Still reading for Nielsen's question about the monasteries in the Merovingian world.
To start with: the Merovingian emerging society after the decline of the Roman empire. Note that already many Franks were in the service of Rome as "laeti" and as soldiers...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/merovingian-franks
I read the whole evening this thesis as it remembered me of the old discussion on the ex-BBC board, about the sudden disappearance of the Roman cities after the collapse. I had already heard about the continuity of our "Pirenne" and those opposing him with that kind of disappearance.
The author tries to direct to another approach as older cities with a new medieval function with a hinterland staying on their own. Monasteries as those of St. Riquier with as I recall it well a workforce and monks of around 3000 people, while the emporion of Duurstede (Holland) was only some one street and some warehouses...from page 56 on...

Hariulf's Chronicle of the Monastery of St. Riquier reveals just how populous and urban a powerful monastery could become in a short time. Angilbert, a friend of Charlemagne, by whose daughter he had two children, founded Centula which, according to Hariulf, had 300 monks, 100 scholars, and 2500 homines saeculares. Angilbert's own religious offices were written down and thus a contemporary description is given of a procession which passed by the many mansiones fabrorum by the gate and iuxta mururn - the monastery's profane quarter was enclosed. These secular inhabitants included milites, merchants, smiths, shield makers, saddlers, furriers, textile producers, butchers, bakers, cooks, vintners, and brewers, each trade described as being in its own virus, or quarter. 

Looking for Ghent from this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Merovingian_monasteries
The two monasteries St Bavo and St Pieters were founded by Amandus and were in fact the start of the later city of Ghent.
And the founding of monasteries was also pushed by the Merovingians I guess to strengthen their own might
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198269064.001.0001/acprof-9780198269069-chapter-4
Still reading the book I mentioned yesterday
The link of the book don't work. Will see tomorrow further

And on the first sight the Franks had also slaves, but I will try to elaborate, as in the Christian times in the monastries they were "servi"
Tomorrow more comments.

Kind regards from Paul.

Thank you Paul, for your meticulous reading.

Sadly I'm beginning to subscribe to the idea that those who could read and write in those long gone days - mostly the monastic clergy - were not always interested in describing the lives of the peasantry, and more in favour of telling of the lives of the rich and powerful.
A quote, biblical I think, said that 'the poor will always be among us', so the wealthier classes needed to give alms and buy indulgence, here I - as a nominal Protestant - am uncertain as whether that was this early or was in the later periods of the Middle Ages?

I'm confused as to what this thread is about.

The royal Merovingian dynasty, as far as I'm aware, looked directly to the Pope for their mandate/legitimacy, rather than from any 'popular' monastic culture. And I don't understand the specific link between the Merovigians and monasteries ... unless you are just defining a specific place and time period (ie Francia from the 5th to 8th century) ... but then so what?

Or are you suggesting that the monastic movement was itself a "motor for wealth"? 

I can understand that, but be aware that while St Benedict started his monastic order in the 6th century, they really only got going, as a money-making business, after the ninth century, and so roughly a century after the Merovingians had departed the scene. And frankly (no pun) its was only after about 1000 AD that the various monastic orders - the Cathusians particularly - worked to promote scientific and technological enquiry and finally had the money to support fledgling industrial businesses, through their promotion and sharing of technical knowledge. But also be aware that although the Carthusians freely shared technical information within their order, they carefully guarded their trade secrets from anyone else. Their actions did probably promote some sort of 'industrial revolution' but I'm not convinced they were as altruistic as some have claimed. But as I say, Paul, all that is well outside your specified boundaries. 

So what exactly are you inviting discussion about?

MM,

It was Paul who heard/read me moaning, that I haven't found much material on the conditions of the farmers, serfs and slaves in the period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the times of Charlemagne.

It seems to me that the people born to the land had to till it, working day in and out and having to pay for those pleasures, without having much actual pleasure, nor having their daily lives described.

Nielsen wrote:

It seems to me that the people born to the land had to till it, working day in and out and having to pay for those pleasures, without having much actual pleasure, nor having their daily lives described.

... as indeed did many, perhaps most, of the population of Europe (my direct ancestors included) for centuries, at least until the late 18th century.

So? That's just how things were, no?

Or is the OP perhaps suggesting that there was a fundamental shift in land ownership/usage commensurate with the rise of formal feudalism? Are we perhaps suggesting there was a fundamental shift (circa 5th century) from the style of the extended-family-with-dependents-farming-unit (all working the land in common) ... towards a more hierachical form based on land ownership: ie, lord-knight-tenant-bondsman-serf? I do have some agreement with that premise, albeit with reservations, but is that actually what we're talking about?

Meles meles,

"Or are you suggesting that the monastic movement was itself a "motor for wealth"? 

I can understand that, but be aware that while St Benedict started his monastic order in the 6th century, they really only got going, as a money-making business, after the ninth century, and so roughly a century after the Merovingians had departed the scene. And frankly (no pun) its was only after about 1000 AD that the various monastic orders - the Cathusians particularly - worked to promote scientific and technological enquiry and finally had the money to support fledgling industrial businesses, through their promotion and sharing of technical knowledge. But also be aware that although the Carthusians freely shared technical information within their order, they carefully guarded their trade secrets from anyone else. Their actions did probably promote some sort of 'industrial revolution' but I'm not convinced they were as altruistic as some have claimed. But as I say, Paul, all that is well outside your specified boundaries." 

indeed MM, of course not the wealth of the Roman Imperium, but still from the 6th century on or perhaps earlier...by doing research for Nielsen, I came more and more from the books that I mentioned and that I am still reading to that conclusion. Not the trade was the most important but the agricultural economy of the monasteries was the only remaining factor, who brought the link from the Roman Empire during the Dark Ages to the start of the trade again with the new emergence of the trade cities after the 11th century. I will try to answer more in depth, when I have read the three books that I mentioned

(google don't shorten URLs anymore, but I found an alternative, which do it without subscribing
http://bit.do/eZMzG
The Merovingian Kingdoms 450 - 751 by Ian Wood
And this thesis
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1373/1/1991samsonphd.pdf
And the Merovingian cloister
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198269064.001.0001/acprof-9780198269069-chapter-4

And I agree as I mentioned with the St. Riquier abbey it was already late after Clovis. And yes you had still the usurpation of the mayores domi of the Peppinides with a Charles Martel and all that before Charlemagne in 800

But I remember from my "beer" thread, when Northern Europe converted from wine to beer, among others with some wonders pushed by the Roman Church, as about a Columbanus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbanus
And I think I discussed it also with nordmann, as the earlier Irish christianisation, which had some pagan links being replaced by the doctrinary learnings from monks sent by the pope...? nordmann?
MM I have to do further reading, before i can make an elaborated conclusion and perhaps debunking then what I now said...

Kind regards from Paul.

Correction and addendum to my starting message:

I see now that I didn't mention the link to the thesis that I mentioned in my original message and from which I quoted about the population of the abbey of St Riquier
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1373/1/1991samsonphd.pdf
The Residences of Potentiores in Gaul and Germania in the Fifth to Mid-Ninth century

Kind regards, Paul.

MM and Nielsen,

read today in the two titles that I provided yesterday.
As I see it now the book of Ian wood in the google selection ends before the Chapter 11 and 12 is showed, hence no information about the monasteries and Merovingian economy. I will have to buy the book to have more information.
https://www.amazon.com/Merovingian-Kingdoms-450-751/dp/0582493722
And the thesis that I mentioned and corrected in the former message is also only indirectly about the monasteries, but it gives for instance some information for Nielsen's question:
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1373/1/1991samsonphd.pdf
on page 61
 In short, there was less exploitation of the rural countryside than before. What, form might this have taken? The amount of taxation by the state raised from landlords and peasants fell. Less rent or renders were extracted from peasants because the conditions . of their dependency lightened; slaves became serfs, coloni became rent-paying tenants, or rent-payers became independent, farmers. The exploiters became more dispersed and less frequently gathered in towns; landlords stayed on their estates. Or the number of great landlords decreased and, the extent of their possessions diminished; the scattered empire-wide estates of the fabulously wealthy aristocrats of the late fourth and early fifth century, were, broken up between many new lords, Germans, provided with 'hospitality'. In short fewer, less wealthy lords and masters exploited peasants and slaves less, extensively than in Antiquity. This is probably the most important cause in the deterioration of towns, not a drastic reduction in the total population, nor the collapse of trade and markets.
on page 89
Servi spent half or more of their life, according to the lawcode, working directly for their lords and rendered only a small amount of produce. Coloni rendered much more produce, but then they were able to, for they spent almost all their time working their 'own' land, providing only occasional labour, and of a set kind, not simply whatever the lord's bailiff had in mind for the 'day., '.
on page 93
The 'system' so many historians talk about is nothing other than the systematic exploitation by great landlords of peasants of varying levels of dependency. Lords were probably uninterested in devising a systematic form of agricultural exploitation. They were only interested in a system of increasing their wealth. Just as well, because far more agricultural production occurred on small farmsteads by their occupiers than on demesne home-fields, and there, on the mansus, lords could scarcely affect any agrarian changes.

Doing further research about the monasteries during the Merovingian period,

kind regards to both from Paul.

MM and Nielsen,

I have now a bit of a survey about the transition in Europe of the Roman Empire to the new Frankish empire of Charlemagne. And in that transition the Merovingian dynasty was vital. One has to envisage that before the emerging of the more central leaders of the invading populations in the wake of the detoration of the Roman power in Europe, and that was already going on from the third century, the several chieftains were only some robber chiefs, pirates when at the coast, as we discussed with the Angles and the Saxons. So were the Rhine-Weser Franks too. Preparing for the raids in the spring a bit as the later Vikings and living from boothy.
As the Franks had already had contact with the Romans in Gaul and were even sometimes integrated in Roman Gaul on the left bank of the Rhine, they were already on place when the final collapse of Roman hegemony came in the Fifth century and out of these Chieftains, as there was much competition, there came a "Rex", who was able by weapons and conviction, to play a more central role among the others. The place is discussed some say around Tongeren in the nowadays Limburg Belgium or others say more to the North in nowadays Germany. From there on they started as "laeti" to move to the nowadays West-Flanders North Picardie, Hainaut. And the main place that they used as powerbase was Tournai.

In a relatively short time the Merovingians conquested nearly the whole of continental western Europe and had also connections, when they reached the South of France and the Mediterranean Sea, with the Roman Empire in Byzantium and the emperor, who they recognized as their overlord.

I mentioned the monasteries in this early period, end 5th century immediately after the Roman collapse in the West, and the 6th century, but now I see that it were only cultural centres as sons of the old Roman Gallic nobles, who went on monastic way of ascetism...as I see it nothing of economic worth...
It were more the palaces of the local nobles and bishops seats, which attracted economy many of them located at former Roman "villas" and as such poles around which grow villages, bishop seats many times on the area of former cities, now depopulated, but attracting again people. But as I read in the thesis that I mentioned, more in wood and other perishable material, so that the remains other than the Roman ones were gone when the archaeological interest started. But nevertheless allover Europe there were stone buildings for the palaces of the rich and powerful and the bishops seats, bishops also many times from noble stock and rich.
Perhaps in the beginning only large farms with a local extended family head, as Poperinge: the house of Pupurn- Pupurn- ingham as the "belgian "ghem", the German "heim" the English "ham"
https://historum.com/threads/early-middle-ages-at-the-nord-pas-de-calais-and-the-flemish-coast.71943/
https://www.eupedia.com/belgium/belgian_place_names.shtml
Even the roads between these entities became repaired again as in the Roman times, as there was again a central dominating power.

But I agree MM, up to the 8th century the influence of the monasteries in the Frankish empire was as I have now seen, not that important. It was only after the end of the Merovingians, with the growing might of the "maiordomo" Charles Martel and his son Pepin the Short, who usurpated the kingship of the last Merovingian king and started the Pepinids ending with Charlemagne, that the monasteries gained economical influence and were of more importance than even the trade, which gained only again primordiality after the 10th, 11th century. As example I gave Dorestad with a mere 2,000 people and some warehouses, while the abbey of St Riquier in the nowadays city of St. Riquier near Abbeville, had already 3,000 men, with mostly lay persons, who did the maintenance and production, which was nearly a self supporting economical entity.
I will seek what I find about the economy of this pre-Carolingian Europe of the 9th century.

Kind regards from Paul.

My knowledge on this matter is scant though it is an interesting subject.  Seeing as the board is quiet at present (people on holiday?) I might have a few days' break from the board myself.  Hopefully things will pick up again here soon.

MM, Nielsen and LiR,

I read now through the thread on Passion Histoire about the decline of the Western Roman empire in the 5th century, some say collapse and fully related with the thesis I mentioned here. On the French thread they speak about Peter Brown: The world of Late Antiquity
https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Late-Antiquity-European-Civilization/dp/0500330220
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brown_(historian)
From him I read also:
https://www.amazon.com/Body-Society-Renunciation-Christianity-Columbia/dp/0231144075
The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in early Christianity.
I discussed it with the late Canadian endocrinologue, while I was surprised with the similarities with what we learned in the religion lessons in a Catholic college Ostend in the late Fifties. The name escapes me now, but he was till his death on Jiglu...Can find it back if someone wants...

And that new book is a welcome addition to what I already mentioned:
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1373/1/1991samsonphd.pdf
The Residences of Potentiores in Gaul and Germania in the Fifth to Mid-Ninth century
and:

http://bit.do/eZMzG
The Merovingian Kingdoms 450 - 751 by Ian Wood
https://www.amazon.com/Merovingian-Kingdoms-450-751/dp/0582493722

And I would say about the controversy about continuity or collapse: rather a "transformation"...
I will try to mix this with the French thread and see what the honourable contributors say there...

Kind regards from Paul.