Except that Vercingetorix couldn't have pulled that : he wasn't the only ruler of the army, but one of the main figures of an alliance between various peoples.
I'd say that from what we know he definitely was the main figure. But the scope of his powers is not too certain to us, especially after his mission is complete in ATL - the Romans are defeated.
But we have to understand that OTL Vercingetorix is the guy who is supposed to crush the Romans and except for noble birth and a few minor victories - he has no merit/deserts, only hopes.
But ATL Vercingetorix is a different beast - he totally annihilated the great Roman army, saved the Gauls from slavery, and he is probably the most famed Celtic leader who ever walked the Earth.
Basically, since Romans first controlled mediterranean Gaul outposts since the 120's, you had to wait roughly until the -90's to have a true pacification of the provinces (between conquests, revolts, migrations, etc.).
You also let aside the part on "Roman rule", that is essentially about how Roman managed the province before Caesar : the rule of Marcus Fonteius is a good exemple on how they fiscally and politically pressured the province before Caesar.
Outside Roman colonies proper, you certainly had a period of pauperisation in southern Gaul : no real counter-power against mercantile takeover and colonial fiscalism up to absurd. Without, what appeared in the Ist century, the acceptence of a romanized Gallic provincial elite.
Ok, but there was a certain amount of the Romans who were rich and worth being robbed; and there were definitely the Gauls who profited from the Roman rule (whom you mentioned several times); and the riches robbed in ‘Longhaired Gaul’ must have trickled down there a bit.
At least Gallia Narbonensis was not the war theatre like ‘Longhaired Gaul’.
That's clearly not the case : Parthian created an empire over already existing imperial structures (Achemenids and Hellenistic). Their conquest wasn't made on a vaacum but on a situation where they could basically just fit in.
In Gaul, however, you didn't have these imperial structures : they were to be created from scratch over a complex situation of tribal confederacies and independent peoples.
You'd argue that pre-Roman Italy was such as well, which is true, but it took centuries for Romans to sort it out : heck, it took Romans more time (thrice as much!) to takeover Italy than it took them to takeover the Mediterranean basin.
Actually when I spoke about the Parthians I meant that they were able to get all their different Parthian entities to unite.
But anyway, there were existing imperial structures, good point.
But you see, Julius Caesar already did ‘dirty job’ for Vercingetorix – he already prepared some imperial structures in Longhaired Gaul. The Gauls were already united by the force of arms by Caesar; so we may say that he already paved the road to Vercingetorix taking power. Actually this job was already started by Ariovistus, probably.
It seems that the numerous Gaulic polities were somehow doomed to lose their so deerly cherished independence and freedoms. One way or another. In this ATL they have a chance to lose it to one of their own, a Gaul, Vercingetorix.
And that's a huge misassessment about strategic possibilities* of Gallic peoples : they simply not had the same political interests at this point, and even their alliance show these conflicting interests appearing continuously.
In OTL the Gaullic peoples managed to unite and give the Romans a great battle. That shows that they have a huge potential. Their conflicting interests did not prevent it.
Even in OTL I got the impression that the Romans were in a very difficult situation. I am of the opinion that the Gauls lost only because they were weaker military. Maybe that’s Caesar glorifying his victory but I am pretty sure that this Gaullic revolt might have ruined the Roman dominance in the Longhaired Gaul.
In OTL the Gauls did not lose because of their ‘proverbial’ Celtic squabbling, (which Julius Caesar so colorfully depicted); the Gauls did everything (well, almost everything) right.
They just failed to win the battle.
And as usually pointed out, not only it's not always the case.
In the case of power vaacum, invasion of regions with already present imperial structures more than often leads quickly to adopt these : Turks and Jurchen in China, Arabs in Persia and Byzantium, Franks in Romania, etc.
And when these doesn't pre-exist, it takes a lot of time to see them being created out of a mess of polities : Rome had to wait for 300 years before doing so (and I'm not counting half-mythical history), Berbers 500 years, etc.
Some never managed to do so : Greeks, for instance, remained largely structurated by smaller polities, with occasional cyclycal hegemons.
Speaking of the Arabs:
Arabia was full of independent entities who were unable to unite for thousand years (like the Celts of Gaullias).
But then out of the sudden(!) these independent polities with dramatically conflicting interests united.
If the Arabs managed to unite why do we deprive the Celts of that probability?
If the Muhammad’s army had lost the battle for Mecca the united Arabia might have never existed, I guess.
The list of entities/polities/peoples which were unable to unite for centuries but then managed to do so is as long as my arm.
Some got lucky, some did not.
Sometimes it is just about one lost battle.
Sometimes it is not.
Nothing is certain, that’s for sure.
No. I consider Aedui being pro-Romans because they were so before the Gallic Wars and during most of Gallic Wars.
I mentioned several features before, but for the sake of the conversation, I'll do it again.
- Existence of a coinage union in Central-Eastern Gaul, with Aedui (among other peoples) indexing their coinage on roman denarii
- Mention of Aedui/Roman alliance before Caesarian campaigns, by Greek and Roman texts : Apollodoros, Poseidonios, Strabo, Tacitus, Livy, Florus, Caesar,...
- A large, attested, Roman presence in Bibractos trough trade objects. These can be found a bit everywhere, but the Aedui capital seems to have been one of the main roman centers in the region
This alliance is so at the core of what we know of pre-Caesarian and Caesarian Gaul that I'm amazed you're ignoring it entierly.
No, I am not ignoring it.
I am just saying that the Aedui fought against the Romans together with Vercingetorix. IIRC there even was a massacre of the Romans in the Aedui’s territories.
So if all the Aedui are killing the Romans and they all are in the army which fights the Romans, that means that their being pro-Roman is a slight exaggeration, to say the least.
That’s what I meant.
Except Gallic structural development was higher than in Danubian region (basically, when you find a Roman villa or a Roman road in Gaul, you can bet your shirt that you have a Gallic farm or road underneath
Having higher or lower structural development is a bit irrelevant to capacity to unite.
I mean, we know a lot of developed polities who managed to unite, and many a primitive entities unable to unite. That doesn’t make a rule.
And not uniting : Burebista didn't destroyed previous tribal structures, but established an hegemonic rule over them. At his death, they quickly took back their autonomy.
Well, there is a chance that at Vercingetorix’ death the Gaullic polities take back their autonomy. Why not?
… and Gauls seems to have a deep rejection for monarchical power.
Vercingetorix's prestige, admittedly, could lead to a "tyranny", in the ancient sense, among Arverni….
We know that the Romans did have a deep rejection for monarchical power as well. And what?
Julius Caesar became a monarch in everything but name.
Here in ATL Julius Caesar is dead.
But we have the other triumphant leader of the other people who have a deep rejection for monarchical power – Vercingetorix.
Vercingetorix might become the Gaullic monarch in everything but name. Why not?
My point here is –let’s not treat the Gauls like people unable to change their ways and mentality.
If the Romans might change their political system, why a Celtic entity cannot do the same?
I mean it’s not only the Romans who may change.
The Celtic political system is not static, it is also dynamic.
Frankly, if Civil Wars pointed something, it's that Rome had no shortage of wannabe-warlords, and a good reserve of troops.
Romans already had their armies being utterly crushed, (Second Punic Wars, Cimbrian Wars, for exemple) and still managed to pull out enough ressources to win.
The Civil wars showed that the Romans/Italians are eager to kill each other and that’s what they happily did till August Octavian.
The second Punic war and Cimbrian war… you see, the Romans felt an existential threat there. I mean the armies invading Italy, making it to the gates of Rome. That’s where you are supposed to fight to the last man.
I don’t think that Vercingetorix ever try to invade Italy, crossing the Alps, no, that would be too foolish of him.
So for the Romans that would not be the existential threat, that’ll be a story of a hurting Roman pride and the lost province.
That’s painful, but they may live with that.
As you said: “it's about making pursuing the war too costly for the opponent”.
The Romans may say: “Fuck it, it’s too costly to send an army after the army to perish”.
And the Romans might have other priorities distracting their attention:
- the Senate might be afraid to raise another triumvire instead of butchered Crassus and Caesar.
- the already conquered peoples and the neighbors might smell weakness after Rome losing two armies and uprise/invade
- the Romans at that moment were trigger happy to kill each other, they might start another Civil war over something.
I entierly agree with you, sincerely.
But Greeks certainly had linguistical, mental and religious similarities but never managed to pull an united rule out of the various alliances they created.
Because these features exists, doesn't mean they're enough to create a single entity.
There’s no such thing as a certain rule in history. That’s where I wholeheartedly agree.
But still I am of the opinion that the Greeks had a chance to get united. The Persian bullion always helped the losing party and the loser stood up and continued fighting.
My point here is that if the Persian Empire had been weaker (and dumber) just for a few years the most natural outcome of the Sparta-Athenes conflict might have been the creation of a big united Hellenic polity, hegemon in this region. They did not make it, but they were very close.