WI: Saxons establish an early Rhine border.

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The Franks and the Saxons were rivals for territory for centuries, but what if the Saxons established a border on the Rhine early enough to nip that in the bud? A lowland tribal realm from the Elbe to the Rhine. The Franks look to lower lying fruit for gains.

How could that come about? What would happen?
 
The Franks and the Saxons were rivals for territory for centuries
It's not much rivalry for territory than Saxons raiding Frankish lands. Not only Saxons didn't had a united enough authority to establish a clear border as Jutland kings did OTL, but they wouldn't even have such incitative.

Finally, the Rhine wasn't a border between Saxons and Franks (these ones having secured their power over Rheinish Franks since Clovis and the first conflicts with Saxons). If you search something usable, you should check Elbe.

But again, Saxons were raiders, and weren't really unified (they seems, as other people, to have known a first identification as being opposed or tributary to Franks) up to the VIII, before the growing Austrasian and Frankish threat. At this time, a Rheinish border is ASB, and a secured Elbe border is really unlikely.

The only thing that could help would be the defeat of Charles during the civil war of 714-718 (and that is pretty hard to do) or Pepin II of Heristal failing to expand his power outside Austrasia.
You'll have a strong Austrasia, likely to take over Neustria and northern Burgundy, having still domination over Thuringians, Alemanians and Bavarians.

It could give more room to Saxons to manage a bit more unity. But numbers, administration, organisation, authority was clearly great Frankish advantaged compared to Saxons. I don't see something like Danevirk being built without a Saxon overlord dominating the others, and such would certainly provoke a Frankish intervention (that could be still defeated, admittedly)
 
As my username betrays, I'm all for the idea of the Saxons remaining independent, but as LSCatilina points out... the idea of an "early Rhine border" is basically flawed in that there was no late Rhine border. The Saxons never really bordered the Rhine at all.

Much as I hate to say it, the Saxons had the odds stacked against them. Whereas the Franks moved toward central administration, organisation, authority etc. and adopted the Christian religion, the Saxons retained what a romantic might call "the old ways". They remained essentially disorganized: a loose tribal confederacy. And they didn't adopt Christianity. Now, that makes them the underdog, and it makes them a target for anyone who wants to Christianize them.

Of course, I always root for the underdog, and doubly so when the underdogs in question are my ancestors. ;) So I'll give it a shot: if you want to prevent the Frankish conquest, your first and foremost need to divide the Franks. The Frankish kings divided their lands amongst their sons, so killing off one of their kings at an opportune moment (i.e. kill one off when he has a bunch of adult sons, ensuring the Frankish realm is split up into multiple pieces) seems a good POD.

This still does not save the Saxons. It only buys them time. Eventually, someone will come, aiming to Christianize and/or conquer them. If they remain pagan and loosely organized, they will in all likelyhood lose eventually, to a better-organized and numerically superior opponent. I personally find this sad, because I like my Saxons pagan and disorganized. ;-) But there's nothing for it: the only alternative is that they centralize power and adopt Christianity in the time they gain by the grace of Frankish disunity. Then they stand a chance to remain independent.

In such a scenario, something very much like the OTL Stem Duchy of Saxony will exist as an independent country, instead of being a party of the Frankish empire. That might serve your purposes.
 
And they didn't adopt Christianity. Now, that makes them the underdog, and it makes them a target for anyone who wants to Christianize them.
That's an interesting point you made here : what about an earlier christianisation not driven by Frankish rulers?

OTL, Anglo-Saxons monks already tried to do such, mainly at the call of Austrasians, but failed. Maybe a christianised Frisia (that would be another point to be discussed) would be an incitative?

Of course, the main issue is germanic peoples usually converted or by conquest, or because the population they ruled was mainly christian (with christian elites present) or thanks to "benevolent influence" of powerful neighbours.

But a saxon leader, powerful enough to submit some of his neighbour could see an interest to christianisation.

As you said, political unity (rather than centralisation) was hard to achieve outside old roman lands, it was generally hugely personal (like Samo's Kingdom) and fragmented again after the death of the unifier.

But let's Wilfrid manages to convert Aldgisl of the Frisian Kingdom, wouldn't that help christianisation of Saxony, and therefore, the religious help to a unifing ruler?

So I'll give it a shot: if you want to prevent the Frankish conquest, your first and foremost need to divide the Franks. The Frankish kings divided their lands amongst their sons, so killing off one of their kings at an opportune moment (i.e. kill one off when he has a bunch of adult sons, ensuring the Frankish realm is split up into multiple pieces) seems a good POD.
Unfortunatly, I see some things that can't happen here.

1) It wasn't more the kingdom that was divided than the public land (of course, in Frankish mentality, public land and kingdom were the same). Franks considered the divisions as each heir recieving a fair share and not living the familial cell.

2) Multiple pieces ask to be nuanced : the divisions roughly followed the same lines (romans, geographical) except for the south that was more considered as a foeign land (it's why Aquitaine was divided equally among Clovis' heir rather than given to just one).

3) This idea led to regular re-unification. The death of a king or a majordomo was the opportunity for another king/majordomo to take over his land.
Clothar, Dagobert, Pepin II, Charles Martel, Peppin III, Charlemagne...You have many examples.
Even without reunification, you still have to deal with Austrasia that was the senior Frankish kingdom : most rich, most populated, most powerful...And direct neighbor of Saxons.

Paradoxically, what you need is maybe a slighter more powerful Austrasia and Neustria.
A stronger Neustria means Austrasia can't take over the west of Francia and could turn earlier against Frisia and Saxony.
It could be an incitative for Saxon rulers, that could do better as they won't have to deal against Franks+Aquitains+Lombards+...
If you add that an earlier christianisation...It could help, but even if united, even if christianised...They don't have the number to hold a full scale invasion.
 

katchen

Banned
What about an even earlier POD in which Varus defeats Hermann at Teutoburg Forest and Saxonia is romanized but retains it's identity? Such a Saxonia, abandoned by Rome would need to fend off the Heruli, the Vandals and ultimately, the Venedi, but might be unified enough to manage that feat. ;)
 
Well, first such an early PoD is likely to butterfly Franks, Saxony and change almost everything about western Europe development...

1) Saxons, as Widukin said above, were a confederation of different tribes : I'm not even sure you had something answering to this name in the Ist century, much like Franks or Alamans that are confederations appearing in the IIIrd.

2) Romanized means while the culture keep many particularities, it doesn't keep the pre-conquest identity.

Gallo-Roman culture, among others, is clearly distinct from previous Gallic one.

3) I don't see how an abandon of Roman Germany would result in an unfication : you don't have one example OTL where Britain or Gaul ended fragmented and an easy prey for invaders.
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting point you made here : what about an earlier christianisation not driven by Frankish rulers?

OTL, Anglo-Saxons monks already tried to do such, mainly at the call of Austrasians, but failed. Maybe a christianised Frisia (that would be another point to be discussed) would be an incitative?

Of course, the main issue is germanic peoples usually converted or by conquest, or because the population they ruled was mainly christian (with christian elites present) or thanks to "benevolent influence" of powerful neighbours.

But a saxon leader, powerful enough to submit some of his neighbour could see an interest to christianisation.

As you said, political unity (rather than centralisation) was hard to achieve outside old roman lands, it was generally hugely personal (like Samo's Kingdom) and fragmented again after the death of the unifier.

But let's Wilfrid manages to convert Aldgisl of the Frisian Kingdom, wouldn't that help christianisation of Saxony, and therefore, the religious help to a unifing ruler?

I think that would certainly help, but keep in mind that there were severe problems converting the Saxons IOTL. One of the major obstacles seems to have been the concept of the trinity. Time and again, it turned out the Saxons could and would not wrap their heads around this concept. Most of the literature I've read on the subject is in German or Dutch, and not translated into English, but particularly of interest is the recently published Dutch-language book "How God appeared in the Saxon Land" by Dirk Otten. He points out that the 'trick' that eventually won the Saxons over (besides outlawing the old faith and putting to the sword just about everyone who refused to convert) was 1) the symbolic replacement of Wotan/Odin, Donar/Thor and Sasnōt (the tribal god of the Saxons, probably a representation of Tyr) with the Holy Trinity, and 2) the equating of old gods with saints. That way, Saxons could put up a shrine for a specific saint, instead of praying to a specific god.

IOTL, the missionaries only figured that out near the end of the Saxon Wars. If they work it out earlier, that would really help.


Unfortunatly, I see some things that can't happen here.

1) It wasn't more the kingdom that was divided than the public land (of course, in Frankish mentality, public land and kingdom were the same). Franks considered the divisions as each heir recieving a fair share and not living the familial cell.

2) Multiple pieces ask to be nuanced : the divisions roughly followed the same lines (romans, geographical) except for the south that was more considered as a foeign land (it's why Aquitaine was divided equally among Clovis' heir rather than given to just one).

3) This idea led to regular re-unification. The death of a king or a majordomo was the opportunity for another king/majordomo to take over his land.
Clothar, Dagobert, Pepin II, Charles Martel, Peppin III, Charlemagne...You have many examples.
Even without reunification, you still have to deal with Austrasia that was the senior Frankish kingdom : most rich, most populated, most powerful...And direct neighbor of Saxons.

Paradoxically, what you need is maybe a slighter more powerful Austrasia and Neustria.
A stronger Neustria means Austrasia can't take over the west of Francia and could turn earlier against Frisia and Saxony.
It could be an incitative for Saxon rulers, that could do better as they won't have to deal against Franks+Aquitains+Lombards+...
If you add that an earlier christianisation...It could help, but even if united, even if christianised...They don't have the number to hold a full scale invasion.

I think you can make a split pretty definitive if you can get each one of the kings to set up a dynasty. That, after all, is how we got West Frankia (proto-France) and East Frankia (proto-Germany). But you are right: there are, indeed, major chances of reunification (just as Lotharingia was divided among West and East Frankia). So, yeah, I agree with your idea of bolstering Austrasia and Neustria. Counter-intuitive, but it works. :)
 
I think that would certainly help, but keep in mind that there were severe problems converting the Saxons IOTL. One of the major obstacles seems to have been the concept of the trinity. Time and again, it turned out the Saxons could and would not wrap their heads around this concept.

Most of the literature I've read on the subject is in German or Dutch, and not translated into English, but particularly of interest is the recently published Dutch-language book "How God appeared in the Saxon Land" by Dirk Otten. He points out that the 'trick' that eventually won the Saxons over (besides outlawing the old faith and putting to the sword just about everyone who refused to convert) was 1) the symbolic replacement of Wotan/Odin, Donar/Thor and Sasnōt (the tribal god of the Saxons, probably a representation of Tyr) with the Holy Trinity, and 2) the equating of old gods with saints. That way, Saxons could put up a shrine for a specific saint, instead of praying to a specific god.
That's really interesting.
So far, what I read pointed that Frankish rulers could have used Anglo-Saxons missionaries because of their experience with Anglo-Saxon conversion.

Didn't this experience served OTL, or it was just ignored?

I think you can make a split pretty definitive if you can get each one of the kings to set up a dynasty.
The issue is that they were part of the same dynasty and that it would have been relativly unthinkable to crown someone that wasn't a Merovingian (mostly because of the "charisma" tied to their line). Pippininds had to wait a century, papal and clergy support, prestige from fights against Arabo-Berbers and virtual extinction of Merovingian line to do so.
 
I would like to say something.

A river (and certainly the rhine and especialy in these days) is not a border. Actualy it is the oposite. A river is a big road that can connect places.
 
So far, what I read pointed that Frankish rulers could have used Anglo-Saxons missionaries because of their experience with Anglo-Saxon conversion.

Didn't this experience served OTL, or it was just ignored?

Oh, they did use Anglo-Saxon missionaries. Problem was, converting the Anglo-Saxons had been much, much easier than converting the continental Saxons turned out to be. The Anglo-Saxons generally had a more centralized authority. When Æthelbert of Kent married the Christian princess Bertha (the daughter of Charibert I of the Franks), he agreed to support Christianization. That helped things along; the king was doing it, so people joined the bandwagon. This advantage was not present in continental Saxon society, where they had no kings with great symbolic importance. Anglo-Saxons were won for Christianity by getting their kings on board. The continental Saxons had to be won over individually. Even if some nobles converted, that meant little to the Saxon people. For the Franks, who already had a proto-feudal system, that sort of an individualist mindset was nearly incomprehensible. They figured: convert the kings/dukes, they'll force the nobles, who will in turn force the commoners. For the Saxons, it didn't work like that at all. For starters, they only appointed a duke ("Hartogh"; the word literally means 'army march') temporarily at times of war. The man was often elected. The Saxon Hartogh, unlike the Frankish King, was not a symbolic figure representing a divine right to rule. Also, the nobles did not have absolute sway over the commoners; because the saxons were a tribal confederacy rather than a state, they were... flexible: if any noble converted, and 'his' people disagreed, they could pack their bags and join another band/tribe of Saxons.

It's that whole lack of centralized organization again. It made the Saxons extremely vulnerable to better-organized and numerically superior enemies... but it made them near-invulnerable to attempts at Christianization.


The issue is that they were part of the same dynasty and that it would have been relativly unthinkable to crown someone that wasn't a Merovingian (mostly because of the "charisma" tied to their line). Pippininds had to wait a century, papal and clergy support, prestige from fights against Arabo-Berbers and virtual extinction of Merovingian line to do so.

Right you are. That settles it, I think; your suggestion is the way to go. :)
 
If the leader who pulled this off was named Otto, as so many Saxon kings/emperors seemed to be, would the study of the campaign where he Swallowed all the land to the Rhine be called


Otto-Rhino-Laryngology?

;) :)
 
Top