AHC & WI: Charlemagne's empire consolidates into a single lasting state

I serously doubt any agreement could lead to an united Carolingian Empire.
Church, or even Carolingians didn't stopped themselves to make agreements, plans, etc. Reality backfired.

You had too many local issues with ambitious nobles (The Kingdom of Pampelune was only the first to revolt against Carolingians) from peripheric provinces (critically Gothia, Aquitaine, Italy, Bavaria).

Even if you manage to have again a generation with only ONE male (whatever bastard or not), you only delay the unavoidable. And you'll have likely rebellion during his reign. Without counting the ambition of his relatives, allied if not part of these ambitious frankish families. Or even not frankish.
Wait a second, in other discussion about France you've said that (ed.) Balkanized France often doesn't work because even when various lords wanted more power they never considered independence. Especially regarding the extent of 11th century Capetian power. When and why did that change?
 
Last edited:
-Considering the dynasty: you'd need a stable, long-living dynasty. Thus, the old Emperor must live to ensure succession - no dying allowed while his son is still a child. On the other hand, he needs enough children to secure the dynasty - that implies competition and possibly partition of the lands. It's difficult to get that out as it was culturally inclined.

In fact you need the Capets, or something like them.

They did very well on this score, with an unbroken run of father-son successions from 987 until 1316. Did any German dynasty come anywhere near that?
 
Wait a second, in other discussion about France you've said that (ed.) Balkanized France often doesn't work because even when various lords wanted more power they never considered independence. Especially regarding the extent of 11th century Capetian power. When and why did that change?

Because I talked about feudal France. Not pre-feudal Merovingian or Carolingian Kingdoms.

The figure of the king as catalyser and guarant of social stability appeared after Charlemagne (and critically in the revival of Carolingian legacy in the last part of X century)

Before that, the figure of the king is more the one of a "national" leader and guarant of the repartition of the wealth amassed in war.


They did very well on this score, with an unbroken run of father-son successions from 987 until 1316. Did any German dynasty come anywhere near that?

The main issue with the use of 987 as a starting date of 987 for Capetian dynasty, is that it conveniently put away the Robertian history (Robertian is the REAL name of Capetians, whom surname came from the cape of St-Martin they were benefactors) which was as every other powerful family : great noble family with some ties to the throne trying or to puppetise it (with more sucess than others) or to take it for themselves.

You can trace the Robertians at least up to 850's, if not more.

What challenged the Germans were, is that while many nobles of the western kingdom didn't gave a fuck about the king (mainly southern ones) because he had excellent but few territories; the german king (then the emperor) had actually more power and that was more challenging for them.

But the Ottonians could have the possibility to create such stable dynasty in my opinion. But NOT inheriting Italy would help as it would be far too diverting : every great emperor had troubles with stabilizing his reign because he had to do such on two fronts and make concessions with one to deal with the second.
 
Why was Venice crucial?

It wasn't. I suppose he meant Torcello.

Torcello was a really interesting harbour (probably because really protected against Islamic piracy), not crucial, but an interesting prey.

The issue there is that it dependend from Byzantine fleet : both for protection and for trade. Capturing the city would really piss the Greeks and the decline is assured (Charlemagne gave up the city for that among other reasons).
 
I thought about like TL.
I'm not good in the period, but, maybe, will be interesting:

817 - Louis the Pious was hardly wounded in result of crashing a building (in OTL he was wounded too, but was only bruised).
Louis issued an Ordinatio Imperii, Bernard of Italy rebelled, but he is defeated and blinded, and he died (OTL).
Wounded Louis died a month later after Bernard.
Lothair became emperor, and his brothers rebels against him - because they had "too small" land by Ordinatio Imperii, and some of dukes supported them.
After hard civil war, Lothair defeated both brothers and killed them (or closed to monastery). During the war, many dukes and other landowners died, and vikings begun his raids. Lothair can protect Empire from vikings and return all lands, which are lost during war. Ordinatio Imperii became main rule of inheritance.
After 40 years of ruling, Lothair died in 855.
Loius II became an emperor. He inherited lands of Charles, when Charles died in 863 without sons, and lands of Lothair II, when Lothair died in 869. The only son of all three brothers - Hugh of Lothair - became hair of the Loius II, when Loius died in 875.
In OTL Hugh was illegitimate son, but in this timeline Pope can recognize marriage of his father (or this marriage may be quite different), and Lothair can live longer and inherit Empire of brother in 875.
 
How Henry son of William of Normandy became King of England comes to mind.

Whether that was a hunting accident or a "hunting accident", those things do happen.
And wasn't it fortunate for Henry that he just happened to be in the same city as the royal treasury when that news broke... ;)
 
I thought about like TL.
I'm not good in the period, but, maybe, will be interesting:
Sorry to be here again, but I see some serious difficulties.

After hard civil war, Lothair defeated both brothers and killed them (or closed to monastery).
Killing them is highly implausible, except if Lothair want to alienate himself the nobles that supported his brothers, and if he want to have a bit of legitimacy for the Church that would really frown upon this.

For monasteries, it was done OTL, especially for the kings of Aquitaine (Pépin II). It never prevented them to rebel or to join rebellions.


During the war, many dukes and other landowners died, and vikings begun his raids.

Define "many". If it's only a minority, nothing change. If it's the majority, it's not only unlikely, but would make the Empire even less managable.

Lothair can protect Empire from vikings and return all lands, which are lost during war. Ordinatio Imperii became main rule of inheritance.

How? Carolingian fleet was conspicuous by his absence, and Carolingian army wasn't adapted to counter "raid and run" vikings.

Admittedly, Lothair COULD have reinforced the coastal fortifications in Frisia, but it would have been only a defensive reaction.

The Vikings have just to do it as OTL : using coastal islands to refugee themselves and wait the carolingian army to split up when winter is coming.

The better way to stop significantly Vikings raids is to attack the north. And I'm not sure Lothaire could afford himself to do that.

Loius II became an emperor. He inherited lands of Charles, when Charles died in 863 without sons, and lands of Lothair II, when Lothair died in 869. The only son of all three brothers - Hugh of Lothair - became hair of the Loius II, when Loius died in 875.

I don't understand why the sons of Lothair don't go rebellious ITTL. Nothing changed institutionally, only more tensions accumulated if admitting Lothair managed to have the upper hand.

Furthermore, what about the other sons part when they weren't emperors? Did they recieved a kingdom as their uncles and grand-uncles?
 
As I said, I am not very good in the period, and, probably, mistook with emperors and events.
Killing them is highly implausible...
For monasteries... It never prevented them to rebel or to join rebellions.
But Pippin the Hunchback can not rebel from monastery?
Then he must blind them. Is it also implausible?
Define "many". If it's only a minority, nothing change. If it's the majority, it's not only unlikely, but would make the Empire even less managable.
Majority of nobles, who wanted to rebel, if it's possible. And new dukes and nobles gave lands of killed.
By the coastal fortifications and creating of fleet, I thought. Maybe, he didn't protect completely, but successful fought with Normans.
I don't understand why the sons of Lothair don't go rebellious ITTL.
If sons are like OTL, then Charles was ill, and Lothair II did not fight with brother, as far as I know.
Furthermore, what about the other sons part when they weren't emperors? Did they recieved a kingdom as their uncles and grand-uncles?
If Pepin and Louis the German were defeated soon after 817, they both have not children. From three sons of Louis II, only Lothair had a son.
So, only Pepin, the son of Bernard can receive any lands, but he and in OTL had no any kingdom.

But I'm not sure, that it is possible at all.
 
But Pippin the Hunchback can not rebel from monastery?
Then he must blind them. Is it also implausible?
Not implausible, but unproductive. Remember that Louis had to publicly regret having did this with Bernart of Italy.

And Pippin lost support because you had other candidate, more legitims. Not because he was in a monastery.

Majority of nobles, who wanted to rebel, if it's possible. And new dukes and nobles gave lands of killed.
You crushed the empire. You simply didn't have enough nobles to replace A MAJORITY of nobles in place.

At best, you'll have both that
-Non chased (without demesne) nobles that know NOTHING of the land are catapulted for ruling them.
-More probably, these lands would be given to neighbouring nobles that would increase significantly their force and would get even more autonomy.

And I don't think you understand how pre-feudal vassality work :
Nobles didn't owned the land, sure, but feel they had a legitimacy to claim the sucession for their sons and parents. It was really an accepted tradition (even if not a legal obligation) EVEN among the high clergy that was usually really hostile to "tradition above right".

Giving a land to a noble that is not, from far or close, tied to it is only increasing the risk of local rebellion (as the one of the son of Bernard of Septimania) from local nobles with subsequent loss of control.

Also, killing the majority of nobles can be translated as : killing more than 1/2 of the military potential. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make the defense against Vikings more easy :p

By the coastal fortifications and creating of fleet, I thought. Maybe, he didn't protect completely, but successful fought with Normans.
Creating a fleet from where? The naval tradition of Carolingians is particularly tiny. And coastal fortifications showed they were not an ideal defense.

Admittedly, the emperor would have reinforced existing fortifications or even build another. But what is important is to maintain them and the emperor can't do that on all the coast. He simply lack the power of force all his vassals to do such.

Charles the Bald's efforts are probably the best known, and one of the kings that had the most sucessful results. But it depended a LOT of the split of territory and management of this one in a smaller scale.

The king is indeed the only one able (and doing it rightfully) to use the army. The issue is that you have to wait some times before having a gathered army, while the Vikings are still running the coast.

And Lothair, even with all the good will of the world, couldn't be everywhere against Vikings and Saracenic piracy. EventUally you'll have a split of competences beteen his sons that would be only under the form of kingdoms.

The Carolingian chroniles point regularly the incapacity of locals (armed or not) to resist Vikings raids. Even if it was exagerrated in order to give the clergy the better role (and don't get me wrong, he had an important role), and we have nothing that can proove us the contrary.

And "sucessfully fought" Normans is...Well, easy to say. During 20 years, the Normans were undefeated, and after that they were mainly victor on the battlefield. So, HOW the Carolingian army fought them, what changes there to justify it?

Because how I see it, even if Lothair is the only one emperor, the western nobility would be even more quick to use Normans as a pretext, or even as allies to have an autonomy.
If sons are like OTL, then Charles was ill, and Lothair II did not fight with brother, as far as I know.
You probably butterflied that, as the situation really change. So, or they would have kingdoms and you'll have a risk of local or claim of more revolt, or you don't give them anything and they risk to be bitter to be relegated as vassals without demesne that was the lower rank of nobility.

So, only Pepin, the son of Bernard can receive any lands, but he and in OTL had no any kingdom.
OTL yes. You changed many things, and the Lombard nobility (the most distinct nobility of the Empire) would probably help him to claim the title of his father, as Pépin II did in Aquitaine.

But I'm not sure, that it is possible at all.
Really honestly, I don't think so. At this point, you can indeed delay the tensions or the issues of Carolingia, but not deleting it.

Carolingians tried to search a juridic and legal solution with Ordinatoo Imperii, with positive vassalage (instead of negative vassalage "I won't do this against my suzerain", but "I will do this for my suzerain"), etc.

Finally it didn't save the Empire.
 
Frankish family weren't really close.

Depend of what you meant by that.

If they were prone to fight themselves? Yes. But it was considered as "familial matter", even for Carolingians.

Did you had a familial identity that took over the "ethnic" one? Yes. Still today, we can trace many great nobles family up to Carolingian Era.
 
And wasn't it fortunate for Henry that he just happened to be in the same city as the royal treasury when that news broke... ;)

Something far too easy to have happen in these days - even if Henry was innocent (You may roll your eyes now, I know I am).

In general:
Plain and simple, Charlemagne's empire is a perfect example of the "state? This is not the word you should be using for pre-XVI kingdoms." (to channel LS) situation.

Charlemagne could make it work. For a given definition of work.

LS has explained far better than I could why his successors couldn't.

I think the closest thing you could get to this working is something where both major parts (the German and French parts, with Italy being tied to Germany maybe) can consolidate, and maybe there's a personal union down the road after that. Otherwise, rebuilding Charlemagne's empire is a nice fantasy and an impossible accomplishment.
 
Top