What do you think?
Rate this book
Charles the Bald
Discusses the historical and political aspects of the reign of this ninth-century French king.
364 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1992
2 people are currently reading
60 people want to read
About the author
Janet L. Nelson
37 books14 followersDame Janet Laughland Nelson, also known as Jinty Nelson, was a British historian and professor of Medieval History at King's College London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 17, 2024
Charles the Bald was the grandson of Charlmagne, King of the region we now know as France and Belgium in the 9th Century. Janet L Nelson’s book is a biography with a focus on the political. It provides an overall view of the state (such as it is!), the economy, and politics, and then provides a narrative of Charles’ life.
This is a reassessment of Charles. Nelson seeks to refute the idea that he as a bad king to whom can be traced many of the ills that lead to the collapse of the Carolingian Empire in the succeeding decades. Many of these ills may have started in Chales’ lifetime but he managed the risks well; although they became more powerful Charles kept control his nobility rather than succumbing to overmighty magnates; yes the viking raids began but Charles mitigated this threat. Moreover he was successful in his relations with the other Carolingian kingdoms. Nelson’s arguments are often convincing. Particularly at the beginning of his reign Charles shows a deft political touch - along with a strong dose of good luck to take control of a powerful kingdom despite being the youngest son.
Unfortunately the argument sometimes breaks down - or else Nelson takes it too far. For example it is difficult to see Charles’ interactions with the vikings as the success Nelson portrays it; for the most part he bought them off. A short term gain at long term cost. This made sense to Charles as he was prioritising conflict with his family but it is difficult to see that as good for his own West Frankish Kingdom - let alone the Carolingian Empire as a whole. This is most apparent at the end of Charles reign where Nelson suggests that the Capitulary of Quierzy recognising a hereditary principle does not refer to the nobility, but instead to Charles' son Louis. But this does not make much sense; as the only remaining son there should be no need to reassure Louis’s place in the succession. Moreover Nelson immediately undermines her case by showing how much Charles went out of his way to constrain Louis. Seemingly failing to recognise that Charles’ failing to position Louis as successor, and putting controllers around him means he failed in a fundamental part of mediaeval Kingship ensuring a needlessly difficult succession.
Sources are obviously rather thin for this subject as this is the early middle ages. The narrative therefore is occasionally broken or incomplete. There may also be questions of interpretation as chroniclers have their biases, this needs to be accepted for early mediaeval history. However sometimes Nelson rejects a source without telling us why.
The book is quite dry. The tone academic. The narrative can sometimes be confusing. But realistically a lot of this can be placed at the feet of those sources. They just don't provide detail on what Charles was like, or his own views, and words. Similarly a confusing narrative is as much down to the fluidity of the politics, and even the territories of the participants where even kingdoms can be moved around or traded between members of the family.
As a result I found the genealogical tables and maps essential, and needed to consult them quite often to try to keep track of who was related to who and how, or which kingdom we were in. Fortunately there are multiple tables and maps to make this possible.
That I consider there to be issues with some of the arguments doesn’t really matter if you are just looking for a biography, or a history of west Frankia during Charles the Bald’s reign. It should not be seen as a reason not to get a book, as it is always best to judge for yourself.
This is a reassessment of Charles. Nelson seeks to refute the idea that he as a bad king to whom can be traced many of the ills that lead to the collapse of the Carolingian Empire in the succeeding decades. Many of these ills may have started in Chales’ lifetime but he managed the risks well; although they became more powerful Charles kept control his nobility rather than succumbing to overmighty magnates; yes the viking raids began but Charles mitigated this threat. Moreover he was successful in his relations with the other Carolingian kingdoms. Nelson’s arguments are often convincing. Particularly at the beginning of his reign Charles shows a deft political touch - along with a strong dose of good luck to take control of a powerful kingdom despite being the youngest son.
Unfortunately the argument sometimes breaks down - or else Nelson takes it too far. For example it is difficult to see Charles’ interactions with the vikings as the success Nelson portrays it; for the most part he bought them off. A short term gain at long term cost. This made sense to Charles as he was prioritising conflict with his family but it is difficult to see that as good for his own West Frankish Kingdom - let alone the Carolingian Empire as a whole. This is most apparent at the end of Charles reign where Nelson suggests that the Capitulary of Quierzy recognising a hereditary principle does not refer to the nobility, but instead to Charles' son Louis. But this does not make much sense; as the only remaining son there should be no need to reassure Louis’s place in the succession. Moreover Nelson immediately undermines her case by showing how much Charles went out of his way to constrain Louis. Seemingly failing to recognise that Charles’ failing to position Louis as successor, and putting controllers around him means he failed in a fundamental part of mediaeval Kingship ensuring a needlessly difficult succession.
Sources are obviously rather thin for this subject as this is the early middle ages. The narrative therefore is occasionally broken or incomplete. There may also be questions of interpretation as chroniclers have their biases, this needs to be accepted for early mediaeval history. However sometimes Nelson rejects a source without telling us why.
The book is quite dry. The tone academic. The narrative can sometimes be confusing. But realistically a lot of this can be placed at the feet of those sources. They just don't provide detail on what Charles was like, or his own views, and words. Similarly a confusing narrative is as much down to the fluidity of the politics, and even the territories of the participants where even kingdoms can be moved around or traded between members of the family.
As a result I found the genealogical tables and maps essential, and needed to consult them quite often to try to keep track of who was related to who and how, or which kingdom we were in. Fortunately there are multiple tables and maps to make this possible.
That I consider there to be issues with some of the arguments doesn’t really matter if you are just looking for a biography, or a history of west Frankia during Charles the Bald’s reign. It should not be seen as a reason not to get a book, as it is always best to judge for yourself.
Displaying 1 of 1 review