Institutional differences between Franks, Visigoths and Langobards?

As the title says, i want to know the cause/origin of the peculiar political/social institutions of the different romano-germanic kingdoms.

In particular:

-Kingship: plural in the merovingian dominions (but aristocrats were excluded), but monistic in Iberia and Italy (where aristocrats could aim to kingship)

-Succession law: royal dynasties in Gaul, election in Iberia/Italy. Is it only a matter of ill lucked kings, or is it connected to the nature of kingship?

-Where do the councils in Visigothic Spain come from?

-Military: why the Franks were so powerful, while the Visigoths weren't?

Also, i know that the Visigoths were rather tolerant with catholic bishops, so i don't consider religion as a weakness factor. Many battles found catholic subjects of arian kings fighting/resisting loyally against the Franks, for example.

(looking at LSCatilina)
 
It's...complicated, so pardon me if I keep it short (I'm not at home right now, and not having my books with me to check it out)

Eventually, it all comes down to Late Imperial structures being modified by events.

Kingship: plural in the merovingian dominions (but aristocrats were excluded), but monistic in Iberia and Italy (where aristocrats could aim to kingship)
I'm not too sure about Ostrogothic Italy, but you had a plural kingship in both Gaul and Spain, akin to imperial collegiality, and similarly based on "fronts". (Often south/east, but not only).

The main difference is partially based on a dynastical continuity in Francia, almost sacred* (at the very least really respected), and a growingly anti-dynastical kingship in Gothia (not a demonstration of unstability, but rather a policy to prevent the rise of too powerful kings).

Both eventually worked along a same line of truste, with nobility becoming more directly tied up to the royal power (which became really a problem in Spain, as it concerned great landowners nobles, which eventually agreed to not remove the benefits given by the various kings).

I'm not too sure about what you mean by "aristocrats being excluded", sure, they couldn't aim at kingship in Francia proper, but could so in peripherical regions (namely Aquitaine and Bavaria, while admittedly as sub-kingdoms and in the Late Merovingian period)

*That said, the Frankish sacre used later by French kings is directly issued from Gothic rites of power, themselves inspired by Byzantine's)

Ostrogothic kingship is a pit particular, being far more than its Barbaro-Roman counterparts being understood as a patricianship, a governorate for the emperor. But it's a bit hard to systematize with the Romans-Gothic wars.

-Where do the councils in Visigothic Spain come from?
Well, councils on all Latin Christiendom were a political matter, whatever in Spain or Gaul.
The Councils of Toledo only became something else with the IVth and Isidorus of Sevilla.

Originally it was about stabilizing the Visigothic kingship, making it formally elective and more stable, but the wisfhul thinking about making the Council deciding it instead of nobility was moot.
Eventually it became more how Visigothic kingship get legitimized.

-Succession law: royal dynasties in Gaul, election in Iberia/Italy. Is it only a matter of ill lucked kings, or is it connected to the nature of kingship?
You don't have really succession laws : it's more dependent of both uses and role of the kings, essentially military and redistributive for later periods.

It was customary for both Visigoths and Franks to deal with a same prestigious dynasty, but Balthi eventually failed in Spain and weren't replaced by a strong dynasty, in spite of tentatives, while it happened with Peppinids.

-Military: why the Franks were so powerful, while the Visigoths weren't?
I'm not sure Franks were that obviously powerful military. They were so politically by the Vth/VIth century because they weren't Homeans institutionally, which made the Gallo-Roman nobility falling in love with them after the defeat (rather than from the beggining), but military?

Both kingdoms eventually managed to expand (Germania, Galicia) and to fend off outer raids (Basques, Saxons).
One of the main differences was that Visigoths had to directly deal with Byzantines, when the only real intervention in Francia was during Gondovald's revolt and it was really indirect and in alliance with Austrasia. You'd note that Franks didn't do much better against Romans in Italy.

EDIT : Not that you didn't have differences : Visigothic armies usually included domesticity (on the political sense) including slaves; while I don't think it was widely the case for Franks, where freedmen-in-arms played a certain role. The lead around dukes and great nobility seems to have been more ancient in Gothia than in Francia (but on the other hand never really went the way creating new kingdoms, even if it was attempted with the rebellion of Paulus, for exemple).
Also, i know that the Visigoths were rather tolerant with catholic bishops, so i don't consider religion as a weakness factor.
It was, in the early period, when you consider that Roman nobility was partially religious : Desiderii-Salvii were as well counts than bishops. When your legitimacy is partially due to religion, you may prefer an Orthodox leader.

Now, was it the sole factor? I don't think so, as Alaric II's tentative of union prooved, but it provoked a "snowball effect" when Goths were defeated at Vouillé, that only Theodoric's intervention stopped.

Hermenengild's revolt points as well that you had a political base of dissatisfaction with an Homean power.

EDIT : As for Lombards...Maybe you'd have more chances asking LordKalvan, it's not exactly my strong point.

Apparently, the previous nobility (Gothic and Roman) was more or less replaced, at least partially, contrary to what happened in Gaul and Spain. It is possible that they were less integrated to post-Imperial Romania than their predecessors, which may be an explanation to the maintenance of a non continuous dynastical kingship, but on the other hand they were quickly influenced by Romans, would it be before the geopolitical pressures in Northern and Southern Italy.
Eventually Lombard kings seems to have the same military and redistributive function than in contemporary Francia and Gothia. And eventually, I wonder if we're not in face of a similar evolution than in Spain, alltough for different reasons, in favour of an anti-dynastic succession.
 
Last edited:

What i meant by plural kingship is not collegiality, but that you can have many independent kings, each of them from the same dynasty, who rule over a dominion which can be unified under the same king or divided among members of the same family. This happened with the Franks, but not with the Visigoths.

My theory is that Visigoths, having at least a century (circa) of interaction with the Empire more that the Franks, were able to absorb more elements of roman imperial ideology in their concept of kingship.

Notably, the oneness of kingship, and less focus on dynasty. I think that the battle of Vouillé played a major part in the shift to an elective form of government instead of the sacralization of the dynasty.

This could have led to the institutions of the councils as a fundamental trait of Visigothic Spain, since they were arians and ought to seek an alliance with the local clergy/aristocracy.

Also, in their religious policy, the Visigoths were akin to the Romans, both in persecution and compromises.

I think that the focus on the Visigothic inherent instability is enhanced by their fall in the early VIII century. If you look at Merovingian Gaul in the VII century, you see civil wars occuring regularly. The only difference is that the Franks were much better when united against an external threat (the aristocracy supported the ruler, to gain booty and lands), while Gothia, when facing an external enemy, was prone to aristocratic coups.

I think that Gothia instability (or fragility) is much more tied to its geographical differences, and different social developments in different areas (from the far North to the cities in the South). I think that's why it collapsed so quickly with the Arab conquests (also, because of the centrality of the king).

Reading Wickham, i understood that gothic civil wars were aimed at kingship, while frankish civil wars usually ended in a fragmented Merovingian dominion (various kingdoms).

I'm trying to think about some advantages of the Visigothic system. Could it have avoided the political fragmentation of the IX-X century?

With a surviving Visigothic kingdom, you could see the Carolingians as the real losers, instead of the example of successful germanic kingdom that survived (assuming that they rise to power anyway)? I think this is the real question i'm posing, and the aim of this thread: re-evaluating the Visigoths and their socio/political system.
 
This happened with the Franks, but not with the Visigoths.
Actually, it's not what happened with Franks : kings weren't exactly independent, with a comparison to be held with Roman collegiality.

Bruno Dumézil said:
First, what was really shared? Successions' accounts points that each Merovingian king, as each son of the deceased king, recieved a series of cities and strongholds, forming only rarely a continuous territory.
Kings are not given a coherent portion of land, but essentially two elements of power : a most wealthy capital region and an active border to defend.

It can be considered that the merovingian shares looks like the ones practiced in the Late Roman Empire. As the territory is too vast, a prince is needed on each active border; every ruler is so tied to a threatened area and have enough hinterland to supply it.

One can think as well that it's an efficient way to expand the territory : each Merovingian have an area to defend but as well to expand trough conquest. This share system was indeed particularily efficient.
Between Clovis and the early VIIth, Frankish regnum is doubled, each king trying to gain land at his neighbours' expense.

Furthermore, the successorial share doesn't mean the State was considered as private patrimony bt Merovingians. At the contrary, these kings maintain a really precise list of fiscs, these public lands formerly owned by the emperor and then held by the Merovingian kings. Each king is the keeper of the fiscs on his territory, but these belong to the whole regnum.

So, the permanancy of the public land, since Late Antiquity to the IXth century ensure a certain continuity of the Frankish State. As long the Frankish State is a landowner State, as long it beneficiy from domanial lands, divisions, reunifications and shares doesn't harm its power.

My theory is that Visigoths, having at least a century (circa) of interaction with the Empire more that the Franks, were able to absorb more elements of roman imperial ideology in their concept of kingship.
See above : for what matter Frankish kingship, it was really on Late Imperial continuity.

Not that Franks had less interaction with Romans : they were politically integrated as a people (as Goths were), but earlier in Northern Gaul. They were less given a focus historiographically, because...well, they weren't really that antagonizing.

Eventually, as for Goths, Frankish ethnogensesis owes a lot to Romanisation.

Notably, the oneness of kingship, and less focus on dynasty.
Romans were really about dynastic continuity, especially with the military role growing on.
Giving that anti-dynastic kingship only appeared after two centuries, I don't think you can call it either fundamental, or inherited from Romania. In fact, it's rather an evolution from Late Imperial structures.

This could have led to the institutions of the councils as a fundamental trait of Visigothic Spain, since they were arians and ought to seek an alliance with the local clergy/aristocracy.
Giving that the Councils as theoritical fundamental institution appeared with Sisenand in the VIIth century, after Goths converted to Nicean beliefs...

No, it's not really what you describe : the only real tentative to actively concily Nicean Roman nobility were made outside Councils, as Alaric II's policy.

Also, in their religious policy, the Visigoths were akin to the Romans, both in persecution and compromises.

I think that the focus on the Visigothic inherent instability is enhanced by their fall in the early VIII century.
It's assuming that the absence of dynasty was due to political instability. It wasn't : it was an actual concieved policy from Gothic nobility to prevent both the affirmation of a sippe on them, and to prevent entering into a cycle of revange over previous political and benefits distributions.

If you look at Merovingian Gaul in the VII century, you see civil wars occuring regularly.
The only difference is that the Franks were much better when united against an external threat
No. Definitely no.
Gondovald's revolts really hints how different Frankish kings could be opposed even in face of a foreign threat (in this case, more or less supported by Constantinople). And don't get me started on active search of foreign alliances (Ebroïn's Neustria and Eudon, for exemple)

(the aristocracy supported the ruler, to gain booty and lands),
Allow me to link a summary of Gondovald's revolt as a counter-exemple.

while Gothia, when facing an external enemy, was prone to aristocratic coups.

You're tributary from how they fell on this view (or as well Carolingian historiography), but against Suevi, Byzantines, Franco-Aquitains and Basques, they eventually did pretty well.

Again, the use of a collegial kingship, with sub-kingdoms corresponding to general threats, did quite good. For Goths, Arabs intervention wasn't that different from what Franks did in 632/633 with supporting Sisenand.

I think that's why it collapsed so quickly with the Arab conquests (also, because of the centrality of the king).
It may be more due to an ongoing civil war, actually, Arabs not being really seen as an existential threat (it's possible that Berbers were already used as mercenaries before) while a Byzantine expedition was crushed recently.

Reading Wickham, i understood that gothic civil wars were aimed at kingship, while frankish civil wars usually ended in a fragmented Merovingian dominion (various kingdoms).
The difference, if he really put it this way, is really exagerated.
Visigothic kingship wasn't widely aimed for, but rather the benefits obtained trough redistribution, just as in Francia.

The main difference being the dynasty surviving in Francia, without real threat or pressure at their borders; while Goths had to deal with direct rivality between nobles and clearly more important pressure.

Rather than aimed at kingship, it was aimed at preventing dynasties to get formed (or collegial kingship, as with Paulus' revolt): it was one of the reason why Gothic ruling elites went well with Arab conquest. By treaty, conquerors assumed the role of formers kings without the risk of seeing a rivaling noble entity taking over and challenging their gains.

I'm trying to think about some advantages of the Visigothic system. Could it have avoided the political fragmentation of the IX-X century?
Giving it would ask a PoD at best in the VIIth century, probably VIth century with a Balthi survival...

With a surviving Visigothic kingdom, you could see the Carolingians as the real losers, instead of the example of successful germanic kingdom that survived (assuming that they rise to power anyway)?
Depends of the PoD, but with a VII/VIIIth pod, it's likely that Peppinid still rise to power, being already a thing at this point.

Not as IOTL, and a bit more challenging, but the restructurations in trade roads, their importance in Austrasia, and their important network would eventually make them really likely candidates (let's say that the Merovingian decline in the VIIth century made Frankish Kingdom more divided* and relatively isolated)

A Merovingian dynasty survival is still possible, but may ask for an earlier PoD, IMO.

As for Goths...a strong Francia would likely intervene into succession issues, as they did IOTL with Dagobert's intervention in favour of Sisenand. A situation where Franks have a same role than Arabo-Berbers IOTL isn't to be written off.


*Less about a collegiality of kingship there, than with peripherical duchies and regions taking their de facto independence as with Gascony, Aquitaine, Bavaria, etc.

Interestingly, it's a period where Gothia became more stable and prosperous, keeping more direct contact with places as Roman Africa.


I think this is the real question i'm posing, and the aim of this thread: re-evaluating the Visigoths and their socio/political system.
Well...I'd strongly suggest reading Collins' Visigothic Spain, for that?
 
Top