Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Frankish culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Frankish culture
The Kingdom of the Franks benefitted greatly by incorporating various Roman practices into its own culture. This can be seen in the fact that the Franks borrowed not only aspects of the Roman administrative system, but they even modeled their king on the Roman emperor. Moreover, they adopted Catholicism, the religion of the Romans. Even their inclusive attitudes toward the local Gallo-Romans stems from Roman practice. Modeling their kingdom on these characteristics of the Roman Empire allowed the Franks to link themselves to its government and become one of its successors.
The administration of the Frankish Kingdom certainly owes a debt to Roman influence and practices. Even the highest position in their government, that of the king, was
…show more content…
Three offices which were especially influential within this administration were those of the bishops, counts, and dukes. Roman practices could clearly be seen in the office of bishops. Christianity was relatively new to the Frankish people (James, 121) so all the functions of the office would have modeled on those of Roman bishops. Not only would the functions of this office remained consistent as the region transferred from Roman to Frankish rule, but the bishops themselves would have still be drawn from Gallo-Roman citizens because they already had a working knowledge of how to perform the duties (Ward-Perkins, 68). Counts were typically Gallo-Romans as well. Generally chosen from a particular region’s local aristocracy (James, 185), counts reflected the continuity of elite Gallo-Roman families. There was not a complete change of the aristocracy when the Franks came to power even though the largest land holdings would have been held by Frankish citizens (Ward-Perkins, 63). These local aristocrats were likely to have had positions within the Roman administration (Heather, 28) so their continued presence in Frankish society indicates that the Franks still relied on the local populace to continue the management of their territory. While bishops and counts were often Gallo-Romans, it was typical of dukes to be of Frankish origins (James, 185). As the most …show more content…
Traditionally, Christianity was said to have brought to the Franks by the king, Clovis. In 496, or 508 as argued by some authors, he and three thousand of his men were said to have been baptized after Clovis, in an act similar to Constantine, promised his conversion in return for a military victory (James, 122-123). The conversion of the Frankish people demonstrates that they adopted one of the most important aspects of Roman culture, Catholic Christianity. The heretical Arian sect could be found within the Frankish population (James, 122), but Clovis’ conversion to “proper” Christianity links his kingdom to the Roman Empire. Apparently, Clovis was worried that the Franks would not look in the conversion favorably, but Gregory of Tours said that “He me with his followers, but before he could speak the power of God anticipated him, and all the people cried out together: ‘O pious king, we reject our mortal gods, and are ready to follow the immortal God whom Remi preaches” (Gregory, 40). Although Gregory depicts the Frankish people as being receptive to the new religion, it is likely that their conversion, and that of Gallo-Romans who only nominally been Christianized, was a slower process (James, 127-128). In fact, it was the introduction of Irish monasticism, more rurally based than what was typical in Roman Gaul, that helped spread Christianity throughout the region
The collection Two Lives of Charlemagne contains two different biographies of Charlemagne who was a king of the Franks and a christian emperor of the West in the 8th century. The first biographical account was written by his courtier Einhard who knew him personally and well. On the other hand, the second account was penned by Notker the Stammerer was born twenty-five years after the king’s death. Even though these two versions indicate the same king’s life, there were many differences between the two. Einhard’s writing focused on the emperor’s official life and his military campaign. However, Notker provided more of a perspective about the king’s legacy and seemed more hyperbolic as well as mythical. This paper will compare and contrast the
In the Frankish empire, there were numerous different cultures which inhabited it. A cultural dividing line can be draw down the Rhine River. On the left bank of the Rhine, you had the lands of Christian, Romanised Gaul, while on the right bank of the Rhine resided pagan Germania.* Culturally, linguistically and religiously, these two cultures could not have been more different from each other. In Gaul, the people had become Romanised and Christianised over the centuries by their roman overlords. Gaul was also heavily settled by the Franks, since they were feodrati for Rome. When the Western Roman Empire fell, it was easy for the Franks to move in and assume control over the territory. With the Franks conversion to Christianity in 496 The Franks were able to mix well with the Gallo-Roman land owners and peasants, leading Gaul to slowly transform itself into Francia.* The coronation of Charlemagne further enhanced his authority over his Gallic dominions by linking himself with the old Western Roman Empire.* This allowed him to be seen as a legitimate successor to the emperors of old, instead of a chieftain of a conquering
Throughout his essay, Einhard makes constant references to Charlemagne’s piety. He notes that the king “cherished with great fervor and devotion the principles of the Christian religion.” Charlemagne built the basilica at Aix-la-Chapelle, and “was a constant worshipper at this church.” (Einhard, 48)…. He embodied the Christian doctrine to give to the poor, and had close relationships to the popes in Rome. A pessimist might find reason to believe these actions were purely opportunistic or at least had mixed motives—his relationships with the Vatican were monetarily beneficial—but Einhard’s inclusion of Charlemagne’s will removes all doubt. “In this division he is especially desirous to provide…the largess of alms which Christians usually make.” (Einhard, 52). In death, Charlemagne gave much of his wealth to the Church via the archbishops of each city in his empire, and further stipulated that upon the death of one of them, a portion of the remaining inheritance should go directly to the poor, as should the profit of the sale of his library.
The blessing of the church helped to unify and strengthen the resolve of the Frankish people as they withstood or conquered the heathen Viking and eastern Germanic tribes. The fact that Charles was Christian and was backed by the Catholic church must have certainly helped keep other christian powers from allying with these barbarians. For Rome, there were suddenly new peoples to convert, and keep from direct opposition to the The Great Christian Emperor.
In The History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours portrayed Clovis as a leader who, although his conversion to Christianity appeared to be genuine, nonetheless, used his conversion to realize his political aspirations. By converting to Christianity, Clovis, according to Gregory of Tours’ narrative, was able to garner the support of Christian leaders such as Saint Remigius and, consequently, gain powerful political allies. Moreover, as a result of his conversion, Clovis became a king who was more attractive to orthodox Christians. Furthermore, Clovis’ conversion provided him with a reason for conquering territories that were not ruled by orthodox Christians. Thus, Clovis was able to bring additional territories under his command without resistance from local orthodox Christian leaders and with a degree of approval from the orthodox Christian masses as he, in essence, took on the Christ-like role of savior and liberator who relieved the orthodox Christian masses of flawed leadership from “false” Christians, pagans, or the morally inept. Interestingly, it seems that Clovis’ alleged behavior was not entirely unique as parallels and discrepancies exist between Gregory of Tour’s account of Clovis’ conversion to orthodox Christianity, his depiction of Gundobad’s conversion, and Eusebius’ description of Constantine’s conversion.
The rise of Christianity in Rome did not come easily. It came with much destruction and death. The spark of Christianity in Rome came from an appearance of Martyrs in Rome. Martyrs were people that were executed for going against the common beliefs of pagan (polytheistic) ways. (Tignor, 2011, p. 286) Because of these awful executions, Christianity is said to be based off of “the blood of martyrs.” One of their main ways of spreading Christianity was through the sharing of their writings and by 300 CE there was an exceptional amount of book production throughout Rome. (Tignor, 2011, p. 289) “Christianity operated as one among many minority religions in the Roman Empire, and on several occasions experienced widespread persecution, especially under the emperors Nero (r. 54–68), Decius (r. 249–251), and Diocletian (r. 284–305). However, the situation changed radically under the emperor Constantine (r. 306–337), who in 313 issued the Edict of Milan that made Christianity a legitimate religion in the empire.” (Melton, 2010, p. 634)
In the little kingdoms or principalities, the lands over which a King ruled were regarded as no different from other property. Among the Franks, all sons were entitled to a share. Therefore, when a King died, each son became a King over his own little kingdom. Thus, many political units became small so there were no uniform laws or policies. This lack of unity made them vulnerable to enemies as well as conflict from within. Bullough points out that the loyalty of a warrior or subject to his chosen leader was not a light matter. The author does not contrast that concept of loyalty however, with our present ideas of loyalty to the homeland or institution.
In 768 A.D., Charlemagne at the age of 26, along with his brother Carloman inherited the kingdom of Franks. However, in 771 A.D. Carloman died, making Charlemagne the sole ruler of the kingdom. At this time the northern part of Europe was out of order and unruly. In the south, the Roman Catholic Church was asserting itself alongside the Lombard kingdom in Italy. While in Charlemagne’s own kingdom, the people were becoming and acting as barbarians and neglecting education and faith.
Throughout the middle ages, many empires were working on expanding their territory, but it was not always a success unless they had the appropriate leadership to guide them in the right direction. The main empire that grew to extraordinary lengths is that of the Roman Empire. Through many conquests and battles and with an amicable government, it attained its fortune. However, on the other hand, there was another government that shared similarities with that of Rome; this was the empire of Charlemagne, otherwise known as the Carolingian Empire, but it failed to have a prosperous eternity.
Charlemagne’s reign as King of the Franks and as Holy Roman Emperor greatly influenced the course of Europe during the middle ages. The history of Charlemagne’s family and how they came to power had a large effect on how Charlemagne came to power. In the year 481 A.D, a warrior named Clovis claimed the title of King of the Franks (Abrams 185). He died in the year 511, and each of his four sons received a portion of his small Frankish empire (Abrams 185). Clovis’s death would later allow a clear passage to ensuring Charlemagne’s fate as future ruler of the Franks.
The religion of Islam spread and the Franks rose to power (The Reign of Justinian). Among other things, Justinian’s rule saw a flourishment in the areas of architecture, the arts, and literature. It was a time of re-building for the empire. Justinian pursued an ambitious dream of restoring the old Roman Empire. In fact, Justinian led the Byzantine army in many wars to regain this land.
Christianity, originally, was thought of as an outsider religion, and wasn’t accepted by most Romans. The Romans could learn to live with other religions, but not when they were harmful to public order. At one point, Romans viewed it to be just that. Christians tended ...
Constantine I (February 27, 280 C.E.- May 22, 337 C.E.), also known as Constantine the Great, was the first Roman emperor to not only abolish persecution of Christians, but he was also the first to convert to Christianity in 312 A.D. Around 200 years later, in 496 A.D. Clovis I (466 C.E.- 511 C.E.), the King of the Franks, converted to Christianity, in which he was called a “new Constantine” . Constantine and Clovis’ reign through Christianity were alike in the way that they decided to convert. However, the two emperors were different in their commitment to God and their impacts on the church and state.
Clovis, an amazing ruler, also performed numerous important tasks for the development of France. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states, “While he was not the first Frankish king, he was the kingdom’s political and religious founder” (Britannica). Clovis united Gaul into primeval France. In defense of this thesis, the reader observes Clovis’ military victories which formed the border of Gaul, his conversion that aided the growth and strengthening of France, and his sharp-witted elimination of other royal houses in search of absolute power.
Though this was just the beginning, soon after in the year 496 another ruler converted to Christianity. Colvis, the king of the Franks, was baptized along with thousands of his peoples. Colvis’ conversion to Christianity held