Intro
I have been reading about the right to bear arms in the medieval Germany. I am not only interested in the laws themselves, but what they may tell us about the weapons and what class of people used what type. Some of what I have found out is surprising, and some of it confusing. I wonder if anyone here else is interested or already knows something.

The first thing I will say is that there is a difference between owning a weapon and carrying it. That is, that someone could both be required to own a weapon, but forbidden to carry it, at least in peace time. The second thing, is that the laws seemed to be based on not only public safety, but weapons and armour were included in sumptuary laws. The third, is that I yet to find laws that clearly distinguish between different types of weapons. Lawgivers seem to have sidestepped the difference between a sword and a knife by using length to ban either short or long weapons. A typical phrasing is that all swords or knives longer than the measurement on the Townhall are forbidden in the city limits. The measurement is not named, but my guess it is a cubit. Exceptions were made, for important people like councilmen, as well as craftsmen who needed knives for their work.

Farmers seem to be the target of sumptuary laws, and in Bavaria the head of household were allowed to carry a sword to church on Sunday. Farmers were often put under special protection in Friedens. Thus, they technically didn’t need a weapon for self-defence. The practice was different, both in that farmers required weapons and that they carried them.

Primary Sources
I will be using secondary sources, but they tend to rely on certain type of Primary Sources. They are listed here:

Landfrieden: The Landfrieden were connected to the Peace of God movement. Today, they are seen as attempts to establish the state monopoly on legitimate violence. They certainly dealt mostly with feuding and restricted it. They were usually limited in time. Frieden means peace, and can refer to a peace treaty. The Peace of God was also called a Truce of God, so they could be interpreted as a limited peace treaty or truce. Some applied to the whole empire, but others were local. It is not always clear where the local Landsfriedens applied.

Law Books and Weisthuemer: German Law was mostly oral and customary law. A few law books were written beginning with the Sachsenspiegel, which covered much of Germany, but not all of it. It was a collection of laws that were already in practice, and not new laws. Therefore, it is possible that it overlooked laws, or that it changed laws because it recorded one interpretation and left out another. In addition to the various other Spiegel books there were also Weisthuemer which are legal precedents that belonged to an oral tradition and were later written down. They tend to be a rural source of law and deal with the relationship between nobles and peasants.

Town Laws: These are town laws, given by the Council.

Secondary Sources These are mostly books available online that cite one of the following sources about weapons laws.
Waffenrecht der Bauer in Mittelalter by Hans Fehr a Swiss legal historian. The book title refers to the laws about weapons, and not the right to own or carry one. He includes Latin without translating it, so my understanding of the text is limited. I am not sure if his understanding of history is not outdated.

I will add updates as I have time.

Very interesting topic. Will follow this!

People always have had, and always will have, the RIGHT to bear arms.

The problem arises when those in power fear the ability to lose that power (and it's associated wealth) to those they seek to have power over, so they call a "right" a "privilege" and seek to enforce laws that will result in imprisonment or death for those that oppose such laws. It's called tyranny. It has gone by many names and has had many titles for those that sit atop the power pyramid, but it always has the same result: certain people declare themselves better than everyone else, and seek to maintain their position via coercion and brutality. They try to frame it as making the masses safe when, in reality, it is only about making themselves safe from the masses.

So, what will be discussed here isn't the "right", but the infringement of rights by those that are afraid to lose power and wealth. Just because those that seek these infringements declares themselves "royal", "noble" or otherwise "elite", that doesn't mean they are. In my mind, a "royal" is simply a descendant of a brutal despot that has been inbreeding for multiple generations to maintain "purity" and, as are their "noble" and "elite" counterparts, raging narcissists with unearned superiority complexes.

And don't bring up the issue of disarming criminals - they will never disarm themselves because of a decree or law, and, like the "ruling classes", prefer an unarmed society since it also makes their pursuits easier and safer for themselves.

Victor R. is correct.

I will start with Hans Fehr`s article, because it covers a long period of time and thus provides a sort of overview. The title suggests that he is writing about farmers or peasants. Which he does, but it mentions other classes as well, is more about weapons law in medieval Germany in general. He sees the weapons law as divided into different parts, that included rights that were combined with duties. It is also important that these rights conferred honour.

He lists five institutions of weapon law:

The right to carry weapons in times of peace, while travelling and before a court of law. (Waffentragens)
The right to fight in the army (Heerfolge and Landfolge)
The right to feud (Fehderecht)
The right to judicial duel (Zweikampf)
The right to pursue and capture criminals (Gerichtsfolge)

In Carolingian times, every free man had these rights and duties. There wasn’t legally a peasant class. Women had the right to duel, but not to use a weapon (according to Fehr) and that is why they fought duels with a stone in a sack. Unfree men also had the duty to pursue. They could also fight or carry weapons, when their master let them. Fehr believes they used weapons for this. Fehr sees the textbook example of a criminal as a knight with a castle. The pursuers could be required to besiege the castle and raze it, all at their own cost. However, only for three days. I guess in the age of wooden castles, this might have been possible. One could also feud without weapons (arson was a normal feuding tactic).

Charlemagne put limits on carrying weapons, in 805 (Capitulare Missorum) he forbid the carrying of shield, spear and mail in the homeland (which Fehr says means the whole kingdom) Fehr says this was meant to limit the feuds. In which case, it was a preview of the landfriedens. Coming armed to court was also not allowed. The text says that spear and shield were forbidden, and Fehr says the bows and swords were allowed.

Fehr mentions the term cingulum militare, its meaning apparently was or still is controversial. Fehr uses a lot of Latin to defend his position, which is that it means the right to carry weapons, and it could be lost for certain crimes. Knights and Counts had this, but what exactly it means is unclear to me. Is it an exception to the ban against carrying weapons in peace time?

Fehr also sees the law in the HRR as relative uniform till the 13th century. Even afterwards, there were some norms that the local law followed.

The first Friedens were Gottesfriedens in the late 11th century. They didn’t have weapon bans, only the later ones protected peasants. Travellers and merchants were also protected. First in Reichslandfrieden from 1152 were peasants forbidden from carrying sword and spear (Si quis rusticus arma vel lanceam portaverit vel gladium, iudex, in cuius potestate repertus fuerit, vel arma tollat vel viginti solidos per ipsis a rustico accipia). In the Rheinfrankenfrieden 1179, however, the peasant could carry a sword when outside the village, although at the same time he was requiered to own a sword. *in domibus autem quelibet arma habeant, ut, si judex ad emendationem violate pacis eorum auxiliis indiguerit, cum armis parati inveniantur.) The same Frieden limited the amount of swordsmen a defendant could bring to court to 29.

The Sachsenspiegel forbid women, priests, clerics, and Jews from carrying weapons and explains why. They are under the King’s peace. The Schwabenspiegel has the same list, but adds merchants and "weisen"(probably a type of educated person) to it. The reasoning is however reversed. They are under the protection of the King, because they can’t carry weapons. Fehr´s opinion is that is one of these person was killed unarmed, their murder would face the death penalty. Were they killed while armed, then punishment would be the normal punishment for killing someone. The Sachsenspiegel also bans more than 30 sword carrying men in a court. Fehr implies that there are other laws in the Sachsenspiegel that apply to bughers and knights. Something else to research.

Two common patterns in European history are "the people in charge of wars want to make politically reliable people buy as many arms as possible and train with them" (then we don't have to pay for them!) and "the people in charge of keeping order from day to day get worried about young, drunk, and/or foreign people walking around armed to the teeth" (young drunk people do stupid things with weapons!) Medieval central Europe was usually less centralized and orderly than medieval England or classical Athens or Republican Rome so I'm not sure how these competing forces worked out in practice.

I agree that its confusing that many people on the Internet say that the sword-sized Messer were meant to evade laws about carrying swords, but medieval sources seem to contradict this. J.G. Elmslie might know where that idea comes from.

In Ghent, it was illegal to carry a sword, the only exception was the travelling merchant. However, he had to carry it over his saddle. The source isn’t clear about the date of the law, but does connect it to the Landsfrieden and mentions 1256.
Kaufmannsgilden des Mittelalters Doren 2022

Ulm is an interesting case. At first, there was a general ban on carrying sword and knife (Messer). This was apparently based on a similar ban in the Landsfrieden. In the 13th century, there was an exception for the Reichsvogt (an official appointed by the Emperor). The law in the 15th century allowed at first only the Councilmen and solder employed by the city to carry a sword or langes Messer. Later in the same century, judges, councillors, servants (Knechte), the Bürgermeister, several other city officials, nobles who worked for the city and their servants, servants of princes, and Fraunenwirt (pimps?). Bale binders were also allowed to carry a knife, but only while working. This suggests, that they really did try to ban all knifes. In 1513, they switched to regulating swords and langes Messer according to length. Which length this is, they don’t say. Just the measure that is on the town hall. This could be a cubit or a span. Measurements varied a lot from city to city. Outsiders weren’t allowed to carry langes Messers. In 1514, the son of the Bürgermeister was not allowed to carry a knife, because he was in the service of the Bishop of Eichstädt. Peasants that belonged to a patrician of the city were allowed to carry langes Messer, but warned to behave, otherwise they would be punished double.

In the same book, it explains that langes Messer came from Italy and Hungary, but that there were also knife smiths in Regensburg. Apparently, in Regensburg, carrying a knife was also forbidden, until later when they also adopted a measurement based rule. He also says that clerics liked to carry such langes Messer.

Ulms Verfassungs-, bürgerliches und commercielles Leben im Mittelalter Carl Jäger 1831

I should note, that wear and carry are the same word in German. It most cases, the swords, or knives are going to be sheathed.

Interesting stuff, Ryan.

Quote:

In Ghent, it was illegal to carry a sword, the only exception was the travelling merchant. However, he had to carry it over his saddle. The source isn’t clear about the date of the law, but does connect it to the Landsfrieden and mentions 1256. Kaufmannsgilden des Mittelalters Doren 2022

This suggests to me that there may be different rules for about town and travelling in the countryside. Are you picking this up in any sources?

Another point from English practice, that is indirectly linked by Sean in the London murder records, is that legal records can tell us a lot about weapon carrying as opposed to owning. English inquests had to identify the weapon used in detail in order to value it. Are you aware of any similar evidence in continental records?

Aside from encyclopedias of the middle ages, try Norbert Ohler's Reisen im Mittelalter and Trevor Dean's Crime in Medieval Europe, 1200-1550. German academic encyclopedias like this one are sometimes called Lexika.

The Austrian Weisthümer are interesting because they have systemic fine for using different weapons. Presumably if you killed someone, it was murder or manslaughter, but attacking someone with a weapon was a crime, even if you didn’t hit them. Throwing a Hacke (means either a hoe or an ax) at someone would cost 2 Pfund 6 Schilling. Whereas, shooting with a crossbow would cost you 16 Pfund, half the cost of manslaughter. Attack with a spear, and that is 6 Schilling 2 Pfennig. A Gassenschwert (Possibly a Zweihänder?) would cost the same and with a Reiterschwert (rider’s sword) only 72 Pfennig and a dagger even cheaper at 12 Pfennig. A lange Messer costs 6 Schilling 2 Pfennig, a short Messer 72 Pfennig. The penalty of attacking with a pocketknife costs the same as a dagger.

Additionally, there was the concept of Messerzucken. The word probably comes from Messenziehen drawing your knife, but applies to other weapons, and means threatening someone or somehow acting dangerous. In the Austrian Weisthümer, the fine was 72 Pfennig for Messerzucken. In some Weisthümer the fine for Messerzucken was 50 Pfennig if it stayed in the sheath and 100 Pfennig if it came out.

These fines don’t make any sense to me.

Blutrache und Todtschlagsühne im deutschen Mittelalter Frauenstädt 1881

One point about laws, however, is that they can only tell you so much. One element that Ann Tlusty discussed in her book is that flaunting the law could be a display of honor. If you drew your weapon, then you would be fined of course, but the ability to afford to do so was a display of privilege.

We also can't take it on faith that just because there were laws that those laws were obeyed, or that they were enforced, or enforced fairly.

Looking at court cases, as has been mentioned, can be very insightful about actual practice. For the London coroners' inquests of the 14th century, for example, there are several items of note. One is that, at least in terms of homicides, weapons were rarely used in the capacity of self defense. The vast majority of the homicides are straight up murder. In quite a few of the inquests, two men are arguing, then one of them draws a knife and strikes the other guy, fatally wounding him. If the murdered guy was armed (and quite often it seems he may not have been), a second weapon rarely comes into play.

Knives of various sorts are by far the most common weapon with hafted weapons coming up a distant second place. Swords are quite rare, so even if the law technically required most men to "own" swords, it seems they weren't carried often, or at least were not the preferred weapon to use if carried. Random objects are also used somewhat frequently, which at least to me implies the absence of other weapons.

Of course, the coroner's inquests only tell us about instances of death, so how often weapons were carried or used in instances of non-lethal encounters is something I have not yet looked into.

David Kite
ARMA in IN

For a more rural set of inquest accounts, this set of abstracts from Northamptonshire may be of interest.

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/inquests/intro.shtml (click on Index). An example below, from 29 Ed I (1300-1301)

Quote:

William died from a wound made with a pole-axe (pollach) that penetrated to the brain. A quarrel arose in Thrapston between Richard son of Henry of Aldwinckle and Richard son of John of Molesworth. Richard of Aldwinckle struck Richard of Molesworth with a staff and beat him. William, rector of Achurch, was present and struck William of Swinford on the head causing death after six days. John the rector of All Saints Aldwincke was also present and and struck William de Swyneford on the head with a pole-axe and then withdrew to his church. William the rector of Aldwinckle had fled. The pole-axe was worth 6 pence.

This is a full set of inquests, so not all are murder related (there are an alarming number of drownings and people dying of cold and neglect in the fields), but there are significant numbers of killings. It would need a little effort to work out frequencies, but swords, hatchets, staves and pollaxes are common. Also popular are kinples or kniples, which may be a type of cudgel or bludgeon, though they seem to cause penetrating wounds. In some cases an inventory of chattels, including weapons, is included.

Also of use to the weaponry student are the values of the weapons. There is quite a variation between weapons of the same type.