AHC: Basque dominated Iberia

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.
 
You need pre-Roman POD that you could get Basque-dominant Iberia or even Iberia where speak something relative language of Basque. I don't see that being possible during or after Roman Era. But it is impossible to say, what kind of world there would be.
 
Maybe a Manchu type thing but in Spain? Maybe it's the Basque who drive the Moors out not Castile, Aragon and Portugal?
 

Germaniac

Donor
The Basques reached their height under Sancho III. If there is a way for his successors to continue his expansion into Muslim territory its possible that the Basques will at least form the elite of a conquered christian Spain. By the way he was king round 1000, so a lot of changes are in store.
 
Incredibly hard to reach.

Even admitting that "Basques" heres mean any Aquitain tribe or confederation (as ancient Basques, or Vascones were only part of these), you're pretty much stuck :contrary to their neighbours they seems to have less political cohesion than their immediate neighbour : Celtiberians, Iberians, etc, and possibly less wealthy was they are stuck on a while fertile, out of great roads land.

I suppose it's technically possible, without Celtic takeover of half of Hispania, to end with a more important proto-Basque region and while still divided, could be what could fit best the OP.

Medieval Basque hegemony over Iberia is impossible, as they would hispanize themselves far more quickly than the contrary : OTL Basque influence over Castillan is probably what would you have eventually.
 
It probably has to start from a strong Gascony that still has a significant Basque population, ruled by an assimilated Basque or native. 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. 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.
 
It probably has to start from a strong Gascony that still has a significant Basque population, ruled by an assimilated Basque or native.
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,
I wouldn't say it would be strong and in any way able to assimilate the population more than the OTL influence on western Occitan speeches, comparable to the one exerced on Castillan.

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.
Colonization, feudalisation and cultural "overrun" are anachronic in the VIIIth/IXth centuries.
Countries conquered by Peppinids and Carolingians generally kept their local population, while the elites were mixed (and under their direction) to a new frankish nobility.

Feudalisation itself can't be considered to begin during Charlemagne's reign that is still pretty much tied on vassality and personal alliegance.
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).

* Maybe as in "It may have happen, but we don't have any clue on it and even less material that could led us to think it was a lasting feature".

Culturally, it's harder to discern one way or another due to the lack of texts. Still, not only the maintain but flourishment of both Gascon and Basques cultures during Carolingian times should indicated that nothing really change there (and critically not the local elites, that seems to have been still of mixed Roman-Basque, maybe Frankish, lines).

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.
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.

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.

That said, a stronger Aquitaine wouldn't mean a Basque hegemony at all : in fact, more or less considered as a late foedus, Vasconia could be more acculturated (as more important for Aquitains that it ever was for Franks) than IOTL.

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).
 
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).

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? Either way if the POD has to be earlier than these rebellions then it's not really relevant.

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.

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, but you're right in that it would hardly stop the Muslim tide on the Catalan side of the Pyrenees. As for the second... you are right, the Peppinids decisively crushed Aquitaine, and without a very large distraction for the Franks or some convenient deaths it's difficult to see.


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 still am not convinced that Frankish colonization would not have occurred under these circumstances; it's not as if the Basques were quiescent about being ruled by foreign princes. 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, which presumably still has some strong Basque component though I'd expect Roman and Frankish to be better established.

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.

On a separate note I have a very funny feeling that we can do some crazy things involving Vikings...
 
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?

While it's had to have borders for the Merovingian Vasconia (mostly because they were moving depending on the balance of power*), I never saw Toulouse being considered as part of it or Fezensac mentioned(mostly because the place didn't became relevant before the late Middle Ages).

You can consider, even if it's more of an indication than an historical reality, that the core of Vasconia was more or less the metropolitain province of Eauze.

*Furthermore, there's a tendency to confuse Aquitaine and Vasconia borders at the end of VIIth century that doesn't help at all.

For Loup II, I don't really get your point : unless you're basing yourself on Charte d'Alaon that is...ah...dubious at best, there's no real indication that he really rebelled against Franks. In fact, we don't know much about his power or if it extended south of Gascony.

Or maybe you're thinking of Hunald's rebellion? It doesn't seem that Loup participated to it, and he's mentioned only when he handed over the duke.

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.

Of course the balance of power would make Vascons/Gascons in a uncomfortable position, but they still keep a large autonomy (as long they don't try to overthrow frankish overlordship), as an "associated people". Eventually more or less the same than with Aquitains safe the fact there's no longer a "personal union" but a suzerainty.

Either way if the POD has to be earlier than these rebellions then it's not really relevant.
Your point was the PoD had to be before Carolingin times because of an alleged de-vasconisation and frankish colonisation.
Then my point was to show that the region wasn't subject to either : I stand my case regarding relevance.

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,
Not during the first raids, at least.
Mostly because the western pyrenean passes are less "obvious" than eastern, that they were badly controlled by whoever controlled Spain.
And the control of Odo over Vasconia seems to have been limited : granted he was the duke in title, but Vascons seems to have enjoyed a large autonomy (while being divided and united only along Aquitain authority).

I still am not convinced that Frankish colonization would not have occurred under these circumstances;
Again, colonisation is an anachronism there.

You had no such policy of massive migration of frankish population in peripherical provinces, no replacement of elites (while you had a frankish elite that mixed itself with local and dominating it at least for a time), no economical or productive exploitation of the said regions.

The only exemple I can think of a displacement of population is in Northern-Western Aquitaine and it's more supposed than actually proven.
The fact Vascons counts and dukes actually dominate lands they didn't 50 years before the conquest of Aquitaine could even show an at least partial alliance with Franks (as when they gave to Peppin Waifre that was their duke)

it's not as if the Basques were quiescent about being ruled by foreign princes.
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.

We could see the abandon of Waifre to Peppin as a tentative of divided Vascons lords to obtain more autonomy and to prevent being took over entierly by Franks (even there, the took over would have been limited, and you'll probably have ended with a Duke of Gascony eventually, as the Kingdom of Aquitaine was (re)-established).

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,
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.

which presumably still has some strong Basque component though I'd expect Roman and Frankish to be better established.
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.

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.
No, apart from Franciacum, I don't really see a clear frankish establishment in the region that was tied to an actual royal policy.

Gascony "particularism" seems to appear earlier, and princes as Lupus and Seguin are probably as much roman than basques.

On a separate note I have a very funny feeling that we can do some crazy things involving Vikings...
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.
 
It seems obvious that my knowledge of this period is quite out of date.

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.
I'm wondering then what the centers of gravity of an expanded Basque Gascony are if we include Pamplona and exclude Bordeaux. Dax? Bayonne?

The only exemple I can think of a displacement of population is in Northern-Western Aquitaine and it's more supposed than actually proven.

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.

it's not as if the Basques were quiescent about being ruled by foreign princes.
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.
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.

Either way, it seems you've given this much more thought and have a much better grasp on things than I do. If anyone's still following this thread LSCatilina wins the prize.
 
I'm wondering then what the centers of gravity of an expanded Basque Gascony are if we include Pamplona and exclude Bordeaux. Dax? Bayonne?
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.

It would mean a smaller Wasconia (probably not reaching Garonne at all), but more Basque.

Then you need a political unity : Basques chiefs were able to chose a prince or duke (understand there a war leader with political abilities), but as other peoples this one didn't had an hegemonical power. I don't really see how to obtain it in these conditions, but let's admit it's possible.

If they manage to control both citerior and ulterior Vasconia (lands on both side of Pyrénées), then maybe Lapurdum (Bayonne) or Dax indeed, but remember that we're talking of very small cities : it would be more for their position on the roman road joining both regions that for their demographical or economical importance.

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.
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.

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

It's hard to give an actual estimation of Basque and Romance speeches borders for this time : only toponymical and historical clues can gives an approximation (Romance speeches were still used in the places where Basque language was spoken, the latter being a substrate in most of Gascony more than a replacement).
That said, Bordeaux was probably never under Basque cultural influence (that is to be distinguished from Ibero-Aquitain, and even there Bordeaux seems to have been hugely celtized by the IIIrd century).

For any AH scenario, eventually, the distinction between Gascons and Basques is to be clear : Duchy of Vasconia wasn't a king-size Euskal Herria with everyone still speaking the basque language of their ancestors, and lived happily up to the northerners came.
They weren't that much different from others invaders as Goths or Franks and integrated as well eventually to the local population or at the very last, elites.

At one huge difference : the population they ruled on, while romanized, had several common cultural features with them, and had historical maintained ties.
It doesn't mean they were Basques (Basques being only one tribe of Aquitains) or that they were (re)-Basque-ized but that they knew a Basque influence similar to Castillan culture IOTL.
Nobody actually claimed that made medieval Spain a Basque state...well yet, giving the huge tendency to make Banu Qasi islamized Basques 100% pure sugar (I made myself sad :eek:).

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.
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"

Not that you didn't had rebellions, but they weren't "Basques" uprising (for the good reason that Gascons weren't Basques in the first place) but usual stuff for the late Carolingian context, critically in Aquitaine under Pépin I and II.

- The Third Battle of Ronceveaux, that led to the creation of Kingdom of Pampelune may have looked quite as a war between Gascons and Basques : the carolingian army led by Aznar Sanchez (not exactly a frankish name) and Aeblus (a Frank indeed, but count in Gascony) after that Iñigo Arista chased a basque count of Aragon, Aznar Galíndez, installed by Pepin of Aquitaine.

So much for Basque or Gascon unity, and yay for the desintegration of Carolingia.

Other "rebellions" are a bit tricky : either rebelling *with* Pepin I or II against his rivals, or rebelling *against* the same and supporting their rivals. Eventually, it wasn't much different from what happened elsewhere in Francia.

A passing remarque about "bloodbath". Considering that we're talking of small armies that *maybe* included some thousands; that ransom practice was established, that open battlefield battles were rare...It's hard to put a number of course, but bloodbath isn't the most fitting word (unless we're using this word for every war or battle : it's an valid point of view, but I don't think it was what you meant)

If anyone's still following this thread...
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 both :p), it doesn't prevent me to fail at that regularly.
 
Top