Successful Carolingian Empire

Again I doubt that Iberia would end up in Frankish hands, they showed little interest in it in OTL. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia would likely end up German through Slovakian would likely survive and be bigger than in OTL especially in easten Hungary.

To be fair, Charlemagne did campaign there. Roncevalles, and all that.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
As to whether this Empire could stay together, yes it could as least as long as the HRE, if it split it will likely be Lombardy, Provence and Toulouse which split from it, while the north stay together.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
To be fair, Charlemagne did campaign there. Roncevalles, and all that.

Yes but the Franks seem to been more allies of the Christian Iberian states,which they left alone, only set up a single march, which more or less was left to drift by the Empire. At best I could see them being suzelar of Barcelona and the areas it conquers, but Leon and it succesor states will likely stay independent.
 

Eurofed

Banned
The assumption is based on a pretty good amount of historical evidence.

Apart from the one Qing China example, the rest of the supposed evidence utterly escapes me.

(which also explains why Europe's geography makes it difficult for continental empires like the one you're proposing to thrive).

First, the argument is made questionable by counterexample of the Roman Empire. It lasted several centuries without experiencing so terrible geographical difficulties, and a compelling argument could be done that one main reason fro its downfall was that it did not expanded enough, to its natural boundaries when it failed to conquer Germania.

Second, this is not really a valid argument for an Empire like the Carolingian one, which is centered on the Franco-German-Italian bloc. No real geographical obstacle exists to stop an empire from thriving in the great northern European plain from France to Poland-Hungary, once the area is properly settled to an agricultural-urban economy: plains, good land, temperate climate, navigable rivers that provide transport for trade much more than they are obstacle. The bloc only has a real geographical obstacle in the Alps, but sincerely, if the state is strong, its is far from an impossible one: European history shows that either France or Germany has always ben able to control Italy effectively, if the power is cohese, barring superior opposition from another great power.

I freely concede that a continental great power would have serious problems expanding its control to the periphery (British Isles, Russia, Balkans) as Napoleon and Hitler discovered. And indeed I have assumed that our united CE would fail (or avoid trying) to do so. When the CE accomplishes the Reconquista, it would add a second significant geographical barrier. Would it be able to integrate Iberia too, and complete the Franco-German-Italian-Iberian core, or would Iberia escape its grasp ? Hard to say. Roman precedent says it can be doen, Napolonic precedent says it cannot. I can see political and military butterflies either way. But sincerely I do not think there is nowhere good groudn to argue that geography makes the political unity of the carolingian core untenable.

I'm paraphrasing here but basically he says that the more different empires you have the more probable it is that one of them will embrace new technology or ideas.

The argument may justify the assumption that poliitcally-fragementated areas may (but it is not a given) progress faster, not that big centralized empires are doomed to enter long-lasting cultural stagnation or shall necessary progress slower. Moreover, it fails to take the economic and cultural damage that political fragmentation causes into account. It's hard to see how barbarians sacking cities manages to accelerate the progress of mathematics.

Diamond uses the example of Christopher Columbus to illustrate this. Before Christopher Columbus led his expeditions to the Americas he visited and was rejected by the King of Portugal twice, was refused an audience with the rulers of Genoa and Venice and was initially turned down by the Spanish before they finally agreed to fund his voyage.

Diamond is utterly forgetful of the fact that there were very good reasons why Columbus was repeatedly rejected. His arguments were *wrong*: he had completely bungled his calculations about the cricumference of Earth and the distance between the Atlantic coast of Europe and the Eastern coast of China, which was much greater than what he thought he was, and the travel completely undoable with 15th century naval technology without a stop in a continent he did not knew existed. The kings that refused him had his calculations checked, the error identified, and he was earmarked like a crackpot. His discovery of America was completely unforeseen by him, and he was unable for the rest of his life to recognize he had accidentally found a new continent. He was basically the equivalent of a pseudoscience guy that pesters the White House or the European Commission trying to get funds for a perpetual-motion machine. There was nothing obscurantist in the refusals that Columbuds got. The example is irrelevant to prove the argument.


In this TL yes it is possible that the Carolingians fund some kind of Columbus figure, but it is just as possible that they choose not to and he has no place to go, or, even worse, they take the advice of some other idiot who says the world is flat and have all ships large enough to make any oceanic voyage destroyed.

First, in this TL a Columbus figure (let's assume that he is someone with a scientifically valid evidence and not a stubborn lucky crackpot like OTL Columbus, so there is no obvious reason why he's refused; say he has evidence about the Vinland route) may still go to the king of Britain-Scandinavia if the Carolingian Emperor refuses him, or viceversa. Second, if he gets a refusal, he (or his younger relatives or business associates) could have better luck with the next Emperor. The probability that the Empire is going to have an ongoing string of obscurantist rulers grows increasingly smaller. Third, there is also plausibility limits to such obscurantism: to use your example, no one that argued the world was flat would have been taken seriously by any educated Middle Age elite person.

I'm not saying you have to have the bigger = stagnant assumption hold true in every TL but it is something to think about.

What I can think about, given a review of historical evidence, is that on average, big centralized empires and politically-fragmented areas most likely may progress at roughly the same speed, sometime fester, sometime slower, given various butterflies, and "smaller=better" is a faulty generalization clichè that is built on little more than the Qing China special case.

Yes, a continent spanning empire could make all the right decisions and end up with a man on the moon by 1600 (and this kind of wank does have an audience), but most of the more experienced posters expect there to be more balance with ups and downs.

But this is quite different, and much more reasonable. The issue here, is that continent spanning empire, all other factors being equal for cultural progress, deserves the good faith expectation of being able to put a man on the moon in 1925, or in 1998, and not be doomed to use horses and matchlocks in 2009 just because of its size.
 
Can I ask what new technology appeared between 800 and 1200 which wouldn't be adopted by a large empire? I think technology is way overblown as a reason why pre-modern polities rose and fell.
 
Culturally, an obvious consequence is that Western Eurasia is much more unified linguistically, with only 3-4 major languages first spoken throughout the elites, then entrenched among the populace at large during Industrialization. The Carolingian Empire initially keeps Latin as an administrative langauge, but the urban elites grow, eventually develops *Frankish, an hybrid German-Romance language with heavy Latin borrowings most likely loosely akin to OTL English. The Norse Empire likewise develops from Latin to *Danish, a wholly Germanic (save for some Latin borrowings) Scandinavian-Saxon hybrid.

I doubt either will happen, likely Latin will be used for adminstration as it did in Switzerland, HRE, Hungary until around 1800. German is likely to pull itself together into one language as it mostly did in OTL (Dutch never hear about it), while Vulgar Latin will split into three languages in Lombard, French and Occitan. French will likely have a heavier influence from Germanic than in OTL, without Paris as centre (Aarchen will be capital). Educated people speak Latin but it's rarely used outside the Church, Adminstration and Academic. Most member of the urban trading elites is trilingual, but usual using the local language. So what the empire will look like linguistic is giant Switzerland. The border between LRomance and Germanic will more less be the same as today, with a little stronger German. Beside that there will also be lot of French enclave in Easten Europe, most of them will be assimilated by German, but a few will likely be big and isolated enough to survive to modern day (think Transsylvanian Saxon).

I would agree with Valdemar, with the empire becoming a linguistic giant Switzerland. Romance was pretty well established by the POD. As for *Danish, it would be pretty close to OTL, as Old Norse and Old English were pretty mutually intelligible.
 

Eurofed

Banned
As to whether this Empire could stay together, yes it could as least as long as the HRE, if it split it will likely be Lombardy, Provence and Toulouse which split from it, while the north stay together.

Far too unlikely. Italy or Provence would be far too precious economically, demographically, and politically (Rome!) to let it slip without a struggle to the death (see HRE in the XII-XIII Centuries, or France in the XV-XVI Centuries). If the Empire loses Italy or Provence, it means that the Franco-German rest of the core is falling apart, too. If the Empire loses pieces, it shall be at the real periphery (i.e. Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Poland), not the core.
 

Susano

Banned
The Netherlands were the richest region of Europe at the time of the independance war. It are espeically the rich region which are financially able to keep up a fight for independance.

Oh, and while were at it: Linguistic doesnt work that way! Hybrid languages across languiage group barriers hardly ever form. Theres no incentive either, as the ruling nobility will hardly care about what the peasants speak. Look at Belgium or Switzerland - languages dont unite like that.

Now as for the main scenario, after the tripartition of the Frankish Empire the Western and the Eastern parts successfully did away with splitting the inheritance, so I guess its possible to pull off. But that means you have a moloch of an Empire, involving such distances that geography alone more or less dictates a strenghtening of feudal lords. And IOTL in the German Kingdom the time after the Carolingians was one of great Frankish-Saxon rivalry and, hm, tribal nationalism of a kind. Well, those tribal Duchies, of the Saxons, the Bavarians, the Alemannes and the Thuringians still exist. If the united Empire has its centre in the West or in Italy, theyre likely to drift away from central authority...
 

Eurofed

Banned
Yes but the Franks seem to been more allies of the Christian Iberian states,which they left alone, only set up a single march, which more or less was left to drift by the Empire. At best I could see them being suzelar of Barcelona and the areas it conquers, but Leon and it succesor states will likely stay independent.

About Carolingian supposed lack of interest (early France is another matter entirely) in Iberian expansion, it must be remarked IMO there is insufficient evidence to assume it: Charlemagne did make a significant try, found it a nut too tough to crack, and hence he focused on easier targets for the rest of his lifetime. Louis the Pious well, he mostly focused on a defensive stance and avoided major expansions for various reasons (mostly related to his shortcomings as a leader), and afer him everything fell apart. You could say that the Empire lacked the opportunity to negage in any major expansion southward. IMO, once expansion and consolidation in Germany and Italy (indeed the main expansion vectors for the Carolingianm but not necessary the exclusive ones) was well underway, it is unplausible to assume that the surviving CE would have spurred any serious direct Reconquista involvement, for various good reasons: Spain has good land and mineral resources (known since the Romans) and its possessions allows the CE to round up its control of the Western Mediterranean; conquering it eliminates the Muslim strategic threat to France; it allows to reap major ideological Crusade brownie points much more easily than galliwanting in Palestine.

Now, I won't argue against the point that for the CE, Iberia was periphery, if a close and valuable one, and once conquered, it could be lost (without fatal damage to the Empire) during a major crisis (really bad dynastic crisis, Mongol invasions), or it might not, ever. But that's a wholly different matter, which I can see happen. Spain would not be as integral to the Empire's health as France, Germany, or Italy.
 

Eurofed

Banned
But that means you have a moloch of an Empire, involving such distances that geography alone more or less dictates a strenghtening of feudal lords. And IOTL in the German Kingdom the time after the Carolingians was one of great Frankish-Saxon rivalry and, hm, tribal nationalism of a kind. Well, those tribal Duchies, of the Saxons, the Bavarians, the Alemannes and the Thuringians still exist. If the united Empire has its centre in the West or in Italy, theyre likely to drift away from central authority...

Geography alone is not an insormountable problem. The Romans had the same technological base and managed fien over greater distances. The Empire needs to develop a decent centralized administration and army to balance the feudal lords.
 

Susano

Banned
Yes, but thats exactly what crashed down during the Fall of Rome and the Dark Ages. And you cant create an administration system such extensively as would be needed for a truely central administration out of nothing. Its also an issue of population density - larger population density means more infrastructrue, more infrastructure means faster connections and generally better abilities to administrate the realm centrally. But the western part already had fewer people than in Roman times, while the eastern part was really extremly thinly settled.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Yes, but thats exactly what crashed down during the Fall of Rome and the Dark Ages. And you cant create an administration system such extensively as would be needed for a truely central administration out of nothing. Its also an issue of population density - larger population density means more infrastructrue, more infrastructure means faster connections and generally better abilities to administrate the realm centrally. But the western part already had fewer people than in Roman times, while the eastern part was really extremly thinly settled.

Nonetheless, France and England managed the gradual transition to a decent centralized government fine, and with the CE it would be roughly triple the size as France. Judging by that precedent, it does not seem an insourmountable problem. Charlemagne had started putting the seeds of a centralized admninistration with the Missi Dominici and the drafting of the Church as an administrative arm, it seems more like the faulty inheritance system fanned centrifugal forces to an irresistible degree rather than such forces being irresistible in the first place. They did need to develop some nucleus of a centralized army, although, even if completely supplanting feudal levies was unnecessary, France and England did adequately using a mix of both.
 
Nonetheless, France and England managed the gradual transition to a decent centralized government fine...


Eurofed,

Which still took centuries in much smaller areas, smaller areas that weren't as immediately and regularly threatened as the Carolingian Empire.

They did need to develop some nucleus of a centralized army, although, even if completely supplanting feudal levies was unnecessary, France and England did adequately using a mix of both.

Again, which they did over the course of centuries.

I'm sorry, but this timeline is a nothing more than a wank.


Bill
 
...it seems more like the faulty inheritance system fanned centrifugal forces to an irresistible degree rather than such forces being irresistible in the first place.
I don't know how many times I am going to have to explain this to you... the inheritance system was not faulty! :mad: It worked well for its intended purpose: to make administration of a large empire easier in a time when safe, prevalent infrastructure did not exist. Giving sons control of isolated areas - say Aquitaine or Bavaria - ensured the cooperation of local provincial nobility. The magnates would feel better having their own sub-king to administrate the duchy, arbitrate law, attend to needs of the people, etc better than the far-off emperor could ever do. The empire survived as long as it did in OTL because of this system. It kept the nobles invested in the empire, and prevented them from leaving it and forming independent states. This only began to break down when the Carolingian line started drying up and the Vikings came and devastated the north. But even as late as the 880s, the empire was considered indivisible enough for Charles the Fat to be able to reunite the entire state.
 
Top