ΚΕΝΟΝ ΓΑΛΑΤΕІΑ (WIP) - Independent Gaul AH proposals

[LSCatilina]

I had this idea in mind, or rather these ideas, for a while and now is a good time as any to try writting about it.

The history of independent Gaul is not a particularily known field on this board, and I suspect among people generally (altough, for obvious reasons, with a good vulgarisation drive in France).
Still, the amassed knowledge and discoveries since decades is considerable, in several fields (linguistics, politics, everyday life, structures, etc.) and while there's a shortage of material compared to what we know of Rome, Greece, or even Etrusceans, this is not a terra incognita.

I find interesting to wonder about a region and a sophisticated civilisation that was both at the margin of the Mediterranean world, both its own thing and at the crossroads of several influences. I'm sure some of you might be as well, regardless of their knowledge on this matter.

The challenge is big enough that several possibilities for ΚΕΝΟΝ ΓΑΛΑΤΕІΑ (temporary title, which is an attempt to say "Kenon Galatiā", "Lineages of Gaul" in Gaulish language, written in Gallo-Greek script), but before proposing you two, three of them, I'd want to depict how it would be made.

I'm not really comfortable with long timeline posts : the language bareer is hard enough, but I've a bit of trouble hierarchizing information (which was the pitfall of my previous timeline, TMI and far too specific and too slow-paced).
On the other hand, I've no problem with this while discussing with the other distinguished members that you all are.

Hence, maybe mixing both factual, narrative and dialectic elements would be for the best : posting the essentiall, writing fictionalized events and most of all answering comments which are always a source of new ideas and elements I wouldn't have tought otherwise.

ITTL, I would like to devellop not only political history (which would be really interesting, tough, especially with the historical particularities of Gaulish structures) but as well cultural at large : for instance, Gaulish language, Druidic elements and their evolutions (and in the latter case, decline).

Now, the allohistorical context will weight a lot on this, hence why I propose you three different PoDs you'd prefer me to expand on.

Of course, if anyone is willing to give an hand, especially with Roman history, proofreading or illutrating, it would be a tremendous help.

I - Roman defeat in the Second Punic war
Basically this : meaning Carthage curbs down Rome but does not crushes it, collapse of the southern Italian federation, and a Carthagian civil war counting as a 3 Punic War of sort.

The effects on Gaul would be along these lines, more or less (with some changes I'd make after some serious reading on the topic) : Arverni hegemony in Central and Mediterranean Celtic Gaul, possible "cold war" configuration with Elysices being proxy of Barcids and Arverni with a strong pro-Roman faction.

The main interest with this PoD is to keep a largely "original" (altough, as said, with multiple influences) Gallic civilisation. Of course, it means that a lot of things people there (but I as well) are familiar with would be modified if not butterflied away, likely leading to less realistic waters eventually.

II -Roman defeat in Gaul
Ia- Caesar is defeated early on
Ib - Caesar is defeated at Alesia.

There Rome is of course not going anywhere, playing at worst the role Persia had to Greeks : an effective hegemonic presence, using Gallic states as a political playground, with the big difference there wouldn't be any real geographical obstacle there.Still, it's doable to make a different (if not radically different TL) there in more known grounds.

The main difference between IIa and IIb, is that a later Cesarian defeat would lead to a more polarized Aedui/Arverni setup, but with Gallic hegemonies more aware of Roman threat and more used strategically and politically to counter it.

 

[LSCatilina]

I'm a bit surprised at the (relative) popularity of the second choice : I would have tought it the less interesting of the three, giving it leads to little short-term changes.

 

[Deleted member 82118]

hmn.. may be Brenna Gauls tooks and destroy Rome [and possible conquering Italy] in IV century?

 

[Sersor]

All options are really interesting! Since I am already doing a Gaul hegemony OTL during the second Punic war, I would prefer to see a later POD

 

[LSCatilina]

hmn.. may be Brenna Gauls tooks and destroy Rome [and possible conquering Italy] in IV century?

Well, it's doable, but it would be a really world-shattering PoD, that would eventually go way beyond just Gaul. I'd prefer not too attempt this, and frankly, if I had to make such "biggest change" TL, I'd rather attempt another pet project of mine : No-Islam TL and even that would require being a collaborative TL.

The first PoD is admittedly quite big, but I can focus on Gaul as the geopolitical situation in western mediterranean isn't that radically broke.

 

[LSCatilina]

All options are really interesting! Since I am already doing a Gaul hegemony OTL during the second Punic war, I would prefer to see a later POD

With all due respect, both for you and your work, I'd still attempt this PoD on more realistic* ground rather than your take which is (again,without prejudice from my part) more folkoric and "antiquated" (such as the distinction between Ligurians and Celts, the absence of regional assemblies as far as I saw, the recent migration of Celts in Mediterranean coast, etc.)

I think the board would benefit from both takes, actually.

*in the sense of more precise and recent source material,maybe

 

[DanMcCollum]

Honestly? I'd actually root for a victory for Carthage in the FIRST Punic War. Considering it wouldn't have resulted in a wiping out of Rome, but severely weakening it, it gives you a lot of interesting actors to play with. Of course, if there is a Second Punic War in this ATL that could well lead to Rome being truly castrated by the Carthagians but its a lot more interesting -and, I think, less overdone - that Hannibal crushing Rome in the OTL Second War.

 

[LSCatilina]

Honestly? I'd actually root for a victory for Carthage in the FIRST Punic War. Considering it wouldn't have resulted in a wiping out of Rome, but severely weakening it, it gives you a lot of interesting actors to play with. Of course, if there is a Second Punic War in this ATL that could well lead to Rome being truly castrated by the Carthagians but its a lot more interesting -and, I think, less overdone - that Hannibal crushing Rome in the OTL Second War.

I asked a bit around, and the consensus seems to be that Carthage wouldn't have ended the Punic War with the same mindset Romans did : Rome would have been significantly weakened for a while, but the pro-Carthagian Italic federation led by Capua wasn't viable and southern Italy would (albeit difficultly) enter back in a Roman sphere of influence which it would have never totally left for some.

As for Carthage, a Barcid victory (and large independence not only in Spain but as well partly in Sicily and influence in Southern Italy) could have led to social/political conflict with "African" factions that I tought interpretating with such PoD as a "Barcid War "between Barcids from one hand (and their allies in Spain, Mediterranean Gaul, Sicily) and "Africanist" more or less joined by Romans, Arverni, etc. less as allies than "co-belligerents" depending on the front.

I agree it's not necessarily the most obvious outcome of the Second Punic War, but it's still IMO realistic enough for my purpose, and have the benefit not altering radically (for a first term at least) the neighborhood of Gaul : altough it would imply changes, it's essentially about accelerating or delaying the decay of Elysices, which was possibly tied to their really remote role in Punic War (their oppidae were deliberatly burnt at the same period than the end of the war IOTL).

Similarily, it may allow Arverni to have more interest, even more than IOTL, to meddle in Mediterranean Gaul as they did IOTL when Romans intervened in Provence.

 

[LSCatilina]

Giving that it seems,for now, we're going in a Ist century PoD, I"m probably going to need some help for what matters Roman politics there. @Salvador79 maybe? If you're willing and avaible of course. Or anyone knowledgable about it.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I have little to no preference on this topic. My knowledge regarding Gaul is tiny. However, I’m glad to see @LSCatilina back on the site. Regardless, I would endeavor to read whatever is presented.

Is there any sort of Gallic confederation? Also, what is the position regarding Gallic history before this period? Is there any evidence for state building preference, other than possible links to what can be deciphered from the battle site of the Bronze Age located in northern Germany?

 

[Zulfurium]

While I do love Caesar, I went with IIa. While an unlikely PoD, I honestly think that there are a number of really interesting directions you could go with Ariovistus. It seems like he had largely begun establishing such a hegemonic state in Gaul at the time Caesar turned up and he was drawing Germans across the Rhine by their tens of thousands. If, for example, Caesar is killed during the negotiations with Ariovistus, you could have a number of potential directions to explore events in.

While Ariovistus is German, I think you will be hard pressed to avoid quite significant German inroads in Gaul whatever you do, and he is probably one of the most fascinating figures in the region prior to Vercingetorix.

 

[LSCatilina]

Is there any sort of Gallic confederation?

Strictly speaking, as in a permanent association of states, it seems to have existed IOTL, but rarely : Remi and Suessiones had for some years before the conquest, experimented a common administration of their peoples.

But most associations were temporary (if renewed) and often on a military scale , decided by regional (Celtica, Belgica, Galatia, probably Armorica and maybe Aquitania) or "pan-Gallic" assemblies which gave the command to a given people (often the same) even outside an immediate danger (altough it's likely this dominance was less present then).
It was quite close to the greek concept of koinon, as described by Glotz.

"If it wasn't just an alliance, it was not a federal state as well, but a league of cities [of peoples for Gaul] that agree for a lasting action concerning other cities and that acknowledge to the more powerful of these an hegemony. There is no common citizenship, and the leagye can't boss the citizen around, but uniquely and in specified cases, to the authorities of participating cities"

It would imply that these regional or pan-Gallic assemblies concerned pre-defined ensemble, maybe why Germanic peoples, even if Celts or Celtized, were rarely considered Gaulish by Gauls themselves.

Eventually, you had dominions (sometimes called confederation, but it's a bit misleading IMO) led by peoples that could be akin to coalitions or more limited, with a quasi-vassalic relationship (such as Arverni before the Roman conquest of southern Gaul, that exerced some overlordship between Loire and Mediterranean sea). These could be built thanks to aforementioned coalitions but didn't depended on it. It is generally rended by imperium or archè.

You had as well "economical agreements", such as half-standardized coinage in Celtica (maybe to be tied with Aedui dominance and leadership) with Gallic silver coin being equal to half a Roman denarius

Also, what is the position regarding Gallic history before this period?

It is theorized that before the Vth century and the crisis of the period, existed "principalties" which is another way to say complex chiefdoms, but that's First Iron Age situation.

 

[LSCatilina]

While I do love Caesar, I went with IIa. While an unlikely PoD, I honestly think that there are a number of really interesting directions you could go with Ariovistus. It seems like he had largely begun establishing such a hegemonic state in Gaul at the time Caesar turned up and he was drawing Germans across the Rhine by their tens of thousands. If, for example, Caesar is killed during the negotiations with Ariovistus, you could have a number of potential directions to explore events in.

While Ariovistus is German, I think you will be hard pressed to avoid quite significant German inroads in Gaul whatever you do, and he is probably one of the most fascinating figures in the region prior to Vercingetorix.

Ariovistus (possibly a latinisation of Ariouids, "far-seer") was leading Suebi (which tended to be a very generic name, recycled up to Early medieval period, without necessary continuity) was at least partially celtized, as most Germans were (the name itself is a translation of a celtic name). What was at stake was not a Germanisation of Gaul, Conan the Barbarian-style, but a Celtic/Celtized people considered as an outsider of the Gallic ensemble allied/dominating challengers of Aedui's dominance in Celtica (namely Sequani and Helvetii) and that defeated the leader of the Gallic assembly. Ariovist trying to cheat Sequani and helvetii out of their ambitions was met with a new coalition led by Aedui, and joined with Sequani and Helvetii and beaten together.

Without Caesar and (for some reason?) without Roman interference, it's hard to see Ariovist being able to really take the leadership in all Gaul or even all Celtica. Now, maybe he could have carved a new sub-ensemble as Belgica or Armoreca were IOTL (altough Ariovist certainly wanted to take the leadership of Celtica IMO). And it's not unthinkable to see Arverni raising above Aedui in this situation. But Rome not intervening there seems...not that plausible at first glance IMO.
I think it comes down to the interpretation of the acknowledgement of Ariovist's presence in Gaul by the Senate : temporisation, abandon of traditional Aedui partners, compromise to force Ariovist to remain on both banks of the Rhine? Seeing how Caesar's acting, I'd rather consider the last one.

 

[CHKeeley]

As a huge fan of pre-Roman Gaul, I’ll certainly be following this with interest! I chose option IIa because sources for Gaul are much more difficult to come by during the Punic Wars, and besides, where’s the fun in defeating Rome only to be replaced by Punic masters

Ruling out option I, I think it’s more plausible than IIb simply because Roman success had already been proven and solidified to a degree. Vercingetorix could have undone it, but any ambitious Roman commander could easily look to Caesar’s successful campaigns in the past and become inspired to reinvade. Gaul would probably be doomed to eventual Roman subjugation (unless they stayed unified but I’m not sure how much faith I place in Vercingetorix keeping them all together)

With Option IIa, Gaul remains more of this insurmountable and mysterious land (similar to OTL Germania) that needs to be protected against but could not be subjugated in any meaningful or permanent way. If Caesar is defeated early in Gaul (you have a variety of PoDs here where Caesar could have easily mis-stepped and been crushed) then perhaps Gallia Narbonensis remains as a border province and the Gallic tribes are played off each other, but any future Roman incursions would be significantly less likely to succeed because the innate fear of the Gauls dating back to the sack of Rome really wouldn’t have been shaken off without Caesar.

So in short, Alesia isn’t a bad PoD in and of itself, but in my opinion I think it’s too late for any Gallic hopes to remain independent.

Do you know which tribe you plan to have pre-eminence in Gaul in the early TL? Arverni or the Aedui would probably be most likely for the beginning. Also, Greek or Latin script for the Gaulish language? Partial to Greek myself and by your title I’m assuming Greek as well.

As a side note, glad to see your plans for Ariovistus, he certainly didn’t represent this monolithic German incursion into Gaul. He was likely a Celto-German type influenced by both cultures and was an ambitious warlord like any other. The Rhine was arbitrarily drawn by Caesar as Gaul’s boundaries as part of his propaganda for “defending the poor Gauls/friends of SPQR” but the cultural situation was more complex than that.

Anyways, I am open to assisting you with either Gallic or Roman information for the timeline if you’d like additional help.

 

[LSCatilina]

As a huge fan of pre-Roman Gaul, I’ll certainly be following this with interest! I chose option IIa because sources for Gaul are much more difficult to come by during the Punic Wars, and besides, where’s the fun in defeating Rome only to be replaced by Punic masters

The whole point of the first PoD is that Carthage probably didn't have the political/cultural mindset to become a mirror Roman Empire : a punic victory would probably let Rome as a second-rate power with fair chances to recover quickly its hegemon in Italy. Furthermore, the possibility of a social/civil war due to Barcid political hegemony gives several possibilties for what matter the developments in Gaul.

Ruling out option I, I think it’s more plausible than IIb simply because Roman success had already been proven and solidified to a degree. Vercingetorix could have undone it, but any ambitious Roman commander could easily look to Caesar’s successful campaigns in the past and become inspired to reinvade. Gaul would probably be doomed to eventual Roman subjugation (unless they stayed unified but I’m not sure how much faith I place in Vercingetorix keeping them all together)

That's not false generally speaking, but I think you overlook two or three things there.
First, Caesar being defeated at Alesia wouldn't end up like Gergovia, but with the loss of most of its men and supplies : at least for a time, Rome wouldn't have much of an army in Gaul (altough probably bent on carrying one again).
Then, Vercingetorix's coalition was distinct on several matters of the regular coalitions so far : a drastic change of tactics (so far used only in Belgica) in favor of guerilla and deprivement of supply roads (when roman armies pretty much depended on these) but as well a pan-Gallic coalition and no longer regional (as with Belgians, Celtics or Amroricans).
Eventually, Gallic entities and hegemonies realizing the Roman threat for what it is, even if Aedui will likely come back into Roman alliance in rejection of Arverni leadership adopted by the pan-Gallic assembly before, would make a difference.

Of course, it leaves Rome unbroken at the latest, and only an early tension if not another civil war could really delay things (I'm not sure the Senate would feel forced to send another army ASAP, tough) but the political/geostrategical situation would be better for Gauls than in, say, 56. There was really a qualitative difference there that could turn, all proportion kept and with several huge differences, to what happened in Greece during Persian Wars. Romanisation is pretty much a given of course, but it was already underwent before the conquest, and we might see a slower and incomplete Roman penetration.

That said, I agree it would be quite difficult : the easiest would be the first PoD and without some information or help from someone more knowledgable on Roman politics of the Ist century BCE than I, I think I would attempt it.

With Option IIa, Gaul remains more of this insurmountable and mysterious land (similar to OTL Germania)

Gaul was really well known by Romans and Greeks at this point : not only merchants but diplomats, scholars, politicians, etc. We're talking of a commercial hub with more inhabitants than Italy and whom political entities were contantly in contact with Rome. Hardly "terra incognita".

Do you know which tribe you plan to have pre-eminence in Gaul in the early TL? Arverni or the Aedui would probably be most likely for the beginning.

In Gaul, as the whole of it, Arverni likely in PoD I and IIb (altough it could change). More blurry in IIa but probably Aedui.

Also, Greek or Latin script for the Gaulish language? Partial to Greek myself

it depends from the PoD. Gallo-Greek script was used until the Ist century BCE IOTL, and then you had Gallo-Latin (with significant latin influence on some cases, such as transformation of genitive -on to -om)

 

[LSCatilina]

As a side note, glad to see your plans for Ariovistus, he certainly didn’t represent this monolithic German incursion into Gaul.

Transposing nationalist enimity to Antiquity conflicts? What an unexpected shock!

He was likely a Celto-German type influenced by both cultures

Thing is, German was probably as much (or maybe less definied) geopolitical than Gaul, at least for Gaulish populations, rather than culturally defined.
Heck, we don't know if Suebi is a translitteration from a Celtic or Germanic word, and it's not at all a given (I think not, personally) that Ariovist's Suebi and Late Antiquity Suebi are directly related. Suebi probably was enough of a generic name to be misleading.

Now, I agree that Suebi certainly had strong (if not main )Baltic and North Sea elements, while celtized. Thing is, it might have been the case for people on both banks of the Rhine already (notably some Belgians, but as well helvetii) and not representating that of a cultural schock, but rather political.

The Rhine was arbitrarily drawn by Caesar as Gaul’s boundaries as part of his propaganda for “defending the poor Gauls/friends of SPQR” but the cultural situation was more complex than that.

I myself abided by that, but I'm rather conviced by Bruneaux and Arbabe's thesis that consider Gaul as a defined geopolitical ensemble, with the territorial boundaries originating from a Gaulish perspective, defined by the pan-Gallic assemblies representations.

Anyways, I am open to assisting you with either Gallic or Roman information for the timeline if you’d like additional help.

Essentially Roman, indeed. Thanks.

 

[Faeelin]

I like this a lot and look forward to it. One possible solution, if you font' go with the Punic Wars, is some sort of Roman collapse in the early 1st century BC; a nastier social war combined with Mithridates being more successful...

What is the thesis of Bruneaux that you refer to?

 

[LSCatilina]

I like this a lot and look forward to it. One possible solution, if you font' go with the Punic Wars, is some sort of Roman collapse in the early 1st century BC; a nastier social war combined with Mithridates being more successful...

Sounds interesting, I admit. Could you devellop a bit?

What is the thesis of Bruneaux that you refer to?

Essentially, that Gaul represented a defined political ensemble and horizon. Not just a territory or an abstract cesarian concept, neither a nation or united in any sense too.
That said he consider the druidic assemblies as the expression of this ensemble, rather than the regional or pan-Gallic assemblies, contrary to Arbabe,: still, in his recent book on Vercingetorix,Brunauxstresses the importance of the pan-Gallic assembly and the regional principatii.

I must point that this thesis is still debated, but I think there's good arguments in its favour.

 

[Gloss]

One time you said that even with a Gaulish victory in Alesia, let's say Caesar dies, it would still be the case that Rome would take over Gascony and much of the territory around the Pyrenees, is there no way for a Roman civil war post-social wars to become so nasty?

 

[Sersor]

With all due respect, both for you and your work, I'd still attempt this PoD on more realistic* ground rather than your take which is (again,without prejudice from my part) more folkoric and "antiquated" (such as the distinction between Ligurians and Celts, the absence of regional assemblies as far as I saw, the recent migration of Celts in Mediterranean coast, etc.)
I think the board would benefit from both takes, actually.
*in the sense of more precise and recent source material,maybe

With all the respect for you and your work, i am not quite sure what you mean about recent source etc. My stories are well researched and i challenge you to prove me wrong with evidence. Its another thing to don't like my ATL and another to say its not well researched. For example i am eager to see your Thesis/proofs about regional assemblies in south Gaul in 270 BC.


Anyway its always nice to inspire people to make similar ATL to my own.