WI: Merovingians stayed in power in Francia
- Thread starter Paschalis
- Start date
I think that a "shogunate" system might develop, if the Carolingians still have positions similar to OTL.
I would second @SunKing105 , Europe, at least the regions of France and Germany will develop similarly to Japan and or similar to a sort of idealized Zhou dynasty with a certain mystical veneer to it. The Merovingians were unique in their maintenance of rule through almost no type of governance and reliance upon ritualism, mysticism, bloodline and war. This was different from the later conception in the European world descended from Charles I and his predecessors as Mayors of the Palace, whose role in the Merovingian scheme, was that of governance.
Another possibility is that we have all of the above and also a sort of brother king cult in a sense, similar to classical Sparta or Assyria-Babylon. Otherwise, Japan is a good model, except we could argue that the Merovingian king in the lampooning of Charles I, also included more active actions of the Merovingians, especially in the form of murdering family members. We could of course go deeper on this topic and delve into different options, if you will, if you ask.
Another possibility is that we have all of the above and also a sort of brother king cult in a sense, similar to classical Sparta or Assyria-Babylon. Otherwise, Japan is a good model, except we could argue that the Merovingian king in the lampooning of Charles I, also included more active actions of the Merovingians, especially in the form of murdering family members. We could of course go deeper on this topic and delve into different options, if you will, if you ask.
Last edited:
I think a lot depends how powerful the Merovingians are. The later Francian traditions owe a lot to maintaining rule over a nominal Roman Empire with a largely independent aristocracy mainly from differing Germanic traditions intersecting with postRoman populations.
For Merovingian Francia to develop as Japan or similar it can't be too expansionist lest the less mystical periphery gets too powerful. It will also need to prevent too much christianisation in order to maintain holiness of the royal line.
For Merovingian Francia to develop as Japan or similar it can't be too expansionist lest the less mystical periphery gets too powerful. It will also need to prevent too much christianisation in order to maintain holiness of the royal line.
While I would agree mostly, would you not agree that the question of Christianisation is one of 'how' they are to become Christian? We already know that the peasantry and the Medieval Christian mindset of the lower classes and the traditional society differed somewhat from that of intellectuals. One notion, that of the power of shrines, relics and other items imbued with a certain holy magic of sorts comes to mind, as well as fantastical legends such as the legends of Saint-Rumwald and his miraculous birth. Even the life of Saint-Anthony of Lisbon and his miraculous speech with fish displays this somewhat. The idea of magical powers being imbued upon humans, objects and in events of nature was very much alive. In other words, we are not yet at the point wherein Christianity is mechanistic, disallowing these sorts of esotericism and or mystical mindsets, especially for the 'common man.' The ideas too of many of the major clerics of the period, such as Innocent III in his sermons on the priestly office, describe a world wherein God and all of his host is not in a far away land, but rather all around us. Thus implying a rejection of 'Manichaeism' of the Cathars, which drew distinctions between matter and spirit in an absolute sense. Frederick II in his letters to Michael Scot, the famed Scottish astrologer and mystic, inquires of him as to the exact locations of heaven, hell and so forth, implying that in the mindset of Frederick II, these are places that could be physically approached. All of that to say, that there was room for what we could say is a bleeding over of a miraculous and mystical/magical into what was the general temporal life of the people, in a way not dissimilar to the Europe prior to Christianity.
It is for me an interesting thought at least.
We could thus imagine the Merovingian royalty surviving further Christianizing by solidifying its role as a bloodline imbued with certain divine, properties that are in essence, magical and create the so-called aura of taboo that the Merovingians supposedly emitted. Though, I am not sure how long it would take to Christianize the Merovingian kingdom fully with their continued rule, they indeed were not going to force anything anytime soon. As such, it would have to come near totally from missionaries and the Mayor of the Palace.
Also where might you feel expansion should be limited to? My personal view, would be that the Elbe should likely be the furthest east it could/should expand to maintain itself and then leaving Iberia, Italy and Britain alone. Becoming a sort of 'empire' in stasis, mostly wrapped around scheming between the Merovingian royalty and nobles infighting over controlling access to the Royal court and hence access to the benefits of the Merovingian bloodline which in turn legitimizes their continued dominance over the peasantry. Meanwhile, the clerics adhere to administration, often filled by notables from the Frankish nobility to guard their rule over local matters jealously and maintaining the peculiar unique mysticism of the kingdom in order to likewise maintain the status quo.
I would argue that Christianity is inherently against holy bloodlines and that Christianisation of Francia would inevitably lead to priests undermining the stance of such a bloodline claim regardless of their stance on individual holy men & women.
As to expansion that does depend on whether partible inheritance is done away with early enough to secure the frontiers against the Christian Roman(ce) south and the surrounding tribes/nations.
Do you think Merovingians could become christian or would they reject it ? I think their way of mystic bloodlines was more at odds with christian ideas but i am no expert in this field. Also if they rule would feudalism develop in the same way it did under the charolingians ? How would the centralisation and government of such a Kingdom look like ? I think Charlemagne did atleast sth to rebuild social order after the fall of the western roman empire during the charolingian rennaissance.
Is it though? How does that square with the notion of divine right mixed with the strong importance of bloodline continuity in early modern Europe?
The Merovingians seemed to eschew the notion of governance, finding it beneath them. In the lampooning of later ages, even the greatest of the Merovingian kings rejected governing and focused upon other things, like rituals and killing his family members except legitimate heirs and then of course waging war.
The Merovingians were already Christian when they utilized these myths. I do not see why you cannot do as the Merovingians did and claim a divine origin of for their bloodlines or to say that their bloodline had been imbued with magic. They did it in otl, and it could become more sophisticated even still.
so a merovingian kingdom would be way less centralized ? would the curch have more or less influence in this case ?
Mhm, probably less in a theoretical sense. Gregory VII used the precedence of overthrowing the Merovingians as their means to degrade the authority of the post-Pepin II kings in France-Germany. The idea that is without the Merovingian bloodline, the only legitimate means by which support is attained is through a Papal mandate, as such the beginning root of Papal supremacy in temporal affairs.
Except divine right =/= divine blood, and cropped up later. I would estimate more kings placed importance on (at least the appearance of) popular acclaim than did divine right.
Except for the Popes never really achieving that supremacy (outside a possible brief period of Innocent III) and that traditional Germanic kingship included popular acclaim thence why the early kings were generally elected.
It does not matter. It is about propaganda and mentality, as the idea did compete with other notions, it is enough to consider. Also, I would not say it was only during the reign of Innocent III, though this was one of the periods when it was most realized. Many different Pontiffs exemplified such ideas at different instances, but that is not very important. All that matters in this case is the ideological competition and the legal framing in the minds of those who were disputing these matters at the time.
Yes, so it's worth pointing out OTL it was never legally framed that the Pope was supreme in temporal matters.
TTL that seems even less likely to occur.
Well, the formula was less that he was 'supreme' more that as Anselm II asserted in his Collectio that the Holy See was the origin of authority. As such, he was the personification of authority in temporal terms, whilst governance was due for the kings, emperors, etc... This was also the opinion of Bernard of Clairvaux, Suger of Saint-Denis and Thomas of Aquinas.
Well priests would consider their hierarchs as such wouldn't they. Kings and Emperors tend to see it differently. Especially with feudalistic hierarchies.
Maybe so, however these were respected men of law, not simply lackeys and they were respected even by Emperors, who tended to try to ignore these legal experts and focus upon illegitimacy of particular Pontiffs. Henry IV for instance did not deny some of the claims made by Gregory VII outright and he even seems to have rebuked the royalist writings of the Polemicist of York. His main contention, was oddly that Monk Hildebrand, was not a legitimate Pope and was attempting to deny Imperial dignity. As such, he did not target legal framers, if I remember correctly. Which makes more sense.
And yet the Pope was never made the temporal authority in actual law despite all this high regard. Curious don't you think? All those royal and imperial institutions staffed by legal experts and none of them managed to have "the Pope is my temporal liege" recognised? You had the odd pronouncements by King John and the like but they tended to be rather personal than institutional pronouncements.
This feels like just another weak argument to claim that the Pope is Emperor when he isn't.
Last edited:
I disagree with this notion, but this is not the topic up for discussion.