Clovis, Towards a New Chonology, Part Six

Chlodoveo Rex Bellorum, The Visigothic, Thuringian and Burgundian wars

 By Dane R. Pestano ©2015.

497 Second Letter of Remigius to Clovis on death of Albofled.

Bishop Remigius wrote to Clovis a second time on learning of the death of Clovis' Sister Albofled. She had been baptised with Clovis in 496 but then subsequently died, according to Gregory, shortly afterwards. Many commentators suggest the letter was written a fair time (as much as 20 years later in some cases based on an early chronology) after the first letter of Remigius, which I have dated to 493. I date it a mere four years after the first. Clovis had fallen into a stupor of sadness and was perhaps neglecting his kingdom allowing the Visigoths to recapture cities on the Loire. Remegius' letter :

“I grieve, I grieve very deeply, for the sorrow that afflicts you because your sister of resplendent memory, Albofled, has passed on. But we can be consoled by the fact that a person such as she who has departed from the light of this world merits veneration more than lamentation. Her life was such that it may be believed that, as one of God's elect who has emigrated to heaven, she was taken up to himself by the Lord. She lives, and if you desire to see her again, Christ lives in your faith. She has accomplished the fulfillment that is the blessing of virginity. It is a consecrated state, not to be mourned, glowing in the sight of God as a virginal flower or, if you prefer, her head bears the crown that she received as a reward for her virginity. Let it not happen that the faithful lament her who merited to become the aroma of Christ so that through him, whom she has pleased, she can provide help to those who seek it. My lord, put sadness out of your heart. Once your soul has become reconciled through due religious observance, govern the kingdom with keener wisdom and adopt nobler counsel out of zeal for tranquillity. With joyful heart, strengthen the members.” ^1a

Remigius still speaks of Clovis' possession as a kingdom, rather than describing him as a conqueror of nations as he does in a subsequent letter written after Clovis' death that mentions the king. This would suggest the letter was written after 496 but before 507 when Clovis had defeated the Visigoths. I have chosen 497 as this appears to be the time when Clovis let slip his concentration and the Visigoths were able to go on the offensive, giving rise to challenges from the Thuringians soon after. Gregory also places the death of Albofled shortly after her baptism.

498. The first Visigothic war: Part 2.

Now into the sixth installment and we are still not out of the fifth century. Clovis taking the time out to be Baptised and then mourning the death of his sister meant losing focus on Aquitania.The Visigoths were able to regroup and recover possessions lost. In 496, a continuation of the Chronicle of Prosper relates that Alaric retook Saintes¹, and then in the following year had ended a rebellion in one of his Spanish cities. Refugees, who had started leaving Aquitania, had by 497 taken settlements there, from the Chronicle of Saragossa: “the Goths acquired settlements in Spain”². Tours had also admitted the Franks, as when it fell back into Visigothic hands in 497, their terrified Bishop Volusianus³ was dragged off to Toulouse and then Spain where he died⁴. This can only mean that Alaric had refused to hand over Syagrius and that Clovis launched campaigns into Aquitania to force his hand. MacGeorge, in Late Roman Warlords (2002) agrees stating, “it is possible that Syagrius was not surrendered by the Goths until some years after his defeat.” Mathisen continues the story of this early Frankish-Visigothic war : 

“The recapture of Saintes by the Visigoths in 496 did not, however, mark the end of Frankish attacks, for the same chronicle notes, under the year 498, “In the fourteenth year of Alaric the Franks captured Bordeaux and transferred it from the authority of the Goths into their own possession, having taken captive the Gothic duke Suatrius.””⁵

 So Clovis, now a Catholic King, had resumed the war and taken Bordeaux in 498. We must assume that territory north of Saints and Bordeaux and immediately south of the Loire had possibly already been re-taken; places such as Tours, Bourges and Poitiers, but this is not certain..

Mathisen sees these events as a failure by Clovis to defeat the Visigoths at this time, which has some merit, but when the battle of Soissons is placed in the correct time-frame of 491 (rather than 486) we can see that the Visigothic war follows the flight of Syagrius to Alaric. All these events then make perfect sense. Contrary to Gregory's statement that the Goths were accustomed to be terrified, they had in fact recovered well against Clovis but had not yet faced him in open battle.

 499. Defeat of the Thuringians

Gregory states in the Histories, that in around the tenth year of his reign Clovis fought a war against the Thuringians, which in the GC518 scheme would be 498 (but in CC511 490), which along with all his chronological schemes was unlikely as Clovis was tied up in Aquitania taking Bordeaux in 498. It was not in the 505/6 during the campaigns against the Alamanni as Theoderic did not mention the Thuringians when he congratulated Clovis on victory. Also, in 507 Theoderic called on the Thuringians (as well as the Heruli and Warni) to ally against the Franks. It is unlikely he would have called on the Thuringians in such a way if they had recently been defeated by Clovis. In around 499 then Clovis appears to have moved against the Thuringians who were probably encroaching from Germania I or II towards Belgica II. What prompted this Thuringian aggression? Perhaps dynastic pretensions played a part. Clovis was half Thuringian and they may have thought that while he was tied up in the west they could expand their territory towards Belgica II. Some Thuringians had been Christian since the fifth century but most likely Arian. Whether they were or not, Clovis would show his authority by defeating them in battle and sending their remnants back over the Rhine. The defeat of the Thuringians though left a void that was to be filled by the Allemani who expanded their influence and would soon threaten northern Gaul.

Clovis' next move was to intervene in around 500AD in the Burgundian civil wars between Kings Gundobad and Godigisel. Fredegar places Clovis at Troyes near the Burgundian border at this time. It is therefore not surprising that Clovis now joined with Godigisel in trying to defeat Gundobad in the Burgundian civil wars. Clovis was now Catholic, as was Godigisel. Gregory explains it as Godigisel asking for help after hearing of Clovis' recent victories, (presumably over the Visigoths and Thuringians) and if he did, then it was most certainly because he knew that Clotilda would convince Clovis to support such a move. 

Gregory states that the Burgundians had taken Marseilles by this time, although this date in GC518 could be as late as 504. It could be possible that whilst Clovis in the late 490's was taking western Visigothic possessions, the Burgundians may have taken the opportunity to expand into Provence. They appear to have besieged Arles in around 505 and Sigismund is supposed to have visited Provence around the same time⁶. Perhaps though these events should be dated to the 507 when we know they certainly invaded Provence.

500-501 The Burgundian Civil War

Clovis then, in around 500-501CE took his army forward into Burgundy to support Godigisel in his first Catholic crusade. This would leave his newly won Aquitanian possessions open to Alaric again, so he would have to be quick. Clovis and Godigisel defeated Gundobad, who had known nothing of their alliance, in a battle near Dijon, and Gundobad then fled to Avignon, whilst Godigisel went to Vienne to secure Gundobad's city. Clovis negotiated a yearly tribute with Gundobad after besieging him for a while in Avignon. Gregory's story of revenge for the death of Clotilda's parents making no sense in the light of this outcome. Gregory states that the tribute and submission was brokered by one of Gundobad's counselors, Aridius. It may have suited Clovis though to make this agreement as Alaric by this time in 501/2 may have started retaking his Aquitanian possessions. This forced Clovis to abandon the Burgundian civil war quickly, albeit with a sack full of coin, leaving Godigisel exposed. The unfortunate Godigisel, now considered a traitor by his people, was then soon defeated and killed by Gundobad and a small detachment of Franks protecting him were captured and sent as prisoners to Alaric. Gregory states that the Arian Gundobad converted at this time to Catholicism in secret but this is questionable. We could speculate that if he did, he may have done so under the terms set by Clovis. Having learnt that exacting tribute was a profitable way forward Clovis marched into Aquitania threatening Alaric.

502-503. Meeting with Alaric on Loire.

On learning that Clovis had left Burgundy and was threatening a resumption of the war Alaric now called the meeting on the Loire, near Tours, sometime in 502/3 to negotiate terms of peace before Clovis turned on him again. Mathisen dates this to “just after 500”, Wolfram to 502⁷; Gregory in a similar vein doesn't give it a precise date⁸, but Bordeaux had returned to Visigothic possession by 505⁹. Both parties though got what they wanted; Clovis obtained Syagrius, if he had not been handed over before, tribute and his captured Franks. The Visigoths were probably given back territory taken by the Franks south of the Loire in the Aquitania provinces, such Poitiers, Bourges and Bordeaux. I would expect that Clovis retained the cities on the Loire in the provinces of the Lugdunensii. By 503 Clovis may also have had reports of the troubles brewing in the the Germanic provinces due to incursions of the and Alamanni and thought peace with the Visigoths was a wise move at this point. Next part seven.

Footnotes:

1 Mathisen, Ralph., The First Franco-Visigothic War and the Prelude to the Battle of Vouille, p.4

1a Translation by Daly - Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan? 1994 p.633

2 Collins, Roger.,Visigothic Spain 409 – 711, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, p.33

3 See Mathisen, R.Ruricius of Limoges and Friends : A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Aquitania. Liverpool University Press, 1999 P.14, Volusianus wrote to Ruricius saying he was “stupefied with fear of the enemy”.

4 Gregory, Histories II.26, II.29. His successor Verus was also exiled in the build up to the battle of Vouille.

5 Ibid Mathisen The First Franco-Visigothic War and the Prelude to the Battle of Vouille , p.4

6 Ferreiro, Alberto, Editor. The Visigoths: Studies in Culture and Society, Mathisen, Sivan The kingdom of Toulouse, BRILL 2012, p.57

7 Ibid Mathisen and Shanzer P.6

8 Greg.Histories II.35 
9 Ibid Mathisen, The First Franco-Visigothic War and the Prelude to the Battle of Vouille, P.5

The Baptism of Clovis,

Clovis, Towards a New Chronology, Part Five.

   
By Dane R. Pestano ©2015. Hover cursor over reference numbers for reference text.

496. The Baptism of Clovis. 

The baptism of Clovis as a Catholic was one of the most important moments in the history of western Europe. The Franks were pressured on all sides by Arianism and had been contained by the Visigoths who had also supported their barbarian enemies over the Rhine, some of whom were nominally Arian Christian as well. The Byzantine empire though in the east had continued a policy of supporting the Franks since the time of Clovis' father Childeric making Clovis consequently a man of sufficient means to support an army to counter the Visigothic and Gothic threat. It was not in the interests of the eastern empire to have a western empire that was sufficiently strong enough to challenge them. Clovis had made closer ties with the Burgundians by marrying the niece of Gundobad, the Catholic Clotilda. Gundobad had no love for the Goths either having had his eye on Italy himself in the past when he had set up Glycerius as Emperor in 473, and having subsequently devastated Liguria in 490. Although Gundobad was himself Arian the Burgundian people were more likely a Catholic people, like Clotilda, her parents, her sister and the famous Avitus of Vienne were. He had also aligned and allied with the neighbouring Catholic Armoricans. In light of these political manoeuvrings Clovis' choice of Catholicism was the only sensible choice he could make. By doing so he would find acceptance for the Franks as Christian protectors in northern Gaul; he would align with the nominally Catholic Burgundians and Armoricans, and snub the Goths and their Arianism. He would also please the Eastern Empire by continuing anti Gothic policies. By having the support of the Church of Rome and the Pope in Italy, Clovis now had a back door influence there, in direct opposition to Theoderic in Ravenna. It was also to be a momentous choice for the future of Europe, as summarised by Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh:

“The pact between Clovis and the Roman church, in short, was one of momentous consequence to Christendom - not only the Christendom of the time, but also the Christendom of the next millennium. Clovis' baptism was deemed to mark the birth of a new Roman Empire – a Christian empire, based on the Roman church and administered, on a secular level, by the Merovingian bloodline. In other words an indissoluble bond was established between church and state, each pledging allegiance to the other, each binding itself to the other in perpetuity.” ^1a

Indeed, but dating the baptism has been a matter of contention for some time with modern authors seeking to move the baptism to the early sixth century. It was fixed at 496 as Gregory had stated it took place after the battle of Tolbiac, which was, according to him or an interpolator, fifteen years after Clovis began to reign, basing the start of this reign in 481/2. However, as discussed in the introduction Van de Vyver and others soon realised that the battle of Tolbiac took place in around 506. So Clovis' conversion to Christianity could have happened then, (with this battle then conversion scenario) and his baptism was subsequently placed in 507/8,shortly after. However as discussed at the end of part four of this work, the conversion and baptism can be seperated from the Battle of Tolbiac.

Danuta Shanzer had, as early as 1998, proposed that the baptism be dated to 507 in her ground breaking work – Dating the Baptism of Clovis: the bishop of Vienne vs the bishop of Tours. Wood, in concert with Mathisen, in agreeing suggested that the baptism could have taken place as late as 507/8, when a date for the battle of Tolbiac is placed in 506. But the letter of Avitus and of Clovis and the profusion of evidence does not agree with this date. 

Shanzer also suggests a comment made by Theodoric the great shows or hints that he considered Clovis was still a pagan.^1b This is the occasion when Theodoric was asking Boethius to find and send a harp to Clovis, probably in around 506. He used the words “facturus aliquid Orpheus, cum dulci sono gentilium fera corda domuerit,” which is commonly translated as, “he will be another Orpheus, taming the wild hearts of these foreigners [gentilium] with sweet music.”1c There is no hint of paganism here, in the non ecclesiastical context of the letter, the word means foreigners, which the Franks were to the Goths. If anything Theodoric is hinting that the Franks were not as yet fully Romanised and were still intent on war. In fact Gregory had got the date right in his scheme but had manufactured the event of his conversion to make Clovis appear as a new Constantine, converting and baptising after a tough battle. By the time the battle of Tolbiac took place in 506 Clovis had been a Catholic for ten years as we shall now see. 

Clovis, now around twenty-three years of age, decided to be baptised on Christmas Day 496, probably at Reims by Remigius, as suggested by Fredegar and then Hincmar¹. He may have delayed this event since his marriage in 492 for a number of reasons. The first, as Gregory hints, is that he had lost his first son soon after baptism and he was worried that his fellow Franks would not support him if he accepted the faith at this time, but now after several victory's he was more secure of his command. The second reason was the problems of the Acacian schism that was affecting the church at the time. This had begun in 484 and was not solved until 519. When Clovis had possibly chosen Christianity in 492 the schism was tearing the church apart and these are probably part of the perverse doctrines that Avitus described in his letter to Clovis. When Pope Gelasius took power in 492 he tried to heal the schism and it is during his reign that Clovis decided to be baptised. As it was, he became a competens only days before Gelasius died in November 496. The third reason was the allure of Arianism which may still have been on his mind in the years before he was baptised.

But why now, what had changed, what prompted his choice of faith as Avitus puts it? Gregory may have given us a subtle negative clue. He tells us that Clovis' first son Ingomer was baptised a catholic but then soon died. Clovis, after this event, was in no hurry to profess his faith to Clotilda's Catholicism. However, over the next four years Clotilda had successfully given birth to Chlodomer around 494, Childebert in 495 and possibly Clothar by 496 who had all survived baptism and thrived. More than this the Catholic Clotilda had successfully given him three healthy sons! A daughter was to follow in the next couple of years. He had also in the interval expanded his kingdom and driven the Visigoths from the Loire. In his mind therefore, his conversion to Christianity in 492 had not brought him any bad luck and in fact his alliances with Catholics had brought him only good luck and an extended kingdom! We will proceed to the letter of Avitus to Clovis on his baptism shortly, which will confirm this chronology, but let us first read of how Gregory described the baptism :

“He (Clovis) met with his followers, but before he could speak the power of God anticipated him, and all the people cried out together: "O pious king, we reject our mortal gods, and we are ready to follow the immortal God whom Remi preaches.” This was reported to the bishop, who was greatly rejoiced, and bade them get ready the baptismal font. The squares were shaded with tapestried canopies, the churches adorned with white curtains, the baptistery set in order, the aroma of incense spread, candles of fragrant odour burned brightly, and the whole shrine of the baptistery was filled with a divine fragrance: and the Lord gave such grace to those who stood by that they thought they were placed amid the odours of paradise. And the king was the first to ask to be baptised by the bishop. Another Constantine advanced to the baptismal font, to terminate the disease of ancient leprosy and wash away with fresh water the foul spots that had long been borne. And when he entered to be baptised, the saint of God began with ready speech: "Gently bend your neck, Sigamber; worship what you burned; burn what you worshipped...And so the king confessed all-powerful God in the Trinity, and was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, and was anointed with the holy ointment with the sign of the cross of Christ. And of his army more than 3000 were baptised. His sister also, Albofled, was baptised, who not long after passed to the Lord ”

Avitus, the Burgundian bishop of Vienne had written to Clovis in 497 to congratulate him on his recent baptism. The dating of this letter has been much debated and the strange references to the Greek Emperor and a chosen leader have puzzled historians, mainly because without the correct reading of the letter they were placing his baptism in the early sixth century as late as 508, instead of where it belongs in the late fifth century. Wood in concert with Mathisen suggested that the baptism could have taken place as late as 508, when a date for the battle of Tolbiac is placed in 506. But the letter and the profusion of evidence does not agree with this date as we shall find. Shanzer makes the comment that the baptism took place late in Clovis' life, just three years before he died. We should therefore now examine the letter of Avitus to prove the baptism was over ten years earlier in 496. Here is the letter in full :

Bishop Avitus to King Clovis

      The followers of error have in vain, by a cloud of contradictory and untrue opinions, sought to conceal from your extreme subtlety the glory of the Christian name. While we committed these questions to eternity and trusted that the truth of each man's belief would appear at the Future Judgement, the ray of truth had shone forth even among present shadows. Divine Providence has found the arbiter of our age. Your choice is a general sentence. Your Faith is our victory. Many others, in this matter, when their bishops or friends exhort them to adhere to the True Faith, are accustomed to oppose traditions of their race and respect for their ancestral cult; thus they culpably prefer a false shame to their salvation. While they observe futile reverence for their parents (by continuing to share their unbelief) , they confess that they do not know what they should choose to do. After this marvellous deed, guilty shame can no longer shelter behind this excuse.

     Of all your ancient genealogy you have chosen to keep only your own nobility, and you have willed that your race should derive from you all the glories which adorn high birth. Your ancestors have prepared a great destiny for you; you willed to prepare better things (for those who will follow you). You follow your ancestors in reigning in this world; you have opened the way to your descendants to a heavenly realm.

     Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has chosen our Princeps, that she is no longer one who alone deserves the gift of so great an office. Your sphere burns with its own brilliance, and in the person of a king , the light of a rising sun shines over the western lands. It is right that this light began at the Nativity of our Redeemer, so that the waters of rebirth have brought you forth to salvation the very day the world received the the birth of its redemption, the Lord of Heaven. The day celebrated as the Lord's nativity is also yours, in which you have consecrated your soul to God, your life to your contemporaries, your glory to posterity.

     What should be said of the glorious solemnity of your regeneration? If I could not assist in person among the minsters (of the rite) I shared in it's joy. Thanks to God, our land took part in the thanksgiving, for, before your baptism, a messenger of Your Most Subtle Humility informed us that you were “competens” (that is, to be baptised within forty days). Therefore the sacred night (of Christmas) found us sure of what you would do. We saw (with the eyes of the spirit) that great site, when a crowd of bishops around you, in the ardour of their holy ministry, poured over your Royal limbs the water of life; when that head, feared by the masses, bowed down before the servants of God; when your royal locks, hidden under a helmet, were steeped in holy oil; when your breast relieved of it's cuirass, shone with the same whiteness as your baptismal robes. Do not doubt most flourishing of kings, that this soft clothing will give more force to your arms; whatever Fortune has given up to now, this sanctity will bestow.

     I would wish to add some exhortations to your praises if anything escaped either your knowledge or your attention. Should we preach the faith to the convert who perceived it without a preacher; or humility, which you have long shown towards us (Bishops), although you only owe it to us now, after your profession of faith; or mercy attested, in tears and joy to God and men, by a people once captive, now freed by you?

     One wish remains for me to express. Since God, thanks to you, will make your people His own possession, offer a part of the treasure of faith which fills your heart to the peoples living beyond you, who, still living in natural ignorance, have not been corrupted by the seed of perverse doctrine. Do not fear to send them envoys and to plead with them the cause of God, who has done so much for your cause. So that the other pagan peoples at first being subject to your kingdom for the sake of religion, while they still seem to have another ruler, may be distinguished rather by their race than by their prince. [end of letter missing.]

The first comment Avitus makes is that Clovis has averted the choice of a perverse doctrine. This could be Arianism and the argument against Catholicism at the time could have been the troubles due to the Acacian schism causing divisions within the Catholic church. Clovis though had made the right choice in the eyes of Avitus. This adulation of Clovis by a Burgundian Bishop would make no sense after 500CE when Clovis had invaded Burgundy to help Godigisel take on Gundobad and brought the Burgundians to submission and tribute. But in 496, with the Franks and Burgundians on good terms and Clovis married to a Burgundian Catholic princess, all was well between the two nations and this correspondence shows it. 
 

The next major statement Avitus makes is that which will ultimately date the letter and which has caused so much confusion. Due to it's importance it requires a close study and for that we must turn to Shanzer, whose important work provides us with all the answers. Only the final solution eluded her, which I will produce here. The traditional reading of this came from Hilgarth, writing in 1969²:

Gaudeat equidem Graecia principem legisse nostrum, sed non iam quae tanti muneris donum sola mereatur

“Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has elected an emperor who shares our faith; it is no longer alone in deserving such a favour”

Shanzer had already compiled a close study of the Latin and the manuscript variants and states that this reading is from the oldest manuscript 'L'. She dismissed the word elected as a viable translation of legisse but suggested that it should rather be translated as chosen. So she translates the first part of the sentence as “As far as I am concerned let Greece rejoice in having chosen our ruler”. However having come to a nearly correct reading she fails to understand the context of the message. She poses the question “who is the Princeps?” After discussing some alternatives suggested by other historians, such as it referring to Anastasius or even Clovis, she cannot come to a conclusion as to who could be meant. With no conclusion she must dismiss the idea that this person was chosen:

“L's text principem legisse nostrum simply does not mean much in itself. It is insufficiently transparent. Chosen our ruler for what? The purpose of choosing, or else the object of choice, must be deducible from the context or explicitly stated. It is not.”

It is perfectly deducible as I will soon show. As she was unable to explain the context of the sentence she dismissed it entirely, but before she did she thankfully also explained the feminine case involved in the reading, translating the second part as “..but she is no longer the one to deserve so great a gift alone”. Not coming to a viable context she then dismissed the 'L' reading and suggested we use a much later variant of the text by Sirmond, the 'S' manuscript from 1647CE:

“Gaudeat ergo quidem Graecia habere se principem legis nostrae, sed non iam tanti muneris dono sola mereatur illustrari” which she translates as :

“Therefore let Greece be sure to rejoice, that she has a ruler who is orthodox, but she is no longer the only one to bask in the illumination of such a great gift.”

Unfortunately Shanzers translation of Sirmonds corrupted reading does little to enhance our understanding of the context. The emperor Anastasius was far from Orthodox. He had Miaphysite tendencies and there was an Acacian schism between the churches of east and west during his time. He was not well regarded in the west because of this and so the choice of this emperor has fallen by the wayside. In fact all it shows is that Sirmond was as confused about the meaning of the original reading as all historians have been.

Shanzer's examination of the 'L' manuscript has shown that nostrum means ours / belonging to us, i.e. someone who Avitus, a Burgundian, considers a western leader on equal terms to Anastasius in the East. She says nostrum must be separated from Graecia³ and indeed this is the correct reading of the Latin. So, if we actually look at the original reading again we can see how it should have been translated, as I have used in the above translation of the letter , i.e.:

“Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has chosen our Princeps, that she is no longer one who alone deserves the gift of so great an office”

The keys here are the words principem and muneris The meaning of muneris is commonly office⁴, the less used meaning favour making no sense in the context. Shanzer seems to overlook the word completely. Principem therefore refers to a leader, chosen by Anastasius in the East, that Avitus would consider a leader in the west on nearly equal terms with Anastasius. This can only be Theoderic the Great himself.⁵ Theoderic had grown up in Constantinople as a hostage and had become thoroughly Romanised by the time he was eighteen. He commanded his Goths in the service of the Eastern Empire becoming Magister Militum and then Consul by 483. The emperor Zeno sent Theoderic in 488 to overthrow the Patrician Odoacer, who had become king of Italy, but was now disrespecting the Eastern Empire and causing conflict. Theoderic eventually killed Odoacer with his bare hands and took control of Italy in 493. By this time Zeno had died in 491 and in his place Anastasius ruled as Eastern Emperor. Theoderic was then in 497 sent the imperial regalia by Anastasius who formally recognised him as Princeps of the Western Roman Empire based in Italy.⁶

Anastasius though considered him as merely a viceroy and Theoderic appears to have honoured this position in the early years, becoming more independent as the years progressed, so much so that by 507 Anastasius had sent a fleet of 200 ships to Italy to distract Theoderic whilst Clovis and Gundobad defeated the Visigoths. Anastasius needed a counterbalance to the increasing power and influence of Theoderic. That man was Clovis. The date of being chosen then by Anastasius is 497, it cannot be when he first entered Italy in 488 as he was then merely sent by Zeno. The west was overjoyed, as Avitus exclaims, it had it's own leader again, at last, after a period of four years when Anastasius ruled alone. Anastasius was no longer alone, the West had a man in an office equal to that of Anastasius. Avitus was writing therefore in around 497 and so Clovis' baptism was in December 496. The old chronology had got this one right.

Avitus then speaks about the timing of Clovis' baptism, which was on Christmas day 496. He next mentions the humility that Clovis has “long shown to us Bishops” which must once again show that Clovis had been Christian for some years. He continues this same exhortation by mentioning “a people once captive, now freed by you”. Who were the much debated populus captivus? Shanzer helps us by defining the phrase. It means a Christian people, perhaps recently conquered, but not the Allamani of course who were pagan⁷. She rejects Reverdy's idea that it could have been the Frankish people, which has some merit, many of whom had baptised with Clovis, as they were previously pagan. She then returns to the idea that they were actual captives and suggest they were prisoners of the Visigothic war in 507-508 as this is where she wants to place the baptism. However, she does mention that they could be a Catholic people who were religiously captive, as they would be under Arian Visigothic control. She admits the possibility of this being very good, but then dismisses this obvious solution⁸. The captive people were the Catholic populations of the provinces of the Tractus Armoricanus who had been under Visigothic control, that Clovis had recently freed. Bishops such as Volusanius of Tours were persecuted by Alaric's Arian government and he was taken captive and died in exile in Toulouse or Spain⁹.

About fifty years after Clovis died Bishop Nicetius of Trier wrote to Clotsinda, granddaughter of Clovis trying to get her to convert her husband, the Lombard King Alboin to Catholicism. In this letter he mentions how Clovis had prostrated himself before the tomb of St Martin, was then baptised and then mentioned his subsequent exploits against Gundobad and Alaric:

“...You have frequently heard how your grandmother Clotilda, of blessed memory, came to the kingdom of the Franks and how she brought King Clovis to the Catholic Faith. As he was a man of good understanding, he declined to accede to her wishes until he had fully grasped the truth of our doctrines. Once convinced, he prostrated himself before the tomb of St Martin, and promised to receive baptism without delay. You have been told of his subsequent exploits against the heretics Alaric and Gondebald ; you cannot have forgotten the noble gifts that fell even in this world to the lot, both of him and of his sons...”

Therefore the Bishop of Trier placed the baptism before the Burgundian civil war. But when exactly? Tours was back in Visigothic hands by 497¹⁰, so this must have occurred shortly before in 496. Another indicator in this letter is that Clovis had taken some time before acceding to the wishes of Clotilda to be Baptised, and had chosen the truth of 'our doctrines', i.e. Catholicism rather than Arianism.

One small puzzle in all of this is that Burgundian Sigismund, son of Gundobad is said by historians to have converted from Arianism to Catholicism sometime around 502-506¹¹. The reason for suspecting this is that Avitus had written to Pope Hormisdas following the accession of Sigismund in 516. Shanzer states that Sigismund “had made a further visit to Rome in the time of Pope Symmachus, more importantly, the Bishop of Vienne apparently places Sigismund's conversion from Arianism to Catholicism in the context of this second visit”, Symmachus was pope from 498 to 514, so we are talking of events during this time. Shanzer continues, “In addition, he seems to indicate that it took place before the conversion of Clovis”. Shanzer then explains the evidence from the letter, so that according to Avitus, Sigismund was “the only one of the kings who was not ashamed to convert”. As some historians thought Clovis's baptism did not occur in 496 but perhaps in 503 or later, Sigismund's conversion was placed earlier than this. What Avitus meant of course, was that Sigismund was the only one of the Arian kings to convert from Arianism to Catholicism, not that he had converted before Clovis. In effect, Clovis had never been an Arian Catechumen. 

There is no need therefore to try and squeeze Sigismunds conversion to Catholicism as early as 502, which was unlikely anyway whilst his father still lived. It couldn't have been early in the sixth century because there was civil disturbance in Rome between rival factions to the Pope from 502, the Laurentian schism, where there were two Popes, which did not end until 506. Following this was the Visigothic war in 507-508 and then Theoderic's invasion of Provence and Burgundy in 509-510. If Sigismund did convert as a result of his second visit to Rome in the time of Symmachus it was probably around 513-14, as he founded his first monastery at Agaune in 515¹². Michael Moore, agreeing with Wood suggests that Sigismund came to the throne soon after his conversion¹³.

The last point is one that has been noted many times before. Avitus in his letter to Clovis does not mention the honorary consulate awarded to Clovis by the Emperor Anastasius. For Woods, Mathisen and Shanzer this is problematical, as it would have taken place the very year of his baptism in their revised dating of 508, so we should expect Avitus to mention it, if only in passing, but he doesn't. The reason then is clear why he didn't; it wasn't to happen until another eleven years had passed.

Clovis' baptism was unfortunately overshadowed in the annalistic record by two events; the death and selection of a new Pope in 496 and the elevation of Theoderic to imperial status in 497. Next part six.

Footnotes:

1 Lynch, Joseph H. Christianizing Kinship: Ritual Sponsorship in Anglo-Saxon England,Cornell University Press, 1998, p.39

1a Lincoln, H, Baigent, M, Leigh, R. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Arrow; New edition, 2006, p.265 

1b Shanzer, Danuta, Vouille 507: Historiographical, Hagiographical, and Diplomatic Reconsiderations and Fortuna ,- The Battle of Vouillé, 507 CE Where France Began p.68, 2012.

1c See O'Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus, chp.3, University of California Press, 1979.

2 Ibid Shanzer 1998, p.37, fn.59.

3 Ibid Shanzer 1998, p.40, “In that case, whatever nostrum means is clearly opposed to what Greacia means” Greece of course represents the Byzantine Empire.

4 From the Perseus Latin word study tool : `a service, office, post, employment, function, duty'

5 Principem Nostrum could also be a referral to the Pope. It had been used in this context as early as the fifth century. The new Pope in 496 was named Anastasius, the same as the Emperor. However the Emperor in the East did not choose this Pope.

6 See Arnold, J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration Cambridge University Press, 2014.

7 Shanzer :”These people cannot be the recently conquered Allamani” ibid Shanzer 1998, p.44

8 Shanzer writes : “while I would agree that the idea is problematic, if one takes it literally, it is perfectly possible, if understood figuratively.” Ibid Shanzer 1998, P.45

9 Greg. Histories II.26

10 As Volusanius had been deposed and sent to Toulouse in 497.

11 Favrod and Shanzer as examples, Shanzer, Avitus of Vienne, p.18

12 Dunn, Maralyn., Belief and Religion in Barbarian Europe c. 350-700, Continuum Publishing, 2013, P.61

13 Moore, Michael E., A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300-850, The  Catholic University of America Press, 2011, p.142 

Clovis, Towards a New Chronology, Part Four

Chlodoveus Rex Christianus - First Visigothic war and Letter from Remigius. 

By Dane R. Pestano ©2015. Hover cursor over reference numbers for reference text.

493. The start of the first Franco-Visigothic war. 

Traditionally historians have thought that Clovis had turned eastwards at this time to take on the Thuringians and perhaps Alamanni, as indicated by Gregory¹.The Alamanni were not to be a problem until 506 when they were probably stirred up by Theoderic, who was trying to prevent Clovis taking on Alaric. In fact the evidence at this time, in 493, points the other way, to Clovis taking back his fathers possessions in the provinces of the Tractus Armoricanus. He turned westwards to the Loire. MacGeorge also pointed out these first and secondary wars of Clovis, first to the Seine, then to the Loire, as they are mentioned in the eighth century Liber Historia Francorum in a way independent from Gregory's testimony. The LHF states that “ Also at that time Clovis enlarged his kingdom, extending it as far as the Seine. At a later time he occupied as far as the river Loire”². This second war, from 493, the first Franco-Visigothic war would drag on for many years. There is also some support from Procopius writing in around 550 for the campaigns of Clovis from 493 onwards, where he states that it was after the death of Odoacer (493) that the Thuringians and Visigoths feared the power of the populous Franks^2a. Procopius also tells us that to counter this growing threat both peoples intermarried with the Goths of Theoderic, probably in around 495. Alaric marrying a daughter of Theoderic himself. In this way they hoped to have the powerful Theoderic on their side^2b. Clovis, not to be left out of these political shenanigans offered his sister to Theoderic in marriage which was accepted so alleviating immediate concerns of retribution from Theoderic.Theoderic however had only come to power in 493 and had more pressing matters than what was happening in northern Gaul at this time and so by the time he took interest Clovis had already acquired his kingdom and pushed on to the Loire and beyond. Placing Clovis' battle against the Thuringians has proven to be difficult. Gregory suggests ten years after Clovis took power, Procopius suggests after 500, but it would appear shortly before 500 would be the possible place.

Alaric had become king of the Visigoths in around 485 on the death of his father Euric. According to the events related by Gregory, Clovis, after the battle of Soissons, threatened Alaric with war and Alaric then handed over Syagrius to Clovis who then had him executed. Gregory implies that this all occurred in a fairly short period of time but there is no contemporary record that states that Syagrius was handed over immediately, as pointed out by Woolfram, who also makes the point that Clovis' threat of war would have been ineffectual unless the Franks and Goths were actual neighbours³. In fact the Franks started a war in Aquitanian territory soon afterwards implying that Clovis had already secured areas of the Tractus Armoricanus and that Syagrius had not as yet been handed over. Ralph Mathisen's paper on the subject, The First Franco-Visigothic War and the Prelude to the Battle of Vouillé (2012), is a good source for the events of this time. The Franks had taken Saintes in 494⁴, a port city one hundred miles north of Bordeaux and many Goths had fled to Spain. Some partial evidence for this comes from the Chronicle of Saragossa that notes that in 494 “the Goths entered Spain”⁵. To have taken Saintes by 494 implies that Clovis by this time, since the defeat of Syagrius in 491, had brought some or all of the cities along the Loire back into Frankish hands. Probably those within Lugdunensis IV Senonae at least or perhaps the whole of the Tractus Armoricanus⁶ (excluding the far west of Lugdunensis III). It appears some cities held out though, Verdun in the east beyond the Seine refused the Franks⁷, as did the Gallic population of Nantes in the west. Clovis appear to have installed his relatives into positions of power in these cities; Gregory of Tours informing us for instance, that Rignomer was given command of Le Mans (II.42).

Clovis had failed to take Nantes during these campaigns, after a long siege of sixty days where Chilo, one of his generals, when faced with an apparition of St. Similianus, fled with his army. Chilo was described as “not yet reborn by water and the Holy spirit" This last statement, as MacGeorge points out (p.130), strongly suggests the barbarian commander and army was Frankish and therefore dated before 496. With a name like Chilo Mathieson cleverly suggests this could have been Clovis himself ⁸.

Only one other general of Clovis is mentioned, in the Liber Francorum, and his name was Aurelianus⁹, described as a count. He was granted some land south of the Seine by Clovis for his services. It is clear then that Clovis, and his family and generals, with portions of the army, attempted to secure the cities along the Loire.

Frankish expansion under Clovis 491 - 495

This failure to take Nantes in 494/5 and enter western Armorica led to what is assumed to be a treaty and alliance between the two peoples. Procopius, mentions a people living adjacent to the Franks called the Arborychi^9a (who must be the Armoricans and Britons of Lugdunensis III) who were Catholic Christian^9b and whom Clovis was unable to conquer. Since Clovis was now sympathetic to Catholics, his wife being one, the Franks were preferable to the Arian Visigoths¹⁰. Procopius suggests the Franks were also Christian at this time which may be another hint that Clovis was already himself Christian, which will be dealt with below. With the provinces of the Lugdunensii and the Tractus Armoricanus secure he was able to move southwards, probably with help from this alliance. It was on the occasion of this second war securing these territories and crossing the Loire that Remigius then wrote to Clovis. The letter could not have been after the battle for Soissons as Remigius would not then have needed to hear of a 'rumour' of war. That battle was in his own back yard. He would have had first hand experience of it and the Frankish pillaging.

493-494. The letter of Remigius to Clovis on his second military campaign.

This letter has generally been dated to the beginning of the reign of Clovis or after the victory over Syagrius, where Clovis is thought to have obtained command of Belgica II. Many of these assumptions appear to be incorrect¹¹ although it was undoubtedly early in his career as king. Not very early though. MacGeorge points out that Remigius does not offer his condolences on the death of Childeric¹² suggesting it was a few years into his reign or as I have suggested, Clovis was still a minor when childeric died. The first line of the letter has caused problems of interpretation due it's slightly corrupt form. Bury describes the problem in one of his lectures on Clovis :

“As they stand in the MSS. they are extremely obscure and indeed obviously corrupt. “Rumor ad nos magnum pervenit administrationem vos secundum bellice suscepisse”. `Rumor magnum'—I am not responsible for the gender, and I suspect neither was Remigius, but what the bishop meant was: "An important piece of tidings has reached us that you have undertaken the administration of"—something. `Secundum bellice' makes nonsense. The usual resort has been to insert rei after bellice, and the meaning is supposed to be "that you have undertaken for the second time the administration of military affairs". Such a statement is unintelligible in reference to Clovis. The words `secundum bellice` have been brilliantly emended by Bethmanns into `Secunde Belgice`, "that you have undertaken the administration of the Second Belgica"^12a

The original Latin¹³ actually reads “Rumor ad nos magnos pervenit administrationem vos secundam rei bellicae suscepisse.” The first part causes no problems “ important word has come to us..” The second part though is where the confusion lies, "that you have undertaken the administration of the Second Belgica"¹⁴ As Bury points out, the sentence has been corrupted by the copying during a lengthy period, but no variant manuscript carries the word Belgice or the sense of provincia, so we must reject Bethmanns amendment of Belgice. The Latin rei bellicae is in fact a genitive form of res bellica, a common phrase meaning war/military action. The meaning therefore is as Bury mentioned, but then too quickly dismissed because of the misunderstanding of the context, “that you have undertaken for the second time the administration of military affairs” Here, 'for the second time' would require a small emendation to secundum, rather than secundam, but time is superfluous so can be discarded anyway. Tome Duxieme as long ago as the eighteenth century had translated the same : “A great news came to me; you have undertaken a second military expedition, "or" you have taken up Arms for the second time"¹⁵. Therefore the whole first line in fact reads :

“Important word has come to us, that you have undertaken a second military campaign.”

This does no harm to the meaning or sense of the words. Clovis fought many wars. This appears to relate to his second campaign, which, as we have seen above, refers to the immediate Visigothic war following the flight of Syagrius. This letter is also indirect evidence of a first war, which must have been the one to take Soissons. As this letter is dated to the beginning of Clovis' reign, and as we now see, on the occasion of his attacks on the Visigoths from 493 onwards, then the beginning of his reign cannot have been twelve years previously in 481/82. The Letter therefore, is also indirect evidence that his reign must have began much closer in time, I suggest 488. Clovis had now gained control of the province of Lugduneis IV or all of the Tractus Armoricanus excluding western Armorica.

In fact this all makes perfect sense when we examine the second line which states “ “There is nothing new in that you now begin to be what your parents always were”. It is therefore not just that his parents or ancestors had a kingdom in Belgica II; it was also because Childeric, his father, had defeated the Visigoths at Orleans with Aegideus back in 463 and had had extended his influence to the Seine and Paris. Clovis was now in the same league; he had retaken Soissons and pushed back the Visigoths. We must therefore dispense with the previous assumptions that Clovis acquired the command of Belgica II following his victory over Syagrius, for which there was frankly, no evidence. 

A 'provincia' is mentioned later in the letter but did not always mean 'province', especially by the sixth century. In this context it could mean `charge' or 'office'. With so many other kings in place in what was Belgica II, including Ragnachar, Rignomer and Chararic, it is highly unlikely Clovis commanded that region. We know this is correct as he later had to remove them all. The attendees at the Council of Orleans also show that he did not have overall authority there even in 511. If we were to use 'province' as the meaning it would be the Tractus as discussed above and below. Here then is a corrected translation of the full letter:

“Important word has come to us that you have undertaken a second military campaign. There is nothing new in that you now begin to be what your parents always were. First of all, you should act so that God’s Judgement may not abandon you and that your merits should maintain you at the height where you have arrived by your humility. For, as the proverb says, man’s acts are judged. You ought to associate with yourself counsellors who are able to do honour to your reputation. Your deeds should be chaste and honest. You should defer to your bishops and always have recourse to their advice. If you are on good terms with them your charge (provincia) will be better able to stand firm. Encourage your people, relieve the afflicted, protect widows, nourish orphans, so shine forth that all may love and fear you. May justice proceed from your mouth. Ask nothing of the poor or of strangers, do not allow yourself to receive gifts from them. Let your tribunal be open to all men, so that no man may leave it with the sorrow [of not having been heard]. You possess the riches your father left you. Use them to ransom captives and free them from servitude. If someone is admitted to your presence let him not feel he is a stranger. Amuse yourself with young men, deliberate with the old. If you wish to reign, show yourself worthy to do so” (most of translation from Geary, 1998: 129)

This letter raises some other issues. Clovis appears well acculturated to Christianity. The mention of 'your Bishops' and the warning that “God might abandon you” are strange things to say to a heathen King. Daly, seeing these issues comments:

“..but reference to "your bishops" several years before Clovis's baptism can be surprising. If Remigius sees the role of the bishops as consultative, he deems Christian moral values to be normative for the young king. He commends him for humility, a Christian virtue, and assumes that he regards the Lord as a rewarding judge. In the spirit of the pre-Augustinian emphasis of the Gallo-Roman church on meriting God's reward through good works, he is enjoining Clovis to heed the basic message of the Last Judgement parable from Matthew's Gospel. He will be judged by the Lord, who will weigh his deeds, particularly those that show concern for the weak, the unfortunate, and strangers. Only the familiar Christian identification in Matthew 25.31-46 of these least of the Lord's brethren with Jesus is left out. All in all, Remigius seems to take for granted that the youthful king has some comprehension of and respect for, and perhaps even some degree of acceptance of, the beliefs and practices of his Gallo-Roman subjects”¹⁶

Wood argues that this shows Clovis may already have been an Arian Christian and James conceded the possibility, but this would be impossible as he would not have been able to be baptised again as a Catholic once an Arian, a procedure that had been banned at the Council of Arles in 314.¹⁷ Barlow argued that Arianism was unlikely as the Bishops of Frankia would then have used Clovis as an exemplem in their campaign against Arianism, which they did not^17a. However Alaric II has shown us that being an Arian Christian did not exclude good relations with Catholic Bishops. He was actively courting them shortly before his death at the Council of Agde in 506. Bury suggested that Clovis may already have converted to Catholicism by the time of the letter. Wood's other argument that Clovis may have been an Arian Catechumen fails when we consider that Avitus states that Clovis was under no instruction as discussed below.

The letter, from a Catholic Bishop to his king, would suggest that in reality Clovis was already Christian. There can be only one explanation for all of this; on marrying Clotilda she had insisted that he become Christian. He would however not commit to baptism as Catholic or Arian until he had considered the matter further; a very diplomatic way to solve the problem of a pagan king marrying a Catholic princess. Clovis would have been well aware of Catholic values having grown up in northern Gaul, under the influence of Genevieve and Remigius so the idea of converting to Christianity to engender the marriage could have been a fairly easy decision. However, most Germanic kings were of the Arian persuasion of Christianity. It would have been a natural choice for a young king to emulate the greatness of his elders, such as Gundobad and especially Theoderic, who had just defeated Odoacer. Avitus hints that Clovis had made the choice himself, i.e. that he was not under any particular instruction as a true catechumen should be¹⁸.

It appears unique that Clovis could convert to Christianity but then delay the choice of faith, awaiting perhaps a baptism of blood. Was this slightly heretical? Shanzer hints as much suggesting that Avitus, when writing to Clovis after his baptism, saw Clovis previously as heretical, but at the same time as not pagan, so already Christian, she sums up: 

“ Avitus would not have spoken of populi paganorum to Clovis, had he thought of Clovis himself as a recent or current member of that group....he has no need to pussy foot around paganism, because he does not think of Clovis as pagan. Instead he expends his linguistic efforts in being politically correct in his terminology related to heresy, for in his eyes, Clovis was an all too recent heretic”19

This process of converting and then baptising later was not without precedent. Constantine the Great had converted to Christianity some twenty years before he was actually baptised, shortly before his death. It seems that Clovis may have been tempted away from his choice over the years, as he approached the time he chose to be baptised, due to the schisms within the Catholic church, which we will discuss later. I can only repeat Daly's summing up " All in all, Remigius seems to take for granted that the youthful king has some comprehension of and respect for, and perhaps even some degree of acceptance of, the beliefs and practices of his Gallo-Roman subjects". Indeed, Clovis was therefore already Christian at the time of this letter. In support of this is the fact that Clovis' sisters may already have been Christian as well. Although at least two had chosen Arianism. Then as Daly points out there are the close associations of Childeric and Clovis with Saint Genevieve, as well as Remigius as shown from this letter. Daly's revisionist portrayal of Clovis as thoroughly Romanised and intimately acquainted with Christianity must therefore be supported in my view.

The mention in this letter of Clovis' fathers riches seems to imply that the letter must have been written within the early years of his reign when he was a young man. He would be around nineteen at this time. Then there is the strange statement, that if he “wishes to reign, he should show himself worthy to do so”. Very bold talk from a Bishop to a heathen king, but perhaps not so bold to a young Christian king. 

Clovis had reclaimed his birthright, Soissons, and secondly he had defeated the Visigoths and freed some of their cities from the yolk of Arianism. Soissons may even have been where he was born. Gregory also confirms that Clovis had authority over Soissons when describing the attack on Syagrius, claiming that the region properly belonged to Clovis “And Clovis came against him with Ragnachar, his kinsman, because he used to possess the kingdom”²⁰. The wording though is a little ambiguous and it might even be Ragnachar that may have held Soissons. However Clovis has always been associated with Soissons unlike Ragnachar who in 511 was still placed in Cambrai, so it may be that it was Childeric that held it in the past and so it was rightly Clovis'. Wood suggested that Clovis had lost it at the time Childeric died. This may not be out of the question if Clovis was only eight years old when Childeric died. He would have been in no position to challenge Syagrius. In part three I dated the fall of Soissons to Syagrius to 477-484 which would happily agree with Woods idea of it happening when Childeric died. If Clovis was a minor when Childeric died this may go some way to explain the confusion of his reign length.

I have dated this letter to 493-494 because Clovis began his first campaign against the Visigoths in 493/4 and this meant he would have to have removed some Visigothic influence along the Loire before heading for Saintes or Bordeaux. There is a suggestion therefore that Orleans may have admitted the Franks as he pushed along the Loire, which again may satisfy the second line of the letter. The territory referred to in the letter therefore was not Belgica II but more likely the Tractus Armoricanus. (probably at least Lugdunensis IV Senona), the very places his father Childeric had operated in. These were all well represented at the Council of Orleans in 511, even far western Armorica following their alliance.

In Gregory's corrupted ordering of events, Clovis would next have fought the Alamanni but we know the Alamannic battle took place only a year or so before Vouillé due to a letter written by Cassiodorus on behalf of Theoderic. Shanzer, Mathisen and Wood still adhering to the thoughts of Gregory²¹ therefore place the baptism after the Battle of Tolbiac in 506. By removing this errant association of baptism after Tolbiac we can in fact place the baptism in it's correct place. Daly also appears to support removing this association in his brilliant summing up :

“But whether he chose to be baptised early or late, his rapport with Catholic orthodoxy as it developed over three decades exhibits striking religious dimensions, both external and internal. Childeric's friendly relations with St. Genevieve and Remigius's advice to the young king imply that he already understood, and possibly half accepted, the simpler elements of the Christian economy of personal salvation. His early diplomacy introduced Arianism directly into his family and likely occasioned his allegedly perceptive investigation of its teachings, but he did not become an Arian. Whatever may have been his reasons for finally preferring Catholicism, they seem far removed from the supercilious lectures attributed to Clotild or from testing her god's power in the midst of battle, though her quiet personal example and influence must have complemented Genevieve's"²²

With this association removed we can proceed to Clovis' baptism in part five.

Footnotes:

1 Greg Histories II.27

2 Ibid MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, 2006, p.129

2a  "But after the fall of Odoacer, the Thuringians and the Visigoths began to fear the power of the Germans, which was now growing greater (for their country had become exceedingly populous and they were forcing into subjection without any concealment those who from time to time came in their way)" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20298/20298-h/20298-h.htm

2b Procopius: “And since Theoderic wished to attach these peoples to himself, he did not refuse to intermarry with them. Accordingly he betrothed to Alaric the younger, who was then leader of the Visigoths, his own unmarried daughter Theodichusa, and to Hermenefridus, the ruler of the Thuringians, Amalaberga, the daughter of his sister Amalafrida. As a result of this the Franks refrained from violence against these peoples through fear of Theoderic, but they began a war against the Burgundians”

3 Ibid Woolfram 1992 p.190

4 Saintes was retaken by Alaric in 496 showing it had already been lost. Chronicle of Saragossa.

5 Collins, Roger.,Visigothic Spain 409 – 711, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, p.35

6 As northern Gaul above the Loire to the Seine was called in the late empire.

7 Ibid MacGeorge 2003, p.129

8 Ibid MacGeorge 2003, p.130 Another natural event probably marks the apparition of St Similianus, perhaps a partial eclipse. There is a suspicion that 'Chilo' may actually have been Clovis himself,  suggesting that this event could have triggered his visit to Tours and subsequent Baptism. You just have to say Chlo out loud to see how easily this could happen. The name was probably shortened from Chloio - Chlodoveo.

9 Some medieval bright spark put two and two together and made Count Aurelianus the Dux Ambrosius Aurelianus of Gildas in the Irish version of Historia Britonum, the Lebhor Bretnach, where Ambrosius is described as a king of the Franks.

9a  Procopius : http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20298/20298-h/20298-h.htm "But as time went on, the Visigoths forced their way into the Roman empire and seized all Spain and the portion of Gaul lying beyond the Rhone River and made them subject and tributary to themselves. By that time it so happened that the Arborychi had become soldiers of the Romans. And the Germans, wishing to make this people subject to themselves, since their territory adjoined their own and they had changed the government under which they had lived from of old, began to plunder their land and, being eager to make war, marched against them with their whole people. But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans and shewed themselves brave men in this war, and since the Germans were not able to overcome them by force, they wished to win them over and make the two peoples kin by intermarriage. This suggestion the Arborychi received not at all unwillingly; for both, as it happened, were Christians. And in this way they were united into one people, and came to have great power"

9b. Procopius tells us that frontier Roman soldiers chose the Germans and Arborychi to join with because they were not Arian. Suggesting the Arborychi were therefore Catholic. Also suggesting Clovis was already Christian.

10 Ibid Mathisen 1999 p.14. Bishops from Vannes and Nantes attended the Council of Orleans in 511. Some have suggested that the Arborychi were the Auvernians but this is unlikely as they were to fight against Clovis at Vouille. They were not undefeated either. Clermont was taken in 507 by Theuderic, Clovis' son. Procopius is clearly talking about nations with these words, not a minor civitatis like the Auvergne.

11 MacGeorge 2003, p.128, suggests the evidence is against Clovis obtaining all of Belgica II as James proposes.

12 See MacGeorge 2003 p.127

12a Bury, John Bagnell. The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians Lecture 13 - The Reign of Clovis 1923

13 Domino insigni et meritis magnifico Clodoveo regi, Remigius episcopus. Rumor ad nos magnus pervenit administrationem vos secundam rei bellicae suscepisse. Non est novum ut coeperis esse sicut parentes tui semper fuerunt. Hoc in primis agendum, ut Domini iudicium a te non vacillet, ubi tui meriti, qui per industriam humilitatis tuae ad summum culminis pervenit: quia, quod vulgus dicitur, ex fine (1157D) actus hominis probatur. Consiliarios tibi adhibere debes, qui famam tuam possint ornare; et beneficium tuum castum et honestum esse debet, et sacerdotibus tuis honorem debebis deferre, et ad eorum consilia semper recurrere. Quod si tibi bene cum illis convenerit, provincia tua melius potest constare. Cives tuos erige, afflictos releva, viduas fove, orphanos nutri, si potius est quam erudies, ut omnes te ament et timeant. Iustitia ex ore vestro procedat, nihil sit sperandum de pauperibus vel peregrinis, ne magis dona, aut aliquid accipere velis. Praetorium tuum omnibus pateat, ut nullus exinde tristis abscedat. Paternas quascunque opes possides, captivos exinde liberabis, et a iugo servitutis absolves. Si quis in conspectu vestro venerit, peregrinum se esse (1158A) non sentiat. Cum iuvenibus ioca, cum senibus tracta, si vis regnare, nobilis iudicari.

14 'administrationem' – noun, sg fem acc – Fig. 'direction, management, or administration of a thing.' 'vos' - pron, pl fem acc indeclform – 'you'. Plural, so the following secundam must be numerical. 'secundam' - adj, sg fem acc – 'second.' 'rei bellicae' -adj, sg fem gen – genitive of 'res bellica' meaning 'war / military action.' 'suscipisse' - verb, perf inf act – 'to take, take up, receive'.

15 Deuxieme, Tome. Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes, University of Chicago Library.1716, “Une grande nouvelle est parvenue jusqu'à moi; vous avez entrepris une seconde  expédition militaire, ou bien vous avez pris les armes pour la seconde fois.

16 Ibid Daley, Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?, Speculum, Vol. 69.3 1994, pp 619-664, pg.633

17 Klingshirn, W.E., Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul, Cambridge University Press 2004, p.117, fn.30

17b  Cusak, Carole M. The Rise of Christianity in Northern Europe, 300-1000, Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.; 1999, p.73

18 Avitus states : “ Certainly I am not going to preach the faith that you saw without a preacher before your baptism”. Ibid Shanzer 1998 p.42

19 Ibid Shanzer, Dating the Baptism of Clovis, 1998, pgs.35-37.

20 Greg. Histories .II.27 

21 Gregory placed the baptism after the Battle of Tolbiac in around the fifteenth year of Clovis' reign.

22.  Ibid Daley, Clovis: How Barbaric, How Pagan?, Speculum, Vol. 69.3 1994, pp 619-664, pg.663