Calling /u/GeorgiusFlorentius and /u/bitparity in particular.
In AD 555, the Merovingian king Chlothar inherited Austrasia from his brother Theudebald. One year later, Chlothar's son, Chram, revolted against him and tried to overthrow him. Why did Chram do this? Did it have something to do with the Austrasian inheritance? Was it a consequence of Chlothar sending Chram south to govern territory in his name? Is it really just a case of a greedy son rising up against his father, or is there more to this story?
I've been reading Gregory of Tours and I can't wrap my head around the motivations here. Choice quotes:
Chlothar sent his son Chram to Arvernis [the capital of Auvergne, now called Clermont-Ferrand].
He was extremely ill-advised in nearly everything that he did, and his premature death was a direct result of this. He was hated by the townsfolk of Arvernis. Among all his associates there was not one capable of giving him good and useful advice. He collected round him a band of young and dissolute people from the lower classes. He cared for no one else and it was to their advice only that he listened...
Chram left Arvernis and went to the city of Poitiers. He lived there in great state. He was led astray by the advice of evil men around him and made up his mind to go over to his uncle Childebert and to betray his father... They sent secret messengers to each other and conspired together and plotted against Chlothar.
Once he had made this arrangement with Childebert Chram went off to the Limousin region. All this territory, which was part of his father's realm, and which Chram had once visited, he now submitted to his own rule.
From this I can only assume the following: that Chram's power base came from the lower rather than the upper classes (our aristocratic narrator is positively seething here), that Chram had political connections in the Limousin region formed during a prior visit, and that he relied on his uncle to support him in overthrowing his father. Do we know anything else about what was going on?
Chram's power base came from the lower rather than the upper classes
I think Gregory is just being dismissive of people he did not like. There is good evidence that Chramn also had backing from the traditional local elite. “[Chramn] insulted Firminus and dismissed him from the countship of the city, appointing in his place Salustius, the son of Evodius” (DLH IV.13): Evodius, who was the son of Hortensius, count of Clermont/Auvergne in the early 6th century. Gregory also mentions (DLH IV.16) that Chramn was advised by “a citizen of Clermont called Ascovindus, an admirable person who was circumspect in all his behaviour”. Chramn may have had a retinue of turbulent young men who were eager to fight for him, but they probably were not much worse-behaved than any similar group.
Chram had political connections in the Limousin region formed during a prior visit
We even have reasons to believe that Chramn had some kind of (sub-)regal power over the region. We know that his power originally was sanctioned by his father: “Lothar sent his son Chramn to Clermont-Ferrand” (DLH IV.9) (and it is reasonable to assume that he was not sent here to enjoy the fresh air and clean water of Auvergne's puys). We also know that he struck at least one gold tremissis (something that Merovingian kings liked to do as a sign of prestige), and Gregory calls him “the King”.
he relied on his uncle to support him in overthrowing his father
Correct.
Do we know anything else about what was going on?
The Liber historiae francorum, which was written in the early 8th century, and included an epitome of Gregory's Decem libri historiarum, says that Chramn was recalled by his father because of his bad behiavour, and that this was the stem of his rebellion (LHF ch. 28). There is some reason to believe that the LHF had access to independant information about Chramn (for instance, it mentions the name of Chramn's wife, something that the author of the LHF probably did not pull out from thin air), but its interpretation of Chramn's revolt may have been coloured by the Biblical parallel of Absalom.
If we chose to reject the LHF's interpretation, we have to rely exclusively on Gregory's text. In my opinion, an interesting piece of information we get from Gregory is that : “King Lothar had seven sons by his various wives. By Ingund he had [five sons]; by Aregund, who was the sister of Ingund, he had [one son]; and by Chunsina he had Chramn” (IV.3). Chramn had six half-brothers; what is more, his brothers' mothers were sisters. In other words, Chramn was isolated. It is quite natural that he should have wanted to launch a preemptive attack, in order to carve himself a part of inheritance.
Another possible (and not exclusive) cause is that Auvergne and Aquitaine (the cities of Clermont, Poitiers, Limoges, etc.) wanted to be independant, and played a role in encouraging Chramn's ambition. It is interesting to notice that at least three Merovingian pretenders tried to impose their rule there; Chramn was the first one, and was followed by Sigulf (DLH VII.27, unknown time frame) and Gundovald (DLH VII.27, in 584). Sigivald may also have harboured ambitions: he was a relative of King Theuderic, was assigned to Clermont (DLH III.13), behaved badly according to Gregory (III.15) and then killed for unknown reasons (III.23). We also know that king Theuderic thought that “the men of Clermont were ready to betray him” (DLH III.11), and then sacked the region. Aquitaine would secede altogether in the late Merovingian period.
Clearly, southern and south-western France was poorly integrated (it was far from the northern and eastern centres of power), and had a markedly different ethnic make-up (elites were mostly “Roman”). The sack of Auvergne in the 520s may also have been resented for a long time. We know that Chramn was “led astray by the advice of evil men around him” (DLH IV.16) while in Poitiers: these “evil men” may have been local aristocrats dissatisfied with their distant rulers, who wanted to have their own king, more mindful of their interest that some distant ruler of Eastern Francia.
If I had to explain Chramn's rebellion, I would therefore insist on these two aspects: (i) Chramn's fragile position in the royal succession; (ii) a part of the local aristocracy wanted to have its own king.
Why did Chram do this? Did it have something to do with the Austrasian inheritance?
Theudebald and his line ruled Austrasia and Auvergne-Aquitaine, so Chlothar got both at the same time.