WI: Charlemagne conquers most of Hispania after 801

In 801, Louis the Pious conquered the city of Barcelona and during the following decade some attempts to reach the Saracen cities of Zaragoza and Valencia were made, but finally there was not a large scale campaign like the Italian of 773, because the circumstances did not favour it.

Assuming that the circumstances would have allowed a large scale campaign in Eastern Spain and Charlemagne manages to conquer most of Hispania (maybe also puppetizing the weak Kingdom of Asturias), crushing the Saracen hegemony in the Iberian peninsula, which consequences would have had the incorporation of 'Gothia' in the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne?
 
The short answer to this is that it isn't possible without radically restructuring the Frankish army (probably going back to Martel's time if not earlier). Why? Logistics. Charlemagne can't get his army to Andalusia in any sort of fighting-capable state. And even if he did it wouldn't be worth it.

In Charlemagne's reign the general practise for the Frankish army was to have large magazines in each major city, filled with food and other supplies that would be needed. If the army was travelling more than a few days' marching, it would go to one town, then pick up enough supplies to get it to the next, and then collect more there. Repeat as many times as necessary to get to the hostile frontier. This method is very good for responding to internal threats (rebels) or external raiders (Saxons), which is the type of fighting most of the Franks had done since the 6th century, as it allows a force to be rapidly organised and moved around the country without impacting the locals, but isn't well suited to large scale offensive action as it requires a massive supply train. For an army of 40,000 men in enemy territory, around 500 carts' worth of food is needed to sustain it for a week. In the Italian campaign a big point was made of not taking food from the locals (or looting the land at all), as Charlemagne feared that they would rise up and fight him. If the Italians got to the Frankish supply lines, the army is soon defeated (or more accurately, forced to retreat).

Italy is really the only major campaign where Charlemagne advanced any sort of distance into enemy territory. The first stage of it (pre-siege of Pavia) was covered by the aforementioned supply train and non-interference policy. During the time of the siege, the Franks had another force, headed towards Verona, but here the Pope was supplying the army with food (a fact that the Pope would spend a lot of time reminding Charlemagne of later). Otherwise, Pavia is only about 100km (around a week's march) from the border. In the Saxon campaigns (at least 772, 775 and 776 when the Franks had minimal infrastructure in the area), they only advanced around that far as well. Barcelona is no further from the border either. Narbonne -> Barcelona is also a similar distance to Barcelona -> Zaragoza. So a week's march is likely to have been the limit of his capabilities (raids may have reached further, but raids are not huge armies).

Even if he can march to Cordoba, how will he keep them supplied? He's already had to build more carts and transport thousands of extra animals over the Pyrenees, so even more carts will eventually get unwieldy. 40,000 is a rather large army for the time, supplying it ten times over (so it can last two months instead of a week) is reaching into the absurd. If he takes food from the local farmers, they'll join the Saracen army or raid his supply train. If he doesn't, he starves (and the Muslims in Andalusia may well resist him anyway). Perhaps not so much a problem if the Umayyad leader capitulates immediately, but if he forces the Franks to a siege, Charlemagne isn't going to make it work. The Muslims would be well aware of this too.

Not to mention that by 800 Charlemagne was getting quite a bit older than when he fought the Lombards and Saxons. The Royal Frankish Annals mention him spending more and more time at Aachen, in contrast to earlier years where he is often seen at various different palaces, so it is quite possible he simply couldn't be bothered committing to another major campaign (in addition to the quite demanding work of being a king in the first place).

Assuming that the circumstances would have allowed a large scale campaign in Eastern Spain and Charlemagne manages to conquer most of Hispania (maybe also puppetizing the weak Kingdom of Asturias), crushing the Saracen hegemony in the Iberian peninsula, which consequences would have had the incorporation of 'Gothia' in the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne?

Handwaving all the issues I just listed for a minute, let's say that he does make it to Cordoba, the Umayyads throw open the gates and he's now king of Spain. The population of his empire has now doubled again*. Again? Well it kind of doubled (compared to Pippin's day) when he took over Italy, Saxony and Bavaria. So he's now ruling between three and four times the amount of people his already busy father did. Why is this a concern? The main way of governing was to pretty much ride around to the different parts of the empire and tell people to do what he wanted. Not always personally of course, but if he's not getting on a horse, someone else is, which means a lot more 'someone else's have to be hired. However it is done, it won't be governed nearly as effectively as if he had fewer subjects to manage. And the entire empire suffers for it.

Finally, we come to when he dies. Yay, Louis is king. Maybe one of Louis' brothers lived. If that's the case, the division is probably Spain and half of France to one, the other half and Italy to the other (or Spain/France/Italy if there's three alive). However it is divided, it will still suffer the age-old problem of partition inheritance. Except there's butterflies so it's too hard to say where the chips might fall thirty years down the track.

*Using numbers estimating for the year 1000, I couldn't find anything earlier but the ratio wouldn't have drastically changed.

- BNC
 

Kaze

Banned
It would be hard to do so, but let us say he did so there would be MAJOR problems later - the Treaty of Verdun and the Viking Invasions.

The Treaty of Verdun divided the Empire into three areas -between the sons of Louis the Pious- basically what would be France, Germany, a small strip in between which was connected Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland to Italy with the Emperor ruling over the two other brothers. The treaty was immediately violated and the one in the middle area ceased to exist, basically cementing the border despite between Germany and France for the foreseeable future.

If we go with the IRL divisions of the Treaty - Charles the Bald is going to get Spain, unless one of his brothers (or relatives*) claim it. If some other brother (or relative) got it - the treaty would be violated and Charles the Bald would take Spain by force as well as try for the small strip of land in between Germany and France.

Now for the Viking invasions. They would come as winter follows autumn. Spain would be a perfect place for the Vikings to relocate - Charles the Bald and his heirs would not have the military force to keep it within his empire. So instead of having Normandy in Northern France, I could see where William the Bastard is Spanish.

=======================================================================================
*- Denouement --
The other relative I would choose would be Pepin the Hunchback or one of Charlemagne's bastards (Charlemagne had quite a few bastards running around). In IRL - one of the many reasons for Pepin's rebellion / coup attempt (other than Charlemagne hated his unsightly son) was that he had no land and he was easily swayed. If Charlemagne gave him land - say in Spain in OTL - it is likely there would be no rebellion / coup attempt, Pepin would live there in exile (he might still try the coup because of the exile and because his father disliked him, but let us say for ASB, he does not attempt a coup). Pepin the Hunchback (or a suggested the bastard) would marry and produce heirs ruling over Spain at least until the Treaty of Verdun. It is likely that the Pepinids or the bastard's heirs would have to argue for their own portion or win a war against the sons of Louis the Pious. Let us for agreement's sake say he is victorious either in argument or on the battlefield -the Vikings might still look at greedy eyes at Spain as they did in IRL France and Germany.
 
Now for the Viking invasions. They would come as winter follows autumn. Spain would be a perfect place for the Vikings to relocate - Charles the Bald and his heirs would not have the military force to keep it within his empire. So instead of having Normandy in Northern France, I could see where William the Bastard is Spanish.

But why would they not go to Normandy? It's closer to their base in Scandinavia and the Franks were unable to defend it OTL.
Are the Frankish defenses stronger ITTL?
 
Wouldn't this shift the center of the Empire towards the South? I mean OTL most of the important cities (ie capitals, major centres of learning, wealth ex ex) were grouped grouped around the former heartlands of Neustria and Austrasia, but adding Iberia would mean that logistically messages would take much longer to reach the Imperial residences, so would Toulouse (as an examples) become a more important city in terms of government? Also, who rules Hispania? OTL Charlemagne appointed his sons to rule the periphery states he annexed, so would we see a grandson get Hispania or was there another relative available to take that throne?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Italy is really the only major campaign where Charlemagne advanced any sort of distance into enemy territory. The first stage of it (pre-siege of Pavia) was covered by the aforementioned supply train and non-interference policy. During the time of the siege, the Franks had another force, headed towards Verona, but here the Pope was supplying the army with food (a fact that the Pope would spend a lot of time reminding Charlemagne of later). Otherwise, Pavia is only about 100km (around a week's march) from the border. In the Saxon campaigns (at least 772, 775 and 776 when the Franks had minimal infrastructure in the area), they only advanced around that far as well. Barcelona is no further from the border either. Narbonne -> Barcelona is also a similar distance to Barcelona -> Zaragoza. So a week's march is likely to have been the limit of his capabilities (raids may have reached further, but raids are not huge armies).



- BNC

Largely agree. Wagon trains can't supply an army much past 100 miles (160 km) even if the wagon train starts on a rail head. So this means the two option for conquering Spain are living off the land which you discussed or building a navy which is the more practical way to do this type of supply. It is a old, and largely unsolvable problem that a diverse number of historical military strategies have studied. There are exceptions such as the Mongols, but these are only useful in some geographic areas with limited lifestyles.

So realistically, a Charlemagne who conquers Spain has spent a large amount of time creating a Roman/Ottoman/Venetian/Greek style logistic system. And it is a Charlemagne who has figured out the challenge of spending many campaign seasons away from his core territory with having revolts or pretenders take over the thrown. So if you tell me that Charlemagne has conquered and pacified Spain, I will tell you that Charlemagne has reformed the Western Roman Empire not in the style of the Byzantines but in the style of one Chinese Dynasty replacing another. I would expect this pattern to repeat, so I would look to China as inspiration for the ATL. I don't know what language or ethnic group would be on top today, but I would expect there to be one or two Empires controlling the majority of Europe. Just like the Byzantines morphed into the Ottomans (Roman, Eastern Roman, Ottoman), I would expect additional evolution in the (Roman, Western Roman, Charlemagne, XX, Today Dynasty).
 
It would be hard to do so, but let us say he did so there would be MAJOR problems later - the Treaty of Verdun and the Viking Invasions.

The Treaty of Verdun divided the Empire into three areas -between the sons of Louis the Pious- basically what would be France, Germany, a small strip in between which was connected Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland to Italy with the Emperor ruling over the two other brothers. The treaty was immediately violated and the one in the middle area ceased to exist, basically cementing the border despite between Germany and France for the foreseeable future.

If we go with the IRL divisions of the Treaty - Charles the Bald is going to get Spain, unless one of his brothers (or relatives*) claim it. If some other brother (or relative) got it - the treaty would be violated and Charles the Bald would take Spain by force as well as try for the small strip of land in between Germany and France.

Granted, if the Emirate of Cordoba is taken, then I would see the divisions being of the brothers being made King of Cordoba rather than of Italy.

What would be Central Francia is instead normal France more or less (with OTL Central Francia being divided, probably the northern areas going to France and the Italian southern territories given to Bavaria).
 
Last edited:
Top