Brainstorm: No Charlamagne

Working on a timeline after lurking arond here for along time, and interested in some input.

Without giving the POD away, what do you suppose the far-reaching effects of the kingdom of Francia never being fully established, and Charlamagne's line failing early? Specifically a -much- weaker Roman Catholic church, and none of the attempts at centralizing effects of the legitimacy the Pope's support lent Francia present.

Basically, we're talking a drastically different Europe from Iberia to the Rhine.

Just off-hand, we have:
-Obviously, a much weaker role for the Catholic church in general, but especially in the traditionally -very- Catholic frankish kingdoms, and more perhaps more interestingly, England. Which leads me to...

-A Saxon-dominated England. A Norman invasion is a hard thing to come up with when there is no Normandy.

-Also, likely no Holy Roman Empire (certainly not as we know it), and perhaps even an Orthodox Germanic populace. Do you suppose this would hasten or delay the unification of Germany, in the long run?


That's about all I can come up with while not giving away the POD too much (thought I'm sure there's a few good guesses already...). If you wish to discuss it more extensively, feel free to shoot me a PM, and I'll spoil it for you, just interested in anything I may have overlooked, for now.
 
A weaker church is not a given, but very likely a weaker, even unrecognisably different, papacy. Something like a Latin Orthodox Church under the Patriarch of Rome, exotic and with delusions of grandeur, to be sure, but not substantially different from the other ones, maybe.

England, in fact, was the most Catholic (i.e. pro-papacy) of places at that time. The idea of a strong papacy was owed to a great part to Anglo-Saxon influences. Most continental churches were perfectly happy to mind their own business with a minimum of interference.

Italy might stay Lombard, with interesting political consequences if the dynastic ties across the Alps hold. Absent a strong Frankish state (and I'm not sure that is automatic if there is no Charlemagne), the continental mission needs new patrons. The Agilolfing dukes are well placed for that.

New Christian 'frontline' states. With no imperial power and resources, Aquitaine, Gascony and Benevento will be more isolated, but also more invested in their anti-Muslim identity-building exercise. Would it be a stretch to imagine the former clientised by the Abbasids?

More prestige to the Roman Emperor, though he will still be distant and alien.

And not least, no blessing from highest places for the idea of conversion by the sword. Interesting consequences downtime for that one.
 
Scandinavia, North Germany and mid-eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary and the like) is much more likely to either stay pagan, or convert to (OTL) Orthodox faith through difusion among the trade routes on the Rus' rivers, Danube, and Baltic sea ... Due to the fact that it was Charlamagne's Empire that institutionized papal missionaries speading far and wide
 
There is no "Catholic Church" as distinct from "Orthodox" at this time.

And there's no reason to assume a weaker papacy either. Actually, you could argue the opposite. The Papacy was a political tool wielded by the secular countries as much as it was something that stood on its own over all the faithful. Without the Franks to influence the Papacy, you could just as easily have a papacy with more clear religious control that's seen as above such secular matters as who's reigning in the west or not. With this, it could end up growing into a true continental force of its own. Or not.

There's just no reason to say it'd be weaker though.
 
Probably would never see a "Catholic" church because wasnt the major reason for the split the crowning of charlemagne in the first place?
 
And there's no reason to assume a weaker papacy either.
Although if there being no Charlemagne means that there's no Frankish overthrow of the Lombards then the Pope has those Arian Christian neighbours -- and potentially overlords -- with whom to cope...
 
Without giving the POD away, what do you suppose the far-reaching effects of the kingdom of Francia never being fully established
Kingdom of the Franks was a fully established thing since Merovingians; even the regular dynastical divisions were seen as something more akin to WRE/ERE division that the establishment of different kingdoms.

That said, it could have evolved to this, but since Pepin II of Heristal, Peppinids (another name for early Carolingians) effectivly took over Austrasia then Neustria.
After a relativly short civil war, Charles Martel (son of Pepin) not only controlled that and takeover Alemania and Bavaria (that were under Frankish domination, but with independent velleities) but thanks to the opportunity that offered Islamic invasion, put under frankish control Aquitaine (that was an effectivly independent principality) and conquered Burgundy up to Mediterranea.

After that, Pepin III (the father of Charlemagne) had only to affirm control of peripherical aeras (after getting rid of his brother) and was able to intervene in Italy : he's the one that forged alliance with papacy and Franks, and not his son.

At the death of Pepin III, the kingdom of the Franks as the major power of western Europe was clearly established already.

and Charlamagne's line failing early?
That's unlikely : I could see Charles dying of course, and why not his brother as well. But Peppinid line was quite huge even at this time ; depending on the date, some relatives could claim the kingship (don't forget that, thanks to pontifical blessing of the whole line, it would be important).

- Hieronymus, son of Charles Martel, member of royal circles and overall an important person.
- Drogo, son of Carloman
- Thierry of Autun, important noble and tied with Peppinid dynasty.

etc.

Safe a catastrophic event, I don't see the entiere line disappearing.

Specifically a -much- weaker Roman Catholic church, and none of the attempts at centralizing effects of the legitimacy the Pope's support lent Francia present.
No Charlemagne doesn't really change that actually : alliance between Papacy and Franks was established by his father (and it wasn't the first time Papacy tried to have strong relations with western princes rather than Byzantium : blessing of Odo of Aquitaine's army, favoured relationship with Charles of Heristal, etc.)

Finally, a Pope without Carolingian political pressure (Charlemagne had a very precise idea of Frankish/Papacy relations : the king/emperor is the leader of Christians, the pope pray for him), Roman papacy could actually know more autonomy, and more easily make his way to actual domination domination (before the VIIIth century, each king was the effective ruler of his church, regional councils mixing religious and political matters).

It won't benefit from Carolingian legacy of spiritual overlordship, and it would take some time, but again the structures are there.

Basically, we're talking a drastically different Europe from Iberia to the Rhine.
Not really : Charles Martel and Pepin already dealt with southern Gaul, the last intervened in Italy already, made a point in Alemania and Bavaria, and a campaign against Saxons was already a matter of time.

You would have difference, granted. But Charlemagne conquests were made on a already built structure, and anyone replacing him would, depsite possible different choices, follow a similar path.
 
Although if there being no Charlemagne means that there's no Frankish overthrow of the Lombards then the Pope has those Arian Christian neighbours -- and potentially overlords -- with whom to cope...

Actually the Franks were already the protectors of the Papacy in the West. Furthermore the 'special relationship' between the Carolingians (AKA Pippinids) already existed during the reign of king Pippin the Short (AKA the younger), the father of Charlemagne.

Also by the time Pippin the Short and later Charlemagne got involved into Lombard affairs, the majority of the Lombard had converted from Arianism to Catholicism.
 
Scandinavia, North Germany and mid-eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary and the like) is much more likely to either stay pagan, or convert to (OTL) Orthodox faith through difusion among the trade routes on the Rus' rivers, Danube, and Baltic sea ...
Rus' trade roads and Baltic trade roads are the same thing, for Byzantium that is.
And for trade roads along Danube...They existed, but were really secondary compared to later Rus' or Rhone/Germany ones.

Eventually, Frankish pressure on Germany was going, sooner or later, to lead to campaigns against Saxons (continual raids from each side helped that), leading to alliance with Wendes.

The things that could have more easily changed would be campaigns against Avars (They would still represent an hell of a target, being sit on a load of gold, and being a hugely declining entity), how the actual conquest of Saxons is made, and how they deal with Danes.

At this point, it could either go as OTL, less well than OTL (an harsher conquest), or better than OTL (Jutland being under Frankish overlordship) for Peppinids : all depends on who take the lead. But in any case, he would be backed by a strong and relativly unified wealthy kingdom.

Putting it simply : to crush Frankish dominance of western Europe you need an earlier PoD. The most effective would be butterflying away Peppin II overlordship in the 670's. Of course, butterflyies would be huge.

Due to the fact that it was Charlamagne's Empire that institutionized papal missionaries speading far and wide
I disagree, missionaries in Germany were a thing since at least Pepin II.

St Boniface life is really interesting on this regard, especially in his relation with Frankish rulers.

Although if there being no Charlemagne means that there's no Frankish overthrow of the Lombards then the Pope has those Arian Christian neighbours -- and potentially overlords -- with whom to cope...

Lombards were converted since 601, more than once century and half before Charlemagne. The pope would only have to cope with Catholic Lombards meddling with his local domination...Well, since they had already an alliance with Franks at this point, Lombards would be still likely screwed.
 
Top