WI The Dominion of Soissons survives?

I think it’s likely that Aegidius did control significant territories in Gaul considering that he was powerful enough to try and march on Italy after Ricimer killed Majorian.
Considering the Visigoths 50 years prior controlled no territory and were able to march on Rome I don't think that says much really. Not to mention that the Western Empire was in a much better state in 410 than in 470. On top of that Aegidius still didn't manage to fullfill his threats,
 
Considering the Visigoths 50 years prior controlled no territory and were able to march on Rome I don't think that says much really. Not to mention that the Western Empire was in a much better state in 410 than in 470. On top of that Aegidius still didn't manage to fullfill his threats,
Visigoths are different because every man in the tribe is expected to fight and were more or less nomads at the time.Romans on the other are different.They need a land where they can tax and raise an army with—a far fewer percentage of the population could be raised.Aegidius did march,but Ricimer ceded the land that connected Gaul to Italy to the Burgundians,who then defeated Aegidius.
 
Visigoths are different because every man in the tribe is expected to fight and were more or less nomads at the time.Romans on the other are different.They need a land where they can tax and raise an army with—a far fewer percentage of the population could be raised.Aegidius did march,but Ricimer ceded the land that connected Gaul to Italy to the Burgundians,who then defeated Aegidius.

What if the reverse happened - rather than march on Rome, have Aegidius declare Ricimer a usurper, and call for a Senate in Gaul to declare a new Emperor. His armies may just declare him, and then offer the lands to the Burgundians in exchange for their allegiance - essentially an early version of a March. (You could do the same with the Visigoths if you put them closer to the Pennines).

Then the "Dominion of Soissons" can be a renegade realm until the Romans lose Italy, or until Aegidius is recognised as Western Roman Emperor, or least Kaisar, or Dominator in the West.

In fact, Aegidus, rather than trying to march, can also try and convince Marcellinus in Dalmatia to swear for the Eastern Emperor.

If all that works, and you have The Western Empire ruled from Soissons, with a Burgundian March and a Visigothic March, Aegidius COULD reform Gaul, and work to reunite Spain with Gaul. Heck, depending on circumstances, if Soissons and the Burgundians agree to occupy the western front, the ERE could make a move on Italy, giving Liguria to Soissons.

You could legitimately have a situation there the ERE controls Italy, Africa, and Spain - with Soissons being organised around Gaul and Germanic Marches - which a peaceful relationship between the ERE and Soissons leaves a Rhine border that can be easily pushed eastward - with the WRE becoming more Northern and Germanic, and the ERE being more Southern and Mediterranean.
 
Rather than thinking ahead hypothetical legitimations and alliances with the ERE, I would like to enforce the POD - the survival of the Dominion to Frank invasion.

And the only possible solution is one - agreeing that Syagrius will win the battle of Soissons. Making harder the chances for the Franks... So Clovis failing in unifying the tribes, or screwing big time, or simply having bad luck.

Even better for the Dominion, Clovis will fall in battle, or if go out battered, his authority among the Salics will collapse fast allowing petty rivals like Chararic to side with Syagrius and finish him. Or also, Syagrius convinced Chararic to ally before Clovis's strike, and so jointly defeat him. Chararic will then turn to become King of the Franks in OTL Belgium, Syagrius will consolidate his grip in North Gaul, both rulers agreeing (maybe for now) to an alliance of convenience.
 
What if the reverse happened - rather than march on Rome, have Aegidius declare Ricimer a usurper, and call for a Senate in Gaul to declare a new Emperor. His armies may just declare him, and then offer the lands to the Burgundians in exchange for their allegiance - essentially an early version of a March. (You could do the same with the Visigoths if you put them closer to the Pennines).

Then the "Dominion of Soissons" can be a renegade realm until the Romans lose Italy, or until Aegidius is recognised as Western Roman Emperor, or least Kaisar, or Dominator in the West.

In fact, Aegidus, rather than trying to march, can also try and convince Marcellinus in Dalmatia to swear for the Eastern Emperor.

If all that works, and you have The Western Empire ruled from Soissons, with a Burgundian March and a Visigothic March, Aegidius COULD reform Gaul, and work to reunite Spain with Gaul. Heck, depending on circumstances, if Soissons and the Burgundians agree to occupy the western front, the ERE could make a move on Italy, giving Liguria to Soissons.

You could legitimately have a situation there the ERE controls Italy, Africa, and Spain - with Soissons being organised around Gaul and Germanic Marches - which a peaceful relationship between the ERE and Soissons leaves a Rhine border that can be easily pushed eastward - with the WRE becoming more Northern and Germanic, and the ERE being more Southern and Mediterranean.
I see the opposite.The moment he declares himself emperor,he will get jumped by all the tribes around him.He will need a far stronger position before trying to declare himself emperor.
 
I see the opposite.The moment he declares himself emperor,he will get jumped by all the tribes around him.He will need a far stronger position before trying to declare himself emperor.

That is a possibility as well. However, I was going for interesting options for a WI. :p

It is also why I said he'd hold a Senate in Soissons - you can do clever thinks like the old Senate - including the Visigoths, Burgundians, et al - in the same way that the old Republican Senate included the latins and italics.
 
I think it’s likely that Aegidius did control significant territories in Gaul considering that he was powerful enough to try and march on Italy after Ricimer killed Majorian.
I would think more in term of military power than land control here. Aegidius, in modern view, would be more a warlord than else.
He arrived in northern Gallia in 457, dispatched by Majorian with an army to restore Roman authority here, and he did well to a degree. As of the strength of this army, I can't say, but diplomacy (as it happened with Aetius a decade earlier) was an important part. We can see this with the alliance with pro-Roman Frankish chieftain Childeric who was a noted Roman loyalist (as opposed to the usurper Ricimer).
But then, you have to count on local opponents, which Ricimer was able to play, the Visigoths. They were eventually beaten at Orléans in 463, but the opportunity to invade was gone, and by the time Aegidius could form an alliance with Vandals, he was dead, perhaps murdered.
Soisson's strength was more or less gone after the death of Count Paul, probably a lieutnant of his father who ruled with Childeric's support until his death while fighting Saxons in the Loire valley ca 470. With Syagrius in lead, the so important Frankish alliance and what remained of competent military leadership in Aegidius' army were both gone; I would even say that there was nothing much remaining from the army that arrived in northern Gaul in 457 between deaths, desertions and lack of proper infrastructure to fill the ranks.
 
I would think more in term of military power than land control here. Aegidius, in modern view, would be more a warlord than else.
He arrived in northern Gallia in 457, dispatched by Majorian with an army to restore Roman authority here, and he did well to a degree. As of the strength of this army, I can't say, but diplomacy (as it happened with Aetius a decade earlier) was an important part. We can see this with the alliance with pro-Roman Frankish chieftain Childeric who was a noted Roman loyalist (as opposed to the usurper Ricimer).
But then, you have to count on local opponents, which Ricimer was able to play, the Visigoths. They were eventually beaten at Orléans in 463, but the opportunity to invade was gone, and by the time Aegidius could form an alliance with Vandals, he was dead, perhaps murdered.
Soisson's strength was more or less gone after the death of Count Paul, probably a lieutnant of his father who ruled with Childeric's support until his death while fighting Saxons in the Loire valley ca 470. With Syagrius in lead, the so important Frankish alliance and what remained of competent military leadership in Aegidius' army were both gone; I would even say that there was nothing much remaining from the army that arrived in northern Gaul in 457 between deaths, desertions and lack of proper infrastructure to fill the ranks.
I’m not so sure about Syagrius being dependent on whatever Majorian sent him.Majorian did not have a large army to begin with—he himself relied on mercenaries rather than regulars or levies.The vast majority of Syagrius’ men would have to be raised and supported on the spot.Even assuming that the bulk of his army came from whatever Majorian gave him,unless he controlled vast swathe of territory in Gaul,which Majorian clearly did hold,he would have trouble paying such a force.
 
Last edited:
Top