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. Clovis’ military victories formed the borders of Gaul, which eventually became modern France. When he ascended to power, Clovis controlled a weak, small region, “Clovis’s kingdom began in the region encompassing …show more content…
From the time his father passed away, Clovis sought to give Gaul desperately needed leadership. First, he brutally assassinated fellow Merovingians, including his cousins and other relatives. “...he did his best to exterminate all other members of rival families who could lay claim to his throne” (Light to the Nations, 127). Thus, Clovis established a monarchy rule for France which provided stable government for centuries. Then, France switched to having a presidential rule. After he won significant territory, Clovis proceeded to “order(ed) the assassination of the Frankish kings Chararic and Ragnachar...and taken their kingdoms for himself” (Wasson). This expanded France, and brought the occupants of those territories under Clovis’ throne. They trusted Clovis. Clovis deceived them. Clovis killed them. While they were successful, the intricate plots Clovis developed were appalling and clever methods to discreetly dispose of other Meroving princes. Convinced by Clovis, the Prince of Cologne assassinated his own father, the King of Cologne, to seize his throne. Then, Clovis charged the Prince with patricide and executed the astonished and betrayed Prince. Thus, he cleared and paved the way for his absolute power. For the remaining duration of his reign, Clovis maintained absolute rule among the Franks. To this day, the French continue to name their royalty Louis, the modernized name of Clovis; therefore, they honor this important king. Clovis was the ruler who united France under one
... left France bankrupt. Louis had to compromise—he and his heirs could never combine the Spanish and French crowns, but his grandson would be king.
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.
Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
Frightfully stimulated as a child from a home intrusion by Parisians during an aristocratic revolt in 1651, Louis XIV realized his rule would be decisive, militant, and absolute (458). His lengthy reign as Frances’ king and how he ruled would be the example that many countries throughout Europe would model their own regimes under. With this great authority also came greater challenges of finance and colonization. In the 17th century, the era of absolute monarchs was the means to restore European life (458). Louis XIV exemplified absolutism, and his ruling set the example for other monarchs throughout Europe.
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.
later he crowned himself as Emperor King. He turned the French against Europe and took over
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
With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country, France, from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.
Charlemagne, a Frank decendent, had reunited parted of the empire including: France, Italy, and Germany. He restored law and stability in those regions along with his successor, the Carolingians until Viking invasions which returned unstability and disorder back to the region. By the eleventh century, Europe was divided, unstable, and lawless, especially France. France was divided into two parts with two different languages. “France was even divided linguistically with two distinct languages, Languedor, and Languedoc- prevailing in the north and south respectively” (5, Asbridge).
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
King Louis XIV's 72 year reign was incredibly influential in shaping French history. King Louis XIV’s childhood was traumatic because of “La Fronde” which was a noble rebellion against the monarchy. This experience taught King Louis XIV to distrust the nobles. It was for this reason that he eventually excluded nobility from the council and surrounded himself with loyal ministers whom he could control. He also separated the aristocracy from the people of France by moving the court to the Palace of Versailles. One of the most notable of King Louis XIV’s decisions was that he refused to appoint another Prime Minister after the death of Prime Minister Mazarin. Every decision, from the declaration of war to the approval of a passport, went through him personally. During his reign as king, France participated in several wars including the War of Devolution, in Anglo-Dutch War, and the War of the Spanish Succession. Another major action he took was the proclamation of the Edict of Fontainebleau, which revoked the Edict of Nantes, imposing religious uniformity through Catholi...
Louis XIV (the fourteenth) was an absolute monarch. He was often called "the Sun King," and ruled over France. He devoted himself to helping France achieve economic, political, and cultural prominence. Many historians believe the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" mirrors Louis' reign. Louis XIV revoked the Edict on Nantes, changing the economy of France in one motion. By creating the city of Versailles and being a major patron of the arts, Louis was very influential on French culture. He made France go almost bankrupt from his costly wars and failures. Louis was very corrupt in his power, and it shown in all he did to change France; he got what he wanted, when he wanted it.
Historically, there was a close cultural link between southern France and Asia Minor. It appears that Iren...
Since the early antiquity period, Rome followed the political strategy to conquer various regions and assimilate the people in these regions through naturalization and offering citizenship as well as all the privileges of being Roman. The Romanization of Gaul and Britain was also an extension of this political strategy. This paper argues that the conquest and Romanization of both Gaul and Britain were politically motivated and were enabled through the lack of cultural unity in both Gaul and Britain; but while Gaul was easier to Romanize, Britain posed unprecedented challenges to this process. The Roman ambition to consolidate small Celtic and Teutonic kingdoms into an imperial province was the driving force behind the multiple conquests
Rice, Eugene E. and Anthony Grafton. The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460-1559. 2nd. ed. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1994.