Ceasar dies in a Carhae style disaster at Alesia

Rome also had demographical and economical advantages.

Rome will turn on itself once there is no more easily conquerable territory, and Gaul is just to close to the italian heartland not to be conquered, even after a brief period of internal turmoil.

There was at least 10 million people in Gaul at the time. I don't think they were at a complete disadvantage.

And as I previoulsy stated, Gaul was rich in precious metals and had advanced agriculture, so their economy wasn't that worse off.

If Caesar died at Alesia, do you think that none of the Gauls would learn from their past experiences with the Romans?
 

Typo

Banned
ummm

10 million seems a bit too much considering that during the empire the population of the Gaul provinces were never more than a couple of million, quick goggling suggests 4 million.

Gaul was also a tribal society, and will fragment once the immediate threat goes away, no matter what the Romans and Gauls learn from each other
 
ummm

10 million seems a bit too much considering that during the empire the population of the Gaul provinces were never more than a couple of million, quick goggling suggests 4 million.

Gaul was also a tribal society, and will fragment once the immediate threat goes away, no matter what the Romans and Gauls learn from each other

I've seen sources on ancient Gaul which quote the figure variously from 4 million to as much as twenty million. Under Roman rule, this figure would have shrunk steadily, due to famine, civil wars and the occasional plague.

Gaul was not simply a tribal society. I mentioned earlier that the Aedui led a confederation of smaller tribes, such as the Carnutes, the Insubres, the Bituriges, and the Aurlerci. The Arverni, Sequani, the Lexovii, and the Belgae were also unions of different tribes. They also shared a common religion and material culture. Describing them as a "tribal society" doesn't really do much justice to them.
 
Gaul was not simply a tribal society. I mentioned earlier that the Aedui led a confederation of smaller tribes, such as the Carnutes, the Insubres, the Bituriges, and the Aurlerci. The Arverni, Sequani, the Lexovii, and the Belgae were also unions of different tribes. They also shared a common religion and material culture. Describing them as a "tribal society" doesn't really do much justice to them.
Tribal doesn't neccessarily mean primitive; Ireland and the Scottish Highlands were still fairly tribal (or rather, clannish) well into the Early Modern period. All tribal really means is that the basic political unit was the tribe, which it was throughout Gaulish history. Tribal confederations are a common feature of tribal societies, and don't change the fact that society is still divided along tribal lines.

Common language, culture, or religion won't really be unifying factors within a tribal society the way they can be in a modern nation-state, because to the people within those societies all of those factors are secondary to tribal affiliation. Your neighbors might speak the same language and worship the same gods, but that doesn't change the fact they're from a different tribe.

If Vercingetorix tries to enforce Arverni dominance after winning Alesia, the most likely effect would be to unite the other tribes against him, and possibly even prompt them to send to Rome for aid. Better for their tribes to be Roman clients than Arverni subjects.
 
I've seen sources on ancient Gaul which quote the figure variously from 4 million to as much as twenty million. Under Roman rule, this figure would have shrunk steadily, due to famine, civil wars and the occasional plague.

Gaul was not simply a tribal society. I mentioned earlier that the Aedui led a confederation of smaller tribes, such as the Carnutes, the Insubres, the Bituriges, and the Aurlerci. The Arverni, Sequani, the Lexovii, and the Belgae were also unions of different tribes. They also shared a common religion and material culture. Describing them as a "tribal society" doesn't really do much justice to them.

Also, describing them as tribes is a bit misleading. The Helveltii are recorded as having 300,000 members, and they were a relatively small group. The Arverni would likely have several times that number, plus allies, vassals, mercenaries, all of which adds up to a potential for a rather large army, heavier on cavalry than Roman armies typically were.
 
Tribal doesn't neccessarily mean primitive; Ireland and the Scottish Highlands were still fairly tribal (or rather, clannish) well into the Early Modern period. All tribal really means is that the basic political unit was the tribe, which it was throughout Gaulish history. Tribal confederations are a common feature of tribal societies, and don't change the fact that society is still divided along tribal lines.

Common language, culture, or religion won't really be unifying factors within a tribal society the way they can be in a modern nation-state, because to the people within those societies all of those factors are secondary to tribal affiliation. Your neighbors might speak the same language and worship the same gods, but that doesn't change the fact they're from a different tribe.

If Vercingetorix tries to enforce Arverni dominance after winning Alesia, the most likely effect would be to unite the other tribes against him, and possibly even prompt them to send to Rome for aid. Better for their tribes to be Roman clients than Arverni subjects.

I mentioned that the other tribal unions, apart from the Arverni, were brutally decimated by Caesar's forces. Before Vercingetorix's ascent to power, the Arverni tried not to get on the wrong side of the Romans. After all the destruction in Gaul, they are going to be in a unique position to enforce their overlordship over the other tribes. It would take decades to achieve, yes. So Vercingetorix would have to avoid war with Rome for the most part after the 50's BCE.

After the lands and religious sites of the Aedui and the Carnutes are secured, resistance against the Arverni onslaught by the other Gallic tribes is going to look increasingly more forlorn, given their diminished state. Not only would they lack the sufficient manpower to challenge the Arverni, but with the most sacred centres in Gaul within Arverni control, whispers would spread that the Gods are on their side. Plus, they've would have had enough trouble fighting the Romans. They may not have enough will to fight off the Arverni.

I mentioned their common culture because it helps the cause of a future Gallic union by being so homogenous.

The Arverni had an elected monarchy, not a hereditary one. So the assemblies of nobles and Druids whom elect their sovereigns may try to appoint the right person for the job.
 
One thing that nobody has brought up yet that I've been wondering is how long it would take for the Romans to take another shot at taking Gaul?
If Rome goes into a period of unrest and civil war as in OTL. Should some sort of Emperor rise I could even see taking Gaul as a major project to build popularity and power my whoever gained the throne especially if their rivals had used Gaulish mercenaries or allies. I see this period of instability and civil war being around a generation or so in lenght as in OTL so the Romans would end up returning in strenght within 50 years of the Alesisa disaster.
Should this unrest be butterflied away by Ceasars death or some domestic events in Rome afterwards, how long would it take the Romans to come back?
 
After the lands and religious sites of the Aedui and the Carnutes are secured, resistance against the Arverni onslaught by the other Gallic tribes is going to look increasingly more forlorn, given their diminished state. Not only would they lack the sufficient manpower to challenge the Arverni, but with the most sacred centres in Gaul within Arverni control, whispers would spread that the Gods are on their side. Plus, they've would have had enough trouble fighting the Romans. They may not have enough will to fight off the Arverni.
I imagine the Arverni can probably win a war of conquest by this point, but holding all the other tribes down over the long term is a different proposition. By the time their population begins to recover, they need to be at least marginally loyal to the current regime.

A lot depends on how soon the Romans decide to make another attempt on Gaul; Vercingetorix and/or his successors need enough time to consolidate their position. Depending on how things go, they might not get it.

Should this unrest be butterflied away by Ceasars death or some domestic events in Rome afterwards, how long would it take the Romans to come back?
Probably no longer than it takes for replacement legions to be raised; the typical Roman response to a military setback is to immediately raise a larger army and send it in to avenge the first one.
 
One thing that nobody has brought up yet that I've been wondering is how long it would take for the Romans to take another shot at taking Gaul?
If Rome goes into a period of unrest and civil war as in OTL. Should some sort of Emperor rise I could even see taking Gaul as a major project to build popularity and power my whoever gained the throne especially if their rivals had used Gaulish mercenaries or allies. I see this period of instability and civil war being around a generation or so in lenght as in OTL so the Romans would end up returning in strenght within 50 years of the Alesisa disaster.
Should this unrest be butterflied away by Ceasars death or some domestic events in Rome afterwards, how long would it take the Romans to come back?

Caesar invaded Gaul strictly on his own initiative. Whatever excuses he had for protecting Rome's Gallic Aedui allies from invasion by the Alpine-based Celtic Helvetii (false) and the Germanic Suebi (at least true), he would officially side with some tribes against others until by 52 BCE once everyone knew what he was up to. Gaul was wealthy, but Caesar still acted very much against the wishes of the Senate and over-stepped his authority as Proconsul of Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul.

If Caesar died during the height of the invasion, punitive measures against the Gauls would still be pretty low on Rome's priorities, especially if the Gallic Arverni, Sequani, Aedui, Aquitanni and Lexovii were to sue for peace and allow the safe return of the Legions in Gaul along with their standards. After this, anything can happen, but I'm certain that a man of Vercingetorix's energy and ambition would waste no time in pressing every advantage he had into ensuring the permanent dominance of his group in the internal politics of Gaul. Also, the shock of the previous Roman invasion might compel some of the lesser tribes in Gaul to willingly submit to Arverni leadership in return for mutual protection.

Whats more, beside Gaul, Rome also had to worry about the Parthians to the east of Syria, the unified Dacian kingdom under King Burebista in the Balkans, and of course Ptolemaic Egypt. And unless Rome can sort itself out without Gaius Julius Caesar, I think the Near East and the Mediterranean are going to remain as its main focus in foreign affairs before they even think of finishing Caesar's job.

With Caesar dead, that leaves Pompey and his family, Metellus Scipio, Marcus Porcius Cato "the Younger", Marcus Junius Brutus, Titus Annius Milo, and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus of the Optimates/Boni. Titus Labienus and Marcus Antonius, both of Caesars lieutenants in Gaul, were lower-level politicians. And Gaius Octavius could potentially rise in the Senate without his great uncle's inheritance, but not quite as early as he did OTL.
 
Gaul had been undergoing a steady process of urbanization for at least a century before Caesar's conquest. They had an underground system of stone pipes to channel water. It was through them that Bibracte (Aedui capital) was supplied with water from sixteen natural springs. Other findings from Bibracte at Mount Beuvray in Saone-et-Loire France reveal that the largest buildings found there were up to four-storeys high, and had cellars for storing goods. They also had paved roads within the city limits, and the defensive wall surrounding Bibracte was 3.1 miles in circumference. The city populace was believed to have between 50'000-100,000. Caesar describes in his writings that the Biturige city of Avaricum (modern Bourges) was inhabited by 120,000 people.

This society, while basically divided into hereditary tribal groups, seemed to be in the transistion to a culture more resembling the city-states of Greece and Italy.
 
If Caesar dies in Gaul, Pompey would need to get by without the help of his support and that of the late Crassus. The Boni faction largely disliked Pompey. He wasn't simply a "Novus Homo", he had inherited the command of three legions from his father as a young man, long before he ever formally beacme a Senator. Quite unheard of. For them, Pompey always got what he wanted by force at arms, plus, he had once done the murderous bidding of the Dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla. With Caesar gone, Pompey would have to retain command of his own private army, and thus his remain as the unofficial power above the Senate. How long would his traditionalist peers tolerate him?

Gaul might be attacked again by someone with the same drive as Caesar. But keep in mind that Dacia itself wasn't conquered by Rome until the early Second Century CE. And Dacian society was not only sophisticated, with their own road system, running water, state religion, and iron-working industries, but also like Gaul, had extensive goldmines as well. Apparently, as Caesar was made Proconsul of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, he was also the governor of Illyria, and was said to have initially planned to invade Dacia. But he felt that campaigning in Gaul had more to offer his political career.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure Vercingetorix could hold his coalition together once the Caesar has been taken out, those types of tribal coalitions don't tend to last much longer than the common threat that unites them. Even if Vercingetorix does manage to hold on to power he would be hard pressed to establish any sort of lasting dynasty; any heir probably won't have the same strength of will, force of personality, and military acumen that Vercingetorix needed to put the coalition together in the first place.

I'm not so sure. The analogy for Gallic development, at least to me, is the Lithunian state, which arose as a result of a centralizing tribal leader.
 
Plus, there is no reason to believe that the Celtic Gauls were inherently incapable of self-unification. Some scholars believe that Gaul, before the Roman Imperial Era, may have been briefly united several times under the rule of militaristic hegemonies of certain tribes, one such example being that of the Cubi-Bituriges under King Ambicatus, whom allegedly existed in the 600's BCE. The earliest written sources for this legend comes from Livius in the First Centuries BCE/CE, but he mentions nephews of Ambicatus, one Bellovesus whom led the initial Celtic migration into northern Italy, and founded Milan. And the other nephew of Ambicatus, Segovesus, to lead the colonization of southern Germany.

The all-out Roman invasion by Caesar, if thwarted by his death, may motivate the Arverni, the strongest of the remaining tribal unions, to steadily coerce into vassalage or brutally subdue the rest of their Gallic neighbours under their long-term leadership.

How will it look for Rome then, if it has to compete for the political and cultural influence of Europe with a united Gaul and Dacia?
 
I reckon that if both Dacia and a united Gaul were to endure and challenge the Roman Empire down the centuries, the Dacian Cult of Zalmoxis and Celtic Polytheism might have become major world religions to this day.
 
Top