AHC: Unite HRE and ERE

Yes, that would be the key change necessary. By a mix of succession law changes and sons dying off, the biggest, OTL proto-national subdivisions of the empire ruled by the cadet members of the Imperial line stay feudal-ish Viceroyalty subunits of an undivided WRE, subordinate to the eldest son as the one Emperor, not de facto, soon de jure independent kingdoms, till the end of the 9th century, and the precedent gets entrenched. From that on, it becomes the usual centralization task of the Western monarchies. If Capetian France could do it, so can the Carolingian WRE that spawned it.

I suppose there's a few more factors that need to be overcome. I'd suggest you can "Byzantinise" the state (build it a bureaucracy and a tradition of centralisation) by having the "Western Emperor" marrying a couple of Byzantine princesses, like the Ottonians did. Maybe having stronger Magyars could act as some sort of incentive to "unify or die" for the proto-Western state, or maybe have the Arabs break out more strongly into France? A more traumatic than OTL fifty years around 900, with Arabs, Vikings, and Magyars pushing in from all sides could do a lot to help the state, in the long run.

The Papacy obviously needs to be thoroughly dominated, too, with the Church structures co-opted into the state as much, or maybe even further, than they were in the East.
 
Just a random thought about the Franks splitting up, and vaguely continuing Eurofed's ideas- how about having, for whatever reason, a single line of succession for another generation after 843, so that by, say, 870, it's sort of become a precedent for the Imperial title to only go to the eldest son, who has some sort of supremacy over his brothers. Brothers would still get to control territories and whatnot, but only as viceroys of the Emperor himself, who would, ideally, have a fully worked out capital at Milan or somewhere else in Northern Italy, and be running with the Ottonian ideal of importing Byzantine Imperial culture to western Europe.

Yes, that would be the key change necessary. By a mix of succession law changes and sons dying off, the biggest, OTL proto-national subdivisions of the empire ruled by the cadet members of the Imperial line stay feudal-ish Viceroyalty subunits of an undivided WRE, subordinate to the eldest son as the one Emperor, not de facto, soon de jure independent kingdoms, till the end of the 9th century, and the precedent gets entrenched. From that on, it becomes the usual centralization task of the Western monarchies. If Capetian France could do it, so can the Carolingian WRE that spawned it.

I suppose there's a few more factors that need to be overcome. I'd suggest you can "Byzantinise" the state (build it a bureaucracy and a tradition of centralisation) by having the "Western Emperor" marrying a couple of Byzantine princesses, like the Ottonians did. Maybe having stronger Magyars could act as some sort of incentive to "unify or die" for the proto-Western state, or maybe have the Arabs break out more strongly into France? A more traumatic than OTL fifty years around 900, with Arabs, Vikings, and Magyars pushing in from all sides could do a lot to help the state, in the long run.

The Papacy obviously needs to be thoroughly dominated, too, with the Church structures co-opted into the state as much, or maybe even further, than they were in the East.

Right, now this all seems quite doable and, UIMS, potentially within the OP -- a short way of saying it might be the HRE spends the 9th Century consolidating itself into a coherent empire primarily through entrenching primogeniture succession; then, they spend the 10th Century building up what administration they can (including keeping the Popes under control), while simultaneously strengthening ties with the Byzantines through (among other things) marriage.

Under this scenario, I can see the HR crown prince marrying a sister to the Byzantine in line for succession, then events leading the son of said sister to fall to gain the title of both Holy Roman Emperor and Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire sometime in the 990's (or earlier even). Then again, I could well be missing something again... :eek:
 
Right, now this all seems quite doable and, UIMS, potentially within the OP -- a short way of saying it might be the HRE spends the 9th Century consolidating itself into a coherent empire primarily through entrenching primogeniture succession
The emperor would have to deal with even more important revolts than OTL. The only way to prevent that, would be to have one heir (and no bastard sons) up to the X century. And that's unlikely.

then, they spend the 10th Century building up what administration they can (including keeping the Popes under control), while simultaneously strengthening ties with the Byzantines through (among other things) marriage.
Why the Byzantines would do that? Both culturally and economically it have really little sense : the Byzantines emperors actually preferred to marry their daughters and sisters to lower ranked guys of the Empire rather than foreigners.

And, even if I repeat myself, we have evidence of the few, really few ties with Byzantium from Carolingia. So...WHY?

Also...How do you propose the Empire to consolidate itself against Vikings, Magyars, Saracens and other raids?
 
Last edited:
Why the Byzantines would do that? Both culturally and economically it have really little sense : the Byzantines emperors actually preferred to marry their daughters and sisters to lower ranked guys of the Empire rather than foreigners.

It happened often enough in the OTL tenth century- even if the princesses sent to the Ottonians weren't Porphyrogenite, they still sent quite a bit of Byzantine influence to the Ottonian court. And, I don't think it's particularly implausible to see a strong-ish WRE being able to intervene in a Byzantine civil war, and getting a princess for its troubles, as happened IOTL with the pagan 'Rus. Or, perhaps, the Carolingians could agree to provide troops for Byzantine campaigns in Sicily or the Balkans?

There are plenty of ways to get Byzantine princesses heading West. What I do think is stretching possibility is the idea of a union of the crowns, even a brief one. Byzantium isn't an hereditary monarchy, as Elfwine correctly reminded us, much as it may appear to be one, and so, there's no such thing as a "last legitimate heir" there to bring things together.
 
And, even if I repeat myself, we have evidence of the few, really few ties with Byzantium from Carolingia. So...WHY?

Also...How do you propose the Empire to consolidate itself against Vikings, Magyars, Saracens and other raids?

Hey, they went with attempts at tying their realms together before -- the Ottonian bond has been mentioned, and there were talks of binding the houses going back to Charlemange and Irene of Athens. Now accomplishing such a tight bonding is another matter, yes -- I don't need to be reminded of Irene's fate here by anyone -- but there were attempts in OTL...
 
It happened often enough in the OTL tenth century- even if the princesses sent to the Ottonians weren't Porphyrogenite, they still sent quite a bit of Byzantine influence to the Ottonian court.
I'm encline to think a lasting Carolingian Empire (even if really unlikely) would butterfly the possibility of matrimonial alliances. It would mean a powerful western empire threatening the claims and interests of ERE.

nd, I don't think it's particularly implausible to see a strong-ish WRE being able to intervene in a Byzantine civil war, and getting a princess for its troubles, as happened IOTL with the pagan 'Rus.

Or, perhaps, the Carolingians could agree to provide troops for Byzantine campaigns in Sicily or the Balkans?
How? Let's alone the problem on how these armies would have moved (by sea without fleet is unlikely, with Saracenic piracy and at least one byzantine side ready to crush them, and land way would be really hard to use), Carolingian had already big troubles to move their armies quickly EVEN in their core regions. If the big army of Charlemagne was surpassed by Viking raids, I don't want to imagine what would have happen with a Byzantine civil war.
 
Hey, they went with attempts at tying their realms together before -- the Ottonian bond has been mentioned,
Otton =/= Carolingia.

He was less powerful, had to deal with inner problems and didn't could have represented a threat to Byzantine Empire. It's like saying that, as FRG was in NATO, Nazi Germany could have became an ally of USA, it's just so out of context that is not making sense.

and there were talks of binding the houses going back to Charlemange and Irene of Athens.
And that was so popular that Irene had to shut up, while Charlemagne didn't even reacted. Irene basically launched that because she didn't had another choice than sell herself to someone, and as she was burnt with every Byzantine leader...

Now accomplishing such a tight bonding is another matter, yes -- I don't need to be reminded of Irene's fate here by anyone -- but there were attempts in OTL...
It's an attempt yes. Like the proposition of Gadhaffi to unite Libya and Tunisia. This is not to be seen as a serious attempt.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The emperor would have to deal with even more important revolts than OTL. The only way to prevent that, would be to have one heir (and no bastard sons) up to the X century. And that's unlikely.

It basically would take it happening for three generations in a row, four at most, and the succession law being timely changed. Far from impossible, given period mortality. Bastard sons don't matter overmuch, their inheritance rights are controversial at best. In a century, precedents get entrenched.
 
It basically would take it happening for three generations, and the succession law being timely changed. Far from impossible, given period mortality. Bastard sons doesn't matter overmuch, their inheritance rights are controversial at best. In a century, precedents get entrenched.

1)For bastard sons, the principe of inheritence wasn't develloped. From Charles Martel to William the Conqueror, you have plenty exemples. And it never prevented Pippin the Hunchback to revolt against his father.

2)And, even with the mortality, Louis managed to have 4 surviving sons + 1 bastard. I'm not counting the daughter. So, showing "just one surviving son", hoping for the sons that died eventually to not revolt themselves during their father's reign, is statistically unlikely.
 
I'm encline to think a lasting Carolingian Empire (even if really unlikely) would butterfly the possibility of matrimonial alliances. It would mean a powerful western empire threatening the claims and interests of ERE.

That's a good point- though the Ottonians claimed that title too, and didn't especially put off the Byzantines. Yes, you're obviously correct that the Carolingians are not the Ottonians, and their dynasties differ in important particulars, but I use the Ottonian example to show that it is, at the very least, possible for a western European, Frankish, state to attempt to centralise itself by dominating the Papacy and establishing a good working relationship with Constantinople.
 
but I use the Ottonian example to show that it is, at the very least, possible for a western European, Frankish, state to attempt to centralise itself by dominating the Papacy and establishing a good working relationship with Constantinople.

Yes, it's possible. All depending the political and economic context. For using the Ottonian exemple, during this era, you had trade ties that were living back for the first time since the 650-700 between western and eastern Europe. But before that, it's almost nothing except in some places like Torcello.

Again, I fail to see why such a matrimonial union would happen.
 
That's a good point- though the Ottonians claimed that title too, and didn't especially put off the Byzantines. Yes, you're obviously correct that the Carolingians are not the Ottonians, and their dynasties differ in important particulars, but I use the Ottonian example to show that it is, at the very least, possible for a western European, Frankish, state to attempt to centralise itself by dominating the Papacy and establishing a good working relationship with Constantinople.

The main thing seems be that a reincarnate WRE of the sort Eurofed dreams fondly of is going to have interests in southern Italy. Which clash with Byzantine interests.

If nowhere else. Heck, even the OTL HRE sees this as an issue, only mitigated briefly by common enemies there.

I think if Aachen (since that's where Charlemagne's capital was, I'm going to use it as the term for the Western capital for simplicity's sake) really and truly wants to be on good terms with Constantinople, it's not outright impossible - but it would take a lot of deliberate effort on both sides.

And this is assuming the area of Europe between the Rus and the Western Empire isn't a problem.

I think you can have a temporary alliance fairly easily. Perpetual friendship, even by the standards of the day, no.
 
What about a different track then -- is it possible, sometime in the 10th Century, that one Roman Empire may seek to outright conquer the other?

Seek? Maybe, why not?

Able to? No. Not even a chance.

The Byzantines would be too busy with Slavs, Cumans, Arab, and so on to think about attacking the west.

The western Emperor would be too busy with his own lieges to go in expedition without having the nobles searching for more power.

Byzantium and Latin world had to face too many problems, both inner and external to really make that.
 
Top