318 - 

from an anthropological point of view,52 though there may have been

differences between Franks and Romans,53 nor can we clearly define
certain types of habits, jewellery, costume, or weapons as being un-
questionably “Frankish” (particularly since, later on, “Frankish” women
even in the Belgica dressed themselves in the Roman style).54 Simi-
larly, it seems hardly possible to detect a specific Frankish culture,
so that some archaeologists, such as Guy Halsall, tend to doubt the
ethnic relevance of archaeological findings at all:55 The continuation
of material culture does not necessarily mean a common ethnic
identity (and vice versa).56 Considering these “mingled cultures” in
Gaul, it seems, once more, that the Franks were (or at least developed
into) a political rather than an ethnic or cultural phenomenon.57

on”, Fifth-century Gaul: a crisis of identity?, ed. J.F. Drinkwater and H. Elton (Cambridge
1992) pp. 196–207, gravegoods do not represent “Germanic” or “pagan” (or “Ger-
manic pagan”) customs.
52
Cf. M. Kunter and U. Wittwer-Backofen, “Die Franken—Anthropologische
Bevölkerungsrekonstruktionen im östlichen Siedlungsgebiet”, Die Franken—Wegbereiter
Europas 2, pp. 653–61.
53
Cf. L. Buchet, “Die Landnahme der Franken in Gallien aus der Sicht der An-
thropologen”, Die Franken—Wegbereiter Europas 2, pp. 662–7.
54
Cf. G. Zeller, “Tracht der Frauen”, Die Franken—Wegbereiter Europas 2, pp.
672–83. Cf. Schmauder this volume, p. 303.
55
Cf. Halsall, “Social identities”; id., “The origins of the Reihengräberzivilisation”.
Nowadays, it has become even more difficult to distinguish between the Franks and
other Germanic peoples, such as the Saxons or Alamanni, by their archaeological
heritage although, according to the written sources, these peoples were clearly dis-
tinct. Cf. Ch. Grünewald, “Neues zu Sachsen und Franken in Westfalen”, Studien
zur Sachsenforschung 12, pp. 83–108; H.W. Böhme, “Franken oder Sachsen? Beiträge
zur Siedlungs- und Bevölkerungsgeschichte in Westfalen vom 4.–7. Jahrhundert”,
ibid., pp. 43–73.
56
Thus H. Ament, “Die Ethnogenese der Germanen aus der Sicht der Vor- und
Frühgeschichte”, Ethnogenese europäischer Völker. Aus der Sicht der Anthropologie und Vor-
und Frühgeschichte, ed. W. Bernhard and A. Kandler-Pálsson (Stuttgart-New York
1986) pp. 247–56. An opposite view is now again taken by F. Siegmund, Alemannen
und Franken, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde
23 (Berlin-New York 2000), who after discussing the archaeological problem of eth-
nicity (pp. 55 ff.), defends an ethnical perspective as long as it does not adapt eth-
nic concepts from other disciplines (p. 81). Nevertheless, maps of distribution of
certain objects cannot prove ethnic distinctions, and it seems to be completely
arbitrary when Siegmund (pp. 253 ff.) interprets the archaeological “cultural pat-
terns” as ethnic units which he identifies with being Franks and Alamans (pp. 305
ff.) on the ground of the (delusive) assumption that archaeological evidence is true
and objective (pp. 351 ff.).
57
Thus Périn, “A propos de publications étrangères récentes”, p. 552.
   () 319

All in all, we can conclude that there were Franks before Clovis’s
reign, but these Franks were far from being discernible as a confined
“ethnic” community. Whereas late Roman sources (like Ammianus
Marcellinus) perceived the Franks as an ethnic group, the (admit-
tedly few) contemporary sources of the late fifth and early sixth cen-
tury tended to avoid the term. It may well be that the mixture of
“Roman” and “Germanic” civilization in northern Gaul stimulated
an ethnogenetical process that had begun long before the establish-
ment of a Frankish kingdom. Whatever it was that made these Franks
appear as a unit in the fourth and fifth centuries, they obviously did
not form a political union either. Nevertheless, there was a political
order before Clovis, and in spite of Gregory of Tours complaining
that he could not find any kings in the early history of the Franks,
there were kings who, to some extent at least, were related to each
other. From this we may conclude that there were even certain forms
of royal “dynasties”, stirpes regiae (among which the Merovingians
were one). It is only by their later success and their historiographical
tradition that their line of succession is the only one which is fairly
well-known. Gregory, however, was obviously searching for one king
of the (united) Franks.

II. The Kingdom: the Achievement of Clovis

The reign of Clovis, therefore, may not have changed much, at least
not immediately, with regard to Frankish-Roman civilization. Politically,
however, the amazingly rapid development from being a kinglet of
Tournai to becoming the ruler of the largest and, beside Theoderic’s
kingdom of the Ostrogoths, most important kingdom within some
20 years must be considered as a decisive caesura at least politically.
Under Clovis, the Franks, for the first time in their history, became
a political unit ruled by one king. No doubt, there were some “fore-
runners” or developments that supported a unification of Gaul, but,
characteristically enough, they originated mainly on the “Roman”
side: One may go back as far as the so-called “Gallic ‘separate
realm’” (Gallisches Sonderreich) of the third century from Postumus to
Tetricus (260–274), or to Diocletian’s system of tetrarchy with a
decentralized imperial court in Trier. Moreover, Clovis’s reign had
been prepared by his father’s, Childeric’s, federal policy with Aegi-
dius, the Roman governor, in the central parts of Gaul (around
320 - 

Soissons and Paris). The conquest of this last Roman resort in Gaul
under Aegidius and his son Syagrius no doubt has to be regarded
as an important milestone in the course of Clovis’s rise. But, of
course, there were also the other “Germanic” kingdoms (of the Visi-
goths in Aquitania, the Burgundians in the Rhone area or the
Ostrogoths in Italy) that might have served as models.
Compared to other realms, the establishment of the huge Frankish
kingdom was a comparatively late “foundation”, but it was achieved
under one single king within one generation (disregarding later expan-
sions under Clovis’s successors), and it may be added here that, con-
trary to the other “Germanic” kingdoms, the Frankish realm never
perished (which does not necessarily imply, however, that its “suc-
cess” derived from its being different). Clovis himself as ruler was
the central figure of this realm. His reign most probably stimulated
a great deal of changes. First and foremost, the area of domination
grew to an extent that made it larger than any other Germanic king-
dom of that period. Moreover, Clovis managed to eliminate the other
Frankish kings (some of whom, at least, were his relatives) one after
the other until, probably towards the end of his reign, he finally
even became king of the “Rhenish Franks” after having murdered
their king Sigibert and his son Chloderic. The conquest of the remain-
ing regions of the Roman Empire in Gaul, the province of Syagrius,
made him leader and governor of a district not only inhabited by
a population that was still predominantly Roman, but also of a region
with a functioning Roman administration and with Roman law and
habits. After (probably) two campaigns and victories against the
Alamanni (who, as it seems, were not united either under one king
before that time),58 Clovis’s realm expanded into the Upper Rhine
region, and by his notorious victory at Vouillé (506) over the Visi-
goths he conquered a complete, huge kingdom which made him
ruler of the whole of south-west Gaul south of the Loire (later on
called Aquitania), a region that had been under Visigothic rulership,
but remained Roman in faith, population and administrative struc-
tures. It is significant that Clovis (as is generally assumed) transferred
his “capital”, that is, his preferred sedes regia, first from Tournai to
Soissons and, later on (about 508) further to Paris,59 whereas, after

58
Cf. D. Geuenich, “Chlodwigs Alemannenschlacht(en) und Taufe”, Die Franken
und die Alemannen, pp. 423–37.
59
For Frankish (and other) residences cf. E. Ewig, “Résidence et capitale pen-
   () 321

the conquest of the Visigothic realm, he did not move the “capital”
further again to Tours, a town near the border between the two
former kingdoms which, noted for the cult of Saint-Martin, he undoubt-
edly honoured as a significant sacred place: The “core” of Clovis’s
Frankish realm was obviously not the regions of Frankish origin, but
the Roman parts with their vast demesnes (around Paris) which
remained the economic basis of all the Frankish and, later on, also
of the French kings.
In the end, Clovis’s “Frankish” kingdom (whatever it may have
been called at that time), from its substance and population, was far
from being “Frankish” any more, but was an amalgamation of sev-
eral (former) kingdoms including the small Frankish kingdoms of the
north, an important Roman province, the huge Visigothic kingdom
of southern Gaul and the territories of the Alamanni. Clovis him-
self obviously secured his position on the basis of several public func-
tions (though we do not know the title he assumed for himself ): He
was king of the Franks as well as successor of the Roman province
of Aegidius and Syagrius, ruling as a sovereign, but also in the name
of the Emperor who, granting him the honour of an “honorary con-
sulship” in 508, acknowledged his rule.60 In addition he may well
have perceived himself as king of the Visigoths since this kingdom
was divided under his sons and was thus treated as a separate realm
(a method that was continued later on with Burgundy and Provence,
the former realms of the Burgundians and the remaining Visigoths).
Thus, Clovis’s kingdom comprised several kingdoms (Vielreichestaat) and
was composed of even more peoples (Vielvölkerstaat) among which the
Franks were only one (and nowhere near the majority, probably not
even in the north). We do not know the percentage of Franks
in the population,61 but from the fact that the Romanic language
not only survived, but, at least in the end, dominated we may con-
clude that the Franks always remained a minority, even in northern
Gaul. The majority of the population was Roman or, rather, Ro-
manized, having grown together, through a long process, primarily

dant le haut Moyen Age”, id., Spätantikes und Fränkisches Gallien 1, pp. 362–408, par-
ticularly pp. 383 ff.; A. Dierkens and P. Périn, “Les sedes regiae mérovingiennes entre
Seine et Rhin”, Sedes regiae (ann. 400–800), ed. G. Ripoll and J.M. Gurt with A. Cha-
varría (Barcelona 2000) pp. 267–304.
60
Cf. R. Mathisen, “Clovis, Anastase et Grégoire de Tours: consul, patrice et
roi”, Clovis 1, pp. 395–407.
61
Estimates range from 2 to 25%. The percentage decreased, however, from the
north farther to the south as well as to the west.
322 - 

from “Romans” (from various provinces) and Celtic Gauls. Moreover,

we may well ask how “Romanized” the Franks already were even
under or before Clovis’s reign! If the Franks before Clovis can be
called a “people”, even though they did not form a recognizable
unit, the Frankish kingdom after Clovis was by no means an ethnic
(or cultural) unit, but a kingdom made up of many peoples and of
many kingdoms which in themselves consisted of mixed ethnic groups
(Völkergemisch). This, however, was common in the “Germanic” world
during and after the Migration period.
As a preliminary resume we may maintain that, though there was
a Frankish people before Clovis (or at least a people who were called
“Franks”), it is impossible to decide which bonds united them. There
were kings, but no united kingdom. It was Clovis who founded the
Frankish kingdom, but he did not establish the Frankish people
which somehow survived (and expanded) under his reign. This seems
a very important distinction: “Kingdom” and “people”, though ob-
viously related to each other, were distinct institutions. The word-
ing Francorum gens et regnum in Gregory of Tours62 indicates a distinction
as well as a relation between these two elements. The situation,
however, is extremely complicated: Though a Frankish people had
existed before Clovis’s reign, it was not until Clovis’s conquests that
the Franks were politically united. Once they were united, however,
they ruled a kingdom that incorporated many peoples, in a realm
in which they, themselves, were a minority. In the final analysis, we
cannot grasp the “ethnicity” of the Franks. On the one hand the
establishment of the Frankish kingdom can be regarded as an impor-
tant factor in this process. On the other hand it created a frame-
work which, when regarding the Franks as a “people”, makes it very
probable (although it remains to be investigated) that there was also
a development of the “Frankish people”, that is, a change of its
ethnicity under the new conditions of a Frankish kingdom.

III. The Structure and Development of the Frankish Kingdom and People

1. Merowingian Kingship: Under this premise, we can now pursue the

elements and structure of the “Frankish” kingdom, considering particu-

62
For example, Gregory of Tours, Historiae 5 prol., p. 193.
   () 323

larly the relationship between the Frankish people and “its” king-
dom: the political and social institutions, the relationship between
Franks and Romans as well as between Franks and other “Germanic”
peoples within the realm, the personal relationships and the Franks’
concepts of themselves. This vast new kingdom called for newly
adapted structures. The political unification had not yet established
an integrated realm. On the contrary, one may assume that the king
himself, even if he was not the only factor, was, at least, the most
important one in the process of integration:63 It was not the Franks as
a whole, but the Merovingian dynasty that formed that notorious
“nucleus of tradition” (Traditionskern) which played such an impor-
tant part in Wenskus’s and Wolfram’s theory of ethnogenesis (though
recently the earlier opinions relating to a Germanic Königsheil have
rightly been increasingly dismissed). The Merovingians monopolized
political power and “sanctified” themselves by way of sacred cus-
toms (as “long-haired kings”) and through attitudes and myths (like
the descent from a sea-beast).64 However, they perceived themselves,
or were perceived, as “kings of the Franks” in a regnum Francorum,
in spite of their rule over many peoples. And yet, due to the lack
of original charters and the vast amount of falsifications, we cannot
tell exactly from what time on these denominations were used. In
royal charters, the title rex Francorum is handed down for the first
time in a copy of a charter of Theudebert II from 59665 and in
two original charters of Chlothar II, one issued between 584 and
628,66 the other dating from 625.67 Later on, the title was extremely

63
Kingship can be regarded as an, or as the most important element of any
ethnogenetical process, and it is not by chance that H. Wolfram, “Typen der
Ethnogenese. Ein Versuch”, Die Franken und die Alemannen, pp. 608–27, recently
defined different “types” of ethnogenesis primarily according to the monarchic or
non-monarchic organisation of these peoples.
64
These features should not be confused with a Sakralkönigtum which is more or
less a construct of modern research; cf. A.C. Murray, “Fredegar, Merovech, and
‘Sacral Kingship’”, After Rome’s Fall. Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History.
Essays presented to Walter Goffart, ed. id. (Toronto-Buffalo-London 1998) pp. 121–51.
65
D. Merov. 25, ed. T. Kölzer, MGH DD regum Francorum e stirpe Merovingica
(Hannover 2001) vol. 1, p. 69. Cf. now also R. Schneider, “König und Königsherrschaft
bei den Franken”, Von Sacerdotium und Regnum. Geist und weltliche Gewalt im frühen und
hohen Mittelalter. Festschrift für Egon Boshof zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. F.-R. Erkens and H.
Wolff (Köln-Weimar-Wien 2002) pp. 11–26, here p. 15, who nevertheless believes
that the title was used from the reign of Clovis.
66
D. Merov. 22, p. 63.
67
Ibid., 28, p. 76.
324 - 

common, but it is impossible to say when it was used for the first
time. The term regnum Francorum, however, was used very rarely: in
a falsification dating from 639/4268 and in an undisputed charter of
Childeric II from 670.69 In historiographical sources, however, the
regnum Francorum was the kingdom of the Frankish king(s). Thus, it
was the kings (and their court) that guaranteed not only political
unification, but also warranted that this unified realm was perceived
as a Frankish one. In fact, there was hardly any unity and uniformity
(or conformity) inside this realm except through the king and per-
haps the church (and even the church was an “amalgamation” of
single bishops, each being responsible for his see,70 and not infre-
quently quarrelling with their respective comes, as illustrated by Gregory
of Tours’ famous quarrel with Count Leudastus of Tours).71
Yet, if we are accustomed to speaking about the Frankish king-
dom of the Merovingians and, later on, the Carolingians, it seems
necessary to emphasize a crucial point here. Although Clovis no
doubt established a united realm and expanded it by huge conquests,
his reign as a single king without colleagues was exceptional. It is
well-known that the four sons of Clovis divided the paternal king-
dom among themselves, and obviously this turned out to be the
usual procedure throughout Merovingian history:72 Under Clovis’s
successors, in the sixth and seventh centuries, there were only four
more or less brief periods when the whole Frankish realm was equally
united again under one king (Chlothar I, 558–561; Chlothar II,
613–623; Dagobert I, 629–639; Childeric II, 673–675): Although
the Frankish kingdom was ruled either by one king (though this was
seldom) or at least (and throughout) by one royal family, it was not
really a political unity, even if the notion of one Frankish kingdom
may still have been maintained. Curiously enough, the “divisions”,
which possibly confirm the opinion of the kingdom being the prop-

68
Ibid., 73, p. 188.
69
Ibid., 108, p. 280.
70
For the Merovingian bishops, see G. Scheibelreiter, Der Bischof in merowingischer
Zeit, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 27 (Wien-
Köln-Graz 1983), and B. Basdevant-Gaudemet, “L’évêque, d’après la législation de
quelques conciles mérovingiens”, Clovis 1, pp. 471–94.
71
Cf. Gregory of Tours, Historiae 5,48–49, pp. 257–63; 6,32, pp. 302–4.
72
Cf. E. Ewig, “Die fränkischen Teilungen und Teilreiche (511–613)”, id., Spätantikes
und fränkisches Gallien 1, pp. 114–71.
   () 325

erty of the Merovingian kings, are in themselves proof of such a

notion. In reality, however, there is no doubt a discrepancy between
the divisions and the concept of the existence of a single regnum
Francorum. In Gregory of Tours, we can sense that strange relation-
ship (obviously not felt as a contradiction by Gregory himself ) between
this ideal and the sovereignty of the single parts: For Gregory, all
Merovingian kings were legitimate (though not all of them were good
rulers). The Merovingians themselves claimed to be heirs by way of
their birthright, thereby still treating the kingdom as a whole, and
there were, in fact, numerous forms of royal inheritance patterns.73
In practice, the Frankish kings never achieved complete integration
of the different parts (and peoples) of their kingdom.

2. Disunity: If the Frankish kingdom, therefore, even as a political

factor was a unit only in a limited, dynastic sense, internally it seemed
to be even more heterogeneous, and its parts increasingly disinte-
grated. The vast expansions under Clovis (Aquitania, Alemannia) and
his successors (Burgundy, Thuringia, Bavaria, and, for a short time,
northern Italy) integrated not only external peoples (such as the
Alamans and the Bavarians), but also former kingdoms (such as the
kingdoms of the Visigoths, Burgundians and Thuringians) as well as
former Roman territories: The Frankish kingdom remained, as it
seems, a disorganized amalgamation of several (older) kingdoms, and
it is well known that Gaul can easily be divided into a “Germanic”
northern and a Romanized southern part (though this distinction,
too, seems somewhat superficial); at the same time we may observe
a comparable, though completely different distinction between the
western and eastern parts of the Frankish territory (later on called
Niustria, or Neustria, and Austria, or Austrasia).74 When Clovis’s sons
not only divided the paternal realm, but actually split up the two
central parts of the kingdom, the Roman “Niustria” and the Gothic
kingdom (later on called “Aquitania”), this action could indicate that
they (and their successors) may never have aspired to achieve com-
plete political integration.

73
Cf. I.N. Wood, “Kings, Kingdoms and Consent”, Early Medieval Kingship, ed.
P.H. Sawyer and I.N. Wood (Leeds 1977) pp. 6–29.
74
This is confirmed by the archaeological evidence; cf. Schmauder this volume,
pp. 285–7.
326 - 

Moreover, the numerous reports in Gregory of Tours and later

chronicles about quarrels and wars between the Merovingian kings
and about mutual invasions seriously contradict the impression of
(political) unity. According to these chronicles, the Merovingians
seemed to have fought one another throughout most of Merovin-
gian history, and it is not by chance that Ian Wood, when writing
on this subject, titles his chapter on the sixth-century kingdom “Stabi-
lity in Disunity”75 (though this can also be seen as typically con-
temporary and not as particularly “Merovingian”). Yet the struggles
between the Merovingians were struggles between kings, not between
peoples (or even between “Romanized” and “Germanic” parts):76
According to Gregory, it was “the” Franks fighting on each side.
We may doubt, therefore, whether the Frankish kingdoms after Clovis
were ever a political, let alone a “gentile” (national) unit. We may
even ask if contemporary historians have used Clovis’s realm too
exclusively as a model when forming their judgments of later Frank-
ish kingdoms.
Although the manner of dividing the realm changed during the
next centuries, and accordingly the portions of the Frankish king-
doms did not remain the same, the habit of dividing the kingdom
was maintained throughout these times. From the reign of the sons
of Chlothar I, these parts tended to become independent kingdoms
in their own right. It is obvious, therefore, that, under the later
Merovingians, the four great parts of the realm, Niustria, Austrasia,
Burgundia and Aquitania, became more and more important as
structural factors.77 (Later on, Niustria, Austrasia, and Burgundia had
a maior domus of its own.) In Merovingian times the new large regions
vaguely corresponded to the boundaries of former realms, as in
Aquitania or Burgundy. We must, however, admit that the parts
which were to become independent kingdoms, did not correlate with
the original boundaries, indicating that in the meantime fundamen-

75
Wood, The Merovingian kingdoms, p. 88.
76
Thus Ewig, “Die fränkischen Teilungen”, p. 171.
77
Cf. E. Ewig, “Die fränkischen Teilreiche im 7. Jahrhundert (613–714)”, id.,
Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien 1, pp. 172–230; for the later development: id.,
“Descriptio Franciae”, ibid., pp. 274–322. For the growth of these regna, cf. K.F.
Werner, “Völker und Regna”, Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Reichs- und Nationsbildung in
Deutschland und Frankreich, ed. C. Brühl and B. Schneidmüller, Historische Zeitschrift
Beiheft N.F. 24 (München 1997) pp. 15–44, particularly pp. 18 ff.
   () 327

tal changes must have occurred. By Carolingian times, these bonds

had completely lost their impact.
Furthermore, the Frankish kingdom was not a legal unit, either.
Whereas the Lex Salica encompassed laws concerning Franks and
Romans, the different “Germanic” peoples lived, as it seems, under
their own proper laws (although all of these were codified later,
mainly in the seventh and eighth century, like the Leges Alamannorum
and the Lex Baiuvariorum), and this situation continued under the
Carolingian kings. These non-Frankish “Germanic” peoples inside
the realm still preserved a specific legal system of their own though
their laws were obviously codified under Merovingian influence. As
is well known, there were even two Frankish laws, the Lex Salica and
the Lex Ribuaria. Actually, there was not just one Salian law, as we
know of at least eight different versions of the Lex Salica. Similarly,
the duces, established as an element of Frankish (royal) administration
(and therefore integration), developed, in some regions at least, into
influential regional powers, which were based upon and tied to cer-
tain “gentile” structures, subkingdoms or traditional territories (such
as Aquitania, Burgundy, Provence, Thuringia, Alemannia or Bavaria).

3. Integration: Thus, on the one hand, the Frankish kingdom was

never more than an amalgamation of different parts. On the other
hand, however, we cannot neglect the impression that the contem-
porary notion of a Frankish kingdom (or, later on, of Frankish king-
doms) increased constantly. Obviously, there had been a process
of—more or less successful—integration. What, we may therefore
ask, were the key factors of this process? In spite of the undoubt-
edly important political role of the king, it could not be the “mon-
archy” as such, since the periods characterized by the reign of a sole
monarch turned out to be the rare exceptions to the rule in the
Merovingian as well as in the Carolingian period. Taking this into
consideration, we should not neglect the possibility of a growing
homogeneity of a population that initially had had distinctly different
origins, traditions, and (social) structures. The relationship between
“Romans” and “Franks” (and other peoples) is a decisive factor here.
In spite of an actual “mixed civilization”—a state that in many parts
of northern Gaul might have been achieved long before Clovis—,
and despite the legal differentiation between these groups, with the
Romans being entitled to only half the wergeld of a Frank, there
seems to have been not only a symbiosis, but even an increasing