THE CHRISTIAN ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE TEUTONIC KINGDOMS
CHAPTER X
THE TEUTONIC KINGDOMS
(A)
THE VISIGOTHS IN GAUL.
412-507
KING ATAULF had no intention of establishing a permanent dominion in
Italy. As an occupation of Africa seemed hopeless he turned towards Gaul in the
year 412, probably making use of the military road which crossed Mt Genèvre via Turin to the Rhone. Here he at first joined the
anti-emperor Jovinus (set up in the summer of 411) who had a sure footing,
especially in Auvergne, but was little pleased by the arrival of the Visigoths,
which interfered with his plans of governing the whole of Gaul. Hence the two rulers
soon came to open strife, especially as Jovinus had not named the Gothic king
co-ruler, as he had hoped, but his own brother Sebastian. Ataulf went over to
the side of the Emperor Honorius and promised, in return for the assurance of
supplies of grain (and assignments of land), to deliver up the heads of both
usurpers and to set free Placidia, the Emperor's sister, who was held as a
prisoner by the Goths. He certainly succeeded without much trouble in getting
rid of the usurpers. As, however, Honorius kept back the supply of grain and
Ataulf, exasperated by this, did not give up Placidia, hostilities once more
began between the Goths and the Romans. After an unsuccessful attempt to
surprise Marseilles, Ataulf captured the towns of Narbonne, Toulouse, and
Bordeaux by force of arms (413). But a complete alteration took place in the
king's intentions, obviously through the influence of Placidia, whom he took as
his (second) wife in January (414). As he himself repeatedly declared, he now
finally gave up his original cherished plan of converting the Roman Empire into
a Gothic one, and rather strove to identify his people wholly with the Roman
State. His political programme was therefore just the same as that of the
Ostrogoth king Theodoric, later on, when he accomplished the founding of the
Italian kingdom. In spite of these assurances the Emperor refused him every
concession; influenced by the general Constantius, who himself desired the
hand of the beautiful princess, Honorius looked upon the marriage of his sister
with the Barbarian as a grievous disgrace to his house. In consequence Ataulf
was again compelled to turn his arms against the Empire. He first appointed an
anti-emperor in the person of Attalus, without however achieving any success by
this move, since Attains had not the slightest support in Gaul. When
Constantius then blockaded the Gallic ports with his fleet and cut off
supplies, the position of the Goths there became quite untenable, so that
Ataulf decided to seek a place of retreat in Spain. He evacuated Gaul, after
terrible devastation, and took possession of the Spanish province of Tarraconensis (in the beginning of 415), but without quite
giving up the thought of a future understanding with the imperial power. In
Barcelona, Placidia bore him a son, who received the name of Theodosius at his
baptism, but he soon died. And not long afterwards death overtook the king from
a wound which one of his followers inflicted out of revenge (in the summer of
415).
Wallia. 415-418
After Ataulf's death the anti-Romanizing tendencies among the Visigoths,
never quite suppressed, became active again. Many Pretenders contended for the
throne, but all, as it seems, were animated by the thought of governing
independently of Rome and not in subjection to it. At length Sigerich, brother
of the Visigoth prince Sarus, murdered by Ataulf, succeeded in getting
possession of the throne. Sigerich at once had the children of Ataulf’s first
marriage slaughtered, and Placidia suffered the most shameful treatment from
him. However, after reigning for one week only he was murdered certainly by the
instigation of Wallia, who now became head of the
Goths (autumn 415).
Wallia, although no less an
enemy to Rome than his predecessor, at once granted the imperial princess a more
humane treatment, and first tried to develop further the dominion already
founded in Spain. But as the imperial fleet again cut off all supplies, and
famine broke out, he determined to take possession of the Roman granary in
Africa. But the undertaking miscarried because of the foundering in the Straits
of Gibraltar of a detachment sent on in advance, which was looked upon as a bad
omen (416). The king, obliged by necessity, concluded a treaty with Constantius
in consequence of which the Goths pledged themselves, in return for a supply of
600,000 measures of grain from the Emperor, to deliver up Placidia, to free
Spain from the Vandals, Alans, and Sueves, and to give hostages. After fierce
protracted fighting the Gothic army overcame first the Silingian Vandals and then the Alans (416-418). But when Wallia also wanted to advance against the Asdingian Vandals
and the Sueves in Galicia he was suddenly called back by Constantius, who did
not wish the Goths to become too powerful, and land for his people to settle
upon was assigned to him in the province of Aquitanica Secunda and in some adjoining districts by the terms
of a treaty of alliance (end of 418). Shortly after Wallia died, and was succeeded on the Visigoth throne by Theodoric I, chosen by the
people.
Theodoric
and Aetius. 421-451
Historical tradition is silent over the first years of Theodoric's
reign; they were taken up with the difficulties of devising and executing the
partition of the land with the settled Roman population. The Goths kept their national
constitution and were pledged to give military assistance to the Empire. Their
king was under the supreme command of the Emperor; he only possessed a real
power over his own people, while he had no legal authority over the Roman
provincials. Such an indeterminate situation, after the endeavors so long
directed towards the attainment of political independence, could not last long.
In 421 or 422 Theodoric fulfilled his agreement by sending a contingent
to the Roman army which was marching against the Vandals; but in the decisive
battle these troops fell upon the Romans from behind and so helped the Vandals
to a brilliant victory. In spite of this base breach of faith the Goths came
off unpunished, and even dared to advance southwards to the Mediterranean
coast. In the year 425 a Gothic corps was before the important fortress of
Arles, the coveted key of the Rhone valley; but it was forced to retreat by the
rapid approach of an army under Aetius. After further fighting, about which
unfortunately nothing detailed is known to us, peace was made and the Goths
were granted full sovereignty over the provinces which had originally been
assigned to them for occupation only—Aquitanica Secunda and the north-west corner of Narbonensis Prima—while they restored all their conquests (c. 426).
This peace continued for a considerable period and was only interrupted
by the unsuccessful attempt of the Goths to surprise Arles (430). But when in
435 fresh disturbances broke out in Gaul, Theodoric took up once more his plans
for the conquest of the whole of Narbonensian Gaul.
In 436 he appeared with a strong force before the town of Narbonne, which
however after a long siege was relieved by Roman troops (437). The Goths went
on fighting, but without success, and were at last driven back as far as
Toulouse. But in the decisive battle which was fought before the walls of this
town (439) the Romans suffered a severe defeat, and only the heavy loss of life
which the Goths themselves sustained could decide the king to agree to the
provisional restoration of the status quo.
Theodoric was certainly not disposed to be satisfied with the narrow
territory surrendered to him. Therefore (c. 442) we find him again on the side
of Rome's enemies. First he entered into close relations with Gaiseric, the
dreaded king of the Vandals; but this coalition, which would have been so
dangerous for the Roman Empire, was broken up by the ingenious diplomacy of
Aetius. He next tried to attach himself to the powerful and rising kingdom of
the Sueves by giving King Rechiar one of his
daughters in marriage, and by furnishing troops to assist his advance into
Spain (449). It was only when danger threatened the whole of the civilized West
by the rise of the power of the Huns under Attila, that the Goths again allied
themselves with the Romans.
Invasion
of Attila. 451
In the beginning of the year 451 Attila's mighty army, estimated at half
a million, set out from Hungary, crossed the Rhine at Easter-time, and invaded
Belgica. It was only now that Aetius, who had been deceived by the false
representations of the king of the Huns, thought of offering resistance; but
the standing army at his command was absolutely insufficient to hold the field
against such a formidable opponent. He found himself, therefore, obliged to beg
for help from the king of the Visigoths, who although he had at first intended
to keep himself neutral and await the development of events in his territory,
thought, after long hesitation, that it would be to his own interest to obey
the call. Theodoric joined the Romans with a fine army which he himself led,
accompanied by his sons Thorismud and Theodoric.
Attila had in the meantime advanced as far as Orleans, which Sangiban, the king of the Alans who were settled there,
promised to betray to him. The proposed treachery, however, was frustrated, for
the allies were already on the spot before the arrival of the Huns, and had
encamped in strength before the city. Attila thought he could not venture an
attack on the strong fortifications with his troops, which principally
consisted of cavalry, so he retreated to Troyes and took up a position five
miles before that town on an extensive plain near the place called Mauriacus, there to await a decisive battle with the Gotho-Roman army which was following him. Attila occupied
the centre of the Hun array with the picked troops of his people, while both
the wings were composed of troops from the subjected German tribes. His
opponents were so arranged that Theodoric with the bulk of the Visigoths
occupied the right wing, Aetius with the Romans, and a part of the Goths under Thorismud formed the left wing of the army, while the
untrustworthy Alans stood in the centre. Attila first tried to get possession
of a height commanding the battlefield, but Aetius and Thorismud were beforehand and successfully repulsed all the attacks of the Huns on their
position. The king of the Huns now hurled himself with great force on the Visigothic main body commanded by Theodoric. After a long
struggle the Goths succeeded in driving the Huns back to their camp; great
losses occurred on both sides; the aged king of the Goths was among the slain,
as was also a kinsman of Attila's.
The battle however remained drawn, for both sides kept the field. The
moral effect, which told for the Romans and their allies, was, however, very
important, inasmuch as the belief that the powerful king of the Huns was
invincible had suffered a severe shock. At first it was decided to shut up the
Huns in their barricade of wagons and starve them out. But when the body of
Theodoric, who had been supposed up till then to be among the survivors, had
been found and buried, Thorismud, who was recognized
as king by the army, called upon his people to revenge and to take the enemy's
position by storm. But Aetius, who did not wish to let the Goths become too
powerful, succeeded in persuading Thorismud to
relinquish his scheme, advising his return to Toulouse, to prevent any attempt
on his brother's part to get possession of the crown by means of the royal
hoard there. Thus were the Goths deprived of the well-earned fruits of their
famous exploit; the Huns returned home unmolested (451).
Theodoric
II. 451-467
Thorismud proved
himself anxious to develop the national policy adopted by his father, and in
the same spirit. After he had succeeded, for the time being, in keeping possession
of the throne, he subdued the Alans who had settled near Orleans and thereby
made preparations for extending the Gothic territory beyond the Loire. Then he
tried to bring Arles under his power, but without having attained his object he
returned once more to his country, where in the meanwhile his brothers.
Theodoric (II) and Friedrich had stirred up a rebellion. After several armed
encounters Thorismud was assassinated (453).
Theodoric II succeeded him on the throne. The characteristic mark of his
rule is the close though occasionally interrupted connection with Rome. The treaty
broken under Theodoric I—which implied the supremacy of the Empire over the
kingdom of Toulouse—was renewed immediately after his accession to the throne.
For the rest, this connection was never taken seriously by Theodoric but was
principally used by him as a means towards the attainment of that end which his
predecessors had vainly striven for by direct means — the spread of the
Visigoth dominion in Gaul and more especially in Spain. Already, in the year
454, Theodoric found an opportunity for activity in the interest of the Roman
Empire; a Gothic army under Friedrich marched into Spain and pacified the
rebellious Bagaudae ex auctoritate Romana.
After the murder of Valentinian III (March 455) Avitus went as magister militum to Gaul to win over the most
influential powers of the country for the new Emperor, Petronius Maximus. In
consequence of his personal influence — he had formerly initiated Theodoric
into the knowledge of Roman literature - he succeeded in bringing the king of
the Goths to recognize Maximus. When, however, soon after this, the news of the
murder of the Emperor arrived (31 May), Theodoric requested him to take the imperium himself.
On 9 July, Avitus, who had been proclaimed Emperor,
accompanied by Gothic troops marched into Italy where he met with universal
recognition. The close relations between the Empire and the Goths came again
into operation against the Sueves. As the latter repeatedly made plundering
expeditions into Roman territory, Theodoric, with a considerable force to which
the Burgundians also added a contingent, marched over the Pyrenees in the
summer of 456, decisively defeated them, and took possession of a large part of
Spain, nominally for the Empire, but actually for himself.
But the state of affairs changed at one stroke when Avitus,
in the autumn of the year 456, abdicated the purple. Theodoric had now no
longer any interest in adhering to the Empire. He had in fact required the promotion
of Avitus because he enjoyed a great reputation in
Gaul and possessed there a strong support among the resident nobility.
Friendship with him could only be of use to the king of the Goths in respect to
the Roman provincials living in Toulouse. But the elevation of the new Emperor Majorian, on 1 April 457, had occurred in direct opposition
to the wishes of the Gallo-Roman nobility to place one of themselves upon the
imperial throne. Taking advantage of the consequent discord in Gaul, Theodoric
appeared as the open foe of the imperial power of Rome. He himself marched with
an army into the Gallic province of Narbonne and once more began with the siege
of Arles; he also sent troops to Spain which, however, only fought with varying
success. But in the winter of 458 the Emperor appeared in Gaul with
considerable forces, quieted the rebellious Burgundians, and obliged the
Visigoths to raise the blockade of Arles and again conclude peace (spring 459).
Although in the year 461 yet another change took place on the imperial
throne, Theodoric thought it more advantageous for the time being to maintain,
at least formally, the imperial alliance. On the other hand the chief general Aegidius, a faithful follower of Majorian,
supported by a fine army, marched against the new imperial ruler. In the
conflict which then ensued Theodoric found a favorable opportunity for resuming
his policy of expansion in Gaul. At the call of Count Agrippinus,
who was commanding in Narbonne and was hard pressed by Aegidius,
he marched into the Roman territory and quartered upon that important town
Gothic troops under the command of his brother Friedrich (462). Driven out of
southern Gaul, Aegidius turned northwards whither a
Gothic army led by Friedrich followed him. A great battle took place near
Orleans in which the Goths suffered a severe defeat, chiefly through the
bravery of the Salian Franks, who were opposed to them and lost their leader in
the battle (463). Taking advantage of the victory, Aegidius now began to press victoriously into the Visigoth territory, but sudden death
prevented him from carrying out his purposes (464).
Euric. 467-484
Theodoric, freed from his most dangerous enemy, did not delay making
good the losses he had suffered; but he died in the year 466 at the hand of his
brother Euric, who was a champion of the anti-Roman
national party and now ascended the throne. Contemporaries agree in describing
the new king as characterized by great energy and warlike ability. We may
venture to add from historical facts that he was also a man of distinguished
political talent. The leading idea in his policy—the entire rejection of even a
formal suzerainty of the Roman Empire—came into operation on his accession to
the throne. The embassy which he then sent off to the Emperor of Eastern Rome
can only have had for its object a request for the recognition of the Visigoth
sovereignty. As no agreement was arrived at he tried to bring about an alliance
with the Vandals and the Sueves, but the negotiations came to nothing when a strong
East-Roman fleet appeared in African waters (467). Euric at first pursued a neutral course, but as the Roman expedition, set on foot
with such considerable effort against the Vandal kingdom, resulted so
lamentably (468), he did not hesitate to come forward as assailant, while he
simultaneously pushed forward his troops into Gaul and Spain (469). He opened
hostilities in Gaul with a sudden attack on the Bretons whom the Emperor had
sent to the town of Bourges; at Déols, not far from
Chateauroux, a battle took place in which the Bretons were overthrown. Yet the
Goths did not succeed in pushing forward over the Loire to the north. Count
Paulus, supported by Frankish auxiliaries, successfully opposed them here. Euric therefore concentrated his whole strength partly on
the conquest of the province of Aquitanica Prima,
partly on the annexation of the lower Rhone valley, especially the long-coveted
Arles. The provinces of Novempopulana and (for the
most part) Narbonensis Prima had been probably
already occupied by the Goths under Theodoric II. An army which the West-Roman
Emperor Anthemius sent to Gaul for the relief of Arles was defeated in the year
470 or 471, and for the time being a large part of Provence was seized by the
Goths. In Aquitanica Prima, also, town after town
fell into the hands of Euric's general Victorius; only Clermont, the capital city of Auvergne,
obstinately defied the repeated attacks of the barbarians for many years. The
moving spirits in the resistance were the brave Ecdicius,
a son of the former Emperor Avitus, and the poet Sidonius Apollinaris, who had
been its bishop from about 470. The letters of the latter give us a clear
picture of the struggle which was waged with the greatest animosity on both
sides. Euric is said to have stated that he would
rather give up the much more valuable Septimania than
renounce the possession of that town. The wholly impotent Western Empire was
unable to do anything for the besieged. In the year 475 peace was at last made
between the Emperor Nepos and Euric by the
intervention of Bishop Epiphanius of Ticinum (Pavia).
Unfortunately the conditions are not more accurately known, but there can be no
doubt that, besides the previously conquered territory in Spain, the district
between the Loire, the Rhone, the Pyrenees, and the two seas was relinquished
to Euric in sovereign possession. Thus Auvergne, so
fiercely contended for, was surrendered to the Goths.
But in spite of this important success the king of the Goths had by no
means reached the goal of his desires; it may be seen from the line of policy
he followed later that the present moment seemed to him fit, for carrying out
that subjection of the whole of the West which had long since been the aim of
Alaric I.
For this reason peace only lasted for a year, which was spent in
settling internal affairs. The most important event under Euric's government at this time is the publication of a Code of Law which was intended
to settle the legal relations of the Goths, both amongst themselves and with
the Romans who had come under the Gothic dominion. The deposition of the last
West-Roman Emperor, Romulus, by the leader of the mercenaries, Odovacar (Sept.
476), gave the king a welcome reason for renewing hostilities, as he looked
upon the treaty made with the Empire as dissolved. A Gothic army crossed the
Rhone and obtained final possession of the whole of southern Provence as far as
the Maritime Alps, together with the cities of Arles and Marseilles, after a
victorious battle against the Burgundians, who had ruled over this district
under Roman suzerainty. But when Euric also marched a
body of troops into Italy it suffered defeat from the officers of Odovacar.
Consequently a treaty was concluded by the East-Roman Emperor Zeno and the king
of the Burgundians whereby the newly conquered territory in Gaul (between the
Rhone and the Alps south of the Durance) was surrendered by Odovacar to the
Goths, while Euric evidently pledged himself to
undertake no further hostilities against Italy (c. 477).
Euric was incessantly harassed
by the difficulties of defending this mighty conquest from foes without and
within. In particular, very frequent cause for interference was given by the
conduct of the Catholic clergy, who openly showed their disloyalty, and in the
Vandal kingdom did not shrink from the most treacherous actions. Yet they seem
only in rare instances to have been answered by violence and cruelty. The Saxon
pirates who, according to old custom, infested the coast of Gaul were
vigorously punished by a fleet sent out against them. In the same way it seems
that an invasion of the Salian Franks was warded off successfully. It is not
strange that, owing to the prestige of the Visigoth power, Euric's help was repeatedly requested by other peoples, as by the Heruli, Warni, and Tulingi who, settled
in the Netherlands, found themselves threatened by the overwhelming might of
the Franks and owed to the intervention of the Gothic king the maintenance of
their political existence. The poet Sidonius Apollinaris has left behind a vivid description of the way
in which, at that time, the representatives of the most diverse nations pressed
round Euric at the Visigoth Court, even the Persians
are said to have formed an alliance with him against the Eastern Empire. It
seems that envoys from the Roman population of Italy also appeared at Toulouse
to ask the king to expel Odovacar, whose rule was only reluctantly endured by
the Italians.
We do not know if Euric intended gratifying
this last request, in any case he was prevented from executing any such designs
through death, which overtook him in Arles in December 484. Under his son
Alaric II the Visigoth power fell from its height. To be sure, the beginning of
the decline originated at a time further back. Ataulf's political programme, as
already observed, had originally contemplated the establishment of a national
Gothic State in the place of the Roman Empire. Yet not one of the Visigoth
rulers, in spite of honest purpose, could accomplish this task. It is to their
credit that they succeeded at last, after severe fighting, in freeing
themselves from the suzerainty of the Emperor and obtaining political autonomy,
but the State which thus resulted resembled a Germanic National State no more
than it did a Roman Imperium, and it could not
contain the seeds of life because it was in a great measure dependent on
foreign obsolescent institutions. The Goths had entered the world of Roman
civilization too suddenly to be able either to resist or to absorb the foreign
influences which pressed on them from all sides. It was fortunate for the
progress of Romanization that the Goths, cut off from the rest of the German
world, could not draw thence fresh strength to recuperate their nationality or
to replace their losses, and moreover that through the immense extension of the
kingdom under Euric the numerical proportion between
the Roman and Gothic population had altered very much in favor of the former.
So under the circumstances it was a certainty that the Gothic kingdom in Gaul
must succumb to the rising and politically creative power of the Franks.
Neither the personality of Alaric, who was little fitted for ruling, nor the
antagonism between Catholicism and Arianism caused the downfall, they only
hastened it.
Alaric
II. 484-502
Alaric ascended the throne on 28 December 484. The king was of an
indolent weak nature, altogether the opposite of his father, and without energy
or warlike capacity, as immediately became evident. For example, he submitted
to give up Syagrius, whom he had received into his kingdom after the battle of
Soissons (486), when the victorious king of the Franks threatened him with war.
The inevitable settlement by arms of the rivalry between the two principal
powers in Gaul was of course only put off a little longer by this compliance. About
494 the war began. It lasted for many years and was carried on with varying
success on both sides. Hostilities were ended through the mediation of the
Ostrogoth king Theodoric—who in the meanwhile had become Alaric's father-in-law
—by the conclusion of a treaty of peace on the terms of Uti possidetis (c. 502), but this condition could not
last long, for the antagonism was considerably aggravated by the conversion of
Clovis to the Catholic Church in the year 496 (25 Dec.). Consequently the
greatest part of Alaric's Roman subjects, with the clergy of course at their
head, adhered to the Franks, and jealously endeavored to bring about the
subjection of the Visigoth kingdom to their rule. Alaric was obliged to adopt
severe measures in some instances against such treasonable desires, but usually
he tried by gentleness and the granting of favors to win over the Romans to his
support, an attempt which, in view of the prevalent and insurmountable
antagonism, was of course quite ineffectual and even defeated its own ends,
being regarded only as weakness. Thus he permitted the bishoprics kept vacant
under Euric to be again filled, he moreover permitted
the Gallic bishops to hold a Council at Agde in
September 506, and—of the ambiguous attitude of the clergy—it was opened with a
prayer for the prosperity of the Visigoth kingdom. The publication of the
so-called Lex Romana Visigothorum, also named Breviarium Alaricianum, represented the most
important act of conciliation. This Code of Law, which had been composed by a
commission of lawyers together with prominent laymen and even clergy, and was
drawn from extracts and explanations of Roman law, was sanctioned by the king
at Toulouse, 2 Feb. 506, after having received the approval of an assembly of
bishops and distinguished provincials, and was ordered to be used by the Roman
population in the Gothic kingdom.
Battle of Vouglé 506-507
Why the explosion was delayed until the year 507 is unknown. That the
king of the Franks was the aggressor is certain. He easily found a pretext for
beginning the war as champion and protector of Catholic Christianity against
the absolutely just measures which Alaric took against his treacherous orthodox
clergy. Clovis had sufficiently appreciated the by no means despicable power of
the Visigoth kingdom, and had summoned a very considerable army, one contingent
of which was furnished by the Ripuarian Franks. His
allies, the Burgundians, approached from the east in order to take the Goths in
the flank. Among his allies Clovis probably also counted on the Byzantines, who
placed their fleet at his disposal. On his part Alaric had not looked upon
coming events idly, but his preparations were hampered by the bad state of the
finances of his kingdom. In order to obtain the necessary funds he was obliged
to coin gold pieces of inferior value, which were soon discredited everywhere.
Apparently the fighting strength of the Gothic army was inferior to the army of
Clovis, but if the Ostrogoth troops, who had held out prospects of coming,
should arrive at the right time Alaric could hope to oppose his foe
successfully. The king of the Franks had to endeavor to bring about a decisive
action before the arrival of these allies. In the spring of 507 he suddenly
crossed the Loire and marched towards Poitiers, where he probably joined the
Burgundians. On the Campus Vocladensis, ten miles
from Poitiers, the Visigoths had taken up their position. Alaric put off
beginning battle because he was waiting for the Ostrogoth troops, but as they
were hindered by the appearance of a Byzantine fleet in Italian waters he
determined to fight instead of beating a retreat, as it would have been wise to
do. After a short engagement the Goths turned and fled. In the pursuit the king
of the Goths was killed, it was said by Clovis' own hand (507). With this
overthrow the rule of the Visigoths in Gaul was ended forever.
The principal town of the Gothic kingdom was Toulouse, where the royal
treasure was also kept; Euric from time to time also
held court in Bordeaux, Alaric II in Narbonne. The Gothic rule originally
stretched, as has been already mentioned, as far as the province of Aquitanica Secunda and some
bordering municipalities, among which was the district of Toulouse, but later
on it extended not only over the whole territory of the Gallic provinces, but
in addition to several parts of the provinces Viennensis, Narbonensis Secunda, Alpes Maritimae, and Lugdunensis Tertia. The Gothic
possessions included also the greater part of the Iberian peninsula, i.e. the
provinces of Baetica, Lusitania, Tarraconensis,
and Carthaginensis. The provinces named were in Roman
times, in so far as it was a question of civil administration, governed by consulares or presides, and they were again divided into
city-districts (civitates or municipia).
Under the sovereignty of the Goths this constitution was maintained in its
chief features.
The inhabitants of the kingdom of Toulouse were composed of two races—the
Goths and the Romans. The Goths were regarded by the Romans as foreigners so
long as the federal connection remained in force, yet both peoples lived side
by side, each under its own law and jurisdiction: intermarriage was forbidden.
This rigid line of separation was adhered to even when the Goths had shaken off
the imperial suzerainty and the Gothic king had become the sovereign of the
native population of Gaul. Theoretically, the Romans had equal privileges in
the State; thus they were not treated as a conquered people without rights, as
the Vandals and Langobards (Lombards) dealt with the
inhabitants of Africa and Italy. That the Goths were the real rulers was
clearly enough made manifest to the Romans.
The domestic condition of the Visigoths before the settlement in Gaul
was undoubtedly on the same level as in their original home; private property
in land was unknown, agriculture was comparatively primitive, and
cattle-rearing provided the principal means of subsistence. A national change
began with the settlement in Aquitaine. This was done on the principle of the
Roman quartering of troops, so that the Roman landowners were obliged to give
up to the Goths in free possession a portion of their total property together
with the coloni,
slaves, and cattle appertaining to it. According to the oldest Gothic codes of
law the Goth received two-thirds of the tilled land and, it seems, one-half of
the woods. The wood and the meadow land which was not partitioned belonged to
the Goths and the Romans for use in common. The parcels of land subjected to
partition were called sortes,
the Roman share, generally, tertia, their occupants hospites or consortes. The Gothic sortes were
exempt from taxation. As the invaders were very numerous compared with the
extent of the province to be apportioned, there is no doubt that not only the
large estates, but also the middle-sized and smaller properties were
partitioned. Nevertheless it is evident that not every Goth can have shared
with a Roman possessor, because there would certainly not have been estates
enough; we must rather assume that in the share given up larger properties were
split up among several families, as a rule among kinsmen. As the apportionment
of the single lots undoubtedly took place through the decisive influence of the
king, it is natural that the nobility (i.e. nobility by military service) was
favored in the partition above the ordinary freemen. The landed property of the
monarch's favorites must have gained considerably in extent, as elsewhere,
through assignments from state property. The very considerable imperial
possessions, both crown and private property, as a rule fell to the share of
royalty.
Land partition in the districts conquered later followed the same plan
as in Aquitaine; seizures of entire Roman estates certainly occurred, but they
were exceptions and happened under special circumstances. As a rule the Romans
were protected by law in the possession of their tertiae, even if it were only for
fiscal reasons. The considerably extended range of the Gothic kingdom offered
the people ample space for colonization, so it was not necessary to encroach on
the whole of the Roman territory as had been the case in Aquitaine. It is to be
assumed that in the newly won territories only the superfluous element of the
population had to be provided for; we are not to suppose a general desertion of
the home-land.
The social economy proceeded, on the whole, on the same lines as before,
i.e. through coloni and slaves, from whose toil the owners derived their principal support, at
least in so far as it was a question of food. For the Goths, whose favorite
occupations were warfare and the chase, had no inclination to devote themselves
to arduous agricultural toil. They only wanted to control directly the rearing
of cattle, as they did of old; animal food seems to have been provided
principally by means of large herds of swine. The revolution which the
partition of land brought about in the habits of the Goths was too powerful not
to exert the deepest influence on all the conditions of life. The rich revenues
led to the display of a wanton and indolent way of living; the close contact
with the Romans, who were for the most part morally decadent, was bound to
affect injuriously a people so famous in earlier times for its austere manners.
The old national bonds of union, besides having been relaxed through the
migration, now from the scattering of the mass in colonization lost more and
more of their original importance, since kinsmen need no longer be companions
on the farmstead in order to obtain a living. The adoption of the Roman
conditions of land-holding obliged the Goths to accept numerous legal
arrangements which were foreign to their national law and altered its principles
considerably. Nevertheless the national consciousness was strong enough to
prevent it from merging itself quickly and completely in the Roman system; in
contrast to the Ostrogoths who did nothing but carefully conserve the Roman
institutions which they found, the Visigoths are remarkable for an attitude in
many respects independent towards the foreign organization.
The entire power of government lay in the hands of the king, but the
several rulers did not succeed in making their power absolute. Outwardly the
Visigoth king was only slightly distinguished from the other freemen; like them
he wore the national skin garment, and long curly hair. The raised seat as well
as the sword appear as tokens of royal power, the insignia such as the purple
mantle and the crown do not come till later. The succession to the throne
follows the system peculiar to the old German constitution of combined election
and inheritance. After the death of Alaric I his brother-in-law Ataulf was
chosen king; thus a kindred connection played an important part in this choice.
Ataulf's friendliness to Rome had placed him in opposition to the great mass of
the people; therefore his successor was not his brother, as he had wished, but
first Sigerich and then Wallia, who both belonged to
other houses. The elevation of Theodoric I is also an instance of free
election; the royal dignity remained in his house for over a century. Thorismud was appointed king by the army; the succession of
Theodoric II, Euric, and Alaric II, on the other hand,
was only confirmed by popular recognition.
Just as the people regularly took a part in the choice of the successor
to the throne, so their influence was often brought to bear on the sovereign's
conduct of government. After the settlement in Gaul there could certainly no
longer be any question of a national assembly in the old sense of the word,
especially after the great expansion of territory under Euric.
Meetings of all the freemen had become impossible on account of the expansion
of the Gothic colonies. The circle of those who could obey the call to assemble
became, therefore, smaller and smaller, while in carrying out the principal
public functions, such as the coronation of the king, only those of the people
who happened to be present at the place of election or who lived in the
immediate neighborhood, could as a rule take part. The importance which the
commonalty hereby lost was gained by the nobility, an aristocracy founded on
personal service to the king. It was only in the army that the greater part of
the people found opportunity of expressing its will. It is certain that among
the Visigoths, as among the Franks, regular military assemblies were held,
which at first served the purpose of reviews and were under the command of the
king. In these assemblies important political questions were discussed but
the decision of the people was not always for the welfare of the State.
The kingdom was subdivided very nearly on the lines of the previous
Roman divisions into provinciae,
and these again into civitates (territoria).
At the head of the province was the dux as magistrate for Goths and Romans. He
was also, as his title implies, in the first place the commander of the militia
in his district, and he provided also the final authority and appeal in matters
of government, corresponding to the Praefectus Praetorio or vicarius of imperial times. The centre of gravity of the government lay in the
municipalities whose rulers were comites civitatum. They took exactly the place of the Roman
provincial governors, so that the city-districts also appear under the title
of provinciae.
Their authority extended even to the exercise of jurisdiction with the
exception of such cases as were reserved to the civic magistrates, and included
control of the police and the collection of taxes. The dux could at the same time
becomes of a civitas in his district. At the head of the towns themselves were the curiales who, as
hitherto, were bound by oath to fill their offices; and they were personally
responsible for collecting the taxes. The most important official was the defensor, who was
chosen from among the curiales by the citizens and
only confirmed by the king. He exercised, in the first instance, jurisdiction
in minor matters, but his activity extended over all the branches of municipal
administration. Side by side with this Roman magistrature existed the national
system which the Goths had brought with them. The Gothic people formed
themselves into bodies of thousands, five hundreds, hundreds, and tens, which
also remained as personal societies after the settlement. The millenarius, as
of old, led the thousand in war and ruled over it jointly with the heads of the
hundreds both in war and in peace. The comes civitatis and his vicar originally only possessed jurisdiction over the Romans of his
own circuit, but in Euric's time that had so far
changed that he now possessed authority to judge the Goths as well in civil
suits in conjunction with the millenarius: thus the later condition was prepared in which
the millenarius appears only as military official. On the other hand the defensor remained a judiciary
solely for the Romans.
We know but little about the officers of the central government. The
first minister of Euric and of Alaric II was Leo of
Narbonne, a distinguished man of varied talents. His duty comprised a
combination of the functions of the quaestor sacri palatii and of
the magister officiorum at the imperial Court; he drew up the king's orders, conducted business with
the ambassadors, and arranged the applications for an audience. A higher
minister of the royal chancery was Anianus, who
attested the authenticity of the official copies of the Lex Romana Visigothorum and distributed them; he seems to have answered to the Roman primicerius notariorum or referendarius.
The
Church
The organization of the Catholic Church was not disturbed by the
Visigoth rule: rather it was strengthened. The ecclesiastical subdivision of
the land as it had developed in the last years of the Roman sway corresponded
on the whole with the political: the bishoprics, which coincided in extent with
the town districts, were grouped under metropolitan sees, which corresponded
with the provinces of the secular administration. Since the middle of the fifth
century the authority of the Roman bishop over the Church had been generally
recognized. Next to the Pope the bishop of Arles exercised over the Gallic
clergy a theoretically almost unlimited disciplinary power. A bishop was chosen
by the laity and the clergy of his see, and was ordained by the metropolitan
bishop of the province together with other bishops. Although the boundaries of
the Visigoth kingdom now in no way coincided with the old provincial and
metropolitan boundaries, the hitherto existing metropolitan connection was
nevertheless not set aside, nor were the relations of the bishops with the Pope
interfered with. The Gothic government as a rule showed great indulgence and
consideration to the Catholic Church, which only changed to a more severe
treatment when the clergy were guilty of treasonable practices, as happened
under Euric. No organized and general persecution of
the Catholics from religious fanaticism ever took place. The Catholic Church
enjoyed particularly favorable conditions under Alaric II, who in consideration
of the threatening struggle with Clovis acknowledged the formal legal position
of the Roman Church according to the hitherto existing rules.
Hardly anything is known of the ecclesiastical organization of the
Arians in the kingdom of Toulouse. Probably in all the larger towns there were
Arian bishops as well as orthodox ones, and no doubt in earlier times they had
been appointed by the king. Under the several bishops were the different
classes of subordinate clergy; presbyters and deacons are mentioned as in the orthodox
Church. The endowment of the Arian Church was probably as a rule allowed for
out of the revenue; now and then confiscated Catholic churches as well as their
endowments were also made over to it. The church service was of course held in
the vernacular as it was in other German churches; the greater number of the
clergy were therefore of Gothic nationality. The opposition between the two
creeds was also certainly a very sharp one. Both sides carried on an active
propaganda, which on the Arian side not unfrequently seems to have been urged by force, but such ebullitions scarcely had the
support and approval of the Gothic government.
Very scanty indeed is our knowledge of the civilization of the kingdom
of Toulouse. That the Romance element was foremost in almost every department
has already been observed. The Goths however held to their national dress until
a later period; they wore the characteristic skin garment which covered the
upper part of the body, and laced boots of horse-hide which reached up to the
calf of the leg; the knee was left bare. There is no doubt that the Gothic
tongue was spoken by the people in intercourse with each other; unhappily no
vestiges remain of it except in proper names. It is certain however that a
great part of the nobility, especially the higher officials, understood Latin
well. Most of the Arian clergy undoubtedly were also masters of both languages.
Latin was the language of diplomatic intercourse and of legislation. Theodoric
II was trained in Roman literature by Avitus; Euric however understood so little of the foreign language
that he was obliged to use an interpreter for diplomatic correspondence. Yet
this king was in no way opposed to the knowledge and significance of classical
culture. The Visigothic Court therefore formed a
haven of frequent resort for the last representatives of Roman literature in
Gaul. And the kings, from various motives, but especially from a fondness for
Roman models, would employ the art of these men to celebrate their own deeds.
Here may be named in the first place the poet Sidonius Apollinaris who for a long time lived, first in the
Court of Theodoric II and then in that of Euric. Euric's minister Leo also is said to have distinguished
himself as a poet, historian, and lawyer, but no more of his writings have been
preserved than of the rhetorician Lampridius, who
sang the fame of the Gothic royal house at the Court of Bordeaux. But the decay
of literature and of culture in general, which had been for so long in progress
in spite of the support of the still existent schools of rhetoricians, could
assuredly not be stayed by the patronage of the Gothic kings.
(B)
THE FRANKS BEFORE CLOVIS
Tacitus, in the de Moribus Germanorum, tells us that the Germans claimed to be
descended from a common ancestor, Mannus, son of the
earth-born god Tuisco. Mannus,
according to the legend, had three sons, from whom sprang three groups of
tribes: the Istaevones, who dwelt along the banks of
the Rhine; the Ingaevones, whose seat was on the
shores of the two seas, the Oceanus Germanicus (North Sea) and the Mare Suevicum (the Baltic), and in the Cimbric peninsula between;
and, lastly, more to the east and south, on the banks of the Elbe and the
Danube, the Herminones. After indicating this general
division, Tacitus, in the latter part of his work, enumerates about forty
tribes, whose customs presented, no doubt, a strong general resemblance, but
whose institutions and organization showed differences of a sufficiently marked
character.
When we pass from the first century to the fifth, we find that the names
of the Germanic peoples given by Tacitus have completely disappeared. Not only
is there no mention of Istaevones, Ingaevones, and Herminones, but
there is no trace of individual tribes such as the Chatti, Chauci, and Cherusci; their
names are wholly unknown to the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. In
their place we find these writers using other designations: they speak of
Franks, Saxons, Alemans. The writers of the Merovingian period not unnaturally
supposed that these were the names of new peoples, who had invaded Germany and
made good their footing there in the interval. This hypothesis found favor
especially with regard to the Franks. As early as Gregory of Tours, we find
mention of a tradition according to which the Franks had come from Pannonia,
had first established themselves on the right bank of the Rhine, and had
subsequently crossed the river. In the chronicler known under the name of
Fredegar the Franks are represented as descended from the Trojans. “Their first
king was Priam; afterwards they had a king named Friga; later, they divided into two parts, one of which
migrated into Macedonia and received the name of Macedonians. Those who
remained were driven out of Phrygia and wandered about, with their wives and
children, for many years. They chose for themselves a king named Francion, and from him took the name of Franks. Francion made war upon many peoples, and after devastating
Asia finally passed over into Europe, and established himself between the
Rhine, the Danube and the sea”. The writer of the Liber Historiae combines the statements of
Gregory of Tours and of the pseudo-Fredegar, and, with a fine disregard of
chronology, relates that, after the fall of Troy, one part of the Trojan
people, under Priam and Antenor,
came by way of the Black Sea to the mouth of the Danube, sailed up the river to
Pannonia, and founded a city called Sicambria. The
Trojans, so this anonymous writer continues, were defeated by the Emperor
Valentinian, who laid them under tribute and named them Franks, that is wild
men (feros), because of their boldness and hardness
of heart. After a time the Franks slew the Roman officials whose duty it was to
demand the tribute from them, and, on the death of Priam,
they quitted Sicambria, and came to the neighborhood
of the Rhine. There they chose themselves a king named Pharamond,
son of Marcomir. This naïf legend, half-popular, half-learned, was accepted as
fact throughout the Middle Ages. From it alone comes the name of Pharamond, which in most histories heads the list of the
kings of France. In reality, there is nothing to prove that the Franks, any
more than the Saxons or the Alemans, were races who came in from without,
driven into Germany by an invasion of their own territory.
Some modern scholars have thought that the origin of the Franks, and of
other races who make their appearance between the third century and the fifth,
might be traced to a curious custom of the Germanic tribes. The nobles, whom
Tacitus calls principes,
attached to themselves a certain number of comrades, comites, whom they bound to
fealty by a solemn oath. At the head of these followers they made pillaging
expeditions, and levied war upon the neighboring peoples, without however
involving the community to which they belonged. The comes was ready to die for his
chief; to desert him would have been an infamy. The chief, on his part,
protected his follower, and gave him a war-horse, spear, etc. as the reward of
his loyalty. Thus there were formed, outside the regular State, bands of
warriors united together by the closest ties. These bands, so it is said, soon
formed, in the interior of Germany, what were virtually new States, and the
former princeps simply took the title of king. Such, according to the theory, was the origin of
the Franks, the Alemans, and the Saxons. But this theory, however ingenious,
cannot be accepted. The bands were formed exclusively of young men of an age to
bear arms; among the Franks we find from the first old men, women, and
children. The bands were organized solely for war; whereas the most ancient
laws of the Franks have much to say about the ownership of land, and about
crimes against property; they represent the Franks as an organized nation with
regular institutions.
The Franks, then, did not come into Germany from without; and it would
be rash to seek their origin in the custom of forming bands. That being so,
only one hypothesis remains open. From the second century to the fourth the
Germans lived in a continual state of unrest. The different communities
ceaselessly made war on one another and destroyed one another. Civil war also devastated
many of them. The ancient communities were thus broken up, and from their
remains were formed new communities which received new names. Thus is to be
explained why it is that the nomenclature of the Germanic peoples in the fifth
century differs so markedly from that which Tacitus has recorded. But
neighboring tribes presented, despite their constant antagonisms, considerable
resemblances. They had a common dialect and similar habits and customs. They
sometimes made temporary alliances, though holding themselves free to quarrel
again before long and make war on one another with the utmost ferocity. In
time, groups of these tribes came to be called by generic names, and this is
doubtless the character of the names Franks, Alemans, and Saxons. These names
were not applied, in the fourth and fifth centuries, to a single tribe, but to
a group of neighboring tribes who presented, along with real differences,
certain common characteristics.
It appears that the peoples who lived along the right bank of the Rhine,
to the north of the Main, received the name of Franks; those who had
established themselves between the Ems and the Elbe, that of Saxons (Ptolemy
mentions the Saxones as inhabitants of the Cimbric peninsula, and perhaps the name of this petty tribe
had passed to the whole group); while those whose territory lay to the south of
the Main and who at some time or other had overflowed into the agri decumates (the present Baden) were called Alemans. It is possible that, after all, we
should see in these three peoples, as Waitz has
suggested, the Istaevones, Ingaevones,
and Herminones of Tacitus.
But it must be understood that between the numerous tribes known under
each of the general names of Franks, Saxons, and Alemans there was no common
bond. They did not constitute a single State but groups of States without
federal connection or common organization. Sometimes two, three, even a
considerable number of tribes, might join together to prosecute a war in
common, but when the war was over the link snapped and the tribes fell asunder
again.
Franks
and Romans. 240-392
Documentary evidence enables us to trace how the generic name Franci came to be
given to certain tribes between the Main and the North Sea, for we find these
tribes designated now by the ancient name which was known to Tacitus and again
by the later name. In Peutinger's chart we find Chamavi qui et Pranci and there is no doubt that we should read qui
et Franci. The Chamavi inhabited the country between the Yssel and the Ems;
later on, we find them a little further south, on the banks of the Rhine in Hamaland, and their laws were collected in the ninth
century in the document known as the Lex Francorum Chamavorum. Along
with the Chamavi we may reckon among the Franks the Attuarii or Chattuarii. We read
in Ammianus Marcellinus (xx. 10) Rheno transmisso, regionem pervasit (Julian in AD 360) Francorum quos Atthuarios vocant.
Later, the pagus Attuariorum will correspond to the country of Emmerich, of
Cleves, and of Xanten. We may note that in the Middle
Ages there was to be found in Burgundy, in the neighborhood of Dijon, a pagus Attuariorum,
and it is very probable that a portion of this tribe settled at this spot in
the course of the fifth century. The Bructeri, the Ampsivarii, and the Chatti were, like
the Chamavi, reckoned as Franks. They are mentioned
as such in a well-known passage of Sulpicius Alexander which is cited by
Gregory of Tours (Historia Francorum,
II. 9). Arbogast, a barbarian general in the service of Rome, desires to take
vengeance on the Franks and their chiefs—subreguli—Sunno and Marcomir. It is this Marcomir, chief of the Ampsivarii and Chatti, whom the
author of the Liber Historiae makes the father of Pharamond, though he has nothing
whatever to do with the Salian Franks.
Thus it is evident that the name Franks was given to a group of tribes,
not to a single tribe. The earliest historical mention of the name may be that
in Peutinger's chart, supposing, at least, that the
words et Pranci are not a later interpolation. The earliest mention in a literary source is in
the Vita Aureliani of Vopiscus, cap. 7. In the year 240, Aurelian, who
was then only a military tribune, immediately after defeating the Franks in the neighbourhood of Mainz, was marching against the
Persians, and his soldiers as they marched chanted this refrain:
Mille
Sarmatas, mille Francos semel et semel occidimus;
Mille Persas quaerimus.
It would be in any case impossible to follow the history of all these
Frankish tribes for want of evidence, but even if their history was known it
would be of quite secondary interest, for it would have only a remote
connection with the history of France. Offshoots from these various tribes no
doubt established themselves sporadically here and there in ancient Gaul, as in
the case of the Attuarii. It was not however by the
Franks as a whole, but by a single tribe, the Salian Franks, that Gaul was to
be conquered; it was their king who was destined to be the ruler of this noble
territory. It is therefore to the Salian Franks that we must devote our
attention.
The
Salian Franks. 358-400
The Salian Franks are mentioned for the first time in AD 358. In that year Julian, as yet only
a Caesar, marched against them. What is the origin of the name? It was long
customary to derive it from the river Yssel (Isala), or from Saalland to the
south of the Zuiderzee; but it seems much more
probable that the name comes from sal (the salt sea). The Salian Franks at first lived by the
shores of the North Sea, and were known by this name in contradistinction to
the Ripuarian Franks, who lived on the banks of the
Rhine. All their oldest legends speak of the sea, and the name of one of their
earliest kings, Merovech, signifies sea-born.
From the shores of the North Sea the Salian Franks had advanced little
by little towards the south, and at the period when Ammianus Marcellinus mentions them they occupied Toxandria,
that is to say the region to the south of the Meuse, between that river and the
Scheldt. Julian completely defeated the Salian Franks, but he left them in
possession of their territory of Toxandria. Only,
instead of occupying it as conquerors, they held it as foederati, agreeing to defend it
against all other invaders. They furnished also to the armies of Rome soldiers
whom we hear of as serving in far distant regions. In the Notitia Dignitatum, in which we find a sort of
Army List of the Empire drawn up about the beginning of the fifth century,
there is mention of Salii seniores and Salii juniores, and
we also find Salii figuring in the auxilia palatina.
At the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century the Salian
Franks established in Toxandria ceased to recognize
the authority of Rome, and began to assert their independence. It was at this
period that the Roman civilization disappeared from these regions. The Latin
language ceased to be spoken and the Germanic tongue was alone employed. Even
at the present day the inhabitants of these districts speak Flemish, a Germanic
dialect. The place-names were altered and took on a Germanic form, with the
terminations hem, ghem, seele, and zele, indicating a
dwelling-place, loo wood, dal valley. The Christian religion retreated along with the Roman civilization, and
those regions reverted to paganism. For a long time, it would seem, these
Salian Franks were held in check by the great Roman road which led, by way of
Arras, Cambrai, and Bavay,
to Cologne, and which was protected by numerous forts.
Clodion, Merovech. 431-451
The Salians were subdivided into a number of tribes each holding a pagus. Each of
these divisions had a king who was chosen from the most noble family, and who
was distinguished from his fellow-Franks by his long hair—criniti reges. The first of these kings to whom
we have a distinct reference bore the name of Clogio or Clojo (Clodion). He had
his seat at Dispargum, the exact position of which
has not been determined—it may have been Diest in Brabant.
Desiring to extend the borders of the Salian Franks he advanced southwards in
the direction of the great Roman road. Before reaching it, however, he was
surprised, near the town of Helena (Hélesmes-Nord),
when engaged in celebrating the betrothal of one of his warriors to a
fair-haired maiden, by Aetius, who exercised in the name of Rome the military
command in Gaul. He sustained a crushing defeat; the victor carried off his
chariots and took prisoner even the trembling bride. This was about the year
431. But Clodion was not long in recovering from this
defeat. He sent spies into the neighborhood of Cambrai,
defeated the Romans, and captured the town. He had thus gained command of the
great Roman road. Then, without encountering opposition, he advanced as far as
the Somme, which marked the limit of Frankish territory. About this period
Tournai on the Scheldt seems to have become the capital of the Salian Franks.
Clodion was
succeeded in the kingship of the Franks by Merovech. All our histories of France
assert that he was the son of Clodion; but Gregory of
Tours simply says that he belonged to the family of that king, and he does not
give even this statement as certain; it is maintained, he says, by certain
persons. We should perhaps refer to Merovech certain statements of the Greek
historian Priscus, who lived about the middle of the
fifth century. On the death of a king of the Franks, he says, his two sons
disputed the succession. The elder betook himself to Attila to seek his
support; the younger preferred to claim the protection of the Emperor, and
journeyed to Rome. “I saw him there”, he says; “he was still quite young. His
fair hair, thick and very long, fell over his shoulders”. Aetius, who was at
this time in Rome, received him graciously, loaded him with presents, and sent
him back as a friend and ally. Certainly, in the sequel the Salian Franks
responded to the appeal of Aetius and mustered to oppose the great invasion of
Attila, fighting in the ranks of the Roman army at the battle of the Mauriac
Plain (AD 451). The Vita Lupi, in which some
confidence may be placed, names King Merovech among the combatants.
Various legends have gathered round the figure of Merovech. The
pseudo-Fredegar narrates that as the mother of this prince was sitting by the
sea-shore a monster sprang from the waves and overpowered her; and from this
union was born Merovech. Evidently the legend owes its origin to an attempt to
explain the etymology of the name Merovech, son of the sea. In consequence of
this legend some historians have maintained that Merovech was a wholly mythical
personage and they have sought out some remarkable etymologies to explain the
name Merovingian, which is given to the kings of the first dynasty; but in our
opinion the existence of this prince is sufficiently proved, and we interpret
the term Merovingian as meaning descendants of Merovech.
Childeric.
463
Merovech had a son named Childeric. The relationship is attested in
precise terms by Gregory of Tours who says cujus filius fuit Childericus. In addition to the legendary narratives
about Childeric which Gregory gathered from oral tradition, we have also some
very precise details which the celebrated historian borrowed from annals now no
longer extant. The legendary tale is as follows. Childeric, who was extremely
licentious, dishonored the daughters of many of the Franks. His subjects
therefore rose in their wrath, drove him from the throne, and even threatened
to kill him. He fled to Thuringia—it is uncertain whether this was Thuringia
beyond the Rhine, or whether there was a Thuringia on the left bank of the
river—but he left behind him a faithful friend whom he charged to win back the
allegiance of the Franks. Childeric and his friend broke a gold coin in two and
each took a part. "When I send you my part", said the friend,
"and the pieces fit together to form one whole you may safely return to
your country". The Franks unanimously chose for their king Aegidius, who had succeeded Aetius in Gaul as magister militum.
At the end of eight years the faithful friend, having succeeded in gaining over
the Franks, sent to Childeric the token agreed upon, and the prince, on his
return, was restored to the throne. The queen of the Thuringians, Basina by name, left her husband Basinus to follow Childeric. "I know thy worth", said she, "and thy
great courage; therefore I have come to live with thee. If I had known, even
beyond the sea, a man more worthy than thou art, I would have gone to
him". Childeric, well pleased, married her forthwith, and from their union
was born Clovis. This legend, on which it would be rash to base any historical
conclusion, was amplified later, and the further developments of it have been
preserved by the pseudo-Fredegar and the author of the Liber Historiae.
But alongside of this legendary story we have some definite information
regarding Childeric. While the main centre of his kingdom continued to be in
the neighborhood of Tournai, he fought along with the Roman generals in the
valley of the Loire against all the enemies who sought to wrest Gaul from the
Empire. Unlike his predecessor Clodion and his son
Clovis, he faithfully fulfilled his duties as a foederatus. In the year 463 the
Visigoths made an effort to extend their dominions to the banks of the Loire. Aegidius marched against them, and defeated them at
Orleans, Friedrich, brother of King Theodoric II, being slain in the battle.
Now we know for certain that Childeric was present at this battle. A
short time afterwards the Saxons made a descent, by way of the North Sea, the
Channel, and the Atlantic, under the leadership of a chief named Odovacar,
established themselves in some islands at the mouth of the Loire, and
threatened the town of Angers on the Mayenne. The
situation was the more serious because Aegidius had lately
died (October 464), leaving the command to his son Syagrius. Childeric threw
himself into Angers and held it against the Saxons. He succeeded in beating off
the besiegers, assumed the offensive, and recaptured from the Saxons the
islands which they had seized. The defeated Odovacar placed himself, like
Childeric, at the service of Rome, and the two adversaries, now reconciled,
barred the path of a troop of Alemans who were returning from a pillaging
expedition into Italy. Thus Childeric policed Gaul on behalf of Rome and
endeavored to check the inroads and forays of the other barbarians.
The death of Childeric probably took place in the year 481, and he was
buried at Tournai. His tomb was discovered in the year 1653. In it was a ring
bearing his name, CHILDIRICI REGIS, with the image of the head and shoulders of
a long-haired warrior. Numerous objects of value, arms, jewels, remains of a
purple robe ornamented with golden bees, gold coins bearing the effigies of Leo
I and Zeno, Emperors of Constantinople, were found in the tomb. Such of these
treasures as could be preserved are now in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris. They serve as evidence that these
Merovingian kings were fond of luxury and possessed quantities of valuable
objects. In the ensuing volume it will be seen how Childeric's son Clovis broke with his father's policy, threw off his allegiance to the
Empire, and conquered Gaul for his own hand. While Childeric was reigning at
Tournai, another Salian chief, Ragnachar, reigned at Cambrai, the town which Clodion had taken; the residence of a third, named Chararic,
is unknown to us.
The Ripuarian Franks. 360-481
The Salian Franks, as we have said above, were so called in
contradistinction to the Ripuarians. The latter doubtless included a certain
number of tribes, such as the Ampsivarii and the Bructeri. Julian, in the year 360, checked the advance of
these barbarians and forced them to retire across the Rhine. In 389 Arbogast
similarly checked their inroads and conquered all their territory in 392, as we
have already said. But in the beginning of the fifth century, when Stilicho had
withdrawn the Roman garrisons from the banks of the Rhine, they were able to
advance without hindrance and establish themselves on the left bank of the
river. Their progress however was far from rapid. They only gained possession
of Cologne at a time when Salvian, born about 400,
was a man in middle life; and even then the town was retaken. It did not
finally pass into their hands until the year 463. The town of Treves was taken
and burned by the Franks four times before they made themselves masters of it.
Towards 470 the Ripuarians had founded a fairly compact kingdom, of which the
principal cities were Aix-la-Chapelle, Bonn, Juliers,
and Zülpich. They had advanced southwards as far as Divodurum (Metz), the fortifications of which seem to have
defied all their efforts. The Roman civilization, the Latin language, and even
the Christian religion seem to have disappeared from the regions occupied by
the compact masses of these invaders. The present frontier of the French and
German languages, or a frontier drawn a little further to the south—for it
appears that in course of time French has gained ground a little—indicates the
limit of their dominions. In the course of their advance southwards, the
Ripuarians came into collision with the Alemans, who had already made
themselves masters of Alsace and were endeavoring to enlarge their borders in
all directions. There were many battles between the Ripuarians and Alemans, of
one of which, fought at Zülpich (Tolbiacum),
a record has been preserved. Sigebert, king of the Ripuarians, was there wounded
in the knee and walked lame for the rest of his life; whence he was known as Sigebertus Claudus. It
appears that at this time the Alemans had penetrated far north into the kingdom
of the Ripuarians. This kingdom was destined to have but a transient existence;
we shall see in the following volume how it was destroyed by Clovis, and how
all the Frankish tribes on the left bank of the Rhine were brought under his
authority.
While the Salian and Ripuarian Franks were
spreading along the left bank of the Rhine, and founding flourishing kingdoms
there, other Frankish tribes remained on the right bank. They were firmly
established, especially to the north of the Main, and among them the ancient
tribe of the Chatti, from whom the Hessians are
derived, took a leading place. Later this territory formed one of the duchies
into which Germany was divided, and took from its Frankish inhabitants the name
of Franconia.
The Salic
Law. 507-511
If we desire to make ourselves acquainted with the manners and customs of
the Franks, we must have recourse to the most ancient document which has come
down from them—the Salic Law. The oldest redaction of this Law, as will be
shown in the next volume, probably dates only from the last years of Clovis
(507-511), but in it are codified much more ancient usages. On the basis of
this code we can conjecture the condition of the Franks in the time of Clodion, of Merovech, and of Childeric. The family is still
a very closely united whole; there is solidarity among relatives even to a
remote degree. If a murderer could not pay the fine to which he had been
sentenced, he must bring before the mâl (court) twelve comprobators who made affirmation that he could not pay it.
That done, he returned to his dwelling, took up some earth from each of the
four corners of his room, and cast it with the left hand over his shoulder
towards his nearest relative; then, barefoot and clad only in his shirt, but
bearing a spear in his hand, he leaped over the hedge which surrounded his
dwelling. Once this ceremony had been performed, it devolved upon his relative,
to whom he had thereby ceded his house, to pay the fine in his place. He might
appeal in this way to a series of relatives one after another; and if,
ultimately, none of them was able to pay, he was brought before four successive mâls, and
if no one took pity on him and paid his debt, he was put to death. But if the
family was thus a unit for the payment of fines, it had the compensating
advantage of sharing the fine paid for the murder of one of its members. Since
the solidarity of the family sometimes entailed dangerous consequences, it was
permissible for an individual to break these family ties. The man who wished to
do so presented himself at the mâl before the centenarius and broke into four pieces, above his head,
three wands of alder. He then threw the pieces into the four corners, declaring
that he separated himself from his relatives and renounced all rights of
succession. The family included the slaves and liti or freedmen. Slaves were the
chattels of their master; if they were wounded, maimed, or killed, the master
received the compensation; on the other hand, if the slave had committed any
crime the master was obliged to pay, unless he preferred to give him up to bear
the punishment. The Franks recognized private property, and severe penalties
were denounced against those who invaded the rights of ownership; there are
penalties for stealing from another's garden, meadow, corn-field, or
flax-field, and for ploughing another's land. At a
man's death all his property was divided among his sons; a daughter had no
claim to any share of it. Later, she is simply excluded from Salic ground, that
is from her father's house and the land that surrounds it.
We find also in the Salic Law some information about the organization of
the State. The royal power appears strong. Any man who refuses to appear before
the royal tribunal is outlawed. All his goods are confiscated and anyone who
chooses may slay him with impunity; no one, not even his wife, may give him
food, under penalty of a very heavy fine. All those who are employed about the
king's person are protected by a special sanction. Their wergeld is three times as high as
that of other Franks of the same social status. Over each of the territorial
divisions called pagi the king placed a representative of his authority known as the grafio, or, to
give him his later title, the comes.
The grafio maintained order within his jurisdiction, levied such fines as were due to the
king, executed the sentences of the courts, and seized the property of
condemned persons who refused to pay their fines. The pagus was in turn subdivided into
"hundreds" (centenae).
Each "hundred" had its court of judgment known as the mâl; the place
where it met was known as the mâlberg. This tribunal was presided over by the centenarius or thunginus—these
terms appear to us to be synonymous. Historians have devoted much discussion to
the question whether this official was appointed by the king or elected by the
freemen of the "hundred". At the court of the "hundred" all
the freemen had a right to be present, but only a few of them took part in the
proceedings—some of them would be nominated for this duty on one occasion, some
on another. In their capacity as assistants to the centenarius at the mâl the freemen
were designated rachineburgi.
In order to make a sentence valid it was required that seven rachineburgi should pronounce judgment. A plaintiff had the right to summon seven of them to
give judgment upon his suit. If they refused, they had to pay a fine of three
sols. If they persisted in their refusal, and did not undertake to pay the
three sols before sunset, they incurred a fine of fifteen sols.
Crimes
and Offences
Every man’s life was rated at a certain value; this was his price, the wergeld. The wergeld of a
Salian Frank was 200 sols; that of a Roman 100 sols. If a Salian Frank had
killed another Salian, or a Roman, without aggravating circumstances, the Court
sentenced him to pay the price of the victim, the 200 or 100 sols. The compositio in
this case is exactly equivalent to the wergeld; if, however, he had only wounded his victim he
paid, according to the severity of the injury, a lower sum proportionate to the wergeld.
If, however, the murder has taken place in particularly atrocious
circumstances, if the murderer has endeavored to conceal the corpse, if he has
been accompanied by an armed band, or if the assassination has been unprovoked,
the compositio may be three times, six times, nine times, the wergeld. Of this compositio, two
thirds were paid to the relatives of the victim; this was the faida and bought
off the right of private vengeance; the other third was paid to the State or to
the king: it was called fretus or fredum from the German word Friede peace, and was a compensation for the breach of the public peace of which the
king is the guardian. Thus a very lofty principle was embodied in this penalty.
The Salic Law is mainly a tariff of the fines which must be paid for
various crimes and offences. The State thus endeavored to substitute the
judicial sentences of the courts for private vengeance, part of the
compensation being paid to the victim or his family to induce them to renounce
this right. But we may safely conjecture that the triumph of law over inveterate
custom was not immediate. It was long before families were willing to leave to
the judgment of the courts serious crimes which had been committed against
them, such as homicides and adulteries; they flew to arms and made war upon the
guilty person and his family. The forming in this way of armed bands was very
detrimental to public order.
The crimes mentioned most frequently in the Salic Law give us some
grounds on which to form an idea of the manners and characteristics of the
Franks. These Franks would seem to have been much given to bad language, for
the Law mentions a great variety of terms of abuse. It is forbidden to call one’s
adversary a fox or a hare, or to reproach him with having flung away his
shield; it is forbidden to call a woman meretrix, or to say that she had joined the witches at their
revels. Warriors who are so easily enraged readily pass to violence and murder.
Every form of homicide is mentioned in the Salic Law. The roads are not safe,
and are often infested by armed bands. In addition to murder, theft is very
often mentioned by the code — theft of fruits, of hay, of cattle-bells, of
horse-clogs, of animals, of river-boats, of slaves, and even of freemen. All
these thefts are punished with severity and are held by all to be base and
shameful crimes. But there is a punishment of special severity for robbing a
corpse which has been buried. The guilty person is outlawed, and is to be
treated like a wild beast.
The civilization of these Franks is primitive; they are, above all else,
warriors. As to their appearance, they brought their fair hair forward from the
top of the head, leaving the back of the neck bare. On their faces they
generally wore no hair but the moustache. They wore close-fitting garments,
fastened with brooches, and bound in at the waist by a leather belt which was
covered with bands of enameled iron and clasped by an ornamental buckle. From
this belt hung the long sword, the hanger or scramasax, and various articles
of the toilet, such as scissors and combs made of bone. From it too was hung
the single-bladed axe, the favorite weapon of the Franks, known as the francisca, which
they used both at close quarters and by hurling it at their enemies from a
distance. They were also armed with a long lance or spear formed of an iron
blade at the end of a long wooden shaft. For defense they carried a large
shield, made of wood or wattles covered with skins, the centre of which was
formed by a convex plate of metal, the boss, fastened by iron rods to the body
of the shield. They were fond of jewellery, wearing
gold finger-rings and armlets, and collars formed of beads of amber or glass or
paste inlaid with color. They were buried with their arms and ornaments, and
many Frankish cemeteries have been explored in which the dead were found fully
armed, as if prepared for a great military review. The Franks were universally
distinguished for courage. As Sidonius Apollinaris wrote of them: "from their youth up war is
their passion. If they are crushed by weight of numbers, or through being taken
at a disadvantage, death may overwhelm them, but not fear."