Why didn't Charlemagne expanded further into Eastern Europe?

What the title says.
The better question is why would Charlemagne expand farther into Eastern Europe.

The logical answer would be to bring Western advancements to the Balts faster so we could have a Baltic-wank, but that doesn't sound like something Charlemagne would want to do. :p

There are few, if any, large settlements to center your hold over Eastern Europe with, not even talking about finding any cities. There wasn't much to gain from turning the region into tributaries, either - because of the poverty and vast distance from there to the Frankish core territory, any tribute would be sparse and not all that worthwhile.

Large military campaigns to what will one day be Poland and the Kievan Rus' would be a stretch with the logistics, infrastructure and technology of the time, too.
 
Large military campaigns into Eastern Europe stretched Nazi Germany's logistical and supply capabilities, and they had around 900 years of hindsight and technology on the Franks. Sometimes geography is just a cruel mistress. Wide open plains with spread-out settlements don't lend themselves to being conquered very easily (steppe nomads notwithstanding). Plus we shouldn't undercut how far he *did* expand. He spread further East into Europe than the Romans could ever dream, and an empire the size of his wouldn't really be seen again in Europe until Napoleon, so his conquests were already impressive and stretched the limits of possibility for the time
 
Short answer, Arabs from the south thru Spain, Norse from the north and potential Avar/Magyar/Pecheneg incursions thru the Hungarian plain
 

Toraach

Banned
There was nothing of interest and worthly of conquering during that time. Just some slavic tribes. He had bigger problems closer home.
 
Maybe if the POD is early on in Charlemagne's reign; the Avars launch a campaign of northern raids into Poland for captives, before the Franks have defeated the Saxons. In the process the Avars build a few fortresses along the Vistula. Then later on, during the Avar campaigns, after taking the Avar Ring, Pepin of Italy goes north to capture the Avar holdouts along the Vistula, turning western parts of Poland into a tributary. This is probably the farthest east the Franks could expand during Charlemagne's time.

Another possibility: The Franks did assault Venice in 810, maybe if they captured Venice they could have extended a loose control along the Adriatic and possibly into Illyria, which would also be farther east then they went historically.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
England would have been more desirable than Eastern Europe. So would Spain. He had a march in Spain, but what kind of results could he have achieved on the peninsula if he invested the efforts made in Italy in Spain instead?
 
England would have been more desirable than Eastern Europe. So would Spain. He had a march in Spain, but what kind of results could he have achieved on the peninsula if he invested the efforts made in Italy in Spain instead?
Probably a tough fight (Abd Al-Rahman I was a tough dude), but i think he could pull it off within the right circumstances (Al-Rahman dying early and without a clear successor could help, and his state was, at that time period, still very rife with rebellions). It would still take some time for the Muslim population of Al-Andalus to grow by that point, if i'm not mistaken, and CM could ally with the Abbasids -- not that they'd help much in the conquering of the peninsula, due to geographical constraints, but he could invite them to create a subordinate emirate to control the Muslims to the further south of Iberia in case he wins.
 
Last edited:
At this point in time, most of the east was underdeveloped pagan tribes that ultimately didn't mater at all geopolitically. By the time Charlemagne could have conquered, say, the Baltics, he would much rather have conquered Andalusia or North Africa, both of which were wealthy and even came pre-Christianized for the most part.
 
For the Franks during Charlemagne's reign and after, the threats of Avar and Moravia were prevalent. Marches in the east were already located at the far end of Charlemagne's empire; duke of Lower Pannonia (march) Ljudevit's rebellion in 819 against Louis the Pious, merely five years after Charlemagne, was evident for the fragility of Frankish governance on that end, even though the Avars had been effectively defeated. Ljudevit defeated duke Borna of Dalmatia. Possibly unknown to the Franks at the time, the Bulgar Khan Krum contributed to the fall of the Avar Khangate from its eastern territories, not to mention Krum's leadership soundly defeated the Eastern Roman troops and made a skull wine cup out of Emperor Nikephorus I in Pliska 811. Krum's successor Omurtag contacted the court of Louis the Pious -- it was him again -- in regards to the Slavic tribes not adjusting to Bulgar's governance. Skirmishes between Louis' and Omurtag's troops broke out.

If the Franks had advanced during Charlemagne's time, they would have faced foreignly the advancing westward Moravians in modern day Slovakia and southern Poland, the weakening Avars in Hungary and the rising Bulgar Khanate in Romania and Bulgaria, and domestically Ljudevit was possibly only loyal on the surface to the Frankish court. If the Franks had advanced, the diplomatic and military campaign would have been grand in preparation and influence. Maybe a crusade-esque expedition would have been needed. Pope Leo III was mutually supportive of Charlemagne. Maybe dukes Borna, Ljudevit or other nobles could lead an army northward to attack the weakening Avars while Krum was defeating Avars from the east. Given that duke Baldric of Friuli expelled Lujudevit with military force but was later unsuccessful in 820s against the Bulgars under Omurtag, the Bulgars would have won more territories and Slavs under the Avars than the Franks. For the successful Frankish campaign during Charlemagne's --- and hence Krum's reign --- in an ATL, the Bulgars needed to win less.

However, that ATL would be going in a circle because Krum's leadership was capable of defeating Eastern Roman troops under the Emperor Nikephorus' personal leadership. Why would Krum's leadership become suddenly less effective against the Avars when the Frankish nobles were around? Maybe Baldric and Borna could be very smart to take the low hanging fruit of territories and Slavs when Krum's leadership would have done most of the campaigning.
 
Last edited:

Vuu

Banned
Geography and politics - Eastern Europe is a flat place, and more importantly, it becomes wider as you come closer to Asia, and had a low population density (even today they're pretty low) means there are few centers of control - such lands need to be annexed very slowly if you fight European-style, lest the logistics and the attrition demolish you (see Napoleon and Hitler), the opposite is true for steppe nomads to which all those things are a boon. He already could barely hold what he had, so Charlemagne doing it is pretty much out of the question. Keep Francia stable long-term and not have it fragment into the mess it did (looking at you, >HRE and pre-centralization France), and you could have them expand there.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
At this point in time, most of the east was underdeveloped pagan tribes that ultimately didn't mater at all geopolitically. By the time Charlemagne could have conquered, say, the Baltics, he would much rather have conquered Andalusia or North Africa, both of which were wealthy and even came pre-Christianized for the most part.

Wow, there's an AHC- Have Charlemagne conquer North Africa, or even southern Italy and Sicily.
 
Geography and politics - Eastern Europe is a flat place, and more importantly, it becomes wider as you come closer to Asia, and had a low population density (even today they're pretty low) means there are few centers of control - such lands need to be annexed very slowly if you fight European-style, lest the logistics and the attrition demolish you (see Napoleon and Hitler), the opposite is true for steppe nomads to which all those things are a boon. He already could barely hold what he had, so Charlemagne doing it is pretty much out of the question. Keep Francia stable long-term and not have it fragment into the mess it did (looking at you, >HRE and pre-centralization France), and you could have them expand there.

How would you convince Charlemagne to not follow the Frankish gavelkind law of succession? That's what split up his empire if I understand this period.
 

Vuu

Banned
Well, if you're a bad enough dude you can pretty much can all traditions that you find unsuitable

But Charlemagne wasn't exactly an Attila or Temujin to do so. The Franks seemingly didn't care about the fact that it will only cause division and such. Probably requires and early PoD
 
IIRC, the later French monarchs got around gavelkind-related problems by making the eldest son co- (but still junior) king whilst the father was still alive. That way, when the present king died, the new one wouldn't technically be inheriting the kingdom, since he ruled it already. So maybe Charlemagne could realise the problems caused by dividing the realm every generation and try a similar expedient?

Alternatively, just have a few generations where it chances that only one son is alive when the father kicks the bucket. Then, by the time of the next king to be survived by two or more sons, everybody's already got used to the idea of passing the whole kingdom on to one heir, so nobody makes much of a fuss when the old king passes the entire kingdom on to his eldest.
 
Alternatively, just have a few generations where it chances that only one son is alive when the father kicks the bucket. Then, by the time of the next king to be survived by two or more sons, everybody's already got used to the idea of passing the whole kingdom on to one heir, so nobody makes much of a fuss when the old king passes the entire kingdom on to his eldest.
You mean like Louis the Pious? Not to mention you could argue that both Charlemagne himself and his own father, Pepin the Short, both got extremely lucky by having their co-ruling brothers die and/or abdicate within several years of their ascension. Charlemagne especially, as him and Carloman were feuding and potentially about to war with each other.

The Frankish realm arguably only happened because they got very lucky with these three generations in having fairly peaceable succession. Once that changed for Louis the Pious' sons, we got the Treaty of Verdun.
 
You mean like Louis the Pious? Not to mention you could argue that both Charlemagne himself and his own father, Pepin the Short, both got extremely lucky by having their co-ruling brothers die and/or abdicate within several years of their ascension. Charlemagne especially, as him and Carloman were feuding and potentially about to war with each other.

Sure, but "the kingdom is divided in two, one king dies shortly afterwards" is much less of a precedent for primogeniture than "the kingdom goes entire to one person" is. If Pepin, Charlemagne and Louis had all been only sons, perhaps the empire would have remained intact after Louis.
 
Sure, but "the kingdom is divided in two, one king dies shortly afterwards" is much less of a precedent for primogeniture than "the kingdom goes entire to one person" is. If Pepin, Charlemagne and Louis had all been only sons, perhaps the empire would have remained intact after Louis.
It might have helped, but it would also have required a string of above average emperors, which would be asking too much outside of a Mary Sue story.
The fact is that the empire is too big and unwieldy, it has been put together in less than two generations and the communications are pretty poor, as well as lacking is an effective administration (yes, the Church may help in administration, but there is no history or tradition to keep the empire together).
Then there is the traditional problem of the border marches/duchies: if they are powerful enough to keep at bay the outside invaders, they will also become more and more independent of the central authority; if they are not powerful enough, well the empire has a problem.
 
Top