Do you think it's possible to keep united the Frankish Empire for at leasr a century? How?
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.Do you think it's possible to keep united the Frankish Empire for at leasr a century? How?
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.
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.
But how would you get a system of primogeniture to exist? Succession laws and traditions aren't easy to change by any means.
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.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.
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.