Can Francia stay united?

Or just have Ludwig the German have his sons loyal to him. He nearly took Lothringia, Barvaria, and Italy from his siblings and their vassals wouldn't raise a sword against him, forcing them to rely on their persona levy.
 
The only situation after Clovis that doesn't require an insane amount of luck is having Pippin III declare only himself and Karl (future Charlemagne) kings, while ignoring his other son Karloman, in 751, as part of that letter to the pope that got him the crown in the first place. Anyone before or after, and they have to negotiate the fact that partition inheritance is a centuries-old custom going back to the founding of the kingdom. Pippin had a bit of leeway, being both a usurper and a famous military commander. Plus, you know, the pope has agreed to it.

- BNC
 
@BiteNibbleChomp has a good idea.

Also, you could have a generation or two where the empire was split among sons and each time one part conquers the other(s). Get the tradition going that splitting is just a waste of time, money and blood, 'cause it's going to be reunified anyway.
 
BiteNibbleChomp has a good idea.
Thanks!

Also, you could have a generation or two where the empire was split among sons and each time one part conquers the other(s). Get the tradition going that splitting is just a waste of time, money and blood, 'cause it's going to be reunified anyway.
The only issue I see here is the fact that it got divided and reunited several times during the Merovingian period, and also during the reign of Charles the Fat. None of those cases came close to breaking the tradition, mostly because it was a tradition and going against it would be going against centuries of history. The only reason I think Pippin would be able to get away with it is because the combination of his being of a new dynasty, everything his father did, and the Pope, is probably enough to overturn this. No Merovingian King was able to come close to this, nor would Charlemagne (because his father has already confirmed the Karlings will obey the old customs)

- BNC
 
Is there any possible way to keep the Frankish Empire united?
Probably not, safe successive stroke of lucks in succession, with only one surviving son at the inheritence, and even that wouldn't help.
Remember, indeed, that Bernard of Italy, illegitimate son of Charlemagne, did recieved Italy as a vice-royalty of sort, and that Louis had to cripple him (and unwillingly kill him) to resolve the situation.

See, the empire as such, wasn't supposed to remain in one piece, even after Charlemagne whom imperial title wasn't supposed to survive him : the Ordinatio Imperi (more or less the succession plan) of 806, clearly splits Francia into three parts : an enlarged Aquitaine (with some carolingian palaces), an enlarged Italy (with Pannonia) and Francia. The untimely death of Charlemagne's sons did prevented it to happen, but the division of the empire was clearly expected by by both carolingians and their nobility.
It wasn't as much a matter of whim, but a political institution coming from early Francia (itself borrowed heavily from Late Roman Empire divisions) that the imperium had to be shared to allow a better overall management (you'd notice that regardless OI of Charlemagne or OI of Louis, the split kingdoms are always periphericals), each one forming a "front" of sort with enough ressources to be autonomous.

This particular idea is deeply rooted into the political conception of Frankish nobility, and you'll not get rid of it. They abided by it even more as carolingian feudality allowed potentes to rise more autonomously from the dynastic overlordship. It doesn't help that the halt on conquests and raids from one hand, and the economical crisis of the middle IXth, from another hand, did weakened the redistributive ability of carolingian dynasts; enough for that potentes formed relatively tight networks around claimants.

Now, you could argue that, contrary to Charlemagne's OI, Louis' plans more or less dependent on his sons to acknowledge Lothar's supremacy. But while they didn't really disputed Lothat's imperial title, they did disputed this imperial conception (at the possible exception of Pepin of Aquitaine) as harming their interests : Louis basically passed his life making several Ordinatio Imperii, all less relevant than the previous one.
It's really telling that he had no basic support, when his own nobility refused to fight for him.

You could envision, with enough support for Louis and Lothar (possibly a more successful Pepin II of Aquitaine), a surviving dynastical,system in Francia, where a meta-political ensemble ruled by Carolingians or half-Carolingian (as for Wessex) having some conciliar aspects.

But keeping it unified is extremely unlikely, because it would go against institutional, political and social-cultural principles and realities of the time.
 
Or just have Ludwig the German have his sons loyal to him. He nearly took Lothringia, Barvaria, and Italy from his siblings and their vassals wouldn't raise a sword against him, forcing them to rely on their persona levy.
We have the same problem that with "just have Louis's sons being loyal to him". It's handwaving why his sons could afford to not be loyal, or which social-political forces and networks supported them and would support dissenssion.
Now, Carloman and Louis the Younger were less disruptive for Louis the German than himself was to his father as they "merely" wanted to obtain more adjacent territories.
I'd add that the valse of kingdoms and titles that switched hands from one another Carolingians is less a mark of military superiority of Louis's sons, than an usual feature of late Carolingian structures : no Carolingian nobility (would it be Carlenses or not) was going to kill itself for the good of their king, this was already pretty clear from Louis' sons rebellion.

The only situation after Clovis that doesn't require an insane amount of luck is having Pippin III declare only himself and Karl (future Charlemagne) kings, while ignoring his other son Karloman, in 751, as part of that letter to the pope that got him the crown in the first place.
This wouldn't really be faisible, ekcept an earlier death for Karloman : as pointed above, the settlement of frankish polities inkluded a certain ammount of share of royal titles.
This was expekted from royal sons, but as well by the aristokracy, and the overall nobility.

Not that partition wasn't subjekt to negociations, as you said : the raison d'être of Ordinatio Imperii by Karolingians was to settle disputes. You'd notice that regular splits never really followed the same lines of the previous splits, and the matter was less to respekt the outline of traditional regions than to give koherent territories to various heirs, namely inkluding enough ressources, palaces, and a front to keep.

Also, you could have a generation or two where the empire was split among sons and each time one part conquers the other(s). Get the tradition going that splitting is just a waste of time, money and blood, 'cause it's going to be reunified anyway.
Thing is, it's what happened in Late Carolingian period : you had regular takeovers, imperial claims, imperial proclamations, etc. Never, at any point, it ended by the idea that "well, why do we keep trying to get Italy/Lotharingia/Burgundy back? It's a waste of time".
The Carolingian kingship was at this point, fueled by the imperial idea (or rather, what remained of it) and the drive to hegemony. It's really with the establishment of "national" dynasties as Ottonians and Robertians, that you see the various kingdoms issued from Carolingia really stabilizing.

And, eventually, you'd see the very same issue that forced a settlement of Louis' sons rebellion : the growingly independent Carolingian nobility didn't want to kill itself for the benefit of Carolingian claimants : either by abandoning Louis in the battle of the Fields of Lies, either by forcing a clear division in 842, either by deciding to no support military their king; you won't have them joining and endless effort at each succession to gather something that wasn't supposed to be unified in the first place.
 
This wouldn't really be faisible, ekcept an earlier death for Karloman : as pointed above, the settlement of frankish polities inkluded a certain ammount of share of royal titles.
When the letter was done, Karloman wasn't born yet (he was born c. 3 months later). Pippin can simply say 'screw him' when he does come along, and as he already has the letter that says "Pippin and Karl shall be kings", he can point out that Karloman won't be a king. Since it has the Pope's agreement, any nobles that do challenge it risk challenging the word of God (or at least the people of the time would see it that way).

(Also, why does that post have so many spelling errors? Every 5th word it seems has a k instead of c)

- BNC
 
When the letter was done, Karloman wasn't born yet (he was born c. 3 months later). Pippin can simply say 'screw him' when he does come along, and as he already has the letter that says "Pippin and Karl shall be kings", he can point out that Karloman won't be a king. Since it has the Pope's agreement, any nobles that do challenge it risk challenging the word of God (or at least the people of the time would see it that way).

(A detail, but I can't find the exact formula "Pepin and Charles shall be kings" or something close enough. It's not on the Fredegar or the Annales, but it does rings a bell : what is the source already?)

I'm afraid that would be more litteralist nit-picking, without any semblance of plausibility for what would matter Frankish nobility or even Peppinids.
It's clear from contemporary uses, that it's less the persons of Peppin or Charles that are being crowned, but the whole dynasty (as it would be formally done with the blessing of Stephen II at Saint-Denis. You'd notice that, in several chronicles, the stress is put on how what was a stake was the replacement of one family by another (it's litterally the case with the pseudo-Fredegar, with relevant passages being written in the VIIIth century, which associate the queen, and implicitly future offsprings, to the throne)

It's really not uncommon in the Frankish conceptions to share the kingship with late born sons : not having such thing to happen, at the contrary, was bound to provoke several issues (Charles' own rebellion in 710's; and of course the consequences of Charles the Bald's addition to the Ordinato Imperii)? Not to say that Charles was especially thrilled to share the regnum's kingship with his brother (he was not) but that's for reasons other than "you weren't in the pontifical message, so it doesn't really count".

As for the pope, if he really wants to hold on a matter of detail like this, it should be remembered that it did allowed Peppinid takeover because not only he had to real power to do otherwise, but because the Peppinid/Pontifical alliance was a matter of institutional survival for Rome. He would do as he would be told to.

On the topic, can I interest you on this article?

(Also, why does that post have so many spelling errors? Every 5th word it seems has a k instead of c)
Just a friendly nod to your tendency to overgermanize names a bit, that's all ;)

---

Unrelated to this post, but possibly relevant to the discussion.

Bruno Dumézil said:
A fragile empire indeed

The 25th December of the year 800, Charlemagne recieved the imperial crown in Rome. It's a personal victory for the old king. He conquered an importantpart of former imperial provinces, build-up a state, submitted populations to his law, protected, defended and extended Christianity. His entourage think that he have the right to restaure the imperial title, not really Augustus' one, but rather Constantine's.

A Christian Empire is reborn then in the West in the year 800. One fly in the oinment, the pope Leo III tried to save the appearances for a declining papacy by taking on himself to crown the new emperor. But, for no, nobody worries. In Aachen's palace, the throne is in the first stair in tribunes, just beyond the figuration of God, in the same level than clergy, and way on top of lays in the nave. Charlemagne, sole intercessor between God and men, holds a theocratic power.
Still, Charlemagne continues to stye himself "King of Franks and Lombards". The imperial title is, eventually, only a trinket to add to the crown of a strong state.

A strong state, that this Frankish state? That much can be doubted.
On its borders, new peoples were attracred as soon as 800 by carolingian wealth. And inside the Frankish world, aristocracy an high clergy are only held by the power and prestige of Charles the Great. It would be enough to have the emperor dying...
Which happens, the 24 January of the year 814.

It would be wrong to say that the imperial edifice is wavering, because the empire didn't really existed as such in 814. It's, at the contrary, because the emperor is dead and that the lands are threatened by invasions that Charles' successorsare forced to give shape to the Empire, to allow this so vast structure to perpetuate itself.
Carolingians are, however, facing a perfect storm, coming as well from their surrounding than their own dynasty. Charles' successors, Louis the Pious, tries to face the rise of threats, vainly : to the division of the Empire, will be added its disappearence in the late 880's
 
Top