This thesis is a study of the works of the historian Flodoard of Rheims (893/4–966), author of two substantial prose narratives (Annales and Historia Remensis ecclesiae) and an epic verse history (De triumphis Christi). Flodoard is the only major Frankish chronicler of his day, so his accounts of the political history of the West Frankish, Ottonian and Italian kingdoms are of paramount importance to modern scholars. Flodoard's Annales have been considered a reliable and neutral account of contemporary affairs, so historians have been content to mine them for ‘facts' informing wider debates concerning the history of late Carolingian Europe. Additionally, he has been judged a conscientious, source-driven archivist: his Historia Remensis ecclesiae preserves an abundance of otherwise-lost documentary sources which has been used by scholars to illuminate the church of Rheims' illustrious history. However, Flodoard was an actor on the highest political stage. He spent time at royal courts, travelled to Rome, and regularly communicated with the leading political and intellectual figures of his day. He was also deeply enmeshed in the affairs of the powerful archbishopric of Rheims. This study demonstrates that Flodoard's histories are not easily extricated from the context of his own turbulent career. It argues that Flodoard cannot be understood without reference to the vicissitudes of the complex political environment in which he operated. By taking Flodoard on his own terms and situating his historical works in their appropriate political and intellectual contexts, this thesis challenges the conventional way we read Flodoard, asking what kind of information we can reliably interrogate him for, whom his audiences were, why he wrote history at all and whether he is truly representative of his age.

Le règne de Charles le Chauve fut une période de transformations politiques et idéologiques pour la royauté carolingienne. Les conflits de la marche de Bretagne et d’Espagne ainsi que les incursions externes sont les troubles ayant probablement le plus retenu l’attention des médiévistes. La prétendue quête émancipatrice des Armoricains ou encore les ambitions personnelles et familiales des magnats aristocratiques septimaniens et ibériques sont encore citées comme preuves de l’affaiblissement du pouvoir royal carolingien, suite au traité de Verdun de 843. En s’attardant sur les politiques de résolution de conflit du roi dans ces deux territoires, à priori hostiles à son pouvoir, ce mémoire veut établir si les tensions dans les marches étaient aussi complexes et insurmontables que les sources primaires le laissent entendre. En comparant les politiques de terrain visibles dans les actes royaux, nous remarquons que ces troubles n’étaient pas fondamentalement différents de ceux présents ailleurs dans le royaume. Les stratégies employées par le souverain montrent que la royauté détenait les moyens de venir à bout des obstacles à sa suprématie politique. Visiblement, ces dissidences ne semblent pas aussi particulières. Les enjeux politiques et économiques qu’elles impliquaient étaient, de toute évidence, à l’image des principales préoccupations politiques des rois carolingiens suite à la guerre civile de 840-843. Il importait d’argumenter leur légitimité divine ainsi que d’apparaître comme le seul choix politique. / Charles the Bald’s reign was a period of political and ideological transformations for the carolingian royalty. The troubles with the Breton and Spanish march along with the external raids are probably the sources of tension which have captured the most attention from medievalists. The so-called armorican emancipatory quest or the personal and familial ambitions of the septimanian and iberian magnates are still cited as evidences of the weakening of Carolingian political power following the 843 treaty of Verdun. By focusing on the king’s conflict resolution policies in these two territories, apparently hostile to his power, this study wants to establish wheter the tensions in the marches were as complex and irremediable as the primary sources suggested. By comparing the field policies visible in the royal charters, we noticed that theses troubles were not fundamentally different from those present elsewhere in the kingdom. The strategies employed by the king shows that the royalty had the means to overcome these obstacles and to affirm his political supremacy. Noticeably, these oppositions do not seem to be so particular. The political and economic issues that they were impliying were reflecting the main political concerns of the Carolingian kings following the 840-843 civil war. It was important to them to promote their divine legitimacy as well as appearing as the only political choice for the kingdom’s elites.