Contradicts Gregory on Syagrius
Gregory wrote on this quite a time after, and only gives some lines to it, and only some tiny parts to Clovis' reign as a whole.
He's know, for example, to shortening events in order to point our the general lines : the campaigns in Gaul are always said to happen in a year, but this is generally contradicted by other sources. There's no real reason to think it happened otherwise in northern Gaul for the sake of being northern Gaul.
As for Jordanes, there what he said.
Euric, king of the Visigoths, perceived the frequent change of Roman Emperors and desired to hold Gaul by his own right.
The Emperor Anthemius heard of it and asked the Brittons for aid.
Their King Riotimus came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Bituriges by the way of Ocean, and was received as he disembarked from his ships.
Eurich, king of the Visigoths, came against them with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riothamus, king of the Brittons, before the Romans could join him.
So when he had lost a great part of his army, he fled with all the men he could gather together, and came to the Burgundians, a neighboring tribe then allied to the Roman
First, I'll like to point out that Riothamus came from Brittania for Jordanes.
Then, Rigo-tamos, is more of a title, basically meaning "high king". At this point, we have a powerful character coming from Britain and holding the hell out of a prestigious position.
So, he have someone with a impressive title on Romano-Brittons, having ties with Romans, and ruling in both side of the Channel.
The other contemporary chronicles mention one name that could fit it. Ambrosius Aurelianus.
Either you have two distinct great leaders living in the same aera, ruling over similar populations, but never mentioned in the same time.
Either, there's a strong possibility for them to be the same.
I'll concede that Jordanes isn't that trustworthy, essentially as he search to point out Goths are a people with history alike with romans (using Old Testament and Eneid parallels at such hands) but we're on the non mythical and historiographical part there, so I tend to be less suspicious.
Basically, a critical reading of sources is needed there. (Or at this point, we can all agree Franks are Troyans
)
Gildas on Aurelianus Ambrosius.
Exactly how? I admit I'm far less familiar with Gildas, and that I can be wrong a lot, but what I found doesn't strikes me as contradictory.
[Britto-Romans] took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a modest man, who of all the Roman nation was then alone in the confusion of this troubled period by chance left alive.
His parents, who for their merit were adorned with the purple, had been slain in these same broils, and now his progeny in these our days, although shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors, provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory.[/QUOTE]
A Britto-Roman lord, with ties with Roman nobility, and battleing invaders.
EDIT : Re-reading my last post, I indeed really poorly put it. My bad.
What I wanted to say was : Aurelius Ambroisius is more often identified with the presence on Gaul as well than on Britain.
Syagrius ruled from Soissons; I won't speculate on how large a territory, but it shouldn't have been too tiny since the outcome of his war with Clovis wasn't a foregone conclusion (other Frankish rulers stayed out of it because they didn't know who would win).
As for no help to Clovis : Ragnachar, king of Cambrai, did helped him in this campaign(Gregory).
As for Syagrius ruling from Soissons, that's a huge hypothesis basing on nothing, not even Gregory.
Ægidius died, letting a son named Syagrius
A wall of text later.
In the fifth year of his reign, Syagrius, king of Romans and son of Aegidius, was in the city of Soissons, whom Aegidius took once
And that's about it.
There's absolutly no mention of a territory. Nada. Syagrius ruled a city, and maybe the land around it, as a
comes would have done.
It is telling that Clovis doesn't seems to take control of Orléans in the wake of Syagrius' defeat, but 10 years. It's possible that a good chunk of Northern Gaul wasn't neither into Syagrius' hand or Clovis before some date.
In fact, it's even possible that Syagrius more or less usurped the power there,
Edward James brillantly
pointed out several clues.
It is indeed known by contemporary sources, that Childeric had the imperium over
Belgica Secunda.
You can see there that the provinces goes quite far and includes Soissons (It is also telling that, at the death of Clovis, the part trusted to Clotaire spouse the whole Belgica Secunda as well, including Soissons that was his main residence.).
At that's the least Childeric could have gathered, it's not improbable given his intervention in Gaul against Goths, Saxons and Alains, that he was trusted (or trusted himself) with more. (Gregory, but it's unknown at which point he have to be confident, said that Franks influence in Gaul was important enough during his reign)
It's not even clear if Childeric was an ally, an ennemy or alternativly both of Egidius. It's possible that Soissons was at this point, a capture of war. There's simply not enough evidence about grasping the limit between Gallo-Roman and Frankish influences (material culture doesn't help at all : both are extremly similar, and are divided thanks to what we know about the conquest of Gaul. Talk about circular reasoning).
After all Arbogast was a Frankish comes of Gallo-Roman eastern Gaul.
Does this totally disproove the existance of a or more gallo-roman entities in North-Western Gaul, with Syagrius having some form of dominance over (past a local one)? No.
Aegidius is after all mentioned in eastern roman chronicles, as an important leader. (But nothing is said on his son) but alternativly we know of a strong possibility about Egidius having relied on Frankish troops.
The whole hypothesis of "Soissons Demesne" covering all of Northern Gaul is build on really tiny evidence, and a lot of baseless assumptions. The most simple honesty would be to not present it as an obvious fact.
The reverse theory isn't totally proven as well, but does have the merit to search actual evidence, by actual critical reading and analysis of sources.
I agree that the title "King of the Romans" doesn't feel right. Gregory probably didn't know the actual title, so he called him a king because he did what kings do (exercised supreme civil and military command) and said "of the Romans" because Romans were the dominant group.
The biggest problem I've with your theory is that Gregory was a Roman of Auvergne himself, let alone being a bishop (a political and intellectual elite).
Having him not knowing about the roman titulature or presence would be...surprising.
It's probable that he called Syagrius such because Syagrius didn't had a title of its own, at least a legitimate title given by Rome. He wasn't a patrice (or a legit one), a consul, a duke (given he led a really composite army), doesn't seems to have held Soissons from a legit authority...
He gave him whatever title could fit on face of the political emptiness (maybe to discredit him as well, concious of the contradiction?). And the modern association between king and kingdom being obviously tied to each other made the rest.
This, kids, is how you create states out of nowhere
Syagrius fled to Visigothic territory after the losing battle against Clovis. If that's the reason for considering him a Visigoth client, it's not much to go on.
Would it be only fleeing to Visigothic court would be enough. It's not as he hadn't choice : Bretons, Burgondians, etc.
The problem is that Burgondians were very about legitimacy (as Franks were, would it be at their benefit
). Syagrius was, legally, nothing.
Breton seems to have supported him on the other hand, so fleeing westwards would have make sense as well (critically when Armoricains managed to hold Clovis)
Considering this, and that after the Battle of Déols, Goths didn't advanced in northern Gaul (whereas Euric was on a conquering spree in Aquitaine), it would be only normal to speculate on an agreement between Gallo-Romans and Britto-Romans, that given their respective power, would imply a dominant/dominee relationship.
There's other clues, such as the presence of southern Gallo-Romans in the Vth in the Loire basin and estuary : Namatii, Nonechii; or the reject of local bishopry that's hard to explain against a catholic roman if it wasn't about some agreement with an arian king that struggled with the catholic aquitain clergy.
So while you don't have one safe proof there, the whole net of clues is at least strongly implying the existance of such relationship.