Francia rules

Charles II the bald came out winner of the decisive battle of Andernach in 876, his nephew Louis III of Germany being accidentally killed at the beginning of the battle and his army being routed. So the Carolingian king of western Francia, also emperor and king of Italy and Burgundy since the death of his nephew emperor Louis II (firstborn son of emperor Lothar I) took control of the eastern half of Lotharingia, that is the whole of median Francia. He also struck agreed with his remaining nephews from eastern Francia that the frontier between them should as much as possible be put on the Rhine. So they exchanged what was to be Palatinate for eastern Frisia.

And they also struck a deal that could be called the great family divide up.
Eastern Francia was to lead the struggle northwards against the danes and other northmen, and eastwards against the slavs and other pagan barbarians.
Western-Median Francia was to lead the struggle against the moors, especially in Spain, and to deal with its own share of northmen.

Louis II, only son of Charles II the bald, was born healthy and was not afflicted with stuttering. This was a key factor in his asserting his authority and his ability to lead his men in a time of almost permanent warfare.

As far as internal matters were concerned, when Archbishop of Cologne Hugh the Abbot dies in 886, Louis II decided there was no way the Robertians will get back all the honores and abbacies their father Robert the strong had held in Neustria and that Charles II had entrusted to Hugh the Abbot at Robert the strong’s death. Hugh, who had close family links with both the emperor and the Robertians, had been a remarkably competent and loyal lieutenant for Louis II.

Louis II was a clever Carolingian who had perfectly understood the forces at work. The king had to remain the richest man in the kingdom. He also perfectly remembered that Robert the strong had been a disloyal vassal and that preventing the emergence of a too powerful vassal was a vital interest for his power as well for the lasting of his dynasty. As a teenager, he had witnessed the revolt of vassals against his father and perfectly understood that what the carolingians had inflicted to the merovingians could be inflicted on them by a new rising dynasty. So if he decided to employ the 2 young Robertians Odo and Robert, he handed over to them only a part of the honores and abbacies Hugh the Abbot intended to hand over to them. Louis II retained for himself the key abbacies of Tours, Orleans, Auxerre, Marmoutier and Arras.

On the strategic side of his government, Louis II was aware of the difficulties of running an empire extending from the north sea to the Atlantic and middle Italy. As a solution to govern efficiently this vast space and maintiain its unity, he decided that there had to be some new kind of delegation that was more secure than hereditary fiefs. There had to be viceroy in peripheral areas of the empire, that is especially in Italy. But to ensure his loyalty, this viceroy had to be chosen among the very few whose loyalty was unquestionable. As much as possible, he had to be the heir of the imperial crown or another son or nephew of the emperor. This viceroyalty being was revocable at any moment, the viceroy being watched over by missi dominici that also depended directly on the emperor.

Louis II’s firstborn son Louis was made viceroy of Italy. However, though a good warrior, this too “hot” tempered young man was to die young, from a stupid horse riding accident when he was chasing a too desirable young woman.
Louis II’s second son Carloman was made Prince and entrusted to lead the fight against the moors from the march of Spain. He however died young and childless from a hunting accident, so when Louis II dies in 898, his third Charles born in 879 became king and emperor Charles III.

Charles III was to be a remarkable king, finding a lasting solution to the Viking raidings by settling them on the mouth of the Seine river and initiating their integration process in the French kingdom.


To be continued …
 
Seems to be interesting, critically with obviously pissed Robertians (March of Neustria going rogue is going to be much fun) and Carolingians that are obviously going to reverse Quincy Capitular. Suscribed.

Just a question : as Italy was the "marker" of imperial title, isn't it a bit risky to make it an Unterköningtum? Revolt of elder sons isn't something that rare in late Carolingia, and western Frankish kings used more likely Aquitaine as such.
 
Well, if you look at this Quierzy capitular, you realize that on a legal point of view it is not that much the cause of the independance of the vassals. This cause is rather to be found on the material weakness of the king which enables the vassals to institute first de facto and after customary de jure heredity.

As far as the risk of a revolt of the king's sons, it rarely concerned the first born son, except when he feared being deprived of his heir apparent position.

I mentioned viceroyalties, but my intention was not to abolish kingdoms at this step : it was only to have the emperor be himself the king of all his kingdoms.
I don't intend for the moment Aquitaine to play this part because my Francia is not only western. It basically holds or will held most of what was the western roman empire.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you look at this Quierzy capitular, you realize that on a legal point of view it is not that much the cause of the independance of the vassals.
No, but it sanctioned a common use already : it "automatized" hereditary sucession where the king/emperor tended to still do it and if by case by case, almost always supporting heredity.

This cause is rather to be found on the material weakness of the king which enables the vassals to institute first de facto and after customary de jure heredity.
Such was widely used, even during the Late Merovingians with local dynasties controlling the same amounts of lands and while it had to be renewed by the king, you had little difference effectively.

It's more or a formal point of view, certainly, but it was an important as it legalized practices established before (by example, in 851 when Charles swear to not remove the benefits of his vassals). It's finally less of a founding act than the end of a process.

As far as the risk of a revolt of the king's sons, it rarely concerned the first born son, except when he feared being deprived of his heir apparent position.
"Heir apparent" is something that don't really exist up to...Quierzy actually, where the succession going to the elder son is sanctioned.
And while he's less likely to revolt against his father, the elder could (and did) revolt along their brothers in order to reinforce their positions ven if the sucession wasn't threatened.

My point was less that, rather that after Verdun, Italy is always tied with the imperial title : a Carolingian emperor getting rid of Italy, even if one of his successor is ruling it, is depriving himself from one part of his legitimacy.

I mentioned viceroyalties, but my intention was not to abolish kingdoms at this step : it was only to have the emperor be himself the king of all his kingdoms.
Well, that's the most plausible way.
Another two question then (and I won't annoy you after that) : did all the other sub-kingdoms are under a Carolingian king?
When Frisia is exchanged with Palatinate, are the Palatinate Counties the same than OTL?

Don't get me wrong : the TL beginning looks interesting, if a bit too much tied to a formal PoV.
Hopes to see an update soon!
 
Concerning the Quierzy capitular, I know it is common statement to see it as the foundation of feodality, but legally and literally I maintain my "heterodox" statement. The articles of this capitular concerning the transmission of counts and counties factually were temporary provisions for the time of an italian campaign Charles II was leading for. He took it in order to check his son during his absence.

But in my TL, Charles II has total confidence in his son Louis II, so there will be no need for these articles. This will not prevent the development of feodality that actually began as early as the time of Merovingians, but you were right to challenge me on this point. Thank you.

About Italy, I don't intend the line of Charles II getting rid of Italy (though they may lose control of it at least temporarily).
But as previously mentioned, there was a distinction between the emperor, the kingdoms and the persons who were kings. The area on which the emperor exerted authority was not exactly defined and depended on the actual power (material and human ressources) and activism of the emperor.


Answers to your last 2 questions :

1 - it can not be guaranteed that only carolingians be viceroys, amont several reasons because of possible lack of adult male. And besides, the notion of what is a carolingian is questionable since in fact, in the end, through marriages, many many nobles were carolingians on the female line.
In my TL, when the ruling emperor has not enough adult or teenager sons, there may then be a preference for cousins or nephews on the female line than on the male line. But you will anyway have usurpations.

2 - for the exchange between Palatinate and east Frisia, the idea is just to have the frontier set on the Rhine in this area and to correct the frontier of 843 which had given a small share of the west bank of the Rhine to east Francia. So I don't know about the counties. If necessary, their frontiers will have been duly corrected.
 
Top