1. Kyle Hamilton-Lecky
Compare and contrast the evidence you have read for Clovis as a king and contemporary ideas
of kingship.
The Franks were not a nation in the modern sense, but a collection of disparate peoples
joined together, willingly and unwilling, and focused on their own narrow self-interests. Most of
Clovis’ reign consisted of attempts to balance the interests of his pagan and Arian Germanic
soldiers and the Catholic Gallo-Roman aristocracy. He worked to maintain the delicate balance
of his new and growing Frankish Kingdom throughout his reign. Although at the turn of the sixth
century a variety of ideas about kingship existed, the only truly important goal for a king to
maintain authority was to ensure the continued and growing prosperity of his soldiers and
aristocracy.
Nearly constant successful military campaigning was the only guaranteed way to enrich a
king’s constituents and thereby create stability. The gold and slaves taken from conquests
enabled Clovis and other Germanic kings to spread vast amounts of wealth throughout their
lands, securing the loyalty of their subjects. The roles of king and warleader may have been
separate identities in the first century AD for most Germanic tribes, but by the time of Clovis
they were inextricably linked. Peter Saris explains that “individual barbarian leaders and their
retinues increasingly became the focus of new military confederations and affinities … as they
acquired ever more wealth and prestige, and as their successes attracted an ever larger number of
would-be followers from diverse and disparate political and ethnic backgrounds” (Saris 87).
Barbarian leaders power could easily build upon itself. Success lead to more and more success as
ever larger numbers flocked to them. The fundamental reason for their leadership did not rest on
any familial right to rule, but rather a meritocratic ability to gain wealth for one’s followers.

2. Although the possession of a royal lineage still retained some importance during the turn
of the 6th century, “genealogies could always be re-invented, developed or altered if there was a
pressing political or military case for doing so” (Saris 88). If a king won enough battles no one
would challenge his fictitious lineages. Thus even Gregory of Tours, in his near-hagiography of
the Merovingian dynasty, “had to admit that people only claimed that Merovech was the son of
Chlodio, the previous king” (Halsall 305). To challenge the Merovingian dynasty’s clear lie
would have meant almost certain death or banishment because they controlled the armies. So
although claiming descent from past kings was important, actually possessing it was
meaningless.
Clovis’ conversion to Catholicism at first appears to be an example of an institution
providing legitimacy to his conquests and reign, but one would be mistaken to see this as Clovis’
main motivation. For Clovis it provided much more immediate and temporal benefits. By joining
the Catholic Church, an alliance between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Frankish Kingdom
became a near certainty. This alliance would be crucial to the success of Clovis’ invasion.
Theoderic, the King of the Ostrogoths, sent a series of letters regarding Clovis’ invasion plans
and at one point directly told Clovis “by the right of a father and a friend I threaten you. He who
thinks such warnings are to be despised - and I do not imagine this - will have myself and my
friends as enemies” (Second Letter from Theodoric to Clovis). This was not an idle threat, as
Theoderic was a mighty king. After Clovis’ invasion of Aquitaine though, the Emperor
Anastasius “dispatched the imperial fleet to harry the Italian coastline, thereby preventing
Theoderic from intervening on behalf of the Visigoths” (Sarris 122). Although the conversion
did help Gallo-Roman-Frankish relations post-conquest, far and away the most significant result
of the conversion was the geopolitical repercussions. After the conquest, Clovis captured the

3. enormous Visigothic treasury and gained vast tracts of land in central and southern Gaul. The
victory was so enormous and so total it cemented the rule of his dynasty for centuries. His
conversion was certainly important for a variety of reasons, but the military and political results
of the conversion loom larger than the ancillary cultural benefits. In sixth century Europe,
conquest overshadowed all other legitimizing factors.
The relationship between Clovis and the Catholic Church was a virtuous circle. As Clovis
conquered territory after territory, the Catholic Church gained money from donations and moral
authority from the worldly success of its preeminent follower. Clovis meanwhile gained
legitimacy because in a world with no division between the religious and secular, it appeared he
had God’s favor. Although he wrote decades after the end of Clovis’ reign, Gregory of Tours
demonstrated this commonly-held view when he explained that “king Clovis won the victory [at
Vouille] by God’s aid” (Gregory of Tours 37). This explanation for his victories helped both
sides. It demonstrated the worldly power of God, discrediting the rival Arian church, and
legitimated Clovis’ rule by suggesting he possessed God’s favor. This cycle played an important
role in Clovis’ kingship, but it ultimately rested on his ability to defeat his enemies in battle.
Clovis utilized many artifices to legitimate his rule, but in the end everything relied on his
military victories.
While Clovis’ right to rule ultimately rested upon his conquests of Aquilea, Burgundy,
and Central Gaul, many of the administrative actions late in his reign, such as the codification of
Salic Law and the Council of Orleans, should be viewed as attempts to move away from this
model of might-based government. Both of these systems of codified law, which dealt with
things as mundane as thefts of cattle and clergy-owned jewels, represented concerted efforts to
legitimize the two main elements of his kingship, Catholicism and a Frankish identity. Both

4. codifications not only solidified laws, but also intimately tied themselves to the king’s authority.
In the Salic Law and The Council of Orleans the king literally comes first. The very first section
of the Salic Law regards kingly authority; it states “if any one be summoned before the ‘Thing’
by the king’s law, and do not come, he shall be sentenced to 600 denars” (Salic Law Title I).
Similarly the Council of Orleans opens with, “To their Lord, the son of the Catholic Church, the
Most Glorious King Clovis, all the bishops whom you have ordered to be present at the Council”
(Council of Orleans). The preeminent position of the King in both of these sources is not an
accident. Towards the end of his reign, Clovis tried to move the meaning of kingship away from
its basis in military victories and towards other forms of more traditional, and stable, bases.
The Franks were a diverse and rowdy group. Continuous conquest provided the only
avenue to hold together such disparate tribes. Without the constant influx of new lands, slaves
and gold, the Franks would have collapsed into infighting like the Burgundians, Goths and
Vandals. Clovis was the greatest king of his day because he conquered so much territory by the
end of his reign that his constant need for plunder, while not eliminated, had been seriously
diminished. With vast holdings throughout Gaul and Germany, Clovis succeeded beyond the
wildest expectations of his subjects.