Caesar captured by the Gauls at Gergovia...
- Thread starter Byzantion
- Start date
Caesar ends his career as a trophy head.
More seriously.
IMPORTANT EDIT : Misread Gergovia as Alesia. My bad.
Situation could be significantly different in a short term : Labienus' forces are indeed commited in northern Gaul, against Parisii and Senones.
That said, Labienus was still struggling with marshes and rebellion of these two peoples : isolated with four legions and the Gallic Revolt likely to spread on, I think he wouldn't want to try his luck and would probably go back to Transalpina trough Aedui territory.
Would Aedui be "kind" enough to let him pass? I'd think so : IOTL they joined the rebellion after Gergovia, but the roman threat was still pretty much there, as the siege of Gergovia didn't involved the whole of Cesarian forces.
I think they'll try to play a mediator role, in order to keep their hegèmôn in central Gaul.
I wonder how much Sequana's peoples wouldn't leave Aedui clientelship, for instance.
Anyway, Romans are likely to keep more of their conquests : I think mostly in Aquitaine north-east of Transalpina, which may make a new tentative of conquest easier.
The pro-roman political structures in Gaul would have been importantly weakened by the conquest and crumble of Roman takeover.
Arverni would be the big winner in Gaul, his old prestige renewed by the success of Vercingetorix's tactics.
Don't expect more than a revival of the old Arverni "empire" in Aquitaine, tough, and that alone would be the maximum that could happen : Arverni wouldn't have either the resources or the support for leading more than that.
You might see the more or less important confederations either re-appearing (as Aedui's) or even created from the political vaacum created by Cesarian campaigns.
These confederations/alliance may reach some importance comparable to contemporary Dacia, but romanisation was already a factor in Gaul since the beggining of the century : trade that exportated Roman way-of-life, civic structures as vergobrets possibly influenced by Roman politics, use of a common coinage based on roman denarii...etc.
Giving the lack of unity among Gallic states, or real power for Vercingetorix outside the mandate to kick Romans out, Gauls wouldn't be able (assuming they would want to) threaten Roman holdings in Gaul (Transalpina proper, or parts that'd remained in Roman control).
Assuming because some tribes and confederacies (again, I'm thinking Aedui) would want to return to a status-quo ante bellum for what matter relations with Romans : either because they took power and importance from it, either because they'd need Roman alliance to keep more ambitious tribes at bay.
Interestingly, the transrhenan exchanges would still be pretty much the thing they were : "Germans" (if you remember the previous thread you did on the question, we're actually talking of pretty much celtized peoples) would have an increased presence in Celtica, and the prosperous celtic ensembles in Southern Germany may not know the brutal decline they went trough historically.
Basically, Gallia ITTL may still means the land of the Celts (including Upper Danube, then) and not a region more or less forged by Caesar.
I don't think you could prevent a real Roman takeover of the region between Rhine and Pyrenees if they really want to do so, but Romans are going to have an harsher time : this time the lesson of Caesar crushing one tribe after the other would have been taught, and more general opposition could follow.
Conquest of Gaul may be then more similar to what happened in Hispania : one step at the time. Granted, conquest of Gaul was facilited by logistics, tough the really efficient road network and fertile farmlands, so it may not be as long.
In the case of a conquest, *Gallo-Roman culture is going to be much different : more important celtic substrate, mostly, and the difference with the more romanized Transalpina is going to be even more obvious, maybe up to two distinct Gallo-Roman cultures.
As for Rome, SlyDessertFox will certainly be more knowledgable and able than I, but roughly : Pompey already became a less relevant political figure in the late -50's, didn't showing up a really big involvment on politics, and would probably retire as an old and respected (which he already was) politician.
Think Sylla, without the dictatorship part.
More seriously.
IMPORTANT EDIT : Misread Gergovia as Alesia. My bad.
Situation could be significantly different in a short term : Labienus' forces are indeed commited in northern Gaul, against Parisii and Senones.
That said, Labienus was still struggling with marshes and rebellion of these two peoples : isolated with four legions and the Gallic Revolt likely to spread on, I think he wouldn't want to try his luck and would probably go back to Transalpina trough Aedui territory.
Would Aedui be "kind" enough to let him pass? I'd think so : IOTL they joined the rebellion after Gergovia, but the roman threat was still pretty much there, as the siege of Gergovia didn't involved the whole of Cesarian forces.
I think they'll try to play a mediator role, in order to keep their hegèmôn in central Gaul.
I wonder how much Sequana's peoples wouldn't leave Aedui clientelship, for instance.
Anyway, Romans are likely to keep more of their conquests : I think mostly in Aquitaine north-east of Transalpina, which may make a new tentative of conquest easier.
---
The pro-roman political structures in Gaul would have been importantly weakened by the conquest and crumble of Roman takeover.
Arverni would be the big winner in Gaul, his old prestige renewed by the success of Vercingetorix's tactics.
Don't expect more than a revival of the old Arverni "empire" in Aquitaine, tough, and that alone would be the maximum that could happen : Arverni wouldn't have either the resources or the support for leading more than that.
You might see the more or less important confederations either re-appearing (as Aedui's) or even created from the political vaacum created by Cesarian campaigns.
These confederations/alliance may reach some importance comparable to contemporary Dacia, but romanisation was already a factor in Gaul since the beggining of the century : trade that exportated Roman way-of-life, civic structures as vergobrets possibly influenced by Roman politics, use of a common coinage based on roman denarii...etc.
Giving the lack of unity among Gallic states, or real power for Vercingetorix outside the mandate to kick Romans out, Gauls wouldn't be able (assuming they would want to) threaten Roman holdings in Gaul (Transalpina proper, or parts that'd remained in Roman control).
Assuming because some tribes and confederacies (again, I'm thinking Aedui) would want to return to a status-quo ante bellum for what matter relations with Romans : either because they took power and importance from it, either because they'd need Roman alliance to keep more ambitious tribes at bay.
Interestingly, the transrhenan exchanges would still be pretty much the thing they were : "Germans" (if you remember the previous thread you did on the question, we're actually talking of pretty much celtized peoples) would have an increased presence in Celtica, and the prosperous celtic ensembles in Southern Germany may not know the brutal decline they went trough historically.
Basically, Gallia ITTL may still means the land of the Celts (including Upper Danube, then) and not a region more or less forged by Caesar.
I don't think you could prevent a real Roman takeover of the region between Rhine and Pyrenees if they really want to do so, but Romans are going to have an harsher time : this time the lesson of Caesar crushing one tribe after the other would have been taught, and more general opposition could follow.
Conquest of Gaul may be then more similar to what happened in Hispania : one step at the time. Granted, conquest of Gaul was facilited by logistics, tough the really efficient road network and fertile farmlands, so it may not be as long.
In the case of a conquest, *Gallo-Roman culture is going to be much different : more important celtic substrate, mostly, and the difference with the more romanized Transalpina is going to be even more obvious, maybe up to two distinct Gallo-Roman cultures.
---
As for Rome, SlyDessertFox will certainly be more knowledgable and able than I, but roughly : Pompey already became a less relevant political figure in the late -50's, didn't showing up a really big involvment on politics, and would probably retire as an old and respected (which he already was) politician.
Think Sylla, without the dictatorship part.
Last edited: