For over 350 years, the Military Frontier between the Habsburg and Ottoman empires served as the first site of engagement in the long struggle to define and defend the borders of two civilizations. The administrative and military history of this border, which separated two major empires for centuries, has received some attention by historians. The complexity of life on the border between two major imperial military and administrative systems, however, remains under-explored. For example, how did imperial centers, nearly a thousand miles away, generate loyalty on the border? This is especially pertinent, considering that the marcher lords on both sides of the border spoke the same language in which they often communicated and generally subscribed to the same heroic ethos. The intricate balancing of accommodation, adaptation and confrontation that was employed to generate loyalty and cooperation among martial border populations particularly comes to light during times of crisis. One particularly poignant crisis or “quarrel” (?a?va), as it has been described by Ottoman chronicles, illuminates the complex layers of loyalty, self-interest, material and moral interest. In one of the furthest imperial outposts, the citadel of Biha? (Ottoman: Bihke) in northwestern Bosnia, which juts deeply into Habsburg-Croatian territory, the marcher lords came into direct conflict with the imperial governor and his treasurer. The treasurer was accused of withholding their payments and slandering the marcher lords in the imperial capital. This led to a serious of military confrontations and ended in numerous deaths. Some of the slain were figures larger than life already during their lifetimes – cycles of epic songs had been composed about their heroic deeds and survive to this day. Initially resulting in an imperial death sentence against the remaining marcher lords, the sentence was commuted by the sultan, when informed of the heroic status of the accused. This demonstrates a number of issues that are fundamental to our understanding of early modern state formation and can only be discerned if looked at from the perspective of the periphery. Military-political actors on the imperial periphery had developed their own distinct ethos, which could be turned, without reluctance, against the state and its representatives, insofar as those were seen as infringing upon their rights. Their heroic status, in turn, carried such moral weight, that it nearly ensured immunity from imperial punishment.