At his accession in 898, Charles the Simple was the last remaining (male) member of the West Francian branch of the Carolingians founded by his grandfather Charles the Bald. Upon the death of his kinsman Louis the Child and the extinction of the East Francian Carolingians in 911, he became the last remaining (male-line) descendant of Louis the Pious.
This would remain the case for some time. By his first wife, the Lotharingian noblewoman Frederuna, he had only a series of daughters. It was only with his second marriage, to Eadgifu of Wessex, that his son and heir would be born - Louis d'Outremer, in c. 920.
However, Charles' kingship was running into problems at this stage. He had assumed control of Lotharingia upon Louis the Child's death, and in the subsequent decade the West Frankish magnates became increasingly suspicious of eastern influence - particularly in the form of Hagano, a kinsman of Charles' first wife. Additionally, he faced trouble from Magyar raids and opposition in Lotharingia itself.
An initial move to depose him in 920 was resolved by negotiation, but in 922 the magnates went through with it - Robert of Neustria, brother of Charles' predecessor Odo, was crowned king. Charles escaped France to his supporters in Lotharingia, and made a comeback attempt the following year - he was heavily defeated, but Robert was killed in the battle. Charles was subsequently captured and imprisoned by Robert's son-in-law Herbert II of Vermandois, dying in 929.
Upon Robert's death, the throne passed not to his son Hugh the Great, but to his son-in-law Rudolph of Burgundy. Rudolph's reign was a troubled one. Norsemen active on the Seine (where one of their leaders, Rollo, had been recognised by Charles) and Loire (Brittany would be under Viking occupation until the late 930s) - both were called upon to aid Charles in 922-3, but were unable to reach him - and the southern magnates took some time to submit to him.
Perhaps more serious, however, were his clashes with his brother-in-law Herbert, who seized Laon to install a son there as count and contrived to have his five year-old son made Archbishop in 925. Hugh the Great was initially supportive of Herbert, but ultimately switched sides, with Herbert was eventually ground down - he avoided destruction, however, by getting Henry the Fowler of East Francia to intercede for him.
Upon Rudolph's death in 936 there were a number of potential candidates for the throne - Hugh the Great, as the son and nephew of previous kings; Herbert, as a Carolingian (admittedly via an illegitimate line) descendant of Charlemagne; and Hugh the Black of Burgundy, as a brother of Rudolph (Rudolph himself being childless). Ultimately they opted to invite back Charles' son Louis from his exile in England (hence his epithet of 'Over the Sea' - d'Outremer).
Louis' own reign would be turbulent, but he would ultimately do enough for the West Frankish Carolingians to sputter on for a further few generations - losing the throne with the death of his grandson Louis V in 987, at which time Hugh the Great's son assumed the throne and founded the Capetians.
So, how would things play out if Louis IV was never born:
This would remain the case for some time. By his first wife, the Lotharingian noblewoman Frederuna, he had only a series of daughters. It was only with his second marriage, to Eadgifu of Wessex, that his son and heir would be born - Louis d'Outremer, in c. 920.
However, Charles' kingship was running into problems at this stage. He had assumed control of Lotharingia upon Louis the Child's death, and in the subsequent decade the West Frankish magnates became increasingly suspicious of eastern influence - particularly in the form of Hagano, a kinsman of Charles' first wife. Additionally, he faced trouble from Magyar raids and opposition in Lotharingia itself.
An initial move to depose him in 920 was resolved by negotiation, but in 922 the magnates went through with it - Robert of Neustria, brother of Charles' predecessor Odo, was crowned king. Charles escaped France to his supporters in Lotharingia, and made a comeback attempt the following year - he was heavily defeated, but Robert was killed in the battle. Charles was subsequently captured and imprisoned by Robert's son-in-law Herbert II of Vermandois, dying in 929.
Upon Robert's death, the throne passed not to his son Hugh the Great, but to his son-in-law Rudolph of Burgundy. Rudolph's reign was a troubled one. Norsemen active on the Seine (where one of their leaders, Rollo, had been recognised by Charles) and Loire (Brittany would be under Viking occupation until the late 930s) - both were called upon to aid Charles in 922-3, but were unable to reach him - and the southern magnates took some time to submit to him.
Perhaps more serious, however, were his clashes with his brother-in-law Herbert, who seized Laon to install a son there as count and contrived to have his five year-old son made Archbishop in 925. Hugh the Great was initially supportive of Herbert, but ultimately switched sides, with Herbert was eventually ground down - he avoided destruction, however, by getting Henry the Fowler of East Francia to intercede for him.
Upon Rudolph's death in 936 there were a number of potential candidates for the throne - Hugh the Great, as the son and nephew of previous kings; Herbert, as a Carolingian (admittedly via an illegitimate line) descendant of Charlemagne; and Hugh the Black of Burgundy, as a brother of Rudolph (Rudolph himself being childless). Ultimately they opted to invite back Charles' son Louis from his exile in England (hence his epithet of 'Over the Sea' - d'Outremer).
Louis' own reign would be turbulent, but he would ultimately do enough for the West Frankish Carolingians to sputter on for a further few generations - losing the throne with the death of his grandson Louis V in 987, at which time Hugh the Great's son assumed the throne and founded the Capetians.
So, how would things play out if Louis IV was never born:
- Does the absence of an heir at all change the actions of Charles or the West Frankish magnates in the crisis period of 920-3?
- If not, how does the absence of an heir change the dynastic calculus of the major players in the 920s and 930s?
- A boring answer might be that butterflies keep Robert the Strong from dying in battle and is thus able to pave the way for his son to succeed him, thus installing the Capetians a few generations early, but if Robert still dies in 923 - would Hugh make a play to succeed him or does the exigencies of the situation and the threat posed by Charles mean the throne still settles on Rudolph?
- If it still settles on Rudolph - who would succeed him in 936? With the Carolingians definitively off the table, all the potential candidates will have had several years to sharpen their knives - as I said, several plausible candidates, including Hugh the Great, Herbert, and Hugh the Black.
- How would the extinction of the Carolingians and potential prolonged wrangling over the throne effect more peripheral areas?
- The Norse can, I think, be expected to take advantage of any disorder - those on the Seine had wrung concessions out of Rudolph in 924 and 933, those on the Loire had been treated with in 921 and 927 - possibly claimants to the throne would make further offers in return for support?
- The Southern Principalities only reluctantly came on board with Rudolph's regime - William II of Auvergne submitted after a military campaign in 924, Raymond Pons of Toulouse not until 932. Rudolph was also involved in clashes with Ebalus of Poitou from 929. How would they react to the extinction of the royal dynasty? Going their own way? Being drawn into disputes over the throne?