Essay On to What Extent Was the Decline of the Carolingians’ Power Their Own Fault?
Number of words: 2353
The decline of the Carolingian Empire can be said to be of their own doing to a large extent, although the impact of other factors such as external threats from the Vikings and others should not be dismissed. While the Empire was once large and powerful, its strength began to diminish after the death of Charlemagne. The three reasons for the empires decline that will be explored during this essay will be the external threats from opposing groups – namely the Vikings, the ineffective leadership of Charlemagne’s successors Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald and Charles the Fat, and the internal conflict present in the latter 9th century.
A significant factor in the decline of the Carolingian Empire was its decreasing military success and defence. This is possibly seen most evidently in the raids of the Vikings on the Carolingian settlements throughout the 9th century, and the Magyars in gaining territories in Italy in 827, threatening to also take Rome in 843.[1] Various groups of Vikings existed, although the most notable were those of the Rhineland, their longboats would enable them to travel down rivers deep into the Western Frankish Kingdom. After the death of Louis the Pious the Vikings (and many others) took advantage of the conflict between his successors and became substantially more active.[2] The Viking raids were a persistent issue for the Carolingian Empire – between 841 and 892 there was rarely a year where there wasn’t a recorded Viking attack.[3] However, the prevailing view is that the strength of the Vikings has been exaggerated and, in turn, their contribution to the downfall of the Carolingian empire. Simon MacLean challenges this however and argues that the Vikings had a “cataclysmic effect on Carolingian rule”. MacLean points out that the decline of the empire correlates with a substantial increase in Scandinavian raiding on the continent and from this, he reasons that they were ultimately indirectly responsible for the decline of the empire.[4] Sawyer is of the more traditional school of thought arguing that the Vikings were likely much smaller in number and power than previously thought and typically shown by primary sources, although Historian Rosamond Mckitterick contrasts this view[5]. Mckitterick points out that Sawyer disregards larger statistics only because they are large and accepts all smaller statistics as truth. Regardless she suggests that the size of the force is ultimately irrelevant as it only matters how large the force was relative to their opposition (Small Franks settlements) when considering the impact of the force on the Carolingian Empire.[6] A point was reached where Charles the Fat couldn’t effectively deal with the Vikings anymore and had to resort to tributes to prevent them from attacking. These tributes however would only be exploited by the Vikings which would weaken the economic position of the Empire. From this point alone it should be noted that the Vikings were a contributing factor toward the decline of the Carolingian empire, yet they cannot be said to be the sole reason for the decline of the empire. If the empire was more internally stable and the Kings were not fighting amongst themselves they possibly could have resisted external threats with more efficiency.
While the external threats to the Carolingian empire should be acknowledged as contributory to their decline, it should be noted it could be argued that this would not have been so influential if the kings Charles the Bald and Charles that Fat have dealt with them differently. Simon Coupland suggests that the empire didn’t decline immediately after the death of Charlemagne and prospered in areas until later in the 9th century suggesting that Louis the Pious’s reign was largely successful in comparison to later Kings such as Charles the Fat.[7] Matthew Innes supports this concept by noting that the reign of Louis the Pious was relatively successful although with the distinct difference that he sees Louis’s reign as laying the foundations for future problems such as the Civil war.[8] John Riddle takes an opposite approach to that of Coupland, perceiving Louis the Pious as groomed for leadership but let down by his temperament. Riddles notes that Louis was easily persuaded by the Clergy, and dismissed the majority of his father’s advisers which were considered capable.[9] The most significant decision made by Louis was ignoring the rule of equal inheritance in the Frankish constitution which led to internal conflict between successors each attempting to get their share of power. After the Treaty of Verdun in 843, the Kingdom was divided between Louis the German, Charles the Bald and Lothair. Charles the Bald specifically has received possibly the most criticism for his headship over the Frankish Kingdom, although with some controversy he is largely considered by Historians as the worst king of the three. Simon Coupland argues that Charles the Bald however did succeed in many ways, one of these being his attempts to defend the kingdom from the Vikings. While other historians see the raids of the Vikings as a factor in the decline of the empire which was amplified by a lack of resistance from the kingship Coupland takes an alternative approach. He suggests that Charles the Bald “lived up to expectations in terms of both personal leadership and organisation” and had an active involvement in the defence of the Carolingian Empire – providing his construction of blockades on rivers in 862 as an example.[10] This tactic, however, did not prevent attacks from the Vikings and Charles resorted to paying tribute to the Vikings, which they later took full advantage of threatening attack at least 11. This decision would greatly harm the Kingdom as no campaigns were in progress and therefore money and land to give to nobles were restricted.[11] Although this can be seen as a failure it must be acknowledged that the options available for Charles the Bald were lacking. Internal conflict weakened the military and Charles had to decide between a military loss or an economic one. Ultimately it should be understood that while the kings did make mistakes that created more issues for future leadership, their options were limited. In the case of Charles the Bald and the Vikings, the Kingdom did not have enough military strength to risk a slaughter with the Vikings[12] The issue of ineffective leadership from the Frankish Kings cannot alone explain the decline of the Carolingian’s yet it proves to be an influential factor.
Governing the Carolingian empire would prove difficult for the Frankish Kingship, yet this problem only was exaggerated by the conflict between the successors of Louis the Pious and their self-interests. While past leaders such as Charlemagne and Louis the Pious had managed to rule independently of rivals, the sons of Louis the Pious didn’t have this luxury, being the first time in 3 generations where there was more than one possible heir. Their conflict was born by Louis the Pious attempting to give territory to his son with another wife to the distaste of his other sons. The combat that resulted caused a division of the empire, politically, and physically weakening its strength to protect from military threats (such as the Vikings) – inevitably leading to the empire decline as no new lands were being procured to give to the increasing number of nobles, causing problems to arise from the Aristocracy.[13] Simon Coupland argues that Frankish politics were at the root of the Carolingians inability to combat the Vikings rather than any military weaknesses, born out of the civil wars between Louis the Pious’ successors.[14] He points out that Charles the Bald and Lothair both had the risk of being invaded by neighbouring kingdoms while they were on the campaign, a problem that Charlemagne never had to deal with. This school of thought is shared by A monk at Noirmoutier – “Their disagreement gives strength to foreigners… the defence of the shores of the ocean is abandoned.”[15] By fighting internally the Carolingians weakened their forces and left themselves more vulnerable to attacks from external forces, such as the Vikings. It is possible that if the civil wars hadn’t occurred on the scale that they did then defence against the Vikings would have been much more successful. Unfortunately, this was not the case and Charles the Bald and Charles the Fat had to deal with them through other means. Ultimately how Charles the Fat dealt with the Vikings in 877 caused him to lose favour from the Nobles, a significant factor in his eventual deposition in 888 by his Nephew.[16] Charles’s deposition is typically marked as the end of the Carolingian Empire; as Charles had no legitimate sons at this point the Carolingian name was no longer important those who would-be successors were only distant relatives and largely now irrelevant.
In conclusion, while the decline of the Carolingian empire was a period that was facilitated by other factors outside of the Frankish Kings control, ultimately the decisions they made brought about their downfall. The Vikings attacks on the Empire while damaging would likely have been less so if more efforts could have been dedicated to protection from them, rather than from the other neighbouring kings. The Frankish Kingdom would have been able to retain their military and economic strength as generally less money would have been spent, and less land ceded to hire soldiers, an area which caused significant weakness in the politics and government of the Kingdoms.[17] The leadership demonstrated by the Kings is largely debated by Historians, although ultimately the deposition of Charles the Fat was due to his political unpopularity, the decisions of Charles the Bald and Charles the fat to continue to cede lands to the nobility was a significant factor in the loss of power for the Kingship as it led to local lords having far more influence in their area than their king, and not necessarily having to report to them, setting up independent localities. The root of many of these issues goes back to the Civil Wars, an event that caused division and weakened the Kingdom greatly. While it can’t be said that the Carolingians were solely responsible for the empires decline and their decreasing power their role should not be underestimated as it was pivotal.
Bibliography
Carey, B. T., Warfare in the Medieval World, (Pen & Sword Military 2006)
Coupland, S., Carolingian Coinage and the Vikings: Studies on Power and Trade in the 9th century, (Aldershot: Ashgate 2007)
Coupland, S., Review of Viator – Medieval and Renaissance Studies. (Viator – Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2004, 35:49-70+vii)
Coupland, S., The Vikings on the Continent, (History Today, Vol. 38 Issue 12 1988)
Ermentarius, De translationibus et miraculis sancti Filiberti, preface to bk. 2, in R. Poupardin, ed., Monuments de l’histoire des abbayes de Saint-Philibert (Paris 1905)
Innes, M., State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Vally, 400-1000, (Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition 2008)
Maclean, S., Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century: Charles the Fat and the End, (Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Mckitterick, R., The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983)
Riddle, J. M., A History of the Middles Ages, 300-1500, (Rowman & Littlefield 2008)
Sawyer, P. H., The Age of the Vikings, (Hodder & Stoughton Educational, 1975)
[1] B. T. Carey, Warfare in the Medieval World, (Pen & Sword Military 2006)
[2] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 230
[3] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 231
[4] S. Maclean, Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Cenruty: Charles the Fat and the End, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.17
[5] P. H. Sawyer, TheAgeof the Vikings, (Hodder & Stoughton Educational, 1975), pp. 123-6
[6] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 231
[7] S. Coupland, Carolingian Coinage and the Vikings: Studies on Power and Trade in the 9th century, (Aldershot: Ashgate 2007)
[8] M. Innes, State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Vally, 400-1000, (Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition 2008), p. 210
[9] J. M. Riddle, A History of the Middles Ages, 300-1500, (Rowman & Littlefield 2008)
[10] S. Coupland, The Vikings on the Continent, (History Today, Vol. 38 Issue 12 1988), p. 16
[11] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 233
[12] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 231
[13] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 182
[14] S. Coupland, review of Viator – Medieval and Renaissance Studies. (Viator – Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2004, 35:49-70+vii)
[15] Ermentarius, De translationibus et miraculis sancti Filiberti, preface to bk. 2, in R. Poupardin, ed., Monuments de l’histoire des abbayes de Saint-Philibert (Paris 1905), p. 60
[16] M. Innes, State and Society in the Early Middle Ages: The Middle Rhine Vally, 400-1000, (Cambridge University Press; New Ed edition 12 Jan. 2008), p.223
[17] R. Mckitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms Under the Carolingians, (Routledge 1983), p. 182