WI: Europe if Justinian's Empire endures

There's no identity being changed, anymore than with Christians praying to Jesus instead of Yeshua. Names get translated.

I'm guessing that you define going from Old English to Middle English to Modern English as a translation then? My point is that it isn't fair to call someone who in their day answered to the name of "Karl" as anything but "Karl". I'm not going to bother trying to make a discussion of this, it depends far too much on personal interpretation.
 
Well, I can't exactly help but it happens to have been be one of the main focus of my studies and remains one of the main part of my interests so far.

I agree my posts can be a bit...lengthy, but I assure you I try to check what I wrote from what I have at disposal.

Just as I can probably write for hours about Charlemagne, I guess. It can be a bit annoying to respond to every single point you make simply because of how long it takes to respond (45 mins for my last post), so I'm trying to shorten the number of discussions we are having at the same time. Otherwise stuff just gets lost and it becomes a mess.

Of course, everything that gets written is worthwhile reading!

It really depends of the period, but by the late VIIth and early VIIIth, Aquitaine definitely fits the model of peripherical principalty with its own clientele and vassalic network (not unlike Bavaria) : at least since Loup's "princepship"

It went through stages of vassal, rebellion, independence and tributary from about the time of Clovis until Charlemagne came along and stomped it into his kingdom once and for all. Lupo I and his successors (Hunald, Waifar) happen to be another case of Aquitaine's status changing. Exactly when it was what can be hard to keep up with.

You don't think it's important to distinguish a personal reign from a technical reign? It's not because one is king at four years old that he actually reigns.

Not that I need to remind you that blindly using the wiki as a source for this era is a bad idea of course, but even the wiki points out that a large part of his early reign could just be considered as part of the reign of Gontran.

For the purpose of "in the reign of XYZ, ABC was conquered", I don't think the exact number of the year matters too much. Saying that XYZ king actually did that is of course another situation altogether. Also, before today I had only heard of the name of Clothar II, so I went on wiki mostly to check the important parts of his reign and how well they line up with my perception of that period. Certainly not the best resource for a big researching project, but I reckon it is fine for "Did this happen? Yes/No" sort of inquiries.

No. Most of the re-organisation of the regnum occured trough negociations, even after battles, in order to not damage too much the aformentioned balance of power and dynastical order. A good part of sources of Merovingian organisation actually comes from the treaties and negociations passed between royal figures whom agreements could change relatively easily.
Alright, a early-middle-ages war goes as follows: Guy DOWs other guy, they have a big battle, they negotiate a treaty, guy #1 cedes land to guy #2, guy #2 demands subjects of new lands swear oath of fealty. Kind of the same as modern wars, but with one pitched one-day battle being the place where fortunes change instead of complex operations that take place over months/years.

About claimants being murdered, well I guess most were chucked in monasteries (eg. Childeric III and Pippin III's half brother Gripho) or stripped of enough land that they aren't a threat any more. Either case it has basically the same effect as killing them, only with less people dying.

Local levies weren't the only military resources at hand : as hinted by the disposition of Frankish sub-kingdoms, each could basically raise the early MA equivalent of federates or auxiliaries. For instance Clothar, while beneficing from an handful of pagi, could beneficy from Saxon armies (installed in Normandy since the late IVth but as well from Britain), Frisians and Normans, or various Austrasian kings beneficing from Frankish Germania or armies from tributaries or peipherical peoples (such as Lombards, Bavarians, Saxony's Saxons, etc.). Not unlike the Late Roman army relied not only on local levies (that's not that astonighing giving it's a continuation of it)
Mercenaries are paid for using the taxes that come from farmers working the land. Ultimately it all comes back to the land, which in an age before businesses and stock exchanges is pretty much the only option.

The notion of bastardy in succession at this point is blurry at best : Charles probably didn't inherited directly his father's holdings, clienteles and such because his half-brothers were issued from more prestigious lines and with more initial support. Polygamy among Frankish aristocracy remained fairly common (maybe more in Austrasia) at least until Charlemagne's reign.
In terms of dynasties, a bastard forms a new dynasty. In terms of succession of land and titles, it mostly depends upon what the father wants.

CK II also claims Suevi was still an ethnic identity by the 750, that Basques somehow controlled Bordeaux and that Albigensian Crusade was apparently not a thing. I doubt it could be considered reliable.
As I said about wiki too, it is fine for rough generalisations, not so for detail. I don't know about 769 but certainly in the pre-Waifar days Basques would have controlled Bordeaux, as they were still a dominant force within Aquitaine (and probably had a lot to do with the 760 rising). Basically, if there was no reason for Paradox to label Childeric III as an imbecile then they probably wouldn't have done so. Their choice would be based on something (maybe the whole growing a beard as Childeric's favourite thing to do idea) - I don't know exactly what but they would probably be willing to explain it if one of us bothered to write them an email.

Expect that when Carolingians attempted to enforce a strong kingship over their aristocracy, it generally ended badly. Hence why the various Ordino Imperii of Louis met general disapproval. The reinforcement of aristocracy as autonomous from courts is maybe not entierly a Carolingian creation, but they definitely accompanied it.

...

It didn't. When Carolingians attempted to tweak a bit the traditional succession, it backfired spectacularily : all the reign of Louis I can point to this. You really have to wait for the Ottonian influence to deal with this, and with Late Carolingians (that so obviously not had the power of their predecessors) to abide by a male-to-male succession.

Remember that Peppin wasn't blessed as king of Franks, but his whole dynasty in 751.

Louis the Pious was a bit of a disaster, what with 4 rebellions and whatever. His reign certainly didn't have the strength that either Pippin or Charlemagne had. In Pippin's time, most vassals could either remember Martel's efforts personally or they had fathers who told them about it. Also, Pippin had support of the Pope (who could at least threaten excommunication etc.) so if he REAALY wanted to force primogeniture/elective then he probably could have. I don't doubt there would have been resistance but none of it would have been insurmountable. Plus, when Charlemagne gets to become king then he will crush anyone who disputes that.

Also, future King Karloman (son of Pippin III) wasn't made "king" until 754 - he wasn't even alive when Childeric was ousted (having been born in June when the coup d'etat was in March). A declaration of primogeniture in 751 would have stopped this.

It clearly didn't : distinct majorship existed up to Charlemagne and while the Ordino Imperii of 804 only deal with Aquitaine and Italy (altough in a conflated way, with Aquitaine more or less swallowing up Burgundy) it remained a basis for the later splits.

I'll grant you that Burgundy itself ceased to be an effective sub-kingdom, being generally mied up with Neustria : but that's part of the latter part of VIIth developments rather than Charles' work.

But for what matter most of late Carolingian aristocracy, you still had the polarizing effect of the former courts playing up to the Xth.

Both Austrasia and Neustria were split up, with about 3/4 of them going to Charlemagne and 1/4 to Karloman in 768, while Karloman got most of Burgundy. The title of Austrasia/Neustria/whatever may have existed but that doesn't mean they were a practical entity any more.

We have attested forms of Karolingi for the (relatively) contemporary period, meaning that yes, people had a sense of dynastic names, while none of Karling (similarily, we have a later appearance of Merohingi, which giving an Anglo-Saxon use may have been widespread enough to be fairly contemporarily)
Maybe that is another example of the language corruption then. Any use of the word "Karol" probably comes from just after Charlemagne's time, so maybe 'Karling' is an attempt to reverse a corruption. I'm not even going to bother trying to make sense of what corrupted what.

- BNC
 
I'm guessing that you define going from Old English to Middle English to Modern English as a translation then? My point is that it isn't fair to call someone who in their day answered to the name of "Karl" as anything but "Karl". I'm not going to bother trying to make a discussion of this, it depends far too much on personal interpretation.

That is about as pedantic as is possible, particularly when you have used 'Charles Martel' in this very discussion. If it helps with your sense of verisimilitude, then great. Anything beyond that is a distraction from actual discussion.
 
That is about as pedantic as is possible, particularly when you have used 'Charles Martel' in this very discussion. If it helps with your sense of verisimilitude, then great. Anything beyond that is a distraction from actual discussion.
You asked me if I was being to harsh by saying 'corruption'. This is simply a reply to a reply to a reply to that, as an answer to your question. If you are not happy because of my answer, then I do not force you to agree with it, only to accept that I see the situation in a certain way, which may differ from your own.

Re Charles Martel: I'm pretty sure the main time period for this discussion (the one about Merovings at least) is the 6th/7th century, or at least it was when it began. Martel lived in the late 7th/early 8th, and having his name pop up in a less familiar form could be a bit confusing without the discussion already being based around him. If it makes you happy, I will edit my above posts so that every instance of "Charles" is changed to "Karl" like it should be.

Else I will just have to explain to him why I use his correct name, but as I won't be going to heaven for a while I think I will have enough time to come up with a 40-page long excuse. Or have him forget about it.

Past this, I will quote my own post:

I'm not going to bother trying to make a discussion of this

- BNC
 
You asked me if I was being to harsh by saying 'corruption'. This is simply a reply to a reply to a reply to that, as an answer to your question. If you are not happy because of my answer, then I do not force you to agree with it, only to accept that I see the situation in a certain way, which may differ from your own.

Re Charles Martel: I'm pretty sure the main time period for this discussion (the one about Merovings at least) is the 6th/7th century, or at least it was when it began. Martel lived in the late 7th/early 8th, and having his name pop up in a less familiar form could be a bit confusing without the discussion already being based around him. If it makes you happy, I will edit my above posts so that every instance of "Charles" is changed to "Karl" like it should be.

Else I will just have to explain to him why I use his correct name, but as I won't be going to heaven for a while I think I will have enough time to come up with a 40-page long excuse. Or have him forget about it.

Past this, I will quote my own post:



- BNC

Not exactly familiar with rhetorical questions, are you? However, I will point out that you just explained in total satisfaction why everyone else generally uses the common forms of names throughout history.
 
Not exactly familiar with rhetorical questions, are you?
It's a bit hard to tell the difference between rhetorical and normal questions in an internet forum, mostly because you can't tell differences in tone and stuff like that. Anyway I came up with an explanation for Karl. Hopefully he can read it in some way, although he might have to ask God for some internet. Can the next person to die ask God to install internet in heaven please?

Karl "Martellus"


Son of Pippin II

Son of Ansegisel

Somewhere in Heaven, presumably either "Royalty" or "741 deaths" section

Heaven

I don’t know where Heaven is located, but that place.

The Universe

January 7, 2017

Dear Karl,

Unfortunately I do not speak Latin (in this age we consider it a dead language because only scientists and professors use it for anything) so I am forced to write this letter in modern English. I understand that English did not really exist when you were alive, probably Saxon would have been the closest language to it. I would urge you to send this to a professor and ask for a translation. Preferably a professor that died in the last year, because if you ask a 15th century professor then he might not know what language I am speaking, as it has changed a lot. Also, I think it was beginning to be used when you died but I am using the anno domini system of naming years, which considers year 1 to be roughly the time of Jesus’ life. You died in the year 741 for reference.

I apologise for my incorrect use of the more modern name "Charles", when it actually happens to be a 12th

century corruption of your name. My error was pointed out to me by a person who uses the name Dominus Novus, not long after he told me that the word corruption was a bit harsh. I didn’t agree with that, which I told him, so a bit later I decided to write this instead of just waiting another however many years to die and then meeting you in person. Probably I would have forgotten by then anyway and you would hit me over the head with your shield. That would be painful.

Actually I am beginning to doubt you ever read my post on the alternate history forum. For one thing because it is in English (so you might need that professor again) and another because you might not have good internet. If you don’t know what I am talking about, tell God that the internet isn’t good enough in heaven. Then, when I die, God will have put in good internet and I will be happy. Also, when you get good internet let me know of all the mistakes I have made about your life in my posts. Although I have a few books about your grandson (if you haven’t met him yet, his name is also Karl, but often called "Charlemagne" and he will be in the 814 deaths section), I don’t have as much about your life. Mostly because the Fredegar chronicle costs $99 which is about three times what I want to pay. I can get four Turtledove novels with that money, and seeing as I only have parts one and two of "The War that Came Early" then I probably should just buy the novels. They will take me longer to get through as well. Because of this, I have to rely heavily on wikipedia and the wise words of LSCatilina.

Seeing as I took about half an hour out of my life to write this, time that I could have been reading stuff on AH or watching Survivor (although tenplay is pretty rubbish so maybe not), I might as well ask you a bit about your life. Most importantly, has God ever let you watch Survivor? A contestant from a past series (I didn’t watch that past series as I only found out about the show last year) died a while ago so he has probably already complained to God about it. If you haven’t seen it yet then demand God give you a TV that also has internet, then get that professor to set up Survivor with Latin subtitles. He will probably have to do the subtitles himself but doing those is more interesting than writing an essay about biology that no one will read anyway because you are immortal in heaven, so who cares about cells or stuff? By the way, TVs are much better than whatever you used to entertain yourself in the 8th century (like board games and stuff), so you should just get one and spend all day watching it.

Seeing as I have run out of space on this page, and don’t really want to begin a new one, I have to end the letter here.

- BNC
 
What sort of manpower does Byzantium have that it far outplaces the Umayyads? Also, by the Umayyad period you can say that ethnic strife was not the leading role to the failure of the Umayyad but constant war on far between borders and the military defeat in the Khazar wars. I doubt further, that Byzantium has a culture that would impose no unrest.

Spain already required heavy reliance on Berbers with Arabs being a tiny minority during the conquest. This lead to exacerbated ethnic strife which lead to the taifas in the long run, and the Berber Revolt in the short run. How was Muslim Spain going to conquer Gaul when they didn't even have enough manpower to permanently incorporate the northern Spanish kingdoms? Both @Planet of Hats and IIRC @LSCatilina have spoken on this. The ERE being Christian Romans aren't in the same position in Spain/Gaul. In this and in many other ways, the Umayyad Caliphate and Romania are very very different states. This is why I responded to Faeelin in the first place-not to argue that Romania could reconquer Spain/Gaul but to question the utility of citing the Ummayads failure to conquer Gaul as a reason why the ERE couldn't.

I'm not talking about the Umayyads in general but specifically the Umayyads in Spain.

I also never said that Romania's "culture" would impose no unrest. Though I certainly do think that being ruled by Christian Romans would be preferable to being ruled by Arab Muslims.
 
Spain already required heavy reliance on Berbers with Arabs being a tiny minority during the conquest.
That said, Romans didn't had a really important presence west of Africa : their presence in Spain was mostly about preventing Goths to meddle on west Mediterranean Sea (and a bit of an opportunist strike, dealing with the usual uneasy gothic succession), which was essentially restricted to the coast (Cordoba's region and Orospeda may have been more semi-allies than part of the province) and relatively low on the list of priorities.

Fair enough, Romans didn't depended on Berber for control of the region, but it have a lot to do with Berber chiefdoms entering a phase of contraction which ceased at the coming of Arabs : it's partially due to Byzantine conquest of Africa (that had for main result to push back Bebers as a "foreign" people and peripherize them) and probably the Justinian plague as well. Visigoths didn't had that of a problem taking back the Roman-held coast, IOTL.

So, for what matter westernmost Mediteranan basin, I think Romans would stick it to their traditional policy (at least for the forseeable part of the TL) of war by proxy and subsides policy; because they didn't have the local manpower that Islamic West had in the region (even if the latter was mostly autonomous on several matters, significantly more IMO, that what preceded exarchates)

This lead to exacerbated ethnic strife which lead to the taifas in the long run, and the Berber Revolt in the short run.
For what mattered the Berber Revolt, it's not just an andalusian happenance : it's due to the generalized bad treatment of Berbers in all the Islamic West, especially by the wali of Ifriqiya (which held some sort of vice-royalty equivalent over the western provinces, mostly held by the Fihird dynasty), with Berber being treated as Islamized peoples, or as non-Islamized peoples whenever it was most convenient (basically, the first when raising taxes due by Muslims and military services; the second when raising taxes due by non-Muslims, enslavement, and generalized humiliating decisions).

The first outbursts did happened in Spain, mostly because Berbers were settled on the frontline, in relatively poor but remote lands, enough to allow mutinies to take places (with probable support from Christians, such as Munusa did in Cerdagne with Aquitain support); but it's an answer to a situation pervasive to the whole of Islamic West, where "Arabism" was more marked than in other regions (and why Arabo-Andalusians eventually went with making Abd al-Rahman their emir, as Umayyads were seen as champions of Arabity)

It more or less led eventually to a difficult ethno-politic situation (which led to Muladi revotls during a good part of the late IXth and Xth century), and while it less expains why taifas were established, it does provides an explanation how they were established.
While Berbers were generally arabized (especially in the core regions or urban centers), you even had another differenciation between Andalusian Berbers, settled since the early part of andalusian history, and African Berbers (mostly settled since the late IXth, and more usually in the southern regions), with of course the tribal affiliations.

But I digress : the point, when it comes to the OP, is that the Caliphal functioning but as well institutions implied in its early history that it had to expend; which wasn't the case of Romania which was more built on strategical concerns after the half-butchered conquest of Africa, mostly because it could fund endless expensions and wasn't going to allow semi-independent campaignins as Rashidun or Umayyad caliphs did (even if the history of Roman Spain or Exrchate of Carthage points that you could end pretty easily with neglected regions).

Berbers for, Arabs, were a vital military force when it came to raids (in Maghrib, then Andalus and Gaul); while they were for Byzantines either a convenient suppletive force, or a peripherised hinderance, depending of the situation.
The question is less how Byzantines could have pulled a similar use of Berbers that Arabs did (as it would have implied a complete change of strategical and imperial perspective), than how Berbers chiefdoms (being understood you had a lot of Mauri communities and foedi inside Byzantine Africa, not represented there) are going to evolve ITTL after the aformentioned period of contraction, with a Romania fairly uninterested on them, but while unable to crush them, unwilling to see them grew too much outside their scope (not to say that they could really do something about this, would opportunities arise)
 
Top