Re: [Imperial Rome] Brut
- View Source--- nheck8226@... wrote:
> Did the Merovingians claim to be descended fromYes, Noah, the British Kings do claim their ancestry
> Jesus, or was the connection drawn at a later date?
> Similarly, didn't the Tudor King's of England at one
> point create a complicated geneaology that showed
> themselves not only to be descended from Jesus, but
> also from the Trojans via a brother of Aeneas who
> lost his way in the flight from the destruction of
> Troy and ended up in England?
> Just Curious.
from Brut, brother of Aeneas,in the Aeneid by Virgil;
who lost his way after Troy and ended up founding
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
- View SourceAn entertaining question, Noah, because actually the Merovingians
claimed not to descend from Jesus but... the Trojans!
This is complete legend of course, but these stories are interesting
and I think they are quite relevant to the group's Roman theme.
The Merovingians, of course, were the Frankish chieftains who took
control of northern Gaul at the end of Roman rule in the west. In
fact these Franks had been federated into the Empire for a generation
or two and their chiefs had often been invested with Roman military
commands, as Clovis, the first of them to rule most of Gaul as a
king, who had inherited a "provincial government" in "Belgica
secunda" (The emperor Anastasius later conferred upon him the
consulship in AD 508) So we can see the Merovingians had important
past history with Rome.
Their problem was establishing legitimacy for their rule, sort of as
a continuity with Rome. Clovis was very inspired by the figure of
Constantine, probably under the influence of the Gallo-Roman clergy
who converted him (contrary to much assumption, this was a sincere
and personal conversion on his part.... his warriors who went in for
a mass baptism were indeed a more dubious lot). So much
Merovingian "propaganda" (for want of a better word at those times)
assimilated Clovis to a "new Constantine", thus not a barbarian
invader of Roman lands but a Frank espousing the Roman and christian
way of life.
A few generations later this actually grew into a legend that the
Franks themselves, as people, had a sort of "original ethnic link"
with the Romans, explaining why they had romanised so easily: this
was the idea that they descended from a Trojan called Francion, who
had travelled westwards like Aeneas after the fall of Troy. This is
of course the most fanciful of legends given that the Franks were
only a confederation of Germanic warbands from present day
northwestern Germany whom the Romans dubbed the "Franci" (The free
In medieval times however the kings of France relished troubadour
songs and poems which alluded to this mythical Trojan past. The kings
themselves took the story seriously but growing knowledge of the
ancient past beginning at the Renaissance decisively debunked the
myth. By the time we reach the 19th century most classical scholars
could point to the story of Francion as pure fabrication.
--- In imperialrome2@..., nheck8226@c... wrote:
> Did the Merovingians claim to be descended from Jesus, or was the
connection drawn at a later date?
- View SourceI'm coming in at the end of this discussion, so there is not too
much I can add to what has already been said. In summary, I'd say
Dan Brown wouldn't know real historical analysis if it hit him in
the head. As for the novel - many people enjoyed it. Hilariously
bad 'history' aside, I also happened to find it really, really
poorly written. But it's the people (including, it seems, the
author) who have bought its 'history' that worry me.
For any who are interested in comparing real history with the muddle
of New Age nonsense that Brown serves up, check out 'The Da Vinci
Code: Fact and Fiction' forum:
- View SourceIt is not even good repetition of any number of books published over the last 15
years with dubious historical analysis.
> I'm coming in at the end of this discussion, so there is not too
> much I can add to what has already been said. In summary, I'd say
> Dan Brown wouldn't know real historical analysis if it hit him in
> the head. As for the novel - many people enjoyed it. Hilariously
> bad 'history' aside, I also happened to find it really, really
> poorly written. But it's the people (including, it seems, the
> author) who have bought its 'history' that worry me.