Who is 'Chlodebaudo/Chlodebaud' in the Merovingian-era Clovis I genealogy & Charlemagne ancestry, supposedly mentioned in a Salic Law manuscript?

Upvote:1

There is an available French paper by Ètienne Renard from 2018 focusing on several versions of the Merovingian family tree based on a lost archetype. The paper is available online and the associated pdf is translatable through e.g. google translate.

Renard highlights the existence of 2 contradictory genealogies in the B-branch of the genealogy (sourced to the 10th to 11th century, see p.1016):

  • one where Merovech was the son of Chlodio (the commonly accepted chronology during the Carolingian era) and
  • one where Chlodebaude was the son and successor of Chlodio (with Merovech completely absent)

The differences in the genealogies reunite with Clovis being probably the grandson of Chlodebaude or Merovech.

In the latter chronology, Chlodebaude (or Glodobode, Chlodebaudo, Hlud-baud) might have only ruled only a few years, perhaps dying before the battle of the Catalaun fields in 451. This could explain why Gregory of Tours did not mention that any Merovingian king participated in this famous battle, which would have been a clear source of prestige. His child Childeric was perhaps too young (p. 1037). Maps on the territory controlled by his father are found in the paper.

The hypothesis of Jean-Pierre Poly is considered in the paper, in which Merovech and Chlodebaude are one and the same, Merovech being the nickname of Chlodebaude (p. 1017).

He could however (this is only a personal opinion) also just be a mythical or invented figure/ like Faramund/Faramond (who is also in your source) or Boggis, Childesinde or others, who are not attested in early sources close to the 5th century and are nowadays considered "false" Merovingians". There are various lists of "false" Merovingians, e.g. on French or German Wikipedia. Chlodebaude is currently not listed among them, but there does not seem to be a source about him before the 10h-11th century. Any source from the 17th century would undoubtely have to be based on the earlier sources or its descendants.

More post

Search Posts

Related post