If the Battle of Tours was an Arab victory.

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?
 
Abd al Rahman plunders Tours, scores a huge political victory, and goes back to Spain. Eventually, it would provoke more raids in the aftermath, more likely in Provence.

Eudon of Aquitaine (if he survives) is the big looser, reigning on a twice plundered duchy and being even more dependent of Franks, possibly with Gascons acting even more autonomous, if not taken over by Arabo-Berbers. Aquitaine's dependence on Frankish power is definitely estanblished, earlier than IOTL.

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.

For instance the very successful raids of 725/726 that plundered all the Rhone valley and reached up to Sens (much northern than Tours is) are barely mentioned because they obviously not led to an occupation, and that Charles Martel didn't cared much about it.

Actually, the battle was another raid led by Arabo-Berbers, not really different from the others that were lead in early VIIIth Gaul. It would hardly cause a wave of occupation for two reasons :
- The campaign was more of a political point : Eudon of Aquitaine allied himself with rebelling Berbers and the wali of Al-Andalus was certainly not going to let that unpunished
- Really limited forces. Arabo-Berers represented maybe 20 000 people for the whole of Al-Andalus. North of Pyrenees (and even in several places south of them) you had one known Arabic garrison, all the rest being under submitted Christian nobility.

I could see some parts of Aquitaine being occupied, but really remporarily, given the lack of forces and the very likely Berber Revolt to happen.

The question is : would Charles Martel lead the expedition of 737? I don't see why not : as said, his ressources were untouched and Aquitaine certainly not in position to be a threat (even less than IOTL). If something Charles would be even more wary of Arabo-Berber presence in southern Gaul.
 
LSC I feel like you just have that tucked away somewhere in case of this.
Well, I didn't copied word for word, I changed some par...
I mean, no, no of course not. I certainly didn't made a list of common early medieval PoDs with notes on them. Why would anyone do that? Stop asking questions!

Now is Charles Martel is killed the butterflies would be larger.
Possibly. But his children, while young, were old enough to rule (meaning, in late Merovingian Francia, able to lead in a fight).
I'm not sure the families defeated by Charles in 718 would be a problem, especially without Aquitain support.
- Theodebald, for instance, doesn't seem to have searched to claim the power of his greatfather (at least, if his absence of involvement during Arnulf's conspiracy is interpreted this way, but we have too few mentions of him to really have an opinion on him).
- Arnulf died in 723, maybe Godefried (but without any mention and really young children if any by then, I don't think he was relevent enough)

Eventually, a threat to Carloman and Peppin shouldn't come from Austrasia, at least in my opinion. Which left Neustria that would make a more plausible opponent for me, especially with Thierry/Theudeuric IV.

But at this point Peppinds monopolized power since decades (which mean monopolisation of ressources and clientele), which left the possibility for Neustrians and Merovingians to set up a force strong enough to fight them.
For instance, Rainfroy/Ragenfrid didn't seem to have a real support in Neustria (hence the revolt against him in 720's) and probably neither his sons.

Eventually, I think (but that's more of a general reflexion than that sourced, giving it's hard to have clear sources for this era) that Neustria wouldn't have enough ressources (critically when not supported by Aquitaine, with a plundered Loire valley, and a still recently plundered Rhone valley and that eventually more suffered from economical changes in the VII/VIIIth centuries than Austrasia), support (or even cohesion) to really deal on the long run with Peppin III and Carloman that may simply put Childeric III on the throne.

Of course, there's always the possibility of a civil war between both sons, but I don't think that's a likely possibility at this point. Maybe later, but it should be noted that while different branches of Peppinids fought each other, it concerned people issued from different relatives (even Carloman and Charlemagne didn't openly fought themselves).
But anyway, at this point, I think familial solidarities would play fully.

What would that mean? In case of a conflict with Neustrians and Merovingians, the focus on southern Gaul may be delayed. That said, with an Aquitaine definitely more dependent of Franks, it should be somehow compensated. Even if they don't act against the raid of 736 (which would surprise me, but butterflies may arguably effect that), at this point the Berber Revolt was hardly butterfliable, and the Arabo-Andalusians would be without a doubt much weakened in regions where Berbers formed isolated garrisons.
IOTL, it probably allowed Galicians and Asturians to take easily some places, and I think it would apply similarly in Gothia (also known on the unfitting name of Septimania) and places possibly taken over in Provence or Aquitaine.

Sorry for all the conditional and "maybe", but it's not the best period for clear affirmations.
 
Last edited:
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.

Depending on how it plays out it might not even have that much impact. As you said the battle doesn't really impact Frankish power or resources at all but the Arabo-Berbers are really at the end of their possible reach. 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.
 
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.

Raids did continued after 732, with Arabo-Berbers not that impressed by the victory (that is barely mentioned by medieval Muslims historians, and more or less confused with the Battle of Toulouse). I could indeed see an equivalent to the Battle of La Berre happening sooner or later.
 

FrozenMix

Banned
The importance of the battle has been widely overstated over the course of time.

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. 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.

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.
 
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.
What, no Barbie dolls? :D

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.
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.

As stated before, the defeat of 732 didn't prevented raids to continue, as the defeat of 737 didn't, neither the defeat of 752/759. You really have to wait late Carolingian period to have Arabo-Andalusian terrestrial raids to stop (only to see them replaced by maritime raids in the IXth century).

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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). As a matter of fact, Charles did not follow up immediately with an invasion of Septimania and Provence (much less Hispania proper): the next campaign in Provence was 3-4 years after Poitiers and it was precipitated by a further attempt of Muslim invasion. 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. There is a strong possibility that Vasconia and Aquitaine would have to pay tribute to Al Andalus (or even choose to pay tribute in exchange for support against the Franks).

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. OTL a victorious Charles had little problems of this kind after Poitiers. A defeated one in an ATL would find his position weakened (although not so much as to put at risk his political position I believe): he's no more the Hammer of Christianity and his defeat may be read by the church as God's punishment for his encroachment over church properties. 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. 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) and will anyway require stronger commitments to the region (which might jeopardize Charles' expeditions to subdue Bavaria and Alemannia). The Lombards will be more reluctant to support him in any campaign in Provence which would make more difficult to successfully oppose any major Al Andalusian moves from Arles.

All the above is the likely outcome of a Charles who gets defeated at Poitiers but lives to fight another day. If he dies on the battlefield (and this would likely mean that the Frankish army is really badly defeated) the butterflies will be many more. Even if we assume that Peppin and Carloman still inherit the respective mayoral positions same as OTL, their inheritance will come almost 10 years earlier than OTL. 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. 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. Bavaria and Alemannia have not yet been cowed, and the same is even more true for the Saxons of Westphalia. Liutprand of Lombardy might be more inclined to keep his traditional alliance with Bavaria rather than ditching them in favor of the Franks. Even if Pippin and Carloman keep helping each other (which is quite possible, even more ITTL than IOTL) they will be hard-pressed to find themselves in the same position as they were in IOTL 741 at the death of Charles. At the death of Theudoric Charles did not appoint a new Merovingian king. ITTL this will not be a likely option.

The other major butterfly is that there will be not a *Charles who is going to be remembered as Charlemagne. Even if Pippin still marries Bertrada of Laon (and it is a major "if": political necessities might make him opt for a different spouse, maybe not even a Frank one) it is certain that both will live quite a different life and have different children. While it is possible they still beget an above-the-average heir, this is also not very likely. 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).

IMHO a lot of things might go very differently in a TL where Charles dies at Poitiers or where he is decisively defeated.
 
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).
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.

More would have been logistically insane, especially for a cavalry-based army as Abd al Rahman's (or giving the forces avaible for Arabo-Berbers in Al-Andalus more generally).

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.
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)

I'm not sure it would have reinforced the presence in Gothia, or created one in Provence; as the successful raids that happened before 732 (but that nobody mention, because in spite of their success, they weren't inflated historiographically) didn't provoked a particular increase in numbers as most of the raiders simply came back to Spain, if not Maghrib.

There is a strong possibility that Vasconia and Aquitaine would have to pay tribute to Al Andalus.
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.

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.
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.
Usually, monks "misunderstood" this as a gift to them and complained. Giving that they were eventually dominated by the said nobles, they usually complied eventually.

Giving that Charles was hardly the only one to do so, and that nobody was excommunicated so far, I think he could have been safe.

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.
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.

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)
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.
What could change, on the other hand, would be the continuation of raids using the western passes if Abd al Rahman manages to take over Gascony instead of just crossing by.

They didn't try to establish a dominant presence, they tried to plunder the hell out of a jackass that allied with Berber rebels and to make a point for anyone that would have tried to do the same.

and will anyway require stronger commitments to the region (which might jeopardize Charles' expeditions to subdue Bavaria and Alemannia).
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.
While he would certainly have a more important focus on what happen in Southern Gaul (increasing the chances of a counter-raid as in 737's), his past behaviour points to a more pragmatical man.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Beneficing as much as possible would probably mean, giving his limited ressources, trying to neutralise Gascony as a military reserve for Aquitains : it would be a purely military objective giving the low raid interest it represented. Maybe establishing a garrison not only at Pampelune as IOTL, but as well around Lapurdum.

Bavaria and Alemannia have not yet been cowed
I'd disagree : while Charles' death would certainly have influed (as it did IOTL), Peppinids already campaigned against them before 732.

and the same is even more true for the Saxons of Westphalia
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.
Basically, TTL situation would not make them more dangerous than IOTL.

At the death of Theudoric Charles did not appoint a new Merovingian king. ITTL this will not be a likely option.
If Thierry/Theuderic IV rebels against the young Peppinids, as I think is possible ITTL, they would have little choice but to replace him.
Problem is, apart from Childeric, we simply have no mention of other Merovingian, hinting at a possible extinction of the line.

Sooner or later, the necessity of a dynastic change may appear to face this problem and while in a less interesting position for doing so, Peppinids would have also little choice on this matter.

Liutprand of Lombardy might be more inclined to keep his traditional alliance with Bavaria rather than ditching them in favor of the Franks.
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?

While it is possible they still beget an above-the-average heir, this is also not very likely.
Are genetics mattering more than education and context?
It wouldn't be Charlemagne, certainly, but I don't see why he wouldn't benefit from the clientele established by Peppin II and Charles, from a wealthy Austrasia, from the already appearing alliance with high clergy, from the decline of Merovingians, and the general economical changes of Western and North-Western Europe, etc.
The Peppinid succession, about "the stronger doesn't win permanent holidays in a monastery" also increase the chances of an "above-the average" heir on this regard.

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).
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.

See also why I think it may be not entierly luck just above.

I would point, furthermore, that the monogamy of marriage wasn't yet clearly established. Hence Charles Martel that was the son of a secondary wife of Peppin II.
That alone certainly increase the chances of heirs.

IMHO a lot of things might go very differently in a TL where Charles dies at Poitiers or where he is decisively defeated.
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).
But basically, and while the Battle wasn't of little importance IOTL, it was so essentially for Christians because they scored a victory and that Peppinids didn't stop telling people how much they rule.
 
Last edited:
The number of troops on the field at Poitiers can be discussed (and has been discussed) for a very long time without reaching an agreement. I don't have anything against the numbers you mention (matter of fact they would make a lot of sense: Lechfeld - which was another battle of little significance in strategic terms but was once again portrayed as a major victory of christianity against the Hungars by the hagiographers of Otto I - saw some 8,000 men on the German side pitted against a likely smaller number of Hungars). 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.

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 and with a defeat at Poitiers things might have gone very differently (in particular if Charles dies on the battlefield). Just to be clear, I do agree that the Franks had become more powerful under the Pippinids, the church was supporting them, the lands of Neustria and Austrasia were very productive, the seeds of what IOTL would become the Carolingian Renaissance were already in the soil, whatever else you may want to add. I also agree that an hegemony was being established over Aquitaine, Bavaria, Alemannia.
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); 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. If he dies, even worse: I cannot believe the Pippinid political machine is so well oiled and efficient to take in stride the defeat, the death of the head of the house and the succession of two young men without having to make deals with other faction, and in particular with the church); Charles had been able to start his reform of the army, but at Poitiers he had only heavy infantry, in the traditional Frankish way (while 5 years later when he met again the Al Andalusian in front of Arles he had cavalry too and apparently he had been able to develop a doctrine for the combined army - no mean fact in the 8th century in Gaul): 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) and might be tempted to play some game if the situation up north is a bit more shaky (and both Bavaria and Alemannia might also sniff around for ways to get more independence, maybe when the Frisian incursion get worse); pope Gregory might even not send for help in 739 and rather have to make a deal with Liutprand.

The road that leads to Pippin the Short being anointed king of the Franks and his son being crowned western emperor is a narrow and windy one and the Pippinid quest can be easily derailed (obviously there was no planned strategy: things happened and almost all of them were in their favor. God playing dice). Still Charles needs a victory at Poitiers and another 10 years to stabilize things. Otherwise I don't believe that the result would be just a matter of "micro-historical changes".
 
Basically, there's two main points I disagree with you (I'll try to devellop the reasons below), the rest being more matter of details.
- Peppinids were dominating already Francia at this point, they didn't tried to or were in good way to do so. They did. What they strived for from at this point was the domination of the regnum, meaning Gaul and Frankish Germany
- Tours wasn't a decisive battle, no more than Toulouse or Autun were. It was important historiographically for being a boost to Peppinids domination of Gaul, but could have easily be replaced with another, giving it's the Carolingians themselves that made it an important historiographical battle in first place. The defeat would just be minored.

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.
Historiographically? It was certainly a big step.
Military-wise was it much more important than the Battle of Toulouse, the Battle of La Berre, or the battles fought in even more historiographical obscurity?

Is it so surprising to see the battle being discussed again and again, when Carolingians chroniclers made from it a crowning moment they couldn't do with Toulouse (Eudon being some sort of traitor figure) or La Berre (which ended not so epically, with Narbonne stil under Arabo-Berber control), when Capetians did so in order to exaltate the royal figure, when Valois did so in order to base on it a national history and when eventually the IIIrd republic made from it a colonial tale?

It's not because Carolingians didn't stop tell us it was a world-shattering even it was. Arabs barely mention it, Mozarabs mention it as they did with all battles Arabo-Berber lost in order to compensate their defeat...

Again, it's not that Tours wasn't important. But it was important only in conjunction of other battles, not by itself.

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
Actually, it was pretty much so at this point.

Arnulfians/Peppinids were far from being a recent power in Francia, but were so since at least one century, and hegemonic since the death of Ebroin in 681. At this point, the Austrasian family managed to keep its domination with, among other reason, the constitution of a strong pro-Austrasian faction in Neustria (that seems to have been represented, even in the late VIIth century, by bishops)

After Pepin II takeover of the whole Francia, what mattered was no longer which families would be dominating it, but which branch of the family : Drogonid or Carolingian.
And Charles, before 732, seems to have done a really good job at getting rid of the first : breaking the Drogonid/Hugobertid coalition in 718, and do it again in 722/723 getting rid of most of the sons of Drogo after their revolt.

Which let in Austrasia only the Etichonids being strong enough to oppose them, but not only they seem to have been strongly pro-Carolingians, but Luitfrid seems to have lost his charges in the region before Poitiers, or the Widonids/Guideschi that seems to have been quite reliant on Carolingians for their expansion outside Austrasia.

Among Carolingians, only Childebrand could be a threat, which he doesn't seem to have been IOTL, being close enough of Charles and his sons to be their main hagiograph.

In Neustria, things may be more complex but there's few mention of anti-Carolingian activity. I agree that sources barely mention these outside outright revolts, and that in the wake of a defeat at Poitiers, things could get different. That's not the question, or, at least, I think it's not.
Apart from Thierry/Theuderic IV, who could have raised against the Carolingians?
Charles had 14 years to get rid of most troublesome elements*, Ragenfred was dead and his sons still hostages of Carolingians as far as we know, Eudon was in no way able to support someone, so...

I don't want to discuss it for the sake of discussing it, but I think the question deserves to be asked (and I do so really sincerely) : who, in 730's Francia is both strong enough and willing to launch a revolt against Carolingians and able to do so with a plausible chance of victory?
Apart from late Merovingian and a possible remaining Neustrian clientele, I'm at loss.
I even tried to search (quickly, obviously, or I wouldn't have posted before some months) among the ancestors of main lines in the region, but almost all seems to have been close to Carolingians. Doesn't mean they couldn't rebel, but at this point they may also be relativly recent transplants in Neustria, maybe too much for having a real reason or opportunity to rebel.

*
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

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)
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.
It's usual, nowadays, to be more than cautious about their powers (and not only symbolical ones) : hence the likely alliance between Ragenfried and Chilperic II.

It's why I proposed the idea of a possible Merovingian rebellion in my previous posts which seems to me, so far, the most likely attempt to topple Carolingians ITTL.

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.
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.
Nobody really complained either when he raided Aquitain monasteries in 731 while Eudon had to fight Arabo-Berbers.

Furthermore, the frankish clergy is hardly separated from the frankish nobility. We saw Charles put his family and friends in many important charges, in addition of an already established pro-Carolingian faction maybe established since Peppin II if not earlier.

That the absence of prestige he had IOTL, or even partial loss of what he had (but again, I don't expect this loss to be particularly important), would not serve his cause or the Carolingian cause if he dies, I agree. That it would turn the situation into something really problematic in Francia, on the other hand...

Charles had been able to start his reform of the army, but at Poitiers he had only heavy infantry, in the traditional Frankish way
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.
There's no real sign that you had a qualitative difference, tactically or in equipment, with la Berre, but you may want to develop in this matter as I think we don't understand each other quite well there.

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)
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.

As for Charles being unable to absorb IOTL, I've really doubts on it.
Right when Eudon died in 735, he was able to launch the offensive and to take the main center of Aquitaine, Bordeaux. The sons of Eudon (Hunald, Hatton and Remistan) were utterly defeated, the royal title stripped off, and the duchy split in two parts.
Giving that Charles reported his focus on Frankish Germania and Provence (even before the 736 raid), is it more unability to absorb, or preventing Aquitaine to become anew a threat, while he affirm clearly his authority in all of southern Gaul?

Bavaria and Alemannia might also sniff around for ways to get more independence, maybe when the Frisian incursion get worse
I don't see why not.
However, without the Aquitain support, it would be easier for Carolingians to deal with them. It's less a question of ressources (even if it would play) than geopolitical : the wars against Aquitains and Bavarians of the 740's were all about dividing frankish forces or if possible, to advance as far as possible in Neustria or Austrasia (depending which side we're talking about).

ITTL, Bavarians would have to lead a one-front war.

Concerning Alamans, I wonder if they would follow that blindly Bavarians, would it be only being cautious about exchanging Austrasian domination for Bavarian one. I could see them playing one side against the other, critically after Charles Martel crushed Alemania in 730. Having the region being a threat may not be that doable immediatly after Poitiers.

pope Gregory might even not send for help in 739 and rather have to make a deal with Liutprand.
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.

If it's not too rude from me to ask, could you tell me which sources you're using?
 
Last edited:
Top