If you are looking for a historical figure whose
common name is just a massive blinking historical
lie, then you have absolutely found your deep
dive. We are talking today about Charles III
of the Carolingian dynasty, who reigned from
898 to 922, but whom history remembers, usually
with a bit of a smirk, as Charles the Simple.
And if you think that name means he was some
sort of bumbling, unintelligent king, you've
fallen into one of the oldest political traps
in medieval history books. That is precisely
our mission today. We are going to unpack the
reign of Charles III, tracing his path from a
politically marginalized, posthumous son to a
shrewd, ambitious king. A king who made one of
the most consequential decisions in French history.
The creation of Normandy. We'll explore his near
success in reunifying the Carolingian heartland.
And then, most dramatically, the deep, furious
aristocratic revolt. A revolt fueled by personal
slights and political favoritism. Right, which
ended his reign and led to the violent final
collapse of centralized Carolingian power in
West Francia. It's really a story of a brilliant
strategist who was just undone by his inability
to manage petty jealousies. And we have to start
with that name. Carolus Simplex. OK, let's do
it. We have to unpack this immediately because
the entire premise of judging Charles is based
on a deliberate act of historical defamation.
I always understood simplex to mean, you know,
foolish or dull witted. So where does the nuance
lie? Well, the initial core fact is that when
his contemporaries used the Latin simplex, it
carried a neutral or maybe even a positive meaning.
Really? Yeah. It meant straightforward, loyal
or without guile. It was meant to be a contrast
to the, you know, the. highly Machiavellian,
complex, and double -dealing politics of his
time, it implied integrity. So he was Charles
the Honest or Charles the Sincere, which in that
era might have actually been a compliment. Absolutely.
Think of it as a descriptor, not a judgment of
his intellect. However, as the centuries passed,
and especially once the rival dynasty... The
family that deposed him. Exactly. Once they began
writing their own histories, that nickname was
intentionally corrupted. The language evolved,
and his political rivals just... pounced on it.
And we can see that exact political spin happening
in the later chroniclers work. I mean, how bad
did this character assassination get? Oh, it
got ugly. This corruption really takes hold after
a specific incident in 919 where Charles allegedly
abandoned his men. Later chroniclers used this
one event to justify their complete rejection
of his character. So they just ran with it. They
ran with it. And we see this deliberate escalation
of insults. Instead of simplex, which was neutral,
they deployed these harsh Latin terms designed
purely to demean him. Okay, give us the specifics.
What were they calling him? Well, they used terms
like stultus, which means fatuous or idiotic.
They used heebies, meaning stupid or dull. Incipiens
or foolish. Wow. And perhaps the most telling
political insults were parvus or minor, which
translate to small or inferior. So this wasn't
just about questioning his intelligence. It was
questioning his very authority and his status
as a ruler. So this deep dive is less about a
simple king and more about a sophisticated politician
who was later the victim of one of the most successful
smear campaigns in the 9th and 10th centuries.
We are here to rescue Charles III from the footnotes.
and the vicious labels of his political enemy.
That's the perfect tone. And to understand how
Charles operated, we really have to appreciate
the chaos he was born into. This brings us to
his struggle for legitimacy, covering his early
life between 879 and 898. And his start was problematic
from day one, literally because of the timing
of his birth. He was Charles III, the posthumous
son of King Louis the Stammerer. He arrived in
September 879, months after his father had already
died. And while this technically made him a legitimate
heir, it meant he was immediately marginalized.
Right. It created a problem of age and availability
when crises erupted. And the kingdom of West
Francia was already deeply fragmented and exhausted
by internal feuds and external Viking assaults.
And the first major crisis hits when he's just
five years old. Correct. His half -brother, King
Carloman II, died in 884 without a legitimate
male heir. By all dynastic rights, Charles, though
only five, should have succeeded. But the Frankish
nobility was staring down the barrel of an intense
Viking threat. They needed immediate, adult,
competent military leadership. The thought of
crowning a child was just, it was impossible
for them. And this decision essentially created
the first major crack in the principle of hereditary
Carolingian rule in West Francia. they went shopping
for a temporary solution they did instead of
allowing the succession to fall to charles the
nobles looked abroad and invited charles the
fat charles's powerful cousin okay and charles
the fat was already the holy roman emperor and
king of east francia The nobles essentially merged
the crowns, hoping to leverage the stability
and resources of the wider Carolingian Empire.
It was a pragmatic move. Very pragmatic, yet
ultimately a catastrophic temporary fix. Catastrophic
because Charles the Fat was, well, utterly ineffective
and widely despised. He really was. His rule
was marked by military failures, particularly
against the Vikings, and his attempts to govern
his massive, unwieldy empire alienated regional
magnates everywhere. The deposition came swiftly.
In November 887, the great nobles of the realm
gathered at the Diet of Treiber. Okay, this Diet
of Treiber is a massive legal and political moment.
What exactly allowed the Frankish nobles to just
depose an emperor? It was a clear demonstration
that the old Carolingian principle of divine
right was rapidly fading, and it was being replaced
by the reality of aristocratic power. So it makes
right, essentially. The nobles of East Francia,
and by extension West Francia, asserted their
collective right to withdraw their consent and
depose an incompetent ruler. They argued that
the king's authority was conditional on his ability
to protect the realm. And when Charles the Fat
failed to protect them from the Vikings? The
contract was broken. That sets a dangerous precedent.
If the nobles can depose an emperor, they can
certainly depose a young, potentially weak king
like Charles. Precisely. His deposition in 887
followed by his death in January 888, shattered
the last vestiges of centralized Carolingian
rule and created a total power vacuum. Local
counts and dukes across the fragmented empire
just seized autonomous power. And in West Francia,
that vacuum was immediately filled, not by a
Carolingian, but by a rising star who had earned
his authority through blood and iron. Enter Odo.
Count of Paris. He was not a member of the imperial
dynasty, but he was a military celebrity. Right.
The hero of the siege of Paris. He was celebrated
as the hero of the siege from 885 to 886, where
his courage and military prowess successfully
held the city against that massive Viking fleet
led by Rollo. Military success, not bloodline,
suddenly became the path to the throne. And Odo's
election is a huge moment, one that truly signals
the shift of power. He represents the nascent
rise of the Robertian dynasty. The family that
would eventually rule France permanently. Right.
The significance cannot be overstated. Odo's
family, the Robertians, was competing directly
with the Carolingians for political dominance.
So while Odo secured the crown, Charles, the
young Carolingian heir, was still alive. And
he's still a threat. A potential one. A faction
of nobles supported the claim of Guy III of Spoleto,
but Odo was the choice of the strongest military
faction. Meanwhile, Charles became a protected
symbol. So where was the young Charles hidden
during all this? He was placed under the protection
of Ranulf II, Duke of Aquitaine, one of the most
powerful and independent southern magnates. Okay.
And Ranulf was so ambitious, in fact, that he
briefly used the royal title himself in opposition
to Odo. which just highlights the rampant fragmentation.
Of course. Reynolds eventually made peace with
Odo, but Charles remained a political weapon,
a Carolingian ace up the sleeve of any magnate
who wished to challenge Odo's authority. So Charles
was growing up as a shatter king, a figurehead
just waiting for his moment to disrupt the political
stability that Odo represented? Exactly. And
by 893, his faction felt strong enough to move.
At only 14, Charles was crowned by an opposing
noble faction at Reims Cathedral. But a coronation
is cheap. Control is expensive. For years, he
was little more than a pretender. The sources
tell us that by 897, his effective territory
was reduced to little more than the city of Leon.
So he had the title, but not the kingdom. What
finally ended this simmering civil war between
the anointed king and the crowned hero? It was
Odo's death and perhaps his most remarkable act
of political foresight. When Odo died in January
898, he designated Charles the Simple as his
successor. Wait, Odo, the anti -Carolingian hero,
the man who seized the crown based on military
merit, willingly passed the crown back to the
legitimate dynastic rival. That seems utterly
counterintuitive for his family's ambitions.
It was a stunning act of real politic. Odo, or
maybe his advisors, realized that continued internal
warfare between the Rebersian faction, led by
his brother Robert of Neustria, and the Carolingian
loyalists would destroy the kingdom entirely.
It would make them easy prey for the Vikings.
Completely. By naming Charles, he bought peace.
He validated the ancient dynastic claim while
ensuring his brother, Robert, remained the most
powerful duke in the kingdom. Positioned to take
the throne later should Charles fail. Precisely.
A temporary truce. Odo chose fragile stability
over familial ambition. So Charles finally begins
his effective reign in 898, age 19, inheriting
a fragmented, exhausted kingdom perpetually ravaged
by external invaders. He knew immediately he
had to secure those borders. And securing the
borders meant dealing with the one problem that
had crippled his predecessors for 50 years. The
Vikings. That brings us to Section 2, the Carolingian
solution to the Viking threat, focusing on the
defining moment of his reign, the Treaty of St.
Clair -sur -Epte in 911. And this decision alone
proves he was anything but simple. Right. The
context of conflict is key here. The Vikings,
specifically the group led by Rollo, weren't
just fast -moving raiders anymore. No, they were
establishing permanent, heavily fortified camps.
They had repeatedly besieged Paris and Chartres.
They weren't looking for quick loot. They were
looking for land to settle. And the previous
strategy, which had dominated for decades, was
to either try to fight them off constantly or
failing that. pay them off with enormous sums
of danegeld. Extortion payments. And that system
was failing spectacularly. It bankrupted the
royal treasury and provided only temporary respites
before the Vikings returned richer and better
equipped. Charles recognized that a traditional
military solution was economically unsustainable
and politically demoralizing. He needed a radical,
pragmatic approach that turned a threat into
an asset. And that pivot came after a tactical
success in 9 -11. Indeed. Charles' forces achieved
a decisive victory over Rollo's group near Chartres
on August 26, 9 -11. A lesser king might have
pursued them relentlessly, aiming for total annihilation.
But Charles... Charles, showing great political
maturity, immediately pivoted to negotiation.
He saw the potential for a peace that lasted
longer than the next generation. The resulting
agreement, the Treaty of St. Clair -sur -Epte,
is the foundation of modern Normandy. Let's dig
into the details because Charles gave up a tremendous
amount of royal land. The core of the deal was
the land grant. Rollo and his northmen were granted
all the land between the river Epte and the sea.
This was a rich, strategic area known as Neustria,
the former Carolingian military march. Okay,
so it's prime real estate. Prime real estate.
It was defensible territory, and critically,
it placed Rollo's forces exactly where West Francia
needed protection, guarding the San Estuary and
the northern approaches to Paris. It sounds like
he wasn't just giving up land. He was hiring
a new border patrol. But they were Vikings. Precisely.
They were the most effective, most brutal border
patrol available. But what makes this deal so
audacious is that Charles gave them land he didn't
even control. The grants of the Duchy of Brittany.
Yes. The Vikings were also granted the Duchy
of Brittany, which was at the time an effectively
independent Celtic kingdom that West Francia
had utterly failed to conquer or control for
generations. So he's leveraging his authority
to give away territory that wasn't his to give.
It's a shrewd move. He wasn't just giving Rollo
the land he'd settled. He was giving Rollo an
immediate war target, a massive expansion opportunity.
And thereby weaponizing Rollo's ambition against
the only remaining independent power on the western
flank. It was a masterstroke of diplomacy. By
giving Rollo the theoretical right to conquer
Brittany, Charles ensured Rollo would be preoccupied
with expansion westward, away from the West Francian
heartland. So what did Charles get in return
for carving up the map of France like this? He
received three foundational elements of feudal
and political stability. First, Rollo pledged
loyalty, becoming Charles' vassal, accepting
the title of Duke, and promising to defend the
kingdom against any future Viking incursions.
Okay, that's huge. And second. Second. Rollo
agreed to be baptized. This is critical. The
conversion, even if it was just nominal, integrated
him and his followers into the political and
legal framework of a Christian kingdom. It legalized
their existence. It allowed the bishops and the
existing aristocracy to tolerate them. Imagine
that baptism ceremony itself, this fearsome Norseman,
maybe still smelling of salt in battle, accepting
the Christian faith just to secure his land grant.
You have to wonder how genuine that conversion
was. Maybe not initially. But it was the ultimate
political performance required for the long -term
project of assimilation. And finally, the dynastic
link that sealed the bargain. Rollo married Charles'
daughter, Gisela. This cemented the agreement
in blood. It meant Rollo's successors would have
Carolingian blood and, crucially, a familial
stake in the stability of West Francia. So this
wasn't just a political treaty. No, it was a
marriage designed to transform an existential
threat into an enduring strategic ally. This
was Charles the Simple's most consequential act.
He gave up control of a region he couldn't effectively
govern anyway, and in exchange he gained 50 years
of peace on his most vital border. It stabilized
the kingdom and allowed him to turn his attention
elsewhere. A truly sophisticated geopolitical
calculation suggesting a mind far from simple.
And you have to wonder why a king capable of
such strategic depth ended up deposed and imprisoned.
And the answer lies in that distraction. Absolutely.
Having stabilized the western border, Charles
earned his full, ambitious attention to the east.
Which brings us to Section 3, his burning ambition
for Lotharingia. This pursuit consumed Charles
from 911 to 925. And if the Normandy Treaty was
his pragmatic masterpiece, Lotharingia was his
ideological obsession. Why was Lotharingia, the
region straddling modern France, Germany, and
the Low Countries such a massive prize for him?
It was more than just territory. It was a crusade
to restore the Carolingian name. Lotharingia
was the cradle of the Carolingian dynasty. Yeah.
We are talking about the ancestral homes of Charlemagne's
family. the Pippinids, places like Herstal, Jupil,
and most importantly, Aachen, the imperial capital
itself. So for Charles, taking Lotharingia wasn't
just about gaining land. It was about reclaiming
the spiritual and political legitimacy of Charlemagne's
empire. Exactly. Every West Francian monarch
since Charles the Bald had yearned to reunify
the Middle Kingdom. If Charles could secure Aiken,
he would be seen not just as king of West Francia,
but as the only legitimate heir to the entire
Carolingian legacy. A huge political prize that
would eclipse the prestige of ruling a fragmented
Paris -based kingdom. Right. And the opportunity
arose quickly, coinciding with his deal with
Rollo. In 911. In 911, Louis the Child, the last
Carolingian king of East Francia. died creating
a massive vacuum. The East Francian nobles rejected
the Carolingian line and elected Conrad I, a
non -Carolingian duke. But the Lotharingian nobles,
they were fiercely loyal to the old imperial
bloodline. They were. Led by Reginar, Duke of
Lorraine, the Lotharingian magnates declared
Charles their new king, choosing him specifically
because he represented the purity and legitimacy
of the Carolingian bloodline. So they chose Charles
over their own local choice. They did. Charles
was crowned in early November 911. This was a
triumph. And for a few years, he was arguably
the most powerful monarch in Western Europe,
controlling both West Francia and the imperial
harland. And he didn't just stumble into this
either. He'd spent years maneuvering to achieve
this loyalty. Oh, he played the long diplomatic
game. Years earlier, in April 907, he had married
Frederuna, a Lotharingian noblewoman. This created
deep personal ties to the local aristocracy.
He also ensured his niece, Cunegunda, married
Weedrick of Lotharingia in 909. These dynastic
marriages bound key regional families to his
cause. And he also proved he was willing to fight
for his new territory against the East French
and King Conrad III. He defended Lotharingia
against two separate attacks from Conrad. For
the Lotharingian nobles, Charles was a protector
who legitimized their independence from the rest
of East Francia. His dedication seemed total.
But this immense success in the East, this ideological
fulfillment, created the exact seed of discontent
that would eventually lead to his downfall in
the West. He neglected the people who put him
on the throne. This is where Charles the Simple,
this straightforward king, made a fatal political
misjudgment. It really was. The source material
is brutally clear. Charles preferred to stay
in the Lotharingian capital, Aachen, or at his
palace in Thionville. neglecting the West Francian
centers like Paris or Lyon. For the West Francian
nobility, the Robursians and their allies, this
must have felt like a profound betrayal. It was.
They had sacrificed their own ambition to place
Charles on the throne, hoping for a strong present
leader. Instead, they got a king who saw their
kingdom as a stepping stone to his true ambition.
Which was restoring Charlemagne's glory. Exactly.
They saw his constant absence as an affront.
His focus was restoring a historical empire.
Their focus was dealing with local banditry,
feudal justice, and Viking remnants. And the
military neglect that followed was the final
insult. Yes. The kingdom was under constant threat,
not just from Viking remnants, but now from the
incursions of the Hungarians, who were rampaging
across Central Europe and threatening Lotharingia
itself. And when the Hungarians arrived... Charles
refused to march out and defend the territory.
He abandoned his duty as the protector of the
realm. Wow. The only high -ranking official present
to defend Lotharingia, according to the chronicler
Fledord, was Archbishop Hervé de Rheims. Charles'
failure to act decisively against the Hungarians
completely shredded his credibility. Among both
his Lotharingian nobles who feared for their
lives. And the West Franchian nobles, who saw
the hypocrisy of a king obsessed with a historical
legacy, but unwilling to fight for the living
people under his protection. It's the ultimate
paradox. He was brilliant enough to turn a foreign
enemy like Rollo into an ally, but politically
simple enough to completely alienate his home
aristocracy. And by 925, Lotharingia was gone
again, seized by East Francia. But the damage
had already been done at home. Which brings us
to section four, the seeds of revolt, where his
poor judgment regarding favorites and power consolidation
created the final storm. The political damage
he inflicted by prioritizing Lotharingia was
compounded by his subsequent personal and dynastic
decisions. The first major instability point,
which Charles actually navigated successfully,
was the succession crisis in 917. His first wife,
Fredaruna, died on February 10th, 917. She had
been crucial for his Lotharingian ambitions,
but she left him with six daughters and no sons.
Which, in the cutthroat world of 10th century
Francia, meant deep uncertainty about the succession.
Every major noble could suddenly calculate their
own path to the crown. But Charles responded
decisively to secure the line, turning to the
only reliable diplomatic power left, Ingler.
Exactly. In October 919, he married Ejifu of
Wessex, daughter of Edward the Elder, king of
England. This was a hugely successful diplomatic
alliance, providing him with a powerful foreign
backer. And crucially, she bore him the son he
desperately needed in 920, the future Louis the
Faith of France. So dynastic stability, at least
theoretically, was achieved. But by 920, the
political firestorm had already been lit by his
spectacular misjudgment regarding his favorite,
Haganot. This seems to be the single most fatal
error of his entire reign. It was political suicide.
Charles showed excessive, blatant favoritism
towards Hagenau, who the sources describe as
a mediocris. Meaning a petty nobleman. Not just
a low -ranking noble, a petty nobleman, a relatively
minor figure who also happened to be a relative
of his deceased first wife, Frederuna. Why did
elevating a mediocris cause such fury among the
high aristocracy? For two reasons, tied deeply
into the structure of feudal society. First,
Status. The Frankish nobility believed in a strict
hierarchy. Placing a lowborn favorite above established,
ancient families like the Robertians or the Vermandois
was a profound insult. It implied that blood
and traditional power meant nothing compared
to the king's personal whim. Right. They saw
Hagenau as an illegitimate conduit of royal power.
And the second reason, the practical one, is
where Charles truly crossed the line. He started
giving Haganot the aristocracy stuff. He was
systematically transferring wealth and power
from the established magnates to his favorite.
Charles endowed Haganot with monasteries and
land holdings known as benefices. OK, let's break
down the significance of the benefits. It's not
just a paycheck, right? No, not at all. In this
decentralized world, a king had very little centralized
taxing power. His authority rested on his ability
to reward and control the magnates through granting
benefices. They were the lifeblood of aristocratic
power. They provided tax income, resources for
equipping armed retainers, and the ultimate source
of local patronage. When Charles started taking
these resources away from established barons'
resources, they considered their hereditary due.
And giving them to Haganu. He was declaring open
economic and political warfare on his entire
ruling class. And the most provocative act detailed
in the sources, the one that absolutely ensured
the Rebersian dynasty would rise up, was the
fight over Shell's Abbey. This is the critical
turning point. Charles attempted to dispossess
his own aunt, Abbas Rose Thilde, from Shell's
Abbey and give this immensely valuable, strategically
placed monastic complex to Hagenau. And Abbas
Rose Thilde was the mother -in -law of Hugh the
Great. the son of Robert of Neustria. So by attacking
Abbas Rothild's patrimony, Charles was directly
lacking the financial and familial interests
of the most powerful, rising, non -Carolingian
dynasty in the kingdom. It was a declaration
of war. By trying to steal Shell's Abbey, Charles
provided the Robuchon family with the perfect,
morally justifiable excuse to revolt. Exactly.
They weren't just challenging him because of
ambition. They were protecting their property,
their mother -in -law, and their very power structure
from an arbitrary and dangerous king. And all
of this internal chaos was happening while external
support was just crumbling around him. Correct.
Remember his hard -won gains in Lotharingia.
They evaporated quickly. In 919, the new Duke
Gilbert of Lotharingia declared loyalty to the
East Francian king, Henry the Fowler. Which meant
Charles could no longer count on retreating to
Aachen or using Lotharingian forces to balance
the scales against his West -French enemies.
The stage was perfectly set for the final dramatic
revolt. Charles, the straightforward king, had
created a political situation so complex and
poisoned that his own overthrow was guaranteed.
And that takes us directly into Section 5. Deposition,
Defeat, and Imprisonment, covering the turbulent
three years from 920 until his death in 929.
The speed and violence of his collapse are truly
staggering. The moment of realization for the
nobles came in 920. Yes. The powerful nobles,
driven to complete exasperation by the Haganah
situation, decided the only way to restore order
was to remove the king. So they seized Charles
and imprisoned him. This was the second time
in three decades that a Frankish monarch had
been successfully deposed by his own nobles.
It's a shocking act, but it speaks to the depth
of aristocratic fury. Who secured his temporary
release? Charles was only released after intense
negotiation, primarily mediated by Archbishop
Hervius of Reims. Hervius was one of Charles'
most loyal and capable supporters, a man who
saw the necessity of maintaining the Carolingian
dynasty for stability. So he managed to broker
a fragile truce. Right, buying Charles about
two years of tenuous freedom. But the truce didn't
address the root cause, which was Haganu and
the king's preference for the east. And so the
truce didn't hold. In 922, the Frankish nobles
revolted again, sensing Charles had learned nothing.
This was the final devastating move. And the
revolt was led by Robert of Neustria. Brother
of the late King Odo, and now the father of Hugh
the Great, whose mother -in -law Charles had
tried to dispossess. The rubber sheen hammer
finally fell, and it was Robert of Neustria who
swung it. He seized the throne. Robert was elected
and crowned king by the rebels. Charles the Simple.
rejected and cornered, fled to his remaining
base of loyalty, Lotharingia. It's hard to imagine
the depth of Charles' despair in 922. And just
as he fled, he suffered another irreparable loss.
On July 2000, 922, Archbishop Hervitis of Reims
died. the death of his loyal supporter. He had
lost his chief diplomat, the man who had previously
saved him from imprisonment, leaving him entirely
exposed and reliant on military force. But Charles
wasn't going to surrender his dynastic legacy
easily, though. He marshaled his forces, which
crucially included his former Viking enemies,
the Normans. A testament to the effectiveness
of the 9 -11 Treaty. He returned to West Francia
to fight for his crown. leading to the climactic
Battle of Soissons. Which took place on June
15th, 923. And it is a fascinating moment of
high -stakes medieval drama. Charles, with his
Norman forces, faced the armies of the newly
crowned Robert I. And King Robert I died in the
battle itself. He did. The sources are conflicting,
which adds to the intrigue. Some say Robert I
was killed by a common soldier, Count of Fulbert.
Others say that Charles the Simple personally
confronted and killed the usurper king. Imagine
that scene. The deposed, desperate king fighting
hand -to -hand and personally killing his rival,
achieving a moment of brutal, visceral vengeance.
It would have been the ultimate moment of triumph,
proving he was anything but simple. But that
moment was fleeting. Because despite Charles
successfully eliminating the leader of the rebellion,
Robert's army won the battle. The Rebersian forces
were better organized, better commanded, and
their political will was stronger. Charles was
forced to escape the battlefield, having won
the duel but lost the war. The rebel nobility
acted with ruthless efficiency to prevent any
Carolingian resurgence. Swiftly. They elected
Rudolf of Burgundy, who was conveniently Robert
I's son -in -law, to succeed him. Rudolf was
crowned king on July 13, 923. In the space of
one month, the Robertians deposed a king, saw
him killed, won the battle, and transferred the
crown to their next ally. Charles' brief flight
didn't last long. Not at all. During the summer
of 923, Charles was captured at Chateau Thierry.
And the man responsible for his capture was Herbert
II, Count of Armandois, another key member of
the Robertian family alliance. And another son
-in -law of the late King Robert. The entire
power structure was interwoven. So the man who
secured the entire northern border of France
through genius diplomacy was imprisoned by the
very aristocratic system he failed to manage.
His humiliation was complete. He was first held
at Chateau Terry. and then transferred in 924
to a castle in Peron under the direct, careful
guard of Herbert II. And at the same time, King
Henry VI of Germany definitively seized Lotharingia,
ending Charles' imperial dream forever. He had
lost his kingdom, his supporters, his territory,
and his freedom. And he remained a captive until
his death. Yes. Charles the Simple died in prison
at Peron on October 7, 929, aged 50. He was buried
at the nearby abbey of St. Ferzi. His death secured
the throne for the non -Carolingian rulers, but
the long -term dynastic battle was far from over.
That leads us to Section 6, the long -term aftermath.
Because while Charles the Simple's reign ended
tragically, his strategic marriage to Edgifu
of Wessex proved to be a successful dynastic
life raft. In the chaos of 923, Queen Ejifu acted
quickly to secure the most vital asset, the legitimate
Carolingian male heir. Immediately after Charles'
defeat and capture, Ejifu and her young son,
Louis, fled back across the Channel to England,
seeking refuge at the court of her father, King
Edward the Elder. This preserved the bloodline,
keeping the Carolingian name politically relevant,
but physically removed from the dangerous conflicts
in Francia. They became known as the Roi d 'Outremer,
the king from overseas. Meanwhile, Rudolf of
Burgundy retained the throne, but his rule was
inherently fragile. It was always fragile. Rudolf,
who was Robert VI's successor, ruled until 936.
But when he died, he left no sons. This immediately
threw the Frankish nobility back into a succession
crisis. The very instability Odo had tried to
avoid decades earlier. Right. So the powerful
Rebertian faction, now led by Hugh the Great,
Robert I's son, had a choice. Try to take the
crown directly or find a legitimate figurehead.
And this is where the Rebertian dynasty showed
their political sophistication. Hugh the Great
could have claimed the throne for himself. But
that might have reignited a devastating civil
war with the remaining Carolingian loyalists
and the powerful clergy. Who still revered the
dynastic name. Instead, Hugh and the leading
nobles unanimously summoned Charles the Simple's
son, Louis, to back from England in 936. They
recalled the son of the man they had deposed
and killed. What was the underlying calculation?
It was pure self -interest, dressed as dynastic
reverence. Louis had grown up in the highly sophisticated
court of his grandfather, Edward the Elder. He
was politically neutral in Francia and lacked
any personal power base, army, or established
aristocratic connections in the kingdom. So the
nobles, especially Hugh the Great, saw him as
a safe, legitimate figurehead they could easily
control while they consolidated their own regional
power. He was the perfect solution for them.
So Charles the Simple's second marriage achieved
the impossible. His son was crowned King Louis
IV of France in 936, even though Charles himself
died a prisoner. That's a powerful irony. It
ensures that the Carolingian name remains a factor
for another 60 years, even if it is a heavily
curtailed and often manipulated authority. The
dynasty's ultimate failure was sealed, but their
survival was guaranteed by Charles' strategic
foresight in marrying Ejifo. To wrap up Charles'
own complex personal history, let's just summarize
his family output as it highlights his strategic
vision at different stages of his life. His first
wife, Fredaruna, the Lotharingian noblewoman.
gave him six daughters, vital for his Eastern
ambitions, including Gisela, whose marriage to
Rollo secured the Normandy Treaty. And his second
wife, Edgifu of Wessex. She provided the single
most crucial factor for the dynasty's survival,
the legitimate male heir, Louis IV. And we shouldn't
forget his other offspring, who played roles
in the church and politics, highlighting the
interwoven nature of patronage. That's right.
His children outside of marriage included Arnulf,
Drogo, and Roricon, who rose to become Bishop
of Leon and a daughter named Alpais. So these
non -legitimate children often served as political
agents placed in powerful ecclesiastical roles
to ensure local loyalty. It reflected the standard
practice of leveraging family ties for administrative
control. Charles used every available resource,
legitimate or not, to project his influence.
As we conclude this deep dive into Charles the
Simple, we have completely inverted that infamous
nickname. His life and reign were defined by
immense strategic success that was ultimately
undone by a single catastrophic blind spot. First,
we have to remember the name Simplex. It was
originally a compliment meaning straightforward,
later intentionally corrupted by political rivals
who called him Stoltus in minor. He was a king
of aggressive, sophisticated ambition, proven
by his near -successful grab for the Carolingian
heartland of Lotharingia. Second, the strategic
genius of the Treaty of St. Clair -sur -Epte
in 911. By carving out the Duchy of Normandy
and offering his daughter Gisela to Rollo, Charles
solved the external Viking threat by converting
them into a loyal, defensible border force. This
single act shaped the future political and military
geography of Western Europe. And third, his fatal
amateur error. placing personal favorites, specifically
the petty nobleman Hagenow, above the power and
demands of the established aristocracy. By attempting
to seize valuable traditional resources like
Shell's Abbey from the Robersian family, Charles
declared open warfare on the nobles who controlled
the kingdom's military and economy. He alienated
the very people who had given him the throne,
the powerful nobles led by Robert of Neustria,
whose descendants, including Hugh the Great and
eventually Hugh Capet, would establish the Capetian
line of French monarchs. The lineage that would
rule France for the next eight centuries. Charles
secured the borders of Francia, but he simultaneously
secured his dynasty's ultimate downfall. The
irony is profound. Charles used complex diplomacy
and military pragmatism to neutralize the foreign,
external threat that had plagued his ancestors
for generations. But he completely failed to
understand the internal political game. He died
in prison, not because he was stupid, but because
he was distracted by his imperial ambition and
made a simple, fatal misjudgment in domestic
patronage. So here is the final provocative thought
for you to carry away. Charles the Simple was
instrumental in settling the Vikings in Normandy,
creating a political state that survived and
thrived and would later conquer England. Yet
his handling of one minor noble, Hagano, and
the resulting noble fury over a single monastery
sealed his dynasty's fate. It raises the question,
in a decentralized kingdom, how much does a massive
international policy success matter if you don't
send a personal thank you note to the barons
who pay for your army? Charles the Symbol proves
that in medieval politics, securing the loyalty
of your powerful neighbors is often easier than
managing the entitlements and egos of your own
family and closest vassals. A king is only as
simple or as secure as the barons allow him to
be. Thank you for joining us for this deep dive
into a king who deserves to be remembered for
his strategy, not his label.