Centralized Holy Roman Empire

Well I would agree with you if you meant Francia Media (the large kingdom stretching from the Low Countries to Italy), but Lotharingia (was named after the second eldest son of emperor Lothar king Lothar II.
The area of Lotharingia (Low Countries, Lorraine, Alsace and parts of the German Rhineland) did in fact have an identity, this region was part of the Frankish heartland. So IMHO Lotharingia could have had a chance, even with the powerful kingdoms of the Eastern Franks and Western Franks as neighbors; although a surviving Lotharingia could have ended up in similar way it's southern neighbor Burgundy did.

Middle Francia is really messed up, but Lotharingia the smaller central state...
It might cover the Frankish heartland, in the sense of the Franks as a people, but that's like covering the Slavic heartland (including the sense of being torn between being neither Western Frankish - what became French - or entirely Eastern Frankish - what became German. At least both were of the same branch of Christianity, but its still a division - though possibly less of one if one or the other halves becomes a dominant influence or some developments make for an identity of its own.).

I don't see that as a very viable start. Too easy for it to break up into pieces which may have their own identity but which aren't tied to the other pieces. http://www.sehepunkte.de/2010/07/druckfassung/17793.html (Now, I wish I could read outside English, because being able to find and quote from Schneider would be useful - in English there's this: http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2847/ which argues a lack of "Lotharingian"ness. )

Now, a set of strong kings, assuming Lotharingia isn't gobbled up by its neighbors first (which is a different sort of problem, in some ways) might be able to resist that. But a set of strong kings might see a king of Poland as Emperor of the HRE the same way James VI of Scotland became King of England as well - to pick an entirely possible as opposed to ASB scenario, but not a likely one.
 
Interesting read. Lothar II dying without a heir and the temporary division of Lotharingia between Eastern and Western Francia was a (lasting) handicap.
A line of successive independent kings from Lothar II would be needed; Zwentibold the other option is more difficult, because by that point Eastern and Western Lotharingia were influenced by their neighbors.
In fact IMHO independent might be even more important than strong (some might be, others not, like in most countries).

Francia Media never really had a chance, but Lotharingia had a chance under the right conditions (Lothar II having a heir for instance).
However I admit that Lotharingia as a really independent entity IOTL was too short lived to create an own Lotharingian identity (out of the more general Frankish one).
 
Last edited:
Interesting read. Lothar II dying without a heir and the temporary division of Lotharingia between Eastern and Western Francia was a (lasting) handicap.
A line of successive independent kings from Lothar II would be needed; Zwentibold the other option is more difficult, because by that point Eastern and Western Lotharingia were influenced by their neighbors.
In fact IMHO independent might be even more important than strong (so might be, others not, like in most countries).

Sounds true. Though as a (minor?) quibble, it might be necessary for them to be strong to be independent - being surrounded is inconvenient like that.

Francia Media never really had a chance, but Lotharingia had a chance under the right conditions (Lothar II having a heir for instance).
However I admit that Lotharingia as a really independent entity IOTL was too short lived to create an own Lotharingian identity (out of the more general Frankish one).
It would be interesting to see if it could have done better if it had lasted, or if there was nothing to build such a distinct identity around.

Judging by how the pieces ended up OTL (as the only world we have to study), there's apparently a northern identity (Frisia and the Netherlands), or at least the possibility of a "we're independent from foreign kings".

That could be something to build on, maybe.
 
What's so tough about keeping the different peoples together assuming the aristocracy is cooperative?

To look post-Charlemagne, Italy was problematic because the Italian city-states had a problem with the idea of the Emperor telling them what to do, not because he ate sauerkraut.


Hmmmm, you have a point there. Is Italy like that because they haven't got over the Roman Empire?
 
Top