TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > History > Was successful Kingship in Merovingian Gaul a matter of being an effective and lucky war leader?
Introduction
- Define success King reigned as opposed to governed could look through success terms of subject, blood thirsty family survival and peace more relevant
- Different Kings Chlothar II all and others, only sub kingdoms depending on succession
Yes effective, lucky war leader
- Success certainly attributed to lucky and effective war leader- notably Charles Martel 17 huge victories, Clovis, Theudebert, Chlothar II
- Why important gan land territories for fisc pay off aristos, sustainability, divide and rule only slightly autonomy meant loyalty
- Popular both arsitos, soldiers and kings benefited occasions when soldiers force hand of ruler to go to war even Italy Frankish graveyeard massive soruce wealth declines 7th century
Aristocratic Support
- Monarchy reliant on acquiescence of the landed aristocracy achieved by bribery, positions of power, land, dukedoms etc use of court to get cooperation (come setc sign diplomatas aristos wanted strong King protect their psoiiton and ebenfit from Kings trying to get support
- Mid 7th century Chlothasr educating men from different regions at court and then sending them out like Desiderius cements kingdom
Succession and Context
- Succession difficult and context of succession important effects weak minority Kings example weak susceptible to aristocratic pressures could not be great war leaders vulnerable uxorious
- Chlothar II structured succession Dagobert rules with father for 6 years seamless transition almost
- Lack of brothers means less chance civil war, esp, if father strong enough to have ruled unite kingdom leads us to believe, like Theudebert, effective war leader especially necessary is brothers fighting it out.
Comments
