I’d agree with discounting Clovis, not least because his kingdom was only one of those occupying Gallia, and the Burgundes remained a distinct gens (and sub-kingdom) well into the seventh century.
I’m no expert on Hugh Capet, but I’d question the extent to which he created the institutions of the medieval French state. Very little of Capetian government infrastructure is distinct from what you’d see in Germany or England - it all shares a Carolingian heritage (palace chaplains managing the royal writing office and treasury). Indeed one might observe that the key institutions were all there under the Merovingians. Look at the roles of Eligius of Noyon, Audoin of Rouen or Desiderius of Cahors before they were made bishops.
So if you wanted the start of “France”, my vote would go to 613, when a minor king in Neustria suddenly came to rule the whole of the Frankish realm, courtesy of his cousins finishing themselves off in their war - Chlothar II.
Hello Benedict, thank you for your comment. "Thought-provoking" is precisely what I was going for, so I'm over the moon that I accomplished this :)
You raise a good point about the Merovingians having institutions mechanically similar to those Hugues Capet would later institute. This is also true of the Carolingians. I could have been more precise in explaining my choice of Hugues Capet. The real magic was in his establishment of primogeniture for his succession, thereby creating an unbroken line of his government, or "state." Every time the Merovingians and Carolingians had to break apart, they dismantled the state and fragmented it into smaller units. So Clothair II, while an interesting prospect (and I think you're right to bring him up, as he did indeed become the de facto ruler of what we might begin to consider a "France"), ultimately had to divide his land and government. Clothar II also predates the earliest evidence of the French language by two hundred years (in the video, I show the earliest document in what we might start to consider French, dated to the 840s), and so, from the criteria of ruling over a French nation, he, like all the other Franks, is disqualified.
But, by another set of criteria, one more focused on the creation of statehood alone rather than in combination with a nation, I think Clothar II could indeed be the one to look at, especially if we consider the Edict of Paris in 614 that established the "ground rules" for his rule after the civil war, which created the start of the political culture that would come to dominate the Carolingians and later Hugues Capet. His successor, Dagobert, is lauded as one of the first kings of France in many circles.
I hope you'll be as willing to engage on my next one about Russia. It's going to get messy!
Very thought-provoking - thank you.
I’d agree with discounting Clovis, not least because his kingdom was only one of those occupying Gallia, and the Burgundes remained a distinct gens (and sub-kingdom) well into the seventh century.
I’m no expert on Hugh Capet, but I’d question the extent to which he created the institutions of the medieval French state. Very little of Capetian government infrastructure is distinct from what you’d see in Germany or England - it all shares a Carolingian heritage (palace chaplains managing the royal writing office and treasury). Indeed one might observe that the key institutions were all there under the Merovingians. Look at the roles of Eligius of Noyon, Audoin of Rouen or Desiderius of Cahors before they were made bishops.
So if you wanted the start of “France”, my vote would go to 613, when a minor king in Neustria suddenly came to rule the whole of the Frankish realm, courtesy of his cousins finishing themselves off in their war - Chlothar II.
Hello Benedict, thank you for your comment. "Thought-provoking" is precisely what I was going for, so I'm over the moon that I accomplished this :)
You raise a good point about the Merovingians having institutions mechanically similar to those Hugues Capet would later institute. This is also true of the Carolingians. I could have been more precise in explaining my choice of Hugues Capet. The real magic was in his establishment of primogeniture for his succession, thereby creating an unbroken line of his government, or "state." Every time the Merovingians and Carolingians had to break apart, they dismantled the state and fragmented it into smaller units. So Clothair II, while an interesting prospect (and I think you're right to bring him up, as he did indeed become the de facto ruler of what we might begin to consider a "France"), ultimately had to divide his land and government. Clothar II also predates the earliest evidence of the French language by two hundred years (in the video, I show the earliest document in what we might start to consider French, dated to the 840s), and so, from the criteria of ruling over a French nation, he, like all the other Franks, is disqualified.
But, by another set of criteria, one more focused on the creation of statehood alone rather than in combination with a nation, I think Clothar II could indeed be the one to look at, especially if we consider the Edict of Paris in 614 that established the "ground rules" for his rule after the civil war, which created the start of the political culture that would come to dominate the Carolingians and later Hugues Capet. His successor, Dagobert, is lauded as one of the first kings of France in many circles.
I hope you'll be as willing to engage on my next one about Russia. It's going to get messy!