WI the Visigoths kept control of Aquitaine from the Franks?

[Collondi]

Let’s say our POD is that the Visigoths win the battle of Vouille. There’s also plenty of PODs a few years before Vouille if you prefer. The overall war ends in a stalemate, and Clovis dies before he can go for round two, leaving his kingdom divided amongst his sons who are temporarily too busy fighting each other to focus on Aquitaine.

How would the Visigothic kingdom develop? The kingdom seems to have been divided, with many nobles disagreeing about what regions should be prioritized, with some caring more about Spain, others wanting to stop Clovis, etc. Would they have remained that way? Could the kingdom of Burgundy have become an ally, or a rival, or would it be conquered? Would Arianism have fared better?

To the north, what about the kingdom of the Franks? Would they continue to be a threat, or would they be too divided? Would the kingdom be less fragmented, since there’s fewer centers of power? How well could they control the lowlands? Despite what chroniclers claim, by this point Clovis has likely already converted to Catholicism or was at least Catholic adjacent. Given that this was probably a political decision to appeal to the Romans (or it could be sincere for all we know, that’s just my opinion), is it possible that with Roman intervention waning Catholicism would lose its appeal and the Franks would revert back to paganism, or Arianism?

In Spain, I’ve heard some historians argue the Visigoths didn’t truly control it until they were forced to flee by Clovis and were just sending expeditionary forces, which I agree with. How much of Spain would be under direct or indirect Visigothic control? Could the Suebi have made a resurgence? Or maybe some local Roman warlord gains power?

If Justinian still invades Ostrogothic Italy, would the Visigoths get involved? Could they have aided Witiges or Totila, perhaps helping the Ostrogothic state survive and achieve victory, stalemate, or a less brutal loss? If so, how is the Ostrogothic kingdom changed by the war? What would relations between the two gothic kingdoms be like? Or if the Romans still win, would the Ostrogoths flee to Aquitaine? Would the Visigoths have a historic claim to Italy and use that as an excuse to invade later on?

I found this helpful summary of the causes and effects of the battle of Vouille, for consideration. https://historum.com/t/vouille-507-reasons-for-the-visigoth-defeat.174619/

Given how important Clovis’s rise is in European history I’m suprised this topic isn’t more discussed. I think it’s a great premise for a TL, for anyone interested (assuming one doesn’t already exist).

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

For one, Alaric II surviving at least allows the Visigoths the chance at stable hereditary rule. His death OTL (and then of Theodoric who hijacked the throne for a while) prompted an unstable elective rule that kept bringing in outsider armies to solve their succession disputes... the last of which ended the Visigoths altogether.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

I think this has been done before, but the discussion was inconclusive.

A big problem is that this is a period of western European history we know very little about.

ITTL, the Franks become by far the most successful of the Germanic successor states. They took Aquitaine from the Visigoths, and absorbed the Alemanni, the Burgundians, and the Bavarians. The East Romans took out the Ostrogoths and Lombards, and the Visigoths were greatly weakened, leaving the Franks without much competition.

Though late medieval France became a great European power without effective control of Aquitaine, it has to be assumed that the Dark Ages Franks without Aquitaine are much weaker, and the Visigoths are much stronger. The East Roman Iberian province is at least butterflied away. The problem is that the Frankish and Visigothic kings also both will change, and we have no idea how they handle the different situation. Charlemagne is probably also butterflied out of existence, and at this point the timeline becomes completely unpredictable.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

If the Visigoths keep Aquitane, given how rich and prosperous Aquitane (and the Occitan region of France overall) was compared to northern France, then I think the Visigoths would have greater revenue, which could potentially reduce the tax burdens the Visigoths may have put on the inhabitants of Iberia. IIRC, the Hispano-Romans were sick and tired of Visigothic taxes by the time the Muslims arrived, which is why so many Hispano-Romans stayed and eagerly payed the jizya tax. If the Visigoths retain Aquitane, they can afford to tax the Hispano-Romans less from time to time, which would substantially increase the loyalty that the Hispano-Romans feel to the Visigoths and decrease the chance that the Umayyads conquer Iberia.

 

[Andristan]

With a Frankish defeat at Vouille, the Franks probably retreat to the Sossions area, the Visigoths move in and run up against the Armoricans/Bretons. If they Franks are defeated and Clovis killed, you could even have a divided kingdom between his kids at best and his kids and their uncles at worst.
I would say that the Burgundians are probably gonna stay allied to the Visigoths, seeing as they were also Arians and Alaric II had just bailed them out against Clovis a few years prior. The Ostrogoths most likely wont move in on an strong gothic kingdom so they might have more Resources to fend off Belisarius. The Gothic wars are all different now, no nearby franks to summon to the aid of the Romans.
Gaul is very different, when the Bretons show up, its gonna be messy(510s-540s), especially if Alaric is busy in Spain.

 

[Collondi]

For one, Alaric II surviving at least allows the Visigoths the chance at stable hereditary rule. His death OTL (and then of Theodoric who hijacked the throne for a while) prompted an unstable elective rule that kept bringing in outsider armies to solve their succession disputes... the last of which ended the Visigoths altogether.

I could see the “elective monarchy” surviving as a ceremonial institution, where everyone knows the kings son will take over but the nobles have to “confirm” it. Maybe they get to vote from among members of the royal dynasty, like Merovingian/Carolingian France.

I think this has been done before, but the discussion was inconclusive.

A big problem is that this is a period of western European history we know very little about.

ITTL, the Franks become by far the most successful of the Germanic successor states. They took Aquitaine from the Visigoths, and absorbed the Alemanni, the Burgundians, and the Bavarians. The East Romans took out the Ostrogoths and Lombards, and the Visigoths were greatly weakened, leaving the Franks without much competition.

Though late medieval France became a great European power without effective control of Aquitaine, it has to be assumed that the Dark Ages Franks without Aquitaine are much weaker, and the Visigoths are much stronger. The East Roman Iberian province is at least butterflied away. The problem is that the Frankish and Visigothic kings also both will change, and we have no idea how they handle the different situation. Charlemagne is probably also butterflied out of existence, and at this point the timeline becomes completely unpredictable.

That’s what makes it worth discussing IMO. It’s kind of like No Rome/No Islam/No mongols discussions where it basically changes everything, though more localized to Western Europe

If the Visigoths keep Aquitane, given how rich and prosperous Aquitane (and the Occitan region of France overall) was compared to northern France, then I think the Visigoths would have greater revenue, which could potentially reduce the tax burdens the Visigoths may have put on the inhabitants of Iberia. IIRC, the Hispano-Romans were sick and tired of Visigothic taxes by the time the Muslims arrived, which is why so many Hispano-Romans stayed and eagerly payed the jizya tax. If the Visigoths retain Aquitane, they can afford to tax the Hispano-Romans less from time to time, which would substantially increase the loyalty that the Hispano-Romans feel to the Visigoths and decrease the chance that the Umayyads conquer Iberia.

True, though OTOH the alt-Visigoths have more frontiers to worry about and Hispania has historically been hard to control due to geography especially when it’s not the center of power, so I don’t know if this would be a net positive on their ability to hold Spain.

With a Frankish defeat at Vouille, the Franks probably retreat to the Sossions area, the Visigoths move in and run up against the Armoricans/Bretons. If they Franks are defeated and Clovis killed, you could even have a divided kingdom between his kids at best and his kids and their uncles at worst.
I would say that the Burgundians are probably gonna stay allied to the Visigoths, seeing as they were also Arians and Alaric II had just bailed them out against Clovis a few years prior. The Ostrogoths most likely wont move in on an strong gothic kingdom so they might have more Resources to fend off Belisarius. The Gothic wars are all different now, no nearby franks to summon to the aid of the Romans.
Gaul is very different, when the Bretons show up, its gonna be messy(510s-540s), especially if Alaric is busy in Spain.

Now that I think about it, should we even be taking for granted that the Frankish kingdom can survive Clovis’s death? Would the region split and return to the chaotic state it was in before Clovis, at least temporarily? Regardless, between the Bretons and the Visigoths and the succession system I think we can assume the Franks are going to have a rough time for at least the next few decades.

With the burgundians I agree with you, though I will add that they supported the Franks, probably because they saw the Visigoths as a greater threat. But with the Franks defeated they really have no choice but to be allies with the Visigoths. I suppose they could appeal to the Romans for help, but I doubt the Romans would.

With the Ostrogoths having more help than OTL in the Gothic wars, would the war still have dragged on for over a decade? Witiges was a pretty competent commander, I’m sure he could do a lot with some extra support, especially given the Romans had a chain of command issue. But could he, for example, have taken back Rome? Even in the best case scenario I don’t think he could have fully reconquered the Naples region, not in the short term at least, because he doesn’t have the navy to blockade during a siege. And what would Justinian’s response be? Send even more men to Italy, or cut his losses and sue for peace? Assuming the Ostrogoths survive the war, I imagine the Theodoric-era situation would be reversed, with the Visigoths dominating the Ostrogoths

I guess with regards to Spain, northern Gaul, and Italy a lot depends on where Visigothic priorities lie. Each region has its own advantages, challenges, and problems if left neglected for too long.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

The situation in Italy most likely doesn't change.

Though maps of Justinian's conquests show the East Romans controlling the entire peninsula at his death, and then losing the interior to the Lombards a decade later, the East Romans probably never effectively controlled more than Rome, Ravenna, Sicily, Calabria, and the coastal cities plus the corridor linking Rome and Ravenna. There is not much indication that they took much more than that from the Ostrogoths, other than finally defeating the Gothic field armies, and they relied on the Lombards to do that. I think the Lombards got their Italian territories because that was how the East Romans paid them, keeping the important cities for themselves. Frankish intervention created a mess without really helping either side. I think its hard, absent the plague or a major East Roman defeat, to get a result for the Italian wars other than the OTL split.

East Roman Spain doesn't happen. But though this was an interesting thing that probably greatly affected the people living there at the time, it seems to have had no long term effect on anything.

What will change is a stronger Visigothic kingdom, centered in southwestern France, and probably different royal lines for both the Franks and the Visigoths. This has the potential to butterfly away the Frankish empire, the nation of France mainly arising in what is now northeastern France, and Arab Andulasia. But its not clear what happens since we don't know what the prominent personalities ITTL will be like. We don't know if the Visigoths will try to expand north, have a stronger grip on Spain, or just fall apart.

 

[Collondi]

The situation in Italy most likely doesn't change.

Though maps of Justinian's conquests show the East Romans controlling the entire peninsula at his death, and then losing the interior to the Lombards a decade later, the East Romans probably never effectively controlled more than Rome, Ravenna, Sicily, Calabria, and the coastal cities plus the corridor linking Rome and Ravenna. There is not much indication that they took much more than that from the Ostrogoths, other than finally defeating the Gothic field armies, and they relied on the Lombards to do that. I think the Lombards got their Italian territories because that was how the East Romans paid them, keeping the important cities for themselves. Frankish intervention created a mess without really helping either side. I think its hard, absent the plague or a major East Roman defeat, to get a result for the Italian wars other than the OTL split.

I don’t agree that doubling one side’s resources and manpower in a war of attrition wouldn’t change the war much. For one, Belisarius was very nearly forced to sue for peace before capturing Ravenna OTL. With the Gothic reinforcements hampering the Roman advance, it’s entirely likely the original proposed treaty splitting Italy along the Po river goes through. That either sets the Ostrogoths up for a more powerful counterattack, or since they weren’t betrayed they may decide not to counterattack yet, meaning the war ends far earlier. Even if somehow the war goes entirely as OTL, Visigothic interaction in Italy afterwards would still take on a completely different form than Frankish interaction OTL.

East Roman Spain doesn't happen. But though this was an interesting thing that probably greatly affected the people living there at the time, it seems to have had no long term effect on anything.

Why do you think that? If anything, the reduced or lack of Visigothic presence in the area would make it even more attractive, even if the “conquest” is just establishing autonomous rule over the various post-Roman cities in the region. I think Byzantine Spainia would last a lot longer, and probably split off into its own state centuries down the line like other Byzantine provinces in the western med.

What will change is a stronger Visigothic kingdom, centered in southwestern France, and probably different royal lines for both the Franks and the Visigoths. This has the potential to butterfly away the Frankish empire, the nation of France mainly arising in what is now northeastern France, and Arab Andulasia. But its not clear what happens since we don't know what the prominent personalities ITTL will be like. We don't know if the Visigoths will try to expand north, have a stronger grip on Spain, or just fall apart.

We don’t know, but we can speculate and make educated guesses about what they’re most likely to do, since that’s the point of alternate history.

In general there really wasn’t any indication the Visigoths intended to actually rule in Spain until it became a convenient place to flee to. I think they’d control OTL Catalonia, maybe some more territory, but in the rest of Spain the benefit just isn’t worth the cost, especially when it took decades IOTL to establish real power. It’d just be a convenient place to raid

I think they’d be more inclined to expand north. If the Franks are faced with a common threat, would they still be as divided? Maybe each branch of the family forms a sort of confederation to unite against the Visigoths if needed but otherwise be independent.

I don’t think the Visigoths would collapse. Like the Franks, they’re a powerful kingdom in a region with a power vacuum, but unlike the Franks they have a single monarch

 

[ramones1986]

Given that Alaric II survived and has two sons (the younger one [Amalaric] was legitimate, the older [Gesalec] otherwise), it could have a long-term effects on the succession to the Visigothic throne.

 

[Collondi]

Given that Alaric II survived and has two sons (the younger one [Amalaric] was legitimate, the older [Gesalec] otherwise), it could have a long-term effects on the succession to the Visigothic throne.

Yeah, Amalaric actually has time to grow up and potentially be a good king, assuming Gesalic or someone else doesn’t get involved. He is also connected to the Ostrogothic Amals, is it possible he could inherit both thrones?

 

[kasumigenx]

Goodbye to Langues D'Oil in that scenario.

 

[Andristan]

Procopius tells us that the Arborychi were valiant defenders of the catholic faith and the Gallo-Romans equally sovereign with the Franks, which can be placed in the 520s-530s, we know the Franks didnt appoint three bishops of Tours(Leo in 527, Francilio in 528-529, and Iniuriosus in 529- 546, no friend of the Merovingians), though they did the five guys( 508 to 527) before him, and the Visigoths kidnapped the previous two (Volusianus and Verus in the 490s), which could mean that a 3rd power controlled Tours, and probably Armorica, its diocese, from sometime in the late 520s till around 544, when we have record of Lothar moving in and demanding taxes.

If the Franks are defeated in 507, then the Visigoths continue to move north but we could definitely see a Breton empire that expands through northern France but collapses as soon as its leader dies into squabbling petty chiefs, though i think in these circumstances, Brittany would be much larger. maybe instead of Frankish Neustria we could see a massive Brittany. So we would have a Frankish Austrasia, a Breton Sossions/Armorica/Neustria and a Visigothic Aquitaine

 

[kasumigenx]

Procopius tells us that the Arborychi were valiant defenders of the catholic faith and the Gallo-Romans equally sovereign with the Franks, which can be placed in the 520s-530s, we know the Franks didnt appoint three bishops of Tours(Leo in 527, Francilio in 528-529, and Iniuriosus in 529- 546, no friend of the Merovingians), though they did the five guys( 508 to 527) before him, and the Visigoths kidnapped the previous two (Volusianus and Verus in the 490s), which could mean that a 3rd power controlled Tours, and probably Armorica, its diocese, from sometime in the late 520s till around 544, when we have record of Lothar moving in and demanding taxes.

If the Franks are defeated in 507, then the Visigoths continue to move north but we could definitely see a Breton empire that expands through northern France but collapses as soon as its leader dies into squabbling petty chiefs, though i think in these circumstances, Brittany would be much larger. maybe instead of Frankish Neustria we could see a massive Brittany. So we would have a Frankish Austrasia, a Breton Sossions/Armorica/Neustria and a Visigothic Aquitaine

If they remain nicene/chalcedonian and latin rite the Bretons will Latinize.

 

[Andristan]

I dont see why, they did not in OTL, where they remained catholic but retained their Bretonness, though if we look at the "letter to Lovocatus and Catihernus" from Bishop Licinius of Tours plus two others from around Gaul in the early 500s, it seems that the Bretons (or Britons at this point, we cannnot tell by the names of the two priests) were celebrating the sacraments at the house of the local Breton chief, which seems to have used access to the church as a method of maintaining their culture and enforcing the social hierarchy apart from the local Gallo-Romans.

 

[kasumigenx]

I dont see why, they did not in OTL, where they remained catholic but retained their Bretonness, though if we look at the "letter to Lovocatus and Catihernus" from Bishop Licinius of Tours plus two others from around Gaul in the early 500s, it seems that the Bretons (or Britons at this point, we cannnot tell by the names of the two priests) were celebrating the sacraments at the house of the local Breton chief, which seems to have used access to the church as a method of maintaining their culture and enforcing the social hierarchy apart from the local Gallo-Romans.

Yes, that is because Northern France was still majority Gaulish speaking at that point and the elite were Gallo Romans, the question is how can we evict the Gallo Roman elite in favor of a Breton elite without changing religious affiliation in Neustria.

 

[Andristan]

Probably the same way the Bretons did in Brittany in OTL. This was not a quick process, in the 580s, when the Franks occupy Vannes for a bit, the local Bishop tells the Frank commander, that the foreign Britons are oppressing us or something like that; my point being that as late as the late 6th century, the Bretons were seen as foreigners by the local Gallo-Roman peasants/local noble types, which does speak against the theory that the Britons in Brittany were refugees who showed up in the 440s, refugees generally dont act like conquerors and colonizers one hundred years later, in that amount of time, you would expect them to have integrated into the local hierarchies, with themselves on top of course. We know that brythonic language speakers were in Gaul from around the 460s, with Riothamus' army being the chief point of evidence, we know they continued to be around as a distinct group by the 480s from a letter of Sidonius Apollinaris, next we have Bishop Licinius's letter to Lovocatus and Catihernus around 511 then in 544 we have the Breton "counts" called kings by their own folk, running around Armorica killing each other in a Diadochi like succession struggle.
Being it back around i could see the northern part of Aquitaine to the Loire valley being a disputed zone between the Bretons and the Visigoths in TTL, with the divided Frankish kingdoms in Austrasia/Belgium/Netherlands/Rhineland struggle with the Burgundians over the course of the 6th century. I would expect the Franks to manage to overwhelm the Burgundians around the time of the Ostrogoth Wars, as a potentially distracting event for the Visigoths who might want to go to the aid of their relatives. Perchance the Briton settlement in Galicia might get expanded and be used to form a 2nd front with the Suebi and the Basques against the Visigoths in Hispania. I could also very easily see the Breton cultural area expanding from Brittany to most of Neustria but not being a unified whole but a bunch of squabbling petty tyrannos whole fight each other but gang up against the heretical Visigoth enemy, the Bretons being in line with the themes from Gildas's De Excidio Britanniae and its view of pagans and heretics.

 

[kasumigenx]

Probably the same way the Bretons did in Brittany in OTL. This was not a quick process, in the 580s, when the Franks occupy Vannes for a bit, the local Bishop tells the Frank commander, that the foreign Britons are oppressing us or something like that; my point being that as late as the late 6th century, the Bretons were seen as foreigners by the local Gallo-Roman peasants/local noble types, which does speak against the theory that the Britons in Brittany were refugees who showed up in the 440s, refugees generally dont act like conquerors and colonizers one hundred years later, in that amount of time, you would expect them to have integrated into the local hierarchies, with themselves on top of course. We know that brythonic language speakers were in Gaul from around the 460s, with Riothamus' army being the chief point of evidence, we know they continued to be around as a distinct group by the 480s from a letter of Sidonius Apollinaris, next we have Bishop Licinius's letter to Lovocatus and Catihernus around 511 then in 544 we have the Breton "counts" called kings by their own folk, running around Armorica killing each other in a Diadochi like succession struggle.
Being it back around i could see the northern part of Aquitaine to the Loire valley being a disputed zone between the Bretons and the Visigoths in TTL, with the divided Frankish kingdoms in Austrasia/Belgium/Netherlands/Rhineland struggle with the Burgundians over the course of the 6th century. I would expect the Franks to manage to overwhelm the Burgundians around the time of the Ostrogoth Wars, as a potentially distracting event for the Visigoths who might want to go to the aid of their relatives. Perchance the Briton settlement in Galicia might get expanded and be used to form a 2nd front with the Suebi and the Basques against the Visigoths in Hispania. I could also very easily see the Breton cultural area expanding from Brittany to most of Neustria but not being a unified whole but a bunch of squabbling petty tyrannos whole fight each other but gang up against the heretical Visigoth enemy, the Bretons being in line with the themes from Gildas's De Excidio Britanniae and its view of pagans and heretics.

Perhaps once the Visigoths convert to Catholicism, Romance could become associated with the Visigoths perhaps the Bretons can persuade the local populace to adopt Brythonic rather than Romance.

 

[Andristan]

Then we could have a Gothic latin hybrid be TTL's langue d'oc

 

[kasumigenx]

Then we could have a Gothic latin hybrid be TTL's langue d'oc

Yes, it is Occitan and Catalan and French ceases to exist here.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

kingdoms in Austrasia/Belgium/Netherlands/Rhineland struggle with the Burgundians over the course of the 6th century. I would expect the Franks to manage to overwhelm the Burgundians around the time of the Ostrogoth Wars,

I doubt it. Even IOTL they only conquered Burgundy in 532, 3 years before the beginning of Ostrogothic Wars and now they're supposed to have it conquered only five years later, suffering such catastrophical losses? Not to mention, that Franks here lack the advantage in resources of manpower they OTL had, they have also more enemies than Burgundians - from the north they're attacked by Norse pirates, from the east there is Thuringian kingdom which is not particularly friendly to Franks and what is the alternative to Thuringians is probably worse for Franks than Thuringians themselves (I doubt divided Franks would be able to conquer Thuringians in the style they did IOTL), but more about it later. I'd rather bet that Burgundians would be able to absorb Franks around 590-600, because the fate of Clovis won't change the arrival of Pannonian Avars and even IOTL they made attempts to raid Thuringia and fought with Sigebert I, so with such clusterfuck as is described in that post, stopping them would be even harder to, thus I believe that they would conquer Thuringia in 560-570, prompting the vawe of refugees to flee west (not all of them, but considerable amount) and I think for them serving Burgundians would be better alternative than serving Franks, Bavaria also would be over with no Franks to protect them from Avars, I would think that they will share fate of Gepids - most of elites murdered by Avars, significant portion of common people and surviving elites fleeing west and rest being assimilated by Slavs (Avars themselves, while militarily competent, were not extremely numerous and often their expansion enabled Slavic tribes to take the land destroyed by them and spread Slavic language there), tho with such amount of Germanic pagan refugees which would most likely not convert to Catholicism but to Arianism, court religion of Burgundians, Burgundian kingdom would maintain it's Germanic character (made easier by Arian religion) and would mostly speak something similar to OTL Dutch, with Romance language (probably similar to OTL Provencal) spoken mostly in farthest south, and most of what became OTL Germany would be predominantly Slavic (even IOTL there was significant Slavic settlement in Bavaria which was not assimiliated overnight - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria_Slavica).