What was history then?*

 

For our very first “from the sources” post, lets return to our old friend Gregory of Tours. He’s a real VIP of early medieval history Since the seventh century, his “History of the Franks”, which covers everything in Frankish history down to his death in 594, has been extensively used as a source for studying the early Frankish past. And since at least the sixteenth century he’s been held up as, in the words of the French renaissance humanist Claude Fauchet, “the father of French history” and “the oldest and most trustworthy author who spoke of the kings and the government of France.”

A statue of our friend Gregory wisely and kindly watches over the 9.6 million visitors who queue up to visit the Louvre every year. 

But did the venerable bishop of Tours see himself primarily as a historian of the Franks, that is to say, as a historian of them as an ethnic group or of their kings? The answer is almost certainly not. “The History of the Franks” as it’s been titled in all modern French, German and English translations of the text, is actually a misnomer. Gregory called his work the Libri Decem Historiarum – “the ten books of histories.” And his purpose was not to chronicle the deeds of one particular ethnic group (the Franks) – it was much broader than that. He wrote about contemporary events across the known world, including in places as far afield as Syria and Armenia. He gave just as much weight in his history to ecclesiastical affairs, saints and miracles as he did to the political intrigues and wars of the Merovingian kings. And he ultimately conceived of his project as a universal (or, as we’d now say, global) history, following the models given by the early Christian historians Eusebius (260 – 339), Jerome (342 – 420) and Orosius (385 – 420). He begins his history in Book One with the Creation and spends the rest of that book outlining the events from Old Testament history, the life of Jesus Christ, the spread of Christianity, the Roman imperial persecutions and early Christian martyrdoms, the conversion of Constantine the Great, the reigns of the first Christian Roman emperors and the early bishops of Clermont-Ferrand (Gregory’s home town), and finishes with the death of Saint Martin of Tours in 397. The Franks, the people who ruled supreme in Gaul in Gregory’s day but whom he did not himself identify with, only enter Gregory’s narrative in Book Two Chapter Nine. Here’s what he has to say about their origins:

Many people do not even know the name of the first King of the Franks. The “Historia” of Sulpicius Alexander gives many details about them, while Valentinus does not name their first King but says they were ruled by war-leaders. What Sulpicius Alexander says about the Franks seems to be worth quoting. He tells how Maximus gave up all hope of the imperial throne, lost his reason and went to live in Aquileia. Then he adds:

“At that time the Franks invaded the Roman province of Germania under their leaders Genobaud, Marcomer and Sunno. As the Franks crossed the frontier, many of the inhabitants were slaughtered and they ravaged the most fertile areas. The townsfolk of Cologne were terrified: and, when this news reached Trier, Nanninus and Quintinus, who commanded the Roman armies and to whom Maximus had entrusted the defence of Gaul, collected their troops together and marched to that city. The enemy, who were heavily laden with booty, for they had pillaged the richest parts of the province, crossed back over the Rhine, but left many of their men behind in Roman territory, where they were planning to continue their ravaging. The Romans found it easy to deal with these, and a great number of the Franks were cut down in the forest of Charbonniere. After this, the Roman leaders held a meeting to decide whether or not they should cross into Frankish territory. Nanninus refused to do so, for he knew that the Franks were waiting for them and that on their own soil they would undoubtedly be much the stronger. This did not meet the approval of Quintinus and the other military leaders, and so Nanninus retreated to Mainz. Quintinus crossed the Rhine somewhere near the fortress of Neuss with his army. After two days’ march away from the river, he attacked a number of dwellings abandoned by their inhabitants and a few townships of no mean size, which were, however, deserted. The Franks had pretended to retire in panic and had withdrawn into the remote woodland regions, all around which they had erected barricades of forest trees. The Roman soldiers burned down all the houses, imagining in their cowardly stupidity that by doing so they had gained a conclusive victory: then they spent an anxious night without daring to take off their heavy equipment. At first light they marched out into the woods, with Quintinus to lead them in battle. By about mid-day they had lost themselves completely in a maze of pathways and had no idea where they were. They ran up against an endless barricade solidly constructed from huge tree-trunks, and then they tried to break out over the marshy fields which bordered the forests. Here and there enemy troops showed themselves, standing on the boles of trees or climbing on the barricades as if on the ramparts of turrets. They kept shooting arrows as if from war-catapults, and these they smeared with poisons distilled from plants, so that wounds which did little more than graze the skin and touched no vital organ were followed by death against which there was no protection. Then the Roman army, now surrounded by the main force of the enemy, rushed desperately into the open meadows, which the Franks had left unoccupied. There the cavalry was bogged down in marshland and the bodies of men and animals, all mixed up together, were borne down into the ground in one common catastrophe. Such infantry as was not trodden under foot by the heavy horses was caught in thick mud from which the men had difficulty in lifting one foot after the other. With fear in their hearts they rushed back to hide in the very woodlands out of which they had marched only a short time before. As the legions were cut down the ranks were broken. Heraclius, tribune of the Jovinian legion, and almost all the other officers were wiped out. Darkness and the deepness of the forests offered safety and refuge to a few survivors.”

That is what Sulpicius Alexander had to say in Book III of his “Historia.”

In Book IV, when he is describing the murder of Victor, the son of the tyrant Maximus, he says:

“At that time Carietto and Sirus, appointed in the place of Nanninus, were stationed in the provinces of Germania with an army collected to oppose the Franks.”

A little further on, after stating that the Franks had gone home laden with booty from Germania, he goes on:

“Arbogast, who would brook no delay, urged the Emperor to inflict due punishment on the Franks unless they immediately restored all the plunder which they had seized the previous year when the legions were slaughtered, and unless they surrendered the warmongers who had been responsible for such a treacherous violation of the peace.”

He says that these events occurred at a time when the Franks were ruled by war-leaders. Then he continues:

“A few days later, there was a short parley with Marcomer and Sunno, the royal leaders of the Franks. Hostages were insisted upon, as was the custom, and then Arbogast retired into winter quarters in Trier.”

When he says “regales” or royal leaders, it is not clear if they were kings or if they merely exercised a kingly function. When he is recording the straits to which the Emperor Valentinian was reduced, he says:

“When these events were taking place in the East in Thrace, the government was in great difficulty in Gaul. The Emperor Valentinian was shut in the palace in Vienne and reduced almost to the status of a private citizen. The control of the army was handed over to Frankish mercenaries and the civil administration was in the control of Arbogast’s accomplices. There was not one among all of those who were bound by their military oath of obedience to him who dared obey the private orders let alone the public commands of the emperor.”

He goes on:

“That same year Arbogast, urged on by tribal hatred, went in search of Sunno and Marcomer, the kinglets of the Franks. He came to Cologne in the full blast of winter, for he knew well that all the retreats of Frankland could be penetrated and burned out now that the leaves were off the trees and that the bare and sapless forests could offer no concealment for an ambushed foe. He therefore collected an army together, crossed the River Rhine, and laid waste to the land nearest to the bank, where the Bructeri lived, and the region occupied by the Chamavi. He did this without meeting any opposition, except that a few Amsivarii and Chatti showed themselves on the far-distant ridges of the hills, with Marcomer as their war-leader.”

A few pages further on, having given up all talk of “duces” and “regales”, he states clearly that the Franks had a king, but he forgets to tell us what his name was.

“The next thing which happened was that the tyrant Eugenius led a military expedition as far as the frontier marked by the Rhine. He renewed the old tradition treaties with the kings of the Alamanni and the Franks, and he paraded his army, which was immense for that time, before their savage tribesmen.”

So much for the information which this chronicler Sulpicius Alexander has to give us about the Franks.

As for Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, whom I mentioned above, when he comes to tell us how Rome was captured and destroyed by the Goths, he writes:

“Meanwhile Goar had gone over to the Romans, and Respendial, the king of the Alani, therefore withdrew his forces from the Rhine. The Vandals were hard-pressed in their war against the Franks, their King Godigisel was killed and about twenty-thousand of their frontline troops had been slaughtered, so that, if the army of the Alani had not come to their rescue in time, the entire nation of the Vandals would have been wiped out.”

It is an extraordinary thing that, although he tells us about the kings of these various peoples, including the Franks, when he describes how Constantine, who had become a tyrant, summoned his son Constans to come from Spain to meet him, he goes on:

“The tyrant Constantine summoned his son Constans, who was also a tyrant, from Spain, so that they might confer together about affairs of state. As a result, Constans left his wife and the administrative affairs of his court in Saragossa, entrusted all his interests in Spain to Gerontius and hurried to meet his father by forced marches. They duly met. Quite a few days passed, but no news arrived from Italy to disturb Constantine. He therefore returned to his daily round of over-drinking and over-eating, and told his son that he might as well go back to Spain. No sooner had Constans sent his troops on ahead, while he himself lingered a little longer with his father, than messengers arrived from Spain to say that Gerontius had proclaimed Maximus, one of his own dependents, as Emperor. Maximus was supported by troops from a horde of barbarian tribes and was ready for any contingency. Constans and the Prefect Decimus Rusticus, one-time Master of Offices, were very frightened by the news. They sent Erdobech to contain the people of Germania and they themselves set out for Gaul, with the Franks, the Alamanni and a whole band of soldiery, intending to return to Constantine as soon as they could.”

Later on, when he describes how Constantine was besieged, he adds:

“Constantine had been beleaguered for about four months when messengers arrived all of a sudden from northern Gaul to announce that Jovinus had assumed the rank of Emperor and was about to attack the besieging forces with the Burgundes, the Alamanni, the Franks, the Alani and a large army. Things then moved very quickly. The city gates were opened and Constantine came out. He was immediately packed off to Italy, but the emperor sent a band of assassins to meet him and he was beheaded up on the River Mincio.”

After a few more sentences, Frigeridus goes on:

“At the same time, Decimus Rusticus, the Prefect of the tyrants, Agroetius, one-time Head of Chancery of Jovinus, and many other noblemen were captured by the army commanders of Honorius and cruelly put to death. The city of Trier was sacked and burned by the Franks in a second attack.”

He notes that Asterius was made a patrician by a patent signed by the emperor and then continues:

“At this time, Castinus, Master of the Imperial Household, was sent to Gaul, as a campaign had begun against the Franks.”

That concludes what these two historians have to say about the Franks.

In Book VII of his work the chronicler Orosius adds the following information:

“Stilicho took command of the army, crushed the Franks, crossed the Rhine, made his way across Gaul and came finally to the Pyrenees.”

The historians whose work we still have give us all this information about the Franks, but they never record the names of their kings. It is commonly said that the Franks came originally from Pannonia and first colonised the banks of the Rhine. Then they crossed the river, marched through Thuringia, and set up in each country district and in each city long-haired kings chosen from the foremost and most noble family of their race. As I shall show you later, this is proved by the victories won by Clovis. We read in the consular lists that Theudemer, King of the Franks, son of Richemer, and his mother Ascyla, were executed with the sword. They also say that Clodio, a man of high birth and marked ability among his people, was King of the Franks and that he lived in the castle of Duisburg in Thuringian territory. In those parts, that is towards the south, the Romans occupied the territory as far as the River Loire. Beyond the Loire the Goths were in command. The Burgundes, who believed in the Arian heresy, lived across the Rhone, which flows through the city of Lyons. Clodio sent spies to the town of Cambrai. When he had discovered all that they needed to know, he himself followed and crushed the Romans and captured the town. He lived there only a short time and then occupied the country up to the River Somme. Some say that Merovech, the father of Childeric, was descended from Clodio.

(“The History of the Franks” by Gregory of Tours, edited and translated by Lewis Thorpe, Penguin Classics, 1974, II.9, pp 120 – 125)

Now there is so much that is interesting about this chapter. Rather than talking about what it might tell us about late Roman warfare, the Germanic tribes or the imperial usurpers and civil wars of the 380s to 410s (the period covered by the sources Gregory is quoting), lets focus on what it tells us about Gregory as a historian.

One of the first things you’ll have noticed is that Gregory is quoting the Histories of Sulpicius Alexander and Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus at length and those of Orosius briefly. All of these men were Christian Roman historians writing in the first half of the fifth century AD. However, while Orosius’ work survives to us today in several manuscripts, and enjoyed widespread popularity in the Middle Ages, the more secular political-oriented Histories of Sulpicius Alexander and Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus have been lost. This is regrettable but shouldn’t be too surprising.

While the exact extent of the loss of ancient Greek and Roman literature is unknown, all reasonable estimates for the extent of literary survival between 800 BC and c.500 AD would place it somewhere in the ballpark of one percent. There are many ancient authors for whom none of their work survives at all. The reasons for this are various, but by far the most common one is simple neglect over the centuries. Ancient literary works were mostly written on papyrus. It was a fairly cheap material but not very durable, especially in the cold, damp climate of transalpine Europe. If a literary work was going to survive long term, it needed to be copied, and copying was a labour-intensive process that required professional scribes. Papyrus therefore ended up being supplanted by parchment, a process that had begun in the fourth century AD and was well underway in Gregory’s day, but very far off being complete – the papal chancery used papyrus until the eleventh century. Parchment was a much more durable medium of writing but much more expensive to produce – killing a cow as opposed to chopping down some reeds. And copying still remained labour intensive as ever. So, like with papyrus, choices had to be made about what to be preserved long term. The eighth and ninth centuries seem to have been the most critical period, in both Western Europe and Byzantium for the transition from papyrus to parchment and thereby deciding what to preserve long term – if an ancient text was written on a parchment codex by 900, then more likely than not it survives today.

Sulpicius Alexander and Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus clearly didn’t make the cut. But fortunately for us, Gregory chose to directly quote them at length, allowing us to read snippets of them. This is comparatively better than the situation for a lot of other lost classical histories. For example, the contemporary/ near-contemporary accounts of the campaigns of Alexander the Great by Callisthenes, Cleitarchus and Ptolemy can only be very speculatively reconstructed from the works of Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian, written several centuries later, which we know to have used them as sources. And all we know about histories of the Etruscans and Carthaginians written by the future emperor Claudius in the reign of Tiberius, is that they once existed because Suetonius briefly mentions them. But Gregory, following in the fashion of Eusebius, decided to be more transparent in his use of sources and thus preserve extracts from Roman histories which are otherwise lost.

Gregory himself also seems be very conscious of the limited and diminishing base of source material, hence why he says that Orosius, Sulpicius Alexander and Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus are “the historians whose work we still have.” This suggests that he knew of other sources which might have been relevant to his enquiry here, but which were already lost or otherwise inaccessible. And to acknowledge the limited nature of the evidence for the past is the most important sign of a mature and critical historian in any age.

The way in which Gregory handles the evidence provides further indication of how skilled he was at historical enquiry. In this chapter, he carefully analyses the language that each of this fifth century sources use to refer to the leaders of the Franks in the decades around 400, and checks them for internal consistency i.e., he notes that Sulpicius Alexander mostly speaks of Frankish “duces” (war-leaders) and “regales” (kinglets), but later on explicitly says that the Franks had a single king. He then brings together the inferences from the different sources and compares them. From there he comes to the conclusion, supported by the sources, that we cannot know who the first king of the Franks was, because while there clearly were Frankish kings c.400, their names are not provided by the Roman historians.

It is also worth noting, and this holds true throughout the Ten Books of Histories, that whenever Gregory uses oral accounts he acknowledges them, and that folk memory, rumour or commonly held opinion cannot by themselves be taken as authoritative. Thus, the last paragraph of this chapter contains phrases like “it is commonly said that”, “they also say that” and “some say that” when dealing with such sources on the earliest history of the Franks.

Stuff like this proves that, contrary to what is sometimes said, the historical method – making enquiries into the past through the critical study of the primary sources – was not a sui generis invention of Renaissance humanism or the professionalisation of history in the nineteenth century. But, to roughly paraphrase what Matthew Kempshall says at the beginning of the introduction to his Rhetoric and the Writing of History, 400 – 1500 (2011), while a classicist can simply laugh at such ignorant claims from their modernist colleagues that “proper serious history writing” didn’t begin until c.1500 or c.1850 – “seriously, have those snot-nosed modernists not heard of Thucydides!” – medievalists fear that their only way to prove such claims wrong for their period is to write a book. Here a blogpost will have to do. This, I hope, shows that early medieval historians did indeed possess something we would recognise as the historical method. While undoubtedly source criticism and historical enquiry have become more advanced post the Middle Ages, especially thanks to the development of auxiliary disciplines like philology, archaeology, palaeography, diplomatic, numismatics, statistics, database management and, most recently, climate science, let’s not forget Isaac Newton’s analogy (actually first made by Bernard of Chartres in the twelfth century) about standing on the shoulders of giants.

*The title is a play on E.H Carr’s 1961 classic What is History?, which since its publication has been the entry point for many an undergraduate to the study of historiography and the historian’s craft.

Charles Martel and the battle of Tours: a turning point in world history? A four part series

 Greetings and salutations, friends of this blog and first time visitors. After another epic monster post on British history I think we need to get back to some Continental European history, and in particular, Carolingian content. I also wanted to showcase to you how my project on Adhemar of Chabannes has been getting along - now more than four fifths of Book 1 have been translated, so we've been through the main events of the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries and are now in the eighth century where things get super-exciting because, guess what, that's when the rise of the Carolingians (and as you have probably gathered, I am admittedly something of a Carolingian fanboy) happens. But, linking back to our previous post on King Arthur, what better way to go about this than by looking at an undoubtedly historical, but nonetheless quite mythologised, hero from the early middle ages - none other than the founder of the Carolingian dynasty, Charles Martel (c.688 - 741). 

The way I'll attempt to do this is in a four part series of posts. The first will consider the political world that Charles Martel was born into and grew up in by giving as best a short overview as I can of the previous 200 years of Frankish history. The second will give a very short overview of the Islamic conquests to 711. The third post will consider the career of Charles Martel, the events leading up to the battle of Tours and what we can know about the battle itself. The fourth will consider how historians have viewed the battle from almost as soon as it had happened through to the present day. 

Probably the most famous artistic depiction of Charles Martel and the battle of Tours, from the Hall of Battles at Versailles that King Louis Philippe (r.1830 - 1848) created to celebrate French military greatness. Photograph by yours truly (taken in April 2018).

The political background part 1: Gaul and the Franks to 714

So what was the world that Charles Martel was born into? Well, Charles Martel was most likely born at Herstal, in modern-day Belgium, sometime between 676 and 690. Like with a lot of famous figures from the early middle ages, our sources don't give us any precise information about Charles' date or place of birth. Paul Fouracre suggests that Charles was born sometime around 688 and I'm happy to go with that. 

Charles Martel was born in Gaul, in the kingdom of the Franks, and all its free inhabitants of Gaul north of the river Loire (corresponding to modern day northern France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the German Rhineland) identified themselves as Franks. But who really were the Franks and how did they come to be there? 

The origins of the Franks

The Franks were originally a bunch of West Germanic tribes who grouped together under a common leadership for military purposes, that first appear in the Roman sources in the late third century AD. We don't know what the name "Franks" meant exactly - scholars dispute whether it meant "the free men" or "the fierce ones." For the next century and a half, they keep cropping up in accounts written by Roman historians, sometimes fighting against the Romans, at other times fighting for them as foederati (armies of satellite tribes settled on the Roman frontier). After the Romans abandoned the Rhine frontier in 406, due to the worsening political situation in the Western Roman Empire, the Franks began to advance across the Rhine into Northeast Gaul. By the 460s, as it became abundantly clear that the Western Roman Empire was nearing its end, modern day Belgium, French Flanders and the German regions west of the Rhine were under the control of Frankish warlords that our sources refer to as "petty kings" (reguli in Latin). One of these "petty kings" was a chap called Childeric, who I've posted about here before because Adhemar tells a rather rollicking good story about him, and he had his base of operations at Tournai in Belgium.

Childeric was succeeded in 481 by his fifteen year old son, Clovis. Clovis' importance as a historical figure really cannot be understated, and to French nationalists for the last 200 years he's competed with Vercingetorix for the honour of being the primordial founding father of the French nation. By Clovis' day, Roman Gaul had now been essentially split into six power blocks:

1. The Frankish petty kings in the northeast.
2. In the north-central zone, a West Roman rump state ruled by a general called Syagrius and defended by the remnants of the Roman legions in Gaul, with its capital at Soissons.
3. British refugees in control of the far northwest corner of Gaul (Armorica) that would in time become known as Brittany.
4. In the southwest, the Visigothic kingdom controlling Aquitaine (the region bounded by the Loire to the north, the Rhone to the east and the Pyrenees to the south) with its capital at Toulouse. 
5. The Burgundian kingdom in the south east, consisting of the modern day French regions of Bourgogne et Franche Comte, Rhone-Alpes and Provence and with its capital at Lyon.
6. The Alemanni in the easternmost regions of Alsace and Lorraine.

Clovis and the conquest of Gaul

Now its very important for me to outline all of this, as this six-way division of Gaul c.481 would still leave significant legacies in Charles Martel's day. At the same time, it wasn't going to last for very long at all. In 486, Clovis invaded the Roman rump state in northern Gaul, defeated Syagrius in battle at Soissons and executed him after he attempted to seek refuge with the Visigoths - I've written about this before. By 493, having mopped up all resistance, Clovis had conquered all the former Roman territories between the Somme and Loire, and was starting to eye up the kingdom of the Burgundians. Later that year he married a Burgundian princess called Clotilde, the niece of the Burgundian king Gundobad. Gregory of Tours in his Ten Books of Histories and Adhemar of Chabannes (who used Gregory as his source) claim that Clovis married Clotilde for her beauty, dexterity and intelligence, as reported back to him by his Roman advisor and envoy Aredius when he visited the Burgundian court. There may be some truth in that but, as Gregory and Adhemar themselves hint at, there was also an element of political calculation and military involved - put it another way, the Burgundians were shit scared of getting invaded by Clovis and the Franks. 

The Franks at this time were Germanic pagans - that is to say that they worshipped gods like Odin, Thor and Tyr as their main deities, as well as a host of minor gods and ancestral spirits. But under the influence of Clotilde (the Burgundians were Christians, albeit of the heretical Arian sect), Clovis began to consider converting to Christianity. Sometime after he defeated and conquered the Alemanni at the battle of Tolbiac in 496 (later writers would claim it was this victory that finally persuaded him to convert), Clovis was baptised as a Christian by Archbishop Remigius of Rheims. Interestingly, and very significantly, he chose not to be baptised as an Arian but as a Catholic. The difference between Arians and Chalcedonians is that Arians believed that Jesus Christ was inferior and subordinate to God the Father because had to be created, whereas Chalcedonians believed that all three members of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) were coequal. This all seems quite arcane and abstruse. But just think of how, in 1500 years time, historians will probably find it weird and very hard to understand that we ever got worked up over whether to say "women" or "people who menstruate" on an NHS advice leaflet, footballers taking the knee at the Eurocup or "Rule Britannia" not being sung at the last night of the Proms. Theological controversies were for late antiquity and the early middle ages what the so-called "culture wars" are for us in the twenty-first century.  

Now it must be said that, like with a lot of other key dates in early medieval history, there is significant controversy over when Clovis' baptism happened. Our source for him being baptised in 496 is Gregory of Tours' Ten Books of Histories. Gregory was writing two generations after Clovis, and some historians have raised serious doubts about his credibility for events that took place before his lifetime (538 - 594) - see my post linked above about Syagrius and the "kingdom of Soissons." Another, more contemporary source, a letter of Bishop Avitus of Vienne, seems to imply (rather obliquely) that Clovis wasn't baptised until 507, which as we'll see was another crucial year in his reign. I'm not going to take a position on this debate, though it does do well to illustrate a lot of the basic problems of studying this period.

A much remembered event: the baptism of Clovis (whenever that actually happened), from an ivory codex dating to c.875. Like the Treaty of Verdun in 843, Philip Augustus defeating King John of England and Emperor Otto IV at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, Joan of Arc lifting the siege of Orleans in 1429 or the storming of the Bastille in 1789, this one of many moments that people claim as the "birth of the French nation."

By Pethrus (talk) - File:Saint Remigius binding Medieval Picardie Museum.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=90181350. 

Within about a generation of Clovis' baptism, all the Frankish elite and most of the free population had at least nominally accepted Chalcedonian Christianity. This was unique in the post-Roman west as the Burgundians, the Visigothic kingdom, the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy and the Vandal kingdom in Africa were Arian Christian, and the Anglo-Saxons wouldn't be converted until a century later. Because of this, the French have often claimed that. It has also has been a thing of national pride for French Catholics since at least the thirteenth century. The shift towards a more Christian culture, however, was much more gradual. The Roman historian Procopius claims in his History of the Wars that the Franks in the 530s still practised ritualistic human sacrifice on Gothic women and children captured in war. Of course one could say that Procopius was trying to make the Franks seem like barbarians, and thus support his master, Emperor Justinian, in his plan to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. At the same time, the Franks were allied to the Romans and Frankish envoys did visit the Roman imperial court in Constantinople. 

Another nineteenth century romantic painting, this time of Clovis, looking rather Asterix-like,  praying towards Heaven in the middle of the battle of Tolbiac in 496 as described by Gregory of Tours, the Book of the History of the Franks of 727 and Adhemar of Chabannes - the subsequent victory would then cause him to convert, so the story goes. The painting is located at the Pantheon (a "temple to the French nation"), in Paris, and an almost identical one can be found in the Hall of Battles at Versailles. Photo taken by the present author (April 2018).

After Clovis' conversion, he turned his attentions to the south again and in 507, at the battle of Vouille near Poitiers, he defeated and killed the Visigothic king Alaric II. The Franks rapidly conquered all of Aquitaine save for the Nimes-Narbonne coastal strip which the Visigoths barely held on to, and Visigothic royal court was forced to relocate to Spain. Clovis then spent the next few years eliminating all the other Frankish petty kings, men like his erstwhile allies Ragnachar of Cambrai and Sigebert of Cologne, and absorbing their kingdoms into his own. When Clovis died in 511, the Franks had come out on top as the dominant political and military power in Gaul, and they all accepted the authority of Clovis and his dynasty. 

The early Merovingians

That dynasty would of course come to be called the Merovingians, though not until the seventh century. Various origin myths developed about that dynasty. One, found in the seventh century chronicle of Fredegar, held that Clovis' grandfather was a chap called Merovech. Merovech was born, so the story went, after his mother eloped with a creature called a quinotaur, an aquatic creature that's half-bull, half-sea-serpent, she met while walking at the beach. Of course, none of this was too unusual in the post-Roman West. The West Saxon kings claimed Odin as an ancestor - if this were true, then Queen Elizabeth II would be the descendant of a Norse god. Yet its led Dan Brown to claim as "fact" in his bestselling airport bookshop classic The Da Vinci Code that the Merovingians were the direct descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. I'd have sooner argued that Fredegar was describing Zeus up to his old tricks again, that Merovech was a demigod and that all Merovingians had Olympian blood in them - it would take a lot less by way of mental gymnastics, that's for sure. But hang on a minute. Fredegar says it was a "beast of Neptune" and, while Zeus likes to go on the pull in a lot of different places, the beach is the preferred haunt of his brother (when he's not trying to piss off Athena by getting some nookie in her temple!). I think it was Poseidon, in which case Merovech would be the half-brother of Percy Jackson and Clovis his grand-nephew! But before I damage my credibility as a historian by further indulging in Percy Jackson fanfiction in what is meant to be a serious blogpost, let me just say that this myth is not known to have existed before Fredegar. Nor did it catch on - The Book of the History of the Franks of 727, Einhard and Adhemar of Chabannes are completely silent about it.

Still, the Merovingian kings had some charismatic, almost mystical qualities about them, above all their exceptionally luxurious long hair (short hair was the fashion for men at that time), which served to mark them out as special and uniquely qualified for kingship. Indeed, if you wanted to disqualify an individual Merovingian from the throne, a more humane alternative to killing them was to have them tonsured and thus politically emasculate them. Clovis and his sons also gave them a reputation for military success and crushing enemies who stood against them, a clear sign of God's favour. People definitely did think that there was something special about the Merovingian bloodline. From c.530, just one generation after Clovis, it seems to have been universally acknowledged that in order to be qualified to be a king you had to be a male-line descendant of a previous king from the Merovingian dynasty. For example, Gundovald, a usurper in Provence who rebelled in 584 - 585, had to claim that he was a forgotten bastard son of King Chlothar (d.561), the youngest son of Clovis. While aristocratic governors in the provinces often rebelled against the Merovingian kings, they never tried to seize the throne for themselves or set up their own breakaway kingdoms. This is such a big contrast to Merovingian Gaul's immediate neighbours, the Visigothic kingdom (418 - 721) and Lombard Italy (568 - 774), where no dynasty survived longer than four generations. Indeed, the Merovingians survived longer than any other of the royal dynasties of the post-Roman period on the Continent. The West Saxon royal house survived for longer, being a ruling dynasty in southern Britain all the way from the sixth century down to 1016/ 1066, but their territory was never as large as Merovingian Gaul. Keep all this in mind, for later on in this series we shall be confronted with a really important question. Why did Charles Martel not try and become king of the Franks himself, even though he had more than sufficient political power, material resources and military track record to do so? Indeed when (spoiler alert) Charles' son, Pepin the Short, got round to deposing the last Merovingian king, Childeric III, in 751, the Merovingians had ruled the Franks for a longer period of time than the United States of America has been in existence as of today. Its really not hard to see how much of a shock this must have been to people at the time.

A quinotaur depicted on a Roman mosaic from Eboracum, York, now displayed in the Yorkshire Museum, York. Photo by Carole Raddato from FRANKFURT, Germany - Ophiotaurus Mosaic, Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum)Uploaded by Marcus Cyron, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30143995

Clovis was succeeded by his four sons. Following Germanic custom, the kingdom was divided between the four of them. They proceeded to make further territorial conquests. In 534, the Burgundian kingdom was conquered and by c.550 all of what is now central and southern Germany had come under Frankish overlordship. They also attempted to conquer Northern Italy between 535 and 563 and regularly led campaigns into Spain. There is even evidence, albeit of a purely circumstantial kind, that the Merovingians exercised soft and possibly hard power in southern England. The kingdom of Kent (and possibly Sussex as well) appears to have been a Merovingian satellite state, and King Aethelbert of Kent (d.616) married Bertha (565 - 601), a great-granddaughter of Clovis who may have helped precipitate her husband's conversion to Christianity by St Augustine of Canterbury in 597. Its so interesting, and perhaps uncoincidental, how Bertha's story mirrors that of her great-grandmother, Clotilde.

The oldest church building in the UK still in operation: St Martin's church, Kent, built as a private chapel for Bertha before her husband's conversion to Christianity. By Oosoom - Self-photographed, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7466978. The building, especially its interior, has been altered a lot over the centuries, but the original late sixth century brickwork and a decorative arch survive, as is shown here. Its patron saint is Martin of Tours (316 - 397), the founding father of monasticism in Roman Gaul and a highly celebrated figure in the Merovingian period. The monastery Martin founded at Marmoutier-sur-Loire, a suburb of Tours, was one of the richest and most prestigious religious foundations in Western Europe in the period c.500 - 750, and thus it played a crucially important role in the story of Charles Martel and the battle of Tours, as we shall see.

 

The youngest of Clovis' sons, Chlothar I (497 - 561), managed to reunify the Frankish kingdom by 558, having outlived all his brothers and murdered his nephew - Richard III isn't the only monarch with that charge to his name and, unlike in his case, no one holds Chlothar's guilt in doubt. After Chlothar's death the kingdom was divided again between his four surviving sons - Charibert, Chilperic, Sigebert and Guntram. A forty-five year long period of constant dynastic infighting ensued, in which the key players were two of the most extraordinary women of the early middle ages - Fredegund (d.597), a former slave-girl who became the wife of King Chilperic, and Brunhilda (543 - 613), a Visigothic princess from Spain and the wife of King Sigebert. I'll do a post on them and that whole saga sometime in the near future. To describe their story as "Game of Thrones but in real life" really would be about the sum of it. Though it must be said that Fredegund and Brunhilda would leave Cersei Lannister in the dust in terms of the lengths they were willing to go to in order to preserve their power in what was without a doubt a very macho and patriarchal society.

In the end, Chilperic and Fredegund's son Chlothar II (584 - 629) came out on top, after all the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of Sigebert and Brunhilda had been eliminated (his other two uncles died without male issue), and in 613 was proclaimed king of a unified Frankish kingdom. However, by this point it was recognised that the Frankish kingdom consisted of three indivisible realms (regna), each with their own distinctive identity - Austrasia, Neustria  and Burgundy. Chlothar II recognised that these realms were going to continue to exist permanently in the edict of Paris issued on 18 October 614, issued at a church council in which bishops from all over the Frankish kingdom and from Kent attended. Each kingdom from now on was going to have its own separate royal court even when a single king reigned over all three kingdoms. The exact boundaries of these three realms are hard to describe and shifted a lot over time. But it suffices to say that Austrasia was the northeastern realm and gravitated around Metz in Lorraine, while Neustria was the northwestern realm and had its political heartland in the area around Paris and Burgundy, the southeastern realm, was centred in Lyon. In many ways these reflected the late fifth century divisions of Gaul. Austrasia consisted of where the Franks had been based, pre-Clovis, and the Alemannic territories, and was probably the most "Germanic" of the three realms. The Austrasian elite and most of the free population spoke Frankish, the language that would by the ninth century evolve into Old High German. Neustria essentially filled the same zone as the kingdom of Soissons had before 486, and its people were overwhelmingly Latin-speaking. Burgundy was likewise a Latin speaking realm to its core and essentially took the same boundaries as the old pre-534 kingdom of the Burgundians. All of these kingdoms had different legal systems - in Austrasia the law of the Ripaurian Franks, in Neustria the law of the Salian Franks and in Burgundy the law of the Burgundians. 

A gold coin (solidus) of King Chlothar II, portraying him like a late Roman emperor. 

Under Chlothar's son Dagobert I (r.629 - 639), who inherited an undivided kingdom from his father having co-ruled with him for the previous six years, the high watermark of Merovingian power and prestige was reached. Indeed, Dagobert was remembered as the model king for generations, indeed centuries, after his death. Adhemar of Chabannes wrote in the 1020s:

Fuitque ipse Dagobertus rex fortissimus nutritor Francorum, severissimus in judiciis, ecclesiarum largitor. Ipse enim elemosinarum copiam de fisco palatii per ecclesias sanctorum primus distribuere jussit. Pacem in cuncto regno suo statuit, et in multis gentibus rumor ejus personuit. Timorem et metum in universis regnis per circuitum incussit. Ipse pacificus, velut Salomon, quietus regnum obtinuit Francorum. 

My translation:

"That king Dagobert was the strongest guardian of the Franks, most severe in justice and a benefactor of churches. Indeed, the first thing he ordered was that plenty of alms from the public purse be distributed to the holy churches. He established peace in all his kingdom, and his reputation resounded among many peoples. He inspired awe and dread in all the surrounding kingdoms. Like Solomon, he obtained peace and tranquillity for the kingdom." 

A facsimile of the signature of Dagobert I

Government under the early Merovingians: continuity and change 

While the dynastic back and forth between partition and reunification of the Frankish kingdom under the early Merovingians, great and irreversible changes were taking place in Gaul in the sixth and early seventh centuries. 

Under the early Merovingians, it seems like much carried on as it had done before. While they didn't exactly have capitals in the modern sense, which to a certain degree was true even of the western Roman emperors, the Merovingian kings were not itinerant either. Rather, like the western Roman emperors, they ruled their kingdoms from a few select cities - Rheims, Metz and Cologne for the kings of Austrasia; Soissons, Rouen and Paris for the kings of Neustria; Orleans, Lyon and Vienne for the kings of Burgundy. 

In these cities they set up royal courts and central governments with a hierarchy of titles inherited from the Western Roman emperors. The maior domus (literally mayor of the palace) managed the royal household and acted as a kind of deputy. The referendarius managed the chancery/ central writing office that produced all official royal documents (diplomas) - these included written records of royal orders to the provinces, grants of land/ exemption from military service and taxation and royal judgements on legal disputes. While its debatable how organised and "bureaucratic" the chancery was, its clear that Merovingian royal administration was quite literate and even kept the medium of imperial Roman government documents - the papyrus scroll. The theasaurius or camerarius managed the royal treasury. There all of the king's income from taxation and royal landownership was stored in wooden chests, along with booty taken in wars and diplomatic gifts from neighbouring rulers. Gaining control of it was vital for anyone who wanted to hold supreme political power. Fredegar wrote that, after Chlothar II died, Dagobert took possession of his father's kingdom and "all of the treasure", and in mentioning the treasure he was simply repeating a standard formula that all Merovingians used for describing transfers of power from one ruler to another. Gregory of Tours noted that Brunhilda and Fredegund took control of the treasuries of their kingdoms after both of their husbands were assassinated in 575 and 584, a necessary step to protect their underage sons and prevent usurpation by rival Merovingians. The court was also where the high court of justice and the king's council convened, making it the backbone of the state. 

A Merovingian royal diploma of King Theuderic III, issued in 695. Couldn't find an earlier one - not many authentic Merovingian royal diplomas have survived, especially since papyrus is less durable than parchment. Its written in Merovingian chancery script which is an absolute nightmare to read (to put it mildly)! I remember when I first saw Merovingian chancery in palaeography classes for my masters' degree and thought "how the fuck am I supposed to read this?" We can all thank the Carolingians for discontinuing this script, and giving us the kind of handwriting we use today.

The court was a powerful centre of gravity. The aristocracy were drawn to it, either to obtain court offices, have their voice heard on matters of state, make petitions and seek favours from the king and socialise with each other. From the later sixth century, they also seem to have sent their sons to be educated at the court. The court of Dagobert was so renowned for the quality of education there, that Queen Aethelburh of Northumbria (605 - 647), the daughter of Aethelbert and Bertha and the second wife of King Edwin of Northumbria (d.633), sent her stepsons over to the Merovingian court. We do, however, know virtually nothing about the curriculum there, or what exactly the purpose of the education was. The friendships made through being educated at the royal court as boys and then a career in royal service as young men, made for quite a tight-knit ruling class. For example, St Audoin of Rouen (609 - 684), the son of a powerful Frankish aristocrat from Neustria, was sent to the court of King Chlothar to be educated. There he befriended a courtier called Desiderius (580 - 655), who came from an ancient Roman senatorial family from Aquitaine, and the future king Dagobert. Under King Dagobert, both attained two of the highest offices of state - Audoin became referendarius and Desiderius became camerarius. Then when each of them respectively entered middle-age, the two men were appointed to bishoprics - Desiderius to the see of Cahors in 630 and Audoin to the see of Rouen in 641. Even after they'd left court, the two men corresponded to each other by letters, being the last practitioners of a living ancient Roman tradition going back to Cicero, Seneca and Pliny the Younger. There is a very strong overtone of nostalgia in them for their youthful days at the court. In one letter (Epistulae 10), Desiderius remembers three of their friends - Bishop Paul of Verdun and Bishop Sulpicius of Bourges - who are now deceased and longs for when they can meet again in heaven. He also wrote to King Dagobert, reflecting on "the memory of the camraderie and sweetness of a youth passed under a cloudless sky" (Epistulae 5). The relationships between kings and the aristocracy were thus very intimate except in one respect - marriage. The early Merovingians down to Chlothar II did not marry the wives and daughters of their nobles, instead marrying either foreign princesses (like Brunhilda) or slave girls (like Fredegund), and in this way they kept the nobility at arm's length.

But royal courts weren't just places where the already powerful met, did essential business, got promoted and fraternised. It was also where powerful people could be made. Take the example of Bishop Eligius of Noyon (588 - 660). Born into a lower class family, he trained as a goldsmith but excelled at his craft so much that he caught the eye of Chlothar II, became employed at the royal mint and did so well there that King Dagobert made him one of his closest advisers. Eligius joined the friend group of Desiderius of Cahors and Audoin of Rouen and ended his life as Bishop of Noyon. Likewise, Bertharius, an attendant in the royal bedchamber, became a count and led armies for King Theudebert II (d.612), a grandson of Brunhilda. And Venantius Fortunatus (530 - 609), an Italian by birth, was most likely originally a spy for the East Roman (Byzantine) governmen. But when he stumbled across the wedding of King Sigebert and Queen Brunhilda in 566 and composed a panegyric for the newlyweds, he was instantly recruited for the royal court and ended up as Bishop of Poitiers. Thus what the Merovingians had down to the mid-seventh century was a governing class whose members, wherever they came from originally, were very much on the same page as one another, and they overwhelmingly owed their positions to royal power and patronage.

So, as we've established, the court provided a very strong link between the central power and the localities and between the king and elites. This was absolutely vital given just how goddamn massive the Merovingian kingdom was. Even when the Merovingian realm was ruled by three our four kings, their kingdoms were still bigger than most Roman imperial provinces. And the unified Merovingian realm, with all of its peripheral regions (Aquitaine, Alemannia, Bavaria and Thuringia), covered a landmass larger than the modern state of France. Remember this was an age in which information could travel as fast as a horse could carry it. A single courier, riding hell for leather, could travel at most 80km a day. And it could easily take three days to travel from, say, Paris to Rouen. 

But below the level of the royal court, how was such a large kingdom governed? We know that the Merovingians appointed individual aristocrats and courtiers as regional governors. At the top level were dukes (duces) who presided over a large administrative region. Below them were the counts (comites), who presided over a smaller district (pagus) that included a city (civitas). In Burgundy and Provence, you had patricians (patricii) instead of dukes. All of these titles were of ancient Roman origin. Counts dukes and patricians were based in cities and were responsible for supervising tax collection, justice, policing and military forces in the surrounding district/ region. To some extent, they shared their responsibilities with the bishops who, as we saw earlier, were very often royal nominees and former courtiers. Below the counts were subordinate officials known as tribunes and centenarii, tasked with tax collection and law enforcement. These officials were paid salaries by the royal treasury from government taxation, and this along with court patronage more generally seems to have been their main source of wealth. While these officials tended to be (but weren't always, as we saw earlier) landed aristocrats there is a lot of debate over how big their landed estates were in the sixth century. Chris Wickham thinks they were fabulously rich, whereas Guy Halsall thinks that most of them were little more than country squires. All said, the chain of command in Merovingian provincial government essentially took its inspiration from the chain of command in the late Roman army, which the Franks had served on various occasions during the fourth and fifth centuries. It was very much intended as a model that the native Gallo-Romans would find palatable. 


All this talk of Franks and Gallo-Romans is hugely important, because ethnicity was quite an important organising principle in early Merovingian government. The upper echelons of the regime were undoubtedly very mixed. The king was attended on at court by Franks and Romans,  a large number of the counts and dukes had Roman names in the sixth century and the overwhelming majority of the bishops did too. Bishop Gregory of Tours (full name: Georgius Florentius Gregorius) is demonstrative of this - he came from an ancient Gallo-Roman senatorial family and could trace his ancestors at least as far back as the second century AD. Yet when it came to the general population, crucial distinctions were made when it came to three of the most basic aspects of Merovingian government - the law, taxation and military service. 

The evidence we have for how the Merovingian military worked is extremely limited and difficult to interpret - all we can be 100% sure of is that Clovis and his successors  But it seems like in the sixth century, the Merovingians, like other post-Roman rulers, were able to maintain a sort of standing army on a still recognisably Roman model. Ethnic Franks (and in Burgundy, ethnic Burgundians) would be billeted on the estates of Roman landowners, with each individual soldier receiving a third in the tax revenue or rent from the estate (in lieu of tax). The regional dukes would be responsible for maintaining the troops, provisioning them and leading them on royal military campaigns. The dukes and counts would also have their own retinues of professional bodyguards, known variously as bucellarii, saiones and leudes, whom they maintained at their own expense. There was nothing particularly new, "Germanic" or "medieval" about this, as Roman generals and officials had done the same. And given that Dukes and counts were salaried officials, these bodyguard regiments  ultimately fell under state control. The king of course had his own palace bodyguard regiment - the antrustiones. Membership of the army was determined by ethnicity: soldiers had to be ethnic Franks and Frankish men were obliged to become soldiers. In return they got exemption from taxation and the right to speak in the annual assembly on 1 March, which also created a direct link between kings and the rank-and-file soldiers. Not all of them would have been ancestrally Frankish - many of the "Franks" would have been the descendants of the surviving Roman soldiers or of other barbarian groups in Gaul that had decided to take along with the conquerors.

Classic Merovingian military equipment from the sixth century. The Spangenhelm (above), made from riveted bands of metal hammered together, originated among the Sarmatians, an Iranian nomad living in roughly what is now Ukraine, no later than the second century AD (some spangenhelms can be seen on Trajan's column), and from 500 - 1000 it appears to have been the most widely used type of helmet across Europe. This particular example is sixth century and comes from a part of Germany that was under Merovingian control. The francisca (below) was a type of throwing axe used by the rank and file troops in sixth century Frankish armies. However it, along with the throwing spear ango (a descendant of the Roman legionary's pilum) fell out of use in the seventh century with the shift away from more fluid battle tactics towards the classic shield-wall slogging match, not too dissimilar to ancient Greek hoplite warfare, that the Anglo-Saxons still tried to pull off against the Normans at the battle of Hastings. This of course prioritised heavier weapons (stabbing spears and long broad one-edged cutting swords known as scramasaxes), large circular shields with spherical metal bosses and body armour (mostly mail shirts) at the expense of projectile weapons like bows and arrows, javelins and, yes, the francisca. Bear all of this closely in mind - this style of warfare goes a long way to explaining Charles Martel's success at Tours in 732. Grave goods are our friend in charting this military evolution. The objects displayed are from the Royal Armouries, Leeds, and the photographs are my own.

Meanwhile, ordinary Romans paid the taxes, above all the land tax, but were not expected to serve in the army. As stated before, taxation was a very important source of revenue to the early Merovingians, and was levied either in gold coin (modelled on the imperial Roman solidus) or in some less monetised regions in agricultural produce. There was a massive exception to this though, that being Aquitaine. There, Gallo-Roman landowners appear to have been obliged to serve in what were essentially militia forces grouped according to the city districts (civitates) in which they lived, that would be assembled and taken on military campaigns by royal officers. 

So the early Merovingian kings most definitely did have what sociologically-minded historians would prosaically call "an independent coercive force" under their control. This means that they could call on military forces to deal with whatever threats came their way without having to bargain or negotiate with aristocrats or local communities, as a lot of rulers later on the middle ages would have to do, because these troops were directly under the control of them or their officials. Combine that with the systematic taxation of the land, a gold coinage, a hierarchy of salaried officials and the powerful pull of the royal court and what you had was quite a powerful centralised state/s. 

But this set-up wasn't going to last forever. A huge transformation was in motion - one which the leading Merovingian historian and archaeologist Guy Halsall is currently arguing, was the real watershed between the ancient and medieval worlds. How exactly it worked we don't really know, not least because Halsall's book has yet to appear on our shelves, but we can point to a few potential motors of change that would disrupt all of this:

1. The Roman Emperor Justinian's attempt to conquer the former provinces of the Western Roman Empire: at the time of the death of Clovis in 511, an intelligent Gallo-Roman observer could have been forgiven for not knowing that the fall of Rome had happened 35 years ago. Barbarian leaders had been deposing emperors and putting their candidates on the throne long before Odoacer, a Germanic general in Roman service, deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476. As for military strongmen seizing political power the provinces, change the record! Living under Clovis and his sons may have felt, to many ordinary Gallo-Romans, no different to living under the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, just under new management. Indeed, Clovis had sort of acknowledged that he was an imperial subject when he accepted an honorary consulship from Anastasius, the Roman emperor in Constantinople, in 507. He also had his coins minted in Anastasius' name and with his image on them. But all that was going to change when, in the 530s, Justinian, the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, claimed that the Western provinces had, since 476, been completely lost to the "barbarians" and launched a series of wars to recover them. By 555, Africa, Sardinia, Sicily and Italy had been reconquered from the Vandals and Ostrogoths respectively, and Constantinople had gained a foothold in southern Spain against the Visigoths. The Franks had initially joined in these wars as allies of the East Romans, but after 539 relations between the Merovingians and the imperial court in Constantinople got rather tense - Justinian was not best pleased when Theudebert I told him that his kingdom stretched to the Danube too. It was a sign of the times that, after defeating the Ostrogoths at Pavia, Theudebert began to mint coins in his own name and with his own image - something that no previous Germanic ruler anywhere in the former Western Roman Empire had done. That's not to say that Roman ways were no longer politically correct in the Merovingian kingdoms - Theudebert held chariot races in the hippodrome at Arles, for goodness sakes! But for Romans living in the Merovingian kingdoms, it must have drastically changed their worldview and made them ask serious questions about who they were now and who did they owe their allegiances to?
2. Its the economy, stupid: historians generally agree that between c.400 and 650, Western Europe got poorer and trade and markets thinned out. Meanwhile the population plummeted and became more rural and dispersed. The exact reasons for this are unclear, but a combination of the long term consequences of the breakup of the Western Roman Empire, catastrophic global cooling and a bubonic plague pandemic beginning in the 540s are to blame. Climate crisis and pandemics, plus ca change! And yet people, including the Vice Chancellor of a fairly prestigious university in the UK, claim the sixth century has no relevance to us in the present day! The irony abounds. The consequences of all this were that it was harder to get the resources needed to support a strong state - there were less people to tax, they had less taxable wealth and they were too spread out. Attempts to try and remedy this were met with ...
3. Resistance to taxation: The Merovingians tried their best to shore up the tax system. Indeed, King Chilperic I (r.561 - 584) of Neustria and his queen, Fredegund, tried to both make their subjects pay more taxes and make tax collection more efficient. Gregory of Tours describes it vividly: "King Chilperic decreed that a new series of taxes should be levied throughout the kingdom, and these were extremely heavy. As a result, a great number of people emigrated from their native cities or from whatever bit of land they occupied and sought to go into exile elsewhere, for they preferred to go into exile rather than endure such punitive taxation. The new tax laws laid it down that landowner must pay five gallons of wine for every half acre which he possessed. Many other taxes were levied, not only land but also on the number of workmen employed, until it became quite impossible to meet them." Adhemar of Chabannes, writing in the eleventh century, a time when any kind of government taxation in the kingdom of the Franks had faded into ancient history, recounted this episode with complete horror: (My translation) Resulting from these evil tax surveys, many people, having abandoned their villas, and left behind their properties in the cities, made for other kingdoms, saying that it was better to go live in foreign parts than to be subjected to such ruin. For it was thus established that the landed proprietor would render to the tax collectors an amphora of wine for every acre. And thus, the entire wealth of the remaining lands were made taxable, and similarly they administered taxes on all the slaves. Verily, the people were intensely oppressed, and they called upon the Lord. (Original Latin: pro quibus descriptionibus malis, multi, reliquentes villas, civitates vel possesiones proprias, alia regna pecierunt, dicentes melius esse perigrinari quam tali periculo subiacere. Sic enim fuerat statuum ut possessor de propria terra  unam anforam vini per arpennum redderet. Sic et de reliquis terris ex universa substantia faciebant, similiter et de mancipiis cuncta agebant. Populus valde oppressus, vociferabatur ad Dominum). As Gregory of Tours would then describe, in Limoges (and presumably in other civitates, lynch mobs tried to kill tax collectors - Gregory of Tours' histories abound with accounts of tax collectors being lynched, especially immediately after the death of the king i.e. some decades earlier, Parthenius, Theudebert's treasurer and finance minister, was stoned to death by the citizens of Trier after the demise of his royal master. King Chilperic responded with sever repression, sending in his officials to torture and execute rebellious citizens, with some of them being impaled. But as Gregory of Tours and Adhemar then recount, Chilperic's oppressed Gallo-Roman subjects called on the wrath of the Almighty, and Chilperic and his sons became gravely ill. Following the advice of his Queen Fredegund, Chilperic publicly had all the tax registers burned and ordered that these methods of tax assessment never be used again- one reason why we sadly don't have a Merovingian Domesday Book! Taxation thus had to become lighter and less efficient. and Under Chilperic's son, Chlothar II, further limits were placed on government taxation in the Edict of Paris of 614, in order to help ensure smooth relations between him and his subjects in all the three realms.
4. Changes in ethnic identity: the KEY thing to remember about ethnicity in late antiquity and the early middle ages was that it WASN'T a fixed category based on biological descent. What it WAS was primarily a political and military grouping with common cultural symbols and origin myths. Indeed, as we saw, the Franks had begun as various smaller Germanic tribes, that had maintained distinct identities for centuries, banding together for political and military purposes. Over time, these older tribal identities became subsumed and disappeared into a "Frankish identity." It was therefore possible, as the Franks came to extend their rule over various territories and peoples, that other people could become Franks too. Becoming Frankish was immensely attractive to the Gallo-Romans - it meant a higher wergild (compensatory money for being the victim of a crime) under the laws of the Salian Franks in Neustria, exemption from most forms of taxation (especially the burdensome land tax) and the right to participate in the annual assembly that came with serving in the royal armies. Increasingly Gallo-Romans and Franks began to intermarry (Gregory of Tours had an uncle called Gundulf, a very un-Roman name) and Gallo-Romans came to adopt Frankish names i.e., whilst in the sixth century only one bishop in Gaul had a Frankish name, in the seventh century the majority of them had Frankish names. The Gallo-Roman aristocracy also came to adopt more and more of Frankish culture, which meant becoming more militarised - riding and skilled use of sword and spear increasingly took precedence over being able to write Latin hexameters and recite Virgil and Horace from memory in elite education. Gallo-Roman aristocrats who didn't like warrior culture increasingly became bishops, like Gregory of Tours and Desiderius of Cahors. And Justinian's wars of reconquest, which stalled after the 550s, showed that the Western Roman Empire had fallen and was never coming back, which meant it was time to adapt to a new world and take on new identities. Thus by c.650, Frankish identity was so universal among the free population north of the Loire that, in the Law of the Ripaurian Franks for Austrasia, "Romans" were essentially classified as half-free people who required a Frank to speak for them in the law courts. In Provence and Aquitaine, however, the aristocracy and the general population continued to identify as Romans and live by Roman law into the eighth century and later. The obvious knock-on effects of all this were that the system by which Romans paid taxes and Franks served in the army could no longer work. This was because with the overwhelming majority of people in northern and central Gaul claiming Frankish ethnicity by the early seventh century, there were too many people eligible to serve in the army and too few to pay taxes. A new system, therefore, had to be created.
5. Dynastic instability and civil war: obviously there's the predictably disruptive and destructive effects of political infighting and internecine strife on government and the economy. But besides that, the constant drawing and redrawing of the political map between 561 - 613 meant that individual Merovingian kings, when they gained control of kingdoms that had belonged to rival Merovingians, had to work hard to win the loyalty of aristocracies that had previously been loyal to rival Merovingians. This meant making some concessions to their authority, especially with regards to appointing royal officials.
6. The rise and rise of monasticism: monasticism (communities of Christian ascetics living simple lives of prayer and contemplation together and holding property in common) had already existed in late Roman and Merovingian Gaul. Some monasteries, like Saint Germain des Pres in Paris, Saint Medard in Soissons and Saint Martin near Tours, were by the 580s already very wealthy and famous. However, as the sixth century drew to a close, a new kind of monasticism took Gaul by force - one imported from Ireland. You see, Ireland had been converted to Christianity by the Romano-British missionary St Patrick in the fifth century. However, Irish Christians soon ran into a problem. Their new religion had grown up in the Roman Empire, where everything, including the church, was organised around cities. Ireland in 500 AD had nothing that could be called a city by any definition, and was an essentially tribal society. The way to get around this was, rather than have religious life be led by bishops based in cities as in the former provinces of the Roman Empire, instead base it around rural monasteries led by charismatic abbots. These Irish monasteries owned vast tracts of land and herds of cattle (early Irish agriculture was overwhelmingly pastoral) and attracted large communities of skilled craftsmen to settle around them, making them economic powerhouses. An Irish monk called Saint Columbanus brought this Irish model of monasticism over to Gaul when he came there in 590, founding the great monasteries of Luxeil and Annegray in Burgundy. Irish-style monasticism spread like wildfire in Gaul, with over 40 new monasteries being built in the Merovingian realms between c.600 and 675. Merovingian kings and queens enthusiastically founded monasteries - they provided valuable links between the royal court and the localities they were situated in, and the spiritual backing they offered to their patrons through communal prayer was invaluable. Kings throughout the seventh century would ensure that monasteries maintained cycles of "perpetual praise" for their royal patrons, as well as prayers granting them victory in battle and the stability of the kingdom. Thus they were more than willing to grant the monasteries and the tenants on their landed estates immunity from taxation, which helped further weaken the administrative system they'd inherited from the late Roman Empire. Monasteries were also a massive boost to aristocratic power. By donating large landed estates to monasteries aristocrats could protect their family lands from fragmentation - Frankish customary law required that a dead man's estates be shared among all his children. The monastery thus essentially acted as a land bank. And by installing a relative - a son, daughter, nephew, niece or widowed mother - as abbot/ abbess, one could ensure that other families didn't get effective control of those lands. Monasteries could also produce panegyrics and hagiographies glorifying their aristocratic patrons, as well as writings attacking their political opponents. They also provided aristocratic families with the same kind of spiritual support as they did kings, and as for them they served as private mausolea - being buried in a monastery close to a saint would aid your chances of getting to Heaven, as would the prayers and virtuous ways of the monastic community.
7. Land, land and more land: after 600, kings came to increasingly reward their aristocratic followers and courtiers not with the proceeds of taxation but with grants of land by charter that were legally irrevocable. While this kept the aristocracy drawn towards the royal court for patronage, it also gave them significantly less dependent on state service for their wealth and power and significantly more leverage. This would have important long term consequences. Meanwhile, since the last third of the sixth century, soldiers came to be increasingly rewarded not with the right to collect tax revenue at source on certain estates or shares in their rental income but with grants of land outright that were heritable. Late sixth century kings tried to tax these but, as we discussed earlier, the land tax was fiercely resisted. Landholding and patron client relationships thus started to factor into the raising and maintenance of armies in the seventh century, a very important development indeed.

All of these are linked to wider currents of change across the former Western Roman Empire. And what was going on in the Merovingian realm, as in a lot of the other parts of the former Western Roman Empire, in the half-centuries on either side of 600 truly was epoch-defining. Guy Halsall himself argues that 600 is basically when the ancient world gives way to the medieval one. I'll give you my own views on when antiquity ends and the middle ages begin in a subsequent post. But it suffices to say here that I'm somewhat sympathetic to his way of thinking. After 600, the Merovingian realm feels much less like a continuation of the Roman state in a slimmed down, localised form and appears to be doing something different and carving a path to its own. Perhaps it would be right to say that it was around 600 when the leap from West Roman successor state to early medieval kingdom was made.

The edict of Paris issued by Chlothar II in 614 definitely was a sign of the times. The edict itself was not as game-changing as some scholars have made it out to be in the past - to call it the "Magna Carta of the Frankish nobility" is ludicrous. But it definitely confirmed the way in which things were going. The kind of provisions it made were as follows:

1. The king would "respect the privileges and customs of the provinces."
2. Levy no new tax.
3. Only appoint as provincial officials men who already owned land in said province.
4. The policing of local society would be in local hands, with the "powerful" in the provinces being responsible for the apprehending of vagabonds and bandits.

This wasn't at all an act of capitulation for the Merovingian monarchy. At a subsequent church council, King Chlothar was proclaimed a latter day King David (reflecting a new, growing tendency to see kingship in Biblical rather than Classical terms), with any royal official who failed to comply by his laws being threatened with excommunication. He also managed to get the mint at Marseilles, where coins were still being issued in the name of the Roman emperor in Constantinople, to be issued in his own name and bearing his own image, completing what Theudebert I had started 80 years earlier. But what this did mean was that the Merovingians were moving towards a kind of regime that relied on a strong partnership between king and aristocracy and which worked with the grain of local society. After his accession in 629, Dagobert went on tours of Burgundy and Austrasia, distributing justice, holding audience and binding the magnates of each region to him before setting up his court and base of operations in the Paris region, in Neustria. Here he feels a lot less like a Roman emperor without the title, and more like a classic medieval king. Meanwhile, the coercive and fiscal power of the central government had definitely declined.  Standing armies had disappeared from Merovingian Gaul by the end of the sixth century - they were now, in theory raised as militias levied from the free adult male population, with non-attendance in the royal host being punished by a crippling fine (the haribannus). In practice, aristocrats, their dependents and the better-off free peasants served. The land tax became largely irrelevant after Chlothar II's reign, though it was still levied locally in some parts of the Loire valley as late as the 720s. The state-issued gold coinage failed after 640, losing most of its gold content and being minted by semi-private issuers all over Gaul. 

At the same time, the gravitational pull of the royal court on the aristocracy as strong as ever. Any move towards regionalism can easily be exaggerated. Aristocrats owned lands and had interests all over Merovingian Gaul i.e. the will of Bishop Bertram of Le Mans (d.616) reveals that he owned estates in places as far apart from each other as the Seine Valley, Lorraine, Burgundy, Provence and Bordeaux, and so they naturally saw politics on a pan-Gallic/ pan-Frankish level.  And through education and careers pursued at the royal court, intermarriage and increasingly shared martial culture and ethnic identities, what you had was a highly integrated aristocratic elite in the seventh century Merovingian kingdom. Thus the aristocracy were overwhelmingly committed to the Merovingian monarchy and political system. They were not interested in building up their local powerbases and feathering their nests. It would be RIDICULOUS to speak of "feudalism", with all the negative connotations that word tends to have, yet. There was nothing resembling a territorial lordship with attendant powers of jurisdiction in Merovingian times, or indeed for some centuries after Merovingians stopped reigning over the Franks. Nor were there any castles. While very few aristocratic residences from this period have been excavated, the written sources overwhelmingly point to them being unfortified - there was no need to mark and defend one's territory, because aristocratic power was not territorial yet. And the ability of kings and the royal court to reach into very local and seemingly trivial affairs was very strong. Chlothar II confirmed the will of a Parisian merchant called John in 626. Sometime in the 630s, Dagobert sent some of his courtiers into the Limousin to divide up the estates of one of the most important aristocratic families in the period. And in 644, Sigebert III ordered a church council in one of his distant southern realms to be cancelled because he had not been informed of it. Theuderic III in 677 deposed the bishop of Embrum in the Alps for marital infidelity, but allowed him to keep his property. Likewise, ordinary people in the provinces looked to kings to solve their problems. One of the reasons why Dagobert was regarded as a good king was because, as Fredegar recounts, he was a supremely approachable kind of guy with a warm and amiable personality - characteristics that would be much praised in kings in many later centuries (I'm reminded of how a chronicler whose name I've forgotten described King Edward IV). 

And lets not forget that the reigns of Chlothar II and Dagobert were the most successful in foreign policy terms. In 622 the attempt of the Saxon tribes of northern Germany to rebel against paying an annual tribute of 500 cows to the Franks, established back in the 540s during the reign of the first Chlothar, by rallying under a "duke" called Berthoald was utterly crushed by Chlothar II and Dagobert. The Saxons thereafter agreed to provide the Franks with military service, thereafter promising to act as a military buffer for the Merovingian realm against the Slavic tribes living in modern day eastern Germany and Poland. Chlothar II and Dagobert also managed to use military force to ensure that the Lombard kingdom in northern Italy paid regular tribute to them. He also successfully intervened militarily in Spanish politics in 631, deposing the reigning kings in the Visigothic kingdom and installing his own candidate from the Visigothic nobility (one also backed by his friend, the Roman Emperor Heraclius - more about him later).

Yet nonetheless, we do have to face up to the fact that at the end of the day, the power of the Merovingian kings did decline. By the time Charles Martel fought the battle of Tours in 732, all historians would agree that the power and authority of the Merovingian kings over their realm was as purely ceremonial and symbolic as that which Queen Elizabeth II has over the UK and the Commonwealth Realms today. Indeed, in some ways they were even more of a constitutional figurehead than she is. As Einhard would recount, all their actual functions as rulers were limited to being present at public ceremonies and receiving foreign ambassadors, never once deviating from a strict script. All effective control at the centre was exercised by the mayor of the palace, which by that point was held by Charles Martel, and by his aristocratic followers. Most of the time, the last Merovingian kings just sat around, letting their nails grow long and their iconic, luxurious long hair grow longer. How did things get there? Some traditionalist historians, taking a very long term view, have seen all of this as an inevitable result of the Edict of Paris, or indeed of earlier developments, which took royal authority on an inescapable downwards spiral. Indeed, pretty much every Merovingian king in the half-century after Dagobert has won the accolade of being called the first roi faineant (literally "do nothing king") by some French historian - as a quick glance at their Wikipedia articles shows. Others argue that they maintained at least some real political and authority until the death of Childebert IV in 711, and see the eclipse of Merovingian power purely as the result of some political accidents that happened in the subsequent ten years. I think the answer lies somewhere in between, which brings us to ...

Things really do go south: child-kings and aristocratic kingmakers (639 - 675)

Dagobert died in 639 and was succeeded by his two underage sons. The six-year-old Clovis II succeeded him in Neustria and Burgundy, and the nine-year-old Sigebert III was installed on the throne of Austrasia. That no ambitious persons to usurp the throne, nor did any of the regional dukes try and secede, confirms what we've said before. The aristocracy couldn't go without the monarchy and the royal courts (now emphatically in the plural), and no one could envisage a king who wasn't of the Merovingian bloodline. Thus the mayors of the palace of their respective kingdoms and the queen mother, Nanthild, ran affairs of state for them.

So it might seem like everything was actually all well and good. All except it wasn't. Without an effective adult king to act as a umpire and with the mayor of the palace, an aristocrat, controlling the court and a patronage system, a lot of aristocrats felt that they were at risk of losing out on the assumption that the mayors of the palace would just abuse the system to their own advantage. Erchinoald, the mayor of the palace for Clovis II in Neustria from 641 and in Burgundy from 642 until his death in 658, was praised in the Chronicle of Fredegar thus: "he lined his own pockets, to be sure, but quite moderately." In Austrasia, the situation was more tense. There, the mayor of the palace, Pepin of Landen (580 - 640), tried to nominate his son Grimoald to succeed him as mayor. But immediately following his death, this was thwarted by Uro, a court official and the guardian of the young king Sigebert, who instead ensured that his son, Otto, succeed Pepin as mayor. 

By 649, both Merovingian kings had come of age and seem to have been more than capable of independent political decision-making. Sigebert III doesn't seem to have been a particularly memorable ruler. But Clovis II seems to have been remembered as an emphatically bad king. Adhemar of Chabannes, writing in the eleventh century, said of him:

(Original Latin) Eo tempore, Clodoveus rex brachium Sancti Dionisii martyris, diabolo instigante, abscidit et per idem tempus regnum Francorum casibus pestiferis concidit. Fuit autem ipse Clodoveus omni spurciciae deditus, fornicarius et inlusor feminarum, gule et inebrietate contentus, hujus mortem et fine nihil dignum historie referunt, quia nequitie se subdidit.

(My translation) At that time, King Clovis II, at the instigation of the devil, cut off the arm of St Dionysius and during that same time the Frankish kingdom was stricken by outbreaks of plague. Indeed, Clovis gave himself over to all depravities; he was a fornicator and scoffer of women, predisposed to gluttony and drunkenness, whose death and end history did not deem noteworthy, because he demonstrated himself to be worthless.

Not a "do-nothing king" but a "good for nothing king": a gold coin of Clovis II, portraying him like a fourth century Roman emperor, housed in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. Photo credit: By Atelier de Paris - http://images.bnf.fr/jsp/index.jsp?destination=afficherListeCliches.jsp&origine=rechercherListeCliches.jsp&contexte=resultatRechercheAvancee, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11853935

But when they died - Clovis II died in 657 and his brother, Sigebert III, predeceased him in 656 - it was yet another round of royal minorities. In Neustria and Burgundy, the eldest of Clovis II's sons, the eight year old Chlothar III, ascended to the throne. His mother, Balthild, an Anglo-Saxon slave girl who had been owned by Nanthild before she married her son, Clovis II, led the regency there. Nanthild seems to have been a bit of a mother-in-law from hell to Balthild, as she allegedly liked to remind her of how she'd once owned her as a slave. In Austrasia, Sigebert III was succeeded by his son, called Dagobert. But very shortly afterwards, Grimoald, who had at last climbed the greasy pole and become mayor of the palace, deposed Dagobert by having him tonsured and exiled to a monastery in Ireland.

Grimoald then took a completely unprecedented step. He made his own son, who had been adopted by King Sigebert III and Queen Chimnechild, King Childebert III. Thus, for the first time, a king not of the Merovingian bloodline sat on the throne of one of the Merovingian realms. You might be saying "Hang on a minute ... I thought you said that it was unthinkable for the Frankish aristocracy to have a non-Merovingian on the throne." Not for Grimoald it was. And while the second half of the seventh century in Gaul is incredibly poor in terms of sources, we don't have any evidence that the Austrasian nobility tried to resist this. Clearly they were more scared of being annexed to Neustria. 

But Neustria wasn't having it. Grimoald himself was kidnapped, condemned to death in a kangaroo court and executed in some unspecified slow and painful manner by the Neustrian nobility. And by 661 at the latest, King Chlothar III and Balthild had defeated the usurper, Childebert III, and annexed Austrasia. Then in 662 Chlothar III had his younger brother, Childeric II installed on the throne of Austrasia. After Chlothar III came of age in 664, Balthild was forced into retirement by her son's courtiers and founded the monastery of Chelles where her biographer, an anonymous monk or nun, wrote that she was "the instrument of divinely ordained concord between the warring kingdoms." 

Until 658, Chlothar III's mayor of the palace had been Erchinoald, but he died was replaced by Ebroin. Ebroin seems to have been a very domineering man, and from most of the sources he appears as a borderline tyrannical figure. According to a hostile source, The Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar, Bishop of Autun, Ebroin firstly decreed that all Burgundian magnates who came to court give him large bribes, and then "issued this unlawful edict - that no one from the region of Burgundy was to come from the palace unless he had ordered them to come." No doubt in this way he intended to limit the access of non-Neustrian magnates, who were therefore not in his circle, to the king. Thus the flow of patronage from the teenaged King Chlothar III would go only to his circle. But its not just partisan Frankish sources that give us a negative impression of Ebroin. According to the Venerable Bede (673 - 735), in 668 Theodore of Tarsus (602 - 690), a Greek by birth from what is now Turkey, and Hadrian (637 - 710), an African possibly of Berber ethnicity, were journeyed through Francia to England to take up the positions of archbishop and abbot of Canterbury respectively. As Bede then relates, Ebroin held them up as they journeyed through Francia. He put them under close surveillance and initially forbade them from sailing over from the Port of Quentovic to England on the grounds he suspected that they were spies sent by the Roman Emperor, Constans II, who were then going to persuade the rulers of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to side against Neustria. At this time, Constans II was planning on moving his capital from Constantinople to Syracuse in Sicily. As we'll see next post, this was actually a defensive measure against a very serious threat, but Ebroin clearly thought the Romans were trying to reconquer their lost western provinces. 

When Chlothar III died aged only 23, Ebroin, playing kingmaker, chose Chlothar's youngest brother, Theuderic III, to be the new king. The nobles of Neustria and Burgundy were really pissed off at the supremely bossy and slimy Ebroin - he really does remind me quite a bit of the last manager I had at the pub I worked at until the end of March! The Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar recounts how "when the crowd of nobles who were hurrying to meet their new king received Ebroin's order to break off their journey, they took counsel together and, abandoning Theuderic, they all demanded his younger brother Childeric [II], who had been assigned the throne in Austrasia." 

The Neustrians shared the opinion of the Burgundians, and so in 673 they had a palace coup against Ebroin and Theuderic III. Both were tonsured, Ebroin was forced to become a monk at Luxeuil abbey in Burgundy, which St Columbanus had founded, and Theuderic was held under house arrest at Saint Denis, the royal abbey and mausoleum that his grandfather King Dagobert I had founded. Childeric II was invited over from Austrasia to become sole ruler over a united Frankish kingdom. Childeric II then issued a royal proclamation, which we know about from the Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar, which mostly repeated what was said in his great-grandfather's edict of Paris. But they explicitly justified it by the political experience of the last decade:

"Everyone demanded that he should issue the following edicts throughout the three kingdoms over which he gained sway: that as of old judges should maintain the law and custom of each kingdom and that rulers [mayors of the palace] from one [province] should not intrude in the others lest one of them should, as Ebroin had done, take up oppressive and unlawful rule and after his example should look down on his peers, for, as they acknowledged that access to the highest position should be open to all, nobody was to presume himself before another."

The paraphrasing of the edict of Childeric II in the Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar shows that people were very concerned about the kind of power a mayor of the palace could wield. Ebroin had shown how a mayor of the palace could monopolise access to the court and royal patronage for his faction, and there needed to be checks and balances to the system.

All hell breaks loose (675 - 687)

Yet two years later, factionalism nonetheless reared its ugly head again. Childeric II brought his Austrasian friends and followers over to the Neustrian court. No doubt there was already some residual bad blood between them and the Neustrians given that the Austrasian nobility had idly stood by while the mayor of the palace of their kingdom had appointed a non-Merovingian to the throne - Childebert III "the adopted." The Neustrians, on the other hand, would have seen themselves as resolutely loyal to the Merovingian bloodline and committed to Merovingian rule, and would have been remained shocked and appalled that just over a decade and half ago the Austrasians had faltered in this. But there was another source of distrust between them. According to the Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar, the king was: "corrupted by the advice he took from foolish and near pagan people."

The last part of that comment reflects how the Austrian nobility were starting to mix with the emerging aristocratic elites in the still-essentially tribal areas east of the Rhine. The Christian faith had, to at least some degree, had a permanent presence in Alemannia and Bavaria from Roman times. But what would become Franconia (the region of central Germany that includes Frankfurt), had never been part of the Roman Empire, whereas most of Bavaria and Alemannia had been until some point in the fifth century, as had all of Gaul (whose easternmost boundary was the Rhine). And the Merovingians, while their quasi-imperial overlordship in what is now Germany had been very extensive indeed, ruled those regions with a light touch and had made very little effort to culturally integrate them with their political heartlands in Gaul. It had thus fallen to Irish monks to convert Franconia to Christianity, and the efforts of Saints Kilian, Colman and Totnan were still ongoing in the 670s - indeed, their efforts would suffer a reversal after the three of them were martyred at Wurzburg in 689.

The final straw for the Neustrians would come in 675. Adhemar of Chabannes, faithfully paraphrasing the Book of the History of the Franks written in 727, wrote:

(Original Latin): Nam unum Francum, nomine Bodilonem, ad stipitum tensum cedi valde sine lege precepit. Quod videntes Franci, in ira magni commoti, Ingobertus atque Amalbertus et reliqui majores natu Francorum, sedicionem contra ipsum Childericum concitant. Bodilonem cum reliquis super eum surrexit, insidiatus et regem interfecit una cum regina ejus pregnante, quod dici dolor est.

(My translation): For he [Childeric] had a Frank, called Bodlio, violently beaten with a stick till he yielded, without consulting the law. Once the Franks had seen that, they were moved to anger, that is to say that Ingobert, Amalbert and the remaining Frankish magnates incited a rebellion against Childeric II. Bodilo with those remaining above him rose up and treacherously killed the king and his pregnant queen, which is painful to speak of.

This episode really does show that the expectations on Merovingian monarchs had changed a lot from what they had been a century earlier. How Childeric treated Bodilo may seem like capricious and arbitrary behaviour, but it was pretty tame by comparison to what his great-great-grandfather, King Chilperic (d.584), or before him King Chlothar (d.561), had gotten away with. Meanwhile, the nobles had responded with such extreme brutality, which, however acceptable it may have been in the seventh century, eleventh century writers found completely beyond the pale. Unlike the author of the Book of the History of the Franks, Adhemar of Chabannes added in that the whole episode, especially the killing of a pregnant woman in cold blood, was "painful to speak of." Thus, for all that loyalty to the Merovingian dynasty may have been as strong as ever, even the most revisionist historians must acknowledge that by this point the authority of kings and the respect they could command from their subjects had fallen quite far.

After this, all shit was going to break loose. In 675, Ebroin escaped from the monastery of Luxeuil and assembled a band of warriors, while Theuderic III similarly broke free of his monastic prison and with the support of Bishop Leudegar of Autun, was restored to the throne. Leudesius, the son of the aforementioned Erchinoald, became Theuderic's mayor of the palace. But by 679, Ebroin had deviously clawed his way back to the mayoralty of Neustria by betraying and murdering Leudesius, and Theuderic III was now his puppet. In the meantime, he had had Saint Leudegar, whose biography, as we have seen, is such a crucial source for the politics of this period, martyred - under Ebroin's instigation, Leudegar was blinded, his tongue was cut out and, after being sent into monastic exile, he was subsequently beheaded.

The Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar as depicted in a manuscript from Northern France (c.1200)

But before that, Ebroin had tried to take control in Austrasia by installing on the throne there a child king, Clovis III, who he claimed was a son of Chlothar III, making him the nephew of the previous king, Childeric II. The Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar claims that this was all lie, though there isn't anything inherently implausible in it, and because the seventh century is so bad for sources we really can't know. None of this flew well at all, and Clovis III lasted less than a year on the throne. Once Ebroin got control of the Austrasian royal treasury - I told you the treasury was important - he declared he didn't need Clovis III any more, and declared himself for Theuderic III, but the Austrasians didn't want to be ruled by Theuderic. Ebroin was thus temporarily out of political luck. 

The Austrasians, including Wulfoald, who had been mayor of the palace under Childeric II, instead called for Dagobert II to be brought back from exile in Ireland. With the help of the Northumbrian Saint Wilfrid (633 - 710), the future bishop of York, Dagobert II was able to leave the British Isles for Gaul, and no later than 30 June 676 he finally received his birthright that he had been deprived of twenty years before. Indeed, Wilfrid visited King Dagobert II's court on his way to Rome in 679, and Dagobert offered him the bishopric of Strasbourg, which Wilfrid politely declined. Shortly afterwards, as the Life of Saint Wilfrid by Stephen of Ripon (but, interestingly, no other written source does) recounts, while Saint Wilfrid was in Italy, Dagobert II was assassinated by "treacherous dukes with the consent of the bishops." Wulfoald, who had been Dagobert II's mayor of the palace, died in the same year. By December 679, Austrasia had come under the control of Theuderic III and Ebroin, and a single Merovingian king ruled over all the realms once again - well, I say ruled in a largely theoretical sense, given that it was actually Ebroin who was pulling the strings. 

A relief depicting the assassination of King Dagobert II, once housed in his crypt in Stenay-sur-Meuse. 

But Ebroin could not sit back and enjoy his victory for long. In 680, the Austrasian magnates, resentful of the tyrannical Ebroin and being dominated by the Neustrians, rose up in revolt. They were led by two brothers, Martin of Laon and Pepin of Herstal. Through their mother, Begga, Martin and Pepin were the grandsons of Pepin of Landen (580 - 640) who, as you may well remember, was the first mayor of the palace of Austrasia to Sigebert III (r.639 - 656). Through their father, Ansegisel, they were the grandsons of Saint Arnulf, bishop of Metz. Martin and Pepin were thus nobles of the first rank and Austrasians to their core. The led an army of Austrasian troops to do battle with Ebroin at a place called Lucofao, somewhere in Burgundy. The Austrasians were utterly beaten. Pepin managed to successfully escape back to Austrasia, but Martin made the mistake of hiding in Laon. Ebroin then proceeded to trick Martin into leaving Laon, promising him reconciliation, only to have him and his companions judicially murdered when they came to the royal villa where they had agreed to meet. 

But, as they say, live by the sword, die by the sword. Less than a year after his crushing victory at Lucofao in 680, Ebroin was assassinated by a Neustrian nobleman called Ermenfrid in the dead of night. Its not easy to give an overall, balanced objective assessment of Ebroin, all our sources are so negative about him. But given that they include a hostile Burgundian source (The Martyrdom of Saint Leudegar), a hostile Neustrian source (The Liber Historiae Francorum) and neutral Anglo-Saxon sources (Bede's Ecclesiastical History and Stephen of Ripon's Life of Wilfrid) I think its fair to say that he's not just the victim of bad press. Much like with King John, who escapes rehabilitation by even the most revisionist historians, Ebroin really seems to have been an absolute rotter.

Warraton became the new mayor of the palace of Neustria, and a relative lull in relations between the Austrasians and Neustrians ensued.  But that was only to last less than six years. After Waratton died in 686, Berchar became mayor of the palace of Neustria. Berchar was aggressively anti-Austrasian, so he and Pepin of Herstal were on a collision course. The two mayors clashed with the armies at a place called Tertry on the Somme, the Neustrians were routed Pepin was victorious. Berchar was assassinated shortly afterwards, and Theuderic III was captured by Pepin's forces. Pepin of Herstal established himself as mayor of the palace of Neustria and took control of the Neustrian treasury. Peace and stability had been restored to the Merovingian realm once more, though by now it was smaller. In the midst of these royal minorities and factional turmoil, the peripheral regions of Aquitaine, Alamannia, Bavaria and Thuringia had basically decided "look, thes Merovingians are a shit show. Let's go our own way." While their elites hadn't completely distanced themselves from Frankish politics, they now did so completely on their own terms. Asserting Frankish suzerainty over them was going to be an uphill struggle.

Pepin the Prime Minister (687 - 714)

Pepin's mastery over the three Frankish realms (Neustria, Austrasia and Burgundy) was acknowledged from 687 on by the honorific title Dux et Princeps Francorum ("Duke and Prince of the Franks"). Pepin didn't press home his advantage too much. Instead he took a more conciliatory approach towards the Neustrians whilst keeping them at arms length. He stayed in Austrasia, being represented in Neustria by his close follower Nordebert. Pepin focused on building up his Austrasian powerbase by acquiring lands and clients and providing patronage to monasteries - he was probably richer and more powerful at regional level than any Merovingian magnate had been before. He also began a series of wars against the rebellious Alamanni and the pagan Frisians to help boost his family's martial renown, build up a stock of booty to give out as gifts to his followers and help promote Frankish unity against common enemies. 

Pepin's wife was called Plectrude, whom the Book of the History of the Franks and Adhemar of Chabannes describe as "most noble and wise." From Plectrude he had his first son Grimoald, whom he appointed mayor of the palace of Neustria in 695 - Drogo, his other son from Plectrude, was appointed Duke of Champagne.

Pepin also had a concubine called Alpaida, and she bore him a son who would grow up to become ... Charles Martel. This is where, at long last, he enters into the story. Now the marital and sexual practices of the Merovingian elite have been much debated. Did they (especially the Merovingian kings) practice outright polygamy, having multiple legitimate wives at once? Or were they just serial monogamists who had mistresses on the side? What we can be sure about, is that the idea that marriage was a lifelong, indissoluble union performed in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ himself and that it was a Sacrament of the Church, was still more than a century away when Charles Martel was born. And while the overwhelming likelihood is that Charles Martel was Pepin's bastard son, that probably meant very little at the time and would have come with none of the legal disabilities that were in place for illegitimate children in Western Christendom by the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Pepin of Herstal was thus the the great-grandfather of Charlemagne, the 11x great-grandfather of William the Conqueror and the I can't be bothered to say how many times great-grandfather of our queen, Elizabeth II.

Theuderic III died in 691, having reigned for 16 very chaotic years. He was succeeded by his son Clovis III, another boy-king. Clovis died after only three years on the throne and was succeeded by his brother, Childebert IV. While Pepin of Herstal can undoubtedly be called a prime minister (as indeed could mayors of the palace for the previous half century), rather than just a court official, and he exercised effective control over most affairs of state, its clear that the royal prerogative - to borrow terms from our modern constitutional monarchy - hadn't fallen entirely to him yet. When Childebert IV came of age, he would make various judgements of his own at the high court of justice, including ones against Pepin of Herstal and his family. He was also the last Merovingian king to have coins struck in his name and image at the royal mint in Marseille. And he would be remembered as a good ruler by historians writing less than a generation after his death - the anonymous author of the Book of the History of the Franks calls him the "just and gracious lord Childebert, of good memory."

Childebert IV died in 711, and was succeeded by his twelve-year-old son Dagobert III - yet again, another royal minority. Pepin and Grimoald thus governed all affairs of state for him on his behalf. In 714, however, Grimoald was killed by the Frisians at Liege in what is now Belgium. Pepin of Herstal was now 79 years old and his health was deteriorating. He had the Frankish nobles swear in the royal chamber to accept his grandson Theudoald (Grimoald's son from a concubine) as the next mayor of the palace of the kingdom of the Franks. On 16 December, Pepin of Herstal breathed his last.

So there you have it folks. The story of how the Frankish Gaul that Charles Martel was born into and grew up in came to be. I hope you enjoyed and found it interesting, and didn't find it all too confusing - part of the reason why I wrote it was to help myself get my head round late Merovingian politics. In the next post we'll be turning our attentions eastward to see how Charles Martel's opponents at Tours got to where they were. We'll then be picking back up where we left off here in the third post.

Sources used

Primary 

Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, translated by Lewis Thorpe, Penguin Classics (1974)

Adhemar of Chabannes, Historia Francorum, edited by Jules Chavanon, Collection de Textes pour servir a l'etude et l'enseignement de l'historie (1897)

Secondary 

Chris Wickham, The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 - 1000, Penguin (2008)

Guy Halsall, Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450 - 900, Routledge (2003)

Peter Sarris, Empires of Faith: The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500 - 700, Oxford (2013)

Yitzchak Hen, 'The Merovingian Polity: A Network of Courts and Courtiers', in Bonnie Effros and Isabel Moreira (eds), A Companion to the Merovingian World, Oxford (2020)

Alexander Callander Murray, 'From Roman to Frankish Gaul: "Centenarii" and "Centenae" in the Administration of the Merovingian kingdom', Traditio (1988)

Paul Fouracre, The Age of Charles Martel, Longman (2000)