Are the Gauls doomed to be conquered by Rome?

I've been going through quite a bit of material in regards to the possibility of a Gaulish victory over the Romans, and they all have quite the common theme. Even if Caesar were to be defeated or even worse, killed. It seemed that Gaul was doomed to be subjugated ultimately by Rome. So I ask this simply, were the Gallic Wars simply a lose-lose situation for the Gauls, whether it be conquered by Caesar (albeit in an illegal war), or by another Roman commander. Was Gaul simply doomed and fated to ultimately become a Roman province?
 
From what I understand the reason why Julius Caesar conducted his campaign in Gaul is because the senate of the Roman republic was sick and tired of Gaulish armies invading Italy, looting and pillaging Roman cities, towns and villages including Rome.
 
I think it was fairly inevitable. If Caesar had failed to do the job then another power hungry Roman would have done the job instead. The Gauls were probably screwed in the long run anyway. Even without the Romans they would eventually have been conquered by the Germanic tribes. Regards.
 
No, they weren't. Also, the Senate had nothing to do with Caesar's conquest of Gaul, it was just him taking advantage of the Helvetii migrations and the Suebi incursions into allied gallic land for his own personal ambitions.
 
So without Roman interference the Gauls might have unified in some way to keep the Germans out ? That would make an interesting T.L. I am a big fan of your T.L. by the way Regards.
 
I dunno about that. The tribal structure doesn't exactly scream forming into a coherent nation state though. I've heard that without a significant threat like Rome, chances are the tribal system would remain in place anyway.
 
If Vercingetorix annihilates Caesar's army in Alesia,then Gaul will probably emerge as a united nation.IIRC,he was actually crowned some sort of paramount chief or king right sometime after Gergovia.
 
No, they weren't. Also, the Senate had nothing to do with Caesar's conquest of Gaul, it was just him taking advantage of the Helvetii migrations and the Suebi incursions into allied gallic land for his own personal ambitions.

This. However it should be mentioned that nobody is Rome was exactly shedding tears for the Gauls :p
 
I've been going through quite a bit of material in regards to the possibility of a Gaulish victory over the Romans, and they all have quite the common theme. Even if Caesar were to be defeated or even worse, killed. It seemed that Gaul was doomed to be subjugated ultimately by Rome. So I ask this simply, were the Gallic Wars simply a lose-lose situation for the Gauls, whether it be conquered by Caesar (albeit in an illegal war), or by another Roman commander. Was Gaul simply doomed and fated to ultimately become a Roman province?

Don't see why.

They failed in Germany and Caledonia, came within an ace of losing Britain, and never bothered at all about Ireland. Even places as close to home as NW Spain and the Alps were neglected until well into Augustus' reign. Had Caesar come a cropper in Gaul it could have been left for ages, or even indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
There is no reason why they have to be conquered by Rome, the conquest was Caesar exploiting an opportunity. One could argue that had a good opportunity not shown up then the Roman might be fine with settling for Southern Gaul, the part closest to the Mediterranean.

If the Romans are fine with having the Gaulic tribes fighting over spots as Roman tributaries as they did with the Germanic tribes until the Romans establish a border with Persia then I think they have a good chance. But it will rely a great deal on luck and circumstances, because if Rome or a skilled commander goes for Gaul it wont survive, it's too well developed, the terrain not rough enough, Rome has a far larger population/soldiers and it's too close to core Roman territories.

Rome would need to have more distractions which forces its focus south and east, ambitious senators or generals going for Gaul need to be avoided, preferably a Roman border with Persia as quickly as possible. But on top of this, if the Gauls ever become too united/powerful I think the Romans will go for them regardless, can't have a threat so close to Italy itself.
 
So without Roman interference the Gauls might have unified in some way to keep the Germans out ? That would make an interesting T.L. I am a big fan of your T.L. by the way Regards.

Probably not. Gauls were tribalists not nationalists. Only way unite them is that some strong enough tribe conquer another tribes. They didn't understand being same people. They just were multiple tribes which spoke same language, altough probably different dialects. Even Germans didn't united as one nation after Varus' failed conquest attempt.
 
There is no reason why they have to be conquered by Rome, the conquest was Caesar exploiting an opportunity. One could argue that had a good opportunity not shown up then the Roman might be fine with settling for Southern Gaul, the part closest to the Mediterranean.

If the Romans are fine with having the Gaulic tribes fighting over spots as Roman tributaries as they did with the Germanic tribes until the Romans establish a border with Persia then I think they have a good chance. But it will rely a great deal on luck and circumstances, because if Rome or a skilled commander goes for Gaul it wont survive, it's too well developed, the terrain not rough enough, Rome has a far larger population/soldiers and it's too close to core Roman territories.

Rome would need to have more distractions which forces its focus south and east, ambitious senators or generals going for Gaul need to be avoided, preferably a Roman border with Persia as quickly as possible. But on top of this, if the Gauls ever become too united/powerful I think the Romans will go for them regardless, can't have a threat so close to Italy itself.
Rome can go for Gaul all they want. That doesn't mean they are destined to conquer it. The conquest of Gaul nearly backfired spectacularly IOTL and there really isn't much incentive to conquer it, even if they unite. Actually, if anything, a united Gaul (say, brought about by Vercingetorix somehow)is probably powerful enough to avoid conquest.
 
Rome, under their best and most ruthless General, almost lost. Gaul was well developed, with roads, large metropolis, and where ahead to metallurgy. They could not match Roman organization, however Vercigetrix had come up with a potentially winning stratagy I.e. cutting off his supplies and not fighting the legions face to face.

Basically, it was the closest war that we know of in the Ancient world, IMHO.
 
I've been going through quite a bit of material in regards to the possibility of a Gaulish victory over the Romans, and they all have quite the common theme. Even if Caesar were to be defeated or even worse, killed. It seemed that Gaul was doomed to be subjugated ultimately by Rome. So I ask this simply, were the Gallic Wars simply a lose-lose situation for the Gauls, whether it be conquered by Caesar (albeit in an illegal war), or by another Roman commander. Was Gaul simply doomed and fated to ultimately become a Roman province?

Some seventy years before Caesar's proconsulship of Gaul, the land itself from the Atlantic to the Rhine was under the hegemony of the Arverni tribal-kingdom (Vercingetorix's nation). The Roman conquests of what would later become Gallia Narbonensis resulted in the defeat of the Arverni, which lost it's position of leadership among the other Gaulish tribes, which was the real cause of division among them. And was the situation that the Romans wanted to exploit to keep their borders safe. To the north of the Arverni of Aurvergne were their traditional political rivals in Gaul, the Aedui of Saone-et-Loire, who were previously the hegemonists of Gaul before the Arverni usurped them. Aedui sought Roman aid to help maintain their independence, making them an Amici et Socii Populi Romani which guaranteed Roman military intervention in times of trouble. This being the pretext for Gaius Julius Caesar's wars with the Germanic Suebi invasion of Aedui lands in Gaul, as well as dealing with the Helveti migration into Aedui territory, despite the fact that they were specifically invited to settle there by the anti-Roman Dumnorix, who was then the Vergobretus (incumbent elected chieftain) of the Aedui tribe.

Gaul, at the time, was rich in gold and silver, which is what really lured the Romans there, and this is thought to have been the source of economic power behind the political and military dominance of the Arverni over other Gallic tribes.

If the Romans had somehow not extended it's power into Gaul decades earlier, the Gauls may still have been under Arverni leadership and would have united against any Germanic migratory invasion. Or perhaps, they would have allowed the Germanics to settle in Gaul in return for their fealty.
 
Top