The Kingdom was divided for administrative purposes into areas, (districts). The count, called comes or grafio, was the highest-ranking official in a district and the lowest official that was appointed directly by the king. The centre of a district, is a civitas, a town and its adjacent territory, which had been the practice in the Roman period and was still customary in the south. But not all was based on Roman tradition, and new territorial units were formed in the north, the pagus or gau. The estates of the magnates were autonomous territorial units in a district, as were the villages and farms in the countryside ruled by the centenarius. Large areas of uninhabited land made up the rest of a district. A civitas or pagus, the estates of the magnates and the villages of the centenarius were all self- governing, and the count was most of all a liaison officer and an arbiter wherever this was accepted. It is probable that there were between 40 and 50 counts for each Kingdom.

The count was appointed by the King for a set period. They could be reappointed or they became again a member of the group of magnates. It is important to emphasize that each count depended on a certain cooperation of the other local magnates and the population, and had to have enough men of his own to enforce his will when necessary. The selection of a local magnate who was supported by a strong local coalition could probably only be confirmed by the King. When there was competition and no apparent winner, the King could force his own choice on the people. Counts that were transferred from one district to another were examples of this. To execute his tasks, a count had to have his own followers, because the staff was not provided in his district. A count had to have a solid material basis for his position, because he needed to feed, house and reward his men. He did not receive a reward from the King, but there were some material advantages to the position, like gifts and fines.

The higher social status of the count is represented by his triple wergeld in the Lex Salica. Wergeld was a value placed in the Lex Salica on every human being and every piece of property. If property was stolen, or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person would have to pay wergeld as restitution to the victim’s family or to the owner of the property. From the Histories it is clear that a count was regularly away from his district, just as the bishop, to deliberate with other officials, the king and the treasurer. The most important aspect of the position of count seems to have been this liaison position. Other essential functions of the count were judicial, military and financial.

The count was responsible for the levying of taxes and paying them to the royal treasury. He did not levy the taxes himself, but leased this to a tax collector. The count was not responsible for tax registers, because this was done by specially appointed royal officials. A reason for this could have been the difficulty of drawing up tax registers, but more likely the interests of a count in his district would prevent him from levying high taxes. In taxation, the count had rather the role of organizer than that of the execution of tasks.

Bishops

The poor and the weak had no protection from the state, and sought protection from bishops. A bishop took under his protection the widows, the orphans, the poor, the sick, especially lepers, slaves, captives, etc. according to canon law. There was an organized structure of clerics and servants to execute the necessary tasks. Because the Church was a large landowner and had immunity from taxation, it used this income for these people, and a considerable part of the population was dependent on the rule of a bishop. Compared with our period, we could consider a bishop a governmental official for the poor part of the population. These people were neglected by the public administration, based as that was on the free man and his family, prosperous enough to pay taxes and to perform military duty. This partition of duties between count and bishop was quite clear. In the Histories, there are no signs of an overall rivalry between bishops and counts.
In this way, bishops and their clerics were part of the structure of government, for ruling the poor part of society. The king was de facto head of the Church in his kingdom, as far as public matters are concerned that were regulated by the bishops. In religious matters, the interference of a king was less accepted and kings did not often take action here. The bishop was most of all present in the urban communities. He possessed religious, political, economic, and social influence as a result of the wealth and the prestige of the Church. Given these powers, it is not surprising that the kings sought to control appointments to the bishopric.

Bishops were in theory elected by the people and the clerics of the vacant see, who acclaimed the candidate of their choice. The election took place in the cathedral, under the presidency of the metropolitan or of a bishop of the province.

In reality, Kings would appoint bishops directly, or by approving or disapproving of candidates. Different interests were at stake. The King wanted someone he could trust, the people someone who would represent their interests, the clerics someone from their midst, and the other bishops someone who could strengthen the synod of bishops.

A bishop had to control the large possessions of the Church, e.g. villas with fields around them and vineyards. And to make matters more complex, he had to keep apart his own possessions from those of the Church, especially when he was married. A bishop had to manage this landed property, but also the exemption from customs dues and market tax written down in charters of immunity, and the right to levy dues at specified places. The tithes upon the fruits of the earth and the increase of the cattle were generally paid by the faithful, but that was not made obligatory until 585 CE. All this property was used for the maintenance of the bishop and his household, for the payment of the clergy, for the poor, and for the building and repair of Churches. Some bishops even carried out works of public utility in their cities.

A bishop could be expelled by the citizens, the clerics, the metropolitan, or the king.But a bishop could also go to another king and become one of his bishops in a new see.

Centenarius

The centenarius or thunginus or hundred-man, in a later period also called vicar, administered a part of the district. The position is mentioned in the Lex Salica and in the capitularia, but not by Gregory. According to the Lex Salica the centenarius was responsible for the summoning of the court. According to the capitularia the centenarius was also responsible for the persecution of thieves and the command of the local militia. The centenarius is not appointed but chosen, probably by the locals.The centenarius is placed in trust, probably the “king’s trust”, meaning probably that he enjoyed the higher status of a man of the king.

Collectives

Magnates did form coalitions, but common people also organized themselves and effectively exercised power as a collective. When people had a common cause or a shared identity this could motivate them enough to act as a collective, e.g. as warriors of the army who acted as a whole, or of the citizens of a civitas en bloc. Such collectives expressed themselves by spokesmen.

The collective of the citizens of a civitas was very much self-governing, but in their relations to the central government they were represented by a count, who was a magnate and not one of the citizens of the city.

The army as a whole is also such a collective. From time to time warriors imposed their will upon kings, as some examples will show. Clovis wanted to change the rules for the distribution of the spoils of war. The army refused, and even the famous war lord Clovis had to give in. Theuderic had to convince his army to attack the Thuringians. In a later campaign, the army threatened to desert Theuderic if he refused to fight against the Burgundians. Chlothar I led an expedition against the Saxons and the king was willing to accept the peace offer of the Saxons, but his warriors denied this offer. He was obliged to yield to their insistence, but as a result the army was defeated severely. The bishop of Reims had to flee, because the army objected to the advisors of the king. Leudast asked the army to intercede for him with the king. King Sigibert could not control his army from pillaging, especially the tribes which came from across the Rhine.

Somewhere between the collective and the coalitions of magnates are the annual meetings in Spring held by the king with the important men of the kingdom to discuss the policy for the coming year. The assemblies of magnates decided major policies. These meetings are mentioned in the capitularia. Because all magnates had their bodyguards with them, being the core of any army, this assembly would to some extent also be an assembly of the army. This may be the place where the approval of the Franks, i.e. the bishops and military leaders, was given to treaties. Without such approval a treaty had no value. The King needed the support of these assemblies for major decisions. In the assemblies the capitularies were promulgated. When it was decided to campaign, the field could immediately be taken against the enemy. The assembly was thus at once an army, a council, and in some cases also a legal tribunal.
_________________________

Clovis was leader of an expanding coalition of war bands in the fifth century. Clovis may have had the strongest war band, but he was not able to control all his conquered territory effectively at the same time. He had to make alliances with local magnates. These coalitions turned an anarchistic situation into a more stable pattern of a strong central military power with links to local potentates. The kingdom of Clovis was not so much a territorial organization as a region of military influence. Already under the reign of Clovis the core area of the kingdom shifted from the lands of the Salian Franks in western Belgium and northern France to the area around Paris. Insofar as far as we can speak of an organization, a very flat hierarchical organization began to grow.

The subsequent divisions of the realm indicate that there was little coherence within the separate kingdoms, and that regional identity was yet to grow, but also that there was a feeling of coherence in the Merovingian realm as a whole. In 524, after the death of King Chlodomer, a new division was made into three parts. In 555, after the death of King Theudobald, there were two kingdoms left, now including the former kingdom of Burgundy. In 558, after the death of King Childebert I, the Merovingian Kingdoms were united under King Chlothar I for three years. In 561 CE, after the death of Chlothar I, again a new division of the Kingdom was made, this time in four parts. Paris was treated as neutral ground in 567 CE, when there remained three Kingdoms.

The growing identity and territorial unity of the separate Kingdoms became visible for the first time when the minor Kings Childebert II (575 CE) and Chlothar II (584 CE) came to rule.

A coalition of magnates ruled in their name and prevented any serious interference from other Merovingian Kings. The question of rearrangement of the Kingdoms never came up any more. Three Kingdoms, or rather regional power structures, took shape on a permanent basis. These Merovingian Kingdoms considered themselves no longer as part of the Roman Empire, as opposed to the earlier barbarian Kingdoms of the fifth century