CHAPTER ONE TWO KINGS: CHARLEMAGNE AND CARLOMAN By early September 768, shortly after completing the conquest of Aquitaine, King Pippin I apparently came to believe that he would not recover from the illness that had manifested itself at Saintes only a few weeks earlier. Therefore, he ordered the great lay and ecclesiastical mag- nates of the realm to be summoned to meet with him in council at Saint- Denis outside of Paris. There, with the support of these men, he ordered the division of the regnum Francorum between his two sons, Charlemagne and Carloman, to be carried out following his death.1 This divisio, like sub- sequent divisions of the Frankish kingdom executed by the descendants of Charles Martel, was carried out according to the principle that each new ruler would inherit a rough equality of the available human and mate- rial resources once ruled by his father.2 These included facultates such as 1 Fred. Cont., ch. 53; ARF, an. 768; and the possible ambiguity of the AE, an. 769. The obvious speed with which the divisio was executed makes it abundantly clear that very detailed information from various types of inventories, which was needed to sustain this massive project, was already in the hands of the central government well before Pippin died. Of no less importance is the rapidity with which a great many lay and ecclesiastical magnates were summoned to Saint-Denis. Also of note is their capacity to respond rapidly in a relatively short period of time during the summer of 768. With regard to communica- tions, see Ganshof, “La Tractoria,” pp. 69–91; and for background, see Walter Janssen, “Reiten und Fahren in der Merowingerzeit,” in Untersuchungen zu Handel, pp. 174–228. 2 The principles by which later divisions, primarily the divisio of 843, were executed, have been adumbrated brilliantly by F.L. Ganshof, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Bedeutung des Vertrages von Verdun (843),” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, XII (1956), 313–330, and translated as “The genesis and significance of the Treaty of Verdun (843),” by Janet Sondheimer in idem, The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian History (London, 1971), 289–302; the latter is cited here for the convenience of the reader. Concerning the divisio of 741 following the death of Charles Martel, see Bachrach, Early Carolingian Warfare, pp. 37–39. Although scholars have not found it possible to identify either the exact principles which undergirded the divisio of 768 or to draw with great preci- sion the map of this division, it seems clear that Carloman’s kingdom encompassed a larger geographical area than did the regnum inherited by his elder brother. This inequality in geographical area, therefore, strongly suggests that various types of resources were at issue in the divisio, as was the case in regard to the division of 843, and not simply the total quantity of territory. Concerning the divisio of 768, see A. Kroeber, “Partage du royaume des Francs entre Charlemagne et Carlomann Ier,” BEC, 20 (1856), 341–350; Siguard Abel and Bernhard Simson, Jährbucher des fränkischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen, 2 vols. two kings: charlemagne and carloman 109 estates of the royal fisc (both those held directly by the crown and those held as beneficia by vassi dominici), royal monasteries, “taxpaying” mem- bers of the population, and productive land.3 The divisio of 768 also took into consideration matters of military strat- egy similar to those that would be of note in the course of later divisions.4 Pippin provided that Carloman would rule the southerly part of the Carolingian homeland of Austrasia. Carloman also received some of the southeasterly parts of Neustria, the eastern half of Aquitaine, Burgundy, and Alamannia. Pippin’s thinking in regard to Carloman would seem to have been conditioned by his concern for Carolingian interests in Italy and relations with Bavaria, whose duke Tassilo, as will be seen below, had been trying to act autonomously in relation to the Frankish ruler since 763. As evidence for Pippin’s intentions in this matter, those Alpine passes that were located within the Frankish kingdom were made part of Carloman’s regnum.5 Carloman controlled Carolingian landward access to Italy and access by sea from the Mediterranean coast. He also controlled the southeastern sector of the Carolingian eastern frontier in Alamannia. This territory provided access to pagan Slavic lands and to Bavaria. The latter bor- dered on the pagan Avar kingdom and also provided access to the Balkans, where there were close contacts with Byzantine interests. By contrast, Charlemagne obtained the western half of Aquitaine, the greater part of Neustria, the northern section of Austrasia and those parts of Saxon 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1883–1888), I,23–40; Arthur Kleinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934), pp. 4–6, map 1; Louis Halphen, Charlemagne, pp. 41–42; Peter Classen, “Karl der Grosse und die Thronfolge im Frankenreich,” Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel (Göttingen, 1972), III, 24; and McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms, p. 371, map. 2. 3 Concerning the bipartite structure of the royal fisc (not to be confused with the bipar- tite structure of great estates divided between lands held indominicatum and tenementa), which saw the division of estates into lands directly administered by Charlemagne and estates held as beneficia, see F.L. Ganshof, Frankish Institutions Under Charlemagne, trans. Bryce and Mary Lyon (Providence, RI, 1968), 34–41, 50–53. See also, Bachrach, “Are they not like us?,” pp. 119–133. 4 CRF, I, no. 25, prologue; and Reuter, “The End,” p. 393, with regard to the plan worked out in 806. 5 For the Alpine passes, see the general work of L. Pauli, The Alps: Archaeology and Early History, trans. E. Peters (London, 1984); regarding the background in the Roman period, see B. Overbeck, Geschichte des Alpenrheintals in Römischer Zeit auf Grund der archäologischen Zeugnisse, I Topographie, Fundvorlage und historische Auswertung (Munich, 1982); D. van Berchem, Les routes et l’histoire: études sur les Helvètes et leurs voisins dans l’empire romain (Geneva, 1982); and G. Walser, Summus Poeninus: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Grossen St. Bernhard-Passes in Römischer Zeit (Wiesbaden, 1984). For Carolingian history and the Alpine passes, see Walter W. Hyde, Roman Alpine Routes (Philadelphia, 1935)..