Let's assume that the Franks suffer a Teutoburg Forest level defeat during the First Saxon War and Charlemagne is killed. Within France, who inherits the kingdom and how is the balance of power shifted between the king and his vassals in the wake of such a disaster? How long before we see a future king of France try his hand at conquering the Saxons and are the motives/objectives of such a war basically the same as Charlemagne's? Outside of France, how are the pace and tactics of conversion in Central/Eastern Europe affected without Charlemagne's 'treaty by baptism'? What proto-states in the region survive and develop without Frankish domination? Lastly, without a powerful benefactor like Charlemagne, what happens to the Bishop of Rome's plans for ascendancy in Christendom?
Charlemagne dies in first war with the Saxons, effects in France and beyond
- Thread starter cincpac overboard
- Start date
The Pope has to accept Lombard suzerainship (which I doubt he takes well). The Frankish kingdom probably gets partitioned for the time being, and becomes unable to project much power if at all, which likely is bad for the Asturias Christians too. Byzantium likely wallows in its own problems regardless, but has a bit less problems with the Pope yet.
Any idea what the likely lines of partition would be? If Asturias falls would that result in a unified Muslim Iberia that dominates the western Mediterranean, or is it more likely to fall prey to factionalism that perhaps sees a partitioning of Iberia that mirrors that of France?
Last edited:
Avar Khaganate, tho unsure on whether they would adopt Slavic culture and language or stay native, maybe Carantania would survive (Slavic duchy in modern-day Austria) and many Slavic princes in Bohemia proper and lands between Elbe and Oder who were killed by Charlemagne's actions IOTL - namely Drogovit, prince of Veleti, Miliduch, prince of Sorbs and Lech, prince of Bohemians would survive and maybe if one of them or their descendants would be strong enough to subjugate others, Bohemia + lands between Elbe and Oder could form sort of "third power" between Franks (I don't believe in complete collapse of their state, they would just be weakened) and Avars.
Do you see this Bohemian power Christianizing relatively quickly or do you see it remaining pagan for perhaps a couple of centuries longer? Were the Avars in an expansionist phase just prior to the Frankish conquest? In any case, how does a surviving Avar Khaganate affect the prospects of Constantinople?
It would be fascinating for the Avars to basically go the way of the Bulgars and Slavicise, thou not necessarily convert to Christianity.
I am ciurious if they manage to beat back the Magyars though.
That would be cool to see "Alpine" Slavs with possible Romance influences
Also, Bavaria could remain independant.
And possibly, Ecgbert might never become King of Wessex (he was in Charlemagne's court and likely siezed the throne with his backing.) Alfred is butterflied away. And we might end up with Scandinavian England
And possibly, Ecgbert might never become King of Wessex (he was in Charlemagne's court and likely siezed the throne with his backing.) Alfred is butterflied away. And we might end up with Scandinavian England
Last edited:
The ripples of Charles' early death into European pond would look like a tsunami.
First the Papacy would lose the main, if not the only supporter, it got. Not only the Lombards would take Rome, but the papal states, the Sancti Petri patrimonium, would never came to be meaning that the Pope, probably, would never become an independent political entity. He would never be more than a Patriarch, like Constantinople's one, controlled by Lombard kings thus losing brutally much of his power and autonomy. The consequences of this are huge both political and religiously: the pope would lack the power to enforce many of the changes to catholic doctrine made OTL (priest celibacy, investiture controversy ecc...).
France would be divided among different local powers and the Regnum Francorum could very well recreate itself around nowaday Belgium. So it could be composed by northern France, Belgium, Lorraine and maybe northwestern Germany. Aquitaine and southern France could become independent kingdoms.
The same could be said for Germany. But, since there would be no Holy Roman Empire, any German sovrane would have no particular reason to meddle into Italian affairs.
Italy would be controlled by the Lombard alone so it could became a nation in the late middle age (just as France did OTL). But this would probably largely curtail the communes raise. So no many city states with different rulers and thus a rather different renaissance.
Speaking of renaissance, without the Carolingian empire, we would not have also the carolingian renaissance, a revival of classical learning and diffusion/imposition of scholarly practices and teaching. La littera Carolina, the ancestor of our script, was born and diffused then.
So, the short answer is really a lot.
First the Papacy would lose the main, if not the only supporter, it got. Not only the Lombards would take Rome, but the papal states, the Sancti Petri patrimonium, would never came to be meaning that the Pope, probably, would never become an independent political entity. He would never be more than a Patriarch, like Constantinople's one, controlled by Lombard kings thus losing brutally much of his power and autonomy. The consequences of this are huge both political and religiously: the pope would lack the power to enforce many of the changes to catholic doctrine made OTL (priest celibacy, investiture controversy ecc...).
France would be divided among different local powers and the Regnum Francorum could very well recreate itself around nowaday Belgium. So it could be composed by northern France, Belgium, Lorraine and maybe northwestern Germany. Aquitaine and southern France could become independent kingdoms.
The same could be said for Germany. But, since there would be no Holy Roman Empire, any German sovrane would have no particular reason to meddle into Italian affairs.
Italy would be controlled by the Lombard alone so it could became a nation in the late middle age (just as France did OTL). But this would probably largely curtail the communes raise. So no many city states with different rulers and thus a rather different renaissance.
Speaking of renaissance, without the Carolingian empire, we would not have also the carolingian renaissance, a revival of classical learning and diffusion/imposition of scholarly practices and teaching. La littera Carolina, the ancestor of our script, was born and diffused then.
So, the short answer is really a lot.
So we’re seeing an independent and pagan Frisia and Saxony. an independent and Catholic Bavaria, Thuringia, and Allamania. Beside that we have independent and Catholic Aquitaine, Burgundy and Lombardy, and at last a powerful rump Frankish kingdom dominating the northern Rhine and the Seine watersheds.
This raise the question how will these states deal with the Danes, Slavs, Magyars and Muslims? Could we imagine that without the Frankish as a stabilizing factor we will see a new wave of migration or a new expansion of Muslims into Aquitaine?
Without a strong Papacy to enforce orthodoxy, might we see the appearance of more 'heresies', particularly those that support the aspirations of local rulers of this more divided Europe?
Without this revival of classical learning, perhaps we would see a further divergence of Ecclesiastical Latin from Classical Latin and the creation of a variety of scripts across Europe? In general, without Charlemagne's emulation of Emperor Augustus and promotion of Roman classics, perhaps we see a disinterest in European royalty in Latin language, culture, and architecture, even to the point of butterflying terms like 'kaiser' and 'tsar'.
Don’t have a lot to contribute in terms of Western European history, but one interesting effect would be that Khan Krum couldn’t invade the Avars, and therefore almost certainly wouldn’t have the resources to pull of the battle of Pliska, which even OTL he was barely able to accomplish, meaning Bulgaria gets conquered. No first Bulgarian empire means the Byzantines are free to exploit a declining Caliphate, so TTL could be something of a Byzantine wank. Maybe they also challenge the Lombard authority over the pope.
The alternative is that the Bulgars appeal to the Avars for help. Now if that happens they would have to enter a dependency relationship, but it would essentially act as a buffer state. The problem is that the moment the Avars are distracted elsewhere Bulgaria is on its own, and they could achieve OTL levels of luck, or they could get conquered, or somewhere in between.
Also wouldn’t an avar survival mean the Magyars don’t arrive in Pannonia? If so, I think another Slavic kingdom like Samo’s kingdom would be established, what effect would that have?
What becomes of the Carolingian dynasty itself, suffering such a catastrophe only a few decades after Pepin's usurpation of the Merovingians? Is this a fatal blow to their continued rule?
Charlemagne's kids are infants. There are some subsidiary (and illegitimate) adult members of the dynasty in existence - Bernhard and sons, most obviously.
Potentially has major implications for Denmark also, given the nature of Frankish interference there in the first quarter of the 9th - most notably Charlemagne's clashes with Godfrid in 808-810, and Louis the Pious' support for Harald Klak against the Sons of Godfrid in the 810s and 820s.
Charlemagne's kids are infants. There are some subsidiary (and illegitimate) adult members of the dynasty in existence - Bernhard and sons, most obviously.
Potentially has major implications for Denmark also, given the nature of Frankish interference there in the first quarter of the 9th - most notably Charlemagne's clashes with Godfrid in 808-810, and Louis the Pious' support for Harald Klak against the Sons of Godfrid in the 810s and 820s.
No, if the "third power" stabilizes, it'd have no incentive to convert to Christianity - Franks are too weak to either subjugate it or offer protection, Constantinople is far away and anyways that power would be more "Bohemian-Elbean Slavic" power and Elbean Slavs were staunch pagans IOTL. Surviving Avar Khaganate would weaken Bulgaria which in turn could enable it's full re-conquest by Constantinople.
Well, if Bulgaria is really conquered by Constantinople it means that additional wave of Slavic refugees resisting Christianity which increases probablity of Avars slavicizing. Don't know if Magyars would even invade, IOTL they invaded partially because Bulgaria was at war with Byzantium, if ITTL there's no Bulgaria...
Well, I didn't reply to that post earlier and I can't edit my previous post any more to maintain that reply, so I am creating new post:
a) if Bulgars appeal to Avars for help, IMHO Avars would absorb Bulgars entirely in reverse what was done OTL, considering that Avars had already sizable population speaking that dialect of Proto-Slavic which gave birth to OTL Bulgarian (even the name of half of Hungarian capital "Pest" means "cauldron" in Old Slavic Bulgarian) so probably Bulgaria will be bigger ITTL if that option happens and called "Avaria" instead of "Bulgaria"
b) if they don't, Avars become Byzantine problem once again and they proved themselves to be troublesome neighbours even before they had any influence south of Danube, so IMHO Byzantine-wank going up until full reconquest of Middle East requires Byzzies mounting anti-Avar coalition and if not eradicating them entirely like it was done IOTL than at least reducing them to rump state unable to threaten anyone
Samo's kingdom wasn't located in Pannonia (Samo merely invaded it already after gaining power among Slavs and it's unclear whether he subjugated tribes living there or not), it's basis was so-called Bohemia proper (western part of Czech republic) or Moravia, tribe of Moravians was Avar sort-of-vassal before Charlemagne invaded and I don't see them liberating themselves without outside help, Bohemia proper was ruled by prince Lech, who OTL got murked by Frankish forces and was overall three of most relevant Slavic princes resisting Charlemagne - besides him there were also Drogovit, duke of Veleti and Miliduch, duke of Sorbs, Thrasco/Drozhko and his precedessor Witzan, duke of Abodriti were allied with Charlemagne, and probably ITTL Obodriti will get destroyed by Danes, Saxons and Veleti, but Veleti would be threatened by Danes and Saxons, so maybe they would seek alliance with Bohemians, as they did later when after Bohemian unification led by Premyslids, which might lead to Bohemians, Sorbs and Veleti forming larger tribal union (it could be comparable to Samo's kingdom, as it was also anti-Avar tribal union), if Bohemians feel threatened by Avars enough and Veleti and Sorbs by Saxons, maybe even encompassing some tribes from OTL Poland - if the certain theory is true - the name "Lech" is also attributed to legendary founder of Polish state, and chronicler Einhard claims that Charlemagne subjugated all peoples living up to Vistula - "deinde omnes barbaras ac feras nationes, quae inter Rhenum ac Visulam fluvios oceanumque ac Danubium positae, lingua quidem poene similes, moribus vero atque habitu valde dissimiles, Germaniam incolunt, ita perdomuit, ut eas tributarias efficeret; inter quas fere praecipuae sunt Welatabi, Sorabi, Abodriti, Boemani - cum his namque bello conflixit -; ceteras, quarum multo maior est numerus, in deditionem suscepit." - in English: "therefore he subjugated all barbarian and ferocious tribes dwelling in Germania, which live from Rhine to Vistula and from ocean [Baltic Sea] to Danube, all of them very similar in language, but sometimes dissimilar in customs and made them tributaries, among those most important were - Veleti, Sorbs, Obodriti, Bohemians, with whom he had made war and whose are very numerous", so some historians, like Henryk Łowiański (Początki Polski/ "The Beginning of Poland" t. 4, Warsaw 1970, s. 399) claimed that Bohemian prince Lech extracted tribute and men from part of tribes living in what would later become Poland and thus was immortalized in legend as founder of Polish state, but I don't know if even if that tribal union would be established, even in most optimistic scenario for them - encompassing Veleti+Sorbi (most of lands from Elbe to Oder) + Bohemia proper + parts of OTL Poland, going directly against Avars might be seen as too dangerous, especially as there are still Danish, Saxon and Bavarian threats, and at the time of probable formation of that union (820s-830s, approximately time when IOTL Great Moravia arose) no Magyars are in picture and thus it has no bearing on their arrival, and Avars might get pretty Slavic themselves by that time, IMHO only instance in which aforementioned tribal union would feel strong enough to invade Avars would be if there was coalition against them with Byzzies and Lombards at helm, otherwise they would prefer to subjugate rest of what became Poland IOTL (shitty lands, compared to those on south, but easier to conquer + subjugating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truso and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolin could give them plenty of money from trade) and even if that panned out they would probably prefer to harass Eastern Slavs and set themselves up as rivals to Rurikids than risk confrontation with entire Avar might - approximately that could happen in 880s and that's when Magyars enter the fray, tho it's not even set in stone they would invade Pannonia - they could do so still, especially if Byzzies set up anti-Avar coalition, but they might as well stay as Khazar vassals if Rurikid-"Western Slavic tribal union" rivalry would benefit Khazars, they might invade some other place (like Armenia in excellent Carantania TL by @SealTheRealDeal ), they might invade Pannonia but fail and get absorbed like remnants of Alans IOTL.
Assuming France is partitioned in the wake of Charlemagne' early death, what are some likely outcomes for these Christian entities next to pagan Saxons plus a possible 'Elbean Slav-Bohemia' tribal union. Without a unified France to aid them do they fall to their pagan neighbors, unite into one entity for mutual protection, or become vassals of the kingdom of Lombardy, which looks set in this ATL to possibly unify Italy?
Out of curiosity which ATL year is it?
I think Bavaria would become kind of unofficial Lombard vassal, after all they had close relationship and even Lombard reigning dynasty was called "Bavarian" due to amount of Bavarian familial connections.
Does anyone think that the Lombards and Byzantines might go to war over the control of Rome and the Papacy? Which side has the advantage in this conflict militarily and which third powers (Caliphate?) might expand at the expense of either combatant if the war drags on? If the Lombards win a quick victory, would Sicily and Sardinia likely be annexed by them shortly thereafter?
I don't think they would have strong enough navy to do so, most likely they would dominate whole continental Italy, maybe even expelling Byzantines from Apulia and Calabria but Sicilily would either stay Byzantine or would be conquered by Arabs (if they weren't already) and combining with vassalizing Bavaria it'd be huge Lombard-wank.