What if the Lombards Last Longer?

Art

Monthly Donor
my question is this: Could the various Duchies of the Lombards have United and become one Kingdom? And also, could the Duchies have resisted and defeated Charlemagne when he went to conquer them? And could they have united all Italy?
 
??? They had a kingdom. Charlemagne took over the crown of it, but it conrtinued to exist as a separate entity until very late into Carolingian times. If you can somehow prevent Charlemagne from invading, that would most likely continue to exist, at least for the time being.

If you want a continuation Kingdom of italy, your best bet is to screw with the Saxon emperors. The kings of Italy were a bit of a joke back then, but so were the kings of France - that kind of thing isn't necessarily permanent.
 
In my current dormant Carolingian timeline, Woe to you, o sons of Pipin!, I effect the Lombard survival by Carloman staying alive and fighting a successful civil war against Charles, with Lombard assistance.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
I personally HATE Charlemagne.

He committed genocide on the Old Saxons, just because they refused to convert to Catholicism. He was a crawling snake, in opinion.
 

Prefrence

Banned
He committed genocide on the Old Saxons, just because they refused to convert to Catholicism. He was a crawling snake, in opinion.

Thats how it was back then, every time you conquer a people, they convert or die, dont single out Charlemange! :mad:
 
And some people think that his bad image as "the slaughterer of the Saxons" may be due to a typo by a copist: If someone confused Latin words "delocati" (resettled) and "decollati" (killed), you'd get this. Because it is true after all that many Saxons were resettled by him - for example in Sachsenhausen, a part of Frankfurt (obv. a Frank city).
 
He committed genocide on the Old Saxons, just because they refused to convert to Catholicism. He was a crawling snake, in opinion.

Okay, Saxons are basically split in 4 "nations" that regularly raided the Frankish Kingdom. Unlike the Lombards (whom the major wrong was to trying to make the Pope a Lombard bishop), Saxons were considered as "barbarians" and, then, deserving a big punch in their collective face.

Except that didn't work. Saxe could have been conquered only by assimilating the saxons elites into a christianized nobility. If you except the romantic views of the history of Early Germany, you see quite quickly that, not talking about the "regular" deads and killing that every region knew at this era, the conquest of Saxony was made eventually by a more or less regular political moves.

For the Lombardy, well, it's ever a wonder that their kingdom last until Charlemagne.
I think that you need a PoD that make the Frankish Kingdom self-exploding while growing, using the traditional alliance between Bavaria and Aquitania, by expanding earlier with Lombardy (as Waifre try to do in 756).
 
He committed genocide on the Old Saxons, just because they refused to convert to Catholicism. He was a crawling snake, in opinion.

Every great man had lights and shadows in his life, and surely Charlemagne will not made exception.
 
Charlemagne didn't eradicate the Saxons. Let's not be ridiculous.

The Franks committed atrocities, yes. Excessive amounts of Saxons starved or were slain, yes.

But I find the idea that they were eradicated to be preposterous.

Not that I find the man unwilling to do so, mind you.
 
So, somehow, a post about the Lombards has already been sidetracked into speaking about Charlesmagne and the Saxons!?

In my opinion, the biggest problem that the Lombards had to deal with was the Pope and, even more importantly, the Byzantine territory of the Exarxh of Ravenna. By effectively dividing their territory in half, it made it very difficult for the Kings to consolidate his influence over the southern Dukes of Spoleto and Benevento.
What you had in Italy at the time was a situation where the Lombards had to continually manuever around the Byznatines and the Pope. When they were finally able to knock one of them out, such as when Desiderius took Ravenna, the Pope would just call in the Franks who were more than happy to come marching down and cause some havok.
If you want to see a strong Lombard state in Italy, what you are going to have to do is fracture Frankish power in the north for a generation or so. Maybe given Charlemagne two more brothers, so the kingdom is split into four, or some such. Anything that works. But, without the Franks there to destabilize Italy, the Lombards might just have a chance to unite the peninsula.
Of course, if the Kings do that, they will have to deal with their own nobility which had a long standing tradition of disliking strong royalty (The Lombards actually went without a King for about 10 years, after entering Italy), as well as the afore mentioned semi-independent dukes of benevento and Spoleto. But, The Lombards were not the only peoples of the time who had to deal with such a situation, so they might well have been able to pull through. That is, as I said, if the Franks are unable to intervene.
On an interesting note, a surviving Lombardy is going to have to influence upon the temporal powers of the Pope. It was during this time that the Pope began to see himself as the ruler of, not jsut the city of Rome, but the territory outside as well. This claim was backed up, and made stronger, by charlesmagne and the creation of the Papal States. This is unlikely to occure in *Lombard Italy.
 
So, somehow, a post about the Lombards has already been sidetracked into speaking about Charlesmagne and the Saxons!?
That's AH.com for you :D
In my opinion, the biggest problem that the Lombards had to deal with was the Pope and, even more importantly, the Byzantine territory of the Exarxh of Ravenna. By effectively dividing their territory in half, it made it very difficult for the Kings to consolidate his influence over the southern Dukes of Spoleto and Benevento.
What you had in Italy at the time was a situation where the Lombards had to continually manuever around the Byznatines and the Pope. When they were finally able to knock one of them out, such as when Desiderius took Ravenna, the Pope would just call in the Franks who were more than happy to come marching down and cause some havok.
If you want to see a strong Lombard state in Italy, what you are going to have to do is fracture Frankish power in the north for a generation or so. Maybe given Charlemagne two more brothers, so the kingdom is split into four, or some such. Anything that works. But, without the Franks there to destabilize Italy, the Lombards might just have a chance to unite the peninsula.
Of course, if the Kings do that, they will have to deal with their own nobility which had a long standing tradition of disliking strong royalty (The Lombards actually went without a King for about 10 years, after entering Italy), as well as the afore mentioned semi-independent dukes of benevento and Spoleto. But, The Lombards were not the only peoples of the time who had to deal with such a situation, so they might well have been able to pull through. That is, as I said, if the Franks are unable to intervene.
On an interesting note, a surviving Lombardy is going to have to influence upon the temporal powers of the Pope. It was during this time that the Pope began to see himself as the ruler of, not jsut the city of Rome, but the territory outside as well. This claim was backed up, and made stronger, by charlesmagne and the creation of the Papal States. This is unlikely to occure in *Lombard Italy.
A less temporal Pope would be interesting to see.
While I see the Patriarch of Rome still maintaining his princedom over Rome - Prince/Count-bishoprics are still likely considering the problems Dukes and Kings will still have over their fiefs and vassals - the position could evolve into a more Chief Archbishop role and a widening of the Cardinals into a Church Parliament (cf the Old English Witangemot and Polish Sjem for temporal elective monarchies).
 
Top