What would it take to have Basques dominate most of Iberia. What would this world look like?
Bonus points if other areas (France, italy.) are Basque.
Bonus points if other areas (France, italy.) are Basque.
Actually, it was Gascony that was pretty well integrated into Aquitaine, under "Roman" overlordship. Granted Gascony had a particular rulership (that is hard to say how much it was autonomous from the Dukes of Aquitaine), but as the high medieval equivalent of a foedus,It probably has to start from a strong Gascony that still has a significant Basque population, ruled by an assimilated Basque or native.
Colonization, feudalisation and cultural "overrun" are anachronic in the VIIIth/IXth centuries.The whole area is fragmented and slowly gets colonized and culturally overrun by Franks starting in the 8th century under Charlemagne's strategy of Feudalization.
Such PoD is definitely too late : at this time, the region was ravaged by Arabo-Berber raids, Franks controlled Burgundy and Septimania making the duchy surrounded.Realistically the POD has to be during Pepin the Short's campaign to bring Aquitaine to heel, which leads us into the cliched territory of a de facto independent Aquitaine.
And for fragmentation, Gascony seems to have kept a large distinction from its neighbours (especially the March of Toulouse/Gothia, under Carolingian control), even during the basque rebellions after Charlemagne's death (Seguin/Xemen I and II)
The fragmentation seems to be issued from both feudal fragmentation of southern Gaul (Xth century to XIth) and the local danger of Norse raids (and, maybe* coastal occupation).
If we want to have a surviving Aquitaine, two PoDs may be needed :
- First, no Umayyad conquest of Spain. It would prevent the destabilisation of traditional partners of Aquitains, and of course prevent posterior raids in Southern Gaul (admittedly, it would butterfly away the prestige that Odo gained after Toulouse).
- Then, but less doable, a victory of Rainfroi and Chilperic II against Peppinids/Arnulfids. It would grant a more lasting division of Franks (I doubt it would last more than one generation though, or even ten years) but more importantly, a lasting royal position for Odo.
A more "easier" way would be to divide Aquitaine more importantly, and franco modo between Hatton, Remistan and Hunald with one of them taking Gascony and southern Aquitaine when the other takes the other part, and eventually the "Gascon" one allying himself with Peppinids [It's basically what I planned for EaH].
Gascony would be integrated into Frankish overlordship, but could keep more important political power on a greater zone (but of course, we're talking of Gascony, not exactly what could be considered exactly as Basque).
I understand that, but weren't Toulouse and Fezensac split off from the larger duchy of Vasconia primarily to undermine the power of the independent dukes after the rebellion of Lupo II?
Occitanie said:Hunald II, son of Waifre, try immediatly, since 769, to use [the tensions between Carloman and Charlemagne] launching a revolt apparently limited to Charles' Aquitaine. As he probably hoped for, Carloman refuse for this reason to participe to the expedition led by his brother, reducing significantly forces previously engaged against Waifre.
But Hunald can't count on the necessary support of Gascons. It seems indeed that they obtained a "separate peace" from the rest of Aquitaine, and that they managed to preserve a relative independence.
It is possible indeed that Charles reused Peppin's strategy by dividing the ancient kingdom, using as well on the ambition of some lower noble.
Gascon particularism, apparently irreductible, is indeed incarnated by a "prince" a second Lupus.
Your point was the PoD had to be before Carolingin times because of an alleged de-vasconisation and frankish colonisation.Either way if the POD has to be earlier than these rebellions then it's not really relevant.
Not during the first raids, at least.Very interesting ideas... I'm wondering if the first of your independent Aquitaine PODs could be modified to having Odo stop the Umayyads at Pamplona,
Again, colonisation is an anachronism there.I still am not convinced that Frankish colonization would not have occurred under these circumstances;
Their history during Aquitain, Frankish or Gascon takeover proove otherwise. Remember, in Middle Ages identity isn't a matter of language or race but dynasty, religion and maybe law.it's not as if the Basques were quiescent about being ruled by foreign princes.
As said, I never saw Toulouse being associated with Gascony. The only link I can think of would be an Aquitano-Iberian presence in the region before the IIIrd century BC, hence a possible ethymology for the city.That being said this is a very artful way of both aligning Gascony with the stronger power in the long run and changing the center of gravity from Toulouse to Bordeaux,
In Gascony proper, I'm not sure what remain of Basque influence safe linguistical influence (as in Castillan). Depends on your definition of "strong" : as if a sense of communauty? No.which presumably still has some strong Basque component though I'd expect Roman and Frankish to be better established.
No, apart from Franciacum, I don't really see a clear frankish establishment in the region that was tied to an actual royal policy.Overall though your point about the extent to which Gascony was Basque at these stages is well taken. I was under the strong impression that the hybrid Gascon culture that evolved during that time period resulted from Frankish colonization of the mainly Romano-Basque inhabitants.
Yep. Some guys argued in favour of an historical huge pagan Norse settlement, but even if it's most probably not the case as such(The usual scenario of "Lone brave searcher"), considering the few we know of post-Carolingian Gascony makes it plausible in a limited manner (Christianized, and eventually integrated), and a deeper settlement much possible in alternate history.On a separate note I have a very funny feeling that we can do some crazy things involving Vikings...
I'm wondering then what the centers of gravity of an expanded Basque Gascony are if we include Pamplona and exclude Bordeaux. Dax? Bayonne?As said, I never saw Toulouse being associated with Gascony. The only link I can think of would be an Aquitano-Iberian presence in the region before the IIIrd century BC, hence a possible ethymology for the city.
The gravity of Vasconia was on the piemont of Pyrenees and stand that way even during the late County of Gascony : while Bordeaux was tied to the county of Gascony, it was still considered as distinct.
The only exemple I can think of a displacement of population is in Northern-Western Aquitaine and it's more supposed than actually proven.
I didn't mean to play up the "foreign princes" element, only that there must have been a half-dozen mainly Basque rebellions in the era, though upon reflection this may have simply been because all the local people were Basques and that this was simply the same old early Medieval blood bath.Their history during Aquitain, Frankish or Gascon takeover proove otherwise. Remember, in Middle Ages identity isn't a matter of language or race but dynasty, religion and maybe law.it's not as if the Basques were quiescent about being ruled by foreign princes.
It depends of several factors : first, Basques being distinct from their neighbours. A collapse of Roman Aquitaine and a frankish takeover of what remains could do possibly that.I'm wondering then what the centers of gravity of an expanded Basque Gascony are if we include Pamplona and exclude Bordeaux. Dax? Bayonne?
No, I was referring to the result of Peppin's campaigns in North-Western Aquitaine (not the modern region of Aquitaine, medieval one), aka Poitou, Charente, etc.That's what I was referring to. I bow to your superior knowledge of the period; it seems Bordeaux is already lost to Basque culture in any time period for which can construct an AH scenario.
Idem said:The war would have lasted eight years and hosted nine campaigns, much of them from Northern Aquitaine. In this region, it provoked a depopulation whom most obvious consequences, in the long term, will be repopulation by northerners
Ah, "must have been". No offense meant, but you'll agree it's a convenient way to say "There's no real proof about it, but let's assume it was like this"didn't mean to play up the "foreign princes" element, only that there must have been a half-dozen mainly Basque rebellions in the era, though upon reflection this may have simply been because all the local people were Basques and that this was simply the same old early Medieval blood bath.
It's not really about winning the prize, but trying to fill the Original Post and/or help it the best I can (that is not nearly enough. I would prefer that in some obscure WI or AHC I wouldn't be one of the few to answer them) : and depsite havng a relative better grasp on the era and regions concerned (compared to the average AH.com member, that is. I won't stand against an expert) thanks to studies and personal interest (Eagles and Hawks is basically the result of bothIf anyone's still following this thread...