Indeed. West Francia will also need to be more than Neustria in order to do so.
An Aquitaine-Burgundy-Italy should be sufficient by itself for a "Latin" HRE.
AHC: A more Latin based HRE rather than a Germanic HRE
- Thread starter Basileus_Komnenos
- Start date
An Aquitaine-Burgundy-Italy should be sufficient by itself for a "Latin" HRE.
Skallagrim
Banned
Effectively, I was talking about something rather like this, which I think is also what you're describing:
(With the big blue line obviously being the border.)
I don't think it would end up looking exactly like this, but this would be the gist. And frankly, I don't get why some people are so convinced that this kind of set-up would result in the Eastern successor state being somehow doomed to be re-conquered by the Western one. In fact, the prospect strikes me as far less likely than it was in OTL.
Anyway, what you see on this map is the basis for a Romance/Latinate state (which in this case gets the title "Empire"), and a Germanic state (which is a Kingdom). Both would be fairly secure, neither would be able to take on the other except at great cost and great risk, and both would have expansion opportunities on the respective "other directions". I see the Germans going East, while the Latins focus on conquering/annexing Iberia and Southern Italy (and maybe the North-West African coast).
@Skallagrim: roughly speaking, yes. The only plausible difference would be Flanders (western bit of Austrasia), which with the various Carolingian divisions of Frankish lands ended up being a part of West Francia. This could stay this way, however a West Francia too preoccupied with Burgundy & Italy could potentially end up losing some northern lands (in which case Flanders would be the most obvious).
Milan has been brought up a lot as a potential capital*, but i was under the impression that Pavia was the center of the kingdom of Italy, both under the Lombards and the Franks after them for along time. Milan had declined ever since the western emperors moved to ravenna and they didn't make a come back until the high middle ages if i recall correctly.
though in a itinerant feudal court its probably more accurate to call it an imperial seat or center. It isn't the home of a large bureaucracy in the way byzantium was at that time.
I believe that charlemagne did this to make frankish identity desirable but it just made assimilation harder. Which seems like a trend in the post-Roman barbarian successor states, the difference being that the other barbarian kingdoms tied their identities to arianism and separated themselves religiously.
If you want to foster a more romano-frankish identity then a universal law code would go a long way to help that. Youd probably have to pull a justinian and compile and meld roman and frankish laws into a singular body of law that treats everyone as Latins (to use a byzantine expression) rather than franks or burgundians or Italians.
though in a itinerant feudal court its probably more accurate to call it an imperial seat or center. It isn't the home of a large bureaucracy in the way byzantium was at that time.
I'd be wary of doing this. One of the reasons that expedited the collaps of the carolingian empire was that Frankish identity remained separate and hard to get and the conquered kingdoms continued operate under their own laws unless the individual in question was considered a Frank (who of course got special treatment).
I believe that charlemagne did this to make frankish identity desirable but it just made assimilation harder. Which seems like a trend in the post-Roman barbarian successor states, the difference being that the other barbarian kingdoms tied their identities to arianism and separated themselves religiously.
If you want to foster a more romano-frankish identity then a universal law code would go a long way to help that. Youd probably have to pull a justinian and compile and meld roman and frankish laws into a singular body of law that treats everyone as Latins (to use a byzantine expression) rather than franks or burgundians or Italians.
Skallagrim
Banned
My strong preference for establishing a permanent and clear division would be to avoid the OTL Treaty of Verdun altogether. This having been the arrangement which permanently put Flanders on the Western side, East Franconia on the Eastern side, and the core of old Austrasia in Lotharingia, in the Middle. Subsequent divisions and re-arrangements of course saw the core of old Austrasia go to the East, but Flanders stayed with the West. I'm proposing a scenario where an alt-Verdun -- between only two parties -- hands off all of old Austrasia (including Flanders) to the East. It is my impression that this would be a considerable economic and strategic boon to ATL (North-)East Francia, while making Neustria somewhat more of a peripheral region for ATL (South-)West Francia. This would contribute to maintaining the division between the two, because it would make it harder (and less of a priority) for West Francia to just over-run and annex all of East Francia.
My idea would be to have only two sons of Louis the Pious survive until 840, and have the two of them agree to an ATL division of the Empire between the two of them. Ideally Lothair would be the one to bite the dust early, and as a result Charles the Bald gets the predominantly Latinate domain that is ATL (South-)West Francia (and the Imperial title), and Louis the German gets to have the predominantly Germanic domain that is ATL (North-)East Francia. There would no doubt be subsequent episodes of internal fracturing for both, as in OTL, but I can see both those entities surviving in pretty much their original geographic forms.
Were the names of Neustria and Austrasia dead in 843 or could an alternate divison of the realm revived them?
Do you mean like this? Would this be a feasible division if there were only two sons left in 843? Does the emperor need Aachen?
Do you mean like this? Would this be a feasible division if there were only two sons left in 843? Does the emperor need Aachen?
Not likely via a straight division no.
I was thinking more along the lines of a greater division where only later is that southern portion joined together, and that northern portion is c2-3 kingdoms itself.
Bear in mind also that divisions of Francia tried to make the Frankish lands equal in portion among the sons. Then the other lands.
Last edited:
Aachen/Aix-la-Chappel has a carolingian legacy that cannot be ignored. It was the main seat of charlemagne at his imperial hight and is just as important to control as Rome; it would make no sense to anyone to not have it go to the emperor, its political importance is why lothringia took the shape that it did.
I think @John7755 يوحنا is right when he says that the only one who could have the political might to restrain the emperor is the pope, and he's also correct to say that in a scenario where alt-west frankia gets the imperial title then the pope is going to be less inclined to oppose him, especially on a matter so clear as the possession of aachen.
Which means if you don't want a total reunification of the frankish realms then the border is going to be the rhine (more or less), and "east francia" will have to incorporate its slavic neighbors to stay powerful enough to not get glomped up by the empire. Personally I'd think it be a great allohistorical irony if doing so slavized them.
I think @John7755 يوحنا is right when he says that the only one who could have the political might to restrain the emperor is the pope, and he's also correct to say that in a scenario where alt-west frankia gets the imperial title then the pope is going to be less inclined to oppose him, especially on a matter so clear as the possession of aachen.
Which means if you don't want a total reunification of the frankish realms then the border is going to be the rhine (more or less), and "east francia" will have to incorporate its slavic neighbors to stay powerful enough to not get glomped up by the empire. Personally I'd think it be a great allohistorical irony if doing so slavized them.
Even a slightly different treaty of Verdun ITTL could have lead to Flanders being attached to Middle Francia.
Yes, Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle/Aken was important, however in the later divisions of Middle Francia, it went to the second son of Lothar, also called Lothar (Lotharingia was named after him). The eldest son got Italy and the Imperial dignity.
So a slightly different ITTL treaty of Verdun could eventually lead to a division as suggested in this thread.
Yes, Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle/Aken was important, however in the later divisions of Middle Francia, it went to the second son of Lothar, also called Lothar (Lotharingia was named after him). The eldest son got Italy and the Imperial dignity.
So a slightly different ITTL treaty of Verdun could eventually lead to a division as suggested in this thread.
That might have been possible. West Francia ended up with the Northwest of Burgundy (the later French duchy of Burgundy), perhaps ITTL East Francia manages to get Istria; the Istrian March gets detached from Italy. This would give East Francia Trieste, IMHO it's a minor enough adjustment for it to be plausible enough to be possible, OTOH IMHO the entire march of Friuli/Verona would have been way too much. Moreover anything more would also go against the subject in this thread.
Last edited:
All states in this period will be supranational. The West Francian kingdom is extremely supranational. Containing an intense diversity of people, united only in religion and common Frankish monarchs.
Frankish identity remained a strong mentality into the Middle ages. It was weathered down surely but it was a long process of three or four centuries that ruptured that Frankish tie between 'Germans' and 'French' in that sense. It was too, less according to linguistic displacement, but in terms of political identity. As Pierre Dubois, the famed French poltical theorist noted in 1299, the true ideal mode of France is as Lord over Germany and the reunification under the French monarch, all of the main crowns of Europe. With such, this would re-institute in his opinion, a common culture that in his opinion, rightly so, lingered and existed in power in the past. Yet, had been obfuscated by political division.
As for the promulgation of Latin, possibly. Would it become the natural language of the people, perhaps not. Yet, prestige languages do not always become extinct. Akkadian was spoken regularly in Mesopotamia for centuries after its decline due to political and cultural reasons. Latin declined in usage in Europe due tot he atomization of identity in Europe and the creation of a more nationalist-like order. Latin would persist in any tl wherein such events are avoided.
Certainly, Iberia can be conquered.
For me, the Empereur d'Occident need to control a majority of the territory of the ancient Gaule, including the Imperial City of Aix la Chapelle, and then the Valley of the Rhone to the Mediterranean Sea and then enough of Northern and Central Italy to secure Rome.
Aquitania can be independant and Frankish presence in Spain is not mandatory.
If we look at the map already posted, the Empire d'Occident should include Austrasia, Neustria, Burgundy and the Italian Kingdom.
Last edited:
As said in a previous post Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle/Aken is a bonus, but not really necessary. IMHO what's not feasible about this division, is that one son is entirely left without some of the core Frankish lands. At the bare minimum Neustria should go to Imperial West Francia. East Francia may get some bits of Upper Burgundy/Swabia (Augstgau and Aargau were the disputed areas I mentioned) and maybe Istria.
@Intosh: I disagree regarding Austrasia, since the reverse is also true, no real division is also feasible with East Francia getting a fair share of the core Frankish lands, so a part of Austrasia will need to go to East Francia.
I agree with you, only Western Austrasia on the western bank of the Rhine should go to Western Francia.
Rhine as often is a natural border between an Western Francia as an Empire of Occident and Eastern Francia as Kingdom of Germany.
Independant Aquitania gave the third brother his own Kingdom.
I believe it was commonly accepted at the time that the Imperial title had to keep both Aachen and Rome under them, as the two historic capitals of Francia and the Roman Empires. That is why Lotharingia was such a crappy shape in the first place.
Middle Francia (Lotharingia is only the part North of Burgundy) was shaped in such a way that it gave all three brothers a share of the core Frankish Lands, Austrasia and Neustria. Louis the German already was (sub-) king of Bavaria and Lothar was (sub-)king of Italy, co-emperor and after the death of Louis the Pious sole emperor. Louis the Pious had promised his youngest son, Charles, half-brother of Lothar and Louis the German, the western part of the realm.
@Intosh: I partially answered to @Skallagrim suggestion to have an ATL two way division, there Aquitania will very much belong to the Western half. The border between East and West, that can remain open for debate. It can be anywhere between the West only getting Neustria and the East ending up with the whole of Austrasia, to your suggestion of a Rhine border, or something like the situation after the OTL treaty of Meerssen, a Meuse/Maas border (so somewhere in the middle of the previous two suggestions.
That can depend on a few things, which son is the favourite of the previous ruler, or which one ended up rebelling. If the eldest gets a Rhine border, then he was the favourite or the youngest overplayed his hand. If OTOH the youngest gets the entirety of Austrasia (the blue line division in this thread), then the youngest was the favourite or the eldest overplayed his hand.
This is all assuming an ATL two way split. A threeway split like IOTL could easily have gone differently, a more successful Lothar against Louis the German and Charles the Bald would have been able to increase his share at the expense of his younger brothers. Under such a scenario Louis would have gotten less of Austrasia (Rhine border perhaps) and Charles could only have gotten Neustria, which would under that scenario increase the share of the now victorious Lothar. While after that Middle Francia could still fracture under such a scenario.
Last edited:
Sorry about the crappy map quality btw.
Would something like this work for a more Latin centric Empire? I think the Emperor would in essence be the King of West Francia while his relatives/sons would be the vice kings of of the other constituent Kingdoms. This way the Empire is "federalized" into separate feudal Kingdoms of W. Francia, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Italy, and Lotharingia. Maybe East Francia splits off from the Empire with the nobles there electing a new King after the last Carolingian dies.
What do you guys think?
looks good but i think you are missing some east frankia vassals?
I don't think sub-Kingdoms work. They end up just having their independence.