The first task in digesting the substantial corpus of Hispanic medieval municipal law is the identification of the related groups of charters, called families, that were granted to the towns in Aragon, Castile, Leon, and Portugal. My own methodology for establishing the groups consists in comparing the military law, finding the identical or nearly identical components of the laws granted to particular towns, and grouping municipal charters with such similar laws into families. This approach is well established in Castilian and Leonese studies, but less so in Portugal. Since the Luso-Hispanic kingdoms possessed families of town charters that clearly influenced one another's formation across the political frontier, identifying and sorting the military legal content of the charters and the geographical location of the towns receiving them has constituted my basic method for establishing the relationships discussed in this book. Some of these families group charters that are so closely related in content that many sections are virtually identical in the laws received by the towns, and in these instances the term formulary is appropriate. Especially important in the regard are the formularies discussed in this appendix: those of Cuenca-Teruel, Coria Cima-Coa, and Toledo. Scholars have long been interested in these families and their interrelationship, and my examination of the military law leads me to discuss the familial groupings of the charters and the legal interplay among them. This is provided as a background to the institutional and military evolution of the towns in the text of my study.

Understanding the military system which operated in the towns of Iberia of the Central Middle Ages requires an awareness of the municipal charters which contain our basic information and the legal background in which they were created. It is not appropriate to undertake an extensive discussion in the narrative and organizational chapters of the text, since this material necessarily distracts one from the content of the laws. Nonetheless, the legal evolution has a role to play in providing a context for these laws, particularly with regard to the interconnections of the law among the groups of charters. The royal clerks who [220] were the redactors of the charters often borrowed single laws and even entire charters from earlier municipal collections. The result was the creation of several models of municipal charters which spread through the various towns of a region, each model with individual imitations highly similar if not identical to other charters in that group. Such models with their replicas are usually referred to as formularies or families.

Urban legal evolution between 1158 to 1190 has long been overshadowed by two monumental municipal charters which appear at the end of this span: the fueros of Cuenca and Teruel, given by Alfonso VIII of Castile and Alfonso II of Aragon, respectively. Municipal and legal historians have long sought the origins and purpose of the law contained in these codes, but the great complexity of the variables which contributed to their formation has defied easy generalization. Following the evolution of this law and the military obligations it stipulated is far more difficult than is the case in Portugal. The survival rate of municipal fueros is far poorer, especially in twelfth-century Castile, and does not present us with the tight familial patterns as can be seen with Numão-Trancoso, Évora and Santarém. Recent efforts have been extended to assemble a related group of charters for Central Castile focused around Toledo. Yet more complex is the investigation of the evolution of law in Eastern Castile, complicated as it is by Muslim-Christian conflict, Aragonese-Castilian and Navarrese competition, and the territorial traditions native to the Iberian Cordillera.⁽¹⁾ The pursuit of regional law is yet further complicated by the occasional migration of laws and even entire codes from one part of a kingdom to another. Regrettably, the extensive military law contained in Cuenca and Teruel is not prefigured by any clear predecessor in either central Castile or in the eastern Cordillera, or at least none which has survived. Moreover, since the Spanish historians who have studied the subject have tended to presume that the origins of this law were Castilian, Aragonese and Navarrese contributions to the process have tended to be undervalued. In fact, each of these regions has produced fueros whose accumulation of military precedents bears examining in the thirty years before Cuenca-Teruel. From the Castilian side, the most recent case has been argued by García-Gallo, who bases his case on charters similar to those granted to Toledo from the early twelfth century onward. In fact, each of these regions produced fueros whose accumulation of military precedents in the thirty years before Cuenca-Teruel bears examining.

Of the charters assigned to the latter half of the century, the most interesting are the reconfirmation of the fueros of Toledo by Alfonso VIII (c. 1166) and the portions of the Fuero of Escalona which García-Gallo dates in the later twelfth [221] century. At Toledo a once-a-year service requirement is reiterated from earlier Toledan tradition, and a new fine often ten solidos established for failing to serve (a fee repeated in the later additions to Escalona). Rules governing the inheritance of arms received from the king and the rights of mothers to be free of military payment until their sons mature reappear here (after their prior use in the 1130 version of Escalona's charter). There is a Toledo law regarding the rights of widows to retain the legal status (particularly the tax exemptions) of their deceased caballero husbands. This may be new to central Castile, but had already appeared by mid-century in Portugal. The older Escalona residence requirement also reappears in this Toledo charter, specifying the portion of the year that a caballero or his mounted substitute must inhabit a house in the town, but this was not a new precedent. The only new law in the 1166 Toledo fuero confirmation regarding military matters is that which prohibits the taking of arms or saddle horses into Muslim country, presumably for sale. To this the late twelfth-century Escalona additions add a simplified procedure for prisoner trading, analogs of which have already appeared in Aragon, and a law giving those who practice archery the status of caballeros, a principle already well established in Portugal.⁽²⁾ Indeed, similar law appears in the 1137 version of the charter of Guadalajara, which may explain the flow of this material into Portugal via Salamanca and Ávila. Doubtless these scattered points of military law find their way into the Cuenca-Teruel material, at least in principle. However, similar concepts are also appearing elsewhere, and the elaboration of these ideas in Cuenca-Teruel is so extended and detailed that the law of the Toledan region seems to offer little in the way of certainty as to the sources of the Cuencan tradition.

What of the regional law of the Cordillera, itself, as a source for the military legal materials contained in the charters of Cuenca and Teruel? Since the Iberian Cordillera as a region of legal creativity touches the southern frontier of Navarre, the eastern frontier of Castile and the western frontier of Aragon, all three of these emerging political entities require examination. Moreover, some municipalities and their surrounding territories found themselves at times part of a quasi-independent señorío, at other times conjoined with one or another of these kingdoms in a political situation which remained fluid throughout the twelfth century. From the Castilian side of the Cordillera, the charter which seems to be a harbinger of the law of Cuenca-Teruel is the fuero of Uclés, granted by the Master of the Order of Santiago and subsequently confirmed by Alfonso VIII in 1179. Its laws regarding indemnification of horses lost in combat and its one-third levy of the militibus (knights) for fonsato are reminiscent of precedents established at Aragonese Calatayud, Castilian Guadalajara and Portuguese Numão in the 1130's and Évora in 1166. At the least it gives one pause regarding the role of the military orders in the spreading of regional municipal law. But there is also a rather complicated, if brief, discussion of the distribution of booty among mounted and unmounted residents on guard duty and of the taxes which must be paid from this booty to the authorities that strongly suggests the almost obsessive concern for spoils division which permeates Cuenca-Teruel. Certainly it indicates a tradition of victorious raiding without which there would be no need to be concerned about spoils. This is further reinforced by the reward paid by the king for a captured leader (alcalde) from the Muslim side, a tradition that goes back to Daroca and Molina in Aragon and possibly to Guadalajara in [222] Castile. The Fuero de Zorita de los Canes of 1180 is likewise often singled out as significant, because that town subsequently receives a version of the Cuenca charter, but there is little in the military law of this early charter which is either new or which presages Cuenca in content.⁽³⁾

In the non-Castilian lands of the Cordillera, there are two Aragonese fueros which are significant, the charters of Alfambra (1174-76) and of Medinaceli (probably given in the form we now possess in the 1180's). The latter's indemnity laws for lost horses could have their roots in Alfonso I's Calatayud charter (Medinaceli was once thought to have received its fuero in the later reign of Alfonso el Batallador), but the law which frees a caballero from testifying in a legal hearing while out on a raiding cabalgada is new. Alfambra is much richer, and here again the Master of a military order (the Templars) is involved as grantor. There is new emphasis on the possession of the proper equipment for combat and a minimum value required for the horse which brings caballero status and tax exemption, as well as a list of compensatory payment for the loss of that equipment which strongly suggests the near approach (if not the actual existence) of the fuero of Teruel. The Templars maintain a strong position in the military life of Alfambra, especially since the fifth of booty tax normally assigned to the king goes to them instead. Moreover, the Alfambrans were required to perform two military exercises with the Templars each year, although the municipal forces were permitted to join a royal campaign over and above that requirement.⁽⁴⁾

The loss of contact with a Muslim frontier earlier in the century did not end the military development of the Navarrese municipal charters. Of these, the most important for our understanding is the Fuero de Estella which was granted by King Sancho VI the Learned in 1166. Estella's situation hard up against the Riojan frontier of Castile and its three-day limitation for military service meant that the cause for concern was the Christian and not the Muslim threat. Much of its military law was drawn from earlier Aragonese and Navarrese precedents (three-day limit on service with food provided by the participants, the sending of an armed peón substitute, exemption of widows from military taxes), but there was significant new material. A resident captured either by the Muslims or by "bad" Christians was given an extension on the payment of his debts. Moreover, the charter contained the longest exemption list from military service yet specified in the peninsular charters, which included the illness of the resident, his absence from Estella during the period of service, his right to remain at home if his wife is in childbirth or his parents are near death, and his failure to hear the call to service. A stiff sixty-solidos fine was levied for non-appearance for any other reason.⁽⁵⁾ Since exemption was a major area of detailed concern in the Cuenca-Teruel charters, Estella's fuero seems also to be in the mainstream of the contributing sources.

Another curious development arose in the fuero granted to Laguardia in 1164 regarding the renting of horses (and other animals) by one resident from another for the purpose of combat service, including a differing rate for day as against night use. This law, which was subsequently included in the fueros of Bernedo (1182) and Antoñana (1182), was granted at Laguardia two years before a similar law appears in the Évora-Ávila family initiated in Portugal in [223] 1166 on the other side of the Peninsula.⁽⁶⁾ While this second law does not prefigure a Cuencan or Teruelan example, it was one more remarkable instance of rapid contemporary movement of law or the astounding coincidence that punctuated the history of Iberian charters.

Beyond these longer charters in Castile, Aragon, and Navarre, the surviving military references were scattered, brief and offer nothing that is new in the way of precedents for the future.⁽⁷⁾ The great body of military material that appeared in the nearly simultaneous fueros of Cuenca and Teruel toward the end of the twelfth century thus offered tantalizingly few indications of its origins. Notwithstanding, investigators seeking to advance theories regarding the matter have not been wanting, including myself. Having surveyed the arguments elsewhere, there seems little need to review the primary theories here (see note 1). What can be said is that after a generation of scholars worked to establish the arguments for a Castilian case (that is, for the prior awarding of Cuenca, copied by the redactors of Teruel) or an Aragonese case (that is, for the prior awarding of Teruel, copied by the redactors of Cuenca), my own investigation along with the work of García Ulecia and Martínez Gijón has broadened the base of the argument. While these latter two scholars have compared a considerable variety of laws to better situate the fueros of Cuenca and Teruel in their proper place in the evolution of municipal institutions, my own interests have intensified my comparisons within the frame of laws pertaining to the factors which tend to militarize the lives of townsmen. In this regard, both Cuenca and Teruel represent enormous reservoirs which gather the springs and streams of the Iberian Cordilleran legal traditions and elaborate these along with formerly unwritten traditions of Castile, Navarre and Upper Aragon into full-scale municipal codes.⁽⁸⁾

The fueros of Daroca, Molina, Uclés, Alfambra and Estella seem especially important in pointing the way for the culmination of municipal military law at Cuenca and Teruel, charters too similar in content to be effectively separated. Their tradition was a common one, and Alfonso VIII of Castile and Alfonso II of Aragon simply framed a mixture of regional common law and their own frontier policies into municipal codes, both of which were in place by 1196. Whereas before only individual laws regarding military life survived, Cuenca and Teruel offered large paragraphs of elaboration and specification which deal with both offensive and defensive expeditions, security during the absence of the militia, the organization of leadership on campaign, rules of conduct in the field, and most particularly, the use of campaign booty to replace losses and to reward the victorious. No extant European documents in the Central Middle Ages better clarify the general outlines of military life for town residents. The pressures exerted by the Almohad offensive from 1150 to 1173 led the Castilian monarchy to attempt the replication of the capable military establishments of Ávila and Segovia along its southern frontiers, stabilizing their situation by establishing a military obligation as a part of the population agreement. These extended statements of the nature of military activity appear as the products of a legally creative people who had undergone a century of active frontier expansion and combat and sought to forge the fundamentals of that experience into law. Moreover, the Islamic terminology for some of the command officials and the battle tactics suggest that Christian tradition was by no means the exclusive source of the final synthesis. Here again, the sense of a common law drawing on the conservative traditions of the Cordillera seems compelling as an explanation of the source. The Castilian monarchy may have influenced the ordering and the insertion of some key points, but it certainly was insufficiently strong to create and enforce any kind of law it wished anywhere in its territories. Even the very strong contemporary English monarchy would not have been easily capable of that.

Political and economic geography offers the most solid explanation determination for the origins of municipal law. The case for geographic determinism of the sources of the law is strengthen by the situation of Alfonso II (Alfons I) in his Crown of Aragon, by this time a federated combination of the Kingdom of Aragon and the County of Barcelona, to which the County of Provence was added in 1176. For his upland Aragonese realm long attached to the elaborating legal traditions of the Cordillera, the Fuero of Teruel with its rich cattle law and its booty-hungry militia provisions was as natural to Alfonso II's needs and municipal capabilities as Cuenca's charter was for the Cordilleran realms of Alfonso VIII in Castile. But as Count of Barcelona and of Provence, there was no hope that this law, even in its military provisions, could have been applied to those Mediterranean coastal territories with their very different histories, economies and traditions. The coexistence of a frontier experience and a military threat operated in the Catalan lands, but the frontier progress lacked the accelerated pace which characterized Castile and Aragon in the later eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Indeed, what movement there was had been sharply influenced by Aragonese frontier expansion to the east. The Catalan thrust past Tarragona and the drive through New Catalonia to the Ebro River and beyond came after the Aragonese advance upriver was threatening the western flank of Catalonia at Fraga and Lerida. Count Ramon Berenguer IV proved active in countering this threat, and in the later part of his reign and that of his son Alfonso II the Ebro was absorbed and further southern penetrations established.

in the view of Font Ríus, this mid-twelfth century expansion slowly moved Catalonia from its conservative aristocratic and feudal base, but the military law of the foros and cartas pueblas granted by Count Ramon and Alfonso II did not compare in its frequency or detail with that of Castile-Aragon. While a small minority of the town charters in the last half of the twelfth century mentioned any type of military obligation in Catalonia, there seemed a moderate increase in such requirements in the reigns of Alfonso II and his brother Pedro II (Pere I).⁽⁹⁾ The acquisition of Provence brought yet more highly urbanized territories into closer link with the municipal centers of Catalonia, but here again the older traditions of aristocratic service only moderately enhanced by an input from towns was the rule. The norms for Old Catalonia and Provence were largely guided by the Carolingian requirements of hoste and cavalcata, and the charters tell us little of the specifics regarding how this force was to be mustered, organized or utilized, to say nothing of its potential range of operation and whether townsmen had a meaningful role to play in the military policies of the powerful counts of Southern France.⁽¹⁰⁾ In all cases it seems clear that Alfonso II, whatever the status of his ruling power in each area, could in no way impose a uniformity of law by royal decree. By the same token, therefore, there could have been no uniformity of urban military contribution.

As ruler of the Kingdom of Aragon, that portion of the federated Crown of Aragon which expanded from the Pyrenees and the upper Ebro Valley into eastern Castile and the Iberian Cordillera, Jaime was heir to a municipal military tradition similar to that of Castile. This tradition was, in its own way, as complex as that which developed in the Castilian Meseta and likewise was rooted in the eleventh century. The culmination of this tradition and its military laws ripened into the Cuenca-Teruel [225] fueros already noted in the discussion of Castilian law. But unlike Cuenca with its large family of copied descendants spreading into New Castile, La Mancha and Upper Andalusia, Teruel's extended fuero found its way to only one other town in upland Aragon, where it was awarded to Albarracín around the time of its conquest in 1220.⁽¹¹⁾

This sharp contrast to the extensive spread of the highly similar fuero of Cuenca generated by the same regional traditions as the charter of Teruel poses questions concerning the differences between Castile and the Crown of Aragon affecting the manner in which Alfonso and Jaime would attempt to utilize such forces. In all probability, the towns of eastern Castile which received the Cuencan charter indicated the directions in which frontier resettlement moved from the Cordillera, dominated by the very great importance of livestock migration and grazing areas. On the other hand, Teruel, conquered in 1171, was for a long period a salient in Muslim lands, and nearby Albarracín could not be permanently taken until 1220. Moreover, the Catalan and Valencian coastal plain which lay below its piedmont settlements were not ripe for the expansion of the livestock herding which had loomed so large in Cordilleran law.⁽¹²⁾ A more diversified and richer Mediterranean economy would have no need for the shepherd economy which dominated the Meseta. Hence, a system of law based on the traditions of that economy would not be likely to penetrate the coastal plain.

The second important source of municipal traditions to which Jaime was heir was that which had developed in that eastern coastal plain, expanding out of the old County of Barcelona to the Segre River on the western frontier while spreading to the lower valley of the Ebro River in the mid-twelfth century. Through the dynastic marriage of the Aragonese monarchy to the Counts of Barcelona, Jaime represented the thirteenth-century descent of the common line of the two states, which were diverse in many ways from each other. The economic differences were only a part of the story. Whereas there was much evidence for the growth of a municipal military tradition in the Iberian Cordillera and the upper Ebro Valley, east and south of the Segre River the Counts of Barcelona customarily relied upon a more typically feudal military establishment which was slow to draw upon towns as a military resource. For example, of the 236 cartas pueblas included in the large collection of Font Ríus for Catalonia prior to Jaime's reign, only fifteen cite a specific military requirement. While there is some evidence that larger towns and cities such as Barcelona, Gerona, Lérida and Tortosa could render some kind of militia, we have little in the way of legal records and charters to indicate how they assembled their forces and the rules by which they operated. The Catalan towns served their sovereign as members of a county, a relationship which draws from the Mediterranean coastal tradition of Catalan-Southern French civilization, a unit which by its nature did not generate the type of fuero common to the uplands. The large musters of the Catalan municipal militias indicate that these towns nonetheless rendered service throughout the thirteenth century. Over a century after Jaime's death, the Onomástica Barcelonesa of 1389 indicates that a complete military muster for the districts of Barcelona exists to defend the walls, but little to indicate how this system survives from the thirteenth century.⁽¹³⁾

The regional differences are rather less striking within the Leonese territories than is the case with the Crown of Aragon. There is even an argument to be [226] made for the movement of some elements of Castilian Cordilleran procedures to the neighboring Leonese frontier in the wake of the fueros of Cuenca-Teruel. That possibility is tied to the emergence of a family of a large-scale charters which develop on the frontier of Leon and Portugal after 1190. Indeed, one would seem to have the symmetrical opposite of the Cuenca-Teruel family developing on the Leonese-Portuguese frontier, with four Portuguese and three Leonese variants surviving for present analysis. One who studies these fueros and forais soon discerns, however, that the military law contained therein does not represent the balance of Portuguese and Leonese contributions across the political frontier that we can observe in Cuenca-Teruel. Rather, the law is almost exclusively Leonese, and all of the surviving examples were originally granted by Leonese-Castilian monarchs during the thirteenth century. Although four of the places receiving these charters have been absorbed into Portugal after that time, but there is little evidence that they influenced the subsequent law of Portugal or that prior Portuguese law influenced the content of the foral family. Martínez Díez has recently worked out a relationship among the surviving charters and entitles the group the Coria Cima-Coa family. The Latin original granted to Ciudad Rodrigo after 1190 does not survive, but a copy made from it for Alfaiates exists and a copy made for Castelo Rodrigo after 1230 survives in two direct descendants from the thirteenth century at Castelo Rodrigo and Castelo Melhor, although these last two offer their own reordering of the military laws. By 1227 the town of Coria had been awarded a Latin version of this charter, leading to subsequent versions at Castêlo Bom, Cáceres and Usagre, and a late surviving vernacular version of Coria.⁽¹⁴⁾

The original was almost certainly granted to Ciudad Rodrigo by Alfonso IX of Leon with the extensive model of Cuenca-Teruel in mind, and designed to summarize territorial law in the same manner. Certainly much of the military law bears a surface similarity to that of Cuenca-Teruel, although lacking much of the detail of campaign management and booty auctioneering. The Coria Cima-Coa group does indicate an intensification of the emphasis first signaled by Benavente (1164-83) on the securing of exemptions from military service by the possession of a municipal office or the provision of equipment, an emphasis not found in Cuenca-Teruel. Yet the new model exerted little influence on the charters of other Leonese towns through 1217, and no impact at all on the military law of Portugal, which still possessed its most extensive statements in the spreading of the well-established families of Trancoso, Évora and Santarém.⁽¹⁵⁾

It seems that the military pressures were generating many of the practices and precedents which led to grand summations of regional municipal law--of which Cuenca-Teruel and Coria Cima-Coa were the most lengthy--and which were re-granted in nearly identical form to other towns during the course of the thirteenth century. This places Alfonso IX of Leon on a level with his cousin Alfonso VIII of Castile and Alfonso II of Aragon in their mutual effort to meet that need. At the same time these extensive compilations tremendously expand our available information regarding military service for the period. The mere absence of similar compilations before the thirteenth century may give a false impression that military development was slower in Catalonia and Portugal. In [227] fact, even in Castile the reigns of Alfonso VIII and his son Enrique (1214-17) provided little new law in the fueros they issue regarding the elaboration of militia service outside of the spread of Cuenca's formulary.⁽¹⁶⁾

Fernando III established a clear interest in continuing royal expectations of service both on the advancing frontier in La Mancha and Andalusia as well as the comparatively secure rear areas of Old Castile and the Cantabrians. Prior to 1230, Frías and San Emeterio in the far north, Palenzuela (near Burgos) and Arévalo in the Trans-Duero all received charters from Fernando III stressing the obligation to render military service with the king. In 1222, Ávila and Peñafiel in the Trans-Duero and Uceda and Madrid in the upper Tajo Valley accepted a requirement for royal military service once a year outside Castile and without limit within the kingdom.⁽¹⁷⁾ In 1223, Alcalá de Henares, Brihuega, San Justo and Talamanca had their military service requirement specified at two to three months to assure their campaign availability over time. Tax exemptions for the possession of a horse and proper arms and the residence for a sufficient portion of the year in the town were available at Guadalajara, Palenzuela, Talamanca and Uclés, while Alcalá de Henares received a long charter from the Archbishop Jiménez de Rada in which offensive and defensive service were required.⁽¹⁸⁾ Given the possibilities opening up in Andalusia, Fernando was probably concerned about an adequate body of available in the more northerly sections of his kingdom, fearing that he might overwork the militias closer to the frontier. Moreover, there existed potential threats from his Christian neighbors in military musters those rear areas, and at least as late as 1222 Fernando granted strategic lands to Archbishop Jiménez de Rada in order to better organize the defenses of Toledo. Even then the king remained concerned for the danger of a Muslim assault in the central Tajo Valley.⁽¹⁹⁾ Even after 1230 when Fernando possessed both Leon and Castile and the Muslim frontier was collapsing in Andalusia, military service was required in towns as far north as Nora a Nora (in Asturias), Túy (in Galicia) and Castrojeriz (near Burgos).⁽²⁰⁾ Such were the memories of past insecurities on the Meseta plain and the awareness of the Muslim potential for resurgence.

But the most interesting municipal institutional activity took place closer to the frontier. Fernando had the three basic formularies for municipal charters at his disposal for the selection of municipal frontier law, especially military law. The Coria Cima-Coa format, inherited from Leon after 1230, might have been utilized. However, save for regranting it to Cáceres after his father's death and for permitting the Order of Santiago to grant it to Usagre sometime after 1242, Fernando failed to utilize it thereafter in Leon-Castile. The Coria Cima-Coa family thus became extinct. The second family of fueros at his disposal was that of Cuenca, the most extensive body of medieval municipal law produced in Iberia prior to the mid-thirteenth century. During the course of Fernando's reign the Cuenca format was granted initially or renewed at a considerable number of towns.⁽²¹⁾ The geographic situation of these towns can largely be organized into three groups. One group extended along the Cordilleran frontier with Aragon (Haro, Moya, Zorita de los Canes, Huete, Alarcón and Alcaraz). Another was established in the La Mancha and Calatrava area north of the Sierra Morena (Consuegra, [228] Arenas, Herencia, Alcázar, Madridejos and Montiel). Finally, as pressure increased on Jaén and upper Andalusia was absorbed, a salient of Cuencan charters was granted in the upper Guadalquivir (Baeza, Iznatoraf, Segura, Andújar, Úbeda, Sabiote and Quesada). As was the case in Leon and Portugal, the Cuenca pattern was granted by military orders and bishops as well as by the king. If there is any effective explanation for the movement of this Cordilleran municipal law across the Meseta into La Mancha (and even Plasencia on the Leonese frontier), as well as its penetration into upper Andalusia, it probably lies with the great body of livestock and grazing laws in the pattern which tied the grazing zones of La Mancha and Upper Andalusia to the Cordilleran frontier towns which settled them after their conquest. The rather considerable number of freedoms granted and the sense of municipal independence connoted by the Cuenca-Teruel fueros posed problems for Fernando III, however, leading him to develop simultaneously his third charter pattern, the family of Toledo.

A number of his early grants appear to have strong ties to the twelfth-century Toledan pattern delineated by García-Gallo, especially those to Guadalajara, Palenzuela, Talamanca, Ávila, Uceda, Peñafiel and Madrid. The laws requiring knightly residence in the town with his horse and equipment along with a yearly obligation to serve and a ten-solido fee for failure to serve appear widely in central Castile, indicating that the Toledo format was still very much alive. The capture of Córdoba in 1236 provided the opportunity to amplify the size and content of the Toledan format. It was the largest town captured in the Reconquest since the taking of Toledo in 1085, and justified a reworking of the Toledo charter structure in order to give the new populace of settlers a proper fuero. Córdoba's new charter also marked an effort to provide a more effective and updated counterpoise to the more liberal and rapidly-spreading pattern of Cuenca-Teruel to the east and southeast. Thus, in 1241 a fuero was granted to Córdoba initially in a shorter Romance version of March 3 and subsequently in a more extensive Latin version of April 8 written in the Toledo chancery.⁽²²⁾ With regard to its military significance, the Cordoban charter included a carefully written introduction which linked the obligation of the caballero class for hueste or expeditionary service with the king to the requirements established in the preceding decades for the caballeros of Toledo. The charter then summarizes and restates much of the military law of the Toledo format not seen in one document since Alfonso VIII reconfirmed the fueros of Toledo c. 1166. Córdoba then offers some new material giving tax exemptions for prisoners of war and guaranteeing the landed possessions of those who lose them to Muslim counter-conquest, assuring them of the reinstatement of their lands once the enemy is driven out.⁽²³⁾

One interesting aspect should be pointed out here. A number of towns would be awarded a version of the charter of Córdoba in the remaining years of Fernando's reign, particularly Mula (1245), Cartagena (1246), Jaén (1248), Arjona (c. 1248), Seville (1251) and finally Carmona (1252).⁽²⁴⁾ Of all of these, only Carmona contained the full summation of the military laws of Córdoba. Cartagena, located on the southern coast and retaken for the first time since the mid-twelfth century, did contain a special law equating naval activity with a conventional land-based hueste. This law was present only in Seville among the other Cordoban charters, but Cartagena lacked the remainder of the military laws stated in [229] the original.⁽²⁵⁾ The Cordoban format was apparently intended to serve as an all purpose charter for the anticipated conquests in Andalusia, a new model of frontier royalist law. However, even in its extensive form, the Córdoba format lacked the comprehensiveness of the Cuenca pattern in its overall coverage and in its military content. The competition between the Cuenca and Toledo patterns outlived San Fernando and continued into the reign of his son, Alfonso X.

1.  García-Gallo, "Los fueros de Toledo," 45:355-488. García-Gallo, "Aportación al estudio de los fueros," 430-44. García Ulecia, Los factores de diferenciación, 355-488. Martínez Gijón, "La familia del Fuero de Cuenca," 415-39. Powers, "Frontier Competition and Legal Creativity," 52:465-87. Barrero García, "Proceso de formación," 41-58. Gacto Fernández, Temas de historia del derecho, 82-100. Arvizu, "Les fors espagnols au Moyen Age," 57:375-88. The Aragonese case for Teruel's primacy has most recently been made by Barrero García, El fuero de Teruel, 3-137.

2.  "Recopilación de los fueros de Toledo, (hacia 1166)," 45:474-75, 479. "Fuero de Escalona, 1130," 45:465-66.

3.  "Fuero de Uclés, 1179," 2:519-20. "Carta de fueros otorgada al concejo de Zorita por el rey Don Alfonso VIII, 1180," 418-20, 423. Zorita's carta puebla includes a reference to one-third of the caballeros serving in fonsado, for which there is no peón requirement, a notification of a royal fifth booty tax, and a tax exemption for maintaining a house and a horse in the town. This latter law may well be in the material added in the confirmation of this charter by Fernando III in 1218. "Fernando III confirma el fuero de Zorita, 1218," 2:37-39. Nothing in any of these military laws is precedent-making. One can note that Alfonso VIII did free the now extinct town of Arganzón (near Miranda del Ebro) from expeditionary service that did not include a field battle, a reminder that Castilian kings could still couch their military requirements in thoroughly Aragonese phraseology should the region, location and the tradition of a town so require. "Alfonso VIII concede fuero a la nueva puebla de Arganzón, 1191," 3:97.

4.  Fuero de Alfambra, 19, 21, 23, 25, 33, 35-36, 38. "Fueros de Medinaceli," 439, 441, 443. For the more likely dating of this charter in the 1180's, see García-Gallo, "Los fueros de Medinaceli," 31:9-16, with a c. 1180 date and Alfonso VIII as the potential re-grantor. Jaca also received a new charter in 1187 which specified rules for the apelitum defense force, including fines for lateness. "Alfonso II confirma los antiguos fueros y costumbres de Jaca, 1187," 72.

5.  "Fuero de Estella," 87, 106-07, 113, 144-45.

6.  "Fuero de Laguardia, 1164," 1:222. "Fuero de Bernedo," 1:232. "Fuero de Antoñana, "1182," 1:229.

7.  There are other charters from this period which have laws relating to the military obligation, primarily dealing with the simple statement of an obligation to serve or the fee in lieu of service. In Castile the towns with such fueros are: Segovia (1166), Madrigal (1168), Alhóndiga (1170), Pancorbo (1176), Calahorra (1177 & 1181), Villasila and Villamelandro (1180), Villavaruz (1181), Haro (1187) and Aceca (1188). For Navarre, the towns are: San Sebastián (1153-57 or 1169-94), San Vicente de la Sosierra (1172), Los Arcos (1176), Vitoria (1181), Yanguas (1188 & 1192), Buyllina (modern Gulina, 1192), Odieta (1192), Lárraga (1193) and Artajona (1193). These charters offer no new precedents which expand the present discussion. Even if we extend our search beyond 1190 and reach into the later and legally more productive period of Sancho VII the Strong of Navarre (1194-1234), we find the emphasis on older trends still the dominant theme. For example, the fact that each household must send one man to the royal expedition is noted in Mendigorría (1194 & 1208), Miranda de Arga (1208), Viguera y Val de Funes and the La Novenera collection (both probably thirteenth-century in form); the renting of animals for the expedition appears again at Laguardia and Burunda (both 1208) as well as Viana and Aguilar (both 1219); the old Aragonese-Navarrese law requiring a field battle if the militia is summoned can be found at Inzura (1201), Laguardia, Burunda, Viana and Aguilar. Some new law does surface in Sancho VII's reign. Theft during the royal expedition can be punished by hanging at Laguardia, Burunda and Aguilar, and those who possess a horse, shield and helmet are free of the obligation of quartering royal troops in Miranda de Arga and the 1208 version of Mendigorría. Lacarra, "Notas para la formación," 10:203-72. "Confirmación de los fueros de Mendigorría, 1194," 28-29. "Fuero de Urroz," 2:59. "Fuero de Labraza," 1:242. "Fuero de Inzura," 56-60. "Fuero concedido a Miranda de Arga," 10:270. "El Rey Don Sancho rebaja la pecha de Mendigorría," 87. "Fueros de Laguardia, 1208," 81. "Fuero de la Burunda," 85-86. "Fuero de Viana, 1219," 35:417. "Fueros y privilegios de Aguilar, 1219," 159. Tilander, Los fueros de la Novenera, 87., and also see Lacarra, "Notas," 10:240-41. The most interesting single collection for Navarre in the age is entitled the Fuero de Viguera y Val de Funes, a charter ostensibly given to these two places by Alfonso el Batallador in the early twelfth century, but argued convincingly by Lacarra to be a thirteenth-century combination of law which only survives in a fifteenth-century copy. To me, the military law seems a clear mix of twelfth-century Navarrese-Aragonese material blended with law which is almost certainly post-Cuencan in its origins. "Fuero de Viguera y Val de Funes," 4, 5, 12, 18, 25, 49-51, and also Lacarra, "Notas," 10:227, 232-39.

8.  For some of the more important points in this discussion of Cordilleran municipal charter law not already cited, see: Molho, "Difusión del derecho pirenaico," 28:350-52. Lalinde Abadía, Los fueros de Aragón, 27-41. Ureña y Smenjaud, Fuero de Cuenca, lxxx-xciii. Gibert, "Estudio histórico-jurídico," 358-62. Gibert, "El derecho municipal de León y Castilla," 31:738-52. Pescador, 33-34:170-72. Caruana Gómez, "La prioridad cronológica del Fuero de Teruel," 25:791-97. Caruana Gómez, "La auténtica fecha del Fuero de Teruel," 31:115-19. Caruana Gómez, "Catálogo de Pergaminos del Archivo Municipal de Teruel," 40:101. Martín Clavería, "Ponencia," 123. Powers, "Frontier Competition and Legal Creativity," 483-87. The military materials are largely collected in one body in the great Latin and vernacular versions of the charters of Cuenca and Teruel. See: FCfs, 30:1-65, 31:1-19. FCmsp, 30:1-62, 31:1-15. FCcv, III, 14:1-38, III, 15:1-12. FTL, 426-52. FTR, 569-625. However, there are numerous other laws relating the military service in these codes. See: FCfs, 1:6, 15-16, 23; 2:6, 9-10; 3:29; 12:17-18; 13:4, 20; 16:1-4, 28, 53; 23:12, 14-15; 25:2; 26:14-15; 29:19; 33:21; 35:7; 36:3; 38:9; 40:12, 14; 41:2; 43:17. FCmsp, 1:7, 17-18, 25; 2:6, 9-10; 3:29; 12:17-18; 13:4, 22; 16:1-6, 30, 54; 23:12, 14-15; 25:2; 26:10-11; 29:27; 33:19; 35:7; 36:3; 38:9; 40:12, 15; 41:3; 43:12. FCcv, I, 1:6, 11, 18; I, 2:6, 24; I, 3:19; II, 2:9-10; II, 3:4, 20; II, 6:8, 19, 34; III, 7:4; III, 9:2; III, 10:10; III, 13:19; IV, 2:9; IV, 4:4; IV, 5:3; IV, 7:9; IV, 10:7, 9; IV, 11:3; IV, 13:12. FTL, 7, 8-10, 84, 106, 129-32, 188-89, 237, 257, 298, 301, 387, 391, 410, 413, 421, 425, 460, 463, 465, 500, 505, 507, 544. FTR, 5-6, 8, 69, 89, 114, 132, 137-40, 194, 259, 272, 384-85, 414, 499, 503, 521, 526, 534, 563, 643, 665, 677, 709, 716, 718, 730-32, 780.

9.  Font Ríus, Franquicias urbanas medievales, 8-38. Of the 236 charters listed from 844 down to 1210 in the collection of Font Ríus, only 15 make any reference to a military obligation, and a number of these grant exemption from it. In the reign of Alfons I and his brother Pere I, the following charters make reference to a military obligation in Catalonia, almost always a simple citation of exercitum-hostem or cavalgatam with little or no amplification of what the service entails: "Carta de San Feliu de Guíxols," 1:227. "Carta de franquicias otorgada por de Puigcerdá, 1181," 1:232. "Carta de franquicias otorgada por de Puigcerdá, 1182," 1:234. "Carta-puebla de Villagrassa," 8:73. "Carta de población de Castellet,," 1:274. "Carta puebla de Pinell," 24:593. "Carta de población del Valle de Porrera," 1:292. "Carta de población de Batea," 1:302. "Carta de población de Pinell, 1207," 1:307. "Carta de franquicias de Colliure," 1:309. "Carta de población de Salvatierra, 1208," 8:99. "Carta de Agramunt," 1:323. "Cajón I, documento 5, Archivo municipal de Tarragona, 1211," 1:546. "Carta de franquicias de Salses," 1:331. "Carta de franquicias de San Lorenzo de Salancá," 1:334. Four charters dating from the reign of Pedro II for the Kingdom of Aragon also comment upon military obligations, but add nothing to earlier precedents. "Carta de población de la villa de Sarnés," 2:507-08. Oliveros de Castro, Historia de Monzón, 136-37. "Convenio del rey con los vecinos de Calatayud, 1208," 8:103-04. "Privilegio de Zaragoza, 1210," 22.

10.  Development of military service in the towns of southern France seems to have been analogous to that of Catalonia both before and after the acquisition of Provence by the Counts of Barcelona. Support for wall building programs and the hoste et cavalcata obligations were present, without the supplementary explanations which appear in Castile and the Kingdom of Aragon. "Confirmation de priviléges aux habitants de Perpignan, 1176," 60. "Carta pacificationis et transactionis quam fecit inclitus Ildefonsus, rex Aragonensium, cum consulibus et omni populo Nicensi (Nice, June, 1176)," 2:356, interesting in that the demand for cavalcata is made in a numerical levy of fifty knights, not the common household levy of Aragon. "Privilége pour les habitants de Thuir," 71. Thalamus parvus: Le petit thalamus de Montpellier, 42-43. For the developing military obligation of the citizens of Toulouse in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see: Mundy, Liberty and Political Power in Toulouse, 46-47, 71, 153, 261, 363, n. 10, 366-67, n. 27.

11.  FAlbL, 8:484-95. FAlbR, 179-93. Abad, Estudio histórico-político de Daroca, 64-65.

12.  Bishko, "The Castilian as Plainsman," 47-69. Also Nelson, "Land Use in Early Aragón," 3:115-27.

13.  These are the Cartas Pueblas given to Barcelona (844), Cardona (986), Bell-lloch (990), Albiñana (1040), Castelló (1085), Almenar (1147), San Feliu de Guíxols (1181), Puigcerdá (Oct., 1181 and June, 1182), Castellet (1194), Valle de Porrera (1201), Batea (1205), Pinell (1207), Colliure (1207) and Agramunt (1210). Font Ríus, Cartas, 1:4-7, 14-20, 39-41, 68-69, 104-06, 225-27, 231-35, 273-74, 291-93, 301-03, 306-10, 322-24. Barcelona was given tax exemptions in the aftermath of its assistance in the taking of Mallorca. "Jaime I enfranquece a los habitantes de Barcelona," 1:263-64. "Jaime I mandó exercitum civitatibus, 29 marzo 1275," 1150. "Orden del Rey por carta a las ciudades, 8 abril 1275," 1152. "Misit litteras dominus Rex Jacobus hominibus villarum, 13 junio 1275," 1158. Misit litteras dominus Rex Petrus hominibus villis, 16-17 febrero 1285, Reg. 43, ff. 106r-108v, 118r-118v. Marsá, ed., Onomástica Barcelonesa del siglo XIV, 3-212.

14.  For a discussion of the interrelationship of the surviving copies of the Coria Cima-Coa family of fueros, see: Martínez Díez, "Los fueros de la familia Coria Cima-Coa," 13:343-73. For the law related to the militias in the Coria Cima-Coa family, see: FA, leyes 21,55, 111, 119, 169, 179-83, 187-91, 226, 235, 257, 280, 283-84, 342, 352, 355-56, 362, 378, 381, 384, 391-92, 451. FCO, leyes 30, 70, 110, 112, 125, 163, 171-82, 186, 215, 224, 234, 236, 280-82, 328, 336, 341-42, 357, 360-61, 364, 369, 378, 388, 392, 394. FCR, leyes I:27, II:57, III:55, IV:9, 23-24, V:23, 48, VI:14, VII:2, 8, 18, VIII:12-14, 18, 22-24, 41-42, 49-56, 63-65, 70. FCM, leyes 47, 73, 126, 141, 153-55, 189, 204, 243, 274, 277, 284, 310-12, 316, 320-22, 339-40, 347-54, 361, 363. FCB, leyes 32, 71, 81, 106, 108, 123, 167, 176-87, 191-92, 217, 224, 232, 234, 249, 279-81, 327, 335, 343, 346-47, 352, 370, 373-74, 379-80, 390, 400, 402, 404. FCA, leyes 31, 77, 89, 117, 132, 165, 175-85, 189, 217, 225, 237, 239, 253, 279-81, 321, 336, 339-40, 344, 361, 364-65, 371-72, 379-80, 400, 448, 475, 484, 491. FU, leyes 32, 79, 91, 119, 134, 167, 176-88, 192, 222, 231, 243, 245, 259, 287-89, 330, 345, 348-49, 353, 370, 373-74, 380-81, 388-89, 409, 417, 471, 497, 505.

15.  Zamora's fuero (1208) deals with securing exemptions for peones from service, Milmanda's (1199) grants excuses to the ill, the aged and to those on pilgrimage, while Abelgas (1217) contains fees and payment dates for the apellido and the fonsadera. On the other hand, Villafranca (1192), Espinosa (late twelfth century), Frieyra (1206) and Carracedo (1213) exempt their dwellers from the fonsado service. "Fuero de Villafranca," 2:79. "Fuero de Milmanda," 2:181. "Fuero de Espinosa," 16:641. "Fuero de la tierra de Frieyra," 14:566. Fuero de Zamora, 40. "Fuero de Carracedo," 14:567. "Fuero de Abelgas," 16:646-47. For Portugal, the reign of Sancho I saw the Trancoso-Salamanca family issued to Gouveia (1186), Felgosinho (1187), Valhelhas (1188), Penedono (1195), Castreição (1196), Guarda (1199) and Villafranca (1185-1211). In the same period the Évora-Ávila prototype was issued to Covilhan (1186 or 1189), Centocellas (1194), San Vicente da Beira (1195), Belmonte (1199), Benavente (1200), Cesimbra (1201), Alpedrinha (1202), Monte-Mór (1203), Teiseiras e Souto-Rórigo (1206), Penamacor (1209) and Pinhel (1209). The editors of the MPH give the date of 1186 for the Foral de Covilhan, but Ricardo Blasco suggests 1189. See his "El problema del fuero de Ávila," 60:7-32. The Santarém group was extended to Almada (1190), Povos (1195) and Leiria (1195), while Alcobaça, Aljubarrota and Alvorninha received incomplete versions of that pattern c. 1210. The remaining forais of Sancho's reign present us with already established precedents regrading payments in lieu of service, expeditionary and defensive requirements, time limits for service and the need for nobles to replace their horses, all of which were well established as precedents by the reign of Afonso I. Nothing emerges to suggest the movement of the contents of the comprehensive Coria Cima-Coa materials into Portuguese foral law at least in the area of the military obligation and related law. See Powers, "The Creative Interaction of Portuguese and Leonese Municipal Military Law," Speculum, forthcoming. The published editions of the above-mentioned members of the Trancoso, Évora and Santarém families can be found in the MPH-LC, 1:453-554.

16.  The relevant charters present rather conventional statements of the obligation to give military service or conditions of exemption from service and/or payment in lieu of service, giving supplies to royal expeditions and royal claims to the fifth of booty tax. "Alfonso VIII concede al concejo de Salinas (de Añana), 1194," 3:122. "Fuero de Torrecilla de Cameros," 33:133. "Fueros inéditos de Belinchón," 8:147. "Alfonso VIII confirma los fueros de Guipúzcoa," 3:224-27. "Alfonso VIII exime de tributos, salvo de la obligación de ir en fonsado, a los que vivieren todo el año con casa poblada dentro de los muros de Sepúlveda, (8 August 1201)," 40-42. "El obispo de Calahorra don Juan, el prior y el concejo de Albelda acuerdan," 3:203. "Alfonso VIII concede al concejo de Ávila los términos que indica, (1205)," 3:360, and renewed by Enrique I, 1215, 3:693-94. "Excusa de tributación á los moradores de Alcázar, 1208," 3:444. "Alfonso VIII concede fuero de Pampliega," 3:465-67. "Alfonso VIII confirma una concordia entre la Orden de Santiago e el concejo de Ocaña, 1210," 17:659-61, and "Noticia, sin fecha, sobre la concordia entre la Orden de Santiago y el concejo de Ocaña," 17:659-62. "Alfonso VIII concede fuero a Ibrillos," 3:650-54. "Alfonso VIII determina el tributo de los vecinos de Deza," 3:636. "Enrique I excusa de tributación al concejo de Carrascosa," 3:733.

17.  "Fernando III concede a Frías el fuero, 1217," 2:16. "El fuero de la villa de San Emeterio," 76:239. "Fernando III confirma el convenio de Arévalo, 1219," 2:67. "Fuero de la villa de Palenzuela, 1220," 218-19. "Fernando III otroga al concejo de Ávila un fuero, 1222," 2:202. "Fernando III concede al concejo de Uceda un fuero," 2:204. "Fernando III otorga al concejo de Peñafiel el fuero, 1222," 2:206. "Fernando III otorga al concejo de Madrid el fuero, 1222," 2:208.

18.  "Fueros de la villa de Alcalá de Henares," Fita, ed., 9:237. "Privilegium de los fueros de Brioga (Brihuega), (c. 1223)," 8:420. Fuero de San Justo, (1223), MSS 13.094, f. 51v. "Pacto foral de Talamanca," 8:418. Fuero de Guadalajara, 1219, 9, 17. FPalenzuela 1220, 218. FTalamanca, 417. "Fuero de Uclés, c. 1227," 14:334. This is the longer version of the Uclés charter, with additions probably added in the early thirteenth century. García Ulecia points out its similarities to the Fuero de Guadalajara of 1219 cited above, and it almost certainly dates from the early part of Fernando's reign. García Ulecia, Los factores de diferenciación, 399-401. "Fuero de Alcalá de Henares," Sánchez, ed., 286-87. This charter was granted in 1223.

19.  "Fernando III concede al Arzobispo Don Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada ... Toledo, 1222," 1:No. 7. Pescador, 33-34:185.

20.  "Arrendamiento hecho por el concejo de Nora á Nora," 154. FTúy, 370. "Fuero de Castrojeriz, 1234," 38.

21.  González, Fernando III, 1:413-16.

22.  González, Fernando III, 1:413-17, 3:211-14, 3:219-25. García-Gallo, "Los fueros de Toledo," 45:401-06.

23.  FCórdoba Lat, 3:220-23. FCórdoba Rom, 3:212-13.

24.  González, Fernando III, 1:417-18.

25.  "Fuero de Cartagena," 23-24. FSevilla, 3:409-10. "Fuero de Carmona, (8 May 1252)," 4-6.