Pros And Cons Of Clovis

Clovis was in charge of western Europe with fellow Franks striving for closer ties to Christianity. Clovis and his men like to fight and win battles to gain power the more battles won, the more followers and the better the reputation they had.. The church is the constant in their society and the Christian church holds the power. Women were seen to be more connected to God because the Church was more appealing to women. This community believes that “God wants effort put towards earning money.” This means this society earned whatever good stuff they could in order to be closer to God.

Their governmental structure held money and power to a high standard. Both are everything to one’s reputation. The church is used to get around acts of violence that would be incriminating. There is no jail because there is no tax system and no one likes that because there isn’t much justification

for crimes. With this came the construction of the Salic Laws. With the Salic Laws, people who were deemed guilty of certain acts and crimes were to pay fines. This goes back to money and power being everything, meaning they can fine for just about anything in order to get money. For example, in Geary, Salic Law “Title II. Concerning Thefts of Pigs, etc. 2. If any one steals a pig that can life without its mother, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 40 denars- that is, 1 shilling (105.)” This is an example of how descriptive these laws can be in order to enforce fines.
Most of the laws are specific to a certain act that can be very questionable and sometimes easily accusable. Other examples pertain to killing women and children which would about to 600-700 shillings depending on the severity (107-108.) These laws depict how much the society values the people in their society. Those that are poor do not receive much attention to their own deaths or crimes against them, but those who have power expect to fine many shillings in order to receive their “justice.” This shows their governmental structure to be biased towards a hierarchy and not very defined with their consequences. There isn’t much to do aside from death if one of the accused can’t afford to pay shillings for their crimes.
Moving on to the Anglo-Saxon society, Alfred the Great led his people in a different way compared to the Franks. Fighting wasn’t strong in their society; the main focus was on farming. Not much of the society were educated either because the crops required full-time assistance. When it came down to battles, they lost because their weaponry wasn’t advanced and if they did fight, their crops would most likely die. In order to defend themselves, Ealdormen came to provide military men on their behalf. Half of an army was used to give the other half a chance to work the farms. To protect their lands, they built walls and made cities that localized themselves from the land taken by the Vikings.
The society seemed to be focused on food security and survival. Within this part of England, Alfred established Dooms to solidify control and to implement taxes. Alfred thought this reform was moving to a more Christian Idea. These laws range from specific and unusual to expensive and intense. For example, “If at a common task a man unintentionally kills another [by letting a tree fall on him] the tree is to be given to the kinsmen, and they are to have it from that estate within 30 days, or else he who owns the wood is to have the right of it (196.)” Certain laws like these seem unfair to the families of the victim. They do not receive any shillings for their loved one’s death, but stealing livestock means they are compensated for the loss.
When comparing both sets of laws, they have a focus on payment and receiving some sort of compensation for committing a crime. With the Franks, it seems to be less structured and pertaining to those with authority. What happened to the commoners or slaves to disobeyed against one another? The laws include free men and women but that shows how little they value every human among their society. With Alfred’s dooms, it’s a bit more inclusive. Livestock is accounted for, there isn’t much specification about who is free and who is not, and the punishments aren’t only focused on shilling payments, but also what else can be given in return.
This is important because anyone can pay something if they have the value.

But if they have no value, their crimes can be justified by other actions. Religion does play a large role in these laws as well, giving much attention to crimes against the monastery and those involved in it. The introduction of taxes means there can now be prisons to hold those guilty. Free labor is now going to be taken advantage of in the form of punishment for their crimes. While it entails negative aspects, it it something that helped the society progress.

In conclusion, both societies move towards a structured justice system where those who commit crimes should be punished according to the severity of their crimes. These societies are both moving away from the barbaric thinking that killing everyone is the way to go but still centering on their religion. Both also seem to use crimes against the church as a way to continue killing. This is a major improvement to blatant killing for no reason. Its also important when thinking about the future societies that come about and how they will establish their

societies.