What if Italy and Byzantium fell into a personal union?

In the late 9th century, Ermengarda, only eligible daughter of Louis II, - king of Italy and otherwise heirless - was bound to marry Constantine, co-emperor and heir apparent of Byzantium. This event was prevented by Constantine's untimely death in 879, but what if that changed and Constantine became contemporarily king of Italy and emperor of Byzantium? How would that affect the tenuous political situation of the time period?
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure it would be (on the Byzantine end) not be treated as "personal union" as much as "Italy is back under our rule".

Might strengthen Constantinople's position in the west quite a bit though, especially if Constantine is as good or better at ruling than Leo was (as far as having a RL emperor to compare to).
 
First thing first: Constantine actually lived until 879, outliving Louis of Italy. His planned marriage with Ermengarda is shrouded in the mists of time, though, most likely being called off after the events of 871; as the conquest of Bari broke the opportunistic alliance between the prospective in-laws over by then usual rivalry between Frankish and Byzantine imperial pretenses and the natural clash of interests over South Italy. So, you need a POD that makes either Bari go worse - maybe prompting a Byzantine landing by Constantine himself - or just take long enough; the marriage happens and Ermengarda is "safely" imprisoned in a gilded cage at Constantinople.
There still are a lot of problems in store, though, for this Crusader Kings-style scheme to go anywhere.
As mentioned in passing, chauvinism would get in the way of the best scenario; Constantine is not going to go away from his father's side, live at the court of the Frankish pretender, or set up a dangerously distant (and exposed) court in Italy that Louis would certainly come to see as a threat. So this most likely prevents Constantine from really being ready to seize the chance when it presents, and being seen by the non-Greek populace as one of them. The Lombard polities of the south are still fiercely independent, and haven't certainly ever liked Byzantium; the Arab raiders are a threat in waiting, and kept taking Byzantine fortresses in eastern Sicily, so they need to be neutralized before any move northwards is ever attempted; and last but not least, relations with Rome were still strained over the recent Photian schism and the influence tug of war over the newly-Christianised Bulgarians and Slavs on top of the old grievances.
All these things combined make it likely that Constantine's rights are ignored, with OTL pretenders like Carloman of Bavaria and Charles the Bald coming in and successfully seizing all lands north of Capua in accord with the Pope and the Italian populace who, unlike the 6th Century, no longer identifies as much (if at all) with the Empire in the East.
As said, I believe that only swift and successful intervention from a Constantine that happens to be there, capable and ready to strike, have any chance of succeeding beyond the Greek-speaking lands of the South (and even then, it needs a lot of sixes; OTL the Byzantines merely managed to seize most of Apulia and Calabria in the chaos following the disintegration of Karling power in Italy).
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Best case scenario seems like it would establish that Constantine has a claim - and more to the point, interest - in Italy more than his father or half-brother did OTL, but not immediately translate into Byzantine Italy. Worst case scenario is still interesting if Constantine has issue.
 
I think if the conquest of Bari were to fail spectacularly the alliance could have a shot at continuing, but I'm also quite sure of a secondary issue - Louis II was also emperor of the West. If Constantine and Ermengarde had a child within Louis's lifetime, this son would be inheritor not only to the crown of the East and the iron crown, but potentially a claimant to Charlemagne's legacy. A will to restore legitimacy to an united Roman Empire could potentially put down indefinitely the rivalry between Constantinople and the Franks, instead transforming into a rivalry between a reborn Rome and the breakaways north of the Alps.

A second doubt I have is how lasting this personal union would be, as eventually Constantinople's less-than-ideal court life would bring about a particularly hated king Italy would want to break away from.
 
A second doubt I have is how lasting this personal union would be, as eventually Constantinople's less-than-ideal court life would bring about a particularly hated king Italy would want to break away from.
Why?

Or more to the point, how would this be any different than any other less-than-ideal court life producing a "particularly hated king"?

Byzantium does not have a monopoly on intrigue, conspiracies, and usurpation.
 
Why?

Or more to the point, how would this be any different than any other less-than-ideal court life producing a "particularly hated king"?

Byzantium does not have a monopoly on intrigue, conspiracies, and usurpation.
That is true, but a personal union is a situation where one monarch governs two separate countries, and if Italy would not easily accept being ruled by a Greek emperor, it would definitely not be a fan of being ruled by a widely disliked and incompetent Greek emperor, seeking independence from Byzantium altogether. (This is speculation, correct me if I'm wrong.)
 
That is true, but a personal union is a situation where one monarch governs two separate countries, and if Italy would not easily accept being ruled by a Greek emperor, it would definitely not be a fan of being ruled by a widely disliked and incompetent Greek emperor, seeking independence from Byzantium altogether. (This is speculation, correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm not entirely sure when there's that kind of sentiment in Italy myself - that there would be rebellions against a bad emperor is almost a given, but seeking independence vs. trying to replace a bad emperor with a good one I'm not sure.

It would be messy, most likely, especially if the northern and central parts of the peninsula still develop along similar lines to OTL.
 
That is true, but a personal union is a situation where one monarch governs two separate countries, and if Italy would not easily accept being ruled by a Greek emperor, it would definitely not be a fan of being ruled by a widely disliked and incompetent Greek emperor, seeking independence from Byzantium altogether. (This is speculation, correct me if I'm wrong.)
Again, thinking too much on a Crusader Kings mindset. If this Constantine successfully pushes on to Italy, it won't be seen as his right as the holder of the crown of Italy or the legacy of Charlemagne, just as his due as the one true legitimate, and now again uncontested, Emperor of the Romans - just limited to wherever actual Byzantine control extends. The relevance of actual Carolingian rulers is breaking down for good in those years, anyways.
Still, in time northern Italy will attempt to secede due to it being simply too far to be properly held from Constantinople, sufficiently culturally divergent and not threatened by infidels.
 
Last edited:
Again, thinking too much on a Crusader Kings mindset. If this Constantine successfully pushes on to Italy, it won't be seen as his right as the holder of the crown of Italy or the legacy of Charlemagne, just as his due as the one true legitimate, and now again uncontested, Emperor of the Romans - just limited to wherever actual Byzantine control extends. The relevance of actual Carolingian rulers is breaking down for good in those years, anyways.
The relevance of actual Carolingian rulers is tied to one variable we haven't considered yet: the Papacy. How would the Pope feel about a successful Greek push into Italy in the earliest days of the Great Schism?
 
I think the main issue is that rulers in the early middle ages require really hands on ruling.They had to be physically in a location itself or else their authority would collapse.Add to that,I’m not sure other Frankish rulers would be too accepting of Italy drifting out of their orbit either.They were not exactly respectful of each other’s territories to begin with.
 
Last edited:
The relevance of actual Carolingian rulers is tied to one variable we haven't considered yet: the Papacy. How would the Pope feel about a successful Greek push into Italy in the earliest days of the Great Schism?
Poorly, as I stated myself. But late 9th century Popes are not the formidable beasts of 200 years later; OTL they and were heading towards the remarkable lows of the so-called saeculum obscurum, in which their power and influence reached new, genuine lows, while the Imperial crown often stayed unassigned and didn't really have a large impact until the Ottonian restoration.
Essentially my belief is, too many things prevent Constantine from meaningfully going North, but if he does, then nobody really has the strength to oppose him, dynastic rights or not, it's up to local élites to decide how to deal with this new Emperor at best.
 
Last edited:
...while the Imperial crown often stayed unassigned and didn't really have a large impact until the Ottonian restoration.
Speaking of that; positing that Rome manages to keep a hold of Italy until the 10th century, would Otto or his equivalent try to dislodge the Greeks in Italy or would he rather attack France?
 
Speaking of that; positing that Rome manages to keep a hold of Italy until the 10th century, would Otto or his equivalent try to dislodge the Greeks in Italy or would he rather attack France?
Depends on the situation.Otto’s move into Italy was more because he smelled blood in the water than because he had a long pre-conceived plan to take Italy.The Carolingian realms, especially Italy, were a hot mess.
 
Last edited:
Agree with darthfanta.
It depends on the actual Imperial commitment to Italy and how they deal with the Magyar raids; historically Byzantium focused eastwards, only advancing in the West as they exploited specific windows of opportunity, so it'd be a major reversal with plenty of butterflies to go around.
I don't see Byzantium putting in the required effort in, though, which would still encourage northern magnates to cue for external help from north... or the west.
 
hmmm
what if instead of a personal union a lasting alliance was created, after Ermengarde becoming queen and Constantine becoming emperor; Italy could be assigned to one of Constantine's lesser children, leaving the two separate but united by dynastic ties. Would the Eastern Romans ever have desire for such an alliance?
 
I don't see Byzantium putting in the required effort in, though, which would still encourage northern magnates to cue for external help from north... or the west.
also, would that encourage the consolidation of the Italian crown or the dissipation of it after becoming free of Byzantium?
 
hmmm
what if instead of a personal union a lasting alliance was created, after Ermengarde becoming queen and Constantine becoming emperor; Italy could be assigned to one of Constantine's lesser children, leaving the two separate but united by dynastic ties. Would the Eastern Romans ever have desire for such an alliance?
Maybe, but it still requires a large effort on Byzantium's part to actually conquer said realm. It would probably lead to a consolidation of the Italian realm, overall, while liberation from Byzantium is likelier to result in magnates retaining some level of autonomy.
 
Top