis the German chose Aiblingto assemble his army.3

On March 17, in Aibling at the base of the Bavarian Alps, where the Innbreaks out of the mountains, opening the route to the Brenner, an inquestwas held involving a dispute between the bishops of Freising and Trent over



vineyards near Bolzano.4 The hearing was presided over by



Page 116

Ernst, who is described in the document as a count palatine. After examininga large number of witnesses, we are told, Ernst concluded that the vineyardsbelonged to Freising. Ernst had just returned from an expedition against theBohemians in which many Bavarian counts and bishops had participated.However, this could not have been a part of the major Moravian war whichattracted the attention of a large number of annalists. 5 The expedition led byErnst, which involved only Bavarian forces, was designed to pacify theBohemians and to discourage them from raiding into Bavaria while a majormilitary operation was being conducted against the Sclavi Margenses. As theBavarians would be required to make a major contribution to any campaignagainst Rastislav, only local forces would be left behind to defend againstraids from Bohemia. By punishing the Bohemians in advance of the Moraviancampaign, Ernst reminded their leaders that they might expect a full-scaleinvasion should they raid Bavaria while the main army proceeded againstRastislav.

The diploma reveals interesting details. Noteworthy is the fact that Ernst,after having completed the Bohemian expedition, joined the king at Aibling.Surely he did not come there with a Bavarian army simply to settle a disputeover vineyards in Bolzano. In the early Middle Ages property disputes of thisnature were resolved when magnates came together for other purposes. Thedispute was not the reason for the assembly, but rather the assemblyprovided an occasion in which such issues could be resolved. If a campaignhad been planned along the Danube, one would have expected Ernst to havewaited for the king to move northeast. A rendezvous near Passau or Linzwould have been more logical. Of further interest is the fact that the disputedproperty was near Bolzano in South Tyrol on the southern slopes of theBrenner. The document states that Ernst examined many witnesses, whichmeans that a number of Bavarian magnates were present who had interestsin South Tyrol. The presence of a critical mass of magnates who had ties toSouth Tyrol, and who could testify at this assembly makes it seem probablethat Louis planned to use the Brenner in the spring of 855.

The charter also tells us that ambassadors from another Louis, king of theLombards and son of the dying emperor Lothair, were in Aibling on March 17,855. Their presence is significant, for if Louis the German were planning touse passes through the southeastern Alps to attack a Moravian realm locatedsomewhere near the Danubian watergate, he would have found it necessary



to secure his southern flank by negotiating with his



Page 117

nephew and especially with the latter's uncle Eberhard, the powerfulmargrave of Friuli, who could have threatened the Drava and Sava routes.

Finally we must note that the dispute involved Freising. As we have seen, thesee of Saint Corbinian played a major role in maintaining logistical facilitiesalong the Brenner route and through the Val Pusteria to Carantania. In viewof Freising's potential importance in any expedition that proceeded fromBavaria to the Drava Valley, Ernst's decision to award the vineyards to theBavarian see may have been based on military rather than judicialconsiderations. In any event, the impending death of the emperor and thelikelihood of civil war between his sons (Louis, Lothair II, and Charles)definitely put the German ruler in an excellent position to secure control overmajor routes leading southeastward from Bavaria.

It is of course impossible to prove beyond all doubt that the assembly inAibling was the staging arena for the Moravian expedition of 855. Yet there isvery plausible evidence that such was the case. The passes from the Tyrol toCarantania are open in early spring, so the presence of the king in Aibling atthe end of the Lenten season in mid-March is not unreasonably early. Thehost did not leave Aibling before March 20, because a second survivingcharter was issued there on that date, and the army probably would not havedeparted until after Easter, two weeks later. The distance between Aiblingand Klagenfurt on the Drava via the Brenner-Pusteria route is at least threehundred kilometers via circuitous Alpine roads. Although medieval armiescould average thirty kilometers per day, and sometimes more, a largeexpedition could not have sustained that rate of march over the passes inearly spring. In the mountains an average of ten kilometers is more realistic.Thus, even if Louis's forces had left Aibling in early April, it is safe to assumethat they did not reach Carantania until May, and the centers of Moraviawould still have been approximately four hundred kilometers away. Theadvantage of this route, however, consists of the fact that once the armyreached the Drava, the waterway could be utilized to convey supplies toforces marching against a southern Moravia. Once in Carantania, spring wouldbe already advanced. There men and animals could rest, while finalpreparations for the invasion were being completed. Given the nature of theterrain and the distances involved, late March would have been anappropriate time for Louis to assemble forces in Aibling, where resourcesexisted in the vicinity of the royal palatium. By all accounts the expedition of



855 was a large one that failed in the end because of Moravian fortifications.Unable to take these strongholds, Louis had to



Page 118

satisfy himself by pillaging the countryside. We must remember that theexpedition against Liudewit, which this campaign resembles, set out in earlyspring when there was grass for the pack animals; so the mustering of forcesin late March 855 had a precedent.

It is also worthwhile considering the second charter issued in Aibling in March855, in which Louis granted estates and immunities in Saxony to themonastery of Corvey. 6 Donations of great magnitude to such monasterieswere of course common. What is uncommon about this charter is the place ofissue. Studies have shown that early medieval German rulers normally issuedcharters for a particular regnum in that region or very near it. Hence, thisdocument would not have been unusual, had it been issued in Saxony orsomewhere nearer its borders. In order to guarantee a particular donation,the presence of a critical mass of potentes from that realm was necessary.This could be achieved most effectively within the regnum where themagnates resided and/or where the ecclesiastical institution was located.Exceptions to this rule seem to have occurred only when magnates from aparticular regnum were summoned to a distant realm for some importantpurpose, such as a major campaign.

The charter of March 20, 855, indicates that Saxons must have been amongthe forces assembling in southern Bavaria for military operations againstRastislav. As we have seen, Saxon forces had taken part in large expeditionsin the southeast beforethough their participation had resulted in disasters. In820 many Saxons were lost because of disease, and in 846 their returningcontingents were ambushed in Bohemia. In 855 their leaders were no doubtchary about the prospect of exposing their men to such dangers once againby taking the route through Bohemia, especially since the latter region hadnot been pacified, as Ernst's expedition demonstrates. Moreover, there wasconsiderable dissension within the ranks of the Saxons concerning theprospect of participation in campaigns so far from home; thus, Louis theGerman probably did not trust them to act independently. The necessity ofkeeping a watchful eye on the Saxons may explain their presence at thepalace of Aibling, in Upper Bavaria, on the road that led into South Tyrol andCarantania. Also it might be added that a major royal donation to animportant Saxon monastery would have been a way of persuading reluctantSaxon magnates to participate in another Pannonia expedition. This charteris, then, an additional indication that a campaign against a southeastern



Moravian principality was being planned for the summer of 855.

The events of 854855 illustrate two important points. First of all,



Page 119

when Duke Rastislav, allied with marcher lords, rose in rebellion against hisnominal overlord, several years would be required for the East Frankish rulerto stabilize the situation. A single expedition that merely devastatedMoravian territory would be insufficient to bring the duke to heel. Second, itmust have been clear that in order to really subdue the Margensian Slavs, itwould be necessary to assemble a large enough force to deal with theirstrong fortifications. As long as Rastislav's warriors were able to find safehavens in their fortresses, Frankish armies, operating far from their homebases, were in grave danger of annihilation, for Moravian contingents wereable to take advantage of opportune moments to sally out against them, toharass foraging parties, to wear them down to the point at which they wouldno longer be able to sustain themselves, and to cause Frankish morale tobreak down. Once the inevitable retreat began, Moravians in pursuit couldinflict heavy casualties on demoralized Franks. It was therefore necessarythat the eastern marches be organized in such a way that large armies drawnfrom various provinces of Francia orientalis could be sustained for manymonths to take and occupy Moravian fortifications.

Carloman's Revolt

Since urgent matters in other regions occupied Louis's attention during theyear 856, he was unable to oversee military operations in the southeasternmarches personally. In that year Louis led an expedition against the Slavseast of the Elbe and returned through Bohemia. 7 No source reports that hemade contact with Moravians. Also in 856 he turned over the command of thesoutheastern marches to his son. Only two minor sources note hisappointment.8 A later entry in the Annales Fuldenses gives Carloman's title aspraelatus Carantanis.9 Scholars generally agree that under him the center ofgravity of the marcher military organization definitely shifted away from theDanube to the region of the upper Drava.10 This shift implies that Moravia,the main difficulty for any commander of the entire frontier region, must havebeen somewhere to the southeast of Carantania.11 Certainly, one wouldhardly expect such a shift away from the Danube had Rastislav's principalitybeen located in the northern Morava Valley.

It was definitely Carloman's responsibility to hold the Moravians in check, forthe Fulda annalist reports that he led an expedition against Rastislav in858.12 We may conclude that this campaign was a failure too, for Rastislav



remained defiant. Sometime between 858 and 860, however,



Page 120

Carloman must have reached a secret understanding with the Moravianleader, and subsequent events make it clear that the king's son had littleinterest in pursuing the war against the Moravians. Instead, he used hiscommand to assert his independence from his father and to establish asemiautonomous realm for himself.

But before he could accomplish that goal, Carloman had to deal with a groupof Bavarian nobles who were closely related to one another and who werealready well-established in the marches. This group was the Graman kindred.As margraves they had played leading roles in the conquest and pacificationof the region, and they were the lords who had been assigned major militaryand administrative responsibilities. The Gramans no doubt viewed theappointment of Carloman as an unwelcome development because a supremecommander of the marches from the stirps regis would very likely try to breakthis entrenched clan of marcher lords, their allies and supporters, by replacingthem with his own men. Thus, the king's son had found a common cause withRastislav: both wanted to rid the marches of the Gramans who haddominated the military organization of the frontier region sinceCharlemagne's Avar wars.

In a later passage the Annales Fuldenses state that there was a deeplyrooted hostility between the Gramans and the Moravians. 13 Because ofnorthern Moravian assumptions, however, scholars have taken it for grantedthat this enmity arose in Lower Austria.14 Yet this conclusion has littlefoundation in the sources and ultimately rests on circular arguments. As wehave seen earlier, Gramans were already active in Carantania and Pannoniain the eighth century, in the wake of the Avar wars. A closer look at theiractivities reveals that by the 840s at the latest, this clan controlled most ofthe major marcher commands between Bavaria and the lower Sava. CountWilhelm I, whom we met near the Brenner at the time of the Bulgar invasionsof Pannonia, was the count in the Traungau, and, thus he controlled thepasses leading from the Danube to the middle Enns, to Carantania wherePabo (probably his brother) was in command. Other counts in Carantania andPannonia also had close familial ties with the Gramans. Mitterauer's research,for example, demonstrates a close relationship between the Traungau countand Count Rihheri of Szombathely, who controlled that crucial junction ofroads in Pannonia.15 Also, Salacho, the count on the upper Sava, whoreconciled Pribina with Ratpot in 838, held estates in the same parts of



Bavaria as the Gramans.16

Other marcher lords, though perhaps not themselves blood relatives of theGramans, had ties to them in other ways. Some newcomers to the marchesmarried into the Graman clan. For example, Count Werner II,



Page 121

who, Mitterauer thinks, held the margravate in Lower Austria, was married toone of Count Wilhelm I's daughters. 17 Still another marcher count, Guntram,appears in a document of 853.18 He was not of Bavarian origins. Yet it isvirtually certain that he entered into some kind of a marital relationship withthe Wilhelminer group of the Gramans, since names typical of his kinsuddenly became common among the Wilhelminer in the latter half of theninth century. Mitterauer, who thinks that Guntram succeeded Salacho ascount on the upper Sava, has concluded that Guntram's sister must havebeen Count Wilhelm II's wife, because the name Ruodpert became extremelycommon among the latter's descendents (see Chapter 10).19 Guntram alsohad a close relationship with Saint Emmeram, and he and his son Megingozare listed in the Reichenau liber confraternitatis in the same series of namesas Pabo and a number of other Gramans. We might add that Megingoz wasalso the name of a son of Count Wilhelm II.

Count Witagowo, whom, like Wilhelm I and Rihheri, we met near the Brennerheights on the eve of the Bulgar campaign of 828, may not have been ablood relative. Nevertheless, he was the vassal of the Carantanian CountPabo, and, at the latter's request, he was granted twelve mansi serviles nearAdmont in 859.20 Mitterauer reasons that, since this grant lies on the routefrom the Enns to the Graz basin via the Schober, Witagowo must have held amargravate in the upper Enns Valley.21

Thus, in the two decades between 840 and 860 almost all of thesoutheastern margravates were held by Gramans, their marital allies, andvassals. During these years the Gramans controlled virtually every route fromBavaria to the Drava and Sava watersheds. In order to appreciate this factfully, it is necessary to consider for a moment how an army setting out fromthe nexus of royal palaces, courts, and villas near the Inn-Salzach line wouldhave proceeded against a Moravian principality that was located southeast ofthe marches. Ötting, Ranshofen, Ostermieting, and Mattighofen constituted amassive complex of royal estates in Upper Bavaria, where kings frequentlyissued charters on the eve of expeditions against Moravians. From this regionthree lines of march were possible over the passes to the upper and middleEnns, whence Roman roads wound their way through the Tauern or down theMur toward the Drava. Two routes led through the Traungau toward thePötschen and Pyhrn passes, a region where Count Wilhelm I, and after 853his son, Wilhelm II, would have been responsible for the comital function of



marshaling provisions for the army. A third route followed the Salzachthrough the Pongau to the upper Enns.

Once the Enns had been reached, Witagowo assumed the chore of



Page 122

provisioning the army. The upper Enns between Radstadt and Admont is anopen valley favorable to an Alpine economy. Steep cliffs are found only on thenorth bank of the river, while the peaks of the Tauern, lofting their heads tothe south, are some distance from the valley floor, allowing the low and wellprotected settlements of the upper Enns ample sunshine, even in winter.Radstadt, for example, is only 856 meters above sea level and Admont is lessthan 620. From the upper Enns to the Mur, several routes were availablewhere local supplies could be obtained by an army. To the west forces couldgain the Mur by crossing the high Radstädter Tauern Pass, the Hochgrolling,or the Groß Sölk. The Groß Sölk is little used today, but the Romans didemploy it, and the fact that there were Carolingian settlements on both endsof the pass makes it virtually certain that it was in use during the ninthcentury. 22 The most frequented passes, however, were the RottmannenTauern and the Schober, both of which could be crossed in two days fromAdmont. The approach to the Schober (849 meters) consists of a gentle, widevalley that permits agriculture and husbandry. The pass descends to theCarolingian settlement of Sankt Michael on the Mur.23 The ascent fromTrieben to the heights of the Rottmannen Tauern (1,256 meters) is quitesteep; nevertheless, its summit can be reached on foot in a few hours. Fromthe top of the pass the road makes a gradual descent to the Mur through asunlit valley, opening to the south, toward another Carolingian settlement,Pöls.24

Once an army crossed the Tauern to the Mur, the provisioning of troopswould have been Count Pabo's responsibility. For the march from the Mur tothe Drava, several options were available. If troops utilized the Schober, theeasiest route to the southeast followed the Mur to Bruck, where it turnedsharply south to the Graz-Leibnitz basin. Near Leibnitz the Mur bendseastward around Mons Predel (the ridge that formed the boundary betweenCarantania and Pannonia) and on to its confluence with the Drava.25 Forcontingents crossing the Rottmannen Tauern to Pöls, two routes wereavailable; one led via Judenburg to Sankt Andrä in the Lavant Valley; asecond crossed the Mur at Scheifling, where there was a bridge (ad pontem),and continued over the gentle Neumarktersattel to Friesach and to theKarnburg. Along this route we have ample documentation of settlementsdating from the ninth century, not only on the main road but also in sidevalleys such as the Metniz and the Gurk, where food and fodder could be



produced and transported to assembly points. The Gurk Valley, whoseoriginal Roman road led via the Turracherhöhe and the Radstädter TauernPass to Salzburg, is particularly well suited for agriculture and husbandry.



Page 123

Hence, an army moving from Salzburg to the Carantanian basin could alsohave used this route. Another connection between Salzburg and the Dravaexisted via the high Katschberg Pass (1,641 meters), exiting at Millstätt Lake,where there were considerable resources.

Since it was a common Carolingian practice to break up armies into smallerunits when crossing mountain barriers, it is reasonable to assume that many,or all, of these routes were in use during major campaigns. The fact that alarge number of routes could be utilized eased pressure on communitiesalong the line of march, and it prevented elongated columns in narrowvalleys. Once smaller units reached the lakes in the fertile Drava Valleywhere abundant quantities of food and fodder were available, they couldreassemble.

This geography lesson illustrates why counts from the Graman kindred andtheir supporters must have played a decisive role in any conflict against aMoravian principality near the central Danubian watergate. During militaryoperations proceeding southeast through Carantania toward a southernMoravia, Wilhelm, Witagowo, Pabo, and Salacho would have been thecommanders in charge of ensuring the security of the passes, of assemblingprovisions and fodder, and of determining the line of march. Pabo had theadditional responsibility of gathering boats and such additional supplies aspicks, shovels, engines, and other siege equipment essential for operationsagainst Rastislav's fortifications.

But even the existence of a structure of lordships along the Danube from theTraungau to Vienna and Szombathely does not necessarily indicate thatMoravia was north of the Danube, for Carolingian armies regularly advancedthrough Lower Austria when campaigning in southern Pannonia. Thus, thesimple utilization of this route cannot be used as evidence to prove that anexpedition was directed against a northern Moravia. Carolingian offensiveswere generally multipronged affairs, in which forces converged on the enemyfrom several lines of advance. As we have already witnessed, one armyadvanced against Liudewit in 820 by marching along the Danube at least asfar as Vienna, but it then veered southeastward through Pannonia, while asecond contingent was forcing its way into Carantania. Thus, Frankishcommanders must have customarily dispatched armies along the routesthrough Lower Austria and Pannonia when advancing toward a southern



Moravia.

How would an army following the Danube have proceeded? From theTraungau, where the Wilhelminer were in command, to Melk, an army couldhave been amply supported by a relatively dense network of settle-



Page 124

ments along the banks of the river as well as by ships operating on theDanube. In the Wachau, however, steep banks made it difficult to maintainthe road along the river; hence, at least a portion of the invasion forceprobably left the waterway at Melk and moved overland, exactly one day'smarch, to the area around Sankt Pöten, where settlements in the fertileTraisen Valley could sustain a large force. It must be noted that SanktPölten's logistical importance was recognized already by Otachar, whofounded this monastery immediately after the Avars had been driven fromLower Austria. 26 From the region around Sankt Pölten, it was a simple matterto follow the Traisen to its confluence with the Danube at Traismauer,another day's march. At Traismauer and Mautern, where a fortress waslocated at the site of a late Roman castrum, fluvial support could haveresumed to Tulln, where fiscal lands existed.

Once this army had reached the Vienna basin, it must have marched acrossPannonia toward a southern Moravia, for there is ample evidence ofCarolingian settlements following Roman roads leading south andsoutheast.27 Due south of Vienna was the palace (palatium) of Baden alocation that was easily defended and where archaeologists have unearthedthe remains of early medieval fortifications.28 Baden had been of someimportance in antiquity, appearing in the late Roman itineraries as Aquae. Inaddition, several key points can be documented along the roads from Viennathrough Burgenland to Szombathely where Rihheri was count. One of themost important of these localities was Pitten.29 Count Ratpot had owned aconsiderable amount of property there, over which his heirs quarreled. One, anun named Peretcund, wanted to give a portion of it to Freising, but a countKundhari claimed that he had inherited it from Ratpot.30 Carloman, whodecided this case in favor of Freising, adjudicated the case in Baden on theeve of a Moravian campaign. Perhaps the ownership of this property was sohotly contested because Pitten straddled routes leading southeast toSzombathely and southwest to Ptuj. Klebel, who always emphasized thesoutheastern orientation of this frontier military organization, documentednumerous communities southeast of Vienna following the roads throughBurgenland to Szombathely and along the foothills of the eastern Alps in thedirection of Ptuj on the Drava.31

On the route from Vienna to Szombathely, Louis the German gave themission bishop (chorepiscopus) Albrich ten mansi near Sopron (Odinburch), a



strategic location where the hills of Burgenland give away to the LittleAlföld.32 As we have seen, Szombathely, the city of Saint Martin, was the hubof Carolingian Upper Pannonia. From there the line of march to the



Page 125

Sava led through Pribina's territory, linking the city to Lake Balaton and Pécs.Pribina's principality also reached the Drava at Ptuj. There seems to havebeen a close link between him and the Gramans, which may be the reasonwhy some scholars have postulated that the wife of this Slavic prince camefrom the Wilhelminer branch of the Gramans. Count Salacho, for example,was the one who patched up the quarrel between Pribina and Ratpot, andmembers of this marcher kindred were among those who petitioned Louis theGerman to transform Pribina's fiefs in Pannonia to allods. The closerelationship between Pribina and the Gramans may have played a role in thedynamics that led to Carloman's overtures to Rastislav and his subsequentrebellion against his father. It was in Carloman's interests to break the powerof the Gramans, and presumably Rastislav would have liked to rid himself ofhis rival Pribina. 33

The course of events confirms this analysis. The Annales Fuldenses state thatin 861, ''Carloman, the eldest son of the king, was moved to innovations; heexpelled the commanders (duces), to whom the frontiers (limites) ofPannonia and Carantania had been assigned, and governed the marchthrough his own men.''34 Other sources make it clear who these commanderswere. The Auctarium Garstense, for instance, tells us "Pabo, who wasexpelled from Carantania by Carloman, began to reside in Salzburg."35 TheAnnales Iuvavenses relate that Carloman expelled Rihheri with his men andthat Pabo was driven off cum sociis comitibus, a phrase implying that therewere a number of subordinate counts in Carantania.36 Following the expulsionof the margraves, this source relates that "Rastislav swore a pact withCarloman," thus establishing a connection between these events. It is clear,then, that Carloman removed the Gramans from their commands inCarantania and Szombathely. As for Pribina, he too fell victim to the intriguesof Carloman and Rastislav.37 The Conversio reports that he was killed by theMoravians.38 Though it gives no a date, we know from a deed of Freising thathis son Kocel had succeeded him in 861.39

Thus there was a connection between the expulsion of the Gramans and thealliance between Rastislav and Carloman, which must have been forged outof a common desire to break a powerful marcher clan. The sources also statethat Carloman dismissed them from commands in Carantania and Pannonia.If Rastislav's principality had been located in the northern Morava Valley, theexpulsion of Pabo and Rihheri would have been of little or no consequence to



him. If, on the other hand, his capital were near the central Danubianwatergate, he would have had every reason to have joined with Carloman ina plot to rid the marches of the Gramans.



Page 126

Mitterauer has suggested that Carloman removed Pabo, Rihheri, and theirsupporters from their offices with the full knowledge and approval of Louisthe German. 40 The Annales Fuldenses, however, do not support such aconclusion. This source, in fact, makes it clear that the removal of thesecommanders (duces) came as a surprise to Louis, "exciting not a little thetemper of the king, who was moved to suspect rebellion."41 Although thewell-informed Hincmar of Reims, the author of the Annales Bertiniani, doesnot mention the expulsion of the marcher lords, he indicates that by 861 openrebellion had resulted in a very serious military situation for Louis theGerman. "Carloman," Hincmar writes, "who had joined with Rastislav the kingof the Wends (Winidorum regulo), defected from his father, and with the helpof Rastislav he took over a large part of the paternal realm as far as the InnRiver."42

Scholars have assumed that Carloman and Rastislav invaded Lower Austriaand managed to get as far west as the lower Inn. Boba, on the other hand,has argued that they joined forces in Carantania, Carloman's power base,gained control of the passes, and invaded Bavaria from the southeast, thusreaching the upper, not the lower, Inn.43 Logic supports this interpretation. Acoordinated attack by Carloman, based in Carantania, and Rastislav innorthern Moravia, would have been a difficult undertaking indeed. Sinceroughly 260 kilometers of difficult terrain separate the Carantanian basin fromthe mid-Morava Valley north of the Danube, it would have been almostimpossible to maintain communication links between the forces of Carlomanand Rastislav. Moreover, much of the territory along the Danube was underthe control of Louis the German, so that couriers bringing messages betweenthe two leaders would have had to make detours of several hundredkilometers. In contrast, although the distance from the region around theKarnburg and the watergate is slightly greater, waterways and road networksfacilitated communications between these centers, and messengers wouldnot have found it necessary to detour around hostile territory.

Also, for Rastislav's invasion to have reached to the lower Inn from northenMoravia, he would have had to break through defensive positions along arelatively narrow front in Lower Austria and the Traungau, which still wasunder Count Wilhelm II's control. Such an invasion could only have beensuccessful if Werner II, who (Mitterauer thinks) held the margravate in LowerAustria, had thrown his lot with Carloman and Rastislav.44 Had Lower Austria



been friendly territory under the control of a fellow conspirator,communication links between Moravian and Caranta-



Page 127

nian forces could have been more easily maintained though it must be notedthat there were no direct routes at that time from Lower Austria toCarantania. This hypothesis nicely fits Mitterauer's theory that at the heart ofCarloman's rebellion lay a conspiracy of Franconian nobles against theirBavarian counterparts.

This Franconian conspiracy theory rests mostly on the fact that Ernst,Carloman's father-in-law and the prefect of Bavaria, was involved in the plot,and that Louis removed him from his office, in spite of the services he hadrendered to the crown for a generation. 45 If it could be shown that Werner IIwas also a part of this conspiracy, then the events of 860861 could beexplained as a classic example of a clash between Frankish imperialaristocrats (led by Ernst) and powerful provincial nobles (the Gramans). ThisFranconian conspiracy hypothesis, however, flies in the face of evidence.Werner's kin, having come to the marches in the eighth century, were hardlynewcomers with strong Franconian roots at the time of Carloman's revolt.Moreover, Mitterauer himself has shown that Werner II entered into amarriage alliance with the Gramans. Finally, Werner II was very much a partof the anti-Carloman faction. It is true that Werner did involve himself in aplot with Rastislav against Louis, but this occurred only in 865, after the kinghad reached a reconciliation with his son.46 There is no evidence of Werner'sinvolvement in a conspiracy with Rastislav before 865, which is noteworthysince the names of prominent conspirators are mentioned in the sources. IfWerner held such an important Danubian lordship bordering on Moravia, hewould have been mentioned in the sources had he really been involved in theearlier conspiracy. A more plausible explanation is that Werner, dissatisfiedwith the terms of reconciliation between Louis and Carloman, plotted withRastislav in 865, not in 861.

An even more important consideration is that an attack carried fromCarantania to the upper Inn would have been of greater strategic significancethan one resulting in the occupation of Danubian Lower Austria and theTraungau. As we have emphasized time and again, Carantania protected theBrenner and other important routes between Bavaria and Italy. If we assumethat Moravia was located near the watergate, it would have been acomparatively easy task for Carloman and Rastislav to have joined forces inCarantania and gained control over the upper Enns, the Val Pusteria, and thepasses to and from them.



The idea that southern Moravians could have threatened the Brenner cannotbe lightly dismissed. We must remember that Carantanians had joined withLiudewit in the revolt of 819, which disrupted communications



Page 128

in the eastern Alps and carried over the high comb of the Tauern range. Onthis occasion, the rebels controlled the passes for more than a year and wereonly dislodged with great difficulty. When Bulgar forces attacked up the Dravain 827, Carolingian commanders quickly moved to secure the Brenner. In viewof these strategic considerations, Carloman and Rastislav would have hadevery reason to carry their invasion beyond the Tauern and the Brenner.From the upper Enns attacks could have been launched against the Traungauand Salzburggau, where the Gramans had their power base. In addition,control over the Brenner would have made them the masters of all of theroutes through the eastern Alps. No wonder the conspiracy of Carloman andRastislav attracted the attention of the faraway Hincmar of Reims. With thisfait accompli, the conspirators acquired an excellent negotiating position,forcing Louis to compromise with his son. The following year, the kinggranted Carloman safe-conduct to come to Regensburg to swear an oath offealty to him. For his part, Carloman retained his post in Carantania where hismen were now firmly entrenched. 47 His revolt had accomplished its purpose.

The Campaign of 863

Rastislav did not submit to the king, however, and rumors spread at the courtthat Carloman was once more conspiring with the Moravian duke.48 Louis wasenraged by these reports. On the way to an assembly in Regensburg,Carloman learned of his father's anger, whereupon he quickly retraced hissteps to his fideles in Carantania, his mountain fortress beyond the Tauern.Meanwhile, Louis assembled an army, ostensibly against Rastislav. Thisinvasion of Moravian territory was to be carried out with the help of theBulgars, who would attack from the east.49

In this case, the movements of the king's forces can be determined. SinceCarloman, suspect and on bad terms with his father, was in control ofCarantania, the royal army necessarily had to move along the Danube. Oncethe king had reached Vienna, however, he led his army south not in thedirection of a northern Moravia and skillfully maneuvered it into Carantania,where he captured Carloman and sent him back to Regensburg as a prisoner.From this report two questions arise. How was it possible, if Rastislav'sprincipality was located north of the Danube, for Louis to feign a march in thedirection of Moravia and then suddenly invade Carantania? And where did hisforces enter Carloman's realm? According to the Annales





Page 129

Fuldenses, the king's son sent out one of his subordinates, Count Gundachar,who had the entire Caranatanian army with him, to prevent his father fromcrossing a certain river, named Swarzaha in two surviving manuscripts. 50

Thus, Carloman must have known that the king's army would march southfrom Vienna. Gundachar, however, betrayed his overlord and went over tothe king with all of his forces. After the unsuspecting Carloman had beencaptured, Louis promoted the traitor to prefect as a reward.

Because the Swarzaha River is mentioned, scholars assume that Louisinvaded Carantania via the Semmering Pass (see Map 5).51 A SchwarzachRiver does indeed flow eastward from that pass. Boba accepts thisassumption, but he points out that had Louis's army been moving toward anorthern Moravia, there would have been no reason for it to come anywherenear the Schwarzach, which joins the Leitha near Pitten, sixty kilometerssouth of Vienna.52 If, on the other hand, the army had been marching towarda southern Moravia in the direction of Ptuj on the Drava, or if it had beentaking one of the routes from Pitten through Burgenland to Szombathey, aline of march from Vienna to the Schwarzach would seem logical. Troopscould have encamped near Pitten, twenty-five kilometers from theSemmering. Had Louis's campaign been directed against a northern Moravia,he would have revealed his real intentions the moment his forces beganmarching south from Vienna. On the other hand, if a southern Moravia can beassumed, a line of march south from Vienna would not have raised anysuspicions. To launch a surprise attack on Carantania, the king could simplyhave countermarched over the Semmering.

But did Louis really have such a plan? Could he realistically have expected toenter Carantania in a surprise attack with a large army by way of theSemmering? Would Carloman have sent Gundachar with his entire army toguard the Semmering against such a contingency? Certainly, a countermarchover the Semmering would not have been an easy maneuver, for this passdid not become a viable artery for large-scale traffic until much later.53

Although it is a low crossing, the terrain is steep and the narrow valleys thatlead to it on both approaches are unproductive.54

Carloman would have had no reason to dispatch Gundachar, "who had almostthe entire army with him to defend the crossing of the River Schwarza,"55 hadhe not suspected that his father would attempt a surprise invasion of his



lordship. Of course, prudence would make it imperative for the king's son toreconnoiter the movements of his father, even if the latter were feigning aninvasion of a northern Moravia. Such a task, however, he



Page 130

Map 5.The Campaign of 863.



Page 131

would have assigned to scouts. There would have been no reason to havestationed the entire Carantanian exercitus near the Semmering. Mobilizingsuch a large force and sustaining it in such difficult terrain as that of theupper Schwarzach and Mürz valleys, where little or no food was produced,would not have been justified had it not been certain that the king's forceswould pass dangerously near there.

Yet, there are logical reasons to believe that in 863 Louis never planned tocross the Semmering at all. A relatively small Carantanian army, whichcontrolled the rugged mountains to the west of Pitten, should have been ableto prevent a much larger force from invading Carloman's realm. In fact, itwould have been extremely difficult for Louis to force his way over theSemmering, then a narrow trail, had he met determined resistance. His largearmy and supply train would have become strung out for miles. Even if hisexercitus had succeeded in gaining control of the heights of the Semmering,its prospects would scarcely have improved, for it would still face a marchdown the narrow and barren Mürz Valley. In the unlikely event that this armydid manage to reach the confluence of the Mürz with the Mur, it would stillhave had to anticipate many days of arduous campaigning in narrow valleyswith slender resources in order to advance to the centers of power in ninth-century Carantania, the basins near Klagenfurt and Graz.

It is plausible, then, that Louis the German never intended to cross theSemmering into Carantania, and it is also very unlikely that Carlomancommanded Gundachar to use his exercitus to prevent his father fromcrossing the Schwarzach, that is the Schwarzach River that flows from theSemmering. A solution to these strategic and tactical questions presentsitself, however, once we realize that there are many rivers in Austria withnames similar to Swarzaha. Perhaps the vada fluminis Swarzahae thatGundachar was sent to defend was not near the Semmering at all. A streamcalled Schwarza flows directly south from the mountains east of Graz (therange known as Mons Predel, the boundary between Carantania andPannonia) and joins the Mur between Leibnitz and Radkersburg. 56 Here a tollstation (Mautschwarza) was established in 1042 to levy duties on commercecoming from Hungary.57 This river has not been considered because ofMoravia's presumed northern location. The plausibility of a southern Moraviacompletely changes our perspective, however. The Schwarza, flowing fromMons Predel, marked the boundary between Carantania and Pannonia, and



with the resources of the Graz-Leibnitz basin to draw on, a large army couldbe maintained there. If Louis were marching from Vienna



Page 132

toward the Drava crossing at Ptuj, he would have taken the Roman road thatwould have brought him dangerously close to this easy invasion route intoCarantania. The Schwarza must, then, have been the crossing (vada) thatCarloman ordered Gundachar to defend.

The campaign of 863 is also interesting because the annalist of Fulda makesit clear that the king had no intention of marching against Rastislav in 863.From the very beginning this Moravian expedition was feigned. Indeed, suchan invasion of a southern Moravia would have been a perilous operation ifCarloman were still bound by his alliance with Rastislav, as Louis suspected.Since his forces could not, in 863, utilize the Carantanian routes, the kingwould have been forced to bring his entire army through Pannonia, whichmeant that Louis could not employ the typical Carolingian strategy of amultipronged invasion. Moreover, the army would have confronted formidablelogistical problems with Carantania in Carloman's hands. Neither the Dravanor the Sava could have been used to transport supplies. Hence the army,unable to utilize the rivers, would have had to have added more pack animalsto the train. Since it was certainly obvious by this time that any Carolingianruler who realistically wanted to bring Rastislav to heel would have needed tobe prepared to besiege his strong fortifications, an extended campaign andmuch extra food, fodder, and equipment would be necessary. Such anexpedition, however, would have increased the number of pack animalsenormously. Finally, if an alliance between Carloman and the Moravian dukewas a reality (as Louis assumed it was), Carantanian forces would have beenin an excellent position to harass the Franks as they were proceeding throughPannonia. Even more, Louis would have found himself in a precarious positionif his invasion failed (and he could have hardly expected it to be successful).In a worst-case scenario, his retreating forces would have found themselvesbeing attacked by swarms of Moravians in the rear, while, at the same time,being vulnerable to ambushes by Carloman's Carantanians. All of this leads tothe conclusion that Louis the German would have courted disaster to haverisked an invasion of a southern Moravia without first defeating his son inCarantania.

On the other hand, if Rastislav's principality really had been located north ofthe Danube, it would have made sense for the king to deal with the Moravianduke first, before turning his energies against his son. In 863, Louis wasobviously in control of Lower Austria and Upper Pannonia; thus, a northern



Moravia would have been virtually isolated from Carantania. Since aninvasion of a northern Moravia would have presented fewer



Page 133

logistical problems than an assault on Carantania, it would have been logicalto invade Rastislav's realm first, while sending only a few forces to guard thepasses against any mischief that Carloman might attempt. The fact that Louisdecided that regaining control of Carantania was necessary before dealingwith the Moravians is further proof that Rastislav's principality must havebeen east of Carantania. In marching from Baden in the direction of Ptuj,Louis was in effect dividing his enemies. In crossing the vada fluminisSwarzahae, he must have entered Carantania from the southeast (See Map5).

The Charter Evidence

An analysis of the charter evidence from the period 859 to 863 shows thatLouis the German was extraordinarily concerned with the disposition ofproperty in Carantania and Pannonia. The estates, which he granted to hislay and ecclesiastical supporters, were located at strategic points whichwould have been essential for the logistical support of armies marchingsoutheast in the direction of the central Danubian watergate. Thus, thesegrants reveal a logistical organization that was oriented toward thesoutheast.

During the year 859 Louis the German issued three charters dealing with thesoutheastern marches. The first of these was dated May 1 and was issued atthe palace of Frankfurt, where the king rested following a disastrouscampaign against the West Franks. In this document he turned half of theroyal fisc at Tulln over to Saint Emmeram in Regensburg. 58 The property hadbelonged to Ratpot, but Louis confiscated it when he removed him fromoffice. The resources of this fiscal property would have been important insupporting an expedition against a Moravia located either north of theDanube or in southeastern Pannonia.

The second charter was issued at the royal villa of Ostermieting on theSalzach, approximately one day's march north of Salzburg.59 The king gavethe chorepiscopus Albrich ten mansi near Sopron, sixty kilometers southeastof Vienna. Situated in a gap between the hills of Burgenland and theLeithagebirge near the Neusiedlersee, approximately at the midpoint of theRoman road that ran from Vienna to Szombathely, the property at Soprondemonstrates the southeast orientation of the Carolingian marches. Certainlythe resources of this locality would have been beneficial for any army



marching against an enemy in southern Pannonia. The property granted to



Page 134

Albrich is described as being adjacent to the allods of Amalgerus, whichindicates that this was a well-settled region. In addition to these mansi,Albrich was also given extensive, but ill-defined property between the Rabaand the Vienna Woods.

The third of the documents under consideration was issued on October 1 atthe royal villa of Ranshofen on the Inn. 60 This is the well-known WitagowoUrkunde. At the petition of the Carantanian Count Pabo, a Graman, thirteenmansi serviles, with pastures, forests, and water rights in the Admont Valleywere granted to Witagowo. It has already been emphasized that theresources of this region must have been significant in supporting an army onthe march from Bavaria to Carantania. This document also shows that in theautumn of 859 the Gramans enjoyed the confidence of the king and that theywere still very much in control of the main routes from the Traungau andSalzburggau to the Graz and Klagenfurt basins.

The second and third documents indicate that Louis the German either visitedthe marches in the late summer of 859, or, at least, came close to them,reaching Ostermieting and Ranshofen on September 24 and October 1,respectively. He certainly met with persons holding important responsibilitiesin the marches, Bishop Hartwig of Passau, the chorepiscopus Albrich, and thecounts Pabo and Witagowo. That Louis felt compelled to visit thesoutheastern marches in late summer is noteworthy, since he had beenpreoccupied with patching up quarrels with his brother, Charles the Bald.61

His presence in Ostermieting and in Ranshofen shows, then, a concern for theaffairs of the southeastern fringes of his realm during the late summer of 859.These charters involving gifts to marcher personalities demonstrate that heheld conclaves with magnates in the southeast at those villae regiae.

From Ranshofen Louis journeyed to Regensburg, where he celebratedChristmas and remained until after Easter. The charters issued there indicatea continuing concern with the southeast. On February 20 he met with Pribina,confirming a donation that this prince had made to the monastery ofNiederaltaich near Zalaber, on a knee in the Zala River, forty kilometerssoutheast of Szombathely and thirty kilometers north of Pribina's fortress onLake Balaton on routes leading southeast from the Vienna basin.62 This was aconsiderable chunk of property, extending southeast of the Zala and includingthree hundred mansi and an equal number of vineyards.63 Another charter,



also issued in Regensburg (May 8), concerned the monastery of Mattsee,which was given twenty mansi in the modern Burgenland on the Roman roadfrom Pitten to Szombathely via Kirchslag.64 After the latter



Page 135

charter was issued, Louis departed Regensburg for Koblenz to meet withCharles and his nephew Lothair II.

In autumn, however, the king returned again to the Inn-Salzach region,appearing in Mattighofen, where he issued an extremely important charter forthe archiepiscopal see of Salzburg on November 20. 65 The document inquestion is so basic for an understanding of the ecclesiastical principality ofSalzburg that it has attracted much attention, resulting in some controversyconcerning the many localities named in the charter controversy that has notentirely been resolved.66 The Hungarian invasion of Pannonia and thedestruction of the Carolingian marcher organization there, plus somelinguistic peculiarities of the Magyar language, have led to innumerabledisputes over place-name identifications. Nevertheless, many settlements canbe identified with certainty, and, even if we allow for some disagreements,this document reveals, more than any other source, the southeasternorientation of the marches.

Significantly, the charter begins with the donation to Salzburg of the city ofSzombathely (Sabaria civitas) and the locality of Peinihhaa (todaySzentpeterfa in Hungary), one day's march, thirty kilometers due south on theroad to Ptuj. Then, it lists numerous estates (curtes), which the see had heldin beneficum, but which the king converted into allods on this occasion. Thefirst group consists of localities along the Danube that can be identified: Melk(ad Maglicham), where the ancient road left the Danube for the Traisen;Arnsdorf in the Wachau (ad Uuahauua), the wine-producing region along theDanube; Loiben (ad Liupinam), near Krems on the Danube; Hollenburg (adHolunburc), on the right bank of the Traisen near its confluence with theDanube, and Traismauer (ad Trigisimam) on the left bank of the Traisen,where there had been a Roman castellum and where, in the ninth century,was the church of Saint Martin, in which Pribina had been baptized.

After Traismauer the localities that can be identified are all southeast ofVienna. Ad Penninuuanc is Pingersdorf in Burgenland, located near routesleading toward Szombathely. The ecclesia Anzonis cannot be identified withcertainty, but ad Unitanesperc is southeast of Pitten, where the see ofSalzburg possessed one hundred mansi. The ecclesia Ellodis is unknown. Theecclesia Minigonis presbiteri cannot be identified to the satisfaction of allscholars, but it was probably Pilgersdorf on the Rabnitz, approximately



halfway between Pingersdorf and Szombathely. Kundpoldesdorf, anunidentified locality, is among those place-names that were most likely todisappear as Magyar became the prevailing language of the region. AdRapam is



Page 136

obviously on the Raba, but exactly where is unknown. Ad siccam Sabariamwas just north of Szombathely, not around Pannonhalma as some believed. 67

Ad Peinicahu is on the Pinka River which originates in the hills of Burgenlandand flows southeastward into the Raba south of Szombathely. Ad Salapiuginis Zalaber, approximately midway between Szombathely and Pribina's fortressof Zalavár. The ecclesia ad Chuartinahu was on Lake Balaton, but theecclesiae ad Kensi, ad Ternperc, and ad Gundoldi will probably never belocated to the satisfaction of most scholars.

Along the Pannonian and Carantanian border, localities are more easilyidentified. The ecclesia ad Sabnizam was near Hartberg, an excellent placefor agriculture because of its position on a terrace between mountains to thewest and swamps and marshes to the east. A prehistoric settlement,Hartberg was situated where the Roman road from Flavia Solva (nearLeibnitz) branched eastward toward Szombathely. This road formed a linkconnecting the Graz-Leibnitz basin with Szombathely; thus, it may have beenthe route that Louis the German took when he invaded Carantania in 863. Inthe valley of the upper Raba two localities can be identified with certainty.The first is the curtis ad Nezilinpah (Nestelbach) west of Gleisdorf on the roadthat leads over Mons Predel to Graz. The second is another curtis ad Rapam(Sankt Ruprecht an der Raab). Also on the borders of Pannonia andCarantania was ad Tudleipin (near Mureck and the Schwarza River), thirtykilometers northwest of Ptuj. The next locality, ad Sulpam (near Leibnitz), ison the road from Flavia Solva to Szombathely.

The curtes in Carantania are also easily identified. Sankt Andrä (adLabantam) is nicely situated on a sunlit terrace above the Lavant River, aday's march above its confluence with the Drava at Lavamünd, where theriver breaks through the mountains to emerge into the rolling country at Ptuj.The Görschnitz Valley (ad Kurzizam beneficium Engilbaldi), thoughmountainous, opens gently to the southeast and is excellently situated foragriculture and husbandry. Maria Saal (ad Carantanam ecclesiam sanctaeMariae) is located on a hill above the Zollfeld, the ancient heartland ofNoricum Mediterraneum. It is within sight of the royal palace in Carantania,the Karnburg. The next three localities (ad Trahoue, ad Gurniz, ad Trebinam)have been identified as Drauhofen bei Tainach, Gurnitz, and Treffen,respectively. Ad Astaruuizam is Osterwitz, where the mighty fortress ofHochosterwitz stands today, a silent testimony to the enduring strategic



importance of this region.

The following curtes ad Friesah (Friesach) and ad Crazulpam (Graslupp on theNeumarktersattel) linked the basin around the Karnburg and



Page 137

Maria Saal with the Mur. Ad Pelisam (Pöls, where the road over theRottmannen Tauern Pass from Trieben reaches the Mur), ad Chumbenzam(Koblenz), ad Undriman (Wasserberg), ad Liestinicham (Sankt Michael, at theexit of the Schober route), and ad Pruccam (Bruck an der Mur) are all locatedon the shoulders above the upper Mur. Situated approximately one day'smarch from one another, these communities constituted an important linkbetween the exits of the Schober and the Rottmannen Tauern. Ad Morizam(Sankt Lorenzen) is at the very end of the steep Mürz Valley where some foodproduction is possible. Also listed were duo loca ad Strazinolun (Gratwein andGratkorn, at the northern fringe of the Graz basin). Finally, near theheadwaters of the Raba was ad Luminicham iuxta Rapam (near Weiz, to thenortheast of Sankt Ruprecht).

All of these localities have been the subject of detailed investigations. Thecurtes varied greatly in size according to the features of the landscape. Thecourt ad Salapiugin (Zalaber in Pribina's principality) consisted, for example,of more than three hundred mansi and the one ad Uuitanesperc of at leastone hundred, while the various curtes of the upper Mur were miniscule incomparison. One feature that they had in common, however, is that theywere all strategically situated on the routes leading in the direction ofsoutheastern Pannonia. This fact has gone unnoticed in studies of theselocalities, largely because they were products of local historical interests, and,consequently, their authors were not concerned with the larger historicalcontext. As Dopsch put it, ''In contrast with the locations of these twenty-fourcurtes, the motives behind this donation have not yet been adequatelytreated.'' 68

Dopsch believes that this charter must be interpreted in the context of theconflict between Louis and Carloman. The king's son had dismissed theGramans from their lordships earlier in the year 860, an event that led Louisto mistrust him. In light of the expulsion of Pabo and Rihheri, who took upresidence near Salzburg, the king, suspecting mischief, converted the fiefs inthe charter to allods for the benefit of the archbishop, who remained loyal(königstreu). Dopsch noted that these were "important possessions from theviewpoint of communications and strategy," and he argued that these werelocalities that had military functions that went beyond the need to supportmission efforts to the Carantanian Slavs. "With this act, however, Salzburgwas dragged more deeply into the military conflicts of this region," he



wrote.69 If the donation of 860 must be interpreted in light of the militaryorganization of the marches, then the fact that these curtes were located atstrategic points, along routes leading southeast, indicates that



Page 138

Map 6.Salzburg's Possessions.



Page 139

Carolingian rulers were determined to develop a logistical infrastructureallowing them to control the southeast (see Map 6).

Three other documents from this period yield additional informationconcerning the military organization of the marches. In Regensburg on March21, 861, Pribina's son Kocel gave Freising extensive possessions around LakeBalaton. 70 This document is important because it indicates that Pribina hadalready been killed and that his son had come to Regensburg requesting helpagainst Rastislav. Also, this document is the first evidence of Freising'sinterest in Pannonia. As we have already noted, at crucial moments in thehistory of these marches, Freising was the beneficiary of donations in thefrontier region.71 Earlier donations, however, were in Carantania and in SouthTyrol. In 861 the see received for the first time a large grant in Pannoniasoutheast of the Raba.

The second document is a royal charter for the monastery of Nieder-altaich,dated from Ostermieting, June 16, 863.72 In this source Louis donated to themonastery a villa (vocatur Nabuuinida) in the Nordwald toward Bohemia; healso, however, confirmed a gift of Charlemagne consisting of localities inPannonia. In this instance, it is interesting to note that these properties werelocated near Ybbs on the Danube just east of the Enns line. The fact thatthey were considered to be in Pannonia means that they belonged to themarcher military organization that supported operations in the southeast. Aswe have stressed repeatedly, Danubian Lower Austria was naturallyconnected with the route through Pannonia via Vienna-Szombathely-Pécs-Sirmium. Thus, this document demonstrates clearly that the region east ofthe Enns was linked administratively and militarily to Pannonia, not to theregion north of the Danube.

In a final document, Louis the German granted to Salzburg fiscal property inCarantania near Gurk.73 This charter was issued at Regensburg on January 6,864 thus, during the midwinter feasts following the defeat and arrest ofCarloman. He made the donation at the request of Count Gundachar, whohad been elevated to the rank of prefect. The property pertained to a curtisthat the count held as a benefice, and it was now turned over to thearchbishop to support his visits to Carantania. In the past such visitations hadbeen sustained by a special tax (coniectus), which the prelate levied on the"count and people (populus) of this land." It was, however, becoming a



burden, largely because Archbishop Adalwin had removed the chorepiscopusOsbald and had personally taken control of mission activities in Carantania,requiring frequent visitations. The count and populus agreed to give up allodsto support the archbishop. Since the term populus obviously



Page 140

refers to landowners subject to military service, we can surmise that thedecision of the Carantanians to desert Carloman in 863 was inspired by theking's promise to rid them of the coniectus. This charter must represent astep on Louis's part to pacify Carantania in anticipation of a major expeditionagainst Rastislav's realm in the summer of 864.

The Campaign of 864

With Carloman in Custody, in 864 Louis the German turned his attention toMoravia. During the month of August, the Annales Fuldenses report, the kinginvaded Moravia, crossing the Danube (ultra Danubium) to besiege the civitasDowina, where Rastislav was ensconced. 74 The duke, unwilling to risk apitched battle and unable to escape encirclement, capitulated, swearing,along with his optimates, that he would serve the Carolingian monarch untilthe end of his days, a promise, the annalist remarks, he had no intention ofkeeping. This report is augmented by a statement in the Annales Bertiniani,commenting that Louis sought the assistance of the Bulgar khan in hiscampaign against Rastislav.75 A papal letter also reports that Louis went toTulln to dispose of some matters and, thereafter, to confirm his alliance withthe Bulgar ruler and to bring Rastislav's disobedience to an end.76 From thesesources it has been concluded that the East Frankish expedition of 864 wasan unqualified success, and that it demonstrates Moravia's northernlocation.77 The papal letter has been construed to state that the Frankish kingmet with the Bulgar ruler in Tulln, and it has been assumed that the civitasDowina is Dévin (German Theben), a fortress situated on a promontoryoverlooking the confluence of the northern Morava with the Danube.

But neither the alleged meeting in Tulln nor the siege of Dowina sustains thetraditional view. The letter does not state that Louis met the khan in Tulln,but that he planned to confirm the peace with him. If they met at all, theplace is not specified. Louis may have launched his expedition from Tulln, butthat fact does not exclude the possibility that he intended to campaign insoutheastern Pannonia. Nor is it certain that Dowina can be identified asDévin. Many rejected this equation on philological grounds long before theissue of Moravia's geographic location was raised.78 Furthermore, noarchaeological or other evidence has been uncovered that might alter thisjudgment.79 Recent excavations show that Dévin in the ninth century was afortified place of refuge (Fluchtburg), not a permanent





Page 141

settlement as the term civitas Dowina implies. For this reason Ludomil Havliklocates it at Strachotin on the confluence of the Svratka and the Dyje fartherto the north. Although there is no place-name evidence to support thatconclusion, Strachotin was at least a permanent settlement.

There are other reasons to reject the traditional scenario concerning theexpedition of 864. As Boba has pointed out, the role of the Bulgars in theFrankish-Moravian conflicts of the ninth century has never been clarified. Thefact that the East Frankish king wanted to meet with the Bulgar khan is ofgreater significance than where the meeting took place. As we have seen,conclaves between Louis and Bulgar representatives had occurred before inconnection with Frankish plans to invade Moravian territory in 846 and 863.As we shall see, alliances between these powers against the Moravians werealso formed in the 880s and 890s. The reasons for Bulgar interest in analliance with the Franks against the Moravians is puzzling if Rastislav's realmwas in modern Moravia, far northwest of the Bulgar centers of power in Pliskaand Preslav. In order to explain this difficulty some have postulated thatRastislav's principality was expanding rapidly southeastward to the Tisza, 80

while others assert that the Bulgars must have occupied a much largerportion of the Carpathian basin than the sources lead us to believe.81 Thereis, in fact, no consensus concerning the territorial extent of Bulgaria in theninth century.82 In the end, all of these attempts to extend (or to limit) theboundaries of Bulgaria and/or Moravia have been based on the assumptionthat the Moravian principality originated in the modern Czech Republic.

If, however, we admit the possibility that Moravia was located in the vicinityof the central Danubian watergate, a Frankish-Bulgar alliance makes sensewithout unnecessarily enlarging the territory encompassed by early medievalBulgaria. It can be demonstrated, in fact, that in 864 Khan Boris would havehad little or no interest in becoming involved in a conflict with a remoteneighbor to the northwest, for famine stalked his lands, causing widespreaddiscontent, while Byzantine forces were poised to invade from the south.83 Hewould not have considered a Moravian principality located well beyond thefringes of his world a serious threat when his heartland on the lower Danubewas menaced by a powerful neighbor on the Bosporus. Assuming a southernMoravia, however, alters the situation considerably. In this case an alliancewith the Franks against the Moravians would have served the khan'sinterests, as Rastislav could have threatened the Bulgarian heartland from



the west as Eastern imperial forces invaded the khanate from the south.



Page 142

Rastislav had already made overtures toward Byzantium, resulting in thearrival of Constantine and Methodius at the court of the Moravian ruler in 863.The advent of Greek missionaries in Moravia implied an alliance between theEastern emperor and the duke. Coming as it did in the early 860s, the missionrepresented a Byzantine commitment to Rastislav's struggle for independencefrom the East Frankish king. But Moravian overtures toward Byzantium onlyhad serious implications for the khan if Rastislav's court had been located inor around the central Danubian watergate. Had Moravia been situated in thenorthern Morava Valley, Rastislav's army would have posed no threat to theheartland of the khanate.

The Bulgarian alliance with the Franks against a Moravia located near thewatergate is also logical within another context. We know that a meeting hadbeen scheduled between Louis and Khan Boris from the correspondence ofPope Nicholas I, who was advancing Roman jurisdictional claims in the centralDanubian basin against those of the Byzantine patriarch. In 864 he must havebeen concerned about the extension of Eastern ecclesiastical interests intothis region as a result of the missions headed by Constantine and Methodius.Although it probably was impossible for Nicholas to evaluate the intentions ofthe brothers fully, the pope was aware of the mission, and he must havebeen suspicious of it. The text of the pontiff's letter expresses his satisfactionover the prospect of converting the Bulgars, and, significantly, it implies thatNicholas saw a connection between this event and a Frankish-Bulgar invasionof Moravian territory. Louis planned, Nicholas wrote, "to confirm the peacewith the king of the Bulgars and to make Rastislav obedient to him whetherhe wants to or not." 84

Hincmar of Reims also draws a direct connection between the meeting ofthese rulers and the Moravian war. His words also are worth quoting. "Louisking of Germany went off on a military expedition to meet with the khan ofthe Bulgars . . . , who had promised that he wanted to become Christian;should be [Louis] see that they prospered, then he would reorganize themarch of the Wends (Winidorum marca)."85 There can be no doubt that thearchbishop of Reims was referring to the march against the Moravians, for heconsistently named Moravians Wends, giving Rastislav the title regulusWinidorum.

It should be noted that Hincmar does not state that Louis actually met with



the khan, nor does his report confirm an East Frankish victory over theMoravians. Did this meeting take place? And did Frankish armies reallyachieve a significant victory in 864? Historians have concluded that Louis



Page 143

met with the khan in August 864 and together their armies crossed theDanube from south to north, invaded Rastislav's territory, and forced hissubmission. It is assumed that the papal letter and the Annales Bertinianiconfirm the Annales Fuldenses, which presented the defeat of the Moraviansas a fait accompli. On close analysis, however, it is clear that neither thepapal letter nor Hincmar's report really substantiate the Frankish victoryproclaimed by the annalist. In contrast with the latter, the archbishop merelystates that it was the king's purpose to restructure the march, should thecampaign be successful. He did not write that the expedition had prosperedin fact. Also, Nicholas's letter offers no confirmation of a Frankish victory. Thepontiff asserted that Louis hoped to make Rastislav obedient "whether hewants to or not," but no papal epistle actually reveals that the king wassuccessful. Given the pope's interest in the contested region, one would haveexpected some comment, had Louis's enterprise prospered. It is important torealize that the Annales Fuldenses, an "official" East Frankish source, are theonly contemporary record that we have of a Carolingian victory in 864, anunusual fact, for East Frankish triumphs over the Moravians normallyattracted the notice of several annalists. 86

Moreover, there is reason to doubt the significance of the "victory" over theMoravians, and an analysis of the general context of contemporary eventsdemonstrates the impossibility of a meaningful Carolingian subjugation ofMoravian territory during that year. As the annalist of Fulda remarked,Rastislav and his optimates had no intention of honoring their pledges offidelity to Louis; thus, even his account indicates that the outcome was moreof a standoff than a decisive Frankish triumph. Rastislav gave up somehostages, and the Franks withdrew, but there is no indication that Louis inany way altered the existing power structure in Moravia; nor does theannalist reveal that the king had dealt effectively with conditions in themarches. In fact, within a year the Moravian leader was conspiring once againwith disgruntled margraves and inciting rebellion against the king,necessitating additional Frankish expeditions in 865 and 866.87

An inspection of the royal itinerary for the latter part of 864 also leads to thesuspicion that the Frankish "victory" over the Moravians must have beenexaggerated. At first glance, the chronology in the Annales Fuldenses seemshopelessly confused for the year 864.88 Its author states that the kingcampaigned in August against Rastislav, then met his brother Charles near



Toul in the West Frankish kingdom in September.89 The latter meeting,however, did not occur until February of 865.90 It is also noteworthy thatLouis was still in Regensburg on August 20,91 even though the campaign



Page 144

allegedly took place in August. He would have had precious little time tomeet with the khan, invade Moravia, lay siege to Dowina, negotiateRastislav's surrender of hostages, and finally return to Mattighofen, where heissued a charter on October 2. 92 Wherever Dowina may have been, the siegecould not have lasted for very long, nor could the king's attempts to pacifyRastislav's realm have been thorough. His participation in the campaignagainst Moravia in 864 must have been short, largely in September, not inAugust. At best, he supervised the siege of an outpost for a few weeks. Thereis no compelling evidence that Louis reestablished his hegemony overMoravia in 864.

One factor that probably contributed to the failure of the expedition involvesthe Bulgars. Byzantine armies successfully broke through the southerndefenses of Bulgaria, while at the same time an imperial fleet moved up thelower Danube from the Black Sea, landing forces on its banks and capturingstrategic points in the Bulgarian heartland.93 The khan submitted andaccepted Christianity from Constantinople. Although it is not clear whenprecisely this invasion of Bulgaria took place, it is generally assumed that itoccurred sometime in late summer of 864.94 Since neither the papal letter norHincmar's text actually confirms that the meeting between Boris and Louistook place, it is possible that the Byzantine invasion of Bulgar territorypreempted it. Another scenario is that this Eastern imperial offensive occurredas Franks and Bulgars were attacking Moravia, necessitating the khan's hastyreturn to his heartland. Since the Franks had counted on Bulgar assistance inreducing formidable Moravian fortifications, their removal from the hostilitieswould have seriously undermined prospects for a successful campaign,prompting Frankish commanders to agree to a face-saving early peace.

But there is a second and perhaps even more important factor to consider inanalyzing the expedition of 864. Hincmar reports that Carloman escaped fromhouse arrest and fled to Carantania, where he was welcomed by themargraves, Gundachar and his subordinates. With their consent, he wasrestored to his prior commands.95 Louis hurried after him, and, followingnegotiations, Carloman was reinstated formally in his honor by his father.Unfortunately, Hincmar does not tell us precisely when Carloman escaped,but it must have occurred in autumn, for he wrote that, following Carloman'sreinstatement, Louis set out for Frankfurt where an assembly of magnateshad been scheduled for Christmas. Moreover, the most obvious time for



Carloman to have escaped was during his father's Moravian campaign. Thenews of Carloman's flight must have persuaded



Page 145

Louis to break off operations against the Moravians immediately, had thewithdrawal of Bulgar forces not already done so. As in 863, the king wasmore concerned with reining in his son than with carrying out operationsagainst Moravia.

The campaign of 864 failed, then, because of two factors, Byzantine pressureon the Bulgars and Carloman's escape and return to Carantania. It is difficult,however, to reconcile this hypothesis with the traditional notion that theexpedition of 864 took place north of the Danube. Although it is possible thatLouis arrived by riverboat in Tulln circa August 23, began the siege of Dowina(wherever it was) no later than September 1, received the news ofCarloman's escape shortly thereafter, promptly negotiated a peace withRastislav, and returned to Mattighofen on October 2, such an itinerary fails toexplain many basic problems. If Louis were besieging Dévin on the Danube,he would not have pursued his son (who was heading for Carantania) byreturning to Mattighofen, for such a movement would imply that he intendedto follow the prince via high Salzburg passes. In the unlikely event that hedecided to chase after him via Alpine routes, he would have chosen the lowerPyhrn-Schober route, which would have taken him into the mountains southof Kremsmünster, several days east of Mattighofen.

However, the most logical route to Carantania for the king (if he were indeedat Dévin on the Danube) would not have been through the Alps at all butalong the Pannonian-Carantanian border, following the road to Ptuj. Thispossibility must be ruled out, however, for, even if he had received the newsof Carloman's escape in Dévin at the beginning of September, it would havebeen difficult for him to arrange a truce with Rastislav before the middle ofthe month, approximately two weeks after the siege had begun, thus makingit impossible for him to march toward Carantania, negotiate with his son, andarrive in Mattighofen on October 2.

A second difficulty with the assumption that Louis was north of the Danubewhen he learned of Carloman's return to Carantania involves the activities ofthe Carantanian margraves, Gundachar and his subordinates. According toHincmar, Carloman regained his former position in the marches "with theconsent of the margraves." Thus, they must have been in Carantania whenthe prince arrived there. In this case the question arises, why, if Louis hadbeen besieging a fort north of the Danube at that time, were not the



Carantanian margraves with him? There is no doubt about the obligation ofCarantanians to join the hosts during Moravian expeditions. In 864 Louis hadobviously planned a major campaign, one that also involved the Bulgar khanand that had caught the attention of Nicholas I.



Page 146

Therefore, it is impossible to believe that the king would not have summonedthe Carantanian margraves for such an operation. One cannot, of course,discount the possibility that Gundachar, who had a reputation for treachery,conspired secretly with Carloman. It could be that he and his warriors, havingalready reached an agreement with the king's son, had no intention to join inthe siege of Dowina. In this event, however, the absence of Carantaniancontingents would have made it apparent to the king that something wasamiss immediately upon his arrival in Tulln. Although such a scenario ispossible, another is even more likely.

If we assume that the expedition of 864 was directed against a southeasternMoravia, Louis would not, of course, have expected the Carantanians to havemet him near Dévin. Gundachar and his subordinates would have beenassigned the task of leading pincers down the Drava and Sava valleys. Ajuncture of Carantanian forces with the Danubian army would not have beenanticipated until the latter had penetrated deep into Pannonia. Had Carlomanfled to Carantania shortly after his father had departed for Tulln the idealtime for the prince to have engineered his escape he could have appeared inperson before Carantanians assembled on the eastern border of Pannonia.According to a prearranged agreement with Gundachar, the assembledwarriors could have reinstated him in his honor. The king, not suspecting amajor rebellion in Carantania, would have been well into Pannonia before herealized what had happened. The entire Moravian campaign, then, wouldhave been in jeopardy, for it would have been dangerous indeed for him toconduct major military operations against a southern Moravia with apotentially hostile Carantanian army in his rear, especially if it had alreadybecome clear that his Bulgar allies were in trouble.

Other options, however, would have been available to Louis in this case,options which would not have been open to him had be been besieging Dévinon the Danube. Since this model allows that Louis was already in Pannoniawith a large army when he learned of Carloman's escape, it would have beenpossible for him to have taken immediate action against his son and theCarantanians who supported him, "to have tracked him down," as Hincmarput it. Had, for example, Louis reached Tulln by boat on the Danube and leftVienna on August 25, marching southeast at a rate of thirty kilometers perday, he would have arrived in Szombathely before the end of August, whencouriers reached him with news of his son's escape. Countermarching in the



direction of Ptuj, he could have brought his forces to the borders ofCarantania by September 5 at the latest.



Page 147

Hincmar reports that Louis summoned Carloman to appear before him andthat the latter, having been guaranteed safe-conduct, met with his father,who formally reinstated him in his honores. It is chronologically possible thatthis meeting took place before September 10, somewhere near thePannonian-Carantanian boundary. The archbishop makes it clear thatCarloman got what he wanted, recognition of his position in the southeasternmarches. But Louis gained something from the agreement as well; from thispoint on Carloman remained a firm supporter of paternal goals. According tothe Adonis Continuatio prima, Louis gave Carloman ''Norica, that is Bavaria,and its marches against the Slavs and the Lombards.'' 96 As we shall see,Carloman's responsibilities in the "march against the Slavs" (marca contraSclavos) primarily involved operations against Rastislav, a task to which hethen set himself with great vigor.97 It is not too much to speculate that Louis,having reached a reconciliation with Carloman in September 864,simultaneously turned over the Moravian expedition to his son and returnedwith only his intimate entourage through Carantania to Bavaria. Such anarrangement would have been in their mutual interests. Carloman, a man inhis mid- to late thirties, wanted independence from his father's watchful eyeand an opportunity to make a name for himself as a commander.98 Louis,nearing sixty at that time, was losing his taste for campaigns in distantregions.99 In addition, practical, logistical matters would also have motivatedthe king to settle his differences with his son. On both sides, troops andanimals had to be fed whether they were facing one another on the fringes ofPannonia or advancing southeastward to invade Rastislav's realm near thewatergate. With a fully mobilized army in the field, the king must have feltthe pressure to resolve the situation by turning the entire expedition over tohis son.

This explanation fits the royal itinerary during the latter part of 864, for sucha scenario explains Louis's appearance in the Inn-Salzach region in earlyOctober. Traveling with a small entourage and carrying little or no baggagethrough Carantania, a region where there were abundant rest stops andpoints of resupply, he could easily have reached Mattighofen by October 2,even if he had concluded his negotiations with his son as late as September15. Under conditions that normally prevail in the eastern Alps in earlyautumn, the march from Graz to Wels would have taken approximately eightto ten days at the comfortable rate of thirty kilometers per day, and a small



retinue could have easily done more.

In this regard there is another piece of evidence that we must consider: theroyal charter issued in Mattighofen on October 2.100 It was a donation



Page 148

to the see of Salzburg. This gift, in Wisitindorf in Pannonia, involved eightmansi, each of which contained ninety iugera of arable land. Also includedwas the depth of one mile of forest (silva) surrounding the village. Wisitindorfwas located near Limbach (today southeastern Styria) in the valley of theLafnitz, a tributary of the upper Raba. This property bordered on the ecclesiaad Sabnizam (a part of the great donation of 860) and was situated on aterrace near the road that ran along the border between Pannonia andCarantania. It is sixty kilometers (two days' march) from there to the Grazbasin, and roughly thirty kilometers to Sankt Ruprecht an der Raab. Thisdocument is a further indication that Louis the German marched throughPannonia to meet with his son in 864. Had the king been in Pannonia whenhe learned of Carloman's escape to Carantania and then moved along theborders of these provinces seeking a rendezvous with his son, he would havecome very near Wisitindorf. If the king and his court, including ArchbishopAdalwin of Salzburg, had returned from Pannonia through Carantaniaproviding for themselves from Salzburg properties along the route, themonarch might have been tempted to increase the density of the possessionsof this see in the frontier region by donating to the loyal archbishopstrategically situated property on the boundaries of Carantania and Pannonia.In this case, it involved real estate that the prelate would have had anopportunity to inspect as he marched along the Pannonian-Carantanianborder in the early autumn of 864.

The king's desire to return to the Inn-Salzach region is only partiallyexplained by considerations involving the southeastern marches. A largeassembly of magnates was scheduled to take place in Frankfurt during theAdvent season, and there were negotiations with the West Franks looming inearly 865. In order to journey from Carantania to the Rhine-Main region, theking would have had to pass through eastern Bavaria, where the royal palatiaand curtes of the Inn-Salzach quarter had become favorite residences. Eachof these residences had a game enclosure (brogilus), neatly hedged andcarefully managed for the royal pleasure. 101 His passion for the chase, plusthe real need of a man in his late fifties for relaxation, may have been factorsthat motivated the king's return to Mattighofen in early October. According toHincmar, "Thence [wherever he had met with Carloman] returning towardFrankfurt, he fell from his horse while hunting deer in a certain brogilus, and,because of injured ribs, he remained in a nearby monastery and sent his son



Louis to the above mentioned palace [Frankfurt]."102 This sentence, whencombined with two diplomas, tells us much about the activities of the kingduring the autumn of this year. In addition to the



Page 149

charter issued at Mattighofen on October 2, the king ordered his scribes todraw up another one for Niederaltaich on December 18, granting themonastery numerous possessions along the Danube including vineyards inthe Wachau. 103 Since the charter was issued at the monastery, we can besure that Louis convalesced there following his accident. Thus, the huntingincident must have taken place at one of the royal enclaves in or near theInn-Salzach region, during October or November 864. This was not the regionwhere he had met with Carloman, for he was proceeding from that region inthe direction of Frankfurt when the incident occurred.

Although Hincmar writes that the convalescence was brief, the fact that theinjury was even reported in the West Frankish Annales Bertiniani is a signthat it must have been a severe one from which a fifty-nine-year-old manwould have been slow to recover. That he felt compelled to send his sonLouis the Younger to Frankfurt to meet with the magnates in this place alsoindicates that the injury was sufficiently grave to give rise to rumorsconcerning the state of his health and his ability to govern. In addition, it isinteresting that he did not send Carloman, his eldest son. This is anotherindication that Louis did not meet with the latter in Bavaria and thatCarloman must have been in the southeastern marches (Carantania) dealingwith Rastislav. It certainly was imperative for a representative of the royalfamily to make an appearance at Frankfurt. Frankish magnates becamerestive when they witnessed the reins of power slipping from the hands of aruling monarch, and there are ample indications that Louis began to lose hisgrip following his hunting accident in the autumn of 864, for the next twoyears were marked by major rebellions.

A detailed look at the king's activities during the latter part of 864 has beennecessary, because it is generally believed that the aging monarchsuccessfully completed the siege of Dowina, marched back up the Danube toMattighofen, whence he "tracked his son down," compelling him to negotiate,restored him in his honores, and then, rushing off to Frankfurt, he was injuredin a hunting accident. Such an explanation, while possible, is less convincingthan the one advanced above. If Louis, from a point northeast of Vienna, hadchased after his son in Carantania, it is improbable that he could havereturned to Mattighofen by early October. Although the king and his courtcould have reached Mattighofen from Dévin by October 2 (had the siegeterminated in mid-September), it would have been difficult to pull all of his



forces back to Upper Austria, and it is unlikely that the royal entourage alonecould have compelled Carloman to negotiate.

Moreover, from a royal residence about thirty kilometers north of



Page 150

Salzburg, Louis would have been faced with the prospect of launching aninvasion through the Alps into Carantania in mid-autumn and with an armythat had just completed a campaign against the Moravians. Minimally, thisarmy would have already marched down the Danube to the region aroundBratislava and back again, after having conducted a siege. In addition, aninvasion of Carantania from the Inn-Salzach region was not the sort ofexpedition that Louis could have undertaken as an afterthought following hisMoravian campaign. It would have been a major operation necessitatingcareful planning. Even a more vigorous ruler would have hesitated toundertake such a venture immediately after having completed a Moravianexpedition.

The following itinerary is more plausible: The king left Regensburg byrivercraft on August 20, reaching Tulln no later than August 23. By the end ofAugust he would have been near Szombathely, when he learned of his son'sflight to Carantania. If we assume that Rastislav's principality was in thesoutheast and that Louis and Carloman met before mid-September with theirassembled armies on the Pannonian-Carantanian border, then the king couldhave turned over command of the Moravian expedition to his son and arrivedwith a small following in the Inn-Salzach region by early October for huntingand relaxation before moving on to Frankfurt for a placitum at Christmas.Unfortunately for him, however, he fell from his mount, injuring himselfseverely, which forced him to recuperate in the Bavarian monastery ofNiederaltaich.

In sum, the account of the expedition of 864 in the Annales Fuldenses isstrangely deficient. If Louis participated in military operations against theMoravians at all during this year, his involvement was brief, and it must havecome during the month of September, not in August as the annalist states.The campaign was a standoff, not a Frankish victory. Once we realize that theking's part in the expedition was limited and that he failed to achieve hismajor goals, it is plausible that he was marching southeast into Pannoniawhen he learned of his son's escape to Carantania. As the campaign began tounravel, he reached an agreement with Carloman, probably turning over tohim the command of the entire expedition, and the monarch returned toBavaria. It may well have been Carloman who continued operations againstRastislav and reached a temporary truce with him. It is curious indeed thatthe Fulda annalist, who was normally so well informed concerning the



situation in the marches, neglected to mention several of the most importantevents of 864. Among these were Carloman's escape and his reconciliationwith his father, the king's plans to meet with the Bulgar khan



Page 151

and the projected Christianization of his people, and even the king's huntingaccident combined with his inability to take part in the assembly at Frankfurt.These omissions lead us to suspect that the Fulda annalist is a less thanreliable witness for the events of 864.

Conclusion

In the 850s and 860s Duke Rastislav made himself virtually independent ofCarolingian rule by allying himself with disgruntled marcher commanders, firstRatpot, then Carloman. The appointment of the latter as prefect resulted in amarked shift in the center of gravity of the marches to Carantania in order todeal with the Moravian threat. Carloman, however, found his power restrictedin Carantania and Pannonia by entrenched margraves from the Gramankindred, who had succeed in dominating the affairs of the southeast. Toachieve a greater measure of independence for himself in the marches,Carloman dismissed the Gramans from their commands in Carantania andPannonia and joined with Ratislav in a rebellion against the East Frankishking. The Moravians invaded Pribina's principality between the Raba and theDrava, killing the dux, and assisted Carloman in carrying his revolt fromCarantania to the upper Inn, giving the rebellious prince control of theBrenner.

Although Louis was forced to make peace with Carloman, he suspected hisson of continuing his conspiracy with Rastislav, who remained hostile. In 863,feigning an invasion of Moravia, the king launched an attack on Carantaniafrom the southeast, entering Carloman's lordship by crossing the SchwarzaRiver, the Pannonian-Carantanian boundary near Leibnitz. Our reconstructionof this campaign demonstrates clearly the validity of the southern Moravianhypothesis, for such a maneuver would have been impossible if Rastislav'sprincipality had been north of the Danube.

The orientation of the marches also becomes evident in charters that Louisthe German issued between 860 and 864. A closer analysis shows clearly thatthe king sought to ensure that loyal supporters, the Gramans and theBavarian bishops, controlled routes leading southeast through Pannonia andCarantania. Even the expedition of 864 fails to reveal a marcher militarystructure oriented against a northern Moravia. On the contrary, theinvolvement of the Bulgars in the planning stages for this campaign seems toindicate that operations were to take place in southern Pannonia. Dowina,



though it has yet to be located, certainly was not Dévin



Page 152

on the Danube. The most plausible explanation of this campaign is asfollows: Louis was marching southeast through Pannonia when he learnedthat Carloman had escaped. He then reached an agreement with his son andturned the expedition against the Moravians over to him. In spite of theirdifferences, Louis and Carloman managed to make an enduring peace in theautumn of 864, setting the stage for a struggle between the king's son andRastislav for control of the central Danubian basin from 865 to 875.



Page 153

6.The Critical Decade, 865874

Introduction

The decade following the campaign of 864 was a critical one in the history ofthe central Danubian basin. During this period the papacy, Byzantium, andthe Bavarian bishops came into open conflict over jurisdiction in the region.The end result was the papal appointment of Methodius as archbishop ofSirmium (the see of Saint Andronicus). Methodius's episcopal enthronement,however, was not accomplished without a struggle, for in 870 the apostle wastaken captive and incarcerated, very probably in the Swabian monastery ofReichenau. 1 Only the defeat of Frankish armies by Zwentibald led toMethodius's release from captivity. This period also witnessed the dramaticconversion of Khan Boris and the slow drift of the Bulgars into the Easternimperial orbit, after the khan had toyed successfully with Byzantine, Roman,and East Frankish centers of Christendom.2

Although papal and Slavic sources indicate that there was a major strugglebetween the superpowers of the ninth century for ecclesiastical jurisdiction inancient Illyricum, East Frankish annals shed little light on these disputes. TheFrankish annalists refused to acknowledge Methodius's existence, nor did theyadmit that a conflict over ecclesiastical jurisdiction was even taking place.This wall of silence was apparently official policy, for, when Bishop Anno ofFreising was in Rome (c. 872) and was questioned concerning thewhereabouts of Methodius (then in Frankish custody for more than twoyears), he replied that he knew no Methodius though he surely was aware ofthe fact that the archbishop was being held incommunicado in Reichenau.3 Ofthe Frankish sources only the Conversio, written for the purpose of defendingSalzburg's jurisdiction in Pannonia, mentions Methodius, referring to himcontemptuously as quidam Graecus, who had invented a Slavic script, aphilosophus responsible for nova doctrina.4 This tract justifies Salzburg's rolein Pannonia on the basis of the activities of its archbishops prior to the arrivalof the Greek missions. It does not, however, acknowledge that Methodius hadbeen elevated to episcopal rank, nor does



Page 154

it recognize his legitimate claims to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the centralDanubian basin. The Conversio defends the work of the see of Salzburg inCarantania and in Lower Pannonia between the confluences of the Raba andthe Drava with the Danube thus, territory southeast of Bavaria.

The second reason why the Frankish sources are less complete than we mightexpect has to do with the relative inactivity of the king in the southeasternmarches during this decade. As we have seen, in 864 Louis the Germanturned all responsibilities for these marches over to Carloman and, because ofinfirmities, never again led military expeditions against the Moravians inperson. Hence, the annals, which tend to focus on the monarch, are lessprecise than they had been earlier, when a youthful, vigorous ruler personallydirected campaigns and pursued decisive policies designed to bring the entirebasin into the orbit of the East Frankish kingdom. Also, we might add thatbecause of Louis's absence from the frontier region during this decade, royalcharters, which have been so revealing up to this point, give us noinformation concerning the marches until Carloman began issuing suchdocuments following his father's death in 876.

In spite of these considerations, Frankish sources do yield some insights,though almost exclusively military ones. From this data we can deduce thatCarloman made major efforts during this decade to integrate most of thecentral Danubian basin into the East Frankish kingdom. He was, however,unsuccessful in the end, and this period concluded with Frankish militarydebacles that left Zwentibald a free hand to create a virtually independentSouth Slavic regnum with a metropolitan ecclesiastical organization, presidedover by Methodius, who was returned to his office in 873 at the insistence ofPope John VIII. From scattered evidence in a variety of sources it will becomeapparent that the struggle between Franks and Moravians during these yearswas for the control of Pannonia.

The Push to the Southeast

The campaign of 864 obviously did not result in the subjugation of Rastislav,for he demonstrated independence once again in 865. 5 The AnnalesBertiniani assert that Louis sent his hosts against the Wends and thecampaign prospered. It neglects, however, to state that the Wendi had beensuccessfully conquered. Curiously, the Annales Fuldenses make no mention





Page 155

of a campaign in this region. Its author only indicates that there had beentrouble in the marches, reporting that Count Werner was summoned beforethe king, accused of conspiring with Rastislav, and deprived of his honores. 6Thus, if Werner had been the commander of the route along the Danube, hewas only convicted of conspiring with the Moravians after the finalreconciliation between Louis and Carloman in 864. He must, then, haveremained loyal to the king throughout the wars and rebellions of the early860s, and he probably expected to be rewarded for his unwavering support.Yet, when this expectation came to naught with Carloman's reinstatement aspraelatus of the east, Werner conspired with Rastislav. In any case, thecampaign of 865, though unsuccessful in defeating Rastislav, did result in theremoval of an important marcher lord who had conspired with the Moravianduke.

Another source for the events of this year is the Conversio. It does notmention hostilities in the marches during the year 865, but makes a point oftwo pastoral visits to Pannonia by Archbishop Adalwin.7 This prelate arrived inDecember of 864 at the fortress Moosburg, where he celebrated Christmas.On the following day, he dedicated a church to Saint Stephan, which waslocated on the property of a Slavic magnate named Wittimar, and on January1, 865, he consecrated a second church, belonging to Kocel, who hadsucceeded his father, Pribina. Throughout the remainder of that month (in thedead of winter), Adalwin consecrated numerous churches and installed priestsin Pannonia, and, later in the same year, the archbishop even returned forthe dedication of three more.

Of the twelve churches mentioned in the Conversio, the location of only one(Ablanza) can be determined with certainty. The place-name Ablanza (AppleBrook in Old Slavonic and in a modern Styrian dialect) survives as the localityof Ablanc just east of Köszeg on the Austro-Hungarian border.8 Hence,Ablanza was very near the Roman road connecting the Vienna basin withSzombathely. In spite of the fact that the other churches cannot be locatedwith certainty, there is good reason to believe that most were near LakeBalaton. Wittimar's church for example, has been identified by some scholarsas Fenekpuszta, near the lake just to the north of Zalavár, wherearchaeologists have discovered remnants of a church dating from the ninthcentury. And even if the ruin at Fenekpuszta is not Wittimar's church, thelatter could not have been far from Zalavár, since we know that Adalwin



officiated Christmas services in Moosburg the day before consecrating theecclesia Wittimaris.9 Also, the church of Saint John ad Quartinaha, which



Page 156

Adalwin dedicated on his second visit to Pannonia in 865, was located onLake Balaton, for a deacon Gundpato later donated property ad Quartinahaiuxta Bilisasseo to the see of Regensburg. 10

Archbishop Adalwin of Salzburg journeyed, then, to Kocel's Pannonia inferioristwice in 865, on each occasion at least as far southeast as Lake Balaton.Were these visitations motivated by pastoral duties, or did he venture intothis frontier region in connection with military operations then being plannedagainst Rastislav? We can be sure that urgent considerations brought Adalwininto the marches in the dead of winter, then back within a year. Bishopsnormally spent Christmas at their principal cities or at court. The archbishop'spresence in distant Pannonia in the winter of 864 is unusual in light of thefact that an important placitum was taking place in Frankfurt.

It could very well be that the archbishop of Salzburg went to southeasternPannonia in the winter of 864/865 on a mission that had military as well asecclesiastical implications. It certainly would have been important to showthe flag in Kocel's principality, had another campaign in southeasternPannonia been anticipated for the summer of 865. We may deduce thatAdalwin's winter visit to Pannonia was at the instigation of Louis the German,for these two men were together at Mattighofen in October 864.11 It wasprobably at that time that the decision was made for the archbishop to visitKocel's principality at Christmas. If his first visit was at least partiallyconnected with plans for the campaign of 865, Adalwin's second appearancein Pannonia probably came during that campaign, which must have beenlaunched in the summer.

In 866 Louis the Younger, dissatisfied with the terms of reconciliationbetween his father and his elder brother, instigated a rebellion, which, thoughcentered in Thuringia and Saxony, spread to the southeastern marches. Oneof the conspirators was the deposed margrave Werner, whom this royalsibling promised to restore to his former honores.12 Also in preparation forthis uprising, the younger Louis dispatched one of his princeps militae, Henry,a Babenberger, as an envoy to Rastislav to urge the Moravians to join theconspiracy. When the king learned of these events, he left Carloman to guardBavaria against an invasion from the east, and headed north to subdue therebels in Saxony and Thuringia. If Rastislav threatened to invade Bavariathrough Bohemia, as one might expect if his principality were situated north



of the Danube, the author of the Annales Fuldenses remains silent on thispoint. There is no indication that Bohemian chieftains were involved in anyway. The annalist tells us that a certain



Page 157

Guntboldus, a follower of Carloman, took arms against his lord, and, afterlosing his army (exercitus), he narrowly escaped with his life, presumably byfleeing to the Moravians. Whether the notorious Count Gundachar alsobetrayed Carloman in 866 is a question the sources do not answer. As weshall see, however, in 869 he led an army of Moravians against his formerlord.

Hincmar states that Count Werner inspired Louis the Younger to revoltagainst his father, and that Rastislav, ''the Wend,'' became involved in thisconspiracy. He also stresses the role played by Carloman, "to whom his fatherhad given the march and who guarded the region so effectively that Rastislavremained within his own borders." 13 Nevertheless, in spite of his eldest son'sloyalty, the king, still harboring suspicions, summoned Carloman to his courtand hurriedly set out for Bavaria to reassure himself of the situation in "hismarch against Rastislav." He probably only went as far as Regensburg,however, where he received magnates with responsibilities in the marches aswell as a Bulgarian embassy.14

Hincmar emphasizes that Carloman was the commander of the "marchagainst Rastislav." Both Hincmar and the Fulda annalist identify Carloman'slordship as Carantania, not as Danubian Lower Austria or Upper Pannonia. Aswe have seen, the Annales Fuldenses state that he was the praelatus inCarantania.15 It was also Hincmar who reported that in 864 Carlomanescaped and fled to the march (Carantania) that his father had taken fromhim earlier, and that he was welcomed there by the marchiones, that is byGundachar and his subordinate counts.16 It is clear that Gundachar hadreplaced Carloman (if only temporarily) as commander of these marches, fora royal charter connects him with Carantania.17 Thus, several sources confirmthat Carloman's marca contra Restitium was Carantania.

Hincmar also mentions a Winidorum marca in connection with Louis's meetingwith the Bulgar khan in 864, and his trip to Regensburg two years later alsooccurred in a context involving Bulgars. In 866 Khan Boris, who acceptedChristianity from Byzantium after Eastern imperial armies had defeated him in864, recovered his strength, expelled the Greeks, put down a rebellion ofmagnates, and sent embassies to Nicholas I and Louis the German. The latterembassy arrived in Regensburg requesting that "the king send him worthyteachers of the Christian religion." Hincmar reports that the king of the East



Franks sent messengers to his brother Charles requesting sacred vessels,vestments, and books to be used for mission to his Bulgar allies.18 WestFrankish bishops collected "not a small quantity of such items," which theysent immediately to Louis.



Page 158

In 867 Bishop Ermenrich of Passau headed a delegation of priests anddeacons to the Bulgar court. Ermenrich, an important figure in the CarolingianRenaissance, a court chaplain, and a close adviser to the king, had beenelevated to the episcopal dignity in autumn of 866, at approximately thesame time as the Bulgarian embassy arrived in Regensburg, which suggeststhat there may have been a connection between these two events. 19 Hispredecessor Hartwig had been disabled for approximately three years due toa stroke; yet, despite the urging of Nicholas I, no replacement had beenfound until, suddenly, in 866, Ermenrich, a leading member of the EastFrankish court and an outspoken critic of Greek theological and liturgicalpractices, became bishop of Passau, and, shortly thereafter, he departed tolead a mission to the Bulgars. These facts underscore the importance Louisthe German assigned to his alliance with the Bulgars. Ermenrich's effortscame to naught, however. When he arrived in Bulgaria, he discovered thatRoman clergy (dispatched by the pope) were already well-established there;thus, Ermenrich returned to Passau, his mission a failure.20 Nevertheless, thepolitical nature of his efforts is emphasized by the fact that Ermenrich did notreturn until he had obtained the permission of Louis the German.

Why were Ermenrich and clerics from Passau sent on a mission to the Bulgarsin the first place? This question has puzzled historians, for Salzburg, with itswell-documented experience in mission activities in Lower Pannonia, seemeda more logical see from which to recruit churchmen knowledgeable in Bulgaraffairs. Passau, on the other hand, was associated with missions to theMoravians, who, presumably, resided north of the Danube. If, however,Moravia was located in southeastern Pannonia, and if that region had beenPassau's mission field, then this see would have been the logical choice tofurnish the "worthy priests" whom the khan had requested in 866. Indeed theLorch Forgeries state that Passau's mission area was in the ancient provincesof Pannonia orientalis and Moesia.21

Moreover, it would have been geographically logical for Passau to have takenover mission responsibilities in eastern Pannonia and parts of Moesia. Fromits position on the Danube, missions from Passau could have reached thisregion efficiently by rivercraft. The Conversio reports that, as early as 700,Saint Rupert went by ship "to the boundaries of Lower Pannonia" (usque adfines Pannoniae inferioris).22 In fact, rivercraft from Passau could havereached Pannonia orientalis more rapidly than overland travelers from



Salzburg or even from Lake Balaton. From the standpoint of communications,it is not inconceivable that at some time during the course of the



Page 159

ninth century Passau claimed jurisdiction near the Danubian watergate, inPannonia orientalis, where the Passau forgeries locate Moravia.

While it is true that Charlemagne had assigned Pannonia south of the Dravato the see of Aquileia, much happened in the first half of the ninth century toreduce influences from the Adriatic in the Sava watershed. As we have seen,secular and ecclesiastical currents from northern Italy gradually lost ground toEast Frankish ones in the period circa 820840. First of all, the patriarchFortunatus of Grado had been involved in Liudewit's rebellion and was forcedto flee to Constantinople. While it is true that the Sava remained under thecommand of the margrave of Friuli immediately after this revolt, in 828Balderich was stripped of his command and his lordship dismembered. Duringthe 830s and 840s, the Sava watershed came under East Frankish control. In838 Ratpot led an expedition against Ratimar, while Louis the Germanmarched on Trent, and, in 846, the king of the East Franks establishedRastislav as Moravian duke.

Passau's missions to the Moravians probably began at that time. SinceSalzburg was already occupied with a major mission field in Carantania and inPribina's principality between the Raba and the Drava, it made sense toassign Passau those responsibilities at Rastislav's court, even if it was locatedsomewhere near Belgrade, as the term Sclavi Margenses implies. This is notto say that clerics from the Adriatic ceased to operate in this region, for weknow that Italians and Greeks were active there at the time that Rastislavsent his famous embassy to Constantinople. 23 The point is that clerics fromPassau seem to have taken over official mission activities at the Moraviancourt at the time of Rastislav's installation as a client dux. Although onesource does report that Bishop Reginhar baptized "all of the Moravians" in831, this source is very late.24 The proceedings of the council of Mainz in 852,on the other hand, complained that the Moravians, who were harboring afugitive adulterer, were still "rude Christians, who lived at the extremities ofthe realm."25

During the wars between Louis the German and Rastislav, the latter expelledthe clerics from Passau and requested teachers from Constantinople. Thus,the expulsion of the Passau clergy probably came before the arrival of theGreek missions. If Rastislav's principality were located in southeasternPannonia and Moesia, churchmen associated with Passau would have had



excellent opportunities to acquaint themselves with the region and becomeknowledgeable about Bulgar affairs, especially about Bulgar-Moravianrelations. Thus, they would have been well-suited to undertake missionaryactivities in Bulgaria after 866. Also we must not lose



Page 160

sight of the fact that the expansion of Passau's field of activity into Bulgariawould have been of military significance for an East Frankish kingdomattempting to reassert its hegemony over a rebellious South Slavicprincipality near the watergate.

But Bishop Ermenrich's mission to the Bulgars failed, as the AnnalesFuldenses clearly state, because Roman clergy had already managed toestablish themselves there. From Hincmar's Annales Bertiniani and frompapal documents we learn that there were political implications involved inthe Roman missions to the Bulgars. 26 While Khan Boris sent onlyambassadors to the court of Louis the German, to the papal curia hedispatched his son so heavily laden with gifts that he attracted the envy ofthe Emperor Louis II.27 As we shall see in the next chapter, Nicholas I and hissuccessor Hadrian II were attempting to reassert Roman influence in themiddle Danubian basin at the expense of Byzantine and East Frankishinterests, and in 866 and 867 Boris was obviously listening to Romanovertures. The Frankish annals are strangely silent about events in thesoutheastern marches immediately following Ermenrich's return from Bavaria.From these sources it would appear that nothing of significance occurred inthe region during the year 868. Nothing could be further from the truth,however, for in that year the papacy continued to encourage the Bulgarleader to wean himself from Byzantium, and Constantine and Methodiusjourneyed to Rome, hoping to garner papal support for their mission effortsbecause the patriarch Photius, their major patron in Constantinople, had beendeposed in 867.28 These events, which directly affected East Frankishinterests in the middle Danubian region, must have been known to otherwisewell-informed annalists. Yet they chose to ignore them.

In 869 the situation in the marches became so serious that it was impossiblefor the Fulda annalist to remain silent. Bohemians conducted frequent raidsinto Bavaria's border regions, resulting in the destruction of several villae andthe abduction of some women.29 The annalist reports that Carlomanencountered Moravian armies on two occasions, emerging victorious andtaking "not a little booty." Meanwhile, other Bohemian war bands joined withsome Sorbs and raided Thuringian termini, destroying many localities anddefeating local forces that had imprudently engaged them. The AnnalesFuldenses, however, draw no connection between Bohemian raids intoBavaria and Thuringia and Carloman's military activities against Rastislav.



Whereas the former were plundering incursions into East Frankishborderlands, which were poorly defended by local forces, the latter wereencounters between well-organized armies, as the term exercitus



Page 161

implies. Moreover, Carloman's expedition was obviously an invasion ofMoravian territory, not a defensive action. The annalist also reports that theCarantanian Count Gundachar, the conspirator, met his end leading acontingent of Rastislav's men against Carloman. When the king received wordof Gundachar's demise, he ordered the ringing of church bells in Regensburg.30

In August 869, Louis launched large-scale offensives against Slavs along abroad front.31 Louis the Younger was given command over a Saxon host thatattacked the Sorbs. As Hincmar put it, this prince set out "with the Saxonsagainst the Wends, who are in the regions of the Saxons," clearlydistinguishing them from the Wends, whom elsewhere he associated withRastislav.32 The king also commanded that Bavarian forces go to theassistance of Carloman, who was invading the realm (regnum) of Zwentibald,who appears in Frankish sources for the first time. Meanwhile, a third army ofFranconians and Alamanni gathered to attack Rastislav. King Louis intendedto lead this army personally, but illness overtook him, and the aging monarchturned these forces over to his youngest son, Charles. Charles came upon"Rastislav's unspeakable stronghold, unlike those of yore."33 The author ofthe annals relates that he burned all of the fortifications in these regions,seized treasures that had been hoarded in forests or fields, and defeated allwho came against him in battle. Similarly, Carloman plundered Zwentibald'sterritory before joining forces with his younger brother. Their armies thenreturned together. While all of this was taking place, Louis the Younger, whowas operating from bases in Saxony, defeated the Sorbs as well asBohemians who served as mercenaries.34 The Annales Fuldenses make itclear that the armies under the command of Carloman and Charles operatedin the same theater, whereas Louis the Younger was involved in a separateexpedition. Since only the younger Louis's Saxons came into hostile contactwith Bohemians, we may assume that neither the army of Bavarians underCarloman nor the army of Franconians and Alamanni under Charlesproceeded through Bohemia.

There is another source that yields precise geographic data for the campaignof 869.35 In that year a woman named Peretcund, a nun, appeared beforeCarloman in the palace of Baden, twenty-five kilometers south of Vienna, todefend her right to donate property in Pitten to the see of Freising. Theseestates were located near Aspang, approximately sixty kilometers further



south on the road to Ptuj. A count Kundhari claimed that this propertybelonged to him, but numerous witnesses testified that Peretcund and herbrother had inherited it from Ratpot. The document states



Page 162

that Carloman was going eastward when he came to Baden, where he heardthis case and decided it in favor of the nun. This event must have taken placewhen the prince was leading his expedition against Zwentibald, which beganin August. Had Carloman been proceeding "eastward" from Bavaria against anorthern Moravia, there would have been no reason for him to have come toBaden, a palace south of Vienna.

Once again we have before us a document (issued in connection with aMoravian campaign) involving property on a route to the southeast. Likeother documents dealing with transfers of property that took place eithershortly before or after expeditions against Rastislav, this one also illuminatesthe circumstances surrounding a donation to an important Bavarian see. Ifsuch donations were made with military (particularly logistical) considerationsin mind, and if surpluses from ecclesiastical estates in the marches wereintended to be used to support armies, as most scholars assume, then thisdocument is yet another indication that Moravia's location must have been tothe southeast of the Carolingian marches.

The See of Saint Andronicus

The Annales Fuldenses give no hint that matters of ecclesiastical jurisdictionin Pannonia might have lain behind Louis the German's decision to launchlarge-scale military operations against Rastislav and Zwentibald in 869. Yetsuch considerations must have been involved. In 867 the Greek brothers,Constantine and Methodius, had left Moravia and journeyed to Rome by wayof Venice. In 869, Constantine, who had taken monastic vows in Rome andchanged his name to Cyril, died in the ancient capital, where he was soonrevered as a holy figure. Shortly thereafter, Hadrian II sent Methodius on amission to Pannonia. 36 On this occasion, however, he went to Kocel's court,where his missions had already had some impact. In fact, it was Kocel whorequested that the pontiff send Methodius into Pannonia in 869 as a papallegate. Sometime prior to midsummer, Kocel sent Methodius in the companyof twenty magnates back to Rome to petition for his elevation to episcopalrank.

There has been much discussion about the fact that Kocel, Pribina's son, theprincipal defender of Frankish policies in Pannonia, wanted Methodius to bemade a bishop in a region that had been under Salzburg's jurisdiction sincethe days of Charlemagne. Some scholars, taking literally a passage in the Vita



Constanini (chapter 15), argue that the Pannonian



Page 163

prince, moved by the Slavic liturgy, decided in favor of the Methodian missionout of religious convictions. 37 Others, more cynically, insist that he wassimply following the model of Khan Boris and Rastislav in using ecclesiasticalpolicy to gain a greater degree of political autonomy for himself.38 Bymidsummer of 869, when Methodius returned to Rome, the Pannonian leaderwould have known that the Franks planned to launch a major offensiveagainst Rastislav and his nephew in August. The Franks, on the other hand,probably did not know that Kocel had been secretly communicating withRome. It is conceivable that the Pannonian duke sent Methodius to Rome inmidsummer so that the Greek would not be present in his principality whenFrankish forces advanced through his lordship enroute to a southern Moravia.Kocel must have realized that Methodius would be treated badly, were he tofall into the hands of the Bavarian episcopacy. Furthermore, Kocel's positionwould have been in jeopardy, had he been discovered harboring Methodius.Thus, the Pannonian prince must have sent Methodius off to Rome for hisown protection, as well as for the Greek's. As for his request that the popeelevate Methodius to the rank of bishop, Kocel may have hoped that theFrankish clergy would not dare to remove a bishop who had been canonicallyinstalled in his office by a Roman pontiff.

Hadrian II not only honored Kocel's petition, but did a great deal more. Heappointed Methodius archbishop of the see of Saint Andronicus (Sirmium),and he sent letters confirming this fact to Rastislav, Zwentibald, and Kocel,whose principalities lay within this archdiocese.39 The see of SaintAndronicus, the seat of a metropolitan, had included both Noricums as well asthe two Pannonias. Traditional interpretations of the history of this regionassume that Methodius never actually took up residence in Sirmium or, if hedid reside there briefly, that the boundaries of the see must have differedfrom those of the ancient one, extending well beyond the Danube to thenorth.40 If, however, Hadrian II were really trying to revive this ancient see,as it had existed three centuries earlier, the consequences for the Bavarianepiscopacy could have been serious indeed. Since the ecclesiasticalorganization of Bavaria emerged only in the eighth century, a revitalizedarchbishopric of Sirmium could have reclaimed primacy over a wide area ofthe middle Danubian watershed. The archbishop of Salzburg could not onlyhave lost his claim to episcopal authority in Pannonia, but he could even havebeen relegated to the status of a suffragan, for ancient Iuvavum lay within



the province of Noricum, which had been subject to the metropolitan ofSirmium.



Page 164

It is interesting to note that the author of the Conversio spends an inordinateamount of time justifying Salzburg's claims in the two former provinces ofNoricum. The Conversio's chapters 1 and 2 deal with the establishment of thesee on the Salzach in eastern Bavaria (Noricum Ripense) during theAgilolfinger period. Its chapters 3 through 9 describe the activities of the seein Carantania (Noricum Mediterraneum). Only chapters 10 through 13 (noteven one-third of the total document) defended Salzburg's claims inPannonia. If the author of the Conversio was merely making the case forSalzburg's missions in Pannonia, why did he not address this point earlier andmore directly? The fact is that the Conversio justifies Salzburg's jurisdiction inNoricum, as well as in Pannonia, and it may well be that this source was aresponse to fears that Hadrian II planned to revive the ancient see of SaintAndronicus as it had existed three hundred years earlier. If this were indeedthe case, the anger of the Bavarian bishops regarding Methodius'sarchiepiscopal appointment had deeper historical roots and touched on moreconcrete concerns than simply the use of the Slavic in the liturgy, the filioquedebate, or even the issue of Methodius's trespass on Pannonian turf, whereBavarian missions had been conducted for almost seventy years. The entireBavarian ecclesiastical organization, as it had developed during the eighthand ninth centuries, may have seemed threatened.

Seen in this light, it is no wonder that Frankish-Bavarian leaders moved totake decisive action in 870. Methodius returned from Rome to Pannonia toassume his duties in 869, undoubtedly after the forces of Carloman andCharles had withdrawn. Although the Annales Fuldenses proclaim Frankishvictories in 869, Rastislav had not been subdued. Zwentibald, on the otherhand, secretly entered into negotiations with Carloman, and, without hisuncle's knowledge, he accepted the latter's lordship over his person and hisrealm (regnum). 41 When Rastislav learned of this agreement, he was furiousand set a trap for his nephew, inviting him to a banquet, where he intendedto murder him. The scheme backfired, however, for Zentibald, warned of theconspiracy, managed not only to escape, but also to hatch a plot himself.Rastislav, in hot pursuit of his nephew, was ambushed, taken prisoner, andthen turned over to Carloman. Subsequently, the Moravian duke was shackledand sent to Bavaria under armed guard, while Carloman invaded his realm.Meeting no resistance, Carloman subdued all of Rastislav's civitates andcastella, put his own men into positions of authority, and secured the duke's



treasure. Temporarily, at least, the Moravian realm was in Frankish-Bavarianhands.



Page 165

The Trial and Incarceration of Methodius

According to the Slavic Vita Methodii (hereafter VM), Methodius had a bitterdispute with some bishops, whereupon, "having sent him to Swabia, theyheld him two and a half years." 42 The Frankish sources say nothing aboutthis incident, but the Fulda annalist does report a trial in Regensburg whereRastislav was brought before Louis the German and condemned to death byFranks, Bavarians, and Slavs from diverse provinces.43 The "generous" king,however, commuted the duke's sentence to blinding.

Was Methodius also, as most scholars assume, brought before a tribunal inRegensburg in 870, where the Bavarian bishops convicted him of trespassingon their mission territory and then confined him in the monastery ofReichenau?44 There is no direct evidence for a trial of Methodius, and thescattered bits of circumstantial evidence may have been misinterpreted. Thefollowing section will explore the possibility that Methodius was neverbrought to Regensburg in 870 and that no official trial of the Greekarchbishop took place there. It will attempt to explain the archbishop'sapprehension and incarceration in light of the southern Moravia hypothesissupported by a linguistic analysis advanced by Horace G. Lunt.

To begin with the latter: It is generally assumed that the word korol hardcy,normally translated "king," or Russian "(western) king," comes from"Carolus,'' that is, Carolus Magnus, Karl der Grosse, Charlemagne. As Luntpoints out, however, "surely the Moravians, dealing from day to day with thehostile intrusions of his [Charlemagne's] various descendants, had notrevalued his name to such a venerable abstraction that it could be applied asa title of honor to their own rulers."45 According to Lunt, the term korolhardcy is a personal name, referring to individual "Caroli'' and/or"Carlomanni."46 But such a reading of the text creates problems forhistorians. In Lunt's words, "bringing unexpected Carolingians onto the sceneupsets some of the quite reasonable plausibilities that historians have woveninto a consistent series of explanations," and he challenges scholars "to findnew plausibilities that account for the Karls, separating out Karl II fromKarlmann and Karl III, all of whom were powerful men the Moravians andMethodius surely had to deal with."47 If Lunt is correct, the thesis thatMethodius was brought before a tribunal of bishops at Regensburg needsrevision. It rests solely on the assumption that he was tried before the king



(korol hardcy), that is Louis the German, who was indeed there for anassembly of his magnates. If we take korol as a personal name, Carolus orCarlomannus, the



Page 166

assumption fails. Let us look at Lunt's translation of the revelant text from theOld Church Slavonic (OCS) VM.

(Chapter 9) And after this, the Old Enemy, who is jealous of good and of the truth, aroused theheart of the enemy of Moravia, Karl ( ), with all the bishops, against him [Methodius]: "Youare teaching in our territory." And he answered: "If I knew it was yours, I would stay out; but it isSaint Peter's. Indeed if you out of jealousy and greed are transgressing the old boundaries, againstthe canons, and prohibit God's teaching, beware, lest you spill out your brains wishing to piercethrough an iron mountain with a bone skull." They said to him furiously: "You'll come to harm.'' Heanswered: "I speak the truth before kings ( ) and am not ashamed. Go ahead and workyour will on me, for I am no better than those who lost their lives amid many torments forspeaking the truth.'' And after many words had passed between them and they could find no replyto him, Karl ( ) said with lowered brow, "Do not trouble my Methodius, for he is alreadysweating as though next to a stove." He said, "Yea, lord, once some men met a sweatingphilosopher and said to him 'Why are you sweating?' He said: 'I was disputing with uncouthpeople.'" After arguing about this speech, they dispersed, but they sent him off to the Swabiansand held him for two and one-half years.

(Chapter 10) This news reached the Apostolic father, and, when he learned it he sent a maledictioagainst them, that all of Karl's ( ) bishops may not sing the liturgy as long as they held him. Sothey let him go, warning Kocel, "If you keep this man with you, you shall not get off easy fromus." But they did not escape the judgement of Saint Peter, for four of these bishops died. 48

In most translations of this passage the word "king" appears on fouroccasions. Lunt suggests, however, that the phrase (Karola) at the beginning of chapter 9 of the VM should be read

(Karola), which changes the translation from "the heartof the enemy of the Moravian king," as it has generally been rendered, to"the heart of the enemy of Moravia, Karl."49 He believes that a Russiancopyist in the eleventh or twelfth century emended the VM for stylisticreasons, changing the possessive vraga to the possessive dative vragu, thusaltering the original phrase. Lunt is certainly correct in asserting that cannot logically refer to a Moravian "king," presumably Rastislav, whootherwise is given the title of prince ( ) in the VM.50 Although his nephewZwentibald may have acquired a royal title later, neither had such adesignation when Methodius was captured. As for Methodius speaking thetruth "before kings," the phrase in the VM is "predb cesari," a scripturalquotation, Psalms 119:46 (118:46 in the Septuagint), implying that Methodiuswill speak God's truth no matter what



Page 167

the consequences might be, but not that any specific rulers were witnessingthis exchange. 51 The two other references to korol in this passage Lunttranslates quite simply as "Karl said," and "Karl's bishops." These translationsfit the context of the events in the autumn of 870. The VM does not mentionRegensburg and makes no reference to a trial or sentence.52

Indeed, the debate between the Greek archbishop and the Bavarians moreclosely resembles a verbal brawl that could have taken place in a militarycamp following a battle than it does a solemn trial in an ecclesiastical court.Scholars believe that the proceedings against Methodius occurred inRegensburg, simply because Rastislav was brought before Louis the German'scourt there. But Rastislav is not Methodius, and the in this passage maynot have been Louis. The Moravian duke had been installed in his office bythe East Frankish king, who could presume to judge his conduct. Methodius,on the other hand, a papally appointed archbishop, could not legally havebeen tried in a royal court, nor even at a provincial synod of Bavarianbishops. Thus, the in whose presence Methodius exchanged heatedwords may have been Carloman, the commander who was actually present inMoravia with his armies in 870, not "the king," Louis the German.

As for "Karl's bishops," Lunt admits a slight historical anachronism in thiscase, for Carloman did not become king of Bavaria until after the death ofLouis in 876.53 The Bavarian bishops were not "his" until then. Nevertheless,this "small historical slip can easily be explained by the fairly local, Moravian,view of the author of the VM.''54 One might add that, since Carloman was thecommander of the armies that had consistently invaded Rastislav's realm,and since the Bavarian bishops played such an important role in thoseinvasions, it might well have appeared to Moravians that the bishops wereCarloman's. Also, as we have seen in the case of Peretcund, Carlomanpresided over disputes involving episcopal property.55 Thus, these bishopswere in a real sense his.

The papal documents relevant to this episode say nothing about Regensburg.When Pope John VIII in 873 appealed for the restoration of Methodius to his"Pannonian see," he sent a letter to Carloman, as well as to Louis, indicatingthat he believed the former's cooperation necessary if a final settlement wereto be achieved.56 The pontiff obviously considered Carloman a majorparticipant in this affair, for his letter to the king's son is sharper than the one



to Louis. The pontiff addressed the latter as "dear son and glorious king,"gently pointing out the necessity of returning Methodius to his "Pannoniandiocese." In contrast, his epistle to Carloman is



Page 168

hostile. It does not admonish, but commands him "to return the episcopal seeof the Pannonians to us and to our brother Methodius, who was sent there bythe apostolic see according to traditional practice." These letters, then,implicate Carloman as the who presided over the exchange betweenMethodius and the Bavarian bishops.

Since the VM does not in fact provide evidence that Methodius was broughtbefore "the king," the doubts some scholars have expressed about thehypothesis of an open tribunal in Regensburg are justified. For example, hadMethodius really been tried during such a public event as a royal placitum,why did the annalists fail to report it? They discussed Rastislav's trial andconviction in Regensburg; would not the trial of an archbishop be worthy ofnote in the annals? Although the Bavarian bishops were angry that Methodiuswas teaching in territory they considered theirs, he was in Pannonia as anarchbishop with full papal authorization; consequently a trial would havebeen uncanonical. Was the bishops' anger so great that they would haveopenly defied the canons in a public tribunal in Regensburg? Would theirinterests have been served by making a spectacle of their opposition toMethodius, especially if they had no legal basis for it? Scholars haveconsidered these points and still hypothesize a formal trial. However, there isunambiguous evidence that the bishops attempted to keep their dealingswith the archbishop of Sirmium secret. When Anno of Freising was in Rome(two years after Methodius's incarceration), he denied any knowledge ofMethodius. Could Anno plausibly have made such a denial if there had been apublic trial in Regensburg?

We know about Anno's denial from a letter of Pope John VIII, written in thelate summer of 873. 57 John had succeeded Hadrian II on December 14, 872,and he immediately began to search for Methodius and to press vigorously forhis reinstatement. In May 873 papal letters were sent to two other Bavarianbishops, Adalwin of Salzburg and Ermenrich of Passau (before the epistle wassent to Anno), demanding the return of Methodius to his see. In addition, thepope dispatched at the same time a letter to Bishop Paul of Ancona makinghim a papal legate and commanding him to investigate the affair. This bodyof correspondence has generally been construed to support the notion of apublic trial in Regensburg, but a close reading of the letters castsconsiderable doubt on such a conclusion. In Paul of Ancona's instructions, forexample, a judgment (iudicium) is mentioned, but there is no indication that



this judgment was a formal act at a public trial.58 On the contrary, the letterstates that this iudicium was a decision made by Adalwin "with Ermenrich"acting alone. Also in this letter, Pope



Page 169

John stresses the illegality (sine canonica sententia) of Methodius's expulsionfrom his see and of his incarceration.

The epistle to Ermenrich mentions an episcoporum concilium. However, thetext does not indicate that such a public synod actually took place. Ratherthan stating a fact, the pope asked a rhetorical question, "would you[Ermenrich] have chastised him [Methodius] with a horsewhip as he wasbeing dragged into a council of bishops, had you not been prevented fromdoing so by others?" 59 The spectacle of Methodius being hauled before theBavarian episcopacy, among whom was Ermenrich (one of the leading figuresof the Carolingian Renaissance), whom the others were trying to restrainfrom horsewhipping the Greek prelate, is hardly a becoming image for asolemn synod, nor is the complaint, expressed earlier in the same letter, thatErmenrich had allowed Methodius to remain outside unsheltered in cold,wintry weather. All in all, the abuses which John VIII charged Ermenrich withcommitting seem more likely to have occurred in a military camp following acampaign or during the transport of the Pannonian primate to someclandestine location, than in a public assembly of notables in Regensburg.60

Although the pope accused Adalwin along with Ermenrich of reaching thejudgment against Methodius, Anno of Freising must also have played a majorrole in this affair. As S. Sakac has noted, the papal correspondence singlesout Anno as the "instigator" of all of the outrages against Methodius.61 Sakacrejected the notion of a public trial in Regensburg, observing that the bishops"had to avoid the publicity of a royal assembly."62 He suggested that thearchbishop was held secretly in custody in or near Freising for approximatelysix months before it was decided to confine him in a Swabian monastery.Borrowing arguments from A. W. Ziegler, Sakac reasoned that Methodius,after being designated archbishop in Rome, was invited to Freising for"peaceful" discussions, then illegally arrested, and held there from spring tomid-autumn, when the king came to Bavaria. Then, a clandestine meetingattended only by the king and the bishops was held in Freising, whereMethodius was secretly sentenced to monastic incarceration.

While this view is more plausible than the notion of a public trial, there arereasons for rejecting it. If Methodius had been invited to go from Rome toFreising for discussions before taking up residence in his see, this informationwould have been known at the curia. Sakac's explanation hinges on the



perceived necessity of having Methodius in the presence of the king inBavaria at the time when he was banished to a Swabian monastery. If,



Page 170

however, we accept Lunt's reading of the VM, Louis's presence isunnecessary, for the korol in the text refers to Carloman, whose forces hadjust occupied Rastislav's civitates and castella.

My hypothesis is as follows. Methodius fell into the hands of the Bavarianbishops when Carloman's army gained control of Moravian civitates in thesummer of 870. There they decided to confine him in a Swabian monastery,hoping that Hadrian II would reverse his decision to revive the ancient see ofSirmium. The possibility of such a reversal may have seemed promising.Hadrian was growing old, Rastislav and Methodius were in custody, andBavarian troops were occupying Moravian fortresses. Rather than bringingMethodius to trial on trumped-up charges, the bishop took a better course,putting him away and awaiting events.

This explanation is compatible with the southern Moravia hypothesis. The VMjumps without transition from Methodius's consecration in Rome to theconfrontation with the bishops, leaving readers to speculate about whathappened in between. 63 Where did Methodius fall into the hands of theFranks? If he was attempting to reach Rastislav's principality north of theDanube, he might have been captured trying to cross the territory controlledby Carloman's forces. If, however, Moravia was situated somewhere near thecentral Danubian watergate, he surely could have reached Sirmium orBelgrade from Italy without crossing the East Frankish marches.

Such an explanation also clarifies how Methodius was held incommunicado.Since recent scholarship has established with virtual certainty that he wasincarcerated in Reichenau, the following scenario might shed light on hisclandestine transfer from the southeast to Lake Constance. From LowerPannonia the apostle could have been transported over roads leading up theDrava to Ptuj, then through Carantania to the Val Pusteria, over the Brennerto the upper Inn, and, finally to Reichenau, by way of the Fern Pass and themonastery of Kempten.64 Such a route would have taken Methodius along thefringes of Bavaria, avoiding more densely settled regions around Regensburg,Salzburg, Passau, and Freising, where a Greek archbishop might haveattracted attention. Of course, a hurried journey over such rugged terrainwould also explain why John VIII complained about the rough treatment thatMethodius had received.

In addition, this hypothesis would illuminate why Anno of Freising played such



an important role in Methodius's incarceration. If we assume that the Greekprelate was transported from southern Pannonia through the Alps toReichenau, it is crucial to remember that the bishop of Freising virtuallycontrolled the route from Carantania to Lake Constance via the



Page 171

Val Pusteria, and the Brenner and Fern passes, thus allowing Methodius'sclandestine transfer from one Freising estate to another. In this case PopeJohn's anger with Anno could be easily explained: the latter claimed that heknew nothing of Methodius; yet he had arranged for the archbishop'stransport from Pannonia to Reichenau.

This senario also explains why the accusations against Anno were made onlyseveral months after those against the bishops of Salzburg and Passau. Sincethe bishop of Freising had no official episcopal responsibilities in southernPannonia, he was in a better position to confine Methodius without attractingundo suspicion than were Adalwin and Ermenrich, who had both been openlyinvolved the southeastern missions. Anno's role in this affair only becameapparent after John of Ancona's investigation.

The southern Moravia hypothesis also sheds light on two other mysteriesconcerning Methodius's trial and incarceration. The first involves the bishop ofRegensburg. If the tribunal had been held in Regensburg, one would expectto find some reference to its bishop, Embrich, in the papal correspondence.Yet, there is no mention of him. 65 If, however, the trial in Regensburg nevertook place, then, perhaps, Embrich may not have been involved at all. Thesecond riddle concerns the role of the bishop of Säben (later Bressanone).The VM states that Saint Peter struck four Bavarian bishops down because oftheir treatment of Methodius. Papal sources, however, point the finger at onlythree, the archbishop of Salzburg and his suffragans from Passau andFreising, each of whom died shortly after Methodius's release.66 SinceEmbrich of Regensburg lived into the 880s and does not even seem to havebeen involved, Grivec speculates that the fourth bishop must have beenLantfried of Säben.67 This suggestion is in conformity with the thesis thatMethodius was transported via Alpine routes from southern Pannonia directlyto Reichenau, for if the Greek prelate had been captured in or around theDanubian watergate and quickly conveyed through Pannonia and overmountain passes to Reichenau, the Bavarian bishop of Säben, who controlledportions of the route from the Val Pusteria to the Brenner, certainly wouldhave been involved.

Another mystery concerns the route Methodius took returning to his see. Howdid he get back to Moravia, where he spent most of the remainder of his life?A passage relevant to Methodius's return to Moravia is found in chapter 10 of



the VM in which the bishops warned Kocel, "If you keep this man with you,you shall not get off easy from us." This passage can only mean that thearchbishop of Sirmium returned to Moravia through Kocel's



Page 172

principality, which we know was located in southeastern Pannonia. A twelfth-century Salzburg source, the so-called Excerptum de Karentanis (normallyappended to printed editions of the Conversio), also may shed some light onthis question. 68 Since the author of this text was familiar with the names ofmany secular and ecclesiastical officials in the ninth-century marches, hemust have been working with earlier documents then extant. He wrote that acertain "Slav" named Methodius came from parts of Istria and Dalmatia andinvented a Slavic system of writing. The Excerptum then states that "afterhaving been expelled from parts of Karantania he entered (the city of)Moravia where he (now) rests." The exact Latin wording of this text should benoted. The author wrote that Methodius "fugatus a Karentanis partibus,"which means that he was expelled (fugo), not that he fled (fugio), as thisphrase has often been translated. The bishop then "intravit Moraviam,'' whichshould be translated that he entered the city of Moravia, not a territory orprincipality of the same name. Finally, the Excerptum concludes that "ibiquequiescit," meaning that he is buried there (present tense), not simply that hedied there. This statement conforms to Slavic texts which state thatMethodius was laid to rest in his cathedral church.69 If the Excerptum may beused as a valid source (and most scholars have not been chary about citingit), its testimony indicates that Methodius was expelled from Frankishterritory in Carantania, whence he went to the city of Moravia, where he nowlies buried.

Finally, Lunt has recently called my attention to an article that may have abearing on the southern Moravian hypothesis.70 Chapter 14 of the VM dealsbriefly with the dangers encountered by Methodius in the deserts, at sea, andon the rivers. While robbers and wind-driven waves were clearly the dangerson land and sea, respectively (2 Cor. 11:2627), the perils on the rivers (sbmbrt bny nezap bny) generally have been translated as "sudden death on therivers." M. Miklosich, on the other hand, suggests that there was probably ascribal error involved in the transmission of the text and that sbm brt bnyprobably should be read surbti "quicksand" (Acts 27:17).71 Thus, the concretedangers on land (robbers) and seas (wind-driven waves) would parallel theperils (quicksand) on the rivers. Lunt also thinks that there must have been ascribal error, but that the original text probably read sbm brci or sm brci(smero in modern Russian), meaning "waterspouts." Waterspouts are causedby circular movements of air called whirlwinds over large flat plains.



Whirlwinds can convert to waterspouts when they pass over substantialbodies of water, including large rivers. Conditions favoring this conversion arepresent in the region of the central Danubian watergate,



Page 173

particularly between the Danube and the lower Tisza, but not in northernMoravia. 72 If Methodius's see had been in this region, he would have hadfrequent opportunities to have witnessed waterspouts, and he would haveknown about their perils.

In conclusion, Lunt's hypothesis that Methodius was not brought before "theking" (Louis the German) is consistent with the southern Moravia hypothesisand with the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and detention ofthe archbishop. We must recognize the following as logical possibilities: (1)that Methodius was captured in southeastern Pannonia, not in Moravia northof the Danube; (2) that he exchanged words with the Bavarian bishops in amilitary camp in the presence of Carloman, rather than in Regensburg at thecourt of Louis the German; (3) that he was clandestinely conveyed by way ofCarantania to Reichenau without the benefit of a trial before a tribunal ofbishops; and (4) that he was returned to his see from Carantania and throughKocel's Pannonia.

Disaster Overtakes the Franks

If Frankish-Bavarian victories in 870 led to the capture and confinement ofMethodius, Carolingian defeats in 871 and 872 resulted in his release. In 871,Zwentibald, who had betrayed his uncle, was accused of infidelity andimprisoned. The Moravians, thinking that their leader was dead, choseSclagamar, a priest and kinsman of Zwentibald, as their princeps.73

Sclagamar then led an uprising against the Franks who occupied Moraviancivitates. Engelschalk and Wilhelm, the commanders (duces) of theCarolingian forces in Moravia, however, drove the rebels off, at leasttemporarily.

Meanwhile, Zwentibald, who had cleared himself of the charges against him,returned to his principality at the head of Carloman's army.74 Carloman hadreleased the Moravian duke on the condition that he would put down therebellion. The Annales Fuldenses report that on his arrival at Rastislav's "oldcapital" (urbs antiqua), he betrayed the Bavarians and conspired secretly withthe rebels.75 In a surprise attack, a large army fell upon unsuspectingBavarians in their camp, taking a large number of captives and killing theremainder. Only a few escaped, having wisely withdrawn earlier from theinadequately defended enclave. The defeat must have been a catastrophe forthe Bavarian exercitus, for Carloman, hoping to recover as many of his armed



men as possible, released all Moravian hostages, and sent them back toZwentibald immediately. Zwentibald, we are



Page 174

told, returned only one captive, a certain Ratbod, who was "half dead." Thebrothers, Engelschalk and Wilhelm, the commanders of the occupation forces,presumably perished. 76

The use of the term urbs antiqua in the Annales Fuldenses is significant, forits author may well be referring to Sirmium, a designation that better fits theancient capital of Illyricum than any site uncovered in the Czech Republic. AsMiroslava Mirkovic has pointed out, Sirmium was still a very large and heavilyfortified city when it fell to the Avars near the end of the sixth century.77

Although a portion of its population was dispersed by the Avars, and a firebrought great destruction to the city shortly thereafter, the area around itcontinued to be populated. The Avar khan occasionally resided there, andthere is a report that Greek prisoners of war were settled in Sirmium at thebeginning of the seventh century. In 616 it is mentioned as a city that existedin a bygone era, but as Mirkovic points out, "this refers to the antique part ofthe town." That Sirmium must have continued to exist from the Avarconquest until the time of Charlemagne is suggested by a poem written byPatriarch Paul of Aquileia in praise of his fallen friend, the margrave Eric ofFriuli.78 The patriarch would have been familiar with this region, forCharlemagne assigned his see the responsibility of conducting missionactivities there. Late medieval and early modern travel accounts mention theimpressive ruins of Sirmium, and Mirkovic notes that "the city ruins weremarked on Austro-Hungarian maps up to the 18th century."79 Unfortunately,the site of Sirmium was badly disturbed in the Age of Enlightenment bytreasure hunters searching for antiquities in the wake of the Habsburgreconquest. In the late sixth century there was, of course, a decline in theurban infrastructure and a steep demographic plunge, accompanied bypopulation shifts from the city to the environs. Nevertheless, at the time ofRastislav and Zwentibald there were still imposing fortifications in Sirmiumthat could have served the military needs of these rulers. Finely hewed stonewas abundant to be reused to repair breaches in walls and towers. Theexistence of ruins of ancient fortresses in the Sava watershed also explainsLiudewit's request to Fortunatus of Grado to send him skilled craftsmen andbuilders from the Adriatic who could "help him construct castles." The annaliststresses that the Franks occupied Moravian civitates et castella in 870, andtheir inability to hold them in 871 marked a turning point in the history of thisfrontier.



The defeat of Carloman's army by the Moravians in 871 must have impairedthe ability of Bavarian margraves to defend the East Frankish realm fromBohemian incursions. In October of the same year, Louis the



Page 175

German arrived in Bavaria whence he launched a preemptive strike againstBohemians, who were planning raids into his realm. 80 No doubt, theirturbulent duces had learned of Bavarian defeats, and they must have beentempted to make probing attacks against a weakened foe. It is important tonote, however, that these events were taking place north of the Danube andwere being managed by King Louis from Regensburg, not by Carloman,whose realm was located in Carantania. The leaders of this expedition intoBohemia were Arn, bishop of the Franconian see of Würzburg, and Rodold,the commander of the Bavarian march, the Nordwald, which guarded againstincursions from the Bohemian Forest into the region north of Regensburg.Hence, this expeditionary force was made up of Bavarians and Franconianswho shared the responsibility of defending the Bohemian frontier. Rodold wasan elderly man who already had appeared as venerabilis comes in a Freisingdeed dated between 856 and 864.81 In 871, the year of this expedition, aRegensburg source recognizes him as venerandus comes.82 The fact thatBavarian forces were led by such a venerable commander indicates that theywere suffering from manpower shortages and that many younger leaders haddied during the disastrous Moravian expedition earlier in the same year.

This incursion into Bohemia did, however, involve an unexpected encounterwith a band of Moravians. The Fulda annalist reports that the Bohemians hadfortified a certain locality with a stout wall, the narrow approaches to whichwere guarded by traps. Somewhere near these traps, Bishop Arn and his mensurprised a party of Moravians, who had celebrated a wedding and werereturning to their homeland with the daughter of a Bohemian dux,presumably to marry an unidentified magnate. Fleeing the Franks, theMoravians were caught in the traps, "of which they were ignorant."83

Although they reached the safety of the Bohemian fort, they abandoned theirfully equipped and saddled horses in the narrows. Arn captured 644 horsesand an equal number of shields.

This episode, the first one involving both Moravians and Bohemians, has beentaken as proof that Moravia was located near the modern Czech-Slovakborder. The annalist indicates that the encounter took place in some frontierzone between Bohemia and the East Frankish kingdom. Since this ambushinvolved Franconians under Bishop Arn, it is generally assumed that itoccurred somewhere near the Franconian-Bohemian border. However, hadMoravia been located in the northern Morava Valley, the Moravians would not



have found it necessary to pass anywhere near the Franconian frontier toreturn home.84 Had they been marching toward Franconia,



Page 176

they would have been moving in the wrong direction. Thus, the Franconiansunder Arn must have entered Bohemia from another direction. Indeed, theAnnales Fuldenses indicate that the invasion was launched from Bavaria,which means that the Franconians did not follow their normal route, via theMain Valley and through the Bohemian Forest to the Ohre (Eger) watershed.On this occasion, the Franconians had been pressed into helping theBavarians (who had just been badly mauled by Zwentibald) defendthemselves against marauding Bohemians. The Franconian exercitus,therefore, must have entered Bohemian territory from some point along itslong southern border with Bavaria. Since Rodold was the commander of theNordwald, his forces probably went from Cham through the Bavarian Forest inthe direction of Budejovice. But Rodold was not involved in the ambush of theMoravians. Again the common Carolingian strategy of invading hostileterritory with pincers from several directions must have been employed. SinceArn and his Franconians did not enter Bohemia by way of the Ohre, they mostlikely crossed the Bohemian border somewhere southeast of Regensburgwhere they encountered the Moravian escort. This would mean that theMoravians were marching south or southeast along some frontier zone towardthe Danube when this incident occurred. In any event, the encounter tookplace on territory unfamiliar to the Moravians, for they were obviouslyignorant of the traps that their Bohemian allies had set.

However, since this passage does demonstrate that there were contactsbetween Moravia and Bohemia in 871, we must ask how these relationshipswere possible, if Zwentibald's realm was separated from Bohemia by FrankishPannonia, under the control of Kocel and Bavarian margraves. First of all, in871 Kocel was no longer a compliant underling. After all, he haddemonstrated his independence from the Bavarians by asking Pope Hadrianto elevate Methodius to episcopal rank. Thus, the following scenario isplausible. Kocel, angered by Methodius's disappearance, joined forces withZwentibald and granted Moravian envoys passage across his territory.Second, many Bavarian margraves and their men died in the catastrophicdefeat of 871. 85 The Bavarians, then, must have lost control over most ofPannonia by October of 871, and the Danubian lordships east of the Ennsmay have been in jeopardy as well. A large portion of the Graman entouragemust have perished with Wilhelm and Engelschalk, leaving Lower Austriavirtually defenseless against Moravians from Pannonia and against



Bohemians from the north. This scenario explains why a Franconian bishopwas pressed into service on the southeastern frontier.



Page 177

The disintegration of Frankish power in Pannonia, following this catastrophicdefeat in the early summer of 871, gave Zwentibald an opportunity to seekallies to the north and west, allies who could cause sufficient disruption alongthe Bavarian frontier to prevent the gathering of a new exercitus against him.The turbulent Bohemian duces seem an obvious choice as allies, even if theheartland of Zwentibald's realm were far to the southeast. If a substantialnumber of Bavarian and Franconian warriors were tied up guarding theBohemian frontier, these men would not have been available for campaignsin the southeast to restore Carolingian authority in Pannonia. The size of theMoravian bridal escort indicates that the young woman was to marry animportant person, most likely some member of the princely family, and thatthe marriage was considered a part of the Moravian-Bohemian alliance.

The essential accuracy of this analysis is supported by a close examination ofthe events of 872. Louis the German spent the early part of the year inBavaria or near its borders. On January 6, he received Byzantineambassadors in Regensburg. 86 We are not told the purpose of this embassy,but it is not unreasonable to assume that it was somehow connected with theevents that had transpired in southeastern Europe during the previous twoyears. In early March, the king was in the royal villa of Forchheim inFranconia, near the Bavarian border, where he held a general assemblyconcerning the division of the realm. The main purpose of this conventus,which all of his sons attended, was to smooth over the relationship betweenCarloman and his younger brothers, Louis and Charles. The latter two sworeoaths of loyalty in the presence of the entire army.87 This conclave alsoconcerned itself with campaigns against Moravia and Bohemia planned forthe coming spring and summer. In a separate report, Hincmar tells us thatthe king's real purpose was to persuade his younger sons to join Carloman ina campaign against the Wends, but that he was unsuccessful.88 Nevertheless,Hincmar writes that the king sent an army ''as large as possible" withCarloman, another indication that there were severe manpower shortages asa result of the defeat of the Bavarian exercitus in 871.

Louis celebrated Easter (March 30) in Regensburg, where he assembledforces for the coming campaign, once again a multipronged expedition withpincers advancing on Moravian territory from several directions.89 One armywas made up of Thuringians and Saxons, which the king sent out fromRegensburg in the month of May "against the Moravian Slavs." A second was



composed of Franconians under Bishop Arn again and Abbot Sigihard of Fulda.The third force to move against the Moravians was under



Page 178

Carloman's command and consisted of Bavarians and Carantanians. Finally, afourth army, made up of Franconians under the leadership of ArchbishopLiutbert of Mainz, was dispatched "against the Bohemians" in an operationthat was clearly distinct from the various pincers converging on Moravianterritory.

It is significant that neither Louis the Younger nor Charles joined the forcesinvading Moravia. The Alamanni, whom Charles would have commanded, didnot participate in this expedition at all. Thuringian and Saxon forces, assignedto the younger Louis, did take part, but their units embarrassed themselvesby fleeing in their first encounter with the enemy. The annalist attributes thisfiasco to the fact that "they did not have the king with them." It is hardlysurprising that Saxons had little stomach for Pannonian campaigns. Theirforces had fared badly there in 820 during the war against Liudewit, and in846, when they were ambushed in Bohemia on their return. In 872, it isimportant to note, Thuringians and Saxons did not enter Moravia throughBohemia, for had they done so, they surely would have met up withArchbishop Liutbert's army campaigning against the Bohemian duces. Thus,Saxon forces must have gone south to Regensburg with the king following theassembly in Forchheim and then set out from there in May following theDanubian route to Vienna. This sequence is supported by the AnnalesFuldenses, which state that "the king sent them out." The king was inRegensburg.

The Franconian forces experienced mixed results. The army under Bishop Arnand Abbot Sigihard actually fared worse than the Saxons. Although theirforces fought well, the majority of the men were killed, and only a handful ofsurvivors returned. In contrast, the Franconian exercitus that invadedBohemia under Archbishop Liutbert's command enjoyed great success. Hedefeated the enemy in a pitched battle in which five Bohemian ducesperished, and a "great multitude" of their followers fled, many of whom werekilled by the pursuing Franconians, and most of the rest drowned in theMoldau. Only a few managed to escape to the safety of fortifications.Liutbert's forces then wasted Bohemia and returned home. If Moravia hadbeen situated just to the east of the Bohemian basin, Liutbert's forces (oncethey had cowed the Bohemians) would surely have joined the attack onMoravia, where the milites of his fellow Franconian prelates were being badlymauled. It is obvious that the Franconians under Arn and Sigihard had not



invaded Moravia through Bohemia, and that the two Franconian armies wereinvolved in separate operations. The Bohemians,



Page 179

under the leadership of petty chieftains, presented a far lesser threat than didthe Moravians under Zwentibald.

The third army under Carloman also encountered difficulties in its invasion ofZwentibald's realm. As the main force was laying Moravian territories towaste, Zwentibald secretly assembled a large army and attacked Bavarianswho had been left behind to guard ships "on the bank of the lower Danube"(in litore Histri fluminis), a phrase that is generally translated simply "on thebank of the Danube." 90 While Hister was occasionally used to designate theentire course of the Danube, normally this name was applied only to thelower reaches of the river.91 Danubius, on the other hand, designated theDanube above the Drava-Sava-Tisza watergate. In addition, the lower Savaaround Sirmium was commonly considered to be a continuation of theHister.92 Given the context of this campaign, it is virtually certain that theannalist was employing the term Hister correctly, meaning the lower Danubenear the watergate. Carloman, the praelatus of Carantania, would haveinvaded a southern Moravia with the support of ships operating on the Dravaand Sava rivers.

There are additional signs that the expedition of 872 took place on the lowerDanube near the southeastern borders of Carantania. After ordering hisarmies to join Carloman against the Moravians, Louis the German movedsouth from Regensburg over the Brenner to Trent, where he met with theEmpress Engelberga, a skillful diplomat and wife of the Emperor Louis II.93

Since Louis the German crossed the Brenner in May of 872, he could haveaccompanied a portion of the army as far as Bressanone, where it marchedvia the Pusteria route to Carantania in preparation for an invasion of Moravia.At the meeting in Trent, Hincmar tells us, Louis the German reneged on hisearlier agreement with Charles the Bald, in which he had consented to divideLothringia with his younger brother. Instead, the East Frankish ruler secretlyrecognized his nephew Louis II's claims to Lothringia. Though other mattersmust have been on the table at Trent, it is understandable that Hincmar ofReims commented only on the Lothringian question, since it would have beenof primary importance to West Frankish interests. In return for giving up hisclaim to Lothringia, however, Louis the German must have gained someconcessions from his nephew. Dümmler suggested that the "price" forLothringia was the childless emperor's recognition of Carloman as hissuccessor to the Italian throne.94



Still other issues may have come to the fore at Trent in late spring of 872. Weknow that Engelberga was accompanied by two papal legates,



Page 180

Bishop Formosus of Porto and Bishop Gauderic of Velletri, representatives ofHadrian II. 95 This pontiff was under the influence of Louis II, a fact that theEast Frankish ruler might have turned to his advantage by pressuring hisnephew to use his influence with Hadrian to help resolve the thorny issue ofecclesiastical jurisdiction in Pannonia to the satisfaction of the Bavarianepiscopacy. Strangely, although he had appointed Methodius archbishop ofSirmium, Hadrian was silent on the matter of the apostle's incarceration. Hemade no public pronouncements on the archbishop's disappearance and tookno actions to determine his whereabouts. Thus, it is possible that he mayhave been reconsidering the revival of the archiepiscopal see of Sirmium andwas trying to negotiate a compromise solution.

Why were the papal envoys at Trent? As Dümmler noted, we are not toldtheir purpose.96 Bishop Formosus was, however, an acknowledged expert onthe affairs of southeastern Europe.97 In 866 Nicholas I had designated him tolead the Roman mission to the court of the Bulgar khan, who was soimpressed that he insisted on Formosus's appointment as archbishop, arequest that Nicholas denied.98 Because of his experiences in Bulgaria,Formosus probably knew at least one Bavarian prelate, Bishop Ermenrich ofPassau, who also had led a mission to the Bulgars. Moreover, in 872Formosus had just returned from Constantinople, where he had served asHadrian II's legate. At the Roman curia, however, this bishop was a rival ofthe archpriest John, who in December of 872 would become Pope John VIII,the pontiff who would insist on Methodius's release and reinstatement in hissee. He was also the pope who would forbid the Bavarian bishops fromparticipating in the liturgy and who would excommunicate Formosus in 876.

In the summer of 872, however, it was by no means obvious that these laterdevelopments would occur. Formosus was a favorite of the aging Hadrian IIand a serious candidate himself for the papal throne. Since the bishop ofPorto was experienced in the ecclesiastical organization of the southeast, it isvery plausible that he was involved in negotiating some kind of compromiseconcerning the Pannonian see, a compromise that was brushed aside whenhis rival John VIII ascended the papal throne in December of 872. Ironically,Formosus survived his rival to become pope himself in 891.

There is also reason to believe that Louis the German's meeting withEngelberga in 872 involved discussions of Carloman's war against the



Moravians. This possibility has not been considered by scholars, simplybecause they have assumed that Moravia was located north of the Danube,



Page 181

far removed from the interests and military power of the Italian kingdom. If,however, Zwentibald's realm was in southern Pannonia, it would have been inLouis the German's interests to court his nephew, for an Italian army couldprovide reinforcements from bases in Friuli against a southern Moravia. As wehave seen, Italian forces had played major roles in southern Pannonia againstthe Avars in 791, 795, and 796, as well as during Liudewit's revolt (818823).In 872, Carloman was obviously hard-pressed for manpower in his waragainst Zwentibald, as he had lost almost an entire army the previous year,and his father had been unable to persuade his younger sons, Louis theYounger and Charles, to participate in that year's campaign.

Louis the German must, then, have been concerned about the serious state ofaffairs in the marches when he journeyed over the Brenner and down theIsarco and Adige valleys toward Trent in May of 872 to meet with Engelbergaand Bishop Formosus. His willingness to forgo claims to a part of Lothair'skingdom, which seems very mysterious to many scholars, may have beenmotivated by more immediate concerns than the extraction of a vaguepromise that Carloman would succeed Louis II to the kingship in Italy. Louis IIand Carloman were approximately the same age. The former first appearedin the Carolingian sources in 839, the latter in 842, and, as it turned out,Carloman outlived his cousin only by four years. 99

Finally, it is noteworthy that in 872 Louis the German seems to have focusedhis attention on Bavaria and its southeastern marches, that part of the EastFrankish realm that would fall to Carloman, at this point his favorite son. Infact, Louis spent the entire year in Bavaria or near its borders. He left thisrealm on only three occasions. Once in early March, when he journeyed toForchheim in Franconia but near the Bavarian border, where he forced Louisthe Younger and Charles (but not Carloman) to swear oaths of fealty to him"in front of the entire army." He was in Regensburg for Easter on March 30,but by early May the aging monarch was on the march toward the Brenner. Inlate May, when he met with Engelberga in Trent, he was only one day'smarch from the Bavarian border (then south of Bolzano). The king'swhereabouts are unknown until December, when he left Bavaria for Frankfurt,after having "disposita Baioariorum regione."100

Where was Louis the German from late May until December? It is unlikelythat the monarch went to the northern German regions, only to retrace his



steps to Bavaria in late autumn, and then to return to Frankfurt for Christmas.The Fulda annalist (at least the author of the Mainz version)



Page 182

routinely documented Louis's movements north of the Main, so we mustassume that he remained in Bavaria and/or its marches during this entireperiod. We cannot exclude the possibility that the king traveled through thesoutheastern marches in the summer of 872. In this context, it is important tonote that the author of the Annales Fuldenses used the term regioBaioariorum, rather than regnum Baioariorum, to locate Louis's whereaboutsin 872. The former is more indefinite and implies the region under Bavariancontrol, which would include Carantania and Pannonia. The phrase dispositaBaioariorum regione must, then, be translated into English, ''after taking careof affairs in the region of the Bavarians." 101 Thus, the king must have been inBavaria and its marches from the time that he left Trent (late May/earlyJune) until December.

Given the availability of routes through the southeastern Alps, he may haveproceeded from Trent to the Karnburg in Carantania via the Friulianpasses.102 If a Moravian expedition were taking place in southern Pannonia inthe summer of 872, Louis could have readily followed such a campaign fromCarantania. The news would not have been good. As we have seen, Saxonsand Thuringians fled after their first encounter with the enemy, Franconianswere mauled by Moravian forces, and Carloman lost his river fleet on thebanks of the Hister. Carloman, his favorite and eldest son, heir to theBavarian realm and future pretender to the Italian throne, had suffered majordefeats in consecutive years, defeats which surely affected the morale of theBavarian aristocracy, as well as its ability to defend the frontier regionagainst incursions for years to come. That Carloman did indeed have greatdifficulty defending the marches the following year, is demonstrated by apassage in the Annales Bertiniani, which reports that he sent an urgentmessage to his father, then in Metz, pleading with the king to come to hisassistance in "the march against the Wends," implying that the situationthere was desperate.103 This call prompted Louis's hurried return toRegensburg.

Louis the German spent most of the summer of 873 in Lothringia, which wasthreatened by Scandinavians.104 Whatever agreements he may haveconcluded with the Emperor Louis II a year earlier in regard to Lothringia, hehad abandoned by this time. Could this have been because his nephew hadprovided little or no help in resolving the Moravian problems? The sources donot allow us to answer this question beyond doubt. Nevertheless, the



situation had changed in Italy in ways that could not have pleased the EastFrankish king. The death of Hadrian II and the elevation of the vigorous JohnVIII boded ill for Bavarian ecclesiastical



Page 183

authority in Pannonia. The rise of John also meant a temporary eclipse of theinfluence of his rival, Formosus, who had obviously been an important playerin the negotiations at Trent. Already, in May 873, the new pope had movedenergetically to discover the whereabouts of Methodius and to demand hisreinstatement as archbishop. As we have seen, he sent a letter to King Louisexpressing his concern over the diocese of Pannonia and dispatched Paul ofAncona as a special legate empowered to investigate this matter thoroughly.105 In addition, Carloman and the Bavarian bishops, Adalwin of Salzburg,Anno of Freising, and Ermenrich of Passau, received harshly worded papalepistles, commanding the immediate reinstatement of Methodius.106 Adalwin,as Bavarian metropolitan, was ordered by the pontiff to accompanyMethodius personally, a task which he probably did not fulfill, since he diedeither shortly before or shortly after receiving the papal letter.107 John VIIImade it clear in these epistles that Methodius's diocese was in Pannonia andthat the holy see had the exclusive authority to dispose of ecclesiasticaloffices totius Ilyrici fines.108 The pope also sent letters to Zwentibald, toCount Kocel, and to the South Slavic dux Montemer, ordering Montemer tosubmit to Methodius's ecclesiastical jurisdiction.109

Exactly when the archbishop was reinstated is an open question, however, forhostilities between Zwentibald and Carloman continued throughout thesummer of 873. Hincmar informs us that numerous Slavic (Wendish) principesappeared before Louis in Regensburg in autumn, but Zwentibald does notseem to have been among them. Also, legati from the Bohemians arrivedthere, but Louis, suspecting them of treachery, imprisoned them.110 InNovember, yet another embassy came to Regensburg.111 This one was fromConstantinople and was headed by Archbishop Agathon, metropolitan ofMorabon. Since this name sounds like Morava, it has been suggested thatperhaps Morabon was the ancient city of Margus on the southern Morava,probably under Bulgar control.112

The monarch was in Fulda for Easter, April 18, 874. Exactly one month later,he arrived at the palace of Ingelheim, following a general assembly ofmagnates in Tribur. Then, as in 872, the king crossed the Brenner to Verona,where he met with the Emperor Louis accompanied by Pope John VIII.113 Thepresence of this pontiff (who had insisted on Methodius's release) makes itcertain that the affairs of Slavic central Europe were on the agenda.Moreover, immediately following this conclave, the East Frankish monarch



returned to Forchheim, where he conferred with Carloman and Louis theYounger, as well as with ambassadors from Zwentibald, who, we are told,"petitioned for peace and promised fidelity."114 The leader of the Moravian



Page 184

delegation was a certain John, identified as a priest of Venice, who managedto remove Louis's doubts concerning Zwentibald's intentions. The presence ofIohannes presbyter de Venetiis at Forchheim emphasizes, once again, the"Italian connection" in Louis's dealings with the Moravians, which can best beexplained by assuming that Moravia was situated in southern Pannonia. TheAnnales Fuldenses report that the Moravian leader promised to remain loyalto Louis and to pay a yearly tribute if he could only be left in peace. At thispoint the annalist probably embellished the truth somewhat, for there is nodoubt that Bavarian forces had suffered major setbacks during the years871873. Thus, it was probably King Louis and Carloman who wanted peacewith Zwentibald at almost any price rather than the reverse. The monarchalso heard a Bohemian nuntia at Forchheim, but these negotiations wereclearly distinct from the Moravian ones.

That Louis was anxious to settle the Moravian war as quickly as possible canbe extrapolated from his itinerary in 874. On April 18, he was in Fulda.Sometime between then and May 4, he held the general assembly in Tribur,because, on the latter date, he was in Ladenburg on the Neckar east ofMannheim. 115 Shortly after May 18, he must have departed the palace ofIngelheim, for in the next thirty-three days, he went through the Alps toVerona, then back again to Forchheim. Finally, he returned to Bavaria,following the assembly in Forchheim, before going northwest again toFrankfurt, where he arrived early in July.116 This would have been an unusualitinerary for a youthful or middle-aged monarch, as rulers tried to plan theirmovements carefully to avoid retracing their steps. Yet, from mid-May toearly July, approximately forty-five days, Louis the German, a man nearingseventy and in poor health, went from western Franconia through Bavariaand across the Alps to northeastern Italy, then returned to eastern Franconia(Forchheim) having made a second Alpine crossing. Subsequently, he feltcompelled to go back to Bavaria, which he had traversed twice already,before returning to western Franconia (Frankfurt). This flurry of activity on thepart of an aging monarch demonstrates, better than any detailed descriptionin the annals, Louis's determination to bring the Moravian conflict to an end in874.

Unfortunately, we do not know the terms of the agreements reached atForchheim in 874. Frankish-Bavarian influence in the Drava Valley had notbeen eliminated, however. Kocel continued to govern the latter region as a



comes, presumably subordinate to Carloman. The ecclesiastical organizationof Salzburg still extended at least as far southeast as Ptuj, where the newarchbishop, Theotmar, consecrated a church in Kocel's presence in 874.117



Page 185

The period 870875 also witnessed an expansion of the interests of the see ofFreising in the Carantanian basin near the Wörthersee. In this region the seeacquired a large estate consisting of fifty iugera of arable land and an incomeof fifty wagons of hay, enough fodder to make a substantial contribution tothe provisioning of armies moving southeast from Bavaria. 118 Moreover, fromthis document and other deeds it is possible to determine that Freising waswell-endowed with landed possessions in central Carantania.119 Once againwe can see that the Moravian wars actually led to an expansion of Bavarianecclesiastical interests in Carantania.

Conclusion

The decade between 865 and 874 was indeed a critical one for Frankishattempts to organize the central Danubian basin. Carloman, in the goodgraces of his father, succeeded in putting down rebellions by such disgruntledmargraves as Werner and by the archtraitor Gundachar. Then he turned hisattention to Moravia in an attempt to incorporate it directly into his realm.Together with his brother Charles, Carloman led a major expedition thatravished the regna of Rastislav and Zwentibald in 869 and reached the verygates of the Moravian duke's urbs antiqua, plausibly Sirmium on the Sava.The following year, he persuaded Zwentibald to betray his uncle, resulting inthe capture and imprisonment of the old duke. Bavarian forces under theGramans Wilhelm and Engelschalk entered Moravia, occupying Rastislav'scivitates and castella with the probable intention of reorganizing theprincipality into Frankish comital lordships. It was at this time (autumn 870)that Methodius, who had been appointed archbishop of Sirmium by HadrianII, was taken into custody and hastily conveyed through the Alps to the islandmonastery of Reichenau, where he was confined for more than two years.Carloman seemed on the verge of bringing the entire central Danubian basinunder his direct rule.

But disaster for the Franks ensued. Zwentibald turned on Carloman andambushed a Bavarian army on its way to put down a Moravian uprising.These forces were virtually annihilated, and the Moravians regained theircivitates and castella, slaughtering their Bavarian garrisons. Zwentibald'svictory was a severe blow for Carloman and for the Bavarian exercitus, whichsuffered manpower shortages from that point on. Taking advantage of apower vacuum in Frankish Pannonia, the new Moravian duke was able to



expand his power to the north and establish contacts with



Page 186

Bohemian leaders, whom he persuaded to raid into the territory of the hard-pressed Bavarians. In spite of the fact that Carloman was able to defend hisnatural fortress of Carantania, he was unable to take the offensive againstthe Moravians without massive assistance from the other East Frankishprovinces. But his brothers, Louis the Younger and Charles, were unwilling tolead forces from those regions (Franconia, Saxony, Thuringia, and Swabia),which they were to inherit following the death of Louis the German, simply tobenefit Carloman in the remote Danubian realms that were to fall to him.Although some troops were dispatched to the central Danubian basin by Louisthe German, lacking leadership from members of the stirps regis, these forcesgenerally fought badly. Carloman's disastrous defeats after 871 made itnecessary for the Franks to recognize Zwentibald as the ruler of a greatlyexpanded and virtually independent Moravian principality and to reinstateMethodius as metropolitan of his Pannonian diocese.



Page 187

7.Expansion of Zwentibald's Realm, 874885

Introduction

Following the peace of Forchheim in 874, the southeastern marchesexperienced a period of apparent tranquillity that lasted for almost a decade.Zwentibald and his Moravian warriors disappear from the Frankish sourcesduring these years, and there are no reports of rebellions or conflicts amongmarcher lords. The Annales Bertiniani mention that Carloman fought against''the Wends" (Windi) in 876, but that report found no echo in the AnnalesFuldenses, so one suspects that this campaign was merely Carloman's excusefor disobeying an imperial summons from his uncle Charles the Bald. 1Perhaps this expedition was connected with the death of Louis the German(August 28, 876). As the monarch had planned, the East Frankish realm wasdivided, and Carloman became king of Bavaria, ruling over its frontierprovinces of Carantania and Pannonia, as well as becoming titular overlord ofthe regna Sclavorum of the Bohemians and Moravians.2 Some dissidents ineither or both of these regna may have been the Windi mentioned byHincmar. In any event, the conflicts had ended by the following summerwhen Carloman invaded Italy "with an army of Bavarians and Slavs."3

The paucity of news from the southeastern marches in the Frankish annalsafter 876 is deceiving, however. Were it not for the chance survival of twoversions of the Annales Fuldenses, historians might have concludedmistakenly that events in these marches played little or no role in the historyof the East Frankish kingdom during this era and that relations betweenmargraves and Moravians were friendly until 892, when a major war finallybroke out between Zwentibald and Carloman's bastard son Arnulf. The lattercontrolled Carantania and parts of Pannonia and eventually became king ofthe East Franks following a coup d'état in 887. If only the so-called Mainzversion of the Annales Fuldenses had survived, we would just know thatCharles III (the Fat) went to "the Bavarian-Slav frontier" on one



Page 188

occasion to meet with Zwentibald in 884 before crossing the Alps to Italy, asthis source makes no references to hostilities between the margraves andMoravians during these years. There exists, however, a second rendition ofthe Annales Fuldenses (hereafter, Regensburg Continuation) which dispelsthe illusion of tranquillity in the southeastern marches, for this source yields avivid account of an extremely brutal war between Zwentibald and theWilhelminer branch of the Graman kindred.

This conflict, which took place between 882 and 884 and led to thedevastation of Pannonia east of the Raba, is generally referred to as a feud(Fehde) by German and Austrian historians. 4 It did indeed begin as analtercation between the Wilhelminer and the margrave Arbo because thelatter had been appointed to succeed Wilhelm and Engelschalk, who fellduring the Moravian war of 871. A decade later, their sons ousted Arbo fromthe honores that they considered rightfully theirs. The margrave, however,formed an alliance with Zwentibald, who attacked the sons of Wilhelm andEngelschalk; they in turn sought the support of Arnulf. These events led to awidening conflict, which resulted in a real war (not merely a feud) that had asits consequence the expansion of Moravian power over most of the centralDanubian basin.5

This chapter provides an analysis of the conflict called the Wilhelminer Fehde,its causes and its consequences. First, we shall attempt to access what wasoccurring in Zwentibald's realm during the peaceful years after 874, whenFrankish sources ignore the Moravians. Second, we shall look at thedevelopment of the marcher military organization from the death of Louis theGerman until the outbreak of the conflict, circa 882. Finally, we shall examinethe account of this war in the Regensburg Continuation. From these varyingperspectives, it will become clear that, during these years, Zwentibaldsucceeded in creating a virtual empire for himself in the central Danubianbasin by expanding his power from the southeast to the northwest.

Zwentibald, the South Slavs, and the Papacy

Of these three tasks, the first is the most difficult. Since the Frankish annalsignore Moravians between 874 and 884, it is not possible, on the basis ofthese contemporary sources, to explain how Zwentibald became so muchmore powerful during this period. Boba, however, has called attention to laterDalmatian sources that traditional historians have dismissed because they



unequivocally place Zwentibald's realm south of the Sava.6 If these



Page 189

sources were contradicted by ninth-century ones such as the AnnalesFuldenses, we would naturally yield to the superior testimony of the latter.But, as we have seen, all of the contemporary Frankish annals, plus evidencefrom royal charters and from the deeds of Bavarian ecclesiastical sees, alsogive us strong reasons to believe that Moravia was situated in the southeast.Moreover, the testimony of the Dalmatian sources is collaborated bycontemporary papal epistles.

The first of the Dalmatian sources is the Regnum Sclavorum, also known asBarski Rodoslov, by Presbyter Diocleas. 7 According to this account, a certainSventopelk was a descendant of Ratimar, perhaps the one we met previously,the Slavic dux on the Sava whom Ratpot attacked in 838. Ratimar had foursons, one of whom was Svetimir, the father of Sventopelk. During Svetimir'sreign, we are told, the "philosopher" Constantine went to the lands of theKhazars and, then, on to the Bulgars. Later he went through rex Sventopelk'srealm on the way to Rome. Presbyter Diocleas writes that on the occasion ofConstantine's visit, Sventopelk urged Christians, who had been hiding in themountains, to return to their former cities. This ruler also requestedinformation from the pope and from the Eastern emperor informationconcerning the former boundaries of his regnum, and, finally, he was crowned"king in the Roman fashion on the field of Dalma." Present at his coronationwere a papal legate, cardinals, and bishops. All of this information, thepresence of Christians hiding in the mountains, who are identified as "Latins,"the need for some advice about the earlier limits of his principality, and hiscoronation on the field of Dalma, indicates that Sventopelk's regnum was aSouth Slavic realm.

Boba argues that Sventopelk must have been none other than Zwentibaldwho became king of the Slavonians. That a coronation did indeed take placeis indicated by a letter, dated near the end of 885 and attributed to PopeStephen V. It is addressed to Zventopolco regi Sclavorum, thus officiallyrecognizing his royal status.8 It is believed that parts of this letter wereforged by Bishop Wiching, Methodius's suffragan, who was intimately familiarwith affairs at Zwentibald's court.9 The letter praises Wiching and reprimandsMethodius for teaching superstitions and for celebrating the liturgy in Slavic.10

Since it would have been in Wiching's interest to make this epistle seemauthentic, he certainly would have given Zwentibald his proper title. Inaddition, an eleventh-century papal document states that the King Zvonimir



of Croatia held his position as a gift of the holy see.11 This letter, a product ofthe era of Gregory VII's reformed papacy, was probably based on Romanrecords. In addition, the Supetarski kartular



Page 190

contains a document, which was deposited in the monastery of Saint Peter inGomai in Dalmatia, and which lists the predecessors of King Zvonimir(10751089/90). 12 The first of these was Sventopolk.

Admittedly, Zwentibald's royal title was not recognized by any of the variousauthors of the Annales Fuldenses, who consistently refer to him as dux. Onthe other hand, the Chronicon of Regino of Prüm, written early in the tenthcentury, does give him the title rex Marahensium Sclavorum; hence, there issome contemporary Frankish evidence confirming that Zwentibald held thetitle of king sometime before 890.13 In addition, the Annales Fuldenses statethat Rastislav and Zwentibald ruled distinct realms (regna) before 871.14

Rastislav was dux of the Moravian Slavs, whose capital was the urbs antiqua.Zwentibald's regnum is not identified, but it could not have been far removedgeographically from his uncle's. In 869 Carloman led an army againstZwentibald's realm, while Charles was attacking Rastislav's. Carloman andCharles then joined forces after ravishing these realms, a rendezvous onlypossible if they were in close proximity. These two realms were broughttogether in 871, when Zwentibald entered the urbs antiqua Rastizi. Thequestion is: where was Zwentibald's original regnum? A Dalmatian source,the Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii, states that Svetimir, the father of"Sventopelek," was the king of Bosnia.15 Still other sources associate Bosniawith Moravian rulers. These are later Ragusan annals which tell of anotherking from a Moravian-Croatian line (altro re della linea de Moravia deHarvati), who was installed as king of Bosnia in 977, following a period ofharsh Albanian rule. Boba reasons that the latter king, a member of the lineof Moravian Croats, must have been a descendant of Zwentibald, who hadfirst been a king or prince of Bosnia and who became the ruler of Moravia aswell.16

From papal correspondence, we know that John VIII played a vigorous role inthe region of the South Slavs during the years 879 and 880, and that theactivities of this pontiff involved the Moravian ruler. In 879, Branimir, a leaderof unknown origins, killed Prince Zdeslav, son of Trpimir, prince of DalmatianCroatia.17 Zdeslav had been installed in his office by Byzantine forces; andaccordingly, he became a client of the Eastern emperor. Branimir, however,once in power, placed this realm under papal protection, which precipitatedimmediate action on the part of the holy see. In the early summer of 879John VIII addressed a series of letters to the Dalmatian bishops, the priests



and people of Branimir's principality, to Bishop-elect Theodosius of Nin (nearZadar), to Zwentibald, to Archbishop Methodius, and to Khan Boris of Bulgariawho, following his



Page 191

baptism, had taken the name Michael. This correspondence was thenentrusted to an envoy, identified as the presbyter John, who, many believe,must have been Priest John of Venice, who had represented Zwentibald atForchheim in 874. Without a doubt "Priest John" in these letters was a man ofthe Adriatic, for the pope wrote to Theodosius of Nin that that he came fromDalmatia (de vestra parte). 18 In his epistle to the Moravian duke, the pontiffidentified this envoy as Zwentibald's priest (Iohannes presbyter vester), andfrom the context, we know that he had recently been at the Moravian court.19

John was also well known to Prince Branimir, and we are told that he wouldpass through the latter's territory on the way to the Bulgar khan.20 Thepurpose of his mission to the Bulgars was to persuade their ruler to return tothe Roman fold, promising, as an enticement to Boris, an independentecclesiastical organization.21 In his letter to the Dalmatians, Pope Johnreferred to presbyter Iohannes as his fidelis familiaris; thus he was a trustedadviser and confidant of the pontiff.22 In sum, he was a man of the Adriatic,an expert on the realms of South Slavs, and obviously widely traveled in thisregion. He was close to Zwentibald, perhaps "John of Venice" who hadnegotiated the peace of Forchheim.

Seen in this context, the missions of Priest John to the courts of Branimir,Zwentibald, and Boris must have been a part of an ambitious design to assertpapal jurisdiction in Illyricum. At a synod in Constantinople (879880), thepapal legation made imperial acquiescence to John VIII's authority over theBulgar church a condition of Roman recognition of Photius's reinstatement aspatriarch of Constantinople. This was a concession, however, that Byzantinechurchmen were probably willing to make, if only because Khan Boris was bythis time satisfied with his Greek (or Greek-educated) clergy, and ultimatelyhe refused to accept Latin priests.23 Thus, Roman jurisdiction in Bulgariaremained a nominal agreement worked out at the synod but shunned by thekhan, who simply ignored John VIII's appeals to return to the fold. Also, theDalmatian bishops remained solidly in the Eastern imperial camp, in spite ofthe pope's flattering letter to them in 879. Theodosius of Nin soon driftedfrom Rome, searching for an archiepiscopal see of his own.24 As for Branimir,his realm stretched along the Dalmatian coast, where he raised (withoutacknowledging the pope) an inscription proclaiming his kingship in 888.25

On the other hand, Pope John had more success in his negotiations withZwentibald. In a letter dated 879 and addressed to Methodius, the pontiff



sharply rebuked the archbishop for using Slavonic in liturgical services.26 Ayear later, however, in an important letter, well known for its



Page 192

incipit, Industriae tuae, John changed his mind, allowing the mass in Slavonicand reconciling Methodius with Zwentibald, whom he addressed as gloriosuscomes. 27 In this epistle, Methodius is titled for the first (and only) time asarchiepiscopus sancte ecclesie Marabensis. Most scholars have understoodthis title as ''archbishop of the principality of Moravia." Boba, however, haspointed out that bishops are titled after the cities in which they reside, and,hence, Methodius must have been the archbishop of (the city of) Maraba.28

On the other hand, in the letter of 879, Methodius is addressed as thearchiepiscopus Pannoniensis ecclesie. Boba argues that the termarchiepiscopus Pannoniensis ecclesie is equivalent to the archiepiscopusSirmiensis ecclesie, for Sirmium, the capital of Pannonia, was classicallyknown as the civitas Pannonia, just as Lorch (Lauriacum) was the civitasNoricum.29 In addition to Boba's argument, Herbert Schelesniker suggestedtwo other reasons why Methodius was given the title archiepiscopusPannoniensis ecclesie.30 First, it was an attempt to differentiate betweenMorava in Pannonia and Morava in Bulgaria, probably the see of BishopAgathon. Second, Schelesniker has pointed out that this title is close to onegiven Methodius in Greek and Slavic sources. For example, Methodius'sSlavonic title is Methodii archiepiskup Moravy i v bseje[seje] Panonije(Methodius, archbishop of Moravia and all of Pannonia). What is more, thereis one fact that simply cannot be contested: all of the papal correspondenceof Hadrian II and John VIII demonstrates that the Roman curia consideredMethodius's diocese to be in Pannonia.

This evidence connecting Methodius to Pannonia has been ignored because ofassumptions that geographic knowledge of central Europe was very inexact inRome. In addition, it is often argued that the situation was very different circa880 from what it had been in 869, when Methodius was first namedarchbishop to the see of Saint Andronicus at Kocel's request. In 869, it isreasoned, Hadrian II had envisioned an archdiocese that would include all ofthe Slavic principalities within the central Danubian watershed.31 In 880,however, Kocel was dead, and Bavarian bishops had reestablished theirauthority in his former principality. Khan Boris had rejected Roman priests,and, thus, the realistic John VIII was forced to abandon earlier plans to createa "super" archdiocese under papal authority, one encompassing all of ancientIllyricum. The revival of the see of Saint Andronicus, that is, Sirmium, hadbeen intended for this Illyrian archdiocese. Pope John, faced with new



realities in 880, simply changed Methodius's title from archiepiscopusPannoniensis ecclesie to archiepiscopus Marabensis ecclesie. In other words,he transferred the title to Zwentibald's



Page 193

principality north of the Danube, where this ruler, now virtually independentof the Bavarian episcopacy and of any East Frankish secular ruler, willinglyaccepted Roman authority.

It is possible to doubt this explanation for at least two reasons. First of all,such a transfer of an episcopal see was against the canons, as it was alsoillegal to move a bishop from one see to another. In this very region, in thecourse of the ninth century, some bishops, notably Theodosius and Wiching,tried to gain transfers for themselves from one see to another, but in eachcase they encountered stiff opposition on canonical grounds. 32 Had John VIIImade an exception in the case of Methodius, it surely would have beenreflected in the sources. Second, it is very clear from the papalcorrespondence that John considered both Methodius's diocese andZwentibald's principality to be situated in Pannonia. In the letter of 879, inwhich this pontiff addressed Methodius as archiepiscopus Pannoniensisecclesie, he also sent an epistle to Zwentibald in which he wrote thatMethodius was "your archbishop, ordained by our predecessor Hadrian."33

Thus Methodius, the archbishop of the Pannonian church, was considered bythe papacy to have been an archbishop whose see was located in theMoravian duke's realm.

We cannot explain this testimony away by assuming geographic ignorance inRome.34 As we have seen, John VIII had taken a special interest in Slavicmissions from the beginning of his reign, and he had access to excellentintelligence. In 879 Priest John, "Zwentibald's priest," had just returned fromthe Moravian court. And it was on his advice that this letter to Zwentibaldwas written. Perhaps "Priest John" had even assisted in its drafting. If he wasthe John of Venice, the negotiator of the peace of Forchheim, he would haveknown the details concerning Moravia's geography. Even in the unlikely eventthat Priest John was not the John of Venice of the Forchheim agreement, hewas, nevertheless, a man from the Adriatic, who was known to Branimir ofCroatia and who was also sent on a mission to the Bulgar khan. A trustedmember of the papal entourage, Priest John certainly would have given PopeJohn accurate geographic information concerning Pannonia and its adjacentregions. All of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that Methodius's seewas not transferred in 880 from Pannonia to a realm north of the Danube, butthat both Zwentibald's principality and the ecclesia Marabensis must havebeen located in Pannonia.



As Boba has pointed out, according to the ecclesiastical usage of the day,ecclesia Marabensis must refer to the church of an episcopal city, not to aprincipality.35 That Pope John was following standard nomenclature is



Page 194

demonstrated by the fact that in the same letter Methodius's suffragan,Wiching, is given the title episcopus sancte ecclesie Nitrensis. 36 Most scholarsbelieve that this passage refers to the city Nitrava, or at least to the fortress(burg/grad) of that name mentioned in a gloss to the Conversio. It isgenerally held that Nitrava is the modern Slovak town of Nitra (GermanNeutra, Magyar Nyitra). In fact, scholars who insist that Methodius (anarchbishop) was something like a chorepiscopus, operating without a fixedsee in a mission region, claim that Wiching, his suffragan, was a bishop witha stable see in the fortress of Nitra.

Be that as it may, Boba is certainly correct in arguing that there were twosees mentioned in this letter, each named for a city. One was Maraba(Marava); the second was Wiching's civitas Nitrensis, probably Nitra inmodern Slovakia. A letter written by Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg (c.900) states that the Bavarian episcopacy did not object to Wiching'sappointment as bishop of the civitas Nitrensis, because the people residingthere had previously been pagans, whom Zwentibald had conquered.However, the Bavarian bishops strongly objected to the reestablishment ofecclesiastical sees in Pannonia.37 This letter is clear evidence that the civitasNitrensis was not conquered by Moimir as most scholars believe. Rather,Zwentibald captured it. The city was the principal center of a region that layoutside the former boundaries of the Roman Empire. The Moravian leaderprobably conquered it after his victory over Bavarian forces in 871, as heexpanded his principality rapidly to the north and west. This expansion ofZwentibald's realm from south to northwest in 871 also explains why he wasable to open negotiations with the Bohemian duces at that time.

To return to the earlier letter, industriae tuae, it is notable for the light that itsheds on the growth of Christianity in the region governed by Zwentibald,whom Pope John addressed as "glorious count." From it we know thatMethodius had at least one suffragan, Wiching, whom John himself hadappointed.38 Although it is often speculated that Wiching had been installedin Moravia for the purpose of spying on Methodius and ensuring the primacyof the Latin rite, the pontiff makes it clear in this letter that he expectedWiching to subordinate himself to the archbishop, for he wrote that theepiscopus Nitrensis was to obey Methodius in all matters, sicut sancti canonesdocent. Also, this epistle boasts about the increasing numbers of clergy whoresided within the boundaries of Zwentibald's realm. Once again the pope



emphasized that these clerics were to be obedient to Methodius, whom hecalled confrater noster and archiepiscopus vester. John VIII,



Page 195

thus, recognized a full-fledged ecclesiastical organization in the territoryunder Zwentibald's control, an ecclesiastical organization headed by anarchbishop who was subordinate only to the jurisdiction of the Roman church.Such an ambitious ecclesiastical structure is incompatible with the hypothesisthat Methodius was a vagrant bishop without a fixed episcopal residence. Theestablishment of such an ecclesiastical structure is, however, in line with thegrowing power of Zwentibald and with papal ambitions to create an episcopalorganization in Illyricum.

After censuring Methodius in 879 for using the Slavonic rite, in 880 John VIIInot only decided to permit the liturgy in this language, but he also confirmedMethodius's position as metropolitan in all of the lands ruled by Zwentibald.Sometime between 879 and 880 the archbishop went personally to Rome,where he defended the Slavonic ritual and his own theological orthodoxy. 39

There were, no doubt, political as well as religious reasons for the pope'schange of heart.40 In Zwentibald's realms there was a real opportunity toassert papal authority. This ruler had already in the 870s made himselfvirtually independent of the East Frankish kingdom politically and from theBavarian episcopacy ecclesiastically. Furthermore, the death of Carloman in880 decreased the likelihood that Bavarian hegemony could be reestablishedin the near future. It is obvious, then, that if Zwentibald's realms weresituated in western Illyricum, a papal alliance with him had the potential ofdriving a wedge between a Bavarian zone in northern Pannonia andByzantine spheres of influence in Bulgaria and along the Dalmatian coast.

In order to consummate such an alliance, John had to do everything in hispower to flatter the Moravian leader, the "glorious count," and toaccommodate his request by making Wiching bishop of Nitra. The attentionthat John VIII lavished on Zwentibald no doubt increased the latter's prestigeamong the warlords of south-central Europe whose armed followers formedthe basis of his power. Since most of these warriors spoke Slavic dialects,John's concessions to the Slavonic rite probably allowed the Moravian princeto win them over to Christianity more easily. Although it is known thatZwentibald himself professed the Latin rite, which was practiced at hiscourt,41 the prince was in the process of expanding his power into territorycontrolled by Slavic-speaking warlords unfamiliar with the Latin rite as it waspracticed by the Franks. The VM draws a direct connection between thereturn of Methodius, the reestablishment of the Slavonic ritual, and the



expansion of Moravian power.



Page 196

And the Apostolic Father sent him [Methodius] at once. And Prince Svatopulk and all of theMoravians received him. They entrusted to him all the churches and clergy in all the towns. Andfrom that day forth Moravians began to grow and multiply, and the pagans to believe in the trueGod, casting aside their lies. And the Province [oblast] of Moravia began to expand much moreinto all lands and to defeat its enemies successfully, as they themselves say. 42

The VM also directly links Zwentibald's military achievements and Methodius'swork. When the Moravian prince encountered difficulties in combat againstthe pagans, Methodius promised him that if the prince would celebrate SaintPeter's Day in the archbishop's church, "'I trust God will soon deliver them[your enemies] to you,' and so it came to pass."43 The reference tocelebrating Saint Peter's Day with Methodius has been taken to mean,"celebrating it according to the Slavonic rite."44 Thus, the celebration of theSlavonic liturgy and Zwentibald's successes in war and the conversions of thepagans are inextricably linked in the VM.

In the same chapter there is a passage that has led many to believe thatZwentibald succeeded in conquering southern Poland and that Methodius andhis disciples were active there. Some have even gone so far as to assert thata Slavic church organization survived in Poland following the expulsion ofMethodius's followers from Moravia circa 885. Vincenz and Urbanczyk,however, have decisively put these theories to rest.45 Schelesniker arguesthat the supporters of the northern Moravia hypothesis have arbitrarilydecided that a certain pagan prince resided on the Vistula. The Slavonicphrase in the VM is, however, in Visla, which Schelesniker argues, "waslocated, according to Byzantine sources, in Pagania (today Hercegovina)."46

It is impossible to answer whether John VIII initiated the proceedings that ledto the coronation of Zwentibald on the field of Dalma. Nevertheless, there areindications that this pontiff may indeed have been involved in negotiating hiselevation to the kingship. In a letter to Methodius dated March 23, 881, thepope called the Moravian leader gloriosus princeps Sphentopulchus, asignificant elevation in his title from a gloriosus comes.47 The papalcorrespondence, in fact, makes it clear that Zwentibald's power continued togrow during the period 874882, and that this growth must have occurred inthe region of the South Slavs. In 871, he gained control over his uncle's urbsantiqua and administered a crushing defeat on the Bavarians. In thisencounter the duces Karlmanni, Wilhelm and Engelschalk, perished with alarge Bavarian army. Subsequently, Zwentibald not only warded off allFrankish invasions of his territory, but also soundly defeated the invaders





Page 197

and repeatedly attacked their territory. He forced a peace on the Franks in874, then turned to the task of consolidating his position in Pannonia, and heprobably extended his rule north of the Danube, taking the fort of Nitra (seeMap 7).

Carolingian Marcher Organization, 874881

Up to this point we have seen that, in spite of the silence of the Frankishannals, important events must have been transpiring in the realms underZwentibald's control in the decade after the peace of Forchheim. Now it isnecessary to look at developments on the Carolingian side of the frontier.Once again, the lack of testimony in the annals is deceiving, for otherevidence, especially Carloman's charters, reveal that the southeasternmarches continued to play an extremely important role in the history of theEast Frankish kingdom.

Following the death of Louis the German, his realm was diviced among hissons. Carloman received the regnum of Bavaria plus its appendages ofCarantania and Pannonia and the regna Sclavorum of the Bohemians andMoravians. Louis the Younger gained control of Franconia, Thuringia, Saxony,and a substantial part of the regnum Lotarii. Nothing should be made of thefact that Louis held more of the ''German" regna than Carloman, for it can bedemonstrated that no specifically "German" consciousness existed among theEast Franks in the ninth century. Second, the elder brother's realms of Bavariaand Carantania were undoubtedly more developed at that time, and theywere strategically located on the borders of Italy, the crown of whichCarloman coveted. From the beginning of his reign until a stroke in 879paralyzed him and shortened his career, this ruler pursued an activeItalienpolitik. The Annales Fuldenses opaquely allude to a relationshipbetween Carloman's Italian interests and his control over South Slavicregions, stating that in 877 Carloman invaded Italy "with a strong force ofBavarians and diverse Slavs." 48 An even clearer picture is transmitted by thecharter evidence, demonstrating concretely just how important control overthe southeastern marches must have been for Carloman's ambitious plans inItaly.

One of the most striking features of Carloman's reign was a rather dramaticshift in the favored royal residence. Rather than holding court in Regensburgwhen he was in Bavaria, Carloman preferred to reside in the dense complex



of royal estates and curtes in the Inn-Salzach region, which



Page 198

Map 7.Expansion of Zwentibald's Realm.



Page 199

the Carolingians had taken over from the Agilolfinger dukes. 49 This importantroyal demesne lay in southeastern Bavaria on the routes to Alpine passesleading to Carantania. The shift of the royal residence to the southeastmakes it evident that Carloman intended to pursue his Italienpolitik frombases in Carantania. Had he planned to invade Italy by way of the Brennerand Reschen passes, one would expect the villa of Aibling in southern Bavariato have gained prominence as principal residence. As we noted earlier, it wasin the Inn-Salzach region, especially at the royal curtes of Ötting, Ranshofen,and Mattighofen, that Louis the German issued many of the diplomasconcerning the southeastern marches. In addition to these establishedcenters, Carloman, during his short reign, issued charters from Hochburg, aroyal curtis only a few hours southeast of the important Salzach crossing ofBurghausen.50 From Ötting the royal entourage (or a royal army) could reachHochburg in a day's march, as it could Ranshofen, which was situated just tothe southeast of another Inn crossing at Braunau. Mattighofen was a day'smarch to the south of Ranshofen. Thus, there existed in this region a densenetwork of fiscal property capable of supporting substantial forces assemblingin Bavaria for a march over the Salzburg and / or Upper Austrian passes intoCarantania.51 During Carloman's reign more than 60 percent of the survivingcharters were issued from royal centers in the Inn-Salzach region, and Ötting,Carloman's favorite residence, was elevated by this ruler from the rank ofcurtis to that of palatium. In contrast, only one charter (dating from veryearly in his reign) survives from Regensburg and the remainder were issuedin Italy, largely when he campaigned there between October 16 andNovember 20, 877.52

From the charter evidence we know that Carloman did indeed launch hisItalian campaign of 877 from the Inn-Salzach region, which means that hisarmy crossed the Upper Austrian and Salzburg passes to Carantania beforemoving into Italy. It must have been in Carantania, then, where he joinedwith a strong force of diverse Slavs. Before leaving for Italy on June 28,Carloman issued a charter in Ranshofen for Kremsmünster, the monasterythat controlled the routes over the Pyhrn pass to the middle Enns; hence, wehave an indication that at least a part of his army traveled through theTraungau and over the Pyhrn to Carantania in 877.53 The ruler returned fromItaly in late autumn, leaving Verona on or after November 20 and arriving inÖtting no later than December 3, for he issued charters from each of these



localities.54 Assuming that the first diploma was drafted on the very day thathe left Verona and that the latter was sealed immediately upon his arrival inÖtting, Carloman traversed a distance of approximately 450



Page 200

kilometers (if he returned via the Brenner) in a fortnight, an incredible rate ofmarch (32 kilometers per day) through the Alps in late autumn. Veryprobably, however, the rate of march was even higher, for it is unlikely thatthese two charters were issued on his departure and arrival dates,respectively. Of course it must be emphasized that the king, accompaniedonly by a small entourage, could have moved much more rapidly than anentire army. Nevertheless, this rate is eloquent testimony that, by the end ofthe ninth century, an excellent logistical system existed in the eastern Alps tosupport the rapid movement of armies, courts, and royal messengers, even inlate autumn, when the days grow short.

An analysis of the recipients of Carloman's largess also demonstrates thisruler's determination to maintain an excellent transportation infrastructurealong the roads leading from Bavaria to Carantania. The monasticfoundations that he favored were Kremsmünster, which controlled the routeto the Pyhrn, Mondsee, on the approaches to the Pötschen Pass, andCarloman's new foundation, the palatine church at Ötting. The donations tothe Ötting church are of particular interest in this respect. On February 24,877, the king was in Mattighofen, where he deeded over to this church theAgilolfinger abbey of Mattsee located on the road to Salzburg. 55 In addition,Ötting also received the royal curtis of Buch near Straubing on the Danube.Straubing occupies a key position on the route from Regensburg to Ötting, sothis property would have been useful in supplying men and animals on themove from Regensburg to the southeast. Even more important wasCarloman's donation of a huge tract of land in partibus CarentaniaeSclauinieque regionis.56 This estate, which included seventy mansi andappurtenances, was situated in Treffen, near Villach, where the Drava basinopens up toward the east. Störmer estimates that this property must havebeen at least ten kilometers square.57 At Villach the Drava is joined by theGail, whose valley leads to the Plöcken Pass, one of the most importantroutes connecting Carantania with Friuli. Thus, the curtis at Treffen wouldhave been valuable in providing for forces gathering in Carantania to invadeItaly by way of the Friulian clausae. Therefore, we may conclude that thecharter evidence strongly indicates that Carloman planned to use Carantania,his original power base, as a staging area for campaigns in Italy, and, toensure easy communications between Bavaria and Carantania, he moved hisresidence from Regensburg to the Inn-Salzach region.



Carloman's donations to Mondsee also emphasize the shift of royal interestsaway from Regensburg. Mondsee had been richly endowed by the Agilolfingerdukes and had been designated a monastery of the first rank



Page 201

following the Carolingian takeover in Bavaria. Such a designation meant thatthe monastery was obligated to furnish troops as well as material support forroyal campaigns. By Carloman's reign, however, Mondsee had become apossession of the Bishop of Regensburg, Embrich, whose nephew Hitto wasthe current abbot. Thus, Carloman's donations to Mondsee, all of which wereactually located around Regensburg, were probably a means of compensatingthe bishop and his nephew for the heavy demands that the servitium regisplaced on Mondsee due to the frequent presence of royal armies in theenvirons of the monastery.

Another indication of the continued importance of the southeastern marchesduring Carloman's reign is the appointment of his bastard son Arnulf as theprincipal commander in Carantania and in Kocel's Pannonian lordship.According to Regino of Prüm, Arnulf took up residence in the Carantanianfortification of Moosburg, a castrum munitissimum, whose stout walls weresurrounded by impenetrable swamps. 58 This occurred around 876, and, atapproximately the same time, Kocel either died or was removed from hislordship in Lower Pannonia. If we assume that Moravia was located to thesoutheast of the marches, then Arnulf, a royal scion (even if an illegitimateone), would have had the primary responsibility for holding the Moravians incheck, a strategically important task, assuming that Carloman planned to usehis bases in Carantania to invade Italy. Under these circumstances it wouldhave been crucial to prevent Zwentibald from invading Frankish Pannonia andCarantania while Carloman was in Italy with forces that had been drawnlargely from those regions. When Carloman died, Arnulf was firmlyentrenched in these lordships, and Louis the Younger and Charles III had nochoice but to recognize his rights to them.

Given Carloman's Italienpolitik, it served his interests to maintain peacefulrelations with the Moravian ruler, especially if the latter's principality was inthe southeast. Regino gives us reason to believe that the peace of Forchheim,which stabilized relations in the frontier region, may have been accompaniedby the establishment of a fictive kinship relationship between the Moravianduke and Arnulf. Under an entry for the year 890, Regino tells us thatZwentibald had lifted Arnulf's illegitimate son, named Zwentibald, from thefont.59 It is not difficult to imagine that the Moravian duke became thegodfather of this child as a means of establishing bonds with Arnulf, which,hopefully, would guarantee the peace. Gerd Althoff has recently called



attention to the importance of godfathership (Patenschaft) as a means ofestablishing bonds of friendship (amicitia) which would lead to greaterpolitical stability.60 Although Althoff admits



Page 202

that this ceremonial act ''is not to be dated precisely," he believes that itoccurred in Regensburg in 871, after Duke Zwentibald had defended himselfagainst charges of treason. Better arguments, however, can be made thatthis baptism took place sometime after the peace of Forchheim, when Arnulfwas installed in Carantania circa 876. If these bonds of fictive kinship hadbeen established in 871, then Zwentibald broke his friendship almostimmediately, for the Moravian duke betrayed a Bavarian army that he wasleading, butchering most of the men in their camp outside of the urbsantiqua, the event that turned the tide against Carloman.

Hence, it is more plausible to assume that this friendship (amicitia) wasformed as a means of establishing stable relationships between Arnulf andZwentibald, after the brutal wars of the 870s had been concluded and afterArnulf had succeeded his father in Carantania and Kocel in Lower Pannonia,circa 876. 61 Also a baptismal date of 876 fits very well into the chronology ofyoung Zwentibald's life. Arnulf's son, who eventually became king ofLothringia, first began to play a major role in Frankish history in 893, leadinga force of Alamanni against Wido near Pavia.62 Commonly, youths of thestirps regis were given a taste of campaigning in their teens. Louis the Pious,for example, accompanied his father on the Avar expedition of 791, when hewas only thirteen. Still as a tender age, he was ordered subsequently toaccompany Aquitainian forces which Charlemagne dispatched to Pepin duringthe years 792 and 793; Louis the German led forces against the Bretons in824, when he was between eighteen and twenty, and exactly eighteen yearslater, Carloman partook in his first campaign against Lothair in 842.63 If theyoung Zwentibald was born sometime between 874, the date of the peace ofForchheim, and 876, when Arnulf took command of Carantania and Kocel'sPannonia, he, like his illustrious ancestors, would have been somewherebetween sixteen and eighteen when he first appears as a leader of a Frankisharmy (893). Therefore, Duke Zwentibald must have become the godfather ofArnulf's bastard as a part of the complicated arrangements that broughtpeace to the marches after the treaty of Forchheim in 874.

The other major change in the organization of the southeastern marches wasthe appointment of Arbo as the successor of Wilhelm and Engelschalk. Heunited the Traungau with the Upper Pannonian lordship east of the Enns.Mitterauer has demonstrated that Arbo was no newcomer to the region, forhis ancestors had been active in the southeastern marches for almost a



century.64 A significant portion of Otacharen blood flowed in his veins, and hewas also biologically tied to the Swabian Gerolden and



Page 203

Alaholfinger kindreds, whose members had been active in this region duringthe Avar wars. However, he was probably not a direct descendant of themissus Audaccrus who, with Graman, the famous ancestor of the Wilhelminer,defeated the Avars in 788. Because the Alaholfinger name Cadolah (with itsvariants) is frequently found in the circle of nobles surrounding Arbo,Mitterauer posits that he was a direct descendent of a Cadolah (the missusCadaloc) who died in combat against the Avars near the castellum Guntionisin 802. 65 In this case, the relationship must have been several generationsremoved, for Arbo, a survivor of the Magyar defeat of Bavarian forces in 907,lived well into the tenth century (died after 910). On chronological grounds, itis doubtful that he was born much before 840, two generations after thedeath of the missus Cadaloc. If the latter were a direct ancestor of Arbo's, hewas probably no closer than one of four great-grandfathers. Another, moreplausible hypothesis is that Arbo was a direct descendant of another Cadolah,the Friulian count, who succumbed to a fever following his campaign againstLiudewit in 819. This margrave could easily have been one of Arbo'sgrandfathers.

The latter possibility would account for Arbo's appointment as the successorof Wilhelm and Engelschalk. Cadolah and Kocel (Chozil) are the same names,the latter being a Slavic pronunciation of the former. For this reason, Wolframhas hypothesized that Pribina's son had a Bavarian mother, and he speculatesthat she was a Wilhelminer.66 However, there is no evidence of any Cadolahsamong the Gramans. Moreover, as Mitterauer has demonstrated,Cadolah/Kocel must have become a common name in Pribina's clan throughthe establishment of ties, biological and/or spiritual-fictive, with prominentSwabian nobles who were active in the Bavarian marches and in Friuli.67

While the missus Cadaloc, who died in 802, is an unlikely candidate to bridgethe gap between Pribina and the Alaholfinger, the margrave of Friuli is anobvious choice. If he had been an uncle or godfather of Kocel, and if Pribinawas in his twenties at the time of Kocel's birth (shortly before the count'sdeath in 819), then Pribina would have been roughly forty when he wasinstalled in Lower Pannonia, circa 838, and approximately sixty when he waskilled by the Moravians, circa 860. Similarly, Kocel, born circa 820, wouldhave been almost twenty when his father took control of this principality, inhis early forties when he succeeded his father, barely fifty when he played amajor role in the controversy surrounding Methodius, circa 870, and in his



mid- to late fifties when he disappears from our sources (after 874). If weassume that Kocel's uncle (or possibly godfather) had



Page 204

been the missus Cadaloc who perished at the hands of the Avars in 802, thenwe would have to add approximately twenty years to this chronology. Thus,Pribina would have been nearing sixty at the time he was installed in LowerPannonia, and almost eighty when he died. Kocel would have been nearingseventy when he requested Methodius's elevation to episcopal rank in 869.

It is, then, very plausible that Arbo and Kocel had a common ancestor(biological or fictive) in Cadolah, the margrave of Friuli. The latter wasprobably the uncle or the godfather of Kocel, and the same person may wellhave been the grandfather of Arbo. Since this Cadolah, as margrave of Friuli,clearly had the task of organizing Italy's northeastern frontier, his relationshipwith Kocel can best be explained if we assume that Pribina was a Slavicchieftain residing somewhere near the boundaries of modern Croatia and notin Nitra in modern Slovakia. Given the fact that Mitterauer has establishedthat Arbo was definitely a member of the Otacharen, this hypotheticalrelationship between Arbo and Kocel becomes even more plausible, for one ofthe churches which was consecrated by Archbishop Liudepram of Salzburg (c.850) in Pribina's principality of Lower Pannonia was the Otachareschirichun,indicating that members of this kindred were major landowners there. 68

If there was indeed some close relationship between Arbo and Kocel, theformer's appointment to succeed Wilhelm and Engelschalk makes sense. Hisappointment as margrave must have been one of those compromises thatfinally brought peace to the marches in 874. During the years 871 through873, Carloman had been badly defeated by Zwentibald. These defeatsthreatened Carolingian military control over all of Pannonia, including Kocel'sprincipality of Lower Pannonia. Also, they endangered Bavarian ecclesiasticaljurisdiction in the region, not only in Moravia, but also in Pannonia south ofthe Danube, east of the Raba, and north of the Drava. The Bavarian bishops'fear of losing jurisdiction in Kocel's principality is reflected in the VM, whenthey warned this Pannonian prince to have nothing more to do withMethodius.69 Their apprehensions are also revealed in the Conversio, which isa strong statement affirming Salzburg's rights in Kocel's principality, which isdefined precisely as a triangle marked by Zalavár on the western end of LakeBalaton, Ptuj on an important Drava crossing to the southwest, and Pécs nearthe confluence of the Drava with the Danube. This "white paper" makes noclaim to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Moravia, either north of the Danube orsouth of the Drava. In 872 or 873, when the Conversio must have been



written, the Bavarian episcopacy was apparently willing to concede southernPannonia, perhaps to Meth-



Page 205

odius, but more likely to the patriarch of Aquileia. As for Kocel's part ofPannonia, the archbishop of Salzburg was determined to hold on to it. Thelast four chapters of the Conversio are, in fact, a justification of Salzburg'secclesiastical jurisdiction in Pannonia inferioris, east of the Raba and north ofthe Drava. 70 No claim was made for Salzburg's rights south of the Drava ornorth of the Danube. As we have seen in the last chapter, EastFrankish/Bavarian defeats in the early 870s were serious. if even a portion ofPannonia was to be salvaged for Bavarian secular and ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, a compromise had to be devised. Assuming a close relationship(either biological or fictive) between Arbo and Kocel, the former would havebeen an excellent compromise candidate for the position as commander ofthe Danubian marches following the demise of Wilhelm and Engelschalk.

Certainly some compromise must have been worked out, for Lower Pannonianorth of the Drava remained a part of the marcher military organization after874, and the see of Salzburg retained its ecclesiastical authority north of theDrava, while Kocel himself remained in power until sometime after 874. Thequestion of Kocel's ultimate fate cannot be answered, however. Theotmar,the new archbishop of Salzburg, consecrated a church in Ptuj at Kocel'srequest in 874.71 A few years later, however, his principality came underArnulf's control. Some scholars believe that Kocel was removed from hisposition on charges of treason before 876.72 While this explanation isplausible and has some foundation in the sources, it may also be that Kocelsimply died circa 876, giving Carloman an opportunity to appoint Arnulf tothat position.

The hypothesis that Arbo was a kinsman of Cadolah of Friuli clears awayother problems concerning the competition of groups of nobles for frontiercommands. Mitterauer has demonstrated that Court Werner II, margrave ofthe Danubian lordships until his removal from that office in 866, was alsoclosely related to Cadolah the latter was probably his uncle.73 Werner'sdismissal, in fact, led to the appointment of Wilhelm and Engelschalk to thelordships east of the Enns. If Werner had been biologically tied to both theGerolden and the Alaholfinger kindreds, Arbo's appointment as margrave eastof the Enns (following the death of the Wilhelminer brothers Wilhelm andEngelschalk) returned the Danubian lordship to a group of nobles whosekinsmen had held it since the early ninth century.74



In contrast with the Gerolden and the Alaholfinger, the Wilhelminer controlledthe Danubian lordship in modern Lower Austria (the one so many haveassumed faced Moravia) for a total of only five years (866-c.



Page 206

871). As we have seen, the Wilhelminer branch of the large Graman kindredheld the Traungau for several generations, a lordship which controlled thepasses leading from Bavaria to Carantania. Pabo, a member of this group,had been the most powerful figure in Carantania between circa 840 and 860,and at the same time another member of the clan, Rihheri, held the title ofcount in Szombathely, that crucial junction of roads in northwesternPannonia, which was probably absorbed into the Wilhelminer block oflordships in 866. Thus, Mitterauer's research shows that the Gramansfrequently held frontier lordships that faced southeast. 75

On the other hand, we must resist the temptation to oversimplify facts byreaching the conclusion that the Wilhelminer Fehde was an example of adeep-seated rivalry between an old Bavarian clan, the Gramans, and the"Swabians," the Gerolden and Alaholfinger clans, personified in the 870s and880s by Arbo, the current representative of these kindreds. By the end of theninth century all of these frontier clans were interrelated to such a degreethat it is impossible to differentiate clearly between them. Werner II, whomWilhelm and Engelschalk replaced, was not without ties to the Wilhelminer.Because one of Engelschalk's sons, his second, was named Werner(Werinheri), Mitterauer believes that Werner must have married one of thesisters of the Wilhelminer brothers.76 Wilhelm II's eldest son was Megingoz, aname frequently associated with the Otacharen. On the other hand, Pabo wasthe eldest son of Engelschalk. Although this name is typical among theGramans, it had also become a family name among the Gerolden by the endof the ninth century.77 Thus, in the Wilhelminer Fehde, we are obviously notdealing with two rival clans consisting of sworn blood enemies. On thecontrary, the evidence indicates that there had been intermarriage betweenthem. Because of these biological ties Louis the German and/or Carlomanmust have had reason to hope that it would be possible to appoint Arbo ascommander of the Danubian marches without arousing the ire of the sonsand followers of the fallen Wilhelminer.

Arbo, however, was not given control of Szombathely. In a charter of 877, heappears together with a Count Ernst, who was apparently the count inSzombathely.78 Ernst and Arbo were given the task of marking the boundariesof property that Carloman had donated to Kremsmünster. These estates,which Arbo and Ernst had surveyed on horseback (circumequitatum), werelocated near the headwaters of the Rabnitz, a tributary of the Raba, on the



eastern divide formed by the hills of Burgenland, exactly where the boundaryof the county of Szombathely must have been located. Once again, we havebefore us a royal charter granting to an important



Page 207

monastic foundation extensive property along routes leading southeast fromthe Vienna basin. As for Count Ernst, he was none other than Carloman'sbrother-in-law. 79 His father, also Ernst, had been the powerful secundus toLouis the German until he fell from power for conspiring with Rastislav, circa860. Hence in 877, the strategically important crossroads at Szombathelywere in the hands of one of Carloman's closest supporters. Also, theappointment of the king's brother-in-law to the frontier lordship ofSzombathely, which separated the Danubian counties from Lower Pannonia,may reflect a desire on the part of the monarch to prevent the possibility ofArbo and Kocel joining forces to rebel against him.

This diploma for Kremsmünster is also proof that the Wilhelminer lordshipincluded Szombathely, for Count Wilhelm is named in this document ashaving been the preceding authority in this region. This means that inaddition to controlling the lordships along the Danube, the Wilhelminer wereentrusted with this strategically important outpost the civitas Sabaria just asan earlier member of this clan (Rihheri) had been.80

There was at least one other noble who held a comital office in thesoutheastern marches during this period. This was Count Guntram, who, likeWilhelm II, had a son named Megingoz.81 Sometime after 883, Guntram andhis son witnessed a donation of property to the see of Regensburg. This giftwas made by a certain Deacon Gundbato, who held extensive possessions inLower Pannonia.82 Mitterauer assumes that Guntram must have held thecounty on the upper Sava, because this is the only marcher lordship for whichhe is unable to account during this era. Moreover, he reasons that theproximity of the lordship to Lower Pannonia would explain why Guntram wascalled on to witness the deed. In any case, the count was obviously active insouthern Pannonia, several hundred kilometers southeast of the allegedcenters of Moravian power north of the Danube.

Gundbato, at an earlier date (sometime between 876 and 880), had donatedallodial possessions on Lake Balaton to Saint Emmeram, on the condition thathe could continue to collect its income until his death. In addition to that,Bishop Embrich granted Gundbato the usufruct of property along the Raba,which Kocel (Chezil dux) had given to the see ''for the salvation of his soul"(pro remedio anime suae). Kocel was deceased by then, for the documentidentifies Arnulf as Gundbato's dominus, meaning that the king's son was in



control of that part of Pannonia. Presumably, Deacon Gundbato administeredproperty of the see of Regensburg in Lower Pannonia and performedecclesiastical duties though the document is vague



Page 208

concerning these issues. He did have obligations, clearly expressed in thedeed, to conduct judicial inquiries and to capture and return runaway slaves(mancipia) who had fled across the Raba (ultra Rabam). This document is,then, ample testimony that the see of Saint Emmeram in Regensburg, a seewhich had no missionary duties in Pannonia, must have had considerableeconomic and military interests southeast of the Raba.

Among the witnesses to this charter is an Engilscalh. Could he have beenEngelschalk II, the third son of the fallen Wilhelminer margrave of the samename? If this were the case, then the assumption (common among modernauthorities) cannot be correct that the sons of Wilhelm II and Engelschalk Iwere infants when their fathers died. If Engilschalk II was old enough towitness a document that was written before 880, and possibly as early as876, at least one of his elder brothers or cousins must have been nearingmanhood in 871. This observation tends to support the conclusion that Arbowas appointed margrave of the Danubian marches because of his closerelationship to Kocel and because of the claims of the Gerolden andAlaholfinger, not because there were no Wilhelminer who were old enough tofill this responsibility adequately. To this point we shall return later.

The Wilhelminer Fehde, 882-884

With this background in mind let us examine the Wilhelminer Fehde. Therelevant passage, an unusually long and detailed description, was composedby the Regensburg continuator of the Annales Fuldenses. 83 Wilhelm II andEngelschalk had served well and died honorably in wars against theMoravians. The annalist reports matter-of-factly that they held the "thefrontier lordship (terminus) in the east of the Bavarian regnum against theMoravians." As we have surmised, their lordships stretched from theTraungau along the Danube to the Vienna basin, and from there theyextended southeast to include the margravate of Szombathely. There is noconvincing evidence that the Wilhelminer controlled extensive possessions inmodern Lower Austria as a "bulwark against the Moravians," presumablynorth of the Danube.84 They did own some property north of the river, butthese possessions were vineyards in the Wachau, immediately adjacent tothe river, hardly a bulwark against invaders from the northeast.

Wilhelm and Engelschalk were the duces Karlmanni, mentioned previously,who were in command of Bavarian forces occupying the Moravian civitates et



castella, 870-871. They were, then, counts commanding an army



Page 209

of occupation, who had probably been given a mandate to reorganizeRastislav's realm and to establish there a Frankish comital structure. Indeed,it may be because the brothers had been in charge of the occupation ofMoravia that the Regensburg continuator writes that they were in charge ofthe terminus contra Maravanos. The annalist certainly makes a major point ofthe enmity that existed between the Wilhelminer and the Moravians, andWilhelm and Engelschalk's occupation of their civitates may have been one ofthe many reasons for this hostility.

The Regensburg annalist tells us further that, in spite of the honorable servicethese brothers had rendered, their commands were not granted to their sons,but to Arbo. The Regensburg annalist indicates that the sons and their kinwere angered by Arbo's appointment. Modern historians have written that thesons were too young in 871 to have assumed these commands, but thecontinuator wrote no such thing; 85 he only implied in a later passage (a.893) that some Bavarian magnates considered one of the sons, EngelschalkII, an upstart (iuvenili audatia vir).86 On the other hand, it may well be thatsome of the sons of Wilhelm and Engelschalk were already mature in 871 andsimply had to accept the appointment of Arbo as successor of their fathers;they were forced to bide their time and wait for the moment when they couldseize Arbo's offices, which they considered rightfully to be theirs. Theopportunity presented itself after the deaths of Carloman in 880 and Louis theYounger in 881, leaving Charles III (the Fat), the youngest son of Louis theGerman, as the sole ruler of the East Frankish kingdom. Charles, never themost astute or energetic of Carolingian rulers, was preoccupied in the westand had relatively little experience in the eastern parts of his realm. Hence,the sons of Wilhelm and Engelschalk immediately began to conspire withvarious Bavarian magnates. They hoped to drive Arbo from his lordship,establish themselves there, and present Charles with a fait accompli. Arbo,however, had learned of this plot against him, and he allied himself withZwentibald, handing his son over to the Moravian leader as a hostage. Yet,the initiative remained temporarily with the Wilhelminer, who "dishonorablyexpelled the count, who had been properly appointed by the king andusurped his office for themselves."

Zwentibald, honoring his commitment to Arbo and "not forgetting how muchevil he along with his people had suffered" at the hands of Wilhelm andEngelschalk, attacked their sons. On the north side of the lower Danube



(Hister), Zwentibald's forces captured Werner, Engelschalk's second son,along with Count Vezzillo, a relative (see Map 8). The Moravian



Page 210

Map 8.Zwentibald's Invasions of Pannonia, 882884.



Page 211

duke ordered them mutilated, amputating their right hands, cutting out theirtongues, and castrating them "so that no trace of their private parts orgenitals remained." In this passage the annalist clearly uses the term Histerto refer to the lower Danube, near the Drava-Sava-Tisza watergate. Afterdefeating Werner north of the Hister, the annalist writes, Zwentibald laideverything to waste, and "in addition" he dispatched a highly mobilereconnaissance force (speculatores), who slipped across the Danube (ultraDanubium) obviously the upper Danube (see Map 8). This detachment musthave crossed the river from south to north to attack estates (proprietas velsubstantia) the Wilhelminer held there. These properties, which were burnedto the ground, were probably their wine-producing lands in the Wachau,highly vulnerable targets for an opponent bent on vengeance. The annalistmakes it apparent that this band was an advance party of light cavalry thatwas operating under special orders, while the main Moravian army continuedto plunder the region near the site of the original battle.

The sons of Wilhelm and Engelschalk, "having no confidence of obtaininganything good from the king, because of the crime that they had committedagainst Arbo," turned to Arnulf, "who held Pannonia," and they became hismen. 87 Learning of this, Zwentibald sent ambassadors to Arnulf. Theyaccused the Frankish leader of harboring "enemies," and demanded that hesend them away immediately. Later the Moravian ruler charged that Arnulf'smen (the Wilhelminer) were plotting against his life and were conspiring withthe Bulgars, who had invaded his realm the previous year. However, Arnulfrefused to comply with Zwentibald's demands to send the Wilhelminer away,nor would he admit that his men had conspired with the Bulgars.Consequently, ''the duke assembled a large force from all of the regions ofthe Slavs, invaded Pannonia with a large army and as inhumanely and ascruelly as a wolf, he slaughtered, plundered, destroyed, and devastated thegreatest part of it with fire and sword.''88

The following year, Zwentibald launched a third invasion of Pannonia, "sothat, just in case anything remained there that had been missed earlier, hemight now devour it totally with the abandonment of a wolf." The author ofthe Regensburg Continuation was impressed with the size of his army. "Onthis campaign," he wrote, "he [Zwentibald] commanded such a multitude thatfrom a single place one could witness his army passing by from sunrise untilsunset."89 An exaggeration though this statement may be, the annalist



accomplished his purpose, impressing upon his readers that the dux was apowerful warlord. As we shall see in Chapter 9, there is evidence that at leasta portion of his army was made up of nomads, who, with their



Page 212

strings of ponies, impressed sedentary observers, making them believe thatthey were more numerous than they were in reality. The fact that his armydespoiled Arnulf's realm for only twelve days is another indication that it wasa large one, difficult to provision in territory that had already been ravishedfor two years.

Although Zwentibald withdrew the majority of his forces, he ordered a part ofhis army to continue the offensive. The annalist's words are unambiguous inthis case. This passage can only be translated as Zwentibald retired "afterhaving also sent a certain part of his army up the Danube." 90 The Moravianduke clearly "sent" this force ''up" the Danube; he did not "leave" it as agarrison "on'' the Danube nor did he order it "across" the river as a ruler whohad invaded Pannonia from bases in the northern Morava Valley might havedone. The Regensburg Continuation even tells us how far "up" the Danubethis Moravian exercitus went. He writes that two Wilhelminer sons, Megingozand Pabo, gathered a band of "Pannonians" and attacked the Moravians. TheWilhelminer charged without caution, however, lost the encounter, and bothsons, fleeing, perished in the Raba. Thus, the Moravian forces must havebeen coming up the Danube (from the east or southeast) in the direction ofthe Raba when they encountered the Pannonians under Megingoz and Pabo.The latter fled westward and drowned in the Raba (see Map 8).

Throughout this long account, the Regensburg annalist makes it abundantlyclear that these engagements took place southeast of a line formed by theRaba. Again his words are unambiguous: "Pannonia de Hraba flumine adorientem tota deleta est."91 The Raba flows diagonally from its headwaters inthe Fischbacher Alps near Graz, in the southeastern corner of modern Austria,toward the northeast, eventually emptying into the Danube from the south,seventy kilometers east of the confluence of the northern Morava River (seeMap 8). Had Zwentibald's forces been stationed on the Danube near theconfluence of the northern Morava River, he could not possibly have sentthem up the Danube to the Raba. It is also important to point out that ninth-century men had a sense of orientation based on the position of the sun onthe days of the equinox, so for the annalist ad orientem would have been tothe southeast. The Raba flows northeastward, which would have beenapproximately due north from the annalist's point of view. Thus, thestatement in the Regensburg Continuation that the devastated area was tothe east of the Raba can only mean that this war took place within the



boundaries of ancient Pannonia.

In his narrative, the annalist seems sure of himself geographically. He



Page 213

devotes considerable space to this conflict, and he obviously wanted hisaudience to know where it took place. The upper and lower portions of theDanube constitute his primary line of reference. For this reason he used thewords de septentrionali parte Histri fluminis to describe a battle that tookplace north of the lower Danube and ultra Danubium to tell of speculatorescrossing the upper Danube (obviously from south to north). This occasion isthe only time during the entire conflict when we have evidence that hostilitiesspilled over onto the left bank of the river. Repeatedly, the annalist remindsus that this war took place in Pannonia, and he guides us through thisprovince by using another line of reference, the course of the Raba and itsconfluence with the Danube. Arnulf's realm, which we know was Carantaniaand southern Pannonia, was invaded and ravished. The annalist informs usthat Zwentibald sent his army supra Danubium in the direction of the Raba,whereas a ruler residing in the northern Morava Valley would have sent theseforces down the Danube (infra Danubium) and across the river (ultraDanubium) to reach the Raba (see Map 8). In this case the Regensburgauthor chose the term Danubius rather than Hister, for the Raba flows intothe upper Danube.

The account of the Regensburg continuator is also noteworthy for its luriddescriptions of the brutality of this conflict. "Servile men and women alongwith their children were murdered; among the magnates, some were takencaptive, some killed, and what was even worse, they were sent back deprivedof hands, tongues, and genitals." It is important to keep these images inmind, for there is a tendency among some modern scholars to make thisfrontier warfare appear less brutal than our sources report. 92 Certainly, theenmity that existed between the Moravians and the Wilhelminer must haverun very deep, so deep in fact that it is difficult to believe that it developedentirely during the relatively brief period when Carloman's forces underWilhelm and Engelschalk occupied the Moravian urbs antiqua. On the otherhand, although the annalist emphasizes Zwentibald's brutality, he also pointsout that the Moravians felt that they had been wronged by the Wilhelminer,and he holds the latter clan solely responsible for the outbreak of the conflict,which left his Pannonia felix in ashes (favilla). "They scorned the peace," hewrote of the Wilhelminer, "through the maintenance of which Pannonia hadbeen secure, but through the breaking of which in the space of two-and-one-half years Pannonia from the Raba River to the east was totally destroyed."93



There is a final point that must be made in connection with this account, andthat is that the German word Fehde is inappropriate to



Page 214

describe this conflict. The term Fehde implies a minor clash between rivalfrontier clans in which the Moravians also happened to be involved. In reality,this conflict was a major war, which lasted for almost three years and whichleft parts of Pannonia devastated. In addition to Franks and Moravians,Bulgars also entered the picture, if only briefly. Even if we grant that theRegensburg annalist used some poetic license when describing the size ofZwentibald's army, it is, nonetheless, obvious that Zwentibald was able toraise formidable forces for his invasion of Frankish territory. By the 88os hewas clearly capable of seizing the initiative against Carolingian marcher lordswho opposed him, including Arnulf, the royal bastard, who would eventuallybe elevated to the East Frankish kingship. No longer were the Moravianshuddling behind their fortifications while Frankish/Bavarian forces ravishedtheir territories. Earlier Moravian invasions of Carolingian territory had onlybeen possible when dissident margraves joined with them. On this occasion,however, the Moravian ruler had come to the assistance of a marchercommander who had been ousted from his legitimate lordship by a rivalfaction. Zwentibald now had the capacity to carry the war to the Franks whenhe chose to do so. There can be no doubt that he was a great deal strongerin 885 than he had been in 871, when he gained undisputed control over hisuncle's regnum. He had become a formidable power on the eastern flank ofthe East Frankish realm (see Map 7).

Zwentibald's growing confidence is reflected in the meeting he had with theEmperor Charles III at Tulln on the Danube in autumn of 884. It must beremembered that the Moravian leader did not go to Forchheim in 874.Probably mindful of the fate of his uncle Rastislav, he allowed his envoy,Priest John of Venice, to negotiate those agreements. But in 884 Zwentibaldcame to Tulln with his magnates. Methodius was also in his train, and the VMmakes the point that some considered it dangerous to meet with theemperor, "assuming that he [Methodius] would not escape torture." 94

Charles, however, received them with honor and solemnity. The Regensburgauthor reports that Zwentibald became the "man" of the emperor, swearingfidelity to him and promising never to invade his realm with a hostile force aslong as Charles lived. Yet we cannot conclude from this text that Zwentibaldhad been humbled. On the contrary, in this ceremony Charles III, in front ofhis own entourage, recognized the Moravian leader as a prince of his realm.Nor can we conclude from the fact that this conclave was held in Tulln that



Moravia must have been located nearby in the modern Czech Republic, foralso present there was Duke Brazlavo, whose regnum was between theDrava and the Sava. Absent from the



Page 215

gathering in Tulln, however, was Arnulf, who only concluded peace withZwentibald the following year. Negotiations between these two leaders musthave been going on indirectly through the emperor and his officials, for afterleaving Tulln, Charles III went through Carantania on his way to Italy, aprocession that must have been a show of force designed to impress hisnephew.

Grivec has attempted to establish a connection between the Wilhelmineraffair and the events during the last years of Methodius's life. 95 Thearchbishop's nemesis was the Swabian priest Wiching, whom John VIII hadconsecrated as bishop of the ecclesia Nitrensis at Zwentibald's request in 880.Although this pontiff clearly subordinated Wiching to his archbishop, theformer was allegedly an opponent of the latter. Grivec argues that Wichinggenerally had his way with Zwentibald; yet, when the conflict between theWilhelminer and Arbo broke out, Methodius's influence grew, while that ofWiching declined, if only temporarily. The bishop of Nitra was very close toArnulf of Carinthia, who became involved in the hostilities. Also it was duringthis period that Methodius went on a mission to Constantinople, presumablyone that had political as well as religious purposes. It certainly seems thatsuch was the case, because he returned accompanied by an imperial honorguard.96 Furthermore, there is now a consensus among scholars thatMethodius was in Zwentibald's train when the Moravian prince met withCharles III at Tulln in autumn of 884. It is generally accepted that the koroljbugbrbsk of the VM was not a real "Hungarian king," but the Carolingianemperor himself.97

Six months after the conclave in Tulln, however, Methodius was dead, andsometime during the same year (885) a peace was arranged between Arnulfand Zwentibald. Subsequently, it is thought, Wiching regained his influencewith the Moravian leader with the end result being the expulsion of the Slavicclergy, who had been trained by Methodius.98 Wiching may have managed togain influence with the new pope, Stephen V, who forbade the Slavonicliturgy in a letter putatively drafted by Wiching.99 Although Wiching may haveinterpolated this epistle to suit his own purposes, it nonetheless became thebasis for the expulsion of the Slavic clergy.

Grivec has pointed out that, in the wake of the Wilhelminer affair, Zwentibaldbecame the most powerful ruler in central Europe. Carloman had been dead



for five years, Louis the Younger for four. Charles III, the last of Louis theGerman's sons, was in ill health, and, although he held the imperial title, hewas losing his grip on the reins of power. Arnulf, Carloman's bastard son, forhis part had been seriously weakened in a disastrous



Page 216

conflict with this Moravian ruler. Zwentibald, who had always preferred theLatin ritual, was at the height of his power and influence. He probablysurmised that he no longer needed Methodius nor the latter's clergy trained inthe Slavonic liturgy. As the rex Sclavorum, he was playing for bigger stakes.



Page 217

8.Arnulf and Zwentibald, 887892

Introduction

Although Zwentibald had defeated Arnulf of Carinthia in the Wilhelminer war(882884), only three years later, Arnulf was powerful enough to depose hisuncle, the emperor Charles III, and was himself elevated to the East Frankishkingship. There is no consensus among modern historians concerning themeaning of Arnulf's "election" to kingship in 887, but one thing is clear: whilethe new king was consolidating his hold on the throne of Francia orientalis, hewent out of his way to keep the peace with the powerful Moravian ruler. Onlyin 892, after Arnulf had won a decisive victory over war bands of maraudingScandinavians who had managed to get a foothold in the lower Rhine andMeuse watersheds, did this monarch feel strong enough to move against theMoravians. This expedition was a major undertaking, launched from PrinceBrazlavo's lordship on the Sava, and its goal was to regain control of theentire course of the Sava and to divide Zwentibald's realms. To accomplishthis task, Arnulf recruited an army from most of the East Frankish provincesand reinforced it with Magyar forces from east of the Carpathians. The EastFrankish king was obviously bent on the destruction of Zwentibald's emergingimperium in the central Danubian basin. This chapter begins with a carefulexamination of Arnulf's itineraries (887891), which brought him into frequentcontact with Zwentibald. We shall then analyze the campaign of 892,detailing the struggle for control over the Sava watershed. Finally, we shallexamine some more charters showing the southeastern orientation of themarches.

Arnulf's Early Reign

A careful review of Arnulf's itineraries during the years 887 through 891reveals that he pursued a very cautious Ostpolitik during his early reign. 1Slavic forces must have been important in his seizure of the throne, for the



Page 218

Mainz version of the Annales Fuldenses reports that Arnulf threatened hisuncle with a "large force of Bavarians and Slavs." 2 Although the RegensburgContinuation does not mention the presence of Slavs at the time of Arnulf'selevation, its author reports that shortly thereafter Arnulf celebratedChristmas of 887 in Regensburg in the company of magnates from all of theEast Frankish regna and "a large number of Slavs."3 In early February,following this festive conclave in Regensburg, the new king set out on ahurried late winter's journey through the Alps to Carantania, returning to theBavarian capital shortly before Easter, April 7.4 Our knowledge of this wintrytrip through the Alps in 888 is based exclusively on charter evidence (see Map9). No annalist alludes to it. Nevertheless, we must conclude that the newking had powerful motives for undertaking a difficult and potentiallydangerous journey into these outlying marcher lordships so soon after seizingpower. Being a usurper, Arnulf must have been taking a chance by leavingthe East Frankish heartland at that time. Although he was away fromRegensburg for no more than fifty-seven days, that would have been a timespan sufficient for his enemies to regroup and crystallize into a dangerousfaction.

As for his stay in Carantania, Arnulf could not actually have remained in theDrava basin much longer than ten days two weeks at most before retracinghis steps back to Regensburg, a fact that indicates the urgency of this journeyin the winter of 888.5 The possibility that his sojourn in Carantania involved arendezvous with Zwentibald is consistent with the southern Moravianhypothesis, as it was crucial for Arnulf to maintain peaceful conditions in themarches (his power base) while consolidating his kingship. Since anunderstanding with the Moravian prince would have been the best guaranteefor peace in the marches, a meeting of Arnulf and his margraves withZwentibald and the Moravian magnates at or near the Karnburg in Carantaniaduring the late winter of 888 lends credibility to his hasty Alpine journeyduring the Lenten season.6

The new king spent the summer months in the East Frankish heartland. Inautumn, however, he returned to Bavaria, and, accompanied by a large army,he crossed the Brenner to Italy (see Map 9), where, in Trent, he met withBerengar, the margrave of Friuli, who had seized the Italian throne in 888.7Following this meeting, he dismissed his forces and made his way with asmall entourage through the Friulian passes to Carantania, where he



celebrated Christmas in either Moosburg or Karnburg.8 On this occasion hespent the entire winter in the southeastern marches, only returning toDanubian Bavaria (modern Upper Austria) in early May.9



Page 219

Map 9.Arnulf's Routes, 888892.



Page 220

Thus, for approximately six months, from November 888 until May 889, Arnulfwas obviously preoccupied with Ostpolitik. Even the meeting with Berengarwas important in this regard, for it demonstrates once again a connectionbetween the activities of East Frankish kings in the marches and the politicsof northern Italy. If this new king was trying to maintain the peace in theeastern Alps and on the plains of Pannonia while consolidating his position inFrancia orientalis, an alliance with Berengar, the powerful margrave of Friuli,would have been advantageous indeed. Mutual agreements, doubtlessly,would have been beneficial to Berengar as well, since it was in his interest todiscourage a formidable South Slavic prince (Zwentibald) from troubling hisFriulian march, while he was preoccupied with his pursuit of the Italian crown.10 Friuli, as we have noted repeatedly, lay on the routes leading to the Savaand to the Danubian watergate. At the very least, Arnulf's meeting withBerengar and his long stay in Carantania indicate that his Ostpolitik wasclearly oriented toward the southeast.

The king spent the summer of 889 in the Rhineland and in Saxony, returningagain to Regensburg for Christmas. He did not tarry there for long, however,for, on January 9, he was 120 kilometers to the southeast, at the palace ofÖtting.11 Thence, Arnulf continued in a southeastern direction, either throughthe Alps to Carantania or along the Danube to Vienna (see Map 9). On March21, he issued a charter from Moosburg, but it is unclear whether thisMoosburg was the one in Carantania or Pribina's fortress in Pannonia nearLake Balaton.12 We do, however, have unequivocal evidence that Arnulf metwith Zwentibald during the winter of 890. The Regensburg annalist statesthat "in the middle of Lent the king went to Pannonia and held there ageneral assembly with Duke Zwentibald in a locality called Omuntesperch inthe vernacular."13 Although many scholars believe that Omuntesperch waslocated near the Vienna Woods, the only basis for this assumption is theirconviction that Moravia lay to the north of the Danube.14 There is, however,every reason to think that Omuntesperch was farther southeast, somewhereon or near Lake Balaton. In 890, the middle of Lent would have fallen onMarch 22. The charter mentioned above was issued on March 21 in Mosapurcregia civitate.15 Therefore, if Arnulf and Zwentibald met in the middle of Lent,Omuntesperch must have been somewhere near Lake Balaton, or possiblyPtuj, depending on whether the Moosburg in the charter was the fortress thatPribina built in Pannonia or Arnulf's bastion in the Drava basin. Although it is



impossible to determine whether this Mosapurc was the royal urbs inCarantania or



Page 221

Pribina's civitas in Pannonia, in either case this document should be taken asproof that these rulers met several hundred kilometers south of Vienna. 16

The Fulda annalist also reports that Zwentibald transmitted to Arnulf amessage from Stephen V, urging the king to invade Italy to protect the HolySee "from evil Christians and pagans."17 This can only mean that theMoravian duke had more recently received communications from Rome thanhad Arnulf, an improbability if the former's principality had been north of theDanube. Moreover, a glance at the background surrounding this exchange inPannonia indicates that the papal envoys must have reached Zwentibald viaFriuli and their mission must have been related to Arnulf's alliance withBerengar. In the summer of 889 Wido, duke of Spoleto, had successfullychallenged Berengar for the Italian kingship, defeating Berengar on theTrebbia.18 Subsequently, Wido was crowned in Pavia, and he immediatelyturned his attention to Rome, seeking the imperial dignity. Pope Stephen'surgent pleas to Arnulf for help were in fact motivated by Wido's threatsagainst Rome. Berengar, who had been badly defeated by Wido in 889, wasstill in full control of his power base in Friuli. Since Wido dominatedLombardy, Roman envoys must have reached Zwentibald via the papallycontrolled port of Ancona and, then, by way of the Adriatic to Friuli or Istriaand through passes in the Julian Alps which remained in Berengar's hands. Itis difficult to believe that papal envoys would have gone first to a Moraviancourt north of the Danube to convey a message to Arnulf through Zwentibald,who was planning to meet with him in Pannonia south of the Danube.

It is clear, therefore, that the meeting between Arnulf and Zwentibald couldonly have taken place several hundred kilometers south of Vienna. In additionto Friuli, Berengar still controlled Brescia and Verona, and, thus, theapproaches to the Brenner were in his hands; under these circumstancespapal envoys could have gone from Friuli directly over the Brenner to Bavariafor a meeting with Arnulf.19 Why did the ambassadors not choose this moredirect route, if their purpose was simply to persuade Arnulf to invade Italy?Obviously, the envoys were involved in complex negotiations which involvedBerengar and Zwentibald as well as Arnulf. If Zwentibald was the ruler of apowerful South Slavic state (and remember that it was Pope Stephen whohad elevated him to the royal dignity), he no doubt would have posed athreat to Berengar and his lines of communication with Arnulf. If the EastFrankish king were to be coaxed into an Italian invasion, it would first be



necessary to secure guarantees from Zwentibald that he



Page 222

would not attack the southeastern marches or disrupt his communicationlines in the eastern Alps.

Again, the evidence points to a meeting between Arnulf and Zwentibald insouthern Pannonia during the Lenten season of 890, and we can be confidentthat he did not go there simply to receive news from Rome. Regino of Prümreports in his Chronicon that these two leaders concluded an importantagreement in 890, in which the East Frankish ruler ''ceded to Zwentibald,'king' of the Moravian Slavs, the ducatus of the Bohemians, who until thenhad had princes of their own kin and people over them.'' 20 According toRegino, Arnulf gave Zwentibald this honor because the latter had raised theking's bastard son (also Zwentibald) from the baptismal font in a ceremonywhich must have taken place almost two decades earlier. The chronicler wenton to comment that Arnulf's friendship with the Moravian ruler had been amistake, "inciting not a little discord, for . . . Zwentibald inflated with prideonce that he marked that his power had been greatly augmented by theaddition of another principality, rebelled against Arnulf." Regino's implicationthat the amicitia between these two leaders was due entirely to theMoravian's godfathership of Arnulf's son is unconvincing. This fictiverelationship had obviously been contracted in the 870s, yet it had notprevented a major clash between these two leaders in the brutal Wilhelminerwar. A more reasonable explanation is that Arnulf ceded Bohemia toZwentibald as a bribe, or perhaps we should say as an incentive, a means ofkeeping the latter pacified and occupied while the new king consolidated hispower in the East Frankish heartland. If the core of Moravian power lay insouthern Pannonia, the task of establishing control over a distant Bohemia tothe northwest would have occupied the energies of Moravian forces forseveral years. To be sure, not all of the turbulent Bohemian chieftains couldhave been expected to recognize Zwentibald's overlordship just becauseArnulf had conferred it on him. By conveying Bohemia to the Moravian prince,the East Frankish ruler bought time that he badly needed to consolidate hiskingship.21

From his conclave with Zwentibald, Arnulf returned to Regensburg for Easter,April 7, 890, where he issued a diploma on April 14.22 He spent the remainderof 890 in Swabia, but was back in Regensburg for Christmas. This was thefirst occasion during his reign when he was able to take up winter quarters inEast Francia.23 The respite would be brief, however, for further negotiations



with the Moravians loomed on the horizon. Except for a hasty visit toFrankfurt,24 Arnulf remained in Regensburg during the first half of 891, eventhough Scandinavians were ravishing the lower Rhine-



Page 223

Meuse district in the vicinity of Aachen. 25 According to the AnnalesFuldenses, important colloquia were underway between the Franks andZwentibald. Sometime during that year, Arnulf sent an embassy to Moravia"to renew the peace."26 Early in July, the court moved southeast, away fromRegensburg and the Danube, in the direction of Salzburg and the passesleading toward Carantania. On July 21, Arnulf was in Mattighofen (see Map9).27 He kept marching in this direction, although he must have known thattrouble was brewing in the Frankish heartland where forces under thecommand of Sundarold, archbishop of Mainz, had suffered a serious defeat atthe hands of Scandinavians.28 The archbishop and many Frankish magnatesfell in this encounter, and the Northmen were busily constructing fortificationsand settling in near Louvain.

Obviously, Arnulf did not rush immediately to the Rhineland, for he onlyarrived in Maastricht on October 1, an indication that he felt compelled toremain in southeastern Bavaria and its marches until a new agreement withZwentibald had been negotiated.29 A fragmentary source confirms thisassumption. It is a letter from the margrave Arbo who, with Bishop Wiching,had been in charge of the embassy that Arnulf sent to the Moravian rulermentioned in the Annales Fuldenses under the year 891.30 The letterannounced that the legates were returning from Zwentibald and that theMoravians had agreed "to give themselves in friendship and into yourservice," evidence that the king secured a peace with the Moravian. Thispeace allowed him to raise forces "from the eastern realms"31 and to hastento the lower Meuse, where in late October he defeated the Northmen atLouvain on the banks of the Dyle. The victory he achieved there was thedecisive moment in Arnulf's early reign, for he demonstrated his abilities as aleader and, in so doing, he consolidated his rule in the Frankish heartland.32

By driving the Scandinavians out of the lower Rhine region, he accomplisheda feat that had eluded his uncle Charles III almost a decade earlier, whensimilar war bands humiliated him and forced him to pay a tribute of 2,412pounds in bullion.33 Arnulf, to the contrary, laden with Danish trophies,returned in triumph to Bavaria.34

It is possible that Zwentibald and some of his Moravian warriors actuallyparticipated in the expedition against the Danes on the Dyle. This may be areason for the wording in Margrave Arbo's letter: the Moravians had agreed"to give themselves in friendship and into your [Arnulf's] service."



Circumstantial evidence to support this hypothesis can be found in the liberconfraternitatum of the monastery of Reichenau. Bishop Wiching and DukeZwentibald head a list of names of visitors to that shrine,



Page 224

indicating that they had been there together on some occasion. 35 The mostplausible year for this visit is 891, since it is difficult to imagine anotherinstance when Zwentibald might have gone to Reichenau. Schwarzmaier hasfurther pointed out that the absence of female names in this list indicatesthat the Moravian's presence there could not have involved an ordinarypilgrimage.36 The visit, therefore, must have been connected with adiplomatic or military mission. As we have seen, the Moravian duke refusedto go to Forchheim for peace negotiations in 874, but he did meet withCharles III in Tulln in autumn of 884. However, it is doubtful that Zwentibaldwent farther west at that time, for he had not yet reached a peaceagreement with Arnulf, then in Carantania. If our arguments are correct,Arnulf spent most of his early reign in the marches, negotiating withZwentibald and shoring up his primary base of support. Thus, it is doubtfulthat the Moravian ruler would have gone to Reichenau during that period, andsince another round of wars between Arnulf and Zwentibald broke out in 892,a journey to Swabia during the last two years of the duke's life must beexcluded. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that he visited the islandmonastery in the summer of 891 on his way to join Arnulf's expedition.

The Campaign of 892

It was only after Arnulf's victory over the Danes on the Dyle in autumn of 891that hostilities resumed between him and Zwentibald. The author of theRegensburg version of the Annales Fuldenses chronicles Arnulf's subsequentactivities in a detailed account.

Victoriously the king went from Franconia to Alamannia where he celebrated the birth of our Lord atthe royal court in Ulm. From there he proceeded to the east, hoping to have a meeting with DukeZwentibald. The latter, however, as is his usual manner, refused to come to the king andrenounced his oath of loyalty and all of his earlier promises. Deeply angered, the king held adiscussion with Duke Brazlavo in Hengistfeldon, where he inquired among other things about thetime and the place that he could enter the land of the Moravians (terra Maravorum); he wasadvised that he should invade that realm with three well equipped armies. Having gathered to himFranks, Bavarians, and Alamanni, in the month of July the king came to (the city of) Marava(Maravam venit); there he remained for four weeks with such a multitude Hungarians had alsojoined his expedition that he burned everything in that region to the ground. Thence he sent inSeptember envoys bearing gifts to the Bulgars and their king Laodomir for the purpose of



Page 225

renewing the earlier peace, and he petitioned them not to sell salt to the Moravians. The envoys,however, who because of the ambuscades of Duke Zwentibald could not take the land route, wentfrom the realm of Brazlavo by ship on the Odra to the Kulpa and then on the Sava River intoBulgaria. There they were received with honor by the king and returned in May with gifts by theway in which they had come. 37

On the basis of this passage several observations are in order:

1. The meeting with Duke Brazlavo. When the annalist states that Arnulf"proceeded to the east, hoping to have a meeting with Zwentibald," the kingwas moving southeast, not in the direction of modern Moravia. Ulm, where heheld his Christmas assembly, is located on an excellent Danube crossingsouthwest of Regensburg. On February 15, Arnulf was in the palace of Ötting,a gateway to the southeast; thus, he must have marched east by way ofAugsburg and Freising.38 After learning that Zwentibald had broken hispledges, he met with Brazlavo in Hengistfeldon to plan an invasion ofMoravian territory (terra Maravorum). Hengistfeldon, the Hengstfeld inmodern Styria very near the modern Austro-Slovenian frontier, isapproximately ten kilometers south of Graz (see Map 9).39 Following Otto I'svictory over the Magyars in 955, the castle of Hengst was erected on ahillside that dominated the surrounding plain (the Hengst field). One of thestrategically most important locations in the southeastern Alps, where theMur narrows to break out of the Graz basin (the ninth-century border betweenCarantania and Pannonia), this fortress subsequently became the center ofthe Ottonian march in this region.40 It was on this plain that Arnulf sought theadvice of Duke Brazlavo, the lord on the upper Sava, concerning the time,place, strategy, and tactics for an invasion of Moravia.

2. Arnulf's stay in Carantania. We also know the approximate duration ofArnulf's visit to Carantania in 892. He was in Ötting on February 15, and, sixweeks later (April 3), he was present in Salzburg.41 On the latter date, hewas obviously heading north toward Regensburg, where he can bedocumented on April 25.42 The fact that Arnulf rushed into Carantania, onceagain making an Alpine crossing in late winter, for such a brief meeting withBrazlavo, the Slavic dux on the Sava, can only be explained by assuming thata campaign southeast of the Alps was anticipated for the summer of 892,especially since the Annales Fuldenses state unequivocally that Arnulf soughtBrazlavo's advice concerning "the time and place" that Moravian territorycould be invaded, the sort of information that only a commander whoselordships bordered on Moravia could have provided.





Page 226

Arnulf would hardly have made such an inquiry of Brazlavo had he beenplanning an invasion of territory north of the Danube. Also, it must be pointedout that Arnulf went to Carantania to parley with Brazlavo; he did notsummon the latter to Regensburg or Ötting, as we might expect. After all,Arnulf was the king, while Brazlavo was his client. Louis the Pious, forexample, had summoned Borna, the Dalmatian dux, to Aachen in 820 toadvise him concerning Liudewit. The fact that the king made another Alpinecrossing in winter to talk to Brazlavo about a region he knew intimatelyhimself, can only mean that Arnulf needed specialized information about adangerous and rapidly changing situation. It also makes sense to assume thatBrazlavo was not summoned to the royal court to make a report, because hislordship was directly threatened.

3. Arnulf's movements north of the Alps. After meeting with Brazlavo insoutheastern Carantania, Arnulf went north of the Alps to gather forces for hisMoravian expedition. As we have seen, he was in Salzburg on April 3 and inRegensburg on April 25. Two weeks later he was at the palace of Forchheimnear the Bavarian-Franconian border, obviously recruiting Franconians to takepart in the campaign. 43 He had no intention of attacking Zwentibald throughBohemia from bases in Franconia, however, for in June he left that province,recrossing the Danube to the south, and marching southeast toward Ötting,where he arrived on June 30.44 The following day, he crossed the Inn toRanshofen, where he issued a charter on July 2.45 Thus, the king againmoved away from the Danube toward that complex of royal estates andcurtes near the Inn-Salzach confluence, which had been the staging area forso many Moravian campaigns in the past and through which he had passedon so many hurried trans-Alpine journeys to Carantania (see Map 9).

4. The nature of Arnulf's forces. According to the Annales Fuldenses, Arnulfraised an army of Franconians, Bavarians, and Alamanni, forces from thesouthern regna. This fact is confirmed by the charters. He hastened throughBavaria to Forchheim, where he assembled Franconians, and at Ranshofen herewarded Alamanni supporters by making a large grant to the Swabianmonastery of Saint Gall.46 However, we must not exclude the possibility thatsome forces from other regna participated, at least as small contingents, forwe know for a fact that at least one Saxon count was present with hisentourage at Ötting on the eve of the expedition.47 If Moravia was reallynorth of the Danube, we would expect the involvement of substantial Saxon



forces. As we have noted many times, Saxons were also obligated to furnishsome forces for expeditions into Pannonia, though this



Page 227

service was obviously a burden they tried to avoid. The Saxon Count Ekbert,to whom Arnulf awarded a rather substantial allod of thirty-six hobaeimmediately before the expedition of 892 left Ötting, was obviously beingrewarded for service in a distant theater, in Pannonia, where Saxons hadserved before, but only with great reluctance. Finally, the annalist informs usthat Arnulf recruited Hungarians (Ungari) to join his campaign, an indicationthat the Frankish king was determined to destroy Zwentibald's power onceand for all.

5. The invasion of the terra Maravorum. The account of an embassy to theBulgars in the Annales Fuldenses deserves careful attention because somescholars believe that it alone proves that Moravia could not have beenlocated in southeastern Pannonia. If Zwentibald's capital, Rastislav's urbsantiqua, had been situated near the ruins of ancient Sirmium on the banks ofthe Sava, how could it be that this embassy made its way to the Bulgars byrivercraft on the Sava? It is plausible, however, that the expedition of 892succeeded in capturing this ancient fortress during the summer, thus openingthe Sava route to its confluence with the Danube and, thence, to the Bulgars.In 892 Zwentibald had dangerously overextended himself. In order to controlBohemia, Slovakia, and, perhaps, northeastern Pannonia, he would have hadto maintain forces in all of these regions. If this were the case, his capacity todefend his capital, which the Franks had tried to capture on numerousoccasions, may have been seriously weakened. That this indeed was the casebecomes apparent when we closely scrutinize the terminology of the Latintext. When Arnulf asked Brazlavo at the Hengstfeld when and where he couldinvade, the annalist chose the following words, "(rex) ibi inter alia quaerenstempus et locum quomodo possit terram Maravorum intrare." This Moravianterritory (terra Maravorum) is identified in the next sentence as a regnum. Onthe other hand, after having gathered his forces, the annalist wrote that "(Arnulf) mense Iulio Maravam venit." 48 In this case it is important to notethat the author employed a very different syntax. The omission of thepreposition "in'' and the use of the accusative case, Maraviam, meanssyntactically that Maravia was a city, not a regnum.49 To be technicallycorrect, then, this passage must be translated, ''in the month of July he cameto (the city of) Maravia" and not "in the month of July he came to (the landof) Maravians," in the sense of terra Maravorum. Consequently the area thatwas attacked by Arnulf's forces, Franconians, Bavarians, Alamanni, and



Magyars, was the region around the city of Moravia (Maravia). It cannot besaid that the annalist was unaware of a subtle point of classical grammar, fora few sentences later he wrote



Page 228

correctly that the envoys traveled by ship in Bulgaria, which was obviously aregnum, not a city.

6. The significance of the route to Bulgaria. The annalist also wrote that theenvoys could not take the land route (terrestre iter) to the Bulgars "becauseof the ambuscades of Duke Zwentibald." Those who insist that Moravia waslocated in the modern Czech or Slovak Republics presumably believe thatZwentibald threatened the route along the Danube and/or the land routerunning diagonally across Pannonia. If either had been the case, however,another land and/or river route could have been used along the Drava fromPtuj to Osijek and, thence, to Bulgar territory. Since the envoys did not takethis route, but one still farther to the south, we must conclude that travel wasalso dangerous in the Drava watershed, a fact indicating that some ofZwentibald's forces were operating in southern Pannonia in the late summerof 892. We must also add that if the envoys were coming from the north toBrazlavo's realm, it would not have made sense for them to travel by boat onthe Odra and Kupa (Kulpa) rivers to the Sava, for these rivers are south ofthe Sava. It seems probable, then, that Arnulf's expedition was concentratedin the Sava Valley, which would explain Brazlavo's obviously important role.This thrust succeeded in opening the Sava route and making it possible forthe envoys to proceed to Bulgaria. But Zwentibald's forces remained at largeand controlled portions of the rest of Pannonia.

7. The annalist's chronology and geography. The Fulda annalist demonstratesthat he was intimately familiar with the chronology and geography of thiscampaign. After celebrating Christmas in Ulm, Arnulf went to the east to meetwith Zwentibald. The king can indeed be documented in Ötting in mid-February. He then crossed the Alps to the Hengstfeld (Hengistfeldon), a placethat we know is south of Graz, to get advice from Brazlavo concerning thecoming expedition. A charter confirms that Arnulf returned from Carantania toSalzburg (April 3) and that he was moving north toward Regensburg (April25) and Forchheim (May 10). He raised an army of Franks, Bavarians, andAlamanni, a fact that is consistent with charter evidence. In late June, he wassouth of the Danube moving in the direction of Alpine passes. In the month ofJuly the king entered the city of Moravia. Since he was in Ranshofen on July2, he could only have arrived there in late July, which means that thesubsequent pillaging of Moravian territory, which lasted four weeks, tookplace largely in August. His next step chronologically was to send envoys to



the Bulgars, which he did in September. Arnulf dispatched this embassy fromBrazlavo's regnum. It



Page 229

went by boat on the Odra (near Zagreb) to the Kupa, which flows into theSava at Sisak. Only an annalist intimately familiar with the topography wouldhave mentioned these tributaries of the Sava. Obviously, we cannot blamehis failure to locate any of the events north of the Danube on "inexactgeographical knowledge." 50

8. The salt embargo. It is also important to consider the purpose of thismission to the Bulgars: to persuade the khan to refuse salt to the Moravians.Southern Pannonia is poor in salt. Throughout the Middle Ages salt wastransported there from three directions. The first was from sources in theeastern Carpathians via the Maros River, which flows westward into the Tiszaat Szeged; then it was shipped south on the Tisza to the Danube. This routewas the one that was probably under Bulgar control in the ninth century. Thesecond was from Salzburg territory in Carantania via Ptuj, which was inArnulf's hands in 892. The third was a difficult overland route from the saltpans of the Adriatic through the Julian Alps. Berengar, Arnulf's ally at thattime, straddled these routes. Thus, if Arnulf could win the cooperation of theBulgars, a salt embargo on southern Pannonia would have been possible. Onthe other hand, a Bulgar embargo on salt to Moravians living north of theDanube would have had little or no effect, for the latter's salt supply wouldhave come from ancient sources in southern Poland in the vicinity ofKraców.51

If these interpretations are accurate, the campaign of 892 was radicallydifferent from the way scholars have traditionally viewed it. It was a directassault on Zwentibald's heartland that probably resulted in the seizure ofRastislav's urbs antiqua and certainly in the conquest of the entire length ofthe Sava that divided the sprawling territories of the Moravian duke. Thus,the expedition was much more successful than most scholars have believed.52

The fighting did not take place in July, but primarily in August, for it was onlyat the very end of July that Arnulf arrived at the city of Moravia. Afterpillaging the region around it for four weeks, he retired to Brazlavo'sprincipality, obviously between Zagreb, Sisak, and Karlovac, localities on theSava, Kupa, and Odra rivers. In September, he sent out his mission to theBulgars, ambassadors who could safely use the Sava because that route wasnow in his hands. Yet the campaign of 892 has even broader implications.Since Arnulf had designs on the Roman imperial crown and was planning toenter Italy as soon as possible, the expedition of 892 secured the eastern



Alps from any southern Moravian threat. Wittingly or unwittingly, however,the East Frankish ruler created the possibility of a more ominous threat byallying himself with the Magyars to destroy Zwentibald's realm.



Page 230

More Charter Evidence

Thus far we have used charters to reconstruct Arnulf's itineraries during theearly years of his monarchy, but royal diplomas also yield even moreevidence relating to the organization of the southeastern marches. If weexamine the body of charters carefully, taking into consideration thegeographic locations of the properties and of the persons who were therecipients of royal largess, it becomes evident that Arnulf's efforts weredirected toward maintaining a logistical infrastructure along the Alpine routesconnecting Bavaria with the southeast. Of the thirteen surviving charters forthe frontier region, six involved property in the Traungau in modern UpperAustria, two dealt with possessions in Lower Austria (one near Melk and theother in the fertile Traisen Valley), three were issued for Carantania, one forthe South Tyrol between Bressanone and Bolzano, and one charter was a giftof estates near Salzburg.

A prominent figure in Arnulf's early charters is Snelpero, the abbot ofKremsmünster. In early January 888, shortly after the Christmas assemblythat followed his elevation to the kingship, the new monarch made majorgrants to this monastery and its abbot. Most importantly Kremsmünsterreceived the entire complex of estates around Neuhofenwith the exception ofsome properties there which the king had already given to a certain fidelisnamed Burchard and to Abbot Snelpero himself. 53 Neuhofen was a very largecurtis. Judging from the charter, it must have been approximately the size ofthose complexes near the Inn-Salzach line such as Ötting, Ranshofen, andMattighofen. Like those royal centers, Neuhofen was ideally situated to serveas a staging area for forces preparing to march through the Alps toCarantania, for it straddles the routes from Linz to the Pyhrn Pass as well asthose from Wels to Steyr.54 In a second charter, also issued in early Januaryof the same year, Arnulf granted Snelpero full allodial rights over Nöstlbachan der Krems (one of the abbot's many fiefs), very near Neuhofen.55

These two significant donations indicate that Abbot Snelpero must have beena pivotal figure in Arnulf's rise to the kingship of Francia orientalis. They alsoindicate that the new monarch expected Kremsmünster to continue to play acritical role in providing for military and diplomatic missions to the southeast.Such an assumption is further supported by a third charter, issued on April 1,immediately following Arnulf's hurried trip to Carantania during the Lenten



season of 888.56 In this document the ruler bestowed on Snelpero threeallods (hobae dominicales) on the Kremsbach, a



Page 231

tributary of the Traun, in the same general area as Neuhofen. These estates,which had been held by two Sclavi with Germanic names, Wartman and Saxo,were donated to the abbot because of unspecified "services" he had renderedto the king. The fact that this charter originated at Sankt Florian can onlymean that Arnulf returned from Carantania via the Pyhrn Pass in 888, inwhich case Snelpero would have had ample opportunity to have served hisking by providing logistical support for his entourage.

From Sankt Florian Arnulf hurried off to Regensburg, where he held an Easterassembly on April 7, exactly one week later. Once back in the Bavariancapital, Arnulf issued yet another charter, on April 13, which alsodemonstrates the importance of Kremsmünster as a part of the logisticalinfrastructure linking Upper Austria to routes leading toward Carantania andPannonia. In this diploma the king converted a fief held by the royal chaplainZazo into an allod on the condition that this property would fall toKremsmünster following Zazo's death. 57 This fief consisted of propertypertaining to the church in Wels, plus one-sixth of the tithes raised there.Wels, ancient Ovilava, was the pivotal point of a network of roads leadingthrough Upper Austria toward the Pyhrn Pass.58 A castrum Wels was alreadymentioned in a Freising deed of 776,59 and archaeologists have uncoveredthere the remains of a large earthen wall dating from circa 800. Additionally,numerous graveyards from the eighth and ninth centuries have beendiscovered on both sides of this locality. As we have seen, property in Welshad been held for more than a century by the see of Freising, whose bishop,Waldo, was also one of Arnulf's closest advisers. In 888 the king ensured thatyet another member of his inner circle, Abbot Snelpero, gained control overthe substantial revenues there. Based on evidence, written andarchaeological, it is very likely that Wels, the royal curtes in the Inn-Salzachregion, and the curtis of Neufhofen in the Traungau were the major stagingareas for armies preparing to march over the passes to Carantania.

Arnulf spent the summer and early autumn of 888 in the East Frankishheartland, but returned to Bavaria and crossed the Alps in late fall for ameeting with Berengar in Trent. Thence, he proceeded through the FriulianAlps to the Karnburg for Christmas and remained in the marches over Easter,returning to Bavaria only in May. Once again he must have exited the Alps viathe Pyhrn and reached the Danube at Sankt Florian. On this occasion hemade another donation to Abbot Snelpero, hobae regales in the villa of



Oberndorf on the Kremsbach.60 This estate must also have been a ratherlarge complex, again situated near Neuhofen on the route to the



Page 232

Pyhrn. In any event, this document provides additional evidence that themonastery of Kremsmünster and its abbot were the major recipients ofArnulf's largess during his early monarchy, ensuring that this loyalist was infull control of logistically important localities in Upper Austria leading to thePyhrn Pass.

If settlements in the Traungau were well situated to serve as staging pointsfor forces on the march from Upper Austria through the Alps to Carantania,localities in the Lavant Valley in southeastern Carantania would have had asimilar function for an army moving down the Drava toward Ptuj on thefrontiers of Pannonia. After receiving the waters of the Lavant River atLavamünd, the Drava breaks through a narrow gorge to Maribor, where itgradually widens, entering the plains at Ptuj twenty-five kilometers farthereast. Above the narrows at Lavamünd, the broad shoulders of the LavantValley are well suited for agriculture. Hence, this valley must have been idealfor provisioning forces proceeding eastward along the narrow road leading inthe direction of Ptuj. In 860, Louis the German endowed Salzburg withestates in the Lavant Valley near Sankt Andrä, where a church with thatname is documented in 888. 61 In February of that year, Arnulf converted abenefice there to an allod which consisted of two chapels and the tithesprovided by the curtis and people of the Lavant Valley, as well as cultivatedfields, pastures, vineyards, and forests.62 A priest named Adalot was therecipient of this gift, made on the condition that he leave it to another churchof his choice, to ensure that it would remain ecclesiastical property. Arnulfissued this charter just prior to his departure from Ötting on a hurried winterjourney to Carantania. Exactly one month later, March 19, 888, in theCarantanian Moosburg, the king donated a hoba in valle Lauenta to Sigibold,also a cleric of Salzburg.63

If the see of Salzburg was well endowed with property in the Lavant Valley,Freising further entrenched itself on the middle Drava, in Griffen, on thebanks of the Wörthersee, and near Spital. In the summer of 891, when Arnulfwas in Mattighofen, waiting for word concerning the negotiations which CountArbo and Bishop Wiching were conducting with Zwentibald, he issued aninformative diploma for the church of Maria Wörth, the property of Freisinglocated on a peninsula in the Wörthersee.64 This gift consisted of a chapelbelonging to the curtis, qui Liburna vocatur. The chapel can be identified asSankt Peter im Holz, which is located at the edge of the Lurnfeld, where the



ancient civitas of Teurnia stood.65

In the case of Lurn, we are once again dealing with a royal curtis which wassituated in a locality of great importance to the logistical infrastructure



Page 233

of this region, for it was here that a road over the Tauern and through theLungau joined the route leading down the Drava Valley. Near the royalestates in the Lurnfeld, then, forces that had marched from Salzburg over theRadstädter Tauern Pass could join troops which reached Carantania via theBrenner and the Val Pusteria. As we have seen, Freising's connections withthe Drava Valley were maintained through scattered possessions in the Tyrol,along routes leading to the Brenner and from there to the Val Pusteria. Arnulfwas well aware of this critical link with Carantania during his early reign, foralready in February 888, during his march from Bavaria to the Moosburg inCarantania, the king issued a charter donating eight hobae in South Tyrolnear Bolzano to the miles of a local potentate named Jezo. 66

Arnulf also gave out two charters dealing with estates in modern LowerAustria. One of these documents involves seven hobae dominicales locatednear Melk on the Danube, where the main road avoids the steep bank of theriver and leads along a gentler route toward Sankt Pölten.67 This diploma wasissued upon Arnulf's return to Salzburg from the Hengstfeld in Carantania,where he and the South Slavic dux Brazlavo had planned the campaignagainst Zwentibald. As we have seen, Brazlavo recommended a three-pronged invasion of the Moravian regnum. One of the pincers advancing on asouthern Moravia would have taken the Danubian route to the Vienna basin,before veering southeast through Pannonia; estates around Melk would haveplayed an important role along that route.

This source also underlines the important role that Theotmar of Salzburgmust have played at Arnulf's court during the latter's early reign. Althoughmany scholars believe that this prelate had very little influence on Arnulf,there is really no solid foundation for this assumption.68 While the new kingmade no direct donations to the archiepiscopal see, he did reward clerics andvassals of Theotmar with substantial grants. The donation in this charter, asa matter of fact, was given to a certain Theotrich, a vassallus of Theotmar,who is identified as the king's venerabilis ac dilectus archiepiscopus. The gift,it is important to note, was made at the latter's request. In addition,Theotmar persuaded Arnulf to make the grants in the Lavant Valley discussedabove. What is more, Arnulf appointed Theotmar to the important post ofarchchaplain, a position that he had held under Carloman. Finally, Arnulfawarded charters to important nobles closely associated with the activities ofthe see of Salzburg in Carantania, and many of the estates described in these



documents eventually became property of the see.

One such document is the so-called Heimo Urkunde, one of the most



Page 234

interesting charters of Arnulf's early reign. 69 It merits a detailed treatmentthat can best be given it in Chapter 10. May it suffice to say at this point thatthe property is located in the Grunzwitigau near Sankt Pölten. It lies alongone of the routes that East Frankish armies would have taken whencampaigning against a southern Moravia via Pannonia. Thus, its location inLower Austria is no proof that Moravia was north of the Danube, as is widelybelieved. Second, the ministerialis Heimo, the principal person in this charter,was a significant figure who must have played a pivotal role in Arnulf's rise topower. In spite of his designation as a ministerialis, he was a scion of apowerful Frankish clan that had rooted itself in Bavaria and its marchesbefore 800. Although this kindred had possessions in Lower Austria, all southof the Danube, members of this group were also well endowed with estatesin Carantania, as we shall see.70

Conclusion

During Arnulf's early reign, the Frankish monarch proceeded cautiously vis-à-vis Duke Zwentibald, his powerful Moravian neighbor, who had greatlyexpanded the territory under his control. Although the sources suggest thatthis enlarged Moravian realm included much of northern Pannonia and someterritory north of the Danube, they indicate that the Moravian heartland musthave been in the southeast. Between 888 and 892, Arnulf repeatedly wentinto the southern parts of his realm to meet with his margraves and, on atleast one occasion, with the Moravian leader himself (see Map 9). Moreover,from narrative sources and from charters it is evident that the military systemof the Frankish-Bavarian marches continued to be oriented toward the centralDanubian watergate. This orientation is unequivocally attested to by Arnulf'shurried journey through the Alps in the winter of 892 for the purpose ofmeeting with Brazlavo, the leader of Slavs on the upper Sava, in order to planan invasion of Moravia. When the expedition took place in August of the sameyear, the fighting must have occurred primarily in the valley of the Sava, forin September Arnulf retired to Brazlavo's principality, whence he dispatchedan embassy to the Bulgars via the Sava route. The lay and ecclesiasticalleaders whom the king endowed with donations in the marches during hisearly reign had previously controlled property in Carantania or, in the case ofAbbot Snelpero, dominated routes leading from Upper Austria to Carantania,and, thence, to southern Pannonia.





Page 235

9.The Hungarian Conquest, 892-907

Introduction

This chapter attempts to explain the Hungarian conquest of the centralDanubian basin. 1 From the outset, the reader should be aware that this taskis far from an easy one for at least two reasons. First of all, the Magyars, asnomads from the Pontic steppe, were extremely mobile. As we shall see,during the period 892907, elements of their confederation attacked Moraviaon several different occasions, Bulgaria, as the army of the khan wasbesieging Constantinople, Italy, at least twice in alliance with various westernleaders, and Bavaria, under the pretext of making peace. As a consequenceof their mobility, Hungarian armies appear and disappear in a bewildering,but hardly large, variety of laconic sources, leaving one with a confusingpicture of their activities. Second, one of our best sources, the AnnalesFuldenses, ends abruptly in 901, six years before the decisive battle ofBrezalauspurc finally terminated East Frankish attempts to dominate thecentral Danubian basin. Subsequent annals have left us only scraps ofinformation until the sixteenth century, when humanist historian Aventinuscompiled a rather complete account of the final battle, but one that wasbased on sources that have long since disappeared, if they ever existed at all.As a result, the conclusions presented in this chapter are tentative. They are,nevertheless, conclusions that have some plausibility within the generalframework of this book. My reconstruction may be summarized as follows.

As we have just seen, Arnulf of Carinthia was supported by a Hungarian armywhen he invaded Moravia in 892. In the tenth century, Ottonian authorsaccused this late Carolingian monarch of unleashing the Magyars on Europebecause of his desire to bring down the Moravian state.2 This chapterattempts to show that there is little reason to doubt their judgment. On thebasis of admittedly fragmentary evidence, I surmise that Arnulf not only usedthe martial talents of these nomads to destroy Moravia, but he also probablyemployed some of them to further his policy



Page 236

aims in Italy, which resulted in his imperial coronation in 896. Although theMagyars remained loyal to Arnulf, they launched a major raid on Bavariafollowing his death in the autumn of 899. In the early years of the tenthcentury, the struggle for control of the central Danubian basin began oncemore, this time between Bavarians and Magyars. The Moravian realm, bynow in shambles, no longer played a major role, though Bavarian leadersbelatedly tried to prop it up as a buffer against the Hungarians. One shouldnot, however, consider the eventual Magyar triumph as an inevitableoutcome. By the beginning of the tenth century, Bavarians had beenconducting military operations in Pannonia for more than a century. Theyknew the terrain, and on several occasions they defeated Hungarian forces.There is no reason to believe that the Bavarians intended to surrender thishuge frontier region to nomads from across the Carpathians without astruggle, which finally came to a bloody end in July of 907 at a place calledBrezalauspurc, probably not modern Bratislava, as we shall see. In thisencounter a large portion of the Bavarian nobility perished, permitting theMagyars to settle in the central Danubian basin, whence they raided LatinChristendom for the next half-century.

Early Evidence of the Magyars

The Hungarians first appear in the Carolingian sources under the year 862,when the Annales Bertiniani report that Ungri, "who had been unknownbefore" devastated (depopulantur) the East Frankish realm. 3 Although thisstatement implies that Magyar horsemen ravished a major portion of Louisthe German's kingdom, there is no word of this incursion in the pages of theAnnales Fuldenses. In spite of the silence of this annalist, however, it is safeto assume that there were some raids (though regnum depopulantur is anobvious exaggeration). Hungarian invasions are also reported in the AnnalesSangallenses maiores under the following year.4 Since steppe nomadspreferred to conduct their raids during the winter months, it should notdisturb us that the Saint Gall source places this incursion under the year 863,rather than 862.5 Whatever the extent of these depredations may have been,our sources report no more Hungarian incursions for approximately twentyyears; thus, it is presumed that they returned to the Ethelköz, whence theyhad come.

The first non-Carolingian evidence of some of the various peoples who



eventually formed this polyethnic confederation of nomads and hunters is



Page 237

found in the year 836, and it is assumed that they were involved in conflictsthat were shattering the Pax Khazaria that had brought two centuries oftranquillity to the lush steppe north of the Black Sea. 6 The end of this era issymbolized by the construction of the great Khazar fortress of Sarkel on thelower Don, built with Byzantine assistance early in the ninth century. Exactlywhen the peoples, eventually called Magyars, arrived in the grasslands underKhazar control is impossible to determine. Boba believes that one of themany groups that eventually formed this polyethnic confederation was theMajghari, a people from the Volga-Oka region. They began to move at thebeginning of the ninth century, when Scandinavian adventures opened theVolga route between the Caspian and Baltic seas. Although their appearancein Khazaria may have caused some disruptions, there is also evidence thatthe Majghari often served as mercenaries for the Khazars, who were beinghard pressed by internal rebellions and by the formation of an earlyVarangian state to the north and west.7 Forced from their unfortifiedhomeland, the Majghari eventually joined in a blood pact with the Turkic-speaking Onogurs, who may have been a part of the Avar Confederation, theso-called Pannonian Onogurs, who fled east of the Tisza, where they joinedbriefly with Bulgars.8

Szabolcs de Vajay believes that the Hungarians (the Ungri of the AnnalesBertiniani) first crossed the Carpathians in connection with Carloman's revolt,861863.9 He argues that Rastislav enticed them to join in his rebellionagainst Louis the German. This would explain, he thinks, why the Bulgars,enemies of the Magyars east of the Carpathians, entered the conflict as alliesof Louis. Hincmar of Reims does seem to suggest that there was a connectionby reporting that Louis launched an unsuccessful attack on the ''Wends''before his realm was ravished by the Hungarians.10 While this hypothesiscannot be proved, a well-known characteristic of steppe nomads was theirtendency to involve themselves in the conflicts of sedentary neighbors asconfederates or mercenaries. Moreover, there is a letter (dated c. 900) fromArchbishop Theotmar of Salzburg to Pope John IX in which he accuses theMoravians of allying frequently with the heathen Hungarians.11

The Hungarians next appear in a Carolingian source under the year 881. Inthis case it is the Annales Iuvavenses maximi, a narrative that Ernst Klebeldiscovered in the 1920s.12 It reports that there was a solar eclipse that wasfollowed by "the first war with the Hungarians around Vienna (ad Vieniam)."



This was followed by a second conflict "cum Cowaris ad Culmite." Therewere, therefore, two battles during that year, the first ad



Page 238

Vieniam, the premier appearance of Vienna in a medieval source. Thelocation of the second encounter (ad Culmite) is unknown. Assuming that thefirst battle took place immediately following the solar eclipse (August 28,881), some scholars have attempted to bring this Magyar invasion into thecontext of the Wilhelminer war. As we have seen, the latter conflict lastedtwo-and-one-half years before it finally came to an end in 884. Nevertheless,it would not be stretching the evidence to suppose that this war began in thelate summer of 881. Ernst Winter, for example, believes that Arnulf ofCarinthia urged the Magyars to attack Vienna, which he assumed to havebeen occupied by Zwentibald's Moravians. 13 Vajay, on the other hand, arguesthat the Magyars were Zwentibald's allies in his struggles against Arnulf andthe Wilhelminer.14 He observes that, from the point of view of an annalistresiding in Salzburg, bellum cum Vngaris can only mean a war or battleagainst the Magyars. If we keep in mind that the Wilhelminer had close tiesto the see of Salzburg, this explanation makes some sense. As for the Cowari,who were involved in the second battle, Vajay thinks that they were,"auxiliaries, which characteristically made up the van and rear guard ofnomadic armies." Another possibility is that they were a people referred to byConstantine Porphyrogenitus as the Kabaroi, a band of Khazars who joinedwith the Tourkoi (Hungarian) confederation.15

Vajay's interpretation is plausible within the context of the long account ofthe Wilhelminer conflict in the Regensburg version of the Annales Fuldenses.As we have seen, very early in this conflict (881?) Zwentibald attacked anddefeated Wilhelminer forces somewhere north of the lower Danube (Hister).The main Moravian army then devastated that territory, while the Moravianleader dispatched a separate force called speculatores by the annalist. Thesetroops, who obviously possessed swift mounts, crossed the upper Danube(ultra Danubium), where they raided Wilhelminer property. Were thesespeculatores the Vngari or the Cowari reported in the Annales Iuvavensesmaximi? Certainly the tactics described in the Annales Fuldenses conformwith those of the Hungarians. It is possible that, after defeating theWilhelminer in southeastern Pannonia, Zwentibald sent bands of nomads on areconnaissance expedition to the northwest. Around Vienna a contingent ofHungarians encountered a group of Bavarians sympathetic to the Wilhelminercause and a battle ensued. This explanation is certainly plausible because atthat time the Wilhelminer and their allies would have been in control of



Arbo's comitatus, which included Vienna. Advanced parties of auxiliaries(Cowari/Kabaroi?) slipped across the Danube (from south to north), where asecond battle took place, resulting in the destruction of Wilhelminer propertythere.



Page 239

Although the account of the Wilhelminer affair in the Annales Fuldenses doesnot mention Vngari, there is much in its description of these events to makeplausible the hypothesis that Hungarian auxiliaries formed a substantial partof Zwentibald's array. The annalist discusses, for example, the pillaging ofPannonia in terms that conjure up an image of the raids of steppe nomads.On one occasion he wrote that Zwentibald "commanded such a multitude thatfrom a single place one could witness his army passing by from sunrise untilsunset." It was a common feature of annalists writing from the viewpoint ofsedentary peoples to exaggerate the numbers of horsemen in nomadicarmies, whose warriors kept strings of rugged steppe ponies tagging alongbehind them. 16 Since a single warrior might have as many as five to tenmounts, the sight of them strung out across the landscape led observers tooverestimate the number of riders. Vajay also points out that a Hungarianalliance with Zwentibald could explain the involvement of the Bulgars on theside of the Wilhelminer.17 The Bulgars were foes of the Hungarians, thentheir neighbors to the north.

Under the year 889 Regino of Prü devoted a long passage (mostly lifted fromother sources) to the gens Hungarium.18 Nevertheless, we should notsuppose that they renewed their raids during that year. Regino (whoseChronicon was written in the early years of the tenth century) had a tendencyto telescope events, and, thus, his dates cannot always be trusted. Forexample, in this passage he stated correctly that the Hungarians were oustedfrom the Ethelköz by the Pechenegs, though at a date that was certainly laterthan 889. After leaving their patria, he writes, the Hungarians crossed theCarpathians and entered the solitudines Pannoniorum et Avarum, whencethey attacked "the frontiers of the Carantanians, Moravians, and Bulgarians,"a statement implying that the Moravians were situated somewhere betweenthem.19

The Magyars, 892-896

As we witnessed in the last chapter, the author of the Annales Fuldensesreported that Ungari took part in Arnulf's expedition against Zwentibald in892. If the Hungarians participated in the campaign of 893, the annalists didnot note their presence.20 In 894 Arnulf finally crossed the Alps intoLombardy. However, the wars against the Moravians must have continued,for this monarch invaded Italy with an army of Alamanni, which means that



Bavarian forces were unavailable for this expedition.21 It is logical to assumethat they were still involved in the conflict against the Moravians. This was



Page 240

the year of Zwentibald's "most unlucky (infeliciter) death," implying that theMoravian leader met his end in some kind of mishap, the sort that occurs inwar. 22 Surely his death was not an "unlucky" event for the annalist, whoheaps abuse on the old duke, "the source of all perfidy,'' accusing him of"disrupting all of the regions bordering upon him through deceit, treachery,and thirsting for human blood." This author wrote that the dying Zwentibaldurged "his followers not to be lovers of peace, but to persist in enmity withhis neighbors." He continued to relate in grizzly terms that Hungarians(''Avari, qui dicuntur Ungari") attacked across the Danube, no doubt from theeast, and plundered Pannonia. Finally he concludes, "In the time of autumnpeace was made between the Bavarians and the Moravians."

The arrangement of this passage, which discusses, first, the dyingZwentibald, urging his followers to continue the conflict, second, theHungarian invasion of Pannonia, and third, the reestablishment of peacebetween the Bavarians and Moravians in autumn, implies that these eventswere connected. Thus, the passage in the Annales Fuldenses obliquelyindicates that the Moravian-Bavarian conflicts continued into the year 894; itimplies also that Zwentibald was killed during them and that the Hungarianincursions into Pannonia the same year were somehow connected with them.The author is unequivocal about the fact that in 894 the Hungarians crossedthe Danube and ravished Pannonia. Since the Hungarians were Frankish-Bavarian allies until after Arnulf's death, it may seem strange that theyplundered Frankish, as well as Moravian, Pannonia. However, it would nothave been out of character for some elements in the still loose Hungarianconfederation to have indiscriminately attacked parts of Frankish Pannonia asan afterthought. Perhaps this is why the annalist does not directly mentionthat Arnulf and the Bavarians must have urged the Magyars to invadeMoravian parts of Pannonia. It is also possible that he had misgivings aboutthis "heathen" alliance. The annalist makes it clear that Hungarian war bandscrossed the Danube to plunder Pannonia, and only then did the Moravianscapitulate, despite the last wishes of their leader.

Regino also connects Zwentibald's death to Hungarian incursions, reporting,anno 894: "Zwentibald . . . whose regnum his sons held unhappily for only ashort time after it had been devastated by the Ungari, finished his last day."23

Once again Regino telescoped events, the ultimate outcome of which wasknown to him. The Moravian duke's sons managed to hold on to at least



some of their realm until after 900, as we shall see. Nevertheless, Reginoclearly drew a connection between Hungarian participation in



Page 241

these Frankish-Bavarian wars against the Moravians, the death of Zwentibald,and the destruction of his regnum. Widukind of Corvey and Liutprand ofCremona, both writing from the vantage point of the mid-tenth century,matter-of-factly made such connections. Widukind wrote that Charlemagnedefeated the Avars (quos modo Ungarios vocamus) and constructed a hugewall (ingentum vallum) to keep them out. Arnulf, however, destroyed thesedefenses because he was angry with Zwentibald, "rex [sic] Marorum." 24

Liutprand states that "they (the Hungarians) were separated from us bydefensive positions (interpositiones), called clausae, that were difficult topenetrate."25 He blames Arnulf for destroying these munitissimiinterpositiones and for calling in the gens Hungariorum to assist him againstZwentibald, dux Maravanorum, whom he could not otherwise have defeated.

In any event, the Moravians, caught between the Hungarians and the Franks,were forced to sue for peace with the latter in autumn of 894. That this peacealso involved the Hungarians is suggested by the fact that in 895 thesewarriors turned their attention elsewhere, raiding into Bulgar territory. Thistime they were allied with the Eastern emperor, Leo VI (the wise), who wastrapped in the vise of combined Islamic and Bulgar assaults that camedangerously close to his capital on the Bosporus.26 A bold counterattack,however, saved the city of Constantine. The Byzantine fleet ferriedHungarians into Bulgar territory as Khan Simeon's forces arrived at the verygates of Constantinople. Consequently, the Bulgarian ruler found it necessaryto end the siege and turn his attention to the Magyars who were maraudingin his territory. This maneuver allowed Eastern imperial armies to save theircapital. After defeating the Islamic forces and making peace with the Bulgars,Leo left his erstwhile allies (the Hungarians) in the lurch. Thus Simeondefeated them, perhaps with the assistance of his aged father Michael/Boris,who emerged from monastic seclusion to advise his people. In addition,Bulgar emissaries were dispatched to the Pechenegs, who attacked theHungarian patria, devastated it, and carried off their women and children.When the Magyars returned to their desolate homeland following thisdisastrous incursion into Bulgaria, they decided to seek greener pastures, aswell as women to bear their children, west of the Carpathians.

The author of the Annales Fuldenses gave a complete account of theseevents in the southeastern Balkans.27 His source, no doubt, was a certainBishop Lazarus, whom Emperor Leo had dispatched to his colleague, Arnulf,



who meanwhile had also been crowned emperor (caesar augustus)



Page 242

in Rome in 896. The annalist also makes it clear that Arnulf was becomingconcerned about events in the east, for he reports tersely, "As the conflicts inthese parts [the lower Danubian-Black Sea basin] multiplied, the emperor[Arnulf] commended Pannonia and the urbs Paludarum to the command ofDuke Brazlavo." The latter was, of course, the Slavic chieftain, whose lordshipwas on the upper Sava and with whom the Frankish ruler had met near Grazin early spring of 892 to plan an invasion of Moravian territory. The term urbsPaludarum refers to Moosburg (Swampburg), the fortress that Pribina hadconstructed near Lake Balaton. We might also add that Arnulf's concern withthe east was further evidenced by the fact that in October of 895, when hecrossed the Alps to Lombardy, he was accompanied by an army ofFranconians and Alamanni, once again leaving Bavarian forces at home toguard the southeastern frontiers. 28

Moravia Under Siege

By 895 there are signs that the Moravian realm was near collapse.Zwentibald's scions were losing control north of the Danube, for Bohemiandukes reappear in the Annales Fuldenses, participating in a general assemblyat Regensburg in mid-July.29 As we have seen, Regino of Prüm reported thatArnulf had allowed Zwentibald to become the Bohemian dux sometimearound 890 as a means of placating the Moravian leader, while he wasconsolidating his power in Francia orientalis. In 895, however, the author ofthe Annales Fuldenses represented this event differently, stating thatZwentibald "had torn asunder their alliance with the Bavarian people andbrought them forcefully into his power." In any event, by 895 the Bohemianshad successfully reasserted their independence from the Moravians, and theirleaders commended themselves to the East Frankish king.

Further evidence of the disintegration of the Moravian realm is reported underthe year 897.30 Arnulf celebrated Christmas of 896 in Ötting, where Moravianenvoys appeared before him, "requesting from the emperor, in the interest ofsecuring the peace, not to receive their fleeing exiles." As we shall see, therewas growing dissension among the Moravians. In 897, Bohemian chieftainsshowed up once again at Arnulf's court in Regensburg, requesting hisassistance and that of his fideles against their enemies, whom they calledMarahabitae, a term that appears for the first time.31 Arnulf agreed andremained throughout autumn north of the Danube near the Regen "should



the aforementioned peoples need his help."



Page 243

Rau and Reuter have translated the term Marahabitae as Mährer andMoravians, respectively. 32 As Boba has pointed out, however, the author ofthis section of the Annales Fuldenses must have chosen the wordMarahabitae deliberately, for he normally employed the term Marabi forMoravians.33 He suggested that "the term Marahabitae refers to people fromMarahaba/Morava, residing outside of their homeland (cf. Israelitae = qui exIsrael)."34 In Boba's opinion, the Marahabitae must have been Moravianwarriors who had occupied Bohemia by force, circa 890, and who weresubsequently driven out, circa 895. They resided nearby, however, probablyin Slovakia, where they continued to threaten the Bohemians.

In fact, Marahabitae appear only twice in the Annales Fuldenses, once in thepassage just cited and again under the year 899. On the latter occasion weare told that in winter "Bavarian magnates forcefully crossed the finesMarahabitarum with their men, and, after strong warbands had plunderedtheir localities, they collected the spoil and returned home with it."35 In thispassage the annalist used the term Marahabitae intentionally. Hedistinguished between the fines Marahabitarum and the terminos Maraborum,which the Bavarians penetrated later in the same year.36

If the fines Marahabitarum were north of the Danube east of Bohemianterritory, where were the termini Maraborum? The latter army set out in latesummer from Ötting south of the Danube. Its purpose was to free one ofZwentibald's sons, Zwentibald II, who had quarreled with his brother MoimirII and had been captured by him. Already in 898 "serious discord" had led toopen warfare among the heirs of Zwentibald, identified as fratres gentisMarahensium. Arnulf ordered his margraves, Liutpold and Arbo, to interveneto assist "the one [Zwentibald] who had sought hope and refuge with him forprotection and liberation." Liutpold, who was playing an increasinglyimportant role in the frontier, only began appearing in the sources in the mid-890s.37 By 898, however, he held the titles of margrave in both Carantaniaand in the Nordgau. He was probably the count palatine in Regensburg aswell. Thus, he was in a position to lead armies against Moravians north orsouth of the Danube. As for Arbo, the commander of the Danubian marches,he participated in the offensive of 898, but was accused of causing thedissension between the sons of Zwentibald and was removed from hiscommand.38 Curiously, Arbo was reinstated as margrave shortly thereafter.His return to favor was probably due to the fact that his son Isanric had been



the real instigator of dissension in Moravia.

The latter, we are informed, persisted in his treachery. In 899, after theBavarians had crossed the the Moravian frontier (termini Maraborum),



Page 244

Isanric ensconced himself in the fortress (civitas) of Mautern on the Danube.39 When Arnulf (who had just suffered a second stroke and who was literallyon his deathbed) learned of this uprising, he gathered whatever manpowerwas available to him, boarded a ship for Mautern "because he was sick andweak of body," and supervised the capture of the fortress. This passage isclear evidence that this invasion of Moravia had not taken place along theDanube, for had there been a Bavarian army in nearby Moravia north of theriver, the king, during his last illness, would not have felt compelled to leavehis bed and lead an assault against Isanric in Mautern. It would have been aneasy matter for the Bavarian host returning from a northern Moravia to havedealt with Arbo's rebellious son. Thus, Liutpold's army must have been somedistance from Mautern. In any case, Isanric, after having been captured,managed to escape to the Moravians, where he took a portion of their realmfor himself.

Arnulf died around Christmas of 899, but the Moravian wars continued. In 900a Bavarian army invaded Moravian territory, and this time the annalist statesclearly that it proceeded through Bohemia and that these forces tookBohemian warriors with them.40 Nevertheless, this passage by itself hardlyproves that Moravia proper was north of the Danube, for some Bavarianforces may well have gone through Bohemia simply to ensure that theunreliable Bohemians did indeed participate in the campaign.

Reappearance of the Magyars

Also in the year 900, Hungarians appeared on the scene once again. Theyreturned to the Carpathian basin from Italy where they had been plunderingfor several years, probably at Arnulf's instigation. To understand theirreappearance, it is necessary to summarize events that were happening inthe Italian kingdom. In 888, shortly after Arnulf had been raised to the EastFrankish kingship, Berengar of Friuli had rushed to Pavia, where he wascrowned king of Italy. During their early reigns, Arnulf and Berengar enteredinto an alliance of convenience. The East Frankish ruler was interested inkeeping peace in his eastern marches while he was consolidating his hold onthe throne, and Berengar, as margrave of Friuli, could have threatened thatpeace. The latter for his part was in vigorous competition with Wido ofSpoleto for nothing less than the imperial mantle. Arnulf and Berengar,however, fell out in 894. Wido, who had won out in the imperial competition,



died shortly after seizing this prize, whereupon Pope For-



Page 245

mosus, obviously snubbing Berengar, the de facto master of Lombardy,invited Arnulf to accept the imperial crown. Although the East Frankish rulercrossed the Alps in 894, he was forced to turn back prematurely and onlyarrived in Rome in 896, when he was crowned emperor. By this time,however, he had become Berengar's bitter enemy.

In 898 Hungarian hordes attacked Berengar's march of Friuli, plundering itand reconnoitering the eastern Alpine passes. Gina Fasoli and Vajay areconvinced that Arnulf encouraged this raid, citing evidence that the EastFrankish ruler gave them pecunia ut in Italiam transirent. 41 It would certainlyhave been difficult for the Hungarians to invade Friuli without theacquiescence of Arnulf's marcher commanders in Pannonia and the easternAlps. The so-called Strada Ungarorum, the route which the Magyars used toinvade Italy, was the old Roman via Pannonica, which ran through Ptuj, Celje,and Ljubljana, strategic points that were included in the territory of themarchers. Had there been no prior agreement allowing Magyar horsemen tomove along this route, the Hungarians, returning from Friuli heavily ladenwith plunder, would have been easy prey for Arnulf's margraves whocontrolled this road through the Alps. In 899 an even larger Hungarian forceentered northern Italy, breaking onto the Po plain and advancing as far westas the ancient Lombard capital of Pavia.42 On this occasion they winteredthere, after having defeated a large army that Berengar had sent againstthem in September.

This was the Hungarian army that eventually returned from Italy to theCarpathian basin in 900. The account in the Annales Fuldenses deserves to becarefully scrutinized.

By the same route, by which they (the Hungarians) had come (to Italy), they returned,devastating a large part of Pannonia. They sent their emissaries deceitfully to the Bavarians toobtain peace, but really to explore this region. What a pity, for that brought the first evil andsuffering to the Bavarian realm which it had not witnessed previously. Therefore, unanticipated,they invaded the realm of Bavaria across the Enns with a strong force and a large army, so that,murdering and plundering by fire and sword, they destroyed in one day everything within an areaof fifty miles, length and breadth.43

It is generally assumed that the Hungarians ravished Frankish Pannonia,formerly Pribina's principality, which, since 896, had been under the control ofBrazlavo. This cannot have been the case, however, for if the Hungarians,returning from Italy via the march on the Sava, had plundered Brazlavo'sterritory, how could their emissaries possibly have gone to Ba-





Page 246

varia feigning peaceful intentions? After all, Brazlavo, the dux between theSava and the Drava, had been consistently loyal to the East Frankishkingdom. Had the Hungarians plundered his lordship before their emissariesarrived in Bavaria, Liutpold and his men would have known about it andwould have been suspicious. This passage makes it clear, however, that theBavarians were taken by surprise. The Magyar scouts entered their territorypretending to renew the peace between them, but really to scout outinvasion routes. The Bavarians must have been caught off guard, for the raid,when it came, carried across the Enns well inside Bavarian territory."Overcome with grief, after having learned of this," the annalist laments, "theBavarians living further back decided to counter in a hurry," but theHungarians had anticipated their counterattack and quickly returned ad sua inPannonia. 44

Many scholars have interpreted this passage to mean that the Hungariansdevastated Brazlavo's realm, killed him, and occupied Pannonia.45 It needs tobe pointed out, however, that charters and the Raffelstetten tollsdemonstrate that the Franks held on to at least a part of Pannonia well afterthis first raid. While it is true that the later Gesta Hungarorum by Simon Kezareport that the Hungarians invaded Pannonia and killed a dux Waratizlao, thislater source gives no dates.46 Moreover, the Gesta imply that the Hungariansattacked Pannonia from the east, rather than from the southwest, as wouldhave been the case had they been returning from Italy. Thus, Simon Kezamust have been referring to an entirely different invasion of Pannonia.

On the basis of these arguments, the most likely explanation of the events of900 is as follows: The Hungarians returned from Italy via the StradaUngarorum, passing without incident through the march of the Sava,controlled by Count Ratold, a Sighardinger. Continuing through, but notplundering, Brazlavo's realm (by this time encompassing the region aroundZagreb and Sisak and stretching northward to Lake Balaton), they attackedand devastated Moravian Pannonia (southeastern Pannonia). This view issupported by the northern Italian Annales Gradicenses, stating under the year900 that "as soon as the Ungari heard of his (Arnulf's) death, they, havingcollected a large army, attacked and defeated the Moravianorum gens, whomthe Emperor Arnulf had subdued with their help."47 According to the northernItalian traditions, the Hungarians then left Italy and attacked the Moravians,a people who must have been situated in southern Pannonia. Since Bavarian



forces also had invaded Moravian territory in the year 900, Magyar raids on apeople who had been their common enemy would hardly



Page 247

have caused suspicion in Bavaria. Since the implacable Moimir was stillclinging to parts of Moravia, Liutpold might even have encouraged theHungarians to plunder his territory. Thus, when Hungarian emissariesappeared in Bavaria, pretending to renew the peace, Liutpold was probablycomplacent.

The Annales Gradicenses tie the Hungarian's decision to abandon Italy for theCarpathian basin to the death of Arnulf, their ally since 892. When the newsof his demise reached the Hungarians, they negotiated a treaty withBerengar. According to the Chronicon Venetum of John the Deacon, theUngari gave up the siege of Venice near the end of June 900 and reached anagreement with Berengar shortly thereafter. 48 Therefore, they must haveravished Moravian Pannonia in late July or in early August.

Vajay noted this passage concerning a Hungarian attack on Moravia, but,assuming that Moravia was north of the Danube, he quite naturally believedthat the Hungarian invasion of this realm occurred after they had devastatedBrazlavo's Pannonia.49 According to his scenario, the Magyars returned fromItaly to Pannonia, where they destroyed the fortress of Moosburg andplundered the territory around it; subsequently crossing the Danube, theythen fell on the Moravian principality in the northern Morava watershed; andfinally wheeling westward and under the guise of renewing the peace withthe Bavarians, they attacked their territory. This explanation cannot becorrect, however, for such an invasion of Bavaria from a Moravia situated inthe northern Morava Valley would have come north, not south, of theDanube, contradicting the testimony of the Annales Fuldenses, which statesthat the Magyars plundered the region west of the Enns, south of theDanube.50 The annalist relates that after devastating the southern shores ofthe river, a contingent of Magyars "broke onto the north bank of the Danube[obviously from the south] and devastated those parts." When Liutpoldlearned of this, "bringing together some of the Bavarian magnates andaccompanied by the bishop of Passau, he [Liutpold] crossed the Danube[from south to north] so that he might pursue them." The Bavarian leadermanaged to trap them north of the river (probably in the narrows of theGreinerstrudel), where "twelve hundred pagans drowned in the Danube."

Thus, Liutpold's first encounter with the Hungarians was reasonablysuccessful. Although the Hungarians had caught the Bavarians by surprise



and plundered a large strip of their territory west of the Enns, Bavarian forcesassembled rapidly enough to drive off the main Hungarian host and to trap asmaller force in the narrow landscape north of the Danube



Page 248

between Passau and Krems. Moreover, this Magyar incursion had madeLiutpold wary, for he reassembled his men to construct a stout fortification onthe banks of the Enns. 51 The fortress of Ennsburg, designated as an urbs bythe annalist, commanded an important river crossing, an excellent location totrap nomads returning from raids in Bavaria. The designation urbs indicatesthat the Ennsburg had a sizable garrison, whose men would have beenextremely dangerous to Magyar raiders who had encumbered their strings ofponies with booty.

On January 19, 901, the fortress on the Enns was turned over to the nearbymonastery of Sankt Florian, situated in the hills a short distance to thesouth.52 Since Sankt Florian had already become a possession of the see ofPassau, Bishop Richard must have used his considerable resources to garrisonthe Ennsburg. This fortress was formally handed over to the bishop by Louisthe Child (at the request of Liutpold), when the young king was inRegensburg to preside over an assembly of magnates (placitium generale),called for the purpose of organizing defenses against further Hungarianincursions.53 The Magyar threat to Bavarian territory must have finally led toa convergence of Bavarian-Moravian interests. In the winter of 901, aMoravian embassy appeared at Regensburg to petition for peace. The envoysswore oaths in the Bavarian capital, then Bishop Richard of Passau and aCount Udalrich were dispatched to Moravia, where, "as had already beendecided in Bavaria, they required the duke and all of his primates to swearoaths to keep the peace."54

The Fulda annalist followed this statement immediately by the report:"Interdum vero Ungari australem partem regni illorum Caruntanumdevastando invaserunt," which appears, in the printed editions, as the firstsentence in the next paragraph.55 This statement has puzzled scholars. Thequestion is: the southern part of whose regnum was it that the Hungariansinvaded? Once again we must remember that the paragraphing in the MGHwas devised by modern scholars. If we disregard that paragraphing, thegrammar of the entire passage leads to the conclusion that this regnumbelonged to the antecedent dux (of the Moravians) and primates eius. Reuterobviously recognized this fact and translated the passage, "The Hungarianslaid waste Carinthia and invaded the southern part of their [the Moravians]kingdom."56 Thus construed, this sentence can only mean that the southernpart of the realm of the Moravians adjoined Carantania, which the Hungarians



plundered at about the same time, a powerful statement in support of thesouthern Moravia hypothesis. Dümmler, for whom Moravia's location was nota question, thought that illorum must



Page 249

refer to the Bavarians, for a Hungarian attack on the southern part of aMoravia north of the Danube would hardly bring the invaders in the vicinity ofCarantania. 57 On the basis of this assumption, the sentence would then betranslated into English, "The Hungarians invaded the southern part of theregnum of those (Bavarians) and devastated Carantania." But the annalistthe author of the Altaich (Bavarian) version of the Annales Fuldenses wouldnot have used illorum for the Bavarians; he would have chosen nostrorum.

There are, moreover, other grammatical problems with the ways in which thissentence has been translated into modern languages. Boba has suggestedthat the author of the annals did not intend to report that "the Hungariansinvaded the southern part of their realm and devastated Carantania."58 Hadthis been the case he would have written: "Ungari australem partem regniillorum invaserunt et Caruntaniam devastaverunt." Grammatically, theproblem can be resolved by recognizing that Caruntanum is not a directobject; it is a genitive plural, agreeing with illorum. Furthermore, devastandois obviously not third person perfect. It cannot be construed as parallel toinvaserunt, as Rau and Reuter would have it. On the contrary, devastando isa gerund referring to australem partem regni. Thus, this sentence must beread: "Meanwhile, the Hungarians invaded the southern part of the realm ofthose Carantanians, devastating it."

Who were "those Carantanians"? Grammatically, they must be theantecedent dux et omnes primates eius, the Moravian duke and hismagnates. The term Carantani did not necessarily refer to Slavs living inCarolingian Carantania. It was a general term for South Slavs, Slovenes, andCarantanians living in the region of the Drava and Sava watersheds. P.J.Safarik was very much aware of this fact in 1844, when he published hisSlawische Alterthümer.59

The event that we have been considering was, then, an invasion of Moravianterritory and not an attack on Carolingian Carantania. After reporting it, theannalist states that the king went through Alamania to Franconia for Easter,then this valuable source abruptly ends. From the arrangement of this text itis clear that the Hungarian invasion of Moravian territory took placesometime after January 19, when the king attended the placitum inRegensburg, but before April 12, the date of Easter, when he was inFranconia.60 Two other sources report a Hungarian invasion of Carantania in



the same year, but this invasion could not have been the one reported in theAnnales Fuldenses, for it took place at Easter (not before it) and theHungarians, rather than being victorious, were defeated and



Page 250

killed. 61 Hence, there was a Hungarian invasion of the southern parts of theMoravian realm, which resulted in its devastation. This raid was followed byan attack on Carantania, which miscarried for the Magyars.

If we can trust later traditions, the latter encounter took place in the vicinityof modern Ljubljana on the Sava. Some scholars are convinced that thesuccessful defense of Carolingian Carantania was led by Count Ratold, thenthe marcher lord on the upper Sava.62 Nevertheless, no contemporaryevidence directly ties the defense of Carantania in 901 to Ratold. As Reindelhas pointed out, it may just as well have been Liutpold who was in commandof Bavarian and Carantanian forces at the time of this victory.63 Liutpold stillhad overall command responsibilities in Carantania, as well as in Bavaria andprobably in Bohemia. In September of 901, he petitioned Louis the Child toturn the curtis of Bressanone over to Zachary of Säben, an act which musthave been connected with plans to defend the Brenner in the event ofHungarian incursions into Carantania.64

In any case, the Hungarian invasion of Carantania in 901 occurred in thespring after their attack on Moravia, and the fighting took place in the Savaand Drava watersheds. Just as in 900, the Magyars were defeated and drivenoff. Finally, the Annales Mellicenses and the Chronicon of HerimannusAugiensis both give us the impression that, faced with a common Hungarianthreat, Bavarians and Moravians were beginning to cooperate, for, as theyear ended, Duke Moimir and the rebel count Isanrich (Arbo's son) came toBavaria in order to make peace personally with Louis the Child.65 As we haveseen, there is evidence that Bavarian forces served in Moravia during thoseperiods when the dukes recognized Frankish hegemony. It is, therefore,reasonable to assume that some Bavarian troops were sent there to helpdefend Moimir's tottering realm after 901. The Moravians were certainly ableto organize the successful defense of their territory in 902, when they turnedback another Hungarian invasion.66 Since several sources report this action,there can be no doubt that it occurred.67

Between 902 and 906 the East Frankish sources give us little concreteinformation concerning the movements of the Hungarians. One reason for thisfact may be that the Annales Fuldenses simply came to an end in the springof 902. The Annales Sangallenses maiores and the Annales Alamannici doreport that the Bavarians invited the Hungarian chieftain (rex/dux) Chussol



(Chussal) to a banquet and surreptiously (in dolo) assassinated him; thisevent was probably staged to create confusion among the Hungarians sincethe Franks hoped that rival leaders of various war bands would struggleamong themselves to replace Chussol.68 Most modern Hungarian



Page 251

historians believe that the murder of Chussol ultimately resulted in theMagyars' abandoning their traditional system of dual leadership for one basedon the kingship of a single warrior king, Arpad. 69 Nevertheless, the eventssurrounding Chussol's death and what followed from it are more than a littlemurky, and it would be unwise to draw sweeping conclusions from the scrapsof evidence that have come down to us. It is probably safer to assume thatHungarian war bands continued to raid the frontiers of Bavaria, although theintensity of those incursions diminished for a while. The author of the AnnalesAlamannici reports that in 903 there was ''a war of Bavarians withHungarians,'' but gives no details.70

Bavarian Defenses

From this discussion, it should be readily apparent that the Hungarians werenot an irresistible force in the face of which the East Frankish kingdom wasdefenseless. Bavarians defeated them along the Danube in 900, Carantaniansunder either Count Ratold or Liutpold checked their invasion of the upperSava in 901, and even the Moravians, whose realm had been severelyweakened by Frankish interventions, torn apart by civil wars, and ravished bymarauding steppe nomads, drove them off in 902. Moreover, the constructionand garrisoning of the Ennsburg shows that Bavarian leaders were beginningto take measures against the Hungarians.

Some surviving charters also yield evidence that the East Frankish court wasactively involved in shoring up the defenses of the southeastern frontiers. OnAugust 3, 903, Louis the Child was at Ötting, where he made a rather largedonation of royal property in the Mattigau to the canons of Passau.71 CountArbo, reinstalled as margrave along the Danube, and a certain Engilmar, avassal of Bishop Burchard, requested the gift, a fact that suggests that theproperty was to be used to support the bishop's military retainers. The courtmarched eastward to the Ennsburg, where it remained for at least twomonths. A second charter was issued in the name of Louis on September 26in Albern, a locality on the north bank of the Danube just to the east ofEnns.72 In this charter a certain Zwentibald, identified as a vassal of themargrave Liutpold, received substantial royal properties located just south ofKremsmünster (in comitatu Arbonis) on the route to the Pyhrn. This is thesame Zwentibald to whom Arnulf had earlier given substantial possessions inCarantania along the routes which linked the upper Mur to the Drava.73 The



diploma in question shows that a number of



Page 252

very important persons were present at the young Louis's court in lateSeptember 903. Those who petitioned Louis on Zwentibald's behalf were thefideles Sigihard, Reginbert, and Isangrim, all high-ranking officials(ministeriales). 74 Sigihard, a relative of Arnulf, was count in the Chiemgau;Reginbert, also a count, was frequently in the royal entourage; and Isangrim,perhaps the most important of the three, had been Arnulf's steward. Isangrimwas count in the Mattiggau, where, as we have so often observed, forceswere assembled for the march over the passes to Carantania.75 Thisdocument also indicates that Liutpold and Arbo (rivals in the past) werebeginning to reach a compromise, a necessary step if the frontier was to beadequately defended against the Hungarians. Although described in thedocument as a vassal of Liutpold, Zwentibald was given property in Arbo'slordship with the "advice and consent" of the latter.

Another extremely important document indicating that Liutpold and Arbowere beginning to cooperate in organizing the defense of the frontier wasissued by Louis the Child in March of 904.76 The young monarch granted to acertain Arpo twenty homesteads (hubae) in Carantania near the confluence ofthe Leoben River with the Mur. Included in this donation was a fortified curtis(muro circumdata) and the villa of Göß. The diploma tells us that Arpo wasthe son of Count Otachar, in whose lordship this property was located.Otachar, it is widely believed, was the second son of Count Arbo though thedocument is silent on this point. It is, however, safe to assume that there wassome close kinship (blood or fictive) between the counts Arbo and Otachar. Itis clear from this charter that Otachar, perhaps a member of the Aribonenclan, was in charge of defending the Mur Valley and, thus, the passesconnecting Carantania with Bavaria. The grant mentioned above was madeat the request of some of the leading fideles of the realm, counts Liutpoldand Arpo (obviously Arbo), as well as Bishop Tuto of Regensburg, and countsIring, Cumpold, and Papo. Iring was the count in the Salzburggau; heappeared frequently in the entourage of Arnulf and Louis the Child.77

Cumpold was the comes in Isengau. He and a Count Meginward petitionedthe king to make a donation to the chapel at Ötting in August of 901.78 Thereemergence of such Wilhelminer names as Pabo (Papo) and Meginwardprovides a clear indication that this branch of the Graman kindred was stillpresent in the marches at the dawn of the tenth century.79 All in all thesecharters illustrate a growing unity within the warrior elite of the southeastern



marches in the face of the Hungarian threat. Perhaps because of that unity,there is little evidence of raids there between 903 and 907.



Page 253

The Hungarians in Italy

Another reason for the cessation of Magyar attacks on Bavaria and itsmarches was that some Hungarian bands were once again attracted to Italy.Following Arnulf's death, a struggle ensued between Louis of Provence andBerengar for the imperial mantle. 80 Louis, whose wife was a Byzantineprincess, was supported by Eastern imperial forces in southern Italy. In 900,he invaded the peninsula, captured Pavia, and was warmly received in Rome,where Benedict IV crowned him emperor and where the dukes of Spoleto andIvera recognized his overlordship. At the beginning of 901 Berengar's positionwas desperate. The area under his direct control was reduced to Friuli, and,even there, many of his vassals were in open rebellion against him.

Yet, by the late spring, his fortunes had taken a dramatic turn for the better.He succeeded in reconquering all of Lombardy and in forcing Louis backacross the Alps. Although the reasons for this reversal is mysterious, it cannotbe ruled out that Hungarian auxiliaries played a role in Berengar's recovery.As we have seen, in 900 he concluded a peace with the Magyars, which mayhave contained some provisions for mutual assistance against commonenemies. It is certainly plausible that the Hungarians who traversed the"southern part of the realm of those Carantanians (Moravians)" early in theyear 901 were in fact on their way to Italy. It is also conceivable that theHungarians who were defeated in Carantania (probably near Ljubljana) onEaster Saturday of the same year were trying to come to Berengar'sassistance in Friuli. If such had been the case, then Hungarian war bands,moving through the southern part of Moravian territory in January orFebruary, were probably separate from those that entered Carantania, wherethey were driven back by Carantanian margraves in mid-April. As we haveseen, the annalists imply that these were two entirely separate events.

Gina Fasoli has called attention to an inscription on the gravestone ofPatriarch Frederick of Aquileia which indicates that this prelate played amajor role in arranging for Hungarians to intervene in Italy in support ofBerengar.81 This evidence also makes it seem likely that Magyar forces musthave reached Italy through Istria, rather than via a route along the upperSava, which was under the control of Bavarian marcher lords, who occupiedposts in Carantania. The Hungarians, then, would have proceeded throughthe southern part of the realm of those (other) "Carantanians," the



Carantanians who occupied regions south of the Sava, Zwentibald's originalrealm in the Drina Valley. A possible scenario is, then, that Hungarian



Page 254

war bands passed through the realm of those southern (Moravian)Carantanians and reached Friuli via Istria in February or March of 901, while asecond Magyar army was defeated near Ljubljana, obviously attempting toenter Italy via the passes through the Julian Alps.

Whatever may have happened in 901, Hungarians definitely returned to Italyin 904 as allies and auxiliaries of Berengar. Earlier in this year, Louis ofProvence had entered Lombardy once again, had taken Pavia, and was in theprocess of occupying Verona when swarms of Hungarians attacked theterritory under his control. 82 As those forces wasted the upper Po, Berengarretook Verona and captured his rival, whom he blinded. The hapless Louiswas then allowed to return with his men to Provence. Even in this miserablestate, we are told, his forces were harassed by Magyars until he disappearedon the other side of the Alps never to return to the peninsula again. As forLouis's supporters in Lombard cities, many of which were unfortified and,therefore, extremely vulnerable to steppe nomads, Berengar allowed hisHungarian allies to loot them without mercy.

According to Magyar traditions, it was in 904 or 905 when Arpad, who wasnow emerging as the sole leader of the Hungarian confederation, arrangedfor his son Zolta to marry a Moravian princess.83 If this was indeed the case,then it was at this time that the "old" Moravian regnum, the megale Moraviaof Constantine Porphyrogenitus, came under Hungarian rule. For some timethere had been certain elements among the Moravians who wanted to throwtheir lot with the Magyars rather than with the Bavarians. Evidence of this isfound in a letter that Theotmar of Salzburg and the other Bavarian bishopssent to Rome around 900.84 This epistle complains that Moravians wererelapsing into heathen practices, shaving their heads in the Hungarianfashion, and conspiring with the pagans, "so that in all of Pannonia, ourlargest province, almost no church is to be seen." Once again this passageassociates Moravians with Pannonia, not the region north of the Danube.

The main point of the letter was to protest against the presence in Pannoniaof Roman bishops, who had been sent into the region by the pope. Theotmarasserts that these bishops could testify to the destruction of Pannonia, "ifthey would admit how many days they had traveled and had seen the wholeland desolate." Once again, this letter does not mention Methodius, anotherindication that the Bavarian bishops refused to recognize that he ever had



jurisdiction there. Moravia, in their opinion, was the territory of the bishop ofPassau, a suffragan of the archbishop of Salzburg.



Page 255

In this regard it is interesting that this letter does mention Wiching, whomJohn VIII had ordained "bishop at the request of Duke Zwentibald."Theotmar, however, did not object in this case, arguing that Wiching'sappointment was legitimate, because "he never sent him into the ancientbishopric of Passau, but to a newly baptized people [neophita gens] whomthat duke had defeated in war and converted from paganism to Christianity."From this statement it is apparent that Wiching's ecclesia Nitrensis was notlocated in a mission region claimed by either Passau or Salzburg. It was notin Pannonia, but in a territory that Zwentibald (not Moimar) had conquered,obviously sometime between 870 and 880.

The letter also asserts that the Moravians bore the primary responsibility forHungarian hordes entering Italy, not the Bavarians themselves, as Moraviansalleged. Theotmar complains that the Bavarians had actually tried to makepeace with the Moravians, so that "we might be safe from them and havesome breathing space for long enough that it would be possible for us toenter Lombardy and to defend, with God's help, the possessions of SaintPeter and to free the Christian people." It is impossible to believe theseprotestations. As we have seen, both Bavarians and Moravians had allied withHungarians whenever it suited their purposes. It is of special interest thatTheotmar excuses the failure of Bavarians to enter Italy to protect the HolySee from the Hungarians because of a Moravian threat. How could Moravianshave threatened Bavarian forces entering Italy if Moravia (torn apart by civilwar and external invasions) had been located in the Morava Valley north ofthe Danube? A southern Moravia, however, could have constituted a threat toBavarians once they had become involved in Italian affairs, particularly ifthese Moravians had formed an alliance with the Hungarians.

In many respects it is ironic that the "arrangements" that Berengar madewith the Hungarians left Italy well protected from their depredations after904. Indeed, Vajay and Fasoli have demonstrated that Berengar'sUngarnpolitik was crucial in his eventual rise to the imperial dignity. He wascrowned emperor in Rome in 915 by John X, former archbishop of Ravenna.This prelate also had much experience with South Slavs and Magyars, and itis interesting to note that he too had summoned Hungarian assistance fromtime to time. From the little evidence we have, it seems likely that theHungarians left Italy in 905 at the latest. Since Bavarian margraves stillcontrolled Carantania as far south as the upper Sava, they must have



returned to Pannonia via the route from Istria.



Page 256

Hungarian Conquests North of the Danube

The evidence that we have examined up to this point indicates that Magyarswarms operated almost exclusively south of the Danube. On only oneoccasion, in 900, can we document them north of the river, when, afterraiding in Bavaria, they crossed the river from south to north, where theywere trapped and badly defeated by Liutpold. Thus, if they had occupied allof former Moravia (megale Moravia) by 905, that principality must have beenlocated in Pannonia south of the Danube. The first hard evidence that wehave for widespread Hungarian activities north of the Danube cannot befound until 906, when Magyar raiding parties attacked Saxony. 85 Theirsuccess in this expedition, however, can only mean that by that time theymust have already defeated the Bohemians, for to have invaded Saxonywithout having first cowed Bohemian war bands would have exposed theHungarians to ambushes when they sought to return to Pannonia with bootyand Saxon captives.

There is an anonymous high medieval Hungarian source, the GestaHungarorum Anonymi Belae Regis, which is earlier than Simon de Keza's andwhich yields information concerning Magyar activities north of the Danube.86

According to the Anonymus, after the death of Attila the King (Athila rex), theduke of the bohemians (dux Boemorum) invaded the region between theconfluences of the Hron, northern Morava, and the Vag with the Danube. Thechief center in this region was the civitas Nytra, which Boba identifies withmodern Nitra, but not necessarily with Nitrava in the Conversio. After theconquest of the region, a certain Zubur was made "dux Nitriensis by the dukeof the Bohemians." Subsequently, with the help of a large Bohemian army,Zubur attempted to prevent the Hungarians from crossing the river Nitra, buthis forces were badly defeated and put to flight. The unfortunate Zubur wascaptured and hanged on a hill near Nitra, "which to this day is called monsZubur." Since there is indeed a hill named Zubur near Nitra, Boba argues thatthis fact demonstrates the credibility of the Anonymus.87 He interprets theentire account as follows.

Attila the King, who had ruled this region earlier, was not the famous Attilathe Hun, the scourge of God. In the only manuscript of the Gesta, "athala" iswritten with a lowercase a; it is not a personal name at all, but "appears asan appellative for nomadic chieftains generally."88 Attila, in fact, means



"father,'' as in the Gothic atta unsar equals pater noster.89 Many similarexamples could be given. The point is that the region between the northernMorava and the Vag and the Hron rivers had earlier been ruled by



Page 257

a people Boba thinks Avars whose king was known as Attila. This is inconformity with the conclusions of the Slovak archaeologist Anton Tocik, wholed the excavations in Nitra. 90

The Anonymus, however, also mentions Sclavi Nitrienses. Who were they?Boba believes that they were South Slavs, whom Zwentibald settled in thisregion sometime before he was granted control over the ducatusBehemensium by Arnulf of Carinthia. The Sclavi Nitrienses were, thus, theMarahabitae (the Moravians settled outside of the original Moravianheartland). Support for this hypothesis is found in the letter that ArchbishopTheotmar sent to Pope John IX around 900, which, as we have seen, statesthat the see of Bishop Wiching was outside of the mission territory claimed byPassau, and it was located in a region inhabited by a previously unbaptizedpeople, whom Zwentibald subsequently conquered and forced to acceptChristianity.91

Since we know that Wiching was appointed bishop in 880, Zwentibald'sconquest must have occurred during the wars of the 870s, more than adecade before the Moravian leader became duke of the Bohemians.92 Byoccupying Nitra in Slovakia the Moravian prince established a foothold northof the Danube, from which he later extended his power over the Bohemians.During Arnulf's early reign Zwentibald was granted the title of duke of theBohemians, but the Bohemians reasserted their independence from Moravianrule shortly after the duke's death. Nevertheless, the region to the east ofBohemia remained in the hands of Marahabitae, whose leader must havebeen Zubur, the dux Nitriensis.

Sometime before July 24, 903, Liutpold acquired, in addition to his numerousother titles (marchio, comes, comes palatii), the position of duxBoemanorum.93 Boba reasons that as duke of the Bohemians, Liutpold wasthe dux Boemorum who, according to the anonymous author of the Gesta,invaded the region between the Morava and the Hron and conquered it.94

Zubur submitted to his rule and was allowed to remain dux SclavorumNitriensis. Since the Bavarians had raided into the lands of Marahabitae aslate as 899, Luitpold's conquest of that region must have been completedsometime after 900, probably circa 903, when he can be documented as dukeof the Bohemians.

Boba has cautiously avoided dating these events too closely, preferring to say



that Zubur became a client of Liutpold around 900 and that he was defeatedand killed before 907. On the basis of the discussion above, however, it isworth hazarding a guess that the Hungarians defeated Zubur and theBohemians in the year 906, after many of their bands had returned



Page 258

from Italy and had completed their conquest of the Moravian heartland inLower Pannonia, but before they launched their invasion of Saxony inmidsummer 906. Although the anonymous author of the Gesta reports thatmany Bohemians were sent to assist Zubur, they were not accompanied bytheir dux, and they fled in disarray. Liutpold's absence from the expedition in906 could have been due to the so-called Babenberger feud, whichpreoccupied him at that time and which posed a threat to the stability of theEast Frankish realm. Reindel has indeed connected this Fehde with theHungarian invasion of Saxony. He reasons that Liutpold was determined tobring this internecine conflict to an end, so that he might be able to unite thevarious East Frankish provinces to deal effectively with the Magyars. 95 Wemust not overlook the possibility, however, that because of Liutpold'spreoccupation with the Babenbergs, he could not send sufficient forces toreinforce Zubur. In any case, the Hungarians trounced the Sclavi Nitriensesand their Bohemian allies, opening a window to invade Saxony to the northand to return to Pannonia laden with booty and captives before theBohemians could reorganize.

The Hungarian Victory of 907

In 907 the Bavarian exercitus suffered a devastating defeat at the hands ofthe Hungarians. Unfortunately, the few sources roughly contemporary withthis event contain no details which might give us a clue concerning thepurpose of the campaign or the nature of the battle.96 The source that isconsidered most reliable, the Annales Iuvavenses maximi, was discovered byKlebel in 1921, after there had already been much speculation concerning thisencounter.97 It reports tersely that there was a disastrous battle (bellumpessimum) near Brezalauspurc on July 4, 907, in which Archbishop Theotmarof Salzburg, and his suffragans Uto of Freising and Zachary of Säben, died.That is all. Although from other contemporary sources we learn that themargrave Liutpold and many other Bavarians also fell, the site of the battle isnot mentioned in any of them.98 Thus, Klebel's discovery seemed to settle thequestion of the location of the encounter. He wrote in his commentary that"Brezalauspurc can only be Preßburg (Czech Bratislava)."99 Assuming thatBrezalauspurc was modern Bratislava, Wolfram recently attempted to explainthe purpose of the expedition of 907. Since the battle took place atBratislava, "on Moravian soil," the primary aim of the cam-





Page 259

paign was to defend the Morava-Leitha line, "not the reconquest of the Rababoundary, much less of Carolingian Lower Pannonia." 100

But did this decisive encounter between Hungarians and Bavarians really takeplace at Bratislava? Although Klebel was convinced that it did, he noted, "thename must have come from Brazlavo, a prince in Slavonia with whom Arnulfhad been allied."101 Thus, the name of this fortress was derived from theFrankish client on the Sava to whom Arnulf later gave the task of defendingPannonia cum urbe Paludarum (Moosburg/Zalavár).102 Did this Slavonianprince also exercise command responsibilities north of the Danube,responsibilities that resulted in a burg being named after him? Anotherpossibility is that Brezalauspurc was not Bratislava after all, but the urbsPaludarum, Brazlavo's burg near Lake Balaton in Pannonia. If the latter is apossibility, then we cannot be certain that Liutpold had only very limitedobjectives in mind in 907, that is, "the defense of the Morava-Leitha line." Ifthis decisive battle actually took place in the vicinity of Lake Balaton, we canbe sure that the Bavarian leader was determined to reestablish his influenceover much or, perhaps, even all of Pannonia.

Boba has pointed out that Bratislava north of the Danube is foundunequivocally for the first time in the eleventh-century Chronicon ofHerimannus Augiensis as Brezesburg and Brezisburg, names from which theGerman Preßburg naturally evolved.103 He argues that it is impossible tomake a linguistic connection between Brezalauspurc and Brezesburg orBrezisburg. The latter names are derived from Bretislav (1005-1055), aBohemian prince who drove Polish forces out of the northern Morava Valleyafter 1030, establishing a Czech hegemony there by constructing andgarrisoning fortifications, called by modern scholars the bretislavske hrady,the burgs of Bretislav. German settlers were brought into these fortificationsby this prince, after whom they named their new domicile. Thus, the Germanforms Brezesburg/Brezisburg, which appear for Preßburg in the chronicle ofHerimannus, a Swabian and a contemporary of Prince Bretislav, cannot referto the same fortress as Brezalauspurc in the Annales Iuvanenses maximi. Infact, Prespurek was the Czech name for the city on the Danube until it waschristened Bratislava by governmental degree in 1921.104

On the other hand, a philological connection between Brezalauspurc andBrazlavo's burg is readily apparent, which is why Klebel thought the term



must have been derived from the personal name of this "Slavonian prince,"Given the terminology in use at Salzburg, it is likely that Brezalauspurc refersto the urbs Paludarum in Pannonia, not to Preßburg/Bratislava



Page 260

north of the Danube. The author of the Conversio (written in Salzburg)designated this fortress as civitas Privinae in chapter 11 and as castrumChezilonis noviter Mosapurc vocatum in chapter 13. 105 Thus, it is logical thatthe author of the Annales Iuvavenses maximi referred to it as Brezalauspurc(Brazlavo's burg), for Brazlavo assumed command of its garrison in 896.

A detailed account of this Bavarian-Hungarian encounter was composed bythe sixteenth-century court historian Johannes Turmair, a humanist whostyled himself Aventinus.106 Since it is known that Aventinus worked fromBavarian sources now lost, some historians accept the general reliability ofhis account.107 Others, however, have rejected it as an example of humanisterudition with no basis in fact.108 Still others have pointed out thatAventinus's report seems to describe accurately tactics practiced by steppenomads, and thus it would be unwise to reject it completely.109 Those whowould like to jettison Aventinus's account argue that his list of the fallen inthis battle cannot possibly be correct, and they have called attention to thefact that there are striking similarities between his account and the narrativeof Charlemagne's Avar campaign of 791 as it is reported in both versions ofthe Annales regni Francorum, that is, that the Bavarian army was divided intotwo columns, one advancing south of the Danube, the other to the north, andthat there was a river fleet to furnish logistical support.

On the other hand, since geography dictated the invasion routes from Bavariainto Pannonia, the simple fact that Liutpold followed a strategy similar toCharlemagne's is of no significance, even if Aventinus's account correspondedwith the earlier versions word for word, which it does not. In Charlemagne'scampaign of 791, for example, one of the purposes of the river fleet was toensure communications between the two armies, which remained close to theriver. In cotrast, according to Aventinus, the two armies lost contact with oneanother and the Bavarian force marching south of the Danube actuallyreached its objective before the flotilla was even launched. Boba accuratelysummed up the essence of Aventinus's account as follows:

The army of Liutpold marched along the north bank of the Danube while the army of the threebishops moved south of the Danube, where they reached Vratislavia [sic] and pitched camp. Onlyafter this event is there reference to the third army floating down the Danube.110

The reference to Vratislavia deserves our attention, for it cannot beBratislava. In other places in his book, Aventinus referred to Bratislava as





Page 261

Posonium or Pisonium, latinized forms of the Hungarian Pozsony. 111 Thus, forhim Vratislavia was clearly a different place, a locality south of the Danube(Bratislava is on the north bank), for it was the southern wing of the Bavarianarmy under the bishops that encamped near it. Moreover, Aventinus knewabout Duke Brazlavo, whom he gave the latinized name, Vratislaus; logically,then, Vratislavia would be equivalent to the civitas of Vratislaus,Brezalauspurc in the Annales Iuvavenses maximi. Furthermore, some ofAventinus's notes have survived, known as the Excerpta Aventini ex AnnalibusIuvavensibus antiqui derivati, in which he wrote, ''a. 907: Bavarians werekilled at Braslavespurc."112

It is also interesting to note that Aventinus located Vratislavia south of theDanube. It was the southern army led by the three bishops, not the northernexercitus of Liutpold, that arrived at Vratislavia, where their men pitchedcamp. The battle as described by Aventinus obviously took place south of theDanube, for it did not involve Liutpold, who remained north of the river withhis forces, apparently unaware of what was happening somewhere to thesouth. After having destroyed the army of the bishops, the Hungariansslipped across the Danube under the cover of darkness and surprised theBavarians under Liutpold in a second encounter. Finally, the Hungariansattacked the supply train and the ships in the Danube. Thus, according toAventinus, there were three armed clashes: one south of the Danube near afortress called Vratislavia, in which the three bishops perished; a second,which was a surprise attack on forces north of the Danube; and a third, whichwas a Magyar attempt to capture the ships and to plunder Bavarian supplies.

The Bavarian pincers must have been some distance from one another, whichwould have been the case if the bishops' army were encamped near Zalavárin central Pannonia, while Liutpold's forces remained somewhere north of theDanube. According to Aventinus these columns were not in close contact.After defeating the bishops' forces, the Hungarians crossed the Danubesecretly in the night, fell upon the unsuspecting Bavarians, and mutilatedthem in their encampment, a classic example of a "surprise and dawnattack," a tactic which involves breaking into an enemy bivouac at night andwithout mercy slaughtering the men in their sleep. The result is often thetotal annihilation of enemy forces. It is, on the other hand, a difficult tactic toexecute because it involves approaching the enemy's camp without attractingthe attention of pickets, who must be swiftly and silently killed before they



can warn their sleeping comrades, an almost impossible task if the enemy isalert and pickets are properly posted. Proper security can



Page 262

prevent surprise and dawn attacks. Only one picket needs to survive to soundthe alarm. Since Liutpold was an experienced commander, thoroughly familiarwith Magyar tactics, this lapse in security around his encampment would bedifficult to explain if he had known about the defeat of Bavarian forces underthe bishops. Had Liutpold been aware of the disaster suffered adVratislaviam, his camp would have been on full alert.

Hence, Liutpold and his men must have been ignorant of the bishops' fateand, consequently, were careless in securing their camp. Had the otherBavarian column been defeated on the south bank of the Danube oppositeBratislava, Liutpold's men would have been wary and armed to the teeth, andthey would have allowed the Hungarians no opportunity to fall on themsecretly at night. The Codices Modoetiensis et Veronensis of the AnnalesAlamannici report that Liutpold was killed because of his "presumptuouspride" (supersticosa superbia). 113 Reindel has taken this statement to meanthat Liutpold underestimated his opponent.114 He points to the fact thatBavarian forces had defeated the Magyars several times since 900 and thatBavaria itself had not been an object of their raids for several years. Störmer,who has a more positive opinion of Aventinus than does Reindel, agrees withthe latter that the Bavarians had up to that point done well in theirencounters with the Magyars and had mastered their tactics.115 Vajay, whoalso largely accepts the account of Aventinus, argues that the Bavarians musthave been fully aware of the range of Magyar tactics and were confident thatthey could deal with them. In contrast to Wolfram, Vajay believes thatLiutpold had in mind "a reconquest of the entire Bavarian frontier region . . .in which Bohemia, Moravia, and yes even Pannonia would once again bebrought into the Bavarian sphere of interest."116

Regardless of the purpose of the expedition of 907, it ended in disaster forthe Bavarians. Before Boba's recently published article, not much attentionhad been paid to the fact that Aventinus reports three separate encounterswith the Magyars. Nor had anyone noticed that the Salzburg source does notstate that Liutpold, the commander of the northern army, was killed adBrezalauspurc, for this annalist wrote only that the three bishops died there,the bishops who led the pincers south of the Danube. It is also worthy of notethat their sees (Salzburg, Freising, and Säben) had possessions in Carantaniaor near its borders, areas from which they could raise and support forcesmarching eastward into Pannonia. Nada Klaic noted this when she wrote that



the campaign must have been conducted by a Bavarian-Carantanian army.117

Boba has suggested that the episcopal forces marched through Caran-



Page 263

tania to Zalavár. 118 According to Aventinus, however, the campaign waspreceded by an assembly at the Ennsburg, a report that seems to besubstantiated by a charter issued by Louis the Child.119 Unfortunately,however, the authenticity of this charter is a hotly debated issue. RecentlyReindel and some others have argued that the charter is indeed a forgery,but "the forger must have had an authentic document in front of him."120 Thisdiploma certainly merits our attention. It is dated June 17, 907, and wasissued at the request of Theotmar of Salzburg, who was present at SanktFlorian near the Ennsburg on that date. Assuming the accuracy of the dating,the archbishop would have had little time to lead an army from there overthe Pyhrn and into Pannonia by July 4, the date of the battle according to theAnnales Iuvavenses maximi, a date that has itself been challenged.121 If,however, his army was already assembling in Carantania at the time that thecharter was issued, the archbishop, traveling rapidly from the Ennsburg with asmall entourage, could easily have joined these forces there and havereached Zalavár by July 4. The document in question gives no hint that Uto ofFreising or Zachary of Säben were present at the Ennsburg. Thus, they couldhave been organizing forces in Carantania, preparing them to enter Pannoniafrom the southwest. In any event, the presence of Theotmar at the Ennsburgon June 17 does not preclude the possibility that he died on July 4,somewhere near Lake Balaton.

The charter's expressed purpose was to compensate Burchard, the bishop ofPassau, whose episcopatus had been devastated by pagans, that is,Hungarians. According to Reindel, one of the principal reasons why theauthenticity of this charter has been questioned is that the last and only timethat Hungarians attacked the diocese of Passau was in 900, seven yearsbefore the issuance of this diploma.122 The compensation was a rich rewardindeed, for it consisted of the palace complex of Altötting, fiscal property thathad been favored by Carloman and Arnulf and that had played such animportant role as a staging arena for campaigns in the marches during theninth century. As for the devastation of Burchard's bishopric, it is plausiblethat this reference does not apply to the region around Passau at all, but toits mission territory, that is, Moravia, which had indeed been ravished by theHungarians on several occasions and was occupied by them in circa 905. Allin all, it is possible to agree with Reindel that, although this charter is aforgery, it does fit into the context of the events of 907, and it is probable



that the forger had an authentic document in front of him. Thus, theassembly at Sankt Florian probably took place on June 17, and the battlesmust have occurred between July 4 and 7.



Page 264

The campaign of 907 was a traditional Carolingian multipronged offensive,like so many that we have witnessed throughout this book. The strategy wasto enter Pannonia from two directions, and Liutpold and his commanders hadsome reasons to expect a successful outcome, because they had alreadydefeated the Hungarians on several occasions, and, for the first time inseveral decades, the Bavarian nobility was united in 907. In addition, theywere familiar with Pannonia, where they and their ancestors had campaignedfor more than a century; it cannot be said that they were advancing into terraincognita or that this region with its rolling terrain and marshlandsunequivocally favored the nomads. Nor is it certain that the Hungarians hadalready succeeded in controlling all of Pannonia east of the Vienna Woods. Itis quite possible, for example, that in 907 Brazlavo still occupied the urbsPaludarum. The high medieval Hungarian chronicle by Simon Keza states thata dux Waratizlao was killed by the Hungarians, but he gives no date. 123

Never very effective when it came to taking fortifications, the Hungariansgenerally had to surround enemy fortresses, often vainly attempting to starveout their garrisons, a tactic which left them vulnerable to relief forces.124

When a relief force appeared, however, nomads had another option: to feignretreat and, through this tactic, to lure their opponents into a trap, temptingthem to pursue their scattering light cavalry, then suddenly to regroup,encircling their exhausted pursuers, driving them into an enclosed space, abowl, while raining arrows down on them from a distance. Thus, it may wellbe that the army under the bishops tried to relieve a siege of Vratislavia onlyto fall for a carefully laid Magyar ruse. Aventinus certainly gives thatimpression. One of the reasons why Störmer tends to lend credibility to themain outlines of Aventinus's account is that he accurately describes thetactics of nomadic armies, emphasizing their rapid encircling movements andtheir use of the bow. In contrast with the battle of Lechfeld almost fifty yearslater, in Pannonia in 907 the Hungarians maintained their discipline andcohesion until the encounter had been decided in their favor. "If oneexamines this catastrophic Bavarian defeat," wrote Störmer, "one can hardlygo wrong in assuming that they fell victim to a well planned encirclement."125

It is also possible that Szombathely had not yet fallen to the Hungarians in907. The Raffelstetten tolls, for example, bear witness to the fact that therewas still long-distance trade along the Danube circa 903, which is inconformity with our hypothesis that the Bavarians and their allies were still in



control of much of Pannonia until the Hungarians returned from Italy andcompleted the destruction of Moravia, circa 905.126 These tolls



Page 265

also indicate that Arbo was in charge of tres comitatus, which were, accordingto Wolfram, the Traungau, Lower Austria (from the Enns to the confluence ofthe Raba), and Szombathely. 127 As we have seen, Bavarian forces defeatedthe Magyars several times between 900 and 902, forcing many of theirswarms to seek greener pastures in Italy. They only returned to Pannonia anddestroyed Moravia in 905. We have argued that they attacked Nitra north ofthe Danube in 906. Nitra, however, is far to the northeast of Szombathely.Thus, the latter fortress could still have been in Carolingian hands as late as907.

Aventinus wrote that in 907 the fighting took place over the course of threedays, which Vajay thinks is possible.128 It is, however, doubtful that the battlenear Vratislavia was of that duration, since encounters with nomadic forces inan open field normally are brief ones. As for the surprise and dawn attack onthe north bank of the Danube, such operations are short by their very nature.The action involving the fleet in the Danube was no doubt a brief encounteras well. Why, then, did the fighting continue for three days? A probablescenario is that Hungarian warriors trapped and destroyed the episcopalforces near Lake Balaton on the first day. Thereafter, swift horsemen racednorthward toward the Danube, where Liutpold, unaware of the fate of thebishops, was encamped. Security in the Bavarian camp was lax, for news ofthe defeat around Lake Balaton, approximately 175 kilometers away, had notreached there. The main strength of an army of nomads is its mobility. Withtheir hardy steppe ponies, they most certainly would have arrived atLiutpold's encampment before any Bavarian survivors. From Lake Balaton,fleet Hungarian horsemen with their strings of ponies could have reached theDanube by nightfall on the second day. Assuming that they crossed the riverunder the cover of darkness, they would have fallen on the complacentBavarians at dawn on the third day.

While this scenario is admittedly speculative, it is no more so than others.How can we know, for example, that Liutpold had in mind the establishmentof a frontier that followed the Morava-Leitha line? Are we to believe that atenth-century Bavarian warlord was the precursor of the statesmen whoproduced the Ausgleich of 1867? The only evidence that has been presentedto prove this view is the assumption that "the battle took place nearPreßburg," which, as we have seen, is questionable. On the other hand, thereis ample reason to believe that the marcher clans who dominated Bavaria



since the middle of the ninth century were unwilling to give up their claims onPannonia. They and their ancestors had struggled for a century to control it,and the long and bloody Moravian wars, with all of



Page 266

their triumphs and setbacks, prove that they had no intention of relinquishingthese middle Danubian territories. Nor was the Bavarian episcopacy willing torenounce its claims to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Pannonia, nostra maximaprovintia, as Archbishop Theotmar called it in his bitter letter to Pope John IXcirca 900. 129

Conclusion

Wherever it was fought, the battle ad Brezalauspurc definitely brought an endto Carolingian attempts to organize the central Danubian basin militarily andecclesiastically. The Enns became once again the boundary between theBavarians and the peoples of the east. After a century of bloody wars, theEast Frankish kingdom failed to prevent yet another steppe people fromsettling on the Alföld and in Transdanubia, whence they raided Europe foranother half-century. Thus, the age of migrations (Die Völkerwanderung) onlyended with Otto the Great's victory on the Lechfeld in 955, after which theGerman frontier along the Danube advanced once again to Vienna, but littlefarther. Although German armies occasionally invaded Hungarian territory inTransdanubia during the tenth and eleventh centuries, the less ambitiousfrontier policies of Ottonian and Salian rulers allowed the emergence of asettled Hungarian kingdom that integrated itself into the new LatinChristendom of the second millennium and that became itself a buffer againstthe peoples of the east, a story that is well beyond the limits of the presentwork.

It would not, however, be fair to say that Carolingian frontier policies entirelyfailed during the ninth century. Bavarian nobles continued to hold on toCarantania, partly because its terrain created difficulities for Magyarhorsemen, but also because it had become the heart of the marcher systemduring the course of the ninth century. It is to Carantania that we must turnin a final chapter, for, if Carolingian frontier policies failed in Pannoia, theysucceeded in Carantania, insofar as eastern Alpine districts remained securelyin the hands of Bavarian nobles. The real accomplishment of the Carolingianera in this region was the securing of Carantania and the complex systems ofpasses that run through it. One of the major arguments of this book has beenthat Carantania became the core of the Carolingian marcher organizationbecause its passes, roads, and rivers offered East Frankish rulers their bestopportunity to exercise control over the turbulent central Danubian basin,



especially the strategically important watergate.



Page 267

The military infrastructure and the geographic features that existed inCarantania made it possible to defend and consolidate its mountainousterrain. As a consequence almost all of the leading marcher kindreds hadsubstantial interests there. Rather than Lower Austria, Carantania was theheartland of the Carolingian southeastern frontier in the ninth century.



Page 268

10.Marcher Society at the End of the Carolingian Era

Introduction

One of the most useful contributions of German-speaking scholarship to thestudy of early medieval society is the development of prosopographicalmethods that have revealed much about the relationships and rivalries withinthe warrior elite that dominated that era. This chapter demonstrates how theresults of recent prosopographical research support some of the mainarguments contained in this book, though no prosopographer has dared todraw such conclusions from this data. In the following pages, we shallanalyze the leading personae of the southeastern marches at the end of theninth and beginning of the tenth century. Through this analysis it becomesevident that, with the significant exception of the Aribonen, the mostimportant families of the late Carolingian era were anchored in Carantania,not in Danubian Lower Austria.

This fact had important consequences for these southeastern regions in thetenth century. According to Störmer, the defeat of Bavarian forces underLiutpold at the hands of the Magyars in the summer of 907 had two primaryresults. 1 First of all, a large number of the leading figures in this societyperished, creating a leadership crisis. Second, the loss of territories along theDanube in Lower Austria plus all of Pannonia meant that the large aristocratickindreds that had dominated the history of this region during the ninthcentury were reduced to the prospect of supporting themselves fromancestral properties in Bavaria, which meant that there was barely enoughwealth to go around; thus, there was little room for many members of theseclans to cut great figures in following generations. This second consequenceof the Magyar victory of 907, Störmer believes, accelerated the process ofdynastic formation in Bavaria, as smaller blood groups crystallized, revering acommon ancestor (Stammvater), almost always someone who had played amajor role in the marches in the time of Carloman and Arnulf. Störmer'sstudy, however, deals only with Bavaria,



Page 269

paying little attention to Carantania, which remained a Bavarian appendageafter 907. Among other things, this chapter attempts to prove that thosefamilies which were well endowed with properties in Carantania survived thecrisis of the early tenth century much more successfully than did those wholost their holdings in the east and were reduced to supporting themselves aslandowners in Bavaria. This fact, I am convinced, explains the survival of theWilhelminer, in spite of many disasters that befell them, and it accounts forthe rapid rise of the Liutpoldinger and the Sighardinger. On the other hand,the lack of ancestral lands and lordships in Carantania is responsible, in myopinion, for the fact that the Aribonen cut rather modest figures in Bavariauntil the latter part of the tenth century. Count Arbo's holdings were primarilyalong the Danube, in Burgenland, and probably in parts of Pannonia, not inCarantania. Thus, his descendants were indeed reduced to Bavaria tomaintain themselves and their followings. It was only at the very end of thetenth century when, through marital connections, the Aribonen acquired aterritorial basis of wealth in Carantania, and the family, then, reemerged fromobscurity.

The Wilhelminer

Under the year 893, the Annales Fuldenses report:Engelschalk, a man of youthful audacity, abducted a daughter of the king from a concubine andfled into exile to the Moravians. Having come back into the king's favor shortly thereafter, he waselevated to margrave in the East. He conducted himself there in the duties that had beendelegated to him so arrogantly toward the Bavarian magnates that, when, unawares, he enteredthe palace of the king in the city of Regensburg, he was blinded at their judgment without evenbeing brought before the king. Then, his paternal cousin, Wilhelm, who sent his messengers toDuke Zwentibald, was found guilty of high treason and decapitated. Also his brother, who had fledinto exile among the Moravians, was killed with many others, after having been denounced at asecret council of the duke. 2

This passage chronicles the downfall of an important marcher family. There isno doubt about the identities of these men, the remaining scions of Wilhelmand Engelschalk, whose brothers and cousins had been either killed ormutilated in the Wilheminer war, 882-884. The Engelschalk in this passagewas the youngest surviving son of Count Engelschalk I, and his paternalcousin was one of two remaining heirs of Count Wilhelm II. From



Page 270

the Annales Alamannici, we know that Wilhelm III's brother, who escaped tothe Moravians only to be executed by them, was Ruodpert, a marcher countin Carantania, who also appears in two royal charters. 3

The ''youthful" Engelschalk's abduction of the king's daughter was a boldstroke, which proved temporarily successful, for he regained the good gracesof Arnulf and was rewarded with major command responsibilities in theeastern marches. Moreover, it is important to note that Arnulf (a royalbastard himself) had no legitimate heirs at that point Louis the Child wasborn in September of 893, several months after Engelschalk's fall from power.The king did have two illegitimate sons, Zwentibald, the godson of theMoravian duke, and Ratolt. They were both reaching manhood in the early890s. It is possible that the unnamed filia regis, whom Engelschalk abducted,was a full-blooded sister of one of these royal bastards, which meant that, bytaking her to wife, Engelschalk gained for himself an opportunity to amassgreat power as a member of the stirps regis and as a brother-in-law of afuture king. Gerold, the first prefect of Bavaria and its eastern marches, andEberhard, the margrave of Friuli, are examples of Carolingian in-laws who hadfollowed such a path to power. In this case Arnulf recognized a fait accompliand rewarded Engelschalk accordingly.

It is not at all clear where Engelschalk's lordship was or what hisresponsibilities were. In the Annales Fuldenses the term marcheo was notused to describe all frontier counts, but rather to designate major leaders. Itseems to have been equivalent to the term comes confinii in the Conversio.Since Arbo held the Danubian lordship and a certain Engildeo was themarcheo against the Bohemians, Engelschalk did not acquire either of thesehonores. Mitterauer argues that Engelschalk held the title of marcheo inUpper Pannonia, which, he thinks, Arnulf detached from the Danubiancounties under Arbo's control and awarded to Engelschalk after the campaignagainst the Moravians in 892.4 There is, however, not a shred of evidence tosupport this conclusion, and one suspects that Mitterauer was driven to it bythe assumption (then, in 1963, an apparent certainty) that Moravia was tothe north of Upper Pannonia. Wolfram, on the other hand, believes thatEngelschalk acquired his lordship much earlier in Arnulf's reign, perhaps asearly as 889, and that it was situated in Lower Pannonia, presumablyPribina's former lordship. Because his cousin Ruodpert was identified as aGrenzgraf in Carantania in a diploma of 889, Wolfram concluded that



Engelschalk's lordship must have been "in neighboring Lower Pannonia."5

Although there is good reason to think that Zwentibald had occupied much ofPannonia by the time that Arnulf rose to the king-



Page 271

ship, the western fringe of this province, from Baden to Sopron andSzombathely, then on to Zalavár, and finally extending along the road to Ptujto the southwest, was probably still in Carolingian hands. This hypothesis isplausible, for, as we have seen, Arnulf issued a charter from the PannonianMoosburg in the Lenten season of 890 when he journeyed there to meet withZwentibald, and he turned that lordship over to Duke Brazlavo in 896.

It is more likely, however, that Engelschalk was the supreme commander(marcheo) of the southeastern frontier whose responsibilities extended intoPannonia, including the region around Zalavár but excluding Pribina'sterritories farther to the southeast, then in Zwentibald's hands. Engelschalk'scousin Ruodpert is not identified as the marcheo in Carantania, but as acomes terminalis, who was probably subordinate to the marcheo. The realsense of the passage in the Annales Fuldenses is that Arnulf granted to theaudacious and still youthful Engelschalk the position of supreme commander(marcheo) of the east, a position which powerful Bavarian magnates thoughtthat he abused.

Since 856, when Carloman shifted the supreme Command away from theDanubian lordships, this position had been centered in Carantania and heldby persons closely tied by bonds of blood or loyalty to the stirps regis. Theonly exception was Gundachar's brief tenure in this office. Arnulf himselfassumed overall direction of the marches when Carloman became king of theBavarians in 876, and, like his father, he maintained headquarters inCarantania, but his lordship included Lower Pannonia as well. The lastmarcheo in Carantania was Liutpold, also a royal propinquus. It is, then,evident that such a high command responsibility for Engelschalk would havebeen consistent with his newly acquired position as a royal son-in-law, if notwith his alleged immaturity.

The latter attribute, the annalist implies, angered Bavarian nobles, whoapparently considered themselves more seasoned. This youthful Wilhelminer''conducted himself there in the duties that had been delegated to him soarrogantly toward the Bavarian magnates" that the plot was hatched againsthim. His haughty behavior toward unnamed primores was the ultimate causeof Engelschalk's downfall, but other factors must also have been involved.Some magnates, notably Arbo, have been suspected as having much to fearfrom the close proximity of the Wilhelminer to the king. In what must have



been a well-conceived plot, magnates seized Engelschalk as he was enteringthe palace in Regensburg and blinded him without any pretense of a formaltrial before the king who probably was



Page 272

not in the city. When his cousin Wilhelm sent messengers (or was accused ofsending messengers) to Zwentibald of Moravia, he was summarily executedfor high treason. Finally, Ruodpert fled to the Moravians, where he too met abad end. The plot against the Wilhelminer unfolded in the spring of 893,when magnates assembled in Regensburg to plan the invasion ofZwentibald's realm that took place in the summer. A review of the eventsleading up to Engelschalk's downfall sheds some light on the nature of thisconspiracy.

Although it is impossible to determine exactly when Engelschalk abducted theking's daughter and fled to the Moravians, his flight and subsequentreconciliation with Arnulf must have occurred early in this ruler's reign. TheWilhelminer were among those nobles who played major roles when Arnulfwas consolidating his kingship (887-891). Both Ruodpert and Engelschalkwere present when the monarch held an assembly in Frankfurt in late autumn889. 6 On October 15, Ruodpert was designated a dilectus terminalis comesnoster, and Engelschalk may have already become marcheo, for he appearsin a charter one month later as a procer of the king, which means that he wasan esteemed member of the court. The abduction and reconciliation hadprobably already taken place, for Engelschalk requested that the king make adonation to the monastery of Lobbes, whose monks would pray regularly onthe anniversaries of King Carloman's death and of Arnulf's elevation to theroyal dignity. Obviously, Engelschalk was already intimate with the king, mostlikely a royal son-in-law, whom Arnulf had elevated to the post of supremecommander in the east though it is also possible that he planned to installhim as marcheo in Oriente when he went to the Moosburg in Pannonia tomeet with Zwentibald in the spring of 890.

The Frankfurt charter involving Ruodpert shows that he also was wellconnected at court. He petitioned Arnulf to give a chapel with appurtenances,located in the royal curtis of Aufhausen in the Donaugau, to Aspert, the royalarchchancellor, who was almost continually in the presence of the king, andunder his guidance this office became one of the most sensitive posts in lateCarolingian government.7 In July of 891, Arnulf appointed Aspert bishop ofRegensburg as well. It is strange that Ruodpert, a count in Carantania, shouldhave intervened on Aspert's behalf, for the Donaugau was in the lordship ofEngildeo, who was the marcheo against the Bohemians and who was also thecount palatine in Regensburg. The fact that Engildeo did not intervene for



Aspert in a charter concerning royal property in the Donaugau suggests thatthere may have been a rivalry between



Page 273

them, one that may have worsened when Aspert later became bishop ofRegensburg.

Engelschalk, Ruodpert, and Aspert appear together in another charter thatmerits close attention. 8 The charter involves two large estates (hobaeplenae) situated in the Gurk Valley near Osterwitz just to the north of modernKlagenfurt in comitatu Ruodperhti. In this document the comes Engilscalchand Aspert, now bishop of Regensburg, petitioned the king to donate thisproperty to a certain Reginhard, a vassal of Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg.Unfortunately, this charter, though an original, has been badly damaged,making the date and place illegible. However, it must necessarily have beendrawn up between July 891 and March 893, the dates when Aspert held theepiscopal office in Regensburg.9 Accordingly, Kehr edited the diploma underthe year 892, but he assigned it no specific date.

Good arguments can be made, however, for an even more precise dating ofthis document by paying close attention to royal itineraries after Aspert'selevation to episcopal rank in July 891. As archchancellor, Aspert was almostcontinually in the royal presence during the first forty-two months of Arnulf'sreign. In this capacity, he oversaw the drafting of a diploma in Regensburg onJune 28, 891, only a few days before becoming bishop.10 Thereafter, althoughhe remained archchancellor, he was infrequently with the monarch, and thedaily activities of the chancellery came under the direction of two notaries,Engilpero and Ernst. Aspert, for example, was not in Arnulf's train less thanone month later (July 21, 891), when the ruler was in Mattighofen, awaitingword from emissaries Arbo and Wiching, whom he had sent to Zwentibald tonegotiate a peace. From August to November 891, Arnulf was occupiedraising forces and driving Scandinavians out of the lower Rhine and Meuseregion. When the monarch arrived in Maastricht on October 1, Aspert was notwith him. After Christmas of the same year Arnulf turned his attention to thesoutheastern marches in preparation for the expedition against the Moraviansin the summer of 892. In winter Arnulf made an Alpine crossing to Hengstfeldto meet with Brazlavo. His itinerary is known. Having celebrated Christmas inUlm, he went to Ötting, arriving there on or before February 15, probably viathe most direct route through Augsburg and Freising.11 The meeting withBrazlavo must have taken place in March, for the monarch returned toSalzburg April 3.12 Aspert was not with Arnulf in Ötting nor was he inSalzburg, so we can safely assume that this archchancellor-bishop did not



participate in the meeting with Brazlavo near Graz. On the basis of thediplomatic evidence, then, it seems probable that he was not in the



Page 274

presence of the king from June 28, 891, when Arnulf was preparing to leaveRegensburg for Mattighofen, until April 25, 892, when the ruler arrived at thepalatium in Regensburg following his hasty late winter's journey toCarantania. On the latter date, Aspert formally recognized royal charters onceagain. 13 Nevertheless, the bishop did not travel to Forchheim, where Arnulfissued a diploma on May 10, nor was he in Ötting and Ranshofen in early Julyon the eve of the Moravian campaign.14 Nor did he witness a charter whichArnulf issued after returning from the marches in October.15 Aspert did jointhe king for Christmas in Frankfurt,16 but this occasion was their last meeting,for the bishop died in March, and Arnulf did not arrive in Regensburg until lateMay 893.17

On the basis of this evidence it is highly probable that the charter, in whichEngelschalk and Bishop Aspert petitioned the king to grant Reginhardproperty in the comitatus of Ruodpert in the Carantanian heartland, wasissued during the year 892, either in Regensburg at the end of April or inFrankfurt at Christmas. Of these dates, the former is the most likely. Arnulfhad just returned from Carantania, where he had met with Brazlavo to planthe invasion of Moravian territory, obviously coming to Regensburg in April inorder to lay out his plans to the Bavarian primores. Count Engelschalk, themarcheo in Oriente, would have joined Arnulf at his meeting with Brazlavo inHengistfeldon, and it is not too much to assume that he would also havebeen present at this conclave of Bavarian magnates in Regensburg, whereAspert resided in his cathedral church. Thus, these two influential men, whointervened on Reginhard's behalf, had an opportunity to come together in thecontext of planning for the campaign of 892 against the Moravians.

As for Reginhard himself, he would have been an important player in anyexpedition against a southern Moravia in 892. He was a vassal of thearchbishop of Salzburg, who controlled property in Carantania near Leoben onthe route from the Schober Pass to Graz, which he later exchanged forpossessions in the Liesing Valley near Sankt Michael, where the Schoberroute reaches the Mur.18 He also owned property near the confluence of theMürz with the Mur, in the narrows approximately one to two days' marchnorth of the Graz basin. Reginhard must have been relatively young in 892 forhe was still alive in 925, when he exchanged the property near Leoben in adocument mentioning his two sons, a second Reginhard and Wilhelm. As thename of his youngest son indicates, Reginhard was closely connected with



the Wilhelminer.19 His sons became important men in the entourage ofArchbishop Odalbert of Salzburg (925936). Without a doubt his



Page 275

family's interests lay primarily in Carantania. In the charter that we havebeen examining, then, Reginhard was given additional allodial property nearthe confluence of the Gurk with the Drava, a wide and fertile basin, theheartland of modern Carinthia, and one of the key assembly points for forcesmoving against a southeastern Moravia. It was in this region whereRuodpert's comitatus was situated. Count Engelschalk, the marcheo inOriente, had overall command responsibility for the coming campaign. He toowould have been interested in maximizing his support in Carantania,especially if this realm was to be a major staging area for an invasion of aMoravian principality that lay to the southeast.

The charter, therefore, should be considered within the context ofpreparations for the invasion of Zwentibald's realm which took place in latesummer 892. The Wilhelminer cousins, Engelschalk and Ruodpert, wereobviously major commanders in the campaign of 892. The former was themarcheo in Oriente, and, like Carloman and Arnulf before him (as well asLiutpold after him), he must have held a command post in the southeast.Ruodpert was a subordinate count in Carantania. The most importantterritory under the latter's jurisdiction was the logistically significantKlagenfurt basin, where his kinsman Reginhard was given property near theconfluence of the Gurk with the Drava. Thus, if, between 887 and 892,tremendous power gravitated into the hands of the Wilhelminer, giving othernobles ample reason to plot against the haughty Engelschalk and his kin, thatpower was concentrated in Carantania and neighboring Pannonia.

Another issue that must be examined is the king's role in the fall of theWilhelminer. Although the Annales Fuldenses are murky on this point, Arnulfmust not have been present in the palace when conspirators seized andblinded Engelschalk. The Regensburg author states bluntly that no formalcharges were lodged against Engelschalk in the presence of the king, and heimplies that Wilhelm was executed summarily. Wolfram thinks that the noblessimply presented Arnulf with a fait accompli, which the ruler had to accept. 20

I agree. Due to the close relationship between Engelschalk and BishopAspert, it seems unlikely that this plot was hatched in Regensburg before thelatter's death in March 893. Since Arnulf cannot be documented at the palaceuntil late May, there was ample time for the enemies of the Wilhelminer toact prior to his arrival. As marcheo, Engelschalk came to Regensburg in thespring of 893 to finalize plans for a Moravian expedition, probably arriving



there in April, after Aspert had died, but before Arnulf had left Ingelheim inRhine Franconia. Thus, the plotters had the opportunity to blind Engelschalkand to execute his cousin Wilhelm on charges of



Page 276

treason before the king's arrival. The author of the Annales is discreetlyambiguous concerning the nature of Wilhelm's trial, but his remark thatEngelschalk was not even brought before the king indicates the process was ahighly irregular one. Also due to the ambiguity of the source it is difficult todecide if Wilhelm was really involved in a counterconspiracy with Zwentibald,or if he was simply confronted with trumped-up charges, tried, and summarilyexecuted. Ruodpert, however, clearly realized the precarious nature of hisposition and fled to the Moravian ruler at whose court he met his end. Ascount in Carantania, Ruodpert may well have been at his command post inthe spring of 893, which would explain why he was able to escape theclutches of the conspirators and flee to Moravia.

Curiously, Arnulf took no formal action against the Wilhelminer until theconclusion of the Moravian campaign of 893. On October 22 in Ranshofen,approximately six months after the plot against Engelschalk had been carriedout, the monarch finally issued a charter confiscating, because of infidelitas,all of the estates of the sons of Wilhelm and Engelschalk and their posterity.21 These properties he donated to Kremsmünster, whose Abbot Snelpero wasamong his closest supporters. In this charter only three estates arementioned a tiny fraction of the vast Wilhelminer holdings. The first of thesewas in Ebersburg, near Mautern on the south bank of the Danube. Thesecond was just across the river to the east of Krems, near the confluence ofthe Kamp (ad Campe) with the Danube. The third was Perschling south ofSankt Pölten. These properties were situated in Lower Austria, wherescholars have assumed that the Wilhelminer must have had massiveholdings, from which they colonized the region north of the Danube to form abulwark against the Moravians.22 Only one of these holdings (ad Campe) isnorth of the river, however. Due to its location on the Danube, near primewine-producing country, it must have been a relatively valuable possession.The others, too, constituted valuable property. Nevertheless, they were notvery large, and they hardly formed an effective "bulwark" against theMoravians. Furthermore, one wonders why the charter did not mention otherWilhelminer properties in this region.

Although this charter confers all of the Wilhelminer possessions toKremsmünster, the others are only identified as "localities in Bavaria,Sclavinie, or in the marches (termini)." We can be sure that they never cameinto the possession of Kremsmünster, for this charter (not an original) was



copied in the Codex millenarius maior in the twelfth century. Had otherWilhelminer properties actually been taken over by this monastery, theysurely would have been claimed in the Codex. Since Wilhelminer holdings,



Page 277

as all scholars would readily acknowledge, were enormous and scattered overa large area, we must assume that Arnulf, Abbot Snelpero, and Engilpero, thenotary who drew up the document, had only approximate notions concerningtheir full extent. Moreover, one can be sure that there must have beensurviving relatives of the Wilhelminer, who would have vigorously pressedtheir claims on the property of this clan. The charter of October 22, then,probably conferred to the abbey only a relatively small number of Wilhelminerpossessions concentrated near the confluences of the Traisen and Kamprivers with the Danube. These were estates which the nearby abbot ofKremsmünster knew about and coveted.

The vast majority of the allodial possessions of the Wilhelminer fell tokinsmen, and some were eventually returned to the hands of the directdescendants of Counts Wilhelm II and Engelschalk. Mitterauer has, in fact,demonstrated that the Wilhelminer clan was far from exterminated in thecarnage of 893. 23 The counts, who fell in combat against the Moravians in871, each had three sons (see Chart 4). Although these sons died relativelyyoung, three in the Wilhelminer war and three more in 893, some of them leftheirs (under the protection of surviving kinsmen) who had an interest inkeeping Wilhelminer holdings from falling to Kremsmünster. Megingoz, Pabo,and Werinher, who were killed or mutilated during the Fehde, had obviouslyreached manhood by 881, and they perished no later than 884. Thus, theyoungest of their progeny would have been at least eight in 893; and sinceWerinher was castrated early in the conflict (circa 881), his youngest offspringcould have been no younger than ten; his eldest may have been approachingadolescence or even maturity. The three Wilhelminer scions who survived theFehde only to meet a bad end in 893 were Engelschalk II, Wilhelm III, andRuodpert. Although the Annales Fuldenses make a point of his youth, themarcheo Engelschalk could have been no younger than twenty-one when hewas blinded in 893, for his father died in battle against the Moravians in 871.He must have been considerably older, however, since he was designated aprocer in 889. His cousin Ruodpert, a comes terminalis in 889, could havebeen no younger. Thus, these "boys" (pueri) may have been twenty-five orolder in 893. They, like their elder brothers and cousins, were certainly oldenough to have already sired several progeny.

Who were the heirs of the Wilhelminer, and where were their possessionsand honores located? One kinsman who escaped the carnage of 893 was



Reginhard, who received the property in the Gurk Valley discussed above andwho had a son named Wilhelm. In a very important document issued at



Page 278

Chart 4.The Wilhelminer.



Page 279

the palace of the Karnburg in Carantania in May 927, a Reginhard and aWilhelm appear together as witnesses. 24 The source documents a largeassembly of magnates in Carantania, probably for the purpose of reorganizingthe province in the wake of the Magyar invasions of the previous year.25 Inthis deed in the Codex Odalberti, the archbishop of Salzburg exchangedvaluable episcopal possessions in Friesach for a locality named Haus in theupper Enns Valley with a certain Weriant (Vueriant). The exchange was by nomeans an equal one. In fact, it was quite disadvantageous to the archbishop.

Dopsch has shown that Weriant, closely related to the Liutpoldinger, was theleading figure in Carantania during the second quarter of the tenth century.26

This deed was witnessed by most of the personalities associated withArchbishop Odalbert. The witnessing, in fact, occurred on two consecutivedays, May 9 and 10, 927, which probably reflects different arrival times on thepart of various magnates at the Karnburg. The names of no less than fifty-three nobles are listed on May 9, followed by another twenty-three on May10, an unusually large number for the Codex Odalberti. Heading the first list,which included Reginhard, was Count Albrih, a prominent member of theLiutpoldinger clan. The leading witness on the second day was none otherthan the Liutpoldinger duke of Carantania, Bertold. Wilhelm occupies thesixth position on this list.

Two weeks later another document was issued at the Karnburg, in which aCount Wilhelm is among the witnesses.27 This list was also headed by DukeBertold, whose name was followed by Ruodperht comes. Wilhelm's name isfourth on the list, followed by Weriant, whom we just met. Mitterauerbelieves that this Count Wilhelm's lordship was in Carantania, for he appearsagain in a deed of 931 as the fideiussor of the Carantanian count Albrih.28

This document involved valuable property in the Lavanttal of southeasternCarantania. Albrih gave the archbishop a hoba on the Erzberg (adGamanaron), near Sankt Leonhard, receiving in exchange allodial rights to asalt pan near Admont, which he had previously held in fief. A Count Wilhelmalso witnessed a charter in the later Codex of Archbishop Frederick (958991),in which a nobilis femina Mahthilt exchanged property in Hörtendorf on theGurk, between Sankt Veit an der Glan and Klagenfurt, for a campo and alocality in the Gurniz, east of Klagenfurt.29 Since this transaction took place inMaria Saal circa 961, Dopsch believes that Count Wilhelm in this case musthave been the son of the one that appeared in Carantania in 927931.30



Another Count Wilhelm unambiguously shows up in the sources, but



Page 280

not until 980. Emperor Otto II gave him extensive possessions in Lower Styria(now Slovenia) that bordered on the county on the Savinja (Saan) River. 31

Dopsch is convinced that this Wilhelm must have been the father of a famousCount Wilhelm, later the count in the Savinja Valley and in Friesach. Thelatter Wilhelm was the husband of Saint Hemma, the matron saint of all ofCarantania, who founded the church of Gurk, later an episcopal see.32 Thelordship of the Count Wilhelm of 980 cannot be determined beyond all doubt,but, since he owned property bordering on the Savinja, he probably held thislordship. As the charter of 980 demonstrates, Count Wilhelm was animportant magnate in the eastern Alps, whose services were valued by OttoII. A Count Wilhelm, probably the same person, was also the third witness toa treaty between the emperor and Venice in 983.33 The younger CountWilhelm, Hemma's husband, definitely held the lordship on the Savinja, whichbecame a margravate during his lifetime.34 In Dopsch's words he was ''thewealthiest landowner in all of Carinthia, with private wealth even greaterthan that of Adalbero, the duke of Carinthia at that time."35 Although it isimpossible to construct a precise genealogical tree from the ill-fated sons ofWilhelm II and Engelschalk I to Saint Hemma's husband, modern scholarshave reached a consensus that the Wilhelminer, far from being exterminatedin 893, regained their power and influence during the tenth century tobecome one of the leading dynasties in the Carantanian marches. Moreover,it is agreed that the reemergence of the Wilhelminer would not have beenpossible had they not retained a substantial base of allodial property inCarantania and in the region around Salzburg, where the Gramans hadalready been large landowners in the eighth century. My contention is,however, that the history of the Wilhelminer can best be understood if werealize that the real basis of their wealth and power in the ninth and tenthcenturies was in Carantania, and not in Lower Austria.

It is now necessary to return to the deed in which the first of this second lineof Count Wilhelms appears.36 The transaction was made at the Karnburg onMay 23, 927, exactly two weeks after that major assembly of notablesdiscussed above. Its second witness, immediately following the Liutpoldingerduke Bertold, was a Count Ruodpert, the same name as that of theWilhelminer comes terminalis executed by Zwentibald in 893. This youngerRuodpert was an important noble who has attracted the attention of scholarsbecause, it is asserted, he frequently acted as a legatus or missus for the



Bavarian dux Arnulf.37 As a count, he was the first witness to another



Page 281

deed, also issued on May 23, 927, at the church of Maria Saal, which issituated on the east side of the Karnfeld. 38

This source involved an exchange of property between the archiepiscopal seeand the chorepiscopus for Carantania Gotabert (Kotabert). The latter agreedto hand over to Odalbert possessions in Carantania and in the Salzburggau,which had been given to him by his advocate, Duke Bertold. TheseCarantanian properties were well situated, Großlobming, in the Mur Valleynear Knittelfeld, and Perchau, near an easily crossed water divide betweenthe Mur and the Drava.39 In return Gotabert received extensive possessionssituated in strategic localities in practically every part of Carantania, all ofwhich would revert to the archdiocese on his death. These included MariaSaal, the church of Saint Peter on the Karnburg, properties in the GörtschnitzValley, holdings in the Gurk Valley (near Selissen, where Reginhard hadreceived his two hobae), and in the localities of Osterwitz, Treffen (north ofVillach), Sancta Maria on the Drava, Bruck (near the Mürz confluence with theMur), Rottmann (at the base of the Tauern pass), and Sankt Andrä in theLavant Valley. These properties, which were received by the chorepiscopusand Duke Bertold, his advocate, constituted a large portion of the holdingsthat had been given to Salzburg by Louis the German and represented thecore of the see's wealth in Carantania. This exchange, like the handing overof Friesach to Weriant, must be seen in the light of a general restructuring ofCarantanian defenses in the spring of 927. Salzburg possessions came intothe hands of the Liutpoldinger duke Bertold of Carantania, the advocate ofGotabert. Thus, this deed too was a very important document, and it isreasonable to assume that its first witness, Count Ruodpert, was a magnatein Carantania.

Three questions must now be asked. Were Counts Wilhelm and Ruodpert,who first appear with their titles on May 23, 927, appointed to their offices atthat time? Second, were they related to one another? And, finally, do theirnames and titles in these documents signify the reemergence of theWilhelminer in Carantania? In Salzburg on April 8, 927, a nobilis vir Ruodperht(no comital title) exchanged property with Archbishop Odalbert in a documentthat merits attention.40 We are told that the property near Fügen in theZillerthal had been given to Ruodpert by Wilhelm. The former turned it overto the archbishop in exchange for the locality of Erl, which Ruodpertimmediately gave to a nobilissima femina named Rihni. The fact that



Wilhelm, Ruodpert, and Rihni acted as partners in this exchange ledMitterauer to believe that they were closely related; he suggested that the



Page 282

men must have been cousins or brothers. 41 He does not, however, attemptto explain how Rihni might have been related to Wilhelm and Ruodpert,except to acknowledge that this nobilissima femina was a Liutpoldinger,perhaps the sister of Liutpold himself, and it is generally believed that theLiutpoldinger were closely related to the Wilhelminer. Also providing evidencethat Rihni was related to the Wilhelminer is the witness list in this deed,containing a number of typical names, such as Wilhelm, Graman, and twoEngelschalks. Finally, the name Rihni is found in the liber confraternitatum ofBrescia in a list that includes two Engilschalci, a Richarius, and twoUuillihelmi. Rihni must, then, have been a Wilhelminer name.42

A great deal is known about the Rihni of April 8, 927. She had been marriedto Odalbert before his elevation to the archiepiscopal throne. It is widelybelieved that Odalbert dissolved this marriage and contrived his electionwithout the knowledge of Duke Arnulf of Bavaria, who had just won the rightto appoint bishops in his duchy from King Henry I. In 924, shortly after hiselevation, Odalbert issued a document (at the ''request and command" ofDuke Arnulf), in which he turned over to Rihni a large number of episcopalestates in Upper Bavaria in return for some minor possessions near theSoyensee.43 The episcopal see was definitely the loser in this exchange, andit is generally accepted that Duke Arnulf had vented his rage on Odalbert andthe Salzburg priests who elected him. But the duke was also rewarding Rihni,the duke's kinswoman and Odalbert's abandoned wife. This document wasrenewed (again at the request and command of the duke) three years later inSalzburg on April 1, 927, before a large assembly of notables who hadgathered there for Easter (March 25) before beginning the trek over Alpinepasses to Karnburg for the conclave that occurred in May.44 In this documentthe see was compensated for some of its losses in 924, but not at Rihni'sexpense, as Dopsch has pointed out, for she relinquished none of heracquisitions of 924.45

In this deed Ruodpert appears as a legatus of Duke Arnulf. However, noevidence in this source even remotely suggests that Ruodpert exercised anygeneral duties as a permanent legatus ducis.46 Rather, he was charged withoverseeing the provisions of this particular deed, a task that might bedelegated to a close relative of a noblewoman. This agreement was reachedin Salzburg in April 927, eight days after Ruodpert and Wilhelm had arrangedthe transfer of archiepiscopal property in Erl to Rihni. In fact, the transactions



occurred just before the episcopal entourage departed for the Karnburg. Ineach of these documents, Ruodpert appears as the magnate responsible forRihni's interests. Furthermore, we must observe that, when



Page 283

Ruodpert appears as a missus ducis Arnulfi, he does so in sources whichpromote the interests of Rihni's children, the nun Himildrud and her brothersBernard and Diotmar, who exchanged property with their father, Odalbert. 47

Thus, these deeds reinforce the impression that Ruodpert's tasks as a missuswere rather specialized to look after the interests of Rihni and her childrentasks that normally fell to very close male relatives, normally brothers andmaternal uncles.

In some way, then, Rhini must have been closely related to the countsRuodpert and Wilhelm. A possibility that has never been explored is that Rihniwas the sister of Count Ruodpert and, perhaps, of Count Wilhelm as well (seeChart 5). In a charter of Louis the Child a Rihni appears who, most scholarsthink, was the nobilissima femina of the Codex Odalberti.48 On August 12,903, Queen Oda, the widow of the emperor Arnulf, petitioned her son, Louisthe Child, to grant the church of Saint Emmeram in Regensburg the curtis ofVelden in Lower Bavaria, which had been left to her by the deceased ruler forthe purpose of supporting her widowhood. At the time of the charter,however, this property was not in the queen's possession. Oda, who barelyescaped conviction on charges of adultery while Arnulf was alive, lost much ofher property following his death, and there is reason to suspect that she wasnot giving up the curtis of Velden of her own free will. According to thecharter, this property was currently in the hands of a "a widow named Rihni,"who had usufruct rights to it until the end of her life.

Was this Rihni really the nobilissima femina of the Codex Odalberti? It isgenerally believed that Odalbert's wife, Rihni, bore him three sons, all ofwhom appear in the Codex. They are Otachar, Diotmar, and Bernard. Theeldest, Otachar (died 959), was already count near Chiemsee, when Odalbertbecame archbishop in 923. Thus, he would have been a very young count,had he been born after August 12, 903, when Rihni was still an unmarriedwidow. For this reason Dopsch argued that Otachar was Rihni's son from afirst marriage.49 His hunch is probably correct. Dopsch points out that, in spiteof the fact that Otachar appears in no less than twenty-two documents of theCodex Odalberti, he is never once designated as the archbishop's son, incontrast with Diotmar and Bernard. This fact is significant, for three deedsinvolve direct exchanges between Otachar and the archbishop.50 Scholarshave thought that Otachar was Odalbert's son, because, in the table ofcontents to the Codex, Diotmar and Bernard are designated as his fratres.51



They could well have been Otachar's brothers, however, without Otacharbeing one of their father's sons. There is also



Page 284

Chart 5.The Liutpoldinger-Wilhelminer Connection.



Page 285

evidence that Otachar was considerably older than his brothers, which wouldindicate that he was a product of Rihni's first marriage. Whereas we knowthat Otachar was already a count in 923, documents in the Codex inform usthat Bernard only married between February and August 931. 52 As forDiotmar, one of his sons is mentioned in a document of 933, but this filiuswas still a minor.53

Although the sources do not demonstrate a blood relationship betweenOtachar and Odalbert, one of the exchanges between these two men ties theformer directly to Rihni.54 In this deed, dated May 930, Odalbert gave acertain Rihnie the locality of Sassau on the Chiemsee with the provision thatOtachar would inherit it from her and that it would revert to thearchiepiscopal see on his death. Dopsch argued that this Rihnie was not theRihni of earlier documents in the Codex. He thought that she was rather anelder sister of Otachar, also from the widow's first marriage. He buttressedhis argument on another document in the Codex, dated April 24, 930, inwhich a nun Rihni appears who donated property to Salzburg in the(expected?) event of the death of her sister, also a Rihni.55 Thus, Dopschconcluded that there were three Rihnis present in the Codex. One was thenobilissima femina, who, he thought, was also the vidua of Louis the Child'scharter and who married Odalbert after August 903. The others were her twodaughters from separate marriages, the nun Rihni and her sister. From thewidow's first marriage came a daughter Rihni and a son, Count Otachar; latershe married Odalbert whom she bore four children: two sons, Diotmar andBernard, and two daughters, both nuns, Himildrud and another Rihni.

On the other hand, Dopsch's analysis of the relationship between Rihni andher children does little to clarify her relationship with the counts Ruodpert andWilhelm; yet Dopsch and other scholars are convinced that there was one.56

It must be doubted that her first husband was a Wilhelminer, for the nameOtachar was unknown among them. This appellation indicates that he wassomeone from the Aribonen sip. Rihni herself was obviously a woman of highstanding, a nobilissima femina. Also, it must be noted that the charter ofLouis the Child shows her in possession of a royal curtis, one that had beenset aside for the ruler's mother. The arrangements for the disposition of thisproperty were made "with the advice and consent" of the Bavarian bishops,as well as Liutpold, the dominant figure in Bavaria since 895, and two othercounts. The evidence is overwhelming that her ancestors on one side were



Liutpoldinger.57 But what about the other side? Were they Wilhelminer? It hasnot escaped the attention of scholars



Page 286

that Liutpold rose to power in Carantania in the wake of the Wilhelminercarnage of 893, and it is commonly assumed that he did so because he wasclosely related to them. Rihni probably provides the link. Mitterauer, on thebasis of evidence in the Liber confraternitatum of Reichenau, argued plausiblythat a certain Hemma (a name common among the Liutpoldinger) was thewife of Count Ruodpert, the comes terminalis in Carantania, 889893. 58 Thenames of Hemma and Ruodpert appear twice in the Liber, once together withthe names Herolt and Albrih and a second time as Ruodperhtus and Hemma.Herolt and Albrih were father and son. The former was the brother of CountLiutpold, and his son Albrih became a count in Carantania in 925 at the latest,a few years before the younger Count Ruodpert began to appear in the CodexOdalberti.59 In fact, it was Albrih who headed the list of more than fiftywitnesses to the deed that was issued on the Karnburg May 9, 927, and itwas from him that Archbishop Odalbert acquired for his see a forge near theErzgebirge in the Lavant Valley in 931. These two documents indicate thatAlbrih was a rich and powerful person in Carantania circa 920930, and itshould be remembered that Count Wilhelm appears in the deed of 931 as thefideiussor of Albrih. If, as seems likely, Hemma was the daughter of Herolt,the niece of Count and Margrave Liutpold, the sister of Albrih, and the wife ofRuodpert, the comes terminalis in Carantania, circa 890, then it becomesclear why the Liutpoldinger succeeded the Wilhelminer in their lordships. Ifthe younger counts, Ruodpert and Wilhelm, who received their lordships therein 927, were the sons of the elder Ruodpert and Hemma, then theirpromotion there must have been due to their maternal kinsman, Albrih, whowas one of the most powerful and richest men in Carantania circa 930. ThusRihni was probably a daughter of Ruodpert and Hemma and the sister of theyounger Ruodpert and Wilhelm (see Chart 5). Her Liutpoldinger connectionwould explain why she possessed a royal curtis in Velden which had beenintended for a dowager queen, and why her second husband, ArchbishopOdalbert, was forced (at the request and command of Duke Arnulf) to giveher a generous portion of the wealth of his see. Rihni's relationship to theWilhelminer explains why Wilhelm and Ruodpert arranged to have propertytransferred to her and why Ruodpert was on three occasions appointed as amissus to look after her affairs and those of her children.

Based on all of the evidence that we have considered, it is apparent that theWilhelminer clan was not destroyed by the events of 893. Protected and



fostered by the Liutpoldinger, Ruodpert's progeny emerged from thecatastrophe of 893 as powerful nobles with possessions in Carantania and the



Page 287

region around Salzburg, where the Gramans had traditionally been strong. In927 both Ruodpert and Wilhelm were elevated to the rank of counts inCarantania because of their allodial wealth there and because of theinfluence of their maternal kinsmen, the Liutpoldinger Albrih and DukeBertold.

The Margrave Engildeo

Margrave Liutpold became ultimately the beneficiary of the disasters thatbefell Engelschalk II and Ruodpert in 893, for he assumed their comitalpowers in Carantania. Because of this fact, he has been suspected of beingthe prime mover behind the conspiracy that resulted in the fall of theWilhelminer. 60 There are, however, several more likely suspects. The first tocome to mind is Count Arbo, the foe of the Wilhelminer in that infamous"feud" during the 880s. Even more likely as a suspect, however, is Engildeo,who, like Engelschalk and Arbo, held the title of marcheo. Engildeo hadmanaged to amass a large number of lordships and allodial possessions alongthe Bohemian frontier.61 These lordships included the Nordgau and Donaugauas well as the office of count palatine in Regensburg, an office that wouldhave put him in an excellent position to engineer the plot against theunsuspecting Engelschalk. Indeed, because of the fact that he was thecommander of the palatine garrison, it is difficult to see how the plot couldhave been carried out without his complicity. Since he had the right toadminister high justice in Regensburg, he was the only magnate who couldhave plausibly tried this Wilhelminer scion in the king's absence. Did his menseize and blind the unsuspecting Engelschalk when he entered the palace,probably between Bishop Aspert's death in March and Arnulf's entry into thecity in May of 893?

Engildeo certainly had the opportunity and the means to move decisivelyagainst Engelschalk, but what were his motives? According to Mitterauer,Engildeo's ancestors had risen slowly in the course of the ninth century. Apresumed ancestor was Rodold (790822), the huntsman (venator) of BishopBaturich of Regensburg.62 Another Rodold was appointed comes terminalis inthe Nordgau by Louis the German following the fall of the powerful imperialaristocrat Ernst in 861.63 This Rodold, however, was already an old man whenhe received his lordship. Indeed, Louis the German, wanting to break up thevast agglomeration of lordships that Ernst had brought together, probably



appointed Rodold as the count in the



Page 288

Nordgau (only one of Ernst's many lordships) because the former came frommore modest circumstances. His wife's name was Swidpurc, but nothing isknown about her, except that he provided a small income for her fromestates that would eventually fall to Freising. 64 The evidence isoverwhelming that the Rodolden were provincial nobles, whose resource basewas located primarily between Regensburg and Freising. They made no royalmarriages that can be documented, or even credibly inferred, nor is theremuch evidence that they were intimately connected with the Frankishimperial aristocracy.

Engildeo succeeded Rodold as count in the Nordgau circa 880, but he neednot have been Rodold's son. Because Rodold was already an elderly man in861, it is possible that his successor, Engildeo, was his grandson. By 893 atthe latest, Engildeo had acquired numerous other lordships and the title ofmarcheo. Nevertheless, he appears in relatively few royal charters, none ofwhich gives the impression that he occupied an elevated position in EastFrankish society. Yet his success in gathering up so many lordships speaks forhis ambitions. In the 890s, a major obstacle standing in Engildeo's way wouldhave been the young Engelschalk, the king's son-in-law, who had suddenlybecome marcheo in the east as a result of his abduction of Arnulf's daughter.The Annales Fuldenses indicate that Engelschalk was a principal commanderof the expedition against Moravia in 892. Perhaps Engildeo was the leadingmagnate who considered Engelschalk's manner so arrogant during thatMoravian campaign that he hatched the plot against him? The palatine countprobably wanted to add the title of marcheo in the east to the list of officesand commands that he had already managed to accumulate.

There is good reason to believe that some of Engildeo's relatives had becomeactive in the southeastern marches as early as the mid-ninth century, for theauthor of the Conversio states that in 850 Kocel donated to the see ofSalzburg a church in Lower Pannonia that Archbishop Liutpram hadconsecrated earlier.65 The church, which belonged to a priest named Ermpert,was surrounded by property in the possession of an Engildeo, his twounnamed sons, and Ermpert. The six men (Liutpram, Kocel, Ermpert,Engildeo, and his two sons) were present, and, together, they surveyed theboundaries of the property at that time.

Mitterauer believes that this Engildeo was none other than the later



margrave. If this fact could be established, we could say with certainty thatby 893 Engildeo was a man with much experience in the southeasternmarches. It is unlikely, however, that the Pannonian Engildeo of the Conver-



Page 289

sio was the later marcheo, for he already had two sons in 850; thus, he wouldhave attained a venerable age indeed by 893. Because the account statesthat the Engildeo's sons assisted in surveying the property, they must havebeen reaching maturity in 850. Since this was the case, these sons obviouslywere born before 840. Because it is by no means certain that the old CountRodold was the later Engildeo's father, it could be that the margrave Engildeowas one of the unnamed sons of the Pannonian Engildeo. Plausibly, then, hecould have been Rodold's grandson. Even at that, he would have been mucholder than Engelschalk II. The marcheo Engildeo (born circa 840) would havebeen more than a generation older than Engelschalk (born sometime around870); thus, Engildeo would have reason to consider Engelschalk an upstart.

It is interesting to note that, although the property in Pannonia belonged toErmpert, the elder Engildeo, and his sons, it was given to Salzburg by Kocel.Wolfram has pointed out that this donation resembles the ducal "consentdonations" that were common in Bavaria during the eighth century. 66 Theultimate owner of the property was Kocel, which means that the PannonianEngildeo must have been a member of the entourage of this Slavic leader, afact that strengthens Mitterauer's conclusion that the Rodolden were notimperial aristocrats, but Bavarian provincials.

It is also probable that Engildeo was somehow related to the Wilhelminer. Aswe have seen, this kindred was a Bavarian one which experienced aremarkable "rise and fall" during the ninth century. Members of this clan wereactive in Pannonia before 850. Rodolden and Wilhelminer in Pannonia wereapparently in close contact. Using modern techniques which have revealedsome previously illegible names in the Evangelary of Cividale, Karl Schmidhas discovered an Engelscalqus, who is followed by filius eius Ingeldeus.67

This Engildeo was probably not the marcheo, but rather a nephew, or agodson. His father, Engelscalk, could have been the count who died in 871,since most of the entries in the Evangelary seem to have been madebetween 850 and 880. It need not trouble us that no Engildeo was mentionedas a son of Engelschalk I in the Annales Fuldenses, for this son might wellhave been dead at the time of the outbreak of the Wilhelminer-Moravianwars in the 880s. He might have perished, for example, as a member of theBavarian army occupying Moravian fortresses in 871. The important point isthat, using evidence from Friuli, Brescia, Reichenau, and St. Gall, Schmid hasestablished that there must have been some kind of a blood or fictive kinship



between Engildeo and the Wilhelminer. Moreover, he suggests that these tiesresulted not from marriages, but from relation-



Page 290

ships that Engildeo and the Wilhelminer had with Slavic concubines(Friedelfrauen), who also appear in these sources.

The conclusion that Engildeo was probably related to the Wilhelminer doesnot remove him from being a prime suspect in bringing about the misfortunesof this clan. Certainly the combination of opportunity and means points in thedirection of Engildeo as the main instigator in the conspiracy againstEngelschalk II. Engildeo, who had risen from relative obsecurity to amass anumber of important lordships only to see the younger Engelschalk vault overhim, would have had a more powerful motive than Liutpold, the protector ofhis kinswoman's (Hemma's) children. Liutpold, on the other hand, would havehad the obligation to move against Engildeo, the chief conspirator, once anopportunity presented itself. Under the year 895 the Annales Fuldensesreport, ''Engildeo was deprived of his office as marcheo of the Bavarians;Liutpold, the king's nephew, was established in his place." 68 Engildeodisappears from the sources, except for a telling notice in the FreisingNecrologica, "III. non. Aprilis Engildio com. ob."69

The Ministerialis Heimo and His Kin

A charter issued by Arnulf in 888, shortly after his elevation to the throne, isoften given as a principal reason to reject the southern Moravia hypothesis.70

This document is the so-called Heimo Urkunde in which the monarch grantedhis ministerialis Heimo judicial immunity and expanded powers over hisproperty located "in the eastern parts called Grunzwitigau where the comesterminalis Arbo presides." In return for this grant, Heimo agreed that his men(homines) would build a fortification (urbs) at a place of Arbo's choosing,which would serve as a place of refuge. Heimo would also provide itsgarrison. In return for these services, Heimo acquired the right of hereditaryjurisdiction in the comital court (mallus publicus comitis), over which he or hisvicar would preside. What is more, he also gained rights to customaryservices and obligations of the people residing there, as well as one-third ofall fines levied by the court. The charter concludes by making a briefreference to Moravia: "If anyone should come up (supervenerit) from therealm of the Moravians (de Maravorum regno) for the purpose of justice, andif it happens that neither Heimo nor his advocate can straighten it out,judgment will be reserved for the count in this case."

Wolfram believes that this passage concerning persons coming from





Page 291

the Moravian realm to the Grunzwitigau proves conclusively that Zwentibald'sprincipality bordered on Lower Austria north of the Danube, for it is knownthat the Grunzwitigau was situated in the Traisen Valley between Krems andSankt Pölten. He claims that the obligation to hold judicial assemblies (placitasecularia) for Moravians was among the official duties of Bavarian counts whogoverned lordships bordering Moravia. His argument rests, however, not onthe document before us, but on the letter to the pope written (circa 900) byArchbishop Theotmar of Salzburg, in which the prelate vigorously pressedclaims of the Bavarian episcopacy for ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Moravianterritory. In this epistle Theotmar did indeed write that Bavarian "frontiercounts" had the right to convene "judicial assemblies in the land of Slavscalled Moravians (placita secularia in terra Sclauorum, qui Marvani dicuntur)."71 But are the placita secularia in Theotmar's letter equivalent to the malluspublicus comitis in the Heimo Urkunde?

While the words placitum and mallus overlap, Arnulf's diploma of 888 clearlydoes not refer to the type of assemblies alluded to in Theotmar's letter. TheHeimo Urkunde does not mention Moravians in connection with placitasecularia, which, according to Theotmar's letter, were supposed to take placeon a regular basis (three times yearly) in Moravian territory. Arnulf's diploma,on the other hand, mentions that, in the lower court in the Grunzwitigau,there might occasionally be judicial events involving persons who came fromthe realm of the Moravians. Although both terms, placitum and mallus, maybe translated as "court," the former is a generic word, the precise meaning ofwhich can only be determined by modifiers and/or from the context in whichthe word appears.72 The term placita secularia in Theotmar's letter isunambiguous; its context indicates that these were general assemblies whichFrankish frontier counts convened in client principalities thrice yearly.Although Frankish counts may have had such a right at one time, it may bedoubted that Arbo was able to exercise such powers in 888, when, as wehave seen, Zwentibald held the title rex Sclavorum. Archbishop Theotmar'sletter, on the other hand, was written at a time (circa 900), when ZwentibaldI was dead and Moravian power was waning rapidly. This epistle is clearly anattempt to reclaim earlier Frankish-Bavarian rights in Moravia, rights that maynot have existed in 888.

The Heimo Urkunde does not imply that persons from the realm of theMoravians would appear at the mallus in the Grunzwitigau on a regular basis.



Nor does this document tell us anything about the nature of cases involvingpersons coming from Moravia. Since we know for a fact that



Page 292

there was trade between Bavaria and Moravian territory, it is notunreasonable to presume that occasionally merchants from Zwentibald'srealm became involved in disputes of a commercial nature that might bebrought before Heimo or his vicar for adjudication. 73 A Roman road, avoidingthe steep hills of the Wachau and Dunkelsteiner Woods along the Danubeand following the gentle contours of the Traisen watershed from Traismauerto Melk, ran through the Grunzwitigau. Near Grunz, where the foundations ofan early medieval fortress have been found, is a locality named Karlstettenwhich must have been a Carolingian court.74 Heimo's urbs there would havebeen a logical transit point for merchants engaged in Danubian commerceregardless of their origins. Thus, this document yields no precise evidenceconcerning the geographic location of Moravia. It simply refers to anyone whomight ''come up from the realm of the Moravians," without even indicatingthat those persons would necessarily be Moravians themselves.

Also, in 888, Moravians might have come there from many other parts of thecentral Danubian basin, for Zwentibald had by that time greatly expanded hisrealm. The Heimo Urkunde was issued only four years after the Wilhelminerwar. Many scholars, regardless of their opinions concerning the location of theMoravian heartland, believe that Zwentibald, clearly the victor in this contest,followed up his triumph by occupying much of Frankish Pannonia.Consequently, the regnum Maravorum would have bordered on today's LowerAustria when the Heimo Urkunde was issued, even if its original heartlandwas in southeastern Pannonia.75

Furthermore, this document was issued during the first year of Arnulf's reign.Considering that the new monarch was a usurper who found it necessary topacify the powerful Moravian ruler while he was consolidating his power, thecharter in question may in fact be evidence that the new king recognized thenecessity of accepting Zwentibald's incorporation of large parts of Pannoniainto his realm.76 Since Arnulf and Zwentibald maintained peaceful relationsbetween 885 and 892, it is no wonder that there was some traffic betweenMoravian territory and the region around Krems. The Heimo Urkunde, then,anticipates that there might be cases involving persons coming de Maravorumregno, whose disputes with local traders and officials would be settled in themallus in the Grunzwitigau. Under normal circumstances, this document tellsus, Heimo or his vicar would resolve these matters. Only if they could notreach a decision in a case involving Moravians would the final judgment be



deferred to a higher authority, namely Count Arbo.



Page 293

Who was this man Heimo? And why was he given this grant of immunity in asensitive region? No ordinary figure in Arnulf's entourage, he deserves carefulscrutiny. He was a royal favorite, at least during Arnulf's early reign, whenHeimo and his wife Miltrud were the recipients of much royal largess. 77

Although obviously a major player in Arnulf's seizure of power in autumn 887,earlier he must have been a supporter of Charles III, a fact that is evidentfrom a charter in which Charles III granted to his fidelis Witagowo (Heimo'sfather) some fifteen mansi in the Grunzwitigau.78 The extant copy of thischarter is undated; however, on the basis of internal evidence, Kehrconcluded that the emperor first gave Witagowo this property as a fief in theautumn of 884, when the former came to the marches to settle theWilhelminer-Moravian conflict and to receive Zwentibald's homage. Then,sometime during the year 885, this ruler converted it to an allod, which canonly mean that Witagowo and Heimo had been supporters of Charles III,Arbo, and Zwentibald against Arnulf and the Wilhelminer in the conflictsbetween 881 and 884.

It is doubtful, however, that Witagowo personally played a significant part,for he would have been nearing eighty at that time. He first appears in adocument from the year 827, a Freising deed, which involved control of theroute from the Brenner Pass to the Val Pusteria and from there to thefrontiers of Carantania; therefore, he could not have been born any later thancirca 810, in which case he would have been in his mid-seventies in 884.79

Since Witagowo was certainly a very old man at the time of the Fehde, it wasno doubt Heimo who actively supported the emperor during this conflict, andit is not unreasonable to assume that he persuaded Charles III to convert theproperty in the Grunzwitigau to an allod. This document does indeed stressthe inheritability of the property. Shortly thereafter Witagowo apparentlydied, and Heimo, after inheriting these mansi in the Grunzwitigau, must havethrown his lot with Arnulf, who in turn rewarded him with a grant ofhereditary immunity there. What is more, during the first year of hismonarchy, the usurper gave Heimo's wife, Miltrud, valuable property inHallein and enriched her with a grant near the Karnburg in Carantania.80

Almost everything that we know about Witagowo and his son Heimo connectsthem with marcher districts in the southeastern Alps and with South Slavsresiding in Carantania, not with modern Lower Austria. In other words, thesources establish their presence in the regions oriented toward a southern



Moravia, not a northern one. The two documents involving the Grunzwitigauare exceptional insofar as they are the only ones



Page 294

that reveal a direct link between the Witagowonen and Lower Austria.Witagowo, as we have seen, first appears in the sources in 827, during aconflict with the Bulgars who had invaded southeastern Pannonia, in deedsthat were issued for Innichen in the Val Pusteria. In 859 he is identified asone of the socii comites of Count Pabo, who governed Carantania. 81 AtPabo's request, Louis the German gave Witagowo property in Carantania nearAdmont on the route from the middle Enns to the upper Mur. On the basis ofthis charter, Mitterauer has concluded that Witagowo held the lordship thatstraddled the middle portions of the Enns and Mur valleys.82 If this is true,Witagowo was responsible for guaranteeing communications from the Pyhrnto the Schober and Rottmannen Tauern passes. Thus, he guarded one of themost crucial links between Bavaria and Carantania, a link that would havebeen of strategic importance in the event of any conflict with a Moravia thatlay southeast of the marches.

The name of a comes Witagowo is also found in the Evangelary of Cividalenext to that of dux Pribina, the Croatian prince Trpimir, and Trpimir's sonPetrus.83 The name Adalperht is also next to Witogowo's. We shall return tohim later. Although it is a matter of conjecture exactly where this evangelaryresided in the ninth century, experts agree that it must have been housed ina religious shrine, a site of pilgrimage, somewhere in Friuli or Istria.84

Mitterauer concluded that the entry of the names of Witagowo, Pribina, andTrpimir must have occurred on an occasion when these three leaders wereinvolved in some joint undertaking.85 Their meeting could have involved theplanning of an invasion of Rastislav's realm to the southeast. Pribinacontrolled territory in Pannonia from Lake Balaton to the confluence of theDrava with the Danube, extending almost to the Fruska Gora. Since we knowthat Pribina was killed by the Moravians in 860, this list of names in theEvangelary was certainly set down before that date, at a time whenWitagowo was still one of Pabo's socii comites. Also, circa 860, Witagowo losthis comital title when Carloman rebelled against his father and formed analliance with Rastislav, a sequence of events that led to the expulsion of Paboand his followers from Carantania. This was the conflict in which Pribina losthis life. It is plausible, therefore, that the meeting between Witagowo,Pribina, and Trpimir somewhere in Friuli or Istria occurred within the contextof planning for an invasion of Moravia a project that was thwarted whenCarloman and Rastislav turned the tables, forming an alliance, expelling Pabo



and his vassals from the marches, and killing Pribina.

There is even more evidence connecting Witagowo with Friuli and



Page 295

Istria. New technologies have made possible recent restoration work on theEvangelary of Cividale, revealing names that were illegible to earlier scholars.Among them is the following list: Heimo, Uuitaguuo, Hunfrid, Miltrud. Thethird person on this list, Hunfrid (between Witagowo and Heimo's wifeMiltrud), has recently been investigated by Uwe Ludwig and Karl Schmid, whoconcluded that he was a member of the Swabian Burkhardinger kindred,which established itself in Istria in the mid-ninth century. 86 Around 800 anoble named Hunfrid held a comital office in Raetia, but later a certain CountRuotbert usurped Hunfrid's possessions and expelled his son Adalbert fromthat region.87 Adalbert sought refuge with his brother, who was then count inIstria and who probably also had the name Hunfrid. There definitely was aHunfridus, who was an important vassal of Lothair in 846, and in 879Carloman confirmed a large grant of lands and privileges that a Humfred haddonated earlier to the see of Aquileia.88 Another Count Hunfrid from asouthern French branch of this kindred became involved in a plot againstCharles the Bald and subsequently fled in 864 from his lordship near Toulouse"through Provence into parts of Italy," presumably to his relatives in Istria.89

All of these facts have been duly noted by Ludwig and Schmid. A point thatthey overlooked, however, is that Mitterauer has shown that Witagowo'sfather was named Adalbert, the same name as the exiled Raetian count whofound refuge with his brother (probably Hunfrid) in Istria. Thus, theprobability is enhanced that Witagowo was related to the Hunfrid whosename stands between his and Miltrud's in the Evangelary of Cividale. It ispossible, then, that Witagowo, a marcher lord who held a comital office inCarantania, was closely related to a marcher clan that had established itselfin northern Italy, in the Friulian Alps and along the northern shores of theAdriatic.

Adalbert, Witagowo's father, appears in a Freising deed of 820.90 In thisdocument, he received an unidentified allod as a fief, which his father(another Witagowo) had given to Bishop Hatto earlier. The elder Witagowowas not a Bavarian, however. According to Mitterauer, this kindred cameoriginally from a Gallo-Roman family near Trier, whose progeny settled laterin Rhine Franconia.91 Between 787 and 823, there was a Witagowo whoserved as count in the Lobengau and who was a benefactor of the monasteryof Lorsch. This Witagowo must have been the father of Adalbert, thegrandfather of the Carantanian count with the same name, and the great-



grandfather of Heimo (see Chart 6). Adalbert was a relatively common nameamong imperial aristocrats; yet it is notably absent from the earlyWitagowonen. It is plausible, then, that Adalbert's mother (the wife



Page 296

Chart 6.The Witagowonen.



Page 297

of the Lobengauer count Witagowo) was a Burkhardinger, the clan with thenames Hunfrid and Adalbert. In this connection, we must recall that anAdalperht is found in a cluster of names in the Evangelary of Cividale. Hisname immediately follows Witagowo in a list that includes the Slavic princesPribina and Trpimir. Thus, in spite of the fact that Adalbert is a frequent namein the ninth century, the association of Witagowo with Hunfrid and Adalbert inthe Evangelary of Cividale makes a close relationship between them likelyindeed. Thus, the wife of the Witagowo in the Lobengau must haveestablished a maternal link with the Burkhardinger. Their son carried thename of Adalbert, so common among members of this Swabian kindred, intothe southeastern marches of Bavaria at approximately the same time (c. 820)as another Adalbert fled ancestral lands in Raetia for Friuli and Istria, whereother members of this clan were ensconced.

The name Adalbert also explains the interests of the Witagowonen in theGrunzwitigau and does much to clarify their support of Arbo in theWilhelminer conflict. The Grunzwitigau lay just to the northwest of SanktPölten, a monastery purportedly founded by an Adalbert and his brotherOtachar, the war leader, who, along with Graman, defeated the Avars in 788.Research by Karl Ferdinand Werner has demonstrated a relationship betweenthe Otacharen and the powerful Unruoch kindred of Eberhard of Friuli, andMichael Gockel has established links between the Otacharen and theWitagowonen. 92 Moreover, Werner, basing his work on that of Tellenbach,has argued in favor of a close relationship between the Unruochs and theHunfrids and has demonstrated ties between these groups and the SwabianBertholdinger, the family from which the margrave Cadolah of Friulidescended.93 Since Mitterauer has established a blood relationship betweenCadolah and the Aribonen, the support that Heimo gave to Arbo makessense. The Witagowonen, then, were imperial aristocrats from the Rhine-Main region whose members had held prominent lordships throughout theCarolingian Empire. By the end of the ninth century, however, their interestsand power were becoming concentrated in the southeastern marches of theEast Frankish kingdom and adjoining parts of Italy (see Chart 6).

Although Mitterauer makes a convincing case for the origins of theWitagowonen in the Rhineland, he does not attempt to explain how Heimobecame such an prominent name in this kindred after the mid-ninth century.Yet this name establishes another connection between Witagowo's kin and



the southeastern Alps. A presbyter Heimo was active in Salzburg's



Page 298

mission efforts in Carantania during the latter part of the eighth century. Ontwo occasions, Bishop Virgil of Salzburg, the apostle of the Slavs, sent thisHeimo cum aliis clericis on missions to Carantania. 94 The very mention ofHeimo's name in the Conversio, which pressed Salzburg's claims toecclesiastical jurisdiction in Carantania, indicates that he came from aprominent family closely connected with the see on the Salzach. Mitterauerhas demonstrated that Witagowo's clan, when coming to Bavaria, establishedties with noble families associated with Salzburg and Freising, sees that hadthe greatest assets in Carantania. The earliest documents referring to theWitagowonen are Freising deeds, an indication that the Lobengau Witagowoand his son Adalbert were associated primarily with the latter see. TheSalzburg connection, however, can be documented through the Otacharen,their kin.95 It is not difficult to imagine that the younger Witagowo, whoeventually became a count in Carantania, married into the Bavarian kindredfrom which sprang the Salzburg presbyter Heimo, a man who was a leadingfigure in the Carantanian missions during the eighth century. A woman withSalzburg connections, then, must have been the mother of the ministerialiswho appears in the charter of 888 (see Chart 6). These ties to Salzburg musthave remained strong into the tenth century, for Witagowos and Heimos areamong the most common witnesses in the Codex Odalberti.

There are many other connections between Witagowo, Heimo, and their kinto the southeast. As we have seen, Heimo's wife Miltrud was a majorlandowner near the Karnburg. Moreover, from a deed of Freising we learnthat Witagowo's daughter Tunza (Slavic for Antonia) was married to aCarantanian Slav named Georgius, who donated his wife's property on thebanks of the Wörthersee to the see in 903.96 This document statesspecifically that Tunza acquired her property from a brother Heimo, filiusWitagouonis (see Chart 6).

The Heimo Urkunde, then, cannot be used to demonstrate that Moravia waslocated north of the Danube, especially if it is interpreted in the light of otherevidence which shows that the Witagowonen were firmly ensconced inCarantania. The circumstances of Heimo's life and career in royal servicesuggest the following: (1) he must have supported Emperor Charles III, CountArbo, and Zwentibald against Arnulf and the Wilhelminer during the period882884, when the Moravian leader gained control of large portions ofPannonia and became a direct neighbor of Frankish Lower Austria; (2)



sometime between 885 and 887, however, Heimo threw his support to Arnulfagainst the emperor and was richly rewarded



Page 299

for his efforts by the new king; (3) he was a close adviser to Arnulf during hisearly reign, which suggests that he was one of the architects of this ruler'sOstpolitik that kept the peace between Franks and Moravians during thecrucial years when the new king consolidated his power; and (4) since Heimowas well connected with South Slavs in Carantania, his obviously importantrole in the early years of Arnulf's rule becomes most plausible if we assumethat the Moravian heartland lay to the southeast of the marches.

Zwentibald and Moimir

Still other evidence ties Heimo and Miltrud to Carantania and to the Slavicnobility there. Two of these Slavs had names (Zwentibald and Moimir)common in the Moravian princely family. Mitterauer has demonstrated thatZwentibald was a name closely associated with Witagowonen in the CodexOdalberti. 97 In fact, a certain Zwentibald so frequently witnessed episcopaldeeds during Odalbert's pontificate (923935) that Mitterauer remarked, "healmost always found himself in the following of Archbishop Odalbert."98

Although it is virtually certain that this Zwentibald was related to the variousdescendants of Heimo, it is difficult to establish the exact relationship (seeChart 6). From a source dated May 1, 934, we learn that his father wasDiotmar, who was probably deceased, and Mitterauer and others assume thathis mother was a Miltrud, who is mentioned in the same document.99 Diotmarcould not possibly have been the same Deotmar who was Odalbert's son byRihni, for the latter was born after 903 and was still living circa 976.Mitterauer has argued cogently that Zwentibald was the son of anotherDiotmar, also frequently found in the Codex Odalberti. Between 924 and 927,Zwentibald appears as a witness along with a Count Diotmar, and his name issecond on the list, immediately following the count's in a deed of 930.100 Thelatter document is the one involving Rihni's and Odalbert's daughter, alsoRihni. The fact that Count Diotmar and Zwentibald appear first on this list ofwitnesses indicates that they were closely related to her. Given the widerange of dates when Zwentibald appears in the sources, he must have beenborn in the 890s, circa 900 at the latest. Since Heimo was listed as a iudex inthe Raffelstetten tolls, circa 903, we cannot assume that Zwentibald wasMiltrud's son from a second marriage. Heimo was born circa 840, so it ispossible that Zwentibald's mother (née circa 870) was Heimo's daughter bythe elder Miltrud. Thus, this





Page 300

Zwentibald may well have been Heimo's grandson. Although the latter pointcannot be established with certainty, it is apparent that this Zwentibald'srelationship with the Witagowonen came through his mother, Miltrud.

How did the name Zwentibald become common among the Witagowonen?Mitterauer's prosopographical research focused on another Zwentibald (orother Zwentibalds) appearing in various royal charters. From the first of thesedocuments (Regensburg, May 18, 898), we learn that a certain nobilis feminaWinburg was the mother of a Zwentibald. 101 Although some have thoughtthat Winburg must have been the concubine who gave birth to Arnulf'sbastard son with the same name, Mitterauer, repeating Dümmler'sarguments, rejects this hypothesis on the grounds that the charter wouldhave made it evident, if this Zwentibald (bastard or not) were a royalscion.102 Kehr, however, was not convinced by Dümmler's logic and regrettedthe loss of an earlier charter (a document mentioned in this one) that mayhave clarified the situation.103

Winburg's son was probably not the same Zwentibald to whom Arnulf made amajor grant only a few months later in a charter issued on August 31, 898 inRanshofen.104 In this document, Zwentibald (''vir progenie bonae nobilitatisexortus") was given extensive possessions in Carantania (Charentariche),specifically the royal curtis of Gurk, along with other properties nearby, andthe locality of Zeltschach (near Friesach). The gift was made at the request ofthe Iring, count in the Salzburggau, and Isangrim, a member of Arnulf's innercircle and the count of the strategically important Mattiggau. Also, interveningon Zwentibald's behalf was none other than Liutpold himself, who isdescribed in the document as the emperor's carissimus propinquus and asillustrus marchio vassallus. Zwentibald's acquisition of rich and significantpossessions in the very heart of Carantania is remarkable, for thoseproperties had been designated to support the margrave.

In a second charter dated a few days later, Arnulf granted Zwentibald, "vassalof the margrave Liutpold," the lordship in Metniz and Grades.105 In spite ofthe fact that the extant document is a forgery, Zwentibald's descendants didindeed hold these lordships; therefore, its evidence cannot be brushedaside.106 Jaksch believes that the forger used a genuine diploma that healtered slightly to suit the purposes of the see of Gurk in the latter half of thetwelfth century.107 This alteration, however, had nothing to do with



Zwentibald as the recipient of the grant in the original charter.

A final diploma was issued for this Zwentibald by Louis the Child on



Page 301

September 26, 903. 108 The king granted him property in the Krems valley onthe route from the Traungau via the Pyhrn to Carantania. Although thesepossessions were "in Arbo's county," Zwentibald is once again described as a"vassal of the margrave Liutpold." Also intervening in this charter was thepowerful Isangrim, the count in the Mattiggau.

Boba has argued that this Carantanian Zwentibald was the second son of thedeceased Moravian leader.109 As we have seen, following the latter's death in894, Moravia was torn apart by civil wars between Moimir and Zwentibald,while Franks and Magyars periodically ravished their realms. Under theseassaults, the regnum that the great Zwentibald had pieced together crumbledswiftly. Eventually his younger namesake was freed from Moimir's captivity byan army of invading Bavarians who "brought him out of pity into their owncountry."110 Dopsch, on the other hand, is convinced that the CarantanianZwentibald could not possibly have been the Moravian Zwentibald, becausehe "was still in Moravia in 898," when the grant around Gurk was made, "forit was only in the following year that the Bavarians liberated him.''111

Nevertheless, it is far from conclusive that the Zwentibald who appears inArnulf's charter of 898 is not the Moravian prince who was freed by theBavarians a year later. In 898 he was not a captive, for in that year Arnulfhad also sent armies into Moravian territory for the purpose of breaking up aconflict between Moimir and Zwentibald.112 It is obvious that one of theMoravian factions was favored by the emperor and his close relative themargrave Liutpolt because the Annales Fuldenses report that the purpose ofthe Bavarian invasion of 898 was to help "the party which looked to him(Arnulf) as their hope and refuge."113 Of the invading contingents, one wasunder the command of Count Arbo, and, no doubt, it set out from bases alongthe Danube, where his lordship was located. The second, however, was underthe command of Liutpold, whose lordship was in Charentariche. Following thecampaign, Arnulf held court at Ranshofen, where Arbo was accused of beingresponsible for the conflict between the Moravian princes, and Arnulf relievedhim from his duties, if only temporarily. As for Liutpold, he was showered withglory, having returned to Ranshofen with an important captive, a certainmagnate Erimpert, who had rebelled and gone over to the Moravians.

It was in the context of this assembly at Ranshofen that Arnulf's charter forZwentibald was issued. The two counts of Salzburggau and Mattiggau as well



as the margrave of Carantania petitioned the emperor to give Zwentibaldstrategically located properties in the Carantanian heart-



Page 302

land. There is no reason why this Zwentibald could not have been one of thequarreling Moravian princes, the one whom Liutpold favored. Perhaps it washe who raised the charges against Arbo. It cannot be said that PrinceZwentibald could not have been the vassal of Liutpold, because, from theBavarian point of view at that time, Moravia was a client state, legally subjectto the jurisdiction of the margraves. At least that claim was made by theBavarian bishops in their letter to the pope, circa 900. 114 Finally, it must besaid that all recent scholarship agrees that this Carantanian Zwentibald of thecharter of 898 must have been related to the Moravian ruling clan, foranother Moravian princely name, Moimir, also shows up frequently in hiscircle.115 Dopsch's objections notwithstanding, the Zwentibald in the chartermust have been the second son of the Moravian duke, who died in 894.

The annalist praises the heroics of Liutpold, the Carantanian margrave in 898.In contrast, Arbo, the commander along the Danube, was scolded by theemperor and removed from his office. Lurking behind Arbo, according to theannalist, was his son, Isanric, the real culprit in the conflict between theMoravian princes. Isanric must have favored Moimir, Zwentibald's rival, as theevents of 899 demonstrate. While Bavarian forces were invading Moravianterritory in 899 to free Zwentibald, Isanric walled himself up in the fortress ofMautern on the Danube in rebellion against the king.116

The conflict between these scions of the Moravian ruling family is a classicexample of rival Carolingian marcher lords using competing Moravian factionsto advance their interests. Liutpold was obviously allied with Zwentibald,while Isanric (and perhaps his father Count Arbo) sided with Moimir.117

Zwentibald, then, was Luitpold's man (vassal) in Moravia, and, from theevidence that we have, his brother Moimir was getting the better of him inthis conflict. In an attempt to shore up his man, Liutpold arranged for him tobe granted substantial possessions in the Gurk Valley of Carantania,possessions which would be most useful to him if he were a South Slavicprince who relied on the nearby and powerful margrave of Carantania tomaintain himself in power. These considerations support the conclusion thatthis Zwentibald must have been the son of the Moravian ruler by the samename. Into his hands fell substantial properties in the Carantanian heartlandand in the Krems Valley, the lifelines connecting Danubian Austria to the Murand the Drava.



This Zwentibald must also have been related to the younger Zwentibaldwhose name is so prominent in the Codex Odalberti and who was somehowrelated to Heimo and Miltrud. Even though it is impossible to



Page 303

know precisely what the familial ties between Heimo and the CarantanianZwentibald were, scholars agree that Saint Hemma, who in the eleventhcentury provided the territorial base for the ecclesiastical centers of Gurk andAdmont, was among the descendants of these closely related nobles, since aconsiderable portion of the properties that formed the wealth of those centerscame from the estates that had been given to Zwentibald. 118

Because the Annales Fuldenses indicate that Zwentibald was a young manwhen he escaped his brother's captivity, it is likely that he married into amarcher family in Carantania. His bride may well have been a descendant ofa ninth-century Carantanian noble named Waltuni who held two fortressesnear Trixen (southeastern Carantania), as well as property in the upper Savaand Mur watersheds.119 Because these possessions eventually fell to SaintHemma, Dopsch believes that there must have been close ties betweenWaltuni and the Carantanian Zwentibald.120 In any case, Zwentibaldeventually passed on to Hemma, and through her to Admont and Gurk,estates that stretched from the upper Krems to the Mur, to the Carantanianbasin, and to the Sava, along routes that would have been of criticalimportance in the Moravian wars.

The second Moravian princely name, Moimir, appears in the Codex Odalbertiamong the witnesses to twelve deeds.121 Between 925 and 927 a comesMoimir witnessed no less than seven documents, and, in six of those, hisname appears first on the list. Mitterauer noted this fact and found itremarkable, especially because, "the names of the powerful counts of theSalzburggau and the Chiemgau, Engilbert and Reginperht, were always listedafter his."122 However, the name Moimir can be found in only five deeds after927 (two in 928, two in 930, and one in 930 / 31), in each case without acomital title. Furthermore, his name appears in the middle of these lists. Theyear 931 marks the last date for a Moimir entry in the Codex.

Although Count Moimir was obviously an important person in the archbishop'sentourage during the years 925-927, his lordship cannot be found in upperBavaria or the region around Salzburg. As Mitterauer pointed out, all of thecounts in those parts are well known to modern historians. His lordship, then,must have been somewhere in Carantania. It is also interesting that thedesignation comes no longer appears next to the name Moimir after 927.Mitterauer thought it likely that Moimir was removed from this office, circa



928, and, thereafter, assumed a middle position in the lists of witnesses. Thisinterpretation is supported by some evidence. Count Moimir, for example,was present at an assembly of notables in Salzburg to celebrate Easter(March 25) of 927. Interestingly,



Page 304

however, his name is not to be found among the lists of numerous witnessesto any of the many documents that were issued in Carantania in May, sixweeks later. Were it not for the fact that a comes Moimir headed a list ofwitnesses in a deed issued after the May assembly on the Karnburg, wemight be tempted to theorize that Moimir was removed from his office as apart of the restructuring of Carantania which was obviously taking place inMay 927, when various members of the Wilhelminer group appear as countsin Carantania.

On the other hand, it is also possible that the Moimir appearing without acomital title in five deeds between 928 and 931 was not the same person asthe count who seems to have been so important during the early years ofOdalbert's pontificate. It is plausible that Count Moimir, obviously a leadingfigure before 928, died sometime during the year 927 and was replaced in hislordship by a younger man. Had Moimir been old or ill in 927, his failure toattend the assembly on the Karnburg in 927 could be explained. After theEaster conclave, he may simply have remained in Salzburg, where hewitnessed his final deed as a count a few months later.

It could also be that the Count Moimir who figures so prominently in the earlydocuments of the Codex Odalberti was none other than the elder son of thegreat Duke Zwentibald, the brother of Zwentibald who is found in the royalcharters of 898 and 904. We know that in 901, Moimir reached areconciliation with the Franks. 123 Following the Magyar conquest, he too mayhave settled in Carantania. Zwentibald's sons must have been born before880, for they were adults when they became involved in conflicts of the late890s. If Count Moimir were indeed the elder son of Duke Zwentibald, hewould have been in his fifties in 927. It could be that this Moimir was nolonger able to perform his duties properly in 927 (a serious matter in light ofHungarian raids into this province during the previous year) and that one ofthe purposes of the assembly on the Karnburg was to install a younger manin his lordship.

This hypothesis brings us back to the first document issued in Carantania inMay 927, the one in which Weriant was given extremely valuable property inand around Friesach.124 As we have already noted, Dopsch believes thatWeriant occupied a very important position in Carantania, since Carantaniaappears in a later source as Weriant's regimen.125 It is curious, however, that



in the document of May 9, 927, Weriant has no official designation. In asubsequent deed, also issued on the Karnburg in May 927, Weriant againappears without a title, this time as the first witness after Duke Bertold and agroup of counts.126 It may well be that the deeds



Page 305

do not designate Weriant as a count in 927 because he had assumed theduties of Moimir who was old and ill, but still living at that time.

Although much of this argument is speculative, some certainties do exist.Moimir was one of the leading counts in Odalbert's entourage until thesummer of 927, when the name (with the comital designation) suddenlydisappears completely from the list of witnesses. Since the lordships of otherprominent counts close to the archbishop are known, Moimir's lordship musthave been in Carantania. It is certain that Weriant was a leading figure inthat duchy, his regimen, and it is highly probable that he achieved thisposition in May 927, when Moimir disappeared and when Wilheminer beganreappearing as comites in Carantania. It cannot be ruled out that Moimir wasthe eldest son of the "great" Duke Zwentibald and that, following theexample of his brother Zwentibald, Moimir settled in Carantania following thecollapse of Moravia, circa 905. Perhaps Moimir acquired his brother's propertyand lordships in the Carantanian heartland. Since we know that Zwentibaldheld property in the Gurk and Metniz valleys and near Friesach, one wouldexpect to find his lordship there. If Moimir succeeded him, his lordship wouldalso have been located in the Carantanian heartland. This region, curiouslyenough, is exactly where Weriant appears in 927. Therefore, it is possiblethat Moimir replaced Zwentibald, circa 905, as one of the principal figures inCarantania and was himself succeeded by Weriant in 927.

The Aribonen

With the exception of the Liutpoldinger, no Carolingian frontier clan has beenmore carefully studied than the Aribonen. 127 By the end of the eleventhcentury a dynasty had developed, fully conscious of its lineage and itsfounding father, the margrave Arbo, circa 871 to circa 909. The Aribonen hadenormous staying power. The old margrave apparently survived the carnageof 907 and the subsequent loss of his Danubian lordships to the Magyars.According to a later source, Arbo (famosus Erbo) met his maker only followinga hunting accident in which he was gored by a bison.128 At the end of thetenth century, one of his descendants (Arbo) emerged as one of the mostpowerful nobles in Bavaria, holding the office of count palatine inRegensburg. His eldest son, Hartwig, took over this post (c. 1000), while hisyoungest, also Arbo, was elevated to the position of archbishop of Mainz(10211031). A middle son, Cadolah (Chadalhoch), became count





Page 306

in the Isengau. The palatine Hartwig, in turn, was succeeded by his son,another Arbo. Although the latter was removed from this office in 1055, heremained one of the most important nobles in Bavaria and Carantania untilthe very end of the eleventh century. The Aribonen are well known forfounding numerous monasteries and convents in the late tenth and eleventhcenturies. These are Seeon, in upper Bavaria just to the north of theChiemsee, Göß Millstatt, and Eberndorf in Caratania, and probably Moggio inFriuli. 129

The later Aribonen were well endowed with properties in Carantania.However, we should not conclude from this fact that Arbo and hisdescendants were compensated for the loss of lordships in Lower Austriaalong the Danube with property in Carantania. Had the Aribonen been givenlands and lordships there in compensation for what they had lost along theDanube in 907, the argument could be made that other aristocratic families(such as the Wilhelminer or the Witagowonen) intensified their activities inCarantania during the tenth century because the loss of Lower Austria forcedthese clans to turn their attention to the one frontier province that remainedin Bavarian hands. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that the"younger" branch of the Aribonen established itself in Carantania because itsestates and lordships in Lower Austria had fallen to the Magyars. SomeAribonen possessions in Carantania may have been acquired before theBavarian defeat in 907, but most were not.130

The earliest document indicating some Aribonen interests in Carantania is anoriginal charter dated 904, in which Louis the Child granted an Arbo, the sonof a Count Otachar, twenty homesteads (hubae) near Leoben, as well as afortified locality (curtis muro circumdata) in Schladnitz and the villa of Göß. Allof this property was located in the comitatus of Otachar, who obviouslycontrolled the strategically important Mur Valley. The gift was made at therequest of Bishop Tuto of Regensburg and a number of counts, including thetwo margraves, Liutpold and Arbo. This source probably represents anattempt to patch up the differences between Liutpold and Arbo, so that theBavarian exercitus could deal more effectively with the growing Magyarthreat. The appearance of the elder Arbo in this charter has led scholars toconclude that he was the grandfather of the younger one, the recipient ofthese properties.131 It has been assumed that Count Otachar, who was alsoone of the officials presiding over the hearings that produced the



Raffelstetten tolls, must have been the son of the margrave. There is,however, no evidence that the young Arbo inherited his father's lordship inthe middle Mur Valley. Nor does the charter indicate that Otachar was the oldmargrave's son. Other sources only identify Isanric



Page 307

as Arbo's son. The elder Arbo may have been the younger's godfather orsimply a close relative. After this charter Otachar and his son disappear fromthe sources, perhaps indicating that they perished in the Magyar wars.Although the history of the Aribonen during the first half of the tenth centuryis a little murky, Dopsch has made it seem probable that the younger Arbo'sson was a certain Chadaloh, who was count in the Isengau (926959), whoseson was the Arbo who eventually became count palatine of Regensburg. 132

Because these estates around Leoben constituted a portion of the propertiesin Carantania that were used to found the convent of Göß circa 1920, it wasformerly believed that the Aribonen had been richly endowed in Carantaniaduring the tenth century. Recent research by Herwig Ebner and Karl Bracher(as well as by Dopsch), however, has made it evident that most of theproperty that eventually fell to Göß did not belong to the Aribonen at all.133

The palatine Arbo died circa 1000, two decades before the founding of Göß.The real founder of this convent was his wife Adala, who subsequentlymarried a Sighardinger, Engelbert (circa 9651020), who was count in theChiemgau. She combined Aribonen property around Leoben with Sighardingerpossessions in the Graz basin and in the Laßnitz Valley (today Lower Styria)to provide the endowment for the convent. Dopsch's research reveals that itwas through Adala that the Aribonen reemerged from relative obscurity in thetenth century to become one of Bavaria's leading dynasties in the eleventh.Adala's father, a certain Hartwig (died circa 985), was one of the mostpowerful personalities in Carantania, while, at the same time, he was alsothe count palatine of Regensburg. It was because of him that the "younger"Aribonen were able to establish themselves in Carantania. There is noevidence that the Aribonen were compensated with lands, jurisdictions, andcommands in Carantania because they had lost the Danubian lordships to theMagyars. They held only the lordship of Isengau on the Danube until anotherArbo married the daughter of Hartwig, a noble whose power was firmlyanchored in Carantania.

The Walpot Hartwig

Thanks to Dopsch's careful research we know as much about Hartwig as weare ever likely to learn. His grandfather, also Hartwig, appears in one of theearliest deeds (November 924) in the Codex Odalberti as a fidelis proximus ofthe archbishop.134 In this source, the elder Hartwig exchanged property





Page 308

near Maria Buch, east of Judenburg on the Mur, for property in Ingering,located in a high valley above Knittelfeld, also in Carantania. Some scholarshave argued that Hartwig was the brother of Archbishop Odalbert, butDopsch correctly dismissed this notion, pointing out that "the terminology ofthe Codex Odalberti simply does not allow us to translate proximus asbrother." 135 In this case, the term fidelis proximus can best be interpreted as"close supporter."

We learn from another document in the Codex that this Hartwig hadadditional holdings in the same region.136 In this deed, dated 930, his sonMarkward exchanged property in Ingering for a curtis in Maria Buch, as wellas localities belonging to it ad Furti (Judenburg) and Piscoffesperch(Bischofsberg northeast of Neumarkt). Hartwig (proximus episcopi in thisdocument) had held these possessions in fief, but, after him, they fell to theLiutpoldinger duke Bertold. The deed implies that by 930 the elder Hartwighad been dead for several years. In this source Markward acquired rights tothese properties, but with the provision that, following his death, they wouldrevert to Duke Bertold, who appears first on the list of witnesses. Maria Buchand Furt are strategic localities along the Mur, and Bischofsberg,approximately one day's march to the south, is situated near a low passleading from the Mur to the Drava. These were obviously logisticallyimportant localities, and it is not surprising that Duke Bertold had a vestedinterest in them.

Dopsch believes that the document in question establishes a close familialrelationship between Hartwig and the Liutpoldinger.137 He argues thatHartwig's relationship with Archbishop Odalbert came through the latter'swife Rihni. In another document dated from early in Odalbert's pontificate(circa 923924), we learn that Hartwig was a major landholder near Ötting,neighboring property that was owned by Rihni.138 Witnessing this documentwere Wilhelm and Ruodpert. As we have seen, these men were the sons ofthe comes terminalis Ruodpert and the Liutpoldinger Hemma, and Rihni wasprobably their sister. Hartwig must, then, have been an uncle or an eldercousin on Rihni's Liutpoldinger side, rather than her brother, as Dopschbelieves. Considering Hartwig's probable age, such a relationship to Rihnimakes sense. Though a fidelis proximus of the archbishop, he does notappear as a direct participant in deeds after 924. He had been dead for sometime in 930 when he was named as a previous holder of the fiefs that his son



Markward exchanged with the archiepiscopal see. We can safely assume thathe was already deceased in 927, for he witnessed none of the many chartersissued on Rihni's behalf during that year.



Page 309

The elder Hartwig disappears from the sources in the mid-920s, and hisgrandson Hartwig does not begin to emerge from obscurity until the 950s.Dopsch has made powerful arguments that the younger Hartwig's rise wasdirectly connected with Ottonian attempts to bring Bavaria and Carantaniaunder the direct control of the Saxon dynasty. 139 To accomplish this task, in948 Otto the Great replaced the Liutpoldinger as dukes of Bavaria with amember of the stirps regis, his brother Henry, and brought Carantania underthe latter's overall supervision though it officially retained its status as aregnum. Subsequently, the Liutpoldinger rebelled against Ottonian rule, andafter their revolt had been put down, the leading figures of this clan wereremoved from office. Hartwig, however, must have thrown his lot with Ottoand Henry against his Liutpoldinger kinsmen, for it is in this context that hisrise began.

The first document in which the younger Hartwig appears as a leading figurein Carantania is a charter dated 953.140 In this diploma, Otto I definedHartwig's ministerium as being situated "in regno Carentino in regimineeiusdem fratris nostri." Since this terminology is very close to that describingWeriant's office, Dopsch thinks that Hartwig must have replaced him as thechief supervisor of ducal/royal interests in Carantania.141 Although hepossessed no comital title in this document, he may have already been acount in Bavaria, perhaps in the Salzburggau.142 He was among the witnessesof a royal charter that Otto I issued for Pope John XII in Rome in 962. Thus,by that time at the latest, he was well on his way to becoming one of theleading magnates of the Ottonian realm.143 In Ingelheim in 965, the emperorsealed a diploma in which the terms comes and walpot are simultaneouslyused to define Hartwig's responsibilities in Carantania.144 This documentinvolved royal property in Wirtschach, just to the northeast of Klagenfurt, "inpartibus Karantanie in comitatu Hartwigi comitis, qui et ipse in ibi cognominewalpoto dicitur."

The title walpot did not mean that Hartwig exercised comital authoritythroughout Carantania, but rather that he was a kind of "super" count, whoadministered royal estates there and generally looked after the interests ofthe king, including keeping an eye on the duke of Carantania, when therewas one. According to Dopsch, his responsibilities were similar to those of acount palatine, and he must have resided on the Karnburg, designated asregalis sedes in Ottonian documents.145 His duties may have been similar to



those that had been exercised by the young Engelschalk and Liutpold in the890s.

In a charter of Otto II, dated 977, concerning royal estates on the



Page 310

Wörthersee, we find wording very similar to that of the charter of 953: ''inprovincia Karentana sit in regimine Hartwici walpotonis." 146 Dopsch haspointed out that the difference in wording is simply that in 953 the regimenwas exercised by the walpot in the name of the duke of Bavaria, Henry, OttoI's frater. In 977 regimen implied authority delegated from the king.147 ThatHartwig's regimen as walpot was superior to ordinary comital powers isemphasized by another charter of Otto II, dated 880, in which Hartwig'scomitatus is clearly subordinated to his regimen.148

In 977 at the latest, Hartwig also became count palatine in Regensburg, apost that he held in addition to that of walpot in Carantania.149 He wasfollowed in the latter office by his son-in-law Arbo, whom we met in thesection on the Aribonen. Arbo also became a major landowner in centralCarantania. As Dopsch has demonstrated, however, Arbo's holdings therecame as a result of his father-in-law's position as walpot.150 In a royaldiploma of 979, Otto II endowed Arbo with royal estates "in regiminewaldpodonis Hartwici pago Chrowat" the so-called Kroatengau in centralCarantania formed by a triangle enclosing Sankt Veit an der Glan, the royalpalace (regalis sedes) of Karnburg, and the main ecclesiastical center ofMaria Saal.151 Thus, Aribonen property in the Kroatengau dates from the eraof walpot Hartwig, a noble whose grandfather was closely associated with theLiutpoldinger and, through Rihni, with the Wilhelminer.

The Sighardinger

Another group of nobles, whose fortunes became closely associated withCarantania in the course of the ninth century, was the Sighardinger.Unfortunately, much information about this clan comes from the eleventh-century Chronicon Eberspergense, and it is difficult to verify.152 According tothis source, the founding father of the line, a certain Count Sighard, fell outwith the king (Louis the German) and fled in Norica regione, presumably toCarloman, then in control of Carantania and in rebellion against his father.153

Mitterauer has discovered a Franconian Count Sigihart who fits the profile ofthe fugitive count. The Chronicon Eberspergense also tells us that a CountSighard (probably a younger one) was a consanguineus of the emperor Arnulfof Carinthia and that this monarch greatly enriched him.154 A revised versionof the Chronicon Eberspergense reports that the count was de genere regumand that the dynasty was de regio semine.155





Page 311

No contemporary royal charter or episcopal deed exists, however, confirmingSighard's relationship to Arnulf or proving that he had been rewarded withlordships and royal lands. Nevertheless, as Mitterauer has pointed out, thelater position of this dynasty, especially in Carantania, makes it seemprobable that it was richly endowed with lands and lordships there during theCarolingian era. 156 Based on the possessions of the Sighardinger, Mitterauerargues that the second Sighard's lordship was in Carantania. His eldest son,also Sighard, later became count in Bavaria (the Salzburggau), but Ratold, hissecond son, probably held the margravate on the upper Sava, succeedingGuntram (see Chart 7). According to the Chronicon Ebersbergense, Arnulf, asruler, ''entrusted Ratold with the defense of the Carantanian frontiers."157 Ifindeed Ratold's lordship was on the upper Sava, and if he was reallyentrusted with the defense of the frontier, then, within the framework ofArnulf's kingship, that frontier would have been the one against theMoravians, who consequently must have been situated farther down theSava. As for the biological relationship asserted by the Chronicon, Mitterauerhas pointed out that, in addition to Zwentibald, Arnulf sired a bastard namedRatold, the same name as Count Sighard's son.158 Mitterauer also thinks thatthis relationship was established through Liutswind, a concubine of Carlomanand the mother of Arnulf, but this hypothesis is highly speculative.

Ratold, the count on the upper Sava, lived long enough to play a major role inthe wars against the Magyars, probably defeating them near Ljubljana duringthe Easter season of 901.159 He died in 919 and was succeeded in Carantaniaby another Sighard. Two of his sons were Eberhard and Adalbero, thefounders of the monastery of Ebersberg.160 They were counts in UpperBavaria, and their names are not to be found anywhere in Carantania.Because the Carantanian Sighard played no role in the foundation ofEbersberg, some have discounted the possibility that he was Ratold's son.Mitterauer, on the other hand, has pointed out that Ratold must have beenmarried twice, for while he is first mentioned in the sources in 896, hisdaughter Williprig died after 980.161 Thus, it is probable that Sighard resultedfrom Ratold's first marriage, and that Eberhard, Adalbero, and Willipirg werethe children of his second wife, whose name was Engilmot, according to theChronicon Eberspergense (see Chart 7). This account, recorded in a later,more dynastically oriented age, focused on members of the Upper Bavarianbranch of this clan, the founders of Ebersberg.



Based on the fact that the name Werner (Werinheri) shows up fre-



Page 312

Chart 7.The Sighardinger.



Page 313

quently among the later Sighardinger, Mitterauer believes that Ratold's firstwife was a Wilhelminer, the daughter of Engelschalk I's son Werner whomZwentibald castrated in one of the first encounters of the Moravian war circa882. This marital alliance between Ratold and the Wilhelminer must, then,have resulted in the Sighard who eventually became count in Carantania.Sighard's name appears prominently in that important document issued forWeriant (Vueriant) on the Karnburg in May 927. 162 His name is in the secondlist of witnesses, immediately following that of Duke Bertold, which meansthat he was in the latter's train and that he arrived there on May 10, thesecond day of the assembly. Also in this list of witnesses were Wilhelm andRuodpert, the Wilhelminer who became counts in Carantania shortlythereafter. If Mitterauer's hypothesis is correct, these men were Sighard'ssecond cousins through his mother, the daughter of the Wilhelminer Werner.Since Zwentibald castrated Werner no later than 882, Ratold's first wife wasprobably bearing children herself around 900. Thus, Sighard must have beenin his mid to late twenties in 927, an age when he could hold an importantcomital office in Carantania, which would explain his proximity to DukeBertold on the list of witnesses. Heading the first list of witnesses on thisVueriant Urkunde was a senior count, the Liutpoldinger Albrih, who (I havealready argued above) must have been instrumental in establishing Wilhelmand Ruodpert as counts in Carantania.

To support his hypothesis that a Wilhelminer woman was Count Ratold's firstwife, Mitterauer has shown that in many respects the Sighardinger gainedcontrol over Wilhelminer property in Carantania. If he is correct, then, all ofthe rather massive and well-documented Sighardinger holdings in modernsouthern Styria near the Graz basin and in the Laßniz Valley must have beenWilhelminer property at one time. The Chronicon Ebersbergense stresses thatthe Sighardinger were first enriched by Arnulf of Carinthia, the consanguineusSigihardi. Mitterauer, as we have seen, thinks that this statement is probablytrue because of the later position of this family, "especially in Carantania."Moreover, the Chronicon also emphasizes that Ratold, who first appears inthe sources in 896 and who had the same name as one of Arnulf's bastards,was entrusted with the defense of the frontier. All of this evidence makes itseem very reasonable that the Sighardinger succeeded to much of theWilhelminer property in Carantania after the fall of this clan in 893 and,perhaps, to some of their lordships there as well. With the help of the



Sighardinger and the Liutpoldinger, some Wilhelminer scions survived thecarnage of 893 to reemerge in Carantania following the conclave on theKarnburg in 927.



Page 314

The Liutpoldinger

In spite of an enormous body of scholarship on the subject of theLiutpoldinger, surprisingly little is known about the background of its founder,the margrave Liutpold. 163 The Annales Fuldenses identify him as Arnulf'snepos, a word that probably should be translated "relative," rather than"nephew."164 Shortly before he replaced Engildeo as marcheo of Bavaria in895, Liutpold was given the appellation famosissimus comes, when heaccompanied Louis the Younger's daughter Hildegard on a pilgrimage to themonastery of Monheim.165 Although this was his first appearance in thesources, his lofty title and his presence in the company of one of Louis theGerman's granddaughters suggest a tie to the stirps regis.

In addition to nepos regis, the sources designate him as the king's propinquusand his consanguinus.166 Dümmler thought that this relationship must havebeen established through the king's mother Liutswind, a concubine ofCarloman.167 His argument is based solely on the first syllable (Liut) in eachof their names, hardly a conclusive indicator. Mitterauer, on the other hand,thinks that Liutswind was somehow tied to the Sighardinger. Moreover,Liutpold's pilgrimage with Hildegard led him to believe that the former'srelationship to the royal house was much deeper, coming from bonds thatwere formed in the early days of Louis the German. The key to understandingthe relationship between Arnulf and Liutpold is through the Welf clan,specifically through Count Ruodolf of Ponthieu (died 866), brother of both theempress Judith and her sister Hemma, Louis the German's queen (see Chart8).168 Count Ruodolf was, then, the maternal uncle of Carloman, a granduncleof Arnulf and of Hildegard as well. In addition, he was Liutpold's grandfather.

Mitterauer has been able to identify a Bavarian group of Liutpolds,presumably his paternal ancestors.169 The key figure in this clan was a CountLiutpold (Liutpald), who was active in the region around Freising between806 and 827. A second Liutpold can also be discovered in the same regionbetween 814 and 846. The latter was probably the future margrave's paternalgrandfather, whose son must have married a daughter of Count Ruodolf ofPonthieu. This Bavarian clan disappears from the sources in the mid-ninthcentury, however, and Mitterauer's guess is that Liutpold's father (like theFranconian Sighard) was a member of the entourage of Carloman (hismaternal kinsman), when the latter rebelled against Louis the German, circa



860.170 Since, however, Liutpold's father never appears in the sources, it isprobable that he was a victim of the rebellions and Moravian wars



Page 315

Chart 8.The Luitpoldinger.



Page 316

which claimed the lives of so many Bavarian nobles in the 860s and 870s. Ifthe later margrave Liutpold was born circa 860, as is virtually certain, it islogical that in his adolescence he would have entered the entourage of theroyal bastard Arnulf, his cousin, when the latter became the leading figure inCarantania in 876. Related to the stirps regis through the powerful Welfs,Liutpold would have had ample opportunity to prove himself in Arnulf'sservice and to make advantageous arrangements for his paternal kin. As wehave seen, Hemma, probably Liutpold's sister, married Ruodpert, theWilhelminer comes terminalis in the Carantanian basin. Liutpold also had atleast one brother, Herolt (see Charts 5 and 8). Although he did not cut agreat figure in late Carolingian Bavaria, his son Albrih became one of thesenior counts in Carantania in the 920s, and this count's son, also Herolt,became the unfortunate Liutpoldinger archbishop of Salzburg, whom Otto Iblinded, imprisoned, and later deposed.

The rise of the Liutpoldinger began in the wake of the Wilhelminer debacle in893. From a charter dated September 29, 895, it is virtually certain that themargrave Liutpold took over the lordship of Ruodpert in the Carantanianbasin, as well as Engelschalk's position as overall commander (marcheo) inthe southeast. In this charter, Arnulf granted (at the petition of Liutpold) thefidelis Waltuni a group of possessions in Carantania which extended from theupper Sava to the middle Mur. 171 These strategically important propertieswere scattered over three separate lordships. They included three regalesmansi near Reichenburg on the Sava and an allodial estate (predium) on theopposite side of the same river in the margraviate on the Sava (marchia iuxtaSouwam), then Sigihard's lordship. In addition, Waltuni received possessions,which he had previously held as fiefs, in the Trixen Valley, north ofKlagenfurt, as well as two castra and a grove in monte Diehshe, northeast ofVölkermarkt in Ruodpert's former lordship. Finally, he was granted a localityin Ingering that had been a fief of a certain Ottelin. The charter states thatthis possession was located "in Liutpold's county in the eastern parts ofCarantania." The Mur Valley, where Ingerling is located, must have formed aseparate lordship that girded the outer limits of ninth-century Carantania.

Summary

Two of the major objections to the southern Moravia hypothesis have been(1) a passage from the Annales Fuldenses, which states that the Wilhelminer





Page 317

held the lordships contra Maravanos, and (2) the so-called Heimo Urkunde,which establishes that cases involving Moravians were occasionally heard in acourt in the Grunzwitigau in Lower Austria. A careful analysis of these andother sources utilizing the techniques of modern prosopographers, however,reveals that they are less decisive in establishing Moravia's geographiclocation than scholars have believed.

As for the Wilhelminer, the bulk of their possessions and lordships in the lateCarolingian era were in Carantania, not in Lower Austria. After 893, theseestates and lordships fell to their close relatives the Liutpoldinger and theSighardinger. The former used this wealth and power in Carantania tobecome the dominant dynasty in Bavaria during the first half of the tenthcentury. The Sighardinger gained control over Wilhelminer possessions in theGraz basin and acquired the margravate on the upper Sava. Moreover, wehave learned that the Wilhelminer were not completely exterminated in 893.The Carantanian count Ruodpert left descendants who became counts therein 927, and their scions eventually emerged as the richest nobles in theregion.

Similarly, the Heimo Urkunde cannot be used to prove a northern Moravia.The sources indicate that Witagowo, Heimo's father, became endowed byCharles III with estates in the Grunzwitigau relatively late in his long career,circa 885, as a reward for his support of Arbo in the Wilhelminer war. Shortlythereafter, Witagowo died and Heimo threw his support to Arnulf againstCharles, and, subsequently, he became one of the new monarch's closestsupporters during his early reign. For his support Heimo was rewarded withimmunity and other privileges in the Grunzwitigau in 888. The grantrecognizes that persons coming from the Moravian realm might seek justicein a lower court (mallus) presided over by Heimo or his vicar. This fact,however, is of no importance in determining the location of Moravia's originalheartland, for by that time Zwentibald had conquered much of FrankishPannonia and modern Slovakia north of the Danube. Since there was peace inthe frontier region at that time, one would expect some traffic coming fromthe Moravian realm. Moreover, we have discovered that the Witagowonen,just as was the case with the Wilhelminer, were landowners primarily inCarantania, not in Lower Austria, and their Carantanian possessions predatedthose in the Grunzwitigau by decades and later provided their progeny withthe resources to remain wealthy and powerful in the tenth century.



The Witagowonen had close connections throughout the Carolingiansoutheast. They were obviously related to powerful families in Friuli, as



Page 318

recent research on the Evangelary of Cividale has demonstrated. Even moreimportant in the context of this study are their biological and/or fictive kinshipties to South Slavic families. Heimo's sister Tunza (Antonia) was married to aSlavic noble, and it is apparent that Heimo was also related to a group ofnobles who bore names coming from the Moravian princely family. Indeedtwo of these personae, Zwentibald and Moimir, were probably the ill-starredsons of the great Zwentibald. The roots of the Witagowonen in Carantania,plus the close relationships that this kindred obviously enjoyed with SouthSlavs, makes it probable that Heimo was an architect of Arnulf's Südostpolitikduring his early reign.

If the Wilhelminer, the Witagowonen, the Liutpoldinger, and the Sighardingerhad become thoroughly ensconced in Carantania by the end of the ninthcentury, the same cannot be said for the Aribonen. While one of Arbo's sonsmay have been Count Otachar on the upper Mur in 904, he did not hold thislordship for very long, for he disappears completely from the sources,probably a victim of the Magyars. The Aribonen, in fact, do not seem to havecut great figures in early tenth-century Bavaria, undoubtedly due to their lossof lordships and allodial wealth in Lower Austria in the aftermath of theHungarian conquest of Pannonia (Honfoglalas). Thus, the descendants ofArbo were temporarily reduced to modest holdings and lordships in Bavaria.Although this family enjoyed a spectacular reemergence in the last years ofthe tenth century, this latter-day rise to prominence was due largely to theacquisition (through marriage) of the property of Hartwig, the powerfulwalpot of Carantania. Hartwig owed his wealth there to his close relationshipwith the Liutpoldinger and the Wilhelminer. As for his position as walpot, hegained that by deserting the Liutpoldinger for Otto I, who handsomelyrewarded him. Ironically, the property that was used to endow the "Aribonen"convent of Göß came not primarily from the possessions of the ninth-centurymargrave, but from the Carantanian estates of Arbo's rivals, the Wilhelminer.



Page 319

ConclusionAbove all this book has attempted to demonstrate that the history of thesoutheastern marches of the Carolingian Empire can best be explained inlight of Imre Boba's southern Moravia hypothesis. This exercise is an urgentand necessary one because, for more than two decades, many scholars havesteadfastly refused to consider the plausibilities of this hypothesis. Theirrejection of Boba's views has frequently been justified on the grounds thatthe Frankish sources, the most contemporary and reliable body of evidence,are incompatible with the notion of a southern Moravia. While everyonewould concede that the Emperor Constantine's De administrando imperioclearly situated the megale Moravia of Duke Zwentibald in southern Pannonia(as do Bishop Pilgrim's forgeries and a handful of other mostly later sources),the Frankish evidence, in the opinion of Boba's opponents, decisively placesthe heartland of ninth-century Moravia approximately one hundred kilometersnorth of Vienna in the northern Morava Valley.

Specifically, five arguments have been advanced against the southernMoravia hypothesis. 1 They are as follows: (1) The Frankish narrative sources(primarily the Annales Fuldenses) demonstrate that the realm of Rastislavand Zwentibald bordered on Bohemia and that many Frankish campaignsagainst Moravia passed through the territory of the modern Czech Republic;(2) the account of the so-called Wilhelminer Fehde (882884) in theRegensburg version of these annals makes it apparent that the fighting tookplace in modern Lower Austria, near Vienna, immediately north and south ofthe upper Danube; (3) the author of the Regensburg version wrote of aFrankish embassy in 892 which went by ship on the Sava to the Bulgars, amission that would have been impossible had the heartland of Zwentibald'srealm been on the lower reaches of that river; (4) in the year 888, King Arnulfissued a charter (which has survived in its original form), stating thatMoravians appeared regularly in a lower comital court in the Grunzwitigau, inthe Traisen Valley of Lower Austria; and (5) in 899 Arbo's son Isanric rebelledagainst Arnulf and seized the fortress of Mau-



Page 320

tern on the Danube, an event that caused the monarch, then mortally ill, torise from his deathbed to lead an army against the rebel, who escaped to theMoravians an impossibility, it is maintained, if Moravia had not been situatednearby.

These objections, though they seem reasonable enough, do not take intoconsideration the total context in which the events occurred. For example,the forces that traversed Bohemian territory normally had been raised inSaxony. When Saxons marched through Bohemia on Moravian expeditions,they were taking the shortest route from their homeland to Pannonia. Thereis, as a matter of fact, no demonstrable connection between the Moraviansand Bohemians until October 871, when Franconian forces ambushed aMoravian bridal escort near a Bohemian frontier with the East Frankishkingdom. But this event occurred within the context of the near annihilationof a Bavarian army in the summer of the same year, and the ensuing rapidexpansion of Zwentibald's realm. Moreover, the source (the AnnalesFuldenses) makes it clear that the forces under Bishop Arn and Count Rodoldunexpectedly encountered this Moravian party somewhere near the Frankish-Bohemian border, not near the Bohemian-Moravian frontier. This event, asurprise for all concerned, could not have occurred near the Franconianborder, as is widely assumed, for in this case the Moravians would have beenreturning home in the wrong direction; they would have been moving west,not east or southeast. The ambush probably took place somewhere inmodern Lower Austria, in some noman's-land near the Danube. In any event,Zwentibald's victory in 871 was a significant one, which forced the Franks tomake peace in 874. Subsequently, Zwentibald was able to consolidate hiscontrol over much of eastern Pannonia and parts of Slovakia, probably theregion around Nitra north of the Danube, making further contacts with theBohemians much easier.

The so-called Wilhelminer Fehde and the account of the embassy to theBulgars have been treated extensively in this study. The Regensburg annaliststated matter-of-factly that during the Wilhelminer hostilities the embattledregion was Pannonia east of the Raba, a river that flows northeastwardthrough this former Roman province at an angle of approximately forty-fivedegrees; therefore, most of the conflicts took place substantially to thesoutheast (solar reckoning: east) of modern Lower Austria. And the envoys tothe Bulgars went by ship on the Sava because Zwentibald's forces threatened



the land route. Their journey took place immediately following an expeditionagainst the Moravians, which had been launched from Duke



Page 321

Brazlavo's regnum between the Drava and the Sava and which hadsucceeded in opening that route. The envoys also set out for Bulgaria fromBrazlavo's territory, on the Odra and Kulpa rivers, both south of the Sava.Their purpose was to persuade the Bulgars to halt shipments of salt to theMoravians. Bulgarian salt would have come from sources in the easternCarpathians or from the Black Sea. The accounts of the Wilhelminer Fehdeand the embassy to the Bulgars are found in the Regensburg version of theAnnales Fuldenses, a significant fact, for this annalist demonstrates anintimate familiarity with the geography of this region, making it impossible toignore his testimony and his careful distinctions between the lower Danube(Hister) and the upper reaches of that river (Danubius).

The original charter of 888, the so-called Heimo Urkunde, presents noproblems for the southern Moravia hypothesis. The document does not makea major point of Moravians coming on a regular basis to a lower court in theGrunzwitigau, but rather states matter-of-factly that should anyone comingfrom the Moravian realm seek justice in that court, and if Heimo or his vicarcould not resolve the matter, then the case should be turned over to CountArbo. Since Zwentibald's greatly expanded realm then bordered on DanubianLower Austria, and since there were at that time peaceful relations betweenthe Moravian leader and King Arnulf, it should not surprise us that somepersons (not necessarily Moravians) might have come from Moravian territoryto resolve disputes in this lower court. Had Louis the German issued thischarter in 846 immediately after his armies had installed Rastislav as leaderof the Sclavi Margenses, we might consider it good (or even conclusive)evidence that the Moravian heartland was very near Lower Austria. TheHeimo Urkunde, however, was issued under very different circumstances,after almost two decades of Moravian expansion. Heimo is an interestingpersona in the late Carolingian era who has merited our careful scrutiny. Aclose analysis of him and his kin, however, in no way supports the theory thatMoravia was north of the Danube. As a matter of fact this clan was one ofthose important kindreds deeply entrenched in Carantania, nearer a southernMoravia.

Finally, the incident involving Isanric does nothing to shore up the case forMoravia's traditional location. His rebellion occurred after a Bavarian armyhad launched an invasion of Moravian territory, and Arnulf, who had remainedbehind in the palace of Ötting, gathered up the forces available to him and



captured the rebel in his fortress in Mautern. Had the Bavarian army underLiutpold been nearby (in Moravia north of the Danube), the ailing monarchcould have remained in his bed at Ötting,



Page 322

leaving Isanric for the returning Bavarian exercitus. If, on the other hand,Liutpold and his forces were hundreds of kilometers away in southernPannonia, Arnulf would have found it necessary to put down the rebellionpersonally.

The events leading up to Isanric's revolt have been misconstrued by Boba'scritics ''to prove'' a northern Moravian heartland. In 899 two expeditions weresent out from Bavaria: the first took place in the winter and was against theMarahabitae; the second came in the summer against the Marabi. During thelast years of Arnulf's reign, the author of the Annales Fuldenses clearlydistinguished between the Marahabitae, residing north of the Danube, andthe Marabi, living in Pannonia; unfortunately both words have been translatedMährer in German and Moravians in English. The summer campaign of 899entered the terminos Maraborum. Its purpose was to free Zwentibald II,whom Liutpold favored and who had fallen into Moimir II's hands. A yearearlier, in 898, an expedition had also invaded the territory of these princes,obviously in Pannonia, for it departed from and returned to Ranshofen, southof the Danube. Liutpold, according to the annalist, covered himself with gloryduring the campaign of 898. A charter provides evidence that he returnedwith Zwentibald II to Ranshofen, where he persuaded Arnulf to award thisprince with a substantial grant in Carantania, which the source identifies asLiutpold's lordship. Count Arbo did not fare so well in this expedition.Accusations were made against him, and he was removed temporarily fromhis command. It is in this context that his son's revolt must be interpreted.When, in 899, Liutpold was invading Pannonian Moravia to free Zwentibald,who had been captured by his brother, Isanric occupied a fortress in hisfather's former Danubian lordship, hoping to present Liutpold with a faitaccompli upon his return. His plans were foiled, however, by the dying Arnulf,and Isanric fled to Moimir, the Moravian prince whom he had supportedagainst Liutpold's favorite, Zwentibald II. His escape to the Moravians waspossible precisely because the Bavarian forces were returning from asouthern Moravia. Had they been coming back from a northern one, theywould have blocked Isanric's flight.

Rather than isolating passages out of context, this study accounts for theways in which Carolingian military leaders organized marcher lordships tocontrol territory and to defeat their enemies. From this point of view theFrankish sources offer powerful testimony substantiating a southern Moravia



hypothesis. The thrust of the military organization of these marches wastoward the southeast, a fact that Klebel pointed out nearly seventy years



Page 323

ago, when he argued that this frontier military organization must havereached as far as the Fruska Gora (das fränkische Gebirge), just north ofSirmium. 2 Although Klebel did not question the traditional location ofMoravia, this southeastward extension of the marches clearly puzzled him,especially since he stressed the offensive character of Carolingian frontiermilitary organizations. In his opinion, Carolingian marches were notconstructed against nonexistent enemies. Yet he had no satisfactoryexplanation. The southern Moravia hypothesis explains this southeasternorientation of the Carolingian marches.

As J. F. Verbruggen has shown, Carolingian armies were most successfulwhen rulers were strong enough to muster the forces to converge on theirenemies with concentric pincers, the very strategy that Brazlavo advocatedwhen Arnulf met with him at Hengstfeld in 892. Several routes were possibleagainst a hostile Moravia centered near the watergate. One went over therelatively easy Brenner Pass, via the Val Pusteria to the upper Drava andCarantania, whence ancient roads plus the Drava itself could be utilized tomove men and supplies southeast. Some of these forces could cross lowpasses to the upper Sava. A second, more direct, but in many ways moredifficult route began at Salzburg and reached the Drava in Carantania viarelatively high passes such as the Radstädter Tauern and the Katschberg. Athird route, easier and more direct than the others, began in Upper Austria,went over the low Pyhrn Pass to the upper Enns, then led to the Mur via theRottmannen Tauern Pass. Forces reaching the Mur could simply proceed downthis valley passing Graz and Leibnitz to Pannonia, or they could proceed tothe Carantanian heartland via the easy pass at Neumarkt to Friesach.Between the confluence of the Enns with the Danube and the Vienna Woodsthere were no passes that could have been utilized by ninth-century armies.From Vienna, roads leading south to Baden and southeast to Sopron existedwhich reached an important junction in Szombathely. From Szombathely avery important road led to Ptuj, where there was a Roman bridge crossing theDrava. Also from Szombathely a road led diagonally across Pannonia via LakeBalaton to Pécs and reached the Drava at Osijek, within striking distance ofSirmium. We know for a fact that these routes existed in the ninth centuryand that Carolingian rulers and margraves attempted to control them. Routesalso existed through Bohemia to the region near Tulln and Vienna. Theseroutes were sometimes employed by East Frankish armies, particularly by



forces from Saxony. Nevertheless, the passage through Bohemia wasdangerous, and armies were frequently ambushed by war bands of theturbulent Bohemian petty chieftains who



Page 324

resided there. While Saxons did not like to participate in these southeasternventures, their presence can be documented in Pannonian expeditions fromCharlemagne's first Avar war in 791 to Arnulf's campaign against Zwentibaldmore than a century later.

In the early years of the ninth century the southeastern marches of Bavariawere under the overall supervision of a prefect of the east, whose lordshipsprawled along the narrow landscape near the Danube from the Enns to theVienna basin and, thence, it extended southeastward to include all or most ofmodern Burgenland. How far to the east along the Danube it extended isunknown, but it probably reached as far as the ancient centers of Caruntumand Scarbantia (Sopron), both of which are mentioned in the sources. Beyondthese fortresses lay the Little Alföld, where Charlemagne settled Avarremnants. Southeast of the hills of Burgenland was the county ofSzombathely, which was presided over by a count subordinate to the prefect.A Frankish style comital lordship probably existed there as early as 800, if notsooner. Szombathely was an important junction of roads leading throughPannonia. Charlemagne had made a special point of taking it in his first Avarcampaign in 791, and a Carolingian castellum was fashioned there from theruins of the Roman imperial palace at precisely the point where ancient roadsjoined. The headquarters of the prefect, originally at Lorch, near theconfluence of the Enns with the Danube, was probably moved eastward tothe region around Tulln in the 830s. Later the command post may have beentransposed even farther east, to Baden, south of Vienna, where there was apalatium attested to in a document of 869. In addition to the count ofSzombathely, the count in the Traungau is generally assumed to have beensubordinate to the prefect of the east. Although the Traungau countcontrolled a lordship along the Danube, it is important to note that he wasalso responsible for the roads that led to the important Pyhrn Pass. It is verylikely that the count of the Mattiggau was also incorporated into thecommand structure of the southeastern marches.

Carantania, though under the tutelage of the prefect of the east and thearchbishop of Salzburg, was ruled by native Slavic leaders (duces) untilapproximately 830, when they were replaced by Frankish counts. Afterward,Carantania was governed by a marcher count who had overall commandresponsibilities and who had several subordinates. One of these controlled alordship along the middle Enns which lapped over the Rott-mannen Tauern



Pass to the upper Mur. This count would have had logistical responsibilitiesfor armies moving from the Traungau over the Pyhrn toward the southeast.By the 830s there was at least one other subordinate



Page 325

count on the upper Sava, a region that had been detached from the Italianmarch of Friuli at that time. Farther down the Sava (between Zagreb andSisak), there was a Slavic principality over which Duke Brazlavo was presidingat the end of the ninth century.

Around 840 a Slavic dux, Pribina, was installed by the Franks in LowerPannonia (Pannonia inferioris) with his main residence at Moosburg wherethe Zala River enters Lake Balaton. Although it has been said that Pribina'slordship formed an "anti-Moravian apex," it is difficult to see how it couldhave been "anti-Moravian," if Moravia had been located north of the Danubein the modern Czech Republic. Pribina controlled a region enclosed by atriangle formed by the points Zalavár-Pécs-Ptuj a wedge, with its "apex''pointing in the direction of Sirmium. In 846 Louis the German launched acampaign against the Sclavi Margenses and established Rastislav as theirdux, replacing Rastislav's uncle Moimir. Shortly after this campaign Pribinawas richly rewarded for his services by Louis the German. If Rastislav hadbeen installed as leader of the Moravians with his residence in Sirmium,Pribina would have played a crucial military role in conveying men andsupplies through his territory. It is difficult to understand what extraordinarymilitary service Pribina could have rendered if Rastislav's capital had beenMikulcice in the northern Morava watershed.

Rastislav, however, did not remain a compliant underling, but rose inrebellion against the Franks. In the two decades between 855 and 874 aseries of brutal wars disrupted the marches. During this period the center ofgravity of the marcher military organization shifted sharply away from theDanube to Carantania, where Louis the German's son Carloman was installedas prefect. This royal scion, however, frequently allied himself with theMoravian duke against his father. These wars are clearly associated withCarantania and Pannonia, not with the region north of the Danube. In 863,for example, Louis the German feigned an invasion of Moravia and fell intoCarantania by surprise, capturing his son. This maneuver clearly would havebeen impossible had Moravia been centered in the modern Czech Republic orin Slovakia.

In 864 Carloman, reconciled with his father, was reinstalled in Carantania,and assumed overall command responsibilities in the continuing wars againstthe Moravians. In 870 Zwentibald betrayed his uncle Rastislav, and Frankish-



Bavarian forces occupied his capital, identified as his urbs antiqua.Nevertheless, things went badly for the Franks in the end, when Zwentibaldturned the tables on them in 871, destroying an unsuspecting Bavarian armyencamped near the walls of a Moravian fortress. From that



Page 326

point on Carloman, the praelatus Carantanis, was on the defensive, hardpressed by Zwentibald, who relentlessly attacked his territory until, finally, apeace was arranged by John of Venice in 874.

When Louis the German died in 876, Carloman became the ruler of Bavariaand its neighboring regions. He appointed Arnulf, his illegitimate son, togovern Carantania. Soon thereafter, Pribina's son Kocel died, and Arnulfincorporated what remained of Pribina's Pannonia into his lordship. Between882 and 884 a series of wars broke out in which Arnulf and Zwentibaldbecame involved. In the fighting, much of Pannonia "east of the Raba" wasdevastated. In 885 a peace was established between Arnulf and Zwentibald,one that lasted until 892 and one that was mutually beneficial. Peace withthe Moravian ruler gave Arnulf his opportunity in 887 to seize the crown fromhis ailing uncle Charles III. Zwentibald, who had already expanded his powerfar to the north and west at Frankish expense, consolidated these gains andwas recognized by Arnulf as ruler of Bohemia in 890.

This peace came to an end in 892, after Arnulf had secured his position as asuccessful war king of the East Franks. He then launched an invasion ofZwentibald's overextended realm in the summer of 892. We know the namesof several leaders of the expedition of 892. In addition to the king andBrazlavo, the most important commander in this expedition was a member ofthe so-called Wilhelminer clan, Engelschalk II, who was Arnulf's son-in-law.Defined as marcheo in the Annales Fuldenses, Engelschalk must have becomethe supreme commander in the eastern marches with primary responsibilitiesin Carantania and Lower Pannonia, which would explain why he played aleading role as a commander in the campaign of 892, if Moravia weresoutheast of the marches. Engelschalk's cousin Ruodpert, who also wasinvolved in this operation, was a frontier comes in Carantania, for a charterclearly located his lordship in the Drava basin near modern Klagenfurt. TheseWilhelminer cousins met a bad end a year later, largely because of rivalrieswith other major leaders. Nevertheless, Carantania remained the primarystaging area for wars against Moravia. Replacing Ruodpert in Carantania wasLiutpold, a relative (propinquus) of the monarch and the founder of the familythat would become the Bavarian ducal line in the tenth century. It wasLiutpold who led military operations against the Moravians during the lastyears of Arnulf's reign. In 896 Brazlavo added the remnants of LowerPannonia to his lordship between the Drava and the Sava.



To sum up this portion of my argument, until the 850s the prefect of



Page 327

the east held a lordship east of the Enns that extended to the Little Alföld.This lordship should not, however, be interpreted as a "bulwark against theMoravians" north of the Danube, for east of the Vienna Woods it sprawledsoutheastward into modern Burgenland. The evidence that we have showsthat the prefect commanded a marcher organization that was orientedsoutheastward, one that included the margravate of Szombathely and theLower Pannonian principality of Pribina. After mid-century, the center ofgravity of this marcher organization shifted farther south to Carantania,where it remained. This shift was coincident with the rise of a Moravia underRastislav and Zwentibald, both of whom were determined to assert theirindependence from the East Frankish kingdom. The organization andorientation of these marches constitute powerful arguments in support of thesouthern Moravia hypothesis.

It is impossible to write military history without paying close attention toitineraries and to logistics. Throughout this study we have taken pains tofollow the movements of kings and, wherever possible, of prominent lay andecclesiastical officials. Almost without exception campaigns against Moraviawere launched south of the Danube, on many occasions substantially south ofthat river. From charter evidence it is clear that campaigns against Moraviawere staged from royal palaces (palatia) and courts (curtes) in UpperBavaria, not from royal centers in Danubian Lower Austria, as one wouldexpect against a Moravia located north of the Danube. Nor is there evidencethat the Nordgau, which bordered on Bohemia, served as a staging area forMoravian wars. At times of conflict with Moravians, Carolingian rulersgenerally departed Regensburg for the palace of Ötting on the Inn; thus, theymoved southeast, away from the Danube. They crossed the Inn toRanshofen, one day's march to the east, then moved southward toMattighofen, approximately twenty kilometers south of Ranshoften in thedirection of Salzburg. This line of march leads toward passes from theTraungau and Salzburggau to Carantania unlikely routes to a Moravia locatedin the modern Czech Republic or Slovakia. Occasionally kings must havetaken the relatively comfortable Brenner-Val Pusteria passes to the upperDrava, for Louis the German issued a charter from the Upper Bavarian palaceof Aibling located at the beginning of the Brenner route immediately beforethe massive Moravian expedition of 855.

We do know that some Carolingian expeditions against Moravia proceeded



along the Danube, following the Roman road until just east of the ViennaWoods. As Klebel noted, however, north and east of the Vienna basin there isno evidence of Carolingian interest. To the southeast of



Page 328

Vienna, on the other hand, there are considerable signs of development alongRoman roads leading through Pannonia, indicating that rulers intended toorganize a support system for armies marching in this direction. A line ofmarch along the Danube to Vienna is a logical route to the southeast. Therewere several important centers along the roads leading southeast fromVienna. The first was the palace of Baden, where Carloman settled a disputeconcerning property around Pitten in 869. The second was Sopron, where thehills of Burgenland give way to the plains of the Little Alföld. Along those hillsone can follow to this day the famous amber route to Szombathely, whereseveral Roman roads joined. In autumn of 860, when Louis the German wasin Mattighofen plotting a major military operation against Moravia, hedonated the civitas Sabaria and localities in its environs to the archiepiscopalsee of Salzburg. Szombathely, where the remains of a Carolingian castellumcan be seen today, was the birthplace of Saint Martin, a special saint inCarolingian hagiography. Thus, this center was symbolic of Frankish presencein Pannonia. The fourth Pannonian center, from which Carolingian militaryoperations against a southern Moravia were launched, was, of course, theMoosburg (Zalavár), Pribina's fortress on Lake Balaton, where there is certainevidence of the continuity of a Christian population since late antiquity.Finally, Pribina's lordship also included the southern Pannonian city of Pécs,within striking distance of Sirmium.

Charters not only tell us where kings were on the eve of campaigns, but alsoenable us to understand the logistics of military operations. For the last twodecades German-speaking medievalists have emphasized the importance ofecclesiastical property to itinerant German kings who moved themselves,their courts, and their armies relentlessly about. For Bavaria and its easternmarches, Störmer has demonstrated the significance of ecclesiastical propertyin solving logistical problems. Although he has never commented publicly onthe Moravian problem, Störmer's studies clearly reveal a tightly knitinfrastructure oriented toward the southeast. The localities mentioned in thecharters provided food and fodder for men and animals on the march, andbecause supplies were locally available, problems involved in maintaininglengthy supply trains were lessened. Dopsch's map of Salzburg's possessionsin the marches, for example, illustrates clearly an organization ofcommunities located on or near roads, passes, and waterways leadingsoutheast. This configuration of settlements explains how Carolingian armies



conducted military operations against a Moravia which lay somewhere nearancient Sirmium. Only a few of these settlements were



Page 329

situated north of the Danube, and it is important to note that all of them laynear the river in the wine-producing region of the Wachau.

The charters also reveal a clear relationship between Frankish conflicts withthe Moravians and major grants of property on or near routes leadingsoutheast. Whenever Carolingian rulers undertook, completed, or evencontemplated campaigns against the Moravians, they issued charters favoringsupporters who controlled roads, passes, or waterways that would have beencritical in the conduct of military operations against an enemy in southeasternPannonia. The most spectacular of these was, of course, Louis the German'sdonation to Salzburg in 860. The localities given to this metropolitan seewere situated at precisely those points where armies marching southeastwould have found it necessary to stop for rest and provisions. In other words,these localities were situated where supplies could have been convenientlyassembled for the use of armies on the march through difficult terrain.

Admittedly, Carantania and Pannonia belonged to Salzburg's mission territory,so one could explain this configuration of ecclesiastical possessions as beingessential to support the pastoral activities of the see. Such an explanationwould not, however, apply to Freising, whose pastoral responsibilities were inwestern Bavaria. Yet Freising became a major landowner in Carantania andPannonia during the course of the ninth century. For our purposes it isnecessary to point out that all of the grants to Freising can be directly tracedto military activities in the southeastern marches, both before and after theemergence of the principality of Moravia. In 769, for example, Innichen, amonastery that belonged to Freising, was founded as a prelude to Tassilo III'sinvasion of Carantania. In 822, in the wake of Liudewit's revolt, Freisingacquired possessions in southeastern Carantania in strategic localities thatcontrolled routes to the Sava and which were near the narrows betweenLavamünd, Dravograd, and Maribor, where the Drava breaks out of the Alps.In 828, while Bulgars were ravishing Pannonia from river fleets on the Drava,Freising gained control over an important fortification securing the route fromthe Brenner to Carantania. In 855 Louis the German resolved a disputeinvolving property near the Brenner in favor of Freising, and he did thisimmediately before embarking on a major Moravian expedition. During theMoravian wars of the 860s Freising acquired extensive possessions aroundLake Balaton and more than eighty mansi in the county of Pitten inBurgenland. Between 870 and 875, when Frankish-Moravian wars neared a



climax, Freising acquired even more property in Carantania (Alpuuinus deCarantania). Near the turn of



Page 330

the century, when Frankish-Moravian conflicts reached their climax, Freisingreceived major grants of property near the Wörthersee. The first of thesedocuments is a charter from King Arnulf issued in the summer of 891, at atime when he was negotiating a badly needed peace with Zwentibald. Thesecond donation was made by the woman Tunza, daughter of CountWitagowo, who had been a major figure in the Carantanian marches.

Freising's obviously important presence in Carantania underscores anothercrucial fact about the military organization of the marches. Charters as wellas narrative sources show clearly that Carantania, not the Danubianlordships, became the center of gravity of a system of marcher commands atprecisely the time when Moravian princes began to threaten this region.Carantania was the realm from which Prince Carloman staged a major revoltagainst his father in alliance with the Moravians in 861, and later this lordshipbecame the base from which Arnulf, Carloman's illegitimate son, usurped thethrone from his uncle Charles III in 887. The importance of Carantania as apower base for Arnulf is illustrated by the fact that during the first three yearsof his reign, the king spent 45 percent of his time either in the marches or intraveling to and from them. During these early years, when his hold on thethrone was precarious, Arnulf carefully kept the peace with the Moravianruler. Only in 892, after he had consolidated his power in the East Frankishrealm by decisively defeating the Danes at the battle on the Dyle, did Arnulffeel strong enough to reopen hostilities with Zwentibald. In the Lentenseason of that year, he found it necessary to make a hasty Alpine crossing toHengstfeld to meet with Brazlavo and to plan an invasion of Moravia. The factthat Arnulf rushed across the Alps in winter for a brief meeting with this Slavicleader on the upper Sava can only mean that the campaign that heanticipated for the coming summer would take place in that theatre.

To summarize: it is apparent from charter evidence that the militaryinfrastructure of the Bavarian marches evolved to support operations againsta Moravia located near the Danubian wateragate. Royal itineraries suggestthat most Moravian campaigns were launched from palaces in Upper Bavaria,not from localities along the Danube. There is no reason to presume that, onthose occasions when armies did proceed along the Danube, they weremoving against a Moravia north of the river. For the route southeast fromVienna, which passed through Szombathely and skirted to the west of LakeBalaton before turning sharply eastward to Pécs, crossing the Drava at



Osijek, whence it followed the outermost terraces of the Fruska Gora toSirmium, was an ancient one that had been developed



Page 331

by the Romans and would become a favored avenue for crusaders in the HighMiddle Ages. Most importantly, it is along this Pannonian route that we havecharter evidence of Carolingian interests. Finally, it can be demonstrated thatCarantania became the strategic center of Bavaria's eastern marches.Prosopographical research shows that almost all of the major figures in themarches were closely connected with Carantania. The dominant place ofCarantania in the military system of the Carolingian marches is difficult toexplain if the political center of gravity of Moravia, whose princes Rastislavand Zwentibald were the archenemies of Carolingian marcher lords, had beenlocated in the modern Czech Republic or in Slovakia. Since Carolingian rulerssimply did not build marcher lordships against nonexistent enemies, anyfuture attempt to defend the traditional location of Moravia must account forthe southeastern orientation of these lordships.



Page 333

Appendix 1:The Wilhelminer Fehde

Annales Fuldenses (Continuatio Ratisbonsis)

anno 884: Pannonia suffered great devastation, the causes of which I shallclarify in this narrative. When two brothers, Wilhelm and Engelschalk, whohad held from the king, that is Louis the Elder, the frontier lordship of theBavarian realm in the east against the Moravians, and who had done much todefend the fatherland in battle, finished their lives with honor, their office wasnot given to their sons, but instead to Arbo, who succeeded to this comitaloffice with the consent of the king. The sons of the aforementioned men andtheir relatives, however, did not accept this and declared that, if Count Arbodid not give up the lordship of their parents, either he would die by the swordor they themselves would. After having learned of this, Arbo, terrified,initiated a pact of friendship with Zwentibald, duke of the Moravians, and didnot hesitate to give him his son as a hostage in order to secure the alliancebetween them. Nevertheless, the sons mentioned above plotted with certainBavarian magnates, and after assembling their relatives and troops from allover, they acquired a strong force. Thereupon, they dishonorably expelled thecount, who had been properly appointed by the king, from his office andusurped it for themselves. This occurred after the death of King Louis and hissons Carloman and Louis, whose successor in the kingdom was now theyoungest brother. He [Charles, the youngest brother] soon gave Arbo theabove-mentioned lordship back as he had held it before, but theconsequences were grave for Pannonia. . . .

In the year when these sons robbed the above-mentioned count, that is Arbo,of his office, which had been commended to him by the king, Zwentibald, theduke of the Moravians, his mind full of deceit and treachery, not forgettingsimply how much evil he along with his people had suffered when theancestors of those boys held the frontier lordship of the Bavarians, but alsomindful of the friendship which he had entered into with Arbo and of the oaththat he had sworn, attacked the sons in order to take revenge and to honorhis oath to Arbo. On the north side of the lower



Page 334

Danube (Hister), Werner, the second son of Engelschalk [I], who had three,was captured along with a relative Count Vezzillo. Their right hands were cutoff along with their tongues and, just as monstrous, their private parts orgenitals were cut out so that no trace of them remained. Also some of theirmen came back without right and left hands. At the command of the duke,the army devastated everything; in addition reconnaissance troops(speculatores) were sent across the upper Danube (ultra Danubium), wherethese boys had private estates and possessions, which were burned to theground without delay.

This scandal, resulting from the plot of the above-mentioned boys, madeitself felt throughout the entire year. The sons, having no confidence ofobtaining anything good from the king, because of the crime that they hadcommitted against Arbo, returned and decided to become the men of Arnulf[the late King Carloman's son], who then held Pannonia. After hearing this,Duke Zwentibald sent to him [Arnulf] ambassadors, who said, ''You aresupporting my enemies; if you do not send them away, you shall also have nopeace from me." And, on another occasion, he charged, "Your men haveconspired deceitfully against my life and my realm with the Bulgars," who hadinvaded his lordship the previous year. "I demand," he continued, "that youswear to me by oath that this is not true." Arnulf retorted that he would doneither of these. And thus the duke, having assembled within a short timeforces from all of the lands of the Slavs, invaded Pannonia with a large army,and, as inhumanly and as cruelly as a wolf, he slaughtered, plundered,destroyed, and devastated the greatest part of it with fire and sword. . . . Andwhen this suffering, which had been brought on by the above-mentionedconspiracy of these boys, had run its course within the space of one year, theduke returned uninjured to his realm.

In the following year, the one in which I compose this, the duke broughttogether a multitude again and led his hostile army into Pannonia, so that,just in case anything remained there that had been missed earlier, he mightnow devour it totally with the abandonment of a wolf. On this campaign hecommanded such a large force that from a single place one could witness hisarmy passing by from sunrise until sunset. His huge array despoiled Arnulf'srealm for twelve days, and he then returned in prosperity as he had intended,after first dispatching a part of his army up the Danube (supra Danubium).Hearing this, the sons of Wilhelm and Engelschalk, who were the eldest,



Megingoz and Pabo, along with some Pannonians, attacked them [theMoravians] without caution and initiated a battle



Page 335

which did them no good, for the victory went to the others. Megingoz andPabo, seeking safety in flight, drowned in the Raba. The brothers of CountBerchtold, with many others, were captured by the Slavs. One should mark,judge, and examine vigorously those perverters of truth, to whom it waspleasing originally to be the perpetrators of these deeds and plots, so thesubsequent evil should also be pleasing to them now. They scorned thepeace through the maintenance of which Pannonia had been secure, butthrough the breaking of which, within the space of two-and-one-half years,Pannonia from the Raba river to the east was totally destroyed. Servile menand women along with their children were murdered; among the magnates,some were taken captive, some killed, and what was even worse, they weresent back deprived of hands, tongues, and genitals. . . .

The emperor went through Bavaria and coming to the east he had adiscussion at Tulln near Mons Cominanus. Coming there among others wasDuke Zwentibald with his magnates, and he became his man, as is customaryby means of the hands, swore fidelity to him by his oath, and he promisedthat he would never, as long as Charles lived, enter his realm with a hostilearmy. Afterward Duke Brazlavo, who held the realm (regnum) between theDrava and the Sava rivers, arrived and he too became his man. The king thenwent through Carantania to Italy and celebrated joyfully Christmas in Pavia.



Page 336

Appendix 2:Letter of Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg and His Suffragans, theBavarian Bishops, Waldo of Freising, Erchanbald of Eichstätt,Zachary of Säben, Tuto of Regensburg, and Rihhar of Passau toPope John IX (c. 900). . . In no way do we believe that which we have heard daily that somethingperverse has been discharged by the holy apostolic see, which has alwaysseemed to us the mother of our priestly office and dignity, as well as thefounder of the Christian religion, and, what is more, the instructor andultimate authority over ecclesiastical propriety. Yet three bishops, namelyArchbishop John and the bishops Benedict and Daniel, came from your side[Italy], as they themselves acknowledge, into the land of the Slavs, who arecalled Maravi, which along with its inhabitants had been subjected by ourkings and our people, not only in the practice of the Christian religion, butalso in the tribute of worldly goods, since it was from here that they were forthe first time instructed and made Christians from pagans. For this reason thebishop of Passau, whose see the inhabitants of that land have belonged tosince the beginnings of their Christian lives, went there as often as he wantedand found necessary without experiencing any objections, and he frequentedsynods there with his followers, calling assemblies, and he vigorouslydischarged all duties, which he was obliged to, and no one resisted hisactivities. Also our counts from the neighboring lands convened secularassemblies (placita secularia) there, they remedied that which needed to becorrected, they levied tribute, and no one resisted them until, the devilhardening their hearts, they began to detest Christianity, to drive away alljustice, to arouse to war, and to resist vehemently, so that the way there wasblocked to the bishop and the priest. According to their whimsical desires,however, they did whatever they wanted. But now, that they might augmentthe injustice, they are boasting which seems to us terrible



Page 337

and incredible that they by means of a large sum of money led you to sendthe above-mentioned bishops to them and to have caused such things tooccur in the bishopric of Passau as we have never heard coming from theapostolic see and which are forbidden by the degrees of canon law becausethey might open a schism in the one church. For an episcopal see has beendivided into five parts. Entering [the land of the Maravi] the above-mentioned[bishops] installed in your name, so they maintained, in one and the samebishopric an archbishop as if they could [do such a thing] in a bishopric ofanother archbishop and three bishops as his suffragans without theknowledge of the archbishop and without the consent of the bishop in whosediocese they were. . . . [Theotmar cites canons prohibiting such actions] . . . .Your predecessor [John VIII] ordained Wiching bishop at the request of DukeZwentibald; however, he never sent him into the ancient bishopric of Passaubut to a newly baptized people (gens) whom that duke had defeated in warand converted from paganism to Christianity. When, however, these Slavshad been given familiar access to your legates, they accused and defamed usin many things, and they insisted in mendacious words, since no one wasthere to respond to them with the truth, saying that we [Bavarians] hadsome falling out and discord with the Franks and with the Alamanni, a falsestatement, it is easy to prove, for they are our best friends and dearestcolleagues. Also they accused us of being implacably against them, which weadmit to be the case, not, however, because of our fault, but rather becauseof their wantonness. For at the time that they began to vilify Christianity,they also refused to hand over the tribute that they owed to our lord king,their prince, and they began to resist with arms and to exasperate our people(gens), until insurrection broke out among them. Since he [the Frankish king]defeated them in arms and brought them to submission, he had the right bylaw, as he should, to have them as tributaries, and, whether they want ornot, they should be subject to our realm. . . . The progenitors of our illustriouslord Louis [the Child], kings and emperors, came from the most Christianpeople, the Franks; Moimir's Slavs, however, came from pagans andunbelievers. With imperial power the Franks raised up the Romancommonwealth (res publica), the Slavs damaged it. The Franks strengthenedthe Christian realm (regnum christianum), the Slavs plagued it. The Franksappeared spectacularly before the whole world; the Slavs hid out in secretlairs and fortresses (urbes). Through the council of the Franks the apostolicthrone prevailed; because of the persecution of the Slavs, Christianity



suffered. In all of these things our young king, who is inferior to none of hisforebears,



Page 338

possessing the virtue granted by God, wishes with all of the princes of hisrealm to be the strongest helper of the Holy Roman Church and you, itshighest father. . . . As for the lies that the above-mentioned Slavs tell on us,namely that we had violated the catholic faith by the means of a dog and awolf and through other abominable and pagan customs sworn a peace treatywith the Hungarians (Ungari) and had given them money to bribe them toenter Italy, these falsehoods will become apparent, if our case is testedbefore God, who knows all, and before you, who are his apostolicrepresentative. Because they threatened our Christians, who lived far fromus, and harassed them with persecutions, we gave to them, not a sum ofmoney, but rather a quantity of linen vestments that we might appease theirsavagery and halt their persecutions. This action, which we have justdescribed, was proof enough for the evil of their [the Maravi's] hearts andinciting your bishops to our injury so that in a letter, allegedly sent to us fromthe apostolic see, they [the bishops] accused us of all of this, and, amongother things, they maintained that we would be excommunicated. For manyyears they [the Maravi] have in fact perpetrated the very crime of which theyhave only once falsely accused us. They themselves have taken in a largenumber of Hungarians (Ungari) and have shaved their own heads accordingto their heathen customs, and they have sent them against our Christians,overcoming them, leading some away as captives, killing others, while stillothers, imprisoned, perished of hunger and thirst. Many they carried off intoexile, bringing noble men and honest women into slavery, burning churchesof God and leveling all buildings, so that in all of Pannonia, our largestprovince, almost no church is to be seen, as the bishops, who had been sentthere by you, could tell you, if they would admit how many days they hadtraveled and had seen the whole land desolate. When we found out that theHungarians had entered Italy, we greatly desired (God is our witness) tomake a peace with these Slavs in which we promised them to forgive all ofthe injustices that they had committed against us and our people and toreturn everything of theirs that is in the possession of our men (nostri) sothat we might be safe from them and have some breathing space for longenough that it would be possible for us to enter Lombardy and to defend,with God's help, the possessions of Saint Peter and to free the Christianpeople, but we could not obtain even this from them. After having done somany evil deeds, they, who had always been the persecutors of Christians, dothe ''good" deed of becoming false accusers. Therefore, we ask you urgently



not to believe any of the allegations against us, at least until envoys, directedeither by your excellency to



Page 339

us or by us to you, have thoroughly investigated the matter. Commonlamentations and general sadness torture the inhabitants of Germany(Germania) and Bavaria (Norica) that the unity of the church will be dividedby schism. For such will be the case, we hold, should one episcopal see bedivided into five. If, therefore, this fraud, caused by the wiles of the Slavs,has brought on evil, let it be averted by justice. . . . I, Theotmar, noblearchbishop and procurator of the affairs of the apostolic see, wish to statethat the revenues, which I owe to you by law, were not brought [to you] byme, nor could I permit others to transmit them because of the deprecationsof heathens, but since Italy has been liberated by the grace of God, I shallsend them to you. . . .



Page 341

Abbreviations

B-M,Regestaimperii

Böhmer-Mühlbacher. Regesta imperii: 1 Die Regesten desKaiserreichs unter den Karolingern (751-918).

DieBajuwaren

H. Dannheimer, and H. Dopsch, eds. Die Bajuwaren von Severinbis Tassilo 488-788. Katalog: Gemeinsame Landesausstellungdes Freistaates Bayern und des Landes Salzburg,Rosenheim/Bayern, Mattsee/Salzburg, 19. Mai bis 6. November1988. Munich and Salzburg, 1988.

C-MM. Hellmann, R. Olesch, B. Stasewski, F. Zagiba, eds. Cyrillo-Methodiana: Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentums bei denSlawen. Cologne and Graz, 1964.

Conversio H. Wolfram, ed. and trans. Conversio Bagoariorum etCarantanorum. Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1979.

DA Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters

DAIG. Moravcsik, ed. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. DeAdministando Imperio. Greek text with English translation by R.J. H. Jenkins. Rev. ed. Washington D.C., 1967.

EHR English Historical Review

HJb Historisches Jahrbuch

HZ Historische Zeitschrift

MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica

MGH CappMGH Capitularia

MGH Con MGH Concilia



Page 342

MGH DD MGH DiplomataMGH Epp MGH EpistolaeMGH SS MGH ScriptoresMGSLK Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger LandeskundeMIÖG Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische

GeschichtsforschungMMFH Magna Moravia Fontes Historici

SMK. Trost, E. Völkl, E. Wedel, eds. Symposium Methodianum:Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (17. bis 24.April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100 Todestag des hl.Method. Neuried, Germany, 1988.

Trad.Freising

T. Bitterauf. Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes Freising. 2 vols.Munich, 1905, 1909.

Trad.Passau

M. Heuwieser. Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes Passau. Munich,1903.

Trad.Regensburg

Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes Regensburg und des KlostersSt. Emmeram.

SUB W. Hauthaler, Salzburger Urkundenbuch. 2 vols. Salzburg,1910, 1916.

Virgil H. Dopsch and R. Juffinger, eds. Virgil von Salzburg. Missionarund Gelehrter. Salzburg, 1985.

VM Vita MethodiiZBLG Zeitschrift für Bayerische LandesgeschichteZHVSt Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für SteiermarkZMZ Zitije Mefodija



Page 343

NotesTo save space in the book endnotes, I am using abbreviated citations. A keyto the citations appears in the preceding List of Abbreviations. Full referencesare given in the Bibliography.

Chapter 1:Hypotheses and Methodologies

1. The historical literature on this subject is enormous, so I shall refer thereader to my bibliography. A brief list of a few important works on theCarolingian marches follows. Ernst Dümmler, Über die südöstlichen Marken;Dümmler also gave considerable attention to this frontier in his Geschichtedes ostfränkischen Reiches, 3 vols. A significant article on this frontier waspublished by Hans Pirchegger, "Karantanien und Unterpannonien." In the1920s Ernst Klebel contributed an even more important article, "DieOstgrenzen." From the 1930s Heinz Löwe's Die karolingische Reichsgründungund der Südosten contains some useful insights. Very important books bycontemporary scholars are Michael Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen,Wilhelm Störmer, Früher Adel, and Herwig Wolfram, Die GeburtMitteleuropas.

2. Imre Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered.

3. For the use of the term "frontier" in medieval studies, see R. I. Burns, "TheSignificance of the Frontier." For the Carolingian period, see T. F. X. Noble,"Louis the Pious and the Frontiers." J. M. H. Smith, Province and Empire,however, rejects the utility of the frontier concept for Carolingian Brittany.See her introduction, 2-3.

4. Francis Dvornik's major works on this subject are Les Slaves, Les Légendesde Constantin, The Photian Schism, and Byzantine Missions.

5. See a recent critique of the geographical difficulties in explaining howMethodius could have been the prelate of a northern Moravian diocese, OttoKronsteiner, "Saint Methodius -- A Geographical Superstar?"

6. Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered, 7.



7. The ninth-century Slavic form Sventopulk probably had variantpronunciations of the last syllable; modern forms are Czech Svatopulk,Russian Sviatopolk, Croatian Sventopuk. The Frankish sources prefer thespelling Zwentibald, but variants include Zwentibolch and Zuentipulch, amongothers. Since I am working largely with Frankish sources and with historicalliterature primarily in German, I have opted for Zwentibald, the form mostoften used by modern German historians.

8. MMFH 3: 272-77.

9. Ibid., 278.

10. Heinz Dopsch, "Passau als Zentrum," 5-28.

11. For text and discussion, see Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered, 97-103.



Page 344

12. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 173, pp. 244-45.Its editor, Paul Kehr, wrote that attempts to argue that this document isbased on an authentic original, now lost, are "wasted effort" (verloreneMühe).

13. For my translation of this letter, see Appendix 2.

14. Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio, Greek textedited by Gy. Moravcsik with English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins, 2d rev.ed. (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967)chap. 13, pp. 64-65; chap. 38, pp. 172-73; chap. 40, pp. 177-79; chap. 41,pp. 180-81; chap. 42, pp. 182-83. For Boba's analysis of this source, seeMoravia's History Reconsidered, 76-81 and "Wo war die 'Megale Moravia'?" 5-19. For the importance of Constantine's work, see Arnold Toynbee,Constantine Porphyrogenitus, esp. 516. For a short summary of the emperor'sgeographical and historical interests, see George Ostrogorsky, History of theByzantine State, 279-83.

15. H. Wolfram, "The Image of Central Europe," 5-14, has attacked thecredibility of the emperor. For Imre Boba's reply, see, "In Defence of EmperorConstantine," 175-97.

16. Annales Fuldenses, a. 896, pp. 129-30; a. p. 898, 131; a. 900, p. 134.

17. Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered, 82-83.

18. Boba, "Wo war die 'Megale Moravia'?" 9-10.

19. For a detailed historiographical discussion see Agnes Cs. Sós, DieSlawische Bevölkerung, 50-58.

20. A well-reasoned critique of the evidence that Moravia extended intoPoland is Andrzej de Vincenz, "The Moravian Mission in Poland Revisited,"639-54. Charlotte Warnke, Die Anfänge des Fernhandels in Polen, 75-80,points out that there is very little evidence that the region that was tobecome Poland was involved in commercial relations with the Carpathianbasin during the ninth century. She also doubts that the Moravian gap thatconnected the Baltic with the Adriatic was an important commercial avenuein this period. Nevertheless, the notion that Moravia extended far to the northdies hard. For example, cf. Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of EastCentral Europe, 10-11.



21. Péter Ratkos, Slovensko v Dobe Vel'komoravskej.

22. Péter Püspöki-Nagy, Location of Great Moravia, Nagy Morávia fekvéseroland "Az Ösi Nyitra."

23. The Descripitio civitatum of the Bavarian Geographer has been reprintedin MMFH 3, 286-87, and in Erwin Herrmann, Slawisch-GermanischeBeziehungen, 220-21.

24. Senga Toru, "Morávia Bukása." An abridged French version is available,"La situation géographique de la Grande-Moravie."

25. Sós, Die slawische Bevölkerung, 57-58; Joseph Marquart, Osteuropäischeund ostasiatische Streifzüge, 117-20.

26. Hans Pirchegger, "Karantanien und Unterpannonien" 308-15. IgnazZibermayr, Noricum, Bayern und Österreich, 296, agrees with Pirchegger.Although Sós, Die Slawische Bevölkerung, 51-54, generally accepts thisjudgment, she acknowledges that Pirchegger's case is far from airtight.Indeed, it also relies ultimately on a well-known forgery, MGH DD, regumGermaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 184, pp. 281-86.



Page 345

27. Wolfram, ''The Image of Central Europe," 5-14.

28. Martin Eggers, Das "Grossmährische Reich." Eggers's dissertation iscurrently being prepared for publication. I am grateful to Dr. Eggers forallowing me to read his work prior to its publication.

29. Eggers, Das "Grossmährische Reich," 213-49.

30. Ibid., 176-84, Eggers explains Carolingian geographic concepts inExcursion 1. "Bemerkungen zur karolingerzeitlichen geographischenTerminologie für die südöstlichen Nachbargebiete," 806-16.

31. Ibid., 198-212.

32. Ibid., 181-82.

33. Eggers disagrees with Boba, however, on the chronology of Moravianexpansion to the north. He believes that this northern expansion came withinthe period 871-84, whereas Boba holds that it took place c. 890. On this pointmy views are in accord with those of Eggers. See Chapters 6 and 7.

34. Widukind, Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum, in MGH SS 3, lib. 1, chap. 19, p.426. Liudprand, Antapodosis, in MGH SS 3, lib. 1, chap. 13, p. 279.

35. I. Boba, "The Cathedral Church of Sirmium," 35-40.

36. I. Boba, Novi Pogled, 19.

37. It must also be noted that there are considerable traces of an agrarianpopulation in the environs of Sirmium that could have supported a powerfulleader with his entourage. Cf. Walter Pohl, Die Awaren, 124.

38. Eggers, Das "Grossmährische Reich," especially 653-806.

39. Anton Tocik, "Die vorgrossmährische Periode," 53-57. Éva Garam,"Pferde- und Reiterbestattungen in der Spätawarenzeit," 123-26.

40. Boba, "Dux Boemorum," 1-13.

41. H. Schelesniker, "Gedanken," 184.

42. Although H. Dopsch, "Salzburg und der Südosten," accepts the traditionalview, he points out the weakness of archaeological arguments.



43. Sós, Slawische Bevölkerung, 118-20.

44. Ibid., 133.

45. Ibid., 136-38.

46. See Laszló Kovacs, Münzen, 135, n. 698.

47. Eggers, Das "Grossmährische Reich," 211-13.

48. Ibid., 212.

49. Hans Delbrück, Geschichte der Kriegskunst, now in English translationwith up-to-date critical apparatus: History of the Art of War, trans. Walter J.Renfroe. Sir Charles Oman, A History of the Art of Warfare 1. Ferdinand Lot,L'art militaire.

50. François L. Ganshof, Frankish Institutions, 158, note 44. Also seeGanshof's "L'armée sous les Carolingiens," 109-30.

51. J. F. Verbruggen, "L'armée et la strategie de Charlemagne," 420-36.

52. Ibid., 433.

53. K. F. Werner, "Heeresorganisation." For Lot's views, L'art militaire, 94-103.

54. Bernard S. Bachrach, Merovingian Military Organization, "Charles Martel";"Military Organization in Aquitaine"; "Charlemagne's Cavalry."

55. Bachrach, "Charlemagne's Cavalry," 184.



Page 346

56. See also Heinrich Spoemburg, "Die feudale Kriegskunst." C. Bowlus,"Warfare and Society," and "Two Carolingian Campaigns.'' John France, "TheMilitary History of the Carolingian Period."

57. Although it is impossible to sustain Verbruggen's argument that the menof the scarae were elite cavaliers, "L'armée et la strategie de Charlemagne,"421-22, his observations concerning their tactical and strategic importance asforces that could be deployed rapidly and were capable of operating deep inenemy territory is substantially correct (at least on the basis of the evidencefrom the southeastern marches). It is doubtful, however, that these scariiwere social elites. More likely they were men of modest or even servileorigins, who were under the command of important court officials such as thecommanders (missi) Adalgis and Gailo, whose task force (scara) was badlymauled by Saxons in 782. See Bowlus, "Two Carolingian Campaigns," 122.See also Bachrach, "Charlemagne's Cavalry," 185, note 11; Hans Planitz, "DieScharmannen von Prü"; Johanna Maria van Winter ''Scarmannen --Konigsvrijen," and, most recently, Ludolf Kuchenbuch, BäuerlicheGesellschaft, 323-30. It must also be noted that scarae could also be specialmountain forces. Annales regni Francorum a. 773, 34-37.

58. For Friuli, see Harald Krahwinkler, Friaul.

59. Wilhelm Störmer, Früher Adel, 200-201.

60. The following discussion is based on Walter Cartellieri, Die Römischenalpenstrassen, and Walter Woodburn Hyde, Roman Alpine Routes.

61. For the roads through Roman Pannonia, see A. Lengyal and G. Radaneds., The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, esp. Sandor Soproni, "Roads,"207-18, and Klara Poczy, "Pannonian Cities," 239-68.

62. For the importance of Pécs in this Roman network of roads leading towardSirmium, see Ferenc Fülep, Sopianae.

63. Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great, esp. pp. 11-25. His basic model(21-22, n. 35) is expressed by the following formula:

"N = the number of pack animals; a = the army's total ration of grain in



lbs.; b = the army's total ration of fodder in lbs.; c = the army's totalrequirement of water in lbs.; d = the number of days the provisionsneeded to be carried; e = a pack animal's ration of grain; f = a packanimal's ration of fodder; and g = a pack animal's ration of water. If thepersonnel could carry supplies, then y = the number of personnel; z = theaverage weight a person could carry. If the cavalry horses could carrysupplies, then x = the number of horses (times 200 lbs., the presumedaverage weight that a horse could carry). When the personnel and cavalryhorses can carry supplies, if the resulting number above the division bar isnegative, the carrying capacity of the personnel and cavalry horses will begreater than the amount of supplies needed to be carried, and thereforeno pack animals will be required. It is doubtful, however, that cavalryhorses were regularly used as pack animals since nothing will break theirspirit faster than to be used in this way."

64. Ibid., 20.



Page 347

65. We cannot, however, assume that Carolingian armies never carried theirown water. As we shall see, an expedition that was sent into Pannonia in 820was decimated by dysentery because of bad water. Consequently, laterexpeditions may have taken pains to ensure a safe water supply bytransporting some potable water. The creation of Pribina's principality (c.840) around Lake Balaton no doubt eased this problem considerably.

66. Engels, Alexander the Great, 33, assumes a daily ration of ten pounds ofgrain and hay per animal. Charlemagne, MGH Capp. 1, no. 77, chap. 10, 171,ordered that counts, whose comitatus were along the line of march, reservetwo-thirds of the hay for the army.

67. For the equipment of Frankish soldiers, see Charlemagne's letter to AbbotFuldrad of Fulda, MGH Capp. 1, no. 75, p. 168.

68. J. W. Nesbitt, "The Rate of March."

69. Bernard S. Bachrach, "Animals and Warfare," 716-26, points out that,although men may have been able to maintain a pace of thirty kilometers perday, pack and animals could not over prolonged periods. They had to rest atleast once every seven days.

70. See especially Carlrichard Brühl, Fodrum, Gistum, Servitium Regis.

71. In addition to Früher Adel, see "Adelige Träger von Rodung,""Beobachtungen zur historisch-geographischen Lage," "Engen und Pässe,''"Fernstraßen und Klöster,'' "Zur Frage der Funktionen des kirchlichenFernbesitzes," and "Die Brennerroute."

72. I shall use the terms "kindred" and "clan" for the German word Sippe todescribe the extended networks of aristocratic kinship that existed during thisera.

73. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen.

Chapter 2:Ducal Bavaria and the Southeast

1. Annales regni Francorum a. 788, pp. 80-82. Translated in Bernard W.Scholz and Barbara Rogers, Carolingian Chronicles, 66.

2. For a collection of recent essays on Agilolfinger Bavaria with current



bibliographies, see Die Bajuwaren, ed. Hermann Dannheimer and HeinzDopsch.

3. Archibald R. Lewis, "The Dukes."

4. Herwig Wolfram, "Das Fürstentum Tassilos," 157.

5. Karl Bosl, "Der 'Adelsheilige.'"

6. Friedrich Prinz, "Herzog und Adel."

7. Störmer, Früher Adel, 208-9, and, more recently with Gottfried Mayr,"Herzog und Adel," in Die Bajuwaren, 158. For a heated debate over thisissue, see Andreas Kraus, "Zweiteilung?" 16-29, followed by Friedrich Prinz,"Nochmals zur Zweiteilung," 19-32, and finally, Kraus, "Das HerzogtumBayern," 33-43.

8. For what follows, Störmer, Früher Adel, 202-6.

9. Kurt Reindel, "Herkunft und Stammesbildung," 56-60.

10. H. Wolfram, ed. and trans., Conversio, German-Latin version withextensive commentary, chap. 4, pp. 42-43. All references will be to Wolfram'sedition.

11. Wolfram, "Das Fürstentum Tassilos," 157.



Page 348

12. Bosl, "Die Gründung Innichens."

13. Heinz Löwe, Die karolingische Reichsgründung, 51, note 48.

14. Wolfram, "Das Fürstentum Tassilos, 165-66, and, more recently, "TassiloIII.," in Die Bajuwaren, 161.

15. Eugen Ewig, "Das Bild Constantins," 22, note 117. Peter Classen, "Karlder Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz," 546.

16. Wolfram, "Tassilo III.," 162.

17. W. Coolidge, "Charles the Great's Passage," 493-505.

18. Hermann Vetters, "Der Dombau des Heiligen Virgil," 287-93, and "Diemittelalterlichen Dome Salzburgs," 286-316; Fritz Moosleitner, "NeueErgebnisse," 317-26; H. R. Sennhauser, "Die Salzburger Dombauten," 326;Eberhard Beindl, "Zum Bauordnungssystem,'' 327-40.

19. Heinz Löwe, "Bonifatius."

20. Prinz, "Herzog und Adel."

21. Bosl, "Die Gründung Innichens," 463-69. Eric Zöllner, "Der bairische Adel,"362-87. C. Bowlus, "Prosopographical Evidence," 1-22.


23. F. Prinz, "Arbeo von Freising," 580-90.


25. Franz Glaser, "Das Münster in Molzbichl," 99-124. Glaser and Kurt Karpf,Ein karolingisches Kloster.

26. Störmer, "Engen und Pässe," 96, and "Fernstrassen und Klöster," 223-26.Bosl, "Die Gründung Innichens," 451-69.

27. In addition to the works cited in note 25, see Franz Glaser, "Diefrühchristliche Bischofskirche in Teurnia," 1-19.


29. Joseph Deér, "Karl der Grosse," 750-51. Walter Pohl, Die Awaren, 308-12.



30. Arbeonis vitae sanctorum, 33.

31. Kurt Reindel, "Die staatsrechtliche Stellung des Ostlandes," 139.

32. Erwin Herrmann, Slawisch-Germanische Beziehungen, 62.

33. Annales Mettenses priores a. 786, p. 77.

34. Wolfram, "Tassilo III.," 164-65.

35. Eric Zöllner, "Avarisches Namengut," 265-66.

36. Fritz Posch, "Die deutsch-slawische Begegnung," 88.

37. Störmer, "Engen und Pässe," 98.

38. Gertrud and Adolf Sandberger, "Frauenchiemsee," 55-73, see especially71, and "Tengernsee," 35-49. Störmer, "Engen und Pässe," 93-94.

39. F. Prinz, Frühes Mönchtum, 421-25.

40. Störmer, "Engen und Pässe," 98.

41. Heinrich Koller, "Enns und Wien," 81, and "Die Salzproduktion," 127-44.See also Fritz Koller, "Salzproduktion und Salzhandel," 220-24.

42. Fritz Koller, "Salzproduktion und Salzhandel," 220.

43. Conversio chap. 1, p. 36.

44. Karl Brunner, "Wovon lebte der Mensch?" 193-94.

45. On the economic development of Bavaria in the eighth century, seeGertrud Diepolder, "Grundzüge der Siedlungsstruktur," 176-77.



Page 349

46. Joseph Deér, "Karl der Grosse," 750-51.

47. MGH Capp. 1, no. 44, chap., pp. 122-23.

48. Pohl, Die Awaren, 311.

Chapter 3:The Conquest of the Southeast, 791-826

1. The best treatment of the Avar wars remains Deér, "Karl der Grosse," 718-91. Alexander Avenarius, Die Awaren in Europa, contains a useful chapter,"Der Zerfall des Awarenreiches," 179-90. See also, Walter Pohl, Die Awaren,315-23, Die Awarenkriege; and Peter Csendes, "Zu den Awarenkriegen," 93-103.

2. Annales regni Francorum, a. 788, pp. 82-84. S. Abel and B. Simson,Jahrbücher 1: 639-42.

3. Annales regni Francorum a. 791, p. 89.

4. MGH Epp 4, Epistolae Karolini aevi 2, no. 6, p. 31. S. Abel and Simson,Jahrbücher 2: 11. There is some evidence that the Avars penetratedLombardy as far as Verona and damaged the church of St. Zeno. See Pohl,Die Awaren, 314.


6. Annales regni Francorum a. 791, pp. 86-88.

7. Anonymi (Astronomi) Vita Hludowici imperatoris, chap. 11, pp. 609-10.Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 16.

8. Einhard, Vita Caroli Magni, chap. 13, pp. 180-82.

9. Ibid. Translation by Lewis Thorpe, Two Lives, 67.

10. We have already seen this strategy at work in his multipronged offensiveagainst Tassilo in 887. For the use of these pincers in other theaters seeVerbruggen, "L'armée et la strategie de Charlemagne," 433-36.

11. Trad. Freising no. 142, pp. 146-47 and no. 143a, pp. 147-48.




13. Herbert Mitscha-Märheim, "Gab es 'Awarenringe,'" 25-27. Josef Dobiás,"Seit wann?" 5-14. and H. Koller, "Die Awarenkriege," 1-12.

14. See Pohl, Die Awaren, 461, n. 38, and Csendes, "Zu den Awarenkriegen,"97-98. Also Wolfram, Die Geburt, 256.

15. H. Mitscha-Märheim, "Grenzorganisation," 134-35.

16. Csendes, "Zu den Awarenkriegen," 98, anticipates this objection, arguingthat Charlemagne's army could "hardly have been very large," and, thus, theriverboats on the Danube could have ferried the tropps past these narrows.This argument, however, ignores both evidence and logic. By all accounts,the invasion force was a large one. Wolfram, for example, designates it as a"Riesenheer," Die Geburt, 256. Csendes himself makes the argument that thearmy stuck to the Danube because it would have been difficult to supply alarge invasion force in the wilds of Bohemia. On the other hand, the rapids atGrein were extremely treacherous, and they remained so until early in thiscentury. It would have been irresponsible to have loaded troops on theseboats, already heavily laden with supplies.

17. Annales Laureshamenses, a. 791, p. 34, reports that they looted thesefortifications (expoliaverunt ipsum uualum), which some believe must havebeen the famous Avar ring. Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 20-21.



Page 350

18. As discussed by Sós, Die slawische Bevölkerung, 6.

19. In a letter to Queen Fastrade MGH Epp 4, Karolini aevi 2, no. 20, p. 528,Charles credits the victory to Duke John of Istria and his men (cum suishominibus).

20. Annales regni Francorum, a. 791, p. 88. Mitscha-Märheim, "Awarenringe,"25-27, believes that this fortification was farther up the Kamp near Kammern,where remnants of a fort, which would have controlled several main arteriesthrough Bohemia, have been discovered. In my opinion, however, one mustyield to the testimony of the annalist, who clearly places it near theconfluence of the Kamp with the Danube. Csendes, "Zu den Awarenkriegen,"97-98.

21. Annales regni Francorum, a. 791, p. 88.

22. Annales Laureshamenses, a. 791, p. 34. The translation is by P. D. King,Charlemagne, 139.

23. For the route of march in Pannonia, see Sós, Die Slawischen Bevölkerung,6.

24. Annales regni Francorum,a. 791, p. 91.

25. Ibid.

26. Translation by King, Charlemagne, 135.

27. Annales regni Francorum, a. 792, pp. 92-93. Boats anchored and boundtogether in the Danube functioned as pontoons. This may be an indicationthat Charlemagne was well aware of late Roman military practices in thisregion, for Ammianus Marcellinus reported that pontoon bridges, the supportsfor which were boats placed parallel to each other and linked together, hadalso been used by the Romans in Pannonia. Sandor Soproni, "Roads," 210.

28. Annales regni Francorum (both versions) a. 893, pp. 92-93. Hans HubertHofmann, "Fossa Carolina," 437-53.

29. Annales regni Francorum a. 793, pp. 94-95.

30. Cf. Pohl, Die Awaren, 317, and Avenarius, Die Awaren, 182-83.

31. C. Bowlus, "Warfare and Society" 9-12. Cf. Pohl, Die Awaren, 462, n. 55.



32. Klara Poczy, "Pannonian cities," 264-65.

33. Endre Tóth, "Die karolingische Burg," 151-82.

34. Ibid., 178-79.

35. Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 98. See esp. n. 3.

36. Csendes, "Zu den Awarenkriegen," 100; Pohl, Die Awaren, 517.

37. Annales regni Francorum, a. 796, p. 98. For the date of this invasion (795rather than 796), see Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 99, esp. n. 3. Therevised version of the annals makes no mention of Wonomyr's role.


39. Annales regni Francorum, a. 796, p. 99. Annales Laureshamenses, in MGHSS 1, a. 796, p. 37.

40. Annales Laureshamenses a. 796, p. 37.

41. For recent theories concerning the nature of the Avar ring, see Pohl, DieAwaren, 306-8, and Wolfram, Die Geburt, 258.

42. MGH Con 2, pt. 1 Concilia aevi Karolini, no. 20, pp. 172-76. Fülep,Sopianae, 293.

43. Conversio, chap. 8, p. 46.

44. Endre Tóth, "Bemerkungen zur Kontinuität," 251-64, see esp. 262-63.Archaeological evidence demonstrates the continuing existence of Christiancom-



Page 351

munities in Pécs and in a late Roman castrum (Keszthely-Fenéjpuszta)near Lake Balaton.

45. Annales regni Francorum a. 803, p. 118, report that Charlemagne made aspecial trip to Bavaria to take care of matters in Pannonia (dispositisPannoniarum causis), and then returned to Aachen for Christmas.

46. Einhard, Vita Caroli, chap. 13, p. 182.


48. Annales Emmerammi Ratisponsis maiores, a. 802, p. 737. See alsoWolfram's comments in Conversio, p. 107, n. 23.

49. Annales Mettenses priores, a. 803, p. 90.

50. Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 291 and 298.


52. Annales regni Francorum, a. 805, pp. 119-20.

53. The expulsion of the Avars from Pannonia southeast of the Raba isconfirmed by the Conversio chap. 10, p. 50.

54. Annales regni Francorum, a. 805, p. 120. Annales Mettenses priores, a.805, pp. 93-94. Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 326-28.



57. For a general discussion of logistical problems encountered by medievalGerman armies operating in the east, see Karl Schünemann, "DeutscheKriegführung im Osten," 54-84, and Störmer, Früher Adel 1: 234.

58. MGH Capp 1: no. 49, pp. 135-36.

59. Störmer, Früher Adel 1: 218-19.

60. MGH Capp 1: no. 44, pp. 122-24.

61. MGH Capp 1: no. 74, chap. 8, p. 167.




63. Ibid. a. 818, p. 149.

64. Ibid. a. 819, p. 150.

65. Trad. Freising, no. 415, p. 356 and no. 419, p. 359.

66. Bernard Bischoff, Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen 1:199-200.

67. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 269.

68. Othmar Pickl, "Handel und Verkehr," 329.


70. Ibid.

71. Ibid., translation by Scholz and Rogers, Carolingian Chronicles, 106.

72. Bowlus, "Warfare and Society," 12-16.

73. Annales regni Francorum, a. 820, p. 152. Translation by Scholz andRogers, Carolingian Chronicles, 107.

74. Cf. Scholz and Rogers, Carolingian Chronicles, who translated iumenta ashorses rather than "pack animals." See also Bowlus, "Warfare and Society,"14-15.

75. Most recently Wolfram, Die Geburt, 270

76. Annales regni Francorum, a. 820, pp. 152-53. Translation by Scholz andRogers, Carolingian Chronicles, 107.

77. Einhardi vita Caroli, chap. 9, p. 448.

78. Coolidge, "Charles the Great's Passage," 493-505.



Page 352


80. Bowlus, "Warfare and Society," 15-16.


82. Ibid., a. 822, p. 158.

83. Ibid., a. 823, p. 161.

84. Ibid., a. 821, p. 155. Translation by Scholz and Rogers, CarolingianChronicles, 109.

85. Trad. Freising, no. 472, pp. 403-4.

86. Bowlus, "Prosopographical Evidence," 10.

87. Einhard, Vita Caroli, 14.

88. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 1-7.

89. Chronicon Moissiacenses, a. 805, p. 285.

90. Victor Krause, "Geschichte des Instituts der missi dominici," 193-95.Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 3.


92. Ibid.

93. Ibid., chap. 6, p. 46.

94. MGH DD, Karolinorum 1: no. 211, pp. 282-83.


96. Ibid., chap. 8, p. 48.


98. Lorch was the site where Werner supervised commerce and tried toprevent the arms trade to the east. Capitulare missorum in Theodonisvillae,MGH Capp. 1: no. 44, p. 122.

99. Cf. the language of the Conversio, chap. 8, p. 48, with Charlemagne'sdiploma of 811, MGH DD, Karolinorum 1: no. 211, pp. 282-83.



100. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 5.

101. Conversio, Wolfram's comments, 118-19.

102. Annales Emmerammi Ratisponsis maiores, a. 802, p. 93.


104. Trad. Regensburg, no. 10, pp. 9-10.

105. Conversio, Wolfram's comments, 119.



108. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 38, pp. 49-50.

109. Tóth, "Die karolingische Burg von Sabaria," especially 156-59, 174, and178-79.

110. W. Steinhauser, "Die Ortsnamen des Burgenlandes," 319. Tóth, "Diekarolingische Burg," 178, n. 72.

111. Abel and Simson, Jahrbücher 2: 472.

112. MGH DD, Karolinorum 1: no. 212, pp. 283-84.

113. Heinrich Koller, "Pannonien im 9. Jahrhundert," 7-19.

114. For the two Goterams, see Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 87. ForOtachar, see pp. 52-53.

115. Bowlus, "Prosopographical Evidence," 8.

116. Heinz Dopsch, "Die steirischen Otakare," 79-83.



Page 353

117. Eric Zöllner, "Zur Bedeutung der älteren Otachare," 21-25. Mitterauer,Karolingische Markgrafen, 50-52.

118. Trad. Passau, no. 45, pp. 39-40.


120. Ibid., 72-77.

121. Eric Zöllner, "Ein Markgraf," 794-98.

122. For example, Trad. Freising, nos. 30, 36, 322, 432, 568a, 568b, 574,576, 579, 615a, and 670.

123. M. Chaume, Les origines du duche de Bourgogne 1, 529.




127. Trad. Freising, no. 898c, 702-3.

128. SUB 1, Anhang, Traditionen von Mondsee, 914-15.

129. Trad. Freising, no. 670, p. 564.

130. Trad. Regensburg, no. 86, p. 78 and no. 102, p. 88.


132. Trad. Passau, no. 57, pp. 48-49.


134. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 6, "Hier fehlen aus der Zeit von802 bis 820 Nachrichten über den Inhaber der Grafschaft."

135. Trad. Passau, no. 78, pp. 65-66.

136. Trad. Regenburg no. 19, pp. 23-24.


138. Ibid., 26-51.



139. For Arn's career, see H. Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs 1, 161-63.


141. Trad. Passau, no. 33, pp. 28-31.

142. Ibid., no. 54, p. 46.

143. Ibid., no. 55, pp. 46-48, and no. 56, p. 48.

144. Trad. Freising, n. 227, p. 211.

145. Ibid., no. 463, pp. 394-95.

146. F. Huter, ed., Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 2: 383.

147. S. Haider, "Zum Problem karolingischer Pfalzen," 11-38, and W. Brugger,"Die herzogliche und karolingische Pfalz zu Altötting," 70-101.

148. Bowlus, "Die Wilhelminer und die Mährer," 759-75, and"Prosopographical Evidence," 1-21.


150. Klebel, "Die Ostgrenze," 364-65; "Herzogtümer und Marken," 54.

Chapter 4:Reorganization of the Marches, 826-846

1. H. Wolfram, "Der Zeitpunkt," 313-17; Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen,85-91.




Page 354


4. Ibid., a. 827, p. 173.

5. Ibid., a. 824, pp. 164-65, a. 826, pp. 168-69.

6. Ibid., a. 825, p. 167.

7. Ibid., a. 826, pp. 168-69.

8. Ibid., a. 824, pp. 165-66.

9. Vladimir Gjuselev, "Bulgarisch-fränkische Beziehungen," 15-39, esp. 30-31.



12. Boba, "Praedenecenti," 9-37, esp. 34-35.

13. Annales Einhardi MGH SS 1, 209.

14. Annales regni Francorum a. 822, p. 159, n. x.

15. Boba, "Praedenecenti," 35.

16. Boba, "Praedenecenti," 31-32.

17. Rau, Quellen 1: 139, recognized that the qui in this case began a mainclause. He opted, however, to translate the clause concerning thePraedenecenti as an insertion. "Aber die Gesandten der Abodriten -- sieführen gemeinsam den Namen Prädenecenter und wohnen in derNachbarschaft der Bulgaren an der Donau in Dacien-, deren Ankunft ebenfallsgemeldet wurde, ließ er gleich vor sich kommen." However, Scholz andRogers (Carolingian Chronicles, 116) translated the qui as a relative pronoun.

18. Boba, "Praedenecenti," 32.


20. For the following argument, see Bowlus, "Prosopographical Evidence," 10-12.


22. Ibid., nos. 550 a, b, and c, pp. 471-74.



23. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: n. 99, 143-44.Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 160-62. For the Witagowonen, seeChapter 10, pp. 290-99.

24. Wolfram, "Ethnogenesen," 133.

25. Deér, "Untergang des Awarenreichs," 779.


27. Anonymi (Astronomi) Vitae Hlodowici imperatoris, 631.

28. Annales Bertiniani a. 832, p. 4.


30. G. Tellenbach, "Der großfränkische Adel," 58ff. Mitterauer, KarolingischeMarkgrafen, 139ff.

31. Annales Iuvavenses antiqui excerpti, 740.

32. B-M, Regesta Imperii 1: 569; E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischenReiches 1, 121.

33. Annales Fuldenses a. 838, p. 28; Annales Bertiniani a. 838, p. 15.

34. B-M, Regesta Imperii: 1, 428.





Page 355


38. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 38, pp. 49-50,and Trad. Freising no. 898, pp. 702-3.

39. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 18, pp. 21-22,and no. 96, pp. 138-39.

40. Trad. Regensburg, no. 29, p. 36.

41. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafschaften, 153-59.

42. Ibid., 138.

43. Ibid., 139-40.

44. Ibid., 125-32.

45. Ibid., 91-101.

46. Ibid., 144-52.

47. See Chapter 10, pp. 290-99.


49. Annales Fuldenses a. 845, p. 35.

50. Ibid., a. 846, p. 36.

51. Conversio chaps. 10-12, pp. 50-57.

52. Ibid., chap. 11, p. 52.

53. Bowlus, "Krieg und Kirche," 77, n. 6.


55. Th. von Bogyay, "Mosapurch und Zalavár," 52-69.

56. Th. von Bogyay, "Die Kirchenorte," 52-70, and "Die Salzburger Mission,"273-90, see esp. his map, 274.

57. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 276 and 280.

58. H. Wolfram, "Liudewit und Priwina," 292, and "Slawische Herrschafts-bildung," 250.



59. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 45, pp. 61-62;Klebel, "Die Ostgrenze," 377.


61. Annales Fuldenses, a. 846, p. 36.

62. Dopsch, "Passau als Zentrum," 23, calls Bohemia "ein Aufmarschgebietgegen Mähren."

63. MGH Capp. 1, no. 49, chap. 2, p. 136.


65. Annales Xantenses a. 846, p. 15.

66. Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered, 34-35, points out that the AnnalesHildesheimenses, a. 846, p. 17, which are based on the AnnalesHerfeldenses, assert that Louis first subdued "Pannonia" before returningthrough Bohemia.

67. Annales Bertiniani, a. 846, p. 34.

Chapter 5:Marcher Rebellions and Moravian Wars, c. 850864

1. Annales Iuvavenses maximi, MGH SS 30/2, 744.

2. Annales Fuldenses a. 855, pp. 45-46.

3. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 1, 388.



Page 356

4. MG DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 72, 101-2.

5. In addition to the Annales Fuldenses, a. 855, pp. 45-46, see AnnalesAltahenses maiores, a. 855, p. 6; Annales Bertiniani, a. 855, p. 46; AnnalesHildesheimenses, a. 855, p. 17.



8. Annales Iuvavenses antiqui (Excerpta Aventini), 744, and AuctariumGarstense, 565.


10. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 196-97.

11. Assuming a northern Moravia, this shift is difficult to explain. See, forexample, Claudia Fräß-Ehrfeld, Geschichte Kärntens 1: 76, who asserts thatCarloman probably preferred Carantania because it was "die älteste politischeIndividualität im Markengebiet."


13. Ibid., a. 884, 110-13.


15. Ibid., 117-25.

16. Ibid., 139.

17. Ibid., 132-38.

18. Trad. Regensburg no. 37, p. 43.


20. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 99, p. 142.


22. For example Gröbming and Baierndorf, in F. Huter, ed., Handbuch derhistorischen Stätten Österreichs 2: 27 and 69.

23. Ibid., 139.



24. Ibid., 123.

25. For Mons Predel as the boundary, Fritz Posch, "Die Besiedlung," 32-33and Wolfram, Die Geburt, 308 and 346.

26. Zöllner, "Zur Bedeutung," 7-32.

27. Klebel, "Die Ostgrenzen," 352, noted that east of the Neusiedlersee thereis no trace of Carolingian lordships. The interests of Carolingian rulersfollowed the Roman road west of this lake to Sopron and Szombathely.

28. K. Lechner, Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 1: 207.

29. Trad. Freising no. 898 a, b, c, 701-2.


31. Klebel, "Die Ostgrenzen," 370-72.




35. Auctarium Garstense, 565.

36. Annales Iuvavenses antiqui (excepti Aventi), 744.



39. Trad. Freising no. 887, p. 696.



Page 357


41. Annales Fuldenses a. 861, p. 55. Cf. Timothy Reuter's translation, TheAnnals of Fulda, 48.





46. Annales Fuldenses, a. 865, p. 63. The reconciliation between King Louisand Carloman occurred in 864.

47. Ibid., a. 862, p. 55.

48. Ibid., a. 863, p. 56.

49. Annales Xantenses, a. 863, p. 21, also report this campaign and use theterm Margi for Rastislav's subjects. Once again, references to MargensianSlavs and to their geographical relationship to the Bulgars leads to theconclusion that Rastislav's realm was near the Danubian watergate.

50. Annales Fuldenses, a. 863, p. 56, n. 2.



53. Pickl, ''Handel und Verkehr," 332.

54. Peter Csendes, "Die Straßen Niederösterreichs," 81, acknowledges thatcrossing the Schwarzach would have been a difficult maneuver.

55. Reuter's translation, The Annals of Fulda, 50, and n. 7.

56. I am indebted to Professor Otto Kronsteiner at the University of Salzburgfor confirming that linguistically vada fluminis Swarzahae in the AnnalesFuldenses could indeed refer to a crossing of the Schwarza River in southernStyria.

57. Pickl, "Handel und Verkehr," 334. Throughout the Middle Ages the areaaround Radkersburg was considered to be the main avenue for commerce



between Hungary and Styria. It was known as the Németkapu (the Germangate) in Hungarian. H. Göckenjan, Hilfsvölker, 10.


59. Ibid., no. 98, 142.

60. Ibid., no. 99, 143.

61. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 1: 450-55.

62. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 100, pp. 144-45.Klebel, "Die Ostgrenze," 371-72.

63. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 184, p. 284.Klebel, "Die Ostgrenzen," 371-72, estimates that these properties werescattered over sixty kilometers.

64. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 101, pp. 145-46.Klebel, "Die Ostgrenzen," 369-70.

65. MHG DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 102, pp. 147-48.

66. For the best recent general discussion of this document and the localitiesmentioned in it, see Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs, vol. 1, part 1: 179-84,esp. map. For the literature, see vol. 1, part 3, pp. 1231-32, nos. 181-87.

67. E. Tóth, "Zu den historischen Problemen der Stadt Savaria," 108ff.



Page 358

68. Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs, vol. 1, part 1:180-81.

69. Ibid., 181.


71. Bowlus, ''Krieg und Kirche," 89-90.

72. MHG DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 109, p. 156.

73. Ibid., no. 112, 160-61.



76. MGH Epp 6, Karolini aevi 4, Nicolai I Papae epistolae, no. 26, chap. 9, pp.290-93.

77. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 286. Dopsch, "Passau als Zentrum," 25.

78. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 2: 86-87, n. 4.

79. L. Havlik, Velika Morava, 213, n. 159.

80. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions, 100.

81. See, for example, Steven Runciman, First Bulgarian Empire, 97; A. P.Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 158-59. Sós, Die Slawische Bevölkerung, 36-37. Also see Dvornik's map reprinted in Heinz Dopsch, "Slawenmission," 336-37.

82. George Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine Background," 10, wrote that theproblem of the geographic extent of Bulgar expansion "baffles even the mostauthoritative modern historians."

83. Runciman, The First Bulgar Empire, 103-4.

84. MGH Epp 4, Karolini aevi 6, Nicolai I Papae epistolae, no. 26, chap. 9, p.293.


86. Only the later Annales Hildesheimenses, a. 864, p. 18, state that Louis"subjected Rastislav to him."



87. Annales Fuldenses a. 865, p. 63. Annales Bertiniani a. 865, p. 79, a. 866,p. 84.

88. See also Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 52, n. 2.


90. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 2: 111.


92. Ibid., no. 115, pp. 163-64.

93. Runciman, The First Bulgar Empire, 103-4.

94. A. Vaillant and M. Lascaris, "La date de la conversion des Bulgares," 5-21.Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 230-31.


96. Adonis Continuatio prima, 325.


98. B-M, Regesta Imperii, 1: 646. Carloman appears for the first time in thesources in 842. He was born no later than 830 and perhaps as early as 825,which means that he was at least thirty-four in 864.

99. Ibid., 561. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 1: 2-3,believes that Louis was born in 805.




Page 359

101. Lexikon des Mittelalters 2: 751.



Chapter 6:The Critical Decade, 865874

1. F. V. Mares, "Der Name des Slawenapostels Methodius," 107-12. Zettler,"Cyrill und Method," 180-98 and "Methodius in Reichenau," 367-79. Dopsch,"Slawenmission," 332, especially note 121. Heinz Löwe, ''Methodius imReichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch," 341-62, defended the traditional view thatMethodius was held in custody in Ellwangen. However, he has arguedrecently that Methodius must have been held in Freising or in a monasterybelonging to Freising, ''Ermenrich von Passau," 234-36, and "Consensus --consessus," 507-16, where he admits that Methodius may have been in themonastery of Reichenau, but only after he had been released by the bishop ofFreising. A persistent defender of the Ellwangen hypothesis is D. W. Ziegler,"Methodius in Ellwanger," 305-24.

2. Richard W. Sullivan, "Khan Boris," 55-139. Also see Vlasto, The Entry of theSlavs, 155ff., and R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 54ff., and 140ff.

3. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5, no. 23, p. 286. For an explanation for officialsilence in other contexts, see Charles Halperin, "The Ideology of Silence,"442-66.

4. Conversio chap. 12, p. 56, and chap. 14, p. 58.




8. Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs, vol. 1, part 1: 185.

9. Thomas von Bogyay, "Die Kirchenorte," 52-72 and "Kontinuitätsprobleme,"62-68.





12. Annales Fuldenses, a. 865, pp. 64-65.



15. Ibid., a. 863, p. 56.


17. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: n. 112, pp. 160-61.

18. Annales Bertiniani, a. 866, pp. 84-85.

19. Löwe, "Ermenrich von Passau," 227-30.





24. Ibid., p. 528, chap. 3.3, n. 5, cites the Notae de Episcopis Pataviensibus,MGH SS 25, p. 623.



Page 360

25. MGH Concilia 3, Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche (843-859),Mainz: a. 852 chap. 11, pp. 248-49.

26. Sullivan, "Khan Boris," 55-139.

27. Annales Bertiniani, a. 866, pp. 84-85.

28. Schelesniker, "Die historischen und politischen Hintergründe," 272.


30. Ibid., 67-68.

31. Ibid., 68-69.



34. Ibid.

35. Trad. Freising no. 898 a, b, c, pp. 702-3.

36. The most accessible Old Church Slavonic version of the Vita Methodii witha facing translation in modern Czech is Zitije Mefodija (hereafter ZM) inMMFH 2, chap. 8, pp. 147-50. For an English translation, I refer the reader toMarvin Kantor and Richard S. White, Vita of Methodius (hereafter, Kantor andWhite, VM), chap. 8, pp. 77-78.

37. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions, 146-51.

38. Dopsch, "Slawenmission," 329-30.

39. ZM, chap. 8, pp. 147-48. Kantor and White, VM chap. 8, pp. 113-14. MGHEpp 6, Karolini aevi 4, no. 43, pp. 763-64.

40. Dopsch, "Slawenmission," 330-31, esp. nn. 115 and 116, defends thetraditional view on the basis that it is the opinion of "die Mehrheit derForscher." Although he correctly observes that "die politische ZugehörigkeitSirmiums in dieser Zeit ist umstritten," he decides that it must have beenunder Bulgar overlordship, once again considering this to be the majorityopinion. Cf. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 522, n. 18. For a critique of Wolfram, seemy review in Speculum 64 (1989): 242. If Sirmium had been under Bulgaroverlordship, it is puzzling why Hadrian II sent no letter to the khan,



informing him of the revitalization of this see. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions,151, believes that Methodius first went to Kocel's Pannonia, which theSalzburg clergy had evacuated, and resided there for a while before going toMoravia, where he was captured.


42. ZM, chap. 9, pp. 152-53; Kantor and White, VM, chap. 9, p. 81. Dvornik,Byzantine Missions, 153; F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, 97-98; V. Burr,"Anmerkungen zum Konflikt," 39-65; Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 69;Dopsch, "Slawenmission und päpstliche Politik," 331; Löwe, "Ermenrich vonPassau," 229-32; and Klaus Gamber, ''Erzbischof Methodios,'' 110-15.


44. For evidence of Methodius's confinement in Reichenau, see Zettler, "Cyrillund Method," 180-98, and "Methodius in Reichenau," 367-79.

45. Horace G. Lunt, "'*Kraljqb'?" 483-89.

46. Ibid., 486-89. The first three uses of korolb are found in chaps. 9 and 10,ZM, pp. 151-53. Lunt believes that these passages all refer to Carloman, notto Louis the German, who was "the king." The final usage of korolb is in theZM, chap. 16, p. 160. In this case there is general agreement that the"Hungarian korolb" in the



Page 361

text is not a Magyar ruler, but Carloman's brother, Charles III. See ZM,160, n. 1, and Dvornik, Byzantine Missions, 185 and 390-91, n. 49.

47. Lunt, "The Beginning of Written Slavic," 215. In his essay "'*Kraljqb'?"Lunt wrote that "It is, I am convinced, the duty of the historians to attempt tofit their theories to include an interpretation of korolb-Karl in all of itsoccurrences in VM.''

48. ZM, chap. 9, pp. 151-52 and chap. 10, p. 153. This translation wasgenerously prepared for me by Professor Lunt.

49. Lunt, "'*Kraljqb'?" 486.

50. Ibid., 485-86. Dvornik (Byzantine Missions, 382, n. 40) also believed that"the word Moravian (king)" must have been added by a copyist.Nevertheless, he was convinced that there was a formal trial held inRegensburg in the presence of King Louis.

51. Kantor and White, VM, 81, mistakenly translated this passage as "I willspeak the truth before the Emperor." Burr, "Anmerkungen zum Konflikt," 51-52, correctly follows the text of the Luther Bible, "Ich spreche die Wahrheitvor Königen und schäme mich nicht."

52. Vita Clementi (MMFH 2: 200-234), which contains a detailed account ofMethodius's activity, also says nothing about this episode.

53. Lunt, "'*kraljqb'?" 486-87.

54. Ibid., 487.

55. Trad. Freising, no. 898c., p. 702.

56. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 6, nos. 15 and 16, pp. 281-82.

57. Ibid., no. 23, p. 286. For the date of the papal letter, see Löwe,"Consensus -- consessus," 507.

58. Ibid., no. 21, pp. 284-85.

59. Ibid., no. 22, pp. 285-86.

60. Löwe, "Ermenrich von Passau," 232-33, argues that such rough treatmentcould not possibly have occurred before a solemn synod and suggests that



Methodius must have been mishandled by guards as he was beingtransported to the council. In his opinion, the pope was holding Ermenrichresponsible for the misconduct of his men.

61. S. Sakac, "Bemerkung zum Methodiusprozess," 175-80. Dvornik(Byzantine Missions, 152) believed that there was a trial at the "Reichstag" inRegensburg on the basis of "the king's" presence; yet he also insisted that"the place, and the whole affair, were kept secret." Zettler, "Methodius inReichenau,'' agrees that the proceedings must have been clandestine ones.

62. Sackac, Ibid., 178.

63. Lunt has pointed out to me that Rastislav disappears from the VM inchapter 8, which is logical since he was tried and dispatched to a monasteryfollowing the Frankish invasion of his principality in 870. Kocel appears for thelast time in the VM when Methodius is released from Reichenau more thantwo years later. Nothing is said about the Frankish invasion of Moravia, norabout the place of Methodius's incarceration. Thus, there are major gaps inthe VM. Lunt suspects that the version we know was abridged by a Russiancopyist.

64. For these routes, see Störmer, "Zur Frage der Funktionen des kirchlichenFernbesitzes," 379-403, especially maps, pp. 387 and 394.



Page 362

65. Gamber, "Erzbischof Methodios," 113, explains, "Der am Prozeß mehrpassiv beteiligte Regensburger Bischof Ambricho wird vom Papst nichtgetadelt."

66. Kantor and White (VM, 136, n. 59) state that the fourth bishop wasAdalbert of Salzburg. There was, however, no Adalbert who was archbishopof Salzburg. Adalwin, who died in 873, was succeeded by Theotmar, who fellin the Magyar campaign of 907.

67. F. Grivec with F. Tomsic, Constantinus et Methodius ThessalonicensesFontes, 230, n. 3.

68. Wolfram, Conversio, 58-59, and his comments, 142-45.

69. Boba, "The Cathedral Church of Sirmium," 39-40. The VM (MMFH 2: 162)simply reports that Methodius was buried in his cathedral church, an edificethat has never been identified by archaeologists. The so-called Proloznoezitie Mefodija (MMFH 2: 166) states that the archbishop "rests in thecathedral church of Morava on the left side, in the wall behind the altar." Agrave (probably a bishop's) has been discovered beneath the church of St.Ireneus. Osteological remains from this grave are in a sack numbered ''18" atBrooklyn College, New York. As I write no attempt has been made to date orto identify them.

70. H. Lunt, "Vita Methodii XIV and Waterspouts," 39-41; and ZM, 159.

71. Kantor and White, VM, 87, opt for this translation.

72. Lunt, "Vita Methodii XIV and Waterspouts," 40.


74. Ibid.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid., a. 884, p. 110, state that the brothers died in a conflict with theMoravians, presumably in 871. Cf. Annales Bertiniani, a. 871, p. 117, reportthat the Wends killed the margraves (markiones), but does not name them.

77. Miroslava Mirkovic, "Sirmium," 57-60, makes a powerful argument forcontinuity of settlement in the vicinity of Sirmium. On the siege of Sirmium,see Pohl, Die Awaren, 70-76. The Avars were only able to take the city by



surrounding it and cutting off supplies for three years. Although a fire diddestroy the city, much stone building material remained, and the ancientbaths of Sirmium were still there in the fourteenth century. There is noquestion about the fact that agrarian settlements existed around Sirmium inthe eighth and ninth centuries, especially south of the Sava near MacvanskaMitrovica, the medieval Villa Sancti Irenei, where Boba believes Methodiuswas laid to rest. Cf. Pohl, Die Awaren, 124.

78. MGH Poetae Latinae aevi Carolini, 1, 131. The most recent critical editionis found in L'oeuvre Poetique de Paulin d'Aquilée, ed. with commentary byDag Norbert, 100. Eric was killed during an uprising in Istria. Of the regionsunder his jurisdiction, Paul lists Sirmium first. Also, Sirmium was mentionedas a city that still existed at the end of the eighth century by the so-calledGeographer of Ravenna. Joseph Schnetz, Itineraria Romana 2: RavennatisAnonymi Cosmographia book 4, chap. 19, p. 56.

79. Mirkovic, "Sirmium," 58, n. 343.


81. Trad. Freising no. 790, pp. 643-44.




Page 363

83. Reuter's translation, Annals of Fulda, 65.


85. The Annales Bertiniani, a. 871, p. 117, also stresses the magnitude of theBavarian defeat at the hands of Zwentibald, stating that "[Louis] suffereddisastrous losses of the territory he had gained in the years preceding." JanetNelson's translation, The Annals of St.-Bertin, 173.


87. Ibid.



90. Ibid., 76. See translations by Rau, Quellen, 3: 87; and Reuter, The Annalsof Fulda, 68.

91. P. G. W. Glare, ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary, Danubius, 484 and Hister,799.

92. Mirkovic, "Sirmium," 58; and Pohl, Die Awaren, 71.


94. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 2: 340-41.

95. MGH Capp. 2: 342.

96. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, 2: 340.

97. Lexikon des Mittelalters 3: 655.

98. Sullivan, "Khan Boris," 92.

99. B-M, Regesta imperii, 1: Louis II, 482-524; Carloman, 646-56.


101. Cf. Rau, Quellen, 3: 87. Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 69, n. 12, thinksthat he was probably involved in "the replacement of border counts killed inthe previous year."

102. This route is the one that Arnulf took in the autumn of 888. C. Bowlus,



"Moravia's Early History," 567.


104. B-M, Regesta imperii, 634-38.

105. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5, no. 15, pp. 280-81.

106. Ibid., nos. 16, 20, 21, 22, pp. 281-86.

107. Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs, vol. 1, part 1: 189.

108. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5, no. 21, p. 284.

109. Ibid., nos. 17, 18, 19, p. 282.



112. Aleksandar Kuzev, "Bemerkungen," 188.


114. Ibid.

115. MGHDD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 156, pp. 219-20.

116. B-M, Regesta imperii, 639.

117. E. Herrmann, Slawisch--Germanische Beziehungen, 135; and E. Klebel,"Eine neuaufgefundenene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle," 134.


119. Wilhelm Neumann, "Alpuuinus de Carantania," 362.



Page 364

Chapter 7:Expansion of Zwentibald's Realm, 874-885


2. Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, a. 876, p. 112.


4. For a discussion of the Wilhelminer Fehde see Störmer, Früher Adel, 192.For the importance of the two versions of the Annales Fuldenses, see HagenKeller, "Zum Sturz Karls III.," 333-84. See also Bowlus, "Moravia's EarlyHistory," 557-63. For my translation of the account of this conflict by theRegensburg continuator, see Appendix 1. Cf. Timothy Reuter, The Annals ofFulda, 108-11.

5. Cf. Gerd Althoff, "Zur Bedeutung," 13-21, who doubts the seriousness ofthis conflict.


7. Ibid., 105-6. Editions of Presbyter Diocleas, Regnum Sclavorum, are F.Sisic, ed., Letopis popa Duklanina (Beograd, Zagreb, 1928), and V. Mosin,ed., Ljetopis popa Dukljanina (Zagreb, 1950).


9. Herrmann, Slawisch-Germanische Beziehungen, 168.

10. See Grivec, Konstantin und Method, 144-47.

11. Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae 1: no. 109,pp. 139-41.

12. Monumenta spectantia historiam slavorum meridionalium 8: 231.



15. See Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered, 107 n. 7.

16. Ibid.

17. Sisic, Geschichte der Kroaten, 99-100.



18. Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatae 1: no. 12, p. 15.

19. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5, no. 200, p. 160.

20. Codex Dipolmaticus regni Croatiae 1: no. 11, p. 15.


22. Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatiae 1: p. 1, and no. 17, p. 16.

23. Sullivan, "Khan Boris," 95.

24. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 195.

25. This inscription is now on display in the Croatian Historical Museum,Zagreb.

26. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi, 5, no. 201, pp. 160-61.

27. Ibid., no. 255, pp. 222-24.

28. Boba, "The Episcopacy of St. Methodius," 30-31. Schelesniker, "Diehistorischen und politischen Hintergründe," 269-79. Also see Schelesniker'sreview article, "Gedanken," especially, 182-83.

29. Boba, "The Episcopacy of St. Methodius," 30-31.

30. Schelesniker, "Gedanken," 183.

31. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 195.

32. For Theodosius see Sisic, Geschichte der Kroaten, 111; for Wiching, seeHerrmann, Slawisch-Germanische Beziehungen, "Exkurs 1," 209-11.



Page 365

33. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5, no. 200, p. 160; no. 201, p. 161.

34. See R. Katicic, "Die Anfänge des kroatischen Staates," 300-301.

35. Boba, "The Episcopacy of St. Methodius," 30-31.

36. MGH Epp. 7, Karolini aevi V, no. 255, p. 223.

37. Harry Breßlau in "Der angebliche Brief," 22-26. Reprinted by Herrmann,Slawisch-Germanische Beziehungen, 182-85. For my translation of thisimportant text, see Appendix 2.


39. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, 112-13.

40. See Sullivan, "Khan Boris," esp. 131-39.

41. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, 119.

42. Translation by Kantor and White, VM chap. 10, p. 119; ZM chap. 10, p.154.

43. Kantor and White, VM chap. 11, p. 121; ZM chap. 11, p. 156.


45. Vincenz, "The Moravian Mission in Poland," 639-54. Urbanczyk, "Wirktedie methodianische Mission in Polen?" 341-46.

46. Schelesniker, "Gedanken," 185.

47. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5 no. 276, pp. 243-44.


49. Störmer, "Zur Frage der Funktion des kirchlichen Fernbesitzes," 380; W.Brugger, "Die herzogliche und karolingische Pfalz," 86ff.; S. Haider, "ZumProblem karolingischer Pfalzen," 11-38.

50. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum, 1: nos. 15 and 16, pp.305-8.

51. Störmer, "Zur Frage der Funktion des kirchlichen Fernbesitzes," 380-81.

52. Carloman's only surviving charter from Regensburg is MGH DD, regum



Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 1, pp. 285-86; nos. 4-10, pp. 289-300, were issued in Italy.

53. Ibid., no. 3, pp. 287-88.

54. Ibid., no. 10, pp. 299-300 (Verona) and no. 11, pp. 300-301 (Ötting).

55. Ibid., no. 2, pp. 286-87.

56. Ibid., no. 14, pp. 304-5.

57. Störmer, "Zur Frage der Funktion des kirchlichen Fernbesitzes," 380-81.


59. Ibid., a. 890, p. 134.

60. Althoff, "Zur Bedeutung," 13-21, esp. 14.

61. Arnold Angenendt, Kaiserherrschaft und Königstaufe, 243.

62. B-M, Regesta Imperii, 786.

63. Ibid., 235 (Louis the Pious), 561 (Louis the German), and 646(Carloman).


65. Ibid., 201.


67. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 126-31. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 331,recognized that Cadolah was a name common among the Alamanni active inthe



Page 366

southeastern marches. Nevertheless, he identifies Kocel with theWilhelminer, overlooking the obvious possibility that there might havebeen some close relationship between Cadolah of Friuli and Pribina.

68. Conversio, chap. 11, p. 54; and Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen,198.

69. Kantor and White, VM, 83. ZM chap. 10, p. 153.

70. The Conversio, chap. 7, p. 46, for example, stresses that since the days ofBishop Virgil, Salzburg had sent missionaries into Slavonia (in Sclaviniam),which is clearly defined as "in partes videlicet Quarantanas atque inferiorisPannoniae."

71. E. Herrmann, Slawisch-Germanische Beziehungen, 135.

72. Pirchegger, "Karantanien und Unterpannonien," 307-10 and "DieUntersteiermark," 58. This thesis is based on a Salzburg Forgery attributed toArnulf of Carinthia, MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum, 3: no.184, pp. 281-86. See Dopsch, "Slawenmission und päpstliche Politik," 330, n.112. A deed, Trad. Regensburg, no. 86, p. 78, dated c. 876-80, testifies thatArnulf became ''dominus" in the region of Lake Balaton at that time.


74. As we have seen above, Werner I and Gerold II can be identified ascounts east of the Enns before 830. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 90,believes that Werner became count there c. 830, as a subordinate to PrefectRatpot. On the other hand, there is some reason to believe that Ratpotgoverned the territory east of the Enns directly himself, without a subordinatecount. In this case, Werner, who appears as Count Werinhar, c. 857, musthave been appointed in the 850s, around the time when Carloman becameprefect and shifted the center of gravity in the marches to Carantania.

75. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 179-88. Cf. Bowlus, "Wilhelminerund die Mährer."


77. Ibid., 198-200.





80. Cf. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 289, and p. 527, n. 15.


82. Trad. Regensburg, no. 102, p. 91. The donation was originally madeearlier, no. 86, p. 78.


84. Bowlus, "Wilhelminer und die Mährer," 759.

85. See Appendix 1.


87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid.

90. Annales Fuldenses, a. 884, p. 113: "(Zwentibaldus) . . . prospere reversusest postea quoque missa quadam exercitus sui parte supra Danubium." Rau,Quellen, 3: 141, translated it into German: "(Zwentibald) ließ aber auchnachher noch einen Teil seines Heeres an der Donau." Reuter, The Annals ofFulda, 110, has recently translated it: "afterwards (Zwentibald) sent some ofhis army across the Danube."



Page 367


92. Schmid, "Das Zeugnis," 200-201; Althoff, "Zur Bedeutung," 15.


94. Kantor and White, VM, chap. 16, p. 89. ZM chap. 16, pp. 160-61.


96. Kantor and White, VM chap. 13, p. 123. ZM chap. 13, pp. 158-59.

97. Kantor and White, VM chap. 16, p. 125 and p. 138, n. 76. Grivec,Konstantin und Method, 132. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions, 185 and 390-91, n.49; Lunt, "'*kraljq,'" 487. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 299.

98. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, 144-56.

99. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi, 5, pp. 355-58.

Chapter 8:Arnulf and Zwentibald, 887892

1. Bowlus, "Moravia's Early History." Although German-speaking scholarsbelieve that there was a close relationship between Arnulf's Ostpolitik and hiselevation to the kingship, they have never defined clearly what exactly thatOstpolitik involved. There was a classic debate on this subject by Tellenbachand Schlesinger. They were, however, more concerned with Arnulf's"election" than with his Ostpolitik. Their essays have been reprinted in DieEntstehung des deutschen Reiches, ed. Helmut Kämpf, and Königswahl undThronfolge, ed. Eduard Hlawitschka. To a large extent Schlesinger andTellenbach disagreed because they based their arguments on differentversions of the Annales Fuldenses. Cf. Hagen Keller, ''Zum Sturz Karls III.,"333-84.



4. Bowlus, "Moravia's Early History," 564.

5. Ibid., 564-65, n. 28.

6. Ibid., 565-66.




8. MGHDD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 42, pp. 60-61 andno. 43, pp. 62-63.

9. Ibid., no. 44, pp. 63-64.


11. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 72a, p. 109.

12. Ibid., no. 75, pp. 112-13.


14. In reporting Charlemagne's Avar campaign, the Annales Iuvavensesmaximi state, "Karolus perrexit in Pannoniam ultra Omuntesdorf," which ledKlebel to believe that Omuntesdorf was somewhere near the Pannonianborder. This is a reasonable assumption, but we cannot be sure thatOmuntesdorf is the same place as Omuntesperch. For the complete text ofthese annals and Klebel's commentary, see "Eine neuaufgefundeneSalzburger Geschichtsquelle," 12, n. 43. As Pohl (Die Awaren, 310, 317, andesp. 458 n. 27) has pointed out, many sources indicate that c. 800 the Ennswas considered to be the boundary between Bavaria and Pannonia. In



Page 368

this case, the border locality Omuntesdorf (the one that Charlemagnepassed through) could have been located near the Enns. As Pohldemonstrates (p. 458 n. 27) the location (s) ofOmuntesdorf/Omuntesperch is (are) far from certain.

15. For a more detailed discussion, see Bowlus, "Moravia's Early History,"567-69.

16. Since the Annales Fuldenses state that the meeting took place inPannonia, it seems probable that the royal civitas in the charter was theMoosburg on Lake Balaton rather than the Carantanian urbs.


18. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches, 3: 365-68.






24. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stripe Karolinorum 3: no. 86, pp. 127-28.

25. Bowlus, "Two Carolingian Campaigns."



28. Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, a. 891, p. 137, reports that theFrankish defeat occurred on June 26. Messengers, who travel much fasterthan courts or armies, could easily have reached Arnulf before July 21.


30. Hansmartin Schwarzmaier, "Ein Brief," 55-56.

31. Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, a. 891, p. 137; and Bowlus,"Two Carolingian Campaigns," 123-24.



32. On this point I am in full agreement with Wolfram, Die Geburt, 304, whoargues that his victory over the Danes made him an "erfolgreicherHeerkönig."


34. For the meaning of Arnulf's triumph over the Danes, see MichaelMcCormick, Eternal Victory, 355, 356, 377 (n. 214), and esp. 383, who callsattention to the fact that signum invictissimi appeared in the dating formulasof Arnulf's charters.

35. J. Schütz, "Methods Widersacher Wiching," 391-93. It is interesting tonote that Arbo's letter to Arnulf was unintentionally preserved as amanuscript binding in the monastery of Reichenau.

36. Schwarzmaier, "Ein Brief," 65.

37. Annales Fuldenses, a. 892, pp. 121-22. The translation is mine. Cf.Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 124-25.



40. Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 2: 77.


42. Ibid., nos. 99 and 100, pp. 144-46.

43. Ibid., no. 101, pp. 146-48.

44. Ibid., no. 102, pp. 148-49.

45. Ibid., no. 103, pp. 149-52.

46. Ibid.



Page 369

47. Ibid., no. 102, pp. 148-49.

48. Annales Fuldenses, a. 892, p. 121. Kurze notes that Marauam is a variantreading, although he opts for Maraviam.

49. Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered, 136. Special constructions, such asthe accusative of place for cities, need no prepositions. In contrast the act ofgoing to a regum requires the preposition "in." Frederic M. Wheelock, Latin.An Introductory Course Based on Ancient Authors, 3rd edition (New York,1963), 178.

50. Cf. Löwe, "Ermenrich von Passau," 234.

51. Helena Burchard, Antonia Keckowa, and Lech Leciejewicz, "DieSalzgewinnung auf polnischem Boden," 743-60. Although there is no certainarchaeological evidence for salt pans in Wieliczka (near Kraców) during theRoman period, the authors have concluded that salt production is the mostprobable reason for the location of this early settlement (p. 748). There isunequivocal evidence of salt pans there dating from the tenth century (pp.754-55). See also, Fritz Koller, "Salzproduktion und Salzhandel," 220-22.

52. Cf. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 304.




56. Ibid., no. 21, pp. 31-32.

57. Ibid., no. 22, pp. 32-33.

58. Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 1: 133-34.





63. Ibid., no. 20, pp. 30-31.



64. Ibid., no. 91, pp. 133-34. For Freising's presence on the Wörthersee, Trad.Freising, no. 832, pp. 720-21.

65. Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 2: 281-83.


67. Ibid., no. 98, pp. 143-44.

68. Cf. Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs 1: 192-93. Dopsch does admit,however, "Von einer gewissen Vorliebe, die Arnulf zeitlebens für Bayern unddessen Marken zeigte, hat aber auch das Erzstift Salzburg profitiert." Thehypothesis that Theotmar had little or no influence with Arnulf during hisearly reign needs to be reexamined. As M. Mitterauer has shown ("Slawischerund bayrischer Adel," 703-4), Archbishop Theotmar was tied to a group ofnobles who were among Arnulf's closest advisers during his early reign.


70. See the section "The Minsterialis Heimo and His Kin," Chapter 10.

Chapter 9:The Hungarian Conquest, 892-907

1. For the purpose of clarity and style, I shall use the terms Hungarian andMagyar (both acceptable in modern English) to describe what was in reality a



Page 370

polyethnic confederation of nomads, hunters, and gatherers that was inthe process of formation at that time.

2. Widukind, Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum, chap. 19, p. 426, and Liutprand,Antapodosis, book 1, chap. 13, p. 279.


4. Annales Sangallenses maiores, a. 863 1: p. 76, and Carl Henking, Dieannalistischen Aufzeichnungen, 274.

5. Denis Sinor, "Horses and Pasture," 171-83.

6. Szabolcs de Vajay, Der Eintritt, 11-12. Boba, Nomads, 68.

7. Boba, Nomads, 95-97.

8. Vajay, Der Eintritt, no. 5b, p. 12.

9. Vajay, Der Eintritt, 12.


11. Breßlau, "Der angebliche Brief," 22-26. My English translation of relevantpassages is in Appendix 2.

12. Klebel, "Eine neuaufgefundene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle," 14.

13. Ernst Winter, Studien zum Severinsproblem, 238.

14. Vajay, Der Eintritt, 16-17.

15. DAI, chaps. 39 and 40, pp. 174-77.

16. Sinor, "Horses and Pasture," 172-74; and Rudi Paul Linder, "Nomadism,"3-19.


18. Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, a. 889, pp. 131-33.

19. Ibid., 132.


21. Ibid., a. 894, p. 124.



22. Ibid., 125.


24. Widukind, Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum, chap. 19, p. 426.

25. Liutprand, Antapodosis, book 1, chap. 13, p. 279.

26. Vajay, Der Eintritt, 25-26; and Ostrogorsky, History of the ByzantineState, 256-57.


28. Ibid., a. 895, p. 127.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid., a. 897, p. 137.

31. Ibid.

32. Rau, Fuldaer Annalen, 171; and Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 137.

33. Boba, "'Caranthani Marahenses,'" 87.

34. Ibid.


36. Ibid. Cf. Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 138-39.

37. Kurt Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 3-7 and 13.


39. Ibid., a. 899, p. 133.

40. Ibid., a. 900, p. 134.



Page 371

41. Vajay, Der Eintritt, 29 n. 68; and Gina Fasoli, I re d'Italia, 51-52.

42. Vajay, Der Eintritt, 30-31.


44. Ibid., a. 900, p. 134.

45. For the literature, see Vajay, Der Eintritt, 32 n. 85.

46. Ex Simon de Keza Gestis, 533. Mitterauer believes that Brazlavo was ableto maintain his position in Pannonia until 903 (Karolingische Markgrafen, 167-68).

47. Annales Gradicenses, a. 900, p. 645.

48. Johannis diaconi Chronicon Venetum, 131.


50. Annales Fuldenses, a. 900, 134-35.

51. Ibid.

52. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 4: no. 9, p. 110. In thischarter the Ennsburg is designated civitas, also indicating a large fortification.


54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 142, his brackets; and Rau, Fuldaer Annalen,177. He translated it into German as: ''Inzwischen waren die Ungarn in densüdlichen Teil ihres Reiches eingedrungen und verwüsteten Kärnten," leavingthe question -- whose Reich? -- open.


58. Boba, "'Caranthani Marahenses,'" 86-87.

59. P. J. Safarik Slawische Alterthüer, 495.

60. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stripe Karolinorum 4: no. 9, pp. 108-9.



61. Annales Mellicenses, a. 901, p. 496, report only that the battle occurredon the Sabbath. However, the author of the Annales Gradicenses, a. 902, p.645, added in sabbato paschae. Although the latter entry was made underthe year 902, this anomaly is easily accounted for by the fact that theannalist used the Paschal calendar.

62. For example, Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 167-68, 187-88, 218,222-26.

63. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 36.


65. Annales Mellicenses, a. 901, p. 496; and Chronicon Herimanni Augiensis,a. 901, p. 111.

66. Chronicon Herimanni Augiensis, a. 902, p. 111.

67. Annales Alamannici, a. 902, p. 54; and Reindel, Liutpoldinger, 39.

68. Annales Sangallenses maiores, a. 902, p. 77; and Annales Alamannici a.904, p. 54. On the dating, see Vajay, Der Eintritt, 34-35 n. 96.

69. Vajay, Ibid., 37-38.

70. Annales Alamannici, a. 903, p. 54.


72. Ibid., no. 27, pp. 135-36. See Chapter 10 for a detailed discussion.


74. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3: 435, 457, 488, 562,and



Page 372

578. At this time the term ministerialis did not yet connote an unfreemilitary retainer. For a thorough discussion see Karl Bosl, Frühformen, 228-325.

75. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3: 486, 548.


77. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3: 457, 487, 535, 578.

78. Ibid., 517, 525; and Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 107.

79. We shall consider this question in more detail in the next chapter.

80. Gina Fasoli, I re d'Italia, 64-90; Rudolf Hiestand, Byzanz und das RegnumItalicum, 84-90; and Vajay, Der Eintritt, 38-40.

81. Gina Fasoli, Le incursione Ungare, 116.

82. In addition to the works cited in note 80, see René Poupardin, LeRoyaume de Provence, 164-227, and C. W. Prévite-Orton, "Italy andProvence," 335-47.


84. For my translation of this letter, see Appendix 2.

85. Annales Corbeienses, a. 906, p. 4; Annales Hildesheimenses, a. 906, p.52; Annalista Saxo, a. 906, p. 591; and Dümmler, Geschichte desostfränkischen Reiches 3: 546.

86. Boba, "Dux Boemorum," 13-25; and Gabreil Silagi and László Veszprémy,Die "Gesta Hungarorum," chaps. 35-37, pp. 88-93.

87. Boba, "Dux Boemorum," 16-17.

88. Ibid., 18; and Boba, "One or Two 'Attilas'?" 37-73.

89. The founder of modern Turkey, for example, was named Mustafa by hisparents, but he became known to his subjects as Atatürk, the father of theTurks.

90. Anton Tocik, Archäologische Forschung, 106-7.

91. See Appendix 2; and Breßlau, "Der angebliche Brief," 23-24.



92. MGH Epp 7, Karolini aevi 5: no. 255, p. 224.


94. Boba, "Dux Boemorum," 25.

95. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 59-60.

96. Ibid.


98. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 59-60.

99. Klebel, "Eine neuaufgefundene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle," 136 n. 115.For other arguments see Boba, "Braslavespurc," 10.



102. Annales Fuldenses, a. 884, p. 113; a. 896, p. 130.

103. Boba, "Braslavespurc," 10-11.

104. Ibid., 12. Also, see Alexander Brückner, "Breslau-Preßburg," 312-13.

105. Boba, "Braslavespurc" 15; and Conversio, chap. 11, p. 54; chap. 13, p.56.

106. I have used the edition Aventini annalium Boiorum. ex autenticismanuscriptis codicib. recogniti, restituti, aucti Nic. Cisneri (Basileae, 1580),library of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 4 Dx 611. Versions of theseannals have been reprinted in Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 63, andin Boba, "Braslavespurc," 21-22.

107. See, for example, Tóth, "Die karolingische Burg," 180 n. 85.



Page 373

108. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3: 548 n. 1.

109. Störmer, Früher Adel, 236-37.

110. Boba, "Braslavespurc," 18.

111. Ibid., 17.

112. Ibid., 9. Boba's translation.

113. Annales Alamannici, a. 907, p. 54.

114. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 69.

115. Störmer, Früher Adel, 236-37.


117. Nada Klaic, Provijest Hravata, 273.

118. Boba, "Braslavespurc," 16.


120. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, commentary, 61-62.

121. Ibid., 69-70, concerning other possible dates.

122. Ibid., 62. Also see Kehr's commentary, MGH DD, regum Germaniae exstirpe Karolinorum 4: no. 84, p. 229.

123. Ex Simon de Keza Gestis, 536.

124. See, for example, Karl Leyser's account concerning the inability ofMagyars to take Augsburg prior to the battle on the Lech in 955, MedievalGermany, 43-69.

125. Störmer, Früher Adel, 237.

126. MGH Capp. 2, no. 253, p. 249. Cf. M. Mitterauer, "Zollordnung vonRaffelstetten," 235-63.



129. Breßlau, "Der angebliche Brief," 25; and Appendix 2.



Chapter 10:Marcher Society at the End of the Carolingian Era

1. Störmer, "Ostfränkische Herrschaftskrise," esp. 70-77.



4. Ibid., see chart on 168.


6. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 63, pp. 92-94 andno. 64, 96-97.

7. Fleckenstein, Hofkapelle 1, 202-3.

8. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum: no. 109, pp. 161-62.

9. B-M, Regesta Imperii, no. 1881, p. 758.


11. Ibid., no. 97, pp. 142-43.

12. Ibid., no. 98, pp. 143-44.

13. Ibid., nos. 99 and 100, pp. 144-46.

14. Ibid., nos. 101, 102, 103, pp. 146-52.

15. Ibid., nos. 104, pp. 152-54.



Page 374

16. Ibid., nos. 106-8, pp. 156-60.

17. Ibid., nos. 115-16, pp. 170-72.

18. SUB 1, no. 8, pp. 74-76.

19. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und Bayerischer Adel," 710-11.



22. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 180. In addition to the propertiesmentioned in the charter, probably Wilhelmsburg in the Traisen valley alsobelonged to this family. Herzogenburg, however, is questionable, formembers of this family never held a ducal title.

23. Ibid., 181-87.

24. SUB 1, no. 57, pp. 118-19.

25. See Hauthaler's introduction to SUB 1, no. 2, p. 68.

26. H. Dopsch, "Aribonen," 72-74.

27. SUB 1, no. 23, pp. 87-88.

28. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayerische Adel," 708; and SUB 1, no. 13, pp.79-80.

29. SUB 1, no., pp. 10, 175-76.

30. Dopsch, "Stifterfamilie," 96-101.

31. MGH DD, regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2: no. 235, p. 264.

32. Dopsch, "Stifterfamilie," 101.

33. MGH DD, regum et imperatorum Germaniae 2: no. 298, p. 351; andDopsch, "Stifterfamilie," 100.


35. Ibid., 122.

36. SUB 1, no. 23, pp. 87-88.



37. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 184. SUB 1, no. 44b, pp. 105-8, no.76, pp. 136-38, no. 80, pp. 141-42.

38. SUB 1, no. 2, 68-69.

39. Huter, Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 2: 2: 70(Großlobming), 113 (Neumarkt).

40. SUB 1, no. 41, pp. 102-3.


42. Karl Schmid, "Slawen," 287.

43. SUB 1, no. 44a, 105-6. Dopsch, "Aribonen," 60.

44. SUB 1, no. 44b, 105-8.

45. Dopsch, "Aribonen," 154 n. 35.

46. Cf. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 184.

47. SUB 1, no. 76, pp. 136-38; and no. 80, pp. 141-42.

48. Reindel, Die bayerischen Luitpoldinger, no. 31, 46-47.

49. Dopsch, "Aribonen," 57.

50. SUB 1, nos. 77, 78, 79, pp. 138-41.

51. Ibid., nos. 80 and 81, p. 141.

52. Ibid., no. 81b, pp. 142-43, shows that Bernard was unmarried onFebruary 8; no. 76, pp. 136-38, demonstrates that he was married on August2, 933.

53. Ibid., no. 87, pp. 150-51.



Page 375

54. Ibid., no. 79, pp. 140-41.

55. Ibid., no. 74, pp. 134-35.


57. Reindel, Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger, 136-39, summarizes thescholarship.


59. SUB 1, no. 36, pp. 98-99.

60. For example, Wolfram, Die Geburt, 305.


62. Trad. Regensburg, 16.



65. Conversio chap. 11, pp. 52-53.

66. Ibid., 134.

67. Schmid, "Slawen," 284.


69. Quoted from Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3: 394 n.1.

70. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 32, pp. 47-48.Wolfram, Die Geburt, 360.

71. Breßlau, "Der angebliche Brief," 22-23. See my translation in Appendix 2.

72. Francis N. Estey, "The Meaning of Placitum," 435-39. As Mitterauer,"Slawischer und bayerischer Adel," 700, has noted, a grant of immunity ofthis size was exceptional during this period. Yet it clearly only applied to themallus in the Grunzwitigau. In no way did this charter pertain to Arbo's rightsto hold placita in Moravian territory, if indeed he had such a right in 888,when Zwentibald was at the height of his power.



73. MGH Capp 2, no. 253, p. 250. This document, the so-called Raffelstettentolls, which regulated trade on the Danube, does in fact list a Heimo as oneof forty-one iudices orientalium.

74. Lechner, Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs 1, 339-40.

75. Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs 1, 192. For bibliography and maps, see Sós,Die slawische Bevölkerung, 47-65.

76. Bowlus, "Moravia's Early History," 572-74.

77. Wolfram, Die Geburt, 303. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayerischer Adel,"699-700.

78. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 2: no. 113, p. 180. Cf.Wolfram, ibid., who believes that the Heimo document represents an attempton the part of Arnulf to develop a "fifth column" in Arbo's lordship.

79. Trad. Freising, no. 550a, p. 471. Bowlus, "Prosopographicial Evidence,"11. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 145, and "Slawischer undbayrischer Adel," 697.

80. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 42, 60-61, andno. 181, 275-76. Although the latter charter is a forgery, no scholar doubtsthat Heimo and Miltrud did receive substantial properties from Arnulf in theregion around the Karnburg. See Dopsch, Geschichte Salzburgs, 193, andMitterauer, "Slawischer und bayrischer Adel," 700.



Page 376

81. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 99, 143.

82. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafschaften, 90.

83. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayrischer Adel," 698-700.

84. U. Ludwig and K. Schmid, "Hunfrid, Witagowo und Heimo," 85.


86. Ludwig and Schmid, "Hunfrid, Witagowo und Heimo," 90.

87. Michael Borgolte, Geschichte der Grafschaften Alemanniens, 222.

88. MGH Capp 2, no. 203, pp. 65-68 and MGH DD, regum Germaniae exstirpe Karolinorum 1: no. 22, pp. 316-17.




92. Werner, "Bedeutende Adelsfamilien," Excurs 1, 133-37. Gockel,Karolingische Königshöfe, see especially 252-55.

93. Tellenbach, "Großnkischer Adel," 54-55.


95. Dopsch, "Die steirischen Otakare," 81.

96. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayrischer Adel," 698-701. Trad. Freising, no.1036, pp. 780-81.

97. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayrischer Adel," 702-6.

98. Ibid., 702.

99. SUB 1, no. 94, 157-58.

100. Ibid., no. 67, p. 128; no. 90, p. 154; no. 96, p. 159; (924-927); no. 75,pp. 135-36 (April 930).


102. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayerischer Adel," 705; Dümmler,



Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3: 331 n. 3.

103. See Kehr comments, MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum3: no. 160, p. 242. "Sie (die verlorene Urkunde) hätte uns vielleicht Auskunftgegeben, ob diese Dame, deren Sohn Zwentibald hier ohne jede nähereBezeichnung genannt wird, etwa die Nebenfrau Arnolfs und Mutter deslothringischen Königs gewesen its."


105. Ibid., no. 193, 298-99.

106. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und Germanischer Adel," 706.

107. A. Jaksch, Monumenta Historiae Ducatus Carinthiae 1: no. 297, 224.



110. Annales Fuldenses, a. 899, p. 132; and Reuter, The Annals of Fulda, 139.In this case I have used Reuter's translation.

111. Dopsch, "Die Stifterfamilie," 109.


113. Reuter's translation, The Annals of Fulda, 138.

114. See Appendix 2.

115. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayerischer Adel," 706. Dopsch, "Stifter-



Page 377

familie,'' acknowledges that the Carantanian Zwentibald must have hadsome Moravian connections--though he refuses to speculate what exactlythey may have been. See his chart, p. 121.


117. The appearance of the name Moimir among Count Arbo's kin indicatesthat he and his son must have been allied with Moimir. Karl Brunner,Oppositionelle Gruppen, 177.



120. Dopsch, "Stifterfamilie," 110.

121. SUB 1, no. 5, p. 72 (a. 925); no. 12, p. 79 (a. 928); no. 24, p. 89 (a.after May, 927); no. 28, p. 92, (a. 925); no. 38, p. 100 (a. 927); no. 48, p.112 (a. 925); no. 76, p. 137 (a. 930/931); no. 77, p. 139 (a. 928); no. 79, p.141 (a. 930); no. 80, p. 142 (a. 930); no. 90, p. 154 (a. 925/927); no. 101, p.164 (a. 925).

122. Mitterauer, "Slawischer und bayerischer Adel," 705.


124. SUB 1, no. 57, pp. 118-19.

125. Dopsch, "Aribonen," 72-74.

126. SUB 1, no. 23, 87-88.

127. Gertrud Diepolder, "Die Herkunft der Aribonen," 74-119. Dopsch, "DieAribonen." Also see Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 188-206 andStörmer, Früher Adel, 248-50.

128. Ekkehardi Chronicon universale, p. 225.

129. Dopsch, "Die steirischen Otakare," 84 and 125 n. 90.

130. Dopsch, "Gewaltbote und Pfalzgraf," 133.

131. Ibid., 125, note 95.

132. Ibid., 86. Also, Störmer, Früher Adel, 249.



133. Herwig Ebner, Die Besitzgeschichte; Karl Bracher, "Beiträge," 68-101.Dopsch, "Otakare," 84-85.

134. SUB 1, no. 17, pp. 82-83.


136. SUB 1, no. 83, pp. 144-45.


138. SUB 1, no. 43, pp. 104-5.


140. MGH DD, regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1: no. 171, pp. 252-53.


142. Ibid., 38. MGH DD, regum et imperatorum Germaniae 1: no. 202, p. 281,shows him with the comital title in Bavaria in 959.


144. Ibid., no. 279, pp. 395-96.

145. Dopsch, "Aribonen," 40 and 74.




149. Ibid., n. 64, p. 184.



Page 378



152. Chronicon Eberspergense, 10-15.

153. Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen, 161-62, 216-17.

154. Chronicon Eberspergense, 10.

155. Ex chronico Eberspergensi Posteriore, 868 and 870.


157. Chronicon Eberspergense, 10: "Ei (Ratoldo) caesar Karentions terminostuendos commissit." Ex chronico Eberspergensi Posteriore, 868: "CaesarArnolfus Karentinos ei (Ratoldo) terminos ab hostium insulta defensandosrecommisit.




161. Ibid., 225.

162. SUB 1, no. 57, pp. 118-19.


164. Annales Fuldenses, a. 895, p. 125, Mitterauer, Karolingische Markgrafen,242.

165. Reindel, Die Bayerische Liutpoldinger no. 1, p. 1.

166. MGH DD, regum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum 3: no. 138, p. 209, no.162, p. 246, no. 193, p. 299.

167. Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches 3, 394-95, n. 1.


169. Ibid., 228-36.

170. Ibid., 236.




Conclusion

1. The most concrete summary of these objections is found in Wolfram, DieGeburt, 359-60.

2. Klebel, "Die Ostgrenze," 377.



Page 379

Bibliography

Sources

Editions in the Series MGH SS (in Folio)

Adonis Continuatio prima 2: 325-26. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1829.

Annales Alamannici 1: 22-60. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1826.

Annales Corbeienses 3: 1-18. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1839.

Annales Einhardi 1: 186-218. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1826.

Annales Emmerammi Ratisponsis maiores 1: 92-93. Edited by G. H. Pertz.1826.

Annales Emmerammi Ratisponsis minores 1: 93-94. Edited by G. H. Pertz.1826.

Annales Gradicenses 17: 644-53. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1861.

Annales Hildesheimensis 3: 22-116. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1839.

Annales Iuvavenses antiqui excerpti 30 / 2: 732-43. Edited by A. Hofmeister.1934.

Annales Iuvavenses antiqui (excerpti Aventi) 30 / 2: 743-44. Edited by A.Hofmeister. 1934.

Annales Laureshamenses 1: 22-39. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1826.

Annales Mellicenses 9: 480-501. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1851.

Annales Polonorum 19: 609-63. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1866.

Annales Prudentii Trecenses 1: 429-54. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1826.

Annales Sangallenses maiores 1: 50-60. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1926.

Annalium Chesnii Fragmentum 1: 33-34. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1826.

Annalium Lobiensium Fragmenta 2: 192-95. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1829.



Annalista Saxo 6: 590-93. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1844.

Anonymi (Astronomi) Vita Hludowici imperatoris 2: 604-48. Edited G. H.Pertz. 1829.

Auctarium Ekkehardi Altahense 17: 360-65. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1861.

Auctarium Garstense 9: 561-69. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1851.

Chronica Sigeberti Gemblacensis 6: 268-374. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1844.

Chronicon Eberspergense 20: 10-15. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1868.

Chronicon Herimanni Augiensis 5: 67-133. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1844.

Chronicon Moissiacense 1: 280-313. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1926.

De Conversione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum Libellus 9: 1-14. Edited by G.H. Pertz. 1851.

Ekkehardi Chronicon universale 6: 205-57. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1884.

Eigilis Vita Sturmi 2: 365-77. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1829.

Ex Chronico Adonis 2: 315-24. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1829.

Ex Chronico Eberspergensi Posteriore 25: 868-72. Edited by G. Waitz. 1882.



Page 380

Ex Simoni de Keza Gestis Hungarorum 29: 522-46. Edited by L. vonHeinemann. 1892.

Gumpoldi Vita Vencezlavi ducis Bohemiae 4: 211-23. Edited by G. H. Pertz.1841.

Thegani Vita Hludowici imperatoris 2: 585-604. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1826.

Editions in the Series MGH SS Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum

Annales Altahenses maiores. Edited by E. von Oefele. 1891.

Annales Bertiniani. Edited by G. Waitz. 1883.

Annales Fuldenses. Edited by F. Kurze. 1891.

Annales Hildesheimenses. Edited by G. Waitz. 1878.

Annales Marbacenses. Edited by H. Bloch. 1907.

Annales Mettenses priores. Edited by B. von Simson. 1905.

Annales Poloniae. Edited by G. H. Pertz. 1866.

Annales regni Francorum inde ab a. 741 usque ad a. 829, qui dicunturAnnales Laurissenses maiores et Einhardi. Edited by F. Kurze. 1895.

Annales Xantenses et Annales Vedastini. Edited by B. von Simson. 1909.

Arbeonis Vitae, Sanctorum Haimrammi et Corbiniani. Edited by B. Krusch.1920.

Einhard. Vita Caroli Magni. Edited by G. Waitz. 1905.

Liudprand of Cremona. Antapodosis. Edited by J. Becker. 1915.

Nithard. Historarium libri III. Edited by E. Müller. 1907.

Paulus Diaconus. Historia Langobardorum. Edited by G. Waitz. 1878.

Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon cum continuatione Treverensi. Editedby F. Kurze. 1890.

Widukind von Korvey. Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres. Edited by P.Hirsch and H. E. Lohmann. 1935.



Editions in the Series MGH SS Rerum Germanicarum in Usum Scholarum Nova

Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum. Edited by B. Bretholz. 1923.

Notkeri Balbuli Gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris. Edited by H. F. Haefele.Revised edition, 1980.

Thietmari Merseburgensis episcopi Chronicon. Edited by R. Holtzmann. 1935.

Editions in the Series MGH Con

Concilia 2 / 1: Concilia aevi Karolini (742-817). Edited by A. Werminghoff1906.

Concilia 2 / 2: Concilia aevi Karolini (819-842). Edited by A. Werminghoff1908.

Concilia 3: Die Konzilien der Karolingischen Teilreiche (843-859). Edited byW. Hartmann. 1984.



Page 381

Editions in the Series MGH DD

MGH DD Karolinorum.

Diplomata 1: Pippini, Carlomanni, Caroli Magni Diplomata. Edited by E.Mühlbacher. 1906.

MGH DD regnum Germaniae ex stirpe Karolinorum.

Diplomata 1: Ludowici Germanici, Karlomanni, Ludowici Iunioris Diplomata.Edited by P. Kehr. 1934.

Diplomata 2: Karoli III. Diplomata. Edited by P. Kehr. 1937.

Diplomata 3: Arnolfi Diplomata. Edited by P. Kehr. 1940.

Diplomata 4: Zwentiboldi et Ludowici Infantis Diplomata. Edited by T.Schieffer. 1960.

MGH DD regum et imperatorum Germaniae.

Diplomata 1: Conradi I., Heinrici I. et Ottonis I. Dipolmata. Edited by T.Sickel. 1884.

Diplomata 2. Ottonis II. Diplomata. Edited by T. Sickel. 1888.

Diplomata 3. Ottonis III. Diplomata. Edited by T. Sickel. 1893.

Editions in the Series MGH EPP

Epistolae 3: Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini aevi 1. Edited by W. Gundlachand E. Dümmler. 1892.

Epistolae 4: Epistolae Karolini aevi 2. Edited by E. Dümmler. 1895.

Epistolae 5: Epistolae Karolini aevi 3. Edited by E. Dümmler and K. Hampe.1898-1899.

Epistolae 6: Epistolae Karolini aevi 4. Edited by E. Dümmler and Ernst Perels.1902-1925.

Epistolae 7: Epistolae Karolini aevi 5. Edited by E. Caspar and G. Laehr. 1912-1928.

Epistolae 8: Epistolae Karolini aevi 6, Hincmari archiepiscopi Remensis



epistolae, pt. 1. Edited by E. Perels. 1939.

Editions in the Series MGH Leges

Leges 3: Alamannorum, Baiuwariorum, Burgundionum, Frisionum. Edited by J.Merkel, F. Bluhme, and K. v. Richthofen. 1863.



Page 382

Editions in the Series MGH Capp

Capitularia regnum Francorum 1. Edited by A. Boretius. 1883.

Capitualria regnum Francorum 2. Edited by A. Boretius and V. Krause. 1890-1897.

Editions in the Series MGH Poetae Medii Aevi

Poetae Latini aevi Carolini 1. Edited by E. Dümmler. 1881.

Editions in MMFH: Volumes 2 and 3, Edited by L. Havlik. Brno, 1968

Zitije * Konstantina Filosofa. 2: 57-115.

Pochvala Kriillu Filosofu. 2: 116-19.

Vita Constantini-Cyrilli cum translatione s. Clementis. 2: 120-33.

Zitije* Mefodija, archijepisko ba Morav bska. 2: 134-63.

Proloznoe Zitie* Mefodija. 164-66.

Pochvalnoje slovo Kirillu i Mefodiju. 2: 167-76.

I. Zitije* Nauma. 2: 177-79.

Vita Clementi (Greek). 2: 200-233.

II. Zitije* Nauma. 2: 252-54.

Tempore Michaelis imperatoris -- Legenda Moravica. 2: 255-68.

Proloznoje* zitije* Klimenta Ochridskago. 2: 273-75.

Benedikt VI Oznamuje arcibiskupum Germánie a Otovi II, ze Piligrim bylustanoven arcibiskupem Laureákym. 3: 272-77.

Benedikt VI povoluje solnohradskému Friedrichovi ustanovovat v celéprovincii biskupy. 3: 278-80.

Other Sources

Arbeo von Freising. Leben und Leiden des heiligen Emmeram. German-Latinedition, edited and translated by B. Bischoff. Munich, 1953.

Aventini annalium Boiorum ex autenticis manuscriptis codicib. recogniti,



restituit, aucti Nic. Cisneri. Basileae, 1580.

Bitterauf, T. Die Traditionen des Hochstiftes Freising. 2 vols. Munich, 1905and 1909.

Breßlau, H. ''Der angebliche Brief des Erzbischofs Hatto von Mainz an PapstJohann IX." Festschrift für K. Zeumer. 9-30. Weimar, 1910.

Böhmer, J. F. Regesta imperii. Vol. 1: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unterden Karolingern (751-918). Revised by E. Mühlbacher and completed by J.Lechner. Innsbruck, 1908. Reprinted with additions by C. Brühl and H.Kaminsky. Hildesheim, 1966.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio. Greek text editedby G. Moravcsik, with English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins. Rev. ed.Washington D.C., 1967.



Page 383

Dennis, G. Maurice's Strategikon: Handbook of Byzantine Military Strategy.English translation. Philadelphia, 1984.

Dennis, G. Three Byzantine Military Treatises. Text, Translation, and Notes.Washington D.C., 1985.

Dümmler, E. Die pannonische Legende vom heiligen Methodius in Archiv fürösterreichische Geschichte 8. 1854.

Grivec, F. Vitae Constantini et Methodii versio Latina. Olmütz, 1941.

Grivec, F., with F. Tomsic *. Constantinus et Methodius ThessalonicensesFontes. Zagreb, 1960.

Hagn, T. Urkundenbuch für die Geschichte des BenedictinerstiftsKremsmünster. Vienna, 1852.

Hauthaler, W. Salzburger Urkundenbuch. 2 vols. Salzburg, 1910 and 1916.

Herrmann, E. Slawisch-Germanische Beziehungen im Südostdeutschen Raumvon der Spätantike bis zum Ungarnsturm. Ein Quellenbuch mit Erläuterungen.Munich, 1965.

Heuwieser, M. Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Passau. Munich, 1930.

Jaksch, A. Monumenta Historiae Ducatus Carinthiae. Vol. 1. Klagenfurt, 1896.

Johannis diaconi Chronicon Venetum. In Fonti per la Storia d'Italia. Vol. 1:Cronache Veneziane antichissime, 59-171. Rome, 1890.

Kantor M., and R. White. The Vita of Constantine and the Vita of Methodius.English translation of the Old Church Slavonic text. Ann Arbor, 1976.

Karajan, T. von. Das Salzburger Verbrüderungsbuch. Vienna, 1852.

King, P. Charlemagne: Translated Sources. Lancaster, 1987.

Klebel, E. "Eine neuaufgefundene Salzburger Geschichtsquelle." MGSLK 61(1921): 123-43.

Kos, M. Libellus de conversione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. Latin textwith Slovenian translation. Ljubljana, 1936.

Kostrencic*, M., ed. Codex Diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et



Slavoniae. Vol. 1. Zagreb, 1967.

Nelson, J., trans. The Annals of St-Bertin. Manchester, 1992.

Norbert, D. L'oeuvre Poetique de Paulin d'Aquilée. Latin text withcommentary. Stockholm, 1979.

Novak, V., and P. Skok, eds. Supetarski Kartular. Zagreb, 1952. Also availablein an earlier edition in Monumenta Spectantia Historiam Slavorummeridionalium 7, ed. F. Racki*, no. 231, pp. 255-321. Zagreb, 1877.

Presbyter Diocleas. Regnum Sclavorum. Edited by F. Sisic*, Letopis popaDuklanina. Beograd, Zagreb, 1928. And edited by V. Mosin, Ljetopis popaDukljanina. Zagreb, 1950.

Rau, R. Quellen zur Karolingischen Reichsgeschichte. 3 vols. Latin texts withGerman translation. 1960.

Reindel, K., ed. Die bayerischen Liutpoldinger (983-989). Munich, 1953.

Reuter, T., trans. The Annals of Fulda. Manchester, 1993.

Schnetz, J. Itineraria Romana. Vol. 2: Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia etGuidonis Geographica. Leipzig, 1940.

Scholz, B., and B. Rogers, Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals andNithard's Histories. English version. Ann Arbor, 1970.



Page 384

Silagi, G., with L. Vesprémy. Die "Gesta Hungarorum" des anonymen Notars.Die älteste Darstellung der ungarischen Geschichte. Latin text with Germantranslation. Sigmaringen, 1991.

Thrope, L., trans. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Einhard and Notker theStammerer. London, 1969.

Urkundenbuch des Landes ob der Enns. A publication of theVerwaltungsausschuß des Museums Francisco-Carolinum. Vienna, 1852.

Wagner, H. Urkundenbuch des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden Teile derKomitate Wieselburg, Ödenburg und Eisenburg. Vol. 1 (808-1270). Vienna,1965.

Widemann, J. Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Regensburg und des Klosters St.Emmeram. Munich, 1943.

Wolfram, H., ed. and trans. Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. DasWeissbuch der Salzburger Kirche über die erfolgreiche Mission in Karantanienund Pannonien. Latin text with German translation and extensivecommentary. Vienna, Cologne, Graz, 1979.

Zahn J. Urkundenbuch des Herzogthums Steiermark 1. Graz, 1875.

Modern Works

Abel, S., and B. Simson, Jahrbücher des Fränkischen Reiches unter Karl demGroben. Vols. 1 (768-799) and 2 (789-814). 2d ed. Berlin, 1888.

Alföldi, A. Der Untergang der Römerherrschaft in Pannonien. Berlin, Leipzig,1926.

Althoff, G. "Zur Bedeutung der Bündnisse Svatopulks von Mähren mitFranken." SM (1988): 13-21.

Amon, K. "Eigenkirche und Salzburger Mission." Siedlung, Macht undWirtschaft. Festschrift Fritz Posch zum 70. Geburtstag. Graz, 1981: 319-33.

Angenendt, A. Kaiserherrschaft und Königstaufe. Kaiser, Könige und päpsteals geistliche Patrone in der abendländischen Missionsgeschichte. Berlin, NewYork, 1984.

Appelt, H. "Arnulf von Kärnten und das Karolingerreich." In Kärnten und



Europa. Graz, 1960: 1-15.

Aubin, H. "Die Ostgrenze des alten deutschen Reiches. Entstehung undstaatsrechtlicher Charakter." Historische Vierteljahrschrift 28 (1934): 225-72.

Auer, L. "Der Kriegsdienst des Klerus unter den sächsischen Kaisern." Pt. 2.MIÖG 80 (1972): 48-70.

Auer, L. "Die bayerischen Pfalzen in ottonisch-frühsalischer Zeit." Francia 4(1976): 173-91.

Avenarius, A. Die Awaren in Europa. Bratislava, 1974.

Bachrach, B. "Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, andFeudalism." Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 7 (1970): 49-75.

Bachrach, B. Merovingian Military Organization (481-751). Minneapolis, 1972.

Bachrach, B. "Military Organization in Aquitaine under the Early Carolingians."Speculum 49 (1974): 1-33.

Bachrach, B. "Charlemagne's Cavalry: Myth and Reality." Military Affairs 57(1983): 181-87.

Bachrach, B. "Animals and Warfare in Early Medieval Europe." L'uomo diFronte al mondo



Page 385

animale nell'alto medioevo, Vol. 1 (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italianodi studi sull'alto medioevo 31, Spoleto, 1985): 707-51.

Bartha, A. Hungarian Society in the 9th and 10th Centuries. Budapest, 1975.

Bauerreiss, R. Kirchengeschichte Bayerns. Vol. 1. St. Ottilien, 1949.

Beindl, E. "Zum Bauordnungssystem des Salzburger Doms: Orientierung,Bauplatz, Maß- und Planungsschema." Virgil (1985): 327-40.

Birnbaum, H. "Where Was the Center of the Moravian State?" AmericanContributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, edited by R.Maguire and A. Timberlank. Columbus, 1993: 1-22.

Bischoff, B. Die südostdeutschen Schreibschulen und Bibliotheken in derKarolingerzeit. Vol. 1, Die bayerischen Diozösen. Wiesbaden, 1960.

Boba, I. Nomads, Northmen and Slavs. Eastern Europe in the Ninth Century.Wiesbaden, The Hague, 1967.

Boba, I. Moravia's History Reconsidered. A Reinterpretation of MedievalSources. The Hague, 1971. The Croatian translation, Novi pogled na povijestMoravie. Preispitivanje povijesnih izvora o Moravskoj, Rastislavu, Sentoplku insv. braci Cirilu i Metodu, Split, 1986, contains a useful map and achronological chart.

Boba, I. "Saint Andreas-Zoerard: A Pole or an Istrian?" Ungarn Jahrbuch 7(1976): 65-71.

Boba, I. "'Caranthani Marahenses' and 'Moravi sive Karinthi.'" Slovene Studies2 (1982): 83-90.

Boba, I. "The Pannonian Onogurs, Khan Krum and the Formation of theBulgarian and Hungarian Polities." Bulgarian Historical Review 11 (1983): 73-76.

Boba, I. "'Abodriti qui vulgo Praedenecenti vocantur' or 'MarvaniPraedenecenti'?" Palaeobulgarica 8 (1984): 29-37.

Boba, I. "The Cathedral Church of Sirmium and the Grave of St. Methodius."Die Slawischen Sprachen 8 (1985): 35-40.

Boba, I. "The Episcopacy of St. Methodius." Die Slawischen Sprachen 8



(1985): 21-33.

Boba, I. "Sveti Metod i Nadbiskupsko Sjediste Sirmium u Crkvenoj PokrajiniSclavonia." Crkva u Svijetu. Split, 1985: 19-25.

Boba, I. "Wo war die 'Megale Moravia'?" Die Slawischen Sprachen 8 (1985):5-19.

Boba, I. "Die Lage von Moravien nach den mittelalterlichen Quellen ausBayern." MGSLK 126 (1986): 59-70.

Boba, I. "Moravia, Bulgaria, 'Messiani' and 'Sclavi' in Medieval HungarianSources." Doklady 6 (1987): 709-25.

Boba, I. "Salona -- Sirmium -- Nin -- Split. Change and Continuity in theHistory of a Church Province." In U Sluzbi Covjeka. Zbornik Nadiskupa-Metropolite Dr. Frane Franica. Split, 1987: 285-92.

Boba, I. "Dux Boemorum and the Sclavi Nitrienses in Anonymi GestaHungarorum." Ural-Altaic Yearbook/Ural Altaische Jahrbücher 60 (1988): 1-13.

Boba, I. "Braslavespurch: Bratislava or Braslav's Burg: Zalavár?" UngarnJahrbuch 17 (1989): 9-23.

Boba, I. "Die ältesten Benennungen für slawische Sprachen." Die SlawischenSprachen 17 (1989): 5-12.



Page 386

Boba, I. "In Defence of Anonymus Belae Regis." Die ungarische Sprache undKultur im Donauraum. Budapest and Vienna, 1989: 450-58.

Boba, I. "One or Two 'Attilas' in the Gesta of Anonymus Belae Regis?" Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher/Ural-Altaic Yearbook 62 (1990): 37-73.

Boba, I. "In Defence of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus." Ungarn-Jahrbuch 19 (1991): 175-97.

Boba, I. "Awaren in Mitteleuropa." Eurasian Studies Yearbook (Ural-AltaischeJahrbücher/Ural-Alaic Yearbook 65 (1993): 47-72.

Bogyay, T. v. Lechfeld, Ende und Anfang. Geschichtliche Hintergründe,ideeller Inhalt und Folgen der Ungarnzüge. Munich, 1955.

Bogyay, T. "Mosapurch und Zalavár. Eine Auswertung der archäologischenFunde und schriftlichen Quellen." Südost-Forschungen 14 (1955): 52-69.

Bogyay, T. "Die Kirchenorte der Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum.Methoden und Möglichkeiten ihrer Lokalisierung." Südost-Forschungen 19(1960): 52-70.

Bogyay, T. "Kontinuitätsprobleme im karolingischen Unterpannonien."Annales Instituti Slavici 1/2 (1966): 62-68.

Bogyay, T. "Die Salzburger Mission in Pannonien aus der Sicht derArchäologie und der Namenkunde." MGSLK 126 (1986): 273-290.

Bóna, I. "Die Verwaltung und die Bevölkerung des karolingischen Pannoniensim Spiegel der Zeitgenössichen Quellen." Mitteilungen des ArchäologischenInstituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14 (1985): 149-60.

Bosl, K. "Der 'aristokratische Charakter' europäischer Staats- undSozialentwicklung. Prolegomena zu einer allgemeinenVerfassungsgeschichte." HJb 74 (1955): 631-42.

Bosl, K. "Reichsaristokratie und Uradel." ZBLG 21 (1958): 138-45.

Bosl, K. Frühformen der Gesellschaft im mittelalterlichen Europa.Ausgewählte Beiträge zu einer Strukturanalyse der mittelalterlichen Welt.Munich, 1964.

Bosl, K. "Probleme der Missionierung des böhmisch-mährischen



Herrschaftsraumes." C-M (1964): 1-38.

Bosl, K. "Der 'Adelsheilige.' Idealtypus und Wirklichkeit. Gesellschaft undKultur im merowingerzeitlichen Bayern des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts.Gesellschaftsgeschichtliche Beiträge zu den Viten der bayerischenStammesheiligen Emmeram, Rupert und Korbinian." Speculum Historiale.Festschrift für Johannes Spörl. Edited by C. Bauer, L. Boehm, and M. Müller.Munich, 1965: 167-87.

Bosl, K. Das Grobmährische Reich in der politischen Welt des 9. Jahrbunderts.Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaft. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 7, Munich, 1966.

Bosl, K. "Die Gründung Innichens und die Überlieferung; zum 1200. Jubiläum(769-1969) der Gründung Innichens durch Herzog Tassilo III." ZBLG 33(1970): 452-56.

Bowlus, C. "Wilhelminer und die Mährer." ZBLG 36 (1973): 759-75.

Bowlus, C. "Warfare and Society in the Carolingian Ostmark." Austrian HistoryYearbook 14 (1978): 3-30.

Bowlus, C. "Two Carolingian Campaigns Reconsidered." Military Affairs 58(1984): 112-15.



Page 387

Bowlus, C. ''Prosopographical Evidence concerning Moravia's Location."Medieval Prosopography 6 (1985): 1-22.

Bowlus, C. "Krieg und Kirche in den Südost-Grenzgrafschaften." MGSLK 126(1986): 71-92.

Bowlus, C. "Where Was Ninth-Century Moravia? Toward a Structural Analysisof the Frankish Sources." Die Slawischen Sprachen 10 (1986): 5-36.

Bowlus, C. "Die geographische Lage des mährischen Reiches anhandfränkischer Quellen." Bohemia 28 (1987): 1-24.

Bowlus, C. "Imre Boba's Reconsiderations of Moravia's Early History andArnulf of Carinthia's Ostpolitik (887-892)." Speculum 62 (1987): 552-74.

Bowlus, C. "The Military Organization of Carinthia and Pannonia."Gesellschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für Karl Bosl zum 80. Geburtstag. 1:Edited by F. Seibt (Munich, 1988): 168-78.

Bowlus, C. "Review of Herwig Wolfram, Die Geburt Mitteleuropas." Speculum64 (1989): 241-44.

Boyle, L. Cirillo e Metodio i santi apostoli degli Slavi. Rome, 1963.

Bracher, K. Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte des Stiftes Göb. ZHVSt,supplementary vol. 1. 1954.

Bracher, K. "Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte des Laßnitztales II: Deraribonische Besitzblock, Hengist-Sausal im unteren Laßnitztal." ZHVSt 48(1957): 68-101.

Braumüller, H. "Zur Geschichte der Karolingerzeit in Kärnten." Carinthia I 148(1958): 295-301.

Bretholz, G. Geschichte Böhmens und Mährens bis zum Aussterben derPremysliden (1306). Vol. 1. Munich, 1913.

Browning, R. Byzantinum and Bulgaria. A Comparative Study across the EarlyMedieval Frontier. Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1975.

Brückner, A. Die Wahrheit über die Slavenapostel. Tübingen, 1913.

Brückner, A. "Breslau-Preßburg." Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 3 (1926 /



27): 300-315.

Brugger, W. "Die herzogliche und karolingische Pfalz zu Altötting; Ein Beitragzur Pfalzforschung in Altbayern." Oberbayerisches Archiv 105 (1980): 70-101.

Brugger, W. "Zum Problem karolingischer Pfalzen in Oberösterreich."Historisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz (1980): 11-38.

Brühl, C. Fodrum, Gistum, Servitium Regis. Studien zu den wirtschaftlichenGrundlagen des Königtums im Frankenreich und in den fränkischenNachfolgestaaten Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien vom 6. bis zur Mittedes 14. Jahrhunderts. Cologne, Graz, 1968.

Brunner, K. Oppsitionelle Gruppen im Karolingerreich. Vienna, 1979.

Brunner, K. "Wovon lebte der Mensch." Die Bajuwaren (1988): 192-97.

Bujnoch, J. Zwischen Rom und Byzanz. Cologne, Graz, Vienna, 1958.

Burchard, H., Keckowa, A., and Leciejewicz, L. "Die Salzgewinnung aufpolnischem Boden im Altertum und im frühen Mittelalter." Kwartalnik historiikultury materialnej: 743-60. In Ergon Vol. 5, 1966: 743-60

Burns, R. I. "The Significance of the Frontier in the Middle Ages." In MedievalFrontier Societies. Edited by R. Bartlett and A. MacKay. Oxford, 1989: 307-30.

Burns, T. A History of the Ostrogoths. Bloomington, Ind., 1984.



Page 388

Burr, V. "Anmerkungen zum Konflikt zwischen Methodius und den bayerischenBischöfen." In C-M (1964): 39-65.

Bury, J. The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. London,1911.

Büttner, H. "Die Ungarn, das Reich und Europa bis zur Lechfeldschlacht desJahres 955." ZBLG 19 (1956): 433-58.

Büttner, H. "Die Alpenpolitik der Franken im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert," HJb 79(1960): 62-88.

Büttner, H. "Von Bodensee und Genfersee zum Gotthardpaß." Die Alpen inder europäischen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Edited by T. Mayer. Vorträgeund Forschungen 10, 1965: 77-110.

Cartellieri, W. Die Römischen Alpenstrassen über den Brenner, Reschen-Scheideck und Plöckenpass mit ihren Nebenlinien. Leipzig, 1926.

Charanis, Peter, "The Slavs, Byzantium, and the Historical Significance of theFirst Bulgarian Kingdom." Balkan Studies 17 (1976): 5-24.

Chaume, M. Les origines du duche de Bourgogne. Dijon, 1925.

Chropovsky, B. "The Situation of Nitra in the Light of Archaeological Finds."Historica 8 (1964): 5-33.

Chropovsky, B., and A. Ruttkay. "Archäologische Erforschung und Genese desslowakischen Ethnikums." Studia Historica Slovaca 16 (1988): 15-64.

Classen, P. "Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz." In Karl der Grobe.Edited by H. Beumann, 1: 537-87. Düsseldorf, 1965.

Classen, P. "Bayern und die politischen Mächte im Zeitalter Karls des Großenund Tassilos III." Mitteilungen des oberösterreichischen Landesarchivs, supp.2 (1978): 169-87.

Coolidge, W. "Charles the Great's Passage of the Alps in 773." EHR 21 (1906):493-505.

Contamine, P. War in the Middle Ages. Translated by M. Jones. Oxford, NewYork, 1984.



Csendes, P. Die Straben Niederösterreichs im Früb- und Hochmittelalter.Diss., University of Vienna, 1969.

Csendes, P. "Zu den Awarenkriegen unter Karl dem Großen." Unsere Heimat41 (1970): 93-103.

Csendes, P. "Der niederösterreichische Raum im 10. Jahrhundert." In Baiern,Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 95-104. Forschungen zur Geschichte derStädte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Dannenbauer, H. Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Welt. Skizzen und Studien.Stuttgart, 1958.

Dannheimer, H., and H. Dopsch eds. Die Bajuwaren von Severin bis Tassilo488-788. Katalog: Gemeinsame Landesausstellung des Freistaates Bayernund des Landes Salzburg, Rosenheim/Bayern, Mattsee/Salzburg, 19. Mai bis6. November 1988. Munich, Salzburg, 1988.

Deér, J. "Ungarn in der Descripto Europae Orientalis." MIÖG 45 (1931): 1-22.

Deér, J. "Karl der Grosse und der Untergang des Awarenreichs." Karl derGrobe 1. Edited by H. Beumann, 719-91. Düsseldorf, 1967.

Delbrück, H. Geschichte der Kriegskunst in Rahmen der politischenGeschichte. Volume 2, 3d ed. Berlin, 1923. English version: History of the Artof War Within the Framework of Political History. Translated by W. Renfroe.New York, 1978.



Page 389

Devos, P., and P. Meyvaert, "La date de la première rédaction de la 'LégendeItalique.'" C-M (1964): 57-71.

Diepolder, G. "Die Orts- und 'IN PAGO' Nennungen im bayerischenStammesherzogtum zur Zeit der Agilolfinger." ZBLG 20 (1957): 364-436.

Diepolder, G. "Die Herkunft der Aribonen." ZBLG 27 (1964): 74-119.

Diepolder, G. "Grundzüge der Siedlungsstruktur." Die Bajuwaren (1988): 168-78.

Dittrich, Z. Christianity in Great Moravia. Groningen, 1962.

Dobiás, J. Le strade romane nel territorio cecoslovacco. Rome, 1938.

Dobiás, J. "Seit wann bilden die natürlichen Grenzen von Böhmen auch seinepolitische Landesgrenze?" Historica 6 (1963): 5-44.

Dopsch, H. "Die Aribonen. Ein führendes Adelsgeschlecht in Bayern undKärnten während des Hochmittelalters." Staatsprüfungsarbeit, University ofVienna, 1968. (I used a typed copy in the library of the MonumentaGermaniae Historica in Munich.)

Dopsch, H. "Der bayerische Adel und die Besetzung des Erzbistums Salzburgim 10. und 11. Jahrhundert." MGSLK 110/111 (1970/71): 125-52.

Dopsch, H. "Die Stifterfamilie des Klosters Gurk und ihre Verwandtschaft."Carinthia I 161 (1971): 95-123.

Dopsch, H. "Gewaltbote und Pfalzgraf in Kärnten." Carinthia I 165 (1975):126-42.

Dopsch, H. "Salzburg und der Südosten." Südostdeutsches Archiv 21 (1978):5-21.

Dopsch, H. "Die steirischen Otakare. Zu ihrer Herkunft und ihrenDynastischen Verbindungen." In Das Werden der Steiermark, ed. G. Pferschy(Graz, 1980): 79-95.

Dopsch, H. Geschichte Salzburgs Vol. 1, parts 1 and 2, Salzburg, 1983; part 3,Salzburg, 1984.

Dopsch, H. "Passau als Zentrum der Slawenmission. Ein Beitrag zur Frage des



'Großmährischen Reiches." Süddeutsches Archiv 28 (1985 / 86): 5-28.

Dopsch, H. "Slawenmission und päpstliche Politik--zu den Hintergründen desMethodius-Konflikts." MGSLK 126 (1986): 303-40.

Dopsch, H. "Zum Anteil der Romanen und ihrer Kultur an der Stammesbildungder Bajuwaren." Die Bajuwaren (1988): 47-55.

Drew, K. "The Carolingian Military Frontier in Italy." Traditio 20 (1964): 437-47.

Dümmler, E. Über die südöstlichen Marken des fränkischen Reiches unter denKarolingern (795-907). Vienna, 1853.

Dümmler, E. Pilgrim von Passau und das Erzbistum Lorch. Leipzig, 1854.

Dümmler, E. Die Slaven in Dalmatien. Vienna, 1865.

Dümmler, E. Geschichte des Ostfränkischen Reiches. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1887-1888.

Dujcev, I. "Note sulla Vita Constantini-Cyrilli." C-M (1964): 72-84.

Dvornik, F. Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au 9ème siècle. Paris, 1927.

Dvornik, F. Les Légendes de Constantin et de Methode vue de Byzance.Prague, 1933.

Dvornik, F. The Photian Schism. Cambridge, 1948.

Dvornik, F. "Byzantium, Rome, the Franks, and the Christianization of theSouthern Slavs." C-M (1964): 85-125.

Dvornik, F. Byzantine Missions among the Slavs. New Brunswick, 1970.

Ebner, H. Die Besitzgeschichte des Nonnenstiftes Göb in der Steiermark vomJahre 1020 bis 1460 mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Klostergutes imGerichtsbezirk Leoben. Graz, 1949.

Eggers, Martin, "Das 'Grossmährische Reich'--Realität oder Fiktion? EineNeuin-



Page 390

terpretation der historischen und archäologischen Quellen zur Geschichtedes mittleren Donauraumes im 9. Jhdt." Diss., University of Munich, 1991.

Engels, D. Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army.Berkeley, 1978.

Estey, F. "The Meaning of Placitum and Mallus in the Capitularies." Speculum22 (1947): 435-39.

Ewig, E. "Das Bild Constantins des Grossen in den ersten Jahrhunderten desabendländischen Mittelalters." HJb 75 (1955): 22-53.

Fasoli, G. Le incursione Ungare in Europa nel secolo X. Florence, 1945.

Fasoli, G. I re d'Italia (888-962). Florence, 1949.

Fastlinger, M. Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der bayerischen Klöter in der Zeitder Agilolfinger. Freiburg in Breisgau, 1903.

Fastlinger, M. "Karolingische Pfalzen in Altbayern," Forschungen zurGeschichte Bayerns 12 (1904): 233-69.

Faussner, H. Zum Regnum Bavariae Herzog Arnulfs (907-938) Sitzungsberichtder Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, Philosophisch-HistorischeKlasse, 426 Vienna, 1984.

Felgenhauer, F. "Ausgrabungen im Bereich des karolingischen Königshofes zuAttersee." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 33-44. Forschungenzur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Ferluga, J. Byzantium and the Balkans. Studies on the ByzantineAdministration and the Southern Slavs from the VIIth to the XIIth Centuries.Amsterdam, 1976.

Fichtenau, H. Das Karolingische Imperium. Zürich, 1949. English version, TheCarolingian Empire, translated by P. Munz. Toronto, 1968.

Fichtenau, H. "Zu den Urkundenfälschungen Pilgrims von Passau."Mitteilungen des Oberösterreichischen Landesarchivs 8 (1964): 81-100.

Fichtenau, H. "Die Urkunden Herzog Tassilos III. und der 'Stiftbrief' vonKremsmünster." In Beiträge zur Mediävistik 2: 62-93. Stuttgart, 1977.



Fine, J. The Early Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth to theLate Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor, 1983.

Fleckenstein, J. Die Hofkapelle der deutschen Könige. Vol. 1. DieKarolingische Hofkapelle. Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 16 /1. 1959.

Fleckenstein, J. "Karl der Große und sein Hof." In Karl der Grobe, edited by H.Beumann 1: 24-50. Düsseldorf, 1965.

Flohrschütz, G. "Die Freisinger Dienstmannen im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert."Jahrbuch für althayerische Kirchengeschichte 25 (1967): 9-79.

Fräß-Ehrfeld, C. Geschichte Kärntens. Vol. 1. Klagenfurt, 1984.

France, J. "The Military History of the Carolingian Period." Revue belged'histoire militaire 21 (1985): 81-101.

Fülep, F. Sopianae: The History of Pécs During the Roman Era, and theProblem of the Continuity of the Late Roman Population. Budapest, 1984.

Fülep, F. "Beiträge zur Frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte von Pécs." Actaarchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25 (1973): 307-26.

Gamber, A. "Erzbischof Methodios vor der Reichsversammlung in Regensburgdes Jahres 870." SM (1988): 110-15.

Ganshof, F. "L'armée sous les Carolingiens." Ordinamente militari in Occident



Page 391

nell'alto medievo (Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'altomedievo 15, 1968): 109-30.

Ganshof, F. Frankish Institutions under Charlemagne. Translated by B. and M.Lyon. Providence, 1968.

Garam, É. "Pferde- und Reiterbestattungen in der Spätawarenzeit (8.-9.Jahrundert)." In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn, edited by Herwig Freisingerand Falko Daim. Vienna, 1985: 123-26.

Gjuselev, V. "Bulgarisch-fränkische Beziehungen in der ersten Häfte des IX.Jhs." Byzantinobulgarica 2 (1966): 15-39.

Glare, P. G. W., ed. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford, 1982.

Glaser, F. "Die frühchristliche Bischofskirche in Teurnia und dieKirchengründung des Modestus 'in Liburnia civitate.'" In Symposium zurGeschichte von Millstatt und Kärnten. Millstatt, 1986: 1-19.

Glaser, F. "Das Münster in Molzbichl, das älteste Kloster Kärntens." Carinthia I179 (1989): 99-124.

Glaser, F., and K. Karpf. Ein karolingisches Kloster. BairischesMissionszentrum in Kärnten. Villach, 1989.

Glaubert, G. "Kulturlandschaftliche Veränderungen im Gebirgslande zwischenDrau und Sawe bis zum Beginn der deutschen Südostsiedlung."Südostforschung 1/2 (1942): 9-52.

Gockel, M. Karolingische Königshöfe am Mittelrhein. Göttingen, 1970.

Godman, P. Poets and Emperors. Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry.Oxford, 1987.

Göckenjan, H. Hilfsvölker und Grenzwächter im Mittelalterlichen Ungarn.Wiesbaden, 1972.

Goetz, H.-W. "Dux" und "Ducatus". Begriffs- und verfassungsgechichlicheUntersuchungen zur Entstehung des sogenannten "jüngeren"Stammesherzogtums an der Wende vom neunten zum zehnten Jahrhundert.Bochum, 1977.

Goetz, H.-W. "Der letzte 'Karolinger'? Die Regierung Konrads I. im Spiegel



seiner Urkunden." Archiv für Diplomatik 26 (1980): 56-125.

Graus, F. "Das Großmährische Reich in der böhmischen mittelalterlichenTradition." Annales Instituti Slavici 1/2 (1966): 129-39.

Graus, F. Die Nationenbildung der Westslawen in Mittelalter. Sigmaringen,1980.

Grivec, F. Konstantin und Method. Lehrer der Slaven. Wiesbaden, 1960.

Györffy, G. Einwohnerzahl und Bevölkerungsdichte in Ungarn bis zum Anfangdes XIV. Jahrhunderts. Studia Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae42, 1960.

Györffy, G. "Formation d'états au IX siècle suivant les 'Gesta Hungarorum duNotair Anonyme," Nouvelles Études Historiques 1 (Budapest, 1965): 27-54.

Györffy, G. "Die Entstehung der ungarischen Burgorganisation." ActaArcheologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 28 (1976): 323-58.

Györffy, G. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft der Ungarn um die Jahrtausendwende.Budapest, 1983.

Györffy, G. "Landnahme, Ansiedlung und Streifzüge der Ungarn." ActaHistorica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31 (1985): 231-70.

Györffy, G. "Der Donauraum zwischen Bayern, Mähren und Ungarn im 10.Jahrhundert." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 41-54,Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs, 4 Linz, 1991.



Page 392

Härtel, R. '''Kyrillische' Inschriften aus Kärnten." MGSLK 126 (1986): 291-302.

Haider, S. "Zum Problem karolingischer Pfalzen in Oberösterreich."Historisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz (1980): 11-38.

Halperin, C. "The Ideology of Silence: Prejudice and Pragmatism on theMedieval Religious Frontier." Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1984): 442-66.

Harnack, O. Das karolingische und byzantinische Reich in ihrenwechselseitigen, politischen Beziehungen. Leipzig, 1880.

Havlik, L. Constantine and Methodius in Moravia. Bruno, 1964.

Havlik, L. Velika Morava a stredoevropsti Slovane. Prague, 1964.

Havlik, L. "Das Pannonische Erzbistum im 9. Jahrhundert im Lichte derwechselseitigen Beziehungen zwischen Papstum und den Ost- undWeströmischen Imperien." Annales Instituti Slavici 9 (1976): 45-60.

Havlik, L. "Mähren und die Ungarn am Ende des 9. und am Anfang des 10.Jahrhunderts." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 105-20.Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Hellmann, M. "Bemerkungen zum Evangeliar von Cividale." In Siedlung,Macht und Wirtschaft: Festschrift Fritz Posch zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by G.Pferschy, 305-12. Graz, 1981.

Hellmann, M. "Der Begriff 'populus' in der Conversio Bagoariorum etCarantanorum." C-M (1964): 161-67.

Hellmann, M., B. Olesch, B. Stasewski, and F. Zagiba, eds. Cyrillo-Methodiana: Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentums bei den Slawen. Cologne,Graz, 1964.

Heuberger, R. "Natio Noricorum et Preganariorum: Beiträge zurFrühgeschichte der Baiern und der Alpen Romanen, des Eisacktales und desVintschgaus." Veröffentlichungen des Museum Ferdinandeum 10 (1930). 1-52.

Heuberger, R. Rätien im Altertum und Frühmittelalter. Forschungen undDarstellungen. Innsbruck, 1932.

Heusinger, B. Servitium regis in der deutschen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen



über die wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse des deutschen Königtums 900-1250.Berlin, Leipzig, 1922.

Heuwieser, M. Geschichte des Bistums Passau. Passau, 1939.

Hiestand, R. Byzanz und das Regnum Italicum im 10. Jahrhundert. Zürich,1964.

Hlawitschka, E. Franken, Alemannen, Bayern und Burgunder in Oberitalien.Freiburg i. Br., 1960.

Hlawitschka, E. Lotharingen und das Reich an der Schwelle der deutschenGeschichte. Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 21, Stuttgart,1968.

Hlawitschka, E. ed. Königswahl und Thronfolge in fränkisch-karolingischerZeit. Wege der Forschung 147. Darmstadt, 1975.

Hoffmann, H. "Fossa Carolina." In Karl der Große, edited by H. Beumann 1:437-53. Düsseldorf, 1965.

Hofmeister, A. Markgrafen und Markgrafschaften im italienischen Königsreichin der Zeit von Karl dem Großen bis auf Otto den Großen. Supp. vol. 7 MIÖG,1904.

Huter, F. ed. Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs. Vol 2:Alpenländer mit Südtirol. Stuttgart, 1966.

Hyde, W. Roman Alpine Routes (With Map showing Chief Roman Passes).Philadelphia, 1935.



Page 393

Jenkins, R. Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries A.D. 610-1071. Toronto, 1987.

Jirecek, C. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Konstantinopel und dieBalkanpässe. Vienna, 1905.

Jirecek, C. Geschichte der Serben. Gotha, 1911.

Johanek, P. "Die Raffelstetter Zollordnung und das Urkundewesen derKarolingerzeit." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 211-30.Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Juraschek, J. Die St. Martinskirche in Linz. Linz, 1949.

Kämpf, H. ed. Die Entstehung des deutschen Reiches (Deutschland um 900).Wege der Forschungen 1. Darmstadt, 1956.

Kahl, H-D. "Zwischen Aquileja und Salzburg. Beobachtungen und Thesen zurFrage romanischen Restchristentums im nachvölkerwanderungszeitlichenBinnen Noricum (7.-8. Jahrhundert)." In Die Völker an der mittleren undunteren Donau im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert, edited by H. Wolframand F. Daim, 32-81. Vienna, 1980.

Katicic, R. "Die Anfänge des kroatischen Staates." In Die Bayern und ihreNachbaren, edited by H. Wolfram and A. Schwarcz, 1: 299-312. Vienna, 1985.

Kazhdan, A., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vols. 1-3. New York,Oxford, 1991.

Keller, H. "Zum Sturz Karls III. Über die Rolle Luitwards von Vercelli undLiutberts von Mainz, Arnulfs von Kärnten und der ostfränkischen Großen beider Absetzung des Kaisers." DA 22 (1966): 333-84.

Klaic, N. Provijest Hravata. Zagreb, 1971.

Klebel, E. "Die Ostgrenzen des Karolingischen Reiches." Jahrbuch fürLandeskunde von Niederösterreich (Festschrift Oswald Redlich) 21 (1928):348-80.

Klebel, E. "Herzogtümer und Marken bis 900." DA 2 (1938): 1-54.

Klein, H. "Brenner und Radstädter Tauern." Schlern-Schriften 52 (1947): 141-55.



Klein, H. "Der Saumhandel über die Tauern." MGSLK 90 (1950): 37-114.

Klein, H. "Die Salzburger Alpenstraßen und ihre Bedeutung für denmittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Verkehr." Veröffentlichungen desVerbandes der österreichischen Geschichtsvereine 14 (1961): 20-34.

Klein, H. "Salzburg, ein unvollendeter Paßstaat." Die Alpen in dereuropäischen Geschichte des Mittelalters, edited by T. Mayer, 275-91.Vorträge und Forschungen 10, Constance, Stuttgart, 1965.

Kniezsa, I. "Zur Frage der auf Kyrill und Method bezüglichen Tradition aufdem Gebiete des alten Ungarn." C-M (1964): 199-209.

Koller, F. "Salzproduktion und Salzhandel." Die Bajuwaren (1988): 220-23.

Koller, H. "Enns und Wien in der Karolingerzeit." Jahrbuch fürLandesgeschichte von Niederösterreich 36 (1964): 75-94.

Koller, H. "Die Awarenkriege Karls des Großen." Mitteilungen derösterreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 15 (1964):1-12.

Koller, H. "Bayerisch-fränkische Kolonisation in Pannonien im 8. Jahrhundert."Annales Instituti Slavici 1/2 (1966): 51-61.

Koller, H. "König Arnulfs großes Privileg für Salzburg." MGSLK 109 (1969): 65-75.

Koller, H. "Pannonien im 9. Jahrhundert." Annales Insittuti Slavici 8 (1974): 7-19.

Koller, H. "Zur Rechtsstellung Karantaniens im karolingischen Reich."Festschrift für



Page 394

Helmut Beumann zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by K.-U. Jäschke and R.Wenskus, 149-62. Sigmaringen, 1977.

Koller, H. "Die Salzproduktion zu Reichenhall im 8. Jahrhundert und derenBedeutung." Frühes Mönchtum in Salzburg, edited by E. Zwink, 127-44.Salzburg, 1983.

Koller, H. "Bemerkungen zu Kirche und Christentum im karolingischenMähren." MGSLK 126 (1986): 93-198.

Koller, H. "Quellenlage und Stand der Forschung zur Landnahme der Ungarnaus der Sicht des Abendlandes." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen imDonauraum, 77-94. Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und MärkteÖsterreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Kovacs, L. Münzen aus der ungarischen Landnahmezeit. Budapest, 1989.

Krahwinkler, H. Friaul im Frühmittelalter: Geschichte einer Region vom Endedes fünften bis zum Ende des zehnten Jahrhunderts. Vienna, 1992.

Krajcovic, R. "The Language in Great Moravia and Its Continuity with Slovak."Studia Historica Slovaca 16 (1988): 157-73.

Kralovánsky, A. "Neuere siedlungs- und baugeschichtliche Daten aus dem 10.Jahrhundert in Ungarn." In Baiern Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 173-94. Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz,1991.

Kranzmayer, E. "Slavische Ortsnamen in der karolingischen Ostmark."Annales Instituti Slavici 1/2 (1966): 123-28.

Kraus, A. "Zweiteilung des Herzogtums der Agilolfinger?" Blätter für deutscheLandesgeschichte 112 (1976): 15-29.

Kraus, A. "Das Herzogtum Bayern im achten Jahrhundert." Blätter fürdeutsche Landesgeschichte 113 (1977): 33-43.

Krause, V. "Geschichte des Instituts der missi dominici." MIÖG (1980): 193-300.

Kronsteiner, O. "Salzburg und die Slawen. Mythen und Tatsachen über dieEntstehung der ältesten slawischen Schriftsprache." Die Slawischen Sprachen2 (1982): 27-51.



Kronsteiner, O. "Method und die alten slawischen Kirchensprachen." MGSLK126 (1986): 255-72.

Kronsteiner, O. "Saint Methodius-A Geographical Superstar?" Die SlawischenSprachen 33 (1993): 113-27.

Kronsteiner, O. "Wie kommen die Moravismen an die Morava/March?" DieSlawischen Sprachen 33 (1993): 131-47.

Kucera, M. "Großmähren und die Anfänge unserer nationalen Geschichte."Studia Historica Slovaca 16 (1988): 65-123.

Kuchenbuch, L. Bäuerliche Gesellschaft und Kloster Herrschaft im 9.Jahrhundert. Studien zur Sozialstruktur der Familia der Abtei Prüm.Wiesbaden, 1978.

Kuhar, A. Slovene Medieval History. Selected Studies. New York, Washington,1962.

Kuhar, A. The Conversion of the Slovenes and the German-Slav EthnicBoundary in the Eastern Alps. London, 1967.

Kuzev, A. "Bemerkungen über einige Bistümer in Bulgarien während derersten Jahrzehnte nach 870." SM (1988): 187-92.

Langen, Ruth, "Die Bedeutung von Befestigungen in den SachsenkriegenKarls des Großen." Westfälische Zeitschrift 139 (1989): 181-211.



Page 395

Lattimore, O. Studies in Frontier History Collected Papers (1928-1958).London, 1962.

Lechner, K., ed. Handbuch der historischen Stätten Österreichs. Vol. 1:Donauländer und Burgenland. Stuttgart, 1965.

Lechner, K., ed. "Die salzburgisch-passauische Diözesanregulierung in derBuckligen Welt im Rahmen der Landschaftsgeschichte des 9. Jahrhunderts."MGSLK 109 (1969): 41-64.

Lechner, K., and A. Klaar. "Eine Kirche aus der Karolingerzeit an derniederöster-reichisch-burgenländischen Grenze?" Südostforschungen 22(1963): 97-117.

Lengyel, A., and G. Radan, eds. The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia.Budapest, 1980.

Lewis, A. "The Dukes in the Regnum Francorum, A.D. 550-751." Speculum 51(1976): 381-410.

Lewis, A. "Review of Boba, Moravia's History Reconsidered." Speculum 48(1973): 112-13.

Leyser, K. Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society. Ottonian Saxony.Bloomington, Ind., 1979.

Leyser, K. Medieval Germany and Its Neighbours 900-1250. London, 1982.

Linder, R. "Nomadism, Horses and Huns." Past and Present 92 (1981): 3-19.

Lot, F. L'art militaire et les armées au moyen âge en Europe et dans leProche Orient. Paris, 1964.

Löwe, H. Die karolingische Reichsgründung und der Südosten. Studien zumWerden des Deutschtums und seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Rom. Stuttgart,1937.

Löwe, H. "Die Herkunft der Bajuwaren." ZBLG 15 (1949): 5-67.

Löwe, H. "Regino von Prüm und das historische Weltbild der Karolingerzeit."Geschichtsdenken und Geschichtsbild im Mittelalter, edited by H. Beumann,91-134. Wege der Forschung 21. Darmstadt, 1961.



Löwe, H. "Bonifatius und die bayerisch-fränkische Spannung." In ZurGeschichte der Bayern, edited by K. Bosl, 264-95. Wege der Forschung 25.Darmstadt, 1965.

Löwe, H. "Methodius im Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch." DA 38 (1982):341-62.

Löwe, H. "Ermenrich von Passau. Gegner des Methodius. Versuch einesPersönlichkeitsbildes." MGSLK 126 (1986): 221-44.

Löwe, H. "Consensus-consessus. Ein Nachtrag zum Streit um Methodius." DA46 (1990): 507-16.

Ludwig, U., and K. Schmid, "Hunfrid, Witagowo und Heimo in einemneuentdeckten Eintrag des Evangeliars von Cividale." Geschichte und ihreQuellen: Festschrift für Friedrich Hausmann zum 70. Geburtstag ed. R. Härtel,85-92. Graz, 1987.

Lüttich, R. Ungarnzüge in Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1910.

Lunt, H. "The Beginning of Written Slavic." Slavic Review (1964): 213-19.

Lunt, H. "Old Church Slavonic '*Kraliqb'?" Orbis Scriptus: Festschrift für DmitrijTschizewskij zum 70. Geburtstag, 483-89. Munich, 1966.

Lunt, H. "Vita Methodii XIV and Waterspouts." Rocznik Slawistyczny-RevueSlavistique 29 (1968): 39-41.

Lunt, H. "Once Again the Kiev Folia." Slavic and East European Journal 32(1988): 595-616.

Magocsi, P. R. Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. Seattle, London, 1993.



Page 396

Mares, F. "Der Name des Slawenapostels Methodius von Saloniki und seinerGefährten im Verbrüderungsbuch." Cyrillomethodianum 1 (1971): 107-12.

Marquart, J. Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge. Ethnologische undhistorischtopographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts(ca. 840-940). Leipzig, 1903. Reprint, Darmstadt, 1961.

Mass, J. "Bischof Anno von Freising 854/55-875." C-M (1964): 210-21.

Mass, J. Das Bistum Freising in der späten Karolingerzeit. Die Bischöfe Anno(854-875), Arnold (875-883) und Waldo (884-906). Munich, 1969.

Mass, J. "Bischof Anno von Freising, Richter über Methodius in Regensburg."Annales Instituti Slavici 9 (1976): 31-44.

McCormick, M. Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity,Byzantium and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge, 1986.

Mirkovic, M. "Sirmium -- Its History from the 1st Century AD to 582 AD." InSirmium: Archaeological Investigations in Syrmian Pannonia, edited by V.Popovic, 5-60. Belgrade, 1971.

Mitscha-Märheim, H. "Gab es 'Awarenringe' in Niederösterreich?" Jahrbuch fürLandeskunde Niederösterreich 27 (1938): 25-37.

Mitscha-Märheim, H. "Eine awarische Grenzorganisation des 8. Jahrhundertsin Niederösterreich." Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums 4(1957): 129-35.

Mitscha-Märheim, H. Dunkler Jahrhunderte goldene Spuren. Munich, 1960.

Mitterauer, M. "Slawischer und bayrischer Adel am Ausgang derKarolingerzeit" Carinthia I 150 (1960): 693-726.

Mitterauer, M. Karolingische Markgrafen im Südosten: FränkischeReichsaristokratie und bayerischer Stammesadel im österreichischen Raum.Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 123. Vienna, 1963.

Mitterauer, M. "Wirtschaft und Verfassung in der Zollordnung vonRaffelstetten." Mitteilungen des Oberösterreichischen Landesarchivs 8 (1964):235-63.

Mitterauer, M. Zollfreiheit und Marktbereich. Studien zur mittelalterlichen



Wirtschaftsverfassung am Beispiel einer niederösterreichischenAltsiedellandschaft. Vienna, 1969.

Moosleitner, F. "Neue Ergebnisse zu den Salzburger Domgrabungen." Virgil(1985): 317-25.

Moro, G. "Das Königsgut in Kärnten 800-1000." Carinthia I 131 (1941): 35-47.

Moro, G. "Zur politischen Stellung Karantaniens im fränkischen und deutschenReich." Südostforschungen 22 (1963): 78-96.

Mosser, A. "Salzburg und das Königsgut an der Traisen." MIÖG 77 (1969):249-89.

Müller, R. "Ethnische Verhältnisse in der Umgebung von Keszthely undZalavár im 9.-10. Jahrhundert." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum,163-72. Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4.Linz, 1991.

Nekuda, V. "Magyaren und Mähren um die Wende des 9. und 10.Jahrhunderts im Lichte archäologischer Funde und Forschungen." In Baiern,Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 121-38. Forschungen zur Geschichte derStädte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Nesbitt, J. "The Rate of March of Crusading Armies in Europe: A Study andComputation." Traditio 19 (1963): 167-81.

Neumann, W. "Alpuuinus de Carantania. Zu den Anfängen des BistumsFreising in Kärnten." In Festschrift Friedrich Hausmann, edited by H. Ebner,355-65. Graz, 1977.



Page 397

Neumann, W. ''De Trebina data ad Otigas id est Osciam. Das Diplom KönigKarlmanns vom 9. September 878 im Widerstreit der Meinungen." InGeschichte und ihre Quellen: Festschrift für Friedrich Hausmann zum 70.Geburtstag, edited by R. Härtel, 439-44. Graz, 1987.

Noble, T. F. X. "Louis the Pious and the Frontiers of the Frankish Realm." InCharlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840), edited by P. Godman and R. Collins, 333-47. Oxford, 1990.

Oettinger, K. Das Werden Wiens. Vienna, 1951.

Oman, C. A History of the Art of Warfare in the Middle Ages. Vol. 1. London,1924. Reprint, New York, 1969.

Ostrogorsky, G. "The Byzantine Background of the Moravian Mission."Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19 (1963): 3-18.

Ostrogorsky, G. History of the Byzantine State. Translated by J. Hussey. Rev.ed. New Brunswick, 1969.

Perels, E. Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Berlin, 1920.

Pickl, O. "Handel und Verkehr in der Steiermark zur Zeit der Traungauer." InDas Werden der Steiermark, edited by G. Pferschy, 323-49. Graz, 1980.

Pirchegger, H. "Karantanien und Unterpannonien zur Karolingerzeit." MIÖG 33(1912): 272-31.

Pirchegger, H. Geschichte der Steiermark. Vol. 1. Gotha, 1920.

Pirchegger, H. Untersuchungen über die altslovenischen FreisingerDenkmäler. Leipzig, 1931.

Pirchegger, H. Die Untersteiermark in der Geschichte ihrer Herrschaften undGülten, Städte und Märkte. Munich, 1962.

Planitz, H. "Die Scharmannen von Prüm: Ein Beitrag zur Wehrverfassung desMittelalters." In Festschrift für Heinrich Lehmann, 55-70. Berlin, 1937.

Plank, C. Siedlungs- und Besitzgeschichte der Grafschaft Pitten. Vol. 1.Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 10,1946.



Pohl, W. "Das Awarenreich und die 'kroatischen' Ethnogenesen." In DieBayern und ihre Nachbarn, edited by H. Wolfram and A. Schwarcz, 1: 293-98.Vienna, 1985.

Pohl, W. Die Awarenkriege Karls des Großen. Militärhistorische Schriftenreihe,Vienna, 1988.

Pohl, W. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa, 567-822 n. Chr.Munich, 1988.

Posch, F. Siedlungsgeschichte der Oststeiermark. MIÖG supp. vol. 13, Vienna,1941.

Posch, F. "Die deutsch-slawische Begegnung im Ostalpenraum und dieGrundlage des steirischen Volkstums." Jahrbuch für Landeskunde vonNiederösterreich 36 (1964): 68-93.

Posch, F. "Die Besiedlung und Entstehung des Landes Steiermark." In DasWerden der Steiermark, edited by G. Pferschy, 15-43. Graz, 1980.

Poulik J. "Wirtschaftlich-soziale Entwicklung im slawischen Bereich nördlichder mittleren Donau im 6. bis 10. Jahrhundert." MGSLK 126 (1986): 119-84.

Poupardin, R. Le Royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens (855-933).Paris, 1901.

Preidel, H. Die Anfänge der slawischen Besiedlung Böhmens und Mährens. 2vols. Munich, 1954-57.

Preidel, H. Das Großmährische Reich im Spiegel der Bodenfunde. Gräfelingbei Munich, 1968.



Page 398

Prévite-Orton, C. "Italy and Provence, 900-950." EHR 32 (1917): 335-47.

Prinz, F. "Herzog und Adel im agilulfingischen Bayern. Herzogsgut undKonsensschenkungen vor 788." ZBLG 25 (1962): 283-311.

Prinz, F. Frühes Mönchtum im Frankenreich. Kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien,den Rheinlanden und Bayern am Beispiel der monastischen Entwicklung (4.bis 8. Jahrhundert). Munich, Vienna, 1965.

Prinz, F. "Arbeo von Freising und die Agilulfinger." ZBLG 29 (1966): 580-90.

Prinz, F. "Zur Herrschaftsstruktur Bayerns und Alemanniens im 8.Jahrhundert." Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 102 (1966): 11-27.

Prinz, F. Klerus und Krieg im früheren Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur Rolleder Kirche beim Aufbau der Königsherrschaft. Stuttgart, 1971.

Prinz, F. "Salzburg zwischen Antike und Mittelalter." FrühmittelalterlicheStudien 5 (1971): 10-36.

Prinz, F. "Nochmals zur 'Zweiteilung des Herzogtums der Agilolfinger.'" Blätterfür deutsche Landesgeschichte 113 (1977): 113-32.

Püspöki-Nagy, P. Nagy Morávia fekvéserol. Budapest, 1972.

Püspöki-Nagy, P. "Az ösi Nyitra a kortársk hiradásai és a tör ténészekelképzekéseu nyomán." Irodalmi Szemle 19/2 (1976): 119-39.

Püspöki-Nagy, P. On the Location of Great Moravia. A Reassessment.Duquesne University Studies in History, East Central and SoutheasternEuropean Series 13, Pittsburgh, 1983.

Ratkos, P. "K Otazke hranice Velkej Moravy a Bulharska." Historicky Casopis 3(1955): 205-18. German resumé: 217-18.

Ratkos, P. "The Territorial Development of Great Moravia (Fiction andReality)." Studia Historica Slovaca 16 (1988): 121-56.

Reindel, K., "Die staatsrechtliche Stellung des Ostlandes imfrühmittelalterlichen Bayern." Mitteilungen des oberösterreichischenLandesarchivs 7 (1960): 14-63.

Reindel, K. "Die staatliche Entwicklung Bayerns vom Ende der Agilolfingerzeit



bis zur Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts." ZBLG 25 (1962): 665-78.

Reindel, K. "Herzog Arnulf und das Regnum Bavariae." In Die Entstehung desdeutschen Reiches. Wege der Forschung, edited by H. Kämpf, 1: 213-88.Düsseldorf, 1963.

Reindel, K. "Bayern im Karolingerreich." In Karl der Große, edited by H.Beumann, Vol. 1: 220-46. Düsseldorf, 1965.

Reindel, K. "Bayern vom Zeitalter der Karolinger bis zum Ende derWelfenherrschaft (788-1180)." In Die politische Entwicklung, edited by M.Spindler, Vol. 1. of Handbuch der bayerischen Geschichte, 247-51. Munich,1981.

Reindel, K. "Herkunft und Stammesbildung der Bajuwaren nach denschriftlichen Quellen." Die Bajuwaren (1988): 56-60.

Reuter, T. "Plunder and Tribute in the Carolingian Empire." Transactions ofthe Royal Historical Society 35 (1985): 75-94.

Reuter, T. "The End of Carolingian Military Expansion." In Charlemagne'sHeir. New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious, edited by P. Godmanand R. Collins, 391-405. Oxford, 1990.

Reuter, T. Germany in the Early Middle Ages c. 800-1056. London, New York,1991.

Richter, M. "Die politische Orientierung Mährens zur Zeit von Konstantin und



Page 399

Methodius." In Die Bayern und ihre Nachbarn, edited by H. Wolfram and A.Schwarcz, 1: 281-92. Vienna, 1985.

Richter, M. "Beobachtungen zu den Viten von Konstantin und Methodius."MGSLK 126 (1986): 51-58.

Runciman, S. A History of the First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1930.

Ruttkay, A. "Besiedlungsstrukturen und Geschichte des Gebietes der Slowakeiim 9.-12. Jahrhundert." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 139-62. Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz,1991.

Safarik, P. J. Slawische Alterthümer. Translated from Czech into German byM. von Aehrenfeld. Leipzig, 1843.

Sakac, S. "Bemerkung zum Methodiusprozess in Bayern, 870." Orientaliachristiana periodica 20 (1954): 175-80.

Sandberger, G., and A. Sandberger. "Frauenchiemsee als bayerischesHerzogskloster." ZBLG 27 (1964): 55-73.

Sandberger, G., and A. Sandberger. "Tengernsee Lehen und Altstrassen imbayerischen Alpenvorland zwischen Inn und Isar." In Gesellschaft undHerrschaft. Forschungen zu sozial-und landesgeschichtlichen Problemenvornehmlich in Bayern. Festgabe für K. Bosl, edited by F. Prinz, 35-49.Munich, 1969.

Schelesniker, H. "Die historischen und politischen Hintergründe derkyrillomethodianischen Mission." SM (1988): 269-79.

Schelesniker, H. "Gedanken zu einem 'häretischen' Buch." Anzeiger fürSlawische Philologie 19 (1989): 182-87.

Schlesinger, W. "Kaiser Arnulf und die Entstehung des Deutschen Staates undVolkes." HZ 163 (1941): 457-70.

Schlesinger, W. "Die Anfänge der deutschen Königswahl." Zeitschrift derSavigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Germanische Abteilung 66 (1948):388-402.

Schlesinger, W. "Über germanisches Heerkönigtum." Das Königtum, edited byT. Mayer. Vorträge und Forschungen 3: 104-46. Lindau, 1956.



Schlesinger, W. "Karolingische Königswahlen." Zur Geschichte undProblematik der Demokratie: Festgabe H. Herzfeld, edited by D. Kurze, 248-55. Berlin, 1958.

Schmid, K. "Über die Struktur des Adels im früheren Mittelalter." Jahrbuch fürfränkische Landesgeschichte 19 (1959): 1-24.

Schmid, K. "Religiöses und sippengebundenes Gemeinschaftsbewusstsein infrühmittelalterlichen Gedenkbucheinträgen." DA 21 (1965): 18-81.

Schmid, K. "Die Mönchsgemeinschaft von Fulda als sozialgeschichtlichesProblem." Frühmittelalterliche Studien 4 (1970): 12-34.

Schmid, K. "Das Zeugnis der Verbrüderungsbücher zur Slawenmission."MGSLK 126 (1986): 185-206.

Schmid, K. "Slawen in der mittelalterlichen Gedenküberlieferung." SM (1988):281-91.

Schneider, R. Königswahl und Königserhebung im Frühmittelalter. Stuttgart,1972.

Schnetz, J. Untersuchungen über die Quellen der Kosmographie desAnonymen Geographen von Ravenna. Sitzungsberichte der BayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung 6. Munich,1942.

Schubert, G. "Methods Werk in Pannonien und die Magyaren nach derLandnahme." SM (1988): 293-305.



Page 400

Schünemann, K. "Deutsche Kriegführung im Osten während des Mittelalters."DA 2 (1938): 54-84.

Schur, J. Königtum und Kirche im ostfränkischen Reich vom Tode Ludwigs desDeutschen bis Konrad I. Göttingen, 1931.

Schütz, J. "Methods Widersacher Wiching und dessen Pannonisch-mährischeGefährten." Festschrift für Dietrich Gerhardt aus Anlass des 65. Geburtstages,391-94. Marburger Abhandlungen zur Geschichte und Kultur Osteuropas 14,1977.

Schwarzmaier, H. "Ein Brief des Markgrafen Aribo an König Arnulf über dieVerhältnisse in Mähren." Frühmittelalterliche Studien 6 (1972): 55-66.

Sennhauser, H., "Die Salzburger Dombauten im Rahmen derfrühmittelalterlichen Baukunst Europas." Virgil (1985): 326.

Sidaritsch, M. Geographie des bäuerlichen Siedlungswesens im ehemaligenHerzogtum Steiermark. Graz, 1925.

Simonyi, D. "Sull'origine del toponimo 'Quinque Ecclesiae' di Pecs." Actaantiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8 (1960): 165-84.

Sinor, D. "Horses and Pasture in Inner Asian History." Oriens extremus 19(1972): 171-83.

Sinor, D. ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge, NewYork, 1990.

Sisic, F. v. Geschichte der Kroaten. Vol. 1. Zagreb, 1917.

Slatarski, W. Geschichte der Bulgaren. Vol. 1. Leipzig, 1918.

Smith, J. Province and Empire: Brittany and the Carolingians. Cambridge,1992.

Soproni, S. "Roads." In The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia, eds. A. Lengyeland G. Radan, 207-18. Budapest, 1980.

Sós, A. "Ausgrabungen von Zalavár." Cyrillo-Methodiana. Zur Frühgeschichtedes Christentums bei den Slaven, edited by M. Hellmann, R. Olesch, B.Stasewski, and F. Zagiba, 722-61. Cologne, Graz, 1964.



Sós, A. "Über die Fragen des frühmittelalterlichen Kirchenbaues in Mosapurc-Zalavár." Annales Instituti Slavici 1/2 (1966): 69-86.

Sós, A. Die Slawische Bevölkerung Westungarns im 9. Jahrhundert. Munich,1973.

Spinka, M. A History of Christianity in the Balkans. A Study in the Spread ofByzantine Culture Among the Slavs. Chicago, 1933.

Spoemburg, H. "Die feudale Kriegskunst." Beiträge zur Belgisch-Niederländischen Geschichte, 20-52. Berlin, 1959.

Steindorff, L. "Die Synode auf der Planities Dalmae. Reichseinteilung undKirchenorganisation im Bild der Chronik des Priesters von Dioclea." MIÖG 64(1985): 279-324.

Steindorff, L. "'Liber Methodius.' Überlegungen zur kyrill-methodianischenTradition beim Priester von Dioclea." Mitteilungen des BulgarischenForschungsinstitutes in Österreich 8 (1986): 157-72.

Steinhauser, W. "Die Ortsnamen des Burgenlandes alssiedlungsgeschichtliche Quellen." MIÖG 45 (1931): 281-321.

Stingl, H. Die Entstehung der deutschen Stammesherzogtümer am Anfangdes 10. Jahrhunderts. Aalen, 1974.

Störmer, W. "Fernstrassen und Klöster. Zur Verkehrs- und Herrschaftsstrukturdes westlichen Altbayern im frühen Mittelalter." ZBLG 29 (1966): 299-343.



Page 401

Störmer, W. "Engen und Pässe in den mittleren Ostalpen und ihre Sicherungim frühen Mittelalter." Beiträge zur Landeskunde Bayerns und derAlpenländer. Hans Fehn zum 65. Geburtstag. Mitteilungen derGeographischen Gesellschaft in München 53 (1968): 91-107.

Störmer, W. Früher Adel: Studien zur politischen Führungsschicht imfränkisch-deutschen Reich vom 8. bis 11. Jahrhundert. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1973.

Störmer, W. "Adelige Träger von Rodung, Siedlung und Herrschaft im Raumzwischen Salzach-Inn und Enns während des 8. und frühen 9. Jahrhunderts."In Die Anfänge des Klosters Kremsmünster Symposium, edited by K. Holter,23-45. Linz, 1978.

Störmer W. "Zu Aufgaben und Methoden der historischen Landeskunde." InSiedlung, Macht und Wirtschaft: Festschrift Fritz Posch zum 70. Geburtstag,edited by G. Pferschy, 3-12. Graz, 1981.

Störmer, W. "Beobachtungen zur historisch-geographischen Lage der ätestenbayerischen Klöster und ihres Besitzes." In Salzburg Diskussionen. FrühesMönchtum in Salzburg, edited by E. Zwink, 109-23. Salzburg, 1983.

Störmer, W. "Zum Problem der Slawenmission des Bistums Freising im 9.Jahrhundert." MGSLK 126 (1986): 207-20.

Störmer, W. "Die Brennerroute und deren Sicherung in Kalkül dermittelalterlichen Kaiserpolitik." In Alpenübergänge vor 1850, edited by UtaLindgren, 156-62. Munich, 1987.

Störmer W. "Zur Frage der Funktionen des kirchlichen Fernbesitzes im Gebietder Ostalpen vom 8. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert." In Die TransalpinenVerbindungen der Bayern, Alemannen und Franken bis zum 10. Jahrhundert,edited by H. Beumann, 379-403. Nationes 6, 1987.

Störmer, W. "Zur stratetischen Bedeutung der Veroneser Klause und desGardasees für die Italienzüge deutscher Könige in Hochmittelalter."Geschichte und ihre Quellen: Festschrift für Friedrich Hausmann zum 70.Geburtstag, edited by R. Härtel, 121-26. Graz, 1987.

Störmer, W. "Frühmittelalterliche Grundherrschaft bayerischer Kirchen (8.-10.Jahrhundert." Strukturen der Grundherrschaft im frühen Mittelalter, edited byW. Rössner, 370-41. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Plank Institus für



Geschichte, 1989.

Störmer, W. "Ostfränkische Herrschaftskrise und Herausforderung durch dieUngarn. Zur Ausformung des sogen. jüngeren bayerischenStammesherzogstums und zum Wandel der Herrschaftsverhältnisse inBayern." In Baiern, Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 55-77. Forschungenzur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Störmer, W., and G. Mayer, "Herzog und Adel." Die Bajuwaren (1988): 153-59.

Sullivan, R. "Khan Boris and the Conversion of Bulgaria. A Case Study of theImpact of Christianity on a Barbarian Society." Studies in Medieval andRenaissance History 3 (1966): 55-139.

Szádeczky-Kardoss, S. Avarica: Über die Awarengeschichte und ihre Quellen.Szeged, 1986.

Tarnanidis, I. "Auf Sinai entdeckte Quellen als Ausgangspunkt für ein neuesVerständnis der cyrillo-methodischen Mission." MGSLK 126 (1986): 11-22.



Page 402

Tatzreiter, H. ''Das Namengut der Raffelstettener Zollurkunde." In Baiern,Ungarn und Slawen im Donauraum, 195-210.

Forschungen zur Geschichte der Städte und Märkte Österreichs 4. Linz, 1991.

Tellenbach, G. Königtum und Stämme in der Werdezeit des deutschenReiches. Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des deutschenReiches 4. Weimar, 1939.

Tellenbach, G. "Zur Geschichte Kaiser Arnulfs." HZ 165 (1942): 229-45.

Tellenbach, G. "Wann ist das deutsche Reich entstanden?" DA 6 (1943): 24-35.

Tellenbach, G. "Der grossfränkischer Adel und die Regierung Italiens in derBlütezeit des Karolingerreiches." Forschungen zur oberrheinischenLandesgeschichte 4 (1957): 40-70.

Tocik, A. "Archäologische Forschung im slawischen Neutra (Nitra)." Dasöstliche Mitteleuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 101-19. Munich, 1966.

Tomek, E. Kirchengeschichte Österreichs. Innsbruck, 1935.

Toru, S. "Morávia Bukása és a Honfoglaó Magyarok." Századok 117 (1983):307-45. Russian and French summaries.

Toru, S. "La situation géographique de la Grande-Moravie et les Hongroisconquérants." Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 48 (1982): 533-40.

Tóth, E. "Vigilius Episcopus Scaravanciensis." Acta archaeologica AcademiaeScientiarum Hungaricae 26 (1974): 269-75.

Tóth, E. "Zu den historischen Problemen der Stadt Savaria und ihrerUmgebung zwischen dem 4.-9. Jahrhundert." Folia Archaeologica 27 (1976):89-118.

Tóth, E. "Die karolingische Durg von Savaria-Szombathely." FoliaArchaeologica 29 (1978): 151-82.

Tóth, E. "Bemerkungen zur Kontinuität der römischen Provinzialbevökerung inTransdanubien (Nordpannonien)." Die Völker Südosteuropas im 6. bis 8.Jahrhundert, 25-59. Südosteuropa Jahrbuch 17, 1987.



Toynbee, A. Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World. London, 1973.

Trost, K., E. Völkl, E. Wedel, eds. Symposium Methodianum: Beiträge derInternationalen Tagung in Regensburg zum Gedenken an den 1100 Todestagdes hl. Method. Selecta Slavica 13. Neuried, 1988.

Urbanczyk, S. "Wirkte die methodianische Mission in Polen?" SM (1988): 341-46.

Vaillant, A., and Lascaris, M. "La date de la conversion des Bulgares." Revuedes études slaves 13 (1933): 5-15.

Vajay, S. de. Der Eintritt des ungarischen Stämmebundes in die europäischeGeschichte (862-933). Mainz, 1968.

Vanecek, V. "Über die Aussenpolitik des mährischen Staates in den vierzigerbis achtziger Jahren des IX Jh." In Das Grossmährische Reich: Tagung Brno-Nitra 1963, 295-310. Prague, 1963.

Verbruggen, J. "L'armée et la strategie de Charlemagne." In Karl der Grosse,edited by Helmut Beumann, 1: 420-36. Düsseldorf, 1965.

Verbruggen, J. The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.From the Eighth Century to 1340, translated by S. Willard and S. Southern.Amsterdam, New York, 1977.

Vetters, H. "Der Dombau des Heiligen Virgils in in Salzburg." C-M (1964):287-93.

Vetters, H. "Der mittelalterliche Dom Salzburgs." Virgil (1985): 286-316.



Page 403

Vincenz, A. de. "The Moravian Mission in Poland Revisited." Harvard UkrainianStudies 7 (1983): 639-54.

Vinski, Z. "Zu karolingischen Schwertfunden aus Jugoslawien." Jahrbuch desrömisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 30 (1983): 465-501.

Vlasto, A. The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom. An Introduction to theMedieval History of the Slavs. Cambridge, 1968.

Warnke, C. Die Anfänge des Fernhandels in Polen. Würzburg, 1964.

Weigel, H. "Der karolingische Pfalzort Forchheim (725-918)." Jahrbuch fürfränkische Landesforschung 19 (1959): 135-70.

Werner, K. "Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls des Großen." In Karl derGroße, edited by H. Beumann, 1: 83-142. Düsseldorf, 1965.

Werner, K. "Heeresorganisation und Kriegsführung im deutschen Königsreichdes 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts." Ordinamente militari in Occident nell'altomedievo 2. Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'alto medioevo15, Spoleto, 1968: 813-75.

Wheelock, F. M. Latin. An Introductory Course Based on Ancient Authors. 3dedition. New York, 1963.

Widmann, H. Geschichte Salzburgs. Vol. 1. Gotha, 1907.

Winter, E. Studien zum Severinsproblem. Vol. 2 of St. Severin der Heiligezwischen Ost und West, edited by K. Kramert and J. Winter. Kloster Neuburg,1969.

Winter, J. v. "Scarmannen-Konigsvrijen." In Dancwerc, opstellen anngeb. aanD. Th. Enklaar, 86-95. Groningen, 1959.

Wolfram, H. "Das Fürstentum Tassilos III, Herzog von Bayern." MGSLK 108(1968): 157-76.

Wolfram, H. "Der Zeitpunkt der Einführung der Grafschaftsverfassung inKarantanien." In Siedlung, Macht und Wirtschaft: Festschrift Fritz Posch zum70. Geburtstag, edited by G. Pferschy, 313-21. Graz, 1981.

Wolfram, H. "Liudewit und Priwina (Ein institutioneller Vergleich)."Interaktionen der Mitteleuropäischen Slawen und anderen Ethnika im 6.-10.



Jahrhundert, 292-95. Nitra, 1984.

Wolfram, H. "Ethnogenese im frühmittelalterlichen Donau- und Ostalpenraum(6. bis 10. Jahrhundert)." Frühmittelalterliche Ethnogenese im Alpenraum,edited by H. Beumann: 97-152, Nationes 5, 1985.

Wolfram, H. "Slawische Herrschaftsbildung im pannonischen Raum alsVoraussetzung für die Slawenmission." MGSLK 126 (1986): 245-54.

Wolfram, H. Die Geburt Mitteleuropas. Geschichte Österreichs vor seinerEntstehung 378-907. Vienna, 1987.

Wolfram, H. "The Image of Central Europe in Constantine VIIPorphyrogenitus." In Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His Age, 5-14.Second International Byzantine Conference in Delphi, Athens, 1989.

Zagiba, F. "Die Missionierung der Slaven aus 'Welschland' (PatriarchatAquileja) im 8. und 9. Jahrhundert." C-M (1964): 274-311.

Zemek, M. "Zum Problem der Kontinuität zwischen dem Bistum Mähren unddem Bistum Olmütz." MGSLK 126 (1986): 109-19.

Zettler, A. "Cyrill und Method im Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch."Frühmittelalterliche Studien 17 (1983): 180-98.



Page 404

Zettler, A. "Methodius in Reichenau. Bemerkungen zur Deutung und zumQuellenwert der Einträge im Verbrüderungsbuc." SM (1988): 367-79.

Zibermayr, I. Noricum, Bayern und Österreich. Horn, 1956.

Ziegler, A. "Der Konsens der Freisinger Domherren im Streit um Methodius."C-M (1964): 312-28.

Ziegler, A. "Methodius in Ellwangen." In Land und Reich, Stamm und Nation,Festschrift für Max Spindler, edited by A. Kraus, 305-24. Munich, 1984.

Zöllner, E. "Zur Bedeutung der älteren Otachare für Salzburg, St. Pölten undWien." Neues Jahrbuch der Heraldisch-genealogischen Gesellschaft (1945-46): 21-39.

Zöllner, E. "Awarisches Namengut in Bayern und Österreich." MIÖG 63(1950): 244-75.

Zöllner, E. Die politische Stellung der Völker im Frankenreich.Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 13.Vienna, 1950.

Zöllner, E. "Ein Markgraf des karolingischen Südostens im französischenEpos." Carinthia I 163 (1953): 794-804.

Zöllner, E. "Der bairische Adel und die Gründung von Innichen." MIÖG 68(1960): 362-87.

Zöllner, E. Geschichte Österreichs. 3d ed. Munich, 1966.



Page 405

Index

A

Aachen, 57, 61, 63, 77, 91-92, 223

Ablanc (Ablanza, east of Köszeg), 155

Abodrites, 92-94

Abraham (Avar khan), 58

Adala (daughter of walpot Hartwig), 307

Adalbero (duke of Carinthia, 11th c.), 280

Adalbero (founder of Ebersberg monastery), 311, 312 (Chart 7)

Adalbert (Otachar's brother), 295, 297

Adalbert (Witagowo's father), 295, 298

Adalbert (name in Evangelary of Cividale), 297

Adalram (archbishop of Salzburg), 105

Adalwin (archbishop of Salzburg), 139, 148, 155, 156, 168-71, 180

ad Furti (Judenburg), 308

ad Quartinaha (locality on Lake Balaton), 155-56

ad Rapam (unknown locality on the Raba River), 135

ad siccam Sabariam (north of Szombathley), 136

ad Sulpam (near Leibniz), 136

ad Tudleipin (near Mureck), 136

Adige River, 181

Admont, 121, 122, 134, 279

Adonis Continuatio prima, 147



Adriatic, 6, 23, 98, 159, 174, 191, 193, 221, 229

Agathon (archbishop of Morabon), 183, 192

Agilolfinger (Bavarian ducal house):

dukes, 33-45;

monastic foundations, 37, 38, 40-42, 200

Aibling (palace in upper Bavaria), 115-17, 197

Alaholfingers kindred (Alamanni ducal house), 79, 203-8

Alamanni, Alamannia, 35, 49, 55-56, 65, 68, 161, 178, 226, 239, 242

Albgar (Carantanian count), 72, 98-99, 100, 102

Albrich (Alprih comes confinii), 72, 74, 80-86

Albrich (chorepiscopus), 124, 133

Albrih (count in Carantania, son of Herolt), 279, 284 (Chart 5), 286, 313, 316

Alcuin, 47, 83

Alföld (Hungarian plain), 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 27;

Kis (Little) Alföld, 3, 46, 57, 124;

Nagy (Great) Alföld, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 27, 56-57

Alps, 21-24, 41;

routes and crossings, 22 (Map 1), 68, 122-23, 150, 170-71, 179-84, 188,199-200, 214, 217-26, 219 (Map 9), 245, 254;

eastern, 34-40, 65-66, 82, 90, 98-99;

western, 36, 101

Althoff, Gerd, 201

Altötting. See Ötting

Amalgerus (Pannonian landowner), 134

Amstetten, 49



Ancona, 221.

See also Paul of Ancona

Annales Alamannici, 250-51;

Codices Modoetiensis et Veronensis, 262, 270

Annales Bertiniani, 110, 111, 126, 140, 143, 149, 154, 160, 182, 187, 236-37

Annales Fuldenses (Fulda Annals), 9, 12, 107-9, 119-20, 125-29, 140, 143,150, 154-57, 160-62, 164, 173, 175-78, 182, 184, 187-90, 197, 240-43, 245,249-50, 288, 301, 316;

Mainz version, 181, 217;

Regensburg Continuation, 188, 208, 211-17, 223-30, 238, 269-71, 275, 319

Annales Gradicenses, 246-47

Annales Iuvavenses maximi, 237, 258-64

Annales Mellicenses, 250

Annales Mettenses, 58

Annales Mosellani, 51

Annales regni Francorum (Royal Annals), 33, 40, 45, 48, 57, 60, 61, 65, 67-69, 88, 90, 92, 97;

Annales Laureshamenses, 51, 56;

Revised Royal Annals, 51, 62;

Codex Bertinianus and Codex Vindobonensis, 93



Page 406

Annales Sancti Emmerammi maiores, 57

Annales Sangallenses maiores, 236

Annalex Xantenses, 109

Anno (Bishop of Freising), 153, 168-73, 183

Anonymi Belae Regis (author of Gesta Hungarorum), 256

Apostle of the Slavs. See Virgil

Aquileia, 23, 56, 72, 159

Aquitaine, 35-36, 47

Arbeo (bishop of Freising), 33, 37

Arbo (margrave on the Danube), 188, 202-16, 223, 232, 243, 251-52, 270-73,287, 290-93, 297-98, 301-2, 306, 333-34;

his letter to King Arnulf, 223

Arbo (count palatine of Regensburg, d. circa 1000), 305, 310

Arbo (archbishop of Mainz, d. 1031), 305

Arbo (son of count palatine Hartwig), 306

Arbo (son of count Otachar on the Mur), 306

archaeology:

northern Morava Valley, 16-18;

Szombathely, 54;

Zalavár, 106;

Srimium, 174;

Nitra (Slovakia), 255-58

archiepiscopus Marabensis ecclesie; Pannoniensis ecclesie. See Methodius

Aribonen kindred, 252, 305-7, 318

Arn (archbishop of Salzburg), 83



Arn (bishop of Würzburg), 175-77

Arnsdorf (ad Uuahauua), 135

Arnulf (duke of Bavaria, son of Liutpold), 282

Arnulf of Carinthia, 8, 15, 32, 310, 333-34;

margrave in Carantania, 187, 201-2, 205, 207, 212-16, 238;

king, 217-36, 270-77;

emperor, 241-46;

alliance with Hungarians, 240-41;

Ostpolitik, 217-18, 299, 318, 367 n.1

Arpad (Magyar leader), 251, 254

Arpo (son of Count Otachar), 252

Arrabona (ancient city on the Danube), 53

Aspang (locality south of Baden), 161

Aspert (royal archchancellor, bishop of Regensburg), 272-75

Astronomer (biographer of Louis the Pious), 97

Attergau, 41

Atterhofen, 218, 219 (Map 9)

Attila the King (Athila rex), 256

Aubri le Bourgoing. See Albrich, comes confinii

Auctarium Garstense, 125

Audulf (Bavarian prefect), 57-58, 60, 71, 76, 81

Aufhausen (in the Donaugau), 272

Augsburg, 23, 45, 115, 225

Avaria, provincia Avarorum (territory east of Enns), 39, 45, 47, 59, 78, 87

Avars, 1, 4, 5, 14-16, 20, 34-35, 40, 44, 46-60, 71, 76, 83, 87, 174;



Avar-Bavarian boundary, 47;

campaigns, 3, 46-57;

Avar Confederation, 46, 51, 57;

fortifications, 49-52;

Avars north of the Danube, 16-18;

Avar princes, 56-58, 60;

Avar reservation, 13, 57-58, 77, 92-93, 95;

Avar "ring" and treasure, 55-56;

Avar wars, 46-60, 82, 87, 203

Aventinus (Bavarian humanist), 235, 260-63

B

Bachrach, Bernard S., 19

Baden (Aquae palace south of Vienna), 25, 32, 124, 133, 161-62

Balaton (Lake), 16, 24-28, 32, 68, 104, 106, 125, 134, 139, 155, 156, 158,204, 207, 241, 259, 294

Balderic (margrave of Friuli), 20, 62, 65-67, 71, 95-98, 159

Barski Rodoslov (South Slavic source). See Diocleas presbyter

Bavaria:

under the Agilolfinger dukes, 33-45;

bishops, 153, 165-73, 192, 194-95, 204;

ecclesiastical structure, 37-39, 164, 182;

nobles (see Graman kindred and Wilhelminer group);

pro-Carolingian aristocracy, 33-39;

salt, 42-43

Bavarian geographer, 11



Belgrade, 2-4, 10-11, 14, 25, 27-28, 159, 170

Benedict IV (pope), 253

Benedict (Italian bishop), 335

Berengar (margrave of Fruili), 98, 218-19, 221, 231, 244-45, 253-54

Bernard (son of Odalbert and Rhini), 283-85

Bertold (duke of Carantania, 10th c.), 280, 308

Bertrich (count palatine), 95

Bischofsberg (near Neumarkt), 308

Bischofshoften (monastic cell in Pongau), 40-42

Bjelo-Brdo culture, 14



Page 407

Black Sea, 9, 144, 237

Boba, Imre, 1, 6, 7, 13, 14-16, 93, 126, 129, 141, 188, 190-93, 237, 249, 256-57, 301, 319

Bohemia, Bohemians, 7, 35, 46-51, 58-60, 88, 92-93, 102-3, 108-11, 115,118, 119, 156, 160, 161, 175, 177, 183, 226-27;

duke(s) (Zwentibald, Liutpold), 222;

petty dukes, 104;

relations with Moravians, 176-77, 242-43

Bohemian Forest, 175-76

Bolzano, 23, 36, 38, 96, 115-16, 181, 233

Boris/Michael (Bulgar khan), 141, 144, 153, 157, 160, 163, 178, 190-91, 241

Borna (Dalmatian prince), 61-63, 69

Boruth (Carantanian duke), 35

Bosnia, 13, 190

Bracher, Karl, 307

Branimir (Croatian prince), 190-92

Bratislava (Pressburg), 11, 150, 258-64.

See also Brezalauspurc

Braunau (Inn crossing), 81

Brazlavo (Slavic duke on the Sava), 214, 217, 224-28, 241, 245-46, 259-60,271-74, 335

Brenner Pass, 21, 23, 36, 45, 98, 100, 121, 179, 180, 183, 197, 221;

Brenner-Pusteria route, 56, 66, 68, 95, 115-17, 127-28, 170-71, 233, 293

Brescia, 221;

liber confraternitatum, 282, 289



Bressanone (Brixen), 23, 95-96

Brezalauspurc (probably Brazlavo's fortress in Lower Pannonia), 235-36;

battle of, 258-64.

See also Zalavár

Brezesburg, Brezisburg. See Bratislava

Brno, 2

Bruck (ad Pruccam, on the Mur River), 122, 137, 281

Budapest, 24, 27

Budejovice (Budweis), 59, 176

Bulgaria, Bulgars, 3, 11, 35, 104, 109, 111, 141, 144-45, 189, 225;

invasion of Pannonia, 91-98, 103, 121, 128;

Byzantium, relations with, 142-45, 158-59;

Franks, relations with, 92, 128, 140, 141, 157-58, 160, 211, 214, 224, 227,239;

Moravians, relations with, 94, 159, 214;

Rome, relations with, 160, 193, 241

Burgenland, 29, 51, 67, 77, 87, 124, 129, 133-34, 206

Burghausen (Inn crossing), 199

Burkhardinger (Swabian kindred), 295

Byzantine:

Empire, 69;

armies, 141, 144-45, 157, 190;

embassies, 177;

fleet, 241;

Dalmatia, 6, 69;



emperor, 189;

interests, 160;

missions, 5, 16, 17, 153, 159;

patriarch, 5;

sources, 12

Byzantium.

See Constantinople

C

Cacatius (Carantanian prince), 35

Cadolah (Alaholfinger name with many variants), 202;

Cadaloc (missus, probably margrave at Szombathely), 57, 74, 77, 79, 80,86, 203-4;

Cadolah (margrave of Friuli), 61-62, 71, 202-5, 297, 365-66 n.67;

Cadolah/Kocel/Chozil (see Kocel);

Cadolah (Chadalhoch, count in Isengau, son of count palatine Arbo), 305-7

Capitularies:

Bononiense, 60;

De causis diversis, 59;

Thionville, 45, 60

Carantania (principality, including modern Carinthia, Styria, and parts ofSlovenia), 42-45, 53-56, 62-70, 82-84, 95-97, 114, 117-18, 120, 128, 139,149, 186;

Agilolfinger period, 36-39 (see also Innichen; Virgil; Tassilo III);

army, 129-33, 173-75;

Arnulf's lordship (see Arnulf of Carinthia [margrave in Carantania]);

Bavarian margraves, 72, 98-101, 120, 122-23, 130 (Map 5), 144-45, 284;



Carloman (praelatus Carantanis) (see Carloman);

Carantanian Slavs, 35-40, 126-33, 137;

Carantanes, general term for South Slavs, 249;

marca contra Restitium, 157 (see also Wends);

Methodius's route through Carantania, 171-72;

missions, 37-39, 72, 137-39;

native (Slavic) leaders, 35, 72-73, 86 (Chart 2), 91, 98, 86;

property exchanges in the 10th century, 279-81;

strategic importance of, 29-30, 35-36, 53-56, 62-70, 82-84, 95-101, 114-15, 197-202, 217-29, 232-33, 243-50, 325-31;

Wilhelminer property in, 269-87, 311-13, 317

Carinthia (modern Austrian province), 29

Carloman (Charlemagne's brother), 35

Carloman (Louis the German's son), 31, 103, 140, 156;

Italian ambitions, 179, 197, 201;

escape, 144-52;

revolt, 119-28, 237, 310, 314;

king of Bavaria, 187, 197-208, 295;

prelatus in Carantania, 114, 119, 128-33, 154-55, 157, 160-62, 164, 167,168, 175-85, 190, 204



Page 408

Carniola, 70

Carpathian Mountains, 2, 3, 9, 141, 217, 229

castellum Guntionis (unknown locality in Pannonia), 57, 77

Celje, 23, 245

Cemicas (Carantanian duke), 72

Cenad, 14, 41

Cham, 59, 176

Charlemagne (Charles the Great), 2-7, 19, 20, 25, 30, 33, 35-40, 46-60, 66,71, 72, 77, 83, 87, 98, 159, 162, 165

Charles Martel (mayor of the palace), 20, 34

Charles the Bald (West Frankish king, emperor), 134-35, 143, 157, 179, 187,295

Charles III (the Fat, king and emperor), 8, 161, 177, 178, 181, 185, 187, 190,201, 209, 214-15, 217, 293, 298, 335

Charts (text references to), Chart 1, 73;

Chart 2, 85-86;

Chart 3, 113;

Chart 4, 278;

Chart 5, 280-87;

Chart 6, 295, 298;

Chart 7, 311;

Chart 8, 316

Cheitmar (Carantanian prince), 35

Chiemsee, 35, 283, 285;

Frauenchiemsee (convent), 41



Christianity, 2, 3, 5, 8, 57, 104, 144, 157, 194-95, 336-37

Christmas, 134, 155-56, 218-19, 222, 225, 228, 230, 244, 273

Chronica Ragusina Junii Restii (Dalmatian source), 190

Chronicon Eberspergense, 310-13

Chronicon Regionis. See Regino of Prüm

Chronicon Venetum. See John the Deacon

Churraetia, 36, 68

Chussol (Chussal, rex/dux, Hungarian chieftain), 250

Cividale, 88.

See also Evangelary of Cividale.

civitas Nytra. See Nitra

civitas Privinae. See Zalavár

Codex Fridarici (Salzburg deeds under archbishop Frederick), 279

Codex millenarius maior (12th-c. cartulary in Kremsmünster), 276

Codex Odalberti (Salzburg deeds under archbishop Odalbert), 279, 283-87,298-99, 303-4, 307

Comagenos (Avar fort, civitas), 51

comites confinii (marcher commanders in Conversio), 71-78, 80-82, 85-87,89, 101

coniectus (special tax in Carantania), 139-40

Constance (Lake), 79, 170

Constantine VII (Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine emperor), 9-12, 239, 254, 319.

See also DAI

Constantine (Cyril, teacher/missionary), 5, 17, 142, 162, 189

Constantinople, 7, 23, 70, 142, 144, 159, 178, 183, 191, 215, 235

Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum (Conversio), 43, 71-76, 81, 82, 85,



91, 98, 104-6, 110, 127, 153-55, 163, 172, 194, 204-5, 256, 270, 288-89, 298

Corvey (Saxon monastery), 118

Cotafrid (Bavarian count), 81, 82

Cotafrid (Albrich's father), 81

Cotahelm, 81

Cotalind (nun, Graman kindred), 81

Cowari (Kabaroi?), 237-38

Crimoald (duke of Benevento), 51

Croatia, 3, 204

Csanad, 14

Csendes, Peter, 48, 55

Cumpold (comes in Isengau), 252

Cundpato (Pannonian deacon), 207

Cyrillo-Methodian missions, 5

Czech Republic, 1, 6-7, 12, 15, 32, 141, 174, 214

D

Dacia, 92, 94

DAI (De administrando imperio), 9-11, 14, 319.

See also Constantine VII (Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine emperor)

Dalmatia, 46, 53, 60, 62, 172;

Dalmatian bishops, 190;

Dalmatian sources, 188-90

Danes, 223

Daniel (Italian bishop), 335

Danube, 8-13, 17, 20-26, 35, 45, 48-56, 59, 61, 67, 73, 77, 84, 87, 88, 91,



104, 119, 128, 155-56, 219;

Danubius (upper Danube), 179, 211-13;

Hister, Ister (lower Danube-Sava watershed), 179, 182, 209, 211-13, 238,334;

supra Danubium, 104-6, 212-13, 334;

ultra Danubium, 105, 211-13, 238, 334;

central Danubian basin, 1-9, 12, 20, 25-27, 43, 46, 58, 71, 82, 87, 93, 104,111-12, 152-54, 160, 162-63, 185, 188, 192, 217, 235-36, 292;

central Danubian watergate, 3, 6, 11, 12, 25-27, 30-32, 52, 88, 107, 116,123, 125-26, 133, 141-42, 159, 171-72, 179, 211

Debrecen, 31

deeds (traditiones), 30-31



Page 409

Deér, Joseph, 44, 97

Desiderius (Lombard king), 36, 38

Dévin (Theben), 15, 140, 145-46, 149, 151

Diocleas (presbyter in Croatia), 189

Diotmar (son of Odalbert and Rhini), 283-85

Dobbiaco (Toblach), 23

Donaugau, 287

Dopsch, Heinz, 108, 137, 279-80, 282, 285, 301, 303, 307-8

Dowina (civitas, probably not Dévin), 140-41, 144, 145, 149, 151

Drauhofen (ad Trahoue), 136

Drava crossing. See Ptuj

Drava River, 3, 8, 11, 20-26, 29-32, 37-41, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61-67, 70, 72-73,88, 91-92, 95, 100, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121-24, 129, 146, 151, 154, 159, 170,184, 200, 217, 232-33

Drina River, 3, 7, 12, 15, 88, 253

duces Karlmanni. See Wilhelminer group, Wilhelm II and Engelschalk

Dudleipin, 107

Dümmler, Ernst, 12, 115, 179, 180, 248, 300

Dunkelstein Woods, 49, 292

Dvornik, Francis, 5, 6

Dyle River, 223

dysentery, 65, 68

E

Easter, 117, 134, 177, 181, 183, 218, 222, 231, 249, 253, 303

Eastern Christianity, 6



Eberhard (margrave of Friuli), 98-100, 117, 297

Eberhard (founder of Ebersberg), 311.

See also Chart 7 (p. 312)

Eberndorf (monastery in Carantania), 306

Ebner, Herwig, 307

ecclesia Minigonis presbiteri (probably Pilgersdorf near Szombathely), 135

Edgar (Carantanian duke), 72, 102

Eggers, Martin, 12-18, 27, 345 n.33

Einhard (biographer of Charlemagne), 47, 52-53, 57

Ekbert (Saxon count), 227

Elbe River, 58, 88, 93, 108

Elsenwang, 41

Embassies, in connection with Luidewit's Revolt, 61-63;

Bavarian bishops to pope, 336-39 (see also Theotmar's letter);

Bohemians to Regensburg, 92, 109, 242;

Bulgars to Franks, 91-92, 109, 140, 157;

Byzantium to Franks, 177, 241-42;

Franks to Bulgars, 91, 128, 158, 211, 224-29;

Franks to Moravians, 220-21, 223-24, 248 (see also Arbo [letter to Arnulf ofCarinthia]);

Louis the German to Engelberga, 179;

Louis the German to Emperor Louis and John VIII, 183-84;

Magyars to Franks, 245-46;

Constantine and Methodius to Rome, 162-64;

Moravians to Bohemians, 175-76;



Moravians to Franks, 211, 250;

Praedenecenti (Moravians?) to Franks, 92-94;

Rome to Bavarian bishops, 168-69 (see also John of Ancona);

Rome to Bulgars, 158-59, 180;

Rome to Slavic Europe, 191-96 (see also John of Venice; Methodius);

Rome to Zwentibald, 221

Embrich (bishop of Regensburg), 171, 201, 207

Engelberga (wife of the emperor Louis II), 179, 181

Engelbert (count in the Chiemgau), 307

Engels, Donald, 25-26, 346 n.63

Engelschalk. See Wilhelminer group

Engildeo (marcheo, count palatine in Regensburg), 272, 287-90

Engilmar (vassal of bishop of Passau), 251

Engilmot (mother of Adalbero and Eberhard), 311, 312 (Chart 7)

Ennsburg (urbs on the Enns), 248

Enns River, 21, 24, 40-42, 45-46, 65-66, 83, 87, 121

Erding, 76

Eric (margrave of Friuli), 55, 57, 71, 174

Ermenrich (bishop of Passau), 158, 160, 168-71, 180, 183

Ermpert (a Pannonian priest), 288

Ernst (prefect of Bavaria), 102, 115, 127, 287

Ernst (margrave in Szombathely), 206

Erzgebirge (in Bohemia), 58

Erzgebirge (in Lavant Valley), 279, 286

Etgar (Carantanian prince). See Chart 2 (p. 86)



Ethelköz, 239

Evangelary of Cividale, 289, 293-95, 297, 318

Excerptum de Karentanis, 172

F

Fasoli, Gina, 245, 253, 255

Federal Republic of Germany, 21

Fenekpuszta (near Lake Balaton), 155



Page 410

Fern Pass, 23, 68, 170-71;

Fern-Reschen route, 65

fictive kinship, 201-2, 222

Field of Dalma, 189, 196

Fischa River, 58

Flavia Solva (near Leibnitz), 136

Forchheim (palace), 60, 177-78, 181, 184, 226, 228;

peace of Forchheim (a. 874), 184, 187, 193, 197, 202, 214

Formosus (bishop of Porto, papal legate, pope), 178, 181, 183, 244-45

Fortunatus (patriarch of Grado), 69-70, 159, 174

Franconia, Franconians, 35, 45, 59, 63, 65, 68, 161, 175-78, 184, 186, 242,295;

Franconian conspiracy hypothesis, 127;

Franconian nobles, 90, 102-3

Frankfurt (palace), 51, 133, 144-45, 149-50, 184, 272, 274

Frauenchiemsee (convent), 41

Frederick (archbishop of Salzburg), 8

Frederick (patriarch of Aquileia), 253

Freising, 31, 76, 82, 115-17, 124, 170-71, 185, 225, 232;

Freising deeds (traditiones), 61, 70, 76, 95-97, 139, 161, 175, 231, 295,298, 329-30

friendship, amicitia. See Fictive kinship

Friesach, 24, 66, 122;

ad Friesah, 136, 280-81, 304-5

Frisians, 48, 103



Friuli (Italian margravate), 20, 32, 38, 47, 53-54, 61-62, 65, 71, 97, 113, 181,221, 244-45, 294-97

Friulian passes, 182, 200, 219, 221, 245, 254

frontier concept, 2

Fruska Gora (Frankish hills), 107, 294

Fügen (in Zillerthal), 281

Fulda (monastery), 184

G

Gail River (Drava watershed), 23, 200

Ganshof, François Louis, 18

Gauderic (bishop of Velletri), 180

Georgius (Carantanian Slav), 298

Gerolden kindred, 89, 202, 205-8;

Gerold I (Bavarian prefect), 57, 71, 73-74, 86;

Gerold II (comes confinii), 72, 74-75, 82, 85-88, 95

Gesta Hungarorum Anonymi Belae Regis, 256-57

Gleisdorf, 136

Gockel, Michael, 297

godfathership. See Fictive kinship

Görschnitz Valley (ad Kurzizam), 136, 281

Göß (villa on the upper Mur), 306;

covent, 306-7

Gotabert (Kotabert, chorepiscopus in Carantania), 281

Gotafrid (comes confinii), 72, 74, 81-84, 88

Goteram I (comes confinii), 57, 72, 74, 75, 77-80, 86



Goteram II (margrave in Szombathely), 75-79, 84, 86

Grades (in Metnitz Valley), 300

Graman (commander at Ybbsfeld), 47, 53, 74 (Chart 1), 83, 86 (Chart 2)

Graman kindred, 32, 81-83, 85, 89, 96, 99, 102, 103, 120-28, 133, 137, 151,287.

See also Wilhelminer group

Graslupp (ad Crazulpam), 136

Gratwein and Gratkorn (duo loca ad Strazinolun, north of Graz), 137

Graz, 147, 148;

Graz-Leibnitz basin, 121, 122, 131, 225, 273, 307

Great Moravia, 9-11, 16

Great Saint Bernard Pass, 36

Grein (narrows in Lower Austria), 49, 247

Griffen, 70, 232

Griffo (illegitimate son of Charles Martel), 39

Grivec, Franz, 171, 215

Groß Sölk Pass, 122

Grunzwitigau (near Sankt Pölten), 234, 290-94, 317

Guduscani, 61-62

Gundachar (count in Carantania), 129-33, 139, 144-45, 157, 161, 185

Gundbato. See Cundpato

Guntboldus (commander in Carantania), 157

Guntram (Pannonian count, perhaps Salacho's successor), 121

Gurk River or Valley, 24, 122, 139, 273, 275, 277, 279, 281, 302;

Gurk (royal curtis), 300



Gurnitz (ad Gurniz), 136, 279

H

Hadrian I (pope), 36

Hadrian II (pope), 160, 162-63, 168, 170, 176, 180, 192

Hallstatt, 42

Hartberg (ecclesia Sabnizam, eastern Styria), 136



Page 411

Hartwig (bishop of Passau), 134, 158

Hartwig (the elder, circa 920), 308

Hartwig (walpot in Carantania and count palatine of Regensburg, d. circa985), 307-10

Hartwig (count palatine of Regensburg, circa 1000), 305-7

Havlik, Ludomil, 141

Heimo (Arnulf's ministerialis, Witagowo's son), 290-300, 296 (Chart 6);

''Heimo Urkunde," 233-34, 317-21

Heimo (presbyter), 297-98

Helmwin (count in Carantania), 72, 98-100, 102

Hemma (sister of Luitpold, wife of Ruodbert), 284 (Chart 5), 286, 308, 315(Chart 8), 316

Hemma (matron saint of Carantania), 280, 303

Hengistfeldon (between Graz and Leibnitz), 224-28

Henry I (the Fowler), 282

Henry (duke of Bavaria), 309

herding, 3, 43

Herimannus Augiensis (author of a chronicle), 250, 259

Herolt (brother of Liutpold), 284 (Chart 5), 286;

314, 315 (Chart 8), 316

Herstal, 61

Himildrud (nun, daughter of Rhini), 283-84

Hincmar (archbishop of Reims), 126, 128, 141, 144, 147, 157, 177, 179, 183,237

Hister. See Danube



Histria. See Istria

Hitto (bishop of Freising), 95-97

Hitto (abbot of Monsee), 201

Hochburg (a royal curtis), 199

Hochgrolling Pass, 122

Hollenburg (ad Holunburc in Traisen valley), 135

Horn River (northern tributary to Danube), 156-57

Hunfalvy, Péter, 10

Hunfrid (Burkhardinger name), 295, 297

Hungarians (Ungari), 1-12, 17, 224, 227, 338 (see also Magyars);

alliance with Zwentibald, 237-38;

attack on the Bulgars, 241;

Honfoglalas (conquest and settlement), 17, 235-66;

invasion(s): 135;

of Bavaria, 247-49;

of Carantania, 249-50;

of Italy, 238-39, 244, 253-55;

of Moravian Pannonia, 240-41, 244-50, 254;

north of the Danube, 255-58;

of Saxony, 256

Hungary, 3, 27, 28

Huns, 4

I

Illyricum, 6, 49, 153, 174, 183, 191-94

in monte Diehshe (northeast of Völker-markt), 316



Industriae tuae (a papal letter to Zwentibald), 192, 194

Ingelheim (palace), 183-84, 275

Ingering (near Judenburg), 308, 316

Inn River, 21, 23, 34, 41, 81, 115, 126;

Inn-Salzach line, 34, 41, 121;

region, 84, 87, 135, 147-50, 197-99, 226, 230

Innichen (monastery in Val Pusteria), 36-38, 40, 70, 95

Iring (count in the Salzburggau), 252, 300

Isangrim (count in the Mattiggau), 252, 300-301

Isanrich (son of margrave Arbo), 243-44, 302, 306, 319-22

Isar River, 41

Isarco River, 181

Isen River or Valley, 82, 102

Ister. See Danube

Istria, 23, 49, 53, 71, 172, 221, 253, 295

Iuvavum. See Salzburg

J

Jenkins, R. J. H., 10, 14

Jezo (miles in South Tyrol), 233

John (bishop of Ancona, papal legate), 171

John (deacon), author of Chronicon Venètum, 247

John (duke of Istria), 49

John (Italian archbishop), 336

John VIII (pope), 5, 154, 167-71, 180-83, 191-96

John IX (pope), 237



John X (pope), 255

John XII (pope), 309

John of Venice (Iohannes presbyter de Venetiis), 184, 191, 193, 214

Julian Alps. See Friulian passes

K

Kabaroi. See Cowari.

Kamp River (in Lower Austria), 48, 51, 276

Karnburg (palace in Carantania), 122, 126, 182, 218, 231, 293, 298, 310;

assembly at, 280-81, 304, 313



Page 412

Katschberg Pass, 23, 38

Kehr, Paul, 273, 293, 300, 344 n.12

Kempten (monastery in Swabia), 43, 170

Kepahilt (Albrich's mother), 81

Khazars, 189, 237-38

kindred, 347 n.72

Klagenfurt, 23-24, 117

Klaic;, Nada, 262

Klebel, Ernst, 124, 237, 258-59

Koblenz (on the Mur, ad Chumbenzam), 137

Kocel (Chezil dux, Pannonian prince, Pribina's son), 12, 104, 125, 139, 155-56, 162-63, 171, 173, 176, 184, 192, 201-5, 288-89, 365-66 n.67

Koller, Heinrich, 42

korolb, 165-68, 361 n.46

Köszeg (Güns), 46, 77, 155

Kraków, 229

Krems (in Lower Austria), 51, 292

Krems River (in Upper Austria), 301

Kremsünster (monastery in Upper Austria), 37-40, 44, 145, 199, 200, 206-7,230, 251, 276-77

Kroatengau, 310

Kufstein (on Inn), 41

Kulpa (or Kupa) River, 61, 224, 228-29

Kundhari (a count), 124, 161

L



Lafnitz River, 148

Landfried (bishop of Säben), 171

Langenpfenzen, 41

Laodomir, Vladimir (son of khan Boris), 224

Laßnitz Valley (Lower Styria), 307

Latin rite, 194-95, 215

Lavamünd (on the Drava), 232

Lavant River, 232, 279, 281

Lazarus (bishop, Byzantine envoy), 241

Leibnitz (south of Graz), 131, 151

Leitha River, 24, 129;

Leitagebirge (Leitha Range), 133

Lent (Lenten Season); 117, 220, 222, 230, 271

Leo VI (the Wise; Byzantine emperor), 241

Leoben (on the upper Mur), 306-7

Liesing Valley (near Sankt Michael on the Mur), 274

limes certus. See Avar-Bavarian boundary

Linz, 25, 45, 88, 95, 116, 230

''Little Moravia," 11-12

Liudepram (archbishop of Salzburg), 104, 204, 288

Liudewit (South Slavic duke), 46, 60-70, 77, 174;

Liudewit's Revolt, 60-71, 82, 84, 87, 90, 96, 127, 159, 181

Liudprand of Cremona, 15, 241

Liutbert (archbishop of Mainz), 178

Liutpold (royal propinquus): see Chart 8 (p. 315);



margrave in Carantania, 243-45, 252, 271, 286-87, 290, 300-302, 306,314-16;

duke of the Bohemians, 257;

leader of Bavarian forces, 247;

brother of Rhini (nobilissima femina?), 282

Liutpold (Bavarian count, a. 806-827), 314

Liutpold (Bavarian noble, a. 814-846), 314

Liutpoldinger kindred, 32, 284 (Chart 5), 305, 314, 315 (Chart 8), 316, 318

Ljubljana, 24, 245, 250, 311

Lobbes (monastery), 272

Lobengau, 295

Loiben (ad Liupinam, near Krems), 135

Lombard campaign of 773, 36

Lombardy, 36, 45;

Lombards, 4, 35-36, 147

Lorch, 24, 45, 48

Lorch Forgeries, 8, 14, 158, 319

Lorsch Annals. See Annales regni Francorum

Lothair I (emperor, son of Louis the Pious), 98-101, 103, 195

Lothair II (emperor, son of Lothair I), 116

Lothringia, 179, 182, 202

Louis II (Lombard king, emperor, son of Lothair I), 116, 160, 179, 180, 182-83

Louis the Child (King Arnulf's son), 248, 251, 283, 300, 306, 337

Louis the German:

king of the Bavarians, 75, 90, 98-101, 103-5, 106-11, 114;



king of the East Franks, 114-18, 124, 126, 127-51, 154-56, 158-60, 162,167, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 182-86, 197, 206-7, 232, 235, 310, 313

Louis the Pious (son of Charlemagne, emperor), 47, 61-62, 68-70, 87, 91-92,97, 99

Louis of Provence, 253-54

Louis the Younger (king, son of Louis the German), 149, 156, 161, 177-78,181, 183, 185, 197, 201, 209

Louvain, 223

Lower Austria, 24-25, 39, 44, 45, 51-56, 79, 84, 87, 120, 126, 157, 176, 205,233

Lueg Pass, 41



Page 413

Lungau, 233

Lunt, Horace G., 165-68, 170, 172-73

Lurnfeld (civitas of Teurnia), 232-33

M

Maastricht, 223, 273

Magyars, 1-3, 9, 10, 14, 17, 217, 229, 306;

Majghari, 237.

See also Hungarians

Mahthilt (nobilis femina), 279

Main River or Valley, 2, 52, 58-59, 176, 182; Main-Danube canal, 52, 55

Mainz, 95, 159

mallus, 290-92

maps (text references to):

Map 1, 21, 54;

Map 2, 49, 51, 55;

Map 3, 63, 66, 68;

Map 4, 113;

Map 5, 129;

Map 6, 139;

Map 7, 197, 214;

Map 8, 209-12;

Map 9, 218, 223, 225-26

Maraba (Marava, city of), 224, 227.

See also Sirmium



Marahabitae (people from Marahaba), 243, 257.

See also Moravia

marcher lordships (marca termini), 46, 101-3;

marcher commanders, 71-87, 157;

marca contra Sclavos, 147;

marca Winidorum, marca contra Restitium, 141, 157, 182;

margravate on the upper Enns, 121;

margravate between the Enns and the Vienna Woods (Lower Austria), 73-75, 79-81, 85-86, 102, 121;

margravate on the upper Sava, 98, 100, 102, 113, 207;

margravate of Szombathely (see also Sombathely); southeast orientation,323-31

Margus (city of), 14, 183

Marharii, 11. See Bavarian geographer

Maria Buch (upper Mur Valley), 308

Maria Saal (ad Carantanam ecclesiam sanctae Mariae), 279, 281, 310

Maribor (Slovenia), 232

Markí, S., 49

Markward (Carantanian noble), 308

Maros River, 11, 14-15, 229

Marosvar (Romania), 14

Marquart, Joseph, 12

Matheri (Bavarian noble), 70

Mattiggau, 42, 83, 87, 89, 96, 251

Mattighofen, 83, 121, 135, 144, 145, 147-49, 156, 199-200, 223, 232, 273-74

Mattsee (monastery north of Salzburg), 134, 200



Mautern (Lower Austria), 49, 124, 244

Mautschwarza (Lower Styria), 131

megale Moravia, 9-11, 319.

See also Constantine VII; DAI

Meginfried (commander against Avars), 48, 49, 51

Megingoz (Guntram's son), 121, 207, 277

Megingoz (son of Wilhelm II), 206, 212, 334-35

Meginhard (vassus dominicus), 61

Meginward (Wilhelminer name), 252

Melk (ad Maglicham, Lower Austria), 25, 49, 123, 214, 233

Merano (South Tyrol), 23

Merehanii, 11.

See also Bavarian geographer; Moravia

Methodius, 5-7, 13, 15, 16, 142, 153, 162, 183, 189, 203-4, 214-15, 362 n.69;

episcopal see, 13, 15, 176, 180, 185, 191, 197;

incarceration of, 163-73;

titles, 192-93

Metniz River or Valley, 122, 300

Metz (bishopric), 182

Michael III (Byzantine emperor), 17

middle Danubian basin. See Central Danubian basin

Miklosich, M., 172

Mikulcice (northern Morava Valley), 16, 18

Millstatt (monastery in Carantania), 306

Miltrud (Heimo's wife), 293, 295, 299



Mirkovic, Miroslava, 174

missi dominici, 71

Mitterauer, Michael, 31, 71-85, 98-99, 101-2, 120-21, 126-27, 204, 207, 270,277, 281, 286-89, 294, 297, 299-300, 303, 311, 314

modern Moravia (Mähren in Czech Republic), 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17

Moesia, 8, 22, 107, 158-59

Moggio (monastery in Friuli), 306

Moimir I (Moravian ruler), 14, 104-7, 194, 337

Moimir II (Moravian ruler, son of Zwentibald), 243, 247

Molzbichl (monastery in Carantania), 37, 38

Mondsee (monastery near Salzburg), 41, 44, 200

Mons Predel. See Pannonia, boundary with Carantania

Mons Zuber (hill near Nitra, Slovakia), 256

Mont Cenis Pass, 36

Montemer (South Slavic prince), 183

Moosburg in Carantania, 201, 218, 219, 232



Page 414

Moosburg in Pannonia, 219.

See also Zalavár

Morava (grad or city of), 6, 9, 172

Morava Rivers:

northern (Marus River), 14, 108, 119, 212;

southern (Margus River), 3, 12, 14, 30, 88, 108

Moravia:

Frankish campaigns against,

a. 846, 107-11;

a. 855, 115-19;

a. 863, 128-33;

a. 864, 140-50;

a. 869, 160-62;

a. 870, 164;

a. 871, 173-74;

a. 872, 177-79;

a. 873, 182;

Wilhelminer Fehde, 208-16;

a. 892, 224-34;

a. 894, 240-41;

a. 895, 242;

a. 897, 242-43;

a. 898, 243-44

--ecclesiastical jurisdiction in, 165-73, 188-97, 336-39.



See also Methodius; Theotmar (archbishop of Salzburg)

--expansion of, 173-97, 198 (Map 7), 210 (Map 8), 211-16

--fortifications in, 13-14, 115, 119, 144, 161, 170-74, 185, 208, 214, 241

--geographic location of, 5-18, 106-8, 208-16, 224-34;

arguments against the southern Moravia thesis, 319-20 (see alsoWolfram, Herwig);

arguments supporting the southern Moravia thesis, 320-31 (see alsoBoba, Imre)

--names for Moravians:

Sclavi Margenses, 91, 104, 108-13, 115-16, 119, 159;

Marahabitae, 242-43, 257;

Marabi, 243;

Maravani, 245;

Maravi, 224, 290-92, 335;

Marvani, 93-95.

See also Wends (Wendi)

Mur River, 24, 38, 40, 65, 66, 121

Mürz River (Mur tributary), 131

N

Nestelbach (ad Nezilinpah), 136

Neuhofen (large curtis in Upper Austria), 230-31

Neumarkt, 24, 66;

Neumarktersattel, 122

Neusiedler Lake (Lake Fertö), 3, 133

Nicholas I (pope), 5, 141, 145, 157, 158, 160, 180

Niederaltaich (monastery in lower Bavaria), 134, 139, 149, 150



Nitra (in Slovakia; German: Neutra, Mayar Nyitra), 9, 105, 194, 204, 215,255;

Nitrava (an unknown locality mentioned in gloss to Conversio), 105, 194;

civitas Nitrensis (Wiching's episcopal see), 194

nomads, 211, 235-66

Nordgau (north of Regensburg), 288

Nordmanni. See Danes

Nordwald, 139

Noricum/Norica, 147, 163;

Mediterraneum, 23-24, 34;

Ripense, 24-25

Nöstlbach on the Krems (Upper Austeria), 230

Novi Sad, 27

Nyíregyháza, 13

O

Oberndorf (on the Kremsbach), 231

Oda (King Arnulf's widow), 283

Odalbert (archbishop of Salzburg), 274, 282-87, 299, 304, 308

Odilo (Tassilo III's father, Bavarian duke), 35, 39

Odra River, 224, 228-29

Ohre (Eger) River, 176

Old Church Slavonic (OCS), 5, 166

Olomouc, 2

Omuntesdorf, 367-68 n. 14

Omuntesperch (unknown locality in Pannonia), 220



Onogurs, 237. See Hungarians

Osbald (chorepiscopus in Carantania), 139

Osijek, 27, 29, 54, 68, 107

Ostermieting (royal villa on Salzach), 121, 133-34, 139

Osterwitz (ad Astaruuizam), 136, 273, 281

Otachar (commander at Ybbsfeld), 47, 52, 74 (Chart 1), 78-80, 86 (Chart 2),124;

missus Audaccrus, gloriosissimus dux, 78, 202

Otachar, count on the Mur (son of margrave Arbo?), 252, 306-7

Otachar (Fulda monk), 78

Otachar (count in Chiemgau, son of Rhini, d. 959), 283-85

Otacharen kindred, 78, 79, 202-6, 297;

Bavarian Otachars, 76, 79;

Fulda group, 78;

Otker (priest), 76

Otachareschirichun (church near Zalavár), 204

Ötting (palace), 81, 84, 121, 199-200, 219, 225-28, 242-44, 251, 273, 308

Otto I, 309

Otto II, 280, 309-10

P

Pabo (count in Carantania), 72, 96, 99, 102, 122-23, 125, 126, 134, 137, 206,294

Pabo (son of Engelschalk I), 206, 212, 277, 334-35

Pabo (Bavarian count), 252

Paderborn, 110





Page 415

Pannonia:

Roman, 4;

Carolingian conquest of, 46-49, 50 (Map 2), 51-60;

during Liudewit's revolt (see Liudewit; Map 3);

early marcher lordships in, 71-85, 86 (Chart 2), 87;

Bulgar invasions of (see Bulgars);

Pribina's lordship in, 106-11, 112 (Map 4), 113 (Chart 3);

expansion of Zwentibald's power in, 198 (Map 7), 208-16;

campaign of 892 in, 224-29;

Hungarian conquest of (see Hungarians); boundary with Carantania, 110,122, 131, 145-48, 151, 154, 225;

ecclesiastical jurisdiction in, 167-69, 191-97, 338;

Salzburg's activities in, 135-36, 138 (Map 6), 153-56;

Passau's missions in, 8-9, 158-60, 336-39;

Upper Pannonia, northwestern Pannonia (superioris), 51, 58, 62, 90, 101,106, 124, 139, 157, 202, 227

papacy, 3, 7;

papal correspondence, 140, 141, 143, 144, 168, 190-91;

papal embassies, 221.

See also Embassies

Passau, 8, 9, 32, 83, 116;

mission territory, 158-60, 335-38

Paul (bishop of Ancona, papal legate), 168, 183

Paul (patriarch of Aquileia), 174

Pavia, 19, 36, 334



Pechenegs, 241

Pécs (Fünfkirchen, ad Quinque basilicas), 24, 27-29, 32, 54, 104, 107, 125,204

Pepin III (Charlemagne's father), 20, 34, 35, 37-38

Pepin (son of Charlemagne, king of Italy), 45, 47, 49, 55, 88

Pepin the Hunchback (illegitimate son of Charlemagne), 51

Peretcund (a nun with property in Pitten), 124, 161, 167

Perschling, 276

Petronel, 57, 58, 77

Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople), 5, 160, 191

Piave River, 23

Pilgrim (bishop of Passau), 8-9, 319

Pingersdorf (Ad Penninuuanc in Burgenland), 135

Pirchegger, Hans, 12

Pitten, 124, 129, 134

placitum/platica, 95, 109, 115, 150, 156, 168 248, 290, 335, 375 n. 72

Plöcken Pass, 200

Pohansko, 16

Pohl, Walter, 48, 55

Poland, 11, 196, 344 n. 20

Pöls (ad Pelisam), 122, 137

Pongau (south of Salzburg), 40, 41, 66, 68, 84, 121

Posonium, Pisonium (Latin forms for Pozsony/Bratislava)

Pötschen Pass, 41, 42, 83, 121, 200

Praedenecenti, 92-94, 354 n. 17



prefect of Bavaria. See Gerald I and Audulf

prefect of the east, 71, 73-76, 85, 90

prelatus Carantanis. See Carloman

Preßburg. See Bratislava.

Pribina (Lower Pannonian duke), 103-7, 113, 134, 139, 155, 203-4, 297;

principality of, 125, 159

Prinz, Friedrich, 34, 36

Priwizlauga (Carantanian duke), 72

prosopography, 31-32, 268-318

Ptuj (Pettau, ad Bettobiam, Drava crossing), 23-24, 32, 54, 61, 68, 104, 107,110, 124-25, 129, 131, 145-46, 161, 170, 184, 205, 232

Püspöki-Nagy, Péter, 11-12

Pusteria River (Val Pusteria), 23, 35, 38, 39, 70.

See also Brenner Pass, Brenner-Pusteria route

Pyhrn Pass, 24, 40-41, 66, 83, 121, 145, 199, 200, 230-32, 251, 301

Q

Quartinus (Tyrolian landowner), 95-96

R

Raba (Raab) River, 3, 8, 51, 54, 73, 91, 134, 148, 151, 154, 159, 206-8, 212,334

Radkersburg, 131

Radstädter Tauern Pass, 23, 66, 84, 121-22

Raetia Secunda, 34, 39

Raffelstetten tolls, 246, 264, 299, 306

Ranshofen (royal center in Inn-Salzach region), 84, 121, 134, 199, 226, 228,273, 276, 300



Rastislav (Moravian duke), 91, 103, 104, 114-16, 118-19, 125-28, 132-33,140, 142-44, 147, 151, 152-57, 159, 161-67, 170, 174, 185, 190, 207, 214

Ratimar (Slavic duke on the Sava), 99, 100, 102, 104, 159, 189

Ratold (count of the upper Sava), 246, 250, 311, 312 (Chart 7), 313.

See also Sighardinger



Page 416

Ratpot (prefect of the east), 100-101, 103-6, 113 (Chart 3), 114, 124, 133,151, 159, 161, 189

Rau, Reinhard, 249

Regensburg (episcopal see, royal palace), 23, 31, 45, 47-48, 55, 57, 60-61,77, 84, 90, 107, 109, 128, 134, 143, 150, 157-58, 175, 178, 181-82, 199-200,202, 208-9, 218, 222-25, 228, 231;

Regensburg deeds (traditiones), 77, 82, 101, 102, 175, 207;

Methodius's trial in, 165-73;

plot against Wilhelminer in, 269-75

Reginbert (a count), 252

Reginhard (bishop of Passau), 159

Reginhard (Carantanian magnate), 274-75, 279

Regino of Prüm (author of a chronicle), 190, 201, 222, 239, 242

Reichenau (monastery, Lake of Constance), 121, 153, 165-73, 223-24;

liber confraternitatum, 121, 223, 286, 289

Reichenburg (on the Sava), 316

Reindel, Kurt, 258

Reschen Pass, 23, 36, 199

Reuter, Timothy, 249

Revised Annales. See Annales regni Francorum.

Rhine River, 2, 21;

Rhineland, 8, 219;

Rhine Franconian forces, 179;

Rhine-Meuse region, 217, 222-23, 273

Rhone River, 21



Richard (bishop of Passau), 248

Rihheri (count in Mattiggau), 83-84, 86 (Chart 2)

Rihheri (count in Szombathely), 101-13 (Chart 3), 120, 137, 206

Rihheri (witness to Freising deed), 96

Rihni (nobilissima femina, wife of archbishop Odalbert), 281-86, 308

Rihni (two nuns by this name, daughters of Rhini, nobilissima femina), 285

Rodold (Ruodolt, margrave of Nordwald), 175-76, 287-89

Roman clergy, 158, 160;

missions, 191

Roman Empire, 23, 35;

limes, 4, 13, 194

Roman roads, 21-25, 27, 50, 54, 84, 88, 106, 115, 121-22, 124, 133-36, 155

Romanitas, 4

Romanized peoples, 34-35, 189

Rome, 7-9, 23-24, 153, 160, 162, 168, 189, 195, 222

Rosenheim (on the Inn, Upper Bavaria), 115

Rotthalmünster (Wilhelminer convent), 79-83

Rottmannen Tauern Pass, 24, 122;

Rottmann, 281

Royal Annals. See Annales regni Francorum

royal centers. See Atterhofen; Aibling; Baden; Forchheim; Frankfurt;Ingelheim; Karnburg; Mattighoften; Ostermieting; Ötting; Ranshoften;Regensburg; Tribur; Tulln; Ulm

royal charters (diplomata), 30-31, 78, 101, 115-18, 133-40, 147, 157, 189,197-200, 206-7, 218-23, 230-34, 248, 251-52, 263, 290-99, 300-302, 306,309-10, 316, 328-30



royal estates, fiscal property, 84, 101-2, 121, 133, 139, 199

royal itineraries, 28, 31, 84, 147, 184, 199, 217-30, 273-74, 327-31

Rudolf of Ponthieu (Welf count, brother-in-law of Louis the German), 314, 315(Chart 8)

Ruodpert (comes terminalis in Carantania), 269-77, 278 (Chart 4), 284 (Chart5), 308, 316

Ruodpert (Carnatanian count, a. 927), 280-87, 308. See Wilhelminer(younger line)

Rupert (patron saint of Salzburg), 42, 43

S

Saale River, 88

Säben (episcopal see, later moved to Bressanone/Brixen), 37, 171

Safarik, P. J., 249

Saint Andronicus (metropolitan see of). See Sirmium

Saint Emmeram (monastery in Regensburg), 75, 77, 101, 102, 133

Saint Gall (monastery in Swabia), 226

Saint Ireneus (church near Sirmium), 15

Saint Martin (from Szombathely), 54, 88, 124

Saint Martin (church in Traismauer), 104, 105

Saint Peter in Gomai (Dalmatian monastery), 190

Sakac, S., 169

Salacho (margrave on the upper Sava), 100, 102, 104, 124

salt, salt routes, 42-44, 224, 229, 369 n. 51, 279

Salzach River, 41, 42, 121, 133



Page 417

Salzburg:

Agilolfinger period, 37-44 (see also Virgil);

center of Graman and Wilhelminer interests, 82-83, 125;

boundary with Aquileia, 56;

under Archbishop Arn, 72-73;

under Archbishop Adalram, 105 (see also Nitra; Pribina);

under Archbishop Adalwin: Louis the German's donation of a. 860, 135-37,138 (Map 6), 139;

visitations to Pannonia, a. 865, 153-56;

jurisdiction in Pannonia, 162-64, 205;

the Methodius affair, 168-72;

under Theotmar (see Theotmar)

Samo's kingdom, 35

Sankt Andrä (ad Labantam), 136, 232

Sankt Florian (monastery in Upper Austria), 61, 231, 248

Sankt Lorenzen (ad Morizam, Mürz valley), 137

Sankt Michael (ad Liestinicham, upper Mur River), 122, 137

Sankt Peter im Holz, 232

Sankt Pölten (monastery in Lower Austria), 25, 49, 79, 124, 233

Sankt Ruprecht (ad Rapam), 136, 148

Sarmatians, 4, 13

Sassau (on the Chiemsee), 285

Sava River or Valley, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20-26, 28-30, 38, 59, 61, 70, 77, 88,99, 102, 104, 121, 125, 145, 159, 174, 188-89, 217, 224-29, 245-46

Savaria. See Szombathely



Savinja (Saan) River, 280

Saxons, Saxony, 18, 36, 38, 45, 47, 58, 65, 68-69, 92, 108-11, 118, 156, 161,177-78, 186, 219, 227, 256

Scandinavian war bands, 8, 60, 109, 182, 217, 222-23

Scheifling (ad pontem on upper Mur), 122

Schelesniker, Herbert, 16, 192, 196

Schladnitz, 306

Schmid, Karl, 289, 295

Schober Pass, 66, 121, 274

Schwarza River (headwaters Mons Predel), 130-33

Schwarzach River (headwaters Semmering), 129-32

Schwarzmaier, Hansmartin, 224

Sclagamar (kinsman of Zwentibald), 173

Sclavinia (Slavic territory, generally Carantania), 72, 276

Seebruck, 41

Seeon (monastery near Chiemsee), 306

Semmering Pass, 24, 129-33

Serbia, Serbs, 6, 69, 109

Sighardinger kindred, 247, 307, 310-11, 312 (Chart 7), 313, 317

Sigihard (count in Chiemgau, relative of Arnulf), 252, 310-13

Sigihard (count on upper Sava, son of Ratold), 311-13

Sigihard (abbot of Fulda), 177-78

Simeon (Bulgar khan, son of Boris), 241

Simon de Keza (Hungarian author), 246, 256, 264

Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica), 4-7, 10-13, 22-29, 49, 97, 106-7, 139, 185,192, 227, 360 n.40, 362 n.77;



metropolitan see of, 153, 162-64

Sisak (on the Sava), 61-62, 67-69, 88, 229

Slavs, 14, 39, 57, 58, 60-66, 87, 109-10, 147, 161, 218;

Slavic liturgy, 162, 189, 191, 195-96, 215, 216;

Sclavi Nitrienses (see also Moravia; Marahabitae); South Slavs, 14, 35, 39,53, 55, 61, 84, 99, 154, 189, 197, 221, 249, 293;

Transelban Slavs, 92-93, 109, 119

Slovakia, 194, 204, 227, 317

Slovenia, 3, 29

Snelpero (abbot of Kremsmünster), 230-34, 276-77

Sopianae. See Pécs

Sopron (Odinburch), 25, 27, 29, 32, 61, 124, 133

Sorbs, 92-93, 160, 161

Sós, Agnes, 16

South Tyrol, 35-36, 116, 118

southeastern marches (Südostmarkgrafschaften), 4-5

Soyensee (near Chiemsee), 285

speculatores (scouts), 211, 213, 238

Sphendoplokos. See Zwentibald

Sphentopulchus, gloriosus princeps. See Zwentibald

Spital (in Drava Valley), 23, 37

Staré Mesto (Czech Republic), 16-18

Steinhauser, Walter, 77

Stephen V (pope), 189, 215, 221.

See also Formosus



steppes, 235-36

Sterzing (castrum in South Tyrol), 95-96

stirps regis (Carolingian dynasty), 91, 100, 120, 186, 202



Page 418

Störmer, Wilhelm, 21, 31, 34, 40, 200

Strada Ungarorum, 245

Straßwalchen (south of Mattighofen), 84

Straubing (in Lower Bavaria), 200

Styria (Steiermark), 29, 39, 67

Sundarold (archbishop of Mainz), 223

Supetarski kartular (Dalmatian source), 189

Sventopelek, Sventopelk, Sventopolk. See Zwentibald

Svetimir (South Slavic prince), 189

Swabia, Swabians, 102, 103, 165, 169, 170, 186, 222, 224

Swarzaha River (vada fluminis Swarzahae), 129, 133, 357 nn.57-58

Swindpurc (Rodold's wife, Engildeo's mother), 288

synold on the banks of the Danube, 56

Szeged, 229

Szentpeterfa (Peinihhaa, south of Szombathely), 135

Szombathely (Sabaria civitas), 24-28, 32, 51, 53-58, 61, 67-68, 95, 106, 123-24, 129-35, 139, 146, 150, 155, 206-8, 265;

margravate of, 76-78, 87-90, 101-2, 120, 271

T

Tagliamento River, 23

Tassilo III (Bavarian duke), 33-46, 83

Tassilo's monastic foundations, 37, 41, 44

Tauern (mountain range), 38-39, 65, 82, 122, 128, 233

Tellenbach, Gerd, 98



terminus contra Maravanos, 208-9

erminus Sclavorum (Bavarian-Carantanian boundary), 41

Theoderic (chorepiscopus in Carantania), 71

Theoderic (commander against Avars), 48, 49, 51

Theodo (Bavarian duke, father of Tassilo), 36

Theodorus (Avar khan), 57

Theodosius (bishop of Nin), 190, 193

Theotmar (archbishop of Salzburg), 184, 205, 233, 258, 263, 369 n.68;

letter to the pope (c. 900), 194, 237, 254-55, 266, 290, 336-39

Thuringia, Thuringians, 35, 108, 111, 156, 160, 177-78, 186

Timisoara (Rumania), 13

Timocian Slavs, 61

Tisza River, 3, 10, 13, 27, 32, 58, 141, 172, 237

Tocik, Anton, 257

Toru, Senga, 11-12

Tóth, Endre, 77

Toul (bishopric in Lothringia), 143

Traisen River (Lower Austria), 25, 44, 124

Traismauer, 49, 104, 105, 108, 135

Transdanubia, 3-4, 11, 12, 16, 45, 51-52, 59, 114

Transylvania, 3, 13

Traun River, 40, 41

Traungau (in Lower Austria), 43, 70, 73, 81, 83, 87, 89, 120-23, 126, 134,202, 208, 231-32, 301

Treffen (ad Trebinam, near Villach), 136, 200, 281



Trent, 99, 115, 159, 179, 181-82, 218, 231

Tribur (palace), 183, 184

Trieben, 122

Trixen (northeast of Klagenfurt), 70, 316

Trpimir (Croatian duke), 100, 190, 294, 297

Tulln (fiscal lands near Vienna), 101, 102, 108, 133, 140, 145, 146, 150, 214-15, 334

Tunza (Witagowo's daughter), 298, 318

Turks, 9, 10.

See also Constantine VII; DAI; Hungarians; Magyars

Turmair, Johannes. See Aventinus

Turracherhöhe Pass, 24, 66, 122

Tuto (bishop of Regensburg), 252, 306

Tyrol, 39, 68

U

Ulm (palace), 224-25, 228

Unruoch (Swabian) kindred, 98-99, 297

Uo (Bavarian soldier against Liudewit), 61

Upper Austria, 34, 39, 41, 45-46

Urbanczyk, S., 196

urbs antiqua (Rastislav's capital), 173, 185, 190, 196, 213, 227

urbs Morisena (see Marosvar), 14

Urfan (near Wasserburg), 41

Ursus (Duke Odilo's chaplain), 41

Uto (bishop of Freising), 258, 263



Uuitanesperc (southeast of Pitten), 135, 137

V

Vag River (northern tributary to Danube), 256

Vajay, Szabolc de, 236, 245, 255, 262

Val Pusteria. See Pusteria River

Valachau River (near central Danubian watergate), 107

Velden (curtis in Lower Bavaria), 283, 286



Page 419

Velika Morava. See Great Moravia; megale Moravia

Venetia (Venice), 21

Verbruggen, J. F., 19

Verona, 183-84, 199, 219

Vezzillo (count, Wilhelminer kin), 209, 334

via Claudia Augusta, 23

via militaris, 23-24

Vienna, 23-24, 27-29, 32, 54, 61, 67, 101, 108, 129, 133, 139, 161, 237-38

Vienna Woods, 8, 24, 45, 51, 54-56, 77, 84, 101, 123, 134

Vincenz, André de, 196

Virgil (bishop of Salzburg), 37, 83

Virgil's Cathedral, 36, 44

Vita Constantini, 162

Vita Methodii (VM), 165-73, 195-96, 204, 214

Vratislaus. See Brazalavo

Vratislavia. See Brezalauspurc

Vuerinheri. See Werner II

W

Wachau, 25, 124, 149, 208

Waldo (bishop of Freising), 336

wall forts north of the Danube, 17, 18

walpot. See Hartwig

Waltuni (Carantanian fidelis), 303, 316

Waratizalo. See Brazlavo



Warfare:

ambushes, 66, 173-74, 202, 224;

surprise attacks, 129-33, 262-62;

armies or forces, 18-19, 25-26, 28, 31, 36, 45-61, 63-69, 82, 83, 90, 107-9,153, 157, 160, 161, 185;

size of, 349 n. 16;

campaigns or expeditions, 26, 29-30, 45, 60-69, 104-11, 115-19, 128-35,140-51, 164, 177, 182, 224-30, 242-44, 260;

castellum/castella, 54, 57, 62, 69, 70, 77;

cavalry, 18-19, 52, 53, 63, 67, 211, 346 n. 57;

daily rates of consumption, 26-29;

elongated columns, 66, 131;

fluvial navigation, 26-29, 43, 48-53, 68, 83, 88, 91, 123-24, 145, 158, 179,227-28, 260;

fodder, 58, 63;

forage, 26, 58, 119;

garrisons, 19, 77, 86, 185;

invasion routes, 20-25, 63, 64, 68, 88, 104-11, 128-33, 145, 225-30;

logistics, 2, 18, 19, 20, 25-30, 31, 40, 48, 53, 54, 58-60, 66-69, 77, 88,120-27, 133-40, 230-32, 323-25, 346 nn.63, 65-66;

pack animals (iumenta), 26, 48, 53, 63, 83, 118, 131, 132;

pincers, 19, 20, 36, 45, 47, 56, 63, 66, 68, 123, 176, 178, 225-30, 233,260-63;

plunder, 160-61, 178-79, 211, 217, 228-29;

pontoon bridges, 51, 56, 350 n.27;

rate of march, 25-30, 200;

strike forces (scarae), 20, 49, 53, 54, 67;



strategy, 19, 20, 47, 51, 66-69, 87, 128, 131;

tactics, 19, 20, 51, 131

Wasserberg (ad Undrimam, near Judenburg), 137

Weiz (ad Luminicham iuxta Rapam), 137

Wels (Ovilava), 24, 35, 147, 231

Wends (Wendi), 109, 126, 141, 157, 177, 187, 237 (see also Moravians);

Wends in the region of the Saxons, 161

Weriant (Vueriant, Carantanian count), 279, 281, 304-5, 309-10, 313

Werner I (comes confinii), 57, 58, 60, 71, 72, 74, 75, 81, 83, 85, 86

Werner II (probably count, Lower Austrian?), 102-3, 120, 155-57, 185, 206

Werner (Werinheri, son of Engelschalk I), 206, 209, 212, 277, 334

Werner, Karl Ferdinand, 19, 297

Wiching (episcopus Nitrensis), 189, 193-95, 215, 223, 232, 257, 273, 337

Wido (margrave of Spoleto), 221

Widukind of Corvey (Ottonian author), 15, 241

Wilhelminer group (Bavarian nobles related to Gramans), 32, 82, 85, 86(Chart 2), 120-28, 203, 205-16, 278 (Chart 4), 269-87, 306, 313, 317-18;

Wilhelminer Fehde, 188, 206, 208-17, 237-38, 319-21, 333-35;

possessions in Lower Austria, 276-77, 374 n.22;

possessions in Carantania, 269-87;

Engelschalk I, 208;

Engelschalk II (marcheo in Oriente), 208-9, 268-78, 288-90;

Wilhelm II and Engelschalk I (duces Karlmanni), 173-74, 185, 188, 196,202-6, 208, 333-34;

Wilhelm (founder of Rotthalmünster), 82, 83;

Wilhelm I (count in Traungau), 81, 84, 86, 95-97, 102, 103, 120;



Wilhelm II, 121, 208;

Wilhelm III, 268-78

Wilhelminer (younger line):

Ruodpert (Carantanian count a. 927), 280-87, 308;

Wilhelm (Carantanian count a. 927-931), 279-87, 308;

Wilhelm (Carantanian count a. 961), 279;

Wilhelm (Carantanian count in Lower Styria after a. 980), 280;

Wilhelm (Carantanian count, Savinja Valley and Friesach, Saint Hemma'shusband), 280



Page 420

Williprig (sister of Adalbero and Eberhard), 311, 312 (Chart 7)

Winburg (nobilis femina), 300

winter, 156, 218-19, 225

Winter, Ernst, 238

Wirtschach (near Klagenfurt), 309

Wisitindorf (in Pannonia, now eastern Styria), 148

Witagowo (Carantanian count), 103, 120, 123, 134, 290-99

Witagowo (Franconian noble), 295

Witagowonen kindred, 290-95, 296 (Chart 6), 297-99, 306, 317

Wittimar (Slavic magnate in Pannonia), 155

Wolfram, Herwig, 12, 36, 75-76, 97-98, 104, 203, 258, 262, 270, 275, 289-90

Wonomyr (Slavic commander against Avars), 55

Worms, 47

Wörthersee, 185, 232, 298, 310

Würzburg, 51

Y

Ybbs, 49;

Ybbsfeld, 47;

Ybbs River, 139

Z

Zachary (bishop of Säben), 258

Zadar, 69, 190

Zala River, 104, 105, 134

Zalaber (ad Salapiguin, Lower Pannonia), 134, 137



Zalavár (Moosburg in Pannonia), 16, 28, 29, 105-7, 154, 155, 200, 271-72;

civitas Pribinae, 260;

castrum Chezilonis, 260;

urbs Paludarum, 242, 259

Zazo (royal chaplain), 231

Zdeslav (South Slavic prince), 190

Zell am See, 41

Zeltschach (near Friesach), 300

Ziegler, A. W., 169

Zöllner, Erich, 79

Zolta, Arpad's son, 254

Ztoimar (Slavic duke in Carantania), 72

Zubur (dux Nitriensis), 256-58

Zventoopolco regi Sclavorum. See Zwentibald

Zvonimir (Croatian prince), 189

Zwentibald I (Moravian duke), 2, 7-15, 30, 114, 161-65, 173, 237-42, 270-72,333-35, 337, 343 n.7;

dux (Moravians), 190;

dux (Bohemians), 222;

gloriosus comes, 192-96;

princeps, 196;

rex, 189;

rex Marahensium Sclavorum, 190, 216;

conquests, 9, 14, 153, 176-85, 187-234;

principality of, 9-15;



sons of, 10;

Moimir II, 243, 299-305, 318;

Zwentibald II, 243, 299-305, 318

Zwentibald (illegitimate son of Arnulf of Carinthia, king of Lothringia), 202

Zwentibald (son of a Diotmar), 299



Page 421

University of Pennsylvania Press

MIDDLE AGES SERIES

Edward Peters, General Editor

F. R. P. Akehurst, trans. The Coutumes de Beauvaisis of Philippe deBeaumanoir. 1992

Peter L. Allen. The Art of Love: Amatory Fiction from Ovid to the Romance ofthe Rose. 1992

David Anderson. Before the Knight's Tale: Imitation of Classical Epic inBoccaccio's Teseida. 1988

Benjamin Arnold. Count and Bishop in Medieval Germany: A Study of RegionalPower, 11001350. 1991

Mark C. Bartusis. The Late Byzantine Army: Arms and Society, 12041453.1992

Thomas N. Bisson, ed. Cultures of Power: Lordship, Status, and Process inTwelfth-Century Europe. 1995

Uta-Renate Blumenthal. The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchyfrom the Ninth to the Twelfth Century. 1988

Daniel Bornstein, trans. Dino Compagni's Chronicle of Florence. 1986

Maureen Boulton. The Song in the Story: Lyric Insertions in French NarrativeFiction, 12001400. 1993

Betsy Bowden. Chaucer Aloud: The Varieties of Textual Interpretation. 1987

Charles R. Bowlus. Franks, Moravians, and Magyars: The Struggle for theMiddle Danube, 788907. 1995

James William Brodman. Ransoming Captives in Crusader Spain: The Order ofMerced on the Christian-Islamic Frontier. 1986

Kevin Brownlee and Sylvia Huot, eds. Rethinking the Romance of the Rose:Text, Image, Reception. 1992

Matilda Tomaryn Bruckner. Shaping Romance: Interpretation, Truth, and



Closure in Twelfth-Century French Fictions. 1993

Otto Brunner (Howard Kaminsky and James Van Horn Melton, eds. andtrans.). Land and Lordship: Structures of Governance in Medieval Austria.

1992

Robert I. Burns, S.J., ed. Emperor of Culture: Alfonso X the Learned of Castileand His Thirteenth-Century Renaissance. 1990

David Burr. Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus PauperControversy. 1989

David Burr. Olivi's Peaceable Kingdom: A Reading of the ApocalypseCommentary. 1993

Thomas Cable. The English Alliterative Tradition. 1991

Anthony K. Cassell and Victoria Kirkham, eds. and trans. Diana's Hunt/Cacciadi Diana: Boccaccio's First Fiction. 1991

John C. Cavadini. The Last Christology of the West: Adoptionism in Spain andGaul, 785820. 1993



Page 422

Brigitte Cazelles. The Lady as Saint: A Collection of French HagiographicRomances of the Thirteenth Century. 1991

Karen Cherewatuk and Ulrike Wiethaus, eds. Dear Sister: Medieval Womenand the Epistolary Genre. 1993

Anne L. Clark. Elisabeth of Schönau: A Twelfth-Century Visionary. 1992

Willene B. Clark and Meradith T. McMunn, eds. Beasts and Birds of the MiddleAges: The Bestiary and Its Legacy. 1989

Richard C. Dales. The Scientific Achievement of the Middle Ages. 1973

Charles T. Davis. Dante's Italy and Other Essays. 1984

William J. Dohar. The Black Death and Pastoral Leadership: The Diocese ofHereford in the Fourteenth Century. 1994

Katherine Fischer Drew, trans. The Burgundian Code. 1972

Katherine Fischer Drew, trans. The Laws of the Salian Franks. 1991

Katherine Fischer Drew, trans. The Lombard Laws. 1973

Nancy Edwards. The Archaeology of Early Medieval Ireland. 1990

Richard K. Emmerson and Ronald B. Herzman. The Apocalyptic Imagination inMedieval Literature. 1992

Theodore Evergates. Feudal Society in Medieval France: Documents from theCounty of Champagne. 1993

Felipe Fernández-Armesto. Before Columbus: Exploration and Colonizationfrom the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, 12291492. 1987

Jerold C. Frakes. Brides and Doom: Gender, Property, and Power in MedievalWomen's Epic. 1994

R. D. Fulk. A History of Old English Meter. 1992

Patrick J. Geary. Aristocracy in Provence: The Rhône Basin at the Dawn of theCarolingian Age. 1985

Peter Heath. Allegory and Philosophy in Avicenna (Ibn Sînâ), with aTranslation of the Book of the Prophet Muhammad's Ascent to Heaven. 1992



J. N. Hillgarth, ed. Christianity and Paganism, 350750: The Conversion ofWestern Europe. 1986

Richard C. Hoffmann. Land, Liberties, and Lordship in a Late MedievalCountryside: Agrarian Structures and Change in the Duchy of Wroclaw. 1990

Robert Hollander. Boccaccio's Last Fiction: Il Corbaccio. 1988

John Y. B. Hood. Aquinas and the Jews. 1995

Edward B. Irving, Jr. Rereading Beowulf. 1989

Richard A. Jackson, ed. Texts and Ordines for the Coronation of FrankishKings and Queens in the Middle Ages, Vol. 1. 1995

C. Stephen Jaeger. The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals inMedieval Europe, 9501200. 1994

C. Stephen Jaeger. The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and theFormation of Courtly Ideals, 9391210. 1985

Donald J. Kagay, trans. The Usatges of Barcelona: The Fundamental Law ofCatalonia. 1994

Richard Kay. Dante's Christian Astrology. 1994

Ellen E. Kittell. From Ad Hoc to Routine: A Case Study in MedievalBureaucracy. 1991



Page 423

Alan C. Kors and Edward Peters, eds. Witchcraft in Europe, 11001700: ADocumentary History. 1972

Barbara M. Kreutz. Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and TenthCenturies. 1992

Michael P. Kuczynski. Prophetic Song: The Psalms as Moral Discourse in LateMedieval England. 1995

E. Ann Matter. The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in WesternMedieval Christianity. 1990

A.J. Minnis. Medieval Theory of Authorship. 1988

Lawrence Nees. A Tainted Mantle: Hercules and the Classical Tradition at theCarolingian Court. 1991

Lynn H. Nelson, trans. The Chronicle of San Juan de la Peña: A Fourteenth-Century Official History of the Crown of Aragon. 1991

Barbara Newman. From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in MedievalReligion and Literature. 1995

Joseph F. O'Callaghan. The Learned King: The Reign of Alfonso X of Castile.1993

Odo of Tournai (Irven M. Resnick, trans.). Two Theological Treatises: OnOriginal Sin and A Disputation with the Jew, Leo, Concerning the Advent of

Christ, the Son of God. 1994

David M. Olster. Roman Defeat, Christian Response, and the LiteraryConstruction of the Jew. 1994

William D. Paden, ed. The Voice of the Trobairitz: Perspectives on theWomen Troubadours. 1989

Edward Peters. The Magician, the Witch, and the Law. 1982

Edward Peters, ed. Christian Society and the Crusades, 11981229: Sources inTranslation, including The Capture of Damietta by Oliver of Paderborn. 1971

Edward Peters, ed. The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartresand Other Source Materials. 1971



Edward Peters, ed. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. 1980

James M. Powell. Albertanus of Brescia: The Pursuit of Happiness in the EarlyThirteenth Century. 1992

James M. Powell. Anatomy of a Crusade, 12131221. 1986

Susan A. Rabe. Faith, Art, and Politics at Saint-Riquier: The Symbolic Vision ofAngilbert. 1995

Jean Renart (Patricia Terry and Nancy Vine Durling, trans.). The Romance ofthe Rose or Guillaume de Dole. 1993

Michael Resler, trans. Erec by Hartmann von Aue. 1987

Pierre Riché (Michael Idomir Allen, trans.). The Carolingians: A Family WhoForged Europe. 1993

Pierre Riché (Jo Ann McNamara, trans.). Daily Life in the World ofCharlemagne. 1978

Jonathan Riley-Smith. The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. 1986

Joel T. Rosenthal. Patriarchy and Families of Privilege in Fifteenth-CenturyEngland. 1991

Teofilo F. Ruiz. Crisis and Continuity: Land and Town in Late Medieval Castile.1994

Pamela Sheingorn, ed. and trans. The Book of Sainte Foy's Miracles. 1995



Page 424

Robin Chapman Stacey. The Road to Judgment: From Custom to Court inMedieval Ireland and Wales. 1994

Sarah Stanbury. Seeing the Gawain-Poet: Description and the Act ofPerception. 1992

Robert D. Stevick. The Earliest Irish and English Bookarts: Visual and PoeticForms Before A.D. 1000. 1994

Thomas C. Stillinger. The Song of Troilus: Lyric Authority in the MedievalBook. 1992

Susan Mosher Stuard. A State of Deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in theMedieval Centuries. 1992

Susan Mosher Stuard, ed. Women in Medieval History and Historiography.1987

Susan Mosher Stuard, ed. Women in Medieval Society. 1976

Jonathan Sumption. The Hundred Years War: Trial by Battle. 1992

Ronald E. Surtz. The Guitar of God: Gender, Power, and Authority in theVisionary World of Mother Juana de la Cruz (1481-1534). 1990

Ronald E. Surtz. Writing Women in Late Medieval and Early Modern Spain:The Mothers of Saint Teresa of Avila. 1995

William H. TeBrake. A Plague of Insurrection: Popular Politics and PeasantRevolt in Flanders, 13231328. 1993

Patricia Terry, trans. Poems of the Elder Edda. 1990

Hugh M. Thomas. Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs: The Gentry ofAngevin Yorkshire, 11541215. 1993

Mary F. Wack. Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: The Viaticum and ItsCommentaries. 1990

Benedicta Ward. Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record, and Event,10001215. 1982

Suzanne Fonay Wemple. Women in Frankish Society: Marriage and theCloister, 500900. 1981



Kenneth Baxter Wolf. Making History: The Normans and Their Historians inEleventh-Century Italy. 1995

Jan M. Ziolkowski. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 7501150.1993

