Celtic Rome

In an old thread i heard about the reason Rome couldn't become an European empire, because it was more Mediterranean oriented (or so i think).

For this reason, i would like to know what are the odds of a city state emerging in Gallia, and absorbing the civic greek traditions (and the etruscan technology) to evolve like Rome did.

I thought about Marseille having more profound contact with the Gallian mainland, or something like that, to have some uplifted celtic tribes to develop an urban tradition like the roman one. Is it plausible?
 
I thought about Marseille having more profound contact with the Gallian mainland, or something like that, to have some uplifted celtic tribes to develop an urban tradition like the roman one. Is it plausible?

Isn't what basically happened IOTL?

Marseille did have an important influence on its mainland, especially on Celto-Ligurians (but not only). For exemple, the Salyan town of Entremont (capital of their league) recieved quite their influence.
I could name as well Glanon/Glanum, Ensérune (while it's more of an Iberian town and influenced as well by Campanians).

Not that Greeks were the only influence, you could count as well on Etruscean or Punic (Pech Maho or Lattara could be a good exemple, while the later is more of an emporion)

I mean, you'd think that nothing such as influence would have existed with a multi-century presence?

And that's for urban influence, you could count as well the fact Gallic was written in greek characters, that their coins were at first copies of greek ones, etc.

As for the urban tradition, it's quite assumed that oppida are the mark of such, including monumental buildings (such as the "theater" they found at Bibracte, or temples as in Entremont). Because it's not the same than roman tradition (not that far, though) and its is own original production doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken in account.

It's one of the reasons Caesar use the word "civitas" for naming several of them : it wasn't just about some fortification but a urban center with its own influence. (It's wroth mentioning that several of these either served as basis for building roman towns, or that they were important enough for that roman towns were built to rival them).

Again, Bibracte is quite a good exemple. The oppidum was the capital of Aedui, whom dominated a large part of Central Gaul.

That's quite an interesting topic, that really just began to be understood more precisely.
 
Isn't what basically happened IOTL?

Marseille did have an important influence on its mainland, especially on Celto-Ligurians (but not only). For exemple, the Salyan town of Entremont (capital of their league) recieved quite their influence.
I could name as well Glanon/Glanum, Ensérune (while it's more of an Iberian town and influenced as well by Campanians).

Not that Greeks were the only influence, you could count as well on Etruscean or Punic (Pech Maho or Lattara could be a good exemple, while the later is more of an emporion)

I mean, you'd think that nothing such as influence would have existed with a multi-century presence?

And that's for urban influence, you could count as well the fact Gallic was written in greek characters, that their coins were at first copies of greek ones, etc.

As for the urban tradition, it's quite assumed that oppida are the mark of such, including monumental buildings (such as the "theater" they found at Bibracte, or temples as in Entremont). Because it's not the same than roman tradition (not that far, though) and its is own original production doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken in account.

It's one of the reasons Caesar use the word "civitas" for naming several of them : it wasn't just about some fortification but a urban center with its own influence. (It's wroth mentioning that several of these either served as basis for building roman towns, or that they were important enough for that roman towns were built to rival them).

Again, Bibracte is quite a good exemple. The oppidum was the capital of Aedui, whom dominated a large part of Central Gaul.

That's quite an interesting topic, that really just began to be understood more precisely.

Interesting, i'll look at these links. So, in the end, what had the romans that the celts lacked? I'd say the "organization", broadly speaking, but there must be something else.
Maybe the romans were in a privileged geographical position that allowed them to rely more on commerce and contacts with other Mediterranean élites (and cultures)?

If that's the reason, we could just have the romans get wrecked in one of their early wars of expansions, thus giving one or two centuries to the Celts to develop some more.
 
So, in the end, what had the romans that the celts lacked? I'd say the "organization", broadly speaking, but there must be something else.
I'm not a big fan of the explanation "more organised", giving it's coming from centuries of bias on Roman history ("they were more virtuous, civilized, white, etc.").
We don't know much on Celtic structures (would it be only because we're talking of a very heterogenous ensemble, and changing a lot depending time and place) save Greek or Roman accounts and archeology, but there's a priori no reason to argue about a inherent superiority of roman structures (that changed a lot as well during roman history) without checking circumstances and context.

(Not the point, but if you want to look at celtic urban centers, Manching may interest you as well)

Maybe the romans were in a privileged geographical position that allowed them to rely more on commerce and contacts with other Mediterranean élites (and cultures)?
That may be an explanation, but I don't think it should be used alone. After all, the Halstatt principalties traded as well with Mediterranean peoples already (see Vix Grave) along Tin Road particularly.

On the other hand, Rome really became a trade hub after defeating Etrusceans and some highlander leagues, most of its geographical power was potential.

I'd think Rome beneficied from a whole set of factors : close to important roads, political influence from Greeks and Etrusceans (the latter shouldn't be minimized), and certainly the decline of its neighbours that allowed a city-state and its league to expand its dominance (as Athens tried and failed, for exemple, in Greece) after centuries of large-scale insignificance (it really rised only in the IIIrd century BCE), its rise wasn't an unstoppable advance, far from it.

Nothing inherently vowed to domination,in short, but many circumstential support.

Now, once Rome achieved and sustained regional hegemony, trade and geostrategical factor certainly played, as well a certain structural pragmatism, military (such as appearance of maniple) and institutionally (more broad approach on citizenship) that may, at least, be traced back to cultural features. That's certainly not the only factors, though.
 
Last edited:
Top