It is no wonder that by the mid-fifth century an aristocratic Gallo-Roman landowner at the court of the Burgundian king could taunt a Christian holy man who had long predicted the ruin of the Roman Empire by asking him why his predictions had not come true. The Empire as a political reality was indeed gone in Burgundy, but since his own position had not been adversely affected, he had not noticed its demise!
- Patrick J. Geary, Before France & Germany
For over a thousand years, a relatively small group of interrelated families comprised the apex of Western society’s ruling class. To a large extent, the history of Europe is a history of inter-elite competition among European royalty, and various challenges to its rule.
This history built up along with it a rich set of political formulas which the hereditary elite used to justify both its existence and position, from the mythic-religious divine right of kings, to more recent ideas like constitutional monarchy.
The depth of both the history and arguments for hereditary rule, which for so long seemed to be the natural state of affairs, obscures a crucial question in the study of power — how did European royalty acquire it in the first place?
The answers lie in the era known as Late Antiquity; better known as the decline and fall of the Rome. Patrick Geary’s book, Before France & Germany: The Creation & Transformation of the Merovingian World, is an excellent introduction to the period.
The Merovingian dynasty constituted the first recognizably European —as opposed to Roman—hereditary royalty, consolidated under the ruthless reign of Clovis I. The course of Merovingian ascendancy is a case study in the acquisition of power in times of transition and turmoil.
The Merovingians emerged from an undifferentiated, roiling mass of what the Romans called ‘barbarians’; peoples originally living outside the borders of the Roman empire, north of the Danube and east of the Rhine. They were largely dirt poor, consisting of loosely affiliated tribal groups organized around warrior-chieftains who spent their time feuding against each other and amongst themselves.
Contact with Rome destabilized the equilibrium of barbarian society. Trade on the Roman frontier was commonplace, and it was in Rome’s best interest that barbarians were both economically and politically dependent on her. Roman luxury goods, for example, were highly coveted by barbarian elites, and the introduction of money and trade served to widen social differences, creating pro and anti-Roman factions.
These changes set off a chain reaction of merging, splitting, fragmentation and consolidation throughout the barbarian world. With the later invasion of the Huns and the added pressure of the Nordic “womb of nations”, the barbarian world eventually entered a time referred to as the migration period, where tribes pushed against the borders of the Roman empire.
The Marcommanic Wars of the second century, themselves a result of barbarian incursions across the Danube, led to another fundamental transformation for Roman society. The commanders of frontier military units responsible for the Empire’s defence amassed enormous power, resulting in ‘military anarchy’ as a series of ‘barracks emperors’ were alternately installed, then deposed, by the very army that spawned them.
This period was brought to an end by the emperor Diocletian, whose reforms—especially increasing military pay—successfully pacified the army’s role by separating the military and civil governorship of Roman provinces (which were, themselves, also reorganized). The higher wages and increased stability brought prosperity to the previously backwater western frontier, and new prestige to the Roman military.
Even so, Diocletian’s reforms were not accomplished without cost. Massive increases in taxation—including new taxes on agricultural production—and widespread debasement of the currency in order to support higher military wages created an enormous burden for the Roman peasantry, as well as the landowning aristocracy. Combined with plague and instability, agricultural land within Roman borders began to be depopulated, further weakening imperial finances in a vicious cycle.
Simultaneously, barbarian peoples were becoming integrated into Roman society. Due to escalating shortages in manpower, the Roman military had already come to rely heavily on barbarian auxiliary forces to successfully defend against other barbarians throughout the third and into the fourth centuries.
Many barbarians were already de facto living in Rome where, in order to increase the tax base, Marcus Aurelius granted them citizenship in 212AD, about 32 years after the end of the Marcommanic Wars. In 376AD, partly to offset population decline in the west, a first external group of barbarians—the Goths—were allowed to cross the Danube and settle within Roman territory in exchange for military service.
As centralized Roman imperial power continued to wane from internal instability and external forces, barbarian military leaders came to be the actual local authority, representing the Empire in name only. By the time of Childeric I, the first Merovingian king of the barbarian Franks, in 457AD, barbarian chieftains had smoothly taken over the civil and fiscal administration in much of the Western empire.
Often recognized as legitimate rulers by Roman emperors for political and diplomatic reasons, and receiving a variety of imperial titles, these military rulers began to merge, in turn, with local landowning aristocracy, becoming Roman in culture if not in government.
For the Roman aristocracy, who lost little which they valued and gained much in terms of freedom from the central imperial authority, there may have been not much reason to notice they were now part of a barbarian kingdom.
The Merovingian kings would go on to consolidate power, war among each other, split and combine their kingdoms according to the vicissitudes of hereditary succession. They would in turn be deposed and replaced by their own major domos, who would go on to conform the Carolingian dynasty, from which the Holy Roman Empire and early modern Europe sprung.
What can we learn from the Merovingian ascendancy? Historical analogies are difficult because history is never without context, but there are perhaps some principles that we may want to draw attention to.
Times of transition, regardless of cause, create opportunities for the creation of new elites. Organizing social structures allows for the exercise of power at a larger scale. When there is division between members of the ruling class, as was the case between the Roman aristocracy and Roman imperial power, it is possible for external forces to enter the elite by benefiting one faction over another. Cultural continuity amongst elites may be more important than political continuity. Military force is the basis of all power.
Last, though arguably not least, may be that the opportunity to gain power arises rarely, in part because the ruling class seeks to perpetuate its own rule. It follows that, when power can be obtained, it must be done decisively.