What do you think?
Rate this book
Oathbreakers: The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe
By the early ninth century, the Carolingian empire was at the height of its power. The Franks, led by Charlemagne, had built the largest European domain since Rome in its heyday. Though they jockeyed for power, prestige, and profit, the Frankish elites enjoyed political and cultural consensus. But just two generations later, their world was in shambles. Civil war, once an unthinkable threat, had erupted after Louis the Pious’s sons overthrew him—and then placed their knives at the other’s neck. Families who had once charged into battle together now drew each other’s blood.
The Carolingian Civil War would rage for years as kings fought kings, brother faced off against brother, and sons challenged fathers. Oathbreakers is the dramatic history of this brutal, turbulent time. Medieval historians David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele illuminate what happens when a once unshakeable political and cultural order breaks down and long suppressed tensions flare into deadly violence. Drawn from rich primary sources, featuring a wide cast of characters, packed with dramatic twists and turns, this is history that rivals the greatest fictional epics—with consequences that continue to shape our own world.
The Carolingian Civil War would rage for years as kings fought kings, brother faced off against brother, and sons challenged fathers. Oathbreakers is the dramatic history of this brutal, turbulent time. Medieval historians David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele illuminate what happens when a once unshakeable political and cultural order breaks down and long suppressed tensions flare into deadly violence. Drawn from rich primary sources, featuring a wide cast of characters, packed with dramatic twists and turns, this is history that rivals the greatest fictional epics—with consequences that continue to shape our own world.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published December 10, 2024
172 people are currently reading
4735 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Gabriele
9 books104 followersMatthew Gabriele is a Professor of Medieval Studies and Chair of the Dept. of Religion & Culture at Virginia Tech.
His research and teaching focus on religion, violence, nostalgia, and apocalypse (in various combinations), whether manifested in the Middle Ages or modern world. This includes events and ideas such as the Crusades, the so-called “Terrors of the Year 1000,” and medieval religious and political life more generally. He also has presented and published on modern medievalism, such as recent white supremacist appropriations of the Middle Ages and pop culture phenomena like Game of Thrones or video games.
He has published several books and numerous articles. He also has presented at dozens of national and international conferences and has given talks at Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Virginia, the University of Minnesota, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, the University of Kent, and Nottingham Trent University. In 2010, he was a visiting researcher at Westfälische Wilhelms Üniversität-Münster, and from 2016-19 he was an elected Councilor of the Medieval Academy of America.
His public writing has appeared in such places as The Washington Post, Time, Forbes, and The Daily Beast. Interviews with him have aired locally, nationally, and internationally. He is currently a columnist for Smithsonian Magazine.
He's the author, with David M. Perry, of The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe (Harper, 2021), and also Oathbreakers: The Civil War that Ended and Empire and Made Europe (Harper, 2024).
His research and teaching focus on religion, violence, nostalgia, and apocalypse (in various combinations), whether manifested in the Middle Ages or modern world. This includes events and ideas such as the Crusades, the so-called “Terrors of the Year 1000,” and medieval religious and political life more generally. He also has presented and published on modern medievalism, such as recent white supremacist appropriations of the Middle Ages and pop culture phenomena like Game of Thrones or video games.
He has published several books and numerous articles. He also has presented at dozens of national and international conferences and has given talks at Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Virginia, the University of Minnesota, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, the University of Kent, and Nottingham Trent University. In 2010, he was a visiting researcher at Westfälische Wilhelms Üniversität-Münster, and from 2016-19 he was an elected Councilor of the Medieval Academy of America.
His public writing has appeared in such places as The Washington Post, Time, Forbes, and The Daily Beast. Interviews with him have aired locally, nationally, and internationally. He is currently a columnist for Smithsonian Magazine.
He's the author, with David M. Perry, of The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe (Harper, 2021), and also Oathbreakers: The Civil War that Ended and Empire and Made Europe (Harper, 2024).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews
September 4, 2025
What could possibly break a powerful empire within two generations?
Within the Carolingian realm, as the king's authority was challenged by powerful nobles and his own sons, the Frankish dynasty began its collapse in a thirst for power.
There is nothing so brutal and devastating as a Civil war. Brother against brother. Friend against friend. There are no enemies at the gates. The nation collapses from within.
Each faction knows the weakness of the other.
Anger exploding as one views the other as traitor.
This book covers the events leading up to the decay of the empire built by the Franks.
"The saddest thing about betrayal is that it never comes from your enemies; it comes from those you trust the most."
Unknown
Within the Carolingian realm, as the king's authority was challenged by powerful nobles and his own sons, the Frankish dynasty began its collapse in a thirst for power.
There is nothing so brutal and devastating as a Civil war. Brother against brother. Friend against friend. There are no enemies at the gates. The nation collapses from within.
Each faction knows the weakness of the other.
Anger exploding as one views the other as traitor.
This book covers the events leading up to the decay of the empire built by the Franks.
"The saddest thing about betrayal is that it never comes from your enemies; it comes from those you trust the most."
Unknown
December 26, 2024
As I listened to Paul Bellantoni narrate Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry’s new book, Oathbreakers, I kept having to pause at the thought that the history the authors recount happened nearly 1,200 years ago. 1,200 years ago. That we can know as much as we do about the personalities and actions of the people discussed in this book is a small miracle to me...
Read the rest of my review at A Bookish Type.
Read the rest of my review at A Bookish Type.
January 30, 2025
This was a difficult book for me to get through. I had some domestic distractions occur while attempting to read this book but the history was unable to hold my attention and the distractions kept pulling me away. While the book is well written the history seemed trivial. I felt like this book should have been a chapter in a larger book on the history of Europe. I was also affected by the comments of the authors about the reliability of written sources from this time. The surviving written sources are rare and frequently written at a much later time than the history being reported and by sources whose partisanship is readily apparent. If that is all true then everything we know about the medieval period in Europe is probably nothing but propaganda to make a bunch of barbarians appear like God fearing civilized human beings. If what is reported in this book is the cleaned up version of the truth then I shudder to think of what really occurred.
This is a relatively short book with only 247 pages of text and the history only covers a period of about 100 years from the late 8th to the late 9th century. It also focuses on the family of Charlemagne, his sons and grandsons and how they made a mess of the Carolingian Empire by fighting over who gets what part of the imperial pie and who gets to tell who what to do. In short this was about a medieval family feud in which the family members get to send other people off to get maimed or killed in order to settle selfish family disputes. But the authors do highlight the battle that may have been, according to some scholars, the defining moment of the creation of France and Germany and the beginning of Europe as we know it today. And we all know that the family fighting went on for nearly a millennium or more after this as the families and territories expanded across the continent and then on to other continents. Civilization does seem to be a rather curious hypocrisy doesn't it? Enjoy.
This is a relatively short book with only 247 pages of text and the history only covers a period of about 100 years from the late 8th to the late 9th century. It also focuses on the family of Charlemagne, his sons and grandsons and how they made a mess of the Carolingian Empire by fighting over who gets what part of the imperial pie and who gets to tell who what to do. In short this was about a medieval family feud in which the family members get to send other people off to get maimed or killed in order to settle selfish family disputes. But the authors do highlight the battle that may have been, according to some scholars, the defining moment of the creation of France and Germany and the beginning of Europe as we know it today. And we all know that the family fighting went on for nearly a millennium or more after this as the families and territories expanded across the continent and then on to other continents. Civilization does seem to be a rather curious hypocrisy doesn't it? Enjoy.
December 7, 2024
Just finished reading an advanced copy of this book. After the first chapter it picks up the pace and makes a readable tale of the mess that Charlemagne and his sons made of his empire.
February 15, 2025
5 Stars for Research
4 Stars for the writing
3 Stars, I’m glad that I read it, I just didn’t enjoy it as much I had hoped.
4 Stars for the writing
3 Stars, I’m glad that I read it, I just didn’t enjoy it as much I had hoped.
March 16, 2025
Matthew Gabriele is a professor of medieval studies in the Department of Religion and Culture at Virginia Tech and David Perry is a former professor of medieval history, currently a journalist; these two previously teamed up for 2021's The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe. In their 2024 collaborative effort, Oathbreakers, Gabriele and Perry narrow their scope and focus on the progeny of the famous medieval king Charlemagne, specifically the Holy Roman Emperor's grandsons through his son Louis the Pious and the familial power struggle known as the Carolingian civil war of 840-843 that ensued upon Louis the Pious' death.
This is a short, ostensibly well-researched and engaging read that illuminates the 9th century and its cultural and social moraes nicely. I appreciated how Gabriele and Perry discussed their research methods and how certain narratives were likely written after the fact and in biased ways, or more significant for their omissions.
My statistics:
Book 79 for 2025
Book 2005 cumulatively
This is a short, ostensibly well-researched and engaging read that illuminates the 9th century and its cultural and social moraes nicely. I appreciated how Gabriele and Perry discussed their research methods and how certain narratives were likely written after the fact and in biased ways, or more significant for their omissions.
My statistics:
Book 79 for 2025
Book 2005 cumulatively
June 4, 2025
This was really engaging and interesting. i don't know much about this period in European history.
This is perfect for casual readers of nonfiction history.
This is written in an easily accessible style and has a clear cast of characters to help the reader keep all the players separate. The narrator sounded interested in the subject matter and really helped keep the experience light and fun.
This is perfect for casual readers of nonfiction history.
This is written in an easily accessible style and has a clear cast of characters to help the reader keep all the players separate. The narrator sounded interested in the subject matter and really helped keep the experience light and fun.
April 8, 2025
4.5 Stars
Historians Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry, who previously co-authored The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe, return with a more focused narrative in Oathbreakers: The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe. This book zeroes in on the turbulent ninth century, a time that shaped the political and cultural contours of the continent in ways that still resonate. At its center is the dramatic and ultimately tragic collapse of Charlemagne’s empire, not due to foreign invasion or economic collapse, but through civil war among his heirs. Charlemagne (reigned 768–814), often called the "father of Europe," ruled an empire that stretched from northern Spain to the edge of modern-day Hungary. His success was in part due to his ability to rule without a sibling rival, a rarity in a system where royal brothers typically governed together or inherited jointly. His son, Louis the Pious (reigned 814–840), inherited the entire empire but was immediately burdened with the Carolingian tradition of partitioning rule among sons. With three adult sons already in place and a fourth added later, Louis’s reign was marred by political instability, armed conflict, and even a temporary deposition. Upon his death, the empire quickly descended into outright civil war. The decisive Battle of Fontenoy in 841 was a bloodbath that resolved nothing. In its aftermath, the three surviving sons Lothar, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald struck the Strasbourg Oaths of 842 and the Treaty of Verdun in 843. These agreements are often held up by historians as the earliest signs of an emerging European order, eventually separating into what we now call France and Germany. Yet, as Gabriele and Perry argue, these events were less neat dividing lines and more the beginning of a long, messy process of disintegration and reformation. With a critical eye toward biased and fragmented medieval sources, the authors walk readers through not only what happened but how we know (or think we know) what happened. This is a narrative history grounded in serious scholarship, yet written with energy, clarity, and a welcome sense of pacing. In their hands, this story of betrayal, dynastic ambition, and political transformation becomes something more than a family feud, and it becomes the crucible in which medieval Europe was forged.
A standout strength of the book is how it foregrounds the Ordines, the symbolic rituals of coronation and anointing, as well as the role of the Church in sacral kingship. It reminded me of how much of early medieval statecraft was performance and how deeply medieval politics were rooted in both the real and the symbolic. The book does a fine job explaining why legitimacy mattered so much in a supposedly “lawless” age. Gabriele and Perry also make space for voices often missing in histories of empire: monks, bishops, rebels, and even the occasional woman, though the latter are understandably underrepresented due to the nature of the sources.
The framing of the book, that this is the moment when "Europe" begins to emerge, is both ambitious and persuasive. Readers with a strong academic background might find it a bit overdetermined. The narrative occasionally flirts with teleology, implying that the disintegration of the Carolingian Empire led inevitably to France and Germany as we know them today. In reality, as the authors acknowledge, medieval Europe remained a messy, overlapping patchwork of identities and jurisdictions for centuries. This doesn’t diminish the value of their argument. Instead, it reveals the tensions inherent in writing a readable, public-facing account of a complex historical period.
I particularly appreciated how the book handled the famous Oaths of Strasbourg. Arguably one of the most symbolically rich moments in medieval history, the fact that it survives in three languages (Latin, Old High German, and Old French) is not just a linguistic curiosity but a powerful indicator of how this civil war was reshaping ideas of community and loyalty.
Who is this book for? Anyone with an interest in early medieval history, Carolingian politics, or the formation of Europe’s geopolitical map will find this a valuable read. It would be especially good for undergraduates or general readers who want a narrative history that doesn't condescend or oversimplify. Scholars may find themselves wishing for footnotes, but they'll also appreciate how much serious historical thinking is woven into the prose.
Who is this not for? Those hoping for a deep dive into military tactics or exhaustive coverage of every local rebellion may be disappointed. The focus remains squarely on the high-level political and cultural implications of the brothers’ conflict. And those who prefer traditional academic monographs, with long digressions into historiography or source criticism, might find the pace a bit brisk.
All in all, Oathbreakers is a vibrant, engaging account of a pivotal era too often glossed over in popular histories. It invites readers to look again at the ninth century, not as a time of decay following Charlemagne's triumphs, but as a formative moment in the shaping of medieval Europe. Highly recommended.
If you want more check out my video:
https://youtu.be/mK8h4y-pOT0
If you want more reviews check out my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/@SpencerReadsE...
Historians Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry, who previously co-authored The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe, return with a more focused narrative in Oathbreakers: The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe. This book zeroes in on the turbulent ninth century, a time that shaped the political and cultural contours of the continent in ways that still resonate. At its center is the dramatic and ultimately tragic collapse of Charlemagne’s empire, not due to foreign invasion or economic collapse, but through civil war among his heirs. Charlemagne (reigned 768–814), often called the "father of Europe," ruled an empire that stretched from northern Spain to the edge of modern-day Hungary. His success was in part due to his ability to rule without a sibling rival, a rarity in a system where royal brothers typically governed together or inherited jointly. His son, Louis the Pious (reigned 814–840), inherited the entire empire but was immediately burdened with the Carolingian tradition of partitioning rule among sons. With three adult sons already in place and a fourth added later, Louis’s reign was marred by political instability, armed conflict, and even a temporary deposition. Upon his death, the empire quickly descended into outright civil war. The decisive Battle of Fontenoy in 841 was a bloodbath that resolved nothing. In its aftermath, the three surviving sons Lothar, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald struck the Strasbourg Oaths of 842 and the Treaty of Verdun in 843. These agreements are often held up by historians as the earliest signs of an emerging European order, eventually separating into what we now call France and Germany. Yet, as Gabriele and Perry argue, these events were less neat dividing lines and more the beginning of a long, messy process of disintegration and reformation. With a critical eye toward biased and fragmented medieval sources, the authors walk readers through not only what happened but how we know (or think we know) what happened. This is a narrative history grounded in serious scholarship, yet written with energy, clarity, and a welcome sense of pacing. In their hands, this story of betrayal, dynastic ambition, and political transformation becomes something more than a family feud, and it becomes the crucible in which medieval Europe was forged.
A standout strength of the book is how it foregrounds the Ordines, the symbolic rituals of coronation and anointing, as well as the role of the Church in sacral kingship. It reminded me of how much of early medieval statecraft was performance and how deeply medieval politics were rooted in both the real and the symbolic. The book does a fine job explaining why legitimacy mattered so much in a supposedly “lawless” age. Gabriele and Perry also make space for voices often missing in histories of empire: monks, bishops, rebels, and even the occasional woman, though the latter are understandably underrepresented due to the nature of the sources.
The framing of the book, that this is the moment when "Europe" begins to emerge, is both ambitious and persuasive. Readers with a strong academic background might find it a bit overdetermined. The narrative occasionally flirts with teleology, implying that the disintegration of the Carolingian Empire led inevitably to France and Germany as we know them today. In reality, as the authors acknowledge, medieval Europe remained a messy, overlapping patchwork of identities and jurisdictions for centuries. This doesn’t diminish the value of their argument. Instead, it reveals the tensions inherent in writing a readable, public-facing account of a complex historical period.
I particularly appreciated how the book handled the famous Oaths of Strasbourg. Arguably one of the most symbolically rich moments in medieval history, the fact that it survives in three languages (Latin, Old High German, and Old French) is not just a linguistic curiosity but a powerful indicator of how this civil war was reshaping ideas of community and loyalty.
Who is this book for? Anyone with an interest in early medieval history, Carolingian politics, or the formation of Europe’s geopolitical map will find this a valuable read. It would be especially good for undergraduates or general readers who want a narrative history that doesn't condescend or oversimplify. Scholars may find themselves wishing for footnotes, but they'll also appreciate how much serious historical thinking is woven into the prose.
Who is this not for? Those hoping for a deep dive into military tactics or exhaustive coverage of every local rebellion may be disappointed. The focus remains squarely on the high-level political and cultural implications of the brothers’ conflict. And those who prefer traditional academic monographs, with long digressions into historiography or source criticism, might find the pace a bit brisk.
All in all, Oathbreakers is a vibrant, engaging account of a pivotal era too often glossed over in popular histories. It invites readers to look again at the ninth century, not as a time of decay following Charlemagne's triumphs, but as a formative moment in the shaping of medieval Europe. Highly recommended.
If you want more check out my video:
https://youtu.be/mK8h4y-pOT0
If you want more reviews check out my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/@SpencerReadsE...
October 30, 2025
TL;DR. I liked this book quite a lot, but maybe not in the way the authors would approve. The Carolingian era is not well-known and I enjoyed reading month-by-month coverage of their political moves, coups, counter-coups and the like, even if the authors' opinions/commentary were not everything I might have hoped for.
It was also very interesting to read about the Battle of the Ries, the first real battle with Carolingians on both sides, conducted in a very unusual place: the Nördlinger Ries, a giant meteor crater just north of the Danube in what is now Germany.
The book does not appear to be a particularly deep one. It concerns itself with the question, "Why did the grandsons of Charlemagne, after a grand empire had been built up, take to fighting one another and thereby losing everything for the family?". The answer it wants to provide is to assert that this was no anomaly. Deplorable internecine fighting had been going on all along. But the problem is that it doesn't go any deeper than deploring it. Never does it go on to ask, "What choice did they have?". Was, in a time when the dominant paradigm was the personal bond and mostly an absence of the notion of an empire being greater than its ruler, or even of a true monarchy, anything else even possible? Not to mention the danger from one's own powerful magnates, eager to acquire foreign holdings, and liable to topple the ruler much as the Carolingians themselves had toppled the Merovingians.
Another of the book's themes, and probably the major one, is that the documents of the period often omit details when they are embarrassing to the Carolingian dynasty. That is, propaganda was alive and well, and what it hid was considerably more internecine conflict than would readily be apparent.
A key example are a couple years in the 750s that immediately follow Pepin, the Mayor of the Palace, deposing the last Merovingian rular. The annals faithfully record at least one event for every year of the Carolingian period, but not these years. The authors argue that they are covering up what was probably either a palace fight or or a larger battle, presumably a failed attempt to stop this usurpation.
Indeed, we should read all documents with a critical eye. Who was writing them and why and for whom is always very important. But on the other hand, is this anything new or different from any other government at any time in human history? Moreover, not everything that is hidden is strictly for explicit propaganda purposes. Some topics might just be painful for example, and just easier for everyone not to recall, for both sides.
Now to some lesser complaints:
Introductory chapter. Something I've noticed more and more about recently-published histories is that something is wrong with the first chapter. Rather than sounding like part of the rest of the book, it reads like the authors' pitch to the publisher, explaining why they should publish this (probably as yet unwritten) book. I can kind of understand why it gets included in the final book. After all, it is an introduction of sorts, and the authors probably worked very hard to create it. Including it just makes finishing the rest of the book a bit easier. But it's a shortcut that comes off oddly and probably a sign of declining standards in publishing. Well, I've advocated skipping introductions and just diving straight in for a long time now anyway.
Bloodless coups. The authors assert "There are no bloodless coups". Apparently they are unaware of several bloodless coups in the history of this planet.
Use of quotation marks. On page 52, we find 'Carloman's wife and two young sons "disappear from the record."', which left me wondering what these quotes are supposed to mean. Who is being quoted? Is this statement about disappearing from the record contemporary or modern? There is no footnote. If it just means that there is no further record of them, they might have just written that and not created this confusing passage.
Speculative. A lot of this book is quite speculative, and not in the way that I like. Certain events happen - for example, Louis succeeds to the throne and has his sisters banished to convents - and there is no historical explanation. The book speculates what such an event might mean, but not with thorough care. It's as if the authors have decided what in their minds it must mean and give us only that. There is certainly room for other possibilities, but they're never considered.
Another speculation example. The rebellion of Barcelona. Emperor Louis sent three successive armies to quell it, and by the end Barcelona was back in the fold, but at no time was there a big victory that made this happen. The third army apparently never even reached Barcelona, being disbanded near Lyons. The commanders of this army had been two of the emperor's sons as well as two of his most powerful magnates. Subsequent to this, the magnates were sentenced to death. The book's theory is that the emperor could not afford to have an embarrassing no result, but also had to protect the reputations of the sons and thus was forced to take action against the magnates. But it seems other motivations were also quite possible. Maybe the magnates were deliberately sabotaging the effort or maybe they feared what the emperor would do to their lands in their absence and didn't want to go to far off Iberia. And so on. Not possibilities the book is willing to consider. This is just one example of many throughout the book. You as the reader will need to think for yourself on these matters as the book is not interested in all the potentials.
Omissions. One thing the authors missed in trying to understand what triggered the conflict was the significance of the death of their brother, Pepin of Aquitania. After he died, his kingdom did not go to his son, but was reassigned to a brother. That really foreshadowed the way things would be working from then on. The sons of brothers Charles and Ludwig would not inherit kingdoms. The son(s) of Lothar would. This was something Ludwig the Pious had set in motion, and a norms change the brothers could not accept.
Omissions 2. Sometimes something is related that isn't the whole story. An example is the discussion of Charlemagne's dream and the mention that he kept a writing tablet near his bed to record any dream he had. The reader gets the impression of an emperor waking up to record his dreams. What they don't tell you is that Charlemagne couldn't write and could barely even read. At another point the book claims that a certain book criticizing the emperor had a wide readership in the empire, but fails to note that estimated literacy at the time was only 1-2%.
Nomenclature. The book uses the name Lothar rather than Lothair, as has been traditional in English, presumably to get closer to the period spelling, but curiously uses Louis rather than Ludwig, which is the reverse.
It was also very interesting to read about the Battle of the Ries, the first real battle with Carolingians on both sides, conducted in a very unusual place: the Nördlinger Ries, a giant meteor crater just north of the Danube in what is now Germany.
The book does not appear to be a particularly deep one. It concerns itself with the question, "Why did the grandsons of Charlemagne, after a grand empire had been built up, take to fighting one another and thereby losing everything for the family?". The answer it wants to provide is to assert that this was no anomaly. Deplorable internecine fighting had been going on all along. But the problem is that it doesn't go any deeper than deploring it. Never does it go on to ask, "What choice did they have?". Was, in a time when the dominant paradigm was the personal bond and mostly an absence of the notion of an empire being greater than its ruler, or even of a true monarchy, anything else even possible? Not to mention the danger from one's own powerful magnates, eager to acquire foreign holdings, and liable to topple the ruler much as the Carolingians themselves had toppled the Merovingians.
Another of the book's themes, and probably the major one, is that the documents of the period often omit details when they are embarrassing to the Carolingian dynasty. That is, propaganda was alive and well, and what it hid was considerably more internecine conflict than would readily be apparent.
A key example are a couple years in the 750s that immediately follow Pepin, the Mayor of the Palace, deposing the last Merovingian rular. The annals faithfully record at least one event for every year of the Carolingian period, but not these years. The authors argue that they are covering up what was probably either a palace fight or or a larger battle, presumably a failed attempt to stop this usurpation.
Indeed, we should read all documents with a critical eye. Who was writing them and why and for whom is always very important. But on the other hand, is this anything new or different from any other government at any time in human history? Moreover, not everything that is hidden is strictly for explicit propaganda purposes. Some topics might just be painful for example, and just easier for everyone not to recall, for both sides.
Now to some lesser complaints:
Introductory chapter. Something I've noticed more and more about recently-published histories is that something is wrong with the first chapter. Rather than sounding like part of the rest of the book, it reads like the authors' pitch to the publisher, explaining why they should publish this (probably as yet unwritten) book. I can kind of understand why it gets included in the final book. After all, it is an introduction of sorts, and the authors probably worked very hard to create it. Including it just makes finishing the rest of the book a bit easier. But it's a shortcut that comes off oddly and probably a sign of declining standards in publishing. Well, I've advocated skipping introductions and just diving straight in for a long time now anyway.
Bloodless coups. The authors assert "There are no bloodless coups". Apparently they are unaware of several bloodless coups in the history of this planet.
Use of quotation marks. On page 52, we find 'Carloman's wife and two young sons "disappear from the record."', which left me wondering what these quotes are supposed to mean. Who is being quoted? Is this statement about disappearing from the record contemporary or modern? There is no footnote. If it just means that there is no further record of them, they might have just written that and not created this confusing passage.
Speculative. A lot of this book is quite speculative, and not in the way that I like. Certain events happen - for example, Louis succeeds to the throne and has his sisters banished to convents - and there is no historical explanation. The book speculates what such an event might mean, but not with thorough care. It's as if the authors have decided what in their minds it must mean and give us only that. There is certainly room for other possibilities, but they're never considered.
Another speculation example. The rebellion of Barcelona. Emperor Louis sent three successive armies to quell it, and by the end Barcelona was back in the fold, but at no time was there a big victory that made this happen. The third army apparently never even reached Barcelona, being disbanded near Lyons. The commanders of this army had been two of the emperor's sons as well as two of his most powerful magnates. Subsequent to this, the magnates were sentenced to death. The book's theory is that the emperor could not afford to have an embarrassing no result, but also had to protect the reputations of the sons and thus was forced to take action against the magnates. But it seems other motivations were also quite possible. Maybe the magnates were deliberately sabotaging the effort or maybe they feared what the emperor would do to their lands in their absence and didn't want to go to far off Iberia. And so on. Not possibilities the book is willing to consider. This is just one example of many throughout the book. You as the reader will need to think for yourself on these matters as the book is not interested in all the potentials.
Omissions. One thing the authors missed in trying to understand what triggered the conflict was the significance of the death of their brother, Pepin of Aquitania. After he died, his kingdom did not go to his son, but was reassigned to a brother. That really foreshadowed the way things would be working from then on. The sons of brothers Charles and Ludwig would not inherit kingdoms. The son(s) of Lothar would. This was something Ludwig the Pious had set in motion, and a norms change the brothers could not accept.
Omissions 2. Sometimes something is related that isn't the whole story. An example is the discussion of Charlemagne's dream and the mention that he kept a writing tablet near his bed to record any dream he had. The reader gets the impression of an emperor waking up to record his dreams. What they don't tell you is that Charlemagne couldn't write and could barely even read. At another point the book claims that a certain book criticizing the emperor had a wide readership in the empire, but fails to note that estimated literacy at the time was only 1-2%.
Nomenclature. The book uses the name Lothar rather than Lothair, as has been traditional in English, presumably to get closer to the period spelling, but curiously uses Louis rather than Ludwig, which is the reverse.
January 28, 2025
Oh I hated this book . It's well researched but not exactly a page turner. I've read many history books that were captivating and riveting , but this was neither. I'm loath to give a bad review to a book that's well researched, but this was just not for me.
December 29, 2024
This is a fun, rowdy romp through a section of history that I think gets overlooked a lot. I know for myself at least I didn’t have much more than a vague idea of Charlemagne’s accomplishments, and an even vaguer sense that his surviving family completely wrecked the empire he built about twenty minutes after his death. Nothing here really upends that, but the authors do a great job to flesh that story out a bit, as well as talk a little about how the historical record is shaped as they go.
The book is light and chatty in tone, which is maybe surprising given some of the subject matter, and jokes abound. This didn’t really work for me, and I could have done with some more in-depth analysis in places. That doesn’t make it a bad book though, it just means that the writing style wasn’t what I wanted. I realize that “I wish this book was less entertaining and the authors got really bogged down in details” is a crazy criticism to make but the heart wants what the heart wants and when it comes to a book about Charlemagne, his shitty kids, and his even shittier grandkids, my heart wants to be kind of bored. But only kind of.
The book is light and chatty in tone, which is maybe surprising given some of the subject matter, and jokes abound. This didn’t really work for me, and I could have done with some more in-depth analysis in places. That doesn’t make it a bad book though, it just means that the writing style wasn’t what I wanted. I realize that “I wish this book was less entertaining and the authors got really bogged down in details” is a crazy criticism to make but the heart wants what the heart wants and when it comes to a book about Charlemagne, his shitty kids, and his even shittier grandkids, my heart wants to be kind of bored. But only kind of.
March 3, 2025
(Audiobook) A solid overview of Central Europe in the 800s. It is a timeframe that we don’t always have the best, most reliable information. The political maneuvering in the time of Charlemagne and in the aftermath of his rule reads much like a modern medieval fantasy book. Still, reality does give those tales its basis. This is mostly about brother fighting brother in an attempt to rule what Charlemagne managed to put together, and the successes and failures lend themselves to dramatic license. While intriguing, for some reason, the topic just couldn’t completely hold my attention. Maybe it was timing/etc, but this one didn’t quite enthrall me like I hoped it might. Not a bad read, but perhaps not one worth spending the money to buy.
February 2, 2025
Welp, this is my first actual, real, attempt at a review of any book I've read. This is unlikely to be coherent, or all that insightful, but we'll give it a go!
To start things off, it has to be said that I enjoyed the book a great deal. I'm a Carolingian history buff, so to find a book, purely by chance (I thought the sword looked cool) and for it to be so thoroughly detailed, in exactly the way a Early Medieval history book should be - more on that later - was fantastic.
Let's first address the things I *didn't* like about the book. #1, I wish it was longer. #2, occasionally, time-jumps were made that made even me (A guy who already roughly knows the history in question here) do a double-take to figure out where and when we were. #3, Said cool sword on the front of the book is actually anachronistic. My pettiness knows no bounds. That is not a Frankish sword.
Anyways! Onto the good stuff.
Writing a history book on the Early Middle ages is not easy. Textual sources are lacking, biased in the extreme, or are dry documents, essentially tax returns and church records. The most interesting sources and details we have are about the lives and relationships of a few very select men and women - the history itself is fundamentally interpersonal, as compared to later history. A chronicle of medieval kings is very different than a more detailed history from the 1600s. Many books, and many papers, fail to make use of the rich personal detail of the Early Medieval era, trying to conduct a sweeping review in the style of a history on a later subject.
Oathbreakers does not do that. It makes full use of, and indeed focuses on, those rich relationships. It shows a complex and complete understanding of not only the lives of the Frankish nobles in question, but an understanding of the Frankish worldview and culture. That, in and of itself, is incredibly impressive.
In addition to that, the book is also just highly entertaining. It's detailed, funny (rare, for a history book), full of anecdotes and references, and (despite my earlier complaint that I wish it was longer) does not drag on longer than the subject matters necessitates. It's a lost art, cutting a book off when it's reached it's conclusion.
Overall, I rate this a 4.5/5. Would absolutely read again. Will absolutely use it in a paper. Would totally recommend.
To start things off, it has to be said that I enjoyed the book a great deal. I'm a Carolingian history buff, so to find a book, purely by chance (I thought the sword looked cool) and for it to be so thoroughly detailed, in exactly the way a Early Medieval history book should be - more on that later - was fantastic.
Let's first address the things I *didn't* like about the book. #1, I wish it was longer. #2, occasionally, time-jumps were made that made even me (A guy who already roughly knows the history in question here) do a double-take to figure out where and when we were. #3, Said cool sword on the front of the book is actually anachronistic. My pettiness knows no bounds. That is not a Frankish sword.
Anyways! Onto the good stuff.
Writing a history book on the Early Middle ages is not easy. Textual sources are lacking, biased in the extreme, or are dry documents, essentially tax returns and church records. The most interesting sources and details we have are about the lives and relationships of a few very select men and women - the history itself is fundamentally interpersonal, as compared to later history. A chronicle of medieval kings is very different than a more detailed history from the 1600s. Many books, and many papers, fail to make use of the rich personal detail of the Early Medieval era, trying to conduct a sweeping review in the style of a history on a later subject.
Oathbreakers does not do that. It makes full use of, and indeed focuses on, those rich relationships. It shows a complex and complete understanding of not only the lives of the Frankish nobles in question, but an understanding of the Frankish worldview and culture. That, in and of itself, is incredibly impressive.
In addition to that, the book is also just highly entertaining. It's detailed, funny (rare, for a history book), full of anecdotes and references, and (despite my earlier complaint that I wish it was longer) does not drag on longer than the subject matters necessitates. It's a lost art, cutting a book off when it's reached it's conclusion.
Overall, I rate this a 4.5/5. Would absolutely read again. Will absolutely use it in a paper. Would totally recommend.
December 14, 2024
Really good read on the precipitating events of the Carolingian Empire's collapse. A useful reminder that civil wars are not something to be desired and can essentially doom even the strongest states. Also a terrific book for understanding an often forgotten or glossed over period of history.
February 1, 2025
Narrative style and some repetition helped with a portion of world history I’m very unfamiliar with.
May 7, 2025
a superficial look at a complicated time in European history.
Don't bother
Don't bother
November 6, 2025
There are a ton of names to keep track of around the crises of Carolingian succession and the Battle of Fontenoy in the 9th century, and I appreciated how Gabriele and Perry took moments every now and then to summarize the situation thus far and remind me of the stakes for each player. Now I want to see a "Vikings" or "Game of Thrones" style show about Charlemagne's descendants.
As a side note, this was fun to read concurrently with The Bright Ages, by the same authors, although I think I'll end up liking this book more.
As a side note, this was fun to read concurrently with The Bright Ages, by the same authors, although I think I'll end up liking this book more.
December 27, 2024
Great
Very entertaining and challenges some perceptions I had of this period. Worth a read, worth your time is you are a history buff.
Very entertaining and challenges some perceptions I had of this period. Worth a read, worth your time is you are a history buff.
December 15, 2024
Putting "Wiggo: Demon" in the list of important people to keep track of is absolutely sending me.
January 9, 2025
An account of the Carolingians and the civil war beginning in the later years of Louis the Pious and escalating after his death between his children. Gabriele and Perry have a vision for popular history that reads a lot like "extremely online Norman Cantor," and while I am not opposed to an updated and less conservative pop medievalism for our times, Gabriele and Perry have a loose, parenthetical writing style that occasionally irks me, reading at times as unfocused or unedited or, if the intent is to provide coherent narratives that displace those laid by the gentleman-scholars of the 19th century, self-sabotaging. The early chapters of Oathbreakers, when they're building the context for what follows, are a tough go of this cascading suspicion and proper nouns, indistinguishable personae, but I accept that this kind of history may just be unavoidably Like That; I am by no means a Carolingianist, so I can't say there's a better way. When they lock in on the inconclusive battle at Fontenoy in 841 and offer sensitive readings of textual sources around the time, I fuck with the vision, and Oathbreakers is better than The Bright Ages for its narrower scope, the authors' home-field advantage, and the more robust citations and bibliography.
Takeaway:
"Certainly, there was plenty of violence and war, but we can read the pessimism, the woe, after the Battle of Fontenoy not as a sign of the brutality of the era but rather as the opposite. The Franks' recognition of the scale of the disaster, the moral crisis caused by fraternal warfare, is a sign that they had not dehumanized their foes so as to celebrate the destruction of the enemy without remorse. They had not surrendered their own humanity but rather saw in the horror a sign that they had gone too far, that they needed to pull back. In the years to come, as the next series of battles began anew, the lessons of Fontenoy would stay with the Franks as a cautionary tale."
Takeaway:
"Certainly, there was plenty of violence and war, but we can read the pessimism, the woe, after the Battle of Fontenoy not as a sign of the brutality of the era but rather as the opposite. The Franks' recognition of the scale of the disaster, the moral crisis caused by fraternal warfare, is a sign that they had not dehumanized their foes so as to celebrate the destruction of the enemy without remorse. They had not surrendered their own humanity but rather saw in the horror a sign that they had gone too far, that they needed to pull back. In the years to come, as the next series of battles began anew, the lessons of Fontenoy would stay with the Franks as a cautionary tale."
January 13, 2025
This was an interesting book on a people/culture I admittedly know very little about – the Franks, the greatest ruler and most well-known being Charlemagne. I knew vaguely of the man and the name but nothing else, so this was one hell of an introduction to a self-destructing family that plunged Middle Europe into avoidable chaos. Why they chose to do so, for so long, is unclear to me, even after reading this book.
I think the authors did the best they could to make this history accessible and concise, but as they acknowledged there is so much that we will never know. Examples include a conversation between father and son helped kicked off many more calamitous decisions (but what was actually said is not known), why there was so much backstabbing and double/triple/quadruple-crossing (shakes fist at Bernard of Septimania), and what happened to the regular peasants/people populating this constantly fluctuating kingdom. Whatever sources there were at the time have largely been lost or destroyed and the authors have to make do with shockingly little.
However, what they do have they use to the best of their ability – the inclusion of poets (such as Angelbert) recounting the Battle of Fontenoy, letters, annals, and histories – while also incorporating important context of who wrote what, at what time, their (possible) motivations and biases, and that some of these writers wrote what they chose to be true rather than actual fact (which is an important distinction!).
I do like the tone of the book. Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry handle history with tact and precision, but clearly try to have fun with it too. The authors tried to make this history accessible and inserted some pop culture into the text. Some things I picked up on was:
• a Phineas and Ferb reference: “…although it was a rare for a hostage to go to Barcelona to rise an army against a Carolingian ruler, if we had a nickel for every time it happened, by the end of this book, we’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.”
• Monty Python’s Black Knight
• A little bit of Dickens (the best of times… the worst of times)
• I think a little bit of Tolkein (how often does the word “wormtongues” come up naturally in any text?)
Some of the repetitive text got a bit grating (incense hanging/hangs in the air must have been mentioned four or five times), the promises to “get to that later” (which they did, to be fair!), and how come so many people were blinded throughout this history? It’s astonishing and I was waiting for an explanation as to why blinding was such a popular punishment but it never arrived… a minor nitpick (to be sure) but there were at least named people that were or were rumored to be blinded (including one man who died of his injuries, conveniently for a ruler)!
There were fascinating looks into this long-gone culture, like Charlemagne’s daughters having relationships with fellow courtiers/elites and having children with them, without ever marrying. I’ll sound like a prude here, but I’m surprised by this little tidbit – every other king/emperor/Lord (putting it lightly) would never be so, dare I say, lenient with their daughters (how many royal/elite daughters and sisters were literally locked away because of the mere threat of their fertility?) in this way. Judith of Bavaria having so much power but being subjugated to so much violence (this poor woman was tortured and suffered immense trauma and stress, likely leading to her young death at 46!) – which suggests to me that violence against women, even very powerful women, was par for the course. And if that’s what the fighting Franks could do to someone like Judith, what did other women have to deal with?! Based on the art in the Utrecht Psalter, which depicts a woman getting dragged off the page by two soldiers – horrific things.
The aftermath of the Battle at Fontenoy seemed to be this years-long, exhaustive battle of Tag while the countryside somehow managed to plow on until raids by pirates and by Vikings made the rulers realize – hey, turns out there is more to life than our stupid squabbles. And I do like that near the end of the book, the authors turned away from the warfare and skirmishes and “tactical retreats” to focus on the real impact on the people caught up in this stupid mess. Paraphrasing and quoting from the book: We need to turn our gaze away from kings’ armies and remember how wars touch populations far beyond their combatants. Civilian populations always suffer. There must have been dozens of punitive attacks on settlements following campaigns that were passed over in silence. “We are often left only with infuriating hints at such violence, such as at a small village called Entrains-sur-Nohain, where scholars found twenty to thirty bodies – men, women, and children as young as three or four – at the bottom of a well” dating back to this time period.
The sole surviving work from a Frankish noblewoman, Dhouda, is a manual from her to her son about living a godly and just life, but also expresses the anguish and grief she felt at losing not only him but her newborn who passed from her home into the possession of her husband, Bernard (mentioned above).
I think another important through-line is the idiocy of the bloodthirsty, warmongering nobles who – to my mind – were constantly pestering the sons and grandsons of Charlemagne to fuck shit up, because why not bro!? It’d be so cool, bro – show ‘em what’s what, bro! But in all seriousness, this line stuck out to me (especially in the context of the upcoming Presidential administration, which at the time of this review is one week away) was: “But even though mercy was a key virtue for rulers to display, it destabilizes a society when elites attempt a coup, fail, yet suffer few consequences. That precedent would bear bitter fruit.” Perfect, no notes.
I think the authors did the best they could to make this history accessible and concise, but as they acknowledged there is so much that we will never know. Examples include a conversation between father and son helped kicked off many more calamitous decisions (but what was actually said is not known), why there was so much backstabbing and double/triple/quadruple-crossing (shakes fist at Bernard of Septimania), and what happened to the regular peasants/people populating this constantly fluctuating kingdom. Whatever sources there were at the time have largely been lost or destroyed and the authors have to make do with shockingly little.
However, what they do have they use to the best of their ability – the inclusion of poets (such as Angelbert) recounting the Battle of Fontenoy, letters, annals, and histories – while also incorporating important context of who wrote what, at what time, their (possible) motivations and biases, and that some of these writers wrote what they chose to be true rather than actual fact (which is an important distinction!).
I do like the tone of the book. Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry handle history with tact and precision, but clearly try to have fun with it too. The authors tried to make this history accessible and inserted some pop culture into the text. Some things I picked up on was:
• a Phineas and Ferb reference: “…although it was a rare for a hostage to go to Barcelona to rise an army against a Carolingian ruler, if we had a nickel for every time it happened, by the end of this book, we’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.”
• Monty Python’s Black Knight
• A little bit of Dickens (the best of times… the worst of times)
• I think a little bit of Tolkein (how often does the word “wormtongues” come up naturally in any text?)
Some of the repetitive text got a bit grating (incense hanging/hangs in the air must have been mentioned four or five times), the promises to “get to that later” (which they did, to be fair!), and how come so many people were blinded throughout this history? It’s astonishing and I was waiting for an explanation as to why blinding was such a popular punishment but it never arrived… a minor nitpick (to be sure) but there were at least named people that were or were rumored to be blinded (including one man who died of his injuries, conveniently for a ruler)!
There were fascinating looks into this long-gone culture, like Charlemagne’s daughters having relationships with fellow courtiers/elites and having children with them, without ever marrying. I’ll sound like a prude here, but I’m surprised by this little tidbit – every other king/emperor/Lord (putting it lightly) would never be so, dare I say, lenient with their daughters (how many royal/elite daughters and sisters were literally locked away because of the mere threat of their fertility?) in this way. Judith of Bavaria having so much power but being subjugated to so much violence (this poor woman was tortured and suffered immense trauma and stress, likely leading to her young death at 46!) – which suggests to me that violence against women, even very powerful women, was par for the course. And if that’s what the fighting Franks could do to someone like Judith, what did other women have to deal with?! Based on the art in the Utrecht Psalter, which depicts a woman getting dragged off the page by two soldiers – horrific things.
The aftermath of the Battle at Fontenoy seemed to be this years-long, exhaustive battle of Tag while the countryside somehow managed to plow on until raids by pirates and by Vikings made the rulers realize – hey, turns out there is more to life than our stupid squabbles. And I do like that near the end of the book, the authors turned away from the warfare and skirmishes and “tactical retreats” to focus on the real impact on the people caught up in this stupid mess. Paraphrasing and quoting from the book: We need to turn our gaze away from kings’ armies and remember how wars touch populations far beyond their combatants. Civilian populations always suffer. There must have been dozens of punitive attacks on settlements following campaigns that were passed over in silence. “We are often left only with infuriating hints at such violence, such as at a small village called Entrains-sur-Nohain, where scholars found twenty to thirty bodies – men, women, and children as young as three or four – at the bottom of a well” dating back to this time period.
The sole surviving work from a Frankish noblewoman, Dhouda, is a manual from her to her son about living a godly and just life, but also expresses the anguish and grief she felt at losing not only him but her newborn who passed from her home into the possession of her husband, Bernard (mentioned above).
I think another important through-line is the idiocy of the bloodthirsty, warmongering nobles who – to my mind – were constantly pestering the sons and grandsons of Charlemagne to fuck shit up, because why not bro!? It’d be so cool, bro – show ‘em what’s what, bro! But in all seriousness, this line stuck out to me (especially in the context of the upcoming Presidential administration, which at the time of this review is one week away) was: “But even though mercy was a key virtue for rulers to display, it destabilizes a society when elites attempt a coup, fail, yet suffer few consequences. That precedent would bear bitter fruit.” Perfect, no notes.
September 12, 2024
Damn, those Carolingians be messy.
November 26, 2024
Oathbreakers: The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe by Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry delves into the turbulent period of the Carolingian Civil War, presenting a vivid narrative that combines scholarly insight with the gripping storytelling often found in popular historical fiction. Here is a detailed review:
Content and Structure:
Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry, both respected medieval historians, bring to life the Carolingian Empire's decline through the lens of familial strife and political intrigue. The book starts with the backdrop of Charlemagne's expansive empire, setting the stage for the chaos that ensued after his death. The narrative focuses on the civil wars triggered by Louis the Pious' sons, detailing how these conflicts not only led to the empire's fragmentation but also shaped the trajectory of medieval Europe.
The authors expertly navigate through the complex web of alliances, betrayals, and battles, using a blend of primary sources and historical analysis. Their storytelling is engaging, making the book accessible to both scholars and general readers. The structure follows a chronological progression, interspersed with thematic chapters that delve into the cultural and societal impacts of these wars, offering insights into how medieval society perceived oaths, honor, and kingship.
Analysis and Insight:
Historical Detail: Gabriele and Perry provide a meticulous examination of the events, drawing from chronicles and documents which are often fragmentary and biased. They manage to construct a coherent narrative from these sources, offering a fresh perspective on well-trodden historical ground. Their analysis strips away the romanticism often associated with the Carolingian period, presenting a raw and sometimes brutal picture of medieval power politics.
Characterization: The portrayal of key figures like Louis the Pious and his sons is nuanced. The historians manage to convey the motivations, fears, and ambitions of these historical figures, making them relatable despite the distance in time.
Themes: The book explores themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the fragility of political structures. It also addresses the sacredness of royal oaths, which were pivotal in maintaining the empire's cohesion until their breakdown precipitated the civil war. This exploration gives readers a deeper understanding of medieval governance and societal norms.
Writing Style:
The writing style is both scholarly and engaging. Gabriele and Perry manage to convey complex historical analyses in an accessible manner, often drawing parallels with contemporary issues to make the past resonate with modern readers. Their prose is lively, sometimes even resembling the dramatic intensity found in medieval epics, which enhances the readability for those interested in history without an academic background.
Conclusion:
"Oathbreakers" stands out as a compelling historical narrative that not only educates but also entertains. It provides a detailed look at how familial disputes led to significant historical changes, offering lessons on the consequences of political fragmentation and the human elements that drive history.
Rating Breakdown:
Historical Accuracy and Research Depth: ★★★★☆ - The depth of research is impressive, though some interpretations might still be debated among historians.
Engagement and Readability: ★★★★☆ - The book is highly engaging with a narrative style that pulls readers into the medieval era.
Insight into Medieval Society: ★★★★★ - Offers significant insights into the medieval mindset, particularly around concepts of loyalty and governance.
Character Development: ★★★★☆ - Characters are well fleshed out, providing a personal connection to the historical events.
Overall Experience: ★★★★☆ - An excellent blend of academic rigor and storytelling, though slightly diminished by the potential for bias inherent in historical interpretation.
Overall, "Oathbreakers" is recommended for anyone interested in medieval history, political intrigue, or simply a well-told tale of ambition and power. It serves as an enlightening read that bridges the gap between academic history and popular narrative.
Content and Structure:
Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry, both respected medieval historians, bring to life the Carolingian Empire's decline through the lens of familial strife and political intrigue. The book starts with the backdrop of Charlemagne's expansive empire, setting the stage for the chaos that ensued after his death. The narrative focuses on the civil wars triggered by Louis the Pious' sons, detailing how these conflicts not only led to the empire's fragmentation but also shaped the trajectory of medieval Europe.
The authors expertly navigate through the complex web of alliances, betrayals, and battles, using a blend of primary sources and historical analysis. Their storytelling is engaging, making the book accessible to both scholars and general readers. The structure follows a chronological progression, interspersed with thematic chapters that delve into the cultural and societal impacts of these wars, offering insights into how medieval society perceived oaths, honor, and kingship.
Analysis and Insight:
Historical Detail: Gabriele and Perry provide a meticulous examination of the events, drawing from chronicles and documents which are often fragmentary and biased. They manage to construct a coherent narrative from these sources, offering a fresh perspective on well-trodden historical ground. Their analysis strips away the romanticism often associated with the Carolingian period, presenting a raw and sometimes brutal picture of medieval power politics.
Characterization: The portrayal of key figures like Louis the Pious and his sons is nuanced. The historians manage to convey the motivations, fears, and ambitions of these historical figures, making them relatable despite the distance in time.
Themes: The book explores themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the fragility of political structures. It also addresses the sacredness of royal oaths, which were pivotal in maintaining the empire's cohesion until their breakdown precipitated the civil war. This exploration gives readers a deeper understanding of medieval governance and societal norms.
Writing Style:
The writing style is both scholarly and engaging. Gabriele and Perry manage to convey complex historical analyses in an accessible manner, often drawing parallels with contemporary issues to make the past resonate with modern readers. Their prose is lively, sometimes even resembling the dramatic intensity found in medieval epics, which enhances the readability for those interested in history without an academic background.
Conclusion:
"Oathbreakers" stands out as a compelling historical narrative that not only educates but also entertains. It provides a detailed look at how familial disputes led to significant historical changes, offering lessons on the consequences of political fragmentation and the human elements that drive history.
Rating Breakdown:
Historical Accuracy and Research Depth: ★★★★☆ - The depth of research is impressive, though some interpretations might still be debated among historians.
Engagement and Readability: ★★★★☆ - The book is highly engaging with a narrative style that pulls readers into the medieval era.
Insight into Medieval Society: ★★★★★ - Offers significant insights into the medieval mindset, particularly around concepts of loyalty and governance.
Character Development: ★★★★☆ - Characters are well fleshed out, providing a personal connection to the historical events.
Overall Experience: ★★★★☆ - An excellent blend of academic rigor and storytelling, though slightly diminished by the potential for bias inherent in historical interpretation.
Overall, "Oathbreakers" is recommended for anyone interested in medieval history, political intrigue, or simply a well-told tale of ambition and power. It serves as an enlightening read that bridges the gap between academic history and popular narrative.
January 13, 2025
Oathbreakers is the second book I've read by these authors and I enjoyed the intricate writing and detailed descriptions of the time period. Although I am very familiar with Charlemagne and the havoc his sons and grandsons set in motion after his death, the authors did a great job at bringing a fresh perspective to the details of the time period. For anyone familiar with the time period, I don't think this book offers anything new, but it does offer a clear insight into the causes and consequences of what happened. I definitely liked the more human perspective; it's always easy to say in hindsight that such and such should have been done, but the authors did a great job to show the humanness of the actions and choices that people made, not realizing until much later the impact those choices would have on future events and people.
This book is definitely written for those who don't have a lot of knowledge about the time period, so the authors take a different approach in their writing than is usual in non-fiction history books, more of a chatty approach, one meant to feel as if they are talking to you or lecturing you. For the most part this didn't bother me, but there were times when it drove me crazy, especially during the more serious parts of the book when I felt like the subject material was too serious for this 'chattiness'. Maybe having a history background kind of affected my feelings about this as I am used to a more serious approach, but there were times when I just wanted the authors to go much more in-depth and talk about how serious the situation actually was as those moments definitely impacted those places for generations to come. The lighter tone just didn't always match the situation.
That being said however, the authors did do a great job of outlining the Carolingians and the impact they had on the time period. This is definitely not an easy story to tell and outline so I appreciated the cohesiveness of what was done in this book. And trying to keep all the names straight is no easy feat when half of them are names Louis or Charles or Pepin or something similar. I also liked how the authors mentioned a bit about the societal structure and the impact the wars would have had on starvation and disease over the years, although little is known about the farmers and other people who did not serve at court. Unless there is stash of papers hidden somewhere, there is a lot we will never know and the authors constantly mention the sources from which they gain their information as well as the reliability of those sources. In some instances, we just don't know why some people were at odd with each other and can only speculate based on future actions.
Oathbreakers provided a fascinating look into this medieval time period. I was particularly fascinated by the relationships, especially those of the daughters who spent their entire life at court, had affairs and children out of wedlock, but influenced a lot of wealthy people nonetheless yet paid the consequences for those relationships. And what happened to Judith of Bavaria as well as Dhuoda just made the reader realize how much women sacrificed for their children or were victims of the political struggles. The authors did a great job bringing this time period to life and provided perspective for actions and decisions that were made, but there is no question the idiocy of the nobility were responsible for a lot of death and destruction that very much impacted the development of Europe. I know people like to ascribe certain people as being 'heroes', but I liked how the authors showed a different side to that perception and really make you think about who you venerate.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher.
This book is definitely written for those who don't have a lot of knowledge about the time period, so the authors take a different approach in their writing than is usual in non-fiction history books, more of a chatty approach, one meant to feel as if they are talking to you or lecturing you. For the most part this didn't bother me, but there were times when it drove me crazy, especially during the more serious parts of the book when I felt like the subject material was too serious for this 'chattiness'. Maybe having a history background kind of affected my feelings about this as I am used to a more serious approach, but there were times when I just wanted the authors to go much more in-depth and talk about how serious the situation actually was as those moments definitely impacted those places for generations to come. The lighter tone just didn't always match the situation.
That being said however, the authors did do a great job of outlining the Carolingians and the impact they had on the time period. This is definitely not an easy story to tell and outline so I appreciated the cohesiveness of what was done in this book. And trying to keep all the names straight is no easy feat when half of them are names Louis or Charles or Pepin or something similar. I also liked how the authors mentioned a bit about the societal structure and the impact the wars would have had on starvation and disease over the years, although little is known about the farmers and other people who did not serve at court. Unless there is stash of papers hidden somewhere, there is a lot we will never know and the authors constantly mention the sources from which they gain their information as well as the reliability of those sources. In some instances, we just don't know why some people were at odd with each other and can only speculate based on future actions.
Oathbreakers provided a fascinating look into this medieval time period. I was particularly fascinated by the relationships, especially those of the daughters who spent their entire life at court, had affairs and children out of wedlock, but influenced a lot of wealthy people nonetheless yet paid the consequences for those relationships. And what happened to Judith of Bavaria as well as Dhuoda just made the reader realize how much women sacrificed for their children or were victims of the political struggles. The authors did a great job bringing this time period to life and provided perspective for actions and decisions that were made, but there is no question the idiocy of the nobility were responsible for a lot of death and destruction that very much impacted the development of Europe. I know people like to ascribe certain people as being 'heroes', but I liked how the authors showed a different side to that perception and really make you think about who you venerate.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher.
February 20, 2025
This book is almost as mendacious as "The Bright Ages" in its overwrought, envelope-pushing, folding, spindling and mutilating historical revisionism, which I gave a crushing and thorough one-star review. Had I remembered the authorial names or seen them listed as author of that book on the cover (they are so listed) and remembered, I would have reshelved this immediately at my library.
Like that book, even though co-author Matthew Perry is Jewish (still SMH over that), the historical revisionism is largely "Catholic-splaining," or in this case, "Catholic-splaining" plus "Frank-splaining."
While Frankish nobles weren't illiterate, at least at the upper levels, they weren't THAT literate. For one thing, as in classical antiquity, "reading" at times was group reading — one person reading to auditors.
Second, there wasn't that much to read. Without double-entry bookkeeping for another 500 years, financial records were slim. Novels didn't exist. The chansons were just being invented at this time. Etc. etc.
Third, this claim by an unknown cleric from Mainz circa 870 that Charlemagne himself wrote down his dreams on wax tablets?
Balderdash.
Per both Einhard in his Life of Charlemagne, and Paul Dutton today, considered the dean of Carolingian historians, at least in English. Charlemagne almost certainly could not write, and his ability to read, at least well, is questionable. Go to Charlemagne's Wiki page, enter the word "write" in your browser's search, and at the first and second hits, you'll get the details. (Dutton is in the bibliography, and referenced once, but not at all in connection with C's literacy; Einhard is referenced multiple times, and pretty much ditto on this issue, which is part of what makes this mendacious.) If it's not mendacious, cite sources!
(Add: Is it possible that Charlemagne late in life learned how to sign his name or something like that, beyond an "X" or equivalent thereof, matched by signet ring? Yes, but that's not writing.)
Sure, the start of that chapter is just about a vision by this monk, but, by not noting the facts on the ground, it's mendacious.
Also, per other one- and two-star reviewers, this is an example of the authors contradicting themselves. They originally call it a vision that "an unknown cleric from Mainz wrote down a prophetic dream that he he'd heard ... originally given to, and then interpreted by, none other than Charlemagne himself." Fifty pages later, they talk about "that 870 vision of Louis the German." Excuse me? Which one is it?
Otherwise, if not outrightly revisionist, much of the conjectural history has a high conjectural level.
I'm giving this a gentleman's two stars because actual family and courtier conflict issues among Louis the Pious and his sons, eventually the three that outlived him, are decent. But no more than that.
That said? Other matters historical related to this aren't discussed. Like Salic Law, the background for the non-primogeniture of both Carolingians and Merovingians before them. I guess the authors presume a certain degree of familiarity with Frankish history. But, per the items above, they also presumed there would be not too much familiarity.
Finally, Vikings and Muslims weren't the only raiders of the divided parts of the empire from the 840s on. The Magyars, not mentioned in this book, penetrated as far as Burgundy.
==
This book could have been made better if the revisionist angles had been trimmed, if the more "out-there" battle and battlefield speculation had been similarly trimmed, and if material after the Treaty of Verdun would have been added up to the final split of the Carolingian world.
==
Edit: Contra the subhed, no, the Carolingian split was NOT something that "made medieval Europe." It had little effect on Muslim-Christian battles in Spain. Zero effect on Scandinavia, or nearly so. Little direct effect on Byzantium.
Like that book, even though co-author Matthew Perry is Jewish (still SMH over that), the historical revisionism is largely "Catholic-splaining," or in this case, "Catholic-splaining" plus "Frank-splaining."
While Frankish nobles weren't illiterate, at least at the upper levels, they weren't THAT literate. For one thing, as in classical antiquity, "reading" at times was group reading — one person reading to auditors.
Second, there wasn't that much to read. Without double-entry bookkeeping for another 500 years, financial records were slim. Novels didn't exist. The chansons were just being invented at this time. Etc. etc.
Third, this claim by an unknown cleric from Mainz circa 870 that Charlemagne himself wrote down his dreams on wax tablets?
Balderdash.
Per both Einhard in his Life of Charlemagne, and Paul Dutton today, considered the dean of Carolingian historians, at least in English. Charlemagne almost certainly could not write, and his ability to read, at least well, is questionable. Go to Charlemagne's Wiki page, enter the word "write" in your browser's search, and at the first and second hits, you'll get the details. (Dutton is in the bibliography, and referenced once, but not at all in connection with C's literacy; Einhard is referenced multiple times, and pretty much ditto on this issue, which is part of what makes this mendacious.) If it's not mendacious, cite sources!
(Add: Is it possible that Charlemagne late in life learned how to sign his name or something like that, beyond an "X" or equivalent thereof, matched by signet ring? Yes, but that's not writing.)
Sure, the start of that chapter is just about a vision by this monk, but, by not noting the facts on the ground, it's mendacious.
Also, per other one- and two-star reviewers, this is an example of the authors contradicting themselves. They originally call it a vision that "an unknown cleric from Mainz wrote down a prophetic dream that he he'd heard ... originally given to, and then interpreted by, none other than Charlemagne himself." Fifty pages later, they talk about "that 870 vision of Louis the German." Excuse me? Which one is it?
Otherwise, if not outrightly revisionist, much of the conjectural history has a high conjectural level.
I'm giving this a gentleman's two stars because actual family and courtier conflict issues among Louis the Pious and his sons, eventually the three that outlived him, are decent. But no more than that.
That said? Other matters historical related to this aren't discussed. Like Salic Law, the background for the non-primogeniture of both Carolingians and Merovingians before them. I guess the authors presume a certain degree of familiarity with Frankish history. But, per the items above, they also presumed there would be not too much familiarity.
Finally, Vikings and Muslims weren't the only raiders of the divided parts of the empire from the 840s on. The Magyars, not mentioned in this book, penetrated as far as Burgundy.
==
This book could have been made better if the revisionist angles had been trimmed, if the more "out-there" battle and battlefield speculation had been similarly trimmed, and if material after the Treaty of Verdun would have been added up to the final split of the Carolingian world.
==
Edit: Contra the subhed, no, the Carolingian split was NOT something that "made medieval Europe." It had little effect on Muslim-Christian battles in Spain. Zero effect on Scandinavia, or nearly so. Little direct effect on Byzantium.
December 29, 2024
The life of an empire is very cyclical: the birth of a people group united under one ruler, the empire's expansion through conquest, and ultimately its demise. When we think of empires, we often think about the Roman and British empires, but another significant one in medieval Europe is the Carolingian Empire. It was an empire that hit its zenith with the reign of Charlemagne in the 9th century, but within two generations, it fell due to forces inside its court. What happened to this once glorious empire that fell after the Carolingian Civil War? Matthew Gabrielle and David M. Perry tell how a once glorious empire fell quickly after its height in their latest book, “Oathbreakers: The Wars of Brothers that Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe.”
I want to thank David M. Perry and Harper for sending me a copy of this book. I don’t know much about the Carolingian Empire other than Charlemagne and his coronation on Christmas day in the year 800, so when I saw the premise of this book, it was intriguing to me.
Before we have the fall of an empire, we must understand the rise of the empire and how the empire worked. Gabriele and Perry begin their book by explaining the origins of the empire starting with the Franks and how they gained power. It starts with a legendary hero named Merovech, the Merovingians, and his grandson King Clovis I who converted to Christianity around the year 500. The Merovingians did not last long because Charles Martel would begin the reign of the Carolingians with a battle, which is almost a bit of foreshadowing of how the Carolingians fell. After Charles Martel came Pepin III and after the death of Pepin III, the kingdom was split between two co-emperors, Carolman and Charlemagne; ultimately Carolman died leaving Charlemagne to be the sole Roman emperor and was crowned on Christmas Day in the year 800.
Charlemagne’s reign was by no means perfect as his son Pepin I the Hunchback, staged a failed rebellion. Like Pepin III before him, Charlemagne decided to divide the empire between his three legitimate sons because sharing is caring. His son Louis the Pious would succeed his father and this is where the troubles ramped up to a civil war between Louis’s sons, Lothar I, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald. It was a time full of chaos, revolts, the Battle of Fontenoy, and oaths that could not save an empire.
As someone relatively new to this subject material, I thought it was a decent read. It took me a while to figure out which Pepin was which (because, shockingly, there are multiple Pepins as well as Louises and Charles all in one family, not confusing at all). I think it was interesting to read about a dynasty that I have heard mentioned in passing in other historical books about great kings, but I never personally dived into until now. In short, the Carolingians were a messy empire and I think they should get more attention. If you want a solid nonfiction book that tells the tale of one of the major empires of Europe, I suggest you read, “Oathbreakers: The Wars of Brothers that Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe” by Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry.
I want to thank David M. Perry and Harper for sending me a copy of this book. I don’t know much about the Carolingian Empire other than Charlemagne and his coronation on Christmas day in the year 800, so when I saw the premise of this book, it was intriguing to me.
Before we have the fall of an empire, we must understand the rise of the empire and how the empire worked. Gabriele and Perry begin their book by explaining the origins of the empire starting with the Franks and how they gained power. It starts with a legendary hero named Merovech, the Merovingians, and his grandson King Clovis I who converted to Christianity around the year 500. The Merovingians did not last long because Charles Martel would begin the reign of the Carolingians with a battle, which is almost a bit of foreshadowing of how the Carolingians fell. After Charles Martel came Pepin III and after the death of Pepin III, the kingdom was split between two co-emperors, Carolman and Charlemagne; ultimately Carolman died leaving Charlemagne to be the sole Roman emperor and was crowned on Christmas Day in the year 800.
Charlemagne’s reign was by no means perfect as his son Pepin I the Hunchback, staged a failed rebellion. Like Pepin III before him, Charlemagne decided to divide the empire between his three legitimate sons because sharing is caring. His son Louis the Pious would succeed his father and this is where the troubles ramped up to a civil war between Louis’s sons, Lothar I, Louis the German, and Charles the Bald. It was a time full of chaos, revolts, the Battle of Fontenoy, and oaths that could not save an empire.
As someone relatively new to this subject material, I thought it was a decent read. It took me a while to figure out which Pepin was which (because, shockingly, there are multiple Pepins as well as Louises and Charles all in one family, not confusing at all). I think it was interesting to read about a dynasty that I have heard mentioned in passing in other historical books about great kings, but I never personally dived into until now. In short, the Carolingians were a messy empire and I think they should get more attention. If you want a solid nonfiction book that tells the tale of one of the major empires of Europe, I suggest you read, “Oathbreakers: The Wars of Brothers that Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe” by Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry.
July 22, 2025
Oathbreakers: The War of Brothers That Shattered an Empire and Made Medieval Europe (Hardcover)
This is a non fiction book dealing with the aftermath of the Great Ruler Charlemagne who lived from April 2, 748 – 28 January 814. He was King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of what is now known as the Carolingian Empire from 800. He united most of Western and Central Europe, and was the first recognized emperor to rule from the west after the fall of the Western Roman Empire approximately three centuries earlier. Charlemagne's reign was marked by political and social changes that had lasting influence on Europe throughout the Middle Ages.
By the early ninth century, the Carolingian empire was at the height of its power. The Franks, led by Charlemagne, had built the largest European domain since Rome in its heyday. Though they jockeyed for power, prestige, and profit, the Frankish elites enjoyed political and cultural consensus.
Charlemagne, following traditional Frankish tradition decided in 806 to proclaim a Division Regnorum (Division of the Kingdom) in which he divided his empire - upon his death- to his three legitimate heirs. He gave Pepin the kingdom of Italy and Bavaria, Louis - later known as Louis the Pious, the Kingdom of Aquitaine, and young Charles the kingdom of Francia. However Louis the Pious was the only surviving heir by the time Charlemagne died.
Two generations later, their world was in shambles. Civil war, once an unthinkable threat, had erupted after Louis the Pious’s sons overthrew him—and then placed their knives at the other’s neck. Families who had once charged into battle together now drew each other’s blood.
The Carolingian Civil War would rage for years as kings fought kings, brother faced off against brother, and sons challenged fathers. Oathbreakers is the dramatic history of this brutal, turbulent time. Medieval historians David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele illuminate what happens when a once unshakeable political and cultural order breaks down and long suppressed tensions flare into deadly violence. Drawn from rich primary sources, featuring a wide cast of characters, packed with dramatic twists and turns, this is history that rivals the greatest fictional epics—with consequences that continue to shape our own world.
Narrated from the universal point of view, this is an interesting tale of the Frankish Empire and how poor judgement led to a divisive and finally destructive end to an empire that could not be governed. There are too many characters, some sharing the same name (Pepin especially) which sometimes make the book hard to follow. I really did not care about the characters much, and other than the fact that I enjoyed learning the history of Charlemagne's empire and succession. I would not recommend the book unless you share my interest in this particular time period.
This is a non fiction book dealing with the aftermath of the Great Ruler Charlemagne who lived from April 2, 748 – 28 January 814. He was King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and Emperor of what is now known as the Carolingian Empire from 800. He united most of Western and Central Europe, and was the first recognized emperor to rule from the west after the fall of the Western Roman Empire approximately three centuries earlier. Charlemagne's reign was marked by political and social changes that had lasting influence on Europe throughout the Middle Ages.
By the early ninth century, the Carolingian empire was at the height of its power. The Franks, led by Charlemagne, had built the largest European domain since Rome in its heyday. Though they jockeyed for power, prestige, and profit, the Frankish elites enjoyed political and cultural consensus.
Charlemagne, following traditional Frankish tradition decided in 806 to proclaim a Division Regnorum (Division of the Kingdom) in which he divided his empire - upon his death- to his three legitimate heirs. He gave Pepin the kingdom of Italy and Bavaria, Louis - later known as Louis the Pious, the Kingdom of Aquitaine, and young Charles the kingdom of Francia. However Louis the Pious was the only surviving heir by the time Charlemagne died.
Two generations later, their world was in shambles. Civil war, once an unthinkable threat, had erupted after Louis the Pious’s sons overthrew him—and then placed their knives at the other’s neck. Families who had once charged into battle together now drew each other’s blood.
The Carolingian Civil War would rage for years as kings fought kings, brother faced off against brother, and sons challenged fathers. Oathbreakers is the dramatic history of this brutal, turbulent time. Medieval historians David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele illuminate what happens when a once unshakeable political and cultural order breaks down and long suppressed tensions flare into deadly violence. Drawn from rich primary sources, featuring a wide cast of characters, packed with dramatic twists and turns, this is history that rivals the greatest fictional epics—with consequences that continue to shape our own world.
Narrated from the universal point of view, this is an interesting tale of the Frankish Empire and how poor judgement led to a divisive and finally destructive end to an empire that could not be governed. There are too many characters, some sharing the same name (Pepin especially) which sometimes make the book hard to follow. I really did not care about the characters much, and other than the fact that I enjoyed learning the history of Charlemagne's empire and succession. I would not recommend the book unless you share my interest in this particular time period.
October 3, 2025
A wild historical account of the rise and fall of the Carolingian dynasty. The Carolingian dynasty first came into power with Charles Martel, a Frankish noble, in the early to mid 700’s (The 8th Century). After his death his kingdom was divided by his sons. One of his sons, Pepin, would become the father of an incredibly famous historical figure named Charlemagne! This book is significantly more about Charlemagne’s sons and grandsons than it is about him, but it gives the reader context of where the authors are coming from.
Basically the book is about absurd levels of familial fighting particularly between brothers but occasionally between father and son. The number of oaths made between brothers that are then broken when it suited someone is…. Wild. These were wild people. Obscenely disfunctional families. Just absolutely insane human beings, that led to a civil war between Charlemagne’s grandsons that both destroyed the Carolingian dynasty and birthed the modern nation of France.
It is difficult to put into words how crazy these people were, and how absurd this story is. Yet it is entertaining nonetheless. Entertaining and mind numbing all at the same time! A constant thought in my mind while reading this book was, “What in the world is wrong with these people!!!” Truly, it was bad enough I wanted to do a genome analysis to make sure there is no connection between me and these people. Their actions were truly embarrassing and…. Wild. Did I say these people were wild? Legit crazy?!
The writing is just ok. Nothing special. My biggest complaint is when the authors say things like, “…but they were stopped by John Doe. But we will talk about John Doe in another chapter.” I don’t know why, but I loathe the “we will get to that later” lines in nonfiction books. It’s so elementary and unnecessary. I expect that from my son’s 10th grade essay, not a published author. Pet peeve of mine that might grind my gears more than most and more than it should? Sure. Still. The authors did this at least 5 times that I can think of off the top of my head. Other than that the writing is fine.
Overall it was entertaining to me because I enjoy history and the authors seemed to be quite knowledgeable of the subject matter. The writing needs a little bit of work, but the subject is still quite memorable! It’s a fun read for history nerds. It has potential to be entertaining for others because it’s so absurd in its double crossing, to forgiveness, back to double crossing, that I could see others enjoying it. Still. It isn’t anywhere near “OMG” or “EPIC” level when it comes to the book as a whole.
Basically the book is about absurd levels of familial fighting particularly between brothers but occasionally between father and son. The number of oaths made between brothers that are then broken when it suited someone is…. Wild. These were wild people. Obscenely disfunctional families. Just absolutely insane human beings, that led to a civil war between Charlemagne’s grandsons that both destroyed the Carolingian dynasty and birthed the modern nation of France.
It is difficult to put into words how crazy these people were, and how absurd this story is. Yet it is entertaining nonetheless. Entertaining and mind numbing all at the same time! A constant thought in my mind while reading this book was, “What in the world is wrong with these people!!!” Truly, it was bad enough I wanted to do a genome analysis to make sure there is no connection between me and these people. Their actions were truly embarrassing and…. Wild. Did I say these people were wild? Legit crazy?!
The writing is just ok. Nothing special. My biggest complaint is when the authors say things like, “…but they were stopped by John Doe. But we will talk about John Doe in another chapter.” I don’t know why, but I loathe the “we will get to that later” lines in nonfiction books. It’s so elementary and unnecessary. I expect that from my son’s 10th grade essay, not a published author. Pet peeve of mine that might grind my gears more than most and more than it should? Sure. Still. The authors did this at least 5 times that I can think of off the top of my head. Other than that the writing is fine.
Overall it was entertaining to me because I enjoy history and the authors seemed to be quite knowledgeable of the subject matter. The writing needs a little bit of work, but the subject is still quite memorable! It’s a fun read for history nerds. It has potential to be entertaining for others because it’s so absurd in its double crossing, to forgiveness, back to double crossing, that I could see others enjoying it. Still. It isn’t anywhere near “OMG” or “EPIC” level when it comes to the book as a whole.
February 24, 2025
🛡️ A Medieval Family Feud with Epic Consequences ⚔️
The Carolingian Empire, at its height under Charlemagne, was the most formidable force in Europe since the fall of Rome. But within two generations, civil war and political strife had shattered this empire, turning brother against brother and setting the stage for the medieval Europe we recognize today. Oathbreakers dives into this turbulent era, chronicling the betrayals, battles, and backstabbing that followed Charlemagne’s reign.
🔥 What Worked:
✔ Exceptional Research – Gabriele and Perry pull from a wealth of primary sources, giving us a fascinating (if sometimes grim) window into the Carolingian world.
✔ Engaging Narration – Paul Bellantoni’s audiobook performance adds drama and flair, especially in the demon-narrated dream sequence!
✔ Historical Nuance – The book acknowledges the biases and limitations of medieval sources, reminding readers that history is often written by the victors.
⚖️ What Didn't Work (for me):
✖ Pacing Issues – The first chapter dragged before picking up speed.
✖ Limited Scope – The book focuses narrowly on one century and one family, making it feel more like a detailed case study than a sweeping history.
✖ Lack of Emotional Engagement – While intellectually stimulating, it didn't always hold my attention. The political maneuvering felt distant rather than immersive.
TROPES & THEMES:
🏰 Royal Power Struggles
⚖️ Betrayal & Oaths Broken
⚔️ Civil War & Family Feuds
📜 Questionable Historical Sources
🌍 The Foundations of Modern Europe
Final Thoughts:
Oathbreakers is a well-researched and competently written history of a fascinating yet chaotic period. While it didn’t completely grip me, I appreciated the depth of scholarship and the authors’ ability to make sense of such a fragmented historical narrative. If you’re interested in medieval history, power struggles, or how the seeds of modern Europe were sown, this book is worth a read. Just be prepared for some dry patches and a narrower focus than you might expect.
Would I read another book by these authors? Absolutely. Would I revisit Oathbreakers? Probably not.
Recommended for: History buffs, medieval enthusiasts, and anyone curious about the messy, brutal world of early European politics. 📖
The Carolingian Empire, at its height under Charlemagne, was the most formidable force in Europe since the fall of Rome. But within two generations, civil war and political strife had shattered this empire, turning brother against brother and setting the stage for the medieval Europe we recognize today. Oathbreakers dives into this turbulent era, chronicling the betrayals, battles, and backstabbing that followed Charlemagne’s reign.
🔥 What Worked:
✔ Exceptional Research – Gabriele and Perry pull from a wealth of primary sources, giving us a fascinating (if sometimes grim) window into the Carolingian world.
✔ Engaging Narration – Paul Bellantoni’s audiobook performance adds drama and flair, especially in the demon-narrated dream sequence!
✔ Historical Nuance – The book acknowledges the biases and limitations of medieval sources, reminding readers that history is often written by the victors.
⚖️ What Didn't Work (for me):
✖ Pacing Issues – The first chapter dragged before picking up speed.
✖ Limited Scope – The book focuses narrowly on one century and one family, making it feel more like a detailed case study than a sweeping history.
✖ Lack of Emotional Engagement – While intellectually stimulating, it didn't always hold my attention. The political maneuvering felt distant rather than immersive.
TROPES & THEMES:
🏰 Royal Power Struggles
⚖️ Betrayal & Oaths Broken
⚔️ Civil War & Family Feuds
📜 Questionable Historical Sources
🌍 The Foundations of Modern Europe
Final Thoughts:
Oathbreakers is a well-researched and competently written history of a fascinating yet chaotic period. While it didn’t completely grip me, I appreciated the depth of scholarship and the authors’ ability to make sense of such a fragmented historical narrative. If you’re interested in medieval history, power struggles, or how the seeds of modern Europe were sown, this book is worth a read. Just be prepared for some dry patches and a narrower focus than you might expect.
Would I read another book by these authors? Absolutely. Would I revisit Oathbreakers? Probably not.
Recommended for: History buffs, medieval enthusiasts, and anyone curious about the messy, brutal world of early European politics. 📖
June 25, 2025
The era of the succession of the children and grandchildren of Charlemagne can be added to an apparently long list of historical periods that are better sourced than I would have guessed.
My impression is that there is better contemporaneous sourcing than we have for the life of Charlemagne himself; Gabriele repeatedly describes the Frankish rulers of this period as having a literate culture and that importance attached tot he written word meant people wrote poems, chronicles, allegories and open letters to explain and defend their actions, or warn rulers and vassals of when they may have been stepping astray.
The Franks had the problem of a vast empire with regional power centers and personalized administration. Children and heirs were sent to rule various areas, and in-laws and advisors were recruited to serve at court. This could be tap into a range of talented people with loyalty expected for the lifetime of a ruler, but it did mean the interests of the heir could be at odds with the interests of the advisors in the Imperial core (who were unknown and untrusted by those who'd anchored their power in, say, Italy or Bavaria), and during the reign of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious these pressures became extreme. A series of political maneuvers and rebellions usually were ended in some sort of compromise short of outright bloodshed, despite armies being raised more than once and eyeing each other over a field of battle. But these coups ate away at the prestige and legitimacy of the imperial throne. By the time Louis' son Lohair ascended, the position was virtually hopeless. Although there was some sense of Frankish unity still imbued in the elites, his attempt to establish himself superior to to his brothers failed, and the issue ultimately took the battlefield.
Once this happened Lohair's position disintegrated. He had the Rheinish core of the empire and Italy; wealthy holdings in a unified empire but not in a great strategic position in a civil war against brothers both east and west.
This is a story that was entirely new to me, and was told in a coherent narrative without eliding uncertainties in our sources. The detail level and tone struck me as perhaps matching an undergraduate course in the subject, including professor-jokes along side I have to imagine got recycled from Gabriele's lectures.
My impression is that there is better contemporaneous sourcing than we have for the life of Charlemagne himself; Gabriele repeatedly describes the Frankish rulers of this period as having a literate culture and that importance attached tot he written word meant people wrote poems, chronicles, allegories and open letters to explain and defend their actions, or warn rulers and vassals of when they may have been stepping astray.
The Franks had the problem of a vast empire with regional power centers and personalized administration. Children and heirs were sent to rule various areas, and in-laws and advisors were recruited to serve at court. This could be tap into a range of talented people with loyalty expected for the lifetime of a ruler, but it did mean the interests of the heir could be at odds with the interests of the advisors in the Imperial core (who were unknown and untrusted by those who'd anchored their power in, say, Italy or Bavaria), and during the reign of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious these pressures became extreme. A series of political maneuvers and rebellions usually were ended in some sort of compromise short of outright bloodshed, despite armies being raised more than once and eyeing each other over a field of battle. But these coups ate away at the prestige and legitimacy of the imperial throne. By the time Louis' son Lohair ascended, the position was virtually hopeless. Although there was some sense of Frankish unity still imbued in the elites, his attempt to establish himself superior to to his brothers failed, and the issue ultimately took the battlefield.
Once this happened Lohair's position disintegrated. He had the Rheinish core of the empire and Italy; wealthy holdings in a unified empire but not in a great strategic position in a civil war against brothers both east and west.
This is a story that was entirely new to me, and was told in a coherent narrative without eliding uncertainties in our sources. The detail level and tone struck me as perhaps matching an undergraduate course in the subject, including professor-jokes along side I have to imagine got recycled from Gabriele's lectures.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews