WI: The Franks settle Pannonia after the fall of the Avar Khaganate

[Mario]

Charlemagne and his sons crushed the Avar Khaganate by the end of the 8th century, but the Franks failed to replace the vacuum of power the Avars left in the region of the Great Plain of Pannonia, so after a century of political and cultural fragmentation among different powers (Franks, Slavs, Bulgars...) it was finaly open for the Magyar invasion by the early 10th century.

What would have happened if the Franks would have opted for a major settlement of the rather underpopulated Pannonian plain, boosting the migration of Franks and other Christian subdits of the Empire for establishing proper cities, abbeys and monasteries in the area? Could have this blocked the expansion fo the Bulgars first and the Magyars later? Which could have been the impact of a Germanized Great Pannonia (and the absence of Hungary) in the later developments of the Middle Ages?

 

[snerfuplz]

From my understanding the Frankish state was very de-centralized after Charlemagne. It would be challenging to muster such a colonization effort without a strong centralized state. Though such an undertaking would be difficult even for Byzantium

 

[DanMcCollum]

Well, there wouldn't have been too much point in settling the region, as it was already held by Slavs and others. In fact, the Frank's did raise some local Slavic leaders up as Dux in the border lands of Caranthia and so forth.

But to do more than that, the Franks would have had to extend political hegemony over the region, and they were stretched pretty thin by that point.

I could, potentially, see the Eastern Frankish Kingdom trying to do so, as it's center of gravity was closer. But, even then, it had it's own issues and I'm not sure there would have existed the political will to try massive settlements.

 

[Mario]

From my understanding the Frankish state was very de-centralized after Charlemagne. It would be challenging to muster such a colonization effort without a strong centralized state. Though such an undertaking would be difficult even for Byzantium

Obviously the Franks were not able to do it IOTL by these circumstances, but maybe if the Empire managed to remain centralized for longer time (no Verdun and such), the circumstances would have been more favourable to a planned, major settlement of Pannonia.

Byzantium had little interest on what happened north of the Danube - Sava by the 9th century, as they were struggling just for retaking some control over the Balkans south of the Danube.

 

[Marko]

The situation in the Pannonian basin at the turn of the 9th century was anything but Franks "crushing" the Avars.

The fighting was long (cca 8 years - ever since Avars renewed their incursions into Lombardy and Bavaria in 788) and for the most part inconclusive and only resulted in Transdanubian part of the Khaganate submitting to the Franks in 796. The Avars in the eastern part of PB retain their own leadership under while the Avars under Frankish rule stage rebellions in 797, 799, 802 and 811. In many ways the long rebellion of Liudevit of Lower Pannonia from 819-822 can be seen as part of the resistance to the Frankish rule in what used to be western part of the Khaganate.

In other words there are no conditions for strong colonisation because the region is plagued by conflict and unrest.


It is only after 827 and the Bulgar incorporation of the eastern part of the Pannonian Basin into their Khanate as well as their incursions as far west into Frankish held territory as today's Slovenia that we start seeing the region slowly transforming towards the situation the Magyars would encounter at the turn of the 10th century. Most of Transdanubia is ruled by a Bulgar vassal and his area of control would later be overtaken by Pribina, later his son Kocel and an individual of unknown relations named Braslav.


Franks would need to do far more than they did in OTL to be in a position to settle pannonia least of all control slavic migrations which were still happening in the region based on some reasearch.

 

[De von Of]

There was a large amount of colonization by Germans into Pannonia prior to the Magyar invasion (Ostsiedlung), the region would almost certainly have ended up German without it. I see no real reason why this couldn't have happened a few decades earlier.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

From my understanding the Frankish state was very de-centralized after Charlemagne. It would be challenging to muster such a colonization effort without a strong centralized state. Though such an undertaking would be difficult even for Byzantium

Why exactly does centralism required? It would seem more effective to be decentralized in this endeavor. For instance, a Frankish conquest of the region permits the Franks to settle landed nobles or send nobility to gain glory there and take whomever they wish with them. This seems more effective than attempting to hold the area and allow transit of peoples, causing rebellions and limiting assimilation to the new Frankish elites.

 

[Marko]

There was a large amount of colonization by Germans into Pannonia prior to the Magyar invasion (Ostsiedlung), the region would almost certainly have ended up German without it. I see no real reason why this couldn't have happened a few decades earlier.

By what parameters do you define "large". There was a tertiary movement of germanic peoples into Pannonia in the 9th century but it was mostly geography limited to the area of a county of the eastern prefecture stretching between river Enns and the Viennese forest.

While getting more germanic people in the Carpathian basin is not that difficult having an actual Frankish colonisation is.

 

[De von Of]

By what parameters do you define "large". There was a tertiary movement of germanic peoples into Pannonia in the 9th century but it was mostly geography limited to the area of a county of the eastern prefecture stretching between river Enns and the Viennese forest.

While getting more germanic people in the Carpathian basin is not that difficult having an actual Frankish colonisation is.

What do you mean? By the time the Hungarians arrived, Germans (and Germanized Slavs) were the majority up to lake Balaton.

 

[Marko]

What do you mean? By the time the Hungarians arrived, Germans (and Germanized Slavs) were the majority up to lake Balaton.

On what do you base your statement? Archaeological finds do not support such a claim.

Also how exactly are you defining germanised Slavs in 9th century? I am genuinely asking because I am a medieval archaeologist and I can tell you my collegues and I have a really hard time defining and recognising such categories.


As far as we can tell at the current level of excavation is that Transdanubia was a patchwork of local late antiquity population surviving in the hills around Pech and Keszthely, various slavic speaking groups (some belonging to the Vendi and some to the Slavs branch), remnants of germanic late migration groups like the Langobards, various Turkic and Iranian speaking steppe groups and finally some Bavarians moving eastward as part of their general trend to expand into less politically stable zones.

Claim that germanic speaking people or people with germanic material culture were a majority up to lake Balaton is like something out of a text books from first half of the 20th century.

 

[Coluber]

There was a large amount of colonization by Germans into Pannonia prior to the Magyar invasion (Ostsiedlung), the region would almost certainly have ended up German without it. I see no real reason why this couldn't have happened a few decades earlier.

I've always wondered why the Bavarians weren't more active in their expansion. All they had opposing them were a bunch of Slavs armed to the teeth!

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Even if they somehow pulled it off, it's still very much a periphery of the empire and they could probably not defend it better from the Magyars as the Moravians did. However, the Magyars could be exposed to more Germanic influence this way, even going the way of the Bulgars over time. Could be an interesting scenario.