That assumes they declare themselves emperors, which I doubt, particularly lacking any legitimation of the move from the eastern roman court.
Last Light of Gaul: the Domain of Soissons endures
- Thread starter Eadric Silvaticus
- Start date
It wouldn't be France if the Gallo Romans are in power. This Gallo Roman state would also be totally unrecognizable as the Romance world would be much less fragmented as well. It would very much a Roman state which means that there would be eventually some impetus to try and unify the Empire together.
True, though given that it was a domain ruled under that group until a potential reconquest, perhaps they do it before they get a chance to, or even to ensure that they won't be a threat to their power? (not unlike Cesarion's assassination under Augustus' orders)
If they acclaimed themselves emperor, there's very little that the Eastern Court could do to stop them.The Eastern Court never launched any expeditions beyond the Mediterranean coastline. And during the 5th century, they haven't bothered to send any armies at all whenever the local Germanic warlord acclaimed a new puppet emperor. A lot of the time, they actually ended up either recognizing the Western puppet emperor eventually or whining and do nothing substantial about it.
Last edited:
There's not really much of a point of taking the Western Crown if you don't control Italy. Prematurely declaring yourself Western Emperor also puts a massive target on your back while harming relations with the East.
You enhance legitimacy with your own people that’s what you will be doing.The title of Magister militum is an insecure one.It does not confer allegiance to you from your subordinates. From Gaul, there is virtually nothing the Eastern Emperor could do to you.
I mean not really. Constantinople holds the Western Imperial regalia plus Syagrius only has control over a fledgling rump state in Northern Gaul. Its extremely presumptuous for him to proclaim himself an Emperor. It wouldn't be taken seriously by contemporaries either. Though stylizing himself as an actual Emperor or even a King though would be much better though and was historically what the Syagrii did to great effect.
Once he has the entirety of Gaul,which appears will be happening pretty soon, Syagrius proclaiming himself emperor would not be too ludicrous.It’s been done before and could be done again.Besides that, what makes an emperor is not a regalia,but what his people believes in,especially the army.The regalia is virtually meaningless.The set in Constantinople didn’t even have any relationship to original emperors and was a relatively recent creation as far as I can tell.
What Roman emperor are you without Italy? The concept extends to the Eastern court.The Gallic Empire for example built a state in Gaul without trying to invade Italy.
Worth noting that the ERE never formally acknowledged the HRE or vice versa - far as they were concerned, they were the real "Roman Empire" and the other side was the "Greek Empire" or "Frankish Empire" respectively (insert Slim Shady joke here). Neither one held Rome - at least not for very long.
The important takeaway is that it was able to function as a state without Italy for more than a decade. So as far as it could be told, legitimacy was not an issue amongst the locals. Domestic opinion is far more important than thet opinion of some faraway empire nobody would have seen in their lifetime. If this empire is strong, chances are that it will either be able to reconquer large parts of the West later on to claim indisputable legitimacy or coerce the other post-Roman states into acknowledging it.
Last edited:
I don't really want to derail this timeline with a debate on the Gallic Empire, but calling it a stable realm with any serious legitimacy is generous. The usurpers in Gaul survived because the emperors had no ability to deal with them, not because they had any real legitimacy. Each time Gallienus fought Posthumus over the decade he beat him and was only unable to clean up because other matters became more pressing. The moment a Roman emperor could actually dedicate their full attention to them, the usurper realm crumbled.
It's not what the eastern court would do to them, it's what they won't do for them. Support of the eastern realm was hugely sought after in the western empire as the 5th century dragged on-that opened the door to their protection, their potential military and financial assistance, and diplomatic and political legitimacy (which also conferred its own kind of insurance from coups, at least theoretically).
There is no reason to deliberately antagonize them.
Other usurpers have fared far worse. Usually, they get killed by their own troops the moment they loses a battle to the legit emperor. The fact that they didn't do something like that and defect back to the rightful emperor suggests that the Gallic government did have support.More importantly, we also getting to the point where the provinces cared more and more about themselves instead of the rest of the empire. This is the period where armies and provinces rebel over having to march and support the rest of the empire.
Syagrius' regime was too far and too unimportant for the Eastern Empire to confer anything other than minor political titles like consul, magister militum etc. Such recognition are mostly irrelevant.If actual Western Emperors can be deposed, there's no doubt a mere magister militum could also be deposed. May as well shore up your own legitimacy by reframing your own state as THE Western Roman Empire as the last actual remaining Roman government in the west. IOTL, many of the barbarian leaders too eventually saw through the East Roman BS and stopped giving them any recognition. Even before that, many Western Roman Emperors were deposed and killed despite the active support of Constantinople.
Last edited:
Considering Constantinople had no qualms sending the Goths to Italy to crush the Italian army and its leader, I doubt it would be different with the Gallo-Romans. The East could either send an army to Italy (if this one is ruled by the so-called Gallic empire) or simply engage in diplomacy with the local powers neighbouring the Gauls (Goths, Burgundians, whoever is in Italy). Constantinople can’t really afford to send the wrong message, no one can simply claim the purple and walk away with it.
On the other end, there is ample room for cooperation between the two, as long as the Gauls realize and accept their place. Really It is not worth it to endanger relations with Constantinople just to claim the imperial title. Lots of rulers during the V century managed to legitimize their power just fine even without the purple:
- All barbarian kings had no problem ruling over their roman population, as long as their rule was framed in a more “roman context”;
- Aegidius never claimed the imperial title, he just took advantage of Gallic enmity towards the Italic aristocracy to cement his power against Ricimer and Severus;
- Ricimer effectively ruled Italy with the titles of Patrician and Magister Militum (and the support of the Italics), both with and without an emperor (on three different occasions);
- Odoacer ruled for a while in Italy under similar circumstances to those of Ricimer, the only difference being he took it one step beyond realizing there was no need to keep up the farce any longer.
And Constantinople also did next to nothing when Ricimer and co. deposed and killed emperors it appointed at will. At various points in time, it was also forced to acknowledge facts on the ground and accept self-proclaimed emperors like Majorian for example as legitimate emperors.
Despite his power, I would not say that the likes of Ricimer ruled effectively. Puppet masters like him always were constantly challenged by alternate sources of power in the form of the emperor. Because they were not theoretically their own boss, their position was much weaker than actual emperors of old who had the army at their beck and call. That's why he had to align himself with the interests of the Italian elite, for without their support, he might end up just like Stilicho or Aetius.
A Gaul unified by a distinctively Roman regime like that of Syagrius should not be confused with non-Roman rulers like Clovis. He would not be a barbarian ruling over Romans, but an actual Roman man ruling over Romans. He would not need to borrow any support from the Eastern Emperor to pretend he is a viceroy to gain the local population's acceptance--which produced diminished return anyway as the 'native Roman' population started to abandon their identities.
This idea that the ERE could just ask whatever power in Hispania or Italy to just attack the Gallic Empire by simply engaging in diplomacy is fairly ludicrous. In the first place, the ERE was able to ask the Ostrogoths to attack Italy because their interests aligned with one another. The ERE was also in close proximity to project influence onto the Ostrogoths. This influence diminishes the further away from the Eastern Mediterranean. If Syagrius and co. are able to unify Gaul, then he would be sitting on a fairly powerful state, not one that could easily be challenged.In the minds of the potentates of Hispania and Italy,many factors would have to be considered before they decided to go to war against the Gallo-Romans--other than the ERE asking them to do it. Another factor is that whoever controls Italy generally has a fairly strained relationship with Constantinople. It would be difficult to imagine them marching for Gaul on behalf of Constantinople and leaving their backs to it. Constantinople would have to spend considerable resources or even send a military force to persuade these potentates to help topple this theoretic Gallic Empire--something it would be unlikely to--given more pressing concerns for the Eastern Empire.
More likely than not, if Syagrius and his successors are able to retake Italy, the Eastern Empire would be forced to acknowledge them as proper Western Roman emperors just like they did with previous upjumped ones.
Last edited:
A very interesting TL! I look forward to seeing where it goes. Balerion had a Syagrius SI that’s sadly on hiatus rn but was also pretty cool. I’m curious to see what reforms Syagrius will make in order to stabilize his realm. Also why is a British prince going to the Visigoths in the first place? You’d think they’d ally with their fellow romans?
I've always understood that to the extent that there was a Soissons, it probably wasn't that different from the Franks on the other "side" so to speak. Realistically the army in Northern Gaul, such as it was, spoke Frankish, fought in a manner indistinguishable from the Franks, and could expect to be buried with grave goods that were more or less similar to what their Frankish counterparts would receive. Since both sides would recognize Latin as a prestige dialect, I just can't imagine that northern gaul by this point would be that different culturally, linguistically, economically, or politically. The Franks aren't going anywhere - the border wasn't overrun it simply melted away as a relevant political concept, replaced by patchworks of military bands.
Edit: my point being that in this cultural context, what's the value of proclaiming oneself emperor? It's far more relevant and important to be a King that can command the loyalty of one's subordinates. And those subordinates are not some hypothetical partisans dying to restore an Empire that's never meaningfully impacted their lives (and likely was distant even for their parents).
Edit: my point being that in this cultural context, what's the value of proclaiming oneself emperor? It's far more relevant and important to be a King that can command the loyalty of one's subordinates. And those subordinates are not some hypothetical partisans dying to restore an Empire that's never meaningfully impacted their lives (and likely was distant even for their parents).
Last edited: