Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-4923787-20130202175501/@comment-4923787-20130606234844

Really? On the Charlemagne article on Wiki, it says that Arechis was the only duke who refused to submit.

I know, which is why I suggested neutrality. If he remained neutral, could the Lombards remain strong and take Latium and the Pentapolis? To save face in the eyes of Europe, and most importantly, France, the Lombards would restrict the Pope's power to the OTL Vatican, possibly?

But after the conquest of the Lombards, could Charlemagne split the territories of the Lombards between him and the Duchy of Rome / Pope? Say have up to the Po and Taro Papal / Roman? Since they could become stronger, and perhaps there'd be conflict between the Duke of Rome and the Pope, could they eventually extend control over the south? Could the Papal States be able to contest the title of HRE during the infighting?

Also, I thought the PS were a part of the HRE at times? Much more autonomous than other states, mind.

I meant nipping the Turks in the bud. If they can hold onto Anatolia and go through a resurgence, they should be fine until the early modern era.

All I really want is for more frequent unifications to occur, or at the very least have India unified at the time before India becomes British. I really don't want a British India in this TL.

Are you sure the Chalukyas, Vijayanagara, Gurjara-Pratharis. couldn't unite it? Could someone unite the Rajputs?