We have already met the Saxon peasantry as they attempted to rid themselves of feudal overlordship, but this was hardly the only instance they gave their rulers trouble. In 841, as the Empire founded by Charlemagne was facing the prospect of yet another war of succession, the nobles of recently conquered Saxony called on their subjects to fight for their respective pretender and found them reluctant to do so. We do not have much in the way of sources, but there must have been a point when the armed and organised farmers realised that they outnumbered the nobles and their warrior retainers. Instead of killing each other in the name of Lothar or Louis, they decided to be rid of the lot.
This should probably not have come as the shock it evidently did. Saxony had only been conquered and added to the Empire a bare fifty years ago after a brutal series of wars, the first recorded application of the novel doctrine that people could forced to become Christian. Pagan religious practice, refusing Baptism, and even eating meat during Lent were made punishable by death and the assemblies in which the people had discussed their affairs and made collective decisions banned as abominations. Taxes to support the new church structure, including provisions of slaves from the local population, and the installation of often foreign nobles to rule them had not made for a contented populace.
We do not know very much about how the Saxons governed themselves, but the sources we have suggest three key points: They had no such thing as a central authority, their system of government was participatory, and outside observers could not wrap their head around how it actually worked. People, including simple farmers, met to discuss issues and make decisions jointly. This was not an egalitarian society – there were noble families of greatly privileged status, unfree labourers, and chattel slavery. It probably resembled Scandinavian society more than the kingdoms to the south and west. Its people proved fiercely attached to these traditions, though, and the events of 840, however unclear they are in our sources, left the ruling class shaken badly. Indignant chroniclers wrote about it more that about the coronation of Charlemagne.
Saxony was sparsely populated, a country without large cities whose people lived in villages and farmsteads. Wealth was measured in heads of cattle, with some herds reaching remarkable size, though most people were subsistence farmers, relying on grain crops and legumes to0 feed themselves. This was often seen as a primitive society, a survival of pre-Roman Germania, but that seems unlikely. There is evidence of maritime trade and innovation in agriculture, not least the earliest butter churns we know of. Around this time, we also have archeological evidence for carp, a fish that does not occur naturally in the local river systems, and for salting herring which would later become a major industry.
The Saxons clearly enjoyed the bounty of their forests and fisheries. Shells and fishbones show up in excavations, and in the slightly later (probably 10th-century) poem Waltharius, it is said of the eponymous hero:
…Artfully, he lured birds, artfully captured them, sometimes with glue and at times with split wood, and when he came to a place where a river ran, lowering his hook, he drew his prey from the deep… (line 420-424)
Waltharius pays a ferryman for passage with fish who in turn presents them to the king’s cook. They are prepared with spices (pigmentis condisset), the impressed king enquires as to their origin, and suitable heroic events ensue. Fish clearly were a food fit for kings, and in the Frankish realm we already have evidence for fishing rights being restricted at this point, but in Saxony, they were still free for everyone to catch.
We know of other foods – aside from beans – that Saxony produced. Dairy products, both butter and cheese, were prominent, surviving price decrees indicate honey was more plentiful than in the south, and bread was made of rye as well as wheat and barley. Some farmhouses were equipped with racks that seem designed to hang up round flat loaves very similar to knäckebröd. With the required flour made in handmills relying on tedious manual labour, it is likely bread was not a staple for most people. They relied more on porridges for their everyday fare – the lardatam de multra farreque pultam (porridge with bacon) of Waltharius (line 1441). Leavened bread loaves, especially the most expensive wheat bread, were feast day fare. Meat could be provided by pigs, sheep, and goats, but above all by the prized cattle. This was likely rare though, perhaps, as is often the case, connected to religious occasions, which would provide yet another reason for most Saxons to resent their Frankish overlords. Imagine the church banning the one event where you could have steaks!
When the Saxons got together to assert their rights and refuse to go to war against each other, they were looking back at a time still remembered when such impositions had been unthinkable. We do not know who started the movement or who its leaders were, but the chroniclers record the name the rebels gave themselves: Stellinga. The word may actually come from Frisian rather than Saxon, but its meaning is fairly clear. It refers to people of the same place, a shared identity and purpose. Stellinga meant neighbour, fellow, comrade.
If we want to reconstruct what the meals at a Stellinga gathering might have looked like, we have to think of a festive occasion. Pagan religious festivals all over ancient Europe tended to involve animal sacrifice with the fresh meat eaten jointly by all participants, and many traditional holidays here still look remarkably like that. So even if the rebels were not pagan, having an open-air barbecue would have fit their style. Even smaller circles, preserved meat or smoked fish were valued and shared to honour guests. Fresh bread, curd cheese, maybe with herbs or garlic, butter, rich porridge, and quite possibly fruit and vegetables make an attractive spread to go with them. The fact that most people rarely ate that way must have heightened the appreciation. Community was worth celebrating.
The war that caused the Stellinga to rise also led to their downfall. We read that Lothar, desperate for support in his bid for power, approached the rebels and promised them to honour their ancient rights, even permit a return to paganism, if they took care of the allies of his opponent Louis. Since he lost, we should probably take the promise of paganism with a grain of salt, but it is not entirely improbable. Slavic peoples in the region were pagan and nobody had a problem with them as allies or subjects. Either way, it is much more likely the Stellinga wanted a say in their fate, a share in the bounty of the commons, and respect for their way of life much more than they wanted to worship Uoden, Thunaer, and Saxnot.
The Saxon rebels handily defeated the noble supporters of Louis, not least because they outnumbered them hugely. After all, people like Warin I, abbot of Corvey, had not expected their levy to turn on them. For a while, the rebels controlled much of the country and probably killed quite a few nobles and clergy. We should doubt whether the picture of wholesale slaughter and destruction the Frankish sources paint is accurate, though.
The problem, as so often happens in history, was that the rebels had trusted the word of a king. Lothar was defeated in the battle of Fontenoy and forced to make peace. Being reduced to ruler of a diminished kingdom (named after him as Lotharingia, the origin of modern Lorraine) may have felt painful to him, but this golden parachute hardly seems a terrible fate, especially compared to the brutal repression Louis visited on the Saxons. Again, chroniclers exaggerate, but we should not entirely dismiss their figures. The records say that 154 leaders were executed and many more captives castrated as the new king reinstated Frankish law and the preeminence of the nobility. His greatest asset in this was that farmers, no matter how many of them there are, need to work to live while soldiers can rely on pay. Thus he could concentrate forces to overcome them piecemeal, spreading terror as he passed. At the same time, this never produced lasting control, and Saxony, while defeated, was neither quiet nor safe.