Royal power in the late Carolingian Age : Charles III the Simple and his predecessors

Accepted as a dissertation at the Université de Limoges and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich 2017. The prevalent image of the late Carolingian age is one of decline and fall. Charles III the Simple’s (893/898-923) rule, which has hardly received any scholarly attention since the late 19th century, is perceived to have been the classic example of this development. Enthroned by rebels as well as cast down by a rebellion he is said to have been a weak ruler, powerless in the face of the ambitions of the nobles of the West Frankish realm. Yet, what do 'weak' and 'powerless' mean? In modern scholarship, early medieval rule is understood not as a question of command and obedience but as the result of cooperation between rulers and nobles. Thus, royal actions, such as the defence of the realm against the Northmen, interactions with other rulers or in regard to conflicts with or between the nobles, are reflections of the relations between the ruler and the circle of nobles around him. A ruler’s power therefore depended on his ability to integrate the most powerful nobles into his rule, to mediate between their interests and to create consensus over the course of action. Based on this view, a new assessment of Charles the Simple’s rule, the circle of nobles around him, the actions taken by him and thus his royal power is provided in this study, with the rules of his predecessors since the death of Charles the Bald in 877 serving as a basis for comparison. Preface xi Summary xiii Abbreviations xv Introduction 1 Possibilities and limits of late Carolingian rule 6 The functioning of royal power 9 Analytical approach 17 I. Becoming king: The questions of legitimacy and support 21 I.1 Charles’ claim to the throne 21 I.1.1 Louis the Stammerer’s two marriages 22 I.1.2 The question of Louis’ succession 25 I.1.3 Passing over Charles 28 I.1.4 A Robertian on the throne 32 I.1.5 Carolingian blood matters 37 I.2 Close supporters and distant allies 39 I.2.1 Archbishop Fulk of Reims 39 I.2.2 The network elevating Charles 44 I.2.3 The motives behind the rebellion 50 I.2.4 The cohesion of the network 53 I.2.5 Allies sought within the realm 55 I.2.6 Allies sought outside the realm 62 I.2.7 A network of different layers 68 I.3 Conclusion 70 II. Changes in the political landscape: From Louis the Stammerer to Odo 77 II.1 Old elites: Louis II the Stammerer 79 II.2 Rival factions: Louis III and Carloman II 89 II.3 New faces on the rise: Charles the Fat 101 II.4 Resistance, integration and rebellion: Odo 111 II.5 Conclusion: Continuities and changes 121 III. Networks of royal power: Charles the Simple 127 III.1 General overview 127 III.1.1 Charles’ itinerary 130 III.1.2 Contacts with distant regions 134 III.1.3 Using diplomas to demonstrate Carolingian legitimacy? 142 III.2 Breaking it down: Networks of royal power 149 III.2.1 Close associates and allies 151 III.2.1.1 The first years 151 III.2.1.2 Shifting balances 154 III.2.1.3 A new balance 157 III.2.1.4 Lotharingia 162 III.2.1.5 The early Lotharingian network 169 III.2.1.6 A king of two 'regna'? 175 III.2.1.7 The later years 178 III.2.1.8 Liberty of choice? 187 III.2.2 Family and friends 191 III.2.3 The role of the 'marchiones' 205 III.3 Conclusion: The development of Charles’ network and its dissolution 222 IV. Relations with other rulers 233 IV.1 Creating cooperation: Louis the Stammerer 233 IV.2 Carolingian networks: Louis III and Carloman II 236 IV.3 Structural weaknesses: Odo 240 IV.4 Possibilities and limits of royal power: Charles the Simple 243 IV.5 Conclusion 259 V. The Viking problem 261 V.1 Viking incursions and royal measures in protection of the realm 263 V.1.1 Going on the offensive: Louis the Stammerer—Charles the Fat 263 V.1.2 Strategies of containment: Odo 274 V.1.3 Return to the old strategies: Charles the Simple 277 V.2 Diplomatic solutions 281 V.2.1 Dudo’s 'De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum' 281 V.2.2 The treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte 284 V.2.3 Using an old solution in a new way 289 V.3 Conclusion 292 VI. Conflicts, rebellions and the role of trust 295 VI.1 Solving conflicts: The role of interest groups 299 VI.2 Rulers and nobles: Breaches of trust 308 VI.3 Speaking justice: Symbolic acts 316 VI.4 Against the king: Questioning the right to rule 330 VI.5. Conclusion 334 Conclusion 347 Bibliography 353 Primary Sources 353 Secondary Sources 360 Index 395 La 4eme de couverture indique : "The prevalent image of the late Carolingian age is one of decline and fall. Charles III the Simple's (893/898-923) rule, which has hardly received any scholarly attention since the late 19th century, is perceived to have been the classic example of this development. Enthroned by rebels as well as cast down by a rebellion he is said to have been a weak ruler, powerless in the face of the ambitions of the nobles of the West Frankish realm. Yet, what do "weak" and "powerless" mean? In modern scholarship, early medieval rule is understood not as a question of command and obedience but as the result of cooperation between rulers and nobles. Thus, royal actions, such as the defence of the realm against the Northmen, interactions with other rulers or in regard to conflicts with or between the nobles, are reflections of the relations between the ruler and the circle of nobles around him. A ruler's power therefore depended on his ability to integrate the most powerful nobles into his rule, to mediate between their interests and to create consensus over the course of action. Based on this view, a new assessment of Charles the Simple's rule, the circle of nobles around him, the actions taken by him and thus his royal power is provided in this study, with the rules of his predecessors since the death of Charles the Bald in 877 serving as a basis for comparison."

The prevalent image of the late Carolingian age is one of decline and fall. Charles III the Simple's (893/898?923) rule, which has hardly received any scholarly attention since the late 19th century, is perceived to have been the classic example of this development. Enthroned by rebels as well as cast down by a rebellion he is said to have been a weak ruler, powerless in the face of the ambitions of the nobles of the West Frankish realm. Yet, what do »weak« and »powerless« mean? In modern scholarship, early medieval rule is understood not as a question of command and obedience but as the result of cooperation between rulers and nobles. Thus, royal actions, such as the defence of the realm against the Northmen, interactions with other rulers or in regard to conflicts with or between the nobles, are reflections of the relations between the ruler and the circle of nobles around him. A ruler's power therefore depended on his ability to integrate the most powerful nobles into his rule, to mediate between their interests and to create consensus over the course of action. Based on this view, a new assessment of Charles the Simple's rule, the circle of nobles around him, the actions taken by him and thus his royal power is provided in this study, with the rules of his predecessors since the death of Charles the Bald in 877 serving as a basis for comparison.