PC: can Charlemagne's empire survive?

To be fair, i believe the frankish empire (later the pre-split HRE) could have lasted as long as the roman empire. However, the feudal structure of the frankish empire ("governors" are hereditary instead of centrally appointed) ensured that the empire would stay decentralized, with varying levels of independence and local influence for each duke or grand duke or prince. The church also counts as a bit of a problem, since there would be nigh-continuous conflicts between the pope and the emperor, with swaying authority between both depending on the situation.
However, an united frankish HRE would cause interesting butterflies. If we count Lothair's coup against his father Louis suceeding in putting him on the throne as the PoD, then we could see Lothair implementing primogeniture as a sucession system rather than "splitting the land between the heirs", butterflying away the Verdun Treaty.
 
Do you think it's possible to keep united the Frankish Empire for at leasr a century? How?

The obvious solution would be to change the Franks' succession laws somehow to prevent their empire being constantly split up among multiple heirs. If they had an accepted system of primogeniture instead, I see no reason why Charlemagne's empire couldn't survive largely intact for another century or more after his death.
 
Do you think it's possible to keep united the Frankish Empire for at leasr a century? How?
It depends on exactly when your century begins. If we take 751 AD as the beginning, then just delay Louis the Pious' death by 11 years and you're done.

If we are starting at something like 800, it isn't going to happen. The very things that led to the Karling rise were the things that led to their fall. The 8th century Merovingians were utterly hopeless, which certainly helped, but the 'power behind the throne' was something that both Pippin II (and descendants) and the slew of 10th century usurpers used to gain power.

If we assume Charlemagne himself, and his sons and grandsons, must rule, then we have to accept the customs that came with him. Salic law being one of them. The fact that the empire survived him was more luck than anything else. Louis had two brothers until a couple of years before he took the throne. If you want me to say "kill Louis' sons except one", I can and that would work, but I don't think that is what you are looking for. That will only barely carry you past the hundred year mark anyway (beginning 768)

For a longer term (say into the 10th or even 11th century) Karling Empire, the change has to come with Pippin III. He had supported the Pope, so he could get damn near anything he wanted signed by the Pope. That can include primogeniture (maybe Salic law is explained away as being something that doesn't work, because the Merovingians hadn't been very good for a while). Charlemagne couldn't really do that due to his being the second member of the dynasty to rule, and people not wanting to upset the custom that the beginning of the line had already confirmed should remain.

That gets us to about 870, when the Karlings started becoming useless. They couldn't do anything about the Vikings, the powers behind the throne had come back (plenty of important vassals by this time), and an impressive record of weak kings had started appearing. Karloman II, Charles the Fat, Charles the Simple, Louis the Stammerer were all pretty weak. You'll need to get rid of them as well.

Vikings... they were already overdue when they started striking in 800 or so. They had the technology to do so in 730, and they couldn't just wait around forever. Just as they ruined most of the English kingdoms, they were a significant factor in ruining the Karlings too. I really don't see a reasonable way around this.

So, not really.

- BNC
 
The obvious solution would be to change the Franks' succession laws somehow to prevent their empire being constantly split up among multiple heirs. If they had an accepted system of primogeniture instead, I see no reason why Charlemagne's empire couldn't survive largely intact for another century or more after his death.
Brothers, sons, nephews, cousins, etc would tear at each other. If there is only one throne to go around... Also the issue of centralized authority and communications. Harder or get the manpower, roads, prestige, etc to keep everything in one state.
 
The obvious solution would be to change the Franks' succession laws somehow to prevent their empire being constantly split up among multiple heirs. If they had an accepted system of primogeniture instead, I see no reason why Charlemagne's empire couldn't survive largely intact for another century or more after his death.

But how would you get a system of primogeniture to exist? Succession laws and traditions aren't easy to change by any means.

I guess another alternative would be for there to be a tradition of having the brothers fight it out for who becomes emperor like what the Mughals would eventually do, but such a system does not lend itself well to long-term stability.
 
Brothers, sons, nephews, cousins, etc would tear at each other. If there is only one throne to go around...

So don't give them big enough territories to threaten the Emperor. There's no reason why the second son needs to get the whole of Aquitaine, or whatever, as opposed to some smaller portion which is big enough for him to live in style but not big enough for him to levy war against the Emperor.

Also the issue of centralized authority and communications. Harder or get the manpower, roads, prestige, etc to keep everything in one state.

Maybe some outlying provinces would slip from the Emperor's grasp, but the core lands of Gaul and western Germany had been Frankish for centuries by this point, and I don't think the Frankish Empire would have much trouble holding onto them.

But how would you get a system of primogeniture to exist? Succession laws and traditions aren't easy to change by any means.

Aye, there's the rub. The best way I can think of is the one which ended up being used in France, IIRC: appoint the eldest son as co-King (or co-Emperor) whilst the old King is still alive, that when when he dies the son technically won't be inheriting the kingdom because it's already his, so there's no need for him to split the country up between all his brothers.
 
So don't give them big enough territories to threaten the Emperor. There's no reason why the second son needs to get the whole of Aquitaine, or whatever, as opposed to some smaller portion which is big enough for him to live in style but not big enough for him to levy war against the Emperor.
I believe primogeniture tended to involve the property being unable to be split or sold off. Though might be along the lower ranks of nobility in England, as the French nobility had it were all sons of nobles got a title, while the French King gave land/income of land to his brothers as cadet branches (while keeping the right to refuse to let them marry anyone) with the land going back to the Crown upon the end of the line.
 
Here's a way to keep the Carolingian Empire united (on paper, at least) for the rest of the 9th Century -- Louis doesn't marry Judith of Bavaria in 819; this means Charles the Bald is not born and his son, Louis the German, does not marry Judith's sister Hemma; Pepin (of Aquitaine) can still die before his dad does, and if Lothair or Louis (the German) dies earlier as well, that leaves only one son at the time of Louis (the Pious') death.

Now, OTL Lothair died in 855 (age 60), while Louis the German died 876 (age 71); with a few changes, it's possible for either of these men to have lived longer and/or their sons to have died sooner; and in the case of Lothair, he had only one grandson by way of his sons (Hugh of Alsace). So one more bit of luck, and the Carolingian Empire may well still be united at the death of its fourth emperor in the final decade of the 9th Century.

What this changes in practical terms is trickier; the Carolingian Empire was decentralized as hell as it was, and OTL did see members of the dynasty being crowned Holy Roman Emperor until the 880's, even as the empire itself was being divided. Maybe TTL the idea of the Emperor as a sovereign for almost all of Western Christendom is more firmly established?
So been thinking about this general idea lately, and had a thought -- while the issue of no primogeniture and the feudal nature of the kingdom does mean that Francia will be split up sooner or latter, there should still be plenty of potential for delaying said split by a generation or few.

For example, how would the first century or so of Viking expansion and adventurism be affected if the Franks put up a more united front against them for longer?

The boldest I think we can get is to delay the split of the kingdom by a century or so, in the mid 10th century instead of the mid-9th; but that, in itself, would mean that the devolution comes just as the Medieval Warm period is about to begin.

Any thoughts here (on effects of a delay)?
Another PoD thought -- supposing Lothair dies (of injury, of a sudden illness, what have you) during one of his two rebellions (in 830 and 833) or between them. Even if both Louis the German and Charles the Bald survive, neither of them seemed to be as problematic for the unity of the Franks as their eldest brother (plus Louis the German is married to his half brother's maternal aunt, in addition to now having more to split between them). And beyond all that, Charles didn't marry otl until after the death of his father (842), meaning Louis the German could a window to take it all with one more convenient death...

CONSOLIDATE: Does anybody have thoughts on how the High Middle Ages would be changed if the Carolingian Empire were still around, or was only just starting to break up, at the start of the Medieval Warm Period (mid 10th Century)?
 
The obvious solution would be to change the Franks' succession laws somehow to prevent their empire being constantly split up among multiple heirs. If they had an accepted system of primogeniture instead, I see no reason why Charlemagne's empire couldn't survive largely intact for another century or more after his death.

Basically this. Just keep the empire together, as pretty much all of the Empire's enemies were crushed. They fell because they're idiots.
 
It is unlikely. He was an ordinary tribal leader, he himself planned to share his possessions, there was no single economy, there was no unity within the empire. It's a very loose state. If you extend the existence for 100-200 years, then the State of Caroling awaits the fate of Rus - the collapse of a bunch of principalities, different in everything.
 
People are making very anachronistic assumptions.

The Franks could not and did not simply abandon particle inheritance- for one, the family members would revolt every generation. For another consider that the Empire was considered family propery- a single son getting everything would be like a father leaving his younger children penniless. Moreover blatantly disregarding custom on top of holding such a geographically sprawling territory is just asking for some ambitious duke to declare himself king and break away. You can't rely on having a single son or even competent/adult heirs, and the moment you get a bad/unlucky ruler the house of cards collapses.


More to the point the Empire is too big and has too many regions with strong regional identities- Italy being the most significant t and important as it bestowed the imperial title and control over the Papacy, both invaluable sources of legitimacy and levers of power against vassals who thought of the king as primus inter pares rather than a divinely appointed autocrat.

The best way to keep the "empire" together is to make it smaller- avoid the conquest of Italy, and perhaps also of Bavaria and Saxony, although Italy would need to be conquered/controlled for the imperial title at the very least as well as control over the clergy. A Frankish empire comprising all of OTL France and Franconia, the Low countries and the Rhineland is still a powerful state and at the limit of what a single king can hold together.
 
Top