SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Dagobert III

Dagobert III was Merovingian king of the Franks. He was a son of Childebert III, he succeeded his father as the head of the three Frankish kingdoms—Neustria and Austrasia, unified since Pippin's victory at Tertry in 687, the Kingdom of Burgundy—in 711. Real power, still remained with the Mayor of the Palace, Pippin of Herstal, who died in 714. Pippin's death occasioned open conflict between his heirs and the Neustrian nobles who elected the mayors of the palace; as for Dagobert himself, the Liber Historiae Francorum reports he died of illness, but otherwise says nothing about his character or actions. While attention was focused on combatting the Frisians in the north, areas of southern Gaul began to secede during Dagobert's brief time: Savaric, the fighting bishop of Auxerre, in 714 and 715 subjugated Orléans, Nevers and Tonnerre on his own account, Eudo in Toulouse and Antenor in Provence were independent magnates. Maréchal, Jean-Robert. Les saints patrons protecteurs. Cheminements

Mill Street–South Branch Raisin River Bridge

The Mill Street–South Branch Raisin River Bridge is a bridge carrying Mill Street over the South Branch of the River Raisin in Brooklyn, Michigan. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2000. In the early 1900s, the bridge at this location was a three-span stone arch structure. In 1921, Henry Ford purchased the nearby Brooklyn water-powered mill as part of his village industries program; this bridge, constructed in 1925, was built to accommodate anticipated traffic increases associated with Ford's mill. The stone facing on the bridge came from the earlier bridge; the mill site, remained vacant for several years until 1937, when it began producing automobile horns and starter switches. The Mill Street bridge is a 35-foot-long, three-span concrete arch bridge with a 22.4-foot-wide deck. The maximum span of the arches measures eight feet; the bridge has flared concrete wingwalls covered with a stone veneer. On the upstream side are cutwaters on both piers and at both abutment–wingwall junctions.

On the downstream side, a concrete apron slopes down to the riverbed. Solid parapet railings along each side of the bridge are faced with stone veneer; the riverbanks on both sides of the bridge are lined with mortared stone. Transport portal Engineering portal Michigan portal National Register of Historic Places portal Photos from HistoricBridges.org

Consolidation of Sweden

The consolidation of Sweden involved an extensive process during which the loosely organized social system consolidated under the power of the king. The actual age of the Swedish kingdom is unknown. For various reasons, scholars differ in defining early Sweden as either a country, state or kingdom. Unlike the histories of Denmark and Norway, there is no agreement on a reliable date for a unified Sweden. Historians judge differently the sources for the history of Sweden's consolidation; the earliest history blends with Norse mythology. Early primary sources are foreign. Based on the origins of the name of the kingdom as meaning, some historians have argued that Sweden was unified when the Swedes first solidified their control over the regions they were living in; the earliest date for this is based on a brief section in the Roman historian Tacitus discussing the Suiones tribe. This would imply that a Swedish kingdom would have existed in the first to second centuries AD. However, with the increased rigour of historical method advanced in 20th century historical research, in Sweden as elsewhere, historians such as Curt Weibull and his brother Lauritz maintained that these perspectives have become obsolete.

Modern historians noted that a millennium had passed between Tacitus and more in-depth and reliable documented accounts of Swedish history. The work of Birger Nerman, who argued that Sweden held a senior rank among the existing European states at the time represents a nationalist reaction to the academic historiography, with the latter taking a critical or cautious view of the value of old layers of sources of history if these documents and traditions are unsupported by any direct traces, any footprint of events and social or political conditions in the archaeological records, coinage etc. of the age in question. A common definition of Sweden is that it was formed when the Swedes and Geats were ruled by one king; the names Swedes and Geats are attested in the Old English poems Beowulf and Widsith and building on older legendary and folklore material collected in England. In both poems, an Ongentheow is named as the King of the Swedes, the Geats are mentioned as a separate people; these names of peoples living in present-day Sweden, the Anglo-Saxon references and now lost tales they were attached to must have travelled across the North Sea.

The first time the two peoples are documented to have had a common ruler is during the reign of Olof Skötkonung about AD 1000. Broadly speaking, Kings of Sweden, the nobility of the land, have seen Götaland and Svealand as important parts of the kingdom at least since the mid-13th century and, in some cases earlier. Rather than the unification of tribes under one king, others maintain that the process of consolidation was gradual. Nineteenth-century scholars saw the unification as a result of a series of wars based on evidence from the Norse sagas. For example, according to the Norwegian Historia Norwegiae and the Icelandic historian Snorri Sturlusson, a 7th-century king called Ingjald illråde burnt a number of subordinate kings to death inside his hall, thus abolishing the petty kingdoms in the consolidation of Sweden. To solve the problem of defining an early history of Sweden that coincides with reliable sources, a group of modern Swedish historians have contended that a real state could only exist, in the Middle Ages, if it had the backing of Christianity and the clergy.

The same connection between Christianity and consolidation is used in other countries where written sources are less scarce, such as England or Harald Bluetooth's Denmark. The definition is based on the fact that English and German priests would have brought organizational and administrative skills needed for statehood; the process of consolidation would have required this important ideological shift. While an Iron Age Germanic king would claim the elective support of his people, the Norse gods, a crowned Christian king would claim that his rule was divinely inspired. According to this definition the unification should be completed in 1210 when Erik Knutsson was crowned by the church, or in 1247 when the last separatist rising was defeated at Sparrsätra. A major problem sometimes pointed out with that view is that it entails circular proof: we know next to nothing about how the authority of the ruler was envisaged in heathen times, while we know some more of the Christian ideology of kingship, the Christian kingdom would underline the break with the pagan past, but this does not allow the conclusion that there could have been no fixed and religiously connected ideas of the authority of the ruler in pre-Christian times.

Moreover, we have no solid testimonies fixing it as a fact that the king residing in Central Sweden was recognized as king in all of the area, called Sweden by the 13th century, when the mist clears. There may have existed local kings in Western Sweden though their names have not been preserved; that Sweden went through a process of consolidation in the early Middle Ages is agreed upon, but royal authority was contested all through the Middle Ages, sometimes even exercised. Gustaf Vasa determinedly strengthened the central power and mightily increased the authority and resources of the crown, his reign marked the beginning of the early modern Swedish state; the full and complete process of territorial consolidation behind natural borders (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, woo