WI: Charlemagne dies early?

What if future Emperor Charlemagne dies of smallpox as a child, leaving Carloman as the sole heir to his kingdom? Would the Frankish Empire still rise? Would it instead descend into anarchy? What knock on effects would this have on the history of Europe?
 
You'd still have had a Frankish Kingdom including the Low Countries and much of Germany as well as France. Maybe Saxony survives and becomes an additional "Scandinavian" country. Italy may remain a separate Lombard Kingdom.
 
Francia was already on the rise at this point, already beneficied of a "special relationship" with the Church, and already intervened in remote regions.
Peppinids did a very good job, since the VIIth century, to enforce their power and to remove any real threat to their hegemony, so a sole Peppinid ruler in Francia would probably turn the same way than IOTL, no matter Charles or Carloman.

An intervention in Italy is extremely likely : not only Peppinids already intervened twice at this point, not only the relation with the Pope would make it bound to happen, but Lombard Italy tended to support various contenders in Francia since decades so it was geopolitically sound to do so.
For Old Saxony, I think that Franks would still make a go : with the importance given by Peppinids to Austrasian and Frisian regions as economic cores, having a bunch of people messing with them there wasn't that going to be accepted (especially when you had an history of Franks defeating Saxons to submit them into submission or tribute, as Dagobert I did). And again, the clear political-religious "project" of Peppinids wouldn't accept at the latest such situation given that besides raids and fierce independence, Saxons were extremely hostile to missionaries and didn't felt shy raiding religious buildings.

Does it means that nothing changes? I don't think that either. But changes are going to be more about Carloman's personal preferences (strategically, politically, etc.) rather than general tendences : and unfortunatly, we don't know nearly enough about Carloman to really guess what would have changed (formally or more deeply)
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Charlemagne extremely long reign and many victory create many things, it's difficult to imagine what happen if he doesn't exist.

With many kings, but no western Emperor, papacy might be weakened ? With many bishops stronger ?

Larger influence of Lombard and other Italian people ? even with regular intervention from Frankish court, Milan is closer and Kingdom and Dukes of Italy might be stronger without Empire ?

Weakened European resistance against Muslim pirate, Vikings, and Magyar ?

Biggest difference would be mythology/ideology of politic, I think. no strong Charlemagne empire as precedent, West Europe unity will weaken. .
 
Francia was already on the rise at this point, already beneficied of a "special relationship" with the Church, and already intervened in remote regions.
Peppinids did a very good job, since the VIIth century, to enforce their power and to remove any real threat to their hegemony, so a sole Peppinid ruler in Francia would probably turn the same way than IOTL, no matter Charles or Carloman.

An intervention in Italy is extremely likely : not only Peppinids already intervened twice at this point, not only the relation with the Pope would make it bound to happen, but Lombard Italy tended to support various contenders in Francia since decades so it was geopolitically sound to do so.
For Old Saxony, I think that Franks would still make a go : with the importance given by Peppinids to Austrasian and Frisian regions as economic cores, having a bunch of people messing with them there wasn't that going to be accepted (especially when you had an history of Franks defeating Saxons to submit them into submission or tribute, as Dagobert I did). And again, the clear political-religious "project" of Peppinids wouldn't accept at the latest such situation given that besides raids and fierce independence, Saxons were extremely hostile to missionaries and didn't felt shy raiding religious buildings.

Does it means that nothing changes? I don't think that either. But changes are going to be more about Carloman's personal preferences (strategically, politically, etc.) rather than general tendences : and unfortunatly, we don't know nearly enough about Carloman to really guess what would have changed (formally or more deeply)


A lot would just depend on longevity and genealogy.

If Carloman's reign is a lot shorter than his brother's, and he leaves several sons, then the Kingdom fragments before it has a chance to become an Empire.
 
What if future Emperor Charlemagne dies of smallpox as a child, leaving Carloman as the sole heir to his kingdom? Would the Frankish Empire still rise? Would it instead descend into anarchy? What knock on effects would this have on the history of Europe?

I will assume outside of the Frankish court, everything goes as OTL until September 24, 768.

  • Karloman had virtually no military experience when he took the throne, and from what we understand, was more inclined towards diplomacy rather than war (hence his actions in 769 and 771, towards Aquitaine and Lombardy respectively).
  • His relations towards the Lombards could be anything, as the main reason he sided with them in OTL was Charlemagne's divorce of Desiderata in early 771.
  • Francia itself will survive, as Pippin had greatly consolidated it before he died and even if Karloman dies in 771 (I remain convinced he was murdered in OTL), then there are suitable heirs (Pippin IV and his brother) and regents (Gisela, Autchar (Karloman's uncle), Gerberga, Bertrada even?). There will also be no risk of civil war, so the dukes will have less suspicion towards each other (and there was very little of that by 768 anyway).
  • No Saxon Wars, although there may be a bit of retribution.
  • Less conquests. Brittany is possible, Bavaria/Lombardy if either attack. Everything else is unlikely.
  • Over all, Francia will be smaller but more solid by 800.
You'd still have had a Frankish Kingdom including the Low Countries and much of Germany as well as France. Maybe Saxony survives and becomes an additional "Scandinavian" country. Italy may remain a separate Lombard Kingdom.

Italy under the Lombards would probably collapse eventually, as Adalgis had no sons. The only successor I can think of would be Theodo, heir to Bavaria, through his mother Luitperga, who was one of Desiderius' daughters. Benevento would go independent and the rest would be fought over by petty lords otherwise, possibly with ERE interference.

1/ With many kings, but no western Emperor, papacy might be weakened ? With many bishops stronger ?

2/ Larger influence of Lombard and other Italian people ? even with regular intervention from Frankish court, Milan is closer and Kingdom and Dukes of Italy might be stronger without Empire ?

3/ Weakened European resistance against Muslim pirate, Vikings, and Magyar ?

4/ Biggest difference would be mythology/ideology of politic, I think. no strong Charlemagne empire as precedent, West Europe unity will weaken. .

1/ and 4/ West of the Oder, the only Christian independent realms on the continent were: Lombardy, Francia, Bavaria, Asturias (in Spain), Benevento (de facto) and scraps of the ERE. Half of them were intermarried anyway, so there is little worry about unity. The Papacy could survive as a vassal of the Lombards or the ERE, but it would continue to exist, unless some major event interfered. The Pope was pretty much God at this time, so it is unlikely he will be knocked out of power completely.

2/ The Lombards were running out of heirs. See above.

3/ Al-Andalus was still sorting itself out in 770, so it isn't going to be a cocern for quite a while. The Magyars were wayyyyyyy too far away to be of any importance to Francia (they were inhabiting the land just north of the Crimea). If you meant the Avars, they were declining, not growing, in the 8th century. Vikings don't really start up until the 810s, by which time Karloman will either be old or dead.

A lot would just depend on longevity and genealogy.

If Carloman's reign is a lot shorter than his brother's, and he leaves several sons, then the Kingdom fragments before it has a chance to become an Empire.

It won't become an empire anyway, Karloman wasn't especially friendly toward the Pope and he was a diplomat, not a conqueror. The Pope has no reason to crown him, and there won't be the mass of land to warrant it.

He had 2 sons that we know about by 771 (Pippin and some other one. Does anyone know the actual name of the 2nd one, with a source to prove it?). If they are all that survive, we have OTL 769 occur a bit later.

- BNC
 
A lot would just depend on longevity and genealogy.
A bit, but as I said : you had a general tendency that would certainly make Frankish expansion on par as IOTL very likely, no matter the length of Carloman's reign.

If Carloman's reign is a lot shorter than his brother's, and he leaves several sons, then the Kingdom fragments before it has a chance to become an Empire.
You don't really understand how Francia was organised politically : succession among sons wasn't automatic (at the point both Charlemagne and Louis had to go trough several succession plans). If Carloman dies early, and that he leaves several sons, it's then likely that the younger sons wouldn't get as much as the elder, if the elder doesn't simply decide to trash them as Charlemagne did with Carloman. Again, no Crusader Kings-like outcome on extremely formal succession, but rather based on geopolitical outcome.

It won't become an empire anyway, Karloman wasn't especially friendly toward the Pope and he was a diplomat, not a conqueror. The Pope has no reason to crown him, and there won't be the mass of land to warrant it.
We don't know nearly enough about Carloman to say that : it seems he wasn't as focused as Charles on this, mostly because he never had the occasion to proove it. Friendship with Rome, general interests of France isn't something only Charles did because he was Charles, but was a consistent policy since Charles Martel (and some parts since Pepin II) which would certainly be pursued by Carloman.
 
Independent Frisia and Saxony, a weaker tradition of forced conversions, no military threat to Denmark, all seem to suggest Norse Paganism lasts longer due to less intimidation.
 
Frisia was already under Frankish domination at this point, and bound to be crushed at first move.
Saxony, for aformentioned reasons, is very likely to be campaigned against by Franks.
 
We don't know nearly enough about Carloman to say that : it seems he wasn't as focused as Charles on this, mostly because he never had the occasion to proove it. Friendship with Rome, general interests of France isn't something only Charles did because he was Charles, but was a consistent policy since Charles Martel (and some parts since Pepin II) which would certainly be pursued by Carloman.

We know how he acted in Aquitaine and Lombardy, and both of these events suggest a tendency towards diplomacy rather than warfare, as he never made any aggressive moves (except an alliance against the Pope and Charlemagne) during his reign. In the same time, Charlemagne was smashing the Aquitainians and clearly preparing for war with his brother, which are warfare-based moves. So I think it is reasonable to say he would continue along that line.

Friendship with the Pope was done by Martel mostly out of self interest, as he was quite happy to pull the wealth out of the churches in every other situation. To me it seems that Pippin III only used that friendship to 1. take the throne and 2. tell Lombardy to go to hell. There is no real reason why Francia should have chosen the Pope over Lombardy, it seems to have just been a convenient thing for the Karlings to do.

Frisia was already under Frankish domination at this point, and bound to be crushed at first move.
Saxony, for aformentioned reasons, is very likely to be campaigned against by Franks.

Frisia held a scrap of independent land on the North Sea coast, and even Charlemagne just ignored it until it actually struck against him (in Widukind's rebellion). Saxony had spent a long time with a border with the Franks (going back to the 6th or 7th century), and most wars had been for tribute rather than conquest. There is no reason why that could not continue in an ATL.

A bit, but as I said : you had a general tendency that would certainly make Frankish expansion on par as IOTL very likely, no matter the length of Carloman's reign.

Most of Charlemagne's conquests were because of convenient circumstances, which would be less likely to occur without Charlemagne there:

  • Lombardy was invaded because it had supported Karloman in 771.
  • Bavaria fell because it supported the Lombards.
  • Saxony because Deventer was burned, plus a bit of Charlemagne-based overreaction to the event.
  • Avars because they had a lot of wealth, were a bit of a nuisance and there was a border.
If the 769 situation doesn't present itself, I doubt any of these would occur.

- BNC
 
We know how he acted in Aquitaine and Lombardy, and both of these events suggest a tendency towards diplomacy rather than warfare, as he never made any aggressive moves (except an alliance against the Pope and Charlemagne) during his reign.
We know that he didn't acted, mostly because it wouldn't have benefited him : contrary to Pepin/Carloman relationship, Charles/Carloman co-kingship doesn't seem to have worked out much, the latter not really interested on helping his brother onto was what essentially an inner matter (a move that likely prevented him to gather much of a powerbase among Franks, including on its own territory).

Doesn't mean he wasn't inclined to fight, but that one of the two brothers was one too much.
Friendship with the Pope was done by Martel mostly out of self interest, as he was quite happy to pull the wealth out of the churches in every other situation.
I don't think you have an accurate vision of the situation : first, churches in Francia weren't (at all) under pontifical jurisdiction but were the result of decades of nobiliar investement. Peppinids themselves supported the foundation of a lot of institutions, on which they trusted wealth (a bit like banks) that local clergy too often took as "gifts". Eventually, he certainlt didn't needed pontifical help to take care of it, as Merovingian did themselves in their time without the pope inspite of local clergy whining all the way.

Then, Peppinind interest on a relation with Rome was far from passing : since Peppin II (the father of Charles Martel), exchanges with Rome were essentially based on Austrasia becoming the western European hub on trade and political roads from the Mediterranean basin. Meaning that missionaries, for exemple (and you know how much politically relevant was mission when it comes to statue a political project on this era) gaining Peppinid support beneficied both Rome and Frankish interests.

To me it seems that Pippin III only used that friendship to 1. take the throne and 2. tell Lombardy to go to hell.
It ws certainly used this way, but certainly not the only one. After all, Charles never really had to take the throne, in spite of being a majordomo without king. That Peppin III had to take the throne (and to sacralise the entiere Carolingian family at the same time) may rather hints at an harder situation (mostly why Peppin had to throw a Merovingian one last time after his father's death)

There is no real reason why Francia should have chosen the Pope over Lombardy, it seems to have just been a convenient thing for the Karlings to do.
There's several reasons, actually.
First, Lombards were traditional allies of any contender or peripherical rival of Peppinids (see the informal alliances they tied with Bavaria, Aquitaine, etc.). Getting rid of Lombards made a lot of sense when it come to ensure inner peace (would it be only to make a point).

Then, a good deal of Peppinid legitimacy by the late VIIIth century was insured trough a political-religious policy : not only trough sheer legitimacy of their de facto rulership over Franks since decades, but also as bearers of an hegemonic project that was culturally heavily marked by the idea of chritian imperium. Whoever managed to appear as the protector of Christiendom (fighting raids, but also sending missions in Frankish Germania and beyond) certainly ensured its position.

Eventually, the takeover of Italy could be understood as well as part of the hegemonic project over the trade roads of western Europe : while Austrasia was at the core of what remained of Mediterranean/North Sea contacts, most of the gold (coinage mostly, but not just that) that got carried in Francia came from Byzantium. This gold had an important symbolical and political value, especially with the establishment of carolingian feudalism and the widespread wealth redistribution it implied.

Of course, one could find other reasons, but I think these were really too important to be ignored.

Frisia held a scrap of independent land on the North Sea coast, and even Charlemagne just ignored it until it actually struck against him (in Widukind's rebellion).
Independent would be stretching it : at this point, Franks controlled most of the wealthier part of Frisia (Rhine's mouth, frisian harbours), and whatever remained was definitely crushed, without known sole ruler since Poppo. Basically, since the mid-VIIIth century, Frisia ceased to exist as a political player.

Saxony had spent a long time with a border with the Franks (going back to the 6th or 7th century), and most wars had been for tribute rather than conquest.
I don't really see the relevance to oppose wars of tribute/submission and conquest : as it happened for Frisia (regularly targeted by Franks since the VIIth century), the Frankish campaigns first imposed some sort of subserviance, admittedly often rejected, and eventually turned in full-fledged wars of conquests. It can be said about Frisia, Aquitaine, most of patrician Provence, Bavaria, and it was what happened to Saxony.

There is no reason why that could not continue in an ATL.
Actually, quite good ones.
First, Saxons opposed any idea of Frankish being able to set up a dominating presence in the region : whatever tributes, missionaries, etc. The idea din't thrilled them. Lo and behold, at the contrary Franks were pretty much about putting Saxony under their thumb.

Then, you had a more vested interest of Peppinid rulers to deal with Saxons more decisively : until the VIIth century, the commercial/economic and generally productive centers of Francia were more centered around Seine and Meuse basins; which began to change with the decline of Mediterranean trade due to Romano-Persian and afterwards Romano-Arab wars. The main hubs indeed shifted more decisively in Austrasia, where Peppinid power base was centered (and not unrelated to their political rise). Saxon raids became politically and economically far less tolerable, and when Saxons decided to raid Thuringia for shit and giggles, it was the last drop : Frankish Germania was the "new border" of Peppinids, and they didn't wanted anyone to mess with it.
Most of Charlemagne's conquests were because of convenient circumstances, which would be less likely to occur without Charlemagne there:
Every, litterally, every place you mentioned already knew Peppinid interventions up to campaigns before Charlemagne : Franks didn't suddenly expanded for shit and giggles, but because it was set on a longer geopolitical continuity.
Lombardy was invaded because Frankish campaigns in Italy didn't stopped Lombards to ally with Peppinid's rivals or contenders.
Bavaria served as Peppinid target practice since Charles Martel
Saxony was a hub of raiders regularily fought against by Merovingians, and Peppinids had even more interests in Austrasia and Frankish Germania to not let Saxons have their way
Avars/Slavic border was a matter of intervention of Franks since centuries : while wealth and slave acquisition certainly played a big role there (and you notice that it wasn't one of the main Carolingian campaigns), Frankish presence in the region is attested at least since the establishment of Samo's kingdom.
 
That's a long post! Rather than argue the details about stuff that happened in the 7th century, I'll try to focus more on the actual point of the discussion. The rest isn't that important.

We know that he didn't acted, mostly because it wouldn't have benefited him : contrary to Pepin/Carloman relationship, Charles/Carloman co-kingship doesn't seem to have worked out much, the latter not really interested on helping his brother onto was what essentially an inner matter (a move that likely prevented him to gather much of a powerbase among Franks, including on its own territory).

Doesn't mean he wasn't inclined to fight, but that one of the two brothers was one too much.

I doubt Charlemagne was 'too much'. Yes, he was a very good leader, and yes he had the traditional powerbase of Austrasia and Neustria, but Karloman had the larger land and wasn't in ownership of the rebellious and half-destroyed Aquitaine. He could call stuff up from Toulouse, Metz and a number of other cities, and probably could have at least matched Charlemagne's number. I would expect Karloman to have known as much.

There's several reasons, actually.
First, Lombards were traditional allies of any contender or peripherical rival of Peppinids (see the informal alliances they tied with Bavaria, Aquitaine, etc.). Getting rid of Lombards made a lot of sense when it come to ensure inner peace (would it be only to make a point).

By 760, Aquitaine pretty much didn't exist and Lombardy had no interest in worrying about it any more. Bavaria was at least a nominal vassal, and was not going to cause trouble just for the sake of it. If Karloman wanted an alliance with Lombardy, I think it would have been possible even if Charlemagne never opposed either of them.

Actually, quite good ones.
First, Saxons opposed any idea of Frankish being able to set up a dominating presence in the region : whatever tributes, missionaries, etc. The idea din't thrilled them. Lo and behold, at the contrary Franks were pretty much about putting Saxony under their thumb.

Then, you had a more vested interest of Peppinid rulers to deal with Saxons more decisively : until the VIIth century, the commercial/economic and generally productive centers of Francia were more centered around Seine and Meuse basins; which began to change with the decline of Mediterranean trade due to Romano-Persian and afterwards Romano-Arab wars. The main hubs indeed shifted more decisively in Austrasia, where Peppinid power base was centered (and not unrelated to their political rise). Saxon raids became politically and economically far less tolerable, and when Saxons decided to raid Thuringia for shit and giggles, it was the last drop : Frankish Germania was the "new border" of Peppinids, and they didn't wanted anyone to mess with it.

The Saxons had held that border against the Franks since the early 700s, if not the 500s, and both the Karlings and earlier lords had known that. I would expect a retribution raid for the Deventer thing, but full-fledged conquest only occurred because the Charlemagne was both very determined for conquest, and extremely zealous. I don't think either of those attributes can really be put to Karloman's name, at least from what we do know about him (after all, he allied against the Pope).

Avars/Slavic border was a matter of intervention of Franks since centuries : while wealth and slave acquisition certainly played a big role there (and you notice that it wasn't one of the main Carolingian campaigns), Frankish presence in the region is attested at least since the establishment of Samo's kingdom.

That makes sense in the 650s, when Francia could reasonably consider Bavaria as a vassal. In the time of early Karling dominance, at least until 788, there was no border for them to use, so they wouldn't have been fighting them. Charlemagne only invaded the Avars because he heard about 'The Ring' and wanted all of its wealth. As it is unlikely that Karloman would invade Bavaria, it is almost impossible he would invade Avaria.

- BNC
 
This is the moment to remember that the Lombard kingdom had been consolidating for a while by the time of the Frankish invasion, and that - most importantly - it wasn't dynastic. While a relative of the former king could and did in occasions get to the throne, succession was rather dictated by the dukes. Desiderio himself had become king over the brother of his predecessor, who had tried to get the crown but failed to gather support.
 
Francia was already on the rise at this point, already beneficied of a "special relationship" with the Church, and already intervened in remote regions.
Peppinids did a very good job, since the VIIth century, to enforce their power and to remove any real threat to their hegemony, so a sole Peppinid ruler in Francia would probably turn the same way than IOTL, no matter Charles or Carloman.

An intervention in Italy is extremely likely : not only Peppinids already intervened twice at this point, not only the relation with the Pope would make it bound to happen, but Lombard Italy tended to support various contenders in Francia since decades so it was geopolitically sound to do so.
For Old Saxony, I think that Franks would still make a go : with the importance given by Peppinids to Austrasian and Frisian regions as economic cores, having a bunch of people messing with them there wasn't that going to be accepted (especially when you had an history of Franks defeating Saxons to submit them into submission or tribute, as Dagobert I did). And again, the clear political-religious "project" of Peppinids wouldn't accept at the latest such situation given that besides raids and fierce independence, Saxons were extremely hostile to missionaries and didn't felt shy raiding religious buildings.

Does it means that nothing changes? I don't think that either. But changes are going to be more about Carloman's personal preferences (strategically, politically, etc.) rather than general tendences : and unfortunatly, we don't know nearly enough about Carloman to really guess what would have changed (formally or more deeply)


Yet if McEvedy's New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History is reasonably reliable, the boundaries of the Frankish Kingdom don't seem to have dramatically changed in the two centuries
before the accession of Charlemagne. Basically the loss of Thuringia to the Avars offsets the gain of Septimania from the Moslems and the conquest of half of Frisia, and that's about it.

Was there anything inevitable about the wave of at greater conquests under Charlemagne?
 
Was there anything inevitable about the wave of at greater conquests under Charlemagne?

Under Charlemagne, it was nearly inevitable because he was very zealous and the situations gave him enough casus belli(s?) to do so. As I have repeatedly stressed, Karloman was not the same, instead being, at least as I have interpreted his actions, more of a diplomat. His reign would likely turn out somewhat similar to his father's.

This is the moment to remember that the Lombard kingdom had been consolidating for a while by the time of the Frankish invasion.

At least it had tried to. A significant piece of this would be the drifting away of Benevento, which was nominally a Lombard vassal (as Bavaria was to the Franks after 757), but was more independent. Even Charlemagne recognised this by having a second conquest (about 788) for the other half of Italy, despite calling himself 'King of the Lombards' in 774. That doesn't quite suggest it was as strong as it had been under Luitprand and the other people that ruled it in the 740s.

- BNC
 
Not an expert on the period but looking the best time to kill Charlemagne (for everyone not wanting to be conquered by the Franks) would be spring of 772, probably when he's besieging Eresburg. Either have a arrow hit him or better yet, captured and sacrificed in front of the Irminsul to some one eyed Germanic deity.

You have him dead, his kids infants and Carolin's kids still at large.
 
Top