Why not the Northern Route?

[Bernard MILFORD]

Here is a question which I think may prove interesting.

When I have been explaining to friends the reason that the Camino Frinces is so
prominent, I have told them that is because most people from France and anyone
from Northern Europe that walked towards Santiago would end up at the Pyrenese
and would look for the northern most pass through.  This led them to Pamplona
through the Napoleon Pass or the Samport.

However, looking at the map, there is a more northerly pass thast avoids the
mountains at the coast.  It seems to me that somebody travelling from, for
example, Paris would find it quicker to follow the northern route.  So why did
the Camino Frances get all the attention?

I thought of a few explanations:
Following the coast could be difficult in the absence of bridges.  Every time
one came to a major river one would have to strike inland until it could be
forwarded or there was a bridge.

Are there cliffs that go all the way down to the waters edge, that make
progress difficult?

The northern route is there; that proves that it is not impossible.

Maybe people just followed those who went before them.  Broadway in New York
was once a goat track that led from New Amsterdam north; maybe the Camino route
is similar.

Or maybe powerful people along the route (Kings, Princes, Bishops) wanted the
pilgrims to come through their towns and ran a gentle "protection racket" to
induce people to take that particular route.  "We would look after you if you
come this way but if you go that way bad things might happen".

Has anybody got any ideas?