France; Marseille-'wank'?

Spin off of the Tapie thread, but also others like the one on Marseille as a Venice-style city-state...

Second city of France - Marseille/Maisilia fascinating, rich in history and perhaps older than Paris/Lutèce. Accusations of neglect and uncaringness come at times thought, born of France's centralisation traditions, probably...

Discussion and dare; 'wank' Marseille in many ways as possible. Make it the first city of France in population maybe, richer maybe than Paris, more influent in some periods, heck, even make it THE center of Governement if possible. Anything so it have at least a playing field and egality with Paris, the Light City.
 
The fact Marsèlha is in an occitan-speaking land would be hard to make it the center of France, politically speaking.
 
Okay. Now, can Marseille's population or economy improved-built on more, then? So, to make a comparaison, to be the Montréal to Québec, Paris.

Also, the fact it is in Occitania could help in a way maybe - a cultural strong center?

Can Paris's centralism be in parts mellowed or butterflied?
 
Okay. Now, can Marseille's population or economy improved-built on more, then? So, to make a comparaison, to be the Montréal to Québec, Paris.

It's kind of already the case. This city is more economically and demographically important than Lyon, have a certain political role as military.
Industrially, it's less prestigious than Lyon, but giving how much it's diversified in these sectors, or with fishing...

No, I can't see how making it more Montreal by comparing it to Quebec.

More populated maybe? That's hard. You'll have to butterfly the Arab invasion of Hispania and Africa to avoid piracy and raids on the coast that depopulated the urban aeras AND to prevent the rise of Paris with a viking invasion razing the city.

And it would likely butterfly a good part of what we consider "France".

Also, the fact it is in Occitania could help in a way maybe - a cultural strong center?
Mmm...It wasn't really that in the past. The medieval aera of occitan culture gravitated more around Aquitaine/Tolsan/Catalonia. And Marsèlha, if it lived on a provencal countryside, was often quite distinct from it by having its interest of seafare, not lands.

As a Pod, we could have an early crush of Aquitaine, preventing the rise of a prestigious principality AND the maintain of a Provencal-Burgundy kingdom. But...it wouldn't be France either.

So, it's possible, but hard i think.
Can Paris's centralism be in parts mellowed or butterflied?
Maybe. Have Philippe-Auguste and Louis IX being far less sucessful and prevent the acquisition of conquered land on the Angevines and occitan lords by the Capet dynasty OR make them Burgundy-like (as Alphonse de Poitiers having a son and maintaining Tolosa as a Burgundy-like duchy).
France with a bunch of tied but autonomous principalities would have an harder time to impose centralism. ONE Burgundy is manageable, not 3,4...
 
Last edited:

Vitruvius

Donor
More populated maybe? That's hard. You'll have to butterfly the Arab invasion of Hispania and Africa to avoid piracy and raids on the coast that depopulated the urban aeras AND to prevent the rise of Paris with a viking invasion razing the city.

I think that's a big part of it. Not Hispania and Africa so much as the local Saracen presence at Fraxinet. They essentially acted as pirates and really disrupted commerce in southern France and northern Italy. It stunted the development of French Mediterranean coast. And when they were defeated it was by the first Counts of Provence which secured their control of that region for the foreseeable future.

When you compare the Provencal conquest of Fraxinet (975) to what what was happening in the emerging Italian Maritime Republics its easy to see why Marseille didn't emerge as a strong city state in the same fashion. The city was never strong enough to defend itself against the saracens and establish a presence in the western Mediterranean while the Counts of Provence quickly secured control of its hinterland. But because of the legacy of Fraxinet the Provencal centers of power were inland with the counts residing at Aix or Tarascon. Coastal cities never became regional capitals or comital residences yet the Counts retained enough power that cities like Marseille never developed as independent communes like in northern Italy.
 
Hmm... perhaps weaken Carthage, making Massilia the foremost trade nation in the West Mediterranean? I understand that this is before the optimal time by a few centuries :)p) but the earlier, the better for making Marseille more important.
 
Hmm... perhaps weaken Carthage, making Massilia the foremost trade nation in the West Mediterranean? I understand that this is before the optimal time by a few centuries :)p) but the earlier, the better for making Marseille more important.

Well, one of the main theories concerning the "birth" of the cities is it was a Carthaginese colony before being "borrowed" by the greeks. Weakening Carthage could have as a consequence no Massilia at all :)
 
Well, one of the main theories concerning the "birth" of the cities is it was a Carthaginese colony before being "borrowed" by the greeks. Weakening Carthage could have as a consequence no Massilia at all :)

well then, that's something I didn't hear before. Was there archeological findings about it, like traces of some warfare?
 
well then, that's something I didn't hear before. Was there archeological findings about it, like traces of some warfare?

More about ethymology.
If the city is greek since the foundation maybe the place was chosen because of a punic trade center because of some names "Poquerolles Island" could came from "Poeniké" or "Cabbaraca" for Calvaire.
It's not archeologically proven, but not absurd.

The name itself, Massalia, doesn't seem to be greek. But an explanation could be the racin -tslel, "protection" and the "ma" could show an active or an action : "that's protected".

Similar proposition were made for other place, as Monaco.

Again, not certain, not proven (nor disproven) by archeology.
 
It's possible it was only a Phoenician trading post originally, the legendary founding of Massalia states that the original intention was to found an Emporion at the site; that is to say, a trading post and not a full colony.
 
It's possible it was only a Phoenician trading post originally, the legendary founding of Massalia states that the original intention was to found an Emporion at the site; that is to say, a trading post and not a full colony.

The difference between a trading post and a colony in the VII/VI centuries is so tenuous that is almost byzantine to make a difference.
 
Maybe weaken Genoa to throw more W. Med trade towards Marseille. Maybe have Genoa get involved in a long brutal naval war against North African pirates, weakening both even to give Marseille a bit of a boost?
 
Maybe weaken Genoa to throw more W. Med trade towards Marseille. Maybe have Genoa get involved in a long brutal naval war against North African pirates, weakening both even to give Marseille a bit of a boost?

Even a boost wouldn't make the town being more populated than Paris, which was a demographic monster only to be comparated with Italian cities at his heigt.

1180 : 25 000 , 1220 : 50 000, 1328 : 200 000.

Marseille, on the other hand...

1330 : 25 000, in the XIII century maybe 15 000?
 
The fact Marsèlha is in an occitan-speaking land would be hard to make it the center of France, politically speaking.
IMHO it should be possible (maybe not easy :D) to avoid the encroachment of northern France, both in political and linguistic terms, and have an effective division of "Francia" along an east-west boundary. This might come out of aresurgent kingdom of Arles (in the HRE or not) or by a more successful Toulouse. In either case I doubt that Marseilles would become the center of this Occitan commonwealth: the city lacks natural defenses,and its population has been always quite limited (IMHO the former is much more significant than the latter).

I think that's a big part of it. Not Hispania and Africa so much as the local Saracen presence at Fraxinet. They essentially acted as pirates and really disrupted commerce in southern France and northern Italy. It stunted the development of French Mediterranean coast. And when they were defeated it was by the first Counts of Provence which secured their control of that region for the foreseeable future.

When you compare the Provencal conquest of Fraxinet (975) to what what was happening in the emerging Italian Maritime Republics its easy to see why Marseille didn't emerge as a strong city state in the same fashion. The city was never strong enough to defend itself against the saracens and establish a presence in the western Mediterranean while the Counts of Provence quickly secured control of its hinterland. But because of the legacy of Fraxinet the Provencal centers of power were inland with the counts residing at Aix or Tarascon. Coastal cities never became regional capitals or comital residences yet the Counts retained enough power that cities like Marseille never developed as independent communes like in northern Italy.

LS Catilina and I discussed why Marseilles never matched the Italian seafaring republics not long ago. The presence of the Saracens was certainly a major obstacle, same as the depopulation of the coastal holdings. However the main reason for the "stunted" growth of Marseilles in the 10th-12th century was quite likely the lack of natural defenses landward. Leaving aside Venice, which had an impassable barrier of marshes protecting her landward, Genoa had the advantage of the Appennines protecting her from the north, as well as the fact that the scarcity of productive land on the ligurian littoral always pre-empted the formation of a strong aristocratic competitor, and Pisa was also protected by its location in a natural bend of the Arno which reduced to a minimum the possibility of being invested from Tuscany. Amalfi - which also lacked natural defenses - was unsurprisingly the first to go. On the eastern shore of the Adriatic, Ragusa was also protected by the mountains, and always managed to protect some form of independence (even if it was a very limited one, given the presence of Venice and the Ottomans).
 
IMHO it should be possible (maybe not easy :D) to avoid the encroachment of northern France, both in political and linguistic terms, and have an effective division of "Francia" along an east-west boundary. This might come out of aresurgent kingdom of Arles (in the HRE or not) or by a more successful Toulouse. In either case I doubt that Marseilles would become the center of this Occitan commonwealth: the city lacks natural defenses,and its population has been always quite limited (IMHO the former is much more significant than the latter).
But Marseille as the center of Occitania is hardly Marseille as center of France.
The region Laon/Paris/Metz is simply too prosperous and too important politically and military to get rid of without an earlier POD.


LS Catilina and I discussed why Marseilles never matched the Italian seafaring republics not long ago. The presence of the Saracens was certainly a major obstacle, same as the depopulation of the coastal holdings. However the main reason for the "stunted" growth of Marseilles in the 10th-12th century was quite likely the lack of natural defenses landward.

This is less damageable in my opinion. After all, hellenic Massalia was an important city-state in the same context. And in late merovingian period, the town seems to have been important, if secondary comparated to Rose/Rhone cities. I mean, the archeological evidences shows a prosper city that decline in the VIII century.

But with the silting-up of Arles, and without both Islamic piracy and the Carolingian raids...A patrician Provence could have protected the city from the countryside, just like in the Antiquity.

The main problem was that : the decline of trade, the destructions made by Charles Martel, the Carolingian civil wars...That forced the nobles and their armies to be more focused on the passes and roads between Italy and Aquitaine, and therefore to focus more on land than sea.

And therefore, for the greater part of MA, the struggles of nobility to maintain their interest in Italy and critically in Aquitaine (with Marseilles being excommunicated by the pope to prefer Tolosa as suzerain) slowed the growth of the city who was still an important harbour.

But the harbour was mainly prosper between the 1000 and 1250, when the nobles weren't that busy with seafare and didn't cared that much to protect a too independent city.

And after that, ravaged by the catalans, by the plague, by the quasi-monopole of Italian cities...

So the city was too secondary for nobles since the 1000, too independent to be kindly protected and not powerful enough to get really independent (the Counts of Barcelona/Provence then the french kings weren't the Kaisers)
 
Well, one of the main theories concerning the "birth" of the cities is it was a Carthaginese colony before being "borrowed" by the greeks. Weakening Carthage could have as a consequence no Massilia at all :)

More about ethymology.
If the city is greek since the foundation maybe the place was chosen because of a punic trade center because of some names "Poquerolles Island" could came from "Poeniké" or "Cabbaraca" for Calvaire.
It's not archeologically proven, but not absurd.

The name itself, Massalia, doesn't seem to be greek. But an explanation could be the racin -tslel, "protection" and the "ma" could show an active or an action : "that's protected".

Similar proposition were made for other place, as Monaco.

Again, not certain, not proven (nor disproven) by archeology.

Huh... I didn't know that. Maybe a joint Carthaginian/Roman collapse (1st Punic war a victory for Carthage, Rome is crushed, and a mercenary revolt shatters Carthage) later on then? But then, of course, there's the issue of Syracuse. Maybe if Syracuse decides to become the leader of Magna Graeca, and ends up shattering itself with incessant warfare after the whole Romano-Carthaginian collapse.

Massilia wouldn't end up building an empire, but I can't think of any contenders for a trade hegemony in the Western Mediterranean, if North Africa, Sicily, and Italy are all massive pileups of brawling chaos.
 
Massalia becomes a centre of Rome in Gaul, and then when they are flushed out, the Franks settle there. You have minimal disturbance to the timeline, but Marseille is in a position of power.
 
Top