AHC- North/South split of Charlemagne's Empire

One of the major bones of contention for the Carolingians was control of the Rhineland, as those lands were both rich and the heartland of the Franks (including Charlemagne's capital), and this rivalry persisted all the way through from the Carolingians to the Ottonians and the HRE to the Habsburg-Valois and then Napoleon and the Kaiserreich and the Nazis. Let's flip the script, then, and make East and West Francia a package deal from day one, Rhineland included.


Rather than the OTL split of East, West and Middle Francia, would it be possible to have a north-south division- have a "North Francia"/Greater Austrasia encompassing north France, Lotharingia, and Germany, and a "South France" composed of Burgundy, Italy, Aquitaine and southern Bavaria.

Is this feasible?
 
Would be interesting since the majority of the north would be undoubtedly Germanic or able to be assimilated by the Frankish tribes (northern France), while the south would be primarily Latin barring Bavaria.
 
I feel like this split is less likely geographically, as culture influenced by geography lead to the borders being the way they are.

However, if it somehow happened, I feel like while the kingdom's themselves would probably not be able to hold all that land for the whole time (namely I see Bavaria splitting off), on the whole the south would be much more Latin and be a language/culture very similar to Italian, while the North would be more Germanic with a Dutch/German-esque language.
 
Personally, I think a kingdom of Acquitaine-Italy would make more sense than what we saw with Lotharingia - the later of which was almost entirely indefensible.
 
I feel like this split is less likely geographically, as culture influenced by geography lead to the borders being the way they are.

However, if it somehow happened, I feel like while the kingdom's themselves would probably not be able to hold all that land for the whole time (namely I see Bavaria splitting off), on the whole the south would be much more Latin and be a language/culture very similar to Italian, while the North would be more Germanic with a Dutch/German-esque language.
Seeing the tendencies of Occitan states to invade italy or iberia, I see the Southern partition stick and speak Occitan..
 
Seeing the tendencies of Occitan states to invade italy or iberia, I see the Southern partition stick and speak Occitan..

Doesn't this predate Occitan though? For the most part at least? Who's to say the language development would be the same in a less Germanic state.
 
Personally, I think a kingdom of Acquitaine-Italy would make more sense than what we saw with Lotharingia - the later of which was almost entirely indefensible.

Yes, Burgundy-Italy-Aquitaine is much more coherent (culturally and geographically). Given the longstanding ties between Languedoc and Italy and Iberia it's not implausible to see them sticking together for a while.

The main sticker is that Aachen is Charlemagne royal seat and the Franks were largely centered around the Rhineland with Italy etc being add-ons as part of the whole "Holy Roman Emperor" thing. Additionally Aquitaine doesn't really have any natural defenses against the North, although the Mediterranean coastline and The Rhone both help somewhat that drops off quickly as you move inland. Hence why the Romans conquered everything up to the Atlantic and the Rhine.

Holding bits of Bavaria (Tirol, Carinthia) plus Southern Switzerland would be highly beneficial to Italy as it gives them control of the main passes and a buffer territory against both Germany and the Magyars.
 
Use the headwaters of the Loire and the Isene river with a line from where it merges with the Rhone to the Loire headwaters in the west. For the east use the mountains along a modern Austria/Germany border.

The southern kingdom is vastly more prosperous for trade and might have the resources to push into the Arabian world given time. It might, under the wrong circumstances, try to revive the Western Roman Empire, especially if somehow it's leadership marries into a Byzantine dynasty. As for it's northern counterpart the population will need tome to develop but if it can be kept coherent their navy would be stronger and the trade more vibrant, especially if the Vikings are somehow brought into the fold or counter the ability of the northern Empire to go south.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well a question though. If it is a north-south split, going to three sons, then there would still be a "middle" realm, consisting of Swabia, Bavaria, Upper Burgundy and northern Aquitaine, that would probably be at least as vulnerable as Lotharingia, at least in its west.
 
Hm, wouldn't that leave the North guy with military strength but little wealth? Doesn't seem likely.

It certainly wouldn't last, in order to keep his armies occupied and happy, the Northern Guy will go after the wealth of the Southern guy. Going east would be a sideshow, since most the wealth is found to the South.
 
Well a question though. If it is a north-south split, going to three sons, then there would still be a "middle" realm, consisting of Swabia, Bavaria, Upper Burgundy and northern Aquitaine, that would probably be at least as vulnerable as Lotharingia, at least in its west.

The northern split was trickier. I thought about OTL Switzerland, Bavaria, Austria, and Bohemia but was not sure if that was an even split
 
It certainly wouldn't last, in order to keep his armies occupied and happy, the Northern Guy will go after the wealth of the Southern guy. Going east would be a sideshow, since most the wealth is found to the South.
Yes, that and the question over the Imperial title and control over the Church would cause friction but who's to say that they would succeed? The eastern border is along the mountains and/or the Danube, the western border has the Mediterranean and the Rhone (and the Loire as M79 helpfully pointed out), and of course the Alps. Then again the mountains also work against an Italian-centered realm trying to control Bavaria and the like.

I think Aquitaine and Burgundy are the most likely to be contested between them, especially if the "Lotharingia" ends up there instead. These realms are closer to the Rhineland power base of the northern kingdom, much richer, and with deeper cultural and political ties.

The Northern realm could also try to subjugate Denmark and/or England, potentially. The former to fight the viking raids, the latter because it is close, relatively rich and divided.
 
Maybe use the Divisio Regnorum from 806. This is a division between the three sons of Charlemage, which lived at that point. You could also slightly modify it.
So either prevent the death of his sons Pippin and Charles/Karl, or kill Karl the Great shortly after this plan.
After that, you need to kill either Ludwig or Pippin or their successors without any heirs, and help the other southern kingdom to gain control of the heritage.

Here is a beautiful map including the Divisio Regnorum from 806 from Ian Mladjov (an historian with many beautiful historical maps on his website):
(Mladjov allows the use of his maps under the following circumstances: "Given proper attribution, these maps may be used freely for non-commercial educational purposes.")
francia814a.jpg

https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/imladjov/maps


Problems: Further partitions, if the three sons die with several male children. Here are some possibilities.
If Pippin has two heirs, we would see a further division between Italy and Bavaria.
If Pippin has three heirs, you need to give one son Bavaria, and the other two would rule over a divided Italy, which has some idea of unity (because of the former langobardic kingdom), which would lead to even more conflicts.
If Ludwig has two heirs, we would see a division between Aquitannia and Burgundy,
If Luwig has three heirs, we would see a division between Aquitannia, Burgundy and Septimania.
If Karl has two heirs, we could see a division between "Neustria" and an East Francia.
If Karl has three heirs we could either see a division between Neustria, (Large) Alemannia and East Francia, or between Neustria, Austrasia and (Large) Saxony/Thuringia
If Karl has four heirs, we could see a division between Neustria, Austrasia, Alemannia and (Large) Saxony/Thuringia
If a king dies without heirs, the neighboring kings would fight to gain control, which could either lead to the partition of the kingdom without clear succession, or one successful, powerful king.
(Conquest, marriage and so on could complicate this process)

The pope would crown the ruler of Italy as emperor. But in this scenario, the title of emperor wouldn't mean more power (but prestige) compared to the other kings.

If you want to prevent further partitions, kill the Karolingians as early as possible. If the elites of these kingdoms begin to elect new non-karolingian kings, a partition could become stable for the next centuries (as long as the resulting kingdom is large enough but not too large).

Now, look at the three kingdoms, and their possibilities.
The realm of Ludwig would probably focus on the Umayyads. This kingdom could conquer territories on the other side of the Pyrenees, and become a Mediterranean power (if capturing the Balearic Islands). The region of Arles or the region around Toulouse would make a great center of this kingdom. If Italy is weak, a king of the Realm of Ludwig could cross the Alps, to travel to Rome. I see possibilities for trading towns at the coast of the Mediterranean. If there is no personal union or control over Italy, this kingdom is not to large, so a strong king is possible.

The realm of Pippin would face the Eastern Roman Empire in the South. At the same time, this kingdom would give the king an easy possibility of becoming Emperor. But this title and territorial ambitions could lead to some conflicts with the Romans (Byzantines). Hungarians could invade (as in OTL). Also an islamic conquest of Sicily could threaten the kingdom.
If you want to control Bavaria, you need to travel through the Alps. Bavaria would probably develop strong autonomy.
In Italy the relationship between king/emperor and pope is essential. Several results are possible (king controls pope, and rules in Rom -> More imperial ambitions; king and pope coexist, king has his power base in Northern Italy, and the pope is in Rome; Pope is more important than the king, or helps usurpators/local elites etc. -> Pope rules Rom, unstable northern Italy).
Italy was in OTL during the late Karolingians really really unstable (but I currently don't know the exact reasons). But some expansion (for example Southern Italy or Dalmatia) seems possible.

The realm of Charles/Karl is the largest and probably the most difficult kingdom. Wikings could invade the coast. If a king failes to defend the realm from them (as in OTL Charles/Karl the fat), this would weaken his position. At the same time, hungarians could invade the eastern border of this kingdom. Conflicts with the Slaves would probably also occur. The king can't be at the same time at the Eastern border and at the Atlantic coast. The main power base would be at the old core lands of the Francs, but the king needs to travel far greater distances than in the other two kingdoms. Alemannia would be a region without many royal visits, therefore with large autonomy. Powerful counts could become dukes over large territories, defending them from invaders. This could reduce royal power. The kingdom is to big for further expansion. The result would be a Holy Roman Empire without the title of Emperor. But if several dukes declare themselves king, the whole thing would split into various smaller kingdoms.
 
This would depend very heavily on when precisely the split occurs. Anything much later than 840 and this won't work, because all three kings had their bases of power in the south.

My thought would be to instead go back to 768, and have Pippin III split the empire north-south. Then have Karloman not die in 771 and he doesn't get into a fight with his brother (if you remove the ridiculous shape of the kingdoms in 769 and replace them with something more reasonable, a fight could probably be avoided). Instead they work together, with Karloman taking Italy and Charlemagne taking Saxony and Bavaria. Avars would probably be a joint thing.

- BNC
 
Lothair I had three sons, Louis the German also had three sons and while Charles the Bald had only one son who survived him, that son had three sons of his own. Have all three divide their kingdoms into North, Central and South subkingdoms and subsequently have the three Norths, the three Centrals and the Souths combine via war, intermarriage or territorial exchanges.
 
Top