WI: Surviving Kingdom of Arles?

GauchoBadger

GauchoBadger

1003px-Map_Kingdom_Arelat_EN.png


The Kingdom of Burgundy (not to be confused with the later, aspired-to royal demesne of Charles the Bold), more frequently known as the Kingdom of Arles due to its capital, was a medieval state spanning what is now roughly the border region between France, Italy, and Switzerland. From around the 870's till the 1030's, it was an independent kingdom that frequently involved itself in dynastic struggles in northern Italy, while fending off attacks from both West and East Francia. It was occasionally split up into two northern and southern halves under different rules, and remained a free polity up until the heirless death of king Rudolf III of Welf. After that, it passed on to the Holy Roman Emperor as a semi-autonomous fief within his realms, like a component sub-state of the HRE. From the 12th century till the 14th, it became the stage of multiple dynastic struggles (amplified by the HRE's fragmentation after the interregnum of the middle 13th century), being eventually partitioned between multiple states including (but not limited to) the French County of Provence, the Dauphinais, the Duchy of Savoy, the Swiss Confederacy, the French Duchy of Burgundy, and the Free County of Burgundy right on the other side of the border in the HRE. The title of "King of Arles" continued to be used by the Holy Roman Emperor up until the dissolution of the empire at the hands of Napoleon Bonaparte, but as mere formal residue.
So, my question is... how can we prevent the fragmentation of Alpine Burgundy, preserving its status as an autonomous, territorialized kingdom under the proper rule of a single government?
Assuming this is indeed possible, how will the kingdom develop from there? What would its relationship with neighboring France, Germany, and Italy be like?
What sort of national identity would this kingdom adopt? Would it have to create an entirely new archetypical identity in order to balance out its numerous linguistic divisions?
 
Carp

Carp

GauchoBadger said:
From around the 870's till the 1030's, it was an independent kingdom that frequently involved itself in dynastic struggles in northern Italy, while fending off attacks from both West and East Francia. It was occasionally split up into two northern and southern halves under different rules, and remained a free polity up until the heirless death of king Rudolf III of Welf.
Click to expand...

The Welf kings of Burgundy were on a German leash long before the death of Rudolph III. Rudolph II recognized King Henry as his suzerain, as Conrad did for Otto; when Rudolph II died the recently crowned Otto immediately swooped down into Burgundy, took possession of young Conrad, and more or less installed him as a German vassal king. While Burgundy/Arles was not a vassal in quite the same way as, say, Bavaria or Swabia, it was very clearly in the orbit of the German monarch. For Arles to last as an independent kingdom this subservient status probably needs to end, otherwise the OTL absorption of Burgundy will merely be delayed to the next Welf succession crisis. In other words, an Arles-wank probably requires a Germany-screw - preferably one that maintains Italy's freedom, as any German king/emperor who holds Germany and Italy will naturally wish to see the strategic passes of the Burgundian Alps under his control. A post-Carolingian Europe in which Arles exists between France, Germany, and Italy is IMO more favorable to its survival, as its monarchs will at least have the chance to play off one neighbor against another rather than standing in the shadow of an imperial hegemon.
 

Monter

Carp said:
The Welf kings of Burgundy were on a German leash long before the death of Rudolph III. Rudolph II recognized King Henry as his suzerain, as Conrad did for Otto; when Rudolph II died the recently crowned Otto immediately swooped down into Burgundy, took possession of young Conrad, and more or less installed him as a German vassal king. While Burgundy/Arles was not a vassal in quite the same way as, say, Bavaria or Swabia, it was very clearly in the orbit of the German monarch. For Arles to last as an independent kingdom this subservient status probably needs to end, otherwise the OTL absorption of Burgundy will merely be delayed to the next Welf succession crisis. In other words, an Arles-wank probably requires a Germany-screw - preferably one that maintains Italy's freedom, as any German king/emperor who holds Germany and Italy will naturally wish to see the strategic passes of the Burgundian Alps under his control. A post-Carolingian Europe in which Arles exists between France, Germany, and Italy is IMO more favorable to its survival, as its monarchs will at least have the chance to play off one neighbor against another rather than standing in the shadow of an imperial hegemon.
Click to expand...
Maybe Otto dies at Lechfeld and Germany goes into a succession crisis? How were thing going at Arles in 955?
 
Carp

Carp

Monter said:
Maybe Otto dies at Lechfeld and Germany goes into a succession crisis? How were thing going at Arles in 955?
Click to expand...

It's not easy to say; the details of Conrad's reign are not particularly well known despite his longevity in the kingship. Certainly he did not control the kingdom in its totality at this time. Despite sources like Wikipedia claiming that Burgundy was "united" in 933, the agreement between Hugh and Rudolph II which ceded Provence to the latter did not actually give the Welfs effective control of the territory. Charles-Constantine, for instance - the Count of Vienne and son of Louis the Blind - continued to acknowledge the King of France, not Conrad, as his liege until his death in 962. Boso, the Count of Arles, is a figure even more shadowy than Charles-Constantine and the extent of his allegiance to Conrad is uncertain, but even if he was friendly to the king it seems unlikely that the royal power was very strong in Provence. At this time Burgundy is also still being menaced by the Saracens operating out of their enclave at Fraxinet, which IOTL would endure until the Battle of Tourtour in 973. One does not get the impression that Conrad was a particularly energetic or ambitious king; then again, it may be that his options were constrained by the presence of Otto, who probably would not have considered a consolidation of royal power in Burgundy to be in his interest. One can only speculate as to how things would have been different if Germany turned inward in this period.
 
Last edited:

Vitruvius

Is there any possibility that Arelate subordination to Germany and the overall weakness of the Arelate Kings could lead to the emergence of a new power within the territory that could form the core of a renewed Kingdom? I'm well out of my depth here but I was just thinking of the situation of a weak King, local feudatories with shifting allegiances, competing foreign overlords (France and Germany) and external threats from Islamic states has some parallels to contemporary southern Italy. We saw what happened there with the growth a a strong centralized Norman Kingdom so could something similar happen in Arles?

It seems like the Pope would have reason to support a strong King there as a thorn in the side of Imperial/German ambitions in Northern Italy. So could a local count or even a Norman adventurer build up power and acquire territory in the old Arelate Kingdom before being ultimately being recognized as King by the Pope?
 
Carp

Carp

Vitruvius said:
Is there any possibility that Arelate subordination to Germany and the overall weakness of the Arelate Kings could lead to the emergence of a new power within the territory that could form the core of a renewed Kingdom? I'm well out of my depth here but I was just thinking of the situation of a weak King, local feudatories with shifting allegiances, competing foreign overlords (France and Germany) and external threats from Islamic states has some parallels to contemporary southern Italy. We saw what happened there with the growth a a strong centralized Norman Kingdom so could something similar happen in Arles?
Click to expand...

One of the key differences here is that Southern Italy was a patchwork of warring states who were in the habit of hiring mercenaries to do their warring (before the Normans, it was the Muslims who usually performed that function). It wasn't just that the region was divided; it was a very wealthy region with weak, petty states throwing fistfuls of gold at the Normans saying "here, come fight our battles for us." Burgundy is not in quite the same situation. Royal authority may be weak but it's not a perpetual war, and the Saracens of Fraxinet are ultimately more of an annoyance than an existential threat to the Provencal counts (let along the king), which the Provencals were ultimately able to deal with themselves. Nor is Burgundy as flush with cash as southern Italy was during the Norman arrival (or at least as not as far as I'm aware). I'm not saying there couldn't be some sort of "new power" emerging there, but the factors which drew the Normans into Italy aren't really present here.

One issue historically is that rulers of Burgundy/Provence (notably Louis, Hugh, and Rudolph II) tended to treat their kingdom as a springboard for invading Italy rather than focusing on Burgundy itself. I said that keeping Italy independent would help keep the imperial shadow from falling over Burgundy, but it's also possible that a free Italy will continue to be a tempting preoccupation for Burgundian rulers that retards the consolidation of Burgundy as a kingdom in its own right. It's sort of hard to say.

It seems like the Pope would have reason to support a strong King there as a thorn in the side of Imperial/German ambitions in Northern Italy. So could a local count or even a Norman adventurer build up power and acquire territory in the old Arelate Kingdom before being ultimately being recognized as King by the Pope?
Click to expand...

In the mid-10th century, the Pope is simply not much of a political force. The Pope has no ability to grant the Burgundian crown and nobody would take him seriously if he claimed that right; he can barely exert any influence on who rules in Italy. The support of the Burgundian nobility is far more important than the support of the Pope in Rome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top