How plausible: Louis the Pious inherits both Eastern and Western Roman Empire

In the eventual case that Charlemagne had married Empress Irene (as it was apparently planned at some point), could it be possible for Louis the Pious to inherit both Western (Charlemagne) and Eastern (Irene) Roman Empires, assuming that Irene could have 'adopted' him as son/heir?

Is it realistic at such a late date like 814 to consider that Louis could reunite both Empires, even if temporarily? Could an event like this had helped the Christian Church to stick together or it was late for that? Which are the possibilities after this to recover any other former Roman territory like al-Andalus or Syria, for example?
 
not possible unless Louis accepts the authority of the constantinople patriarchate over rome. Or at the very least puts the pope of rome on equal footings with the patriarchate.
 
That's totally and irremediably ASB.

First, you vastly underestimate the claim that Byzantine had to be the one and only true Roman Empire in existance. Being ruled by a Frankish barbarian that claimed the title would have been unthinkable, critically in a period where Imperial court males preferred marry byzantine women even of lower ranks over foreign high ranked women.

Even considering such union as possible, and it's not (This proposal, if historical, something that may be doubtful in face of a better known project of union between a daughter of Charlemagne and Constantine)
and dmitting the Basileus isn't overthrown after a popular and/or nobiliar revolt, and that nobody pierced his eyes with hot iron just for having considered the very idea :

It wouldn't be interesting for either Byzantines or Carolingians.

What we have there are too hugely different states : one bureaucratic empire with an administrative nobility, a vassalic empire with a military nobility. Two conception of states, two conceptions of power.
Would have anyone tried to impose reforms for one look like the other, you'd end with massive revolts, coupled with still existing and important foreign pressure (Arab, Bulgar, Maygar, Norse, Saracenic, etc.)

It was discussed a bit there, if it helps.
 
That's totally and irremediably ASB.

Well, you know that plan existed, even if personally I also find it a little bizarre. It could be inferred that if somebody planned that marriage, the target should be to establish a common heir, otherwise it's useless.

First, you vastly underestimate the claim that Byzantine had to be the one and only true Roman Empire in existance. Being ruled by a Frankish barbarian that claimed the title would have been unthinkable, critically in a period where Imperial court males preferred marry byzantine women even of lower ranks over foreign high ranked women.

I know, but worse things that a Frankish barbarian occupied the throne before so...And I never said that nobles or people would be happy with that. Probably civil wars would follow.

Even considering such union as possible, and it's not (This proposal, if historical, something that may be doubtful in face of a better known project of union between a daughter of Charlemagne and Constantine)
and dmitting the Basileus isn't overthrown after a popular and/or nobiliar revolt, and that nobody pierced his eyes with hot iron just for having considered the very idea :

It wouldn't be interesting for either Byzantines or Carolingians.

I agree that Carolingians do not win much, maybe only the undisputed legitimacy of their Imperial crown. But Byzantines needed military help by that era, so an eventual military support from the Carolingians would be useful.

What we have there are too hugely different states : one bureaucratic empire with an administrative nobility, a vassalic empire with a military nobility. Two conception of states, two conceptions of power.
Would have anyone tried to impose reforms for one look like the other, you'd end with massive revolts, coupled with still existing and important foreign pressure (Arab, Bulgar, Maygar, Norse, Saracenic, etc.)

It was discussed a bit there, if it helps.

Well, even if I agree it's hugely challenging, probably both sides could engaged in internal wars and maybe the result, if survived, could have been a mix of both models. I know there could have been only 1% of success at this point, but in this remote case, the resulting Empire would have been very strong.
 
Well, you know that plan existed, even if personally I also find it a little bizarre.
No, I know it's mentioned only once, and probably mixed up for probably political reason (Irene not being the most well remembered Basileius) with a more plausible plan about Rotrude marrying Constantine.

It could be inferred that if somebody planned that marriage, the target should be to establish a common heir, otherwise it's useless.
The OTL proposal wasn't about that, but Irene trying to get support from Franks against her opposers. Charlemagne didn't even answered as he had no interest doing so (critically when he could take some part of Byzantine Italy), and even if it did, there's no way he could have bring a worth of mention support (not military, and certainly not diplomatically, being the opposite of that).

I know, but worse things that a Frankish barbarian occupied the throne before so...
Such as? Remember that we're talking of Byzantine Empire, where a theological crisis about icons provoked a civil war. There's absolutly no chance for a percieved barbarian to get the throne.

And I never said that nobles or people would be happy with that. Probably civil wars would follow.
A riot wouldn't follow, it would happen immediatly.

But Byzantines needed military help by that era, so an eventual military support from the Carolingians would be useful.
Partially copy/pasting what I answered before.

Let alone the problem on how these armies would have moved (by sea without fleet is unlikely, with Saracenic piracy and at least one byzantine side ready to crush them, and land way would be really hard to use), Carolingian had already big troubles to move their armies quickly EVEN in their core regions.

If the big army of Charlemagne was surpassed by Viking raids, I don't want to imagine what would have happen with a Byzantine civil war or against Abassids, critically when Franks would have troubles of their own.

Not mentionning that, contrary to the average Paradox Game AAR, armies didn't blindly obeyed orders, critically when it comes to the nobiliar/freeman carolingian army.
If no hope of loot or loot redistribution, they simply wouldn't move outside Carolingia.

Well, even if I agree it's hugely challenging, probably both sides could engaged in internal wars and maybe the result.
Not going to happen. OTL civil wars in Carolingia were "only" about nobiliar and dynastic power, and it ruined the empire quite quickly.
Any attempt to undermine or to limit nobiliar power this way would make late carolingian troubles only happening quicker and bloodier without any chance for the yahoo trying to impose this to win.

For Byzantine Empire, it would be even quicker, with a Constantinople's night riot dealing with the problem.

I know there could have been only 1% of success at this point, but in this remote case, the resulting Empire would have been very strong.
Unless the 1% is "random shit happen for no reason, because evrything can happen", there's no chance at all. Not one. Nada. Que dalle.
 
Such as? Remember that we're talking of Byzantine Empire, where a theological crisis about icons provoked a civil war. There's absolutly no chance for a percieved barbarian to get the throne.

Phocas was a tramp and managed to stay in the throne for a while (OK, it was a war) but some people tolerated him, apparently.

A riot wouldn't follow, it would happen immediatly.

Too categoric. Riots are not that easy to predict, even today with social networks and so, people sometimes swallow some serious situations while sometimes riot for more stupid reasons.

Not mentionning that, contrary to the average Paradox Game AAR, armies didn't blindly obeyed orders, critically when it comes to the nobiliar/freeman carolingian army.
If no hope of loot or loot redistribution, they simply wouldn't move outside Carolingia.

They can always promise them lands in the former Byzantine area under Abassid occupation.

Unless the 1% is "random shit happen for no reason, because evrything can happen", there's no chance at all. Not one. Nada. Que dalle.

Tsk, tsk, too categoric once again. And then people wonder why some users left this forum depressed like the UK Empire timeline guy :D
 
Phocas was a tramp and managed to stay in the throne for a while (OK, it was a war) but some people tolerated him, apparently.
Phocas was a soldier, not a tramp.
Moreso, he was a ROMAN soldier, and it's quite telling when an empire accept even a lower ranked soldier as emperor rather than a foreigner.

Riots are not that easy to predict, even today with social networks and so, people sometimes swallow some serious situations while sometimes riot for more stupid reasons.
Riots in Constantinople was sort of a national sport (and sports being tied to politics, also sparked riots), and putting a barbarian under the imperial throne. Any simple reading about Byzantine Empire would show that byzantines riots happened for less important reasons.
The best modern comparison I could think of, would be Barack Obama declaring himself king and appointing Ahmadinejad as successor, in matter of both being ludicrous and contrary to mass beliefs.

Once again, Byzantines were very very touchy regarding this sort of things. Someone they would percieve as a barbarian, especially a western ruler (that was considered, for Byzantine diplomacy, lower than Persians, Caliphes, Arabo-Muslims, Bulgars and Russians...Basically behind everyone) would never be able to sit, or even to be considered as such seriously for more than a micro-second without sparking a revolt.

They can always promise them lands in the former Byzantine area under Abassid occupation.
It wouldn't be only totally contrary to every byzantine conception on former provinces (as it's ours, depsite being invaded, and nobody would have a right on it), it would be idiotic for z Frankish point of view.

Proposing lands perpetually threatened by Arabs, far from any frankish core, without byzantine assistance, and without worth of mention loot (that was the goal number 1 of Frankish expedition) would never catch.
Even if Byzantines would be deseperate at this point (something they were never ever were IOTL, even at their lowest point, they refused to split their provinces to someone else), it would be simpler for Franks to just attack Byzzies and take their lands and wealth.

Tsk, tsk, too categoric once again. And then people wonder why some users left this forum depressed like the UK Empire timeline guy :D
I tought he left was because these were too much into "random shit happens for no reason, and you're too categoric to contradict me with your boring plausibility and ugly maps".

Whenever I can find a way to make a premise happen on a period I know a bit about (Maybe wrongly, as I'm far from being an expert, only a passionate student), I try to.
Here, there's nothing I can see that would work as it's too absurd to begin with.

I could be categoric there, because this go against everything we know about the period and the involved parties.
Feel free to ignore it, but don't expect me to change my mind on it.

But there, I would ask you to not make me responsible of people that can't deal with criticism without pulling a diva, critically when you are as well "categoric" when it suits you,
 
Last edited:
Phocas was a soldier, not a tramp.
Moreso, he was a ROMAN soldier, and it's quite telling when an empire accept even a lower ranked soldier as emperor rather than a foreigner.

For what I've read, Phocas was a tramp and even a presumed criminal that joined the Byzantine army for avoiding persecution. He could become 'Roman soldier' but it's like a random crack trafficker becoming President of US today.

Riots in Constantinople was sort of a national sport (and sports being tied to politics, also sparked riots), and putting a barbarian under the imperial throne. Any simple reading about Byzantine Empire would show that byzantines riots happened for less important reasons.
The best modern comparison I could think of, would be Barack Obama declaring himself king and appointing Ahmadinejad as successor, in matter of both being ludicrous and contrary to mass beliefs.

Please :rolleyes:

Once again, Byzantines were very very touchy regarding this sort of things. Someone they would percieve as a barbarian, especially a western ruler (that was considered, for Byzantine diplomacy, lower than Persians, Caliphes, Arabo-Muslims, Bulgars and Russians...Basically behind everyone) would never be able to sit, or even to be considered as such seriously for more than a micro-second without sparking a revolt.

The fact of sparking a revolt doesn't mean that Louis the Pious would lose the throne (Justinian survived the Nika revolt); moreover, he would probably not put a feet in Constantinople ever, just send a Byzantine representative or vice-emperor.

Whenever I can find a way to make a premise happen on a period I know a bit about (Maybe wrongly, as I'm far from being an expert, only a passionate student), I try to.
Here, there's nothing I can see that would work as it's too absurd to begin with.

The fact you can't doesn't mean others can't too. That guy who left was a bit too unrealistic, but he was right about the fact that most of the
TLs considered here as plausible only dare to introduce very little changes to OTL, and if you dare to introduce more changes that the typical PoD of 'Obama changes color of his tie when proclaimed President in 2008', people become unnecesarily harsh, sometimes.

I could be categoric there, because this go against everything we know about the period and the involved parties.
Feel free to ignore it, but don't expect me to change my mind on it.

This period is not the best known of History. I've read many contradictory sources about some episodes of this time.
I don't expect you change your mind, nor I want to :D

But there, I would ask you to not make me responsible of people that can't deal with criticism without pulling a diva, critically when you are as well "categoric" when it suits you,

Yes, I admit I was categoric then, but the generalized assumption of that No-islam TLs must mean a more powerful Byzantium is too simplistic for me.
 
Could the ERE ever inherit the HRE instead?

HRE is a bit different on this regard, and links did existed between two entities (critically with Ottonians policies being actually influenced by Byzantine unions.
You'd still have to deal with confrontational politics (in Italy mostly, but not only)
Theophano, the mother of Otto III, was the token of a prize treaty; as HRE and ERE were in frequent conflicts.

Unions there are doable, but not inheritance. Ironically, byzantine influenced policies are partially responsible : it made a new conception of imperial power appearing, strengthening some institutions (as Papacy) at their own benefit, increasing the rupture between East and West.
Furthermore, this stregnthening of imperial authority displeased the german dukes that never really lost an occasion to rebel (critically during regencies, and if the regency of Teophano can teach something, is that Germans didn't liked "Greeks" at all).
I would tend to think that Germans would simply refuse it, and prefer elect someone else.

Italians opinion could be a different thing, that said. If made soon enough, before Schism for instance, you may have an important enough pro-byzantine faction supporting a byzantine claim (without Byzzies actually supporting this claim, but using this support to expand their authority).
That Italians, even supported by Byzantium, would be able to hold Germans would be still very hard, and would have slim chances. Still, it's not unthinkable that at least this stand happen.

On what matter Byzantines.
First it would require unions much closer of the emperor's family. It's not impossible, as it did existed IOTL, but only after Franks (in the larger sense) intervened more importantly in traditional Byzantine sphere of influence after the Crusades.

You'd need Byzantines realizing that Franks could be valuable partners, or at least, that they're a threat important enough to be tamed. Unfortunatly, before the Crusades, that's not really obvious, even without counting the traditional reject of Franks and Latins that existed.

The best window of opportunity for such would be during Manuel I reign, or an analog reign; but at this point, Latins and Greeks are estrangered enough that it wouldn't be really viable.

Summarizing it, I could see a byzantine emperor, or more likely a co-emperor tasked with it, using a claim to enforce imperial authority on Italy rather than trying to enforce it (a bit like Plantagenet stretegy in early phase of HYW).
That would ask for important changes before it can happen, and would be unlikely eventually, but it could work.
 
Top