IN THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, THE COLLECTIVE TERM FREE

AND IMPERIAL CITIES WAS USED FROM THE FIFTEENTH

CENTURY TO DENOTE A SELF-RULING CITY THAT HAD A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AUTONOMY AND WAS REPRESENTED
IN THE IMPERIAL DIET.
AN IMPERIAL CITY HELD THE STATUS OF IMPERIAL IMMEDIACY, AND AS
SUCH, WAS SUBORDINATE ONLY TO THE HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR, AS
OPPOSED TO A TERRITORIAL CITY OR TOWN (LANDSTADT) WHICH WAS
SUBORDINATE TO A TERRITORIAL PRINCE – BE IT AN ECCLESIASTICAL
LORD (PRINCE-BISHOP, PRINCE-ABBOT) OR A SECULAR PRINCE
(DUKE (HERZOG), MARGRAVE, COUNT (GRAF), ETC.).
ORIGIN
THE EVOLUTION OF SOME GERMAN CITIES INTO SELF-RULING
CONSTITUTIONAL ENTITIES OF THE EMPIRE WAS SLOWER THAN THAT
OF THE SECULAR AND ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCES. IN THE COURSE OF
THE 13TH AND 14TH CENTURIES, SOME CITIES WERE PROMOTED BY THE
EMPEROR TO THE STATUS OF IMPERIAL CITIES (REICHSSTÄDTE; URBES
IMPERIALES), ESSENTIALLY FOR FISCAL REASONS.
THOSE CITIES, WHICH HAD BEEN FOUNDED BY THE GERMAN KINGS AND
EMPERORS IN THE 10TH THROUGH 13TH CENTURIES AND HAD INITIALLY
BEEN ADMINISTERED BY ROYAL/IMPERIAL STEWARDS
GRADUALLY GAINED INDEPENDENCE AS THEIR CITY MAGISTRATES
ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATION AND JUSTICE;
SOME PROMINENT EXAMPLES
ARE COLMAR, HAGUENAU AND MULHOUSE IN ALSACE OR MEMMINGENA
ND RAVENSBURG IN UPPER SWABIA.
THE FREE CITIES WERE THOSE, SUCH
AS BASEL, AUGSBURG, COLOGNE OR STRASBOURG,

THAT WERE INITIALLY SUBJECTED TO A PRINCE-BISHOP AND, LIKEWISE,

PROGRESSIVELY GAINED INDEPENDENCE FROM THAT LORD. IN A FEW
CASES, SUCH AS IN COLOGNE, THE FORMER ECCLESIASTICAL LORD
CONTINUED TO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE SOME RESIDUAL FEUDAL
PRIVILEGES OVER THE FREE CITY, A CLAIM THAT GAVE RISE TO
CONSTANT LITIGATION ALMOST UNTIL THE END OF THE EMPIRE.
OVER TIME, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPERIAL CITIES AND FREE
CITIES BECAME INCREASINGLY BLURRED, SO THAT THEY BECAME
COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS "FREE IMPERIAL CITIES", OR "FREE AND
IMPERIAL CITIES", AND BY THE LATE 15TH CENTURY MANY CITIES
INCLUDED BOTH "FREE" AND "IMPERIAL" IN THEIR NAME. LIKE THE
OTHER IMPERIAL ESTATES, THEY COULD WAGE WAR, MAKE PEACE, AND
CONTROL THEIR OWN TRADE, AND THEY PERMITTED LITTLE
INTERFERENCE FROM OUTSIDE
IN THE COURSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, CITIES GAINED, AND SOMETIMES — IF RARELY — LOST,
THEIR FREEDOM THROUGH THE VICISSITUDES OF POWER POLITICS.

• 1. SOME FAVORED CITIES GAINED A CHARTER BY GIFT.

• 2.OTHERS PURCHASED ONE FROM A PRINCE IN NEED OF FUNDS.
• 3. SOME WON IT BY FORCE OF ARMS DURING THE TROUBLED 13TH AND 14TH CENTURIES AND
OTHER LOST THEIR PRIVILEGES DURING THE SAME PERIOD BY THE SAME WAY.
• 4.SOME CITIES BECAME FREE THROUGH THE VOID CREATED BY THE EXTINCTION OF DOMINANT
FAMILIES, LIKE THE SWABIAN HOHENSTAUFEN.
• 5.SOME VOLUNTARILY PLACED THEMSELVES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF A TERRITORIAL RULER
AND THEREFORE LOST THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FREE IMPERIAL
CITIES AND OTHER CITIES
• THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY FOUR THOUSAND TOWNS AND CITIES IN THE EMPIRE,
ALTHOUGH AROUND THE YEAR 1600 OVER NINE-TENTHS OF THEM HAD FEWER THAN ONE
THOUSAND INHABITANTS.
• DURING THE LATE MIDDLE AGES, FEWER THAN TWO HUNDRED OF THESE PLACES EVER
ENJOYED THE STATUS OF FREE IMPERIAL CITIES, AND SOME OF THOSE DID SO ONLY FOR
A FEW DECADES.
• THE MILITARY TAX REGISTER OF 1521 LISTED EIGHTY-FIVE SUCH CITIES, AND THIS
FIGURE HAD FALLEN TO SIXTY-FIVE BY THE TIME OF THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG IN 1555.
• FROM THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA OF 1648 TO 1803, THEIR NUMBER OSCILLATED AT
AROUND FIFTY
UNLIKE THE FREE IMPERIAL CITIES, THE SECOND CATEGORY OF TOWNS
AND CITIES, NOW CALLED "TERRITORIAL CITIES" WERE SUBJECT TO AN
ECCLESIASTICAL OR LAY LORD, AND WHILE MANY OF THEM ENJOYED
SELF-GOVERNMENT TO VARYING DEGREES, THIS WAS A PRECARIOUS
PRIVILEGE WHICH MIGHT BE CURTAILED OR ABOLISHED ACCORDING
TO THE WILL OF THE LORD.
REFLECTING THE EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL SET-UP OF THE HOLY
ROMAN EMPIRE, A THIRD CATEGORY, COMPOSED OF SEMI-AUTONOMOUS CITIES THAT
BELONGED TO NEITHER OF THOSE TWO TYPES, IS DISTINGUISHED BY SOME HISTORIANS.

1. THESE WERE CITIES WHOSE SIZE AND ECONOMIC STRENGTH WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A SUBSTANTIAL
INDEPENDENCE FROM SURROUNDING TERRITORIAL LORDS FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME, EVEN THOUGH NO
FORMAL RIGHT TO INDEPENDENCE EXISTED.
2. THESE CITIES WERE TYPICALLY LOCATED IN SMALL TERRITORIES WHERE THE RULER WAS WEAK.
3. THEY WERE NEVERTHELESS THE EXCEPTION AMONG THE MULTITUDE OF TERRITORIAL TOWNS AND CITIES.
CITIES OF BOTH LATTER CATEGORIES NORMALLY HAD REPRESENTATION IN TERRITORIAL DIETS, BUT NOT IN THE
IMPERIAL DIET.
THE END