WI: Carolingian Empire manages to remain united (no Verdun)

Another PoD thought -- supposing Lothair dies (of injury, of a sudden illness, what have you) during one of his two rebellions (in 830 and 833) or between them. Even if both Louis the German and Charles the Bald survive, neither of them seemed to be as problematic for the unity of the Franks as their eldest brother (plus Louis the German is married to his half brother's maternal aunt, in addition to now having more to split between them). And beyond all that, Charles didn't marry otl until after the death of his father (842), meaning Louis the German could a window to take it all with one more convenient death...

CONSOLIDATE: Does anybody have thoughts on how the High Middle Ages would be changed if the Carolingian Empire were still around, or was only just starting to break up, at the start of the Medieval Warm Period (mid 10th Century)?
 
Last edited:
The Carolingian Renaiisance would have likely been more widespread. OTL it was largely centered solely around the church, with little effect beyond them. It the Karlings survived longer with a degree of stability the Carolingians lacked post-Louis the Pious, it could have potentially spread to the nobles and become more entrenched. OTL the effects were widely dissipated over time, but the development of a more educated idea of nobility would have long reaching effects.
I think a longer lasting Carolingian Empire would probably have looked southwest to Hispania than to Denmark or England. The Saxon Wars lasted thirty years, and were very troublesome. Spreading Christianity or not, Hispania and the muslims would offer far more loot and glory to the Franks. So very accelerated Reconquista.
I actually think a strong Frankish kingdom would scare off the vikings. Good for the Franks, but the vikings would probably focus more on either England or potentially abandon the west entirely to focus on east towards the Baltics. I could see the vikings coming to settle the entire Baltic, and potentially developing the trade routes through Kievan Rus more. This would probably end with a greater Varangian dominance of the slavic tribes, and really affect the Christianization of Scandinavia and the Northern Crusades. The vikings often adopted Christianity and other cultures due to settling in their lands, and then returned to spread this to Scandinavia. Little interaction with England or France would cause this to not occur, and a lack of viking raids would make many christians disregard Scandinavia till the Northern Crusades. A Northern Crusade against all of Scandinavia and Baltics would be very different.
 
I think a longer lasting Carolingian Empire would probably have looked southwest to Hispania than to Denmark or England. The Saxon Wars lasted thirty years, and were very troublesome. Spreading Christianity or not, Hispania and the muslims would offer far more loot and glory to the Franks. So very accelerated Reconquista.

I agree on Spain being the main target of a surviving Carolingian Empire, but an accelerated Reconquista might not mean more loot and glory to the Franks as long as the control of the Franks over Spain would not be as guaranteed as thought. The remainders of the Gothic nobility were at least as anti-Frankish as anti-Saracen, so an eventual quick breakaway of different Spanish entities is quite likely (Navarra did so IOTL in 824, before Verdun).

Regarding Denmark and England, it would depend on the development of the alternate events. Control over Denmark could mean the wipe-out of the Viking incursions in the continent and even the opening of Northern trade routes for the Franks (imagine the opportunity of establishing trading between Northwestern America and Francia).
 
Yeah, being able to hold Hispania is an entirely different question. In truth, I have a difficult time imagining a kingdom the size of the Carolingian Empire lasting with their infrastructure. Each region beforehand was its own country, only conquered by Charlemagne and held together by military force. However this is basically a scenario where the Carolingian Empire did stay together, in which case the Franks could throw huge amount of force at Hispania. Now that doesn't mean they'd hold it, but a united Carolingian Empire would certainly be an incredibly powerful military force for the Middle Ages.

While taking Denmark would hurt the vikings, as Denmark seems to have been the most populated of the Scandinavian countries, I'm not so sure it would immediately give the Franks control over the north. Britain is always going the centerpiece of the North Sea, once the vikings are removed. The Baltic Sea is even further from the heartland, and thus unlikely to occupy anything but a peripheral area for the Franks, even with Denmark conquered. And I hope you meant Northeastern America, because I have no idea how reaching the northwestern part of America would work. However areas like the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland were absolutely necessary for an example of Vinland to ever occur. It's one thing for the vikings to inhabit these places, but I don't think the Franks would give two craps about these cold and dismal islands so far out. Even then however, Vinland was at the very far end of possible travel. It's why the vikings never settled it. Too far and difficult to reach. It's one thing for an isolated ship to reach the area, another to have consistent trade or migration occur. Even then, the Native Americans didn't have anything that would justify establishing such a stretched trade route, as the fur trade was not nearly as important as later times. Even when the Europeans reached America, they didn't care about settling the land. The Spanish and Portugese were focused on gold of the Aztecs, Inca's, etc. To even make a Vinland-Francia trade route, the Franks would need to take England, Iceland, and Greenland. I simply don't see them doing that when Hispania, southern Italy, and the muslims are there presenting closer and more immediate problems/opportunities. The vikings had no real choice as they tried and failed to take the more fertile and populated lands to the south and failed, so these areas were their only real opportunities. For Francia to really focus North beyond England, which already presents a lot of problems, would require quite a few butterflies.

Overall while I could see Francia taking Denmark, I figure it would be a 'shoring up our northern defenses' kind of thing rather than the 'place by which to base a Frankish domination of the North Sea'.
 
I do wonder where would the capital be? I have been looking and I couldn't find a single thing on this.

Would the location off said capital be very important?
 
I do wonder where would the capital be? I have been looking and I couldn't find a single thing on this.

Would the location off said capital be very important?
I assume the capital (if there ever was a continous capital) would lie along the Rhine, it being a major river in the heartland of the frankish realm.
 
Aachen was the closest they had to a capital in Charlemagne's time, and I presume that would remain the case if the Empire remained united.
 
Top