WI: Roman total defeat in Alesia

As in the title, what would happen to Gaul and Transalpine Roman Gaul if the Romans suffer a total defeat at the hands of the Gaulish coalition in Alesia? I assume Caesar and his leadership is either imprisoned or killed in this scenario, so the repercussion of the absence of such figures should also be taken into consideration for Roman internal politics.

Given Gaul was relatively more urban that Germany, is it possible to have some sort of unified country ruling at least over half or a third Gallia Celtica? I imagine the Arverni have a shot at it given their participation in Alesia.
 
Last edited:
As in the title, what would happen to Gaul and Transalpine Roman Gaul if the Romans suffer a total defeat at the hands of the Gaulish coalition in Alesia? I assume Caesar and his leadership is either imprisoned or killed in this scenario, so the repercussion of the absence of such figures should also be taken into consideration for Roman internal politics.

Given Gaul was relatively more urban that Germany, is it possible to have some sort of unified country ruling at least over half or a third Gallia Celtica? I imagine the Arverni have a shot at it given their participation in Alesia.
I have my doubts. The Gauls were seen as an arch enemy of Rome once Carthage fell (they did after all sack Rome, even if the Alesian Gauls barely had anything to do with that), and they did just deliver a perfectly good insult to the Republic that some aspiring statesman would use to gain fame by avenging it.

Add in the relatively good Roman infrastructure towards Gaul and its relative urbanisation, and I don't think the Romans can be kept out for long at this stage.
 
I have my doubts. The Gauls were seen as an arch enemy of Rome once Carthage fell (they did after all sack Rome, even if the Alesian Gauls barely had anything to do with that), and they did just deliver a perfectly good insult to the Republic that some aspiring statesman would use to gain fame by avenging it.

Add in the relatively good Roman infrastructure towards Gaul and its relative urbanisation, and I don't think the Romans can be kept out for long at this stage.

Mithridates?

Also I think if Cesare had gone, then most Roman progress in Gaul would fall apart. Maybe 50 years later they'd probably reinvade.
 
I have my doubts. The Gauls were seen as an arch enemy of Rome once Carthage fell (they did after all sack Rome, even if the Alesian Gauls barely had anything to do with that), and they did just deliver a perfectly good insult to the Republic that some aspiring statesman would use to gain fame by avenging it.
Was it really seen as that? Where exactly?

I mean they just lost 8 legions there, frankly saying "they can just invade again" seems like ignoring the loss of troops they just suffered there.

I mean 1 year earlies about 40k troops got also destroy at Carrhae as well, I'm not so sure this internally divided and corrupt late Republic has really the resources to spare for another invasion of Gaul.

Add in the relatively good Roman infrastructure towards Gaul and its relative urbanisation, and I don't think the Romans can be kept out for long at this stage.
But that doesn't mean that urbanized countries always take over less urbanized ones, there are way more factors than that, after all the Romans didn't exactly takeover Germany or the Picts either despite even a larger gap being present there.
 
(Partially copy-pasting from an older but pretty much equivalent thread)
As in the title, what would happen to Gaul and Transalpine Roman Gaul if the Romans suffer a total defeat at the hands of the Gaulish coalition in Alesia?
Let's assume Labienus doesn't manage to asset the situation correctly or maybe having him dying earlier as a PoD during the campaign against Treviri; which would allow the rescue Gallic army to break the outer fortifications in conjuction of Vercevingetorix's army doing the same with inner walls, and Caesar may end his career as a trophy head, with his armoured body in display on the walls of an Arverni temple.

Gaul in the late -50's was a seemingly roughly pacified ensemble that revolted and ITTL would have crushed Romans, similarily to what happened at Teutobourg, with a probable similar trauma : that Romans would still keep control of conquered regions (besides Transalpina proper) as Aquitaine up to Garonne and Rhodanian corridor is plausible, but the revolt would probably generalized in most of Gaul, forcing a general withdrawal besides these points.

That said, culturally and politically, you'd have several changes ongoing.
The Gallic confederations and alliances 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. All of this participated to make Central Gaul part of the Roman sphere of influence, and even with a Roman defeat at Alesia, so would be Armorican and Northern Gaul.

Aedui would probably still keep their dominance in Central and Northern Gaul, while rivaled by Arverni. Geopolitically, the game's rules would have changed with, for exemple, the use of Roman tactics by Gauls, and the possible political changes.

Arverni would be the clear immediate winners, their old prestige renewed by the success of Vercingetorix's tactics. Without expecting a return of the old Arvernic Empire, we could see the re-establishment of an Arverni hegemony over south-western Gaul (with re-captation of former clients as Cadurci or Ruteni). Vercingetorix may turn as a "tyran "(in the classical sense, see below) but his "mandate" was about kicking Romans out and would not survive their defeat for what matters his power over several peoples : even during the siege IOTL, there were other Arverni leaders, some of which are more represented in found coinage than Vercingetorix.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see re-emerging Gallic confederacies instituting a form of tyranny (in the ancient sense) as a leadership maintained trough popular support, especially in the power vaacum let by Caesarian shenanigants and conquests with new confederations araising in Gaul (especially in Belgium and Armorica) with formerly powerful peoples being incorporated into larger ensemble (Veneti power being significantly lowered, I could see them joining up with Armoricans, for exemple)

It's unlikely, giving the disunity of Gauls and the lack of real hegemonic power among the gallic coalition that you'd really see noticable campaigns (over than raids) in Transalpina : it's really not a given that most would even want to as many would want to prevent an Arverni takeover before anything else, would it be at the cost of a compromise with Rome : I'm especially thinking to traditional Roman allies as Aedui whom power and wealth depended from good relations with Rome.

Interestingly, the transrhenan exchanges would still be pretty much the thing they were : "Germans" (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.

Of course, the already ongoing decline of druidism would certainly play a role on understanding changes of Gallic society : powerful peoples as Aedui let less places than what existed in the IInd century to Druids into everyday political life, as they remained an important political-social class, but less than they used to as a social group.

Now, socially, we see that we have Druids doing quite well in the Ist century. Diviciacos is an important person, representing Aedui in Rome, befriending Cicero's brother, and may have even been vergobret of his people.
But as a druid, it's certainly quite opposite to the classical idea : no real restriction (dieterary or socially), openly speaking of druidic knowledge (which allows us to know about its depth, but also to see what was a restriction being largely breached).
A parallel with Roman religious roles (apart, maybe, flamines) that go broadly "civilized" and tied up with political institutions, may be interesting on this regard.

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, Gauls would have learned 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, it was facilited by logistics, tough the really efficient road network and fertile farmlands, so it may not be as long as it happened there, but with such 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.

Given Gaul was relatively more urban that Germany
The sociological, cultural and structural difference between the two sides of the Rhine is, while not entierly, largely a Caesarian creation : in fact, most of Rhineland and Danubian Germania was at least strongly celtized, and more of a mix of Celtic and Germanic features on which the Celtic elements was often dominant (Ariovist is a celtic name, for instance).

is it possible to have some sort of unified country ruling at least over half or a third Gallia Celtica? I imagine the Arverni have a shot at it given their participation in Alesia.
While you could see more unified confederacies, as Aedui's IOTL (the existance of large archei in Gaul, with a complex network of obligations pre-existed Romans) I'd say greater unification, regionally speaking, partly due to the aformentioned power vaacum.
Former allies of Caesar in Gaul, even if they joined the general rebellion (or didn't for that matter) would keep gains they obtained from this alliances : rivals being crushed, gain of territories or trade roads, etc.

Still, while the appearance of alliances/confederations may probably arise as I tried to point above, it's doubtful you'd see even within strong peoples as Aedui a tendency to centralisation with subordinated peoples disappearing as such at the benefit of the political center.
Would they have attempted that out of blue, Roman power and pro-Roman factions among Gauls, would certainly prevent that to happen.

Roman presence, influence and power (political, cultural and economical alike) is known in pre-conquest Gaul and may have helped Gaul adopting anti-monarchical, republican polities and as Caesar said (but also what archeological data seems to somehow support, while less bluntly than the Caesarian statement) : while Central-Eastern Gaul was well into Roman sphere of influence (I'm rambling, but that regional polities coinage was based on Roman coinage is more than telling), others regions seems to have escaped more and doesn't seems to have either vergobret institution, and to have kept more druidic features intact.

Making another parallel with Greeks, in the same way we had a distinction between city-states and ethnic states in the archaic period, we may have a distinction between vergobret-doms and chiefdoms in pre-Roman Gaul (and that may be one of the reason to distinguish Belgae and others Celts on the left bank of the Rhine*)
Belgae/Brittons seems more conservative on this regard, they do seem to have known an assembly system as well (see how Ambiorix manages to lead a northern Gallic alliance). On the latter case, it's less sure that we couldn't, indeed, end with a more or less rough equivalent to High Kingship, in the Britton sense IMO, tough, as what happened with Cogidubnos and possibily Cunobelinos.

Meaning a form of cyclical chiefdom built over a former military alliance with institutions that could support their maintenance.
How long could it last without Roman support as with Cogidubnos, or existential threat as Cunobelinos, however... But, yes, it could create the way for an original mix of high-kingship/assembly system.

But Vercingetorix pulling a coup and going in a conquest spree?
Vercingetorix could use his prestige to topple part of Arverni elites, and enforce a tyrannic (again in ancient sense) rule but he would still have to deal with inner opposition : Epasnactos joined up with Rome (at the point pulling Roman-inspired coinage) but was as well present in Alesia IOTL. Even with Vercingetorix's victory, he would be influential, and Vercingetorix trying to undergo a total takeover could lead to a civil war he wouldn't be sure to win.
He seems to have fought back for power, as a prelude to revolt, by being supported not by Arverni elites or core populations, but more excentric, peri-urban populations; rather than on the urban population of Nemossos strictly speaking.

Such inner contradictions would probably colour his rule. How exactly? I'm not sure, we don't know nearly enough about Gallic polities even in this region. Tough, it would probably impair its capacity to really gain power elsewhere, except maybe trough a "revanchist" program about reclientelising neighbouring peoples traditionally into Arverni sphere of influence.

But really, the core of the issue when it comes to central Gallic polities is that we're talking of sophisticated political structures : factions built on economical interests and familial lineages (as Vercingetorix had to fight his uncle, which is in a possibly matrilinear lineage point of view, full with information). Using the Renfew model, we have something in between of complex chiefdoms and formative states in the IInd/Ist centuries BCE.

Maybe that the wars would help reinforcing a sense of regional unity and to give a more secular (more secular in these times, you know it better than I, still means pretty much ritualistic and religious, of course) pendant to druidic unifying features that were already declining.
We're talking long-range timeline tough, and Rome isn't going anywhere : their political/cultural/economical influence was really strong, and would likely continue to progress even without massive retiliation.
 
I have my doubts. The Gauls were seen as an arch enemy of Rome once Carthage fell
It's really more of a cliché than anything really present in Ist century BCE Rome tough : it still remained some tropes and narratives, less from history than historiography, but Roman-Gallic relations were relatively good before Caesarian conquest, which greatly helped it and the integration of celtic cities within Romania.

Cicero could host an Aedui vergobret (and druid, and ambassador...you had quite a mix-up of functions at this point) without anyone really minding it. Or, if we're talking about Aedui, they were particularily well considered institutionally : alone among Barbarians, they were officially considered as actually related to Romans (Arverni attempted to have a similar status, without result).

So, sure, the defeat would be humiliating. But I wonder how much of the defeat and its consequences wouldn't be blamed on Caesarian strategy and policies (whatever the truth of it) by his rivals in Rome.
Giving that pro-Roman factions in Gaul would be still much of a reality, even among Arverni, I could see expeditions made along what Caesar did, only far more cautiously. For exemple, helping Arverni aristocracy to deal with Vercingetorix, turning effectivly the people as an "ally" (read protectorate) and securing some Caesarian conquests (Rhone's basin, Aquitaine, etc.).

Basically, possibly something along the lines on how Romans took Transalpina in the 120's/100's : something gradual (with allies as Volcae were being absorbated) and a series of secondary states along the border (as Aedui, Arverni, Sequani, etc. were before Caesarian conquest)
 
I agree with @LSCatilina on the effects of a total defeat, but I question the likelihood of a total defeat.

I imagine the worst case scenario is the relief force smashing open the Roman counter-fortifications and start killing everyone inside. At some point, Caesar loses his head and a legion commander is going to call it quits. What would follow is probably a disorganized run for "safety." Fortunately for the Romans, their pursuers would probably lose cohesion by nightfall and a giant pursuit breaks down into little parties. The Gauls often quit pursuit after a victory after a few hours. Unfortunately, they are legging it without food. What arrives weeks later in the closest Roman camp would be isolated parties one by one. Perhaps 1/8 to 3/8 of the total manpower gets away.
 
What would follow is probably a disorganized run for "safety."
What Romans called caedes (in this context, the slaughter at the end of a battle, when disbanded armies feld the field), accounted for a large part of casualties in ancient armies, tough.

With a large Gallic army that was importantly, up to half of it maybe, made of cavalry and with fighters really motivated both with the objective to crush Roman presence in Gaul, and to gain trophies, you'd witness a Roman army stuck between the oppidum and horsemen (or mounted infantry), and suffering probably much more losses than just 1/8. It's hard to say how much, but clearly more altough I agree with you that it wouldn't be nearly all of them (would it be only because some Gallic vergobrets, military rulers, etc. would be already thinking about a compromise with Romans).
 
0_17e0e7_9bfb1054_orig
 
It's really more of a cliché than anything really present in Ist century BCE Rome tough : it still remained some tropes and narratives, less from history than historiography, but Roman-Gallic relations were relatively good before Caesarian conquest, which greatly helped it and the integration of celtic cities within Romania.

Cicero could host an Aedui vergobret (and druid, and ambassador...you had quite a mix-up of functions at this point) without anyone really minding it. Or, if we're talking about Aedui, they were particularily well considered institutionally : alone among Barbarians, they were officially considered as actually related to Romans (Arverni attempted to have a similar status, without result).

So, sure, the defeat would be humiliating. But I wonder how much of the defeat and its consequences wouldn't be blamed on Caesarian strategy and policies (whatever the truth of it) by his rivals in Rome.
Giving that pro-Roman factions in Gaul would be still much of a reality, even among Arverni, I could see expeditions made along what Caesar did, only far more cautiously. For exemple, helping Arverni aristocracy to deal with Vercingetorix, turning effectivly the people as an "ally" (read protectorate) and securing some Caesarian conquests (Rhone's basin, Aquitaine, etc.).

Basically, possibly something along the lines on how Romans took Transalpina in the 120's/100's : something gradual (with allies as Volcae were being absorbated) and a series of secondary states along the border (as Aedui, Arverni, Sequani, etc. were before Caesarian conquest)

Bold was my first thought. Not even just his enemies, either. He was being somewhat unconventional in Gaul, and Rome was a very conventional town. So, he'd better win, or he'll pretty much be blamed for the deaths of all his casualties and the slight to a Roman honour. Now, even with that being the case, there's still a very good chance Rome chooses to pick up the reins he'd dropped in defeat and pursue a reclamation of honour or at least a resumption of duty to their allies (the pretext where this all began) in a more conventional manner. In fact i'm struggling to think of a realistic TL where they just let it go. Even Arminius, even Carrhae...the need to avenge even those losses they blamed on their own leader's incompetence seems a constant.
 
It's really more of a cliché than anything really present in Ist century BCE Rome tough : it still remained some tropes and narratives, less from history than historiography, but Roman-Gallic relations were relatively good before Caesarian conquest, which greatly helped it and the integration of celtic cities within Romania.
I think it's thanks to Caesar's own writings that this trope persists. Caesar himself played off of, and attempted to revive, this fear of the Gauls and the north in general, that had existed in earlier times in the Roman psyche but had largely evaporated in the 50 years since the Cimbri wars as a savvy political stunt.
 
He was being somewhat unconventional in Gaul, and Rome was a very conventional town. So, he'd better win, or he'll pretty much be blamed for the deaths of all his casualties and the slight to a Roman honour.
While the unconventionality (relative, tough) of his tactics could be blamed, I was more thinking about the more or less conquistador-mindset of Caesar, and his tendency to shatter the traditional or official policy of Rome in Gaul : let's not forget that Ariovisto and Aedui were considered a client of the republic that Caesar might have bullied into war, and the tendency to provoke auxiliaries and allies to rebel.
I could see the Senate and their envoys undergoing a more conciliant, if firm, approach in Gaul that would succeed Caesarian policies in a more "conventional" and probably more diplomatic way.

Now, even with that being the case, there's still a very good chance Rome chooses to pick up the reins he'd dropped in defeat and pursue a reclamation of honour or at least a resumption of duty to their allies (the pretext where this all began) in a more conventional manner.
Let's not forget that several polities, especially Aedui's archê, would likely search a compromise with Romans, their power in Gaul more or less importantly derivating from their relations with Romans, to not speak of the various "pro-Roman" factions among Sequani, Arverni, etc. : Roman influence in Central Gaul was palpable since the late IInd century BCE with the aformentioned results in economy, politics, institutions and society; and Caesarian campaigns would certainly extend this influence in northern Gaul.

While I could see Romans technically going all fire and fury over Gauls, the loss of a good chunck of Roman armies, plus the political trauma isn't to be put under the rug, IMHO : in a first time, we could see the re-establishment of clientele relationship (maybe even an agreement with Arverni for what matter Cadurci and Ruteni) with parts Romans would still hold (for exemple, I think that an extension of Transalpina up to Atlantic is really possible).
How long would it last is anyone's guess, but I think that in spite of their disunity Gauls learned they could temporarily form a great alliance against Rome and be successful is a major change for what matter Roman conquest : I'm not saying that Gauls and Romans would re-enact Greek and Persian wars (altough the comparison isn't as ill-fitting as it could sounds), but it wouldn't be a return to status-quo either.
 
The post is a bit too long to quote in parts, so I'll just ask a couple questions:

- Why did those pro-Roman faction exist in the first place? Economical interests?
- Would those pro-Roman tribes really prefer Roman ruler over Arverni or another hegemonic Gaulish power?
- When talking about long timeline to create something more centralized, you mean a century or 2 or even more?
- This insurmountable Roman superiority where exactly did come from? I don't mean to ask when did they become so strong(that would be a bit vague), but when was the deal sealed that they become so strong as to more or less naturally incorporate their neighbours with sheer economic and cultural influence?
- Looking at Greece, is fair to say that the extent of influence of Greek culture over the Roman could be considered similar to the one the Romans had over the Gauls and other neighbours, or was it smaller/bigger?
- Considering the internal politics of late Republican Rome, is it possible for them to damage the country for a long term period, let's say like the late Empire civil wars did?
 
Why did those pro-Roman faction exist in the first place? Economical interests?
Partially, but not only : if economic interests were predominant, Central Gaul as a whole wouldn't have rebelled. Altough the relations with Rome on which many chiefs were beneficiaries did included exchanges, and that the strength of some peoples (notably Aedui, that dominated a commercial hub) and cities (Bibracte/Bibroakti) came from trade and tolls that reinforced the mobilisating capacities of their polities, Rome did played the role of hegemon and main protector of the political balance in the region.

It's worth noting that the rise of archaî in Gaul predate Roman conquest of Transalpina (which incidentally broke the Arverni build-up) that was based not only on the territorial takeover of trade centers, but critically on the gallic ressources development (farming, mining) and technological edge.


Either trough sheer political strength or calculation, anyone that wanted to rise in Gaul was going to have Romans being involved at some point, and displaying one's philoromania could be the sign of ambition or political caution.

And then you had of course the lot of familial and political infighting : as much as in Rome, siding with populares and optimates eventually had with time less to do with social origin and class interests, and more with political ambitions and personal/familial interests with many side-changings in the Ist century, political factionalism among and between Gallic politics wasn't that clear-cut and simplist to be about direct and monocausal.

- Would those pro-Roman tribes really prefer Roman ruler over Arverni or another hegemonic Gaulish power?
I'd be wary about tribes, there : not that you didn't have tribal features in Gaul (as you had in archaic and early classical Greece or Rome), but they weren't the basic social and institutional base of Gallic civilization, contrary to what Caesar called "cities" and that we could call peoples.

Eventually, even traditionally pro-Roman peoples as Aedui were traversed by contradictory political groups, issued from a sophisticated civic-political life.
It's actually hard to find peoples with a real anti-Roman drive in Central Gaul : while Aedui were clearly favoured by Rome, Arverni (whom their passivity in most of the wars could be the sign of political divisions, as highlighted by Epasnactos' coinage) and Sequani (that were considered "friends of Rome" at some point) weren't as much anti-Romans than anti-Aedui.

It's less that they would favour Rome over Aedui, than they (so far) considered Rome as a possible ally against Aedui or at least, whom neutrality would weaken the Aedui hegemony. Eventually, as much as Aedui would want to return to status quo with Romans, surrounding peoples would more or less so at their benefit : while they demonstrated they could temporarily ally themselves against Rome if needed, it's not going to change the frames of Gallic society.
Again, a comparison with classical Greek cities that preferred to acknowledge Persian hegemony rather than having another polis establishing its hegemon might be interesting.

- When talking about long timeline to create something more centralized, you mean a century or 2 or even more?
I'm not sure I said it would ask for a long timeline, than wondering how long the slow build-up could last ("how long") with Roman power not going anywhere, and at the very least trying to prevent unification efforts.
It's less the problem of time, eventually, than opportunity : in Greece, you had to wait four or five centuries with the establishment of ancient Greek ethnic or urban states to have some of them being violently unified after a general weariness.

Not that the aformentioned archai couldn't get structured more tightly, especially with the political vaacum resulting from Caesarian campaigns, but I was more thinking about an in-between what existed in Ist century Dacia and classical Greece.

This insurmountable Roman superiority where exactly did come from? I don't mean to ask when did they become so strong(that would be a bit vague), but when was the deal sealed that they become so strong as to more or less naturally incorporate their neighbours with sheer economic and cultural influence?
Maybe less insurmountable than obnoxious. Rome was everywhere in Central Gaul, trough trade (which was more than an economical asset, but a way to export a "Roman way-of-life" so to speak), political support, subsides, and general influence (the "republican" institutions in Gaul, standardisation of eastern-central Gaul coinage, etc.). It was all pretty quick, as Romans basically fit in the shoes of a sophisticated economical social and political development.
The quick conquest of Gaul was made possible by a strong road networks; and a wealthy country (it's almost proverbial to say that behind each Roman road or villa, there's a Gallic road or farm) whom contact with Mediterranean basin (and the subsequent mediterranean tropism) predate Rome conquest of Transalpina since centuries.

At the point Rome intervened in behalf of Massalia against the federation of Salyes and other provencal hegemonies, which led to the mobilisation of several basically along these lines : Arverni being roped into this by Allobroges, that were roped into this by Voconces, that were roped into this by Salyes. So I'd say that by the late IInd, it was a tiny bit too late.
A good PoD to prevent this would be a Punic victory in the Second Punic War.

- Looking at Greece, is fair to say that the extent of influence of Greek culture over the Roman could be considered similar to the one the Romans had over the Gauls and other neighbours, or was it smaller/bigger?
It was different in nature : Massalia never represented an hegemonic power of any sort, and was constantly trying to pull complex rear-alliance against Celto-Ligurian peoples as Salyes.
While Greek (but as well Etruscean) influence certainly participated to the general build-up of principalties (in Halstattian period) and confederacies (in Latenian period) trough commercial/diplomatical influence, and cultural (Gallic being written in Greek characters, likely strong Greek influence on Druidism, etc.), with indirect consequences (for exemple, militarisation of Celto-Ligurians, such as the Salyes dunastai).

Overall it was an influence that was absorbated and integrated by Gauls, without the reprercussion that a strong and influent state could have along these same lines. Not that Roman influence (monetary, politically, etc.) wasn't integrated, but Romans could pull a conquest that Greeks couldn't which necessarily coloured differently this said influence (Gaul was said to be a philhellenic land, for instance).

Considering the internal politics of late Republican Rome, is it possible for them to damage the country for a long term period, let's say like the late Empire civil wars did?
Not directly, at the very least : Gallic complex chiefdoms and formative states were too divided and with conflicting interests to really have the possibility to take back Transalpina, let alone going in Italy in masse (would they want to do so, which as I tried to explain, is far from obvious). But for late Republic proper, you might have better chances with @Agricola or @SlyDessertFox , altough I don't think Rome would be really weakened by a catastrophic defeat in Gaul even in the short term.
 
Partially, but not only : if economic interests were predominant, Central Gaul as a whole wouldn't have rebelled. Altough the relations with Rome on which many chiefs were beneficiaries did included exchanges, and that the strength of some peoples (notably Aedui, that dominated a commercial hub) and cities (Bibracte/Bibroakti) came from trade and tolls that reinforced the mobilisating capacities of their polities, Rome did played the role of hegemon and main protector of the political balance in the region.
So it was essentially because those groups benefited from their position and Rome was interested in preventing big powers from arising, as were those groups.

It's worth noting that the rise of archaî in Gaul predate Roman conquest of Transalpina (which incidentally broke the Arverni build-up) that was based not only on the territorial takeover of trade centers, but critically on the gallic ressources development (farming, mining) and technological edge.
What are those "archaî"?

Either trough sheer political strength or calculation, anyone that wanted to rise in Gaul was going to have Romans being involved at some point, and displaying one's philoromania could be the sign of ambition or political caution.
But at the end of the day it appears that Rome wasn't interested in having any single group rise too much over the other, so wouldn't such a stance be contradictory in some cases?

I'd be wary about tribes, there : not that you didn't have tribal features in Gaul (as you had in archaic and early classical Greece or Rome), but they weren't the basic social and institutional base of Gallic civilization, contrary to what Caesar called "cities" and that we could call peoples.
Don't mind my use of the term tribes, I almost never use it with an actual complex meaning behind it. It's just a term I find convenient and basically use it with the same meaning of "countries".

Eventually, even traditionally pro-Roman peoples as Aedui were traversed by contradictory political groups, issued from a sophisticated civic-political life.
I guess that answer that question above in a sense.

It's actually hard to find peoples with a real anti-Roman drive in Central Gaul : while Aedui were clearly favoured by Rome, Arverni (whom their passivity in most of the wars could be the sign of political divisions, as highlighted by Epasnactos' coinage) and Sequani (that were considered "friends of Rome" at some point) weren't as much anti-Romans than anti-Aedui.
Wasn't there no real push in any given population for a pseudo pan-national Gaul or more realistically a push towards more united polities as opposed to the status quo?

It's less that they would favour Rome over Aedui, than they (so far) considered Rome as a possible ally against Aedui or at least, whom neutrality would weaken the Aedui hegemony. Eventually, as much as Aedui would want to return to status quo with Romans, surrounding peoples would more or less so at their benefit : while they demonstrated they could temporarily ally themselves against Rome if needed, it's not going to change the frames of Gallic society.
Did no one fear that a day or the other the Romans could just decide to take over their independence anyway? I probably am viewing this from the lenses of modern politics, but I imagine that least being ruled by someone more near you or more similar to you would be a given in almost any society.

Are such situations impossible to overcome in themselves? Have we any examples of such situations being changed internally in the ancient era?

I'm not sure I said it would ask for a long timeline, than wondering how long the slow build-up could last ("how long") with Roman power not going anywhere, and at the very least trying to prevent unification efforts.
It's less the problem of time, eventually, than opportunity : in Greece, you had to wait four or five centuries with the establishment of ancient Greek ethnic or urban states to have some of them being violently unified after a general weariness.
Well I guess this slow build-up could happen depending on how much time it would take, that's more or less what my question was leading to.

Maybe less insurmountable than obnoxious. Rome was everywhere in Central Gaul, trough trade (which was more than an economical asset, but a way to export a "Roman way-of-life" so to speak), political support, subsides, and general influence (the "republican" institutions in Gaul, standardisation of eastern-central Gaul coinage, etc.). It was all pretty quick, as Romans basically fit in the shoes of a sophisticated economical social and political development.
The quick conquest of Gaul was made possible by a strong road networks; and a wealthy country (it's almost proverbial to say that behind each Roman road or villa, there's a Gallic road or farm) whom contact with Mediterranean basin (and the subsequent mediterranean tropism) predate Rome conquest of Transalpina since centuries.
So basically the Mediterranean had an hegemony over almost anything, and given Rome already controlled it, it means the peripheral areas are going to be integrated more or less.

At the point Rome intervened in behalf of Massalia against the federation of Salyes and other provencal hegemonies, which led to the mobilisation of several basically along these lines : Arverni being roped into this by Allobroges, that were roped into this by Voconces, that were roped into this by Salyes. So I'd say that by the late IInd, it was a tiny bit too late.
A good PoD to prevent this would be a Punic victory in the Second Punic War.
Whoa, a PoD a century and a half before Alesia!? I find it baffling, I imagined it being the case(by virtue of the war being one of if not the biggest event in Western Mediterranean in the era) but still a bit surprising.

It was different in nature : Massalia never represented an hegemonic power of any sort, and was constantly trying to pull complex rear-alliance against Celto-Ligurian peoples as Salyes.
While Greek (but as well Etruscean) influence certainly participated to the general build-up of principalties (in Halstattian period) and confederacies (in Latenian period) trough commercial/diplomatical influence, and cultural (Gallic being written in Greek characters, likely strong Greek influence on Druidism, etc.), with indirect consequences (for exemple, militarisation of Celto-Ligurians, such as the Salyes dunastai).

Overall it was an influence that was absorbated and integrated by Gauls, without the reprercussion that a strong and influent state could have along these same lines. Not that Roman influence (monetary, politically, etc.) wasn't integrated, but Romans could pull a conquest that Greeks couldn't which necessarily coloured differently this said influence (Gaul was said to be a philhellenic land, for instance).
So in the case of a Greek power expanding in Italy, the Greek influence would be a fifth column in a pre-punic Roman Italy as was the Roman influence over Gaul?

Not directly, at the very least : Gallic complex chiefdoms and formative states were too divided and with conflicting interests to really have the possibility to take back Transalpina, let alone going in Italy in masse (would they want to do so, which as I tried to explain, is far from obvious). But for late Republic proper, you might have better chances with @Agricola or @SlyDessertFox , altough I don't think Rome would be really weakened by a catastrophic defeat in Gaul even in the short term.
Oh god, I worded myself pretty badly here:

What I meant to say could the internal problems of the late republic cause enough damage to Rome as to let the Gauls more loose.

I didn't mean to ask whether the Gauls could overran more solid Roman territory. That is a bit too far.



Now this is more of a guesstimation question, but if you take for example one of the biggest winners in this ATL Alesia, realistically over how much land would they exercise political power in the short term(a generation)?

the_roman_conquest_of_gaul__58___51_bc__by_undevicesimus-d5frzq5.jpg
I guess you could use this map, I don't really need an accurate depiction, just some kind of idea of what Gaul is getting into and if anything worth exploring can happen(and also because I'm not sure if I have an actual idea of decentrazied Gaul would be in any case, and I fear this is a 100% lost case)
 
So it was essentially because those groups benefited from their position and Rome was interested in preventing big powers from arising, as were those groups.
Mostly, altough possibly not this conciously.

What are those "archaî"?
It's the generic term that Greek scholars used to describe the territorial and political power some peoples had over a great region in Gaul, such as Arverni : I used it mostly because complex chiefdoms/formative states/confederacies tend to be a bit heavy handed after a while.

But at the end of the day it appears that Rome wasn't interested in having any single group rise too much over the other, so wouldn't such a stance be contradictory in some cases?
Not exactly : if maintaining the status quo went against Romans interests, they wouldn't and they would favour some people over others (again, the role of Espanactos as an anti-Vercingeotrix, keeping in mind that he did joined with rebels at the end, and that Vercegintorix probably supported Caesar at some point : this alone shows the complexity of affiliations).

Wasn't there no real push in any given population for a pseudo pan-national Gaul or more realistically a push towards more united polities as opposed to the status quo?
You may have pan-Gallic features before the conquest, such as the gathering of Druids in the locus consecratus of Carnutes, and quite possibly informal congress of Gallic representatives (not dissimilar to pan-hellenic congress) that both Caesar and Vercingetorix called at their benefit.
But, again, Greeks had such as well, or common cultural patrimony, and the celebration of pan-hellenism never really went anywhere close to a national sense : the political frame of a Gaul is his people and his city first, the larger archê then, and a larger but vague sense of common cultural horizon; which isn't really a departure from what existed in european Antiquity.

I'm not opposite to the idea of a larger political identity itself, but I don't see how it could devellop from this. Have you any idea?

Did no one fear that a day or the other the Romans could just decide to take over their independence anyway?
They did, altough the lessons of the roman conquest of Transalpina weren't that learned : it certainly became more pressing by the late 50's and I think ITTL, that a failed (partially) Roman conquest would have a similar effect than the Persian Wars had on Greeks, meaning not a national awakening and everyone is now unified and happy and have puppies, but a stronger differenciation (culturall-wise) of the Gallic world.
It doesn't mean at the latest that Gauls would cease to consider Romans as their natural interlocutor, partner and hegemonic neighbour; especially when several peoples or factions would want in a short time, to return to normalized relations for their own sake.

It really helped, eventually, that Romans weren't bound to replace present elites, but to circumvening them into Roman frames. Gallic provincialisation went relatively smoothly, without a clear rupture before Augustus (and it wasn't that obvious), and similarily on how it happened in Transalpina (if, arguably, less violently).

I probably am viewing this from the lenses of modern politics, but I imagine that least being ruled by someone more near you or more similar to you would be a given in almost any society.
It could actually be seen as worse : someone ruling near you means more control over you, especially if you have bad blood with your neighbour. Someone further, foreign (and that is not involved in your earlier feuds) on the other hand...
Of course the best outcome would be no-one ruling over you at all, but if there's a choice to be made...

Are such situations impossible to overcome in themselves? Have we any examples of such situations being changed internally in the ancient era?
Not impossible, but it takes time and a favourable geopolitical situation (as well as a given political mindset, which is not self-evident). As interesting exemples there's Odrysian Thrace or the kingdom(s) of Dacian, that might have been an exemple of a cyclical chiefdom over a large territory, as in an important mobilisation of ressources from a chiefdom able to project its power on its neighbours, resulting in an unstable but more or less unified early state (think Northumbrian, Mercian or Wessex hegemony in AS Britain)

On the other hand Gaul was more important demographically and geographically, had a long history of relatively small principalties; and was right next to the only mediterranean empire of History. Gallic changes to form an unified, would it be regional only, states are not really obvious after the IInd century BCE. It doesn't mean you couldn't see the different archai evolving as formative states (altough it depends on Rome remaining passive*)

*Ironically, a conveniently declining or collapsing Rome by the grace of the Alien Space Bats would cause more harm than good to Gallic polities, a bit like the decline of the Etruscean power did in Gaul IOTL.

Whoa, a PoD a century and a half before Alesia!? I find it baffling, I imagined it being the case(by virtue of the war being one of if not the biggest event in Western Mediterranean in the era) but still a bit surprising.
We still do not fully understand the consequences of the war in southern Gaul : but it might have hastened the fall of Elysices (and the destruction of one of their main cities/emporiae), due to their alliegance (or lack thereof).

So in the case of a Greek power expanding in Italy, the Greek influence would be a fifth column in a pre-punic Roman Italy as was the Roman influence over Gaul?
"Pre-Punic Roman Italy"? I'm not sure I understand the question?

What I meant to say could the internal problems of the late republic cause enough damage to Rome as to let the Gauls more loose.
Maybe, but...I'm not sure how Gauls would be let more loose : at least I'd expect more clientelisation and influence, which would have been expanded in Northern Gaul, instead of central parts) and more influence.


Now this is more of a guesstimation question, but if you take for example one of the biggest winners in this ATL Alesia, realistically over how much land would they exercise political power in the short term(a generation)?
It's even less of a guesstimate one might think : it depends a lot of what Romans do, on how inner Gallic politics unfolds, etc.

It's really not a map I'm comfortable to present as anything certain or even plausible : it's, at best, a rough variation on what COULD happen, after some years (what happens after a generations depends from the immediate answers)

fDw1AjM.png

Roughly : red is the Roman Republic; pink are Gallic peoples or confederations that would probably pass foedi treaties with Rome (which are vastly different in the Ist century BCE than Late Antiquity foedi, in such manner that they are treaties of unequal alliances, establishing a clear clientelisation.
It doesn't mean that others polities wouldn't, I actually expect Arverni to do so among many others, but I wanted to stress where roman political-military influence would be strongest in the -40's.
Let's be clear : you won't have a real institutional and political difference between Gallic peoples of uber-Transalpina (as Sequani Provinciales) and peoples outside (Sequani), at least in a first time. What changes is the capacity of Romans to provincialize their agreements and treaties with them, and I was conservative there.
It's not unthinkable to see a good chuck of North-Eastern Gaul being provincialized in a short term, altough more on the lines Britain was (as with a stronger survival of independent structures) than what happened in Gaul (where independent frames were quickly romanized and merged with provincial rule).

Some confederacies (as Armoricans) are litterally confederacies, as in without clear dominant people, but still forming a coherent ensemble. Arverni territorial power is still limited (while less reduced than it previously was) but their prestige could allow them to have a lasting influence on other peoples without going as far as clientelisation (except on their former clients, IMO)
 
Top