A Reunited Rome

[Cuivienen]

On Christmas Day, 800 CE, Emperor Charlemagne of the Frankish Empire was crowned Roman Emperor. At the time, Empress Irene ruled the Byzantine Empire. During the next two years before Irene was deposed by the powerful Byzantine patricians in favor of one of their own (Irene having been born a poor streetgirl), the Emperor and Empress came very close to a marriage agreement uniting the Byzantine and Frankish Empires (the Emperor Charlemagne's fifth wife having died in 800 CE). What would have happened had Irene and Charlemagne successfully united the two lands? They were two of the greatest rulers in the early Middle Ages -- the reunited Roman Empire could very well have held together. Any thoughts?

 

[Jason The King]

cuivienen, a clever topic for an NES alternate history, yes? .

 

[Xen]

I call the re-united rome in that one

anyway, historically, its not at likelyl to have held together; the two empires were too spilt by faith to be reunited, and the pope would have hardley been pleased witht he situation, as it threatened his power base... which woudl lead to all sort sof trouble

 

[Adso de Fimnu]

Byzantium and the Frankish empire would've split within a generation or two. There was nothing there to keep them together, even if they had been united under one ruler. Differences (of religion, language, political system, etc.) would be too great.

 

[stormbind]

I do not understand the interest in these alternative-history scenarios.

The world in which we live was created by collapsed super-powers. It doesn't really matter if Irene and Charlemagne had reunited the lands or not, as long as their empire collapsed again later.

 

[Amenhotep7]

@stormbind

I think it's intriguing. It's how our lives could have been. What would our lives had been like if the Chinese had discovered the world in the 15th Century? What if France did not go to war with Prussia in 1870?

History is no straight path, and it could have easily taken another course...

 

[Cataphrak]

Byzantium and the Frankish empire would've split within a generation or two. There was nothing there to keep them together, even if they had been united under one ruler. Differences (of religion, language, political system, etc.) would be too great.

of course if the empire had been united enough then the franks would take the byzantine libraries and learned ness for granted and the byzantines the frankish knights... with poplular support like that the the religious forces would have had to submit... if they didn't then the plebes would have probably deposed then in a particularly gorey fashion

 

[Cataphrak]

course I'm only 12... how much could i know (hint... as much or more than you)

 

[Xen]

A)the Franks, as well as all western europe, as a general rule until the enlightnement burned libraies of classical knowledge

B)the Byzantine cataphracts were above and beyond those frankish knights in full; it wasnt until the cursades, well afte rthe fall fo the cataphract, and the econoym an dmilitary structure that had supported it were the franksih cavalrymen held in a higher regard; and even then the ottomans, whos early siphai were vritually the same as the catatphrac tideal obviouslyl trumped the westenr knights at almost every oppertunity

 

[Verbose]

A)the Franks, as well as all western europe, as a general rule until the enlightnement burned libraies of classical knowledge

Really?!
If that had been the case it would have been forgotten long ago. There wouldn't have been any classical knowledge to revive around say 1750 or so when the enlightenment really got swinging.

Considering your statement, how do you regard the massive translation work of ancient Greek texts carried out in the 12th and 13th centuries, leading up to Thomas Aquinas' "Summa theologiae"?
And what position does the 15th century Italian Renaissance (the revival of the classical heritage according to people like Petrarca) occupy for you?

 

[Cuivienen]

A)the Franks, as well as all western europe, as a general rule until the enlightnement burned libraies of classical knowledge

Not under Charlemagne. Such purges as you refer to didn't start until the days of Lothar and the collapse of the Frankish Empire into Burgundy, France, Germany and Italy. The early Franks burned in the early days (before the fall of Rome) and the later Franks burned, but not under the more enlightened middle rulers (~750-841), especially Charlemagne.

 

[Squonk]

So-called western empire under Charlemagne was illegal pathethic action
However, the idea of unification is intriguing. Probably the union wouldn't last long, but if the separation had been peaceful, perhaps a long-run strategic alliance would have formed; and this would have been extremly important. No Venice major power, no economic decline of Byzantium, no IV crusade, no fall of Byzantines, no Turkey...