On April 10, 879, Louis II the Stammerer, King of Western Francia (France), died. Upon his death, he left two sons : Louis (born in 863) and Carloman (born in 866). Both of them would succeed him as co-Kings of Western Francia with Louis III ruling the north (Neustria) and Carloman II the south (Burgundy and Aquitaine).
Louis II also left a pregnant wife : she would give birth to a son, Charles the Simple, on September 17, 879.
Louis III and Carloman II would both rule Western Francia up until August 5, 882 as Louis III died this day (aged 19). Carloman II then became sole ruler of Western Francia as Louis III had no children. Carloman II would rule alone up until his death on December 12, 884 (aged 18).
Since Carloman II left no heirs, his legitimate successor should have been Charles the Simple, the youngest son of Louis II. However, Charles being only 5 years old, the French nobles refused to have him crowned King and gave the crown to Charles the Fat, Holy Roman Emperor. Charles the Fat became unpopular and lost the crown of Western Francia in 888 (he died the same year but lost the French crown a couple of month before) : Charles the Simple, being only 9, was again not chosen as King and the Robertian Odo (or Eudes), count of Paris, was elected King of Western Francia and woule rule up until his death in 898, upon which Charles the Simple would become King of Western Francia as Charles III and at age 19.
This whole scenario left me wondering... What would have been the consequences of Louis III and Carloman II living longer?
If both Kings were to have had sons, would France have been partitionned between the North and the South?
And if they hadn't had successors, would the French nobles allow an older Charles the Simple on the French throne more easily? Would that butterfly the rise of the Robertians and later the Capetians?
Louis II also left a pregnant wife : she would give birth to a son, Charles the Simple, on September 17, 879.
Louis III and Carloman II would both rule Western Francia up until August 5, 882 as Louis III died this day (aged 19). Carloman II then became sole ruler of Western Francia as Louis III had no children. Carloman II would rule alone up until his death on December 12, 884 (aged 18).
Since Carloman II left no heirs, his legitimate successor should have been Charles the Simple, the youngest son of Louis II. However, Charles being only 5 years old, the French nobles refused to have him crowned King and gave the crown to Charles the Fat, Holy Roman Emperor. Charles the Fat became unpopular and lost the crown of Western Francia in 888 (he died the same year but lost the French crown a couple of month before) : Charles the Simple, being only 9, was again not chosen as King and the Robertian Odo (or Eudes), count of Paris, was elected King of Western Francia and woule rule up until his death in 898, upon which Charles the Simple would become King of Western Francia as Charles III and at age 19.
This whole scenario left me wondering... What would have been the consequences of Louis III and Carloman II living longer?
If both Kings were to have had sons, would France have been partitionned between the North and the South?
And if they hadn't had successors, would the French nobles allow an older Charles the Simple on the French throne more easily? Would that butterfly the rise of the Robertians and later the Capetians?