The Franks did not control Vasconia (later Gascogne + Basque Country) until the c. 630 invasion by Clothair. Archaeological and documentary evidence converge: the Duchy of Vasconia was a "marche" foundation by the Merovingians in the area of Bordeaux (roughly modern Gironde department, which was Romance and not actually Basque) but their control further south was non-existent. However in 632 Clothair invaded all Vasconia all the way to Bilbao (the Pyrenean border did not exist then at all), where abundant Frankish weaponry identical to the one found in Bordeaux has been excavated. It was then probably when Cantabria fell to the Visigoths (earlier the military frontier was very clearly south of it). Afterwards there were a series of rebellions and the Franks had to recognize an independent Duchy of Vasconia in personal union with Aquitaine (north and east of the Garonne river, capital Toulouse) under Felix. His dynasty would regin in effective sovereignty for a century until the catastrophic Muslim invasion of Abd al Rhaman al Gafiqi, that culminated in the Battle of Tours (often called "of Poitiers" in France and Spain) and the formal vassallage of Aquitaine and Vasconia to the Franks (then already almost Carolingian). I cannot condone this bad habit of ignoring the obscure but very real Basque-Cantabrian "free zone" that emerged from the bagaudae (and that I imagine a bit like the Old Swiss Confederacy but with a shoreline and somewhat larger).
I very much appreciate the feedback of what you’ve said, I can see where you’re coming from however, I have a few questions -Who is “Clothair?” Was he a noble, potential obscure king?(Which is not likely), a mayor? -If Vasconia was to be completely rid of the Franks, what happens to the southern civitas(es)? ex: Bigorre -The free zone you said is the basin right? Can you tell me how it relates to the Franco-Visigoth border? -What do you mean by “formal vassalage”? Aquitaine, yes a subkingdom during creation but you mentioned the vassalage part after the battle of Tours, which is after when Aquitaine establishes itself as a duchy
@@1_rma Sorry, it was Dagobert in 636 and not Clothair in 632, my bad. There was a previous expedition by Duke (of Vasconia-Bourdeaux?) Arnebert the previous year but was defeated at "Subola" (Zuberoa/Soule). What happened to Bigorre? You tell me because I don't know what you're talking about. There was no Franco-Visigoth border by the Western Pyrenees, their only actual border was between Aquitaine (Toulouse) and Gothia (Narbonne)... after the Goths lost Aquitaine c. 508. It can be argued that they also touched at some parts of the Eastern Pyrenees but, judging on toponimy, the Basque language influence clearly reached all the way to Cerdanya, so it'd be a fuzzy border at best. Anyway the Pyrenees are essentially impassable for any military purpose in most of their length, so no need to establish a border there, really, even if they controlled some districts maybe on either side; when armies marched in all History they did via the Eastern Catalan passes (Junquera, Port Bou, etc.) or the Western Basque passes: Roncevaux or the lower Basque Mountains to the west, already inside what is usually thought of as Iberia -- there's no physical border between Hendaia and Irun and the Romans thought of the Pyrenees extending all the way along the North Iberian coast to Galicia (what makes some sense). Until the Vandals there's no notion of any army ever crossing through the Western Pyrenees anyhow, next is this expedition by Dagobert, which clearly reached Bilbao district (but is unclear if it crossed the water divide, so maybe it doesn't count) and then we get to Al Gafiqi's invasion, which definitely crossed via Pamplona (and thus Roncevaux) and the later expedition of Charlemagne against Zaragoza (and the famous catastrophe of Roncevaux Battle). Formal vassalage? Felix and successors were nominally vassals of the Frankish Kingdom between 660 and 732, but were de facto an independent realm. It was only the massive Muslim invasion of Al Gafiqi, which captured Pamplona and looted Bordeaux and pushed the residual Vasco-Aquitanian army to the Loire, which forced Eudes to acknowledge Frankish overlordship (nominally Merovingian but de facto already Carolingian under Charles Martel) in exchange for much needed military aid. Between 714 and 732, Basques and their Aquitainian Romance allies were very much able to fence off the Muslims on their own; much is talked about the fall of the Visigothic realm (a rotten and divided realm rather easy to capture) and the epic Battle of Tours (where Eudes and his cavalry are seldom mentioned, even if they did the key envolvement that decided the battle, Charles gets all the glory alone) but the heroic Basque and Aquitainian resistance in the 18 years in between is at best glossed over or just ignored completely. Anyway, this last is for a period after what was mentioned in the video: my key point is that Novempopulania (northern Vasconia) was not under Frankish control in the period mapped here, and that, when it was finally invaded by the Franks (just after the end of the video), it was invaded in full and not to an imaginary border at the Bidasoa river, because it's clear that the Franks reached the area of Bilbao in great numbers and with much weaponry (archaeological data). The subsequent Duchy of Vasconia emerges from that invasion, after due revolts, as nominal (but de facto sovereign) vassal of the Franks and remains that way for some 72 years afterwards, almost a whole century. It's only after Tours that the Franks consolidate their control of Aquitaine and Vasconia, still quite convoluted, and that's why Charlemagne would be able to use Pamplona as base for his expedition and later betray it by arbitrarily demolishing its walls (what led to revenge at Roncevaux but also a decade of Muslim occupation of the city, occupation expelled by native uprising again).
Thanks for the clarification! I will try to find more about the information when I get to researching the video after. Bigorre was a main city of a civitas when Clovis claimed it in June 511 in addition to the other Aquitainian lands. If you don’t mind, can you send me some readings about this?
@@1_rma - Begin with Wikipedia "Duchy of Gascony", it has info and citations. I wrote much of the original entry decades ago (before 2007, then it was titled "Duchy of Vasconia") but I would have to search for the exact references right now, which included almost certainly the Auñamendi Eusko Entziklopedia, which you can find online (in Spanish and Basque language) but also other sources like "Navarra, el Estado Vasco" (which mentions all that as background, as it's focused on later Pamplona/Navarre Kdom.), etc. Most materials are in Spanish, as usually happens with Basque studies (also some in Basque, much less in French, virtually nothing in English).
@@1_rma - PS: forgot about Bigorre. Maybe Clovis claimed it and even actually took it but that's like Charlemagne walking through Pamplona and none of his successors ever to do it again until Napoleon (and nope: the "French" intervention in the 1512-21 conquest of Navarre was not French: they were Bearnese under the same monarch). I don't know the details for Bigorre but I know the details of two Visigothid instances to have been in the Southern Basque Country (one in Alava, the other in Olite) and both were unstable, brief episodes while the actual stable border run further south (yet some use them to argue for complete control). In those centuries there were for sure some occasional changes, after all, the barbarians had been adopted largely to fight against the bagaudae, so the oligarchic Roman order could continue, and they clearly did not recognize Basque-plus sovereignty in non-feudal terms... but it was very real and left a massive legacy not just in terms of language survival but also in terms of non-Roman and non-Germanic civil law, includining indivisibility of the core farmstead, which is why my great-grandfather still had one in the early 20th century.
Could I ask what that Eastern Frontier and that greyed area north of Soissons represent? Is it like a tribal area, or like the later marches? Anarchy? Etc.
The eastern frontier is the unchristianized zone in the realm because many tribes still live in that region, the land north of soissons is the charcoal forest
@@1_rmaHi 1_rma could I ask you about a historical issue that interests me? It is not directly related to the history of the Frankish state, and certainly not to antiquity. I don't know if you will be familiar with these issues, and I apologize in advance for the fact that my English is not the best. I warn you that the context of the question will be long.
@@1_rmaHere is the context of the question. Similarly, starting from the late 12th century, through the 13th century and most of the 14th century, historical Mazovia (certainly especially the north-eastern part, although allegedly also the north-western and south-eastern parts, I suspect that there were at least some losses in the south-western part as well) was almost literally depopulated as a result of raids, usually purely plundering, by Old Prussians, Yotvingians, Lithuanians and possibly Ruthenians. Similarly, in the 12th century in the region of Denmark, the Danish islands (such as Lolland, Funen and Zealand) and similarly even the entire coast of Jutland for many years were also almost literally depopulated by raids, again purely plundering, by Polabians and Pomeranians. On the other hand, for example, France (the West Frankish State) was for a large part of the 9th century, probably the entire 10th century and the early 11th century, almost mercilessly raided and plundered by Scandinavian Vikings, there was probably no town near the coast or near rivers that was not destroyed at least once, but even there I have NEVER HEARD of depopulation, and certainly not on a large scale (sometimes the Vikings would go really far and get to Metz, Dijon, Limonges, and even Clermont-Ferrand), plus raids from the Magyars/Hungarians and probably (I'm not sure, I would have to read up) Muslims (not that I'm anti-Muslim, I'm probably stating a historical fact), and what, somehow I have NEVER HEARD of France at that time being depopulated because of this, and certainly not to the extent that historical Mazovia and Denmark were. Finally, apart from that, Brittany (that peninsula currently in France) and the British Isles, the states there (the Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Irish, Cornwall, Strathclyde and Scotland) probably small, fragmented, sparsely populated, even tribal and technologically less advanced than the West Frankish State, were also raided by the Vikings (in a slightly longer period of time than France/West Frankish State) and PROBABLY more similarly than France and I have also NEVER HEARD of them becoming depopulated, just like France, unlike the large areas of Mazovia and Denmark. To sum up, the question is why, in the centuries given for the given regions, Mazovia and Denmark were depopulated by raids, while France, Brittany and the British Isles were not? I could write more but I will not elaborate any more and I apologize for the length of the text and the repetition of some words, but it is difficult to do otherwise. Thanks in advance for your answers.
Love the placement of the labels indicating the rulers, quite intuitive, great job!
That's so good! You deserve much more attention!!!!
Great video!
Excellent content bro. Congratulations from Brazil.
This stuff is so useful and so amazing, you have no idea.
Amazing work!
The Franks did not control Vasconia (later Gascogne + Basque Country) until the c. 630 invasion by Clothair. Archaeological and documentary evidence converge: the Duchy of Vasconia was a "marche" foundation by the Merovingians in the area of Bordeaux (roughly modern Gironde department, which was Romance and not actually Basque) but their control further south was non-existent. However in 632 Clothair invaded all Vasconia all the way to Bilbao (the Pyrenean border did not exist then at all), where abundant Frankish weaponry identical to the one found in Bordeaux has been excavated. It was then probably when Cantabria fell to the Visigoths (earlier the military frontier was very clearly south of it).
Afterwards there were a series of rebellions and the Franks had to recognize an independent Duchy of Vasconia in personal union with Aquitaine (north and east of the Garonne river, capital Toulouse) under Felix. His dynasty would regin in effective sovereignty for a century until the catastrophic Muslim invasion of Abd al Rhaman al Gafiqi, that culminated in the Battle of Tours (often called "of Poitiers" in France and Spain) and the formal vassallage of Aquitaine and Vasconia to the Franks (then already almost Carolingian).
I cannot condone this bad habit of ignoring the obscure but very real Basque-Cantabrian "free zone" that emerged from the bagaudae (and that I imagine a bit like the Old Swiss Confederacy but with a shoreline and somewhat larger).
I very much appreciate the feedback of what you’ve said, I can see where you’re coming from however, I have a few questions
-Who is “Clothair?” Was he a noble, potential obscure king?(Which is not likely), a mayor?
-If Vasconia was to be completely rid of the Franks, what happens to the southern civitas(es)? ex: Bigorre
-The free zone you said is the basin right? Can you tell me how it relates to the Franco-Visigoth border?
-What do you mean by “formal vassalage”? Aquitaine, yes a subkingdom during creation but you mentioned the vassalage part after the battle of Tours, which is after when Aquitaine establishes itself as a duchy
@@1_rma Sorry, it was Dagobert in 636 and not Clothair in 632, my bad. There was a previous expedition by Duke (of Vasconia-Bourdeaux?) Arnebert the previous year but was defeated at "Subola" (Zuberoa/Soule).
What happened to Bigorre? You tell me because I don't know what you're talking about.
There was no Franco-Visigoth border by the Western Pyrenees, their only actual border was between Aquitaine (Toulouse) and Gothia (Narbonne)... after the Goths lost Aquitaine c. 508. It can be argued that they also touched at some parts of the Eastern Pyrenees but, judging on toponimy, the Basque language influence clearly reached all the way to Cerdanya, so it'd be a fuzzy border at best. Anyway the Pyrenees are essentially impassable for any military purpose in most of their length, so no need to establish a border there, really, even if they controlled some districts maybe on either side; when armies marched in all History they did via the Eastern Catalan passes (Junquera, Port Bou, etc.) or the Western Basque passes: Roncevaux or the lower Basque Mountains to the west, already inside what is usually thought of as Iberia -- there's no physical border between Hendaia and Irun and the Romans thought of the Pyrenees extending all the way along the North Iberian coast to Galicia (what makes some sense). Until the Vandals there's no notion of any army ever crossing through the Western Pyrenees anyhow, next is this expedition by Dagobert, which clearly reached Bilbao district (but is unclear if it crossed the water divide, so maybe it doesn't count) and then we get to Al Gafiqi's invasion, which definitely crossed via Pamplona (and thus Roncevaux) and the later expedition of Charlemagne against Zaragoza (and the famous catastrophe of Roncevaux Battle).
Formal vassalage? Felix and successors were nominally vassals of the Frankish Kingdom between 660 and 732, but were de facto an independent realm. It was only the massive Muslim invasion of Al Gafiqi, which captured Pamplona and looted Bordeaux and pushed the residual Vasco-Aquitanian army to the Loire, which forced Eudes to acknowledge Frankish overlordship (nominally Merovingian but de facto already Carolingian under Charles Martel) in exchange for much needed military aid. Between 714 and 732, Basques and their Aquitainian Romance allies were very much able to fence off the Muslims on their own; much is talked about the fall of the Visigothic realm (a rotten and divided realm rather easy to capture) and the epic Battle of Tours (where Eudes and his cavalry are seldom mentioned, even if they did the key envolvement that decided the battle, Charles gets all the glory alone) but the heroic Basque and Aquitainian resistance in the 18 years in between is at best glossed over or just ignored completely.
Anyway, this last is for a period after what was mentioned in the video: my key point is that Novempopulania (northern Vasconia) was not under Frankish control in the period mapped here, and that, when it was finally invaded by the Franks (just after the end of the video), it was invaded in full and not to an imaginary border at the Bidasoa river, because it's clear that the Franks reached the area of Bilbao in great numbers and with much weaponry (archaeological data). The subsequent Duchy of Vasconia emerges from that invasion, after due revolts, as nominal (but de facto sovereign) vassal of the Franks and remains that way for some 72 years afterwards, almost a whole century. It's only after Tours that the Franks consolidate their control of Aquitaine and Vasconia, still quite convoluted, and that's why Charlemagne would be able to use Pamplona as base for his expedition and later betray it by arbitrarily demolishing its walls (what led to revenge at Roncevaux but also a decade of Muslim occupation of the city, occupation expelled by native uprising again).
Thanks for the clarification! I will try to find more about the information when I get to researching the video after. Bigorre was a main city of a civitas when Clovis claimed it in June 511 in addition to the other Aquitainian lands. If you don’t mind, can you send me some readings about this?
@@1_rma - Begin with Wikipedia "Duchy of Gascony", it has info and citations. I wrote much of the original entry decades ago (before 2007, then it was titled "Duchy of Vasconia") but I would have to search for the exact references right now, which included almost certainly the Auñamendi Eusko Entziklopedia, which you can find online (in Spanish and Basque language) but also other sources like "Navarra, el Estado Vasco" (which mentions all that as background, as it's focused on later Pamplona/Navarre Kdom.), etc. Most materials are in Spanish, as usually happens with Basque studies (also some in Basque, much less in French, virtually nothing in English).
@@1_rma - PS: forgot about Bigorre. Maybe Clovis claimed it and even actually took it but that's like Charlemagne walking through Pamplona and none of his successors ever to do it again until Napoleon (and nope: the "French" intervention in the 1512-21 conquest of Navarre was not French: they were Bearnese under the same monarch). I don't know the details for Bigorre but I know the details of two Visigothid instances to have been in the Southern Basque Country (one in Alava, the other in Olite) and both were unstable, brief episodes while the actual stable border run further south (yet some use them to argue for complete control). In those centuries there were for sure some occasional changes, after all, the barbarians had been adopted largely to fight against the bagaudae, so the oligarchic Roman order could continue, and they clearly did not recognize Basque-plus sovereignty in non-feudal terms... but it was very real and left a massive legacy not just in terms of language survival but also in terms of non-Roman and non-Germanic civil law, includining indivisibility of the core farmstead, which is why my great-grandfather still had one in the early 20th century.
Could I ask what that Eastern Frontier and that greyed area north of Soissons represent? Is it like a tribal area, or like the later marches? Anarchy? Etc.
The eastern frontier is the unchristianized zone in the realm because many tribes still live in that region, the land north of soissons is the charcoal forest
@@1_rma Thank you!
Nice video.
Why the reupload?
i found some errors in the editing
Nice
NICE
Amazing, sIay
fix the eastern frontier buddy
wow polab go back to mapping taifials or whatever
Accurate 👌
After 613, why is Paris only shown in dark blue?
Paris was personally the king’s domain
where Brunhilda?
Brunehaut is brunhilda
@@1_rmaHi 1_rma could I ask you about a historical issue that interests me? It is not directly related to the history of the Frankish state, and certainly not to antiquity. I don't know if you will be familiar with these issues, and I apologize in advance for the fact that my English is not the best. I warn you that the context of the question will be long.
@@kacperswierzewski3806 what is it?
@@1_rmaHere is the context of the question. Similarly, starting from the late 12th century, through the 13th century and most of the 14th century, historical Mazovia (certainly especially the north-eastern part, although allegedly also the north-western and south-eastern parts, I suspect that there were at least some losses in the south-western part as well) was almost literally depopulated as a result of raids, usually purely plundering, by Old Prussians, Yotvingians, Lithuanians and possibly Ruthenians. Similarly, in the 12th century in the region of Denmark, the Danish islands (such as Lolland, Funen and Zealand) and similarly even the entire coast of Jutland for many years were also almost literally depopulated by raids, again purely plundering, by Polabians and Pomeranians. On the other hand, for example, France (the West Frankish State) was for a large part of the 9th century, probably the entire 10th century and the early 11th century, almost mercilessly raided and plundered by Scandinavian Vikings, there was probably no town near the coast or near rivers that was not destroyed at least once, but even there I have NEVER HEARD of depopulation, and certainly not on a large scale (sometimes the Vikings would go really far and get to Metz, Dijon, Limonges, and even Clermont-Ferrand), plus raids from the Magyars/Hungarians and probably (I'm not sure, I would have to read up) Muslims (not that I'm anti-Muslim, I'm probably stating a historical fact), and what, somehow I have NEVER HEARD of France at that time being depopulated because of this, and certainly not to the extent that historical Mazovia and Denmark were. Finally, apart from that, Brittany (that peninsula currently in France) and the British Isles, the states there (the Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Irish, Cornwall, Strathclyde and Scotland) probably small, fragmented, sparsely populated, even tribal and technologically less advanced than the West Frankish State, were also raided by the Vikings (in a slightly longer period of time than France/West Frankish State) and PROBABLY more similarly than France and I have also NEVER HEARD of them becoming depopulated, just like France, unlike the large areas of Mazovia and Denmark. To sum up, the question is why, in the centuries given for the given regions, Mazovia and Denmark were depopulated by raids, while France, Brittany and the British Isles were not? I could write more but I will not elaborate any more and I apologize for the length of the text and the repetition of some words, but it is difficult to do otherwise. Thanks in advance for your answers.
@@1_rmaI apologize if I wrote something that is not true, but that is my state of knowledge. You can correct me if anything.
Vive La 1_rma!✌️