Chapter IV: , VII (77)

"It is well known that the name of 'Frank' is not to be found
in the long list of German tribes preserved to us in the
'Germania' of Tacitus. Little or nothing is heard of them
before the reign of Gordian III. In A. D. 240 Aurelian, then a
tribune of the sixth legion stationed on the Rhine, encountered a
body of marauding Franks near Mayence and drove them back into
their marshes. The word 'Francia' is also found at a still
earlier date, in the old Roman chart called the 'Charta
Peutingeria,' and occupies on the map the right bank of the
Rhine from opposite Coblentz to the sea. The origin of the
Franks has been the subject of frequent debate, to which
French patriotism has occasionally lent some asperity. … At
the present day, however, historians of every nation,
including the French, are unanimous in considering the Franks
as a powerful confederacy of German tribes, who in the time of
Tacitus inhabited the north-western parts of Germany bordering
on the Rhine. And this theory is so well supported by many
scattered notices, slight in themselves, but powerful when
combined, that we can only wonder that it should ever have
been called in question. Nor was this aggregation of tribes
under the new name of Franks a singular instance; the same
took place in the case of the Alemanni and Saxons. … The
etymology of the name adopted by the new confederacy is also
uncertain. The conjecture which has most probability in its
favour is that adopted long ago by Gibbon, and confirmed in
recent times by the authority of Grimm, which connects it with
the German word Frank (free). … Tacitus speaks of nearly all
the tribes, whose various appellations were afterwards merged
in that of Frank, as living in the neighbourhood of the Rhine.
Of these the principal were the Sicambri (the chief people of
the old Iscævonian tribe), who, as there is reason to believe,
were identical with the Salian Franks. The confederation
further comprised the Bructeri, the Chamavi, Ansibarii,
Tubantes, Marsi, and Chasuarii, of whom the five last had
formerly belonged to the celebrated Cheruscan league, which,
under the hero Arminius, destroyed three Roman legions in the
Teutoburgian Forest. The strongest evidence of the identity of
these tribes with the Franks, is the fact that, long after
their settlement in Gaul, the distinctive names of the
original people were still occasionally used as synonymous
with that of the confederation. … The Franks advanced upon
Gaul from two different directions, and under the different
names of Salians, and Ripuarians, the former of whom we have
reason to connect more particularly with the Sicambrian tribe.
The origin of the words Salian and Ripuarian, which are first
used respectively by Ammianus Marcellinus and Jornandes, is
very obscure, and has served to exercise the ingenuity of
ethnographers. There are, however, no sufficient grounds for a
decided opinion. At the same time it is by no means improbable
that the river Yssel, Isala or Sal (for it has borne all these
appellations), may have given its name to that portion of the
Franks who lived along its course. With still greater
probability may the name Ripuarii, or Riparii, be derived from
'Ripa,' a term used by the Romans to signify the Rhine. These
dwellers on 'the Bank' were those that remained in their
ancient settlements while their Salian kinsmen were advancing
into the heart of Gaul."

_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapters 9 and 11._

_T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 2, chapter 3._

FRANKS: A. D. 253.
First appearance in the Roman world.

"When in the year 253 the different generals of Rome were once
more fighting each other for the imperial dignity, and the
Rhine-legions marched to Italy to fight out the cause of their
emperor Valerianus against … Aemilianus of the Danube-army,
this seems to have been the signal for the Germans pushing
forward, especially towards the lower Rhine. These Germans
were the Franks, who appear here for the first time, perhaps
new opponents only in name; for, although the identification
of them, already to be met with in later antiquity, with
tribes formerly named on the lower Rhine—partly, the Chamavi
settled beside the Bructeri, partly the Sugambri formerly
mentioned subject to the Romans—is uncertain and at least
inadequate, there is here greater probability than in the case
of the Alamanni that the Germans hitherto dependent on Rome, on
the right bank of the Rhine, and the Germanic tribes
previously dislodged from the Rhine, took at that time—under
the collective name of the 'Free'—the offensive in concert
against the Romans."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 4._

FRANKS: A. D. 277.
Repulse from Gaul, by Probus.

See GAUL: A. D. 277.

FRANKS: A. D. 279.
Escape from Pontus.

See SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.

FRANKS: A. D. 295-297.
In Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

FRANKS: A. D. 306.
Defeat by Constantine.

Constantine the Great, A. D. 306, fought and defeated the
Salian Franks in a great battle and "carried off a large
number of captives to Treves, the chief residence of the
emperor, and a rival of Rome itself in the splendour of its
public buildings. It was in the circus of this city, and in
the presence of Constantine, that the notorious 'Ludi
Francici' were celebrated; at which several thousand Franks,
including their kings Regaisus and Ascaricus, were compelled
to fight with wild beasts, to the inexpressible delight of the
Christian spectators."

_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2._

FRANKS: A. D. 355.
Settlement in Toxandria.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361;
also, TOXANDRIA.

FRANKS: 5th-10th Centuries.
Barbarities of the conquest of Gaul.
State of society under the rule of the conquerors.
Evolution of Feudalism.

See GAUL: 5TH-8TH, and 5TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FRANKS: A. D. 406-409.
Defense of Roman Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.
The Franks join in the attack on Gaul.

After vainly opposing the entrance of Vandals, Burgundians and
Sueves into Gaul, A. D. 406, "the Franks, the valiant and
faithful allies of the Roman republic, were soon [about A. D.
410-420] tempted to imitate the invaders whom they had so
bravely resisted. Treves, the capital of Gaul, was pillaged by
their lawless bands; and the humble colony which they so long
maintained in the district of Toxandria, in Brabant,
insensibly multiplied along the banks of the Meuse and
Scheldt, till their independent power filled the whole extent
of the Second, or Lower, Germany. … The ruin of the opulent
provinces of Gaul may be dated from the establishment of these
barbarians, whose alliance was dangerous and oppressive, and
who were capriciously impelled, by interest or passion, to
violate the public peace."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31._

{1399}

"They [the Franks] resisted the great invasion of the Vandals
in the time of Stilicho, but did not scruple to take part in
the subsequent ravages. Among the confusions of that
disastrous period, indeed, it is not improbable that they
seized the cities of Spires, Strasburg, Amiens, Arras,
Therouane and Tournai, and by their assaults on Trèves
compelled the removal of the præfectural government to Arles.
Chroniclers who flourished two centuries later refer to the
year 418 large and permanent conquests in Gaul by a visionary
king called Pharamund, from whom the French monarchy is
usually dated. But history seeks in vain for any authentic
marks of his performances."

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 11, section 5._

FRANKS: A. D. 448-456.
Origin of the Merovingian dynasty.

The royal dynasty of the kingdom of the Franks as founded by
Clovis is called the Merovingian. "It is thought that the
kings of the different Frankish people were all of the same
family, of which the primitive ancestor was Meroveus
(Meer-wig, warrior of the sea). After him those princes were
called Merovingians (Meer-wings); they were distinguished by
their long hair, which they never cut. A Meroveus, grandfather
of Clovis, reigned, it is said, over the Franks between 448
and 456; but only his name remains, in some antient
historians, and we know absolutely nothing more either of his
family, his power, or of the tribe which obeyed him: so that
we see no reason why his descendants had taken his name. …
The Franks appear in history for the first time in the year
241. Some great captain only could, at this period, unite
twenty different people in a new confederation; this chief
was, apparently, the Meroveus, whose name appeared for such a
long time as a title of glory for his descendants, although
tradition has not preserved any trace of his victories."

_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 3._

FRANKS: A. D. 451.
At the battle of Châlons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
The kingdom of Clovis.

"The Salian Franks had … associated a Roman or a Romanized
Gaul, Aegidius, with their native chief in the leadership of
the tribe. But, in the year 481, the native leadership passed
into the hands of a chief who would not endure a Roman
colleague, or the narrow limits within which, in the general
turmoil of the world, his tribe was cramped. He is known to
history by the name of Clovis, or Chlodvig, which through many
transformations, became the later Ludwig and Louis. Clovis
soon made himself feared as the most ambitious, the most
unscrupulous, and the most energetic of the new Teutonic
founders of states. Ten years after the fall of the Western
empire [which was in 476], seven years before the rise of the
Gothic kingdom of Theoderic, Clovis challenged the Roman
patrician, Syagrius of Soissons, who had succeeded to
Aegidius, defeated him in a pitched field, at Nogent, near
Soissons (486), and finally crushed Latin rivalry in northern
Gaul. Ten years later (496), in another famous battle, Tolbiac
(Zülpich), near Cologne, he also crushed Teutonic rivalry, and
established his supremacy over the kindred Alamanni of the
Upper Rhine. Then he turned himself with bitter hostility
against the Gothic power in Gaul. The Franks hated the Goths,
as the ruder and fiercer of the same stock hate those who are
a degree above them in the arts of peace, and are supposed to
be below them in courage and the pursuits of war. There was
another cause of antipathy. The Goths were zealous Arians; and
Clovis, under the influence of his wife Clotildis, the niece
of the Burgundian Gundobad, and in consequence, it is said, of
a vow made in battle at Tolbiac, had received Catholic baptism
from St. Remigius of Rheims.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

The Frank king threw his sword into the scale against the
Arian cause, and became the champion and hope of the Catholic
population all over Gaul. Clovis was victorious. He crippled
the Burgundian kingdom (500), which was finally destroyed by
his sons (534). In a battle near Poitiers, he broke the power
of the West Goths in Gaul; he drove them out of Aquitaine,
leaving them but a narrow slip of coast, to seek their last
settlement and resting-place in Spain; and, when he died, he
was recognized by all the world, by Theoderic, by the Eastern
emperor, who honoured him with the title of the consulship, as
the master of Gaul. Nor was his a temporary conquest. The
kingdom of the West Goths and the Burgundians had become the
kingdom of the Franks. The invaders had at length arrived who
were to remain. It was decided that the Franks, and not the
Goths, were to direct the future destinies of Gaul and
Germany, and that the Catholic faith, and not Arianism, was to
be the religion of these great realms."

_R. W. Church,
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 2._

_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
translated by Bellingham,
chapters 4-5._

See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

FRANKS: A. D. 481-768.
Supremacy in Germany, before Charlemagne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

FRANKS: A. D. 496.
Conversion to Christianity.

See above: A. D. 481-511;
also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

FRANKS: A. D. 496-504.
Overthrow of the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.

FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
The house of Clovis.
Ascendancy of the Austrasian Mayors of the Palace.

On the death of Clovis, his dominion, or, speaking more
strictly, the kingly office in his dominion, was divided among
his four sons, who were lads, then, ranging in age from twelve
to eighteen. The eldest reigned in Metz, the second at
Orleans, the third in Paris, and the youngest at Soissons.
These princes extended the conquests of their father, subduing
the Thuringians (A. D. 515-528), overthrowing the kingdom of
the Burgundians (A. D. 523-534), diminishing the possessions
of the Visigoths in Gaul (A. D. 531-532), acquiring Provence
from the Ostrogoths of Italy and securing from the Emperor
Justinian a clear Roman-imperial title to the whole of Gaul.
The last survivor of the four brother-kings, Clotaire I.,
reunited the whole Frank empire under his own sceptre, and on
his death, A. D. 561, it was again divided among his four
sons. Six years later, on the death of the elder, it was
redivided among the three survivors. Neustria fell to
Chilperic, whose capital was at Soissons, Austrasia to
Sigebert, who reigned at Metz, and Burgundia to Guntram, who
had his seat of government at Orleans. Each of the kings took
additionally a third of Aquitaine, and Provence was shared
between Sigebert and Guntram. "It was agreed on this occasion
that Paris, which was rising into great importance, should be
held in common by all, but visited by none of the three kings
without the consent of the others." The reign of these three
brothers and their sons, from 561 to 613, was one long
revolting tragedy of civil war, murder, lust, and treachery,
made horribly interesting by the rival careers of the evil
Fredegunda and the great unfortunate Brunhilda, queens of
Neustria and Austrasia, respectively.
{1400}
In 613 a second Clotaire surviving his royal kin, united the
Frank monarchy once more under a single crown. But power was
fast slipping from the hands of the feeble creature who wore
the crown, and passing to that one of his ministers who
succeeded in making himself the representative of
royalty—namely, the Mayor of the Palace. There was a little
stir of energy in his son, Dagobert, but from generation to
generation, after him, the Merovingian kings sank lower into
that character which gave them the name of the fainéant kings
("rois fainéans")—the slothful or lazy kings—while the
mayors of the palace ruled vigorously in their name and
tumbled them, at last, from the throne. "While the Merovingian
race in its decline is notorious in history as having produced
an unexampled number of imbecile monarchs, the family which
was destined to supplant them was no less wonderfully prolific
in warriors and statesmen of the highest class. It is not
often that great endowments are transmitted even from father
to sou, but the line from which Charlemagne sprang presents to
our admiring gaze an almost uninterrupted succession of five
remarkable men, within little more than a single century. Of
these the first three held the mayoralty of Austrasia [Pepin
of Landen, Pepin of Heristal, and Carl, or Charles Martel, the
Hammer]; and it was they who prevented the permanent
establishment of absolute power on the Roman model, and
secured to the German population of Austrasia an abiding
victory over that amalgam of degraded Romans and corrupted
Gauls which threatened to leaven the European world. To them,
under Providence, we owe it that the centre of Europe is at
this day German, and not Gallo-Latin." Pepin of Heristal,
Mayor in Austrasia, broke the power of a rival Neustrian
family in a decisive battle fought near the village of Testri,
A. D. 687, and gathered the reins of the three kingdoms
(Burgundy included) into his own hands. His still more
vigorous son, Charles Martel, won the same ascendancy for
himself afresh, after a struggle which was signalized by three
sanguinary battles, at Amblève (A. D. 716), at Vinci, near
Cambrai (717) and at Soissons (718). When firm in power at
home, he turned his arms against the Frisians and the
Bavarians, whom he subdued, and against the obstinate Saxons,
whose country he harried six times without bringing them to
submission. His great exploit in war, however, was the repulse
of the invading Arabs and Moors, on the memorable battle-field
of Tours (A. D.732), where the wave of Mahommedan invasion was
rolled back in western Europe, never to advance beyond the
Pyrenees again. Karl died in 741, leaving three sons, among
whom his power was, in the Frank fashion, divided. But one of
them resigned, in a few years, his sovereignty, to become a
monk; another was deposed, and the third, Pepin, surnamed "The
Little," or "The Short," became supreme. He contented himself, as
his father, his grandfather, and his great grandfather had
done, with the title of Mayor of the Palace, until 752, when,
with the approval of the Pope and by the act of a great
assembly of leudes and bishops at Soissons, he was lifted on
the shield and crowned and anointed king of the Franks, while
the last of the Merovingians was shorn of his long royal locks
and placed in a monastery. The friendliness of the Pope in this
matter was the result and the cementation of an alliance which
bore important fruits. As the champion of the church, Pepin
made war on the Lombards and conquered for the Papacy the
first of its temporal dominions in Italy. In his own realm, he
completed the expulsion of the Moors from Septimania, crushed
an obstinate revolt in Aquitaine, and gave a firm footing to
the two thrones which, when he died in 768, he left to his
sons, Carl and Carloman, and which became in a few years the
single throne of one vast empire, under Carl—Carl the Great—
Charlemagne.

_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapters 3-6._

ALSO IN:
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 12-15._

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapters 6-13.

See, also,
AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, and MAYOR OF THE PALACE.

FRANKS: A. D. 528.
Conquest of Thuringia.

See THURINGIANS, THE.

FRANKS: A. D. 539-553.
Invasion of Italy.
Formal relinquishment of Gaul to them.

During the Gothic war in Italy,—when Belisarius was
reconquering the cradle of the Roman Empire for the Eastern
Empire which still called itself Roman, although its seat was
at Constantinople,—both sides solicited the help of the
Franks. Theudebert, who reigned at Metz, promised his aid to
both, and kept his word. "He advanced [A. D. 539, with 100,000
men] toward Pavia, where the Greeks and Goths were met, about
to encounter, and, with an unexpected impartiality, attacked
the astonished Goths, whom he drove to Ravenna, and then,
while the Greeks were yet rejoicing over his performance, fell
upon them with merciless fury, and dispersed them through
Tuscany." Theudebert now became fired with an ambition to
conquer all Italy; but his savage army destroyed everything in
its path so recklessly, and pursued so unbridled a course,
that famine and pestilence soon compelled a retreat and only
one-third of its original number recrossed the Alps.
Notwithstanding, this treachery, the emperor Justinian renewed
his offers of alliance with the Franks (A.D. 540), and
"pledged to them, as the price of their fidelity to his cause,
besides the usual subsidies, the relinquishment of every
lingering claim, real or pretended, which the empire might
assert to the sovereignty of the Gauls. The Franks accepted
the terms, and 'from that time,' say the Byzantine
authorities, 'the German chiefs presided at the games of the
circus, and struck money no longer, as usual, with the effigy
of the emperors, but with their own image and superscription.
Theudebert, who was the principal agent of these transactions,
if he ratified the provisions of the treaty, did not fulfill
them in person, but satisfied himself with sending a few
tributaries to the aid of his ally. But his first example
proved to be more powerful than his later, and large swarms of
Germans took advantage of the troubles in Italy to overrun the
country and plunder and slay at will. For twelve years, under
various leaders, but chiefly under two brothers of the
Alemans, Lutherr and Bukhelin, they continued to harass the
unhappy object of all barbaric resentments, till the sword of
Narses finally exterminated them [A. D. 553]."

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 41._

{1401}

FRANKS: A. D. 547.
Subjugation of Bavarians and Alemanni.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.
Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans.

As a crowned dynasty, the Carlovingians or Carolingians or
Carlings begin their history with Pepin the Short. As an
established sovereign house, they find their founder in 'King
Pepin's father, the great palace mayor, Carl, or Charles
Martel, if not in his grandfather, Pepin Heristal. But the
imperial splendor of the house came to it from the second of
its kings, whom the French call 'Charlemagne,' but whom
English readers ought to know as Charles the Great. The French
form of the name has been always tending to represent
'Charlemagne' as a king of France, and modern historians
object to it for that reason. "France, as it was to be and as
we know it, had not come into existence in his [Charlemagne's]
days. What was to be the France of history was then but one
province of the Frank kingdom, and one with which Charles was
personally least connected. … Charles, king of the Franks,
was, above all things, a German. … It is entirely to mistake
his place and his work to consider him in the light of a
specially 'French' king, a predecessor of the kings who
reigned at Paris and brought glory upon France. … Charles
did nothing to make modern France. The Frank power on which he
rose to the empire was in those days still mainly German; and
his characteristic work was to lay the foundations of modern
and civilized Germany, and, indirectly, of the new
commonwealth of nations, which was to arise in the West of
Europe."

_R. W. Church,
The Beginnings of the Middle Ages,
chapter 7._

"At the death of King Pippin the kingdom of the Franks was
divided into two parts, or rather … the government over the
kingdom was divided, for some large parts of the territory
seem to have been in the hands of the two brothers together.
The fact is, that we know next to nothing about this division,
and hardly more about the joint reign of the brothers. The
only thing really clear is, that they did not get along very
well together, that Karl was distinctly the more active and
capable of the two, and that after four years the younger
brother, Karlmann, died, leaving two sons. Here was a chance
for the old miseries of division to begin again; but
fortunately the Franks seem by this time to have had enough of
that, and to have seen that their greatest hope for the future
lay in a united government. The widow and children of Karlmann
went to the court of the Lombard king Desiderius and were
cared for by him. The whole Frankish people acknowledged
Charlemagne as their king. Of course he was not yet called
Charlemagne, but simply Karl, and he was yet to show himself
worthy of the addition 'Magnus.' … The settlement of Saxony
went on, with occasional military episodes, by the slower, but
more certain, processes of education and religious conversion.
It appears to us to be anything but wise to force a religion
upon a people at the point of the sword; but the singular fact
is, that in two generations there was no more truly devout
Christian people, according to the standards of the time, than
just these same Saxons. A little more than a hundred years
from the time when Charlemagne had thrashed the nation into
unwilling acceptance of Frankish control, the crown of the
Empire he founded was set upon the head of a Saxon prince. The
progress in friendly relations between the two peoples is seen in
the second of the great ordinances by which Saxon affairs were
regulated. This edict, called the 'Capitulum Saxonicum,' was
published after a great diet at Aachen, in 797, at which, we
are told, there came together not only Franks, but also Saxon
leaders from all parts of their country, who gave their
approval to the new legislation. The general drift of these
new laws is in the direction of moderation. … The object of
this legislation was, now that the armed resistance seemed to
be broken, to give the Saxons a government which should be as
nearly as possible like that of the Franks. The absolute
respect and subjection to the Christian Church is here, as it
was formerly, kept always in sight. The churches and
monasteries are still to be the centres from which every
effort at civilization is to go out. There can be no doubt
that the real agency in this whole process was the organized
Church. The fruit of the great alliance between Frankish
kingdom and Roman papacy was beginning to be seen. The papacy
was ready to sanction any act of her ally for the fair promise
of winning the great territory of North Germany to its
spiritual allegiance. The most solid result of the campaigns
of Charlemagne was the founding of the great bishoprics of
Minden, Paderborn, Verden, Bremen, Osnabrück, and Halberstadt.
… About these bishoprics, as, on the whole, the safest
places, men came to settle. Roads were built to connect them;
markets sprang up in their neighborhood; and thus gradually,
during a development of centuries, great cities grew up, which
came to be the homes of powerful and wealthy traders, and gave
shape to the whole politics of the North. Saxony was become a
part of the Frankish Empire, and all the more thoroughly so,
because there was no royal or ducal line there which had to be
kept in place."

_E. Emerton,
Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
chapter 13._

Between 768 and 800 Charlemagne extinguished the Lombard
kingdom and made himself master of Italy, as the ally and
patron of the Pope, bearing the old Roman title of Patrician;
he crossed the Pyrenees, drove the Saracens southward to the
Ebro, and added a "Spanish March" to his empire (see SPAIN: A.
D. 778); he broke the obstinate turbulence of the Saxons, in a
series of bloody campaigns which (see SAXONS: A. D. 772-804)
consumed a generation; he extirpated the troublesome Avars,
still entrenched along the Danube, and he held with an always
firm hand the whole dominion that came to him by inheritance
from his father. "He had won his victories with Frankish arms,
and he had taken possession of the conquered countries in the
name of the Frankish people. Every step which he had taken had
been with the advice and consent of the nation assembled in
the great meetings of the springtime, and his public documents
carefully express the share of the nation in his great
achievements. Saxony, Bavaria, Lombardy, Aquitaine, the
Spanish Mark, all these great countries, lying outside the
territory of Frankland proper, had been made a part of its
possession by the might of his arm and the wisdom of his
counsel. But when this had all been done, the question arose,
by what right he should hold all this power, and secure it so
that it should not fall apart as soon as he should be gone.
{1402}
As king of the Franks it was impossible that he should not
seem to the conquered peoples, however mild and beneficent his
rule might be, a foreign prince; and though he might be able
to force them to follow his banner in war, and submit to his
judgment in peace, there was still wanting the one common
interest which should bind all these peoples, strangers to the
Franks and to each other, into one united nation. About the
year 800 this problem seems to have been very much before the
mind of Charlemagne. If we look at the boundaries of his
kingdom, reaching from the Eider in the north to the Ebro and
the Garigliano in the south, and from the ocean in the west to
the Elbe and the Enns in the east, we shall say as the people
of his own time did, 'this power is Imperial.' That word may
mean little to us, but in fact it has often in history been
used to describe just the kind of power which Charlemagne in
the year 800 really had. … The idea of empire includes under
this one term, kingdoms, duchies, or whatever powers might be
in existence; all, however, subject to some one higher force,
which they feel to be necessary for their support. … But
where was the model upon which Charlemagne might build his new
empire? Surely nowhere but in that great Roman Empire whose
western representative had been finally allowed to disappear
by Odoacer the Herulian in the year 476. … After Odoacer the
Eastern Empire, with its capital at Constantinople, still
lived on, and claimed for itself all the rights which had
belonged to both parts. That Eastern Empire was still alive at
the time of Charlemagne. We have met with it once or twice in
our study of the Franks. Even Clovis had been tickled with the
present of the title of Consul, sent him by the Eastern
Emperor; and from time to time, as the Franks had meddled with
the affairs of Italy, they had been reminded that Italy was in
name still a part of the Imperial lands. … But now, when
Charlemagne himself was thinking of taking the title of
Emperor, he found himself forced to meet squarely the
question, whether there could be two independent Christian
Emperors at the same time. … On Christmas Day, in the year
800, Charlemagne was at Rome. He had gone thither at the
request of the Pope Leo, who had been accused of dreadful
crimes by his enemies in the city, and had been for a time
deprived of his office. Charlemagne had acted as judge in the
case, and had decided in favor of Leo. According to good
Teutonic custom, the pope had purified himself of his charges
by a tremendous oath on the Holy Trinity, and had again
assumed the duties of the papacy. The Christmas service was
held in great state at St. Peter's. While Charlemagne was
kneeling in prayer at the grave of the Apostle, the pope
suddenly approached him, and, in the presence of all the
people, placed upon his head a golden crown. As he did so, the
people cried out with one voice, 'Long life and victory to
Charles Augustus, the mighty Emperor, the Peace-bringer,
crowned by God!' Einhard, who ought to have known, assures us
that Charles was totally surprised by the coronation, and
often said afterward that if he had known of the plan he would
not have gone into the church, even upon so high a festival.
It is altogether probable that the king had not meant to be
crowned at just that moment and in just that way; but that he
had never thought of such a possibility seems utterly
incredible. By this act Charlemagne was presented to the world
as the successor of the ancient Roman Emperors of the West,
and so far as power was concerned, he was that. But he was
more. His power rested, not upon any inherited ideas, but upon
two great facts: first, he was the head of the Germanic Race;
and second, he was the temporal head of the Christian Church.
The new empire which he founded rested on these two
foundations."

_E. Emerton,
Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages,
chapter 14._

The great empire which Charles labored, during all the
remainder of his life, to organize in this Roman imperial
character, was vast in its extent. "As an organized mass of
provinces, regularly governed by imperial officers, it seems
to have been nearly bounded, in Germany, by the Elbe, the
Saale, the Bohemian mountains, and a line drawn from thence
crossing the Danube above Vienna, and prolonged to the Gulf of
Istria. Part of Dalmatia was comprised in the duchy of Friuli.
In Italy the empire extended not much beyond the modern
frontier of Naples, if we exclude, as was the fact, the duchy
of Benevento from anything more than a titular subjection. The
Spanish boundary … was the Ebro."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1._

"The centre of his realm was the Rhine; his capitals Aachen
[or Aix-la-Chapelle] and Engilenheim [or Ingelheim]; his army
Frankish; his sympathies as they are shewn in the gathering of
the old hero-lays, the composition of a German grammar, …
were all for the race from which he sprang. … There were in
his Empire, as in his own mind, two elements; those two from
the union and mutual action and reaction of which modern
civilization has arisen. These vast domains, reaching from the
Ebro to the Carpathian mountains, from the Eyder to the Liris,
were all the conquests of the Frankish sword, and were still
governed almost exclusively by viceroys and officers of
Frankish blood. But the conception of the Empire, that which
made it a State and not a mere mass of subject tribes, … was
inherited from an older and a grander system, was not Teutonic
but Roman—Roman in its ordered rule, in its uniformity and
precision, in its endeavour to subject the individual to the
system—Roman in its effort to realize a certain limited and
human perfection, whose very completeness shall exclude the
hope of further progress." With the death of Charles in 814
the territorial disruption of his great empire began. "The
returning wave of anarchy and barbarism swept up violent as
ever, yet it could not wholly obliterate the past: the Empire,
maimed and shattered though it was, had struck its roots too
deep to be overthrown by force." The Teutonic part and the
Romanized or Latinized part of the empire were broken in two,
never to unite again; but, in another century, it was on the
German and not the Gallo-Latin side of the line of its
disruption that the imperial ideas and the imperial titles of
Charlemagne came to life again, and his Teutonic Roman
Empire—the "Holy Roman Empire," as it came to be called—was
resurrected by Otto the Great, and established for eight
centuries and a half of enduring influence in the politics of
the world.

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 5._

{1403}

"Gibbon has remarked, that of all the heroes to whom the title
of 'The Great' has been given, Charlemagne alone has retained
it as a permanent addition to his name. The reason may perhaps
be, that in no other man were ever united, in so large a
measure, and in such perfect harmony, the qualities which, in
their combination, constitute the heroic character, such as
energy, or the love of action; ambition, or the love of power;
curiosity, or the love of knowledge; and sensibility, or the
love of pleasure—not, indeed, the love of forbidden, of
unhallowed, or of enervating pleasure, but the keen relish for
those blameless delights by which the burdened mind and jaded
spirits recruit and renovate their powers. … For the charms
of social intercourse, the play of a buoyant fancy, the
exhilaration of honest mirth, and even the refreshment of
athletic exercises, require for their perfect enjoyment that
robust and absolute health of body and of mind which none but
the noblest natures possess, and in the possession of which
Charlemagne exceeded all other men. His lofty stature, his
open countenance, his large and brilliant eyes, and the
dome-like structure of his head, imparted, as we learn from
Eginhard, to all his attitudes the dignity which becomes a
king, relieved by the graceful activity of a practiced
warrior. … Whether he was engaged in a frolic or a chase—
composed verses or listened to homilies—fought or
negotiated—cast down thrones or built them up—studied,
conversed, or legislated, it seemed as if he, and he alone,
were the one wakeful and really living agent in the midst of
an inert, visionary, and somnolent generation. The rank held
by Charlemagne among great commanders was achieved far more by
this strange and almost superhuman activity than by any
pre-eminent proficiency in the art or science of war. He was
seldom engaged in any general action, and never undertook any
considerable siege, excepting that of Pavia, which, in fact,
was little more than a protracted blockade. But, during
forty-six years of almost unintermitted warfare, he swept over
the whole surface of Europe, from the Ebro to the Oder, from
Bretagne to Hungary, from Denmark to Capua, with such a
velocity of movement, and such a decision of purpose, that no
power, civilized or barbarous, ever provoked his resentment
without rapidly sinking beneath his prompt and irresistible
blows. And though it be true, as Gibbon has observed, that he
seldom, if ever, encountered in the field a really formidable
antagonist, it is not less true that, but for his military
skill, animated by his sleepless energy, the countless
assailants by whom he was encompassed must rapidly have become
too formidable for resistance. For to Charlemagne is due the
introduction into modern warfare of the art by which a general
compensates for the numerical inferiority of his own forces to
that of his antagonists—the art of moving detached bodies of
men along remote but converging lines with such mutual concert
as to throw their united forces at the same moment on any
meditated point of attack. Neither the Alpine marches of
Hannibal nor those of Napoleon were combined with greater
foresight, or executed with greater precision, than the
simultaneous passages of Charlemagne and Count Bernard across
the same mountain ranges, and their ultimate union in the
vicinity of their Lombard enemies."

_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 3._

ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 49._

See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 800.

FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.
Dissolution of the Carolingian Empire.

Charlemagne, at his death, was succeeded by his son Ludwig, or
Louis the Pious—the single survivor of three sons among whom
he had intended that his great empire should be shared. Mild
in temper, conscientious in character, Louis reigned with
success for sixteen years, and then lost all power of control,
through the turbulence of his family and the disorders of his
times. He "tried in vain to satisfy his sons (Lothar, Lewis,
and Charles) by dividing and redividing: they rebelled; he was
deposed, and forced by the bishops to do penance, again
restored, but without power, a tool in the hands of contending
factions. On his death the sons flew to arms, and the first of
the dynastic quarrels of modern Europe was fought out on the
field of Fontenay. In the partition treaty of Verdun [A. D.
843] which followed, the Teutonic principle of equal division
among heirs triumphed over the Roman one of the transmission
of an indivisible Empire: the practical sovereignty of all
three brothers was admitted in their respective territories, a
barren precedence only reserved to Lothar, with the imperial
title which he, as the eldest, already enjoyed. A more
important result was the separation of the Gaulish and German
nationalities. … Modern Germany proclaims the era of A. D.
843 the beginning of her national existence and celebrated its
thousandth anniversary [in 1843]. To Charles the Bald was
given Francia Occidentalis; that is to say, Neustria and
Aquitaine; to Lothar, who as Emperor must possess the two
capitals, Rome and Aachen, a long and narrow kingdom
stretching from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, and
including the northern half of Italy; Lewis (surnamed, from
his kingdom, the German) received all east of the Rhine,
Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, Austria, Carinthia, with possible
supremacies over Czechs and Moravians beyond. Throughout these
regions German was spoken; through Charles's kingdom a corrupt
tongue, equally removed from Latin and from modern French.
Lothar's, being mixed and having no national basis, was the
weakest of the three, and soon dissolved into the separate
sovereignties of Italy, Burgundy and Lotharingia, or, as we
call it, Lorraine. On the tangled history of the period that
follows it is not possible to do more than touch. After
passing from one branch of the Carolingian line to another,
the imperial sceptre was at last possessed and disgraced by
Charles the Fat, who united all the dominions of his
great-grandfather. This unworthy heir could not avail himself
of recovered territory to strengthen or defend the expiring
monarchy. He was driven out of Italy in A. D. 887 and his
death in 888 has been usually taken as the date of the
extinction of the Carolingian Empire of the West. … From all
sides the torrent of barbarism which Charles the Great had
stemmed was rushing down upon his empire. … Under such
strokes the already loosened fabric swiftly dissolved. No one
thought of common defence or wide organization: the strong
built castles, the weak became their bondsmen, or took shelter
under the cowl: the governor—count, abbot, or
bishop—tightened his grasp, turned a delegated into an
independent, a personal into a territorial authority, and
hardly owned a distant and feeble suzerain. … In Germany,
the greatness of the evil worked at last its cure.

[1404 moved to end of FRANKS.] {1405}

When the male line of the eastern branch of the Carolingians
had ended in Lewis (surnamed the Child), son of Arnulf [A. D.
911], the chieftains chose and the people accepted Conrad the
Franconian, and after him Henry the Saxon duke, both
representing the female line of Charles. Henry laid the
foundations of a firm monarchy, driving back the Magyars and
Wends, recovering Lotharingia, founding towns to be centres of
orderly life and strongholds against Hungarian irruptions. He
had meant to claim at Rome his kingdom's rights, rights which
Conrad's weakness had at least asserted by the demand of
tribute; but death overtook him, and the plan was left to be
fulfilled by Otto his son."

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6._

"The division of 888 was really the beginning of the modern
states and the modern divisions of Europe. The Carolingian
Empire was broken up into four separate kingdoms: the Western
Kingdom, answering roughly to France, the Eastern Kingdom or
Germany, Italy, and Burgundy. Of these, the three first remain
as the greatest nations of the Continent: Burgundy, by that
name, has vanished; but its place as a European power is
occupied, far more worthily than by any King or Cæsar, by the
noble confederation of Switzerland."

_E. A. Freeman,
The Franks and the Gauls.
(Historical Essays, 1st series, number 7.)_

ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2, numbers 3._

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 18._

_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 8._

_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 24._

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and France,
volumes 1-2._

See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 843-962;
and FRANCE: A. D. 843, and after.

FRANKS: A. D. 843-962.
Kingdom of the East Franks.

See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

----------End: FRANKS ----------

[Image: Central Europe (page 1404)]

CENTRAL EUROPE AT THE PEACE OF VERDUN 843 A. D.

CENTRAL EUROPE 888 A. D.

----------------------------------

FRATRES MINORES.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

FRATRICELLI, The.

See BEGUINES, ETC.

FRAZIER'S FARM, OR GLENDALE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

FREDERICIA, Battle of (1849).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

FREDERICIA, Siege of (1864).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

FREDERICK I.
(called Barbarossa), Emperor, A. D. 1155-1190;
King of Germany, 1152-1190;
King of Italy, 1155-1190.

Frederick I., King of Denmark and Norway, 1523-1533.

Frederick I., King of Prussia, 1701-1713;

Frederick III., Elector of Brandenburg, 1688-1713.

Frederick I., Elector of Brandenburg, 1417-1440.

Frederick II.,
Emperor, 1220-1250;
King of Germany, 1212-1250.

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

Frederick II., King of Denmark and Norway, 1558-1588.

Frederick II., King of Naples, 1496-1503.

Frederick II. (called The Great),
King of Prussia, 1740-1786.

Frederick II., King of Sicily, 1295-1337.

Frederick II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1440-1470.

Frederick III., Emperor, and King of Germany, 1440-1493.

Frederick III., German Emperor and King of Prussia,
1888, March-June.

Frederick III., King of Denmark and Norway, 1648-1670.

Frederick III., King of Sicily, 1355-1377.

Frederick IV., King of Denmark and Norway, 1609-1730.

Frederick V., King of Denmark and Norway, 1746-1766.

Frederick V., Elector of the Palatinate
(and King-elect of Bohemia),
and the Thirty Years' War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, 1620, 1621-1623,
1631-1632, and 1648.

Frederick VI.,
King of Denmark and Norway, 1808-1814;
King of Denmark, 1814-1839.

Frederick VII., King of Denmark, 1848-1863.

Frederick Augustus I.,
Elector of Saxony, 1694-1733;
King of Poland, 1697-1704 (deposed), and 1709-1733.

Frederick Augustus II.,
Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, 1733-1763.

Frederick Henry, Stadtholder of the United Provinces,
1625-1647.

Frederick William (called The Great Elector),
Elector of Brandenburg, 1640-1688.

Frederick William I., King of Prussia, 1713-1740.

Frederick William II., King of Prussia, 1786-1797.

Frederick William III., King of Prussia, 1797-1840.

Frederick William IV., King of Prussia, 1840-1861.

----------FREDERICK: End----------

FREDERICKSBURG, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1862 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: VIRGINIA).

FREDERICKSBURG:
Sedgwick's demonstration against.

See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

----------FREDERICKSBURG: End----------

FREDERICKSHALL.
Siege by the Swedes.
Death of Charles XII. (1718).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

FREDERICKSHAMM, Peace of (1809).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

FREDLINGEN, Battle of (1703).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

FREE CITIES.

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

FREE COMPANIES, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

FREE LANCES.

See LANCES, FREE.

FREE MASONS.

"The fall of the Knights Templars has been connected with the
origin of the Freemasons, and the idea has prevailed that the
only secret purpose of the latter was the reestablishment of
the suppressed order. Jacques de Molai, while a prisoner in
Paris, is said to have created four new lodges, and the day
after his execution, eight knights, disguised as masons, are
said to have gone to gather up the ashes of their late Grand
Master. To conceal their designs, the new Templars assumed the
symbols of the trade, but took, it is said, the name of Francs
'Maçons' to distinguish themselves from ordinary craftsmen,
and also in memory of the general appellation given to them in
Palestine. Even the allegories of Freemasonry, and the ceremonies
of its initiations, have been explained by a reference to the
history of the persecutions of the Templars. The Abbé Barruel
says, that 'every thing—the signs, the language, the names of
grand master, of knight, of temple—all, in a word, betray the
Freemasons as descendants of the proscribed knights.' Lessing,
in Germany, gave some authority to this opinion, by asserting
positively that 'the lodges of the Templars were in the very
highest repute in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and
that out of such a lodge, which had been constantly kept up in
London, was established the society of Freemasons, in the
seventeenth century, by Sir Christopher Wren.'
{1406}
Lessing is of opinion that the name Mason has nothing to do
with the English meaning of the word, but comes from
Massonney, a 'lodge' of the Knights Templars. This idea may
have caused the Freemasons to amalgamate the external ritual
of the Templars with their own, and to found the higher French
degrees which have given colour to the very hypothesis which
gave rise to their introduction. But the whole story appears
to be most improbable, and only rests upon the slight
foundation of fancied or accidental analogies. Attempts have
also been made to show that the Freemasons are only a
continuation of the fraternities of architects which are
supposed to have originated at the time of the building of
Solomon's Temple. The Egyptian priests are supposed to have
taught those who were initiated a secret and sacred system of
architecture; this is said to have been transmitted to the
Dionysiac architects, of whom the first historical traces are
to be found in Asia Minor, where they were organized into a
secret fraternity. … It is, however; a mere matter of
speculation whether the Jewish and Dionysiac architects were
closely connected, but there is some analogy between the
latter and the Roman guilds, which Numa is said to have first
introduced, and which were probably the prototypes of the
later associations of masons which flourished until the end of
the Roman Empire. The hordes of barbarians which then
ruthlessly swept away whatever bore the semblance of luxury
and elegance, did not spare the noblest specimens of art, and
it was only when they became converted to Christianity, that
the guilds were re-established. During the Lombard rule they
became numerous in Italy. … As their numbers increased,
Lombardy no longer sufficed for the exercise of their art, and
they travelled into all the countries where Christianity, only
recently established, required religious buildings. … These
associations, however, became nearly crushed by the power of
the monastic institutions, so that in the early part of the
Middle Ages the words artist and priest became nearly
synonymous; but in the twelfth century they emancipated
themselves, and sprang into new life. The names of the authors
of the great architectural creations of this period are almost
all unknown; for these were not the work of individuals, but
of fraternities. … In England guilds of masons are said to
have existed in the year 926, but this tradition is not
supported by history; in Scotland similar associations were
established towards the end of the fifteenth century. The Abbé
Grandidier regards Freemasonry as nothing more than a servile
imitation of the ancient and useful fraternity of true masons
established during the building of the Cathedral of Strasburg,
one of the masterpieces of Gothic architecture, and which caused
the fame of its builders to spread throughout Europe. In many
towns similar fraternities were established. … The origin of
the Freemasons of the present day is not to be attributed to
these fraternities, but to the Rosicrucians [see ROSICRUCIANS]
who first appeared at the beginning of the seventeenth
century."

_A. P. Marras,
Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
chapters 7-8._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Findel,
History of Freemasonry._

_C. W. Heckethorn,
Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries,
book 8 (volume 1)._

FREE-SOIL PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

FREE SPIRIT, Brethren and Sisters of the.

See BEGUINES.

FREE TRADE IN ENGLAND.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839;
1842; 1845-1846; and 1846-1879.

FREEDMEN OF THE SOUTH.

The emancipated slaves of the United States of America.

FREEDMEN'S BUREAU, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of the Censorship law in England.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1695.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1734.
Zenger's trial at New York.
Vindication of the rights of the colonial Press.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1755.
Liberty attained in Massachusetts.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1762-1764.
Prosecution of John Wilkes.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1771.
Last contest of the British Parliament with the Press.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: A. D. 1817.
The trials of William Hone.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

----------FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: End----------

FREEHOLD.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

FREEMAN'S FARM, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

FREGELLÆ.

Fregellæ, a Latin colony, founded by the Romans, B. C. 329, in
the Volscian territory, on the Liris, revolted in B. C. 125.
and was totally destroyed. A Roman colony, named Fabrateria,
was founded near the site.

_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 17._

FREIBURG (in the Breisgau).

Freiburg became a free city in 1120, but lost its freedom a
century later, and passed, in 1368, under the domination of
the Hapsburgs.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1638.
Capture by Duke Bernhard.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1644.
Siege and capture by the Imperialists.
Attempted recovery by Condé and Turenne.
The three days battle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1677.
Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1679.
Retained by France.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1697.
Restored to Germany.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1713-1714.
Taken and given up by the French.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

FREIBURG: A. D. 1744-1748.
Taken by the French and restored to Germany.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745;
and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

----------FREIBURG: End----------

FREJUS, Origin of.

See FORUM JULII.

FREMONT, General John C.,
The conquest of California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.

Command in the west.
Proclamation of Freedom.
Removal.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI),
and (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

Command in West Virginia.