J. A. Everard

This is more focused on the development of the Capetian monarchy than it is on that of France writ large, but very solid on that topic. Capetian France was written for use in the undergraduate classroom, so it is essentially a textbook and reads as such—do not approach this thinking you're going to get a lively narrative or popular history. The prose is dry, if lucid. However, as a well sign-posted reference work with a very up-to-date bibliography that should be accessible to most students, this has much to recommend it. (Review of third edition.)… (más)

This is the 2nd edition of Capetian France which is an enormous improvement from the 1st edition. The work expands into using various medieval documents to tell the story of this almost obscure period of French history. It is a very complex retelling but it does demonstrate the tenuous hold the Capetians had on France. Their continuous struggle with the Plantagenets ebbed & flowed in spite of successes as those successes unraveled with their successors laying the groundwork for the coming of the Hundred Year War that followed. The author looks at different districts of Medieval France as it slowly rose out of the chaos of the Carolingian collapse to the death of the last Capetian Charles IV in 1328. Overall, a good read though it is a great deal of information to digest.… (más)

My approach to European history has always been more or less random; whatever interesting-looking book happens to turns up in the remainder bin or at a used bookstore. This haphazard approach results in some strange gaps in my education, but is more fun than formal learning. My most recent read in this area, Elizabeth Hallam’s Capetian France 987-1328, was as useful as hot-mix asphalt for filling in some of those intellectual potholes.


Definitely not an exciting read, though; it seems to be a printed and expanded set of lecture notes – every paragraph has an outline numbered title. But the topic gets covered thoroughly. The end of the Carolingian empire was really a step backward as far as the political administration of France was concerned; in fact, most of the people living in the area now known as “France” would have thought of themselves as Normans or Aquitainians or Bretons or whatever instead of “French”. The early Capets were nominally “kings” of “France” but “France” at the time was just that area where the “Franks” lived, as Normandy was for the Normans and Brittany for the Bretons. And the King of the French controlled much less territory – a relatively small area around Paris - and had much smaller revenues than most of his noble nominal subjects.


Even with Hallam’s encyclopedic treatment, it’s still not fully clear exactly how that changed. The best explanation seems to be that a series of efficient French kings – Philip I, Louis VIII, and Louis IX – managed to get territorial counts and dukes to start thinking of themselves as French rather than Normans, Bretons, etc., at the same time lands directly held by the French king expanded; and the King always had considerable power over the Church, even in non-royal lands, which could often be manipulated into political power. Hallam does note that the death of Richard I in the meaningless siege of an unimportant castle made a major difference, and French (and therefore world) history would have taken a dramatically different course otherwise (For a science fiction/fantasy/alternate history treatment, see Randall Garret’s Lord Darcy stories and novels).


By the end of the Capetian period, things were going pretty well for royal power. The King personally or feudally controlled most of the land in what is now France (and some substantial chunks outside current French borders). Unfortunately for them, the Capets ran into a series of female heirs, and traditional Frankish law didn’t allow a woman to inherit the throne. Nobody had any objection to duchesses or countesses, and many of the principalities had had glorious female rulers, but internecine politics in the royal family didn’t allow it and the throne passed to the cadet House of Valois (the succession went Philip IV (1285-1314) > his son Louis X (1314-1316) > his son John I (five days in 1316) > his uncle Philip V (1316-1322) > his brother Charles IV (1322-1328) > his cousin Philip VI of Valois (1328-1350). (I note, though, that the revolutionary government of France referred to the former Louis XVI as “Citizen Louis Capet” rather than “Citizen Louis Valois” when they guillotined him).


The discontent over the royal succession was aggravated by the last of the Capet kings overreaching themselves a little. As is often the case with strong powers, territorial ambitions outstripped revenues and Philip IV increased taxes, crushed the Templars (and confiscated their French property), and got into a running dispute with the Papacy over “donations” from French churches and religious houses. (In an item of contemporary interest, the last Pope to voluntarily resign was Celestine V, who had been supported by Philip IV). Although the first Valois kings were not particularly incompetent, they weren’t all that strong, either, resulting in a resurgence of English power in France and the Hundred Years War.


One intriguing acquisition from this history was a partial refutal of my college “History of Western Civilization” study of the Middle Ages. The University of Chicago History Department was, of course, fairly committed to the Marxist historical theory – especially in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when it looked like everything was going that way. Since it was Marxist dogma that feudalism was a necessary stage of human history, our readings were all intended to show how extremely feudal the Middle Ages were, with Galbert de Bruges The Murder of Charles the Good and Marc Bloch’s Feudal Society as principal texts. Hallam makes it clear (without specifically discussing Marxism) that most of the supposed practices of feudalism only existed in the minds of later historians. Very few French counts, dukes, or lesser nobility did formal homage for their lands and most of the royal and baronial armies were made up of mercenaries, not feudal levies. (Feudal customs that really were practiced extensively in Capetian France, despite royal attempts to extirpate them, were private wars and trial by combat).


Really more of a reference work than a classic history, but a useful reference work. Outstanding maps, which are necessary to keep track of the jigsaw-puzzle network of principalities within “France”. Some illustrations of the various people under discussion would have been nice. Extensively referenced, with endnotes for each chapter and a bibliography for the entire book (however; almost all of the sources, both primary and secondary, are in French).… (más)