Anyway, I was writing a response to an actual ongoing thread of discussion here, before the deliberate malicious derailing, so I'll get back to that. People who actually want to discuss the subject instead of yabbering on how much they hate the actual topic of this thread-- feel free to participate in getting back on topic.
A thing I have come to mull over, in these turns of civilisations, is that the eighth and ninth centuries present a somewhat unique moment which really impacted how the West would turn out.
As has been stated, Charlemagne is the founder king of a new (ish) Europe.
Yes, it is a time of a great pivot. The formation of a High Culture has been likened to the process of forming a disrinct statue out of a great piece of stone. The art of sculpture, after all, is "removing that which should not be there".
Charlemagne put the great slab of stone in place, and carved out the rough shape of the thing. It defined the contours of the future. And he did this, naturally, in reaction to the world in which he found himself. Had that world been different in some significant way, the critical -- foundational -- moment of the West would presumably be different, also.
Of course (and this is what the short-sighted fail to really understand), the course of civilisational history would not be different. If anything, the "person" walking on that road would be different. We'd be
another West, perhaps unrecognisable in many ways, but still traversing the same cycle of history.
Yet even in his own time he brushes up against the remnant of an older Europe (one that came before even the Romans), and as I understand he worried about those strange pagans in their dragon headed longships. Not too long after he dies of course, the Viking incursions become ever larger and more vicious with more than a few young kingdoms diminished by them or outright destroyed.
Of course the Northmen eventually become part of this new Christian European sphere, but the impact this last hurrah of old pagan Europe had shook the foundations of the world. Had the Vikings never set sail in their longships, how different would the world be?
In many ways, Charlemagne's course of action was shaped by the Frankish struggles against (and victory over) the Frisians and Saxons and Thuringians. These, and especially the Saxons, had quite strong ties to Scandinavia. The Saxons were even blood-bound to the Danes, during this time. Their alliance was very robust.
In essence, Frisians were always rather piratical (being not entirely unlike Vikings themselves), and the Saxons were functionally "land-Vikings". Charlemagne defined himself in quelling this threat to the Frankish hegemony, and from there the continuation of this same overall struggle changed its main dimension and became "the Viking period" defined by sea-raids from afar.
Of course, this is pretty hard to change. If the peoples involved aren't such violent anarchic dicks (beause let's face it, they
were), then Charlemagne can far more easily annex the relevant regions. It won't take decades. In fact, it's conceivably completed by the time of his
birth.
Consequence: Charlemagne can focus his efforts on the South, and his Empire takes on a bit more of a "(Western) Roman" shape. It still falls apart later on (early feudalism couldn't effectively sustain an empire of that size), but the lines of division would almost certainly be different. (They shifted ad hoc in OTL.) My suspicion is that you'd get a Germanic (but more thoroughly and peacefully Christianised) North covering the Low Countries and Germany/Austria (and probably a chunk of OTL North-Western France), and a more Romance / Neo-Roman South covering most of France, most or all of Italy, and whatever much of Iberia he could have reconquered thanks to having his time free to spend on that. The reconquista would start very early, and would presumably also be completed much earlier.
In the North, the "magical change" I've suggested here would - by default -- nix the Vikings, too. If the Frisians and Saxons are more interested in commerce than raiding, then so will the Scandinavians be of that bent. (If they are
not, then the Frisians and Saxons can't
afford to be less aggressive.) Which implies that the Germanic North is more peaceful, more connected, more inclined towards a Hansa-like trade network, and almost certainly set to be entirely Christianised (and peacefully so!) centuries ahead of schedule.
That's super interesting. I have no idea what the POD could be, but it's fascinating.
At the same time, what
@Poe said about England and France is very accurate. England would be tied into the Germanic trade network, and wouldn't be easily centralised. it would be a collection of small states. Indeed, all of Germanic Europe would pretty much be "HRE-meets-Super-Hansa". France, meanwhile, would be less central to the Southern realm than some might imagine. Indeed, it would not yet be centralised, and some key incentives for its OTL centralisation would be gone. With France and Italy united under one crown, the symbolic importance of Rome (and its heritage) is more important, too. Paris may only ever be a regional capital, here.
Russia, minus Vikings, might be interesting. Although... Germanic
merchants may end up having a greater influence than Germanic
raiders, tying ATL Russia (or Novgorod/Neugard, at any rate) more closely into that High Culture's sphere. Coversely, "Pontic" Russia might still be more closely tied to the Eastern Roman Empire. That's hard to predict.
...It strikes me that a potential POD would be that Arianism prevails among the Franks, and consequently spreads to the Frisians, Saxons, Thuringians, Scandinavians etc. This would require a POD way back when, meaning you get Alt-Charlemagne by default, but that's workable. The basic gist of the historical process remains the same. Point is: these Northern Europeans are all Arians. (As opposed to
Aryans, which they are not. Lookin' at you, Adolf!) The Germanic peoples generally converted to Arianism with creater ease, so that might make the early conversion plausible.
The South of Europe is still (gonna-be-)Catholic, while the South-East is obviously (gonna-be-)Orthodox. So the result here could easily be a Europe of "three Christianities", divided along political lines that roughly co-incide with the religious ones. There may even be three Emperors. (Alternatively, the 'restored Western Emperor' and the Eastern Emperor might perpetuate the fiction that they are the direct continuation of Rome's dual set-up. And the Northern case of "our own Emperor" is weakest, so they msy profess lip service to the Western one-- you know, on the basis of "w
e promise to always do as he asks, and he promises to never ask".)
The Western civilisation of this world probably defines itself more explicitly as "yeah, we're totaly Rome reborn!" -- but in practice, of course they're not
really. The Germanic part is actually less Roman than in OTL, even as the South of Europe is indeed a bit more Roman. The imperial
idea, however, is more of a direct reconstruction. That my well have political consequences later.
In short: fascinating to speculate, but I find it hard to work out a plausible scenario that really
makes this happen. It's more of a pure thought experiment.
www.nybooks.com
thefederalist.com
