A new study challenges the long-held view that the 580 occupation of Vasconia by Visigothic King Leovigild was simply a military conquest aimed at subduing the Basques. According to research led by historian Iker Basterrika of the University of the Basque Country, the campaign was likely tied to political strategy, specifically a marriage alliance between Leovigild and the Frankish king Chilperic.
The study, published in the academic journal Hispania, revisits the limited and often ambiguous historical sources on the event, most notably the Chronicle of John of Biclaro. While traditional interpretations have painted the occupation as a violent encounter with the Vascones — a term historically used to identify the Basques — Basterrika argues this reading is based more on assumptions than evidence.
The Chronicle records only that Leovigild “occupied part of Vasconia” and founded a city named Victoriacum. It does not mention any battle or resistance from local peoples. No enemies are identified, and no victory is celebrated, unlike in other entries that detail Leovigild’s military conquests.
Questioning the military narrative
Basterrika points out that this absence of conflict is unusual if the campaign had been aimed at crushing a rebellious group. “The language used does not fit the usual pattern of war reporting found in other sections of the same chronicle,” he writes.
This lack of clarity is also reflected in other contemporary sources. Isidore of Seville, who chronicled events decades later, records no mention of Leovigild’s occupation of Vasconia. He does, however, list later confrontations between the Visigoths and Basques under kings like Recaredo and Suintila, which began years after 580. That silence about the 580 campaign raises questions about whether it was ever a conflict at all.
Instead, the study highlights the broader political context of the time — specifically, a developing alliance between the Visigothic and Merovingian kingdoms. In 580, negotiations began for a marriage between Leovigild’s son Recaredo and Chilperic’s daughter Rigunta. Historical records from both sides of the Pyrenees show that during such alliances, monarchs often launched expeditions into borderlands and granted territories as gifts or political statements.
Political strategy behind Vasconia
In this light, Basterrika suggests that the occupation of Vasconia and the founding of Victoriacum may have served diplomatic purposes. These actions likely symbolized unity or territorial reorganization rather than conquest.
The study also revisits the 581 expedition by Frankish Duke Bladastes into Vasconia. Gregory of Tours reports that Bladastes lost most of his army there. Later sources claimed he was killed, though this was proven false — he reappears in military campaigns years later. These conflicting accounts, Basterrika argues, are not reliable evidence of a coordinated military conflict against the Basques. Instead, the expedition likely coincided with the same marriage alliance efforts underway between the two kingdoms.
A poem written in 580 by Venantius Fortunatus, praising King Chilperic, adds weight to the study’s thesis. The poem places the Basques and Goths together in a list of peoples said to admire or fear Chilperic — but not as enemies. Rather than portraying them as hostile, the verses describe the king strengthening borders and building alliances. According to Basterrika, this tone reflects a broader policy of engagement rather than war.
Rethinking Victoriacum’s symbolism
Moreover, the name of the new city founded by Leovigild — Victoriacum — has sparked debate. Traditionally interpreted as a symbol of victory over the Basques, Basterrika notes that similar place names existed in Frankish territory and were tied to the Merovingians. This raises the possibility that Victoriacum was meant to reflect shared political identity or prestige, not conquest.
The study further examines how other royal marriages between the Visigoths and Franks influenced actions in frontier regions. In several cases, kings offered towns or lands as gifts to their new in-laws. The occupation of Vasconia, Basterrika suggests, may fit this pattern — a political gesture tied to the marriage of royal heirs.
Crucially, the study also warns against reading later conflicts into earlier events. The Basques did become a more visible and hostile force in chronicles from the late 6th and early 7th centuries. But projecting those conflicts backward onto 580, when no evidence exists of a local rebellion, distorts the historical record.
In sum, Basterrika concludes that the occupation of Vasconia in 580 was not a campaign against the Basques. Instead, it was part of a political and diplomatic strategy connected to cross-Pyrenean alliances. The study calls for a reassessment of how borderland activity is interpreted in early medieval Iberia, stressing the need to distinguish between symbolic acts of occupation and outright war.
