No Karling Precedent for Gavelkind

What the tin says. WI there was no precedent for gavelkind in Charlemagne's empire? Is this the best shot there was at another unified Europe?
 
Gavelkind shouldn't be used outside England ;)

Btw, the precedent of partionable inheritance was a cultural thing of the Germanic tribes, changing it requires a PoD that would probably butterflies Charlemagne.
 
For the Record

"Gavelkind" is broadly the division of an estate into equal shares for all the male heirs. Thus, the Frankish lands had been divided between Charlemagne and Carloman, but then fortuitously Carloman died.

There are more ramifications to it that that, but I think this is the main point in the OP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind

Charlemagne's empire was probably too big to hold together, given the lack of infrastructure and the proliferation of subordinates, I think, so the gavelkind factor is an aggravating one, but not the only cause.
 
Where to start...

Gavelkind is something really specific to part of medieval England, as a custom on succession**. However royal succession didn't were about litteral inheritence as you were inheriting a barn or holdings, especially before the XIth century.

Putting it simply : any CKII-like succession law is an anachronism before at least the late Middle Ages. What acted was either tradition (if enough times, the kingship was transmitted to the elder son, it became a feature, for instance) and political decision.

Let's focus on Frankish royal succession.

It should be pointed out that it never was considered as a division of Francia itself and went down to two factor (roughly) : fiscality (each share being based on cities and fiscal revenues) and organisation of territory (for occupation and defenses purposes : for instance, Aquitaine was often divided in as much equal shares than you had kings).
The public land isn't divided in different entities, but remains as belonging to only one kingdom, being trusted to different rulers.

If it reminds you of Late Roman Empire, it's for a good reason : such division of kingship is mostly unknown among Barbarians before they formed kingdoms in Romania.
Of course, as during Late Empire ,infighting over monopolisation of kingship existed. It should be noted, though, that outright refuse of support, as Carloman did on Charlemagne, generally meant a weakening of legitimacy, critically when it comes to a foreign threat or a rebellion.

Carolingians did, hoever, represented a rupture on this tradition : not trough "inherience", tough, but sheer political choices* : Carolingian nobility didn't want to sucide for the good of one of the pretender, and a split was enacted then under this pressure (Lothar remaining, technically, overlord over his brothers).

Carolingians and Post-Carolingians aristocrats weren't exactly keen about slaughtering each other for claimaints, and they actually supported dynastical division rather than striving for an unified rule, because it was the way to maintain social (and familial) social solidarities, and maybe as well to abide by regional/national identities.

After all, it was why Charlemagne had to give Aquitaine a distinct king, even as the country was decisively conquered and crushed, politically, by his father. The importance of these political identities, critically in face of rule from a foreign but powerful ruler (eventually, with Frankish kings barely ruling or influencing anything at all south of Loire, the Aquitain kingship went extinct) shouldn't be handwaved.

Not that you didn't have an unitarian position on kingship, but it's more coming from the Aquitain or aquitainized intelligentia (that, as Michel Rouche pointed out, formed the bulk of Carolingian administration if not as individuals, at least intellectually/ideologically), that adopted a very important "Unified Christian Empire", rather than dynastical.

Dynastical split (distinct, formally and essentially from Merovingian tradition of co-kingship while in its historical continuity) of the Carolingian world was supported by the same social groups that went to be the bulk of the elective rituals.
Reasons are more to be searched into dynastical and geopolitical unstability, growth of landed aristocracy ("Advisors" with a certain political power) and social solidarities.

Development of feudalism (admittedly, a thing since Peppinid takeover in the VIIIth), a general crisis (climatic change, raids all over the place, civil wars) managed to achieve what remained of Late Antiquity features.
Not some sort of idealised inheritence custom.

*One could argue that 804 Ordinato Imperii clearly divided Carolingia into three distinct entities; but it's in large part because Aquitaine and Italy were considered as "foreign lands", and not really part of Francia proper which remained a bloc.

**I'd stress that again : Gavelkind, as a succession matters is litteraly a feature found only in England : equal and defitive split among sons. If you want to see historical familial systems, feel free to check there with this correction for medieval and pre-Modern Britain.
But to identify Gavelkind as share of patrimony among inheritors in a large sense is not only anglocentric to an extreme degree, but a total counter-sense.

It's as I said that USA and Republic of China shared same institutional structures because both are technically representative republic : it's just nonsensical


Btw, the precedent of partionable inheritance was a cultural thing of the Germanic tribes, changing it requires a PoD that would probably butterflies Charlemagne.
Late Roman Empire went trough very similar periods of division of imperium between 2, 3, 4 sometimes 5 emperors/caesars.
On the same time, such division is virtually unknown among Barbarians (Anglo-Saxon division was made along tribal lines, not dynastical).

This is a cliche that really, really needs to be checked : if you want to get rid of imperium/kingship share, you have to get a PoD at least from the IIIrd century in Rome (which, obviously, would butterfly away Carolingians)
 
Last edited:
Top