European Culture w/ less direct classical influence.

I could come up with several POD, such a Gaulish victory at Alesia followed by Rome being to busy w/civil disorder attempt a large scale conquest, Carthage defeating Rome and not having much direct influence above the Pyranees or the Po.

But I'm not so concerned about the POD but what would the European cultural sphere look like? What would Celtic and Germanic culture would evolve into where the the classical worlds influence is not that of conquerers but as trading partners. Where Druids remain a going concern for centuries more and the first road builders are the Gauls and the Brits as they absorbed the tech of Greece and Rome but as independent powers.

What gods would they worship 1000 years on, or 2000? How divided would they remain. Would something like the Tain or the Eddas be the basis of "Classical Studies" and perhaps part of a "religous instruction". Would councils like the Allting and the Witangots be how kings were elected.

Basically, I'm looking at a world kind of like where the north won their Salamis and Platea. My question is, In your opinion what would that world look like as a seperate cultural sphere from the Classical world?
 
The Greek alphabet I think might become predominant in Europe anyway, the Gauls at least had been using it for a while and were pretty literate people. And the Celts had been building roads well before the Romans took them over, even in distant Ireland.
 
Thanks for the response. The lack of responses seemed to tell me that this very concept is one rarely explored because so little is available.

For example, any comments I were to make on Druids for example would have someone saying how wrong my interpretation is or have someone tell me the evidence is too fragmentary, though in a world like this it would probably be relevant for centuries more.

Christianity, if it exists, probably doesn't go as far. Do Norse and Celtic Paganism merge into something sorta analogous to something similar to Hinduism and Shinto.....only different?

Militarily or culturally, does Celtic or Germanic cultural influence predominant, or something else. It depends on the POD, but in general, the latter it is, the less good it is for the Celts. For example, a Gaulish victory at Alesia, very possibly is a preying victory which leads to them being weakened enough that Germanic tribes gain influence in what was large parts of Gaul.

Any other thoughts?
 
The Celts believed that creation began and ended in darkness. From the darkness of the womb to the oblivion of death. It was the natural state of the universe, which was why they counted new days only from when the sun set. A new day began when the light died. This was why Julius Caesar wrote that they were the children of Dis god of the underworld.
 
The Celts had a caste system of some sort, I've read. I think Northern and Western Europe become a Celt and Germanic blend and the two cultures influence each other, with Slavs in the mixture later on.

Maybe if you want to reduce Greek influence, have the Parthians or Sassanids take over the region in the absence of Rome.
 
The Celts had a caste system of some sort, I've read. I think Northern and Western Europe become a Celt and Germanic blend and the two cultures influence each other, with Slavs in the mixture later on.

Maybe if you want to reduce Greek influence, have the Parthians or Sassanids take over the region in the absence of Rome.

Without Rome I don't see a Mediterranean based power strong enough, close enough to care, dedicated enough, so continued evolution as a separate "cultural entity" seems logical. Though I could see someone, Carthage for example, having influence from the south, but not a full on Roman style conquest. Perhaps a chipping away at Gaul, with Carthage gaining control of the south coast or the Germans pushing the borders of Germanic tribalism to the Seine rather than the Rhine over a century or two, but not a full conquest.

As for Druidic belief, looking at Ceasar and reading pieces of Irish mythology, I was under the impression that they believed in some sort of reincarnation based system. I could quote both, but the point is, there is a lot of disagreement about what exactly the druids believed.
 
I will admit at the beginning that my knowledge on Celts,Goths,Gaulish,Norse and such is quite limited. However I will do my best to create a situation this could rise, and possibly see what type of states will form in the North.

For this to happen the best way is to remove Rome and keep Italy disunited, this keeping the Mediterranean world ruled by Greek city states, Phoenician states and Carthage. Thus removing the most immediate threat to the northern cultures as Carthage nor any of the Hellenic states have the power to conquer the territory of otl Rome. Also, this would give trading partners for Gaul who then trades with the celts, Goths, Franks, etc... This would create the situation needed for powerful states to form in the North with its own distinct outlook on classical culture of Greece and Phoenicia. These states would have little to no Latin influence, but it would be interesting and probable for some groups to adopt Punic loan words from trade, especially Gaul and the British Isles.

The Gauls would develope into states, and will fight to unite the tribes. Most likely the worship of Baal & Melqart becomes common throughout Gaul, Iberia and Britain through trade links. The state apparatus of a United Gaul might be just a despotic monarchy (how about oligarchic republic Gaul, via Carthage?). The celts would develop quite nicely as they assume trade partnership with Carthage they eventually develop into a dominant power in Northern Europe. The Druids could form a almost theocratic government (would be awesome). The Goths would remain eastern and so would the Germanic languages until some horde sweeps them westward, this in turn could lead to the fall of Gaul and invasions of Italy and Greece. The Goths however could create a somewhat powerful kingdom in Crimea/Ukraine by trade with the Greeks and would adopt many things from them, loanwords and such. Idk anything about Norse of this period, so yea.

As far as overall religions go, a analogous to Christianity forms as an anti Hellenistic messianic religion. If it accepts non Jews, then it expands to Arabia,Egypt, Lebannon and Iraq and becomes much more like otl Islam. This could lead to eventual uniting of Arabia and thus a conquest of Middle East. This Messianic religion would be much more confrontational to Greek culture and will be more warlike than otl Christianity. Because of this obviously no Islam and Gnosticism/Manichaeism. Persia does better as Parthia curb stomps a battered Seleucids. However Parthia will probably loose whatever they gain past Iraq. This has little effect on the North though.

The most promising is the Celts, who don't have to worry about marauding hordes (except for Norse, which might not happen if Celts develop a naval culture from Carthage). To keep most of these states alive (especially Goths) we will have to stop the steppe hordes from their rampaging, or create a Gothic version of the Roman Empire that absorbs the hordes (they will eventually buckle though). Best way to do this is keep all guns in India and make them take a one way trip to Pakistan setting up states there (Hephthalites) and will not leave so readily.

So now I will let the rest of you guys speculate, I will return with new ideas once I get feedback.
 
I can't see the Gauls just adopting Punic gods all willy-nilly, they were reluctant enough about Roman gods after having been conquered. The Celts of Iberia might be a different story though.

As far as governing goes, the Gauls did tend to form large tribal confederations in time of need, with the Arverni and Aedui being perhaps the most significant by Caesar's time. They wouldn't necessarily be a despotic monarchy though, they had a variety of different systems among the various tribes but there was a tendency for kings or rulers (many like the Aedui were ruled by a Vergobret) to be elected by a council. The ruling magistrates also tended to share power with not just the druids but also judges who were very important.

Also, the Celts did have a naval culture of their own without having to borrow from Mediterranean civilizations. The Veneti in particular are well-known for having fought naval battles with Caesar using ships that were probably more suited to the oceans than his, as well being larger and very sturdy.
 
I can't see the Gauls just adopting Punic gods all willy-nilly, they were reluctant enough about Roman gods after having been conquered. The Celts of Iberia might be a different story though.

As far as governing goes, the Gauls did tend to form large tribal confederations in time of need, with the Arverni and Aedui being perhaps the most significant by Caesar's time. They wouldn't necessarily be a despotic monarchy though, they had a variety of different systems among the various tribes but there was a tendency for kings or rulers (many like the Aedui were ruled by a Vergobret) to be elected by a council. The ruling magistrates also tended to share power with not just the druids but also judges who were very important.

Also, the Celts did have a naval culture of their own without having to borrow from Mediterranean civilizations. The Veneti in particular are well-known for having fought naval battles with Caesar using ships that were probably more suited to the oceans than his, as well being larger and very sturdy.

I did not mean that the Gauls would just give up their gods for that of Melqart and Baal, however in a peaceful, friendly relationship with Carthage I can see the two possibly accepting each other's gods. We also should understand that it was bad blood between Roma and Gaul that made them so reluctant to accept Roman Gods.

While it may be true that the Celts have a formidable navy you cannot tell me that connections with Carthage and greater trade and influence in the Mediterranean will not improve their navy.

I don't really know about Gauls political situation, I do know that in many cases tribal confederations turn to Monarchies as a certain tribe dominates.
 
The Celts had a caste system of some sort, I've read. I think Northern and Western Europe become a Celt and Germanic blend and the two cultures influence each other, with Slavs in the mixture later on.

Maybe if you want to reduce Greek influence, have the Parthians or Sassanids take over the region in the absence of Rome.

IOTL North Western Europe is pretty much a Celtic Germanic blend with some Roman added to the mix. :)
 
The Greeks attempted to make similarities between the Gallic god Ogmios and Herakles, given that a famous road from the Pyrennes to the Alps was supposedly made by Ogmios and it was the trail upon which Herakles drove the cattle of Geyron towards Italy.

Ogmios was a giant of a man who had immense strength, wore a lionskin and wielded a club, though unlike Herakles he was much older and spoke so eloquently he is often shown with chains protruding from his tongue ensaring the ears of all bystanders. A master story teller, showing the exalted position of Bards among Celtic peoples.
 
I did not mean that the Gauls would just give up their gods for that of Melqart and Baal, however in a peaceful, friendly relationship with Carthage I can see the two possibly accepting each other's gods. We also should understand that it was bad blood between Roma and Gaul that made them so reluctant to accept Roman Gods.

While it may be true that the Celts have a formidable navy you cannot tell me that connections with Carthage and greater trade and influence in the Mediterranean will not improve their navy.

I don't really know about Gauls political situation, I do know that in many cases tribal confederations turn to Monarchies as a certain tribe dominates.
I think you're overestimating how much influence the Carthaginians really could have on the Gauls. And I'm not sure if the Celts were as prone to adopting foreign religious ideas as the Mediterranean peoples were. Nor am I sure just how the Carthaginians would improve Gallic navies. As I said, the Gauls already had good ships of their own independent of Roman or Greek ideas, I don't see why a galley should appear as superior to their own ships for their own purposes. Maybe tribes on the Mediterranean coast would adopt Punic naval technology but for the Atlantic ocean a Veneti ship is probably a better craft. In any case, by the late period of Gallic history oligarchies were the norm, with a hierarchy of tribal kings and magistrates electing a chief magistrate (Vergobret) with monarchial powers but held in check.

IOTL North Western Europe is pretty much a Celtic Germanic blend with some Roman added to the mix. :)
Certainly a strong Roman veneer has been present for a while, particularly with the intense Romanophilia that continues to plague society :)p), but yeah, in some ways the Gauls and ancient Germans might seem more familiar to modern westerners than would the Romans or Greeks.

In any case, I think an interesting POD (although one too late for poor Carthage) would be a Roman defeat in the Social War. I don't know much of the period or conflict, but I assume that if defeated their place would be taken over by a primarily Oscan Italic confederation, with several tribes now free from Roman domination so they can fight each other instead. The Samnites might still have their chance for a spot in the sun, however this would come at a time when the Celts had been adapting to Rome and had establish even more complex cities and whatnot and I think there were some strong tribal confederations around.
 
I didn't mean that their naval technology would improve or they would receive a new ship or anything, but with longer trade with Carthage the Gauls and Celts will spread their wings more; rather then being stomped and their potential crushed by the Romans. I think that it is absurd that the Gauls and celts would not benefit from an extended relationship with a surviving Carthage, were they are allowed to grow and have access to the greater Mediterranean world via Carthage.
 
Not wishing to press the analogy all the way, but otl Germans could be thought of as non-Romanised Celts. At a guess: to begin with, anyway, cities would be a bit less important and land holders a bit more important. Perhaps, to us, west Europe would have a rather Central/East Europe look?

Just perhaps, the idea of one universal church would appear foreign.
 
Not wishing to press the analogy all the way, but otl Germans could be thought of as non-Romanised Celts. At a guess: to begin with, anyway, cities would be a bit less important and land holders a bit more important. Perhaps, to us, west Europe would have a rather Central/East Europe look?

Just perhaps, the idea of one universal church would appear foreign.

First Century Germans were notably more primitive than Celts and the Gaulish Celts were notably urbanized (its part of what made Romanization stick).

And a Universal "church" with it's "Pope" based in Anglesey (center of Druidic learning) might be a cool little detail of such a timeline.

Another thing is late Roman ideas of Kingship (i.e. Proto Divine Right) based in the Imperial tradition and baptized by Christianity being absent, might mean more power to the various vergobots, thanes, earldoman whatevers. Councils like Icelandic Althing might be important. Basically, I could see much less absolute power. Yes, I know that contradicts my Druid-pope idea, which was made more in fun than seriousness.

I could imagine a new world where, once the germs have killed most of the natives, a cousin of Welsh is a major world language.
 
Top