UNDERSTANDING PEACE IN 13th CENTURY GERMAN CULTURE. WERE THE RHENISH
LEAGUE AND TOWN LEAGUES "CONIURATIONES"?
In this article I study the
Rhenish league and German town leagues of the second half of the
13th century. Typically these institutions have been
scrutinised from the point of view of history of law and of history
of administration, and thanks to this their legal standing is well
known. My purpose is not to deny the relevance of this kind of approach
but to show that the leagues can also be placed in a wider context
of European town history. I try to show that they can be portrayed
a widely and often contradictorily used term. The Latin noun "coniuratio"
has two meanings: the taking an oath together or a conspiracy, plot,
treason, or intrigue. Although the corresponding English noun "conjuration"
is not widely used, it still bears these two meanings. This basic
bipartition is evident also in medieval political, juridical and
religious writings. Unfortunately it is not possible to go here
into the wider question concerning the various interpretations of
coniuratio. However, on a general level it can be demonstrated
that various points of views can be reverted into these two opposite
views of understanding the coniuratio, i.e. to those who
saw coniuratio in a positive light as a sworn union and to
those who saw it in a negative light as a conspiracy.
Various meanings have
also been given to coniuratio in studies concerning medieval
social history. Earlier it was quite often seen in a narrow sense
as an early phase of the founding of medieval towns especially in
Northern Italy, Flanders and Northern France. Lately, however, it
is seen on a more general level as a sworn association between equal
and voluntary members that was based on a mutual oath of its participants.
Peter Blickle for example sees coniuratio as an oath taken
on a voluntary basis by individuals who form a political and moral
corporation. This corporation orientates itself towards peace and
shows its will in statutes that get their legitimation from the
common good. Its members enforce these statutes and re-swear their
association from time to time.
This brings up the
importance of the idea of peace in coniuratio. In the Middle
Ages peace was given many ecclesiastical and secular meanings. Thus
also peace has to be understood in a wider sense than in our own
times when it is normally seen simply as the opposite of war. Because
of this in the medieval context lack of peace or disorder (discordia)
are normally better opposites for peace than war. Permanent or common
peace was a rarely materialized ideal, a utopia on the horizon or
a Christian metaphor, whereas open or latent disorder was a social
In this article I exploit
a bipartition that is common in law history. In this peace is divided
into a pax ordinata (given peace) and a pax iurata (sworn
peace). It is obvious that this division is artificial and that
in reality different forms of peace worked side by side, completing
each other and from time to time causing legal disputes.  Pax ordinata was given by a supreme ruler, lord or town lord to his subjects, and it was
characteristically “lord-driven”. Most of the medieval national
and regional peaces, and also peaces that established the legal
standing of different kinds of groups of people, like women, Jews
or merchants, can be seen as given peace.
Pax iurata on
the other hand was based on a mutual agreement between associates.
For example special peaces between equal participants, like peaces
of an autonomous town or town leagues are of this kind. Also some
regional public peaces can be seen in this light. The one characteristic
feature of pax iurata is the promise of mutual help of the
associates. In effect peace got concrete and variable contents as
the character of this help varied from one agreement to another
and could thus be financial, legal, political, or military. Closely
connected to this was an another characteristic of pax iurata,
namely opposition against everyone who did not swear the peace (mutuum
adiutorium / consilium / auxilium contra omnes).
 This central aspect of all communal action forms
a tension between the associates and everyone else. It also explains
the different attitudes of members and non-members towards the pax
iurata. From the members point of view it constituted a positive
and self made special peace (voluntas) that was seen as replenishment
or a substitute of existing legal principles. On the other hand
those who saw coniuratio as a conspiracy also took a negative
stance towards pax iurata and interpreted it as a breach
of law and an action against prevailing social order.
Because of these two
characteristic features the texts taking a positive stance towards
coniuratio also imply a bipartition between good and bad,
i.e. members and non-members, or us and them. This attitude is clear
for example in the sources concerning the commune-building process.
Thus it is also no wonder that longing for peace is portrayed as
a central motive in the formation of communes. Gerhard Dilcher has
shown in his influential doctoral thesis that the communes of Lombardy
saw themselves as a union of peace (foedus pacis), and use
peace (pax) as a parallel with a sworn association (coniuratio).
 Likewise the statutes of the commune of Valenciennes
in Flanders (1114) call commune pax and its members as coniurati
/ homines / viri pacis.
To emphasise their
message these texts make a strict division between new commune builders
and the old elite of society. They portray the forms of life of
the nobles as degenerate: nobles are said to lead a life where vices
like arrogance (superbia), insolence (insolentia),
and injustice (iniuria) are prevailing. The commune, however,
is seen as a place where such Christian virtues as love (caritas,
dilectio), brotherhood (fraternitas), concord (unanimitas),
and humility (humilitas) can flourish.  These virtues and
townspeople’s longing for peace are seen as a moral ground on which
the commune was built. The commune is thus seen as a positive self
made action that was based on a special peace between the associates.
One comes across this same
kind of attitude in the formation of the Rhenish league and town
leagues. There was naturally no chronological cause and effect relationship
between early communes and the leagues but rather same kind of social
and legal background. In a purely juridical point of view they were
all illegal and against the prevailing law. In the case of the German
town leagues this is clear, as rulers had forbidden them. This was
for the first time done by Henry VII in 1231 and the best known
ban was that of the Golden bulla of 1356 by Charles IV. These and
other restrictions, however, did not have much effect in practise
as the towns broke them time and again and also rulers themselves
could exploit town leagues for their own benefit.
 is a general term that describes different kinds
of unions and agreements between towns. It was a common institution
in Germany from the 13th to the 15th century.
Most of the town leagues were small, short lived and modest in their
aims. Quite commonly they guaranteed mutual economic benefits and
legal standing of towns and burghers. Leagues were often formed
in times of social instability, like during the rule of a weak ruler
or crown vacancy. Sometimes the aim of the league was to act against
the lords and knights and a recurring theme was the maintenance
of the security of the trade routes, travelling burghers and the
towns. Strictly speaking the Rhenish league
 is not a town league as it had secular and ecclesiastical
lords as its members. Despite its short existence (1254--1257) it
was the most significant league between towns and lords in medieval
The Rhenish league
as a coniuratio?
The 1220s to the 1250s
are often labelled as the final struggle of the Hohenstaufen dynasty
(Endkampf der Hohenstaufen) as they were decades in German
history that were characterised by the juxtaposition between the
supporters of the dynasty and the pope. The battle for power between
the supporters of the Hohenstaufen dynasty and the pope resembled
constant war that threatened the whole society with instability.
This conflict was intertwined with other factors that added to the
insecurity, such as changes in local social order, the expansion
of the autonomy of towns and the rise of territorial lords. One
result of this widespread social uncertainty and disorder were the
different kinds of local and regional leagues between towns and
The Rhenish league
was formed in July 1254 by Mainz, Worms, Speyer, Strasbourg, Basle,
the archbishops of Mainz, Cologne, Trier, bishops of Metz, Strasbourg
and Basle and other, unnamed towns, lord and knights.  The league was
from the beginning meant to be a union between equal members. Most
of our knowledge concerning the administration of the league as
well as of the aims of the league came from the so called Aktemsammlung.
 This source includes 10 registers of meetings of
the league and an incomplete list of the members. There were no
fundamental differences between towns and lords in the decisions
of the Aktensammlung. They had the same basic rights and
duties. However, in practise the league was not as unanimous as
the official records claim. In fact, the league was divided into
hostile blocks of lords and towns shortly after the second meeting.
This division became more severe during 1255 and the lords did not
take part in four consecutive meetings. 
The impetus for the
league came clearly from the towns. One chronicle goes so far that
it even mentions a burgher of Mainz called Arnold Walpot as the
founding father of the league.
 The central role of the burghers in the founding
of the league is closely connected to its aims. The record in the
Aktensammlung that concerns the first meeting implies indirectly
that the central reason for its forming was the lack of peace.  The previous decades had seen
the growth of unrest in the Middle Rhine region and as neither the
Hohenstaufen rulers nor their opposites, the kings appointed by
the pope could stabilise the realm the burghers took action into
their own hands. As the political and military weight of the towns
was not sufficient they needed the help of the lords and knights.
The motif behind the
joining of the lords is not that straightforward. According to the
Annales Stadenses the lords – and especially those who lived
off the social uncertainty – did not approve the fact that the burghers
got a leading role in the league.
 Another chronicle claims that the towns forced
the lords to join the league.
 For this the towns were, however, too weak. One
also has to bear in mind that the most influential ecclesiastical
lords of the Rhineland were from the beginning members of the league.
There has been some speculation whether or not they took part in
the league in order to monitor the actions of the towns. One should
also not forget that even if some lords and knights benefited from
the social insecurity, for most of them stability was as important
as for the towns.
The Rhenish league
constituted a political union that tackled some social problems.
Its political agenda sounds almost too utopian: to maintain the
peace and stop excessive use of violence. In order to do this the
league forbade its members to collect unjustified taxes, asked them
to hold to their traditional rights, and decided to build its own
army and navy.  Behind this agenda
lay political and social realities that show the central standing
of the towns in the league. Most of the decisions of the league
were “town friendly“, i.e. they benefited in the first place the
burghers and their trade.
The league adopted
one of the central tasks of the king since it saw itself as the
guarantor of the peace. Even the whole existence of the league can
be seen as an answer to the weakness of the ruler. However, this
did not mean that it would have acted against the king. In fact
the league turned out to be rather conservative also in this respect
as it called Wilhelm the rightful king already in its second meeting.
As the league and the king shared a common interest in stabilising
the realm it is no wonder that they worked closely with each other.
The league allowed the king to attend its meetings; Wilhelm took
part in one meeting and his representative Adolf of Waldeck in two
Although the king did not have any direct influence on the leagues
decisions this still shows how it could have been turned into his
tool. This interesting juridical development ended abruptly in January
1256 as Wilhelm of Holland was slain by the peasants of Friesland.
After the death of the king the league tried to build a united front
in respect of the upcoming election. This had a twofold significance:
to show the solidarity of the league both to its members and to
The Rhenish league was also a moral union
that saw itself in a positive light. The formation of the league
constituted a bipartition between members and non-members. The league
and its members were seen as guarantors of peace whereas everyone
else was at least theoretically its enemy. From the point of view
of the league a lord or a town was either with it or against it.
As a moral self-help corporation it formed a division between us
(good) and the rest of the society (bad). It is clear that the formation
of the league, its existence and action was based on the idea of
pax iurata. The league constituted on the one hand a special
law that completed the existing jurisprudence and on the other a
moral union. In this sense the league also resembled other forms
of medieval social order that were based on pax iurata. From
the purely legal point of view it was unjustified and revolutionary
just like the early communes. More importantly they both constituted
a union of peace (foedus pacis), in which the political and
moral aspects intertwine.
The need for inner
unity was an important factor for all unions and in the case of
the Rhenish league this was especially vital. In the end this was
due to the fact that the existence of the league and its ability
to act was based on the co-operation and combined forces of its
members. The inner unity of the league was put into question from
the beginning. The emphasis on the unity in the official documents
can be seen as a means in sustaining the image of unity. Attempts
to strengthen the organisation were driven by the same purpose.
Thus the league decided, for example, on yearly meetings, on correspondence
between its members, on rules concerning the legal standing of the
representatives of the towns, and on tax with which a union hall
was supposed to be built.
Another main subject
alongside the relationship between the members was the relationship
between the league and the rest of the society. As the Rhenish league
saw itself in a positive light as a self-made association that maintained
social security it is clear that the rest of the society was seen
in a more or less negative light. In a way everybody outside the
league posed a threat to it. In the best possible scenario those
outside the league were possible new members. Because of this all
the members had to do everything in their power to get their neighbouring
towns and lords to join the league.  Even the fact
that a lord or a knight did not join the league was interpreted
as a violation against the peace; the sources never mention towns
as this kind of violators. The violator had to be closed outside
the community of peace.
 Here the league comes close to circular reasoning,
as the members of the league constituted a community of peace and
those outside of the league were automatically considered as not
belonging to it. It seems that the league wanted to emphasise that
the society was divided into those belonging to the league, and
thus to the commune of peace, and into those who were outside both
the league and the commune of peace. Certain decisions the league
made give the impression that this alone was a valid reason for
the league for a justified attack.
Lords and knights who
attacked the league or broke the peace naturally posed the biggest
threat. Thus it is no wonder that one of the main characteristics
of the league was combined military effort for defence if one of
its members was attacked. This was meant to be at the same time
a central unifying feature between the members and a reference to
the power for the league to its enemies. Quite often the league
stressed its orders by threatening to use military measures against
its enemies, and twice it ordered a common troop to attack those
who broke the peace.
 In fact the league – or at least part of its members
– did take up arms a few times.
The peace of the Rhenish
league covered not only its members but also a wide range of people
who could not themselves join the league, like women, Jews, priests,
monks, and peasants.  The relationship between the league and these
people was one-sided and mostly passive. There was no need for defining
their duties since they did not have any role in maintaining the
peace and they did not pose a threat to the league. However, the
fact that the league also took them into the community of the peace
is of great significance. It namely shows that the league’s aim
was not only to stabilise the relationship between its members but
those of the whole society in general. This task was well in balance
with its character as a powerful political and moral corporation.
At least in its self understanding the league was a prominent force
in maintaining the peace.
The town leagues
The Middle Rhine region in
The Rhenish league
was preceded by small leagues of towns of the Middle Rhine region.
Mainz and Worms formed a league in February 1254 thus making an
end to an old tension between the towns.  This league is a significant
indication of the transgressing of the borders of Endkampf der
Hohenstaufer, as Worms had supported the dynasty and Mainz the
pope. The towns promised to help each other if one was attacked,
and gave mutual rights for their burghers. These kinds of decisions
are quite common in town leagues. However, Mainz and Worms also
founded a new juridical seat to solve reciprocal disputes that shows
unusually advanced organisational form and emphasise the towns’
will to grasp the social problems themselves without the help of
a ruler or lords. 
In April Mainz, Worms
and Oppenheim formed a new league. As is often the case with town
leagues this was not simply an enlargement of the previous league
but a totally new one.  Also here the central issue was mutual help in
the case that one of the three towns would be attacked. The league
adopted the juridical seat from the previous one and developed it
further. Mainz formed still one more town league, this time in the
end of May with Bingen. 
The formation of these leagues
shows in general not only the towns’ need for peaceful conditions
but indirectly also the cause for this need, namely the ruler’s
powerlessness in enforcing the peace and jurisdiction. As self-help
unions these leagues tried to restrict the use of violence. There
would not have been need for this if the ruler had been capable
of doing this himself.
The league of April
mentioned for the first time social reasons as an explanation for
the formation of the league. And in the same way as in the Rhenish
league also here this social reason was accompanied by another,
one that has a Christian base, namely Jesus as pacis auctore.
 The most surprising and radical aspect of the league
of April was its understanding of its standing in relation to the
maintenance of peace. The league promised to protect a wide range
of unfree people. This was in essence the core of the Rhenish league.
There were also important differences. The town leagues of the spring
of 1254 never called the peace “the holy peace or the general peace,”
both common concepts in the Rhenish league. Secondly town leagues
could not take new members without forming a new league whereas
the structural flexibility of the Rhenish league enabled its fast
There is no doubt that the
town leagues of spring 1254 were coniurationes. Their formation
fulfils all the main characteristics of coniuratio. The leagues
built a special peace that was based on a mutual, voluntary oath
of the members and distinguished the league from the rest of the
society. The equal members swore mutual help against lords and promised
to work for the peace.
The bishops of Strasbourg
gave juridical and economic privileges to the burghers from the
second half of the 12th century onwards.
 This happened in mutual understanding until 1260
when a new bishop, Walter of Geroldseck, wanted to regain some of
the power his predecessors had given away. In order to do that he
accused the leading burghers that they were interested only in their
own wellbeing and that they misgoverned the town.
 The burghers denied the accusations, which led
to a conflict between the commune and the bishop. In the beginning
it concerned the administration of the town but was quickly expanded
to a regional clash as both sides formed alliances and attacked
the supporters of the enemy in the countryside.
Strasbourg formed the
first league with four powerful lords in September 1261.
 In the next two months this was followed by three
town-leagues, namely with Neuenburg, Colmar and Basle.  These four leagues were
political and military alliances answering for a certain social
situation. The sole reason for their existence and action was to
oppose bishop Walter, his family and supporters.  In a juridical sense these leagues
were clearly illegal and the associates were aware of this. This
explains the formulation with which the leagues were put outside
of ecclesiastic and secular jurisdiction.  This shows the
problematic juridical standing but also the division into us (the
associates) and them (the rest of the society), which was a typical
feature of town leagues.
Some of the associates
had a central role in the run of the conflict. In this respect the
most important one was count Rudolf of Habsburg, one of the four
lords of the first league. Rudolf had supported Walter before, but
after joining Strasbourg’s cause he became its most prolific military
ally. However, according to Bellum Waltherianum it was the
burghers of Strasbourg who achieved the decisive victory in the
battle of Hausbergen in March 1262. The defeat of Walter in Hausbergen
was so great that it effectively ended the military conflict and
forced the bishop to recognise the power of the commune and its
allies in an armistice in March and a peace treaty in July.
 However, in the eyes of the burghers not even this
removed the threat of Walter. Thus Strasbourg and some of its allies
formed five new leagues between July and August 1262. 
The last phase of the conflict
started with the death of bishop Walter in February 1263. Not even
this made the leagues unnecessary. A month after the death Strasbourg
formed three more leagues. Two of these promised mutual help against
the family of Geroldseck in the same way as the earlier leagues
had. Another main theme in the leagues was the election of the bishop.
In two leagues Strasbourg promised to swear loyalty only to a new
bishop who promised to act according to his rights. This was meant
to show a united front of the towns and to emphasise that the bishop
had to pay attention to laws.
One can also call these leagues
coniurationes. They were clearly based on a mutual oath of
voluntary and equal participants who formed a moral and political
corporation. The will of this corporation was shown in the founding
documents. All the statutes were concerned with one theme only,
namely the opposition of the bishop Walter. The whole existence
of the leagues and also their action was based on the principle
of mutual help against the bishop. In my opinion the leagues saw
their existence and action as a way of preserving the peace. The
formation of the league meant that the associates formed a special
peace. This peace was arbitrary and this was emphasised almost comically
through a series of mutual promises of the concerned parties.
It is also interesting to
see that the leagues did not try to strengthen their political and
juridical standing by speaking of the maintenance of the peace in
the same way as the Rhenish league did. As far as I know the burghers
never even answered to the accusations made by Walter in the summer
of 1261. Neither did the leagues appeal to Christ as a procurator
of peace or even blame Walter for misusing his power as a reason
for forming the league. This supports the claim that the jurisdiction
of the Hohenstaufen dynasty did not have any great significance
anymore. However, the main reason was the special character of the
conflict. From the start till the end it was crystal clear to Strasbourg
and its allies that their enemies were Walter, his family and supporters.
In other words the leagues did not fight against general unrest.
King Richard of Cornwall
died in England in April 1272 and the realm needed a new king. Richard,
who had visited Germany four times between 1257 and 1262, had succeeded
in stabilising his standing above all in the Rhineland.
 He had won the support of the towns of the region
quite quickly after his nomination. From the standpoint of the towns
his death and the election of the new king resembled the situation
On February 5th
Mainz, Worms, Oppenheim, Frankfurt, Friedberg, Wetzlar and Gelnhausen
formed two leagues. In the first one the towns decided to swear
unconditional loyalty to an unanimously elected king. However, if
the prince electors would elect more than one king the towns would
not support either of them.
 This resembled the action that the Rhenish league
took before the previous election. However, the differences between
1256 and 1273 are quite revealing. Only the Rhenish league wanted
to send representatives to control the election. The most striking
difference was of course the willingness of the Rhenish league to
protect the realm until it would have a new king.
The other league the
same eight towns formed on the same day was a typical military alliance
that guaranteed mutual defensive help if one of the towns was attacked.
The agreement does not mention any enemies like the leagues of Strasbourg
had done. However, one can separate two groups of enemies. Firstly
the agreement promised help in case that a lord or a knight tried
to build a castle too close to a town. This kind of action was against
the bannmeilerecht of the towns and the people most likely
to break this rule were those who wanted to challenge the autonomy
of the towns. Secondly it is quite clear that this league was formed
to support the towns’ cause of the other league of the same day.
Thus it seems likely that the towns were afraid of the pretenders
and their supporters. 
The communal character of
the leagues of 1273 is somewhat hard to verify as the scarce sources
consist only of the two founding documents. I am inclined to call
also these leagues coniurationes. The leagues quite clearly
fulfil the two most important aspects of coniurationes. First
of all they were based on a mutual oath of voluntary and equal associates.
Secondly they orientated towards peace, even if they only concerned
themselves with the election of the king and defensive help respectively.
The former was essential in respect of the social standing of the
towns in relation to the ruler and the realm. The latter strengthened
the message of the former and also guaranteed that no town had to
encounter an attack by itself.
In this article I have touched
on the question of the nature of the Rhenish league and town leagues.
My aim has been to show that they can be portrayed as coniurationes.
The analysis has centred mainly on the self image of the leagues
as the scarce sources make it impossible to look in detail at how
outsiders reacted to their formation. I have interpreted coniuratio
as a sworn association of equal and voluntary associates that constitutes
a special peace. I believe that this kind of wide interpretation
allows one to see the structural similarities between institutions
like town leagues and communes that seem at first glance quite different.
It is clear that the
Rhenish league was a coniuratio in this wider sense of the
concept. It was based on a mutual oath of equal and voluntary members.
In a sense every league meeting meant re-swearing and prolonging
of the original oath, i.e. acceptance of the aims and actions of
the league. The Rhenish league preserved the basic feature of equality
and free will despite the problems caused by its divisions and rapid
expansion. It did suffer from being divided into two blocks of towns
and lords respectively, but it still did not modify its basic structure
Two central issues concerning the action
of the Rhenish league were the need for inner unity and the relationship
with the rest of the society. These constituted the twofold nature
of the arbitrary peace that the league executed. Both of these were
of uttermost importance, as neither the king nor the pope could
prevent social disorder. As the old juridical system was in a crisis
the league had to form a new way of dealing with problems. The most
important issue was to stabilise the relationship between the members,
i.e. to constitute basic rules for their mutual co-operation. The
most important aspect of this naturally was the promise of mutual
help in case that one of the members was attacked.
The relationship of the Rhenish league
and the rest of the society was the second central issue concerning
its action. This also echoes the second characteristic feature of
the abstract pax iurata, namely the bipartition of the society.
The league saw enlargement as a change to gain strength and thus
the members had to try to get their neighbours to join it. From
the point of view of the outsiders this action was illegal and endangered
the prevailing social order, and sometimes their own standing. One
clear indication of the actual reasons behind the objections is
described by one chronicler, according to whom it was especially
the lords who made their living off the unstable conditions that
objected to Rhenish league.
Even if the sources concerning
the town leagues are scarce and profound comparisons between them
and the Rhenish league are thus difficult to make I would call also
them coniurationes. All the leagues formed a community that united towns to carry out one or more
tasks. These tasks varied from the promise to swear loyalty to a
king to the promise to guard the realm without king. They were all based on a mutual oath that bound the voluntary
and equal associates together. They formed a moral and political
corporation that worked through statutes created together.
When the Rhenish league and town leagues
are interpreted as coniurationes it
is easy to see that the differences between them concern the size
of the leagues, not their quality. They were all formed on the promise
of mutual help and on a strict bipartition of the society into members
and non-members or in other words into us and them. These were the
characteristic features that were inherited from the abstract idea
of pax iurata and that were common to all coniurationes.
Thus the early communes of
Northern Italy, Northern France and Flanders – which have, as the
bringers of horizontal social order, been given a central role in
studies concerning the history of medieval towns -- have some interesting
parallels with the town leagues studied in this article. Even from
a rather small scale comparison one can observe profound similarities
in the way these institutions saw their standing in the society,
how they acted to fulfil their tasks, etc.
The explanation is that communes,
town leagues as well as other coniurationes, were based on
a similar way of understanding peace. In their core they all had
the abstract idea of pax iurata that guaranteed mutual help
and divided the society between members and non-members, i.e. into
us and them. These two characteristic features of communal social
order explain how the active members could see their action in a
positive light even though it was against the prevailing social
order and law.
Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum
et regum, Vol. 2: 1198–1272. Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Legum sectio IV, 2. Weiland, L. (Hg.). Hannover 1896.
Hermanni Altahenisis Annales. Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Scriptores XVII. Pertz, Georg Heinrich (Hg.). Hannover 1861, pp. 381–407.
Annales Stadenses. Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores
XVI. Pertz, Georg Heinrich (Hg.). Hannover 1859, pp. 271–379.
Annales Wormatienses. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Scriptores XVII. Pertz, Georg Heinrich (Hg.). Hannover 1861, pp. 34–73.
Bellum Walherianum. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica, Scriptores XVII. Pertz, Georg Heinrich (Hg.). Hannover 1861, pp. 105–114.
Charta pacis Valenciennes.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores XXI. Pertz, Georg
Heinrich (Hg.). Hannover 1869, pp. 605–610.
Ruser, Kondrad (Hg.), Die Urkunden und Akten der
oberdeutschen Städtebünde vom 13. Jahrhundert bis 1549. Vol.
1. Vom 13. Jahrhundert bis 1347. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen
Urkundenbuch der Reichsstadt Frankfurt. Vol. 1. Boehmer, Johann Friedrich (Hg.).
Joseph Bach & co, Frankfurt 1901.
Urkunden und Acten der Stadt Strassburg. Vol 1. Wiegand, Wilhelm (Hg.). Karl J.
Trübner, Strassburg 1879.
Urkundenbuch der Stadt Worms 627–1300. Boos, Heinrich (Hg.).
Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Worms 1. Weidmann, Berlin 1886.
Becker, H.-J., “Städtebund”,
Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte Vol. 4. Erich
Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 1990, pp. 1851–1857.
Black, Antony, Political
Thought in Europe 1250-1450. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Blickle, Peter, “´Coniuratio´.
Die politische Karriere einer lokalen Gesellschaftsformation.” In
Cordes, Albrecht (Hg.) Stadt – Gemeinde – Kommune. Festschrift
für Gerhard Dilcher zum 70. Geburtstag. Berlin 2003, pp. 341–360.
Buschmann, Arno, “Der Rheinische Bund von 1254–1257.
Landfriede, Städte, Fürsten und Reichsverfassung im 13. Jahrhundert.”
In Maurer, Helmut (Hg.) Kommunale Bündnisse Oberitaliens und
Oberdeutschlands im Vergleich. Vorträge und Forschungen 33.
Jan Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1987, pp. 167–212.
Demandt, Karl E.: “Der Endkampf des staufischen Kaiserhauses
im Rhein-Main-Gebiet.“ Hessisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte
7 (1957), pp. 102–164.
Dilcher, Gerhard, Die
Entstehung der lombardischen Stadtkommune. Untersuchungen zur
deutschen Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte Neue Folge 7. Aalen 1967.
Dilcher, Gerhard, “Coniuratio.”
Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte Vol. 1. Erich
Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 1971, pp. 631–633.
Dilcher, Gerhard, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte.
Stadt. Bürger und Bauer im alten Europa. Springer, Berlin 1999.
Ennen, Edith, “Coniuratio.”
Lexicon des MittelaltersVol 1. Artemis, Müchen 1986, pp.
Ennen, Edith, “Rhenischer Städtebund.” Handwörterbuch
zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte Vol. 4. Erich Schmidt Verlag,
Berlin 1990, pp. 1017–1018.
Fahlbusch, F.B., “Städtebund.” Lexicon des
Mittelalters Vol. 7. Artemis, München 1997, pp. 17–18.
Fried, Johannes, “Einleitung.“ In Fried, Johannes
(Hg.), Träger und Instrumentarien des Friedens im hohen und späten
Mittelalter. Vorträge und Forschungen 42. Jan Thorbecke, Sigmaringen
1996, pp. 7–16.
Hartmann, Wilfried (Hg.), Europas Städte zwischen
Zwang und Freiheit. Die europäische Stadt um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts.
Universitätsverlag Regensburg, Regensburg 1995.
Isenmann, Eberhard, Die deutsche Stadt im Spätmittelalter:
1250–1500. Stadtgestallt, Recht, Stadtregiment, Kirche, Gesellschaft,
Wirtschaft. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart 1988.
Kammerer, Odile, “Strassburg – das Selbstverständnis
einer Stadt im 13. Jahrhundert.“ In Hartmann, Wilfried (Hg.), Europas
Städte zwischen Zwang und Freiheit. Die europäische Stadt um die
Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts. Universitäts-Verlag Regensburg,
Regensburg 1995, pp. 63–82.
Kaufhold, Martin: Deutsches Interregnum und europäische
Politik. Konfliklösungen und Entscheidungsstrukturen 1230-1280.
Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften 49. Hansche Buchhandlung,
Oexle, Otto Gerhard,
“Friede durch Verschwörung.“ In Maurer, Helmut (Hg.), Kommunale
Bündnisse Oberitaliens und Oberdeutschlands im Vergleich. Jan
Thorbecke, Sigmaringen 1987, pp. 115–150.
Schulz, Knut, Denn sie lieben die
Freiheit so sehr. Kommunale
Aufstände und Entstehung des europäischen Bürgertums
im Hochmittelalter. Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1995.
Voltmer, Otto, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft am
Mittelrhein. Vom 13. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert. Historische Komission
für Nassau 63. Wiesbaden 1998.
Voltmer, Ernst, “Der Rheinische Bund (1254–1256).
Eine neue Forschungsaufgabe?” In Katalog Landesarchivverw. Rh.-Pfalz.
1986, pp. 117–143.
Weiler, Björn, “Image
and Reality in Richard of Cornwall´s German Career.” The English
Historical Review, Vol. 63 (1998), pp. 1111–1142.
 Blickle 2003, p. 347; see also Oexle 1996, p. 150; Isenmann 1988,
pp. 89–93; Dilcher 1967; Dilcher 1971; Dilcher 1999, pp. 367–372;
Ennen 1986, pp. 135–137; Schulz 1995.
 Oexle 1996, p. 115. According to Oexle one can divide the whole history
of the idea of peace from late antiquity to our own times into
pax ordinata and pax iurata.
 Oexle 1996, pp. 127, 144–145.
 Dilcher 1967, p. 144.
 Charta pacis Valenciennes, MGH SS XXI, pp. 605–610; See also
Oexle 1996, p. 139.
 Oexle 1996, p. 128; Black 1992, pp. 119–120.
 For town leagues in general see Ruser 1979; Isenmann 1988, pp. 121–127;
 For Rhenish league see Buschmann 1987; Voltmer 1986; Fahlbusch 1997;
 For the Middle and High Rhine regions between
1220’s–1250’ s, see Demandt 1957; Kaufhold 2000; Hartmann 1995;
 MGH Const. 2 no 428/1; Annales Stadenses; Annales
 For the sources concerning the Rhenish league
see Voltmer 1986, pp. 123–127; Buschmann 1987; Ruser 1979.
 Namely in 4th at 15.8. 1255 (MGH
Const. 2 no 428/4), 5th at 14.10. (MGH Const. 2 no
428/5), 6th at 10.11. (MGH Const. 2 no 428/7) and 7th
at 6.1. 1256 (MGH Const. 2 no 428/8).
 Annales Stadenses, p. 373.
 MGH Const. 2 no 428/1: “Cum terrarum pericula
et viarum discrimina nonnullos ex nostris iam per multum temporis
discursum destruxerint penitus et plerosque bonos et ydoneos traxerint
in ruinam, ut innocentes opprimerentur sine calculo rationis,
ad obviandum huiuscemodi tempestatibus et procellis modum rimari
oportuit et perquiri, per quem nostri saltim termini et districtus,
omissa equitatis digressione, possint ad pacis orbitam revocari“.
See also Annales Stadenses; Annales Niederaltaich.
 Annales Stadenses, p. 373: “Non placuit res
principibus nec militibus, sed neque praedonibus et maxime hiis,
qui habebant assidue manus pendulas ad rapinam, dicentes esse
sordidum mercatores habere super homines honestos et nobiles dominatum“.
 Hermanni Altahensis Annales, p. 397: “Viconos
principes et comites sue societati adhere compellunt“.
 MGH Const. 2 no 428/2.
 MGH Const. 2 no 428/7. Because of this Buschmann
calls the meeting the highlight of the league, see Buschmann 1987,
 For domus pacis see MGH Const. 2 no 428/4; for
correspondence see MGH Const. 2 no 428/2; for yearly meetings
see MGH Const. 2 no 428/5; for representatives of towns see MGH
Const. 2 no 428/2.
 See for example MGH Const. 2 no 428/2.
 See for example MGH Const. 2 no 428/9: “Insuper
omnia sancte pacis per nos statuta ibidem inviolabiliter servare
promisimus“. And also: “Illis vero dominis, militibus sive
aliis, qui pacem non iurassent, nullum auxilium prestaremus“.
 MGH Const. 2 no 428/8; MHG Const. 2 no 428/10.
 See already MGH Const. 2 no 428/1: “... ut
non solum maiores intra nos hoc communi presidio gratulentur,
verum universi minores cum maioribus, clerici seculares et omnes
religiosi cuiuscunque sint ordinis, laici et Iudei, hac tuitione
perfrui se gaudeant et in tranquillitate sancte pacis valeant
permanere“. This decission is repeated several times in different
formulations in the sources.
 UB Worms 1 no 253; Annales Wormatienses, p. 55. Only the latter gives
also the month.
 UB Worms 1 no 253: “Ad renovendam autem omnem litis occasionem
aut discordie fomitem, que inter nos et concives nostros Moguntinos
nobis specialiter dilectos posset aliquotenus suboriri, quatuor
viros inter nos elegimus et ipsi similiter inter se quatuor statuerunt,
qui auctoritate utriusque civitatis omnes questiones et negotia
inter nos utrosque amicabiliter vel per iusticiam terminabunt;
quorum cum aliquis decesserit, alter loco ipsius a concilio statuetur.”
 UB Worms 1 no 252: “Hinc est, quod nos serie presentis scripti
cupimus innotescere universis tam presentibus quam futuris, quod
nos cooperante domino Jesu Christo pacis auctore per quem totius
boni exordium est et via, propter culturam pacis et iusticie observationem
convenimus unanimiter in hanc formam…”
 For the history of Strasbourg in the first half of 13th century see
 UB Strassburg 1 no 471.
 UB Strassburg 1 no 475.
 29th September with Neuenburg, UB Strassburg 1 no 476; 1st October
with Colmar, UB Strassburg 1 no 478; 6th November with
Basel, UB Strassburg 1 no 480.
 UB Strassburg 1 no 475: ”… wider den bischof Walthern von Strazburg
und sinen vatter den von Geroltsecke und dez kint und wider menglichen
 See for example UB Strassburg 1 no 475: “… disen eyt und dise sicherheit
nieman abetriben noch werben sol von dem babeste noch geistlichem
noch von weltlichem gerichte.”
 Armistice in March see UB Strassburg 1 no 486; peace treaty in July
see UB Strassburg 1 no 493.
 First league with Eberhard of Andlau and Konrad,
Gunther, Werner and Walther of Landisperg, UB Strassburg 1 no
496. Second with Sigebrecht of Werd, UB Strassburg 1 no 497. On
July 29th a league with Rudolf of Uttenheim and Eberhard of Erstein,
UB Strassburg 1 no 498. Two leagues on August 24th, the first
with Philipp of Reichenberg, UB Strassburg 1 no 504, the second
with Rudolf of Thierstein.
 UB Frankfurt 1 no 312.
 MGH Const. 2 no 428/9.
 UB Frankfurt 1 no 313.