News
Femicide: What historical sources reveal about the killing of women
7 Apr 2026
LMU professor Julia Burkhardt and an interdisciplinary team are studying femicide in the Middle Ages and early modern period.
Why did men kill women, and how do people interpret such gender-related killings? Julia Burkhardt explores these questions from a historical perspective. She is Professor of Medieval History at LMU with a special focus on the Late Middle Ages and heads an interdisciplinary research group at LMU’s Center for Advanced Studies (CAS) entitled Femicide — Interdisciplinary Approaches to a Global Historical Phenomenon.
You are looking at femicide from a historical perspective. How far back in history can the deliberate killing of women be traced, and what conclusions can we draw from that?
Julia Burkhardt: We focus on the period from the 12th century to the start of the 18th century. There hasn’t been much systematic and comparative research to date on femicide in the Middle Ages and early modern period, so in that sense our project is exploratory. But, of course, there are also earlier examples of femicide to be found, as shown in individual studies that have been done in the field of Classical Studies.
Our research group is studying gender-related killings. Analytically, we use the term ‘femicide’ for that, in line with sociological and criminological research: We understand this as the killing of women by men because of their gender or gender-specific roles. Pre-modern examples of the phenomenon include killings by partners as a result of (alleged) adultery or punishment leading to death of female servants by their masters; and many other possible constellations exist as well.
By considering not only victims and perpetrators but also gender-specific roles in society and social expectations of individuals and family groups, we are able to identify and explain structural conditions, punishments, and contemporary reflections from a comparative perspective.
Reveal structures
Were there certain conditions in the Middle Ages that contributed to femicide being committed?
Explanations can be found in social structures and hierarchies, as well as in time- and context-dependent notions of gender, rank, and origin. A crucial aspect of our work is thus to reveal gender-specific differences around rights, obligations, social acknowledgement, and agency. One key category for which we have already been able to identify relevant cases is control: control over a partner or a household — understood as a social and legal space — as well as over a family. Having control over a person could also extend to having control over their body and their life.
Such observations lead us from historical case analysis to fundamental questions: What role did legal parameters and gender-related social expectations play in femicide? What powers did men and women have at a given time? And what was the killing of women about: Were the motives mainly personal, or was it about protecting a moral or social position? Was it about maintaining or demonstrating men’s right of control over their families and their associated role in society? Was it about defending individual notions of masculinity?
Working with historical sources
What sources do you use to research femicide historically?
We work with a very wide variety of documents. Laws and legal treatises, for example, stipulate or discuss how different types of killing should be punished. Chronicles, private letters, sermons, pictures, petitions, and supplications offer further perspectives. For example, in the Middle Ages a person could address supplications to the ‘office’ responsible for granting grace in the Curia, the so-called Penitentiary, if they had a problem that could not be solved locally by the parish priest or bishop. Many men sent petitions there because they had killed their wives and wanted to remarry. The background to such petitions was the rule that men were not allowed to remarry if they had killed their wives — unless they received an absolution and a special permission (e.g. dispensation or licenes). Consequently, we rarely encounter expressions of grief or remorse in these sources. These were petitions that followed formal guidelines and had a specific goal. This example shows that we should not approach historical cases with preconceived expectations. From today’s perspective, we might expect expressions of regret. But in this format at least, that was not the intention — which does not mean that it did not happen.
The image depicts the killing of Duchess Mary of Brabant in 1256. Mary of Brabant was the wife of Louis II of Bavaria, also known as Louis the Strict. “What exactly happened in 1256 is not entirely clear, even though many people reported on it,” says Julia Burkhardt. Apparently, Louis accused Mary of adultery and subsequently had her killed — at least according to several chronicle sources. “However, this image tells a different story. Here, the duke himself wields the sword.” The illumination comes from a late medieval Brabant chronicle that tells the story from the perspective of Mary’s family — which explains why this depiction differs from other accounts. “As historians, we cannot always find out how and why a killing took place. But that is not the only thing that matters. It is equally interesting for us to see what contemporary or later observers wrote about it, thought about it, and commented on it. The numerous written sources, which, as in the case of Mary of Brabant, always end up taking different perspectives, show us that gender-related killings were relevant to contemporaries and demonstrate how they were interpreted at different times and in different contexts.” After his wife’s death, Louis II turned to church representatives, including the Pope, to atone for his sins. Here, too, it is not possible to determine from the sources exactly what this meant: Did the sins refer specifically to the killing of Mary or to other offenses? But we can say more about the outcome: Louis II was ordered to found a monastery — and he ultimately founded what is now Fürstenfeldbruck monastery.
Femicide occurred in a variety of social contexts. The issue of marital fidelity, which appears to have been central in the case of Mary of Brabant and Louis II, and the associated right of control that a man had over his wife also played a role in other cultural contexts.Julia Burkhardt, Chair of Medieval History at LMU with a special focus on the Late Middle Ages
Your research group is studying femicide from a global perspective. Which constellations and regions are you looking at?
Femicide occurred in a variety of social contexts. The issue of marital fidelity, which appears to have been central in the case of Mary of Brabant and Louis II, and the associated right of control that a man had over his wife also played a role in other cultural contexts. But domestic violence perpetrated on a wife is only one aspect of the issue of femicide. There are also examples of men, as heads of households, killing their maids or servants. Sometimes, there may have been a sexual relationship, sometimes there were alleged complaints about their work — but in any case, it was an unbalanced relationship from which individual men derived a right of disposition over the women in their service. In other cases, daughters or other members of the family or social circle were killed. In our research group, we study complex constellations like these across very different regions — such as the Canary Islands in the late Middle Ages, China in the 15th century, or Italy and Mexico in the early modern period.
Ludgarda of Mecklenburg, Duchess of Greater Poland, died in the 13th century at a young age. “At first, all that was known was that her contemporaries were surprised at her early death,” says Julia Burkhardt. But a few decades after Ludgarda’s death, a narrative began to take shape that would continue to evolve over the centuries: Various chronicles now claimed that Ludgarda’s husband had killed her or had her killed. While any accusation of adultery was rarely mentioned, most of the narratives focused on the fact that Ludgarda was killed because she was childless. This motive was linked to the future of the ducal rule and Ludgarda’s suitability as a wife. “The further away from the actual date of death, the more detailed the accounts become: Ludgarda’s husband, Duke Przemysł II, was increasingly ascribed responsibility or guilt for the killing, which was in turn an expression of later criticism of his rule. Of course, we should not read the reports that emerged over the centuries as factual accounts, but rather as reflections on political developments in Poland in the period around 1300. This case is a good illustration of how the death of a woman was perceived at certain times and how it was exploited for certain interests,” explains Julia Burkhardt. In a chronicle written for Ludgarda’s family, for example, the deceased woman is given her own voice. “It is a heroic tale in which Ludgarda defends her rank and position even though she sees death approaching. In this account, she is not a defenseless victim but points to her position and then accepts death like a martyr. This contrasts with depictions of her treacherous, cowardly husband, who is punished for her murder with childlessness and political problems.” After his wife’s death, Ludgarda’s husband, Duke Przemysł II, rose to become King of Poland: After a period without a king, he restored the monarchy in Poland but then fell victim to a political conspiracy and was himself violently killed. In later narratives, this fate was linked to Ludgarda’s killing — an example that shows us how the behavior of rulers was interpreted as a reflection of their reign.
Often, we aren’t able to reconstruct exactly what happened. But we can understand how people talked and wrote about it, how they processed their own social conditioning, and what functions the stories of femicide fulfilled.Julia Burkhardt, Chair of Medieval History at LMU with a special focus on the Late Middle Ages
Every story has its own purpose
How do you reconcile different sources and statements, as in the case of Ludgarda?
Often, we aren’t able to reconstruct exactly what happened. But we can understand how people talked and wrote about it, how they processed their own social conditioning, and what functions the stories of femicide fulfilled. This allows us to infer things about the structures of historical communities, about concepts of responsibility, guilt, and punishment, and about processes of social transformation.
Each of the stories had its own function. Consequently, analyzing them is not always about investigating the ‘truth’ in a criminalistic sense. Rather, the function of such narratives may have been to create a certain plausibility, i.e., an attempt to explain why a man suddenly became a widower and why or how his wife died. But of course, such narratives could have also served as a deterrent, as a reminder of the act, or as a justification for it. This is precisely where we can make the concept of femicide fruitful from a historical perspective: We are drawing attention to social and cultural contexts that have not been considered in research to date.
What we want to do is to highlight the broad social dimension of femicide in different historical contexts.Julia Burkhardt, Chair of Medieval History at LMU with a special focus on the Late Middle Ages
To what extent is it relevant today to study femicide from a historical perspective?
What we want to do is to highlight the broad social dimension of femicide in different historical contexts. We are collecting cases without any claim that the collection is exhaustive, and thus we are documenting first and foremost that gender-related killings have happened in different times and different contexts. By studying them — always in relation to the social constellations within which they existed — we can contribute to a review of the definitions or theories that exist today. By comparing historical cases with current positions and developments in research, we can observe certain patterns that are time and context dependent: not only perpetrator–victim constellations but also social reactions and legal punishments. Of course, social structures and hierarchies are different today. But by taking a historical perspective, we can draw attention to problems that have not been considered before.
The CAS research group ‘Femicide — Interdisciplinary Approaches to a Global Historical Phenomenon’
Within the CAS Research Group, researchers from various disciplines are studying the circumstances and social reflections of femicide in the period from 1200 to 1700. In an interdisciplinary exchange, the researchers are looking for patterns within social constellations in different contexts.
One goal of their work is to produce a publication that presents historical case studies based on their sources and makes them publicly accessible. “This will create a pool of material suitable for teaching at universities or perhaps even schools,” says Julia Burkhardt.
About the person:
Julia Burkhardt
has been working intensively for many years on the political, cultural, and gender history of the Middle Ages and early modern period. | © T. Hauzenberger
Prof. Julia Burkhardt holds the Chair of Medieval History at LMU with a special focus on the Late Middle Ages. Julia Burkhardt studied medieval and modern history, political science, and Eastern European history at Heidelberg and Warsaw. She received her doctorate at the University of Heidelberg in 2011. In 2018, she achieved her Habilitation with an edition and analysis of Thomas of Cantimpré’s ‘Book of Bees.’ After holding a deputy professorship at Bonn, she was appointed to LMU in 2020. In the 2025/26 academic year, Julia Burkhardt is leading a research group on the topic of femicide in the pre-modern era at the CAS.