Charles Martel's forces have failed to hold back the Arab forces, and the city was taken, what would happen over the course of history if such an event had occured?
snip
Well, I didn't copied word for word, I changed some par...LSC I feel like you just have that tucked away somewhere in case of this.
Possibly. But his children, while young, were old enough to rule (meaning, in late Merovingian Francia, able to lead in a fight).Now is Charles Martel is killed the butterflies would be larger.
Charles Martel didn't suffers from this too much, but on the other hand doesn't beneficy from the huge boost in legitimacy and prestige he had. Unification of Francia's peripherical entities may take more time, but Frankish ressources are basically untouched so far.
Even in the case of a rebellion, he would still have the means to deal with.
The battle itself had not a great historical importance, but was a part of an ensemble of battles (Toulouse/Tours/La Berre) that had a marco historical one. Battle of Tours' importance was basically inflated by Carolingian hagiographs in order to point out Peppinids were truly the defeders of religion and France and were totally justified to overthrow Merovingians.
If a Muslim victory at Tours inspires further raids I think it's very likely that Martel will get his victory within a few years at most since the Franks are no worse off and the Arabs no more powerful than before Tours.
What, no Barbie dolls?However, I think an Arab victory would allow for a lot more political instablity with Mattel's position, particularly if it was a really bad defeat.
At this point, there was no counter-raids in Iberia. You really need to wait Charlemagne to have this, and it was at first more in relation with Arabo-Andalusian raids continuing in Gothia.If he is killed, I still cannot see the Andalusians being able to take over parts of France in the long term, however, it might cause the counter raids back into Iberia to stop and would allow more raids into France occur.
Giving the state of unstability in North Africa and Al-Andalus between the 740's and the 760's, that's really not likely. Going as far as Liguria at this point would already be something.I do wonder if the raids could eventually screw with Italy and really diminish the already not that great authority of the Bishop of Rome.
That's definitely not a reasonable estimate. Long story short, it's not possible to give an accurate numbers given the sources, but would the battle have gathered 10/15 000 mean for each side, it would already be enormous and unseen in Western Europe since Justinian campaigns.I do agree that Poitiers was not a decisive battle (although the numbers involved on both sides were significant enough for the period, the most reasonable estimate being something like 20-30 thousand on each side).
How so? We're talking of a raid in the middle of the Gaul, not a strategical reinforcement (especially when the main part of the army, lead by the wali, passed trough western part of Pyrenees and not trough the already held Gothia)OTOH if the battle result had been reversed (and Abdul al Rahman had not died in the battle) it is believable that the razziahs into Provence and Aquitaine territory would have increased in number and intensity and as a minimum Al Andalus would have strengthened her grip over Septimania and coastal Provence.
Yet again, there was no such thing after the IOTL successful raids in Gaul. While it's still under the possible outcomes, there also nothing pointing out a certainty there, other than the impression this campaign was definitely more important than the precedents or posterior ones, which it probably wasn't.There is a strong possibility that Vasconia and Aquitaine would have to pay tribute to Al Andalus.
Most probably not. See, monasteries served usually as a piggy bank for ruling nobles, and were trusted with lands and goods that they wanted to be safe before using them if they needed or giving to someone as token, award or paiment.Charles had also some problems with the church since he had seized ecclesiastical properties in order to pay for the core of a standing army and had risked an excommunication for this.
At this point, Charles seems to have far more favoured an heavy infantry, possibly mounted as with the scara, than heavy cavalry as his strategy during Poitiers point out : a "wall of shields" (maybe influenced from classical Antiquity's military treaties) against cavalry.He would have had certainly significant problems in continuing his reforms of the army and in introducing heavy cavalry to complement the traditional Frank infantry.
Arabo-Islamic knowledge of Western European policies were as much vague that Western European knowledge of Arabo-Islamic ones. Long story short, figuring who was who wasn't too much of a strong point, and neither a focus.A stronger Al Andalus presence in the south may also create problems with Aquitaine (they will try to play their would-be overlords against one another)
Which again bring the exemple of 725/726 raids, while Charles was in Bavaria, and which didn't prevented him to ignore them as long he had to deal with Bavarians.and will anyway require stronger commitments to the region (which might jeopardize Charles' expeditions to subdue Bavaria and Alemannia).
That at late teen and early twenties, they never seen action or participated in war, which giving the late Merovingian society and the campaigns of their father would be extremly surprising.Both the sons of Charles should be in their late teens (birthdates are pretty tentative in the 8th century) and even if they are already of age they are unproven young warriors.
Assuming he's still the wali of Al-Andalus, which is not certain giving the quick rate of replacement of these (due to different factors, from inner political infighting in Al-Andalus to tenatives of Ifriqiyan wali to dominate the province). A victory could have helped him, but there's nothing less certain : it didn't help Udhra ibn Abd Allah for instance.Some deal will have to be cut (which was not so needful when they inherited in 741 IOTL) and they will have to cope with a major crisis in the south (Aquitaine and Provence) where al Rahman will try to get the largest possible benefits out of his victory.
I'd disagree : while Charles' death would certainly have influed (as it did IOTL), Peppinids already campaigned against them before 732.Bavaria and Alemannia have not yet been cowed
I'd disagree as well, even if it's true they weren't by the Peppinids which were more focused on Frisians. It's worth noting, tough, they were defeated by late ruling Merovingians and forced to pay tribut.and the same is even more true for the Saxons of Westphalia
If Thierry/Theuderic IV rebels against the young Peppinids, as I think is possible ITTL, they would have little choice but to replace him.At the death of Theudoric Charles did not appoint a new Merovingian king. ITTL this will not be a likely option.
That's a more likely prospect, on the other hand. That said, the alliance as well involved Aquitaine, which giving TTL situation isn't going to be much reliable, and would likely be taken in account by Liutprand in his diplomacy. Maybe more of a prudent attentism than something else?Liutprand of Lombardy might be more inclined to keep his traditional alliance with Bavaria rather than ditching them in favor of the Franks.
Are genetics mattering more than education and context?While it is possible they still beget an above-the-average heir, this is also not very likely.
Aformentioned Theodabald, from the Arnulfian line would certainly be the natural heir in this case with Godefried and/or his childs as well. Peppinid line wasn't close to extinction.The Pippinids had the luck of having 3-4 strong and competent leaders in a row; ITTL the run of luck may as well break (even not having a heir: Pippin may sire daughters only on his TTL wife).
Micro-historically wise, probably. Macro-historically? I'm far less certain for what matter in Gaul, while it may be the case for Italy if the situation is really problematic in Francia (which, for aforementioned reasons, I don't really think certain).IMHO a lot of things might go very differently in a TL where Charles dies at Poitiers or where he is decisively defeated.
Historiographically? It was certainly a big step.However Poitiers is still remembered after more than a thousand years and I think it is undeniable that it was a huge stepping stone in the raise of the Pippinids to the kingship of the Franks and to the imperial purple.
Actually, it was pretty much so at this point.The point I was trying to make (and it looks like I was not clear enough) is that the Pippinid raise was not a fait accompli
Charles, once majordomo of Neustria and Austrasia, search to still reinforce his position : he takes, at the profit of his family, followers and clients, some not being priests, most of ecclesiastical functions and properties which will grant him - trough vast agricultural demesnes - financial and military (cavalry) ressources without equal in Western Europe. The frankish king is completly under the control of the majordomo and this one, in order to better base his legitimacy, married a Merovingian princess, Hrotrude
I wouldn't go as far than saying he was powerless. We don't know enough of the late Merovingian powers, except from really biased Carolingian sources.OTOH Charles, while powerful, had not yet managed to achieve an unassailable position. Consider: there is still a legitimate Merovingian king on the throne (he may be powerless, a puppet in the hands of the mayor of the palace, but he's still the anointed one and replacing him with a new dynasty may not be as easy as it would be a few centuries down the track)
Frankish church seems to have been quite pro-Carolingian so far. I agree that it would depend on his victories and ability to break raids, but then again there's no sign they stopped supported him after the sack of Autun and the sack of Sens., or that he lost prestige because of these.the church has been very supportive, but the church wants results (a defeated Charles would be in a more difficult position than the victorious one IOTL.
We do know he used heavy infantry, probably in phalanx formation, but it seems it wasn't the traditional frankish infantry (unless we have a misunderstanding on what's the traditional frankish infantry) rather than a mounted infantry.Charles had been able to start his reform of the army, but at Poitiers he had only heavy infantry, in the traditional Frankish way
Aquitaine, being plundered by Franks and twice by Arabo-Berbers in two years would certainly be in no way to represent any threat for the immediate future. IOTL, Eudon was already broken and stopped being the main opponent of Charles in Gaul, and ITTL he would have even less ressources doing so.If he dies it is likely that no one will go down the same track; Aquitaine was not cowed yet (Charles was unable to absorb when Eudo died and had to recognize his son as duke, although he was forced to make obeisance)
I don't see why not.Bavaria and Alemannia might also sniff around for ways to get more independence, maybe when the Frisian incursion get worse
I agreed above it would be a possibility, so I think that's not a big problem. That said, the Frankish hegemon in Latin Christianity, safe a catastrophic collapse of Francia (which seems hardly doable with this PoD) doesn't seem likely to be butterflied, while it may mean an earlier broader conflict with Lombards.pope Gregory might even not send for help in 739 and rather have to make a deal with Liutprand.