HORST LÖSSLEIN Royal Power in the Late Carolingian Age Charles III the Simple and His Predecessors Horst Lößlein · Royal Power in the Late Carolingian Age Published by Modern Academic Publishing (MAP) 2019 Modern Academic Publishing (MAP) is an initiative from the University of Cologne that contributes to the digital humanities, in the field of electronic publishing. MAP is led by Prof Dr Gudrun Gersmann, Chair of Early Modern History. The MAP partners, the University of Cologne and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich (LMU), are funding the open-access publication of selected dissertations and post-doctoral monographs by humanist scholars of both universities. The main target of MAP is combining the support of highly awarded researchers at an early stage of their career with new digital formats of publishing in the humanities. www.humanities-map.net Horst Lößlein Royal Power in the Late Carolingian Age Charles III the Simple and His Predecessors Published by Modern Academic Publishing University of Cologne Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50923 Cologne, Germany Funded by the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich Text © Horst Lößlein 2019 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . This license allows for copying any part of the work for personal and commercial use, providing author attribution is clearly stated. Figures may have different licenses. These will have been identified in the caption to relevant content. First published 2019 Accepted as a dissertation at the Université de Limoges and Ludwig-Maximilians- Universität Munich 2017 Cover image: “Karolus divina propitiante clementia rex Francorum et vir illustris”, detail of a royal diploma of Charles III the Simple for Saint-Maximin of Trier, issued 1st January 912 at Metz, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Latin 9264 N°12, [03.08.2015], Permalink: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b52505561w/f25.image (accessed 31.10.2018), CC0 1.0. Bibliographic information of the German National Library The German National Library lists the title in the German National Bibliography; to view detailed bibliographic information, visit http://dnb.dnb.de. ISBN (Hardcover): 978-3-946198-48-2 ISBN (EPUB): 978-3-946198-49-9 ISBN (Kindle): 978-3-946198-50-5 ISBN (PDF): 978-3-946198-51-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.16994/ban Production & publishing platform provided as part of the Ubiquity Partner Network Ubiquity Press Ltd, Unit 2N, 6 Osborn Street, London, E1 6TD, United Kingdom To read the free, open access version of this book online, visit https://doi.org/10.16994/ban or scan this QR code with your mobile device: Meiner Familie Contents Preface XI Summary XIII Abbreviations XV Introduction 1 Possibilities and limits of late Carolingian rule 6 The functioning of royal power 9 Analytical approach 17 I. Becoming king: The questions of legitimacy and support 21 I. 1 Charles’ claim to the throne 21 I. 1 1 Louis the Stammerer’s two marriages 22 I. 1 2 The question of Louis’ succession 25 I. 1 3 Passing over Charles 28 I. 1 4 A Robertian on the throne 32 I. 1 5 Carolingian blood matters 37 I. 2 Close supporters and distant allies 39 I. 2 1 Archbishop Fulk of Reims 39 I. 2 2 The network elevating Charles 44 I. 2 3 The motives behind the rebellion 50 I. 2 4 The cohesion of the network 53 I. 2 5 Allies sought within the realm 55 I. 2 6 Allies sought outside the realm 62 I. 2 7 A network of different layers 68 I. 3 Conclusion 70 II. Changes in the political landscape: From Louis the Stammerer to Odo 77 II. 1 Old elites: Louis II the Stammer er 79 II. 2 Rival factions: Louis III and Carloman II 89 II. 3 New faces on the rise: Charles the Fat 101 II. 4 Resistance, integration and rebellion: Odo 111 II. 5 Conclusion: Continuities and changes 121 III. Networks of royal power: Charles the Simple 127 III. 1 General overview 127 III. 1 1 Charles’ itinerary 130 III. 1 2 Contacts with distant regions 134 III. 1 3 Using diplomas to demonstrate Carolingian legitimacy? 142 VIII Contents III. 2 Breaking it down: Networks of royal power 149 III. 2 1 Close associates and allies 151 III. 2 1 1 The first years 151 III. 2 1 2 Shifting balances 154 III. 2 1 3 A new balance 157 III. 2 1 4 Lotharingia 162 III. 2 1 5 The early Lotharingian network 169 III. 2 1 6 A king of two regna ? 175 III. 2 1 7 The later years 178 III. 2 1 8 Liberty of choice? 187 III. 2 2 Family and friends 191 III. 2 3 The role of the marchiones 205 III. 3 Conclusion: The development of Charles’ network and its dissolution 222 IV. Relations with other rulers 233 IV. 1 Creating cooperation: Louis the Stammerer 233 IV. 2 Carolingian networks: Louis III and Carloman II 236 IV. 3 Structural weaknesses: Odo 240 IV. 4 Possibilities and limits of royal power: Charles the Simple 243 IV. 5 Conclusion 259 V. The Viking problem 261 V. 1 Viking incursions and royal measures in protection of the realm 263 V. 1 1 Going on the offensive: Louis the Stammerer—Charles the Fat 263 V. 1 2 Strategies of containment: Odo 274 V. 1 3 Return to the old strategies: Charles the Simple 277 V. 2 Diplomatic solutions 281 V. 2 1 Dudo’s De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum 281 V. 2 2 The treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte 284 V. 2 3 Using an old solution in a new way 289 V. 3 Conclusion 292 VI. Conflicts, rebellions and the role of trust 295 VI. 1 Solving conflicts: The role of interest groups 299 VI. 2 Rulers and nobles: Breaches of trust 308 VI. 3 Speaking justice: Symbolic acts 316 VI. 4 Against the king: Questioning the right to rule 330 VI. 5 Conclusion 334 Contents IX Conclusion 347 Bibliography 353 Primary Sources 353 Secondary Sources 360 Index 395 Preface Die vorliegende Untersuchung wurde im Wintersemester 2016/2017 an der Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines der Université de Limoges und der Fakultät für Geschichts- und Kunstwissenschaften der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München als Dissertation unter dem Titel „Possibilities of Royal Power in the Late Carolingian Age: Charles III the Simple“ angenommen. Für die Publikation wurde sie geringfügig überarbeitet und neu erschienene Literatur nach Möglichkeit berücksichtigt. Die Université de Limoges und die Région Limousin haben die Arbeit an dieser Studie mit einem Stipendium unterstützt. Dankbar bin ich zudem den Monumenta Germaniae Historica in München, bei denen ich zuletzt nicht nur im Rahmen eines Editionsprojektes wertvolle Erfahrungen sammeln durfte, sondern vor allem auch Zugang zur großartigen Institutsbibliothek erhalten habe. Zutiefst verpflichtet bin ich meinen Doktoreltern, Professor Dr. Irmgard Fees und Professor Dr. Philippe Depreux. Sie haben mir diese Studie ermöglicht, mir den Weg gewiesen, mich gefördert und mir mit Rat und Tat zur Seite gestanden. Dank gebührt in diesem Zusammenhang darüber hinaus Professor Dr. Régine Le Jan, Professor Dr. Geneviève Bührer- Thierry, Professor Dr. Knut Görich, Professor Dr. Simon MacLean, Professor Dr. Jacques Péricard und Dr. Anne Massoni für mancherlei Hinweise und Unterstützung sowie ihre Mitwirkung an der Disputatio. Hilfe habe ich auf die eine oder andere Art und Weise auch von einer ganzen Reihe weiterer Personen erhalten, von denen ich gerne die folgenden nenne: Professor Dr. Bertrand Lançon, Dr. Tobie Walther, Dr. Johannes Bernwieser, Dr. Hélène Caillaud, Sarah Ewerling, Lucile Jaeck, und Anna Nierhoff. Hervorzuhe- ben ist jedoch vor allem Dr. Fraser McNair, dessen Korrekturen, kenntnisreichen Hinweisen und scharfsinniger Kritik ich außerordentlich viel zu verdanken habe. Auch drei weitere Personen seien besonders hervorgehoben: Natascha Wanninger, für ihre Freundschaft und für ihre sprachlichen Korrekturen, Fabien Cerbelaud von der Université de Limoges für die fantastischen von ihm erstellten Karten sowie Dr. Claudie Paye für ihre Anleitung durch den Publikationsprozess. Herzlicher Dank geht darüber hinaus an Professor Dr. Martina Hartmann, nicht nur für die Möglichkeit in den Hallen der Monumenta Germaniae Historica zu arbeiten, sondern auch für die mir dabei eingeräumten Freiheiten und die Unterstützung. Schließlich danke ich meinen Freunden — unter ihnen insbesondere Dr. Hannes Hain—die mich in den vergangenen Jahren unterstützt, mit mir gelacht und gelitten haben und mit mir ungezählte Kilometer auf verschiedensten Gewässern gerudert sind. Die letzten Worte seien jedoch meiner Familie gewidmet: Ohne sie, ihre Liebe und ihre Zuversicht hätte ich diese Arbeit weder beginnen noch beenden können. Hamburg, Juni 2018 Horst Lößlein Summary Charles III the Simple (893/898−923) only became king when nobles rebelling against the Robertian Odo were in need of a candidate for the West Frankish throne. Posthumously born to Louis II the Stammerer, he was of Carolingian blood and thus able to provide the rebellion with an appearance of legitimacy. The rebels on the other hand offered Charles the opportunity of a lifetime: after 14 years of being ignored by the leading nobles of the West Frankish realm, he was finally able to succeed his father. Yet, while his reign lasted for 25 years, it ended how it had started and Charles was deposed by a rebellion led by Robert of Neustria. The circumstances of Charles’ elevation and deposition are among the reasons for his image as a weak king, unable to control the nobles, and why he counts as a prime example of the “decline and fall” of the Carolingian empire towards the end of the 9th century. Yet, what does “weak king” mean? Modern scholarship has long discarded the view of kingship as a question of royal orders and noble obedience. Instead, it is understood as the result of a process involving both the ruler and those around him. Successful kingship depended on the ruler’s ability to integrate the nobles into this process, to mediate between their and his own interests and to create consensus. This understanding serves as basis for this new approach to fathoming out the possibilities and limits of late Carolingian royal power. First, the focus is set on the relations between the king and the nobles around him, interpreting royal actions as the result of their interactions. Second, the customary hierarchy of the source material is inverted. Royal diplomas, ideally suited to reveal the networks of royal power, are placed at the centre of the analysis and subjected to rigorous contextualisation, treating narrative sources as secondary. Third, the timeframe of this study is extended back to the late 870s, covering the decades during which the political landscape of the West Frankish realm underwent drastic changes that determined the framework for Charles the Simple’s rule. Thus, not only these de- velopments are revealed, but also comparisons can be made. Charles’ first task after he became the sole king of the West Frankish realm was to integrate his old opponents into his rule. This meant that he had to bridge the old rivalry between these individuals and his allies from the struggle with Odo, allies who now occupied key positions in the circle around him. A dominating group of nobles agitating against their political rivals at the royal court was nothing new and can also be observed during the reigns of Louis the Stammerer and his sons Louis III and Carloman II. Under Charles the Fat this situation changed. The emperor was able to promote men of his own choice since his power base was located in the East Frankish realm and, equally im- portant, key members of this dominating group such as Hugh the Abbot and Gauzlin died. Death also opened the door to new political solutions for Charles the Simple. In his case it was the murder of his key supporter, Fulk of Reims, XIV Summary which allowed him to integrate his most important opponent into his rule: Robert of Neustria. Ensuring Robert’s cooperation was certainly a crucial factor to Charles’ rule. Yet, his dependency on the marchio (or others like him, notably William the Pious or Richard the Justiciar) should not be overestimated. Early on, Charles was able to create a network of alliances that served as a counterweight. However, to stabilise the realm in the long run, such opposition needed to be overcome. Charles’ remarkable gift in integrating Robert and other powerful nobles into his rule is demonstrated by the great successes of his rule: the change in strategy towards the Northmen represented by the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte as well as the integration of the leading Lotharingian nobles into the circle around him after the acquisition of the regnum was accomplished without estranging those of the Western realm. This acquisition also reveals how his political room for manoeuvre had increased compared to his predecessors: given to Louis the Younger as a lease after the death of Louis the Stammerer, Charles’ brothers efforts to regain the regnum had been thwarted by their dependency on the alliance with the East Frankish rulers to defend the realm against the Northmen and the rebellious Boso. Charles, unhindered by such alliances, was able to pursue his interests much more aggressively against his neighbours. However, the lack of such alliances meant that he missed out on their stabilising effects in regard to the relations between him and his nobles, a circumstance he tried to correct when his relations with the said nobles deteriorated. The key to understanding this deterioration lies in the importance of trust in the relations between the ruler and the nobles around him. The rebellion against Odo was the result of a crisis of trust that developed when Odo repeatedly acted against the interests and expectations of the West Frankish nobles. Similarly, Charles also appears to have developed a strong tendency to emphasise his majesty and royal prerogative towards the end of his rule, his famous favouring of the ill- liked Hagano being but one example. Yet, where Odo also achieved suppression of the rebellion by taking actions that restored trust in him, Charles continued on his path up to the point where even his closest allies turned away from him. Thus, Charles’ neglect of ensuring the cooperation of the nobles and the creation of consensus deprived him of the foundations of his rule and marked the limits of his royal power. Abbreviations BNF Bibliothèque nationale de France D, DD Royal diplomas, MGH Diplomata or Chartes et diplômes A Arnulf ChB Charles II the Bald ChF Charles III the Fat ChS Charles III the Simple CmII Carloman II HI Henry I KoI Conrad I LCh Louis IV the Child LIII Louis III LoI Lothar I LoII Lothar II LP Louis the Pious LS Louis II the Stammerer Merov Merovingian kings Odo Odo OI Otto I Prov Kings of Provence Ra Raoul RoI Robert I Z Zwentibold DDN Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie. Ed. Fauroux, Marie. JL Jaffé/Loewenfeld: Regesta pontificum Romanorum (bis 1198), ed. Jaffé, Philipp, 2nd edition reworked by Wilhelm Wattenbach, Samuel Loewenfeld, Ferdinand Kaltenbrunner and Paul Ewald, Leipzig 1885−1889. MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica Capit. Capitularia regum Francorum Conc. Concilia Const. Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum Epist. Epistolae Font. Iur. Germ. Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui in usum scholarum separatim editi Poetae Lat. Poetae Latini medii aevi SS Scriptores SS rer. Germ. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi SS rer. Germ. N.S. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova series PL Patrologia Latina Introduction Karolus stultus (“the Stupid” or “the Foolish”) and Karolus follus (“the Crazy”), but also Karolus pius (“the Pious”) and Karolus sanctus (“the Saint”) 1 −these are only some of the cognomina that 11th to 13th century authors attributed to Charles III, who in modern times is called “der Einfältige” in German, “le Simple” in French and “the Simple” in English. The meaning of the most common byname, simplex , has long been analysed by Bernd Schneidmüller, 2 who notes that it carried a positive meaning up until the 11th century, depicting a virtue rather than carrying the negative conno- tations that became dominant later and which are still reflected in its modern trans- lations. Recently, however, Geoffrey Koziol has criticised Schneidmüller’s results as revisionist. 3 He argues that simplex is a word typically associated with monks, equated with “innocence” and thus conveys the image of a disadvantaged ruler. According to him, it was Charles’ naivety which was perceived as having caused him to fall into Count Heribert II’s hands−the event that branded him as simplex in the eyes of the medieval chroniclers. 4 However, Koziol’s own judgement differs fundamentally: “Charles went down in West Frankish histories as ‘simple’ because once defeated at Soissons, he trusted the word of the count of Vermandois and foolishly walked into a trap. But Charles was anything but simple. He was one of the most intelligent and complex of the Carolingians.” 5 Charles the Simple as a kind of failed genius? This as- sessment is far removed from the judgement of Auguste Eckel, author of the first and so far the only study of the Carolingian’s reign, who depicted him as “naturellement bon, un peu faible de caractère et crédule, mais ne manquant, au besoin, ni d’énergie ni de volonté” 6 and even more removed from that of Ernst Dümmler, who described him as incompetent, unwarlike and far less intelligent than his grandfather Charles the Bald, yet ambitious all the same. 7 Of course, those latter characterisations are mainly based on Charles the Simple’s final failure, his deposition at the hands of the nobles and his inglorious capture by Count Heribert II of Vermandois in 923. Also, perhaps, episodes described by the late 10th century authors Richer of Saint-Remi 8 and Dudo of Saint-Quentin 9 may have been influential. 1 Eckel, Charles, 140−144 (appendix I) with the sources. Other cognomen used are insipiens , hebes and parvus , but also minor , sanctus and pius 2 Schneidmüller, Einfältigkeit. 3 Koziol, Politics. 4 Koziol, Politics, 461−465. 5 Koziol, Politics, 529. 6 Eckel, Charles, 139. 7 Dümmler, Geschichte III, 436. 8 For example on Charles’ relation to Hagano, Richer, I, c. 15, 51−52: Nam cum multa benignitate principes coleret, precipua tamen beatitudine Haganonem habebat, quem ex mediocribus potentem effecerat, adeo ut magnatibus quibusque longe absistentibus ipse regio lateri solus h ȩ reret, pilleum etiam a capite regis sepissime sumptum, palam sibi imponeret. 9 I refer to the famous foot kiss by a Northman, who instead of kneeling down before the king, lifted the latter’s foot to his own mouth, making the king fall on his back. Dudo, De moribus II, c. 29, 169: 2 Introduction Evaluating Charles’ reign is a difficult task indeed. Louis II the Stammerer’s third son, posthumously born by his second wife Adelaide, Charles disappears from the sources for ten years after his birth, although undoubtedly there would have been plenty to report about him. Passed over for the throne after the deaths of his half-brothers Louis III and Carloman II, as well as that of his relative Charles III the Fat, it is only due to the ascent of the Robertian Odo to the throne in 888 that the sources permit a second glimpse at Charles in the context of the new king’s first visit to Aquitaine. Then again the sources remain silent about him for another five years until he suddenly reappears in Reims being crowned king himself by a group of nobles around the archbishop of Reims, Fulk, who were in rebellion against Odo. Over the following four years, a war ensued in which the Robertian’s military superiority became increasingly evident. Nevertheless, in the end, the two parties reached an “astonishing” 10 agreement: Charles not only remained king over a part of the realm, but would also succeed Odo on the throne−an event that took place only some months later, when the latter died in late 897. The narrative sources do not tell us much about Charles’ reign. The Annales Vedastini alongside Regino of Prüm’s chronicle, our main contemporary sources for the late 9th century, break off in the year 900 while the annals of Flodoard, the sole record of the early 10th century, only resume the narration in 919. While the former are mostly neutral towards Charles, some remarks should be made on the latter. In his annals, Flodoard betrays a hidden bias against Charles. An example of this is his portrayal of Charles as a king who repeatedly violates God’s laws by attacking his enemies on the most important Christian holidays and ruthlessly devastating the realm that had been entrusted to him. 11 One can hardly doubt that Charles did pillage his opponents’ possessions and did not halt his war to celebrate Pentecost; yet Flodoard’s silence on what his enemies were doing speaks volumes. It is hard to imagine that their actions differed in any way from those of the king they tried to depose. 12 While his annals are not propaganda, they are victims of the circumstances of their creation, namely the dominance of Charles’ enemies. 13 Francorum igitur precibus compulsus, jussit cuidam militi pedem regis osculari. Qui statim pedem regis arripiens, deportavit ad os suum, standoque defixit osculum, regemque fecit resupinum. Itaque magnus excitatur risus magnusque in plebe tumultus. 10 Schneidmüller, Karl III., 27. 11 Flodoard, Annales 922, 7: Anno DCCCCXXII, Karolus regnum Lothariense, ob persecutionem Gisle berti et Othonis, rapinis, sacrilegiis atque incendiis, etiam in tempore Quadragesimae, sicut et tota hieme vastat. Flodoard, Annales 923, 13: Et in crastinum, die dominica, hora jam sexta praeterita, Francis dehinc illa die proelium non sperantibus, plurimis quoque prandentibus, Karolus Axonam transiit, et super Rotbertum cum armatis Lothariensibus venit. 12 Other examples for Flodoard’s unrealiability would be his clearly wrong mention of a united front of the West Frankish nobles against Charles (see Lecouteux, Contexte II, 289−292) and his refusal to depict Charles as king after the coronation of Robert apart from his death notice in 929 ( Flodoard, Annales 929, 44: Karolus quoque rex apud Perronam obiit. ) On the careful choice of titles by Flodoard, see Jacobson, Titel. 13 Lecouteux, Contexte II, 287−298. On his bias against Charles, see also Jacobsen, Flodoard, 15–16 and Glenn, Politics, 207. Introduction 3 Thus, Flodoard’s account does not lose its credibility, but we should be aware that as often as he reported some events, he also turned a blind eye to others. 14 As mentioned, for most of his reign there exist hardly any sources at all. There- fore, we know about two of the main events of Charles’ rule almost exclusively from the meagre accounts composed east of the Rhine, later narratives, like those of the aforementioned Richer of Saint-Remi and Dudo of Saint-Quentin and Charles’ royal diplomas. In an event traditionally dated to 911, after the bat- tle of Chartres, Charles granted the Northmen under Rollo a territory that was to become the heart of the future duchy of Normandy by the treaty of Saint-Clair- sur-Epte. Later during the same year, Charles became king of Lotharingia when the nobles of this regnum chose the Carolingian over the new king of Eastern Francia, Conrad I. Flodoard alone provides more detailed information about the last years of Charles’ reign, which were overshadowed by different conflicts. In Lotharingia, the king fought Count Gislebert while in the West the nobles around Odo’s brother Robert rebelled against him. This latter conflict proved to be fatal for Charles’ reign: the nobles made Robert their new king and even after his death shortly afterwards in the battle of Soissons, they chose his son-in-law, Raoul, over Charles. Seeking new allies, Charles put himself in the hands of Count Heribert II of Vermandois, was imprisoned and was then used by the count to exert pressure on Raoul until his death in 929. It may be because of the general lack of sources for Charles’ reign that scholars have devoted little attention to him and his reign. Since Auguste Eckel produced a biographical analysis in 1899, 15 only Geoffrey Koziol has published a number of articles 16 and dedicated parts of his monography on the politics of memory and identity to him. 17 That is not to say that Charles’ time, its problems and its general developments have been completely ignored by scholarship. A number of studies on specific aspects of this period have been brought forward, covering key politi- cal figures like Archbishop Heriveus of Reims, 18 Count Heribert II of Vermandois 19 and Count Hagano 20 or key events such as the conflict around the episcopal siege of Liège in 920/921 21 or the conversion of the Northmen under Rollo.22 Most com- monly, however, Charles has been treated as one amongst many rulers in general surveys 23 or handbooks. 24 14 For the biases of Flodoard’s other great work, the History of the Church of Reims, see chapter III.3. 15 Eckel, Charles. 16 Koziol, Robert; Koziol, Charles the Simple; Koziol, Charles. 17 Koziol, Politics. 18 Schmitz, Heriveus. 19 Schwager, Graf. 20 Depreux, Comte. 21 Zimmermann, Streit. 22 Guillot, Conversion. 23 For example Hlawitschka, Lotharingien; Schneidmüller, Tradition and Guillot, Formes. 24 For example Schneidmüller, Karl and Bruand, Francie.