Sorbian March

The Sorb(ian) March (Latin: limes Sorabicus; German: Sorbenmark) was a frontier district on the eastern border of East Francia in the 9th through 11th centuries. It was composed of several counties bordering the Sorbs. The Sorbian march seems to have comprised the eastern part of Thuringia.

Limes sorabicus on German map.

The Sorbian march was sometimes referred to as the Thuringian March. The term "Sorbian march" appears only four times in the Annales Fuldenses.

History

Three rulers are recorded: Poppo, Thachulf, and Radulf. The commanders of the Sorbian march bore the title dux Sorabici (limitis) in the Annales, but are also referred to elsewhere as counts (comites), margraves (marchiones), and dukes of Thuringia (duces Thuringorum). The march was probably ruled primarily by the Babenberg family.

The boundary between Thuringia and the Sorbs was defined as the Saale river by Einhard, writing in the 830s: Salam fluvium, qui Thuringos et Sorabos dividit ("the river Saale, which divides the Thuringii and the Sorbs"). Erfurt was then the chief economic centre of eastern Thuringia. The Sorbian march probably (loosely) included the land east of the Saale as far as the Elster and the Pleisse, which might have been controlled by castles. The Sorbian march may have been only the area west of the Saale, east of it,[1] or on both sides.

The Sorbian march was frequently troubled in the 9th century by Slavic insurrections, who were tributaries of the Germans. In the 10th century the march formed part of the vast marca Geronis from 937 until 965.[2] During this period, the Sorbs were reduced to serfdom and the march was largely pacified. After 965, it formed a part of the March of Meissen.

Sources
  • Reuter, Timothy (trans.) The Annals of Fulda. (Manchester Medieval series, Ninth-Century Histories, Volume II.) Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992.
  • Thompson, James Westfall (1962). Feudal Germany. F. Ungar Publishing Company.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Leyser, Karl (January 1968). "Henry I and the Beginnings of the Saxon Empire". The English Historical Review. 83 (326): 1–32. JSTOR 561761.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

Notes and references
  1. Leyser 1968, p. 11.
  2. Thompson, p. 487.

(Work in Progress)

gollark: > In practice, on limited keyboards of the day, source programs often used the sequences $( and $) in place of the symbols { and }UTTER apiaristicaloids.
gollark: Please provide information on your "Doku"Wiki install.
gollark: > gollark the latex plugin broke my dokuwikiBroke how?
gollark: > The interpretation of any value was determined by the operators used to process the values. (For example, + added two values together, treating them as integers; ! indirected through a value, effectively treating it as a pointer.) In order for this to work, the implementation provided no type checking. Hungarian notation was developed to help programmers avoid inadvertent type errors.[citation needed] This is *just* like Sinth's idea of Unsafe.
gollark: > The language is unusual in having only one data type: a word, a fixed number of bits, usually chosen to align with the architecture's machine word and of adequate capacity to represent any valid storage address. For many machines of the time, this data type was a 16-bit word. This choice later proved to be a significant problem when BCPL was used on machines in which the smallest addressable item was not a word but a byte or on machines with larger word sizes such as 32-bit or 64-bit.[citation needed]
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.