Caesar loses and is killed at the Battle of Alesia.

Inspired by this lovely video of the aforementioned battle, what if Vercingetorix and the Gauls were able to stretch the Romans beyond their breaking point, routing them and killing Caesar (along with Marc Antony, presumably) in the chaos? How is Roman history (and Gaullic history, for that matter) changed by the death of Caesar and the triumph of Vercingetorix?
 
Inspired by this lovely video of the aforementioned battle, what if Vercingetorix and the Gauls were able to stretch the Romans beyond their breaking point, routing them and killing Caesar (along with Marc Antony, presumably) in the chaos? How is Roman history (and Gaullic history, for that matter) changed by the death of Caesar and the triumph of Vercingetorix?


Depends what Pompey does.

Assuming Crassus still gets himself killed at Carrhae, Pompey is the only one left standing. No doubt he will want to avenge the setbacks to Roman arms, but he can't march both ways at once. Most probably he will go east rather than west, as he is more familiar with it and there's more loot in that direction. That is apt to keep him occupied for a very long time, so he won't be doing anything in Gaul any time soon - if ever.

So you could end up with a limes in the west a lot closer to the Med. No doubt some tidying up will get done in places like the Balkans, Alps and NW Spain, but Gaul may never be conquered, or if it is, it may well be a later conquest, taken sometime in the 2C by some alt-Trajan. In the latter case, it could well be lost again in the 3C as Dacia was OTL. With these borders, Rome's chances of surviving the 3C crisis are considerably poorer.
 
Depends what Pompey does.

Assuming Crassus still gets himself killed at Carrhae, Pompey is the only one left standing. No doubt he will want to avenge the setbacks to Roman arms, but he can't march both ways at once. Most probably he will go east rather than west, as he is more familiar with it and there's more loot in that direction. That is apt to keep him occupied for a very long time, so he won't be doing anything in Gaul any time soon - if ever.

So you could end up with a limes in the west a lot closer to the Med. No doubt some tidying up will get done in places like the Balkans, Alps and NW Spain, but Gaul may never be conquered, or if it is, it may well be a later conquest, taken sometime in the 2C by some alt-Trajan. In the latter case, it could well be lost again in the 3C as Dacia was OTL. With these borders, Rome's chances of surviving the 3C crisis are considerably poorer.

IDK about Pompey heading east; Gaul was much closer to Italy than Parthia was, and the Romans had been paranoid about big hordes of barbarians pouring over the Alps ever since 390. I think it's quite plausible that Pompey would want to at least lead a punitive expedition and stabilise the northern frontier before marching over to the other side of the Empire.
 
IDK about Pompey heading east; Gaul was much closer to Italy than Parthia was, and the Romans had been paranoid about big hordes of barbarians pouring over the Alps ever since 390. I think it's quite plausible that Pompey would want to at least lead a punitive expedition and stabilise the northern frontier before marching over to the other side of the Empire.

On the other hand, when giving the option of warring with (wealthy and loot-filled) Parthia or Gaul, there will be a real temptation to at most win a battle, sign a treaty declaring victory, and start marching east. Especially if he wants to have enough loot to keep all of the legions on side.
 
IDK about Pompey heading east; Gaul was much closer to Italy than Parthia was, and the Romans had been paranoid about big hordes of barbarians pouring over the Alps ever since 390. I think it's quite plausible that Pompey would want to at least lead a punitive expedition and stabilise the northern frontier before marching over to the other side of the Empire.

On the other hand, when giving the option of warring with (wealthy and loot-filled) Parthia or Gaul, there will be a real temptation to at most win a battle, sign a treaty declaring victory, and start marching east. Especially if he wants to have enough loot to keep all of the legions on side.

Either way, Pompey could easily get killed in all that fighting, which might set up another period of Roman instability.

As for Gaul? How long can Vercingetorix hold his coalition together with the war won. Celts are not good at unity. However, a divided Gaul is a weak Gaul, which could be German or Roman bait, something many chiefs, looking at their depleted ranks might recognize, which is a great start for a Gaul wank.

Long term it alters the cultural lines, with Gaul following a Celtic/Germanic paradign rather than a Greco Roman one. Could something Druidic descended be a major world religion?
 
On the other hand, when giving the option of warring with (wealthy and loot-filled) Parthia or Gaul, there will be a real temptation to at most win a battle, sign a treaty declaring victory, and start marching east. Especially if he wants to have enough loot to keep all of the legions on side.

It might be limited to that, but he'll at least want to do something, otherwise he'd be open to the charge of haring off after his own glory whilst a barbarian horde is breathing down Italy's neck.

As for plunder, Caesar made enough during the Gallic Wars to go from a bankrupt into one of the richest men in Rome. Gaul might not have been as rich as the East, but it wasn't lacking in booty by any means.
 
It might be limited to that, but he'll at least want to do something, otherwise he'd be open to the charge of haring off after his own glory whilst a barbarian horde is breathing down Italy's neck.

I think Gaul was pretty close to exhausted and in no shape to go on the offensive. Basically an ancient equivilent of a "victorius" Confederacy circa 1865. I think 'losing' a battle and letting the Romans make peace would be the best Gaul could do in the short term.

Give it a generation and let Rome be divided and fighting a continued civil war on the Roman side with no settlement like the Caeser imposed of Rome's problems?

As for plunder, Caesar made enough during the Gallic Wars to go from a bankrupt into one of the richest men in Rome. Gaul might not have been as rich as the East, but it wasn't lacking in booty by any means.

True, but keep in mind how close Ceasar came to loosing also. Gaul would be weak but battle tested. The expense of another attempted full conquest might not be considered worth the price.
 
I think Gaul was pretty close to exhausted and in no shape to go on the offensive. Basically an ancient equivilent of a "victorius" Confederacy circa 1865. I think 'losing' a battle and letting the Romans make peace would be the best Gaul could do in the short term.

Give it a generation and let Rome be divided and fighting a continued civil war on the Roman side with no settlement like the Caeser imposed of Rome's problems?



True, but keep in mind how close Ceasar came to loosing also. Gaul would be weak but battle tested. The expense of another attempted full conquest might not be considered worth the price.

OTOH, I think Roman prestige/pride would have suffered more of a blow at Alesia than at Carrhae, because (a) nobody really liked Crassus anyway, so even if they mourned the loss of his army they weren't really sorry to say goodbye to the man himself, (b) Rome had come much closer to conquering Gaul than it ever had to conquering Parthia, and it's always worse to almost win and then have victory slip from your grasp than it is just to lose in the first place, and (c) Gaul was (one of) Rome's traditional enemy(s), which would have rubbed extra salt in the wound of their defeat.
 
But does Pompey avenge Caesar by winning a battle or two to avenge Caesar, like Augustus did with Varus, then making peace and building limes on the border with Gaul? Or does he try another full borne attempt at conquest?

I think the former.
 
There is no alesia, no one knows what or where alesia is.(asterix reference)

But seriously gaul was too disunited sooner or later a roman army would conquer them eventually.
 
I think people here are ignoring the long term implications of no Caesar in favor of this argument of Parthia vs Gaul. Honestly, this would mean that the history of the world as we know it would be shaken to the core in unpredictable ways. (Not that I'm much one for the "Great Person" style of history, but if there would still be a rising dictator of Rome, it would have been a significantly delayed event.)
 
There is no alesia, no one knows what or where alesia is.(asterix reference)

But seriously gaul was too disunited sooner or later a roman army would conquer them eventually.

In our tl, yes. But does the experience of almost getting conquered change this in the mid term.

Also, the Roman republic could fracture into a bunch of feuding camps.
 
The question is whether Vercingetorix can use the glory of his victory to get a permanent position as leader (under whatever name) of a mostly stable confederation or not. If he can, and can then use a few years of breathing space from Roman political instability, to deal with internal resistance, there is a chance of Gaul unifying (it was making steps in that direction at the time of OTL roman invasion). That's not a given, but there is a possibility. (of course, assasination of Vercingetorix and total anarchy is also a possibility)

In any case, Gallia Narbonensis is going to be Roman in the long run; I see the border being along the Garonne, under the Massif Central, across the Rhone and to the Alps. OTOH, if that is stabilised (and Gaul gets to trade with Rome), Gaul is likely to include Gallia Belgica and even push the Germans back a little (i.e. both side of the Rhine are likely to be Gaul)
 
IDK about Pompey heading east; Gaul was much closer to Italy than Parthia was, and the Romans had been paranoid about big hordes of barbarians pouring over the Alps ever since 390. I think it's quite plausible that Pompey would want to at least lead a punitive expedition and stabilise the northern frontier before marching over to the other side of the Empire.
Pompey had his sights set on the east. The east was where he made a name for himself. The east was where he had all his connections. The east was where all the glory was. And more importantly, Parthia was a much easier foe from Pompey's perspective than the Gauls were. More importantly, the triumvirate's enemies have been gunning for replacing Caesar in Gaul for years now. Pompey just risks uneccesarily alienating himself if he goes for it. It would be far more prudent for him to take advantage of Caesar's death as an opportunity to rebuild his old grand coalition. Make a deal with Metellus and his faction, assist him in winning the Gallic command, and isolate the Catonians. This is more or less what Pompey was attempting to do at this point IOTL, except now he has far more chips to work with.

Is Caesar gets himself killed, Cato will turn his guns fully against Pompey.

If Caesar gets himself killed, Cato doesn't have as many guns left. Cato's faction was swelled by the "Moderate opposition" or, those that weren't Catonians but feared the triumvirate and wanted to see it crushed. These included men like Cicero and former Pompeian allies like the Metelli. IOTL, this "Catonian Coalition" was already being broken into by Pompey. He married into the Metelli after Julia's death, for example. Here, the triumvirate is completely gone. Pompey has many more chips at his disposal to win back his old grand coalition from the 60s, at least temporarily.

Either way, Pompey could easily get killed in all that fighting, which might set up another period of Roman instability.

As for Gaul? How long can Vercingetorix hold his coalition together with the war won. Celts are not good at unity. However, a divided Gaul is a weak Gaul, which could be German or Roman bait, something many chiefs, looking at their depleted ranks might recognize, which is a great start for a Gaul wank.

Long term it alters the cultural lines, with Gaul following a Celtic/Germanic paradign rather than a Greco Roman one. Could something Druidic descended be a major world religion?

The distinction between Gallic and German at this time is an artificial one created by Caesar to justify not campaigning across the Rhine.
 
Pompey had his sights set on the east. The east was where he made a name for himself. The east was where he had all his connections. The east was where all the glory was. And more importantly, Parthia was a much easier foe from Pompey's perspective than the Gauls were. More importantly, the triumvirate's enemies have been gunning for replacing Caesar in Gaul for years now. Pompey just risks uneccesarily alienating himself if he goes for it. It would be far more prudent for him to take advantage of Caesar's death as an opportunity to rebuild his old grand coalition. Make a deal with Metellus and his faction, assist him in winning the Gallic command, and isolate the Catonians. This is more or less what Pompey was attempting to do at this point IOTL, except now he has far more chips to work with.

Under normal circumstances yes, but I suspect the calculus will have been changed somewhat by the defeat at Alesia. Now Roman prestige has been badly shaken in a battle with their traditional enemies, who are now menacingly poised to sweep across the Alps in an orgy of blood and destruction (or so the Romans would think). As the Republic's greatest living general, I'd expect there to be a significant outcry in favour of putting him in charge against the Gauls, at least until the situation's clearly stabilised.
 
The distinction between Gallic and German at this time is an artificial one created by Caesar to justify not campaigning across the Rhine.

Might disagree with some particlars not the general point. But the Gallic wars have a lot in common with the Greco-Persian wars in that long term cultural borders are being defined.

A Gallic victory won and maintained means that the cultural map long term is different. Law codes would be descended from something like Irish Brehon law rather than Greco Roman law. Scholarship is based off a Druidic desended model rather than one formulated by Christian monks.

Basically Rome becomes a sidelight to who we are, like Persia or Carthage, rather than who we are culturally descended from.
 
Top