his201 - wk4 - lect 2

Charlemagne (742-814)

The Merovingian Kings

The kingdom was divided up between the four sons. All four during the late 520's and 530's engaged in a very long war with the Burgundians. In which Chlodomy or Chlodomer, died. After this Clothar (d.561) reigned and then handed his power over to his sons.

Then moving into the 7th century a new generation emerged with Chlotar II (d.629).

The battles with the Franks, the civil war, would have decimated the ranks of the processors. And would have sucked up the money of the region. The wealthy land owners of the region gradually gained more and more administrative power. These aristocrats through their actions and pleas to the kings took on more formal titles and roles. These titles and roles were labelled as dukes and counts. They acted as advisors to the kings as some times, they organised the local judicial systems (who were usually community elders) and the collection of royal revenue. There is a de-centralisation where the merovingian kings are not very apparent in the administration whereas local dukes and counts run the show. The Mayor of the Palace was the most powerful role. The king was simply a figurehead. The Mayor of the Palace within each principality of the region took on most responsibility and made most of the decisions. Whilst we could continue the family tree well into the 8th century it would have little significance for our purposes because of the decentralisation of power.

the Merovingian kings who came after Clovis became known as the:
"the do-nothing kings"

The Carolingians

Carolingian sources:

Chronical of Fredegar (Anon)
Book of the History of the Franks (Anon) both provide a bias towards the Carolingians

While the Merovingians declined the aristocrats, the dukes, the counts and the Mayors of the Palace moved into the roles. Pippin II (d.714) was the mayor of the palace for Austrasia. (there is a dynasty emerging here).

Charles Martel [the hammer] (d.741)

Led Austrasia into a military victory over Eustrasia. [herny perin's thesis about the changing face of the europe and Mediterranean sea]

Charles took most of Gaul under his control and was able to impose his control of Burgundy and by the late 730's he controlled most of that as well. Essentially he brought almost all of Gaul under unified and seemingly centralised administration that was still headed by, at least in name and all intensive purposes, a Merovingian king. So from 720's, 730's onwards, we are talking to a region, that is referred to in the sources, really no longer as Gaul, you know a region that has been fractured really since the Roman empire, as Francia. Charles was succeeded by Pippin III (d.768) and Carloman. They spent much of their time trying to maintain the stability of the kingdom. In 757 Carloman ran off to a monastery and Pippin III took full control, just like Charles. His diplomacy with aristocrats was essential. This networking allowed him to make his boldest move in 751, that is the dismissal of the last Merovingian king, and thus, he took the crown. He asked the Pope if he can call the Mayor of the Palace, King.

Pippin III decides to have a very lavish ceremony at Soissons to show the world that he had become King. Boniface, the Bishop of Mainz, was a key advisor to Pippin III and he ran the ceremony, and showed the public display and approval of a local bishop. In 754, 3 years later, another ceremony was held in the Basilica of St. Denis in Paris. This was led by the Pope himself, Steve II. On this occasion the Pope anointed Pippin III with holy oil, mimics the anointing of the Kings of Jerusalem. It shows a divine symbolic meaning. It does appear to be something new, before this, the oil had only ever been used to anoint bishops. During this year Pippin III was also given the title Patrician of the Romans, which has no practical value, however it ties the Crown to Rome. In the sense you get a political alignment between the Pope and the King with a religious stamp of approval. In that ceremony the Pope also anointed Pippin's two sons. So after Pippin III dies there is no doubt who will succeed him.

Rome was also facing increasing pressure from the Lombards. Pippin III led his troops into Italy and defeated the Lombards. He forced the Lombards to pay homage to Pippin to to stop invading Roman territory. As such the Lombard kingdom became a tributary to the Frankish kingdom. In 768 Pippin III died. The administration of his kingdom was divided between his sons who co ruled for 3 years, and they essentially divided the kingdom up between the two of them. Carloman took much of the southern regions, Burgandy and Provence. After 3 years, of very tense relationships with his brother, Carloman died (in suspicious circumstances). And so Charles (Charlemagne) took up the title Patrician of the Romans. The first 20 years or so of his reign were spent on the battlefiend. He would regularly travel north to bring the Saxons under his control. He would force Christian conversions upon these pagans and Aryans. We can see how he aimed to use religion as an expedient political tool in an attempt to control. He also had to control the Lombards to the south, as they threatened to move again into the Papal territories. This is a rather important campaign for Frankish - Papal relations (Charlemagne's campaigns in Lombardia) He was so successful in his campaigns there that he annexed the region and became king of Lombardia. Not only did he take this title, he started a fresh campaign to take some of the land beyond the Pyrenees. Charlemagne wasn't always successful in these campaigns, he often lost large amounts of troops for very small gain. He was however successful in his advancement of education and literacy and his relationship with the Papacy was very strong.

Two of the main biographical sources on Charlemagne are:

The life of Charles by Einhard, (c.830)

He wrote this biography after Charles died as a tribute to him.

and

Deeds of Charles, Notker the Stammerer (C.884)

Notker wrote his biography less then a century after his death, and was commissioned by Charles the Fat.

Both of these biographies are tainted with bias towards Charles, they stress his religiosity and his relationship with the Church, it is taken to a new level. Which may or may be reliable... we don't know.