What if: Unified Western/Central Europe

[civver_764]

Let's say that the Treaty of Verdun never happens, and the Frankish Empire/HRE that was amassed under Charlemegne remains unified for quite awhile. Would this effect things significantly, or would Europe just run as normal and have the Empire break up at a later date? Would the HRE take it upon itself to conquer more land? Maybe try to invade Iberia and free it from Islam. How would their relationship with the Byzantines hold?

I'm interested to see what you guys think. I probably know a lot less about this time period than you guys do, so you probably have a much better idea of what would happen.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, allow me to fetch my way-back machine and my butterfly effect negator, and we'll take a look.

 

[Squonk]

that's not Central Europe.

 

[North King]

my butterfly effect negator

Please stop treating this as though it were a proven phenomenon.

And even if it were, it would bring nothing to the discussion of this subject. In fact, I'm quite sure you only brought it up because you are on a silly crusade against "what if" scenarios.

 

[Mathalamus]

im pretty sure it would break up anyway, pesky nationalism.

the Byzantines would not approve as there should be only one Roman Emperor. and they got dibs on it.

 

[Lord Baal]

im pretty sure it would break up anyway, pesky nationalism.

the Byzantines would not approve as there should be only one Roman Emperor. and they got dibs on it.

Nationalism is a modern construct, and Byzantium couldn't do jack to stop Charlemagne forming the Empire, how would they break it up?

 

[Mathalamus]

it would break up in time. the Holy Roman Empire was little more than United city states and some large provinces. the Byzantines could exploit it.

 

[Lord Baal]

it would break up in time. the Holy Roman Empire was little more than United city states and some large provinces. the Byzantines could exploit it.

Except that we're not talking about the Holy Roman Empire, but a continuation of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire. The only way this is possible is if the Carolingians start having only the one son or change their inheritance law so as not to split their lands between their sons. Either way, you have a force that, while not equal to Byzantium, certainly rivals it for power, and is nothing like the Holy Roman Empire which succeeded the breakup of the Frankish Empire in real life.

Also, you may have noticed that the Holy Roman Empire actually survived a good 350 years after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Why exactly Byzantium would break up the Carolingian Empire after their treaty with Charlemagne, recognising him and his successors as Emperors of the West, is beyond me. Why do you think they'd exploit it, on the off chance that they actually could?

After all, Byzantium certainly had more pressing concerns on their borders than the Carolingians, who also had nothing as concerning to them as Byzantium did. The biggest threat the Carolingians faced were Viking depredations, and Charlemagne was building a fleet to take care of that problem. Presumably had his Empire survived, that fleet would have been completed and the Norse raids would have been far less troublesome than in OTL.

Also, your characterisation of the Holy Roman Empire is wrong. In its early days it was actually much closer to a legitimate empire with a centralised authority than what it later became.

 

[Mathalamus]

well i don't like the idea of disunited Christians bickering at each other while Byzantium has to do nearly all the work undermining Muslim strength..its just disgraceful.

 

[holy king]

well i don't like the idea of disunited Christians bickering at each other while Byzantium has to do nearly all the work undermining Muslim strength..its just disgraceful.

lolwut?

 

[Lord Baal]

lolwut?

Seconded. The Byzantines spent as much time bickering amongst themselves as the Western Europeans, as did the Muslims. Sharing a religion doesn't mean you're all on the same side. Also, since the West was Catholic and Byzantium Orthodox, there already existed vast religious differences anyway. As for being "disunited [sic]," in this timeline the West will have been united, by Charlemagne and his descendants.

 

[Dachs]

I personally think it'd have been extremely lulzy for the marriage proposal between Eirene Sarantapechaina and Charlemagne to actually somehow go through, if only for the truly mind-boggling legal and cultural and political and military ramifications that I can't even begin to imagine. Too bad the idea never really had much of a chance.

 

[Phrossack]

Sharing a religion doesn't mean you're all on the same side. Also, since the West was Catholic and Byzantium Orthodox, there already existed vast religious differences anyway.

Had the Schism happened yet?

 

[Dachs]

Not the Great One, but there were plenty of religious differences and temporary schisms during the centuries leading up to the break in 1056 (which was in its own way only semi-final, what with the Council of Lyon and the Uniate Church). Before Eirene's tenure, there had been a major east-west dispute due to the imposition of the first episode of Iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire. (She had ended it back in the 780s.) The Patriarch of Constantinople Photios would get himself involved in a temporary schism in the late ninth century, and there'd be another one over the Tetragamia of Leon VI.

So, no schism (IIRC) but plenty of disputes bubbling to the surface every so often.

 

[Lord Baal]

Not the Great One, but there were plenty of religious differences and temporary schisms during the centuries leading up to the break in 1056 (which was in its own way only semi-final, what with the Council of Lyon and the Uniate Church). Before Eirene's tenure, there had been a major east-west dispute due to the imposition of the first episode of Iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire. (She had ended it back in the 780s.) The Patriarch of Constantinople Photios would get himself involved in a temporary schism in the late ninth century, and there'd be another one over the Tetragamia of Leon VI.

So, no schism (IIRC) but plenty of disputes bubbling to the surface every so often.

Exactly. There were vast differences existing between Christianity in the East and West for many years before the Great Schism. While there was no official Orthodox-Catholic divide yet, it was well on its way.

 

[Dachs]

Vast isn't really the way to characterize it. Doctrinal differences existed, like the filioque thing and the unleavened bread thing, but they weren't huge or insurmountable as compared with other divisive issues that had been solved in the preceding centuries.

 

[Lord Baal]

Vast isn't really the way to characterize it. Doctrinal differences existed, like the filioque thing and the unleavened bread thing, but they weren't huge or insurmountable as compared with other divisive issues that had been solved in the preceding centuries.

Point taken.

 

[Yui108]

I think we would have seen a slower rate of world progress, with less competing states in Europe.

 

[warpus]

My guess (and I'm an armchair armchair historian at best) is that the surviving Frankish kingdom would focus on the Muslims in Iberia and the Papal states in Italy, leaving more room for expansion of the newly arrived Slavs & Magyars in the east (most notably the Moravians, but later also the Poles)

Europe has always had a balance of power between powerful states. With one giant state in the west, you'd need something powerful in the east to counter it. The Kievan Rus would have been overran by the Mongorians eventually anyway, Muscovy doesn't enter the picture until a bit later, so that kinda leaves the various Slavic tribes, the Magyars, the Bulgarians, and Byzantines.

From what I remember the Byzantines kicked Bulgarian ass eventually, but then fell apart for various reasons I'm not quite clear about. Would Hungary emerge as a long lasting power? Poland? Somebody else? Am I incorrect about assuming that the Franks would focus on the south and west, as opposed to the east - like the Germans did under the HRE? (did they really focus on the east, anyway? I know that they displaced slavic tribes and pushed east)

 

[Lord Baal]

Charlemagne was focusing on the East, specifically Northeast, but that was abandoned when his descendants began fighting among themselves. He also began the temporal power of the Popes by his donation of what became the Papal States. I foresee the Carolingian focus being originally on German expansion, before targetting the Iberians and maybe the Anglo-Saxons.

As to the East, bashing up against the Carolingian Empire would likely lead to the creation of states by the Slavs and other migratory groups at an early time than occurred historically. With no room to expand, they'll consolidate their power in a smaller area.