AHC: Carolingian Empire Endures (2023 ed)

[Nuraghe]

while I was doing some research on my own, on the exarchate of Ravenna, I came to find an interesting detail, namely that during the reign of the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III ( 717-41 ) Italy reached such a critical point that there there were many who thought of offering the imperial crown to other political actors, possibly local, it was only the intervention of the pope that avoided a total political division with Constantinople due to the serious threat represented by King Luitpdrando for Ravenna itself ( which he occupied twice before its definitive conquest ) and obviously Rome, so at a later stage there was also an attempt to involve the Franks in the issue, even going so far as to suggest to Charles Martel a possible marriage between one of his sons and a daughter of the exarch in office at the time ( some historians lean towards Eutychius, but I am not so convinced of this ), therefore it is not impossible to think that some pontiff might think of recognizing a previous Frankish king as Roman emperor, especially if a policy hostile to Rome and uncaring of the Italian situation continues in Constantinople, remembering that Otl Pepin the short and the future Charlemagne were recognized as Roman patricians by the Pope and the people of the city in 755, is that the question of the imperial title circulated within the Caroline court from the actual conquest of Pavia in 774 ( I know very well that it is long before the Pod but I thought it would be interesting to add it to the discussion )

Always to expand this trend, I remembered that the first attempt at imperial coronation in Rome with Papal approval occurred with the Exarch Eleutherius who in 619, on the advice of the archbishop of Ravenna, tried to proclaim himself Emperor of the West and for to further legitimize his new position, he wanted to be acclaimed by the Roman population and by the Pope in the Capitol Hill as official recognition ( but during the journey towards the Urbe he was intercepted and killed in battle ) without forgetting that in the years following the death of Teia in the battle of Monti Lattari in 553, the Gothic resistance in Po Valley, had promised the King of the Franks in case of success, that he could also become sovereign of the Goths, as well as confirming his control over the Friulian region, so the birth of the imperial ambitions of the Franks can easily be traced back to this period

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Here’s my preferred PoD for the present - - Judith of Bavaria fails to provide any additional sons for Louis the Pious (maybe Charles the Fat is born a girl, etc); Pepin of Aquitaine predeceases his father as OTL, meaning Louis the Pious only has two surviving sons when he passes; from there, I don’t think it much of a stretch to assume there’s no equivalent to OTL’s Treaty of Verdun (843), and that Lothair could make Louis kneel to him as emperor (if he only had to deal with the one brother).

If Lothair’s brother Louis then outlives him (as he did OTL), then, in the event that Lothair splits his own lands among his own sons, said Louis is in a good position to be the new emperor. By the time he dies (OTL was 876), Lothair’s sons may all be dead (as they were OTL), and with fewer Carolingians competing for land and the throne, succession may well prove to be more stable (even if there is still an interregnum, albeit one far briefer than OTL).

What do you guys think?

it is actually a quite ideal scenario but at the same time very realistic ( it should also be considered that Otl in the first subdivision of the imperial possessions of 817, Louis had to be a simple king of Bavaria ( which in any case he had calmly accepted ) so it is probable that once Louis died ( who should have been king of Aquitaine ) Lothair and Louis would have agreed on the inheritance of his deceased brother ( in case he had no heirs, as happened on the death of Charles of Provence in 863 ) therefore I think it possible that Lothair's line, can reign over a good piece of Frankia, if we consider that Louis the Younger died Otl in 875 and when he succeeded he was both king of Italy and Provence ( as well as Emperor ) I can imagine his reign being broader and perhaps a bit longer than to reality ( it should also be remembered that he had no male children ) so it is easily feasible that Ludwig the German could succeed his nephew ( finding himself possibly inheriting a rather unified state up to that point, given that the civil wars of Otl are avoided and with a fairly linear succession, without too many changes at the top ( or the territory ) and all this could lay the foundation for a primordial administrative system (which can evolve slowly and not be fractured into infighting between factions fighting for the favor of the aspiring Carolingian of the moment, given that Otl the elites of the empire identified with theirs" regional monarchs "so we would have had the Lotharingians from Lothair, the Carolenians from Charles the Big etc, on the contrary in this scenario the main culture would have been the one common to most, the Frankish one, without the occurrence of ascension of any provincial minority derivation, except perhaps in Italy, with the Lombards

Additional fun fact about OTL -- Louis the German only had one legitimate paternal grandson, Arnulf (son of Carloman), born 850. So an interregnum involving Louis’ sons fighting each other could very plausibly be a very short one; and it may well be the only period in the 9th Century when the Carolingian Empire isn’t united .

If that’s how the 9th Century looks, what does that mean for the 10th? Is it possible for this century or more-or-less stability to lay the groundwork for primogeniture succession being established in the 10th Century? Or would that be too early?

considering that Otl HRE was rapidly evolving into a dynastic system and possibly of hereditary primogeniture ( at least with the Ottonian and Salian dynasties, then barely maintained over the centuries ) it is certainly possible that some war between relatives could lay the foundations for the creation of an ad hoc law to vaguely manage the succession ( focused on the aim of avoiding the repetition of similar situations ), but it must be taken into account that for the time the support of the nobility was also fundamental ( so I can imagine the formation of a some electoral system ( 1 ), very in line with the existing Otl ones of HRE and the first centuries of France ( i.e. until the first decades of the 11th/12th century approximately ) but very focused on the members of the Carolingian family and related relatives ( because I imagine that to consolidate control on the outskirts or important strategic areas, the various emperors created family ties with local families ( particularly in Saxony and Italy, two places where the pre-Frankish identity, although partially assimilated, remained important and prestigious, therefore something useful to look for ) finally I would like to say that if the empire manages to withstand those crises and external pressures without too many difficulties ( but rather exploits them to further develop a state apparatus and cohesion among its populations ) then once the boom of the 10th century arrives , we truly witness an immense unexpressed potential that can be released, considering the enormous amount of men available to the Carolingian emperor compared to his rivals ( excluding the Eastern Romans and perhaps the Ummayads ) and neighbors on the continent, well it is easy to foresee an expansion into new territories ( permitted by the logistics available at the time )


1 ) partially already existed in the late Carolingian Empire, but more as a way to be officially recognized by the nobility as legitimate rulers ( perhaps making the whole process almost as if it were an important formality, see it as the Habsburg confirmation to HRE after 1438 brought forward but of a few centuries )

Looking back at this, I'd still say it's my preferred means of keeping the Carolingian Empire united; Louis the Pious OTL was just such a high point for the Empire in terms of central authority and administration* until the rise of the Ottonians, that if we were to think of a scenario where Charlemagne's Empire holds together, I'd be most partial to seeing it achieved with a scenario that his family's rule doesn't fall apart so quickly.

A couple of things I would add though, with hindsight -- that while Lothair I may well split the realm between his sons, that OTL he only had two adult sons to leave kingdoms to upon his death; the elder of these two, Louis II of Italy, would die OTL around the same time as his brother, Louis the German. As such, Lothair giving lands to his sons while his brother still lives may not split power in the empire as much as we might have thought, especially if Lothair's younger son (also Lothair) decides it smarter for him to play a king-maker between his brother and uncle than just trying to be emperor or sovereign himself. In any event, that gets us to circa 875 with the Empire still being effectively united and likely still with a degree of central administration and coordination (so nothing like the Feudal Anarchy).

It's interesting to imagine how such an empire would deal with, say, the viking raids in France or the saracen raiders in Italy; I have to imagine that they'd be in a better position than Charles the Bald or Louis II of Italy were OTL, considering the family is actually able to coordinate and respond to these kinds of threats as a unit, rather than constantly looking over their shoulder at how one of their relatives might exploit a moment of weakness.

What do you guys think?

*Just to give one example -- the guy put out something like 19 capitularies a year during his reign; the only Carolingian successor I can think of who comes close to that kind of administrative intensity is Charles the Bald, who put out something like 15 a year. That's not to say, simplistically, that Louis was a more aggressive administrator than Charles -- you can certainly make the case his son was actually doing and dealing with a lot more his reign -- but that most subsequent Carolingians just didn't have the same kind of administrative power in the regions they supposedly ruled, with the Bald being an exception, and still only controlling the West at that.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Looking back at this, I'd still say it's my preferred means of keeping the Carolingian Empire united; Louis the Pious OTL was just such a high point for the Empire in terms of central authority and administration* until the rise of the Ottonians, that if we were to think of a scenario where Charlemagne's Empire holds together, I'd be most partial to seeing it achieved with a scenario that his family's rule doesn't fall apart so quickly.

Louis was probably the only one who could have made the co-regnal subkingdom system work. He had the prestige, the dynastic legitimacy, and power to do so such that the sub-kings couldn't openly move against him without a valid cause.

Had he made some accommodation for Bernard, he could avoided the troubles of his reign, and the humiliating show of supplication that made the other nobles regard him as weak.

As for Charles the Bald, and his sons, when rearing them, he should have placed a greater emphasis of the sharing of power and the idea of dynastic loyalty something which allowed Charles V to reign with the support of his brother allowing both their lines to co-exist and support each other up until the Burgundian's extinction with Carlos II. Essentially he should have made a greater effort to style himself as a sort of "grand Patriarch" of the family whose authority as the father would have gone unquestioned.

One way he could have done that was by forcing his sons, to publicly engage in a show of penance and supplication not unlike the one he did before the clergy after the fallout of Bernard's death.

Louis might have been served by more strongly implementing a Byzantine system of co-emperor ship gradually delegating more power to his heir, and building a sold relationship of trust and patronage to his heir essentially dividing his first three sons.

To that end, he could have more strongly made his royal presence felt in each kingdom, occasionally flexing his imperial patronage and embarking on royal progresses across his realm showing the other provincial lords who's boss. A solution which comes to mind is Louis more overtly presenting himself as a formal overlord over his sons, his sub-kings, the reguli, paying fealty to their August Lord and master, (Roman title of Augustus and Dominus Noster). In that end, he could have held open court where he with his son jointly held open court with his nobles and commoners in attendance directly overseeing his sons' ruling and serving as a sort of final appellate that could overrule their authority.

but that most subsequent Carolingians just didn't have the same kind of administrative power in the regions they supposedly ruled, with the Bald being an exception, and still only controlling the West at that.

Honestly Charles the Bald could have been made into a Duke serving his father and later his eldest brother, as a sort of key adminstrator carrying out his father's plans had the brothers all not hated Charles the Bald and his mother.

A major blunder Louis could have avoided was simply sticking to established succession agreements and appearing as not overly favoring Charles the Bald. That pissed off the other sons and drove them into rebellion when they could have consoldiated the family position and laid the groundwork for further expansion.