First of all, it vexes me mightily that GPC keeps hopping between Claudas and Clovis to refer to the same person. To keep my blood pressure down, I will use only Clovis in this thread from now on.

To put it simply, the historical dates for Clovis do not match too well with those in GPC:

486 Battle of Soissons, which puts Syagrius to flight.
(In GPC, this seems to happen in 485, since Syagrius is begging for help in Spring 486 rather than defending his lands, and the dud of the Invasion of Frankland is in 488, so that doesn't match, either. In the corrected timeline in BoU, this mistake is corrected and Syagrius flees to Britain at the end of 486 rather than at the start of the year.)

496 Battle of Tolbiac against Alamanni, which leads to Clovis' conversion.
(In GPC, this happens for some reason in 493, perhaps so that a joke can be made of Clovis' "tardy" baptism on Christmas of 496... which as you can see happened historically soon after the battle.)

500 Battle of Dijon (which Clovis loses).
(Ignored in GPC, and why shouldn't it be? People fight in the continent ALL THE TIME.)

507 Clovis conquers the Visigoth Kingdom of Toulouse (which covered Aquitaine, too), although the Visigoths keep Hispania.
(Since Aquitaine is the kingdom of Ban and Bors (Ganis) in GPC, and we need them to help Arthur, this doesn't happen until 518!)

511 Clovis dies and the kingdom is split between his sons. (Although the date is a bit uncertain; the name pops up in 513, still.)
(This is actually what is implied in GPC p. 201, BUT in the main text, Clovis is still hale and hearty, and the kingdom is undivided.)

Alright, so lets deal with the elephant in the room: the Kingdom of Ganis. Changing that part would be a huge pain, so it is easier to just have Clovis live 7 years longer than in real history. Also, I'd abjure the whole Visigoths = Bans & Bors connection; the culture of Ganis is taken from the Aquitania of the High Middle Ages, about 600 years to the future, not from Visigoths. So, we just have to embrace that anachronism, in lieu of having plate armors in 6th century Britain and having Arthur march to Rome. Otherwise, you'd have those Ganis knights have their cousin Visigoths control the whole of Spain, so why are they fleeing to Arthur in the first place? Why aren't the Visigoths helping in the reconquest of Ganis? Easiest way to solve this: de Ganis are not Visigoths.

So Clovis lives longer and takes Ganis, what then? Well, going by real history, he splits his kingdom between his sons:
Theuderic I (Rheims/Metz)
Chlodomer I (Orleans)
Childebert I (Paris)
Clothar I (Soissons, which interestingly included Aquitaine (Ganis), too)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Division_of_Gaul_-_511.jpg
(I am a bit suspicious about the claim of ruling over Brittany, too, and that of course doesn't happen in GPC, either.)

With the exception of Chlodomer (who dies in 524 against Burgundians, leading to his heirs being dispossessed or killed by his brothers, and his kingdom split between them), the other worthies survive to our period of Roman War. Given that Kay's Normandy takes a big chunk of the Kingdom of Paris (especially with Brittany already detached), I'd be tempted to have Childebert die during the War (historically, he survived until 558), and allow Clothar annex Paris.

Historically, Clothar managed to annex the Kingdom of Rheims/Metz in 555 and Paris in 558, thus reuniting the Frankish Kingdom... for 3 years, to his death in 561. Apparently having not learned anything from Clovis' mistake, Clothar split his kingdom with four of his sons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Le_royaume_des_Francs_en_561.svg

Anyway, for GPC purposes, I'd let Childebert die in the Roman War and Clothar absorb what remains of his realm, ignoring Theuderic's Kingdom of Rheims for now. Thus, as far as GPC is concerned, we will have 'a King of France', Clothar, from 526 onwards. It is King Clothar, not Clovis, who is attending Arthur's Court in Paris in 527, and swearing allegiance to him (I'd have Theuderic attend this, too, since frankly, the Battle of Saussy happens in his kingdom). When Theuderic dies in 534, I'd have Clothar leap at the chance to gobble the last bit up; historically, there was a peaceful succession to Theuderic's son, but here we have a stronger Clothar, unrestrained by now-dead Childebert. Thus, France is unified a generation ahead of schedule in 534, apart from Normandy.

Interestingly, this matches up very well with GPC's the Second French War in 536. We can have Clothar flexing his muscle and overrun Normandy in 535 (since it clearly is back in French hands by 536, or there would not be any need to reconquer Rouen), and use that as the reason for the war, rather than Lady Elyzabel (AKA Guinever's otherwise unmentioned cousin, or 'Lady Who?' as far as my players were concerned). The War to liberate Ganis follows easily from this, as happens in GPC.

Since I don't really see Arthur just defeating Clothar and then leaving that king in power, I'd have him splitting the French kingdom amongst Clothar's sons, to prevent France from cooperating so efficiently together. Normandy and Ganis would be officially no longer part of France, thanks to the clauses in the peace treaty. But especially in Ganis, those local lords, who have been in power for almost a generation, would defend their castles against the returning Ganis exiles. Thus, the Ganis exiles wouldn't face the full power of the unified French kingdom on their own, and that allows them to (eventually) succeed.

Finally, I'd totally ignore "The Lass of France", who is a clear reference to Joan of Arc. Joan of Arc came about thanks to a rather unique set of circumstances that are missing in GPC. Arthur's Britain is at peace, not engaged in conquering France to add it to Arthur's crown! Also, having de Ganis knights getting their asses kicked in France pretty much undercuts the whole Arthur vs. Lancelot War that happens a couple of years later. Instead, once the Briton and de Ganis knights bleed each other and finally are pretty much destroyed at Camlann by Mordred and his allies, then the Franks pour to Normandy and Aquitaine and retake those areas for the Franks.

As in another folder, I sincerely apologize for being an idiot about this and extending my bitchiness.

Yes, this is the right place to discuss this.

Dear Morien,

I loved your posts and I copy/pasted them for my own reference (which I hope is okay). Anyways, since I don't want to accidentally vex Mr. Stafford by posting in this Thread any more than I have, let me say "Thanks!".

Rather than copy-paste my answer in the other thread, I will simply link it:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2612-Making-the-Roman-War-more-historical&p=22376&viewfull=1#post22376

I'd point out, however, that GPC p. 201, which tries to be an overview of France, speaks plainly of Clovis splitting the Frankish Kingdom between his sons, so I am actually discussing here exactly what is already mentioned in GPC, and trying to figure out how it would work without leaving too many gaps. P. 222 explicitly says that France is ruled by the Merovingian dynasty, as it was historically. Not a Capet or a Valois in sight!

Now, you have an idea for a campaign in France that will take some liberties with history. Great, can't wait to see it. However, that is not what this thread is about. This is about trying to figure out how things might work in France in the current GPC campaign, using real history as our guideline.

Neither of these threads are intended to be: THIS IS HOW IT MUST BE.

They are: Hey, if you want to stick close to history and still run through GPC, here is one idea on how to make it happen.


To USKnight:
Sure, no problem, as long as you don't repost them elsewhere as your own. :P For your private use, feel free, and glad you found them useful. That, to me, is one of the main purposes of having a forum like this: bounce ideas back and forth, get excited about the game and grab good/interesting ideas we come across to use in our own campaigns.

Also to learn from mistakes (rules or campaign -related) and seek help with the rules, too, of course. The above was mainly regarding the Game Play subforum.

Dear Morien,

I loved your posts and I copy/pasted them for my own reference (which I hope is okay). Anyways, since I don't want to accidentally vex Mr. Stafford by posting in this Thread any more than I have, let me say "Thanks!".

Thank you for your consideration.
There is no need to nix this discussion, and I am glad to have it continue.
In fact, I checked and the planned campaign is stalled, probably permanently.
I will share the core idea for it that attracted me to it.

Basically, the Merovingians spend most of Arthur';s reign killing each other off, as the did in history. They are all rotters, as in history, save for one who picks up Arthur's ideas and ideals and struggles to maintain them against his kinsmen.
In the end of course, he prevails, thanks in part to King Arthur's assistance.
I don't have the genealogy in front of me. The winner would be the one who survived, historically.

Basically, the Merovingians spend most of Arthur';s reign killing each other off, as the did in history. They are all rotters, as in history, save for one who picks up Arthur's ideas and ideals and struggles to maintain them against his kinsmen.
In the end of course, he prevails, thanks in part to King Arthur's assistance.
I don't have the genealogy in front of me. The winner would be the one who survived, historically.

Hmm. To make that work, I'd turn to Theudebert I, the son of Theuderic I, who actually seems more of a badass than I gave him credit for, since he seems to have fought off both Childebert and Clothar after his ascension to kingship in 534. He also managed to hand off his realm to his underaged, sickly son Theudebald, who, thanks to his father's rep and legacy, actually managed to stay on the throne until dying of sickness in 555. That is pretty strong statement of one's reputation when the usual thing was for the other Frankish Kings to come for a visit and kill off your heirs...

In this variant, you could have young Theudebert even visit Camelot post-Badon, and get bitten by the chivalric urges. 524 and the death of his cousins at the hands (or behest) of his uncles would shock him and perhaps even side with Arthur during the Roman War, but his father might think Theoderic the Great will win and thus fight against Arthur. The Second French War might be to support Theudebert against Clothar, leading to the latter's downfall and the unification of France under Theudebert, save for Normandy and Ganis, as mentioned in the previous. Theudebert then ushers in a decade of chivalry in Frankish Kingdom, whilst putting down rebellions by Clothar's sons. Maybe even his 'paladins' (a forerunner of Charlemagne's paladins and a 'French Round Table') support his son's reign until 555 (so about 20 years of chivalry). And then all goes to crap as Clothar's sons reassert their claims and divvy up the kingdom, restarting the internecine warfare as in history.

Thank you for your consideration.
There is no need to nix this discussion, and I am glad to have it continue.
In fact, I checked and the planned campaign is stalled, probably permanently.
I will share the core idea for it that attracted me to it.

Basically, the Merovingians spend most of Arthur';s reign killing each other off, as the did in history. They are all rotters, as in history, save for one who picks up Arthur's ideas and ideals and struggles to maintain them against his kinsmen.
In the end of course, he prevails, thanks in part to King Arthur's assistance.
I don't have the genealogy in front of me. The winner would be the one who survived, historically.

Wow wow wow let's not get there too fast Mr Stafford !

My ancestors were awesome and knew how to manage the extended family trees that's all :)

To call them all rotters might be a bit too much. There are some gems in there, and not even Charlemagne was free of the suspicion of arranging some inconvenient family members drop dead.

What is really amazing is that they kept dividing the kingdom and thus ensured that there would be a fresh round of civil wars in each generation, which prevented the concentration of royal power and indeed, led to empowering the nobles. The medieval Welsh principalities show the exact same pattern of internecine warfare. I am not sure how much choice the latter Merovingians had about that, though: there are cases of the regional nobles demanding to have their own king, for example.