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.
I think what makes it interesting is that, although the short-term changes are small, the long-term changes will still be extraordinary. You get to see a world that is very, very recognizable before it gradually becomes unrecognizable. Additionally, parts of the TTL may remain similar to their OTL counterparts for longer periods than other parts of the world, and extended interaction between "changed" and "unchanged" parts of the world can be pretty fun. TLs that take a little while to deviate from OTL also tend to be very informative about the real world that we'll all have to return to after logging off the site.
Plus, having a POD that is more "controlled" and doesn't set off a bunch of huge short-term effects (like a Roman defeat at Carthage, whose aftereffects concern pretty much the entire Med) is easier to build a region-focused TL around. You can, for example, freely focus on Gaul without also having to wonder about the implications of a surviving Ptolemaic Egypt, etc.
I am flattered. And surprised, for although i am interested in the late republic, there are certainly others who are way more knowledgeable than me. (thinking about @Atamolos off the top of my head)
But I hope I'll find the time to be here and comment, and if there are open questions beforehand, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people providing advice (including me, where I feel confident).
I didn't want to turn it into a nip-ticking, but for exemple.
- The coastal region that Volcae come to dominate isn't really well rendered : you mention Pech Maho (which is the modern, Franco-Occitan name : the oppidum was possibly the place Greeks called Saiganthé) but you make no mention of important places as Lattara, "Ensérune", Narbo (not the Roman city, of course, but the emporion tied to the oppidum of Montlaures, probably called Narbo) etc. Tolosa itself was as obscure it could be : rather than a "capital" or even a polis in the hellenistic sense, the political center of Volcae was rather a meta-capital as it existed for Arverni (as in a collection of related oppidae) and not particularily important for what matter trade until the IIIrd century and the growing importance of italian trade trough mediterranean harbours (and there was probably no need to go to Emporion, when large emporioi were present in Languedoc already)
Speaking of which : the problem of Greek trade at this point was less to have no access to Garonne, but to be rivaled by Italian products in Languedoc.
- The cessastion of an inland territory to Xenon is...well, unprecedented. Especially in a not that interesting region, commercially-wise.
- Volcae were at this point likely in alliance with Arverni, maybe under their leadership altough there's nothing to point to a Arverni patronage at this point yet. There's no real evidence that they were the first Celts to settle in the region, altough they probably came to dominate their immediate region as a by-product of punic mercenariship, and there's good arguments about an at least partial autocthtony of Tectosages and Arecomici in Languedoc.
That Arverni are not mentionied, not even as Volcae emancipate themselves, is an important gap.
-While not a mistake itself, the Gold of Tolosa tale is...well just this, a tale. Again, nothing wrong using it as a narrative device, but it's part of what I called your folklorist approach.
(2) The fundamental unit of Gallic politics was the clan, which itself consisted of one or more of what Caesar called pagi. Each clan had a council of elders, and initially a king(Rix).
You're confusing clan, tribe and people alltogether there : especially what we know about Volcae point that while tribe were the fundamental "atom" of Gallic political and social life (and not all led by a king, even at this point), there were complex and institutionalised relationship in domination (Tolosates as part of Tectosages) and broader identities and coalitions (Tectosafes as part of Volcae) Pagi isn't really that used by Caesar who mention them only 11 times. He rathers uses the term of civitas, 182 times.
Very roughly :
- natio is used (11 times) to name the Gaulish people alltogether
- civitas is largely used as a political concept (altough confused sometimes with civitas in the sense of city, which wasn't the political model of Gauls) in conjuction with the idea of territory, borders (finis)
- pagus, which is not the same as the tribe (which is a smaller entity than the pagus, itself smaller than the civitas) and is a more or less autonomous subdivision, based less on a territory than human groups.
Let's be clear. I do NOT enjoy nip-ticking TLs and I won't do it past the first page because it's pointless and uncomfortable to me : I don't like being this inquisitive on you.
Its another thing to don't like my ATL and another to say its not well researched.
And I certainly do NOT like people putting words in my mouth. I tried to assert that, regardless of my opinions on your approach, it didn't meant that I considered your TL bad or poorly done.
In fact, I'm under the impression you consider my posts as a personal attack, giving some of your answers seems...well, abrupt : "I challenge you", "your thesis", "you don't like my TL".
I've no problem discussing this topic with you wheater we agree or disagree, but I think you should consider some perspective : I'm not attacking you or your work, and I try to be as civil with you as I am with anyone on this board.
Unless this is a sore topic for you (which I could understand, but then it may be better we not discuss it at least for now), could you please extend to me the same courtesy?
For example i am eager to see your Thesis/proofs about regional assemblies in south Gaul in 270 BC.
There's no mention, AFAIK, of assemblies proper to south Gaul, regardless in the IIIrd or IInd century (well, maybe for Provence, but I speculate entierely there, so not to be taken as anything even remotely proven but it would make sense in the context of Celto-Ligurians coalitions against Massalia)
That said Titus-Livius mention the hegemony of Bituriges in the Vth century above a lot of peoples that more or less fit caesarian Celtica region (possibly larger), which considered with the more known assemblies and hegemonies of Late independent Gaul, could point to the antiquity of the assemblies.
Polybus mentions that, in the late IIIrd century, Hannibal had to deal with Arecomici and Allobrogi, and Hasdrubal too but including Arverni, which he have to pay while the land Hasdrubal crosses are not theirs.
That Arverni were in a position of leadership in Mediterranean, enough to give conditional passage to Carthagian armies is similar to their role in the IInd century.
You'd note that assemblies aren't mentioned, but we know such leadership was historically obtained trough regional or pan-Gallic assemblies from the IInd century onwards : there's no reason to believe that it wasn't the case (especially if they seems to be functioning similarily) at least in the IIIrd century.
But again, the argument about a geopolitical ensemble defined by assemblies before caesarian conquests is debated : Christian Goudinau, particularily (and he's one of the leading specialists about Gaulish history) still argues in favour of a caesarian creation of Gaul.
As for the thesis, it is develloped in La Politique des Gaulois, vie politique et institutions en Gaule chevelue (IIème siècle avant notre ère - 70), Emmanuel Arbabe, Editions de la Sorbonne, 2017
- Les Gaulois du Midi, Michel Py, 1993 (augmented edition of 2002)
- La Celtique Méditerraneane, Dominique Garcia, 2004
- La Langue Gauloise, Pierre-Yves Lambert, 1997
- L'univers spirituel des Gaulois, art, religion et philosophie, Jean-Louis Brunaux
- Armements et auxiliaires gaulois, Lionel Pernet, 2012
- Peuplement et Territoires protohistoriques du VIIIe au Ier siècle avant J.-C. en Languedoc oriental, Laure Nuninger, 2002
- Les peuples gaulois, Stephan Fichtl, 2004
- La Société celtique,Christian-Joseph Guyonvarc'h, Francoise le Roux
- Vercingétorix, Jean-Louis Brunaux, 2018
- Dictionnaire Français-Gaulois, Jean-Paul Savignac
- Histoire des Gaules, Christine Delaplace & Jérôme France, 2011
- Les religions gauloises, Jean-Louis Brunaux, 2006
- Vercingétorix, chef de guerre, Alain Deyber, 2017
- Gaulish personal names, Ellis Evans
- Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Xavier Delmarre, 2003
- Des philosophes chez les Barbares, Jean-Louis Brunaux, 2004
- Bibracte et les Eduens : à la découverte d'un peuple gaulois, Christian Goudinau, 1993 - Religion et société en Gaule, Christian Goudinau, Dominique garcia, Bernard Lambot, 2006
I don't have this one but "Greek Marseille and Mediterranean Celtic Region" could interest you if you want to buy it.
Yes and no : a caesarian defeat in the early part of the Gallic War wouldn't be as catastrophic for Romans or their power projections, and more critically, there would be no lesson learnt by Gaulish polities : it's a configuration where roman conquest at middle term remains very likely save a major crisis or collapse of Roman state. More I think of it, more I think this is the less divergent timeline.
, and extended interaction between "changed" and "unchanged" parts of the world can be pretty fun. TLs that take a little while to deviate from OTL also tend to be very informative about the real world that we'll all have to return to after logging off the site.
I entierly agree : altough this could be made with an Alesian PoD IMO. Now, as you noticed, I'd want to favour a "discussion" timeline, so there's a good point you make.
You can, for example, freely focus on Gaul without also having to wonder about the implications of a surviving Ptolemaic Egypt, etc.
I mostly intended to do so, even with the first PoD, putting the development of the mediterranean world as far as it doesn't concern indirectly the developments in Gaul as background information.
I think the earlier the divergence the better - it would be interesting to see how the Gauls develop in the absence of such a direct and existential threat as the Romans.
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.
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.
I'm tempted to vote for an Alesia-based POD, since it is probably the most effective way to have Gaul coalesce as a unified "state" (although probably something more like a confederacy). However, at that point, a defeat so disastrous may incur even further Roman efforts to annex the region, just a few years down the line (probably by Marc Antony, Lepidus, or Sextus Pompey). Admittedly, that's just conjecture, but I'm tempted to suggest a POD much earlier. Here are a few possible suggestions that I've spitballed before:
1. Brennus establishing a permanent state in northern and central Italy after the sack of Rome in 390 BCE
2. A defeat in the Cimbrian War or possibly the Social War forcing Rome to abandon control of Northern Italy, giving Gaul a buffer and time to establish itself as a state
3. Caesar is somehow either not appointed proconsul of Gaul or is only awarded a proconsulship in Illyricum (IOTL he was given imperium in 3 provinces which was highly irregular). This could be achieved by avoiding the early death of Quintus Metellus (who was the Gallic proconsul in Caesar's consulship in 59 BCE) or by having Caesar getting dragged into court over his illegal actions as consul. The consequences of this would be (perhaps) a weaker Roman response to the Helvetic migration and the invasion of Ariovistus. It may be possible for either the Aedui or a coalition of the Sequani and Arverni to either repulse or ally with Ariovistus and establish a strong confederacy in the face of Roman expansion. Admittedly this hinges on Metellus being a bad commander (which he may not have been, since he was one of Pompey's top lieutenants in the 3rd Mithridatic War)
These three are a little unsatisfactory since they all hinge on Gaul's existence as merely a proxy for Roman history, which is unfortunate. Admittedly I know very little about Gallic history, and AFAIK there's very little in the way of written records so we have to use Roman history as a crutch for examining Gallic history. Imho, having Brennus destroy the nascent Roman Republic is the best chance Gaul has since a later POD hinges on the Roman Republic falling apart in its most successful and expansive two centuries of existence, which may be too little too late.
EDIT: I've read back and you said you'd prefer not to do the Brennus/sack of Rome TL, so I'd suggest one involving either the early death or political sidelining of Caesar. The biggest problem with doing a POD at Alesia is that it's easy to overlook all the loyal Gallic clients that Caesar and Labienus had already cultivated by 52 BCE. After Alesia, Gaul more or less capitulated, so even if Caesar died at Alesia, it would have been easy for any rich Roman general to pick up where Caesar left off by picking up the same clients and sponsoring the same centuries-old rivalries and conquering Gaul later.
I am flattered. And surprised, for although i am interested in the late republic, there are certainly others who are way more knowledgeable than me. (thinking about @Atamolos off the top of my head)
But I hope I'll find the time to be here and comment, and if there are open questions beforehand, I'm sure there'll be plenty of people providing advice (including me, where I feel confident).
I didn't want to turn it into a nip-ticking, but for exemple.
- The coastal region that Volcae come to dominate isn't really well rendered : you mention Pech Maho (which is the modern, Franco-Occitan name : the oppidum was possibly the place Greeks called Saiganthé) but you make no mention of important places as Lattara, "Ensérune", Narbo (not the Roman city, of course, but the emporion tied to the oppidum of Montlaures, probably called Narbo) etc. Tolosa itself was as obscure it could be : rather than a "capital" or even a polis in the hellenistic sense, the political center of Volcae was rather a meta-capital as it existed for Arverni (as in a collection of related oppidae) and not particularily important for what matter trade until the IIIrd century and the growing importance of italian trade trough mediterranean harbours (and there was probably no need to go to Emporion, when large emporioi were present in Languedoc already)
Speaking of which : the problem of Greek trade at this point was less to have no access to Garonne, but to be rivaled by Italian products in Languedoc.
- The cessastion of an inland territory to Xenon is...well, unprecedented. Especially in a not that interesting region, commercially-wise.
- Volcae were at this point likely in alliance with Arverni, maybe under their leadership altough there's nothing to point to a Arverni patronage at this point yet. There's no real evidence that they were the first Celts to settle in the region, altough they probably came to dominate their immediate region as a by-product of punic mercenariship, and there's good arguments about an at least partial autocthtony of Tectosages and Arecomici in Languedoc.
That Arverni are not mentionied, not even as Volcae emancipate themselves, is an important gap.
-While not a mistake itself, the Gold of Tolosa tale is...well just this, a tale. Again, nothing wrong using it as a narrative device, but it's part of what I called your folklorist approach.
You're confusing clan, tribe and people alltogether there : especially what we know about Volcae point that while tribe were the fundamental "atom" of Gallic political and social life (and not all led by a king, even at this point), there were complex and institutionalised relationship in domination (Tolosates as part of Tectosages) and broader identities and coalitions (Tectosafes as part of Volcae) Pagi isn't really that used by Caesar who mention them only 11 times. He rathers uses the term of civitas, 182 times.
Very roughly :
- natio is used (11 times) to name the Gaulish people alltogether
- civitas is largely used as a political concept (altough confused sometimes with civitas in the sense of city, which wasn't the political model of Gauls) in conjuction with the idea of territory, borders (finis)
- pagus, which is not the same as the tribe (which is a smaller entity than the pagus, itself smaller than the civitas) and is a more or less autonomous subdivision, based less on a territory than human groups.
Let's be clear. I do NOT enjoy nip-ticking TLs and I won't do it past the first page because it's pointless and uncomfortable to me : I don't like being this inquisitive on you.
And I certainly do NOT like people putting words in my mouth. I tried to assert that, regardless of my opinions on your approach, it didn't meant that I considered your TL bad or poorly done.
In fact, I'm under the impression you consider my posts as a personal attack, giving some of your answers seems...well, abrupt : "I challenge you", "your thesis", "you don't like my TL".
I've no problem discussing this topic with you wheater we agree or disagree, but I think you should consider some perspective : I'm not attacking you or your work, and I try to be as civil with you as I am with anyone on this board.
Unless this is a sore topic for you (which I could understand, but then it may be better we not discuss it at least for now), could you please extend to me the same courtesy?
There's no mention, AFAIK, of assemblies proper to south Gaul, regardless in the IIIrd or IInd century (well, maybe for Provence, but I speculate entierely there, so not to be taken as anything even remotely proven but it would make sense in the context of Celto-Ligurians coalitions against Massalia)
That said Titus-Livius mention the hegemony of Bituriges in the Vth century above a lot of peoples that more or less fit caesarian Celtica region (possibly larger), which considered with the more known assemblies and hegemonies of Late independent Gaul, could point to the antiquity of the assemblies.
Polybus mentions that, in the late IIIrd century, Hannibal had to deal with Arecomici and Allobrogi, and Hasdrubal too but including Arverni, which he have to pay while the land Hasdrubal crosses are not theirs.
That Arverni were in a position of leadership in Mediterranean, enough to give conditional passage to Carthagian armies is similar to their role in the IInd century.
You'd note that assemblies aren't mentioned, but we know such leadership was historically obtained trough regional or pan-Gallic assemblies from the IInd century onwards : there's no reason to believe that it wasn't the case (especially if they seems to be functioning similarily) at least in the IIIrd century.
But again, the argument about a geopolitical ensemble defined by assemblies before caesarian conquests is debated : Christian Goudinau, particularily (and he's one of the leading specialists about Gaulish history) still argues in favour of a caesarian creation of Gaul.
As for the thesis, it is develloped in La Politique des Gaulois, vie politique et institutions en Gaule chevelue (IIème siècle avant notre ère - 70), Emmanuel Arbabe, Editions de la Sorbonne, 2017
- Les Gaulois du Midi, Michel Py, 1993 (augmented edition of 2002)
- La Celtique Méditerraneane, Dominique Garcia, 2004
- La Langue Gauloise, Pierre-Yves Lambert, 1997
- L'univers spirituel des Gaulois, art, religion et philosophie, Jean-Louis Brunaux
- Armements et auxiliaires gaulois, Lionel Pernet, 2012
- Peuplement et Territoires protohistoriques du VIIIe au Ier siècle avant J.-C. en Languedoc oriental, Laure Nuninger, 2002
- Les peuples gaulois, Stephan Fichtl, 2004
- La Société celtique,Christian-Joseph Guyonvarc'h, Francoise le Roux
- Vercingétorix, Jean-Louis Brunaux, 2018
- Dictionnaire Français-Gaulois, Jean-Paul Savignac
- Histoire des Gaules, Christine Delaplace & Jérôme France, 2011
- Les religions gauloises, Jean-Louis Brunaux, 2006
- Vercingétorix, chef de guerre, Alain Deyber, 2017
- Gaulish personal names, Ellis Evans
- Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Xavier Delmarre, 2003
- Des philosophes chez les Barbares, Jean-Louis Brunaux, 2004
- Bibracte et les Eduens : à la découverte d'un peuple gaulois, Christian Goudinau, 1993 - Religion et société en Gaule, Christian Goudinau, Dominique garcia, Bernard Lambot, 2006
I don't have this one but "Greek Marseille and Mediterranean Celtic Region" could interest you if you want to buy it.
I think the earlier the divergence the better - it would be interesting to see how the Gauls develop in the absence of such a direct and existential threat as the Romans.!
Rome is still going to be, even in the first timeline, a big regional player. Would it be only for what matter Cisalpine Gaul of course, but the traditional Roman-Massaliote alliance will certainly make roman presence in Mediterranean Celtica a thing.
Of course, there's a big difference between having a regional power in your backyard, and having the superpower of the time instead.
I'm tempted to vote for an Alesia-based POD, since it is probably the most effective way to have Gaul coalesce as a unified "state" (although probably something more like a confederacy).
It's not that plausible, IMO. While Gauls had a sense of shared cultural and "geopolitical" identity as Greeks did, they never was the idea of a nation to unite. Would Vercingetorix' coalition be successful, you'd be poised having Aedui leaving it sooner than later (they were already in the process doing so IOTL when they were deprived of the leadership of the 52's coalition), Aquitaine always was the odd number in Gaul, and any kind of Arverni hegemony (while certainly revived ITTL) wouldn't be that acceptable beyond Celtica. Hence why I think, as you do, that the network of alliances and clienteles Rome obtained (altough a lot, due to roman bad will, would be lost) would remain. I, some time ago, proposed arough map of what Roman presence in Gaul could look like (maybe without this clear hegemony on Aedui admittedly): it's interesting it would very roughly fit Ariovist's own hegemony and I didn't intended that.
On the other hand, it would leave stronger hegemonies in Gaul (maybe up to the point having Armorica becoming sort of half-a-confederacy, maybe centered on a undefeatable little vil...anyway), and more aware of Roman threat and how to successfully deal and how NOT to deal with (basically realizing the old open field strategy and protection in oppidae is obsolete).
It may be possible for either the Aedui or a coalition of the Sequani and Arverni to either repulse or ally with Ariovistus and establish a strong confederacy in the face of Roman expansion.
You actually had two coalitions against Ariovist, the second joined by Sequani and both were defeated, hence why Aedui asked Romans to help them pretty please not to loose their principatus. While Rome is not poised to intervene as Caesar did, they will intervene because their sphere of influence (political but economical too) would be threatened or at least tempered with.
AFAIK there's very little in the way of written records so we have to use Roman history as a crutch for examining Gallic history.
There is more than commonly tought, and even more for what matter Greek scholars : even romans used some precise and systematical vocabulary (altough not always the same) when it came to describe Gaulish realities. But yeah, past the IIIrd century there's is nothing safe some oral tradition, and most of Gaul isn't really written down before the IInd century.
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,
I argued that Aquitaine might remain in Roman influence if not control mostly because Aquitaine was a "special" case in Gaul, with several of its peoples (including the ones of Gaulish or Germanic origin) not being really considered Gaul.
Not only Aquitaine's peoples doesn't seem to have participated to pan-Gallic coalitions, but they doesn't seem to have assemblies of their own. Some Germanic peoples may have, if rarily, participated to Gaulish assemblies but it doesn't seem to be the case for Aquitain peoples to the point their inclusion with Gaul might have been a Caesarian creation.
It doesn't mean that Rome would keep Aquitaine up to Garumna under its control, but the pan-Gallic coalition wouldn't probably care about it. But I agree that I illustrated a maximalist case (IIRC, I said it was a situation that could have happened) and less certain than a Roman presence further along the Rhone. Still, an extension of Transalpina in Aquitaine makes sense.
is there no way for a Roman civil war post-social wars to become so nasty?[
I voted for the first pod, a weaker early Rome would allow the gaulic tribes some breathing room. Because even with a defeated Caesar as a pod Rome would still breath down their neck.
Okay, I think that was enough brainstorming. Thanks to everyone that voted and discussed the topic, it gave several paths.
I'll go with a roman defeat at the end of the Second Punic War, which still leaves Rome (eventually) as a regional power able and willing to meddle in Cisalpina and possible IOTL Provence. I'll try to notify people that demonstrated insterest when I'll post the TL.
Any advice, commentary book on Punic and Roman politics in the IIIrd century will be appreciated. (In PM, please)
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.
Angry PMs and reports are not the way to handle extremely polite criticism, particularly when it isn't even your thread. This is a warning to deal with disagreement civilly.
I'll go ahead and keep the ball rolling, why end the party now? 