Is a 769 Merovingian Restoration implausible?

Is a 769 Merovingian Restoration implausible?

  • Absolute ASB

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Implausible, but not ASB

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • Unlikely to occur

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • Easily could have happened

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Suppose some important Frankish nobles dispute King Pippin III's son Karl (better known as Charlemagne) as a successor to the throne after his death in 768, possibly due to concerns that he is/was a bastard child (the church only recognised Pippin and Bertrada's marriage in 749, either 2 or 7 years after Karl's birth, but before his brother Karloman). The nobles then head off to Fontanelle monastery and find the 20-something year old Theuderic, son of the deposed Merovingian *ruler* (only in name) Childeric III, and attempt to install him as ruler, either over all of Karl's bit of Francia, or maybe just the Merovingian power base in Neustria.

Regardless of what Theuderic might do after this restoration, is this scenario plausible, or would it go under ASB? How important is 20 years to a deposed dynasty?

- BNC
 
This has posted to real place.

But I don't know then how plausible that is. They might try to make Theuderic as puppet king but it is another thing how succesful they are.
 
?



I don't see why anyone would go to the effort of making a puppet king after 2 were recently thrown out, couldn't they just make themselves kings then?

- BNC

I think he meant that you don't need to move the topicing, as it was posted I the correct subforum.

As for a Merovingian restoration after 768? It would be very difficult to pull off, as the Carolingians had firmly established themselves as the house favoured by God to rule over the Franks. It would take the deaths of much of the Carolingian household, or a series of extremely strategic royal marriages, to see another Merovingian on the throne again.

And even then, a cadet branch of the Carolingians may end up challenging the upstart Merovingians and win.
 
In 769 the was still a simmering rebellion in Aquitaine and the succession dispute between Karl and Karloman. This should provide enough distraction for an opportunist noble, no?

- BNC
 
In 769 the was still a simmering rebellion in Aquitaine and the succession dispute between Karl and Karloman. This should provide enough distraction for an opportunist noble, no?

- BNC

Perhaps. If Charlemagne were to go to war against Carloman (rather than have Carloman mysteriously die from a nosebleed), and subsequently Desiderius due to the latter's impromptu alliance with Carloman following his brother's divorce with Desiderata, then the balance of power may well favor Carloman. If Charlemagne is killed or captured/tonsured in the resulting conflict, you could then see Carloman as the sole ruler of the Frankish realm.

Only there's one problem: Carloman is not Charlemagne. While details on the exact nature of his rule are spotty at best due to his short reign, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see Carloman struggling where Charlemagne succeeded. Add in some rebelious dukes and uncooperative Lombards, Bavarians, Alamanni, and Saxons, and the state of the Frankish realm under Carloman could become quite precarious indeed.

Enter the Merovingians, touting themselves as the solution. It may take some bribing and outright direct action to make the lesser nobles see reason, but if a Merovingian claimant has the powerbase built up to seize control of the Frankish throne, they may well be able to keep it. Sure, they'll have to fight a war with half of Europe eventually, but what's a good succession war to prove the favor of God in the eyes of the Franks?
 

From what I have read, Karloman would be a decent diplomat, even if not the best general. He also would have the support of the Aquitainians that Charlemagne lacked, due to his refusal to fight them in early 769. Chances are that Karloman would be a ruler similar to Louis the Pious, who focusses a lot internally but doesn't bother conquering much.

However, the (almost) inevitable war between the two, which would have occurred in 772 if not for Karloman's death (I'm convinced he was murdered, probably by Bertrada), would have made the new dynasty appear weak, whereas the Merovingians haven't been known for a civil war any time in the last century (if not much more). If Theuderic is extracted from the monastery, he would at least be able to use this fact to claim legitimacy for the throne, especially considering he was a close relation to a king (son of Childeric III and great-nephew of Theuderic IV)

Many of Charlemagne's conquests were relatively aggressive wars - sure the Saxons burned Deventer, but AFAIK the Avars didn't do anything, nor the Bretons or the Arabs in Iberia. Karloman was at least a decent friend of Desiderius, especially after January 771, so why would the Lombards have to be conquered?

- BNC
 
From what I have read, Karloman would be a decent diplomat, even if not the best general. He also would have the support of the Aquitainians that Charlemagne lacked, due to his refusal to fight them in early 769. Chances are that Karloman would be a ruler similar to Louis the Pious, who focusses a lot internally but doesn't bother conquering much.

However, the (almost) inevitable war between the two, which would have occurred in 772 if not for Karloman's death (I'm convinced he was murdered, probably by Bertrada), would have made the new dynasty appear weak, whereas the Merovingians haven't been known for a civil war any time in the last century (if not much more). If Theuderic is extracted from the monastery, he would at least be able to use this fact to claim legitimacy for the throne, especially considering he was a close relation to a king (son of Childeric III and great-nephew of Theuderic IV)

He may well do better than Karl in regards to domestic politics, especially if he can convince Lupo II to reinforce his rule. The only difficulty with this scenario is convincing the rest of the Franks to reinstate the Merovingians in the event of a Carolingian collapse, rather than one of their own. That, I believe, is where the problem lies.

Many of Charlemagne's conquests were relatively aggressive wars - sure the Saxons burned Deventer, but AFAIK the Avars didn't do anything, nor the Bretons or the Arabs in Iberia. Karloman was at least a decent friend of Desiderius, especially after January 771, so why would the Lombards have to be conquered?

Because while Carloman was a friend and ally to Desiderius, it was always an alliance of convinience. And when Desiderius inevitably dies of old age, any direct relationship the Franks had with the Lombards will dry up. That doesn't mean Adelchis would be hostile or cold towards Carloman; indeed, he may well favor him for supporting his father against Charlemagne. But just how their relationship would play out with both in the respective seats of power of Europe would be anyone's guess.

Of course, if the Merovingians were to cause a de-facto civil war in pursuit of the throne, then the Lombards may well throw their support behind the Carolingian loyalists, leading to any neo-Merovingian Francia politically opposed to the Lombards, bringing us back full circle.
 
An interesting idea but hard to say one way or the other due to a lack of good sources on the political climate of the Franks. On one hand we know that after Charles Martel's death his heirs were forced to crown Childeric III after revolts from their relatives and supposedly from pressure among the nobility. This suggests both opposition to Carolingian rule and some residual loyalty to the dynasty. On the other hand Pepin the Short was able to get Pope Zachary to crown King without any known opposition from the nobility, so either they were unable to revolt or had no interest by that point. Then there's also the fact that no one knows what happened to Childeric's son Theuderic. Supposedly he died in the 750s, but there's no confirmation one way or the other.

I think the best bet would be to have the nobles rebel against Pepin the Short's attempt to crown himself King in 752 and force him to back down or remove him entirely. In that case the Merovengians could at least continue as titular rulers. Or discredit the Carolingians enough to have placing Prince Theuderic on the throne become a good idea, like say another Muslim invasion ending in Carolingian defeat or a loss to the Saxons. Something that makes it seem like they've lost divine backing.
 
This seems like a pretty unlikely scenario to me. By the time Pippin the Short overthrew Childeric III and became King of the Franks, the Merovingian dynasty had already lost its power base. The last Merovingian Kings were often taken out of monasteries and placed on the throne by the Mayors of the Palace who held the real power. There was even a six year interregnum between 737 and 743 because Charles Martel thought himself powerful enough as Mayor of the Palace to rule without a King of the Franks. Plus, Childeric III was deposed by Pippin without too much trouble and tacit Papal approval: you would need a pretty strong contestant to be able to challenge the new Carolingian identity.

Sure, after Pippin's death there was a conflict between Charlemagne and his brother Carloman but I think this means the local nobilities would have more likely favored one brother over the other. I'm also not sure any of the nobles would be interested in bringing back the Merovingians on the throne.
 
. The only difficulty with this scenario is convincing the rest of the Franks to reinstate the Merovingians in the event of a Carolingian collapse, rather than one of their own. That, I believe, is where the problem lies.

A collapse of the dynasty in the early 770s isn't too unrealistic. The only living members of the dynasty that were in some way descended from Martel in 771 were:
  • Possibly Drogo, the first Karloman's son. He was stuck in a monastery and could have died sometime 754-770s.
  • Adalhard and Wala, Charlemagne/Karloman's uncles through Pippin III's half-brother Bernard. These were both abbots by the 800s, I don't know how old they were in 770.
  • Tasillo and his son Theodo, duke and heir to Bavaria. (Through Martel's daughter Hiltrude, so not sure if they count?)
  • Charlemagne, plus his sons and bastard daughter(s?).
  • Karloman, plus his two sons and daughter.
  • Gisela, Charlemagne's sister. Not valid for succession.
This isn't especially many and it is conceivable that a number of them could die or be too young, which would throw the entire dynasty's position into chaos.

Because while Carloman was a friend and ally to Desiderius, it was always an alliance of convinience. And when Desiderius inevitably dies of old age, any direct relationship the Franks had with the Lombards will dry up. That doesn't mean Adelchis would be hostile or cold towards Carloman; indeed, he may well favor him for supporting his father against Charlemagne. But just how their relationship would play out with both in the respective seats of power of Europe would be anyone's guess.

Of course, if the Merovingians were to cause a de-facto civil war in pursuit of the throne, then the Lombards may well throw their support behind the Carolingian loyalists, leading to any neo-Merovingian Francia politically opposed to the Lombards, bringing us back full circle.

The fact that Gerberga (Karloman's wife) and children fled to the Lombard court instead of Bavaria, which would be a closer relation, suggests that the alliance was at least a bit more than 'convenience'.

If the Merovingians decide to fight Charlemagne only, the Lombards would be most likely willing to fight with Theuderic. If the rising is against Karloman, the Lombards will defend Karloman's position. It is hard to know what would happen if both brothers were attacked.

Then there's also the fact that no one knows what happened to Childeric's son Theuderic. Supposedly he died in the 750s, but there's no confirmation one way or the other.

Childeric is known to have died in 755, give or take a little. Theuderic would have been in his twenties by 771. He survived infancy (else there would be no record), so chances are he would survive until middle age. In OTL Charlemagne just imposed himself so much that everyone forgot there actually was a son of Childeric still hanging around somewhere.

I think the best bet would be to have the nobles rebel against Pepin the Short's attempt to crown himself King in 752 and force him to back down or remove him entirely. In that case the Merovengians could at least continue as titular rulers. Or discredit the Carolingians enough to have placing Prince Theuderic on the throne become a good idea, like say another Muslim invasion ending in Carolingian defeat or a loss to the Saxons. Something that makes it seem like they've lost divine backing.

The Pope was the one that gave the final vote on whether Pippin could become King or not. Knowing Papal-Lombard relations, it is possible that Pippin's plan would be blocked if the Lombards threaten war. The other best event to use is the Jan. 772 sack of Deventer by the Saxons, in line with a Karloman-lives TL.

Sure, after Pippin's death there was a conflict between Charlemagne and his brother Carloman but I think this means the local nobilities would have more likely favored one brother over the other. I'm also not sure any of the nobles would be interested in bringing back the Merovingians on the throne.

If Karloman joined his brother in 768/9 to fight the Aquitainians, Lupo and Hunald (assuming Hunald doesn't get captured) would want to support neither of them. A Merovingian would look appealing in their eyes.

(Apologies for long post)

- BNC
 
BiteNibbleChomp said:
If Karloman joined his brother in 768/9 to fight the Aquitainians, Lupo and Hunald (assuming Hunald doesn't get captured) would want to support neither of them. A Merovingian would look appealing in their eyes.
Or they could take a shot at becoming independant. Aquitaine never really liked being ruled over by the Franks, long before the Carolingians came around.
 
Or they could take a shot at becoming independant. Aquitaine never really liked being ruled over by the Franks, long before the Carolingians came around.

Aquitaine was taken by the Franks in the 6th century. The only calls for independence happened with the first Hunald, around the time of Martel. In the case of a crisis amongst the Karlings, they may decide to add legitimacy, at least to their people, by finding Theuderic.

As with any TL, nothing is 100% certain.

- BNC
 
Aquitaine was taken by the Franks in the 6th century. The only calls for independence happened with the first Hunald, around the time of Martel. In the case of a crisis amongst the Karlings, they may decide to add legitimacy, at least to their people, by finding Theuderic.

As with any TL, nothing is 100% certain.

- BNC
They could, but as far as I understand the Aquitainians were probably more likely to try to be ruled by one of their own than by go looking for a Merovingian to crown.
 
Top