Roman rump state

It's quite unconvincing, to say the least : most sieges in Vth century Gaul were generally open field battles ending up with cities opening their walls to the victor.. That Syagrius opted for not remaining in a city (especially as his loyalties might be judged not that firm) when Gundobald is said, later in the text, to be uncomfortable being so due to logistical matters, doesn't strikes me as a strong evidence about his political power.


It's really a sur-interpretation of not a sentence, but part of it : while Syagrius did "not put off" a fight against Franks as he was not afraid, according Gregory, he quickly changed his mind at the defeat of his army : since there is no mention of reinforcements from other regions or men (as Gregory points Clovis had or expected), the only information we have was that Syagrius that ruled from Soissons (a former imperial arsenal) had this army and that's it.
That it was evenly matched (or not) can't be found or implied in the original text.


Again, this is a sur-interpretation IMO : Clovis as the leader of the Roman army of Belgica was certainly gathering it (including other foedi, on which Merovingian seems to have some ascendent). We do know, by other documents, that Clovis did have the military command of this region, something we don't have for Syagrius and is not attestable from the text.
With this kind of wild guessing, we could as well imply that Goths had a smaller army than Franks because they were afraid of Franks as Grégory puts it.


It's possible, although not mentioned in the text which would be weird coming from Grégory which tries pretty much to put Clovis in the best light possible without outright lying : Chararic is literally said to have waited for the victor, and that's it.
But even an alliance doesn't imply at the latest a form of regional dominance from Syagrius, even less in Belgica.


It's not what appear from the text at all : Gregory stress the relative easiness of Syagrius being sent back to Clovis in chains, when Franks couldn't have been yet a threat to Goths.


That's a good question : there's no clear answer. My take on this was that the judicial power of Clovis over Franks was clearly established and acknowledged, but as a Barbarian regulus not yet acknowledged by Gallo-Roman nobility wholly before his conversion, he might not had the legal right to execute or punish Syagrius.
Nothing attested in the text, of course; although the proclamation of Clovis as honorary consul and "glorious king" in Orléans might echo this change of status.


Gregory generally follows a chronological narrative there, and he gives in the text some markers for this. "Meanwhile a lot of churches were plundered of his armies" and a bishop ask that a rich object be given back to him, Clovis asking him to follow him to Soissons. Either Gregory completely changes his style at this point, either we assume that the plundering of Soissons lasted for years, either it's in the right chronological order and the execution of Syagrius happened roughly at the same time than Clovis' conquest of the region.
As for why Gregory doesn't hesitate to put Clovis in a bad light : his work was essentially a didactic history for the grandsons of Clovis, hoping to point why a Christian conduct is preferable for a ruler, with a contrast with Clovis' attitude before and even after his conversion : trying to lying would have weakened his objective, if not conscience.


If we take in account what follows, that in the tenth year of his reign Clovis took Tongres, it most probably took place before 491. At this point, any reason why it should have happened later than how Gregory tells us how it happened seems a bit moot.


The use of the plural may simply hints as several local rulers. I do not disagree that Syagrius might have enjoyed some sort of ascendency over other Gallo-Romance dux and leaders, but there is simply nothing hinting at that specifically.


In 476? It could as well be Sidonius Appolinaris which beneficied from strong ties with senatorial elites in Italy.Again, I really don't think it's the case myself, but with this kind of meager sources only, any claim can be made.


It's not because they controlled the region that local Gallo-Roman nobility ceased to be a thing : if anything, the Gondovald's revolt one century later does points at its dynamism and political activity.


Mostly because it's the only name we got in Northern Gaul, which is not the same than an actual mention or knowledge there was no one else : at this point we could argue that southern Britain was unified because we only have an handful of names succeeding each other.
More seriously, that Gregory specifically mentions Syagrius and no one else in Northern Gaul certainly points that he might have beneficied from a special ascendent in the region, probably out of his familial ties and power in the region. And that Chilperic does supports eventually Odoacer's while Syagrius would not is a good explanation as for the break of the alliance tied with Aegidius in the 460's.

It's quite possible than defeating Syagrius really helped Clovis to enforce his rule over Saxons and Alans of the north-western shores : but it's not clear how quickly or nt Clovis did so. One of the few names we got outside the Frankish feodus and its extension in Northern Gaul is in Trier with the count Arbogast. He was not under Chilpéric or Clovis' dominance originally as far as it can be told, but it was eventually part of the Frankish kingdom in the VIth without any indication how and when. Similarily, the Frankish expansion west of Seine and north of Loire isn't really well attested: Gregory simply doesn't mention anything besides the takeover of Soissons itself.
For all we know, after the Battle of Déols, Armorican region was let to itself between remaining Gallo-Romance leadership, remaining Bretons, Saxons and Alans : the attested Frankish presence and projection beyond their foedus is a valid explanation to a quick but gradual expansion in Northern Gaul, more than the conquest of an non-attested Gallo-Roman polity from Brittany to Rhine.


There's at least one logical step that got passed by there : somebody minted coins -> Syagrius maintained administration where they were found. Maybe there's more to it, but I don't have the book right now : I'll try finding it.


I'd want to mention that Clovis doesn't seem to have taken most of Northern Gaul after his victory against Syagrius : Soissons, obviously,

See, this is why I love late antiquity, it’s very generally a confused and source-light period where we are left to piece it together from the words of priests and token historians that are passed down to us.

In all likeliness, you are probably correct. I’d need to do some more research on the topic to continue the debate, at risk of derailing the discussion here. Anyways, back to your original response to my comment, what effect would receding Visigothic power in Gaul have due to a defeat at Déols? You’d have Roman and British armies operating in tandem to drive out the Visigoths. Could such a victory strengthen Julius Nepos’ position back in Italy if he claims responsibility for the victory?
 
just shooting ideas:
Justinian leveled the entire Italian countryside during his Renovatio Imperii, so if you wanted a western Rump State just have it in Italy between 550's and the early 1000's
Would be interesting If Roman administration somehow manage to act Independent from the Byzantines in Italy and developed an own government system that withstands other competitors in Italy in the early Middle Ages. Would be interesting if higher Latin keeps being official language in governance into the Middle Ages. A Roman rump state could be a monarchy but a nobility Republic could be interesting aswell.
 
Last edited:
See, this is why I love late antiquity, it’s very generally a confused and source-light period where we are left to piece it together from the words of priests and token historians that are passed down to us.
That being said, if Gregory isn't particularily accurate ("Aegidius was killed". How? Who did it? Nope, just "he died", thanks a lot Greg, that was helpful) he's generally trustworthy. When he says Syagrius was "rex", there was certainly something that warranted this title as far as he was concerned, for instance (I think it might well be a marker of dominance, if not direct, of Syagrius in part of northern Gaul, or as it was proposed a tentative to counter Odoacer's claims. There's certainly a reason, even if we have trouble getting which one).
Note that Late Ancient historians are more or less coming from the same mold : generally trustworthy up to a point (systematically double-guessing or "reinterpretating" is far too post-modernist for my tastes there) while a bit too vague. At some point, tough, you had more and more characters as Pseudo-Fredegars and Bede that, while scholars and not outright lying, vastly re-intepreted their own history.

Anyways, back to your original response to my comment, what effect would receding Visigothic power in Gaul have due to a defeat at Déols? You’d have Roman and British armies operating in tandem to drive out the Visigoths. Could such a victory strengthen Julius Nepos’ position back in Italy if he claims responsibility for the victory?
In fact, having Paul and Syagrius essentially sharing the lead in Northern Gaul, and not splitting the alliance with Chilpéric (the idea that Chilperic might have opposed Paul is mostly coming from Gregory's succinct style, and doesn't make this much sense), it's essentially IMO a continuation of the 460's situation with Britto-Romans, Gallo-Romans and Franks forming a supple ensemble that would be imperially-sanctioned.
@galileo-034 postulate that such a defeat could have lead to a scenario where Gothic expansion in Gaul and Spain (at the benefit of Suevi, altough an Hispano-Roman ensemble is likely too IMO)is efficiently broken for a while, maybe up to civil war. At the very least it means Auvergne remains under Gallo-Roman control longer than IOTL as well as the whole of Loire basin. So basically, Majorian's management of Gaul surviving. Burgondians may benefit from this to increase its political and territorial ties with Gallo-Roman aristocracy, notably strong IOTL (including the Syagrii family, whom one of representents was influential in their court).
The big winner ITTL is Anthemius, tough : Ricimer's policy in Gaul is in ruins and his allies defeated; maybe up to the point he might be dealt with and suffering from sharpened iron poisoning; possibly making WRE definitely sattelited by Constantinople.

Maybe some Romanized Berber elites could pull it of.
Historically, we really went really close of a Romano-Berber ensemble in Africa that might have "pulled a Merovingia" so to speak without Justinian heavy-handed approach, also known as "JUSTINIAN SMASH".
 
I'm still bought on the idea that it would have to be the Roman peoples of Italy that should form a rump state, not some Berber-Gothic Romanized elites. Perhaps Neapolitan culture doesn't drift away from the old Roman-Italian culture?
Personal Opinion:
The best "West Rome Rump State", as well as the most effective way for one to be formed would be to be a state that breaks away from the Byzantines sometime, perhaps after the threat of the Franks, or at least before Arabic landings in Sicily and Malta.

I don't remember who said this, but someone posted earlier on this thread that Venice in its earlier years essentially were a west Rome rump state. I could see
A combined Venetian-Naples-Sicily state forming, breaking off from the Byzantines, and being able to withstand Arab invasions in the south. Plus then you could have them be in rivalry with the Papal State, quite possibly feuding with them over control of Rome (for obvious reasons).

I know this isn't a map thread, but posting visuals usually helps me to explain both to myself and to the others on here my ideas.
upload_2018-8-18_14-5-8.png

Essentially I'd predict a schism in the Byzantine empire, leading to it dividing into east and west once more. However, because the region of Italy is still pretty worthless at this time, it shouldn't make them too powerful. Eventually I'd see them losing lands to the Lombards and the Papacy, and they'd use most of the military trying to prevent the Umayyads, and later Abbasids, from landing in Malta and Sicily.

Government:
Monarchy for the most part, but personally I'd prefer to see it devolve into a merchant republic, much like Venice's.

This idea seems kinda cheap, as if I just combined Sicily, Naples, and Venice, but the only other thing I could see (In Italy) would be the Papacy becoming a western roman state, and basically being the same as in OTL.
 
This might count as more of a “Western empire survives” kinda thing more than a rump state but what if Majorian’s reconquest of the western empire is successful and he retakes North Africa and rules for a good number of years. He reforms the army and the empire in general so that they can hold onto Italy, dalmatia, Africa and maybe a small part of southern Gaul. I don’t think Spain and Gaul could be held for more than a few decades but perhaps with a more competent army it could hold the rest?
 
Last edited:
In fact, it wouldn't survive on its own very long : I don't want to derail the thread and it could be discussed in the earlier one but WRE at this point was to dependent to remain a distinct polity from ERE if it managed to fend off Barbarian inner expansionism. The best outcome (as what could happen with Anthemius getting the upper hand on Ricimer) would be WRE being absorbated by Constantinople and some largely complex ensembles outside western foedi (such as discussed above Northern Gaul) being in fact very largely autonomous from this reunified Romania, at least in a first time.
In a way, funnily enough, we could thus have Roman rump states in the parts of western Romania that wouldn't be taken by foederati (northern and central Gaul, Britain, Tarraconensis, etc.) while Roman Empire still being a thing in Central and Eastern Romania.
 
Maybe we could see a Roman state form in Britain
Well, maybe a form of Britto-Roman high-kinship indeed. With time, could look like an equivalent to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as how stability is involved.
It wouldn't be as much significantly Roman , particularly comparing it to what existed or would exist in the mainland, in the sense of preservation of roman institutional and societal structure because these essentially disappeared by the Vth century and wouldn't a post-imperial state to quickly emerge (to say nothing of a late imperial state, of course)

But, if we preserve enough late-imperial state features in Gaul, a re-romanisation process could appear trough commercial and political exchange especially in a TL where Britto-Romans in Northern Gaul are still an active part of the aforementioned maintained Britto-Gallo-Frankish alliance after the 470's.
 
Last edited:
Top