Earlier celtic "Great Expedition"

What if the Celts, that just defeated Illyrian tribes and were at the contact of Macedonian Empire, invade continental Greece not in 310 BC, but around the indian campaigns of Alexander, in 326.

What would have been the consequences for Macedonia, Alexander and Diadokoi realms?
 
I believe that both Macedonian and Greek forces in the Southern Balkans are in better military shape in 326. (Alexander left significant forces behind to quell dissent and frontier duty) The manpower pool is yet to be depleted and dispersed by the upcoming wars of the Diadokoi.

Thus I think the Kelts would not be as successful as OTL although it might disrupt Alexander's eastern campaign to a point. Bearing in mind that it might take months to reach Alexander with the news and another few months to send reinforcements to Greece -- by which time events may have already resolved themselves.
 
I believe that both Macedonian and Greek forces in the Southern Balkans are in better military shape in 326. (Alexander left significant forces behind to quell dissent and frontier duty) The manpower pool is yet to be depleted and dispersed by the upcoming wars of the Diadokoi.

Thus I think the Kelts would not be as successful as OTL although it might disrupt Alexander's eastern campaign to a point. Bearing in mind that it might take months to reach Alexander with the news and another few months to send reinforcements to Greece -- by which time events may have already resolved themselves.

Also, Antipater might find willing allies for a change in the Greek city states to bolster his forces. Consider also that Ptolemy Keraunos wasn't the best of generals, and that Antigonus Gonatas managed to finish them off with next to no forces of his own, I think it's safe to say the Makedonians will be more successful.
 
Alternatively he can go to the Illyrian kingdoms for assistance, particularly the Paeonians and Dardani. They were the earliest victims of the Celtic expansion into the Balkans and the latter had offer assistance to Ptolemy Keraunos to provide reinforcements but it was refused which ended up with his demise. If they attacked in 326 BC, they wouldn't just be not as successful but they wouldn't be able to penetrate the Balkans at all.
 
Alternatively he can go to the Illyrian kingdoms for assistance, particularly the Paeonians and Dardani. They were the earliest victims of the Celtic expansion into the Balkans and the latter had offer assistance to Ptolemy Keraunos to provide reinforcements but it was refused which ended up with his demise. If they attacked in 326 BC, they wouldn't just be not as successful but they wouldn't be able to penetrate the Balkans at all.

Yeah. The Dardanians ended up joining the Celts due to it either being that or risk annihilation after Keraunos turned them down, so no doubt the Celts are denied around 10,000 more soldiers, who will instead join Antipater.
 
The Successor Kingdoms hire more Carian and Thracian mercenaries to make up for the lack of Celts in their armies?

Would that make up for the numbers, though? Celtic mercenarship involved thousands, if not more of hired fighters. Quoting Hubert : "There was no Eastern Prince that tought he could do without his Gallic corps".
If replacing them by other groups, how the likely fewer number of involved mercenaries is going to impact on hellenistic warfare and Diadokoi conflicts?
 
Now while I agree that it seems highly unlikely that the Celtic tribes could penetrate, let alone conquer, the Argead Balkans (after all, they did send emissaries to Alexander's court with the believed motivation of seeing how strong/vulnerable the Empire was, and deemed it too strong to attack), let's not say it is impossible.

Let's recall that the Celtic army of some 300,000 men, assuming the population was similar 50 years earlier than the OTL invasion, pouring south along the Danube is no laughing matter. If the tribal leaders are smart, they'll stick together and avoid fracture, which means that at any given time, they have 3x times the army of Achaemenid Persia, and 6x the size of Alexander's army in Asia. Regardless of individual worth, 300,000 Celtic warriors, many of whom were on chariot, will overpower with sheer numbers whatever force is mustered against them. Initially at least.

And that's where the Celt's have some issues. Initially, they will enter Argead territory like a sledgehammer pounding through plaster. But their motivation largely isn't to conquer, it's to raid and plunder. If they remain centralized, head for the big cities and crush them one by one like an Eastern army would, there'd be no stopping them. But the Celts didn't function that way, and would split up into smaller units to divide the wealth laid out for them. After crushing Antipater (yes, I think that is actually a likely outcome), it will take some time for the armies further east to respond, which will leave the Balkans largely defenseless until reinforcements from across the sea arrive to drive them back one army at a time. And when you have that many armies, you begin to realize that whatever Macedonian force that arrives to push them back will have to worry a lot about getting whittled away bit by bit with each battle. How many battles will they win before they don't have enough men? And will that have been enough for the next batch of Macedonian reinforcements to arrive and finish the clean-up?

The much easier solution would be to bargain with the Celts. Alexander might want to use them, like Nicodemus, and settle them further east. You could end up with a Galatia in Bactria or Arabia.

EDIT: My high estimation of there number is due to the use of Trimarchesia. For example, an ancient writer might say there were 100,000 warriors, perhaps a high estimate, but with the implementation of Trimarchesia, where two more "squires" were ready to replace a warrior in battle, the number triples.
 
Last edited:
The numbers might be more plausible if they were decimated.;) (couldn't resist).
Contemporary numbers for many ancient armies and most especially the size of the opponents army are almost always inflated. Seriously inflated.
The 3rd C Celtic invasion probably had no more than 80K warriors ( by modern hisorian's estimates) although contemporary accounts gave as high as approaching 200K. Logistically even much smaller armies in ancient times had to advance over multiple routes on a broad front just to find enough food and fodder.

But it would be nice to see a source for your given figures.
 
Last edited:
The much easier solution would be to bargain with the Celts. Alexander might want to use them, like Nicodemus, and settle them further east. You could end up with a Galatia in Bactria or Arabia.

If it ever came to that, Alexander would probably want to split the invading Celtic peoples as much as possible and resettle them in areas where there is an extremely light Macedonian military presence or there's a troublesome barbarian tribe or enemy kingdom just across the border. 326 BC is just about around the time Alexander makes his first advances towards India. If the Celts are that numerous, then they would be an essential military asset and replace the Greco-Macedonian veterans, allowing him to continue his conquest while his veterans could return home for retirement. The Celtic tribal leaders could be offered the rich lands of the Indus (and even the Ganges if Alexander goes even further) in exchange for their participation and protecting any new conquests.

:D
 
Moustached Buddhists. :eek:
(That said, druidism and budhism, critically regarding reincarnation, would have a lot to share)
 
Moustached Buddhists. :eek:
(That said, druidism and budhism, critically regarding reincarnation, would have a lot to share)

This must be the basis of a TL!
:D

Kushans already won on the moustashed Buddhist front, though.
i_kushan3.jpg

Plus with new, improved skull deformation.
 
Top