Lotharii Regnum

W.I.
Hugh the Son of Lothair II of Lotharingia was recognized as legitimate and his descendants ruled Lotharingia as Kings over more generations could develop any kind of "national" identity in their Lotharian Territories?
 
Lotharingia overall was a pretty stupid idea on the part of the sons of Louis the Pious. It simply had too long a border to defend for the amount of land contained within those borders.

Regardless of who rules the Middle, East and West are guaranteed to be the stronger powers: the West contained all of the Frankish heartlands apart from a few scraps near Aachen, and the East was pretty much a new identity from the old Empire, having discarded partition inheritance and also had the advantage of being FAR away from the Vikings.

Lotharingia simply fell to the same issues that plagued the Merovingians. They had no real power, as the West and East controlled it. Every time they had a strong ruler (which the two they had were certainly not), his achievements meant nothing when the realm balkanised on his death.

So, if Hugh gets in power. Well, in OTL Hugh was recognised by his people as a tyrant. Having the stain of bastardy would not help him, even if he had been legitimised. (Kind of like the debate as to whether Charlemagne was a bastard!). Charles the Bald especially had been trying to reunite the empire a bit, so I would deem an invasion likely, probably no later than 875. When Charles dies (877), his son Louis (the Stammerer), will inherit a nearly-won war, which would certainly enhance his prestige.

The succession in the East was a bit of a mess by this time, so I think they would stay neutral in the conflict. Because Louis was somewhere else, I don't think he would have died as early as 879, probably he could have lived until 900. He would be seen as a relatively 'meh' king, who would probably spend his reign somewhat successfully battling Vikings.

The sons of Louis (Carloman II and Louis III) die the same way and time they did OTL for simplicity, so are both gone by 885. Of course, they were never king and simply get forgotten.
In the East, Charles the Fat will just bumble around until he dies in 888. Louis would be the most likely ruler there if no coup occurs in the east, else whoever the revolutionary is will get the kingdom.

When Louis the Stammer dies, he is succeed by his OTL-posthumous, son Charles 'the Simple' who would get at least 2/3 of a reunited Karling empire.

---------------------------

Any answer that keeps Lotharingia somehow immune to this type of disaster it became almost certainly butterflies Lotharingia itself. That said, if (by ASB intervention) Lotharingia could magically stabilise itself and not get invaded for 2 centuries, then yes a culture could develop. That always occurs if the same force controls a region for long enough. The trouble is getting that control.

- BNC
 
I only want to create an long lasting kingdom in Lotharingia not in the whole Middle Empire.
The powerbase of the Carolingians was in Lotharingia and it contained more than just a palace at Aix la Chapelle(Cologne Metz etc).
 
The north half only? There isn't that much of a difference in the result if we cut out Italy. The kingdom was still extremely narrow and Charles the Bald still wanted to conquer it. When West Francia is close to 4 times its size, the outcome is basically decided already.

About it being the powerbase, that became less and less true as the 9th century progressed. Aachen and Metz are fine capitals if you have control over both say Aquitaine and Bavaria. The West had pretty much moved to Paris and Soissons (the latter being the capital for Charlemagne's brother in 768-771).

Overall though, Lotharingia was doomed, Italy or not, by the simple fact that Charles wanted the land, and had the bigger (and richer) kingdom. Hugh can complain and cause a few thousand people to die, but I think the end result is pretty much certain.

- BNC
 
Size does not always matters the Western Frankish kingdom was not always an united entity and they had also troubles with the Normans ?
I still give Lotharinia a good chance
 
the Western Frankish kingdom was not always an united entity and they had also troubles with the Normans ?
AFAIK it (West Francia, later France) was a united entity from 771 on, and distinctly independent of Middle and East from 888. The situation pre-771 can't really be compared to post-840 in these sort of terms.

Also, the Normans (I assume you mean Vikings), spent most of their time in England, and while they annoyed Paris and a couple of other places it wasn't really their main objective. Then one of the kings gave them money and land, which solved the problem almost immediately. I think if they are still active, they will only work to slow the conquest down.

Size does not always matters
Excepting a genius leader (Charlemagne) or a land that is mostly desert or poorly-developed (Abbasids), most later-8th and 9th century wars were won by the bigger power. Because cities were quite small, more land = more men = bigger and stronger army.

Also, West and East combined were about 4 times the size of the post-870 Lotharingia, or about 2.5 times the size of the 840 Middle Francia. So the West-East coalition is going to be bigger and win the battle.

I still give Lotharinia a good chance
Then solve the following problems:
  • Lotharingia is wedged between two large powers (WF, which will become France, and EF which will become the medieval Empire of Germany and then the HRE).
  • Both of those powers want the Middle's land, and are willing to go to war and work together to get it.
  • If you consider the 840 kingdom, MF is a ridiculous shape that makes it virtually indefensible. If you consider the 869 kingdom, you have taken away Italy, which is about 1/2 or 2/3 of MF's wealth, without weakening WF or EF.
  • Charles the Bald was a pretty good ruler, Lothar I and II were not anywhere as near so.
Once of Lotharingia's successor states was the 14th-century kingdom of Burgundy, which was slightly easier to defend shape-wise than MF. It suffered the same fate as MF (being taken apart by the two large countries next to it), so I can't see MF or Lotharingia surviving as a kingdom past 890 or so.

- BNC
 
I think that a competent ruler in Lotharingia could defend his territory against west or east even if he wedged between the 2 powers I mean a realy competent ruler
If the competent ruler of Lotharingia attacks the Western
Kingdom what are the lines of defence of the Western kingdom?
Paris is not far away?
The Kings after Charles weren't as good as he was so they weren't a problem


About the Burgundian Empire it was not conquered by the HRE but the territories became part of the house of Habsburg by marriage(the HRE did not have the power to conquer it or even preventing the growth of it)
I still believe that in an alternate timeline Lotharingia could develop to an independent entity
 
I think that a competent ruler in Lotharingia could defend his territory against west or east even if he wedged between the 2 powers I mean a realy competent ruler
If the competent ruler of Lotharingia attacks the Western
Kingdom what are the lines of defence of the Western kingdom?
Paris is not far away?
The Kings after Charles weren't as good as he was so they weren't a problem

A really competent ruler could hold out... for as long as he lived. This lasts until Lotharingia doesn't have a very good ruler, which is quite likely to occur before 940 (100 years after it formed). After that it will still be crushed (possibly from inside as well as out, the Karling dynasty fell apart quite dramatically after 888).

I still believe that in an alternate timeline Lotharingia could develop to an independent entity
From a post-840 PoD, that will be difficult unless Lothar is able to secure help (Vikings, ERE, Anglo-Saxons are all decent options). If the inheritance was a bit different, and say WF got Italy while MF gets Paris, then MF has a hope, but then it isn't really the same country.

- BNC
 
Top