4: The Empire of the Franks: From Clovis to Charlemagne
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- In this episode, we discuss the rise of the Frankish Empire later Carolingian Empire: The Conquests and baptism of Clovis and the early history of the Franks, the decline of the Merovingian dynasty, Charles Martel and the rise of the Carolingian dynasty, and ultimately the reign and coronation of Charlemagne.
With:
Columba: / columba_1
Marcus Pertinax: / furiuspertinax - Zábava
If you enjoyed this video, please like and leave a comment. It helps the channel a lot. Many thanks.
Now i want you guys to cover the Spanish Visigothic kingdom one day to go full circle. Great Stream guys.
Britain too
Amazing.
I just found this, and I'm thrilled! My field is the court of Charlemagne, and this sort of discussion is so wonderful, especially after having to argue with someone who's been reading Dan Brown's nonsense...
I would like to note (nearly a year after this was released) that Charles' fascination with Roman culture extended beyond literature and architecture- even to his table. He had access to Anthimus' writings (parts of which look like a collection of recipes if you squint a bit) and apparently some of the late Roman cookery books also. The culinary habits across Charles' empire were much varied by geographic constraints, but there is still the idea that 'The Roman Empire was great, so let's do as the Romans'... Bonnie Effros has done quite a bit of work on food as it is involved in burial practices of the Merovingians, and Volker Bach has done some writing on Carolingian foodways; I have been trying to develop conjectural menus/dishes based on the late Roman food, Anthimus, and manorial records and capitularies- the Capitulary de Villis in particular has quite a bit of information that is useful for understanding the diet of the Carolingians.
I am bowled over by your presentation style and the sheer depth of your knowledge. The fact that you've broadcast so much in such a short time, and that I have not discovered your channel before, humbles me.
Ive read a bit on the times of the fall of western Rome and the rise of Charlemagne but there was a bit of a gap between the two that this stream helped fill in the blank.
Well done! Fascinating & informative. Thank you!
It makes me very happy when I see the number of subs on this channel slowly creep up. You guys are very good at presenting things and very knowledgeable
39:48 for those interested the Bretons remained free because they kept winning defensive wars, the franks were never able to completely defeat the Bretons:
so according to the book "Bretons and Britons: The Fight for Identity" (By Barry Cunliffe) Clovis invaded Brittany 4 years after taking soissons (ie 490) supposedly winning the field battle but then withdrawing and invading Aquitaine instead. the franks then left them alone for a couple of decades. at this point Brittany was three separate kingdoms (Domnonia, Cornouaille, and Bro Waroc'h [formerly Vannetais]) in 579 the Bretons attacked the franks, and then again in 587 in attempts to take control of Gallo-Roman territories of Nantes and Rennes. this forced king Guntram of the franks to officially recognise the 3 kingdoms as independant and his equals but did not give up the territory. the Bretons attacked again in 588 however, and defeated the frankish army sent by Guntram. afterwich Nantes and Rennes became a buffer zone between the bretons and franks. there was more fighting in 635, that was territorially inconclusive. all of these fights are recorded as Breton attempts to take full control Nantes and Rennes peacefully or militarily and the franks opposeing them. and it seems to be stale mate as neither side are able to achieve a decisive victory. there is aparently a period of relative peace until 750AD, the bretons continued to raid and subvert frankish control over Nantes and Rennes but never securing control for themselves either. lots of raiding.
in 751 King Pippin invaded Brittany and took Vannes (and thus conquered the kingdom of Bro Waroc'h), he then grouped Vannes, Nantes and Rennes into the March (limitis) of Brittany. from there the franks raided the rest of Brittany. there were 7 major frankish campaigns between 751 and 830 to bring the bretons to heal, only the first changed anything, the other 6 achieved little to nothing. the franks record the Bretons *effective use of light cavalry.*
in 831 Louis the Pius, sick of trying to subdue the bretons by force, apointed Nominoe Count of Vannes (a breton noble loyal to him) as the representative of Brittany, and he was given the county of Vannes as a semi-independant realm. Nominoe took advantage of the Frankish powerstuggle in 840 after Louis' death to extend his power and fought the franks untill his death in 851, trying to take control of Nantes and Rennes but also as much territory as he could, he got as far as Vendome (taking Nantes, Rennes and Le Mans) before dieing suddenly. he was succeded by his son Erispoe.
Brittany was only united by Nominoe however in 846 (who became 'Nomenoius dux'), as he had united peacefully with the 2 fully independant parts of brittany.
after his death (851), Charles the bald counter attacked Erispoe and invaded Brittany, but was decisively defeated at the battle of Jengland-Besle by the bretons. Charles the Bald was forced to not only recognise Erispoe as king of Brittany but also recognise Breton control of Nantes and Rennes but also Pays de Retz (thus seceding complete contorl of the Loire estuary to the Bretons). there would be continued on and off fighting between Brittany and the Franks, until 866/7 where (allied with Vikings) the Bretons seized control of the Cotentin peninsula and Avranchin. afterwhich the bretons and vikings fought. then a long civil war in Brittany from 874 -888 blamed on Frankish conspirators, which ended by another viking invasion. by 892 the bretons had defeated them numerous times and the vikings chose to leave them alone.
there was then peace until 907AD when the vikings returned. it was mostly raiding (which intensified after the creation of normandy in 911), by 919 Brittany was conquered by the vikings. although a number of Bretons had fled into exile in England. there was a failed rebellion in 931 (which consided with a frankish invasion of viking controled brittany which also was defeated). it was at this time the Cotentin peninsula and Avranchin was seceded to the Normans.
the breton king in Exile Alain II was raised in the court of Aethelstan as his foster-son. in 936 Aethelstan helped Alain gather and fleet and army for reconquest of his kingdom, which eventually succeded in 939 after the battle of Trans-la-foret. However instead of a kingdom Alain II got a semi-independant dukedom under the franks. it was at this time that the Bretons adopted alot of culture from the franks and normans, especially chivalric values nad heavy cavalry (rather than their traditonal light cavalry) in response to raids from the Normans and the Anjou (and counter raiding) but also due to intermarriages and other mingling...
you then have the Feudal history:
this eventually led to the 1064-65 war between the dukes of Brittany (Conan II) and Normandy (William the bastard/conqueror) as Conan claimed Williams title and William supported another claimant for the breton dukedom. William demanded a truce in 1065 so he could invade England, so Conan attacked his other rival the duke of Anjou, but died in the siege of Angers in 1066 poisoned (people suspected William), as a result many Bretons joined William in his invasion of England. interestingly enough it was bretons who were given Cornwall (as many bretons would have come from cornwall in the 400s). fighting between the normans and bretons resumed in 1075-1086 which the normans won.
you then have their relationship with france and england during the middle ages. such as the Angevin empire and so on.
Thank you for that overview of Breton history. Can you please share some sources for Breton history? I’m always looking to grow my medieval history library.
@@njb1126at the top of the post he names the book that would have the references
Messieurs c'était parfait, merci !
essentialy the early medieval kings were mafia bosses,
the Pippinids/karolingians were more of rell concilliere of the Merovingians, and then took over the family
In a way, yeah. By modern standards, most rulers and societies throughout history operated in a very mafia-like/mob-like manner
After having taken a long break from listening to your history podcast, I've just started listening again. It has made me want to begin reading about these subjects again. So thank you for making these videos - to both AM, Columba and Marcus.
The example they are searching for around 1:05 would have settled better on the last Han emperor being dragged around by Cao Cao or maybe certain latter phases of the Sunni Caliphs.
Nice to find long measured discussion of this time period that bothers to cover law and etymology and ethnographic stuff. Good meaty shyyt to get into. Appreciated.
Amazing channel.
Interesting...
Very interesting
Ja.
High back saddle doesn't hurt much when you run down the significance of the stirrup and heavy horse action.
According to my genealogy I'm a great-grandson of the Kings of Franks. Actually just About all scandinavian Kings 🤴
41:05 hmm maybe, the 'breton' people of the civitas/counties of Vannes, Nantes and Rennes considered themselves romans as late as 750 AD you have to be fairly romanised to think of yourself as roman that long after 'roman' rule ends.
I’m so addicted to these! I can’t wait till I get to the one where Bismarckian diplomacy is discussed.
Sometimes your guys’ mic 🎙️ volumes are set at different sensitivities. Maybe sync up’ to avoid constant volume control.
Cheers, and keep up the glory! 🖖🏻
actualy the "french" heavy cavalry is sort of a semi myth, contemporary it was seen as "frankish" heavy cavalry and it was present in the german military tradition as well as in the french,
german nobles from the rhineland would still boast about Frankish Chivarly/knighthood in the 16th century and on, and it was seen as a tribal conotation not so much as one of the french nation, also the french franks would merge at that time more and more into the french nation itself.
but for most of the middleages i would rather see it as a Frankish military tradition and only secondary as a french one.
There was no "french" cavalry yet as you write. The "Franks" we're just a german tribe like many others, they had a shared culture and military tradition.
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 The history of France begins in 496 with the baptism of Clovis, according to historians (I don't know any who argue the contrary), according to the Church (France is called the "Eldest Daughter of the Church" to this day) and even according to a young illiterate peasant girl who didn't have access to history books (which is one of the many miracles of her journey) named Joan of Arc .
France is a mosaic of peoples such as the Celtic (Gauls, Bretons), the Germanic (Franks, Burgundians), the Latins (Romans, later Corsicans), the Basques etc. Saint-Clotilde, for example, the wife of Clovis, was a Burgundian, one of the Germanic peoples that make up France, as were the Salian Franks.
Alfred the Great (founder of the House of Wessex in England) was Germanic too as he was Saxon. Doesn't make him German though.
great talk. nevertheless, I disagree that for some times the Eastern Part of the Frankenreich/Frankisch Realm could be easier unified. In France it was always about a in relation fewer structural more homogenous realms, while in the German reallms it only 'appeared' for some times more peaceful but if one tried to unify it then the general more polycentral structures became obvious - and this is structural true till today. and it was already one important reason why the Romans never could get it as part of the Roman Empire ...
Good stuff
1:38:00
On the use of small monasteries producing an amount of resources, something similar can be seen in the Vedic Hindu temples where textiles and food is produced (usually for the poor).
Could it be that as Christianity is a cross of semetic and indoeuropean religions it has this quirk in common with another one.
In spite of what believers may say (I am not one myself, though I am sympathetic and DeusVultPilled), I do believe Christianity is indeed a synthesis between the two. A Greek interpretation of ideas brought together in western and central CROSSROADS OF CIVILIZATION! I believe the same is true for Buddhism and Sikhism as well and I suspect early Christianity (prior to it's Romanization) was similar. For this reason, among others, I don't NOT trust the "theological" of modern so-called Christians. I do also have a theory that these ideas are ultimately rooted in our unique understanding of the fact that to exist, whether a man or a rock, is to suffer... It is inherent to being. Enough of my rambling, good day sah!
btw, Karl der Grosse (Charles the Great) ... it is unclear if he is called 'the great' due to his political/historical weight or due to his size of 1.84m. Another interesting aspect is that he got mummified after his date and some ppl later noticed that he is still in a great shape. His Shrine/Bury is most likely somewhere in the capital back then which is Aachen/Germany (Pfalz/Aachen Catredral) ... there are a lot of stories about his body ...
Any book recommendations on Frankish history / Charlemagne? Thanks.
Interesting remark on Franks rising in Romans society. It reminds me of a certain other people, who also managed to rise, but in American society. Two groups of people there, actually. But than there is this other group of people, who constantly cause problems and despite all the free boosts and diversity quotas they get stay at the bottom. Almost as if discrimination has nothing to do with it and it is down to genetics.
We don't hear much about that group rising often in Roman society though. Maybe it's a combination of genetics and what qualities that society favours.
Or perhaps it has to do with the fact that the “other group” you refer to was the only group enslaved, kidnapped in the millions, and systematically deprived of education for hundreds of years. I love these videos, but come on, don’t use them to justify ridiculous historical comparisons. And I recommend taking a course in biological anthropology for your “genetics” talk.
1:38:20
"Unique to western European and Southern European tradition and Catholicism"
Really? In Orthodox Christianity each monastery has its own land makes its own products. Here there are no breweries for beer but monastic wines and brandies are in high demand in Balkans.
Also they often are repository of old medical knowledge and make their own medical cremes, salves and things of sort.
«Major Domo»? No wonder you veered off into talking about Japan.
Just building anticipation for the Sons of Heaven Series
@@ApostolicMajesty Looking forward to it.
why when wtching you tube puts up pt 3 instead of pt 1 then 2 3 etc? ve pointery good videos but get to the point
Any arguement for the monasteries providing a unique fusion of spiritual, social acedemic, and practical knowledge into one?
That is what they did so there is no need for an argument for it. You could argue what they taught was somewhat wrong but that is another matter entirely.
is there an issue with comments? i seems some of my comments are kind of well not there? the question is were they deleted and why? or was there a problem with youtube not sending them? this is concerning, i was specivially writing about the legitimacy of Carolus martellus, and the relation between Pippin II and grimoald I.
I don't know what's going on if that's what you mean. There should be 21 comments but I can only see 13.
@@ApostolicMajesty btw Carolus martellus, was as far as i read the sources, not illegitim, he was from Pippins First Marriage as i understand it, his half Brother Childrebrand was likely illegitim or son of the second wife,
Perhaps, but the argument that he was illegitimate was the pretext to remove him from the succession, as is so often the case when a prince/king re-marries.
@@ApostolicMajesty yeah but i didn't find any of this in the sources, idk maybe a confusion? i think it was said that thing with Plectrude and the other one? and sometimes only Plectrude and sometimes only the other one, is mentions as wife of Pippin,
also it is not realy that clear how the succsession works, it seems rather unclear because actualy all sons inherit alongside as equals.
1:15:50 It was the captured horses that they took from defeated Umayyads after the battle. Barb ( Berbery ) Horse was way more stronger, faster and tougher than anything they had in europe at that time. That was the genetic template for all andalusian horse breeds, european knightly horses and modern thoroughbreeds for that matter. ( aside from Arabian, Barb's genetical contribution is highest modern horses )
Who were you referring to that was the in-between of Germanic slavers and the moors?
Do you reckon the ugly middle Kingdom represents Charles I's plans for Burgundy as a land from coast to coast?
Id rather be blinded in a later Merovingian or early Carolingian court rather than hang drawn and quartered in the 14th century in England. And you can’t tell me I’m the only one that got the joke about Scandinavia’s geography;)😂
There is no "Roman Catholic" church at this period... There is one Orthodox Church East and West. What there is is most destructive move by the Carolingian intellectuals in setting up Augustine of Hippo, until that time largely unknown... as a rival (and bogus) theologian to bolster the prestige of Charlie's empire as a rival to the ongoing Roman Empire in Constantinople and to its Patristic Orthodoxy. Of course, the pseudo theologian Augustine is the basis of the entire decline of the West theologically into heresy Roman and Protestant (like the equivalent of Origen is the father of the heresies which necessitated the 7 Ecumenical Councils) as laying the foundation for Scholaticism, the filioque, and the false dead end philosophizing of Christianity which led through RCism, Protism and secularism to Hegelian Marxism... For details see John Romanides, Michael Azkoul, Richard Hough, and Joseph P Farrell... and any historian and theologian who is not brainwashed by the schismatic and apostatic Papacy and Reformers.... Augustine is the source of the Filioque, predestination, original sin, legalism and other innovations due to his dialectical rationalism and subjectivism.... all our present troubles start with his writings. This is the deleterious cultural and spiritual effect of Charlemagne and his real importance...
Based.
Did your “Orthodox church” not accept this schismatic and and apostatic papacy as their supreme pontiff at the council of Florence? When they also accepted the supposedly heretical Filioque. Where is the “patristic orthodoxy” in the Palamaic heresy abided to by your schismatic sect? The one true apostolic Catholic Church has never accepted predestination or any Protestant doctrine. If you were to ask the Romans of Rome from 800 AD onwards who the emperor was they would not have named a king of the Greeks.
Ignorance deserves no reply@@liammacneil5672
Sad typo in the title. So sad.
Word of the day to Google: Radhanites
Thank you. I was wondering what they were referring to.
Um....
Umm
good stuff. but an awful lot of "um...um...ums)