AHC/WI: Occitan-, Arpitan-, or Breton-dominated France, and how does it develop?

If you want to push it as late as possible, you're looking at 15th Century - say the siege of Orleans succeeds, Charlie VII is never crowned, the Burgundians don't switch sides and France breaks in the chaos. I doubt it's much of a stretch for an Occitan lord (maybe a pretender to the throne of France) to then seize control of much of the south as England / Burgundy hold (and bicker over) the north.

Unfeasible for them to gain control over all of France, though.
 
I know it's a big POD but do you guys think a surviving Western Roman Empire would make France look more Occitan in general? It is the most Roman part of france in many ways. If the Romans last for longer, would you say the Oil/Oc line could be drawn more to the North?

Also maybe something like the Bretons would have more power if the Romano-Brits some how migrated to Northern France.
 
I know it's a big POD but do you guys think a surviving Western Roman Empire would make France look more Occitan in general? It is the most Roman part of france in many ways. If the Romans last for longer, would you say the Oil/Oc line could be drawn more to the North?
A surviving Roman empire would butterfly away the distinction between northern and southern Gallo-Roman.
OTL, the linguistic distinction was made only around 850.

Also maybe something like the Bretons would have more power if the Romano-Brits some how migrated to Northern France.
Even if half of the Romano Brits migrated (and Bretons were Romano-Brits) they would have been still minoritary.

Population of Britain in 400 : 2 millions.
Population of Gaul in 400 : 10 millions.
 
If you want to push it as late as possible, you're looking at 15th Century - say the siege of Orleans succeeds, Charlie VII is never crowned, the Burgundians don't switch sides and France breaks in the chaos. I doubt it's much of a stretch for an Occitan lord (maybe a pretender to the throne of France) to then seize control of much of the south as England / Burgundy hold (and bicker over) the north.

Half of the demesne of Charles VII was french-speaking. The most populated half.

And half of Occitania was or in England's hands or in Anjou's hands.

Also, you can't just "pretend", critically in feudal system for various reasons (legitimacy, king viewed as support of the whole system, etc.). Furthermore, I doubt any lord would be independent enough, have only men, and critically have enough allies to do that. Or Charles VII managed to get king of France, or Henri VI would have eventually taken all of the country.
 
Geographically, what parts of France are most advantaged? (Arable land, resources, etc.)

Normandy, Bourgogne, Gascony, West, Ile de France, Bourgogne, then Poitou, were the most populated at least for the very late Middle Ages and Modern Era.
Interestingly, it's mainly country of plains and plateau, unlike Occitania as a whole (considering that Gascony is part of it, and that Poitou was up to the XIV century).

662068.jpg
 
A surviving Roman empire would butterfly away the distinction between northern and southern Gallo-Roman.
OTL, the linguistic distinction was made only around 850.

I don't think a surviving Roman empire would necessarily mean linguistic stasis though. Frankish influence would still occur, even if they are made loyal to the Roman state. Imagine if something similar Lex Burgundionum Romana with the Franks to the North, and you would have two entirely different Foederati Kingdoms within the Roman empire. While throughout the rest of Gaul you would have far more Romanized sections where Gallo-roman culture is left in tact.

Even if half of the Romano Brits migrated (and Bretons were Romano-Brits) they would have been still minoritary.

Population of Britain in 400 : 2 millions.
Population of Gaul in 400 : 10 millions.

Then maybe a POD where Constantine III (a romano-brit emperor) some how breaks Gaul away from Rome. Still it's likely that the Huns would end up invading anyways. It could still satisfy the challenge for about 50-60 years.
 
I don't think a surviving Roman empire would necessarily mean linguistic stasis though. Frankish influence would still occur, even if they are made loyal to the Roman state. Imagine if something similar Lex Burgundionum Romana with the Franks to the North, and you would have two entirely different Foederati Kingdoms within the Roman empire. While throughout the rest of Gaul you would have far more Romanized sections where Gallo-roman culture is left in tact.
Statis? No. But it wouldn't be no longer French or Occitan, it would be something else, probably even one romance language for the whole Gaul.

Foederati Kingdoms had a serious tendence to not stay foederati but rival kingdoms. (Furthermore, Franks WERE loyals to the empire OTL, but not at the point to not give a try invading a territory, critically with an WRE who would have to move troops and ressources everywhere to survive)

Then maybe a POD where Constantine III (a romano-brit emperor) some how breaks Gaul away from Rome. Still it's likely that the Huns would end up invading anyways. It could still satisfy the challenge for about 50-60 years.

And it would end as every break away with rome : or being by force retaken, or being invaded by germanic peoples.

Furthermore, there's a reason why Romano-Brittons never tried to make a break-away empire with Gaul : disproportion of forces. If Constantine III ruled Gaul, it would have not taken Romano-Brittons to defend it, but the reverse.

Of course, it would have been simpler to give up Britain for Gaul, as we're talking of exchanging Tijuana for New York regarding the possibilities.

For Brittons, I consider OTL as quite of a Briton-wank already. They had a territory that was the double of their linguistic and cultural region (even triple if you consider High Middle Ages). For more, you need more Brittons, concentrated enough to not be assimilated by the gallo-roman population, and you'll have trouble to do that.

Armorica wasn't particularly rich (not talking of the regular Saxons and Frisian raids) and the land didn't allowed much the concentration of population. More immigrants than OTL would means dispersion of groups, and likely assimilation of theses.
 
Last edited:
Top