Confusion regarding some of the policies of the Salian emperors

I was recently reading about the reign of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry III, and some of his decisions seemed strange and confusing to me.

At various points, he obtained the ducal titles of Bavaria, Swabia and Carinthia. He also split Lower and Upper Lorraine in two, possibly keeping the latter title for himself, but the article I read wasn't too clear about that part.

But then...He gave all of those titles away to various people, some of whom later betrayed him. What confuses me is what reasons he had for giving away these duchies to begin with. Would it not strengthen Imperial authority to control two of the powerful stem duchies personally? Perhaps my views are coloured by the situation in the Empire later in history, where how powerful you were without the Imperial crown often decided how much authority you had as Emperor, but it still seems odd to me that an Emperor who supposedly worked towards centralizing the Empire (by the standards of the 11th century) would re-establish the stem duchies like that.

Also, I forgot which of the Salian emperors did this, but one of them also gave away the ancestral lands of the Salians in western Franconia. Was Imperial authority at this point in history so great that the Emperor had no need of a personal domain of his own? Or did extensive land come with the Imperial crown then?

Lastly, if anyone happens to have any suggestions for (English) reading material about the Empire between the 10th and 11th centuries that would be welcome. Guessing most publications about the topic are probably in German though.
 
At various points, he obtained the ducal titles of Bavaria, Swabia and Carinthia.

He also split Lower and Upper Lorraine in two, possibly keeping the latter title for himself, but the article I read wasn't too clear about that part.
Lower and Upper Lotharingia was already divided since one century at this point : Gotzelo only briefly reunified the titles, and the traditional separation was too deeply rooted to get rid of.

I don't think the Gottfried lost his ducal title, but his claims on Upper Lorraine (well "lost" is a big word, let's say temporarly abandoned). On the other hand, his duchy seems to have been more or less an imperial protectorate after the death of Henry III.

But then...He gave all of those titles away to various people, some of whom later betrayed him. What confuses me is what reasons he had for giving away these duchies to begin with.
For different reasons.
1) The empire was huge. With the ongoing Italian conflicts, Salian had to gave some territories, not only for management purposes, but as well to fit with a political conception where redisbtribution and gift was the base of his power.

2) Succession matters. He had his son only relativly late, and probably needed to secure this. Giving Bavaria to his nephew, then to his second son was a way to stregthen this (critically after Conrad's claims on Imperial throne)

3) Having trusted, or at least indebted, men at his service.
I don't really get your point about betrayal, as only Welf of Carinthia (and only for a short time) went against Henri III, and the other where quite loyal (including to his wife, and regent, Agnes).

You'll consider that Germany wasn't really touched by a general civil war during his reign, as a point in favour of his policy.

Would it not strengthen Imperial authority to control two of the powerful stem duchies personally?
Not really. First, giving the size of his territory, it wouldn't have been personally at all.
Then, it would have created more ambitions than managable, and created a nest of frustrated nobles (including his sucessors).

Perhaps my views are coloured by the situation in the Empire later in history
I would tend to think they are more couloured by anachronical conceptions, such as centralization seen as a necessary feature for a strong state.
Long story short, for periods between Xth and XVth, that's simply not part of the picture.

Henri III, remember we're talking of a XIth emperor there, was a man of his time : including political conceptions as feudalism, seen not only as normal but the fundment of his very power.
 
1) The empire was huge. With the ongoing Italian conflicts, Salian had to gave some territories, not only for management purposes, but as well to fit with a political conception where redisbtribution and gift was the base of his power.
I seem to remember the early Norwegian kings using a similar system, creating personal bonds of loyalty and obligation through extensive gift-giving. Forgive me for asking a very basic question, but was this a central part of running a feudal "state" in general?

2) Succession matters. He had his son only relativly late, and probably needed to secure this. Giving Bavaria to his nephew, then to his second son was a way to stregthen this (critically after Conrad's claims on Imperial throne)
Ah, that makes more sense. In the article I read it only said he gave it to "a relative of the old duke" to defend more effectively against raids from Hungary. Probably not entirely incorrect, but it does paint a different picture.

3) Having trusted, or at least indebted, men at his service.
I don't really get your point about betrayal, as only Welf of Carinthia (and only for a short time) went against Henri III, and the other where quite loyal (including to his wife, and regent, Agnes).
Wikipedia, being Wikipedia, might have given me the wrong idea. To quote it:
"A staunch ally against Cuno in Bavaria, Gebhard of Regensburg, was implicated in a plot against the king along with Cuno and Welf of Carinthia."

I would tend to think they are more couloured by anachronical conceptions, such as centralization seen as a necessary feature for a strong state.
That, and Paradox games, I suppose. :p

Not really. First, giving the size of his territory, it wouldn't have been personally at all.
Then, it would have created more ambitions than managable, and created a nest of frustrated nobles (including his sucessors).
So at this time, the large stem duchies were instruments for stability rather than a threat to Imperial authority?

Henri III, remember we're talking of a XIth emperor there, was a man of his time : including political conceptions as feudalism, seen not only as normal but the fundment of his very power.
So in a functional feudal state, the monarch did not really need a strong personal domain for troops, income or exercising his power as Emperor? Sorry once again for asking basic questions, but there's obviously much larger holes in my understanding of the period than I thought.


Thanks for answering my questions.
 
I seem to remember the early Norwegian kings using a similar system, creating personal bonds of loyalty and obligation through extensive gift-giving. Forgive me for asking a very basic question, but was this a central part of running a feudal "state" in general?
Central part, no, but a fundamental feature.
Making a ill-fitting comparison, a president that would takeover several demesnes traditionally reserved to secretaries wouldn't exactly violate the constitution (or even would respect it regarding foreign relations). But such behavior would be still considered as an abuse of power.

It's...more or less the same feeling you'd have with an emperor mistaking his empire for a game of Crownkemon.

And remember that feudal organisation, depsite many local variants and roman and/or celt influence, remain a germanic-issued concept. That's no real surprise that you can find similarities with previous or parallel features.

Ah, that makes more sense. In the article I read it only said he gave it to "a relative of the old duke" to defend more effectively against raids from Hungary. Probably not entirely incorrect, but it does paint a different picture.
Well, it's true but, if you allow me such,anybody related to the duke could have done it, and really, there was plenty.

Giving the duchy to a relative, when he didn't had yet a son, on the other hand...

Wikipedia, being Wikipedia, might have given me the wrong idea. To quote it:
"A staunch ally against Cuno in Bavaria, Gebhard of Regensburg, was implicated in a plot against the king along with Cuno and Welf of Carinthia."
Ah, I was confused about two Conrads. Conrad I was appointed by Henry III, indeed. (Admittedly, I got confused between him and Conrad II, the son of Henry III)
Still, you'll notice that he began to rebel openly after a son was, at least, born to Henry III and that the emperor gave Bavaria to this son (making Conrad I stripped out of his titles).

Pointing out that crownkemon can fail, big time.

So at this time, the large stem duchies were instruments for stability rather than a threat to Imperial authority?
No. They proven (especially Bavaria and Swabia) to regularly rebel against the emperor if they felt like it. So they could represent a threat, hence the redistribution.

Think of it as capetian appanages : granting a demesne with a relativly estranged nobility, hoping to get it closer to the crown.

So in a functional feudal state, the monarch did not really need a strong personal domain for troops, income or exercising his power as Emperor?
He does, but Henry III wasn't exactly deprived : he still maintained lands with its own income in Germany and Italy.
Regarding military power, you didn't had a private army at this moment, but rather an army raised and gathered among vassals.

Henry III tried to follow a policy that we could call "interventionist". As in giving demesnes, but keeping a "right of access".
 
Although...

It's interesting, but it seems to me that the Carolingians, at least Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, ruled over more centralized realms than the Staufens, and arguably even the Merovingian kings did. That seems a bit odd, given that their states were mroe economically primitive.
 
It's interesting, but it seems to me that the Carolingians, at least Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, ruled over more centralized realms than the Staufens
Unified would be better than centralized, there, and only for Charlemagne's reign; as Louis I's reign was made mostly of civil wars.

Centralized means that all decisions that matters are taken from a same point for all the political entity considered. What we have with Charlemagne is more a "right of inspection".

Frankish or Carolingian nobles still kept a large deal of autonomy, that was clear when you see the alliances and conflicts between carolingians, or at the periphery (Bernard of Septimania is quite interesting on both matters)

and arguably even the Merovingian kings did.
Once you get rid of Carolingian more than biased accounts of Merovingian, you see that a great deal of what made their power existed during Merovingian times (missi dominici, "national" councils, court administration, etc.)

The main difference, institutionally, with Carolingians is that the vassalic relation was reserved to direct relations between the king and great lords (and rarely with a entierly given land); when Charlemagne opened these relations to all the population of the empire, eventually favouring the creation of "private" vassality; and when his successors slowly made the vassalage again land a reality.

That seems a bit odd, given that their states were mroe economically primitive.
That's to be proven (older doesn't mean "more primitive") : several economical changes (use of a silver-based coinage, underlining the needs of a more easily usable money), and a clear prosperity (partially due to conquests), were present during Carolingian period.
The late IXth/Xth made a clear rupture on this regard, being a period of troubles, raids (Vikings, Saracens, Maygars) and "economical" crisis.
 
Top