WI: Clovis does NOT adopt Catholicism?

MAlexMatt

Banned
This being Clovis I, the Frankish king who conquered one of the last independent Roman states north of the Alps, who founded the Merovingian dynasty in Gaul, and who set the stage for pretty much all of early Medieval history. Close analysis of future events should show that his decision to convert to a Catholic form of Christianity was decisive in several different ways.

1. A Catholic King was, perhaps, key to seeing off Muslim raiders at Tours a few centuries later. An Arian Christian king in Visigothic Spain absolutely failed in the face of a similar situation, when a relatively small force of Islamic raiders hit the Iberian peninsula and destroyed the Visigothic Kingdom. Without the Catholic peasantry feeling that the government underneath which they toiled was their government fighting with the blessing of their God and their Church, things seemed to have turned out differently. It's plausible that a similar outcome would be possible had Clovis turned to Arianism.

2. Without a Catholic Frankish Kingdom, there's precisely zero chance that the Pope will see fit to crown a Frankish king Roman Emperor.

3. Without the scruples of Catholic tradition, it's possible that there would have developed no such thing as a 'secure' kingship in Frankish Gaul. As the Merovingian dynasty weakened, instead of leaving centuries for their Mayors of the Palace to strengthen their own position before finally supplanting the old dynasty, it's likely an ambitious nobleman would have simply killed the old king and taken his place.

4. A secure Catholic Frankish Empire was vital for the Christianization of the rest of Europe. The Anglo-Saxons Christianized, in part, because of missions from Catholic Francia. The Christianization of Germania depended on Merovignian and Carolingian conquests there. While these areas might have Christianized anyway (emphasis on might), the process would have been entirely different and it's possible that they might not have ended up as Catholics.

5. There are some tantalizing hints that the earliest Viking raids were actually responses to Frankish attacks on the Saxons, allies to the early Scandinavian kingdoms. If there's no Charlemagne to attack the Saxons, the Viking Age might turn out entirely different.

I don't think it's particularly plausible to imagine that Clovis, or one of his near successors, would have remained pagan. A pagan conqueror would not have been able to easily control a conquered Christian population and the incentive to convert for easy legitimacy would always be there. But an Arian Clovis closely aping the policies of the Visigoths is going to be something very different anyway.

Might large swathes of Europe remain pagan? How does Medieval history unfold as Late Antiquity comes to a close without a strong, Catholic Frankish Empire at its heart? What might happen?
 
Sorry, but you have got your facts wrong: The Visigoths became catholic after gaining control of Spain, because else they would not have been able to control their realm.
 
This being Clovis I, the Frankish king who conquered one of the last independent Roman state north of the Alps, who founded the Merovingian dynasty in Gaul, and who set the stage for pretty much all of early Medieval history. Close analysis of future events should show that his decision to convert to a Catholic form of Christianity was decisive in several different ways.

Sygarius only reigned on gallo-roman militia. It's hardly a "roman state", as this power was more about people rather than territory, a territory that was shared and/or divided with Bretons of Armorica, and most probably local gallo-romans nobility and clergy.
The so-called "Kingdom of Sygarius" is hardly anything else than a tentative of historians to put a name in a blank space without using "Here, There Be Dragons".

1. A Catholic King was, perhaps, key to seeing off Muslim raiders at Tours a few centuries later. An Arian Christian king in Visigothic Spain absolutely failed in the face of a similar situation, when a relatively small force of Islamic raiders hit the Iberian peninsula and destroyed the Visigothic Kingdom. Without the Catholic peasantry feeling that the government underneath which they toiled was their government fighting with the blessing of their God and their Church, things seemed to have turned out differently. It's plausible that a similar outcome would be possible had Clovis turned to Arianism.
Okay. Calm down LSC.
Hemem.
TOURS WASN'T DECISIVE IN ANY WAY.
This whole battle was only about stopping the Arabo-Berbers in front of the most important sanctuary of Gaul, and not at all about pushing them back.
The Arabo-Berber campaign was only a raid similar to the ones that ravaged Provence, Aquitaine or even Sens in the 720's, it was not comparable to an invasion. Furthermore, Charles Martel let the Arabo-Berber, even with the death of Abderrame, go quietly with the loot they had from their raiding in Aquitaine.

If you really want to have a decisive battle, check the Battle of Toulouse in 721, where Arabo-Berbers came with siege engines, decided to took the city as they took Narbo in 718.

For the Arians, in 710's, probably only a small and local nobility based in Septimania continued to practice the heretics beliefs. But even there, the most important nobles were catholics and used the autonomy they gained with the Arab conquest (the emirate of Arbuna being limited to the city, with the gothic nobilioty having a semi-independence in all the country) to crush that.

Peasantry didn't care about religion of their masters. The mozarabs quite well supported Emirate and Caliphate rule because they weren't persecuting them, and granted some rights.
The disorders in Visigothic Hispania have NOTHING to do with religion, but all about sucessive sucession war during 70-50 years.

Clovis turning into Arianism is unlikely. All the arians peoples were converted before the Great Invasions, and kept the heresy as a important element of their identity, another way to distinguish themselves to the population.
But without a real arian presence in Gaul, without (at my knowledge) any arian bishop or any other clergy representative (and therefore having real responsabilities and power in centers as towns), Clovis wouldn't convert to Arianism.

2. Without a Catholic Frankish Kingdom, there's precisely zero chance that the Pope will see fit to crown a Frankish king Roman Emperor.
Without a Catholic Frankish Kingdom, there's zero chance to have a pope. It's precisely the Franks that managed to make the Pope anything else than a lombardo-byzantine bishop, being consulted only by Constantinople and totally ignored by western bishops.
3. Without the scruples of Catholic tradition, it's possible that there would have developed no such thing as a 'secure' kingship in Frankish Gaul. As the Merovingian dynasty weakened, instead of leaving centuries for their Mayors of the Palace to strengthen their own position before finally supplanting the old dynasty, it's likely an ambitious nobleman would have simply killed the old king and taken his place.
It's a common mistake, due to a large unfamiliarity with pre-feudalism.
To resume : all is based on familial ties, alliance and gift-based microeconomy.

The king was recognized because he gave a really important part of his incomes but critically of what he gained in war to his clientele. If some yahoo tried to kill the king to become king, or he would be instantaneously be killed by these families, or it would be because the king would have made something really stupid and therefore pushed these families to kill him.
I hasten myself to said that no one, during 400 years, as stupid enough to do that.

In fact, the Regnum Francorum was remakabelly stable, except maybe the part during 670 and 700, where the majordomo's power in Austrasia (but also in Neustria) was building while the most important nobles (Aquitaine, Bavaria, Provence, Britanny, etc) were enjoying a total independence de facto or even de jure for the Aquitaine after 714.

That could have changed, it's the participation of catholic monasteries in this micro-economy. The Frankish king and nobles take the habit to give riches and lands to cloistred clergy at temporary title. Of course, the monasteries usually interpreted that as a "permanant gift" and refused to give it back. Or being raided by enemies of the giving nobles (as the Aquitain monasteries by Charles Martel). In fact, the peace treaties forcing other side to give wealth to monasteries patronized by the other noble would be butterflied.

4. A secure Catholic Frankish Empire was vital for the Christianization of the rest of Europe. The Anglo-Saxons Christianized, in part, because of missions from Catholic Francia. The Christianization of Germania depended on Merovignian and Carolingian conquests there. While these areas might have Christianized anyway (emphasis on might), the process would have been entirely different and it's possible that they might not have ended up as Catholics.
What? Just...No. Not at all. In fact, the Anglo-Saxons greatly helped to the Christianization of Gaul countrysides, as the multiples foundations of monasteries and churches proof that.

For Germania, i somewhat approve that, if you realize that the conversion process already exist at the time of Peppin II (father of Charles Martel) and that Franks only in this first time helped that, in order to be supported by the secular clergy.

5. There are some tantalizing hints that the earliest Viking raids were actually responses to Frankish attacks on the Saxons, allies to the early Scandinavian kingdoms. If there's no Charlemagne to attack the Saxons, the Viking Age might turn out entirely different.
Seriously, no. Raiding monasteries (for the reason i previously gave) was usual even among Christians.
Yes, the alliance passed with the Danish could have played a role regarding how much the vikings have used the fact they raided imperial fisc to destroy imperial graves etc.
But at best, they will have just ignored that and still taken slaves, goods and gold.

I'm not aware that the plunders in non-Carolingian place or even in non-Christian places were less brutal.

I don't think it's particularly plausible to imagine that Clovis, or one of his near successors, would have remained pagan. A pagan conqueror would not have been able to easily control a conquered Christian population and the incentive to convert for easy legitimacy would always be there. But an Arian Clovis closely aping the policies of the Visigoths is going to be something very different anyway.
For reasons i proposed before, an Arian Clovis is more unlikely than a Pagan one.
 
Last edited:
I agree... without a strong christian frankish presence nearby Papacy propably would have remained a simple pawn in the Lombardo-Byzantine Chessboard...
 
Top