With a PoD before 1900, can the Carolingian Dynasty avoided diversion and survived to at least 17th century?
Carolingian Dynasty survives
- Thread starter Used-to-be Song Chinese
- Start date
It is vanishingly uncommon for dynasties to last that long, so my bet is no. At least, not by the customary definition of dynasties used in modfern Western history.
SunDeep
Banned
Sorry, the wording's a bit dodgy. 'Avoided diversion'? 
But the Carolingian Dynasty's society sounds interesting, almost like the European equivalent to the Japanese shogunate. If it had endured for hat long, might you have the aristocratic knight class developing along the lines of the Samurai?
But the Carolingian Dynasty's society sounds interesting, almost like the European equivalent to the Japanese shogunate. If it had endured for hat long, might you have the aristocratic knight class developing along the lines of the Samurai?Sorry, the wording's a bit dodgy. 'Avoided diversion'?
I believe he means the constant division of the Carolingian empire among the late monarchs sons/grandsons.
Sorry, the wording's a bit dodgy. 'Avoided diversion'?
Sorry, I don't know how to call it. I mean, the Carolingian Dynasty was later broke up to three states, and I want to avoid that.
ERE was rarely the same dynasty for three generations in a row, with military coups and palace revolutions and such
They had very frequent dynastic changes, many quite violent. Institutional continuity is a different thing - the French monarchy had institutional continuity from the Carolingians to 1792, under different dynasties.
The Capets were successors to them, and they lasted that long and are still around, so it would not be impossible to happen. There is a need to get the succession in order, so the eldest gets the throne while the rest gets small domains but stay in succession if the eldest line ends, so we avoid powerful feudal lords and splitting of realms.
It would also be advantageous for the state if a feudal province could not be joined with other provinces into larger entities through inheritance or marriage. Instead, every province should be seen as a one-man position given to an individual for a time, but withdrawn when the person is no longer fit for the duty.
It would also be advantageous for the state if a feudal province could not be joined with other provinces into larger entities through inheritance or marriage. Instead, every province should be seen as a one-man position given to an individual for a time, but withdrawn when the person is no longer fit for the duty.
OTL, all Charlemagne's sons - and Louis the Pious's brothers - died except one.
Repeat this in the next generation by making all, except one, Louis the Pious's sons die - a little ASB but see the Capetian miracle.
Repeat this in the next generation by making all, except one, Louis the Pious's sons die - a little ASB but see the Capetian miracle.
Grey Wolf
Donor
A useful family tree showing male-to-male descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carolingians_descending_from_Charles_Martel
You would need the Vermandois or Lower Lorraine branches to survive long term, which is more likely if they actually have the imperial crown
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Carolingians_descending_from_Charles_Martel
You would need the Vermandois or Lower Lorraine branches to survive long term, which is more likely if they actually have the imperial crown
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Capetian miracle is hardly the same thing : it's about Capetian kings having always at least one male ruler. It didn't prevented at all to have other sons (see apanages).
For having a lasting Carolingian dynasty, you need to prevent the discreditation of Late Carolingians in favour of local rulers (Saxon dynasty, Robertian dynasty).
It's not going to be easy, as many factors were outside their actual reach (Saracen, Vikings, Maygar raids, by exemple).
Having more victories as Saucourt, or Charles the Fat actually fighting Vikings in 887 instead of letting them go (and incidentally, letting all the credit to Odo, a Robertian) would help.
Eventually, Robertians while still powerful may be chased of the election (while still having ATL king of their dynasty), with Carolingians being chosen (It's not as if they didn't have support of their own, in Aquitaine or eastern part of Western Francia).
I don't think it would have lasted up to the XVIIIth century, that said.
First, continuous dynasties are the exception rather than the norm.
Then, while "national" dynasties as Robertians fit a certain desire of having a "national dynasty", Carolingians were more seen and prone to be an "imperial dynasty".
Meaning that they would more easily go for traditional objectives (Taking over Lotharingia, if not claiming part of imperial titles or holdings) : you'd need a drastic change of mentality to make Carolingian act as Robertians/Capetians did, or a big stroke of luck to make them successful at least for Lotharingia.
This would simply increase the odds of defeat, miscontentment, and broken line.
But would the non-division of the Carolingian lands help to ensure the permanency of this dynasty?
That's not going to happen. Carolingian division was issued from too much reasons to be dealt of.
- Traditional frankish division of demesne. It would have happened if Charlemagne died earlier than IOTL, but it happened that he only had one surviving son.
More than one son means either division, or rebellion
Going against that would have been a bit too out of historical context (even if the Church did actually tried to support it, without real gain)
- Different "identities" in Carolingia. Not only peripherical realms (Italy, Saxony, Aquitaine) but even in Francia proper. Eventually, this is going to play.
- Nobility refusal of a strong emperor. As the conquests stopped (and therefore the capacity of the emperor tor edistribute gains as much), Frankish nobility went more wary of its autonomy if not independence.
Hence the revolts or alignement over different claimants, and their institutional gains in the process.
Division of Carolingia would have been a given, even without the economical and climatic crisis.
I know it's awfully late for a reply, but I can't believe I missed this.
They IMHO don't need the Imperial Crown. Being the count of Vermandois and another branch as duke of Lower Lorraine, already helps. Perhaps they could have kept the throne of Lotharingia (northern Francia Media). Sure it was diverse realm, but that doesn't have to be problematic in the medieval era. Furthermore the nobles of Lotharingia were relatively loyal to the Then again the Carolingians were a " 'national' dynasty " for Lotharingia.
Surviving Lotharingian Carolingians would undoubtedly have been very proud of their heritage, but they would also be almost surrounded by powerful neighbours, certainly West and East Francia (and potential successor states).
It might also be helpful, if at the same time Burgundy/Arelat will also survive.
Both Lotharingia and Arelat/Burgundy may end up under imperial suzerainty though.
Anyway ambitions may very well be greater than their means to achieve them.
They IMHO don't need the Imperial Crown. Being the count of Vermandois and another branch as duke of Lower Lorraine, already helps. Perhaps they could have kept the throne of Lotharingia (northern Francia Media). Sure it was diverse realm, but that doesn't have to be problematic in the medieval era. Furthermore the nobles of Lotharingia were relatively loyal to the Then again the Carolingians were a " 'national' dynasty " for Lotharingia.
Surviving Lotharingian Carolingians would undoubtedly have been very proud of their heritage, but they would also be almost surrounded by powerful neighbours, certainly West and East Francia (and potential successor states).
It might also be helpful, if at the same time Burgundy/Arelat will also survive.
Both Lotharingia and Arelat/Burgundy may end up under imperial suzerainty though.
Anyway ambitions may very well be greater than their means to achieve them.
Vermandois Carolingians weren't exactly seen as proper ones (a bit as Capetian Courteney weren't really seen as proper Capetians after a while).
Mostly, they lack the direct ascendency trough Charlemagne and critically Louis (Pepin of Italy not having been a "marking" ruler), and their political role essentially comes from the defense against Norman raids (so, more based on Western and Northern Francia than Lotharingia)
It's really telling that while generally opposed to main Carolingian lines, and allied to competing dynasties (Robertian/Capetians and Ottonians), they never really made a move for the throne in Western Francia even when they were in clearly dominating situation (such as Herbert II, that dominated all North-Eastern France, while keeping Charles III prisoner).
Eventually, they lacked both the "imperial" legitimacy of Late Carolingians, and the "national" legitimacy of WFrancia and EFrancia kingdoms. You can see that trough, for exemple, onomastic : Herbertians didn't choose "Carolingian" names such as Charles or Louis, and sometimes even adopted Robertian (Eudes/Hugues) or Ottonian names.
Technically, Herbertians could take over the Western Frankish throne, trough their relation to Robertians, but I don't think it would have counted as Carolingian. And frankly, given their relative absence of strong support outside their own demesne, I think it would be a short-lived takeover as Bosonids with Raoul.
Mostly, they lack the direct ascendency trough Charlemagne and critically Louis (Pepin of Italy not having been a "marking" ruler), and their political role essentially comes from the defense against Norman raids (so, more based on Western and Northern Francia than Lotharingia)
It's really telling that while generally opposed to main Carolingian lines, and allied to competing dynasties (Robertian/Capetians and Ottonians), they never really made a move for the throne in Western Francia even when they were in clearly dominating situation (such as Herbert II, that dominated all North-Eastern France, while keeping Charles III prisoner).
Eventually, they lacked both the "imperial" legitimacy of Late Carolingians, and the "national" legitimacy of WFrancia and EFrancia kingdoms. You can see that trough, for exemple, onomastic : Herbertians didn't choose "Carolingian" names such as Charles or Louis, and sometimes even adopted Robertian (Eudes/Hugues) or Ottonian names.
Technically, Herbertians could take over the Western Frankish throne, trough their relation to Robertians, but I don't think it would have counted as Carolingian. And frankly, given their relative absence of strong support outside their own demesne, I think it would be a short-lived takeover as Bosonids with Raoul.
Last edited:
Then we're down to Lower Lorraine or when things go slightly better Lotharingia.
Perhaps the Lotharingian nobles elect OTL Louis IV of France as their king; he would have been an infant, when his father died IOTL. IOTL the Lotharingian nobles didn't want a king, which would meddle too much in the affairs of the nobles.
However he might still be inclined to re-gain West Francia, once he's older.
Perhaps the Lotharingian nobles elect OTL Louis IV of France as their king; he would have been an infant, when his father died IOTL. IOTL the Lotharingian nobles didn't want a king, which would meddle too much in the affairs of the nobles.
However he might still be inclined to re-gain West Francia, once he's older.
Wouldn't be much simpler to make Charles III winning the Battle of Soissons?
Giving that Lotharingia definitely escaped a royal power with the king being held prisonner for years by Herbert II of Vermandois, it would allow Carolingians to hold for a time the dual kingship.
Of course, it doesn't mean it would remain this way that long, but it would be more efficient.
Or, if you prefer, a Charles III that while still defeated at Soissons, manages somehow to retain his titles in Lotharingia. But giving the central position, and the relative weaknesses of the kingship, I'm not sure it will really live on for centuries.
But electing a very young children (2 years old, with still good chances to die in infancy), without real ties in Lotharingia, and while his father isn't dead yet...It seems a bit implausible for me.
I'll nuance it a bit, if you allow me : while the lotharingian nobility wasn't that of an enthusiast supporter of Charles III, most of his court and trusted men were lotharingians, and he beneficied from alliance of Conradines.
It's, at least for me, after 923 and the huge death tool at Soissons that Lotharingians nobility became opposed to Carolingians.
But even there, it wasn't really the refusal for a king, critically giving its necessity regarding the legitimacy of honores than the refusal of a strong king.
That's a given : a great deal of Late Carolingians in West Francia, was to get the kingship of both Western Francia and Lotharingia, or at least establishing the latter as a sub-kingdom constitutent of Western Francian kingship (a bit as Aquitaine was).
The main issue being, of course, the reject of many Western Francian principalties of the lotharingians.