AHC: A more Latin based HRE rather than a Germanic HRE

[Basileus_Komnenos]

What would a French and Italian based Holy Roman Empire look like assuming that the Kings of France or West Francia managed to attain the Imperial Title rather than the Kingdom of East Francia or Germany it otl? What would this French based HRE look like? Would it be more of a contender to be seen as a successor to Western Rome due to the Emperor controlling Gaul, Italy, and some parts of Hispania (like modern Catalonia)?

Would this HRE centralize faster because of the larger population and pre-existing Roman infrastructure? What would the political landscape here look like? And what would the demographics look like with a more Latin based HRE? What would be a good POD for this? One pod that comes to my mind is perhaps Emperor Charles III aka Charles the Fat having a legitimate heir with his wife Richardis. Maybe a power struggle erupts over the regency with figures such as Arnulf of Carinthia trying to become Emperor or act in the "interests" of the Young Emperor. What do you guys think?

 

[UnaiB]

@Pralaya

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

No. It would not centralize faster. The West Francian kingdom was generally less centralized, as was the Lombard lords of the Kingdom of Italy compared to the Normans and the East Francia monarchy, which due to its connections to Byzantium and Byzantian-ism, developed a distinctly autocratic mentality. The West Francian realm by contrast, was one that upheld to a greater degree the axioms of feudalism in a pure sense. Meanwhile, the Norman lords of England or the East Francian Swabian and Rhinelander lords of Germany, sought to greater increase a dictatorial power over its united empire.

The Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages, was also not a wholly East Francian realm. It was a composite realm, of which Italy played the most important role until relatively late. Germania was simply the origin for which emperors were appointed, whilst Italy was the testing ground to prove one's medal as Emperor. Surely too, Imperial power as a whole emanated from Italy outward, not the other way around and the Lombard lords formed the strongest single constituency within the Empire, aside from the Papacy.

Likewise, a division between Latin and 'Germanic' (a linguistic term , that is meaningless in Medieval discussions and only becomes relevant in very modern times) is pointless. All of these realms had clearly Germanic kings and nobility whose ultimate understanding of their environment was one of Frankish unity on the continent, of which East Francia and West Francia were a part of. The only realms that are not 'Germanic' in an overt sense, is Venice, the Papacy and several other smaller Italian principalities. All of the rest, represent overt Frankish, Lombard, Anglo or Norman states.

It is also important to mention, the Rhineland was one of the most important sectors of the Western Empire. Cologne, Trier, Mainz, etc... were cities that rivaled any of the northern cities in the Western Francian kingdom in terms of lineage to the Roman Empire. There essentially was no difference in infrastructure between the two in this regard. There was a difference however in the distribution of population and wealth. In the East Francian realm, the population center was clearly in the Rhineland and Swabia, with a declining base the further one moved north and east, which were colonized over time. West Francia however, possessed a much more evenly spread out rural populace in its fertile rivervalleys in the east and north. To its further north, it also possessed the area of the greatest intensification of urbanism in medieval Europe, namely Flanders and the Artois. All of which, cannot be credited to Rome solely, but to the stability and the effects of Frankish rule that permitted the development of these areas to a degree exceeding Rome prior. In fact, areas of greater Roman influence, lagged behind the realms of the main-Franks, namely the Rhineland, Walloonia, Burgundy, Northern West Francia and so forth, exceeded in population both rural and urban, the more intensely Roman settled Mediterranean areas of the Occitan or indeed Catalonia or Vasconia.

 

[Skallagrim]

It would look very feudal and decentralised, moreso than the OTL Holy Roman Empire. In fact, East Francia would probably become the more centralising state in this scenario. If denied any Ultramontane regions, it's going to basically be the Northern parts of Lotharingia + OTL Germany. It'll probably get Flanders, too. So the whole length of the Rhine is going to be its big economic artery and the basis of its heartland, with the Eastern regions being the hinterland that slowly gets settled more over time.

The Roman Empire is just going to call itself that. The 'Holy' was added later in OTL, so that's butterflied. Most historians will probably call it the Western Roman Empire (counterpart to the term Eastern Roman Empire) or something like the Francian Empire (counterpart to Byzantine Empire).

I have serious doubts about it staying unified. France has its most clearly developing regions in the North, away from Italy. Both cores want to be supreme. An eventual split is likely. If any reconquista occurs (which could happen), the Pyrenees are another border likely to re-occur in the ATL. If the Empire stays together, it will be as a highly decentralised amalgamation of feudal structures.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

It would look very feudal and decentralised, moreso than the OTL Holy Roman Empire. In fact, East Francia would probably become the more centralising state in this scenario. If denied any Ultramontane regions, it's going to basically be the Northern parts of Lotharingia + OTL Germany. It'll probably get Flanders, too. So the whole length of the Rhine is going to be its big economic artery and the basis of its heartland, with the Eastern regions being the hinterland that slowly gets settled more over time.

The Roman Empire is just going to call itself that. The 'Holy' was added later in OTL, so that's butterflied. Most historians will probably call it the Western Roman Empire (counterpart to the term Eastern Roman Empire) or something like the Francian Empire (counterpart to Byzantine Empire).

I have serious doubts about it staying unified. France has its most clearly developing regions in the North, away from Italy. Both cores want to be supreme. An eventual split is likely. If any reconquista occurs (which could happen), the Pyrenees are another border likely to re-occur in the ATL. If the Empire stays together, it will be as a highly decentralised amalgamation of feudal structures.

Why would 'Germany' get Flanders? Flanders was one of the integral West Francian realms and one for which the lords of West Francia held to be part of their home lands. Certainly, I do not see the West Francians permitting the 'Germans' to simply take all of these lands, they will attempt to assert lordship over the Rhinelands and push any pretense of an East Francia far beyond Hesse. In a scenario wherein West Francia possesses Papal sympathy and also the Roman Empire, East Francia would be swallowed by such a dominant realm, such that even much of the East Francian realm may prefer this, as a unification of the Franks once more.

Surely, if West Francia is bestowed the empire, the Lombard realms and the Papal 'hammer,' it will come to encompass at least passively all of the region. Only the Papacy would be able to stop such a realm in open diplomatic and military conflict.

 

[Skallagrim]

Why would 'Germany' get Flanders? Flanders was one of the integral West Francian realms and one for which the lord of West Francia held to be part of their home lands. Certainly, I do not see the West Francians permitting the 'Germans' to simply take all of these lands, they will attempt to assert lordship over the Rhinelands and push any pretense of an East Francia far beyond Hesse. In a scenario wherein West Francia possesses Papal sympathy and also the Roman Empire, East Francia would be swallowed by such a dominant realm, such that even much of the East Francian realm may prefer this, as a unification of the Franks once more.

There's the whole point, isn't it? This thread isn't asking for "what if the Carolingian Empire gets re-united". It's asking for something else. For that something else to happen, East Francia/Germany must have a fighting chance. There is also the fact that if West Francia gets Italy (which went East in OTL) and nabs up the Imperial title/claim, then East Francia -- in any kind of reasonable division -- is going to have to be 'compensated' somehow. Otherwise, it's a pretty damned uneven division.

For this whole premise to even begin to work, you must have two separate powers that are both viable. Ideally, powers that can stand "back to back", while the South-Western one directs its energies towards a Reconquista, and the North-Eastern one directs its efforts towards an Ostsiedlung. The former would be Romance-speaking and consider itself the Roman Empire, the latter Germanic-speaking and would increasingly consider itself the Kingdom of the Germans.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

There's the whole point, isn't it? This thread isn't asking for "what if the Carolingian Empire gets re-united". It's asking for something else. For that something else to happen, East Francia/Germany must have a fighting chance. There is also the fact that if West Francia gets Italy (which went East in OTL) and nabs up the Imperial title/claim, then East Francia -- in any kind of reasonably division -- is going to be compensated somehow. Otherwise, it's a pretty damned uneven division.

For this whole premise to even begin to work, you must have two separate powers that are both viable. Ideally, powers that can stand "back to back", while the South-Western one directs its energies towards a Reconquista, and the North-Eastern one directs its efforts towards an Ostsiedlung. The former would be Romance-speaking and consider itself the Roman Empire, the latter Germanic-speaking and would increasingly consider itself the Kingdom of the Germans.

The only way that there will not be a goal to restore Frankish monarchical unity from the part of West Francia, is if the Papacy actively restrains them. They will not willingly do so, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the Papacy can use this situation to juggle the two as his footsoldiers, with one directed one way and the other likewise. But without a truly ascendant and grandiose Papacy, war will be on the horizon, there is no way the West Francians will accept a loss of Flanders and with the initiative in its hands, it will take the East Francians to task and make them enjoy it.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The only way that there will not be a goal to restore Frankish monarchical unity from the part of West Francia, is if the Papacy actively restrains them. They will not willingly do so, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the Papacy can use this situation to juggle the two as his footsoldiers, with one directed one way and the other likewise. But without a truly ascendant and grandiose Papacy, war will be on the horizon, there is no way the West Francians will accept a loss of Flanders and with the initiative in its hands, it will take the East Francians to task and make them enjoy it.

I think that East Francia or Germany would likely be drawn into conflict with the Franks over the issue of the Rhineland. I can see the Frankish Kings taking the left bank of the Rhine while the Germans take the Eastern bank. Though the question remains in terms of how the Emperor would rule with Italy. Where would his capital be? Would the Emperor move it to a more central place like Lyon, the old Roman Capital of the West: Milan, or some other city?

Francia/Germany must have a fighting chance. There is also the fact that if West Francia gets Italy (which went East in OTL) and nabs up the Imperial title/claim, then East Francia -- in any kind of reasonable division -- is going to have to be 'compensated' somehow. Otherwise, it's a pretty damned uneven division.

It might as well be an uneven division depending on the POD. Thought this Empire would be more Roman in character I think because its got a more Latin influence because of the French and Occitan speakers in addition to the Italians. I can see this alternate "Western Roman Empire" try to centralize with subsequent Kings trying to re-introduce Roman law and rebuild infrastructure though this would be a highly feudal state.

What pod would you think works for this? A pod I'm thinking of is that maybe Charles the Bale who if he has a legitimate heir later in his life has him crowned as King of Lotharingia and maybe West Francia. This son though being young by the time Charles is deposed would likely have to contend with various factions and competing interest pulling the empire in different directions. Supposing this son let's say Charles IV wants to centralize the Empire, or at least re-assert his control seeing this anarchy before him, how would he do that?

Otherwise, it's a pretty damned uneven division.

What if Charles III's successor get Lotharingia, West Francia, Aquitaine, Burgundy, and Italy while Arnulf of Carinthia rules the East as King of East Francia? With this reduced but more manageable Empire, how would it be governed?

The Roman Empire is just going to call itself that. The 'Holy' was added later in OTL, so that's butterflied. Most historians will probably call it the Western Roman Empire (counterpart to the term Eastern Roman Empire) or something like the Francian Empire (counterpart to Byzantine Empire).

Assuming the new Emperor takes this title and actually is competent what would he need to do to assert his authority and build a powerbase much like the HRE under the Ottonians?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@Basileus_Komnenos

Why stay on the western bank? This is the Middle Ages, when the idea was unity between realms, not natural or ideal borders. If West Francia is given the call to war by the Papacy, it is not a self-contained war for short gains, as in later eras. The WF monarchy, will seek to demolish the rival Frankish realm and reintegrate it into the Empire and restore balance. The only reason this did not occur in otl, was the Papacy and the relative inability of the HRE to impose itself upon France without Papal edict. Surely, the Papacy will seek to unite Europe under a single lord, if it can; only if it has a specific reason to keep the region divided, will it do so. Which would beg the question, why distribute the title unto West Francia if the Papacy is not seeking unity?

 

[Emperor Gustavus Adolphus]

France, Iberia and Italy were the regions predominantly Latin speaking (or a variant of Latin).

Iberia and Italy were conquered by the Gothic peoples whereas France was conquered by the Franks. If a version of HRE originated from any of these regions as they agreed to unify the three regions as a new Roman Empire, it would be possible. How could they? Probably a threat from the Arab/Moorish Muslim invaders? A rise of a charismatic and a fierce conquerer from one region who conquers all other regions, and then makes agreements with the local ruling class? The second one would come a bit closer to the HRE.

This version of HRE would have the city of Rome in it, and also be of a majority Roman descent and culture. That might warm up the relations with the East. The Germanic Catholic lands, beyond France may independently unite to form their own Empire, though not named Rome. It would be interesting to see this trio.

 

[Skallagrim]

The only way that there will not be a goal to restore Frankish monarchical unity from the part of West Francia, is if the Papacy actively restrains them. They will not willingly do so, in my humble opinion. Perhaps the Papacy can use this situation to juggle the two as his footsoldiers, with one directed one way and the other likewise. But without a truly ascendant and grandiose Papacy, war will be on the horizon, there is no way the West Francians will accept a loss of Flanders and with the initiative in its hands, it will take the East Francians to task and make them enjoy it.

I agree that a desire for this would be there, but whether the Empire would have "the initiative" is very much in doubt. Germany certainly kept existing in OTL. Although the Empire would have Italy in this scenario, that in itself would also be a source of internal division. A multi-polar empire with different regional ambitions! As for Flanders: it would not be a "loss". It would be part of an agreed-upon division, not something wrested away. Sure, they'd like it back, but without it, the North-West of the Empire is actually less likely to become the Imperial core than... well, than Italy. Rather than the "West Francia" you imagine, we'd be looking at a Roman Empire again. A feudal one, certainly, but probably one that considers Italy its most dominant region. All in all, I don't think "gotta get Flanders back" is going to have to be the number one priority. I can see this Empire rolling out a map of the old Roman Empire, looking at Iberia and Africa, and saying: "That. That's what I want back!"

I think that East Francia or Germany would likely be drawn into conflict with the Franks over the issue of the Rhineland. I can see the Frankish Kings taking the left bank of the Rhine while the Germans take the Eastern bank.

If the Franks/"Romans" can do that, they can also just re-unite the whole Carolingian Empire. That's perfectly fine as a scenario, but it's not what you asked for!

Though the question remains in terms of how the Emperor would rule with Italy. Where would his capital be? Would the Emperor move it to a more central place like Lyon, the old Roman Capital of the West: Milan, or some other city?

I think it may be necessary to go for Rome itself, if you wish to use your Roman legitimacy to keep your Empire together. Do note that in practice, the court will simply be "on the move" all the time. It goes where the Emperor goes.

It might as well be an uneven division depending on the POD.

Again: that's very possible, but then the outcome is very probably just going to be "restored Carolingian Empire".

Thought this Empire would be more Roman in character I think because its got a more Latin influence because of the French and Occitan speakers in addition to the Italians.

I could see (something derived from) Vulgar Latin being the common tongue, with various dialects of the (not-yet-codified!) Romamce languages existing within that language's dialect continuüm.

I can see this alternate "Western Roman Empire" try to centralize with subsequent Kings trying to re-introduce Roman law and rebuild infrastructure though this would be a highly feudal state.

I can see the rulers wanting this. I can also see it being very, very tricky.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I think, pending Papal Relations, this HRE would be much stronger (though the HRE was no slouch in its prime) than otl. France->Italy is easier than Germany-> Italy, making italian vying for autonomy and independence harder even if they're wealthy. Plus the hansa didn't tear the HRE apart too much, did it?

The problem is, provided the norman conquest hasn't been butterflied, then England will still inherit half of France, and will likely have an ally in Germany in keeping those possessions. France will want the Rhine, germany will want france not to have the Rhine and to weaken this behemoth. There's a conflict here

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@Skallagrim

1. The Rhineland is just as much an integral part of the Roman empire of the classic era as was Africa. In the minds of a northern people within the Latin world, certainly even more so.

2. I do not believe Italy will cause issues in and of itself. The issue of otl, was never Italy, but a battle of authority between the Emperor and the Papacy over control over the Translatio Imperii. Italian states simply took sides in this civil war in the Empire. A civil war that the Papacy decisively won. As long as these Frankish monarchs respect the Papacy, which they will be doing if they truly seek to expand exterior lands, instead of engaging in Roman bloodletting with the Papacy, then the Papacy will not rain down war upon them. A good way to do this too, is avoid any intermingling between the Byzantine and Frankish court and also creating earlier precedence toward expansionism against the varied enemies.

3. Germany was kept in existence due to its prominence over France in otl in terms of overall power. It was the Empire that was restrained in otl by the Papacy and the true protector of the France in otl, was the Papacy, with whom we find the true victor of most of the defeats that the Empire suffered. Without the Papacy managing matters, the Empire may well of swallowed the West Francian state in time. Papal reasoning for this is clear. The Empire in the 10th and early 11th century attempted to overtly dominate the Papacy and revoke the Donation of Pepin by force. Such matters were not accepted and the Papacy rapidly changed its tune, from a pro-East Francian stance, to a pro-French state, whom it used as its bargaining chip and its battering ram to threaten the Empire. Presumably too, the Papacy envisioned the Normans as its benefactors against potential Imperial aggression, hence the Papacy granting them titles and sending them to and fro in conquest sprees. This of course would backfire, yet it still displays that in the Middle Ages, we are seeing a different scenario, wherein the Empire of otl was in very early years, at a soft war with the Papacy.

In this atl, West Francia, the more powerful of all the divisions of the Frankish realms, will have at least a short window of Papal support. With that, they will take initiative and assume direct lordship over the East and reunite the empire. This to me, will be assured, unless, as I said, the Papacy decides to truly throw itself in front of the Western momentum and thus save the Eastern Frankish realms.

4. I also dispute the notion that in this period, that Rome had anything to do with a geographic realm. Papal opinion of the period, in my understanding and interpretation of the texts, seem to imply a universal world spanning empire conquering and subduing all peoples. This was viewed as under the canopy of Papal monarchy, but certainly, the Papacy held firmly that there was but one Lordship on the earth, that of the fountainhead of Europe, the Frankish monarchy. Which was intermingled and undistinguished from that of the Roman Empire.

Indeed, as I mention in other threads, all empires (which Latin/Germanic Europe composed itself of in the Middle Ages) have an overarching mission. For this matter, Western Europe in this period, composed of the Franks, Lombards, English, Papacy and Venice, molded the concepts of the Roman Empire, with Christianity and the Frankish noble customs and prestige to create an Imperial Mission. A mission which saw as its goal ultimately:

-The creation of a holy realm devoted to the Triune God. This is a clear cut topic. Promote the correct cult practices throughout the civilization. Amounting the necessity of the Papacy and a massive church structure with which to spread correct practices and also to instruct others in correct religious discourse. Likewise, the consistent practice of Church Councils amended to this needed activity in the civilization. It would eventually come to a head however as these disputes became, what is truly correct cultic practices? This is the Reformation.

-To export Frankish/Germanic/Latin nobility unto new realms and hence expand feudalism indefinitely across the planet. By this, we refer to the conception that European expansionism, was predicated upon an exportation of feudalism and Frankish nobles unto all lands who submitted or the cognate Papal mandated people group. In all areas conquered by the Latin realms, without exception, feudalism of the Frankish model was implemented to some degree and every lord maintained a distinct Frankish or similar posture. The best examples of this, is Sicily, Iberia, Outremer, Prussia, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Bohemia, Ireland (to a degree), etc... This is critical in that seemingly, the Papacy envisioned a world ruled under its grip of ever-expanding influence, south, west, north and east, using the expanding presence of a virulent and warlike Frankish/Norman nobility for which to assert correct cultic practices.

-A world conquest agenda. While it is likely that case that this was less virulent and forceful as that of the Umayyo-Abbasid conception of world conquest, it is nevertheless important to mention. Mario Liverani describes European expansionism in the Middle Ages as a sort of world conquering revanchsim. One of restoring Papal and Frankish/Roman hegemony over the 'planet,' which had been lost to them due to the treachery of the Greeks and the aggression of the Arabo-Islamic world.

It too, was not only a defensive and or reactionary act. Yet, one of true universal claim to the universe around them. Court poets of Charles I and other documents from that period display that the Emperor felt himself to have been 'a great star' the sole king. Likewise, the Papacy was framing itself at the same time as the canopy upon which it could direct a conquest of the world. The Papacy is the greatest example of this, as every Pontiff from 1040 onward would iterate, the Papacy is lord over all and that the only true role of the Papacy and the states surrounding him, is the expansion of Christendom forward. As the famous, yet later carol, Riu riu ciu mentiones:

'Hear the song of Peace He brings to all the nations, calling all to join. Join their hearts in jubilation. No more needless wars, no more hunger for the poor... Let the World Unite, helping one another more!'


In fact, a constant in Medieval popular and religious song, is the notion of uniting the world religiously, which means implicitly a political unification as per Papal edict.

'A splendid star shining upon the mountain as sunshine. Hark (!), the multitude assembling, ALL people rejoicing, the rich and the poor, the greatest and the pettiest are gathering as well upon our mountain, witnessing together. Let us herald once more this: Hail Mary!' - Stella Splendens

The splendid star being the message of peace, the correct and true religion/cultic practice. Hence the mountain becomes the Church and the multitude being those who have been subsumed into the wider expanding Latin/Frankish realm.

With the tangent out of the way, my opinion, is that the idea of a Roman Empire, was conceived less in terms of a geographic border, but of a universal empire that embodied at least to some degree the above. When Dante Alighieri made his argument in 'De Monarchia' he makes odd references to the King of Germany or the Emperor of Rome, not as simply the Lord of Italy, but the implied Divinely appointed master of all other kings across the world. His role was in the exportation of this empire and all of its trappings to the entirety of creation, as Dante felt Rome had done. In this sense, Rome was morphed into a universalist Christian Frankish empire that was envisioned to ideally encompass all things.


And surely, I doubt that the conception of the Roman empire had as much to do in the year 1000 CE to Trajan, as it did to Charles I.


5. I do not believe that it was legal according to Medieval custom to exchange vassals in the manner you mention. There is no precedence that I know of for a 'vassal trade.' Wherein one realm exchanges vassals for other vassals in a sort of card trade. Vassals were formed through a series of oaths and years of customs that bounded lieges to vassals. They were not so easily ruptured, for the vassal made his vows directly to monarch, thus the vassal was an active participant who could reject transfer if they pleased.

It is also a breach of oath to exchange a vassal for another. It would break any pretense of land ownership in the realm. Why would lords pay their service to the lord if he is permitted to exchange them about as a pack of bureaucrats or eunuchs? Especially such a prestigious Frankish realm as Flanders, will not accept such a transfer.

Now, there is precedence in Medieval custom for ceding vassals and titles in wars, Likewise, there is precedence for the Papacy having the legal authority to transfer vassals to and fro or excising vassals from a realm (this is what occurred to Flanders during the Pontificate of Boniface VIII).

Flanders is also the last realm to be ceded. It is one of the heartlands of the Franks, there is little chance that it is ceded, even assuming that it is legal according to the customs. Ultimately, the Frankish lords of West Francia, will refuse to cede any of Middle Francia to the Eastern Franks. The real question though, is not if the atl Empire cedes lands to the EF, the question is rather how will the EF deter this enemy. They will have to appeal to the Papacy, which I can imagine in this atl, giving the freedom to take the realm as theirs.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I think, pending Papal Relations, this HRE would be much stronger (though the HRE was no slouch in its prime) than otl. France->Italy is easier than Germany-> Italy, making italian vying for autonomy and independence harder even if they're wealthy. Plus the hansa didn't tear the HRE apart too much, did it?

The problem is, provided the norman conquest hasn't been butterflied, then England will still inherit half of France, and will likely have an ally in Germany in keeping those possessions. France will want the Rhine, germany will want france not to have the Rhine and to weaken this behemoth. There's a conflict here

I do not see how it is easier... Both are Frankish lords, there is little medieval difference.

Also, Italian autonomy did not tear the otl Empire apart. It was the Empire and its conflicts with the Papacy. The Lombard and other Italian lords, simply chose sides in this conflagration. The Hohenstaufen and the Welf, both had vast support in the Italian peninsula and Emperors were collecting their feudal dues in the Middle Ages without much issue. Really, this notion that Italy was simply yearning for independence and causing the downfall of the Empire, verges on the fantastic duality of attacking Itay and attacking Germany at the same time, for the same issue, with neither contributing at all to the issue. It is a nationalistic rending and simplification of the complex network of interest and kingship in Europe between the Papacy and the absolutist emperors of the Hohenstaufen and Welf dynasties.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

I think it may be necessary to go for Rome itself, if you wish to use your Roman legitimacy to keep your Empire together. Do note that in practice, the court will simply be "on the move" all the time. It goes where the Emperor goes.

The problem was that the core of Francia was in the modern Low Countries/Northern Gaul. Though I suppose the court will have to be itinerant as it was in otl for medieval monarchs of this period. Also Rome really isn’t really at the center of this realm. It’s not even that great of a place for Italy which was why later Western Roman Emperors moved the Capital to Milan and then to Ravenna. Ravenna was easier to defend and had direct access to the sea.

I created this thread to help me brainstorm a tl I planned on doing in the distant future where the Frankish HRE is more Holy, Roman, and Imperial. The pod I was thinking of was that Charles the Fat has a legitimate son whom he bestows with all three Kingdoms of the Frankish Empire. This son ruthlessly manages to reassert his Imperial authority and is the most powerful Frankish ruler except for say Charlemagne. He then works to try and build more infrastructure and build something of a bureaucracy to administer the Empire with him trying to repair old Roman road networks and infrastructure.

This Emperor then goes on to have various sons whom gives lower fiefdoms to such as duchies and counties. He tries to establish a system of primogeniture by making his eldest son the co-ruler of all these realms.

But when the Emperor dies a succession dispute broils into a Civil war where one Brother proclaims himself King of East Francia. Though both sides fight to a stalemate and agree to a cessation of hostilities upon intercession by the Pope. Eventually though the Empire proper and the eastern Kingdom drifts away with the East bucking Imperial suzzerainty leaving the Empire with West Francia, Burgundy, Lotharingia, and Italy.

What do you guys think? Is this plausible?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The problem was that the core of Francia was in the modern Low Countries/Northern Gaul. Though I suppose the court will have to be itinerant as it was in otl for medieval monarchs of this period. Also Rome really isn’t really at the center of this realm. It’s not even that great of a place for Italy which was why later Western Roman Emperors moved the Capital to Milan and then to Ravenna. Ravenna was easier to defend and had direct access to the sea.

I created this thread to help me brainstorm a tl I planned on doing in the distant future where the Frankish HRE is more Holy, Roman, and Imperial. The pod I was thinking of was that Charles the Fat has a legitimate son whom he bestows with all three Kingdoms of the Frankish Empire. This son ruthlessly manages to reassert his Imperial authority and is the most powerful Frankish ruler except for say Charlemagne. He then works to try and build more infrastructure and build something of a bureaucracy to administer the Empire with him trying to repair old Roman road networks and infrastructure.

This Emperor then goes on to have various sons whom gives lower fiefdoms to such as duchies and counties. He tries to establish a system of primogeniture by making his eldest son the co-ruler of all these realms.

But when the Emperor dies a succession dispute broils into a Civil war where one Brother proclaims himself King of East Francia. Though both sides fight to a stalemate and agree to a cessation of hostilities upon intercession by the Pope. Eventually though the Empire proper and the eastern Kingdom drifts away with the East bucking Imperial suzzerainty leaving the Empire with West Francia, Burgundy, Lotharingia, and Italy.

What do you guys think? Is this plausible?

Possible. Though successful vassal revolts were rare in Western European history without Papal mandate. The reason that the woven legal and custom context surrounding feudalism was extremely tight. Oath making and legal frameworks around such, was extraordinary in Europe compared to most parts of the world at the time or in prior eras.

Ultimately, I find areas like Iberia breaking off prior to East Francia. My firm belief is that if EF and WF are reunited while the Papacy has recovered, the union will be final. A revised and united Frankish identity will resume.

Iberia is more likely to break ranks due to its colonizing. The crusades of Iberia proceeded as a colonial affair of the Frankish world over Iberia, pushing the veil of the Islamic realms in Iberia back. In this scenario, feudalism and Frankish noble castes became less strict and a centralism process occurred earlier. Most notably in Portugal, Leon and Galicia Where monarchs took on greater roles as lords of the land than their French/German/Italian counterparts. Thus this would/could constitute a firm political break if permitted to last.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Possible. Though successful vassal revolts were rare in Western European history without Papal mandate. The reason that the woven legal and custom context surrounding feudalism was extremely tight. Oath making and legal frameworks around such, was extraordinary in Europe compared to most parts of the world at the time or in prior eras.

I'm open to amending it to maybe have the Frankish Empire consolidated into one supranational entity with various somewhat decentralized constituent Kingdoms within it. Though the problem is primogeniture and the Frankish custom of dividing lands among sons. Maybe the revolts stem from disgruntled sons or relatives not being able to fully be invested as Kings of their own realm.

A revised and united Frankish identity will resume.

Do you think a more pan Romano-Frankish identity could be created with successive Emperors trying to merge Roman structures and political apparatuses to the existing Frankish feudal structure? Could a more thorough revival of Latin occur if the Carolingian Reinaissance occurs unabated with more schools and universities established where Latin is used as the universal language of instruction. Maybe the individual Romance Languages like French become more Latinzed that in otl.

In terms of the this Frankish identity, do you think that perhaps the Emperor could move his court to Milan with the other capitals of the Empire's sub-kingdoms becoming the other main cities within the Empire tied around Milan with new infrastructure trade networks established. How do you think this state will interact with the Eastern Court with this "revived" Western Empire becoming more Latin and Imperial?

Thus this would/could constitute a firm political break if permitted to last.

Do you think that perhaps through marriage or something akin to a Crusade, Iberia, or at least part of it could be re-annexed into the Empire?

Also thank you guys for taking the time to answer all my questions.

 

[kasumigenx]

I think a united West Francia, Burgundy and Italy earlier would speak Occitan/Catalan or TTL Aquitainian instead of French...

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

West Francia should try to recover the biggest pieces of Lotharingia as well as its imperial capitals: Rome and Aachen. They would have the largest of the former Carolingian lands and would possess imperial legitimacy.

 

[Janprimus]

West Francia should try to recover the biggest pieces of Lotharingia as well as its imperial capitals: Rome and Aachen. They would have the largest of the former Carolingian lands and would possess imperial legitimacy.

I beg to differ regarding the division of Middle Francia. Unlike East Francia, West Francia does not have access direct control over passes into Italy. West Francia will need the kingdom of Burgundy for that, and only then they can fully focus on Italy. IOTL East Francia had a better starting position to intervene in Italy and Burgundy was eventually inherited by the HRE in 1032.
This IMHO gives East Francia a good window to take over Lotharingia. The border between Upper Burgundy and Swabia, they had a few disputed border regions, could go either way. ITTL it could lead to East Francia not losing most of the Northern (Saxon) Marches in a Slavic Revolt (OTL Slavic Revolt of 983).