When the World Stopped Making Sense [ A 480 Migrational Period Mod]

  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning
Status
Not open for further replies.

Erik W

WTWSMS - Second-in-Command
51 Badges
Jul 30, 2012
2.826
587
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
So why should Soissons survive every time then? Its true that Sygarius had power. But its also true that he was surrounded by Barbarian Kingdoms with even more power. And he was isolated from his religious friends. At least make it a relativly hard start like Karen or Khazaria. Both are often destroyed but when they survive they make the game intresting (like Khazaria beating simultaniusly a Jihad of the Sunnis and a Holy War of the Byzies while crushing my plans of creating a Mordvinion Russia with ease)

When did I ever suggest that Soissons should survive everytime? I recognize that Syagrius is in a pretty grim situation, but it shouldn´t be hopeless. If we start adding fail-bonuses left and right then I just feel that we´re adding insult to injury.
 

BSggg

Second Lieutenant
22 Badges
Apr 22, 2014
140
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Rome Gold
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
When did I ever suggest that Soissons should survive everytime? I recognize that Syagrius is in a pretty grim situation, but it shouldn´t be hopeless. If we start adding fail-bonuses left and right then I just feel that we´re adding insult to injury.

Not hopless but hard. I mean he was THE Last Roman Ruler left in this Area. So he should survive in 1 out of 5 playthroughs. Or 2 if you think that that makes more sense. And i think Kingdomes or Empires at the End of their life should get a few negativ boni. Like smaller income due to corruption spreading, fewer troops because your vassals getting stronger or like you less.

Second: is it possible to make a King lose his title if he looses to much power? I think its pretty annoying to see a two county kingdom and to wait 10 years to destroy him or 12 years to usurpe his title
 

loup99

Godogost of Armorica
79 Badges
Jan 22, 2013
16.351
5.238
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
I agree with you, the mod should last all the way until the game ends, so that there won´t be any interuptions. And the AI should be able to replicate something historical, but things like the massive Rise of Islam, very rarely

When did I ever suggest that Soissons should survive everytime? I recognize that Syagrius is in a pretty grim situation, but it shouldn´t be hopeless. If we start adding fail-bonuses left and right then I just feel that we´re adding insult to injury.

To respond a bit to these and compare them: My opinion is that things that are nerarer the start date and that happened historically should be more likely. Soisson should be like Bulgaria (they survives sometimes) but not forced to be invaded by Clovis. But as this is only some years after the start date it should be more likely to happen more similarly as in history than the rise of Islam tht should be more dynamic.
 

KingdomofWales

Sergeant
20 Badges
Mar 7, 2012
58
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Rome Gold
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
So why should Soissons survive every time then? Its true that Sygarius had power. But its also true that he was surrounded by Barbarian Kingdoms with even more power. And he was isolated from his religious friends. At least make it a relativly hard start like Karen or Khazaria. Both are often destroyed but when they survive they make the game intresting (like Khazaria beating simultaniusly a Jihad of the Sunnis and a Holy War of the Byzies while crushing my plans of creating a Mordvinion Russia with ease)

Also why ending it at 866? Thats when the Lodbrok invasion happens. I would like to see an Event series about Ragnar and his sons if Scandinavia is still Norse by that time.

Actually the Survival/Defeat of Syagrius seems to be one of those coin toss moments of history. Aegidius, Syagrius' father, and Childeric, Clovis' father, served together in the much-reduced Roman army of Northern Gaul in the last generation of the Western Empire's existence. Aegidius replaced Childeric as commander of those forces - which inclued both Roman regulars and Franks - during Majorian's reign. When Majorian fell, Aegidius appears to have gathered his army and moved to Soissons to fortify it (estimates of the size of his 'kingdom' vary. To some extent, the Romano-Britons in Amorica may have recognized his seniority, as may Count Arbogast in Trier. But Childeric, who was apparently embittered over his expulsion and who may have sensed that the Western Empire was for the moment done with Gaul, moved against Aegidius and lost. His son, Clovis, however, defeated Aegidius' son Syagrius, folded what was left of the army of the North into his own, and became the biggest power in Northern Gaul. It could easily have gone the other way. In the ancient sources Clovis handily defeated most of his opponnents, but he started out with just a small forced, one of several kingdoms of Franks, and had to build from the ground up. If Syagrius had won their first battle, or allied himself with Brittany, or moved to take possession of Trier, or something....
 

Enlil

WTWSMS - Lead Designer
67 Badges
Oct 8, 2013
3.919
457
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
Looking forward to playing this!

Personally I think so long as there's a good set of historically accurate (relatively?) bookmarks that model history and all it's rises and falls and cultural mergers right up to 867 (or 1066 even!) then the game unpaused can go full-on butterfly mode without the need for railroading during play.

That'd give players the chance to play through whichever historical events they want to and experience history falling apart from different moments in time. Sounds like great fun! So long as there's a chance that the AI can recreate historical events accidentally once in a while. If it's impossibe except for the player that's kind of boring.

Not sure why some people want the game to end early. Doesn't everyone play until they've done what they want to do, then quit and start a new game? Or maybe that's just me...

It makes more sense to make events and scenarios to go to 1400's, because if some people don't want to play that long, they don't, but if some do they can.

So why should Soissons survive every time then? Its true that Sygarius had power. But its also true that he was surrounded by Barbarian Kingdoms with even more power. And he was isolated from his religious friends. At least make it a relativly hard start like Karen or Khazaria. Both are often destroyed but when they survive they make the game intresting (like Khazaria beating simultaniusly a Jihad of the Sunnis and a Holy War of the Byzies while crushing my plans of creating a Mordvinion Russia with ease)

Also why ending it at 866? Thats when the Lodbrok invasion happens. I would like to see an Event series about Ragnar and his sons if Scandinavia is still Norse by that time.

It shouldn't, and won't survive every time. AI Syagrius tends to be too ambitious, and finds himself fighting on fronts with Armorica, Salian Franks, Burgundy and Visigothica. Soissons will rarely survive to make a change in the world.

To respond a bit to these and compare them: My opinion is that things that are nerarer the start date and that happened historically should be more likely. Soisson should be like Bulgaria (they survives sometimes) but not forced to be invaded by Clovis. But as this is only some years after the start date it should be more likely to happen more similarly as in history than the rise of Islam that should be more dynamic.

That makes sense. My idea is that if a Norse King dies around the late 800's, in Britain, and has sons, those sons will get a troops and will invade different regions.
 

ekorovin

Lt. General
6 Badges
Jun 30, 2013
1.537
29
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
I've been rereading map updates and found that Georgian Christianity exist way too long. They should be forced to make a decision between Greeks or Armenian.
 

Enlil

WTWSMS - Lead Designer
67 Badges
Oct 8, 2013
3.919
457
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
I've been rereading map updates and found that Georgian Christianity exist way too long. They should be forced to make a decision between Greeks or Armenian.

I've been having some bugs with that event, it should be fixed.
 

Ofaloaf

Content Designer
78 Badges
Feb 27, 2007
1.044
234
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Forgive me, this may have been brought up prior in the thread, but why is Soissons a king-level title in the first place? Under Aegidius it was run a bit more properly Roman-like, but I thought Penny MacGeorge demonstrated fairly well that under Syagrius the whole enterprise devolved into little more than a warlord's fiefdom, best illustrated by the domain-ending Battle of Soissons in 486-- a proper state can at least scramble for successors and maintain some administration when a battle is lost, have pretenders flee abroad, have a bureaucracy, etc., but when a warlord starts to lose, his domain disintegrates rapidly.

Now, I recognize that Soissons was often called a kingdom, but it's also entirely possible to grant any title any other title's tier with a simple "name_tier = [count/duke/king/emperor]" line in the appropriate entry in landed_titles. Given how quickly Soissons fell, I would advocate making Syagrius holder of a ducal-level Soissons that merely is named a kingdom in landed_titles. A ducal Soissons would disintegrate more rapidly, better reflect the challenges of just keeping such a state together with what meager administrative power Syagrius had at his disposal, and this could all be done using mechanics already in CK2 and so would not have to rely on special events or CBs for the Franks to beat the crap out of it, if that's how the AI chose to roll. A proper king-level Kingdom of Soissons (titular) could serve as an update if Syagrius just survives the initial deluge, if it's felt necessary.


edit: Also!

u6Fb4OV.png
Julius Nepos had a wife.
 
Last edited:

KingdomofWales

Sergeant
20 Badges
Mar 7, 2012
58
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Rome Gold
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
Forgive me, this may have been brought up prior in the thread, but why is Soissons a king-level title in the first place? Under Aegidius it was run a bit more properly Roman-like, but I thought Penny MacGeorge demonstrated fairly well that under Syagrius the whole enterprise devolved into little more than a warlord's fiefdom, best illustrated by the domain-ending Battle of Soissons in 486-- a proper state can at least scramble for successors and maintain some administration when a battle is lost, have pretenders flee abroad, have a bureaucracy, etc., but when a warlord starts to lose, his domain disintegrates rapidly.

Now, I recognize that Soissons was often called a kingdom, but it's also entirely possible to grant any title any other title's tier with a simple "name_tier = [count/duke/king/emperor]" line in the appropriate entry in landed_titles. Given how quickly Soissons fell, I would advocate making Syagrius holder of a ducal-level Soissons that merely is named a kingdom in landed_titles. A ducal Soissons would disintegrate more rapidly, better reflect the challenges of just keeping such a state together with what meager administrative power Syagrius had at his disposal, and this could all be done using mechanics already in CK2 and so would not have to rely on special events or CBs for the Franks to beat the crap out of it, if that's how the AI chose to roll. A proper king-level Kingdom of Soissons (titular) could serve as an update if Syagrius just survives the initial deluge, if it's felt necessary.

Well bear in mind that in Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages there are many different levels of authority. In the West, particularly in Gaul, there are civitas (main city and surrounding territory or 'county') authorities who were called comes. These officials somewhat inelegantly became the basis for the later Carolingian and beyond 'counts' that make up the base unit of political authority in a CK2 game. In Southern Gaul at this time more civitases were run by city curiales, but in Northern Gaul where the military hegemony was the strongest authority around, comes prevailed over curiales. (In other words, to be completely realistic, most territories south of the Loire and major surviving cities north of it should be Grand Mayorships in a CK2 game set in 500, not Counties, with the exception of Trier where a local comes seems to have been stationed.

Above them we have the local dux, collectively known as the duces. This is a bit more fungible, as in some places in Gaul comes answered directly to a dux and in some places comes or curiales answered directly to the Gallic Prefecture (occassionally re-established throughout our period) or, even more often, to a local rex or reges. These 'petty' kings were effectively dux-level authorities with greater power - either more territory (multiple dux level holdings?) or, in Syagrius' case, a very large army (larger than that commanded by a normal dux - Aegidius and Syagrius's 'kingdom' fended off both the Visigoths and the Franks once or twice before the end). Each of Clovis' sons was a petty king, but by the next power-sharing division two generations later each Merovingian reges was a proper 'great' king, some of whom styled themselves imperator as well.

So what is a petty-king, really, in the authority heirarchy? Well, CK2 doesn't have a rung for this, but in the 5th century the Roman commander north of the Loire was usually titled magister militum of the army of Northern Gaul, the former army of the Rhine (though much reduced in size - no longer anything like 4 legions strong, maybe half that.) In late Antiquity a magister militum definitely outranks the local duces, but is he really a 'great king' the way that Clovis was after his conquests of the Alamanni, the other Franks, and the Visigoths? The Way Theodoric was? No. Aegidius' power was pretty definitely constrained between the Loire and the Rhine, even before the death of Majorian, and only decreased after that. It's also telling that once he cut himself off from the Imperial authorities in Italy, Aegidius seems to have lost the 'authority' to control Northern Gaul - Arbogast does not appear to function as a subordinate of Aegidius or Syagrius, and the Romano-British Amoricans seem to have only titularly acknowledged Aegidius and Syagrius because they couldn't really defend themselves, while Childeric, a former magister militum of the same army Aegidius commanded, seems to have taken his removal from said army personally, and tried (and failed) to get it back after Aegidius declared himself independent from Italy.

So Aegidius and Syagrius? Well, Aegidius died before our period begins, but if we were starting in 460 I would give him dux level authority over the vanilla duchies of Anjou, Orleans, Champagne, Normandy, Valois, Upper Loraine, Lower Loraine, Alsace, Luxemburg, and Koln. This would leave Childeric and Clovis, prior to 460, with Flanders, Holland, and Brabant. By 480, however, Syagrius' authority had dwindled. It still seemed nessecary for Clovis to destroy Syagrius before he could securely take Paris, though, so I would leave Syagrius with dux level authority over the territories between the Franks and Paris: Valois, Normandy, Orleans, Anjou, and Champagne. He could be given the titular title 'King of the Romans' (which could be expanded so that anyone sufficiently Romanized (Gallo-Roman or Romano-Frank) could claim it for themselves (Arbogast, Paul) or be the 'Petty King' of Soissons.



Bear in mind that there are several holes in the Penny MacGeorge theory: one, it assumes that Aegidius and Syagrius went through the trouble of setting up an actual basis for legitimate Kingship. We have no evidence to support this. The Franks knew Syagrius as 'King of the Romans,' but they may have just called him that because their own leaders were called Kings and Syagrius' position was sort of unquantified after Aegidius's succession from Italy and subsequent death. Or Syagrius may have looked around him and seen his Frankish, Visigothic, and Burgundian rivals calling themselves 'king' and decided he needed some sort of official title. But in either case, there's no archaeological evidence that Syagrius ever did anything to establish the foundation of a legitimate kingship. He and his father seem to have continued to operate north of the Loire the way they had always done - as a field army with ultimate authority (backed by a combination of Roman Imperial authority and Roman arms before Aegidius went independant, and by arms alone afterwards) but without a developed civilian infrastructure that legitimated Syagrius' control over the North of Gaul. In other words, whereas the Frankish Kings had spent generations building up a civilian infrastructure and power basis and alliances with Gallo-Romans and Romano-Germans in the Rhineland prior to 460, and the Visigoths and Burgundians had been handed a Roman civilian infrastructure in Aquitaine and Burgundy to 'serve' as protection for, and then later became rulers of, Aegidius and Syagrius were making it all up on the fly.

That doesn't mean, however, that his authority wasn't recognized by northern Gallo-Roman elites and non-elites, however. One thing that the last 30 years of Late Antique research is in agreement on is that the Gallo-Romans, even those north of the Loire, preferred Roman authorities and Roman officials whenever they could find them. When they couldn't, the usually picted the most-Roman local aristocrat and elevated him to some level of local authority: in the early 5th century this took the form of imperial usurpers (when an army was backing them) or 'Bagaudae' uprisings (which Late Antique scholars have proven were not peasants fighting to return to a non-Roman way of life but local Roman elites backed by local Roman populaces trying to establish Roman authority in the absence of strong imperial control, and being maligned by the increasingly paranoid Roman elites in Southern Gaul and Italy for doing so). In the late 5th century this took the form of petty-kingships like Aegdius and Syagrius', or Arbogast's control over Trier (although no one seems to have called him that.) In all cases, the local, very-Roman and want-to-stay-Roman-thank-you populace of Gaul, up to the Rhine, looked around for the most Roman authority they could find, and made them their leader, in order to survive the period. In the lower Rhineland, the most Roman authority around WAS Childeric, who had been a Roman magister militum and who is described as a pretty cultured Roman himself. His ethnic background may have been 'Frank', but by now the Franks of the Rhineland were about as Roman as the Romans of Northern Gaul, the only difference was that for the Romans of the area being a soldier was still a paid proffession you worked at full time: for the Franks it was primarily a thing you did when you weren't farming (which explains why the Franks usually lost against Roman soldiers). The major exception to this were the Romano-Frankish offers, like Childeric, who came from a long, century or more tradition of Frankish elites becoming Romanized enough to be seen as 'Roman' by other Romans, regardless of their background. Now, there were Franks to the East of the Upper Rhine who were less Roman, and notably in Trier it wasn't a local Frankish King who became the first person the local Romans turned to when the Empire lost control in the north, but a Romano-Frankish comes of the Rhineland Franks, the most Romanized of the Frankish peoples.

In North-Central, Gaul, however, the most Roman authority around was undoubtably Aegidius, and after him his son, Syagrius. They came from Gallo-Roman roots, and even if their authority didn't come with deep civilian administrative infrastructural roots, they don't seem to have faced any opposition from Gallo-Romans within whatever territory they defended, and Late Antique scholars are pretty convinced that the fued between Syagrius and Clovis was more of a rivalry between opposing Roman commanders than a 'barbarian' king conquering the 'last Roman' in the North.

Additionally, to again counter the theory Penny MacGeorge theory, plenty of Northern Gallic kingdoms seem to have gone out with a particularly big bang in the late 5th century and early 6th. Most of Clovis' conquests took the form of one big battle - against other Frankish Kings, against Alamannic Kings, against Syagrius, even against the Visigoths, who were unarguably the most developed and entrenched realm in Gaul at the time of their defeat. If not for Theodoric, the Visigoths would have completely lost their Gallic holdings in the wake of the battle of Vouille. And even though the Visigoths did come up with an heir to the throne, the same could not be said of Clovis' defeated Frankish rival Kings or his defeated Alamannic Kings. In the late 5th century it seems to be the rule that if your kingdom was barely more than a few days' ride in either direction, one big battle could undo you completely.

Finally, remember that Childeric was the former magister militum of the same army Aegidius and Syagrius commanded. This means that the armies' soldiers and officers would probably have known Clovis about as well as they knew Syagrius. When Clovis beat Syagrius, therefore, it would only be natural for those soldiers to fall under the command of the son of their former commander. He was about as Roman as anyone else in the North, and probably a good deal more Roman than his Frankish and Alamannic rivalries - why put forth another candidate when clearly the most obvious heir to command of the army of Northern Gaul was the guy who just beat your former commander?
 
Last edited:

Enlil

WTWSMS - Lead Designer
67 Badges
Oct 8, 2013
3.919
457
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
I made Syagrius a king for mostly game-play reasons, for dukes better represented the Romano-Gallic aristocracy that considered him to be a weak leader. Also as a king he can control crown authority, so he is not dependent on the whims of Barbarian kings who own the kingdoms Soissons has parts in.
 

Ofaloaf

Content Designer
78 Badges
Feb 27, 2007
1.044
234
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
I made Syagrius a king for mostly game-play reasons, for dukes better represented the Romano-Gallic aristocracy that considered him to be a weak leader. Also as a king he can control crown authority, so he is not dependent on the whims of Barbarian kings who own the kingdoms Soissons has parts in.
I assumed that no barbarian held a de jure title over northern France (Neustria? No idea what the de jure setup is here) at game start. Figured that if it got to the point where barbarians controlled a majority of de jure land and were able to set their own laws there, then Syagrius & company would be probably screwed regardless of whether he was a king or duke and the issue of crown authority would rapidly become moot anyway.
 

KingdomofWales

Sergeant
20 Badges
Mar 7, 2012
58
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Rome Gold
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
I assumed that no barbarian held a de jure title over northern France (Neustria? No idea what the de jure setup is here) at game start. Figured that if it got to the point where barbarians controlled a majority of de jure land and were able to set their own laws there, then Syagrius & company would be probably screwed regardless of whether he was a king or duke and the issue of crown authority would rapidly become moot anyway.

Actually by the mid-5th century the Rhineland Franks of the Lower Rhine would have dejure claims to Flanders, Brabant, and Holland. The Romans had ceded those territories to them generations ago. Koln and the Lorraine provinces are a bit fuzzier - technically they still belonged to the Empire, but the empire didn't seem to exist in the West after 476 until Theodoric, and he never attempted to reclaim northern Gaul.
 

Ofaloaf

Content Designer
78 Badges
Feb 27, 2007
1.044
234
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Actually by the mid-5th century the Rhineland Franks of the Lower Rhine would have dejure claims to Flanders, Brabant, and Holland. The Romans had ceded those territories to them generations ago. Koln and the Lorraine provinces are a bit fuzzier - technically they still belonged to the Empire, but the empire didn't seem to exist in the West after 476 until Theodoric, and he never attempted to reclaim northern Gaul.
What's that translate to in terms of game mechanics, though? The Frankish Kingdom is, I imagine, a titular tribal(?) title, and having 'FRANKS' down on the de jure kingdom map just doesn't seem right (what if they're wholly displaced by Thuringians or someone?), so that's all a big ??? in terms of de jure territories.
 

KingdomofWales

Sergeant
20 Badges
Mar 7, 2012
58
0
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Rome Gold
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
What's that translate to in terms of game mechanics, though? The Frankish Kingdom is, I imagine, a titular tribal(?) title, and having 'FRANKS' down on the de jure kingdom map just doesn't seem right (what if they're wholly displaced by Thuringians or someone?), so that's all a big ??? in terms of de jure territories.

Well, the Franks should, de jure, hold the vanilla provincial area of Holland, Brabant, and Flanders. That's their land now, and the Romans recognized it as such starting in Julian's time. Settlement in those territories was the payment for lower Rhineland Frankish service in the Roman army. But there were other Frankish Kings who lived east of the Rhine who did not serve the Empire as often as the Rhineland franks. There were other kings to the East of the Upper Rhine, though, who the Romans identified as Franks, and Alamannic Kings in the former territory of the Agri Decumates between the Rhine and Danube, and Thuringians beyond them. But the Romans seem to have not considered any of their holdings to be dejure in the same way as they considered those of the lower-Rhineland Franks, who were settled on formerly-Roman land. At least as late as Valentinian I, Roman emperors could be sent into spitting mad fits if a Germanic tribal leader tried to suggest that he, not the Roman emperor, controlled the land north of the Rhine. A century later the Theodosians had more or less come to accept that north of the Rhine was Barbarian territory, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to declare it 'dejure.' Germanic confederations seemed to be an ever-evolving mixture, aside from the Franks of the Lower Rhineland, who had a pretty well-established relationship with Rome. No one in Rome had even heard of the Thuringians before the sixth century, as far as I can tell.
 

Summercat

Technically, An Otter
103 Badges
Feb 6, 2009
1.940
1.209
sfw.furaffinity.net
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Knights of Honor
  • Majesty 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Age of Wonders II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Deus Vult
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • King Arthur II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Impire
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
Well bear in mind that in Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages there are many different levels of authority. In the West, particularly in Gaul, there are civitas (main city and surrounding territory or 'county') authorities who were called comes. These officials somewhat inelegantly became the basis for the later Carolingian and beyond 'counts' that make up the base unit of political authority in a CK2 game. In Southern Gaul at this time more civitases were run by city curiales, but in Northern Gaul where the military hegemony was the strongest authority around, comes prevailed over curiales. (In other words, to be completely realistic, most territories south of the Loire and major surviving cities north of it should be Grand Mayorships in a CK2 game set in 500, not Counties, with the exception of Trier where a local comes seems to have been stationed.

Above them we have the local dux, collectively known as the duces. This is a bit more fungible, as in some places in Gaul comes answered directly to a dux and in some places comes or curiales answered directly to the Gallic Prefecture (occassionally re-established throughout our period) or, even more often, to a local rex or reges. These 'petty' kings were effectively dux-level authorities with greater power - either more territory (multiple dux level holdings?) or, in Syagrius' case, a very large army (larger than that commanded by a normal dux - Aegidius and Syagrius's 'kingdom' fended off both the Visigoths and the Franks once or twice before the end). Each of Clovis' sons was a petty king, but by the next power-sharing division two generations later each Merovingian reges was a proper 'great' king, some of whom styled themselves imperator as well.

So what is a petty-king, really, in the authority heirarchy? Well, CK2 doesn't have a rung for this, but in the 5th century the Roman commander north of the Loire was usually titled magister militum of the army of Northern Gaul, the former army of the Rhine (though much reduced in size - no longer anything like 4 legions strong, maybe half that.) In late Antiquity a magister militum definitely outranks the local duces, but is he really a 'great king' the way that Clovis was after his conquests of the Alamanni, the other Franks, and the Visigoths? The Way Theodoric was? No. Aegidius' power was pretty definitely constrained between the Loire and the Rhine, even before the death of Majorian, and only decreased after that. It's also telling that once he cut himself off from the Imperial authorities in Italy, Aegidius seems to have lost the 'authority' to control Northern Gaul - Arbogast does not appear to function as a subordinate of Aegidius or Syagrius, and the Romano-British Amoricans seem to have only titularly acknowledged Aegidius and Syagrius because they couldn't really defend themselves, while Childeric, a former magister militum of the same army Aegidius commanded, seems to have taken his removal from said army personally, and tried (and failed) to get it back after Aegidius declared himself independent from Italy.

So Aegidius and Syagrius? Well, Aegidius died before our period begins, but if we were starting in 460 I would give him dux level authority over the vanilla duchies of Anjou, Orleans, Champagne, Normandy, Valois, Upper Loraine, Lower Loraine, Alsace, Luxemburg, and Koln. This would leave Childeric and Clovis, prior to 460, with Flanders, Holland, and Brabant. By 480, however, Syagrius' authority had dwindled. It still seemed nessecary for Clovis to destroy Syagrius before he could securely take Paris, though, so I would leave Syagrius with dux level authority over the territories between the Franks and Paris: Valois, Normandy, Orleans, Anjou, and Champagne. He could be given the titular title 'King of the Romans' (which could be expanded so that anyone sufficiently Romanized (Gallo-Roman or Romano-Frank) could claim it for themselves (Arbogast, Paul) or be the 'Petty King' of Soissons.



Bear in mind that there are several holes in the Penny MacGeorge theory: one, it assumes that Aegidius and Syagrius went through the trouble of setting up an actual basis for legitimate Kingship. We have no evidence to support this. The Franks knew Syagrius as 'King of the Romans,' but they may have just called him that because their own leaders were called Kings and Syagrius' position was sort of unquantified after Aegidius's succession from Italy and subsequent death. Or Syagrius may have looked around him and seen his Frankish, Visigothic, and Burgundian rivals calling themselves 'king' and decided he needed some sort of official title. But in either case, there's no archaeological evidence that Syagrius ever did anything to establish the foundation of a legitimate kingship. He and his father seem to have continued to operate north of the Loire the way they had always done - as a field army with ultimate authority (backed by a combination of Roman Imperial authority and Roman arms before Aegidius went independant, and by arms alone afterwards) but without a developed civilian infrastructure that legitimated Syagrius' control over the North of Gaul. In other words, whereas the Frankish Kings had spent generations building up a civilian infrastructure and power basis and alliances with Gallo-Romans and Romano-Germans in the Rhineland prior to 460, and the Visigoths and Burgundians had been handed a Roman civilian infrastructure in Aquitaine and Burgundy to 'serve' as protection for, and then later became rulers of, Aegidius and Syagrius were making it all up on the fly.

That doesn't mean, however, that his authority wasn't recognized by northern Gallo-Roman elites and non-elites, however. One thing that the last 30 years of Late Antique research is in agreement on is that the Gallo-Romans, even those north of the Loire, preferred Roman authorities and Roman officials whenever they could find them. When they couldn't, the usually picted the most-Roman local aristocrat and elevated him to some level of local authority: in the early 5th century this took the form of imperial usurpers (when an army was backing them) or 'Bagaudae' uprisings (which Late Antique scholars have proven were not peasants fighting to return to a non-Roman way of life but local Roman elites backed by local Roman populaces trying to establish Roman authority in the absence of strong imperial control, and being maligned by the increasingly paranoid Roman elites in Southern Gaul and Italy for doing so). In the late 5th century this took the form of petty-kingships like Aegdius and Syagrius', or Arbogast's control over Trier (although no one seems to have called him that.) In all cases, the local, very-Roman and want-to-stay-Roman-thank-you populace of Gaul, up to the Rhine, looked around for the most Roman authority they could find, and made them their leader, in order to survive the period. In the lower Rhineland, the most Roman authority around WAS Childeric, who had been a Roman magister militum and who is described as a pretty cultured Roman himself. His ethnic background may have been 'Frank', but by now the Franks of the Rhineland were about as Roman as the Romans of Northern Gaul, the only difference was that for the Romans of the area being a soldier was still a paid proffession you worked at full time: for the Franks it was primarily a thing you did when you weren't farming (which explains why the Franks usually lost against Roman soldiers). The major exception to this were the Romano-Frankish offers, like Childeric, who came from a long, century or more tradition of Frankish elites becoming Romanized enough to be seen as 'Roman' by other Romans, regardless of their background. Now, there were Franks to the East of the Upper Rhine who were less Roman, and notably in Trier it wasn't a local Frankish King who became the first person the local Romans turned to when the Empire lost control in the north, but a Romano-Frankish comes of the Rhineland Franks, the most Romanized of the Frankish peoples.

In North-Central, Gaul, however, the most Roman authority around was undoubtably Aegidius, and after him his son, Syagrius. They came from Gallo-Roman roots, and even if their authority didn't come with deep civilian administrative infrastructural roots, they don't seem to have faced any opposition from Gallo-Romans within whatever territory they defended, and Late Antique scholars are pretty convinced that the fued between Syagrius and Clovis was more of a rivalry between opposing Roman commanders than a 'barbarian' king conquering the 'last Roman' in the North.

Additionally, to again counter the theory Penny MacGeorge theory, plenty of Northern Gallic kingdoms seem to have gone out with a particularly big bang in the late 5th century and early 6th. Most of Clovis' conquests took the form of one big battle - against other Frankish Kings, against Alamannic Kings, against Syagrius, even against the Visigoths, who were unarguably the most developed and entrenched realm in Gaul at the time of their defeat. If not for Theodoric, the Visigoths would have completely lost their Gallic holdings in the wake of the battle of Vouille. And even though the Visigoths did come up with an heir to the throne, the same could not be said of Clovis' defeated Frankish rival Kings or his defeated Alamannic Kings. In the late 5th century it seems to be the rule that if your kingdom was barely more than a few days' ride in either direction, one big battle could undo you completely.

Finally, remember that Childeric was the former magister militum of the same army Aegidius and Syagrius commanded. This means that the armies' soldiers and officers would probably have known Clovis about as well as they knew Syagrius. When Clovis beat Syagrius, therefore, it would only be natural for those soldiers to fall under the command of the son of their former commander. He was about as Roman as anyone else in the North, and probably a good deal more Roman than his Frankish and Alamannic rivalries - why put forth another candidate when clearly the most obvious heir to command of the army of Northern Gaul was the guy who just beat your former commander?

Well. Fark. This well written post has me going back to examine my rhetoric on the longer implications of the fall of the Western Empire on Western Europe. :/
 

Erik W

WTWSMS - Second-in-Command
51 Badges
Jul 30, 2012
2.826
587
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
I made Syagrius a king for mostly game-play reasons, for dukes better represented the Romano-Gallic aristocracy that considered him to be a weak leader. Also as a king he can control crown authority, so he is not dependent on the whims of Barbarian kings who own the kingdoms Soissons has parts in.

Yeah, and I see no reason at all to demote Syagrius. He was called "King of the Romans" by his neighbors and Gregory of Tours.
 

loup99

Godogost of Armorica
79 Badges
Jan 22, 2013
16.351
5.238
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
Yeah, and I see no reason at all to demote Syagrius. He was called "King of the Romans" by his neighbors and Gregory of Tours.

I too, se it better to have him as a king. For Clovis (or whatever might invade him) it is also better to be at the same rank and choose to keep some romano-gallic lords or not.
 

Ofaloaf

Content Designer
78 Badges
Feb 27, 2007
1.044
234
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
Yeah, and I see no reason at all to demote Syagrius. He was called "King of the Romans" by his neighbors and Gregory of Tours.
Is Ambrosius Aurelianus going to hold a king-level title too, since Gildas called him 'King of the Britons'? What about Riothamus, who was also around in the late 5th century and who Jordanes called 'King of the Britons'? Just because one or two historical sources called a person a king does not necessarily merit granting a king-tier title. Even basegame CK2 has ducal-level petty kingdoms in it.
 

Erik W

WTWSMS - Second-in-Command
51 Badges
Jul 30, 2012
2.826
587
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV
Is Ambrosius Aurelianus going to hold a king-level title too, since Gildas called him 'King of the Britons'? What about Riothamus, who was also around in the late 5th century and who Jordanes called 'King of the Britons'? Just because one or two historical sources called a person a king does not necessarily merit granting a king-tier title. Even basegame CK2 has ducal-level petty kingdoms in it.

I don´t know enough about Ambrosius to say anything. Riothamus is not even in the game (I think) since he was active around 470, ten years before this mod starts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.