Clovis (466-511 CE) was considered a king of the Salian Franks, but also an official of the Romans. His conquest of other kingdoms made him first of all a successful warlord. There was no governmental administration readily available to rule all these kingdoms combined. The Merovingians acted pragmatically and took over much of the regional and locally existing systems of government after conquering these regions, to fit into a more global structure of government.

The change from pre-Merovingian government to Merovingian is perceptible in the capitularia, the legislation of the kings. In the capitularia a distinction is made between more social strata of society than in the Lex Salica. The capitularia explicitly mention an elite which exercised a powerful influence and was treated differently from other people. These men will have come from the ancient Gallo-Roman senatorial families and the warlords that associated with Clovis and his sons in their conquest of Gaul. All held vast estates and possessed great wealth. From these families the king chose his officials, the bishops as a rule also came from these families. Added to the wealth of these families was thus political and religious power.

The Lex Salica indicates that Frankish society was originally governed by the meeting of important men of a region.

Government must have been small, because the productivity of farming seems to have been very low, not much above subsistence level. Therefore, kings, Church and officials all had to deal with scarce resources for their sustenance. The labour force was limited in the sixth century because of the diminished population. And people had the possibility to move away when they felt oppressed by government, as is mentioned in the Histories. For the elite, the possession of land was important for basic necessities such as food, accommodation and workers. But prosperity was expressed more in the treasure that circulated among the elite by way of gifts or plunder, and less in the estates that were owned.

Because the Merovingian kings did not pay most of their officials, only large landowners could afford to be officials. Most officials will have worked only part-time for the interests of the kingdoms, because they had to manage their own affairs too. Exceptions were officials who had no income of their own and who enjoyed the revenues of certain villae belonging to the royal treasury. Because they had their own means to organize, they got the assignment for public organization too. This system of government must have been decentralized to a large extent, with little rules.

Officials were appointed only for a period of time, from a pool of potential candidates. They had to have sufficient servants and warriors of their own to be able to exercise power. But when accepted as official by other magnates, an official could also call up other war bands and the militia of a civitas. Shifting coalitions could cause the withdrawal of this support and this would make another appointment necessary. An official was most of all a liaison in the region with the central authority. This cooperation could change to opposition when interests changed from those in the centre of power and only local support remained for the official. For the kings, the appointment of an official who was dependent on him was an attractive possibility to prevent such a situation. This was only possible when there was no agreement on a nomination for a position between the locals.

Officials did not receive regular payment for their work, but the position of an official will have had certain material advantages. Officials will have received gifts, as was an accepted custom, fines, rewards for arbitration, etc. In a society in which honour was an important asset, the higher social position of an official will have been important. Kings could make this even more distinctive by precious gifts, as symbols of power. Only the officials that were dependent on the king did receive an estate and other material support, to be able to occupy a position.

At the end of the sixth century, a growing coherence within the kingdoms has resulted in a growing organization in taking care of the execution of several basic tasks, like taking care of war, taxes or gifts, arbitration, issuing of rules, international relations, registering property of land and estates, coinage, appointing officials, and confirming the election of bishops. In the capitularia there is a tendency towards rules for the public good, however theoretical these may have been because of a lack of means for execution of these rules.

The responsibilities of the government were small because there was a long tradition of self- government. Matters that are nowadays considered public affairs were dealt with privately, like the settlement of disputes by compensation or by feud, which were acceptable alternatives for arbitration by officials. It is also clear that many areas of care were outside the range where the government felt responsibility for. The poor, sick, widows and other vulnerable people, were not taken care of by the public administration. This was an assignment for the Church. This all made the government small.

Kings are the most important persons in their kingdom, central in the public administration, and all magnates tried to win their favour. But this perspective is an illusion created by Gregory because of his own interests and the interests of the Church. Gregory was in a position that depended largely on the support of a king. He needed a powerful king that could make his position as bishop stronger. But many of the actions of kings, like Clovis using violence, betraying people, murdering, etc.were not very Christian, even though Gregory thought of Clovis as an ideal king. Many actions of kings are restricted by the power of coalitions of magnates or of collectives, like the army or the inhabitants of civitates.

In the beginning of the sixth century, the most important task of a king was warfare. Depending on their ability in war the sons of Clovis gained importance. The grandsons of Clovis were less involved in warfare because they hardly campaigned themselves anymore and delegated warfare to dukes or high court officials. These kings became most of all symbols of unity for the kingdom, and their court became a focus for the politics of the kingdom. ‘Court’ is here used for the household of the king and a few trusted officials. But the court of a king was also the meeting place where officials and other magnates met, and where alliances were made, even against the interests of a king. Therefore the Frankish kings at the end of the sixth century were most of all primes inter pares, rulers of a region like other dukes. The position of a king changed from war leader to symbol of the unity of the kingdom, and the court of a king was a public meeting place for officials.

This changing position was stimulated by the Church. The Church as a whole had an interest in powerful kings. The king was the only one that could defend the Church from the interest and violence of the magnates. The Church had benefited much from the Roman emperors and sought an equal protector in the Frankish king. This ideal must have been far from reality, but in its interests the Church was inclined to neglect many of the actions of kings that were not at all according to these ideals.

The real power was in the hands of a coalition of magnates. This became noticeable when King Guntram, by adoption of King Childebert II and becoming godparent for King Chlothar II, tried to rule their Kingdom when these kings were minors. In both Kingdom, a faction of magnates opposed King Guntram, and the magnates in both Kingdom were strong enough to rule in the name of these underaged Kings. Factions of magnates became decisive for the working of the government, rather than the King. The King became the symbolic top of the hierarchy of government, but could only rule with the support of a majority of magnates. Vice versa, an appointment by the King, or rather the leading magnates, meant a rise above his peers for a magnate, with possible advantages to exploit. The court of a King must have been the focus for political activity in the Kingdom. One of the marks for this limited royal power is the treasure of a King. This was treated more as a collective property than as the King’s privately owned wealth. Kings could only gain influence through their skills in forming coalitions.

It is remarkable that in a warlike society, governed by men, queens or princesses could shape formidable coalitions and could actually direct war bands. But at a closer look, able Queens were in a position to make it worthwhile for people to work for them. Merovingian Queens were at the centre of politics and could easily join or form a coalition, building a network of political loyalties, and gaining the same position as other magnates. It just depended on the abilities of these women to create and maintain such coalitions. Although a woman never could act in battle herself, she could still be in the same position as a magnate, even if her power depended on her link with her male relatives.

Although the Queens had no formal position in the structure of government, these women could act in the name of their husband, son, grandson, or great-grandson. In this way they were able to acquire political authority. Queens participated in assemblies and issued donations and privileges. They received secular and ecclesiastical officials. They could influence episcopal elections. The coalitions that were wrought by queens became visible when they came in action. Queen Fredegunde asked the Saxons living near Bayeux to act according to her wishes, but in violent opposition to the official policy of the Kingdom. Fredegunde was in coalition with the duke of Champagne. Queen Brunhild even tried to prevent a war by her intervention.

After the death of a King, the position of a Queen was uncertain because she could only rule through a male relative. Queen Brunhild was banished after the death of her husband, but tried to regain control by marrying Prince Merovech. Queen Fredegunde sought refuge in a Church after the death of her husband and was later banned to Rouen, but regained power by the birth of her son Chlothar II. Queen Theudechild offered to marry King Guntram and gave him the treasure of her deceased husband, King Charibert, but was deposited in a nunnery.

Descent and reputation were the main ingredients for royal succession in Frankish society, as it will have been for the sons of magnates. According to the Lex Salica, all sons could inherit, but it was no rule to give all the heirs a share – let alone an equal share. A descent from Clovis was required when one wanted to become king. A Merovingian prince could be recognized as such by his father, other Merovingian kings, sufficient magnates of a Kingdom, or the people. Gregory says that “irrespective of their mother’s birth, all children born to a King count as that King’s son”. The implication of this is that, although the sons of a slave girl remained servile, when the father was a King the servility was ignored.

Preventing a man to become King could be achieved, (apart from killing him) by calling this person a pretender, an illegitimate son, or by making a Prince incapable for the throne by shaving his head and making him a cleric.

A King could only rule with the help of a coalition of magnates. A weak King, for example when he was a minor, could be ruled by a coalition of magnates, as was the case with King Childebert II and Chlothar II. Coalitions were loosely held together by the Merovingians Kings, who were in a way figureheads that could influence the course of a coalition only as leader of the largest war band, but were certainly not able to dictate its course. A King was a symbol for unity of his Kingdom, but could be replaced if necessary by another Merovingian.

Was a duke the ruler of a territory or was he first and foremost in a military position? It is not clear from the Histories what the position of duke implied. Many dukes seem to have been mainly militarily involved, commanding an army recruited from the area of several counts. Because counts and officials from the household of the king, like the mayor of the palace, could also have military command, the military position of the duke was not exclusive. Some dukes were clearly the sole rulers of a region, but other dukes were evidently most of all the loyal servants of a king.Some duchies were not permanent and they disappeared along with the circumstances that gave rise to the appointment of dukes. Other regions were permanent duchies, e.g. in Champagne (civitates Reims, Laon en Chalons.)

The dukes were close to the Kings in the hierarchy and equalled their power. The number of dukes is estimated between 10 and 20 for each Kingdom. All the more, it is surprising that there were quite a few rebellions of dukes against their Kings and where there was not an outright rebellion, in many cases, there was tension between the interests of Kings and dukes.

If dukes were not the most trusted persons for a King, why were they appointed? Probably because they were powerful regional magnates with military skills, who were already recognized in their region as military leaders. This position could only be confirmed by a King. The counts within the jurisdiction of a duke had to obey his orders, but were probably in coalition with this duke. To complicate matters, there were dukes who were dependent on the king and dukes who were more autonomous. Royal dukes, were either dukes who were in coalition with the king, or officials of his household appointed duke by the king. Regional dukes were the apex of a regional power structure. A skilful King could use the competition for power between dukes. For example, two dukes campaigning together in Brittany were in competition with each other at the expense of the success of the campaign. Some royal dukes were given specific tasks, like being ambassador or making up tax lists. The duke of the Provence, called governor, patrician or rector, was relatively autonomous, as long as taxation was paid by the counts.

Most likely, the position of duke was used for some time as one of the attempts to enlarge the span of control of the Kings, similar to the way Kings used their princes. But because the duke was most of all a regional leader, especially for military purposes, these men were competing with the Kings for power. Dukes could be quite independent from a King and had the means to follow their own policy. Because of the shifting position of dukes in the public administration, this explains the diffuse way these dukes appear in the sources. The change from royal servants and military commanders to regional rulers explains the power they had.