NoobWI Vercingetorix trumps Julius Ceasar Gallic War (Late)

WI The Gauls are united under Vercingetorix...and win against Julius Caesar's late Gallic War Campaign against them. Thus the Gauls control area extending to the north east, to the natural boundary of the Rhine.
 
So the Gauls have a couple of years of breathing space until the Romans send a bigger, more well trained expeditionary force to conquer or at least vassalize the Gauls.
 
WI The Gauls are united under Vercingetorix...and win against Julius Caesar's late Gallic War Campaign against them. Thus the Gauls control area extending to the north east, to the natural boundary of the Rhine.

Cool! What would their flag look like? And would Gaulish become a major world language!?!
 
So the Gauls have a couple of years of breathing space until the Romans send a bigger, more well trained expeditionary force to conquer or at least vassalize the Gauls.

What if Julius Caesar dies in the course of the battle? Civil war in Italy or a Crassus dictatorship?
 
Early Gaul Languge probably P-Celtic or Q-Celtic

Hmmmm...Modern equivalent of these ancient languages is probably somewhere between modern Irish or Welsh. Assuming Frankish Gual never develops into France...Nation of Gaul would be Ancient Celtic Speaking with a surrounding Roman or Latin influence?:rolleyes:

Lorax
 
To my knowledge, the Gallic languages managed to survive in isolated portions right up until the fall of the western Roman Empire.
 
Julius Ceasar dies in the New Gallic Wars

Crassus goes against Pompey for control over the now defunct Triumverate, Vercingetorix joins forces with Crassus to aide in overthrowing Pompey...?:rolleyes:

Lorax
 
Languages

I agree with you Sa'id. I've found references to usage of the language dated to after fall of Roman Empire, to 6th century. But in an alternate history, would the ancient language have died out as quickly?:rolleyes:

Lorax
 
Latin was pretty much a language that stuck to the upper classes so maybe someone from the lower Gallic classes takes a chance while Rome is falling and causes a rebellion?
 
So the Gauls have a couple of years of breathing space until the Romans send a bigger, more well trained expeditionary force to conquer or at least vassalize the Gauls.

Caesar's campaigns in Gaul came without the Senate's consent. He officially had no business taking legions into northern Gaul, or levying new legions, for personal military adventures. If Caesar were to die at Gergovia, the one battle he lost to Vercingetorix, this could come as a massive blow to Caesar's army, and Titus Labienus, Caesar's second-in-command, would probably have to make a tactical withdrawal back to Gallia Narbonensis.

The two previously dominant tribes in northern Gaul, such as the Sequani tribe, which had just been betrayed six years earlier by their Germanic Suebi allies, which ended with both Sequani (Franche-Comte) and Aedui (Saone-et-Loire, Cote-d'Or and Nievre) being briefly occupied. Plus the Aedui at this point was contested between the followers of Dumnorix (chief magistrate whom was executed in 54 BCE) and the pro-Roman Diviciacus. The Aedui confederation had been an ally of Rome for around a half-century before the Gallic Wars, and seemed to have been allowed to maintain their autonomy for some time afterwards.

Now, if Caesar had died in combat, and the Romans fell back to Narbonensis for further orders from the Senate, Vercingetorix would have a chance to re-assert past Arverni power throughout Gaul north of the Rhone River. He would have to establish a treaty to prevent any further punitive attacks from the Romans before gaining the submission of the other tribal-alliances.

With the Aedui, he may have to capture the city of Bibracte, and help a party of Arverni sympathisers into political office, to formally establish an "alliance" with them.
 
Rome was already destroying the Gaulish economy. Caesar's only difference was he wanted glory as opposed to waiting. Very likely if he had lost, Rome would have continued to be a republic till some other stylized would be dictator showed up.
Soap would never have been invented.
 
Soap!

Yah, soap goes way back to Babylonians, unless reference is to John Cusak's English professor in "The Sure Thing" ?

But I digress...a combination of Divide and Conquer combined with good financing is how Caesar stuck it to the Gauls. With many nobles dead, Vercingetorix lost money as well as tactical leaders. Vercingetorix did manage to unite them for a good brawl and my understanding is that it was definitely a close fight, each army vying to surround the other. The resulting win for J. Caesar was a major turning point for the ultimate expansion of the Roman Empire.

But if Vercingetorix had prevailed, perhaps buddies and divvies spoils with Crassus or Pompey, or simply garners strength and funds and further expands Gaul? This would affect religion, language and trade.

With Caesar dead already we have no, "Et tu Brute" for the death of the dictator. Lorax;)
 
Crassus was killed 53BC at Carrhae, so if Caesar cops it in Gaul shortly after, that leaves Pompey as "winner by default".

If he avenges (or tries to avenge) anyone, it's probably Crassus rather than Caesar. The east is where the best plunder is. So Gaul is probably forgotten about, certainly for a long time, and maybe forever, like Germany.

This may well result in Rome's border settling down a lot closer to the Mediterranean, with the big advances to Rhine and Danube never happening (though the frontier may advance a bit in Illyricum, and that enclave in the French Alps is probably absorbed at some point). OTOH, Egypt will still get annexed sooner or later, as it's too rich not to steal at some point, and the conquest of Asia Minor may proceed more rapidly. But when times get hard in the 3C, these European borders will be harder to defend against Barbarian attack than OTL's. The Western Empire may fall c250AD.

This could be interesting for the Christian Church. If the West falls pre-Constantine, it is far less identified with Rome, and there is probably no RCC as we know it. The Church makes its first gains by converting Barbarian kings, not Roman Emperors. Could be a very different Middle ages.
 
What an odd comment, considering that Gauls and related groups had been using soap for some centuries.
My bad. My train of thought was more along the lines of, soap would never have been passed to the Romans and popularized by them.

Another thing. The Vidosses Cycle would never have been written.
 
West falls pre-Constantine?

Hmmm...more about the West falling pre-Constantine. Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 and followed that with the Edict of Milan for religious tolerance in 313.

Pre-Constantine we have an authority flow from Roman state to churches (ie Roman/Greek/Egyptian pagan, Judaism)and a power flow from temples or churches to Roman state. Thus everything religious is answerable to the Roman state.

After Constantine we have a flow with Christianity at the true head: power flow from God who establishes state, and state is subservient to God.

What are the implications of the West falling pre-Constantine on the Christian religion, Roman State, and the border being closer to Mediterranean, ala Mikestone8?

Lorax:rolleyes:
 
Crassus was killed 53BC at Carrhae, so if Caesar cops it in Gaul shortly after, that leaves Pompey as "winner by default".

If he avenges (or tries to avenge) anyone, it's probably Crassus rather than Caesar. The east is where the best plunder is. So Gaul is probably forgotten about, certainly for a long time, and maybe forever, like Germany.

This may well result in Rome's border settling down a lot closer to the Mediterranean, with the big advances to Rhine and Danube never happening (though the frontier may advance a bit in Illyricum, and that enclave in the French Alps is probably absorbed at some point). OTOH, Egypt will still get annexed sooner or later, as it's too rich not to steal at some point, and the conquest of Asia Minor may proceed more rapidly. But when times get hard in the 3C, these European borders will be harder to defend against Barbarian attack than OTL's. The Western Empire may fall c250AD.

This could be interesting for the Christian Church. If the West falls pre-Constantine, it is far less identified with Rome, and there is probably no RCC as we know it. The Church makes its first gains by converting Barbarian kings, not Roman Emperors. Could be a very different Middle ages.

Lets not forget that in Caesar's time, Gaul was known for its goldmines, which is mainly why he launched his illicit military adventures there in the first place.

If Caesar died at Gergovia, then in the wake of the withdrawal, Vercingetorix will use his well-trained Arverni army to force most of the other northern Gallic tribes into vassalage, restoring his nation's past dominance. In the next twenty years, Rome may be faced with a large unified confederation on its door-step. If a civil war does occur among the different Roman political factions, the Arverni-led Gallic alliance might re-take Gallia Narbonensis in the chaos further south.

Would Christianity become a powerful force in this TL? Would Rome have survived from its factionalism in the First Century BCE? Even if it does, the Gauls would still have the Druids, whom would not have been exterminated or driven to the margins by the Romans. Perhaps in a free, united Gaul, the Druids have developed into a solid organized religious body similar to the Christian Church, and would have resisted missionary efforts. Different Middle Ages indeed.
 
There won't be any immediate civil war, as the deaths of Caesar and Crassus leave Pompey as sole ruler. After that, who knows? And it's anybody's guess whether a Gallic Confederacy would survive the death of Vercingetorix (have we any notion how old he was?) any better than Arminius' Germanic state survived him. If not, it's a question of how the Gauls do vis a vis the Germans.
 
Top