the franks

what if pope leo 3rd had not escaped the roman mob
never crowns charlemagne
and charlemagne moves the papal capital to aix le chappelle
i propose this scenario

charlemagne alters the frankish law so that the empire doesnt get split by louis
and the church is subjugated to the power of the frankish crown
 
How does Charles the Mangy get the prescience to know that his inheritance arangements will be considered a disaster by 19th-century historians? And why would he care?

Without the meeting with the pope, would he even wish to become emperor?

And what system of inheritance does he enact?
 
reply

the term emporer of the HRE was a worthless invention, charlemagne
was king of the franks and the papacy was dependent on his favour for their survival
well ok charlemagne realises the danger of dividing his empire and alters the laws of succession
p.s im here for a serious discussion and reffering to charlemagne as charles the mangy is a bit childish
 
reply

the term emporer of the HRE was a worthless invention, charlemagne
was king of the franks and the papacy was dependent on his favour for their survival
well ok charlemagne realises the danger of dividing his empire and alters the laws of succession
p.s im here for a serious discussion and reffering to charlemagne as charles the mangy is a bit childish
 

Philip

Donor
the term emporer of the HRE was a worthless invention,

Invention? Not really. It was considered to be the same crown of the Roman Emperors not something new.

well ok charlemagne realises the danger of dividing his empire

You need some more detail here.

and alters the laws of succession
Seems to me that this would these some people rather unhappy.

im here for a serious discussion
You might try some capitalization and punctuation. People will be more likely to take your post seriously.
 
Last edited:
i have a mind that generates ideas
dont be arrogant sonny boy

WAy to make friends.

OK, letz's look at the question of succession: which models are available?

- You have the Roman elective model. I can't see why Charles would try it, but it's possible. Which now asks the question who would stand in for the Senate and People.

- You have the Merovingian Frankish model. Applied OTL, not terribly successfully by nationalist lights, but viably.

- You have the model used in the Visigothic and Lombard kingdoms and Aquitaine, on and off.

- You have the example of Islamic states, which is probably too far away for our purposes.

- You have obscure references to the Saxon elective tradition.

Which one is it, and how does it get implemented? How does the centre deal with the rebellion of the newly disadvantaged? How far down the chain (if at all) will it apply? I would suggest a slight shift in understanding based on Biblical precedent that regards the kingsghip (and the kingship only) as an indivisible honour. The problem is that the entirety of Frankish tradition is against it - by Merovingian lights, a king is what you *are*, not what someone declares you. Thus, the implementation will likely depend on the appreval of some spiritual authority - back to the papacy.

The transition of the papacy to Aix also suffers from a number of problems. First, the economic lifeline of the popes is the direct connection to their estates in Italy. The time is fairly auspicious what with the conflict between Constantinpole and Romke and the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, but the kingdom would still have to find a way of substituting a large and regular income stream with financial resouirces that are at best pitiful. Secondly, the spiritual authority of the pope is based on his being the bishop of Rome. In the medium term, a papacy not based at Rome is going to massive lose authority and standing. Thirdly, the election of a bishop sat this point remains in the hands of the people of Rome, and they are very likely to simply elect a new one.

So how?
 
i have a mind that generates ideas
dont be arrogant sonny boy
punctuation who cares

Well, I for one care a good deal about punctuation...

As for your original post, well, it's an interesting possibility. But then of course it is, because if it wasn't, then you wouldn't have posted it, eh?

Were Charlemagne to decide to go against the established rules of succession, he could well have a rebellion on his hands. After all, if the king was going to do it, then the lesser nobles were also going to do it. And if the lesser nobles were going to start doing it, then hundreds if not thousands of second, third and fourth (and fifth etc., of course...) sons are suddenly going to discover that the land and wealth that they expected to inherit are gone, and that it's the king's fault.

Now, some of them are obviously just going to roll over and die, metaphorically. Others are going to be the sort of guys who love their eldest brothers enough that they'll just grin and bear it, and support their brothers in exchange for which they'll get something - support as a knight, perhaps, or something else on that magnitude if they're lucky. Basically, they'd get what second and later sons would get in the territories that followed primogenitor to start with. But then there's the interesting question of the second sons etc. who don't love their eldest brothers and who have the wherewithal to do something about their expropriation. So, from those fellows, you could have an actual revolt occurring.

Now, Charlemagne would probably smash any such revolt, I mean, this guy knew how to fight, but in so doing he would leave his Kingdom/Empire weakened, something which would be an undesirable result.

But his Kingdom/Empire (we should really figure out which it would be, without the papal crowning and so on) would still be a Medieval super-power, compared to its neighbors. If his successors are at all competent, then the Frankish Kingdom (or the Frankish Empire, or the HRE in spite of things, or whatever it ends up getting called) will do some expanding still - after all, its neighbors will be in no position to resist it.

Charlemagne's innovations militarily were really interesting, after all - he was the first to get really disciplined infantry that could actually do stuff, instead of just moving about as a disorganized mob that was easy prey for mounted knights. If that level of organization can be maintained, the era of the knight would be eliminated - knights might be terrifying one on one or when a group of them are charging, but when faced with spears or pikes and infantry behind them that is disciplined enough to stand in the face of a charging wave of knights, then they're actually not that effective. The real reason they were so effective was not just that they were deadly warriors, which is true - but the main reason was that no one opposing them could muster infantry that would stand with fixed spears in sufficient numbers.

Without the supremacy of the knights, the era as a whole will look entirely different - more centralized authority, the counts yielding power and authority to the king, since he's the one who can afford the upkeep of the largest standing infantry army... and, since he's the one with the troops, he's no longer going to need his nobles for military service, at least not to as great an extent as he would otherwise. They'd still be a great thing to have... just no longer the only thing.

All of this centralization of authority would probably lead to an earlier rise of absolutism - centralized power has that tendency, to make those who hold it want to keep it and expand it - but as to what else it could inspire, that would depend on other factors. Charlemagne was a really great king, unlike many other monarchs, he encouraged commerce and the spread of learning. If his successors keep to that, the Dark Ages could be significantly shortened, with a Renaissance centered on the Frankish holdings, not so much on Italy.

If, however, his successors are not of such high caliber, and play the traditional game of discouraging lower class aspirations in order to keep the nobles happy and their own power secure (both of which would be lesser motivations in this scenario - here their power comes not from noble knights who have to be willing to fight for them, but from common soldiers with spears who fight as part of a disciplined standing army) then the Dark Age could actually be prolonged - look at China, it was centrally controlled, and in spite of what was, compared to Europe, peace and prosperity, it stagnated - because it had one central authority that could, if it so chose, stifle innovation to a terrifying extent. Which, of course, it chose to do. Another good example might be Japan turning away from the gun - because there were no enemies to worry about with the nation unified, the Shoguns chose to eliminate what they saw as a threat to the social order by destroying the guns that they already had and removing the capability to make more.

However, while that dark possibility is a possibility, it wouldn't seem to be the most likely, for a number of reasons. The examples given, of nations that crushed technological innovation did so because the centralized power feared a collapse of its power if the commoners got uppity. Here, the centralized power would draw its military might from the commoners... and would embrace any technological change that weakened the biggest threat to its centralized power - which in this case would be the nobility and their armoured horsemen. So if the musket, crossbow or whatever made the common soldiers that Charlemagne's successors could well be using more deadly against knights, then so much the better - it would further increase the power of the centralized authority, by crushing the opposing decentralized power of the warrior aristocracy.

What could result, actually, might be some sort of "Gunpowder Empire" type scenario - the king has cannons, and so the fortresses of the nobility are useless, while the king also has the huge standing army and the beurocracy that goes with it that means that he is the state, to paraphrase Louis the Somethingth. All of which could result in the rise of a somewhat Enlightened Absolutist Empire that would be more or less a super power compared to its neighbors.

Or at least, that's my interpretation. Thoughts? :)
 
WAy to make friends.

OK, letz's look at the question of succession: which models are available?

- You have the Roman elective model. I can't see why Charles would try it, but it's possible. Which now asks the question who would stand in for the Senate and People.

- You have the Merovingian Frankish model. Applied OTL, not terribly successfully by nationalist lights, but viably.

- You have the model used in the Visigothic and Lombard kingdoms and Aquitaine, on and off.

- You have the example of Islamic states, which is probably too far away for our purposes.

- You have obscure references to the Saxon elective tradition.

Which one is it, and how does it get implemented? How does the centre deal with the rebellion of the newly disadvantaged? How far down the chain (if at all) will it apply? I would suggest a slight shift in understanding based on Biblical precedent that regards the kingsghip (and the kingship only) as an indivisible honour. The problem is that the entirety of Frankish tradition is against it - by Merovingian lights, a king is what you *are*, not what someone declares you. Thus, the implementation will likely depend on the appreval of some spiritual authority - back to the papacy.

The transition of the papacy to Aix also suffers from a number of problems. First, the economic lifeline of the popes is the direct connection to their estates in Italy. The time is fairly auspicious what with the conflict between Constantinpole and Romke and the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, but the kingdom would still have to find a way of substituting a large and regular income stream with financial resouirces that are at best pitiful. Secondly, the spiritual authority of the pope is based on his being the bishop of Rome. In the medium term, a papacy not based at Rome is going to massive lose authority and standing. Thirdly, the election of a bishop sat this point remains in the hands of the people of Rome, and they are very likely to simply elect a new one.

So how?

Ah, I just assumed that he meant that Charlemagne would go for the other common method of succession - just plain primogenitor. The other possibilities are interesting too, of course, but that seemed to be the most likely alternative to dividing the Empire between all of the sons.
 
The Pope at this time is very much the Bishop of Rome, selected by the notables of Rome, only after the Gregorian reforms is the Papacy a universal institution, "moving" the Papacy at this stage would make no sense - the Bishop of Rome cannot live in Aachen anymore than the Caliph of Baghdad can live in Sidcup.
 
Ah, I just assumed that he meant that Charlemagne would go for the other common method of succession - just plain primogenitor. The other possibilities are interesting too, of course, but that seemed to be the most likely alternative to dividing the Empire between all of the sons.

The problem is that primogeniture *isn't* common at this point. The rise of that system of inheritance about two centuries later is one of the really big seismic shifts in European government and ruling-class culture. Where rulers are succeeded by eldest sons only, that is largely because offices are viewed as indivisible (dukedoms are, as is the Roman-instituted kingship of the Visigoths and the elective kingship of the Lombards). Frankish kingship is divisible, an honour that attaches to the person rather than ther territory. That'sa a big leap to make intellectually.
 
the papacy

1) the title pope was never tied to being the bishop of rome but to the claim of being the spiritual successor to st peter, who in turn had claimed that Jesus bestowed apostolic powers oon him, yes rome was powerless so neither the byzantines or the franks had much motivation to argue about the pope being elected in rome, charlemagne and other nobles were concerned about the claim that the head of the church should naturally be based in rome, but they reigned supreme - so why bother
originally any western bishop could be addressed as pope because it was an honoury title of respect, this is not to be confused with the authority the bishops of rome successively built, who then by growing CUSTOM were accepted as the pope of the western church. this authority being based on crowing the HRE, see what a con Leo 3 pulled
the CUSTOM of the roman bishop being THE pope rather than a pope rested on his crowning of the HRE, once again see how skillful leo 3 was when he crowned charlemagne
leo built something that was to have a phenomenal influence on european history out of nothing
but it would have been simple and effortless for charlemagne to have done away with leo and declared the frankish capital as the religious centre of western europe
2) the bishop of constantinople had an authority that far outstripped that of the roman bishop
3) it was the confidence trick of a powerless bishop ( leo 3 ) giving an non existant crown of a non existant empire to the most powerful man in europe ( who incidently was king of what was really the only power in europe ) that duped frankish nobles into accepting roman primacy in the church
 
You could try tanistry, tho in an imperial model there are enough other powerbases for anyone who feels slighted or passed over to be able to raise a rebellion, either within the existing ruler's lifetime or in that of his successor

This could in a sense be combined in a quasi-elective model, electing that member of the dynasty viewed as best for the crown. Of course, FRANCE did this in the late medieval period, hence the change from a load of Carolingian nobodies to the early Capets

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
1) the title pope was never tied to being the bishop of rome but to the claim of being the spiritual successor to st peter, who in turn had claimed that Jesus bestowed apostolic powers oon him, yes rome was powerless so neither the byzantines or the franks had much motivation to argue about the pope being elected in rome, charlemagne and other nobles were concerned about the claim that the head of the church should naturally be based in rome, but they reigned supreme - so why bother
originally any western bishop could be addressed as pope because it was an honoury title of respect, this is not to be confused with the authority the bishops of rome successively built, who then by growing CUSTOM were accepted as the pope of the western church. this authority being based on crowing the HRE, see what a con Leo 3 pulled
the CUSTOM of the roman bishop being THE pope rather than a pope rested on his crowning of the HRE, once again see how skillful leo 3 was when he crowned charlemagne
leo built something that was to have a phenomenal influence on european history out of nothing
but it would have been simple and effortless for charlemagne to have done away with leo and declared the frankish capital as the religious centre of western europe
2) the bishop of constantinople had an authority that far outstripped that of the roman bishop
3) it was the confidence trick of a powerless bishop ( leo 3 ) giving an non existant crown of a non existant empire to the most powerful man in europe ( who incidently was king of what was really the only power in europe ) that duped frankish nobles into accepting roman primacy in the church

What? No. There were five recognised Patriarchs of the Christian Church, the earliest and leading Bishops. The Bishop of Rome was always recognised as primus inter pares, even in Constantinople. The concept of a "Papacy," clearly at the head of the entire heirarchy is a later innovation. You cannot move the Papacy until it exists,
 
ok

worth a try though

forget the papacy, i wasnt suggesting moving the papacy, it didnt exist


aix le chappele becomes the centre of the church in the west

and the byzantines, well they dont give a damn

the fact is that the bishop of rome was only one of many popes and your missing the central point, look again
the franks could have done what they wanted
as for succession, it was louis who broke with tradition by dividing the empire between lothar and the other 2 sons
lets say he doesnt do this
ok so we get a frankish civil war
 
Last edited:
Top