Kingdom of Soissons

[Scarecrow]

i think i mentioned it breafly in 'Rise of Iscariotism' thread, but anyway,
after the western roman empire fell in central Gaul there was a roman splinter kingdom centred on Soissons, and was aptly named the Kingdom of Soissons. in 486 it was annexed by the Franks. that is prety much all the info i can find on the elusive kingdom of Soissons, which probalby lasted about 10 years. does anyone have any more info on it, and can anyone see a feasable timeline where they kick the Franks and either conquor them or just survive in Northern France in some form

[LordKalvan]

You should look for Domain of Syagrius (or kingdom of Syagrius).
Syagrius was a Gallo-roman general, who in 464 succeeded to his father Egidius as King of Romans (actually he was the lord of Northern France)

Have a look here:

http://clovis1er.free.fr/486syagrius.htm[/URL]

• the battle of Soissons was not fought by a lot of troops (more or less 30,000, equally divided. I've the impression it might have gon the other way around (then maybe Syagrius absorb the Salic Franks into his kingdom, and creates a dinasty)
• Syagrius asked for help from the Visigoths. In TTL they might grant it (and then absorb both the lands of Syagius and those of Clovis)

Th 5th century should be a treasure trove of ATLs

[Croesus]

I worked up an alt-his on this one a while back, trying to establish a viable post-Western collapse state. The main obstacles I ran up against was the historical stature of Clovis and the problem of having a tired and stretched Gallo-Roman state overcome the vigorous tide of Frankish expansion. In the end I concluded that while Syagrius might defeat Clovis at Soissons his resources would likely be insufficient to deal with any subsequent Frankish attempts, with or without Clovis taking the field. An alternative to the tl had Syagrius victorius and establishing marital ties to the Visigoths (as per LordKalvan's observation) which simply resulted in a Visigoth absorption. Even then I harboured doubts about the permanency of a Visigoth suzerainty in the face of what I felt would be fairly persistent Frankish campaigning, let alone the impending Moslem doom.

Croesus

[Faeelin]

Now that could be interesting; a Gallic state which succumbs before the Muslim tide.

Or, what about an earlier collapse? The Gallic Empire might have done much better than Rome at overcoming the threat from the east.

[LordKalvan]

Originally Posted by Croesus

I worked up an alt-his on this one a while back, trying to establish a viable post-Western collapse state. The main obstacles I ran up against was the historical stature of Clovis and the problem of having a tired and stretched Gallo-Roman state overcome the vigorous tide of Frankish expansion. In the end I concluded that while Syagrius might defeat Clovis at Soissons his resources would likely be insufficient to deal with any subsequent Frankish attempts, with or without Clovis taking the field. An alternative to the tl had Syagrius victorius and establishing marital ties to the Visigoths (as per LordKalvan's observation) which simply resulted in a Visigoth absorption. Even then I harboured doubts about the permanency of a Visigoth suzerainty in the face of what I felt would be fairly persistent Frankish campaigning, let alone the impending Moslem doom.

Croesus

I do agree with the unlikeliness of a viable Gallo-roman state, even with a victory at Soissons. Mind, the Salic franks were still divided into minor kingdom, and a "better" Syagrius might have exploited these differences and conquered them one by one.
You might postulate Syagrius defeating Clovis at Soissons, marrying the daughter of one of the other two kinglets, becoming king (in the German acception: in OTL he was something more similar to a war lord) and establishing a dinasty. As I said, it would be necessary for him to be well above average to succeed in this task. OTOH, if he manages to integrate the Gallo-romans and the Franks, his future becomes much brighter. The Riparian Franks might be absorbed too. I admit that it would not be too different from OTL, but the resulting kingdom would be much more romanized.

[Croesus]

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

Mind, the Salic franks were still divided into minor kingdom, and a "better" Syagrius might have exploited these differences and conquered them one by one.

My main concern with a Syagrian state is that it has to survive the 'piling on' of conquest hungry Germans. It might defeat fractured Salians, even pushing aside any Ripuarians who fancied their chances, but were' still at the period when there's a queue of barbarians waiting for their chance. There are Saxons, Thuringians, even Sueves still to have their turn. They demonstrated their ability to travel and flow around each other that any number of them may overwhelm Syagrius. Methinks the tl would have to reach further back to solidify a Syagrian state on something less transient than a good general and a collection of Romanised Gallic towns/landowners.

Originally Posted by LordKalvan

You might postulate Syagrius defeating Clovis at Soissons, marrying the daughter of one of the other two kinglets, becoming king (in the German acception: in OTL he was something more similar to a war lord) and establishing a dinasty. As I said, it would be necessary for him to be well above average to succeed in this task. OTOH, if he manages to integrate the Gallo-romans and the Franks, his future becomes much brighter. The Riparian Franks might be absorbed too. I admit that it would not be too different from OTL, but the resulting kingdom would be much more romanized.

Well, it's a fair starting point and worth a shot. So we have Syagrius defeat Clovis and triggers off a powerplay within the Salian power clique. He buys some time whilst the Frankish leadership go through some traditional blood-letting and then, in a masterful stroke of brazen diplomacy, marries himself in and proceeds to re-establish order amongst the (probably quite surprised) Salians through some well placed gifts and murders.

He anticipates Clovis' conversion and redistributes landed power into the Salian ruling clique while buttressing Gallo-Romanism into the towns. In a further act of conciliation he adopts the sons of the dead Clovis, and has the two lesser sons murdered, preparing the way for Clothar. At this point, he himself is also murdered, by his redoubtable wife whose hands are as bloody as his, and Clothar takes the throne with a (fairly) united Frankland and a healthy respect for the money and power that flows out of the ecclesiastic/municipal Gallo-Roman power base.

Not pretty, but fairly effective.

Croesus

[LordKalvan]

It's something which would come out from the Niebelungher Ring, rather than from a gallo-roman tradition. However, it might work; and the new kingdom would have much more legitimacy than OTL Frankish kingdom. An early conversion of the Franks also helps.

[Scarecrow]

cheers for the site LordKalvan, now i just need to brush up on my French, unless some kind person could translate it for me?

ok so the (im just going to keep calling them Soissons) Soissons win the battle of Soissons and absorb the Salic Franks. they then absorb the rest of the Franks, basicly in the method described by LordKalvan, with the help of the Visigoths. the peace is an uneasy one, so when the Muslims invade the Soissons take their chance and stab the Visigoths in the back?
or
they fight a war with the Visigoths soon after, but still maintain a stron gallo-roman culture. with superiour tech they hold of the other Germans, so more then teh Anglo Saxons go to England? maybe the Friscans, and the remnat Franks??? without a Frankish empire, how would central Europe shape up? would it just be a strongest wins type of thing, or just a collection of loose pagan states?

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

ok so the (im just going to keep calling them Soissons) Soissons win the battle of Soissons and absorb the Salic Franks. they then absorb the rest of the Franks, basicly in the method described by LordKalvan, with the help of the Visigoths. the peace is an uneasy one, so when the Muslims invade the Soissons take their chance and stab the Visigoths in the back?
or
they fight a war with the Visigoths soon after, but still maintain a stron gallo-roman culture. with superiour tech they hold of the other Germans, so more then teh Anglo Saxons go to England? maybe the Friscans, and the remnat Franks??? without a Frankish empire, how would central Europe shape up? would it just be a strongest wins type of thing, or just a collection of loose pagan states?

Unless you habe contemporary Christianity take a radically different turn (by 500 it is just about barely possible, but almost too late), the Christianisation (or Islamisation, if thigs go pear-shaped for Christendom) of Europe is pretty much a given. As to the Gallo-Roman kingdom, I think it will be a powerful influence in cultural terms, but unless it can integrate the predatory predisposition of the Franks it will not be able to equal the Carolingian state in influence. I would assume the German 'dukedoms' to develop into kingdoms instead, following the familiar model of Gaul, Italy and England. In time, they will become Christian and coalesce into something we would recognise as states. There may or may not be a similar 'eastward push', but without the Carolingian imperial tradition it would be more fragmented and probably less effective. The Catholic-Orthodox frontier may run further west.

France might also eventually reach farther ea. The Romance-Germanic frontier used to be deep in modern France. If a Gallo-Roman state ruled the Ile de France it might be on the Rhine in 900. And eventually, Syagrius' successor state WOULD become big simply because it is sitting in the middle of some of Europe's most fertile and best-positioned land. What kind of Europe would it try to lead, though? No 'feudalism', I'm guessing, and very likely no Roman Law east of the Rhine or north of the Alps. Quite possibly an embryo parliamentary tradition, more elective kingships, and a church subordinate to the state. Possibly a bigger role for chattel slavery.

What about the Vikings?

[Grimm Reaper]

According to the historians, bearing in mind that sources are quite vague for this period, the battle was fought between 20,000 Franks under Clovis and 8,000 men under Syagrius. In reality, 3,000 men(mercenaries of Frankish or associated descent) CHANGED SIDES before the battle began, creating the odds of 5-2 instead of slightly better than 3-2. Despite this numerical advantage, the Franks were reduced to 8,000 men, effectively losing three men for every two Syagrius had to begin with.

There is also some reason to believe Syagrius did not have time to mobilize a portion of his army, from the western districts.

Have Syragrius simply wait for the remainder of his men, or perhaps be more wary of asking his hired mercenaries to fight their own kin. He wins by a narrow margin, and Clovis is killed. The Franks collapse into civil strife and are erased within a century, with Soissons absorbing the territories west of the Rhine. Then, when the Visigoths collapse, and must be saved by the Ostrogoths, it is Soissons which seizes all of southwest France instead of the Franks. From there...

[Faeelin]

I dunno. Is Roman society really viable by this point? I mean, we're dealing with a time after the Empire's fallen. What will make it attractive to barbarians?

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I dunno. Is Roman society really viable by this point? I mean, we're dealing with a time after the Empire's fallen. What will make it attractive to barbarians?

We're not really talking about Roman society, merely a different form of sub-Roman landowner rule by native rather than invader elites. The trappings of Graeco-Roman civilisation are more or less incidental. The difference is going to be once someone begins taking renewed interest in the world that these books *really* describe.

France could be more like Italy.

[MerryPrankster]

I thought the notion of parliamentarism came from the Germanic tradition that the kings ruled only with the consent of their warriors (in cavalry-based armies, that leads to stereoptyical feudalism, but in infantry-heavy countries like Saxon England, a somewhat more democratic/less-feudal order). Why would the establishment of a Gallo-Roman successor state in the West lead to more parliamentarism?

Hmm...on another matter, the Byzantines were the Romans of the East and they gradually became more and more Greek. How will the Soissons state go culturally? The Romanized leadership will be lording it over a lot of Franks, so there will be some cultural mixing, but the East was FAR more Hellenized than the West was Germanized.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

We're not really talking about Roman society, merely a different form of sub-Roman landowner rule by native rather than invader elites. The trappings of Graeco-Roman civilisation are more or less incidental. The difference is going to be once someone begins taking renewed interest in the world that these books *really* describe.

France could be more like Italy.

More like Italy in what way? Certainly the French loved their Roman tradition historically.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

I thought the notion of parliamentarism came from the Germanic tradition that the kings ruled only with the consent of their warriors (in cavalry-based armies, that leads to stereoptyical feudalism, but in infantry-heavy countries like Saxon England, a somewhat more democratic/less-feudal order). Why would the establishment of a Gallo-Roman successor state in the West lead to more parliamentarism?

Weren't the provincial assemblies fairly active in the Late Empire? If so, perhaps they'd become even more important in this world.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

I thought the notion of parliamentarism came from the Germanic tradition that the kings ruled only with the consent of their warriors (in cavalry-based armies, that leads to stereoptyical feudalism, but in infantry-heavy countries like Saxon England, a somewhat more democratic/less-feudal order). Why would the establishment of a Gallo-Roman successor state in the West lead to more parliamentarism?

Because this way, the Carolingian empire gets nixed. They were notorious for their ability to marry their protofeudal system of government to imperial, Roman-derived notions of divinely ordained emperorship. Without them, the royal traditions of the triovbal areas of Germany, and quite likely those of the Germanic kingdoms of Gaul, Spain and Italy will stay less Roman. My best model to guess where that takes them is Anglo-Saxon England or Scandinavia.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

More like Italy in what way? Certainly the French loved their Roman tradition historically.

More like Italy in that there would be more artefacts, a more direct sense of heritage. There would also be a system of government based on rather than around cities, and quite likely a concept of 'politics' distinct from family, village, or tribe.

Whether that is a good thing can be debated.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Because this way, the Carolingian empire gets nixed. They were notorious for their ability to marry their protofeudal system of government to imperial, Roman-derived notions of divinely ordained emperorship. Without them, the royal traditions of the triovbal areas of Germany, and quite likely those of the Germanic kingdoms of Gaul, Spain and Italy will stay less Roman. My best model to guess where that takes them is Anglo-Saxon England or Scandinavia.

Hmm...very good ideas. Thanks Carlton.

[LordKalvan]

if the gallo-roman kingdom survives, and gets stronger by absorbing the Salic franks (and maybe the Riparian too), I would expect a couple of major differences for Gaul:

• OTL Franks were a German population getting slower Romanized. Here it would be the other way around: the German invaders would be absorbed, and in the process would give some major contribution to the kingdom; however the basis for this civilization would be more "Roman". In a way, you might have an equivalence Syagrius=Arthur
• the other major difference would be a kingdom looking more to the south, and the Mediterranean, rather than to the north and East, like the OTL Franks did. This might lead to a completely different development in the Visigothic kingdom. One of the reason brought forward by historians to justify the lightning success of the arab invasion of Spain is that the Visigoth overlords were not "rooted" enough into the ibero-roman populace. A strong gallo-roman kingdom in the Ile de France, looking South, and not North-east, would definitely butt against the Visigoth kingdom. There are many possibilities here: let's assume the Visigoth keep their tradition of internecine fighting. An outstanding gallo-roman king might exploit this infighting, and slowly conquer the visigoths (part by battle, part by plotting, and part by inter-marriage). The final outcome (say around 686 - 200 years have gone from the battle of Soissons) is the presence of an effective Gallic empire from the Ile de France through Aquitaine and Provence down into Spain (possibly not all of Spain: maybe some Visigoth kinglet remains, but they are subordinated to the "empire". The Arab invasions are still 25 years away. Another point worth considering is what happens when Justinian tries to reclaim Spain in 535. The Gallo-romans have had 50 years to consolidate. there are two possibilities here: either they support the Visigoths, or they cut a deal with the Byzantines and Spain is divided. take your pick

I have to insist on one point here: as Pyrenne remarked more than 60 years ago, Charlemagne's empire is just apparently a restoration of the Western empire. In reality, it could not be more different, with his main focus toward Germany and the hinterland of Europe, and his neglect for the Mediterranean.
The gallo-roman empire would be focussed south, would encompass the best agricultural lands of Gaul, with a stronger population basis: who knows where it might have gotten?