Wouldn't a such violent discontinuation being beneficial in the long term, bringing some fresh blood and creating the possibility to get read of some annoying vassals? Aka the Capets?
WI : Continued Carolingian dynasty in France - 10th century
- Thread starter galileo-034
- Start date
Wouldn't a such violent discontinuation being beneficial in the long term, bringing some fresh blood and creating the possibility to get read of some annoying vassals? Aka the Capets?
Such an easy way ... But imagine an ATL historian: if he looks at the period of Charles fighting to reclaim the throne from Hugh Capet, he would mind ''ah, we were close to a change of dynasty'', but an early POD involving a successful marriage of Adelaide of Anjou, to Lothar, would make the situation going in such a way that this historian couldn't possibly doubt of the dynasty being about to end unless writing for fun some alternate history (but it would take much inspiration to find the reverse POD to get back to our TL), he would see Louis IV coronation as the beginning of a new era of French history with the decline of Carolingians halted and a phase of consolidation begun.
Gerberga of Saxe outlived Louis IV, and at the time of Louis and Lothar, the kingdom of Burgundy didn't matter them. It would however be a target of opportunity when would come the succession of Rudolph III.
Vassal in facts but not de jure. Germanic influence had become significative with the intervention of Otto I in the succession of Rudolph II, to secure the throne claimed by Hugh of Arles to Conrad III, and it wouldn't be until Emperor Conrad II's annexation of the kingdom that it would fully merge into HRE.
The point is that Eudes II of Blois, as nephew of Rudolph III, has a more solid dynastic claim, and that the presence on Burgundian throne of a friendly vassal, the house of Blois being noted for its support of the Carolingian dynasty, is a win, especially if the king can trade his support for Champagne.
We're on the Middle Ages, de facto and de jure could shift often, the Pope was de jure the Emperor's vassal until 1177, for example.
And mine's is that Conrad II's ascension was royal action, confirming Burgundy's vassalage from de facto to de jure, rather than a dynastic one. The fact that Conrad's plans for Burgundy were purely prestige-based and to get an alternative passage to Italy attracted the local counts, that rejected Blois despite his claim.
Once again, Blois or the Karlings can get Burgundy, but they'll have to defeat whatever is the Emperor.
I don't say the contrary, but that there will be some action, that the West Francia won't let Conrad take Burgundy that easy. Other than the King of France, Eudes of Blois could count on the counts of Toulouse who have claims in Provence, and also Count Reginald of Free Burgundy who seemed to oppose the succession to Conrad's profit.
Concerning Champagne, I sought a match for Louis V in the Herbertians of Troyes-Meaux to give him and his eventual heir a claim, and the best I could find are daughters of Robert of Vermandois, but informations are somewhat corrupted. One of the daughters was actually married to Charles of Lower Lotharingia ca 970 and I don't see much reasons to see it changing even, or especially, with Louis IV living into the 970's.
However, since Lothar would marry Adelaide of Anjou instead of Emma of Italy, the accusations of adultery leveled by Charles at the Queen and Bishop Adalberon of Laon (given Aldaberon later treacherous actions, we may wonder if this was somewhat true) could never have to happen.
To get back to Adelaide of Anjou, she was pretty fertile, having at least 4 sons and as much girls in three marriages over two decades, as opposed to the two OTL recorded sons of King Lothar. Even if we keep Louis V dying in a stupid hunting accident, he would have brothers to succeed him. That would delay for a long time the risk of a infant king and allow to continue strengthening royal authority.
EDIT : On the succession of Champagne, we can imagine that, other than through being far cousins of the Vermandois house, the king of France could inherit claims over the counties of Meaux and Troyes through his cousins of Lower Lorraine, Louis and Otto, sons of Charles of Lower Lorraine, who died heirless. Actually, the claim would first go from Otto of Lower Lorraine, allegedly son of the first marriage of Charles to a daughter of Count Robert. The problem is that he died seemingly heirless a few years before Etienne of Troyes. The legal theory that could justify the claim passing to West Francia king is that Otto's claim is inherited first by his half-brother Louis (also died heirless) and then by the French king.
EDIT : On the succession of Champagne, we can imagine that, other than through being far cousins of the Vermandois house, the king of France could inherit claims over the counties of Meaux and Troyes through his cousins of Lower Lorraine, Louis and Otto, sons of Charles of Lower Lorraine, who died heirless. Actually, the claim would first go from Otto of Lower Lorraine, allegedly son of the first marriage of Charles to a daughter of Count Robert. The problem is that he died seemingly heirless a few years before Etienne of Troyes. The legal theory that could justify the claim passing to West Francia king is that Otto's claim is inherited first by his half-brother Louis (also died heirless) and then by the French king.
Last edited:
Sorry to bump this but I find the idea of a continuing Carolingian dynasty fascinating. From what I can tell the Carolingians would need to eliminate the Capetians and their influence or risk ending up like the Merovengians they themselves had deposed. So what if we kill off Hugh Capet and his son Robert, in say the early 980s. That would cause the extinction of the Capetian male line, would it not? Then have Louis V marry Hugh's eldest daughter Gisela and gain the Capetian lands, including Paris. That should give the Carolingians a stable and expanded powerbase. Thoughts?
Also, assuming that the Ottonians still go extinxt, would the Carolingians be able to take advantage of the power vacuum in the Empire to place one of their own back on the imperial throne or was that door firmly closed at this point?
Also, assuming that the Ottonians still go extinxt, would the Carolingians be able to take advantage of the power vacuum in the Empire to place one of their own back on the imperial throne or was that door firmly closed at this point?
The Capetian extinction is interesting but there is to be careful it doesn't like as if we're chosing the easy way.
Hugh Capet has a living brother, Duke Henry of Burgundy who lived until ca 1002 but didn't leave produce heirs (he left the duchy to a stepson before Robert II took it away from him).
Then, the Robertians are still represented by the cadet House of Vexin, through the heirs of Adalhelm of Laon who seems to have been uncle of Kings Eudes and Robert I, and is currently headed by Gautier II, who rules Vexin (somewhere west of Paris on the Normand border) and Amiens, not counting Valois.
It's true Robert is a weakness since he hasn't direct heir (neither does his uncle) and he is reliant on a marriage to produce heirs. If he still marries to Rozala of Italy (it happened after his father became king so it might change, or not), there is chances it would go this way; Rozala was twenty years older then him and it could have gone as bad as Louis V's marriage, but she died ca. 1003. IOTL, he had her repudiated to marry a Bertha of Burgundy, widow of Eudes I of Blois, but had to renounce the marriage because of the Pope's opposition on ground of consanguinity, and married Constance of Arles, a scandalous woman with murderous manners (alledgedly, she tried to have her son Henri killed to put her preferred son Robert on the throne). Robert II attempted to divorce and remarry Bertha (his love) but failed. Oddly, this couple had enough children to secure the dynasty for some time.
Differences I see is Robert don't inherit the duchy of Burgundy upon his uncle's death, the king granting the duchy to Henri's stepson as per the Duke's will. Then, there is the repudiation of his first wife Rozala; since he is not king, he can't repudiate her as easily as IOTL. That would push back a marriage to Bertha until 1003 and the marriage to Constance of Arles (if she remains free) too.
I'm not sure it can go the way you intend, but if it's worth exploring the idea.
If Robert dies heirless, the Robertian inheritance would pass by dowry to his sisters, but this dowry would pass to girls if he was to father one or more, opening the way for a division of the Robertian realm in either way.
As for the Imperial throne, it's lost. West Francia is a distinct entity, and the HRE is more or less the King of Germany in control of Lotharingia and Italy, and the Kings of West Francia, Charles III, Louis IV and Lothar, did show interest only in Lotharingia.
EDIT: I just noticed that Constance of Arles was the daughter of Adelaide of Anjou, the one I propose to be made Lothar's wife by Louis IV. Still, if Robert doesn't marry her, it would be another girl.
Hugh Capet has a living brother, Duke Henry of Burgundy who lived until ca 1002 but didn't leave produce heirs (he left the duchy to a stepson before Robert II took it away from him).
Then, the Robertians are still represented by the cadet House of Vexin, through the heirs of Adalhelm of Laon who seems to have been uncle of Kings Eudes and Robert I, and is currently headed by Gautier II, who rules Vexin (somewhere west of Paris on the Normand border) and Amiens, not counting Valois.
It's true Robert is a weakness since he hasn't direct heir (neither does his uncle) and he is reliant on a marriage to produce heirs. If he still marries to Rozala of Italy (it happened after his father became king so it might change, or not), there is chances it would go this way; Rozala was twenty years older then him and it could have gone as bad as Louis V's marriage, but she died ca. 1003. IOTL, he had her repudiated to marry a Bertha of Burgundy, widow of Eudes I of Blois, but had to renounce the marriage because of the Pope's opposition on ground of consanguinity, and married Constance of Arles, a scandalous woman with murderous manners (alledgedly, she tried to have her son Henri killed to put her preferred son Robert on the throne). Robert II attempted to divorce and remarry Bertha (his love) but failed. Oddly, this couple had enough children to secure the dynasty for some time.
Differences I see is Robert don't inherit the duchy of Burgundy upon his uncle's death, the king granting the duchy to Henri's stepson as per the Duke's will. Then, there is the repudiation of his first wife Rozala; since he is not king, he can't repudiate her as easily as IOTL. That would push back a marriage to Bertha until 1003 and the marriage to Constance of Arles (if she remains free) too.
I'm not sure it can go the way you intend, but if it's worth exploring the idea.
If Robert dies heirless, the Robertian inheritance would pass by dowry to his sisters, but this dowry would pass to girls if he was to father one or more, opening the way for a division of the Robertian realm in either way.
As for the Imperial throne, it's lost. West Francia is a distinct entity, and the HRE is more or less the King of Germany in control of Lotharingia and Italy, and the Kings of West Francia, Charles III, Louis IV and Lothar, did show interest only in Lotharingia.
EDIT: I just noticed that Constance of Arles was the daughter of Adelaide of Anjou, the one I propose to be made Lothar's wife by Louis IV. Still, if Robert doesn't marry her, it would be another girl.
I already remarked Adelaide of Anjou was a fertile woman, leaving many heirs through not less than four marriages over two or three decades, so let's imagine some children for Lothar IOTL:
#1 : Louis V, born ca 958, dies as per OTL (horse fall) in 987 after barely a year of reign;
#2 : Eudes, born ca 961, dies ca 975 (at same age as IOTL) ;
#3 : Lothar II, born ca 965, became king in 987 ;
#4 : Adelaide, born ca 967 ;
#5 : Charles, born ca 971 ;
#6 : Gerberge, born ca 977;
#7 : Gisèle, born ca 977, twin sister of Mathilde (the family precedent is set with Charles of Lower Lotharingia's twin brother Henri who died shortly after baptism);
#8 : Mathilde, born ca 980 ;
#9 : Eudes, posthumous son of Lothar, born in 986; this last one doesn't match an actual known child of Adelaide but is named after the first Eudes she lost, like Charles of Lower Lotharingia wasn't the first son named Charles of Louis IV.
That's just a base of discussion to go further into future.
#1 : Louis V, born ca 958, dies as per OTL (horse fall) in 987 after barely a year of reign;
#2 : Eudes, born ca 961, dies ca 975 (at same age as IOTL) ;
#3 : Lothar II, born ca 965, became king in 987 ;
#4 : Adelaide, born ca 967 ;
#5 : Charles, born ca 971 ;
#6 : Gerberge, born ca 977;
#7 : Gisèle, born ca 977, twin sister of Mathilde (the family precedent is set with Charles of Lower Lotharingia's twin brother Henri who died shortly after baptism);
#8 : Mathilde, born ca 980 ;
#9 : Eudes, posthumous son of Lothar, born in 986; this last one doesn't match an actual known child of Adelaide but is named after the first Eudes she lost, like Charles of Lower Lotharingia wasn't the first son named Charles of Louis IV.
That's just a base of discussion to go further into future.
I think Burgundy would have ended under West Francia under the Carolingians sooner since the Carolingians did not really recognized the secession of Burgundy.
Burgundy never really mattered the kings of West Francia while Lotharingia did: Charles III, Louis IV and Lothar all attempted to take the duchies from HRE but none got involved in the kingdom of Burgundy.
Deleted member 95909
Hey folks, first-time poster here, but with a tremendous interest in the c10th Carolingians...
The first thing to say is that the dynasty gets really unlucky dying when they did - who'd have thought that 3 kings named Louis in a row would have fatal riding accidents? With that said, after 946, Louis IV's room for manoeuvre is pretty slim. In 945, Louis was captured by Northmen and sold down the river (Seine in this case) to Hugh the Great, who forced him to give up virtually all his land and be his puppet. Louis only got out of the situation by virtue of his wife Gerberga, who went to her brother Otto the Great and asked him for an army. Otto, seemingly in order to strengthen his position in Lotharingia, agreed, and so tipped the balance between Louis and Hugh in Louis’ favour. This does mean that, come the 950s, Louis rules rather less by grace of God than by grace of Otto…
If Louis lives an extra twenty-some years, than means he dies c. 970, while Otto is still alive. I don’t think he’ll do anything which might offend his protector and benefactor; certainly Lothar didn’t.
I also think Adelaide-Blanche of Anjou is extremely unlikely as a marriage candidate for Lothar. She’s too low-status. In OTL, her and Louis V’s marriage came about largely because she’s already had the Aquitanian marriages which Lothar thought might give Louis some pull in the south; in TTL’s 950s, that’s not the case. Instead, she’s the daughter of a Robertian vassal, at a time when an Ottonian alliance is a much more appealing prospect. Marriage to *Emma of Blois, a daughter of Theobald the Trickster, might be more possible depending on how the fallout from Hugh Capet’s ‘minority’ goes, but it’s still less likely than marriage to Emma of Italy.
The question of royal ‘demesne’ seems to be fairly unimportant – what matters is less raw control of land and more the pulling power of the court – in OTL, Lothar had quite a lot of pull, regardless of his landed base, enough to make Odo I of Blois-Chartres-Tours, Heribert the Younger of Troyes, probably the Flemish, and maybe others his reliable allies – even as far away as the Spanish March.
I agree that Transjurane Burgundy is a bit of a red herring – for most of the period in question, the Burgundian kings are geared towards the Ottonian court, and minus an adventurer like Odo II of Blois-Chartres-Tours, they’re likely to stay that way. By this point, though, the butterfly effect is in play… It is possible that if there’s an alternative succession crisis in Burgundy in TTL’s 1020s or so, there might be a Carolingian challenge to Ottonian hegemony, but in general I think we’re talking about the long-term, and about motives which amount to opportunism. The West Frankish Carolingians just don’t have the kind of connections with the Transjuranian nobility they do with their Lotharingian equivalents.
Lotharingia is a separate issue – any West Frankish Carolingian who isn’t under the thumb of the Ottonians is likely to make a play for it, and it has the potential to be a sore spot well into the eleventh century if not longer.
For my money, the most interesting time for a resurgent c10th Carolingian dynasty is the early 940s. Louis IV does really well between 942 and 945 – having been put on the run by Hugh the Great in 942, he orchestrates an alliance between himself and the rulers of Poitiers and Rouen, and then takes advantage of William Longsword of Rouen’s murder and Heribert II of Vermandois’ death. By the start of 944, he’s taken over upper Normandy, imposed his overlordship on Amiens and Ponthieu, bought Hugh the Great off with Bayeux, resolved (seemingly) the dispute over the archbishopric of Rheims, and split up the Vermandois inheritance in his favour. If he doesn’t get captured by Vikings in 945, he’s in a good position to keep up the fight against Hugh the Great without Otto’s help, and if he can win that, then Lotharingia (and maybe Flanders in due time) both present opportune targets for expansion…
The first thing to say is that the dynasty gets really unlucky dying when they did - who'd have thought that 3 kings named Louis in a row would have fatal riding accidents? With that said, after 946, Louis IV's room for manoeuvre is pretty slim. In 945, Louis was captured by Northmen and sold down the river (Seine in this case) to Hugh the Great, who forced him to give up virtually all his land and be his puppet. Louis only got out of the situation by virtue of his wife Gerberga, who went to her brother Otto the Great and asked him for an army. Otto, seemingly in order to strengthen his position in Lotharingia, agreed, and so tipped the balance between Louis and Hugh in Louis’ favour. This does mean that, come the 950s, Louis rules rather less by grace of God than by grace of Otto…
If Louis lives an extra twenty-some years, than means he dies c. 970, while Otto is still alive. I don’t think he’ll do anything which might offend his protector and benefactor; certainly Lothar didn’t.
I also think Adelaide-Blanche of Anjou is extremely unlikely as a marriage candidate for Lothar. She’s too low-status. In OTL, her and Louis V’s marriage came about largely because she’s already had the Aquitanian marriages which Lothar thought might give Louis some pull in the south; in TTL’s 950s, that’s not the case. Instead, she’s the daughter of a Robertian vassal, at a time when an Ottonian alliance is a much more appealing prospect. Marriage to *Emma of Blois, a daughter of Theobald the Trickster, might be more possible depending on how the fallout from Hugh Capet’s ‘minority’ goes, but it’s still less likely than marriage to Emma of Italy.
The question of royal ‘demesne’ seems to be fairly unimportant – what matters is less raw control of land and more the pulling power of the court – in OTL, Lothar had quite a lot of pull, regardless of his landed base, enough to make Odo I of Blois-Chartres-Tours, Heribert the Younger of Troyes, probably the Flemish, and maybe others his reliable allies – even as far away as the Spanish March.
I agree that Transjurane Burgundy is a bit of a red herring – for most of the period in question, the Burgundian kings are geared towards the Ottonian court, and minus an adventurer like Odo II of Blois-Chartres-Tours, they’re likely to stay that way. By this point, though, the butterfly effect is in play… It is possible that if there’s an alternative succession crisis in Burgundy in TTL’s 1020s or so, there might be a Carolingian challenge to Ottonian hegemony, but in general I think we’re talking about the long-term, and about motives which amount to opportunism. The West Frankish Carolingians just don’t have the kind of connections with the Transjuranian nobility they do with their Lotharingian equivalents.
Lotharingia is a separate issue – any West Frankish Carolingian who isn’t under the thumb of the Ottonians is likely to make a play for it, and it has the potential to be a sore spot well into the eleventh century if not longer.
For my money, the most interesting time for a resurgent c10th Carolingian dynasty is the early 940s. Louis IV does really well between 942 and 945 – having been put on the run by Hugh the Great in 942, he orchestrates an alliance between himself and the rulers of Poitiers and Rouen, and then takes advantage of William Longsword of Rouen’s murder and Heribert II of Vermandois’ death. By the start of 944, he’s taken over upper Normandy, imposed his overlordship on Amiens and Ponthieu, bought Hugh the Great off with Bayeux, resolved (seemingly) the dispute over the archbishopric of Rheims, and split up the Vermandois inheritance in his favour. If he doesn’t get captured by Vikings in 945, he’s in a good position to keep up the fight against Hugh the Great without Otto’s help, and if he can win that, then Lotharingia (and maybe Flanders in due time) both present opportune targets for expansion…
Welcome to AH.
Otto I influence over West Francia after the Normandy Affair is effective but is not that appealing.
The whole matter was a power struggle between Louis IV and Hugh the Great who is suspected to have engineered Louis IV's setbacks and capture in Normandy to put a halt to the success the King was enjoying here and which could have threatened Hugh's position. As for Otto's intervention, the goal was more about keeping the power balanced and West Francia disminished; his invasion of West Francia in 940/941 had decisively defeated Louis IV but Otto I didn't depose him and instead brokered a truce between Louis IV and the Robertians, while his later intervention in 946/947 was primarily caused by a radical change in the power balance within West Francia caused by Louis IV's captivity in Robertian custody.
That influence of Otto was a fait accompli but not a wanted one, so Louis IV and his son restrained from openly challenging it without fully endorsing it (no sooner had Otto died that Lothar resumed the efforts to claim Lotharingia), and the Emperor, who had troubles of his own (Italy and other vassals) was content if he kept West Francia checked.
The marriage to Adelaide of Anjou I propose is set within the frame of Robertian near collapse at Hugh the Great's death.
His vassals took the opportunity of Hugh Capet's minority to get away and eat on the Robertian realm (Anjou, Blois and cie), with Thibault of Blois, once one of the most important partisans of Hugh the Great, turning into Carolingian loyalist (his son Eudes sided with Charles in 987). Anjou is another example and Fulk II and Geoffrey followed their own agenda in Brittany, Maine, Normandy, Poitou, and were surely the most powerful Robertian vassals of note, more powerful than the house of Blois.
As per OTL, the way of weakening the Robertians by using Hugh Capet's minority is one Otto didn't much bother since it wasn't an open challenge of the status quo and that it remained apparently conserved in appearance.
As for the OTL marriage, using Adelaide to get some influence over southern provinces may have been a consideration but I doubt it was the main one.
The power struggle between the Carolingian monarchy and the Robertians was played north of the Loire, and aside of occasional involveent of the House of Poitiers (which held Aquitaine), most of southern nobles hadn't interest in that and were content with aknowledging the king as their overlord, more by tradition than by genuine loyalty I think. In this context, a marriage into the House of Ingelger isn't an open challenge to the status quo, but it further isolate the Robertian by taking away from Hugh Capet his most powerful vassals.
The marriage to Emma of Blois is certainly a possibility but refers to the same motives. I've favored the Anjou match since it's more powerful than the House of Blois and that Adelaide and Lothar are pretty much the same age, albeit with the historical perspective, this might be counter-productive on the account of Anjou's expansionism that would lead to clash with its neighbors (Maine, Blois, Britanny and Poitiers at some occasion), but this is only in gestation and wouldn't be much a situation until Fulk III's rule, and people from the time didn't have such perspective, only political considerations. From the point of view of the Robertian vassal, the marriage is akin to a declaration of intention regarding the end of vassalage, and for the king, an opportunity to weaken his most powerful vassal and play on rivalries to affirm his authority.
I'd say Louis IV, living longer, would be more active in that way than the young Lothar.
Otto I influence over West Francia after the Normandy Affair is effective but is not that appealing.
The whole matter was a power struggle between Louis IV and Hugh the Great who is suspected to have engineered Louis IV's setbacks and capture in Normandy to put a halt to the success the King was enjoying here and which could have threatened Hugh's position. As for Otto's intervention, the goal was more about keeping the power balanced and West Francia disminished; his invasion of West Francia in 940/941 had decisively defeated Louis IV but Otto I didn't depose him and instead brokered a truce between Louis IV and the Robertians, while his later intervention in 946/947 was primarily caused by a radical change in the power balance within West Francia caused by Louis IV's captivity in Robertian custody.
That influence of Otto was a fait accompli but not a wanted one, so Louis IV and his son restrained from openly challenging it without fully endorsing it (no sooner had Otto died that Lothar resumed the efforts to claim Lotharingia), and the Emperor, who had troubles of his own (Italy and other vassals) was content if he kept West Francia checked.
The marriage to Adelaide of Anjou I propose is set within the frame of Robertian near collapse at Hugh the Great's death.
His vassals took the opportunity of Hugh Capet's minority to get away and eat on the Robertian realm (Anjou, Blois and cie), with Thibault of Blois, once one of the most important partisans of Hugh the Great, turning into Carolingian loyalist (his son Eudes sided with Charles in 987). Anjou is another example and Fulk II and Geoffrey followed their own agenda in Brittany, Maine, Normandy, Poitou, and were surely the most powerful Robertian vassals of note, more powerful than the house of Blois.
As per OTL, the way of weakening the Robertians by using Hugh Capet's minority is one Otto didn't much bother since it wasn't an open challenge of the status quo and that it remained apparently conserved in appearance.
As for the OTL marriage, using Adelaide to get some influence over southern provinces may have been a consideration but I doubt it was the main one.
The power struggle between the Carolingian monarchy and the Robertians was played north of the Loire, and aside of occasional involveent of the House of Poitiers (which held Aquitaine), most of southern nobles hadn't interest in that and were content with aknowledging the king as their overlord, more by tradition than by genuine loyalty I think. In this context, a marriage into the House of Ingelger isn't an open challenge to the status quo, but it further isolate the Robertian by taking away from Hugh Capet his most powerful vassals.
The marriage to Emma of Blois is certainly a possibility but refers to the same motives. I've favored the Anjou match since it's more powerful than the House of Blois and that Adelaide and Lothar are pretty much the same age, albeit with the historical perspective, this might be counter-productive on the account of Anjou's expansionism that would lead to clash with its neighbors (Maine, Blois, Britanny and Poitiers at some occasion), but this is only in gestation and wouldn't be much a situation until Fulk III's rule, and people from the time didn't have such perspective, only political considerations. From the point of view of the Robertian vassal, the marriage is akin to a declaration of intention regarding the end of vassalage, and for the king, an opportunity to weaken his most powerful vassal and play on rivalries to affirm his authority.
I'd say Louis IV, living longer, would be more active in that way than the young Lothar.
Deleted member 95909
Thanks for the welcome!
Regarding Otto's interventions, sure, from his perspective the big benefit is holding the balance of power and ensuring that the periodic West Frankish attempts to rule Lotharingia come to a stop. But from Louis' POV, Otto's help is why he's not living in a basement in Laon eating the c10th equivalent of ramen and gum, and I think he's going to be rather cautious about offending him - so, unless Otto's reign goes absolutely to pot after about 960 or so, which I think is unlikely, Louis will probably do what he did OTL, and what Lothar and those around him did in the first decade or so of his reign, and play it safe. Probably safer - there are a lot more indications of tensions between Lothar and the Ottonians than there are under Louis after 946. What that means in practice is no attempt to reconquer Lotharingia, probably no big civil war in the West Frankish kingdom.
As for Adelaide, though, I must respectfully disagree with your assesment of the situation, on a number of grounds. First, the Angevins are by no means more powerful than the Thibaudines during this period. Theobald the Trickster was Hugh the Great's right-hand man - he got to keep custody of Louis IV after 946, he got control of Laon and Coucy during the same period, and Hugh seems to have weighed in to ensure that he got a good wedge of territory during the settlement of the Vermandois inheritance. After Hugh's death, Theobald is the big winner: he expands dramatically to his north, and is the senior partner in dealing with the succession to Alan Barbetorte in Brittany. By contrast, the Angevins, whilst not insignificant, are much more local players: Fulk the Good is second fiddle to Theobald in dealing with the Bretons, evidence of Angevin involvement in Maine is very weak and sketchy, there is only one bit of evidence of involvement in Normandy, as bit players in a war between the Normans and Theobald (not even second fiddle here). Poitou is slightly different, but that's two decades later than the 950s anyway. Any way you slice it, the Thibaudines are bigger players and more appealing allies than the Angevins.
Second, in the OTL marriage, control of Aquitaine was _the_ big concern for Lothar. The marriage was contracted as part of Lothar's attempts to get Louis V onto the Aquitanian throne (1). This is why the marriage was carried out at Brioude, at the same time as Louis' enthronement in Aquitaine, and why it broke apart when it became clear that Louis was not going to be able to rule Aquitaine successfully. Adelaide's advantage is her Aquitanian connections - without that, she's not very appealing. This is doubly true in the 950s and 960s, when, as I said, the counts of Anjou don't have the kind of status they'd have even in the 970s, let alone under Fulk Nerra.
So, I still think Emma of Italy is the most likely marriage for Lothar even if Louis is still alive. Indeed, if anything a marriage to a Robertian vassal is _less_ likely under Louis IV. In OTL, the 'pseudo-minority' of Hugh Capet was - eventually - an alliance of Lothar and his mother Gerberga on one hand and Theobald the Trickster on the other, with Fulk the Good as a local second fiddle; and Archbishop Bruno of Cologne, as Otto the Great's family liason in the west, coming in occasionly to try and resolve the matter equitably. Thing is, Lothar and Gerberga are part of the Ottonian family hegemony in a way that Louis wasn't, quite; Louis may take fewer risks, meaning that Hugh might go into the 960s looking better, at least in (ducal) Burgundy. (There seems to be a lot happening in the west which we just don't know about - at all - which makes it harder to speculate there).
(1) I quote Lake's translation of Richer of Rheims, book 3, cap. 92: '[Lothar's wife Queen Emma is advised that] the best course of action would be for Louis to be joined in marriage to Adelaide, the wife of the recently deceased Duke Raymond of Gothia. Not only would this potentially increase his power as king, but he would realize a number of benefits as well. For in fact it would be possible for all of Aquitaine and Gothia to be brought together under his dominion...'
Regarding Otto's interventions, sure, from his perspective the big benefit is holding the balance of power and ensuring that the periodic West Frankish attempts to rule Lotharingia come to a stop. But from Louis' POV, Otto's help is why he's not living in a basement in Laon eating the c10th equivalent of ramen and gum, and I think he's going to be rather cautious about offending him - so, unless Otto's reign goes absolutely to pot after about 960 or so, which I think is unlikely, Louis will probably do what he did OTL, and what Lothar and those around him did in the first decade or so of his reign, and play it safe. Probably safer - there are a lot more indications of tensions between Lothar and the Ottonians than there are under Louis after 946. What that means in practice is no attempt to reconquer Lotharingia, probably no big civil war in the West Frankish kingdom.
As for Adelaide, though, I must respectfully disagree with your assesment of the situation, on a number of grounds. First, the Angevins are by no means more powerful than the Thibaudines during this period. Theobald the Trickster was Hugh the Great's right-hand man - he got to keep custody of Louis IV after 946, he got control of Laon and Coucy during the same period, and Hugh seems to have weighed in to ensure that he got a good wedge of territory during the settlement of the Vermandois inheritance. After Hugh's death, Theobald is the big winner: he expands dramatically to his north, and is the senior partner in dealing with the succession to Alan Barbetorte in Brittany. By contrast, the Angevins, whilst not insignificant, are much more local players: Fulk the Good is second fiddle to Theobald in dealing with the Bretons, evidence of Angevin involvement in Maine is very weak and sketchy, there is only one bit of evidence of involvement in Normandy, as bit players in a war between the Normans and Theobald (not even second fiddle here). Poitou is slightly different, but that's two decades later than the 950s anyway. Any way you slice it, the Thibaudines are bigger players and more appealing allies than the Angevins.
Second, in the OTL marriage, control of Aquitaine was _the_ big concern for Lothar. The marriage was contracted as part of Lothar's attempts to get Louis V onto the Aquitanian throne (1). This is why the marriage was carried out at Brioude, at the same time as Louis' enthronement in Aquitaine, and why it broke apart when it became clear that Louis was not going to be able to rule Aquitaine successfully. Adelaide's advantage is her Aquitanian connections - without that, she's not very appealing. This is doubly true in the 950s and 960s, when, as I said, the counts of Anjou don't have the kind of status they'd have even in the 970s, let alone under Fulk Nerra.
So, I still think Emma of Italy is the most likely marriage for Lothar even if Louis is still alive. Indeed, if anything a marriage to a Robertian vassal is _less_ likely under Louis IV. In OTL, the 'pseudo-minority' of Hugh Capet was - eventually - an alliance of Lothar and his mother Gerberga on one hand and Theobald the Trickster on the other, with Fulk the Good as a local second fiddle; and Archbishop Bruno of Cologne, as Otto the Great's family liason in the west, coming in occasionly to try and resolve the matter equitably. Thing is, Lothar and Gerberga are part of the Ottonian family hegemony in a way that Louis wasn't, quite; Louis may take fewer risks, meaning that Hugh might go into the 960s looking better, at least in (ducal) Burgundy. (There seems to be a lot happening in the west which we just don't know about - at all - which makes it harder to speculate there).
(1) I quote Lake's translation of Richer of Rheims, book 3, cap. 92: '[Lothar's wife Queen Emma is advised that] the best course of action would be for Louis to be joined in marriage to Adelaide, the wife of the recently deceased Duke Raymond of Gothia. Not only would this potentially increase his power as king, but he would realize a number of benefits as well. For in fact it would be possible for all of Aquitaine and Gothia to be brought together under his dominion...'
Otto policy regarding West Francia wasn't one of having his say in every matter concerning the kingdom, to be ever present above shoulders of the king, just to keep it in check; he didn't bother about Louis IV taking over Normandy and wouldn't have minded intervening if not for Hugh abduction of Louis IV. Lothar's minority was an opportunity to seize, hence the gardianship of Bruno and marriage to Otto's daughter-in-law, but Louis IV longer life deprives them of this occasion. There isn't much motive to offend Otto with since Louis IV has been smart enough to renounce pressing his claims on Lotharingia after his first disastrous attempt in the 930's, and to realize that his own position on the throne is not secure enough to seek troubles with any of his neighbors, and not only with Otto (well, he is the only of notice, aside of Burgundy which follows HRE line and England where West Francia has no interest).To have Louis IV offending Otto with a marriage of his own chosing, it would have taken Otto having first proposed a marriage, but the emperor had more pressing business to attend (Italy, Hungarians, troublesome German nobles) to care about the marriage of Louis Iv's son, content he is with keeping Louis IV in check.
Your points on alternate matches are relevant. There the list of possible matches I see :
Your point on the Thibaldids is valid but I still think Adelaide as a match is possible. Thibaud was engaged in Britanny by virtue of his sister's rights, and her marriage to Fulk II made them kind of partners in Britanny. Thibaud was at the time the most agressive, but the House of Ingelger wasn't less present and if Geoffrey and Fulk III haven't yet affirmed their status of regional power, they had a certain practice of marital alliances, and since Fulk II and Thibaud were allied, a marriage to one of their houses could be used to create ties to both. Another argument is that though Louis IV may find Thibaud a useful ally against Robertians after Hugh the Great's death, he might also hold a grudge since the days of his captivity and be suspicious of him, so a marriage to Thibaud's nominal partner can appear in surface as an alliance to Blois but as a mean of placating Blois' ambition by playing Anjou against it (something like 'make your strong allies weak and your weak allies strong').
As for Aquitaine, the royal title was another crown worn by West Frankish kings, and the real control was in the hands of the Duke. For now, the real power in Aquitaine was in the hands of Houses of Poitiers (north) and Rouergue-Toulouse (south), not counting Gascony which a duchy on its own (house of Sanche). On the chronicle, I wouldn't take it literally since the chronicler may have only reported the known/official motives; by the time of the marriage, Thibaud I was dead and the counts of Anjou (Geoffrey here) had become the most powerful noble of the region (and overtaken Blois in strength). The influence over Aquitaine brought by Adelaide-Blanche relations were surely welcome side advantages, but my mind is that the alliance to the counts of Anjou mattered the most in a context of renewed struggle with Hugh Capet. The marriage failure is more to blame on the age difference (16 and 42) and the frivolous behaviour of Louis V; we can understand this woman twice widowed didn't take it lightly and wanted to divorce.
Still, to explain further why I favor the Anjou match, I'd say it's because she had already been married into the Royal family IOTL and that she was proven fertile. You refered to the 940's and the occasion of Normandy subjugation for a resurgent Carolingian dynasty, but my point is that the dynasty was already in the midst of a resurgence IOTL under Louis IV and Lothar, and that it came extinct as an accident. I wish to avoid that accident by producing enough heirs to Lothar so Louis V's death, I don't intend to avoid it, doesn't prove fatal to the Carolingian dynasty, and since Adelaide produced historically 4 sons and 4 daughters, she looks ideal. Now, Emma of Blois could fit the role and produce more children than she did (her marriage wasn't a happy one on count of Duke William's frequent infidelities), but advancing the arguments above, the Anjou match is still a possibility, maybe not an obvious one, but still a possibility.
Your points on alternate matches are relevant. There the list of possible matches I see :
- Adelaide-Blanche of Anjou, daughter of Foulque II, born c. 940, got 8 children over three marriages, among which are 4 sons;
- Emma of Blois, daughter of Thibaud I of Blois, IOTL married to William IV of Aquitaine in 968, two recorded sons;
- Adelaide of Aquitaine, daughter of Duke William III, IOTL married to Hugh Capet, at least three children, but only one son;
- Emma of Italy, daughter-in law of Emperor Otto, OTL wife of King Lothar, got only two sons .
Your point on the Thibaldids is valid but I still think Adelaide as a match is possible. Thibaud was engaged in Britanny by virtue of his sister's rights, and her marriage to Fulk II made them kind of partners in Britanny. Thibaud was at the time the most agressive, but the House of Ingelger wasn't less present and if Geoffrey and Fulk III haven't yet affirmed their status of regional power, they had a certain practice of marital alliances, and since Fulk II and Thibaud were allied, a marriage to one of their houses could be used to create ties to both. Another argument is that though Louis IV may find Thibaud a useful ally against Robertians after Hugh the Great's death, he might also hold a grudge since the days of his captivity and be suspicious of him, so a marriage to Thibaud's nominal partner can appear in surface as an alliance to Blois but as a mean of placating Blois' ambition by playing Anjou against it (something like 'make your strong allies weak and your weak allies strong').
As for Aquitaine, the royal title was another crown worn by West Frankish kings, and the real control was in the hands of the Duke. For now, the real power in Aquitaine was in the hands of Houses of Poitiers (north) and Rouergue-Toulouse (south), not counting Gascony which a duchy on its own (house of Sanche). On the chronicle, I wouldn't take it literally since the chronicler may have only reported the known/official motives; by the time of the marriage, Thibaud I was dead and the counts of Anjou (Geoffrey here) had become the most powerful noble of the region (and overtaken Blois in strength). The influence over Aquitaine brought by Adelaide-Blanche relations were surely welcome side advantages, but my mind is that the alliance to the counts of Anjou mattered the most in a context of renewed struggle with Hugh Capet. The marriage failure is more to blame on the age difference (16 and 42) and the frivolous behaviour of Louis V; we can understand this woman twice widowed didn't take it lightly and wanted to divorce.
Still, to explain further why I favor the Anjou match, I'd say it's because she had already been married into the Royal family IOTL and that she was proven fertile. You refered to the 940's and the occasion of Normandy subjugation for a resurgent Carolingian dynasty, but my point is that the dynasty was already in the midst of a resurgence IOTL under Louis IV and Lothar, and that it came extinct as an accident. I wish to avoid that accident by producing enough heirs to Lothar so Louis V's death, I don't intend to avoid it, doesn't prove fatal to the Carolingian dynasty, and since Adelaide produced historically 4 sons and 4 daughters, she looks ideal. Now, Emma of Blois could fit the role and produce more children than she did (her marriage wasn't a happy one on count of Duke William's frequent infidelities), but advancing the arguments above, the Anjou match is still a possibility, maybe not an obvious one, but still a possibility.
Deleted member 95909
Regarding Otto's hegemony in the West Frankish kingdom (specifically, after 946, because he doesn't have one before that), I think we're disagreeing in quantative not qualitative terms. Otto _can_ intervene, he _does_ intervene, but his goal is a peaceful West Frankish kingdom which doesn't try and claim Lotharingia. This is still a major potential threat - Louis was an active presence in Lotharingia up until at least 942 or so, and his efforts in 939 were by no means a fiasco. There is a case to be made that it's only Otto's excellent luck in having the two main leaders of the rebellion against him die in one battle that year which stops him from getting kicked out of Lotharingia the same way Conrad did in 911. (Now how's _that_ for a PoD for a revitalised West Frankish Carolingian dynasty!)
As for the potential brides, we might add two more:
- Emma, daughter of Hugh the Great, in OTL wife of Richard the Fearless of Normandy (depending on which one of HtG's wives she's the daughter of - it's unlikely Lothar would marry his cousin!).
- Adele, daughter of Robert of Troyes, in OTL wife of Geoffrey Grisegonelle of Anjou.
Ranking our six choices in order of probability, Adelaide-Blanche is at the bottom. You're still overestimating the importance of the Angevins - in Brittany, for instance, Fulk is unquestionably the junior partner. He's present, sure, but it's Theobald to whom Alan Barbetorte (supposedly) commends the province on his deathbed, with Fulk only brought in later; and all the surviving charter evidence indicates that Theobald was pre-eminent over Fulk in Brittany (he always signs first, for instance).(1) That the Angevins play a secondary role in royal politics is even more true in the Aquitanian marriage. First, there's no reason to think Richer is wrong in ascribing Aquitanian motives for the marriage. Sure, there might be well-entrenched families in Poitou and Tolouse, but the Auvergne and to an extent the Limousin - i.e., where Lothar tries to embed Louis - don't have much in the way of central authority, and of course the reason to wed Louis to Adelaide in the first place is to wrest real control _back_ into the hands of the monarchy! Again, they're married in Brioude and the marriage falls apart when it becomes clear that Adelaide can't give Louis command of the region (2); in addition, another chronicler (Ralph Glaber) refers to her specifically as 'the Aquitanian woman'.
On the flip side, postulating an anti-Robertian motive for the early 980s doesn't make a lot of sense. Theobald is dead, but his son Odo I has all his father's lands and maybe more, as well as one of the century's tighest alliances with Heribert the Elder. Geoffrey Grisegonelle is probably more powerful than Fulk the Good, but he's not more powerful than the Thibaudines, and the big leap forward there doesn't come until the reign of Fulk Nerra. Whereas in c.980, Geoffrey is count of Anjou and _maybe_ of Chalon-sur-Saone and a well-regarded warrior, Odo I is ruler of Tours, Blois, Chartres, Chinon, Chateaudun, as well as a big chunk of lands east of the Seine (whether or not he's got his uncle Heribert's lands at this point is up for debate, but he's definitely got his mother's). Given this, Lothar already has an alliance with the kingdom's most powerful noble. Which raises another point: by this point, Hugh Capet is already - well, neutered is a bit strong, but he's not exactly bestriding the kingdom like a colossus the way Hugh the Great was. Case in point: after he submitted to Otto II in Rome in 981, most of the old Loire valley _fideles_ seem to have deserted him. Gerbert of Rheims' line about Hugh being the real ruler is pure bombast - after about 980, he was not an insignificant figure, still a first-rank noble, but not a terrifying, greater-than-the-king presence; and Lothar's primary concerns are first his Aquitanian gambit and then, and more importantly, Lotharingia. (And, arguably, they have been since he successfully broke up and weakened Hugh's inheritance in 956-960.)
All this leaves, then, is a low-status girl who is a daughter of a second-rate vassal and who doesn't bring any particularly useful connections. Not the most appealing prospect in our brideshow!
The second-least probable... probably Emma daughter of Hugh the Great, partly because there are questions of incest but also because I don't think either Hugh or Louis are going to want it... too much bad blood.
Ditto for Emma of Blois, who comes next. I think you're absolutely right that Louis seems (understandably) to have kept a grudge against Theobald, and this will probably feed into any marriage prospects.
Next is Adelaide of Aquitaine. Adelaide might actually be a pretty good choice - high-status, roughly the right age, renews the Poitievin alliance which Louis put together in 942. A solid possibility.
Second is Adele of Troyes. TBH, Adele and Adelaide of Aquitaine could well go either way; there's not a lot to choose between them. Adele's big advantage are her links to Burgundy. Her father, Robert of Troyes, married one of the daughters of Gilbert of Burgundy, and seems to have been close to Gilbert. He and Lothar were briefly allied against Hugh Capet and Otto of Burgundy in OTL anyway - a marriage between the two families might really bolster Louis' position in Burgundy, which is important because for most of the mid-century the Carolingians seem to have been a lot more interested in ducal Burgundy than the west of the kingdom. The major minus point is status - Adele is a suitable bride for Geoffrey, but is that really suitable for Lothar? There's also the fact that Adele's grandfather shut Lothar's up in prison until he died - there _may_ be a grudge there.
Still, Emma of Italy remains the most probable choice: she's a closer link to the Ottonian court, which Queen Gerberga and probably Archbishop Artald of Rheims will be urging; she's not incestuous, and she's very, very high-status. There just aren't that many princesses around who m Lothar can marry without breaking incest regulations, and the Carolingians, Ottonians and early Capetians do seem to have preferred marrying these high-status women where possible, even if they had to import them from quite far away (3).
This doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the family's biological chances for survival. This is a low-fertility, high-mortality time. The Carolingians, c. 980 or so, were doing pretty well biologically: three mature adult males, two married to fertile females. Given how chancey sexual reproduction is, it's best to think of marriages like the stock market: past performance is no guarantee of future heirs. Emma already had either two or three children (I don't think there's any reason to put Richard as illegitimate); she might get another, or the ATL siblings might survive. It might be that thinking about the marriage politics is overthinking it: Louis V's death would be a very easy thing to butterfly away.
In any case, the prospects for Carolingian resurgence are one thing - the dynasty was indeed in the midst of some good times when they were snuffed out OTL, but what intrigues me is getting them higher, faster...
Hence, indeed, Lotharingia 939. If we swap the bad luck around, so that Gislebert and Eberhard live and Hugh the Great dies by accident, then we have a situation in which the kingdom's most powerful block of _honores_ has, at best, one newborn baby as heir, and at worst is up for grabs. I reckon that Louis can entrench himself in not only his royal heartlands but also in the Paris basin and Robertian Burgundy by the mid-940s; in any case, as the man whose sanction is the best legitimising mechanism available, his court now has a _lot_ more pull. In addition, Louis is still the nominal leader of a very menacing rebellion in Lotharingia against an Otto who is not at this point 'the Great', but a newbie king who's doing a good but not great job of managing the inevitable succession disputes. Lots of problems, but also a lot of possibilities...
(Whew, that went on longer than I'd intended!)
(1) Translating the _Chronicle of Nantes_, which is the only narrative source for Breton history of this period, cap. 36: 'Duke Alan, becoming gravely ill, commanded Theobald, count of Blois, that he should come to visit him [...] When the prelates and magnates [of all Brittany] were gathered in his presence, he commanded that they should give fealty to his little son Drogo [...] and his brother-in-law Theobald, his son's uncle, to whom he committed all his goods and his son...'
(2) As for taking Richer at his word, it's from Richer that the idea that Louis behaves 'frivilously' comes. Even if we are inclined to believe him, though, he foregrounds the problem as being that 'the royal title did not avail them enought to allow them to exercise any of the prerogatives of kingship over the magnates of the region', and the marriage only ends when Lothar calls Louis back, and he only does that because his kingship has failed.
(3) A quick and dirty list (not counting those who were married and fell into the throne unexpectedly, so not Hugh Capet and not Henry II):
CAROLINGIANS
------------
Louis IV: Gerberga, daughter of King Henry of Germany
Lothar: Emma, daughter of King Lothar of Italy
Louis V: ...is the exception here, largely because of the political concerns about Aquitaine outlined above.
EARLY CAPETIANS
---------------
Robert the Pious: (1) Suzannah-Rozala, daughter of Berengar II of Italy; (2) Bertha, daughter of Conrad of Burgundy; (3) Constance, daughter of William of Arles (maybe adding a point to Adelaide of Aquitaine above, but by that point in Robert's life he was running up hard against incest regs).
Henry I: betrothed to the daughter of Conrad II of Germany, married to (1) Matilda, ancestry uncertain but non-royal; (2) Anne of Kiev, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise
OTTONIANS
---------
Otto I: (1) Edith, daughter of Edward the Elder, (2) Adelaide, daughter of Rudolf II of Burgundy
Otto II: (2) Theophanu, (probably) neice of John Tzmikes, Emperor of Byzantium
Overall, not _quite_ universal, but a very strong preference not to marry down the status ladder.
As for the potential brides, we might add two more:
- Emma, daughter of Hugh the Great, in OTL wife of Richard the Fearless of Normandy (depending on which one of HtG's wives she's the daughter of - it's unlikely Lothar would marry his cousin!).
- Adele, daughter of Robert of Troyes, in OTL wife of Geoffrey Grisegonelle of Anjou.
Ranking our six choices in order of probability, Adelaide-Blanche is at the bottom. You're still overestimating the importance of the Angevins - in Brittany, for instance, Fulk is unquestionably the junior partner. He's present, sure, but it's Theobald to whom Alan Barbetorte (supposedly) commends the province on his deathbed, with Fulk only brought in later; and all the surviving charter evidence indicates that Theobald was pre-eminent over Fulk in Brittany (he always signs first, for instance).(1) That the Angevins play a secondary role in royal politics is even more true in the Aquitanian marriage. First, there's no reason to think Richer is wrong in ascribing Aquitanian motives for the marriage. Sure, there might be well-entrenched families in Poitou and Tolouse, but the Auvergne and to an extent the Limousin - i.e., where Lothar tries to embed Louis - don't have much in the way of central authority, and of course the reason to wed Louis to Adelaide in the first place is to wrest real control _back_ into the hands of the monarchy! Again, they're married in Brioude and the marriage falls apart when it becomes clear that Adelaide can't give Louis command of the region (2); in addition, another chronicler (Ralph Glaber) refers to her specifically as 'the Aquitanian woman'.
On the flip side, postulating an anti-Robertian motive for the early 980s doesn't make a lot of sense. Theobald is dead, but his son Odo I has all his father's lands and maybe more, as well as one of the century's tighest alliances with Heribert the Elder. Geoffrey Grisegonelle is probably more powerful than Fulk the Good, but he's not more powerful than the Thibaudines, and the big leap forward there doesn't come until the reign of Fulk Nerra. Whereas in c.980, Geoffrey is count of Anjou and _maybe_ of Chalon-sur-Saone and a well-regarded warrior, Odo I is ruler of Tours, Blois, Chartres, Chinon, Chateaudun, as well as a big chunk of lands east of the Seine (whether or not he's got his uncle Heribert's lands at this point is up for debate, but he's definitely got his mother's). Given this, Lothar already has an alliance with the kingdom's most powerful noble. Which raises another point: by this point, Hugh Capet is already - well, neutered is a bit strong, but he's not exactly bestriding the kingdom like a colossus the way Hugh the Great was. Case in point: after he submitted to Otto II in Rome in 981, most of the old Loire valley _fideles_ seem to have deserted him. Gerbert of Rheims' line about Hugh being the real ruler is pure bombast - after about 980, he was not an insignificant figure, still a first-rank noble, but not a terrifying, greater-than-the-king presence; and Lothar's primary concerns are first his Aquitanian gambit and then, and more importantly, Lotharingia. (And, arguably, they have been since he successfully broke up and weakened Hugh's inheritance in 956-960.)
All this leaves, then, is a low-status girl who is a daughter of a second-rate vassal and who doesn't bring any particularly useful connections. Not the most appealing prospect in our brideshow!
The second-least probable... probably Emma daughter of Hugh the Great, partly because there are questions of incest but also because I don't think either Hugh or Louis are going to want it... too much bad blood.
Ditto for Emma of Blois, who comes next. I think you're absolutely right that Louis seems (understandably) to have kept a grudge against Theobald, and this will probably feed into any marriage prospects.
Next is Adelaide of Aquitaine. Adelaide might actually be a pretty good choice - high-status, roughly the right age, renews the Poitievin alliance which Louis put together in 942. A solid possibility.
Second is Adele of Troyes. TBH, Adele and Adelaide of Aquitaine could well go either way; there's not a lot to choose between them. Adele's big advantage are her links to Burgundy. Her father, Robert of Troyes, married one of the daughters of Gilbert of Burgundy, and seems to have been close to Gilbert. He and Lothar were briefly allied against Hugh Capet and Otto of Burgundy in OTL anyway - a marriage between the two families might really bolster Louis' position in Burgundy, which is important because for most of the mid-century the Carolingians seem to have been a lot more interested in ducal Burgundy than the west of the kingdom. The major minus point is status - Adele is a suitable bride for Geoffrey, but is that really suitable for Lothar? There's also the fact that Adele's grandfather shut Lothar's up in prison until he died - there _may_ be a grudge there.
Still, Emma of Italy remains the most probable choice: she's a closer link to the Ottonian court, which Queen Gerberga and probably Archbishop Artald of Rheims will be urging; she's not incestuous, and she's very, very high-status. There just aren't that many princesses around who m Lothar can marry without breaking incest regulations, and the Carolingians, Ottonians and early Capetians do seem to have preferred marrying these high-status women where possible, even if they had to import them from quite far away (3).
This doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the family's biological chances for survival. This is a low-fertility, high-mortality time. The Carolingians, c. 980 or so, were doing pretty well biologically: three mature adult males, two married to fertile females. Given how chancey sexual reproduction is, it's best to think of marriages like the stock market: past performance is no guarantee of future heirs. Emma already had either two or three children (I don't think there's any reason to put Richard as illegitimate); she might get another, or the ATL siblings might survive. It might be that thinking about the marriage politics is overthinking it: Louis V's death would be a very easy thing to butterfly away.
In any case, the prospects for Carolingian resurgence are one thing - the dynasty was indeed in the midst of some good times when they were snuffed out OTL, but what intrigues me is getting them higher, faster...
Hence, indeed, Lotharingia 939. If we swap the bad luck around, so that Gislebert and Eberhard live and Hugh the Great dies by accident, then we have a situation in which the kingdom's most powerful block of _honores_ has, at best, one newborn baby as heir, and at worst is up for grabs. I reckon that Louis can entrench himself in not only his royal heartlands but also in the Paris basin and Robertian Burgundy by the mid-940s; in any case, as the man whose sanction is the best legitimising mechanism available, his court now has a _lot_ more pull. In addition, Louis is still the nominal leader of a very menacing rebellion in Lotharingia against an Otto who is not at this point 'the Great', but a newbie king who's doing a good but not great job of managing the inevitable succession disputes. Lots of problems, but also a lot of possibilities...
(Whew, that went on longer than I'd intended!)
(1) Translating the _Chronicle of Nantes_, which is the only narrative source for Breton history of this period, cap. 36: 'Duke Alan, becoming gravely ill, commanded Theobald, count of Blois, that he should come to visit him [...] When the prelates and magnates [of all Brittany] were gathered in his presence, he commanded that they should give fealty to his little son Drogo [...] and his brother-in-law Theobald, his son's uncle, to whom he committed all his goods and his son...'
(2) As for taking Richer at his word, it's from Richer that the idea that Louis behaves 'frivilously' comes. Even if we are inclined to believe him, though, he foregrounds the problem as being that 'the royal title did not avail them enought to allow them to exercise any of the prerogatives of kingship over the magnates of the region', and the marriage only ends when Lothar calls Louis back, and he only does that because his kingship has failed.
(3) A quick and dirty list (not counting those who were married and fell into the throne unexpectedly, so not Hugh Capet and not Henry II):
CAROLINGIANS
------------
Louis IV: Gerberga, daughter of King Henry of Germany
Lothar: Emma, daughter of King Lothar of Italy
Louis V: ...is the exception here, largely because of the political concerns about Aquitaine outlined above.
EARLY CAPETIANS
---------------
Robert the Pious: (1) Suzannah-Rozala, daughter of Berengar II of Italy; (2) Bertha, daughter of Conrad of Burgundy; (3) Constance, daughter of William of Arles (maybe adding a point to Adelaide of Aquitaine above, but by that point in Robert's life he was running up hard against incest regs).
Henry I: betrothed to the daughter of Conrad II of Germany, married to (1) Matilda, ancestry uncertain but non-royal; (2) Anne of Kiev, daughter of Yaroslav the Wise
OTTONIANS
---------
Otto I: (1) Edith, daughter of Edward the Elder, (2) Adelaide, daughter of Rudolf II of Burgundy
Otto II: (2) Theophanu, (probably) neice of John Tzmikes, Emperor of Byzantium
Overall, not _quite_ universal, but a very strong preference not to marry down the status ladder.
I think you too overestimate the influence of Ottonians. There is some enmity between Louis IV and Otto I since the former's ambitions over Lotharingia have been smashed and that he had to rely on Otto to get back his throne after the Normandy Affair. I repeat he has been smart enough to acknowledge the situation of weakness he found himself in, but that didn't prevent him from maneuvering to secure his position and quietly undermine the influence of Otto; his reconciliation with Hugh the Great in 950 can be considered under this light. I think he would be more susceptible to engineer a marital alliance with Blois or Anjou rather than getting closer even to the Ottonians he surely despised.
To get back on Aquitaine, aside of the mention by Richer of this marriage as aimed at getting some control in the region, the events don't show any particular active effort by Carolingian kings to enforce their authority.
concerning the failure of the marriage, I retain the argument of Louis V's frivolity since it is consistent with the age difference (he was a teenager and she was a mature woman) and the side effects of such a disproportion; Richer perception may have been biased as, if the behaviour of Louis V could have been of public notoriety, the underlying factors presiding to policy making are not (it's still the case today) and I don't know of him having been private to the decision making process.
Still, could you develop your point on the importance of Brioude in this matter? Strategically, it makes more sense to consider the Anjou alliance as a prime objective, Aquitaine being at this point irrelevant in the power struggle between Carolingians and the Robertians. And I wouldn't say Hugh Capet was impotent by 980. Aside of his own lands, he could rely on the support of Burgundy (ruled by his uncle) and Normandy (Richard surely remembered badly the attempt of Louis IV to take over his realm), while at the same time, Lothar was feuding with his brother Charles and Otto II (invasion of 978) and the conflict over Lotharingia had been reignited. If the king could rely on Flanders, Vermandois and Troyes, and that Odo showed loyal, the resurgence of Robertians under Hugh Capet could have worried him. In this context, Anjou allegiance was wavering; Fulk III may have been the most brutal of his kind, his way was paved by Geoffrey's intrigues in Britanny, Maine and Poitou; the fact that Geoffrey and his son switched to Hugh Capet (capture of Guerech of Britanny who had sworn direct allegiance to Lothar in 984, siege of a pro-Carolingian Blois vassal at Marçon in 987) was telling this volatility, and justified that Lothar may have felt it necessary to appease and buy the support of Anjou by a marital alliance.
I don't see much interest for a marriage into the Robertian house since Louis IV and Lothar were seeking to undermine, and would rather promote their vassals as Anjou and Blois to break apart.
Adele of Troyes, why not? But, since the house of Vermandois already support the king, the wavering loyalty of Blois and Anjou to the Robertians makes them more tempting targets for a marital alliance.
On the Blois match, aside of the grudge, the argument for Louis IV to prefer Anjou (if we should ever justify it) would be Louis IV suspicion of Thibaud's ambition he could want to check (avoiding another great vassal taking Hugh the Great place as source of trouble), both factors combining to justify the decision.
To get back on Aquitaine, aside of the mention by Richer of this marriage as aimed at getting some control in the region, the events don't show any particular active effort by Carolingian kings to enforce their authority.
concerning the failure of the marriage, I retain the argument of Louis V's frivolity since it is consistent with the age difference (he was a teenager and she was a mature woman) and the side effects of such a disproportion; Richer perception may have been biased as, if the behaviour of Louis V could have been of public notoriety, the underlying factors presiding to policy making are not (it's still the case today) and I don't know of him having been private to the decision making process.
Still, could you develop your point on the importance of Brioude in this matter? Strategically, it makes more sense to consider the Anjou alliance as a prime objective, Aquitaine being at this point irrelevant in the power struggle between Carolingians and the Robertians. And I wouldn't say Hugh Capet was impotent by 980. Aside of his own lands, he could rely on the support of Burgundy (ruled by his uncle) and Normandy (Richard surely remembered badly the attempt of Louis IV to take over his realm), while at the same time, Lothar was feuding with his brother Charles and Otto II (invasion of 978) and the conflict over Lotharingia had been reignited. If the king could rely on Flanders, Vermandois and Troyes, and that Odo showed loyal, the resurgence of Robertians under Hugh Capet could have worried him. In this context, Anjou allegiance was wavering; Fulk III may have been the most brutal of his kind, his way was paved by Geoffrey's intrigues in Britanny, Maine and Poitou; the fact that Geoffrey and his son switched to Hugh Capet (capture of Guerech of Britanny who had sworn direct allegiance to Lothar in 984, siege of a pro-Carolingian Blois vassal at Marçon in 987) was telling this volatility, and justified that Lothar may have felt it necessary to appease and buy the support of Anjou by a marital alliance.
I don't see much interest for a marriage into the Robertian house since Louis IV and Lothar were seeking to undermine, and would rather promote their vassals as Anjou and Blois to break apart.
Adele of Troyes, why not? But, since the house of Vermandois already support the king, the wavering loyalty of Blois and Anjou to the Robertians makes them more tempting targets for a marital alliance.
On the Blois match, aside of the grudge, the argument for Louis IV to prefer Anjou (if we should ever justify it) would be Louis IV suspicion of Thibaud's ambition he could want to check (avoiding another great vassal taking Hugh the Great place as source of trouble), both factors combining to justify the decision.
Deleted member 95909
Regarding Ottonian influence, I think to the contrary you are underestimating it. If you read Flodoard's annals (the main contemporary narrative source for these events), it's hard to avoid the impression that while Louis is doing his best, Otto is the real mover and shaker: he shows up with armies (or orders one of his underlings to do so) to bail Louis out of trouble in 946, 947, 948, 949, and 950. The reconciliation you mention in 950 is carried out - explicitly - under Otto's auspices, and Otto acts as the holder of the balance of power, for example when he's called in to mediate a dispute between Hugh, Louis and Frederick of Lotharingia in 951. Louis' wife is Otto's sister, his archbishop relies on Otto's bishops to keep his see, and his very throne is reliant on five years of Ottonian military support. Also, why would Louis have despised the Ottonians? He was happily married to one of them! Plus, he and Otto had five years of a very productive alliance, and even given the contests over Lotharingia, their relations before that seem to have been surprisingly warm.
Similarly to the contrary, Aquitaine. First, Richer was a well-informed contemporary - like Flodoard before him, he had access to the archives at Rheims and possibly elsewhere, and the recollections of people, including some quite important people (such as Gerbert of Rheims), who were around at the time. In the case of most of the royal politics he reports on, the major problem with his work is not that he doesn't know what happened, it's that he filters them through his ideas of what royal politics ought to look like (or not), his history is about improving the reader - but this is also true of his presentation of Louis' marriage.(1) You can't reject one and accept the other.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to accept that Louis' marriage was not a happy one - but that's not why it ended. These are early medieval kings: simply because the happy couple are less happy than anticipated is not a reason for dissolving the marriage. Richer describes the reason for the end of the marriage as Lothar going south to pick up his son after his kingship fails, this is corroborated by diploma evidence, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
The significance of Brioude supports this - sorry I didn't explain this earlier, btw. Brioude, and the abbey of Saint-Julien there, is one of the (indeed, the most) significant royal site in Aquitaine. It's also the old locus of the authority of Duke William the Pious, and still the centre of the Auvergnat networks of power which William built up and the bishops and counts of the Auvergne seem to have kept going. In short, it's a major symbolic centre of the Aquitanian kingdom and getting married and crowned there is a very important statement about how you're going to be king in Aquitaine.
More generally, you (and, in fairness, quite a lot of historians) are way too focussed on the Robertian/Carolingian conflict. It's if anything more accurate to say that by 980, the Robertian/Carolingian conflict is irrelevant to the weight of royal interests. What we can see Lothar doing between, say, the mid-970s (even the mid-960s) and his death is intervening in Flanders, intervening in Aquitaine, and above all intervening in Lotharingia. It's not that Hugh's impotent or unimportant, but rather that after about 965, he's one magnate amongst many. Where Hugh the Great was the mightiest man in the realm, Hugh Capet is the ruler of Paris and Orleans with some interests elsewhere, a decent network of allies (albeit one which breaks down after c. 980) and a moral claim to preeminence in the Loire valley that gets mostly ignored from c. 970 and completely after c. 980. He can on occasion threaten a royal assembly and has some clout in the kingdom's affairs - like William Towhead, like Godfrey of Verdun, like any other first-rank magnate.
In particular, you overestimate his support. His brother (not uncle) in Burgundy doesn't seem to have done much of anything in Hugh's favour - he doesn't seem to have a lot of contact with him, and doesn't seem to have acted to support him in 987 or 988 (it's striking that in Richer's list of the peoples who acclaim Hugh as king the Burgundians are absent, although I'm not sure quite how seriously one should take that). Just because they're brothers doesn't mean that they're allies or that they have shared interests - just ask Louis the German and Charles the Bald! Richard of Normandy also doesn't seem to have been much of a friend - again in 988, his response, in practical terms, seems to have been to do his best ostrich impression and vacillate until the crisis was over.
Geoffrey Grisegonelle does seem to have been quite good at playing both sides, but there's only so much he can do. I have to ask, are you getting this from Bernard Bachrach's work on the Angevins? If so, be aware that he overstates, sometimes dramatically, how much power and influence Geoffrey has. In particular, evidence for Angevin involement in Maine in this period is very weak. He's a second rank count who's quite far away from Lothar's heartland - worth cultivating, if possible, but there's little indication that Lothar cared that much about him.
Also, both the examples you give aren't anti-Carolingian at all. Your point about Guerech is based on the Chronicle of Nantes, but it doesn't actually say that Guerech swore allegiance to Lothar at all, just that he went to the court and came back, putting him rather below Gauzfred of Roussillon in terms of his significance. Also, why do you say that Odo Rufinus at Marçon is pro-Carolingian? As far as I know, and there might be something I'm missing, we know almost nothing about who he was and nothing at all about why they were fighting there.
One final point: insofar as there is evidence of links between the Angevins and Adelaide in the latter decades of the century, it indicates that they were interested in her for exactly the same reason that Lothar was - her Aquitanian connections. Specifically, they tried to do the same trick as Lothar tried to pull with Louis - using Adelaide's connections to get their man in place in Aquitaine - with Guy, whom Adelaide introduced into Le Puy as bishop; the difference being that in this case it worked long-term.
As for Adele of Troyes, Robert is a bit of an edge case - in OTL he and Lothar have a big bust-up over Dijon which is the reason for why Hugh Capet and Otto receive their long-delayed, much-reduced inheritances in the first place. Heribert the Elder also seems to take a while to settle in to being a Carolingian ally - at one point he elopes with Louis' mother, which cools things for a bit. Plus, it's not simply the house of Vermandois - it's Robert's connections in Burgundy, which seem to have been pretty good.
(1) There are fonts here! Gosh, this is an exciting change from Usenet.
Similarly to the contrary, Aquitaine. First, Richer was a well-informed contemporary - like Flodoard before him, he had access to the archives at Rheims and possibly elsewhere, and the recollections of people, including some quite important people (such as Gerbert of Rheims), who were around at the time. In the case of most of the royal politics he reports on, the major problem with his work is not that he doesn't know what happened, it's that he filters them through his ideas of what royal politics ought to look like (or not), his history is about improving the reader - but this is also true of his presentation of Louis' marriage.(1) You can't reject one and accept the other.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to accept that Louis' marriage was not a happy one - but that's not why it ended. These are early medieval kings: simply because the happy couple are less happy than anticipated is not a reason for dissolving the marriage. Richer describes the reason for the end of the marriage as Lothar going south to pick up his son after his kingship fails, this is corroborated by diploma evidence, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
The significance of Brioude supports this - sorry I didn't explain this earlier, btw. Brioude, and the abbey of Saint-Julien there, is one of the (indeed, the most) significant royal site in Aquitaine. It's also the old locus of the authority of Duke William the Pious, and still the centre of the Auvergnat networks of power which William built up and the bishops and counts of the Auvergne seem to have kept going. In short, it's a major symbolic centre of the Aquitanian kingdom and getting married and crowned there is a very important statement about how you're going to be king in Aquitaine.
More generally, you (and, in fairness, quite a lot of historians) are way too focussed on the Robertian/Carolingian conflict. It's if anything more accurate to say that by 980, the Robertian/Carolingian conflict is irrelevant to the weight of royal interests. What we can see Lothar doing between, say, the mid-970s (even the mid-960s) and his death is intervening in Flanders, intervening in Aquitaine, and above all intervening in Lotharingia. It's not that Hugh's impotent or unimportant, but rather that after about 965, he's one magnate amongst many. Where Hugh the Great was the mightiest man in the realm, Hugh Capet is the ruler of Paris and Orleans with some interests elsewhere, a decent network of allies (albeit one which breaks down after c. 980) and a moral claim to preeminence in the Loire valley that gets mostly ignored from c. 970 and completely after c. 980. He can on occasion threaten a royal assembly and has some clout in the kingdom's affairs - like William Towhead, like Godfrey of Verdun, like any other first-rank magnate.
In particular, you overestimate his support. His brother (not uncle) in Burgundy doesn't seem to have done much of anything in Hugh's favour - he doesn't seem to have a lot of contact with him, and doesn't seem to have acted to support him in 987 or 988 (it's striking that in Richer's list of the peoples who acclaim Hugh as king the Burgundians are absent, although I'm not sure quite how seriously one should take that). Just because they're brothers doesn't mean that they're allies or that they have shared interests - just ask Louis the German and Charles the Bald! Richard of Normandy also doesn't seem to have been much of a friend - again in 988, his response, in practical terms, seems to have been to do his best ostrich impression and vacillate until the crisis was over.
Geoffrey Grisegonelle does seem to have been quite good at playing both sides, but there's only so much he can do. I have to ask, are you getting this from Bernard Bachrach's work on the Angevins? If so, be aware that he overstates, sometimes dramatically, how much power and influence Geoffrey has. In particular, evidence for Angevin involement in Maine in this period is very weak. He's a second rank count who's quite far away from Lothar's heartland - worth cultivating, if possible, but there's little indication that Lothar cared that much about him.
Also, both the examples you give aren't anti-Carolingian at all. Your point about Guerech is based on the Chronicle of Nantes, but it doesn't actually say that Guerech swore allegiance to Lothar at all, just that he went to the court and came back, putting him rather below Gauzfred of Roussillon in terms of his significance. Also, why do you say that Odo Rufinus at Marçon is pro-Carolingian? As far as I know, and there might be something I'm missing, we know almost nothing about who he was and nothing at all about why they were fighting there.
One final point: insofar as there is evidence of links between the Angevins and Adelaide in the latter decades of the century, it indicates that they were interested in her for exactly the same reason that Lothar was - her Aquitanian connections. Specifically, they tried to do the same trick as Lothar tried to pull with Louis - using Adelaide's connections to get their man in place in Aquitaine - with Guy, whom Adelaide introduced into Le Puy as bishop; the difference being that in this case it worked long-term.
As for Adele of Troyes, Robert is a bit of an edge case - in OTL he and Lothar have a big bust-up over Dijon which is the reason for why Hugh Capet and Otto receive their long-delayed, much-reduced inheritances in the first place. Heribert the Elder also seems to take a while to settle in to being a Carolingian ally - at one point he elopes with Louis' mother, which cools things for a bit. Plus, it's not simply the house of Vermandois - it's Robert's connections in Burgundy, which seem to have been pretty good.
(1) There are fonts here! Gosh, this is an exciting change from Usenet.
The way your refers Otto's intervention makes thinking that each year is a different one, but the years 946-950 can be considered as a single intervention against Hugh the Great who continued to fight. Otto's military support was convenient to Louis as he was too weak on his own, and by virtue of this military power and Louis' own weakness, Otto retained a certain amount of influence.
Gerberga had been Gislebert's widow before being Otto's sister, and her claim on Lotharingia motivated in great part Louis IV who didn't exactly ask Otto for her hand. And that Louis IV both despises the Ottonians and has benefited from it is not contradictory. I remember Pascal said something like 'you may despise a grand but you still shall show him due respects' in the Pensées, which is pretty much that situation.
His main vassals may have turned on him, his name still caries weight and his allies, even nominal, are enough to make a pretense of major influence, enough to claim the crown after Louis V's death. This is more about the perception of his power than the actual power he had.
Not necessarily himself, but by association, being vassal of the Count of Blois if I'm not wrong, one who actively supported Charles of Lower Lorraine, and was fought by Geoffrey of Anjou who supported Hugh Capet.
It depends on the woman (cf Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII).
This doesn't seem relevant: Anjou was a direct neighbor of Aquitaine and had interests in the region while Lothar's interests were in northeast.
It's what most historians do, reading between the lines, confronting the chronicles with actual evidence from archeology, geography ... Taking chronicles literally is risky (it's not because an element has proven consistent, credible that I will consider all of the other so without questioning). I'm not rejecting the Aquitanian connection but I cast it as a side advantage, a reason among others, but not the most important. I support the Anjou connection as it's strategically more coherent and doesn't contradict much with the official version (which can be seen as a different perception of the matter).
It doesn't necessarily contradicts the Anjou connection hypothesis (one stone, two birds) and didn't cost much. If the Anjou connection offered too the occasion to make an act of presence in South, it was worth taking it.
Deleted member 95909
Each year of Otto's intervention is a different one. It's not five years with the same army; each time it's a different army, different operation, different request for help. Otto's military power is precisely what gives him leverage, but that leverage is pretty damn significant. I think we both actually agree that what Otto wants out of the West Frankish kingdom is 'sit down, shut up, don't make trouble', but that's a major political concession, and doesn't really address what Louis wants from Otto. Otto's help is, after 946, the reason Louis has literally anything to call his own, and Louis seems to have recognised that - in each occasion that I mentioned above, it's Louis (or Gerberga acting on his behalf) who goes and begs Otto for help.
Also, whatever one can say about the circumstances of Louis' marriage, it's Gerberga who goes and asks Otto for help in the first place and every indication is that brother and sister were very close after about 940 or so. Plus, as I said, Louis' personal relations with Otto seem to be surprisingly warm; even given the fighting over Lotharingia, they spend more time even before 946 being friendly than not. Assuming that Louis 'detested' Otto, quite simply, has no evidence to support it.
Odo of Blois is a variable factor - after 988 (after about 980, in fact) mostly he's against Hugh Capet, at times he's for him (I think with clenched teeth, but that's my interpretation). In any case, that doesn't say anything about Odo Rufinus, about whom we do in fact know basically nothing; to my mind, it's much more likely that Marçon is a local squabble without much larger relevance because, again, not everything relates to a Grand Struggle For Power Between The Robertians And The Carolingians.
Eleanor of Aquitaine might be a different case, but in that case there's, y'know, actual evidence for that being the primary reason.
I know what historians do. What I'm saying is that your methodology is not historically acceptable. You're cherry-picking the bits of Richer you like in order to force it into the straight-jacket of an all-consuming feud between Robertians and Carolingians. To be as clear about this as possible: every bit of evidence relating to the marriage of Adelaide and Louis indicates that Aquitaine was Lothar's primary interest. Adelaide's family connections were primarily those of her late husbands in Aquitaine, multiple contemporary or near-contemporary historians recognised her base of operations as being Aquitaine and Lothar's interest in the marriage as being related to Aquitaine, her marriage ceremony and coronation took place in a completely Aquitanian context, and the failure of the marriage was - again, explicitly in the sources - due to the failure of Louis' Aquitanian kingship (1). On the flip side, there's no evidence for Lothar's primary interest being focussed against the Robertians at any point after 965. Assuming there is is reading the 980s and 990s through the lens of the 930s and 940s, which is exactly like trying to read the 1990s through the lens of the 1960s. Russia in the 1990s hadn't stopped being an important force in international politics, but America's interests were elsewhere; and it's the same here: Hugh Capet is still an important figure in West Frankish politics, but all Lothar's actions indicate his primary concerns were with Lotharingia, and yes, with Aquitaine.
After all, you know what makes strategic sense? Taking advantage of political fragmentation in a region with traditionally strong royal ties (which the Auvergne had under Bishop Stephen II of Clermont, the regional chief for most of the mid-century) to try and assert royal power.
(1) None of which, btw, mention the Angevin connection as being important for the king - Richer throws in a sideline about a connection to the king being useful for Geoffrey, but that's definitely a secondary consideration for Lothar.
Also, whatever one can say about the circumstances of Louis' marriage, it's Gerberga who goes and asks Otto for help in the first place and every indication is that brother and sister were very close after about 940 or so. Plus, as I said, Louis' personal relations with Otto seem to be surprisingly warm; even given the fighting over Lotharingia, they spend more time even before 946 being friendly than not. Assuming that Louis 'detested' Otto, quite simply, has no evidence to support it.
Odo of Blois is a variable factor - after 988 (after about 980, in fact) mostly he's against Hugh Capet, at times he's for him (I think with clenched teeth, but that's my interpretation). In any case, that doesn't say anything about Odo Rufinus, about whom we do in fact know basically nothing; to my mind, it's much more likely that Marçon is a local squabble without much larger relevance because, again, not everything relates to a Grand Struggle For Power Between The Robertians And The Carolingians.
Eleanor of Aquitaine might be a different case, but in that case there's, y'know, actual evidence for that being the primary reason.
I know what historians do. What I'm saying is that your methodology is not historically acceptable. You're cherry-picking the bits of Richer you like in order to force it into the straight-jacket of an all-consuming feud between Robertians and Carolingians. To be as clear about this as possible: every bit of evidence relating to the marriage of Adelaide and Louis indicates that Aquitaine was Lothar's primary interest. Adelaide's family connections were primarily those of her late husbands in Aquitaine, multiple contemporary or near-contemporary historians recognised her base of operations as being Aquitaine and Lothar's interest in the marriage as being related to Aquitaine, her marriage ceremony and coronation took place in a completely Aquitanian context, and the failure of the marriage was - again, explicitly in the sources - due to the failure of Louis' Aquitanian kingship (1). On the flip side, there's no evidence for Lothar's primary interest being focussed against the Robertians at any point after 965. Assuming there is is reading the 980s and 990s through the lens of the 930s and 940s, which is exactly like trying to read the 1990s through the lens of the 1960s. Russia in the 1990s hadn't stopped being an important force in international politics, but America's interests were elsewhere; and it's the same here: Hugh Capet is still an important figure in West Frankish politics, but all Lothar's actions indicate his primary concerns were with Lotharingia, and yes, with Aquitaine.
After all, you know what makes strategic sense? Taking advantage of political fragmentation in a region with traditionally strong royal ties (which the Auvergne had under Bishop Stephen II of Clermont, the regional chief for most of the mid-century) to try and assert royal power.
(1) None of which, btw, mention the Angevin connection as being important for the king - Richer throws in a sideline about a connection to the king being useful for Geoffrey, but that's definitely a secondary consideration for Lothar.
I'm really enjoying reading this discussion. Untangling the politics of 10th century France has always seemed very intimidating and it's nice to read some informed attempts at that!
I must confess a certain selfish interest - my own current TL, though not centered on France, is concurrent with the events you're discussing. As I'm wrestling with the question myself, I was wondering if either of you would care to speculate a bit on the possible trajectory of the reign of a longer-lived Louis V.
I must confess a certain selfish interest - my own current TL, though not centered on France, is concurrent with the events you're discussing. As I'm wrestling with the question myself, I was wondering if either of you would care to speculate a bit on the possible trajectory of the reign of a longer-lived Louis V.