AHC: Rome conquers Gaul before conquering Greece or Carthage?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How could we have Rome invest in or succeed in conquering Gaul earlier, or have Greece and Carthage hold out till much later while not derailing the conquest of Gaul in OTL's timeframe?
 
Wasn't Greece, at the very least, much easier to conquer than Gaul, and probably more receptive to conquest anyway? I doubt if Greece would be able to hold out for much longer because it was disunited. Carthage could have held out had they tried to build a stronger military rather than relying on mercenaries.
 
Have Gaul have something more worth putting the time and effort needed to subdue it. Carthage and Greece are just easier/cheaper to administer with settled populations, civil structures that can be co-opted, existing complex economies, a settled rather than constantly shifting/getting shoved around population ect. One needs to remember that during the time of the Punic Wars, Cisalpine Gaul/North Italy was still mainly Celtic; indeed, new Celtic groups kept getting pushed in (and thus raided into Roman lands, which is what brought the Romans to push back north in the first place) by others on the opposite side of the Alps.
 
Have Gaul have something more worth putting the time and effort needed to subdue it. Carthage and Greece are just easier/cheaper to administer with settled populations, civil structures that can be co-opted, existing complex economies, a settled rather than constantly shifting/getting shoved around population ect. One needs to remember that during the time of the Punic Wars, Cisalpine Gaul/North Italy was still mainly Celtic; indeed, new Celtic groups kept getting pushed in (and thus raided into Roman lands, which is what brought the Romans to push back north in the first place) by others on the opposite side of the Alps.
Gaul already was relatively sophisticated, with complex economies, an urbanized population, state structures to and coopt. Indeed, that's pretty much exactly how the Romans did it in the wars of Caesar. They're not as attractive to a conqueror compared to Gaul or Carthage for several reasons. As fertile and rich as Gaul was, it's still not Carthage, the gem of the Western Mediterranean and the greatest threat Rome ever faced. Moreover, an invasion of Gaul involves a lot of expensive overland transportation, whereas pretty much all of Carthage's economically important assets can be reached from the sea in a couple days at the most.
 
Gaul already was relatively sophisticated, with complex economies, an urbanized population, state structures to and coopt. Indeed, that's pretty much exactly how the Romans did it in the wars of Caesar. They're not as attractive to a conqueror compared to Gaul or Carthage for several reasons. As fertile and rich as Gaul was, it's still not Carthage, the gem of the Western Mediterranean and the greatest threat Rome ever faced. Moreover, an invasion of Gaul involves a lot of expensive overland transportation, whereas pretty much all of Carthage's economically important assets can be reached from the sea in a couple days at the most.

Transalpine Gaul is. Cisalpine Gaul (Which you need to get through first in order to have anything resembling a stable conquest of Transalpine Gaul from a base in Italy just as you need to have stable control of Sicily to effectively manage North Africa) was always in far more of a flux. I probably should have clarified that better. And Carthage WAS especially attractive; its farmland was some of the richest in the Western Med. basin, its position far more strategic in terms of controlling trade and thus tolls, and could be reached by sea reliably and quickly enough to get your peaches from (A historical point that a certain Cato the Elder made very sure got into the records).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Gaul already was relatively sophisticated, with complex economies, an urbanized population, state structures to and coopt. Indeed, that's pretty much exactly how the Romans did it in the wars of Caesar. They're not as attractive to a conqueror compared to Gaul or Carthage for several reasons. As fertile and rich as Gaul was, it's still not Carthage, the gem of the Western Mediterranean and the greatest threat Rome ever faced. Moreover, an invasion of Gaul involves a lot of expensive overland transportation, whereas pretty much all of Carthage's economically important assets can be reached from the sea in a couple days at the most.

I wonder if independent Gaul had lasted a couple generations longer before being conquered, if more record of its culture and statecraft would have survived.
 
Top