What if Clovis failed to conquer Gaul from the Gallo-Romans, preventing his conquest of the Alemanni and the Visigoths in Aquitaine?

This would leave the Franks probably divided, pagan, and inhabiting the substantially "barbarized" former Roman frontier. While the Franks were Romanized militarily, without significant Gallo-Roman elites to ally with there's little reason to convert to Chalcedonian Christianity in the short and medium term.

In terms of laws, the Franks did not leave the existing Roman administration in place, or at least the extent to which they maintained them was far less than the Visigoths or Burgundians. If the Franks remained pagan or later converted to Arianism, Frankish structures would be significantly more "barbarian" in origin.

How would the kingdoms of the Visigoths, Burgundians, and of Syagrius develop with a much restricted Frankish kingdom? I would assume that the Visigoths thrive much more if they retained their core territory in Aquitaine.

The Saxons and Bretons of Armorica could be significant power brokers in the Kingdom of Syagrius. Moreover, the Gallo-Roman kingdom doesn't seem like it would be long lived. Who conquers it without the expansions of Clovis?

The Frankish conquests were prone to regionalism until the consolidation of the Carolingian era. By contrast, the Visigothic Kingdom and Ostrogothic Kingdoms appear to have had a more centralized nature. Would divisions such as that between Neustria and Austrasia still appear?
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Will answer at length later.
But top of my head - if battle of Soissons goes the other way there (and the Kingdom of Syagrius survives while the Franks stay disunited/weaker), this means no Neustria.
Austrasia = Frankia.
Or most of Austrasia, as parts of it were from Allemania. Which I see as surviving, Thuringia as well, too.
The language border runs further west than today, Frankisch not becoming Française.
Kaartfransvlaanderen.jpg
 

Kaze

Banned
The Visigothic Kingdom in Southern France would probably continue. One of their kings might start looking north to extend his reach.
 
Whether the Kingdom of Soissons can be accurately described as an actual "Kingdom", Northern Gaul still may present a non-Frankish power vacuum. Perhaps the Alemanni, Saxons, and Bretons could have settled in Northern Gaul?
 
Last edited:
What if Clovis failed to conquer Gaul from the Gallo-Romans, preventing his conquest of the Alemanni and the Visigoths in Aquitaine?
A minor detail, but Clovis didn't conquered Alemanni, rather fought back raids from the non-unified Alemanic ensemle and briefly put them within Frankish sphere of influence, before Theodoric re-established the Gothic influence in Rethic Europe.

Now, as it was said there, the Kingdom of Syagrius is an historiographical construction. Of course, Gregory of Tours does mention (really, really briefly) Syagrius as a king in the rough region of Noyon/Soissons/Senlis, and there's little doubt he might have enjoyed a special influence (would it be only trough his prestigious family ties) in northern Gaul outside the region he immediatly controlled (no other leader is mentionned, except Arbogast of Treves that was probably independent of Syagrius) but he was an "unofficial" ruler since years while Clovis was still acknowledged as the "official" ruler of Belgica Secunda (it's even possible that Syagrius took back Soissons, a military arsenal location, from Childeric at some point).

In some geopolitical aspects, the Gallo-Roman situation was close to what existed in post-Imperial Britain, with divided loyalties and local forces having to supply their own defenses. But while in Britain, the military command went to military leaders with if ambiguous clear de facto legitimacies (Ambrosius Aurelianus is a good exemple), in Gaul it remained with clearly identified and, at least from a far, sanctioned individuals : when Syagrius became a rogue ruler after the fall of WRE, Clovis became the onle "official" Roman military ruler in northern Gaul and, from this, the only more or less legal ruler in the region, as were other Romano-Barbarian kings.
Of course, Syagrius certainly didn't see things this way, but several Gallo-Romans may have, like several Gallo-Romans or Hispano-Romans nobles joined Gothic or Burgondian courts (there is nothing indicating that the integration of Gallo-Roman nobility was anything but smoothles under Merovingians).

It goes even beyond that : we know that several Frankish commanders in chief of the WRE (such as Richomer or Abrogast) were tied to the royal families of Franks, probably Merovingians (conidering some ties) in the IVth century, and Childeric seems to have been an integral part of the Britto-Gallo-Franko-Roman continuum (in lack of a better word) that existed in Northern Gaul during a large part of the Vth century, largely autonomous and depending from imperial acknowledgement politically-wise.

Not to say, of course, that Clovis unification of Gaul wasn't a conquest : but military might only represented a part of the takeover.

This would leave the Franks probably divided
Yes...and no. Merovingians, and especially Childeric and Clovis seems to have beneficied from a certain prestige and superiority among the various Frankish kingdoms, maybe due to relations (if remote) with the imperial power since decades. The death of Childeric opened a serious crisis among Franks, but if Clovis had to assert his predominance, it wasn't that problematic. And of course, divided kingship in Romano-Barbarian kingdoms wasn't per se an hinderance (it might have been a growth factor for Merovingians during the VIth-VIIth centuries period, altough we talk about a different kind of division).

Now, I agree that there's nothing really preventing Franks to undergo the same path than Alamans and to fail to assert an unified rulership, especially if another power take the lead in Northern Gaul, but it wouldn't be an obvious development.

Probably not, at least for cisrhenan Franks that were, both trough their centennial relationship with Gallo-Roman potentes and from their relationship with Burgundians and especially Ostrogoths (that were the main hegemony in former WRE) partly christianized (including part of the immediate family of Clovis).
The question remains open, of course, if the conversion would be trough a Nicean or Homean course (but the distinction wasn't that clear, Homeism being a soft arianism without clear dogmatic boundaries) but eventually, Christianisation of Franks is more or less a given.

and inhabiting the substantially "barbarized" former Roman frontier.
How much the former limes was Barbarized is a matter of debate, but the consensus leans trough no more than the rest of Gaul, and in some places, less so due to the maintained presence of Roman army (especially cavalry) : for instance the mosellan region was still harbouring a romance-speaking population up to the classical Middle-Ages.

While the Franks were Romanized militarily, without significant Gallo-Roman elites to ally with there's little reason to convert to Chalcedonian Christianity in the short and medium term.
Thing is, the romanisation of Franks is a complex process, that not only began right as Franks formed as a political ensemble and identity; but this couldn't have happened without their relationship (military, but as well economical and cultural) with Rome in a general sense, and the Gallo-Roman elites in a particular one.
And of course, Franks were made up of various peoples including a growing part of provincial Romans that mantled Frankish identity for political and fiscal reasons (such as the population of Rheims that rioted in the early VIth, because they didn't wanted to pay taxes, arguing they were Franks).

In terms of laws, the Franks did not leave the existing Roman administration in place
This is batantly wrong, I'm afraid. Can I advise you the excellent Servir l'Etat Barbare en Gaule Franque by Bruno Dumézil?
Not that the administrative situation didn't changed, of course, but Merovingian administration is essentially a late imperial one, especially in the first decades.

As for the law, the Salic Law is basically the Roman law on Barbarians with some frankish words put on it for the local colouration.

How would the kingdoms of the Visigoths, Burgundians, and of Syagrius develop with a much restricted Frankish kingdom? I would assume that the Visigoths thrive much more if they retained their core territory in Aquitaine.
It depend on the PoD. I would favour myself an early death of Childéric, possibly with a Gothic defeat at Déols. If you allow me to quote a former post of mine...

If Goths are defeated at Déols, which may have the consequence to strengthen the Franko-Roman presence in northern Gaul (continuing the historical alliances) that wouldn't be the same than a federate take-over, and would be as vulnerable to inner tensions and the temptation of a Burgondian alliance than it was with Goths.

Still, you'd need to deal with Childeric, which was one of the main rulers in late Roman Gaul : he accumulated enough prestige and ressources, and a build-up of Salians to really allow his son to takeover most of the provinces. An untimely death in the late 470's, during his campaigns against Alemans would be interesting, making the devolution of Belgica Secunda to Franks less certain to be inherited in one piece.
Eventually, with enough luck and infighting against Franks (keeping in mind that it never really prevented them to expand and assert their power), and more success in Belgica Prima and Germania Prima against Burgondians, you could see an Alemanic ensemble being successful in eastern Gaul and establishing its dominance over several Frankish entities (foedi as Ripuarii, or Franko-Romans counts as Arbgoast in Trier).

It's not really clear to me if this Alemanic-Frankish kingdom would be really able to project itself up beyond Seine, at least in a first time, as Gallo-Britto-Roman ensemble would be stronger (and probably beneficing of the Saxon settlements in modern Normandy); and this TL requires several PoDs but here we go.

Culturally, nothing really changes, altough the distinction between southern and northern Gaul may be more stressed; but the Alemano-Frankish ensemble wouldn't really differ from what existed with Merovingian Gaul, altough we might admittedly end with a more peripherical sense than IOTL (due to the lack of Aquitain pool) making *Alemania (if a conquest of North-West, or at least its absorption doesn't follow which is still pretty much likely on the long run) an efficient counterpart of Francia.
Religiously, it wouldn't have world-shattering consequences but maybe a quicker evolution than IOTL : Alemano-Franks would still probably end up to convert to Nicean Christianity, and it's possible that Burgundians would re-switch to Nicean Christianity due to their new geopolitical position (keeping in mind that a large part of Burgonds probably were Niceans, even after the conversion from Niceanism to Homeism in the 430's).

A smaller post-imperial state, built-up along the Rhine on both banks would be definitely more worried about what happen in Germania (as said above, Franks tended to be more focused in the VIth by an inwards and westwards view) and submitting peripherical entities there becomes more of an urgent task. Depending on the alliances Alemano-Franks pull with Goths, you might even see a focus on northern Germania rather than southern Germania (Frankish campaigns against Thuringians and Bavarians had as well something to do with a will of hegemony against Italian influence).
[/QUOTE]

The Saxons and Bretons of Armorica could be significant power brokers in the Kingdom of Syagrius.
As said, we're not looking for a kingdom or any kind of unified state or command. Rather what remained for the autonomous continuum in Northern Gaul between Britto-Romans, Gallo-Romans and Franko-Romans, on which Syagrius certainly didn't have any supreme power.

Now, checking for each candidate, keeping this PoD.

Bretons/Gallo-Romans/Armorican Saxons


Gallo-Romans themselves could maintain their rule. Not the semi-legendary kingdom of Syagrius, probably stuck in a Noyon/Soissons/Senlis territory, but the aformentioned Britto-Gallo-Roman ensemble, able to maintain a strong presence against Goths (especially if with the death of Euric, its kingdom devolve into civil war) and Franks (especially with the aformentioned early death of Childéric). Its main vulnerability would be the absence of legitimized rulership, that plagued Gallo-Romans (and provincial Romans up to the end, truth to be told), but maybe you'd end up with an actual Roman remnant ruler as a consequence of a victorious Déols, would it be Riothamus (whom identification as Ambrosius Aurelianus is convincing) which would lead to an actual King Arthur's equivalent, only more based in northern Gaul than southern Britain. How long would it hold in one piece is quite the big problem, as you won't have much chances to avoid it to split away.

Brittons, as the Brittons that settled what we call now Brittany in Gaul, where they formed a part of the northern Gallic ensemble up to the late Vth, if not VIth century. ITTL, it might be still the case, with a Britto-Gallo-Roman ensemble distinguished (for how long,tough?) from the aformentioned Alemanic-Frankish ensemble.
In clear, some "imperial remnant" if you will made up of provincial armies and comitates, with a souple agreement between Britto-Romans and Gallo-Romans, including settled Barbarians as Armorican Saxons.


Burgundians

It wouldn't ask much to have them taking the lead in southern Gaul (the alliance de-facto between Gallo-Romans nobility and Burgondians makes it less about if an absorption takes places than how and where), especialy if Goths are defeated at Déols, which may have the consequence to strengthen the Franko-Roman presence in northern Gaul (continuing the historical alliances) that wouldn't be the same than a federate take-over, and would be as vulnerable to inner tensions and the temptation of a Burgondian alliance than it was with Goths.
Burgundians, for all the potential they could get, simply doesn't have the same strategical possibilities than IOTL Franks, tough : they were significantly weakened in the Vth in their wars against Huns, and while they tied strong links with Gallo-Romans, they didn't have the same military assets than, for exemple, Clovis did. It doesn't help Burgondians were stuck between Spain and Italy, and relatively wary of these neighbours (more than Franks, at least in a first time).
It doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to assert their dominance over southern Gaul, partially thanks to a working relationship with families as Syagrii, but going in a jolly campaign on Rhine...

Visigoths (and Ostrogoths, sort of)
Goths are probably the obvious answer if Euric wins Déols, altough I don't think it would take the form of a territorial takeover, rather as a sphere of influence more or less firmly held in northern Gaul.
Euric slowly swallowed up central Gaul in the late Vth century, and it seems that a significant part of Northern Gaul was more or less inside Gothic sphere of influence, not just Syagrius and Loire basin (possibly due to the strong familial connections in a southern Gaul dominated by Goths), but as well among Franks (the Homean and Gothic connections with Clovis, as hinted by the choice of Theuderic to name his first son).
Of course, Goths had issues of their own, maintaining their transpyrenean realm under a Chalcedonian population, but as Theodoric recieved (or at the very least interpreted as such) a status of primus inter pares among the other Barbarian kingdoms, you won't need much than an early death of Childéric to reinforce a Gothic system in Gaul as much as in Italy and Spain, IMO.

Now, if Euric is history (well, even more history)...I agree with @galileo-034 that a civil war is likely, especially with the consequences of Euric's violent expansionism and strict Homean takes (Alaric II at least attempted a conciliatory policy with his Gallo-Roman nobility on this regard). I don't think it would be enough to crush from inside the Visigothic Kingdom, but Burgundians and Ostrogoths would certainly benefit from it, possibly Suevi as well.

The Frankish conquests were prone to regionalism until the consolidation of the Carolingian era.
Regionalisation of the periphery is more of a development of Late Merovingian period (Aquitaine, Bavaria, Alemania, Thuringia, etc.) and were rather held tightly (relatively speaking) and kept in the "inner circle" of the regnum.

By contrast, the Visigothic Kingdom and Ostrogothic Kingdoms appear to have had a more centralized nature.
No. Definitely, Visigoths were as prone as infighting and even had a more important tradition of divided kingship than Franks (which both took from late Romania, as it's unverified to have existed before among these peoples), and this infighting was aggravated among Goths due to the anti-dynastical nature of their kingship after the disappearence of Amal line. In contrast, Merovingian Gaul appear to be significantly stabler (which is not the same than saying it was significantly stable).

Would divisions such as that between Neustria and Austrasia still appear?
No. These only appeared in the later period, and even there were never formalized. Neustria and Austrasia are largely historiographical concepts such as WRE/ERE.

EDIT : That said, the distinction between courts on the Rhine and courts on the Seine are likely to appear. These were IOTL less based on cultural background (if at all) but on their presence on two major trade/political roads between North Sea and Mediterranean Sea.
 
Last edited:
Top