Normans in a Surviving Carolingian Empire

Using whatever POD you think best accomplishes it, imagine a world where the Carolingian Empire does not collapse during the 9th century, but instead survives as a cohesive and powerful entity for at least several more centuries (in such a scenario it'd probably be colloquially referred to as the Roman Empire in the West and the Frankish Empire in Constantinople, but that's neither here nor there). We're talking about an empire that will rule over at least the lands depicted below (with the possibility of expansion, especially in the east) continuously for centuries.

IMG_2593.jpg


Such a scenario could be accomplished by something as simple as different inheritance laws or certain individuals dying in childhood, or something more creative. Point is, the Western Roman Empire is revived and rules from Aachen.

What would all of this mean for the development of the Normans? IOTL Norse Vikings were very active in France, eventually establishing such an important presence that West Francia, one of the Carolingian successor states, cut a deal with Viking leader Rollo to allow his people to settle in what would become Normandy. Centuries of intermarriage and acculturation would produce the Norman peoples, who played a major role in European history.

Would a surviving and powerful Carolingian Empire be able to successfully rebuf any significant settlement by Vikings in its territory? Or would the demographic situation in that part of France still lead Aachen to a similar deal with some group of Vikings or another? If so, what effect would a surviving Carolingian Empire have upon the development of the Normans or their equivalents here? Would the continued power of the Franks largely preclude the Normans from becoming as successful as they were? Or would the Normans or their equivalents be liable to be an important force in the surviving Carolingian Empire?
 
i'm not as familiar with Norman history as i could be, but wasn't William supported by his era's King Henry against Guy of Burgundy? would that still happen for a hypothetical alternate version of William? that could very well have further effects on England by way of affecting or even preventing the Norman Conquest.
 
i'm not as familiar with Norman history as i could be, but wasn't William supported by his era's King Henry against Guy of Burgundy? would that still happen for a hypothetical alternate version of William? that could very well have further effects on England by way of affecting or even preventing the Norman Conquest.

Indeed, if the Carolingian Empire maintains hegemony in Northwestern Europe and much of Italy, the Normans or their equivalents may have to look further than the British Isles or Italy for potential conquests. (Assuming that ITTL they're in a position to conduct such conquests, of course.)
 
Indeed, if the Carolingian Empire maintains hegemony in Northwestern Europe and much of Italy, the Normans or their equivalents may have to look further than the British Isles or Italy for potential conquests. (Assuming that ITTL they're in a position to conduct such conquests, of course.)
for the record, the main reason the 1066 invasions of England took place were because of conflicting succession claims where William had supposedly been named Edward the Confessor's successor because they were cousins but then Edward named Harold for the crown on his deathbed (and iirc there was also a claim by William that Harold had sworn fealty to him when in Normandy years before, which arguably could have been made under duress and therefore illegitimate, but them's the breaks). there's so many variables we need to work out for this.
 
Top