The majority of the wealth of the byzantine empire was based on

well, there are many issues that challenge the historian, inducted during charlemagnes reign. for me personally one major incident i would like to see been handled differently is the recognition of papal power, of the constantinian donation and subsequently the elevation of the bishop of rome to an inexpandable coronation factor. the precedent, set by this uncalled for blunder, led to infinite conflict in europe for centuries. secondly i always felt uneasy about the all consuming desire to be, as a germanic frank, recognized as the designated successor to the roman empire and conqueror of the appenine penisula proper; an idea that even the romans, vice versa, thought impossible, and accordingly never tried to cross the rhine in earnest. significant alterations in history, geography and political developments would have been the results for europes future, above all 1200 years of incessant warfare, culminating in the second world war. it is not by accident that the third reich ideology conjured up and implored figureheads like charlemagne as paragons of germanic superiority, although the french very much did the same thing in the first world war, hailing charles as their very own father of the nation. as our present shows: europe is not governable by centralized, absolute means of political power. charles the frank, the great, the unconquerable unificator did not know that.

what would i have done differently ?

probably nothing. just like charlemagne himself was, i am a child of my time and circumstances.

explanation: