granted “legitimately by other just means, according to the judgment of the senior nobles of Bohemia” asserts that the Přemyslid ruler was indeed bound by such laws. Transactions were performed and disputes resolved in the company of various lay and ecclesiastical magnates as well as the duke. These, and the other witnesses assiduously noted in twelfth-century charters, must have served as de facto coadjudicators. Justice was too important to be treated in private, to be left to one man alone, and their presence must have assured that the duke abided by custom.
Castles
The duke of Bohemia controlled all castles within his territory. Archeological evidence shows that the destruction and rebuilding of castles accompanied the Přemyslid expansion of power in the ninth and tenth centuries.80 Whether this process established the duke’s direct and absolute lordship over castles in the Czech Lands, or some legal justification prevailed, all fortifications of any size and function without any doubt belonged to the duke in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. He built and refortified them, and assigned his followers to them at will. Castles as structures were less valuable than the allegiance of those that manned them; oversight rather than ownership was the real issue, and in many cases their importance was more political than military. The ruler’s delegation of authority over castles and his means of maintaining control profoundly affected the social, political, and economic conditions of laymen, especially those of middling and high rank. For this reason, questions of appointment and oversight will be treated more fully in the next chapter. We need here, however, to reflect upon the number and function of castles in the Czech Lands and upon the duke’s monopoly.
As usual, the evidence demands a cautious approach: it is impossible to determine the total number, location, or relative prominence of castles throughout Bohemia and Moravia at any given time. Many more fortifications of various sizes and functions must have existed than are noted in the written sources. On the basis of topographical, archeological, and written evidence, Jiří Sláma lists 144 known or suspected castles in Bohemia, but this number has not been adjusted to account for changes over time or to specify sites of activity during particular eras.81 How many of the ninth- or tenth-century walled sites were destroyed or declined in importance by the eleventh or twelfth centuries therefore remains unknown. Sláma’s own analysis of Přemyslid expansion and consolidation demonstrates that castles were systematically destroyed.82 Cosmas describes ancient sites overrun with trees.83 A few of the older fortifications are known or presumed to have been put to more benign uses, becoming sites of early monasteries: Ostrov, Hradiště (at Olomouc), Rajhrad, Postoloprty, and later Mnichovo Hradiště.84 Even Mělník and Stará Boleslav, two castles of considerable importance in the tenth century, were later notable mainly as sites of collegiate chapters.85
The other handicap is that the written sources, typically, employ terminology very loosely.86 A castle may be indicated by civitas, urbs, castrum, castellum, oppidum, arx, munitio, or presidium.87 Yet none of these variants exclusively denote differences between castles, for instance, to distinguish critical border posts from minor guard-towers, major urban centers, ducal hunting residences, or stopping points on trade routes.88 Regardless of terminology, context sometimes offers clues about specific sites. Chlumec, the site of many battles, was obviously a border post on a well-traveled road.89 Tachov and Přimda are likewise located near the border, but in deeper isolation—hence Přimda’s use as a prison for Soběslav II.90 Křívoklát too is known from Cosmas as a prison for lesser Přemyslids, but lies in central Bohemia.91 Though important in their own way, none of these four is associated with a “province,” nor are their castellans noted in witness lists. By contrast, Litoměřice and Žatec were less defensive posts than urban centers.92 Places like Plzeň and Kladsko, located on major roads to Bavaria and Poland respectively, may have begun as relatively isolated stopping points but clearly developed into towns of some prominence—even as Kladsko probably remained critical for defense.93 Whether the outposts in southern Bohemia—Pracheň, Doudleby, Netolice—developed similarly in this period remains uncertain.94 So too does the fate of a number of castles in eastern Bohemia, some quite old, such as Čáslav and Kouřim.95
Map 1. Civitates listed in CDB no. 111 (1130).
Which of these castles and castellans had administrative functions, and what sort, remains a matter of speculation. Precisely because most of those of the first rank later developed into towns, chartered from the mid-thirteenth century, they may have served as regional economic centers in the earlier period as well. When Duke Spitihněv granted to the collegiate chapter at Vyšehrad a tenth of the yearly tax in sixteen civitates, we recognize the same most important Bohemian castles mentioned in other sources: Prague, Vyšehrad, Žatec, Sedlec, Litoměřice, Bílina, Děčin, (Mladá) Boleslav, Kamenec, Hradec (Kralové), Opočno, Chrudim, Kouřim, Plzeň, Libice, and Vratno96 (see Map 1). Charters and chronicles occasionally mention “provinciae” and some of the same names appear there, most notably Litoměřice, Žatec, Bílina, and Sedlec.97 That these provinces are not labeled according to geographic location (in other words, “North Bohemia”) or with reference to natural monuments (such as the “west Elbe area”) points to the pivotal role played by these castles within the region.
Conceivably, castles served as centers for tax collecting and the oversight of markets, for organizing raiding parties and defense against foreign invaders, or within a system of courts. In positing administrative districts oriented around castles, however, we must exercise caution.98 At no time do the sources permit a complete picture, allowing us to subdivide all of the Czech Lands into clearly bounded provinces or castellanies. There is no way to determine which among the known castles formed centers for administrative districts, or precisely when. Surely Litoměřice and Žatec did throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries, so too Plzeň. But settlement patterns shifted dramatically. None of the civitates listed in the grant of annual tribute to the Vyšehrad chapter lies in southern Bohemia but there, and elsewhere, colonization must have increasingly challenged whatever organizational structures had previously existed. Central Bohemia presents as many difficulties, paradoxically because more castles are known there, the territory was more densely populated, and the duke’s own capital at Prague was located close by. It remains uncertain whether Prague and Vyšehrad constituted regional administrative centers, as well as of Bohemia as a whole—or how they related to one another. The castellany of Vyšehrad was undoubtedly considered among the most prominent of appointments, but the castellan of Prague, a man rarely mentioned, seems charged only with the defense of its fortifications.99 Other questions too—for instance, about how assets were allocated to castellans and/or garrisons according to the needs and purposes of each castle, and as economic and demographic circumstances changed—are crucial for understanding the tasks castellans were expected to perform; but they cannot be answered.
One thing, at least, is certain: only the duke is ever mentioned constructing, strengthening, or refortifying castles of any kind. When a group of Germans crossed the border and erected a castle in Bohemia, the stronghold was swiftly seized and its occupants slaughtered.100 Castle-building was expensive: most likely the duke alone had or could command sufficient resources for the task. Only he could compel freemen to take part in their construction or re-fortification (see below). In the twelfth-century chronicles, these construction projects merit mention on their own, among the most noteworthy events of the year. The Canon of Vyšehrad begins his entry for 1129 by reporting simply two events: “Vratislav, son of Oldřich, was captured by Soběslav and afterward sent into exile. The castle Kladsko was renovated and strengthened by Soběslav.”101 Apparently, so exclusively did the task fall to the duke that he even rebuilt a castle before giving it away: “Duke Břetislav [II], coming with an army into Moravia, rebuilt the castle Podivín and returned it to the power of Bishop Hermann [of Prague], as it had been earlier.”102
Despite
