the battle sissons

[legio_XX]

now I Know that the battle of sissons was fought and lost by the Romano-gaull and lost but for the life of me I cant seem to find anything on it:hmmm:. it may be off topic but i figuard that the people of this fourm might know.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Gregory of Tours is a good start -

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html

I think Book II is the place to read about the collapse of the 'Kingdom of Soissons', but not sure!

A more general overview would be here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syagrius

[Riothamus]

now I Know that the battle of sissons was fought and lost by the Romano-gaull and lost but for the life of me I cant seem to find anything on it:hmmm:. it may be off topic but i figuard that the people of this fourm might know.

Battle of Soissons 486: The Franks under Clovis instigate a confrontation against the Gallo Romans under Syagrius. with about 16,000 Gallo Roman troops, fought a somewhat smaller Frankish army somewhere outside of Soissons. A legend has it that Syagrius was so confident of victory that he insulted Clovis by saying to him before the battle, "A boy will try and take my Kingdom from me!?" The Gallo Romans were routed while Clovis seeked to personally kill Syagrius but Syagrius in haste left the battlefield. He fled to the Burgundians but was put in chains and giving back to the Franks for the Burgundians feared retribution. He was beheaded on route.

In one of those historical dark age moments, Syagrius never came to the aide of a British King named Riothamus in 471 as the Romano British army fought a heroic battle against a vastly outnumbered Visigoth army to almost the last man. So justice was delivered.

The kingdom of Soissons was a stronghold of Aetius and then later Aegidius and Syarius. It had strategic significance in the metals it produced for warfare. After the murder of the Western Emperor, Majorian 457AD to 461AD it became a Roman enclave. Aegidius may have marched down into Italy to revenge his friends(Majorian) death if not for the increasing troubles with the Visigoths and the recently annex lands by the Germans to his south.

-The info above was from research during my Graduate Studies
Pic is from here and some more info on the topic..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_Soissons

[legio_XX]

see i must agree I really hate the trait the always shows up in history with the romans. I mean adrinople probably would not have happened if that moron Valens had waited for his nephew to come and help, but no he wanted glory. There was the back stabbing and the civil wars. Then even more the other moron the romano gaul screws over Rio and ends any chance of a strong united roman type culture, but no! We get barbarians that the poop in fountains tear down the living conditions of everybody and destroy aqueducts destroy scripter after scripter and why not kill some teachers im sure!!!!!.............

well its not like they didnt do good things but still I cant help but wonder what history would be like if all the morons of rome had just had a sense of honer. :hmmm:

[Agraes]

Calling Syagrius a morron is a bit hard. Aegidius and Syagrius had their domain surviving for several decades despite beeing surrounded by most parts by hostile barbarian estates.

It is not clear why Riothamus didn't get the help of the Romans, and who was leading them at that time: was it the comte Paul or Syagrius? Was it a deliberated treason or did the Romans arrived to late to help the Britons against Euric?

I would opt for the second option. The Bretons/Britons, under their king Ambrosius Aurelianus Riothamus (as it is quite likely it is just one character, Ambrosius beeing called 'King of the Letavian Britons and the Franks' in a version of the Historia Brittonum) were the best allies of the Romans. Actually there were lot of Britons settled in Northern Gaul outside of Western Armorica, ie in actual Normandy and on the Loire aswell. Those Britons probably formed a part of Syagrius army, and after his death would cause several problems to Clovis: he chases them from Blois in 491 but failed at Nantes and had to make them allies in the end.

From what we know (or what we can conjecturate) the situation in Gaul and in Britain with the Saxon wars is deeply linked. After the defeat of Deols in 469, the Franks under Childeric entered in war against Syagrius. Gregory of Tours doesn't tell much about this part of history, but from his silence something can be infered. We know that Childeric suffered several defeats, likely against the alliance of Syagrius and the Britons. That would correspond with a period of success in Britain. If Ambrosius died in the late 480's, that let some problems for the Britons which may have not been fully able to help their allies. If we agree the date of 496 for Badon hill, the Saxons were beaten and in Gaul Clovis must have opted for peace with the Britons, as the Letavian Britons were now able to count with the help of the insular ones. Of course most of this is conjecture.


Now the barbarian kings were not guys pooping in the fountains etc... They were great fans (especially the Franks) of the Roman order, in the origin they mostly had been invited to enter the empire as federates. So there was no interest for them to ruin the country. They were probably not worse nor better as their roman counterparts such as Syagrius, but had their own motivations. Roman infrastructure was destructed by a political and economical crisis, and without a centralised autority it was much more difficult to keep this infrastructure in use. This wasn't the fault of the barbarians.

[Razor]

This wasn't the fault of the barbarians.

I always thought that the barbarians were a major factor if not the most important in these political crises and decentralisation of the Empire...

[Agraes]

Oh yes, they were! But they didn't wanted to. So not really their fault

[Riothamus]

It is not clear why Riothamus didn't get the help of the Romans, and who was leading them at that time: was it the comte Paul or Syagrius? Was it a deliberated treason or did the Romans arrived to late to help the Britons against Euric?

This is a good point. It isn't clear to who, never mind why Syagrius or comte Paul did not come to the aide of Riothamus. But its clear to me that the Gallo Romans botched a potential Roman revival(for better or worse) in Gaul, starting with the Praetorian Prefect in Gaul, Arvandus. Arvandus wrote a letter according to Sidonius Apollinaris to the Visigoth King Euric encouraging hm to attact the Britons (presumably under Riothamus) who were positioned beyond the Loire, "Throw off the rule of Anthemius, the Greekling who just took over he throne and divide up the provinces of Gaul with the Burgundians." the letter was intercepted and Arvandus was brought up on treason charges. Eurics Visigoths got wind from the public hearings and seeing the weekend and vulnerable position in Gaul proceeded and defeated the Britons at Deols. The Gallo Romans had to contend with a Frankish Saxon alliance as you stated Agraes thus tying them up a bit from aiding Riothamus. This just depicts how incredibly inept The Western Empire had become. Interestingly the Gallo Romans were somehow able to resist the Visigoths from a further incursion north of the Loire at that time. It was just a matter of time before the Domain of Syagrius would fall for it was surrounded by a target for a potential expansionist tribe such as the Franks.

Arvandus quote: The Cambrige Ancient History Volume XIX pg 28

[legio_XX]

as for the pooping crack that was just allitle inside joke between my friends...haha and I like the franks, being that I can trace my family tree back to a body gaurd of the frankish king charlemagne (I know! we had a liniage guy check it out) but I just like rome more then them and i still personaly bealive that rome fell becuse of abition but then again rome fell for alot of things, so ya calling them morons is abit harsh. I still wonder if france wuld have been differnt.