Provence Continues To Be Weird

Not about Liutprand this time, you’ll be pleased to hear. Rather, this time I want to zoom out and talk about just how odd Provence is as a kingdom after the death of Louis the Blind. Chiefly what is weird about it is that there are six potential kings, and the one most people seem to recognise is the one who’s already dead, which is to say Louis the Blind himself. Now, Louis himself doesn’t appear to have done much during the last years of his reign. In the early 900s, he got mixed up in Italian politics, which is as bad an idea for tenth-century kings as twenty-first century historians, which is how he ended up blind in the first place. Louis is supposed to have been fairly useless during the last years of his reign – one historian called him a ‘shadow king’ – although I have questions about how far this is just due to the combination of a lack of narrative sources and the fact that (as you might expect, given the constraints upon disabled people at the time) he didn’t get around much. Certainly, he appears to have spent twenty years staying in Vienne and not moving, but looking through his diplomas people did come to him from all over the kingdom. The most important of these people was Hugh of Arles, who became Louis’ right-hand man up to the point in 924 where Hugh himself went to become king of Italy.

Saint-André-le-Bas in Vienne (source)

Louis died in 928. Well, probably. Overwhelmingly probably. We don’t actually know in what year he died, although it was certainly by 932, but scholarly consensus is basically-unanimous in putting his death in June 928 based on circumstantial evidence, and I think scholarly consensus is in this case correct. After Louis’ death, the first bit of weirdness comes into play: Louis had two adult sons, Charles Constantine and Ralph, neither of whom succeeded him. Some people have suggested that Charles Constantine didn’t succeed him because he was a bastard, but the source for his illegitimacy is late – it’s Richer of Rheims – and I strongly suspect that Richer is back-projecting, filling in an explanation for why Charles didn’t inherit, because the detail is not in Flodoard, which is Richer’s only source. In any case, Ralph is very unlikely to have been illegitimate, but he didn’t inherit either. Charles Constantine appears in Louis’ lifetime as Count of Vienne, which is unusual – royal heirs, even with counties, are not usually called counts (anyone got any counterexamples from this time?); and it has been suggested that this means that Louis did not intend Charles to succeed him; but again, this isn’t true of Ralph. (I did play around with the notion that the ‘Ralph, king of Vienne’ who shows up in a number of charters was Ralph son of Louis the Blind; but this doesn’t work chronologically if nothing else.) What this means is that we have a case where a reigning king with adult sons born to him whilst he was a king isn’t succeeded by his son, which I think is the only example from the whole Carolingian and post-Carolingian period. Pippin II of Aquitaine, maybe?

The thing is, if Louis isn’t succeeded by his sons, it doesn’t look like he’s succeeded by anyone. Kings Ralph of West Francia and Rudolf II of Burgundy both nibble away at bits of territory. Rudolf slowly pulls some of the Alpine bits of Provence, such as Belley and maybe Apt, into his orbit; and looks like he made a short-lived play for Lyon – if so, he was probably kicked out relatively quickly. Ralph made a better go of it, asserting his authority over Vienne and as far south as Uzès, which is only a little distance away from Avignon, so very deep. However – and we do admittedly have evidential problems here – it doesn’t look like either tried to become Louis’ successor directly rather than just annexing some of his territory (which in both cases, they were inching towards even before Louis’ death).

Hugh of Arles’ role is even weirder. You’d have thought he’d be the obvious choice to succeed Louis – already a king elsewhere, powerful allies in the form of his brother Count Boso and nephew Archbishop Manasses of Arles, and personally possessed of a lot of land in the kingdom from back when he was its chief magnate. But although Hugh shows up in autumn and winter 928 and issues a bunch of diplomas, it looks to my eyes rather as though he was trying to stay the kingdom’s chief magnate whilst at the same time being king in a different kingdom. (This, incidentally, is why I was asking for help on Twitter from Crusade historians – trying to look for parallels. The closest is William the Conqueror, but even then the situation is only loosely comparable.) Hugh maintains an interest in Provence, right through into the 940s, but it’s unclear that he ever tried to assert himself as king and very, very likely that no-one every accepted him as their ruler – there are, to my knowledge, no charters dated by Hugh’s reign, even those issued in the name of Manasses of Arles.

Rather, most people, especially in the south of the kingdom, seem to have continued to recognise Louis the Blind as king, through to the mid-930s. One charter from 934 refers to Louis as the currently-reigning emperor even though he’s been in the ground (overwhelmingly probably) for six years and (certainly) for two. To me, this says that most people don’t recognise anyone as their legitimate king (and that, for some reason, Hugh of Arles doesn’t want to be king there even though he probably could). I haven’t thought through the implications of all this yet, but it’s striking that Louis’ realm is apparently coherent enough to keep going after his death but that Louis’ kingship laid so lightly on his subjects that no-one needed someone else to keep doing it…

10 thoughts on “Provence Continues To Be Weird

  1. – “He was named Comte de Vienne in 926 by his cousin Raoul King of France, in succession to his cousin Hugues Comte d’Arles, who was then proclaimed king of Italy. King Ugo of Italy removed the county of Vienne from Charles Constantin in 928 and granted it to Héribert [II] Comte de Vermandois. Charles Constantin remained at Vienne. Flodoard provides an insight into the continuing rivalries regarding Vienne when he records in 933 that it was granted to “Rodulfo regi” [Rudolf II King of Upper Burgundy, see the document BURGUNDY KINGS][56]. It is supposed that, from that time, Charles Constantin continued to hold the county under the suzerainty of the kingdom of Burgundy. Mermet records the existence of a peace treaty signed at the time between Ugo King of Italy and Rudolf II King of Burgundy which confirmed the latter’s rights to the Burgundian kingdom and Charles Constantin’s position in the county of Vienne[57]. ” – Just added this since it mentioned Mermet as an additional source for the treaty between Ugo and Rudolf of Burgundy though not sure of his timeline vs the other sources mentioned. But the source of replacing Charles Constantine with Herbert is not mentioned. May be the situation in Provence was such that Hugh was in rule given Louis the Blind’s infirmity and Hugh didn’t see the need to displace his King, who was also his second cousin, from rule (Like Charles Martel)? And Charles Constantine was replaced to prevent a future threat to Hugh, but again that’s dependant on his age at the time. The link suggests he may have been 18 or 23 in 928. If it was 18, Charles Constantine may not have been in a formidable position to outmanoeuvre Hugh of Arles?


    1. Sadly, Mermet is not a source – he was writing in 1833, so he’s not a contemporary informant; and he doesn’t cite any new information either. In fact, he doesn’t cite any contemporary sources at all, but reading between the lines he’s basing his account on Liutprand of Cremona (who isn’t a credible witness for this event) and mixing in his own suppositions (such as the bit about Vienne). There’s also a chunk of Flodoard in there – he’s the source for the events around Vienne in 928.

      Caveat lector – the Medieval Lands site is a bad resource for medieval history. The author has read widely but shallowly, and often material is outdated or incorrect, as here. Line by line:
      – Charles Constantine’s countship came to him from his father, Louis the Blind, and is attested in a couple of Louis’ diplomas.
      – We don’t know when in the mid-late 920s Charles became count (his first securely dated appearance is from Christmas 927).
      – The agreement made between the West Frankish king Ralph of Burgundy and Hugh of Arles in 928 gave Vienne to Heribert II of Vermandois’ son Odo, not Heribert himself.
      – The king who got Vienne in 933 was the West Frankish king Ralph, not the Transjurane Burgundian king Rudolf (this latter always appears in Flodoard’s annals with a title like ‘king of Cisalpine Gaul’ to make it clear who he’s talking about, and never appears without such a title).
      – Charles Constantine, as we know from both charter and narrative evidence, continued to waver between kings well into the 940s.
      – And finally, Mermet is not good evidence for a putative treaty between Hugh and Rudolf in 933.
      That’s more than one error per sentence, which is pretty impressive! Sorry, that was a bit extra; but that site’s shabby scholarship annoys me.

      The situation with Charles Constantine, you’re absolutely right, is one of the most confusing things about the succession to Louis the Blind. Why did this adult son not succeed his father? It confused people just a generation later – the chronicler Richer of Rheims said that he was illegitimate, which he probably wasn’t; but it was the best way Richer could think of to explain it. His age probably wasn’t an issue: if he was a count, he would have been an adult by contemporary standards, and even people we would think of as teenagers could be effective political actors in the tenth century. (Louis IV, for example, who only hit 21 five years into his reign.) My tentative scenario for what happened is something like this: in the mid-920s, Louis the Blind’s support (as we can see it in his diplomas) completely collapses to the area around Vienne. Charles Constantine’s emergence as a political quantity happens at the same time. Perhaps these two things are related: Charles Constantine was caught up in whatever events caused Louis to haemorrhage support, and this made him a toxic political quantity on the regnal stage ever after?


  2. Thanks for the reply and thanks for taking your time in replying and my apologies for taking it. I mainly use FMG for its genealogies for a pet project of mine as secondary data, and for some of my twitter threads, again as secondary data. Thanks for your inputs. I have been long fascinated by the Carolingian time period from Arnulf of Metz, but have been limited by availability of sources in this part of the world. So, thanks for this blog as well. 🙂


    1. No problem at all – thank you for your thoughtful comment! As I said, FMG annoys me irrationally so I will take extra time to debunk it when it shows up; but I do use it myself, because if there’s a straightforward source for a relationship between X and Y it will normally have it – it’s just when there’s any kind of ambiguity that it nosedives into being actively counter-useful. Thank you too for your kind words about the blog – we will continue to hopefully inform and entertain!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s