If Vercingetorix Wins a Cannae at Alesia, Would he Invade the Republic?

There will be plenty of support for sending Romes greatest general against Romes greatest threat, similar to Marius

I doubt Gauls would be seen as "Rome's greatest threat" : in spite of Caesarian rethoric, the supposed fear and repulsion from Romans against Celts was more of an historical narrative thing than a reality in Roman society by the Ist century.

Cicero could host an Aedui vergobret (and druid, and ambassador...you had quite a mix-up of functions at this point) without anyone really minding it. Or, if we're talking about Aedui, they were particularily well considered institutionally : alone among Barbarians, they were officially considered as actually related to Romans.*

So, sure, the defeat would be humiliating. But I wonder how much of the defeat and its consequences wouldn't be blamed on Caesarian strategy and policies (whatever the truth of it) by his rivals in Rome.

Giving that pro-Roman factions in Gaul would be still much of a reality, even among Arverni, I could see expeditions made along what Caesar did, only far more cautiously. For exemple, helping Arverni aristocracy to deal with Vercingetorix, turning effectivly the people as an "ally" (read protectorate) and securing some Caesarian conquests (Rhone's basin, Aquitaine, etc.).

Basically, possibly something along the lines on how Romans took Transalpina in the 120's/100's : something gradual (with allies as Volcae were being absorbated) and a series of secondary states along the border (as Aedui, Arverni, Sequani, etc. were before Caesarian conquest)

*Arverni tried to pull that to. It remained unanswered, but I think "lolno" would be a good summary of Roman reaction.
 
I doubt Gauls would be seen as "Rome's greatest threat" : in spite of Caesarian rethoric, the supposed fear and repulsion from Romans against Celts was more of an historical narrative thing than a reality in Roman society by the Ist century.

Cicero could host an Aedui vergobret (and druid, and ambassador...you had quite a mix-up of functions at this point) without anyone really minding it. Or, if we're talking about Aedui, they were particularily well considered institutionally : alone among Barbarians, they were officially considered as actually related to Romans.*

So, sure, the defeat would be humiliating. But I wonder how much of the defeat and its consequences wouldn't be blamed on Caesarian strategy and policies (whatever the truth of it) by his rivals in Rome.

Giving that pro-Roman factions in Gaul would be still much of a reality, even among Arverni, I could see expeditions made along what Caesar did, only far more cautiously. For exemple, helping Arverni aristocracy to deal with Vercingetorix, turning effectivly the people as an "ally" (read protectorate) and securing some Caesarian conquests (Rhone's basin, Aquitaine, etc.).

Basically, possibly something along the lines on how Romans took Transalpina in the 120's/100's : something gradual (with allies as Volcae were being absorbated) and a series of secondary states along the border (as Aedui, Arverni, Sequani, etc. were before Caesarian conquest)

*Arverni tried to pull that to. It remained unanswered, but I think "lolno" would be a good summary of Roman reaction.
Well, if they started to look like they were making moves to invade Rome, that threat assessment may change.
 
Well, if they started to look like they were making moves to invade Rome, that threat assessment may change.

Giving that they can't possibly make moves to invade Rome, even if they wanted to, it makes it a bit moot.

Caesar was forced to find a casus-belli, and at worst distorted the reality of Gallic situation to appear as the defender : it's not just a matter of propaganda (Rome would probably not care about the rights of Barbarians statelets) but of the Roman conception of war which was ritualised to preventing any nefas* effect.

Avanging Roman soldiers was enough of a casus belli to undergo a campaign, with the caveat that giving the state of Roman political power, the answer may be less strong and plannified.

It can, in all honesty, go multiple ways to blunt conquest of part of Gaul, a simple series of avanging moves, targeted campaigns to sattelize Gallic states, and eventually not much and blaming most on Caesar.

*Nefas is even more than negative, it's does have something along "criminal" and "fateful" in its meaning.
 
There will be plenty of support for sending Romes greatest general against Romes greatest threat, similar to Marius

Similar to Marius how? Marius operated at a time where the serving consuls were also out fighting. Pompey is operating at a time where consuls and praetors wait until their term is up to be allocated provinces by lot for their pro-magistrate duties. Pompey can't get elected pro-consul of Narbonensis. Factions in the senate could very easily influence the lot drawing.
 
Just asking, who could possibly act as counterbalance to Pompey? There would still probably be a faction in the Senate disgusted at Pompey for his role in convicting Milo. And now, there is no caesar for a greater threat to the optimates.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
Similar to Marius how? Marius operated at a time where the serving consuls were also out fighting. Pompey is operating at a time where consuls and praetors wait until their term is up to be allocated provinces by lot for their pro-magistrate duties. Pompey can't get elected pro-consul of Narbonensis. Factions in the senate could very easily influence the lot drawing.



Marius fought hard to face off against the invading barbarian hordes and this is how the Gauls defeat of Caesar will be spun. While Caesar was acknowledged as exceeding his authority there will be to much at stake to not see the Gauls spun as the old enemy revitalised, the spectre of Brennus loomed large in the Roman consciousness, it hated the idea of any power treating it as an equal or invading it.

Pompey's career was anything but conventional, he excelled in times of emotion and crisis. When things were calm and rational he suffered from having to act as everyone else, with Caesar dead you have him as unchallenged first man in Rome, moderates will flock to him and he can call in a lot of favour and rank to get what he needs.
 
the spectre of Brennus loomed large in the Roman consciousness, it hated the idea of any power treating it as an equal or invading it.

I disagree : not only the Brennus narrative wasn't that present before the Caesarian conquest, but we have exemples of fair consideration of Gauls by Romans.

Quintus Tullius Cicero, and his more famous brother, befrieding and hosting a vergobret/druid in Rome without anyone going mad at the prospect; Aedui being considered as related by blood with Romans;

One have to remember that the main source about Gaul avaible to Romans at this time was Poseidonios' text (which, if lost itself, was constantly quoted by historians and geographers, and even Caesar) : this Greek scholar described Gaul at an interesting moment, before the conquest but after Romans got an hold on Transalpina.

The text was quite positive, describing a policed society, prosperous while abiding by the usual "good Barbarian" narrative.

Let's take, at the contrary; an extremely negative text on Gauls, Cicero's Pro Fonteio. Not once it does mention the sack of Rome. He does mention the sack of Delphi and goes on with great length on it, but Rome? Who cares?

Sure it does mention wars with Gallic peoples, but as a whole and essentially focusing on the conflicts in Transalpina. But his main point was Fonteius was acting on the behalf of state by opressing the hell out of Gauls, linking how others persons did the same in Spain.

Basically, he blames Gauls there to be defeated and whining about it. Worse, his main defence is that Romans are believing them!

While you had a narrative about Gauls as savage Barbarians, it wasn't that deeply ingrained in Roman consciousness; and while one as Cicero could play on it he wasn't his own dupe and was perfectly able to deal with Gauls personally.
 
I'd think the Armorican confederation would benefit the Venetic defeat against Romans.
Their fleet being disbanced or sunk, their assemblies and part of elite slaughtered, and their clients (such as Namnetes) being distached from their sphere of influence; put Veneti in an unfavourable position in a post-Caesarian Gaul.

Of course, that would beneficy as well Pictones and Santones in Loire's region, but I doubt they'd be able to push their way in IOTL modern Brittany.
The Armorican peoples would benefit from the military organisation used by Caesar where they were supposed to give a certain ammount of troups as a gathered group, and not for each people.

Then from a rather loose (or so it seems) gathering of various peoples, somes more well distinguishable (and possibly conflicting) as Veneti, you may see a more tight alliance on which Veneti would have lost a big part of their influence and clientele at least in a first time.

Now, if we're talking about Amorican coast, we know that coastal regions knew an important trade with Britain, and if given time to recover the mess created by Caesar, it could be expected to see a switch from Venetian thalassocracy to an Armorican one : less tied to one people, but one that could be more decentralized while more unified.

We could see, for instance, an Amorican village along the coast having more ties with their cousins in Britain, exportating wine and other beverages, beneficing from a central position and a relative distance from Roman presence (merchants, tax collectors and of course legions).


Very interesting. I love a serious answer to a silly question.
 
So, how does all this affect a certain small-but-indomitable village in Armorica? :p

This one?

Asterix.jpg


a little bit of humor didn't hurt anyone :)
 
Marius fought hard to face off against the invading barbarian hordes and this is how the Gauls defeat of Caesar will be spun. While Caesar was acknowledged as exceeding his authority there will be to much at stake to not see the Gauls spun as the old enemy revitalised, the spectre of Brennus loomed large in the Roman consciousness, it hated the idea of any power treating it as an equal or invading it.

Pompey's career was anything but conventional, he excelled in times of emotion and crisis. When things were calm and rational he suffered from having to act as everyone else, with Caesar dead you have him as unchallenged first man in Rome, moderates will flock to him and he can call in a lot of favour and rank to get what he needs.

Why would they? Pompey gave Caesar the command. Pompey is an ally of Caesar. Pompey is responsible for the defeat. That's how it would be spun. More importantly, someone like Metellus, who happens to be perfectly placed getting ready for a pro-consulship, would jump at the opportunity to steal that command for themselves, not give it to Pompey.
 
One thing about the Gallic wars in that the closest parallel is the early Greco-Persian wars, only in this case the aggresor won.

I think Vercingetorix can win the equivelent of a Salamis and Platea at Alesia. However he is not in the position to go on the offensive.

But let's keep Rome in the state of semi civil war for a century. Let the Gauls stay semi independent and the ideaof Gallic unity a living concept. Have them learn from their near conquest, adopting some Roman tactics.

Century later we have a Gaulish Alexander unite the Gauls and take on Rome, perhaps that is more believable.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
While I mostly agree, I'd have to discuss two points.

- Situation similar than in Germania
Rome was a really influential player in Gaul since decades at the mid-Ist century. Contrary to Germania, that was largely unknown geopolitically (or else) to Cesar or even his successors, you had a whole net of diplomatic, political, economical relations : Aedui are a good exemple, but not the only one (Ariovist was, after all, a Roman ally originally).
To not mention, of course, the higher degree of economical and infrastructural development.

Not that it makes Vercingetorix's coalition anymore stable, but contrary to what happened in Rhineland where relations with Romans were at best shaky (on a political level), you have room for quick and well-understood "reconciliation".

When I said, that a Vercingetorix winning at Alesia is a somewhat similar situation like Arminius after Teutoburg, I am fully aware about the fundamental social, political, economic and military differences about Gallia and Germania in general.

Nevertheless, Arminius managed to unite the German Weser Tribes against the common foe. Afterwards he was able to at least keep his federation ready, because Germanicus was stupid enough to choose the wrong and way too offensive and brutal strategy. I blame lazy Tiberius for that historical mistake. I don't know, how Arminius managed to motivate his loose federation to fight Marobous a few years later, but he did. Shortly afterwards he was killed. Anybody doubts, that Arminius' federation would had disappeared even without his assasination?

Arminius never attacked the western Germania, Gallia or even Northern Italy. But he tried to unite with Marobodus. Nobody knows, what his plans were with an united german army.

So imho Vercingetorix situation after a victory in Alesia is somewhat similar. If the romans start a brutal counterattack, like Germanicus did, he is in best shape possible. Well, it would be hard for the romans to recruit the force needed. And without lucky Caesar, things could just go worse for the romans.

If the romans go for Divide et Impera and make friends with the Aedui and others again (and don't forget the Remi in Belgica and others), Vercingetorix gets into serious trouble over time. He might end like Arminus, killed by his own guys.

But I also see the third option, mentioned above. If Allah decides to enlighten Vercingetorix instead of Muhammad, and he unites Gaul for further campaigns, Rome goes up in smoke ( No, I am no Muslim, but shit inclines to happen according to Murphy's Law). Alternate history is a beast. There are very strong and nearly unavoidable longterm processes and structures.LSCatilina seems to be a follower of this structural appraoch like me. On the other side, there are definately personal performances, accidents and luck. Usually processes and structures do almost always win longterm. But if lucky accidents trigger at the right time in the right place, everything can change. Russian brought up strong arguments of this "Butterfly approach". So Vercingetorix besieging Rome is not ASB. Not even close. Even if not very probable.

Coming back to Arminius. If Marobodus decides to unite with him and attack Pannonia and Northern Italy, while Arminius marches against Gaul, "liberating" the gaulish tribes, Augustus is in deep trouble. Perhaps more than his young principate can withstand. And what happens, after the romans decide, that this new experiment of a principate failed, nobody knows.

The good knews about Vercingetorix is, that without Caesar, the principate might never happen and the republic probably survives for now according to Eric S. Gruen. Well, nobody knows on what scale this republic is able to survive at all. Actually 50 BC the rebublic is doomed to fall. If not by internal, then by obvious external reasons. If all these heavily exploited allies and provinces start to fight sooner or later without a princeps taking care of their interests, the republic is going to loose territory.

So with a winning Vercingetorix, we might see a fully different Fall of the Roman Republic. Even if he never attacks the Narbonensis or more. And a fully different history of the ancient world and beyond. Perhaps something like a Roman Republic is able to survive on a much smaller scale in Italy only. Which might be the most beneficial solution for Rome until 2016. And all that just due to one damn lost Battle at Alesia.

But most probably the romans cannot afford to strike back. And Vercingetorix is not able to unite the Gauls, because Allah is busy elsewhere, Jesus not born yet, the Druids fail and Wotan refuses any support from Germania. Longterm, Gallia Comata stays free and the romans try their very best to Divide et impera. But this time not at the Rhine, but at the Rhone. Just the same as they did after Arminius and Teutoburg plus Germanicus failed campaign. Sounds like a much better frontier for the romans to me, longterm. It could help 400 years later. But no roman knew, that this shit is going to happen.
 
Last edited:
When I said, that a Vercingetorix winning at Alesia is a somewhat similar situation like Arminius after Teutoburg, I am fully aware about the fundamental social, political, economic and military differences about Gallia and Germania in general.

Nevertheless, Arminius managed to unite the German Weser Tribes against the common foe. Afterwards he was able to at least keep his federation ready, because Germanicus was stupid enough to choose the wrong and way too offensive and brutal strategy. I don't know, how Arminius managed to motivate his loose federation to fight Marobous a few years later, but he did. Shortly aterwards he was killed. Anybody doubts, that Arminius' federation would had disappeared even without his assasination?

Arminius never attacked the western Germania, Gallia or even Northern Italy. But he tried to unite with Marobodus. Nobody knows, what his plans were with an united german army.

So imho Vercingetorix situation after a victory in Alesia is somewhat similar. If the romans start a brutal counterattack, like Germanicus did, he is in best shape possible. Well, it would be hard for the romans to recruit the force needed. And without lucky Caesar, things could just go worse for the romans.

If the romans go for Divide et Impera and make friends with the Aedui and others again (and don't forget the Remi in Belgica and others), Vercingetorix gets into serious trouble over time. He might end like Arminus, killed by his own guys.

But i see the third option, mentioned above. If Allah decides to enlighten Vercingetorix instead of Muhammad, an he unites Gaul for further campaigns, Rome goes up in smoke ( No, I am no Muslim, but shit inclines to happen according to Murphy's Law). Alternate history is a beast. There are very strong and nearly unavoidable longterm processes and structures. On the other side, there are personal performances, accidents and luck. Usually processes and structures do almost always win longterm. But if lucky accidents trigger at the right time in the right place, everything can change. So Vercingetorix besieging Rome is not ASB. Not even close. Even if not very probable.

Coming back to Arminius. If Marobodus decides to unite with him and attack Pannonia and Northern Italy, while Arminius marches against Gaul, "liberating" the gaulish tribes, Augustus is in deep trouble. Perhaps more than his young principate can withstand. And what happens, after the romans decide, that this new experiment of a principate failed, nobody knows.

The good knews about Vercingetorix is, that without Caesar, the republic probably survives for now according to Eric S. Gruen. Well, nobody knows on what scale this republic is able to survive at all. Actually 50 BC the rebublic is doomed to fall. If not by internal, then by obvious external reasons. If all these heavily exploited allies and provinces start to fight sooner or later without a princeps taking care of their interests, the republic is going to loose territory.

So with a winning Vercingetorix, we might see a fully different Fall of the Roman Republic. And a fully different history of the ancient world and beyond. Perhaps something like a Roman Republic is able to survive on a much smaller scale in Italy only. Which might be the most beneficial solution for Rome until 2016. And all that just due to one damn lost Battle at Alesia.

But most probably the romans cannot afford to strike back. And Vercingetorix is not able to unite the Gauls, because Allah is busy elsewhere, Jesus not born yet, the Druids fail and Wotan refuses any support from Germania. Longterm, Gallia Comata stays free and the romans try their very best to Divide et impera. But this time not at the Rhine, but at the Rhone. Just the same as they did after Arminius and Teutoburg plus Germanicus failed campaign. Sounds like a much better frontier for the romans to me, longterm.
Options one and two seem plausible, and your wider political analysis looks to be spot-on. But if option three means what I think you meant by it, namely, that he has a religious revelation and kicks out the Druids to install monotheism, his coalition will fall apart nigh-instantaneously, as a huge element of the Gallic elite becomes implacably opposed to him. In terms of religious success, it would make Akhenaten look like Constantine.
 
But if option three means what I think you meant by it, namely, that he has a religious revelation and kicks out the Druids to install monotheism, his coalition will fall apart nigh-instantaneously, as a huge element of the Gallic elite becomes implacably opposed to him. In terms of religious success, it would make Akhenaten look like Constantine.

No, that was not what I meant, or Russian meant imho, when he mentioned Muhammad first in this thread. It just means, that one man can change history. Even in most worse circumstances possible, like Muhammad on the arabian peninsula. Much worse than Vercingetotix in Gallia. With or without a god really supporting him.

However, if anyone wants to unite the Gauls, the support of the major Druids comes very handy.

PS: when I mentioned Allah, the Druids, Wotan or Jesus as possible combatants that was meant a bit cynical. My apologies. I forgot Mithras, Isis, Baal, Zarathustra and Jupiter himself betraying the romans. If we ever consider the involvement of Gods in alternate histories, butterflies are the most minor effects we should discuss. And also none of these strong structures and processes can withstand the will of a god. Every God comes with a dogma. A dogma beats every theory by nature. Therefore no scientific approach, which has to be based on theories, is feasible at all. Alternate history is a scientific approach based on theories. Even if some historians would LOL about this claim.
 
Last edited:
One thing about the Gallic wars in that the closest parallel is the early Greco-Persian wars, only in this case the aggresor won.

I think Vercingetorix can win the equivelent of a Salamis and Platea at Alesia. However he is not in the position to go on the offensive.

But let's keep Rome in the state of semi civil war for a century. Let the Gauls stay semi independent and the ideaof Gallic unity a living concept. Have them learn from their near conquest, adopting some Roman tactics.

Century later we have a Gaulish Alexander unite the Gauls and take on Rome, perhaps that is more believable.

From a military capacity point of view, the Romans had managed to fight a civil war, fight the revolt of half their manpower base, and an invasion of Greece, a slave revolt, and another insurrection in Spain partially simultaneously in the span of a decade. If they wanted Gaul, a civil war wouldn't stop them.
 
From a military capacity point of view, ...

Military power means nothing these times (with Caesar and his 10 legions out of the way). Well, political considerations are a fully different beast in the late republic. And hard to predict. I always wonder, why people always start a POD at this most difficult point of time.

PS: and as far as I know, the romans did not all you mentioned above simultaneously, e.g Pompeius appeared in Italy against Spartacus, after the spanish issue was solved. Well, inside a decade, romans could do a lot. But you surely know, how many legions the republic could loose in a decade, don't you? Many! But more than 10 legions? Not after Cannae! 10 legions are more than 3 times Teutoburg, which was a historical shock for the romans. Or more than the Cimbri et Teutones annihilated lately. In multiple battles. Which was also a roman trauma. Now 10 legions are annihilated by the Gauls. The only tribes who ever defeated and plundered Rome itself. These 10 legions are no peanuts as usual. Not in the worst time of the late republic!
 
Last edited:
Military power means nothing these times (with Caesar and his 10 legions out of the way). Well, political considerations are a fully different beast in the late republic. And hard to predict. I always wonder, why people always start a POD at this most difficult point of time.

PS: and as far as I know, the romans did not all you mentioned above simultaneously, e.g Pompeius appeared in Italy against Spartacus, after the spanish issue was solved. Well, inside a decade, romans could do a lot. But you surely know, how many legions the republic could loose in a decade, don't you? Many! But more than 10 legions? Not after Cannae! 10 legions are more than 3 times Teutoburg, which was a historical shock for the romans. Or more than the Cimbri et Teutones annihilated lately. In multiple battles. Which was also a roman trauma. Now 10 legions are annihilated by the Gauls. The only tribes who ever defeated and plundered Rome itself. These 10 legions are no peanuts as usual. Not in the worst time of the late republic!

I know, from a psychological standpoint, it's a different story. From a manpower standpoint, Rome could fight many conflicts at once before they start to bend.
 
Top