Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part I: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Christianity

This post is a bit convoluted.... well, I thought I would warn you early. :) It is a hodgepodge of information about the different rulers of early medieval Europe and the rise of Christianity... and the gradual decline and fall of the Roman empire. (There are some historians that suggest that the Roman empire didn't actually collapse, but instead continued on in the rise of the Roman Catholic church... there certainly seems to be some good evidence for this perspective... but I digress.)

There are many important legacies that Diocletian and Constantine gave to the medieval world. Both of these men were emperors of the Great Roman empire as it was beginning to 'fall' or decline. Both of these men ruled in a time of crisis for the empire and it was their decisions to try and save the empire and their reforms that really helped to shape the land known as Europe in the early Middle Ages. One of the major difficulties that these emperors faced was trouble with the Roman army. The empire itself was too large to be easily defended and military service was no longer considered to be an honorable career choice. It was not an easy life – quite hard as a matter of fact- and so finding people to do it when it was no longer honorable either and no good promises of land, pensions, etc... became quite challenging. So outside warriors would be hired but as with any people who are hired for money, they are more loyal to the people around them and those that pay them... so not necessarily loyal to the roman emperor himself. Other difficulties that they faced was the diminishing amount of slave labor and the inequality of the economic system in the different areas of the empire. As the Roman empire stopped fighting wars because they had conquered so much, they no longer had huge amounts of captives to make slaves. And some areas of the empire had managed to achieve economic stability while others really depended on these economically wealthy areas to sustain them. This sharp division of secure economies, cheap labor shortages, and the added burden of differing groups of people attacking the large and under-protected borders of the empire would have created quite a crisis for these emperors to deal with. Diocletian came to power from his position in the Roman army – a good example of how joining the army did create opportunities for the underclasses as he was from a peasant family in the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. He managed to cement absolute power for himself (which many leaders for the last 100 years had not) and he used that influence and power to push back on the barbarians who were raiding and compromising the borders and the towns near them. He reconstructed the government of the empire into a position of absolute power that was 'divinely' appointed. Using ceremony and created 'pomp and tradition/ceremony', Diocletian created a persona of the competent Roman ruler which Constantine was to continue with great success. He also created a class system which required all peasants to be bound to the land they had been on. Diocletian divided the empire into two large parts that could be more easily controlled. Constantine would continue every policy of Diocletian and added more reforms of his own. He himself became a Christian and made it the majority religion in his lands by force over paganism. Constantine the Great gathered much power and control over the fledgling Catholic church and even help to establish official church doctrine – an example is the Council of Nicea called in 325 CE to establish 'standard' beliefs for the church.

Together the general accomplishments of these emperors was to stabilize the borders and to create economic and social opportunity. The restructured governments helped keep their subjects in line and a more peaceful existence in the kingdom. In some cases, they were able to win back lost territories and to restore area to the empire They also were truly able set up the empire in such a way that 1/2 of it lived on in success for almost 800 years after the other half 'fell'. That is an achievement in itself. :)

There were a few different things that allowed for the development of a strong Christian church with specific orthodoxy and hierarchy. One thing that helped was the suppression of these early Christian groups, but was also due to the suppression and exiling of many Jewish groups. The religion that we see as Christianity in the beginning was seen as a form of Jewish heresy... Jesus Christ was Jewish, many of the laws followed the Jewish laws, etc... When Rome attempted to split up Jewish communities to give the government more power over the Jews, they inadvertently spread this heresy to a much larger area and made it much more difficult to destroy. The idea and development of church hierarchy came from the events up to and after the death of the Christ. When Jesus Christ was on the earth, he was the prophet and unquestioned leader. Upon his death by crucifixion and his 'resurrection', the first 'male' he saw was Peter the apostle. It was this experience and the words of Jesus that Peter was to be 'the rock upon the church's foundations' that caused Peter to become the new leader of the fledgling church. The organization of the twelve apostles was still used and as Peter or other apostles died they were replaced. Within the next few centuries, tradition about the resurrection of Jesus began to change a bit to state that Jesus only spoke with the apostles after his resurrection and no one else which was used to give the growing leaders of the Catholic church- the pope as the man who inherited his leadership for Peter the apostle, the bishops and cardinals who inherited the positions of the apostles and other high placed missionaries such as Paul- legitimacy as the heirs of these great founding 'fathers'. And as the church grew in membership, size and diversity, it became important to church leaders as well as secular leaders to control and standardize the beliefs of the Christian church. When some of these standards or orthodoxy had been established, it gave both secular and political leaders more power to deal with the other differing beliefs. New laws and persecutions would cause believers to either adhere to the new orthodoxy... or suffer for non-compliance. When necessary over time, more 'orthodoxy' would be added to help control other splinter groups (or groups with differing Christian ideas) over the years.

Christianity was so appealing to converts for many reasons. One thing that is clear is that it was most appealing to people who were unhappy and dissatisfied with the current government or civilization around them. This can be seen in the high percentages of converts who were members of alienated classes – women, slaves, immigrants and free people without a lot of rights or money. Christianity maintained a belief that all members of this spiritual order were 'equal' whether you were a slave or a member of the aristocracy which would attract many who were in the lesser classes. In many ways in the Roman empire, belonging to the official religion was seen as a form of patriotism so belonging to this 'Jewish splinter group' was not looked kindly upon. Christianity also offered spiritual guidance, a moral code, and a much better potential afterlife for its believers than the abstract philosophy and emotionless expression of the Roman pagan religion. Some historians also believe that due to the similarities between one of the pagan religions (Mithraism) and Christianity, people were more likely to convert to Christianity because its major beliefs and ideals were already known to the population and were not new ideas. One last idea that is believed to have converted followers to this religion is that Jesus Christ was a real person and as such, evidence for what he said or did could be found. Most other religions had no large amounts of evidence that could conclusively back them up.

The Roman empire was a empire of vast proportions of land and differing geography... and it was a land full of diverse people. The only unifying force was the government itself and this force would be less 'unifying' the farther you lived from it and it's influence. There was nothing that really connected any of these different groups or people to each other except their differences... which were more conductive to division and war rather than peace and unity. Clovis I may have had a few reasons for conversion including belief, but he was shrewd enough to recognize that as he continued to conquer lands and build his own empire, he needed something to unify these diverse groups of Franks in able to be able to rule them effectively. He was successful in both of these goals. He conquered the land of Gaul which we now call France and toppled the last roman emperor in 486 CE. By forcing conversion to Christianity, his people now had a common spiritual outlook and a way that they could be more easily controlled. It was also rumored that he had looked at other Christian religions (Arianism), but he chose the Catholic church and he became (as far as we know) the first Catholic ruler. And as a member of the rising Catholic church, he would also have the church heirerchy's support for his rule.

During the decline of the Roman empire, the Germanic tribes to the North gathered strength even as Roman officials continued to call these Germanic groups barbarians and uncivilized. The amusing irony is that while these Germanic groups did eventually overthrow the roman emperor.... the fact that the western empire lasted as long as it did was because of the military might of these groups that had become the majority members of all the armies for the Roman emperor in the Western empire. The groups that today we would call 'Germanic' would have been similar in culture, religious practices and in language- but those would be the only similarities. Under Clovis I, these tribes became united and incorporated other groups of people into their cultures. When these groups were not unified, each group had a leader who served in the capacity of the leader of religious function, military commander, judge... basically a king in most ways although the leader of these small groups was usually elected or agreed upon in some way by the eligible members of the tribe. With the success of Clovis and Christianity that brought about the unification of these groups, the leader quite literally became a king and was no longer 'electable' by his people. The society of the German peoples was hierarchical with laws that were more lenient for wealthier or more noble offenders, and women would only gain any form of class from their closest male relative- such as father or husband. Warfare was fairly 'rare' and most forms of violence were for easy gain- such as raids on neighboring villages before unification. Economics was mostly agricultural and hierarchical as well with peasants bearing the brunt of the labor and food production.

Most historians mark the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE when the emperor was overthrown by a German Chieftain. Certainly describing this slow and petering decline as a 'fall' seems slightly inaccurate. The study of the ending of the Roman empire in the west reminds me of a cancer patient. The problems started small and and then spread... and even with a few great rulers who were able to make reforms in attempts to eradicate the cancer, it continued to spread until the last gasp of life was gone and the empire was no more. At least when I hear the word 'fall' I imagine a group, city or territories being quickly and forcibly taken over by another large and powerful group.... a very clear defining line between the before and after so to speak. With the Fall of the Western Roman empire, there is no true defining line except for potentially where the 'last gasp' came- at the fall of the last emperor to Clovis and his army. Those are just my thoughts though. Another part of the gradual separation of these two large empires was the rise of the strength of the Islamic religion that started to become prominent both religiously and politically in the eastern part of the empire, which caused more separation between the two emperors and their people.

The Eastern Roman Empire had so many advantages over the Western Empire so its ability to survive for almost 800 years more is not necessarily remarkable. For quite a few years before the collapse of the Western empire, the leader in the East was the stronger emperor due to his empire's superior economy. The survival of the Western empire during its last few years was really based on the generosity and willingness of the Eastern empire to provide it with money, military help, etc.... So it comes as no surprise that the Western empire would fall if the emperor of the Eastern part of the empire decided not to continue the aid... which is what eventually brought the downfall of the Western empire. The Eastern empire had a steady tax base, fewer problems with outsider invasions and was generally more urban that the Western empire.

Two rulers of the Byzantine Empire really had several outstanding accomplishments during their rule – Justinian and Theodora. One thing of note is that Justinian used a lot of military might and kept his focus on reclaiming the lands around the 'Roman' lake or Mediterranean Sea. It had been lost before his rule and it was not an easy thing to gain back.... but he was successful during his reign. Justinian also helped reform Christianity and the church. One focus for Justinian was to pursue and force the idea on the people that an absolute emperor should be the status quo. Unlike many of the kings or 'emperors' in the west, Justinian was educated and was deeply religious and he used his power, position and the wealth of the empire to create beautiful churches. His total reformation of the law, known as the Justinian code, became the basis for civil law in the empire that is actually still used in many ways today (over 1000 years later.)

Before the disputes that would lead to the split of the early Christian Catholic church, the leaders of both the east and western churches would discuss orthodoxy and different church issues. One major religious dispute that was to help cause the eventual split between the two parts of the Christian church was based on who was the ultimate leader of the Catholic Church. At this time, there was a patriarch of Constantinople and a patriarch in Rome- both men argued that they were the true heir of St Peter (Peter the apostle) and therefore the true 'Pope' or Patriarch of the Catholic Church. The apostle Peter had been martyred in Rome and so the Patriarch of Rome felt that the head of the church should be in Rome where the apostle had died and where his grave was. The Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed and felt that since the first Christian Emperor (Constantine) had declared the city of Constantinople the 'New Rome', the patriarch of that city was the true heir to the apostle. Also, the city of Constantinople was in the stable part of the Eastern empire... whereas Rome was in the disintegrating and unstable Western empire. Other differences included differences in language and circumstances based on the slow estrangement of the western empire from the eastern empire... in a sense, the two sides became different enough that they began to distrust one another. In the Western empire, the pope was the head and all loyalty went to him whereas in the east disputes were only brought to Rome if the patriarchs in the east could not solve the dispute... clearly a different situation. Another was a dispute over the whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father only or whether it comes from both the Father and the Son. Over time, There were several 'petty' disputes as the patriarch in Rome refused to agree with decisions made by the patriarch in Constantinople. These differences would continue until the Christian Church 'split' and became two churches. The first part would become the Roman Catholic church and would be led by the Pope. The church in the east would be headed up by the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. In a sense, this schism was very much more of an human and emotional schism, not a schism based on doctrine or church policy.

Charlemagne, a member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

Hope you enjoyed this post and learned a few things to boot. Stay tuned for Part two in a few days. :)

Brief Views and Discussions on the Dark Ages

This post is very much a bit of a hodgepodge about different aspects of the time that many historians call the 'Dark Ages.' I have tried to cover some of the important rulers which made the history of that age as well as some ideas about the culture, understanding, and perceptions of the populations living during this time.... this would not have been a very comfortable time to try and live through from the information I have gathered in my studies....

The term 'Dark Ages' was originally coined by the famous Italian scholar Petrarch who appears to have invented this term. When he compared this period of time to the early classical period of Rome, he saw this portion of the medieval period as the 'Dark Ages'... in comparison to the bright light of the earlier classical age. With the fall of the Roman empire, it would become apparent to other people and other generations over time that life had been different for past generations... and probably better. People would have seen the good roads, the monuments, the buildings, the bridges and the aqueducts which no longer worked. And they would look at these buildings and then also help break down those same grand buildings to build shacks, hovels, and other needed facilities... it must have seemed a bit unreal. However, this period of history would dramatically change the way that Europe would eventually come to be seen in our modern world. Certainly one of the bad things of this period was the challenges of daily life. People did not have or could not expect to have the basic level of security or order that had been available in the past. Political problems would quickly escalate into bloodshed- all forms of warfare between civil war, clan feuds, and political war were nearly constant as well as vendettas and so even the non combatants and the people who wished to live peacefully would have found it very difficult... or next to impossible.


One important man of this age was named Aleric the Goth. He was a Visigoth warrior who had begun his career by working with the leaders of the Roman empire to help protect the northern borders of the empire. Over time, Aleric realized that the only way he was going to advance in the 'military' ranks of the Roman empire was to put more pressure on the leaders of the empire to promote him. Roman governors and other leaders are known to have treated the Goths and other hired mercenaries extremely poorly... and in many ways forced these groups to begin to fight back against their Roman oppressors. Aleric the Goth used his knowledge of Roman warfare from supporting the Romans to his advantage and began a campaign with his men against Roman rule and Rome itself. For two years, his army surrounded the walls of the city of Rome in an attempt to starve Rome and its people out. He was eventually successful and the gates were opened to him and his Visigoths. Even though Aleric and his army were only in the city for a few days, he left the city of Rome basically dead from the two year seige and Rome's continued ability to continue to rule the empire was vastly harmed. (It must be noted that the ability of the Roman leaders to control the empire was already having a bit of difficulty by this time...)

The Huns were the first of the major conquering groups during the Dark Ages. Huns were a bit different from the other two groups in the sense that they were really able to assimilate those they conquered so that finding specific artifacts that can clearly be classified as 'Hun' is almost impossible. When you or your lands were conquered, it appears that most people joyfully (or at least successfully) joined the conquering group and began to follow the culture, etc... of the Huns. Archeology shows that many German groups appear to have assimilated quite successful with the Huns and that some of the cultural patterns which are very clearly attributed to the Hun populations.... which it is thought you would only do if you liked the group you were imitating. However, it must also be noted that when the Huns attacked and conquered much of the lands that we now consider 'German', millions of people did flee in terror from the advancing 'Golden Horde'... The Vandals began their military conquests during the last of the strength of the Huns and they were able to be so successful because Rome was so stretched militarily (in fact the Vandals started their careers as refugees running from the Huns... ironically enough.) The leaders of the Roman empire were already distracted and fighting with the Huns had diverted most of the Roman resources to the task of keeping the 'Golden Horde' under control. This allowed the Vandals to take territory that the Romans didn't have under heavy protection. So the Vandals were able to easily conquer and lay their own defenses for future attacks ...making any attempt to re-conquer the land by Roman leaders more costly and difficult. The last groups to enter the military fray were the Goths. The Goths and the Vandals can be seen as similar in some respects as the most important reason that these groups were attempting to conquer was for their own survival. Food was scarce and so the need to conquer other lands was really wrapped up in needing the food of the conquered for themselves... without the ability of the Vandals and the Goths to conquer some areas of the Roman empire, these groups would have potentially died out fairly quickly due to starvation or other environmental difficulties such as exposure. Attila appears to have ruled his people by bribery and also treating them almost as 'family' giving of his riches for loyalty and the comfort of his subjects (much less likely to revolt if you are comfortable. :) The Goths and the Vandals appear to in many ways work together and are united under more desperate circumstances.

When Clovis I, leader of the Franks, had managed to conquer a great deal of territory, he realized that one of the best and uniting forces that he could choose to help keep his subjects loyal and to give him more political allies was a common religion. The religion that he would eventually chose would be to convert to Christianity. Each land he conquered was filled with Romans (in which the majority of Romans were Catholics) and other smaller 'Christian' groups (usually considered heretical by the Catholics.) By converting to Catholicism, Clovis I was able to help cement his power and to hold the loyalty of new subjects and the conquered because they shared this common link of religion. He also found ways to unite people by accepting the people he conquered as equals in the groups. The conquered men would be drafted into his military to fight and their families and wives would become part of his 'clan'. However, before I make him sound like he should be named the 'uniter', his actions and ambition contributed a great deal to the turmoil of this age. He subscribed to the idea of “the Ordeal” and to become his prisoner was a painful and challenging experience... if you survived it. He continued to fight to conquer more land throughout most of his life causing much bloodshed, terror and death. He was one of the 'Barbarian' warriors who were consumed with conquest at all cost. And when Clovis died, he split his territory into four parts so that each of his sons could rule a share. These sons would fight with and kill each other to enlarge their shares.... continuing that chaos.

The Mediterranean Sea was called the Roman Lake around the time of Emperor Augusta and this name was kept for several decades and even centuries after the emperor's death. This name was deemed appropriate because Rome counted all land around the Mediterranean Sea as its territory and under its control. There wasn't any problem with piracy during this time due to the strength of the Roman government and military and trade was extremely easy and controllable. With the collapse and crumbling of the Roman Empire, full control of the 'lake' was lost. One of the Byzantine emperors, Justinian, had a dream... or was at least highly motivated... to bring back the goodness of the past empire and to gain back lost territories that had been conquered by others. Ultimately, both Justinian and his empress Theodora wanted full control back of the Mediterranean Sea. The Italian Campaign was very successful for Justinian and he was able to reconquer some of the lost territory. Justinian also built a huge and magnificent cathedral to Christ during this time. His battles gave him control of Egypt, Italy, North Africa, Turkey, Greece and Palestine.... which finally gave him control of the 'Roman Lake.' However, due to the arrival of bubonic plague, pandemic population loss ensued causing huge difficulties with the economy and he military. Justinian himself caught the plague and was one of the lucky survivor's...unfortunately, his mind itself was damaged by the disease. When the emperor Justinian died, his dream of controlling the Mediterranean Sea died with him. The new leaders of the Byzantine Empire decided that they could not financially sustain what had been the empire under Justinian and they forced their military forces to retreat from the regained territories. The break between the western part and the eastern part of the Roman empire was officially complete.

One major thing that the monasteries did during this time was that these institutions helped protect ancient books. Ancient books were collected and saved in monasteries and were copied by monks who learned to read and write behind the hallowed walls. The monasteries themselves really were the only places that continued education and formal teaching... almost no reading or writing was possible or taught outside of the monastic orders. Monasteries also became the major forces in the areas that they were located as these organizations tended to be the wealthiest institutions in the community. Monasteries and their leaders tending to have political authority and would help with commerce. One monk named Bede wrote a book about the history of the world from the time of Julius Caesar to his own time- giving us an important link about the culture and life during that time. By the seventh century, there were few people outside of monasteries who were still literate. Benedict of Nursia was a monk who ended up starting a dozen monasteries that followed a list of strict rules that he developed called 'The Rule of St Benedict.” By making many monasteries more united in rules as well as religion, these groups would become a stabilizing force for themselves as well as the land and people surrounding them.


One of the most popular leaders during this time was a man named Charles Martel. He was the commanding officer of the French army in 732 AD, the Muslim Moors threaten the Christian land of France after traveling from North Africa to Spain. The Moors came to the land of France for conquest as well as missionary work for the prophet Mohammed and the Koran.... not to mention that the Moors felt that Europe would be easy to conquer because the leaders of the European countries had worn themselves and their resources out by fighting themselves. Charles Martel knew the Moors were coming and he felt quite desperate to defend the land of France and to defend Christianity itself. So he made a few very unpopular decisions. Knowing that his army was at a disadvantage to his rivals due to lack of money, he took land and money from the Catholic church. He then used these 'stolen' resources to train and arm a strong army and he set up his army in a place that was to his advantage in the predicted path that the Moor armies could be expected to travel. Both armies looked so well formed that when the armies of the Moors and of France met, they actually spent six days looking at the other army... and it wasn't until the seventh day that the Moors attacked. Charles Martel's army was said to stand 'like a wall' in front of the attacking army and keep the majority of the enemy army occupied. Charles then sent some of his troops to the Muslim camp to plunder it. This intrusion into their camp caused many of the Moors to head back to their camp to try and protect their stolen plunder... causing confusion in the Moor's army on the principal battlefield. This would lead to the death of the Moor commander and gave the victory to the French and to Charles 'The Hammer' Martel. He became known as the savior of Christianity in Europe due to his victory in this battle.

Emperor Charlemagne was very different from other rulers of his time. He ruled a vast amount of land- an amount that hadn't been held in such a large solid mass since the Roman Empire. Charlemagne tried to single-handed lead this large group of land and people under his control. He launched over fifty military campaigns- all of which was successful-and these lands were added to his control... and the survivors were forced to accept Christianity or die. If you were caught later worshiping different gods, you were executed. He didn't lose any military conquest that he started and he also reinvigorated learning and education by building schools- becoming the first king in centuries to attempt to become literate... he was known to have been passionate about learning. He ruled for thirty two years and in a great political achievement, he was then crowned Emperor by the Pope in St Peter's Basilica on December 25, 800 AD. Emperor Charlemagne would then rule for another 14 years until his death of natural causes in 814 at the age of 72. Some things that made him different from the other rulers of his age was his vast military successes, his understanding of the benefits of education and literacy, and his strong religious views that were carried out without fail toward all in his power or his path. There was no tolerance for any other views except for Catholicism and any outward attempt to show belief for something else was quashed immediately. All of these things would have a profound effect on the people he ruled.... making Catholicism secure in the hearts and minds of the surviving people, nationalism strong, and a people who truly felt that their leader cared for them... giving this leader and his prosperity an edge other contemporaries didn't have.

When Charlemagne conquered the Saxons in 782 AD, he condemned 2500 tribal leaders to death for worshiping 'false gods.' This massacre and beheading of these Saxon leaders was a clear statement to all other groups... and became known as the 'Bloody Verdict of Verdun'. The statement is that anyone who does anything that is not Christian- if you disobey the king, if you refuse to be baptized, if you are caught performing pagan rites, if you cremated someone at their death instead of performing a Christian burial... all of these things were automatically death sentences under Charlemagne. It must be stated that what was considered to be Christian or not (heretical) was really up to the interpretation of the individuals that had power such as political and Catholic leaders... which could change depending on the viewpoint or needs of the leader.

During the last years of Charlemagne's rule, the Vikings began their savage and rough piracy. While the Vikings did attack and destroy places in many countries including Iceland, the Middle East and North America, Britain was the Viking's favorite haunt due to that land's vulnerability to sea invasion... which was the Vikings greatest strength. The largest group of Vikings ever gathered attacked Northern England was led by Avar the Boneless. His armies continued to try and take over Britannia even after his death. In the south of the country, Alfred the Great was aware of the Vikings and their most probable eventual attacks on his lands. He studied and figured out what strengths of his enemies were and then used his resources to attempt to thwart the Vikings. He built fortifications and fortresses where the people would come and hide for protection from the Vikings when attacks would come. Once the people were in fortresses, they were safe from the Vikings and the attack wouldn't be profitable to the attackers. This allowed the Vikings to wear themselves out over years trying to fight Alfred... who then was able to eventually conquer these groups who would then leave his lands... or they would assimilate into the local populations. Now matter what the Viking military groups did, they were really unable to get much due to the great planning of Alfred the Great. England went through over two decades of violence as the Vikings continued to attempt to take over the people and the land. This devastated the land as well as the people with the constancy or war and death.... that was rarely interrupted by security or peace.

The Decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Franks and the State of France

The early relationship between the rulers of the Roman empire and the 'Franks' was not positive- many of their leaders were given to the 'beasts' by the Roman emperors as a lesson and a warning to other Franks who might wish to raid Roman lands. In some of the lands that are now known as the Netherlands and Belgium, the Romans 'gave' the Franks this land to help the Romans protect their borders. For a thousand years there was peace between the Romans and the Franks, but difficulties arose over religion and neither side was willing to compromise. The Franks were pagan and happily so... and as the Roman empire started to collapse, the Franks began to move south in groups to live. When the Roman's needed to find armies to fight Attila the Hun and his armies, Roman leaders happily accepts the Franks and uses their armies to push the Huns back. The Franks help the Roman armies win the war and expect deference and appreciation from the Roman government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have taken the service of the Franks as their entitlement as governmental rulers. Later the Franks and their leaders will simply slowly conquer the Romans as the western empire collapses and take over their lands.

Merovich was a Frank leader (one of many leaders) who led his army of Franks against the Roman's military. He is said to have been descended from a sea god per legend to help give him a more noble and substantial genealogy. He became the first ruler of what would later become known as the Merovingian Dynasty. Merovich was the first leader to help pull several diverse groups of Franks together; to work together, fight together and to ally themselves with each other against other groups such as the Roman empire. Merovich led his army against the Romans at a battle in Tournai and he negotiated a treaty that allows his people to settle into new areas – new to them, the areas had belonged to the western part of the empire. Merovich is able to win more land and more power over time with his armies and, in agreeing to fight Attila the Hun alongside of Rome, King Merovich gives himself and his men an inside view of the Roman armies, better training and equipment and the knowledge and confidence needed to fight the Romans themselves in the future.

The relationship between the Franks and the Roman Empire under Childeric was a little cimplicated? Childeric, also said to have been descended from a sea god, became a king of the Franks and was able to unite a few of different groups of Franks.... despite himself and his poor behavior (he was banished for a short time due to poor behavior with young, beautiful women.) It is not known whether Childeric I was a son or a relative of King Merovich (although the documentary states that Clovis is a grandson of Merovich which would make King Childeric the son of Merovich.) Childeric I becomes a great chieftain and he is seen by Rome as a great ally. The Franks would take over certain areas that were good for growing food and producing stock/animal husbandry. He would fight as an ally with Rome in their continued battles and even though there are a few rulers of the 'Franks', Childeric will stand out from the others by courting Roman favor. He would help Rome fight other barbarian groups to keep the land of Gaul under Roman control and it was Childrec's armies that made it possible for the Rome to beat the Visigoths and keep most of Gaul... just as his father Merovich gave Rome the ability to beat Attila the Hun. Childeric died in 481 after a rule of 24 years. His burial place was discovered in the seventeenth century with lots of objects, jewelry etc... unfortunately, most of the items were stolen and later melted down.

Clovis is the son of King Childeric and he becomes the king upon the death of his father. It must be stressed that even though he received the royal title, there were many groups of Franks and Clovis was only one of many rulers. Clovis was full of ambition and he was truly a traditional Germanic warrior king- his goals were to get treasure and land, gain honor, and subdue people to his will. At the beginning of his rule, Clovis would get along with the Roman government and would curry favor. However, after gathering military and diplomatic ties with other groups of Franks, he would attack and takes over parts of the crumbling Roman empire. Clovis was willing to deal with Roman and Catholic bishops with diplomacy... sometimes using Catholic bishops against Rome itself. Later, he would attack other Frank groups and assimilate them as well as other Roman groups into his control. Clovis gains his eventual one man rule position by carefully eliminating his enemies, using his bravery in battle, and using deceit and treachery to trick others into removing his competitors... he was able to keep his hands clean of those murders and take over leadership of those groups. At one point near the end of his life, Clovis gave a speech lamenting his lack of close loyal kin... he seemed to forget that he had killed or had murdered as many of them as possible to control things himself and to name his own heirs unconstrained. Clovis also recognized that he must build unity in the diversity of the Franks and he was successful in that. Clovis gave those he conquered equal status with the franks giving the 'conquered' good reasons to like him, to fight in his armies, etc... In a sense, he helped to blend the cultures of the Romans and the Franks. He became a Christian and converted the Franks from paganism (there is some debate about this and some historians believe that he originally converted to Arianism from paganism... and then to Catholicism later in life and maybe only three years before his death.). By converting, he brought his new Roman subjects into his rule more cleanly and gained their loyalty faster and he continued to expand his kingdom until his death in 511 CE. His one major mistake is that he didn't spend enough time working on his succession. He ordered his kingdom that he took so many years to gather and unite, divided into four pieces and given to each of his sons in his will.... where the separated pieces fell into civil war, fratricide and bloodshed. His name becomes the early derivative to the name 'Louis' which became the principle name of most of the kings and rulers of France since his time.

There is a saying about this time : “The Franks took a rib out of the old Roman corpse and gave Western Europe its backbone.” This statement describes the consequences of the rule of Clovis and his ambition and success of his legacy. He becomes the founder of the modern French state and his capital is Paris- when he dies, he is buried in Paris at the Church of the Holy Apostles that he had built (an ironic end-note: his sarcophagus was left alone until the time of the French revolution in which it was opened and his ashes scattered to the winds... I find this ironic due to my current studies of the French Revolution. It is like a common 'loop'. :). King Clovis was in many ways a pioneer- he built up the area of Gaul in Europe that(an area that encompasses was is now France as well as parts of modern day Belgium, Italy and Germany) was once one of the most prosperous areas of the Roman empire. By gathering and conquering large areas and claiming it into one single 'state', Clovis and the other early members of the Merovingian dynasty may have been quite violent and in so many ways, terrorists in their time, they were able to gather many people together in a solid group. These people were held together by their leader and by Christianity. This group gave the land a solid and secure status- as much as could be had at that time- giving the people common goals, common religion, and common needs. This solid kingdom would be held together for the most part over the next several decades and centuries.