WI: Saxon Gaul

[Britannicus]

It's a little known fact that, as well as establishing themselves in Britain, the Saxons also had a small, short-lived presence in Gaul, evident from the existence of Saxon Shore forts on both sides of the Channel and from records dating to the fifth century detailing Saxon raids as far south as the Bay of Biscay.

So what if more Saxons arrived in Gaul than our timeline and their fleeting presence there became permanent, conquering the Kingdom of the Soissons and displacing the Franks to establish themselves as the main Germanic people in northern Gaul?

What would the impact of this be?

Would this Saxon territory in Gaul be considered part of England, or would the differences between Britain and Gaul mean that it is considered separate from the start? Furthermore, would any Saxon presence in Gaul be a single unit (i.e. like the Franks in our timeline) or would it be divided between several kingdoms, much like the Saxons (and Angles and Jutes) in England?

 

[Raigaua]

From what I've gathered from the saxon migrations is that the whole thing was a pretty disparate affair with no connection between them.

So IMO they would have had more of a linguistic impact, and then be slowly assimilated by the eventual 'Frankia' that unites. The European plain west of the black forest is destined for strong cultural ties.

 

[Zorqal]

From what I've gathered from the saxon migrations is that the whole thing was a pretty disparate affair with no connection between them.

So IMO they would have had more of a linguistic impact, and then be slowly assimilated by the eventual 'Frankia' that unites. The European plain west of the black forest is destined for strong cultural ties.

If you increase Saxon presence on that side of the channel, I don't think that its a given that the Franks unite Gaul as they did in OTL. Saxon migration to the British Isles is roughly in line or slightly earlier than Frankish migration to Gaul from what I can tell, and the region has somewhat of a power vacuum at the time. Look at all the different groups that settled there in OTL, from the Bretons who came from Britain, the Norse in Normandy, and existing Basques in the Pyrenees, the Burgundians in Burgundy, so on and so forth. It took a long time for all these groups to really be incorporated into "France" and until the 1800s for the cultures to really be incorporated in the "main" French culture. With a stronger Saxon presence on the north coast, probably aligned with but separate from their cousins in Britain, they would be a force which could stand against the Franks.

Lets say you have England in Britain and then Sexland in Normandy*. If 'Sexland" can be unified, I think that there is a chance it can at least rival the Merovingians. While they may still be incorporated into some alternate Carolingian empire, its possible that "France" as we know it never unifies; with the Frankish power base remaining more in Belgium and the east of Gaul, the Saxons along the north coast, possibly the Bretons in Brittany, and various Oil nations in the south.

It seems like a really interesting idea for a TL and one that would obviously have massive consequences across the continent.

 

[Gloss]

It's a little known fact that, as well as establishing themselves in Britain, the Saxons also had a small, short-lived presence in Gaul, evident from the existence of Saxon Shore forts on both sides of the Channel and from records dating to the fifth century detailing Saxon raids as far south as the Bay of Biscay.

So what if more Saxons arrived in Gaul than our timeline and their fleeting presence there became permanent, conquering the Kingdom of the Soissons and displacing the Franks to establish themselves as the main Germanic people in northern Gaul?

What would the impact of this be?

Would this Saxon territory in Gaul be considered part of England, or would the differences between Britain and Gaul mean that it is considered separate from the start? Furthermore, would any Saxon presence in Gaul be a single unit (i.e. like the Franks in our timeline) or would it be divided between several kingdoms, much like the Saxons (and Angles and Jutes) in England?

I think it's hard to have the Saxon establish themselves, with a post Frankish foedus in Belgium, over all of Northern Gaul. Maybe no Frankish foederati and a quite different Roman collapse, one that has the Saxons already in power over half of Britain, could allow them to take over the channel coast.

Maybe earlier abandonment of Britannia is the key, not sure how you can achieve that post 3rd century but prior to OTL abandonment..

They would probably be considered different relatively quickly, especially if the Saxons in Gaul take over the same territory as the Franks did while the Anglo-Saxons remain divided and in semi-Roman Brythonnic territory instead of quite Roman Gaulish one.

 

[Raigaua]

If we managed to get a stronger Latin presence in Britannia, (maybe Constantine III doesn't strip the garrison); then Normandy may be a more attractive prospect then England.

 

[LSCatilina]

It's a little known fact that, as well as establishing themselves in Britain, the Saxons also had a small, short-lived presence in Gaul, evident from the existence of Saxon Shore forts on both sides of the Channel and from records dating to the fifth century detailing Saxon raids as far south as the Bay of Biscay.

The Saxon Shore and the Vth century saxon establishment in Armorica are two different patterns of settlement tough, the second being possibly tied to Ricimer's actions against Aegidius in the period.

So what if more Saxons arrived in Gaul than our timeline and their fleeting presence there became permanent, conquering the Kingdom of the Soissons and displacing the Franks to establish themselves as the main Germanic people in northern Gaul?

The problem isn't how much Saxons you have (although the Germanic settlements in Britain was labelled as Saxon, for good reasons, it was eventually a mix-up of every people that dwelled on the North Sea and ended up in eastern Britain, ethnic identities only formalizing themselves in the VIIth century) but that Gaul was much more populated than Britain. Taking over Gaul would be quite problematic without really having a firm presence as Franks had since the IVth century, including presence in late imperial institutions.
Note that the Kingdom of Soissons is largely an historiographical concept and that you probably didn't have a single polity between Brittany and Belgica : rather Syagrius controlled directly a fairly small territory between Noyons, Senlis and Soissons the rest of Northern Gaul being largely under Britton garrison control as well as local militas on which Syagrius admittedly could have some precedence : meaning that Clovis takeover of Gaul wasn't tied to the conquest of a single political entity but a sheer military-political presence in Northern Gaul that Saxons couldn't really match by the late Vth century.

Would Franks be unable (let's say Chilperic dies early and Clovis isn't born) and while probably still forming an important ensemble in Belgica, their presence would be too reduced in Gaul to really hope taking it over : rather I'd think they would be part of a Britto-Gallo Roman ensemble (as they probably were before Frankish takeover, and even there they still formed distinct identities until the Carolingian period) that would solidify itself slowly, possibly under Gothic influence overall (without it being really pervasive). At best I could see Saxons forming sort of an early "Saxony" in IOTL Normandy, mirroring it ITTL.

or would the differences between Britain and Gaul mean that it is considered separate from the start?

Differences would be enormous : Britain was utterly ruined at this point, even if having still enough forces and structures to perpetuate a part of old Britto-Roman institutions (Germanic groups settling in eastern Britain generally adopted pre-existing frames), but in Gaul Roman civilization was still vibrant and Barbarian kingdoms strong enough to prevent the "balkanisation" that knew post-Roman Britain at least up to a point.

 

[LSCatilina]

If you increase Saxon presence on that side of the channel, I don't think that its a given that the Franks unite Gaul as they did in OTL.

Frankish takeover of northern Gaul isn't really a matter of demographics, but that they were importantly integrated in regional management since the IVth century and critically since the mid Vth century with the rough alliance between Britto-Romans, Gallo-Romans and Franks in the 460's.
Chilperic's interventions were probably considered legitimate enough in Northern-Western Gaul at this point, and Frankish dominance over the region happened too quickly on a relatively decentralized region to be attributed only to sheer conquest.
Saxons on the other hand, were rather minor on this regard and only gained mention with Odoacer (which might have been a distinct Saxon chief, but also the Odoacer) relatively late : like Alamans, they were too much disunited, too localized and without real connection with the late and post-imperial world to really hope gaining local hegemony.

Saxon migration to the British Isles is roughly in line or slightly earlier than Frankish migration to Gaul from what I can tell

We're talking of really different settlement there : Frankish dominance isn't much a matter of migrations but rather of border peoples that remained in place and when mercenaries got settled within Romania very quickly got integrated into late imperial frames and romanizing extremely quickly. What we call Saxon migration in British Isles is rather actually a whole migration of familial group of North Sea peoples (Norses, Danes, Angles, Saxons, Frisii, Franks, etc.) that Saxons come to dominate and mix with local Britannic population (taking the advantage)
If anything, Frankish presence in Gaul predates Saxon presence in British Isles and Channel by a century and a half, and was more organised and tied to roman politics than what happened in Britain.

It took a long time for all these groups to really be incorporated into "France" and until the 1800s for the cultures to really be incorporated in the "main" French culture.

You're making an hugely anachronistic and ethnicist comparison, to be honest : Bourguignon identity can't really be traced to Burgundians, as much as French identity isn't a Frankish identity : all of these got build much later in the Middle-Ages : if anything, Barbarians groups in Gaul got essentially integrated and undistinguishable materially by the Vth century already, and politically/socially by the VIIth century at latest.
If we take the Normans, while definitely settled by the late Xth, they were integrated in French nobiliar network relatively quickly and before 911 (in fact, it's what allowed them to be integrated politically) and by the XIth they considered themselves as Franci as can be plainly seen in Bayeux Tapestry

I think it's hard to have the Saxon establish themselves, with a post Frankish foedus in Belgium, over all of Northern Gaul.

True but IOTL, you still had the conception of Saxons in Gaul up to the VIIth century (where they were virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the population), so a larger geo-political space in the lines of IOTL Normandy or Anjou isn't unthinkable.

If we managed to get a stronger Latin presence in Britannia, (maybe Constantine III doesn't strip the garrison); then Normandy may be a more attractive prospect then England.

Probably not : the thing is that Britannia was underpopulated, and that most of polities were shattered at this point in the island : even keeping the army in Britain wouldn't really help at this point, except maybe preventing the main post-imperial ensemble to shatter too much.
Note that the Saxon presence in Britain and Gaul feed from each other and not one against the other : more Saxons in Gaul because reasons mean more possibilities of Saxon settlement in southern Britain.

 

[The Professor]

One way to get Saxons in part of Gaul - all of it is rather implausible as per LSCatilina's more in depth post - is limiting their settlement of Britain.
And by Saxon I mean those tribes forming the basis of Wessex, Sussex, Essex, and Middlesex and naming themselves Saxon. Use of that term for all the Germanic tribes in Britain is becoming rather anachronistic descending as it does from Norman and Angevin terminology.
If the expansion of Sussex etc is blocked westward then there's no reason why a short hop south for excess population won't occur. Especially as there won't be Britons moving across themselves.
Some will no doubt get absorbed by the Franks, some by local Gauls, but Armorica could support a sort of Wessex, distinct from the Gauls and the Franks alike. A Saxon Brittany or Saxon Normandy.

 

[LSCatilina]

@The Professor
Arguably, with a different set of events in the 460's, you could end up with a Saxon presence in Anjou and lower Loire : I doubt it would be particularily more noticable than Alan presence that preceded it (as well as Britto-Roman presence) overall, except as what the OP proposed, as in a stronger Saxon settlement out of it (which would be definitely more difficult to get than a stronger settlement in Armorica, that being said).
Let's remember, tough, that if we screw Franks too much and too soon, we're reinforcing Alan garrisons presence, and while I doubt they could form an Alan Gaul, they could from a not too strong enough force in the region, while part a Gallo-Roman ensemble instead of Britto-Romans, due to their relatively unreliability and maybe facilitating Gothic presence in the region.

The power of balance in Gaul was certainly tipsy enough, but it favored ensembles that already playing a main role in the IVth and Vth century rather than newcomers as Saxons or Britto-Romans, or disorganized folks as Alamans or Alans.

 

[The Professor]

@The Professor
Arguably, with a different set of events in the 460's, you could end up with a Saxon presence in Anjou and lower Loire : I doubt it would be particularily more noticable than Alan presence that preceded it (as well as Britto-Roman presence) overall, except as what the OP proposed, as in a stronger Saxon settlement out of it (which would be definitely more difficult to get than a stronger settlement in Armorica, that being said).
Let's remember, tough, that if we screw Franks too much and too soon, we're reinforcing Alan garrisons presence, and while I doubt they could form an Alan Gaul, they could from a not too strong enough force in the region, while part a Gallo-Roman ensemble instead of Britto-Romans, due to their relatively unreliability and maybe facilitating Gothic presence in the region.

A Reaume/Royaume d'Alaine would be fascinating to see develop!

 

[LSCatilina]

A Reaume/Royaume d'Alainie would be fascinating to see develop!

Maybe, but it would require massive changes in Late Antiquity to have Alans forming a cohesive group enough in Romania. Probably no Hunnic hegemony to break Alans as a PoD could help : but then, it's probable that you won't find as many of small groups of Alans widespread in all western Romania as it might prevent the general push westwards.
It's possible, but such a move would probably, as for Goths, require a deeper involvement within the empire rather than "jumping" the Alps and mixing with Franks or Vandals.

Contrary to some common belief : Migration Period doesn't really allow random moves and kingdoms to appear on the map, I think we agree on this. It depends a lot from the Roman politics and relations with Barbarians, which determined a lot of moves there.
And, turning back to the OP, it also matters for Saxons even in the late period of WRE.
Their presence is probably to be tied IOTL with Ricimer's politics against Majorian's former lieutenants in Gaul and would Ricimer be successful, you might end up with more Saxons in Gaul (but if Ricimer is more successful, it might mean a longer living WRE eventually absorbed by Constantinople so big butterflies there)

 

[Raigaua]

What about a more successful Ricimer leads to the Germanic peoples to settle earlier, robbing the Franks of the opportunity to do so?

Longer lived WRE also means they may be able to offer more assistance to Britain earlier; maybe even settle some of the incoming tribes there to fill it up.

 

[The Professor]

@LSCatilina I did mean Alaine as a more Gallo-Roman entity using the name (comparably to France from Frank) rather than a "purer" Alan entity itself. Hence why I did just a name swap out in French

 

[LSCatilina]

What about a more successful Ricimer leads to the Germanic peoples to settle earlier, robbing the Franks of the opportunity to do so

Franks were settled as a distinct group in Gaul and played a major political role in western Romania since the middle to late IVth century, before Ricimer was even born : you had a lot of Frankish commander -in-chiefs (such as Ricomer or Bauto) in the IVth century coming from Frankish foedi or mercenaries from Rhineland (both bordering and within Roman Germania).
And why Ricimer would have led Barbarians settling in masse in Gaul by principle? His goal was to maintain WRE in one piece, electing to preserve Italy as the best policy in this regard : allying himself with already present foedi against political opponents is one thing, reducing Roman authority for the lulz of it is another.

Longer lived WRE also means they may be able to offer more assistance to Britain earlier

Ricimer dominated Roman politics in the 460's and 470's, decades after Britain was abandoned. Note that Britto-Romans were actually asked to help reinforce Romans in Gaul, so at this point I don't think people would have thought to help Britain against Gaels (Germanic settlers didn't really formed an organized threat at this point in the former province).