Treachery in the East

While everyone loves the good King Charles today, much of that goodwill is retrospective. The hagiographies by Einhard and Notker, and the plentiful platitudes in the Annals were written after his death, and intended to both burnish the past and reinforce the future. But no one is universally loved, particularly not those who impose their will on others, even with the best of intentions.

In 786, Thuringian nobles launched some sort of a rebellion against Charles and his rule. They were found out, confessed, and punished. And that is the extent of what is known with any certainty. Before we get too deep into an analysis of what might have happened, who might have been involved, and other such questions, let’s take a look at the sources.

The Royal Annals don’t mention the revolt at all.^1.Not unlike the silence in the original Annals regarding Ronscevalles. In 785 Charles was in Eresburg (deep in the East) wrapping up the latest battles of the Saxon Wars. “[H]e bade his wife, the lady queen Fastrada, together with his sons and daughters, join him. There the most excellent king remained for the whole of the winter…”^2.Annals, 785.

The Revised Royal Annals give a quick glimpse of the problem. “This same year a sworn association, the work of count Hardrad, as was well known, and very extensive, was formed against the king across the Rhine, among the eastern Franks. But intelligence of this was swiftly brought to the king, who, by his shrewdness, soon laid this formidable conspiracy to rest, before any great danger had occurred. Some of its leaders were condemned to loss of their eyes, others to banishment into exile.”^3.Annals, 785, King.

Einhard’s Life expands the view slightly. “Earlier, there had been another powerful conspiracy against him in Germany. All of the ringleaders were sent into exile, some having been blinded and some without physical punishment. Only three of the conspirators were killed. They had drawn their swords to defend themselves so they would not be captured, and they had killed a few men. They were themselves put to death because there was no other way of restraining them.”^4.Einhard, ch20, Dutton, pp39-40.

Einhard also sketches a motivation for this revolt, although the explanation seems thin. “But it is [widely] believed that the cruelty of Queen Fastrada was the cause and source of these conspiracies, since in both cases these men conspired against the king because it looked as if [Charles] had savagely departed from his usual kind and gentle ways by consenting to the cruel ways of his wife. Otherwise, [Charles] passed his whole life with the highest love and esteem of everyone, both at home and abroad, and not the least charge of cruelty or unfairness was ever brought against him by anyone.”^5.ibid.

Lady Fastrada was long dead by the time Einhard put quill to parchment. His “cause and source” of the uprising feels perfunctory, particularly after repeatedly describing Charles as the strongest of men and greatest of rulers. This amazing man was so cowed and swayed by his wife that he drove men to rebel? Not likely.

An earlier account, however, may point more accurately to the cause. In the otherwise unremarkable annals of St. Nazarius, for the year 786, there are details that ring true. The entry is more than 600 words, so I’ve summarized some of it and quoted the juicy bits.

A betrothal sparked outrage at the eastern edge of the realm. An unnamed Thuringian noble refused to hand over his daughter, who was “known to have been betrothed according to the law of the Franks…” When Charles insisted on the wedding, the nobleman “gathered almost all his Thuringian neighbors together and sought to defend himself from the king of the Franks.” Charles, naturally, “was mightily angered on hearing this and in his displeasure dispatched against them some of his vassals, who proceeded against them with shrewdness and boldness, devastating their estates and properties.” The rebels retreated to Fulda, the monastery where Boniface was interred. The abbot interceded with Charles on their behalf and acted as a mediator. Charles asked that the rebels come to him. The king asked them if what he had heard was true. Per the annals one of them said, “If my confederates and associates had proved to be of my sentiments, never again would you have been seen crossing to this side of the Rhine alive.” Charles “bore this most modestly.” If you believe that, I’ve got a mountain in Frisia I’d like to sell you.

Charles then ordered his missi to escort the ringleaders to various monasteries all across the realm, “so that they might swear fidelity to the king and his children…” Then the kind, modest, and merciful king arranged that, “Several of them were arrested on their return journey from these places; their eyes are known to have been torn out.” Some reached Worms, where Charles was spending the spring,^6.Annals, 786. and were promptly arrested, their possessions and estates confiscated, their eyes torn out, and sent into exile.^7.Annals of St Nazarius, 786, King, pp154-155.

Hardrad is mentioned twice more, lending some credibility to his role as a ringleader. The Annals of 817, discussing a rebellion against Charles’s son Louis, says that “The leaders of this conspiracy [included] Reginhar, son of Count Meginhar, whose maternal grandfather Hardrad once conspired in Germany with many noblemen of the province against Emperor Charles.”^8.Annals, 817, Scholz. In other words, thirty-two years later the grandson was still stirring the pot.

Lastly, in the Deeds of Emperor Louis by the mysterious Thegn the fate of the conspirators of 817 is also discussed. “Reginhar, who was a son of a daughter of Hardrad, that most faithless duke in Austrasia who long ago wished to rise up against the lord Charles and to diminish his kingdom and who was himself assigned the same punishment that his grandson and collaborators received.” In other words, blinded, etc.^9.Deeds, ch.22, Thegn, Noble, pp.285-6.

That wraps up our survey of the primary sources. What do the scholars make of all this?

Collins^10.Collins, Charlemagne, p.56. sees a reaction to Charles’s relatively lenient treatment of the Saxons (in pursuit of a settlement), particularly in light of the losses in the Suntel mountains in 782. Why the insurrectionists were not placated by the subsequent massacre of Saxons is not clear.

Davis takes a wider view. She sees this revolt in the context of the wider changes that Charles was imposing across his realm. New counts, duke, and bishops, a new religion, laws, and taxes were being imposed, year after year, region by region. The marriage that Charles insisted go forward was not only the emplacement of a new lord (a Frankish husband of the Thuringian’s daughter), but the imposition of new marital laws. “[W]e might be best off thinking about the revolt in terms of a combination of specific local grievance and broader Carolingian aristocratic politics.”^11.Davis, Practice of Empire, p.144.

McKitterick notes that the chroniclers paid particular attention to the sworn nature of the conspiracy. In later capitularies Charles outlawed “private” sworn associations,^12.Capitulary 16. and also instituted mandatory oaths sworn to himself and his children.^13.McKitterick, Formulation, p.268.

Stuart Airlie describes the revolt in regional terms, as the new rulers from west of the Rhine moved into the east. He further notes that Charles’ marriage to Fastrada, who was from the east, was not enough to placate regional hostilities.^14.Airlie, The Aristocracy: Captains and Kings, in Charlemagne: Empire and Society, p.98.

Lastly, what of Einhard’s attempt to lay all this at Fastrada’s feet? Barbero doesn’t buy it, and instead ascribes the rumor to “court scholars, who had detested Fastrada.”^15.Berbero, Charlemagne, p.138. I’ve looked in Alcuin’s letters that have been translated for any hint of animosity, but couldn’t find anything.

While the participants and their motivations are hazy, Charles’ response is not. Every source remarks on the brutal (to our eyes, and probably even to the contemporaries) punishments inflicted on some number of insurrectionists. Blinding is rough, no matter what age you live in. Compare the severity of these punishments to that inflicted on a rabble-rouser like the Saxon Widukind. After giving Charles no end of grief for years, in the end he was baptized and honored. While Charles could honor an enemy in furtherance of imperial policy, there was no room for leniency when the challenge came from within the ranks.

In the next post we’ll see just how far Charles was willing to go when the treachery came from within his family.