Frankish succession question

Frankish custom was to divide the land between the sons of the current ruler.

Let's suppose that a Frankish King had three sons, but that one of his sons predeceased him. If we assumed the deceased son had himself one or more sons, how would they have split this up?

Would only the King's two surviving son get a share? Or would the son of the deceased one get the part that was supposed to go to their father?
 
Just going by a guess, I would assume the allotted share of the eldest son would be split again for the grandsons and the other sons taking the same share regardless.

Not sure how titles would play into that however.
 
It would be split two was if the grandchildren are underage, or as many ways as necessary if the grandchildren are adults.
 
Frankish custom was to divide the land between the sons of the current ruler.

Not reallt. As I tried to point it out there, you had eventually more a share of kingship than a formal divide, at least up to the late VIIth century.

Hell, for what we know, and giving its complete absence before the Vth, it could be more issued from Late Imperial WRE/ERE organisation than "Frankish customs", with a succession that heavily depended on current geopolitics, being made as well on patrilinear and matrilinear sides.

Let's suppose that a Frankish King had three sons, but that one of his sons predeceased him. If we assumed the deceased son had himself one or more sons, how would they have split this up?
It's probable that the two sons would have ignored the grand-son, and shared kingship on their own (it more or less happened after Clothar's death in the late VIth century) But, it's as well probable that the said grandson would try to get some power as well, depending on the local support.

More information would be useful : are we talking of an unified regnum being split up on different kings? A sub-kingdom (as "Neustria" or "Austrasia")?

Would only the King's two surviving son get a share? Or would the son of the deceased one get the part that was supposed to go to their father?
Depends a lot. Which period are we talking of? In which part of the regnum?
 
Last edited:
LSCatilina said:
More information would be useful : are we talking of an unified regnum being split up on different kings? A sub-kingdom (as "Neustria" or "Austrasia")?
LSCatilina said:
Depends a lot. Which period are we talking of? In which part of the regnum?
I was more asking the question globally without thinking this much through...

Well, let's say for the following scenarios:

1) Unified Frankish Regnum in the VIth Century

2) Unified Frankish Regnum in the VIIIth Century

3) In one of the sub-kingdoms in the VIth Century

4) In one of the sub-kingdoms in the VIIth Century
 
I was more asking the question globally without thinking this much through...
Giving that you didn't have a real law of succession, and that it depended on non-legal matters for a good part, I'm sorry that I can't give you a more general answer.

1) Unified Frankish Regnum in the VIth Century
Share of kingship amongst sons and possibly nephews in the ancient meaning (actual nephews, younger cousins, grandsons) that if not concerned, would keep holding claims to.

In the second half of the century, the split usually made along three regular entities that weren't considered as distinct countries (but rather more both fit on regional identities and the three important borders) : Neustria (focused on Seine basin), Austrasia (focused on Rhine), Burgundy (focused on Rhône).
Note that Burgundy and Neustria would eventually be considered as a same entity, and that a war of succession could complexify things (such as sharing a sub-kingdom territory in different parts between claimants. Hence Charibert's kingdom on the Channel).

In the first part however, the shares would be less based on these, and more on similar fiscal revenues. Hence oddities as the so-called Kingdom of Orléans. Generally the seats of these kings would be close of each other, near the actual Ile-de-France region.

Aquitaine and Provence would being shared idependently between the different kings, as not fully considered as part of Francia

2) Unified Frankish Regnum in the VIIIth Century
So, under Peppinids? Well, if the three historical exemples serves : the principle of the unified succession is rooted well enough for that it devolves either in an inner conflict (up to civil war) or to agreed retrocession (such as for Carloman to Peppin III).
The actual royal succession wouldn't be too much troubled itself, being out of touch (even if you can have tentatives to reassert partial dominance trough support of one or the other), but it would be far more troubled by political conveniances (remove a king trying too hard to be independent, and replace him with another claimant if at all)

3) In one of the sub-kingdoms in the VIth Century
Either one son, or the brother (critically without direct heir). As you don't have a rule, it could devolve into conflict.
The tendency being to gathering the whole of the regnum.

4) In one of the sub-kingdoms in the VIIth Century
In the first part, not too dissimilar compared to the VIth century. In the latter part, growing more dependent of majordomo's needs that generally favour the unity of the regnum.
 
Last edited:
Look what happened after the death of Clovis. The kingdom was split 4 ways among sons Theuderich, Chlodomer, Childebert and Chlothar, but when Chlodomer was killed in battle against the Burgundians, Childebert and Chlothar seized his lands and killed Chlodomer's two elder sons (the youngest escaped and joined the church, but was never given any land). They tried to do the same after Theuderich died, but his son was older and successfully fought them off.

So, something like the law of the jungle in the early days of the Merovingians. In their later period, the kings had no power and the Mayors of the Palace raised one of the king's sons to the throne, sometimes more than one (available thrones were Austrasia, Neustria, Burgundy and -- rarely -- Acquitaine).
 
Okay, I disagree a bit, so allow me to nuance it.

but when Chlodomer was killed in battle against the Burgundians, Childebert and Chlothar seized his lands and killed Chlodomer's two elder sons (the youngest escaped and joined the church, but was never given any land).

Remember that these separation were not only fiscal but as well "military". It's why the succession could be made collateraly, as childs couldn't fufill the fighting obligations themselves. It was, of course, in contradiction with patrimony succession and caused much infighting.
Killing off the childs was eventually the simpler way to avoid a civil war, as it happened regularly when too young sons survived and ended either supported by other factions if not being the toy of these.

Of course, we can't discard personal ambitions there, but doing it for when it comes to actual conception of the regnum unity (Enough of a trend to regularly happen) and political conception, only to be able to shout "law of the jungle" is not something really wise.

If something, their political infighting was closer to Late Romans struggle and civil wars rather than "law of the jungle" of Conan the Barbarian.

In their later period, the kings had no power and the Mayors of the Palace raised one of the king's sons to the throne, sometimes more than one (available thrones were Austrasia, Neustria, Burgundy and -- rarely -- Acquitaine).

That's debatable. The hegemonic power of the Merovingians declined after Dagobert's death (while you can see majordomo presence during it), but the majordomos had still to count on this would it be only to legitimize their own power (and it's why they didn't cut the regnum on different kings, but at the contrary favoured the absence of kingship split).

The comparison with the Shogunate would be interesting there, but the kings actually kept several powers (the whole "do-nothing king" being a product of the Carolingians elites, that surprisingly had much interest delegitimize the previous line) and tried (sometimes successfully) to get back their power with the support of Neustrian and Seine nobility (whom power declined with Peppinid rise). Thierry III and Berchar; Dagobert III, Chilperic II and Rainfroi would be good exemples of this.

Admittedly, the definitive unification of kingship on Thierry III's head didn't mean automatically the unification of the regnum (while Peppin II beneficied from it to fight against Berchar, even if Thierry III supported him, to enforce his rule on Neustria as well) but it points the aforementioned political trend tending to the frankish unification (The nomination of Clothar IV was more similar to the future anti-popes or anti-rex of the XIIth Imperial conflicts, rather than being the need of a separate king).

Eventually, the best fitting comparison may be with the Abbassid Caliphate on this regard, whom ruler appointed sultans that ended by dominated him a lot but keeping local and most of all institutional power. It required one century to Peppinids (once their hegemon clearly established) to get rid of it.

As for the sub-kingdom concerned :
- Burgundy ended really quickly to be absorbated by Neustria (loosing their majordomo in the process)
- Aquitaine never recieved a Merovingian king after the death of Caribert II, that were subordinated to Dagobert's (a bit like visigothic sub-kingdoms in Spain). Aquitaine (as Provence) weren't considered as part of Francia, if part of the regnum. Hence the Merovingians resorting to share these regions rather than trying to create an Aquitain kingship that would be definitely too different, the only exception I'm aware of being Chramn but it was more of an opportunistic move than an actual planned kingship.

The two attempts about it were a bit special.
- Gondovald's was more tied up to his failure to secure his claim (a really blurry claim. He was basically for anything that wouldn't piss Austrasians, so Burgundy or Neustria, if not something carved out of it) and ending being supported only by Romans and Franko-Romans faction in Aquitaine.

- Odon kingship being much different : native (mix of Vascones, Roman and Frankish features), acknowledged by Rainfroi in need of support, and definitely not a Merovingian kingship (bit more close to Thuringia, Alemania or Bavarian principalities)

Eventually Merovingian Aquitaine was more a source of fiscal outcomes, fidelities and military support and (maybe because of this) never really concieved as its own entity.
 
Last edited:
Law of the Jungle seems pretty apposite in the case of Chlodomer's sons. Think what happens in lion prides. Chlothar even took over Chlodomer's widow.

Later Merovingians -- they were just about all child kings after Dagobert I. The only exceptions I can think of were Chilperic II and Dagobert II. No wonder they had lost all real power by the end. [Nothing can be proved, but the regularity with which kings lived long enough to have a son or two then died was downright sinister.]

Neustria and Austrasia were the usual divisions when the kingdom was divided. Burgundy was separate under Guntram, briefly united with Austrasia, and separate again under Theuderic II after Childebert II died. After the crowns were united under Chlothar II in 613, Burgundy didn't get its own king in future subdivisions. The chronicles don't say why.
 
Law of the Jungle seems pretty apposite in the case of Chlodomer's sons.
It may be a language thing that I don't get (sorry if it's the case), but when it comes to the definition of "law of the jungle", here's what I have.

"The law of the jungle" is an expression that means "every man for himself," "anything goes," "survival of the strongest," "survival of the fittest," "kill or be killed," "dog eat dog" and "eat or be eaten"

While bloody, it's not what we have for Chlodomer's sons, but a political move. As I tried to point above, the fear of civil war and inner conflicts existed among Frankish nobility, and killing claimants was eventually the safest way to deal with.
Bloody, without any douby, but hardly "blood for the blood throne".

Think what happens in lion prides.
I fail to see the reference, unfortunatly.
Do you mean "Look, they totally behaved as animals"? I beg to differ. Hugely.
Political murder have a "a long and glorious tradition" with it, and was hardly based on bestiality.

Chlothar even took over Chlodomer's widow.
Given the importance of matrilinearity in succession, I don't see what the "law of the jungle" part there.
It wasn't a "to the victor the spoils", but most probably made to both assert its power on Neustria and Burgundy, neutralize a possible opposition (Frankish queens tended to have an important political weight).

Later Merovingians -- they were just about all child kings after Dagobert I. The only exceptions I can think of were Chilperic II and Dagobert II. No wonder they had lost all real power by the end.
But again "they lost all power" is something repeted again, and again, and again (critically from Carolingians, along the "they did nothing, so we kinda had to intervene. We only tought about Francia, we sware") without being that obvious.
There, we must really see separatly Neustrian/Burgundian and Austrasian politics to really get what happened.

Neustrian kings as Clovis II (in spite of being young, is praised for his policies) seems to have enjoyed a real power, even if limited by regency (as Bathild's).
At the exception of Ebroin, the majordomos of Neustria seems to have worked relativly well with (and not on or under) the kings.
The coup of the former really weakened the political balance and allowed Peppinids to takeover all Francia under the pretext of supporting Thierry III's rule.

The whole "they had no power after Dagobert I" leave a gap of almost 50 years that is hard to explain as such; or the aformentioned alliances and tentative to get out Peppinid yoke up to Charles Martel. That alone imply some power, legitimacy and prestige.

Even in Austrasia, the fact Franks reacted really negativly to the tentative of Grimoald to put his son (or at the very least, a Merovingian that he had totally under his thumb) as heir of Sigebert should inform us about the prestige of the Merovingian line.

Nothing can be proved, but the regularity with which kings lived long enough to have a son or two then died was downright sinister.
I'm not that convinced : when Frankish kings were murdered, it was generally said they were.
I don't see why they would have dissimuled it just because.
Critically when it was eventually easier to cloister them, and to use them as pressure or figureheads when you needed it.

After the crowns were united under Chlothar II in 613, Burgundy didn't get its own king in future subdivisions. The chronicles don't say why.
Well, not having its own king is a bit irrelevant. Neustria and Austrasia often had, but with distinct (and rival) majordomos.
Now, it's true that Burgundy ceased to have its own majordomo in the late VIIth century. From what I gathered, it could be traced back to different reasons (not mutually exclusive), but he unifying trend of the era probably played an important role.

Up to Dagobert's sons, Merovingian kings tried hard to unify kingship on their heads, and the presence of majordomos was seen as a factor of division. Eventually, they tried to play them along (as well with a matrimonial policy) : majordomos of Bourgogne became majordomos of Austrasia or Neustria.

This, plus the absence of relevance of Burgundy as separate with the military part of the frankish kingship must have played a role (while not wholly justifying it :the survival of the patrician title may point it)
 
Last edited:
Top