POD where "Gauls" never become "France" ?
- Thread starter ian_smith
- Start date
I'm not sure how one would do it. To have the region that's now France stayed called Gaul is probably doable, I believe it was known as Gaul until Charlemagne's day or later. But to keep the Gallic culture and language thriving after the Roman conquest is difficult. The only way, I'd suggest, is to have a pre-Roman POD which allows Gallic to gain a similar status to Greek in the Empire.
Prevention of the expansion of the Roman Empire (at least beyond Italy) may be conducive to a thriving Celtic civilization beyond the First Century BCE.
I think if the Senone (Italian-based Celtic tribe) warlord Brennus were able to get away with utterly destroying the city of Rome instead of just exacting tribute in 387 BCE, and demolish it hegemony in Latium and Etruria.
Meanwhile, between 220-123 BCE, the Arverni tribe in Gaul was the most powerful of the Celtic nations in western Europe up until the conquest of the southern Mediterranean area of Gaul. If left alone, this militaristic-economic dominance of the Arverni over the Gaulish tribes further north could have potentially secured the political unification of what we consider to be France.
I think if the Senone (Italian-based Celtic tribe) warlord Brennus were able to get away with utterly destroying the city of Rome instead of just exacting tribute in 387 BCE, and demolish it hegemony in Latium and Etruria.
Meanwhile, between 220-123 BCE, the Arverni tribe in Gaul was the most powerful of the Celtic nations in western Europe up until the conquest of the southern Mediterranean area of Gaul. If left alone, this militaristic-economic dominance of the Arverni over the Gaulish tribes further north could have potentially secured the political unification of what we consider to be France.
Get rid of Rome's ascension of power, and have no other power threatening Gaul.
That was surprisingly easy.
That was surprisingly easy.
France only really became France with the expansion of the Franks into Gallia. If that could be avoided, at least the population would identify itself more as Gallo-Romans (or simply Gauls, if the region could find some way to separate itself from the Western Roman Empire) rather than Frenchmen. Perhaps if Frankish migrations could either be diverted to Britannia or due southwards to Italia (somewhat like the Lombards), then Gauls could survive the end of the Roman Empire better.
Could it have been possible for the Romano-British to call for Frankish foederati, rather than Anglo-Saxons, for help after 410?
Could it have been possible for the Romano-British to call for Frankish foederati, rather than Anglo-Saxons, for help after 410?
Well sure, you just handwaved it away without explaining how or when. That's like responding to the question "How could the Confederate States survive?" with "Make them win the Civil War."
To avoid Roman takeover, you could have the Senones destroy Rome in 387 BC (like my TL 
), you have Hannibal defeat Rome, or the latest opportunity would be to have Vercingetorix defeat Julius Caesar at Alesia.
Now, with a Roman takeover, you would need to avoid the massive displacement that occurred during Julius Caesar's wars in Gaul. He killed off large portions of the population there, wiping several tribes off the face of the Earth.
One could argue that if you don't have Vercingetorix's rebellion, you might have a surviving Gallic population in Gaul.
), you have Hannibal defeat Rome, or the latest opportunity would be to have Vercingetorix defeat Julius Caesar at Alesia.Now, with a Roman takeover, you would need to avoid the massive displacement that occurred during Julius Caesar's wars in Gaul. He killed off large portions of the population there, wiping several tribes off the face of the Earth.
One could argue that if you don't have Vercingetorix's rebellion, you might have a surviving Gallic population in Gaul.
Going a little OT here, but I am curious: do we know what the genetic make-up of the population of France is? England is predominately Celtic with some Saxon and Danish influence especially toward the east where their settlements were most concentrated. Is France similar in that regard in that though its people speak a Latinate language, they are predominately descended from the original Gauls that Caesar conquered, with some Roman and Germanic (i.e. Frankish, Burgundian, Gothic) influence at the fringes?
Last edited:
I would be very interested to know my genetic background (furthermore as i am a frenchman) !
P.S: I've found a map that would show the predominant genetic make-up of Nowadays France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetricus_I#cite_note-0Marcus Cassianius Latinius Postumus did this in 260 AD during the crisis of the 3rd century. Historically, the Gallic Empire was reincorporated in 274 AD. However, one could easily come up with a scenario whereby the Gallic Emperor and the Roman Emperor reach a stalemate. For example, neither can commit the troops needed to reunite the Roman Empire for a period of time. During that period, the 'Gallic' emperor can play up Gaul's past to reinforce loyalty to him as opposed to the 'Roman' emperor.
Have Vercingetorix win his revolt, and create a short-lived "Gallic nation" This probably won't survive his death, but it would create basis for a shared Gallic identity, and just have the Gauls gradually crystallize and grow together over a few centuries.
One possibility (which I entertained in my own TL) was the rebellion of Vindex, which started the Year of Four Emperors by placing Galba on the throne. Vindex himself was the son of a former noble family of Gaul, and a Roman senator. Only problem is that Vindex himself wasn't interested in becoming emperor, just finding the right man for the job, which in this case was Galba. Of course, with Vindex having so much support in Gaul, it's not hard to make tweak a few factors and have him break away.
If Caesar has a serious run of bad luck in the Gallic Wars, it should be fairly easy for a good leader with a lot of support like Vercingetorix to retake the region.
Of course, the easiest way is interdiction: destroy Rome before it has the chance to conquer Gallia. There are a ridiculous number of ways to do this, most of which have been done. Alexander conquers Rome but doesn't make it to Gallia, the Etrucans or the Latin league destroy Rome but no one fills the power vacuum entirely, Rome is conquered by Carthage, whose expansion doesn't lead them to Gaul...the list goes on and on. Destroy Rome at any of these times and make sure no one gets to Gaul through well-placed "coincidences" and Gaul could easily survive.
If Caesar has a serious run of bad luck in the Gallic Wars, it should be fairly easy for a good leader with a lot of support like Vercingetorix to retake the region.
Of course, the easiest way is interdiction: destroy Rome before it has the chance to conquer Gallia. There are a ridiculous number of ways to do this, most of which have been done. Alexander conquers Rome but doesn't make it to Gallia, the Etrucans or the Latin league destroy Rome but no one fills the power vacuum entirely, Rome is conquered by Carthage, whose expansion doesn't lead them to Gaul...the list goes on and on. Destroy Rome at any of these times and make sure no one gets to Gaul through well-placed "coincidences" and Gaul could easily survive.
Last edited:
Depends of what you call "Gauls"
Celtic Gauls with the littlest roman influence : Make Ambiorix succed to defeat the Romans army with the help of Germans. Killing Cesar is a bonus.
Ambiorix was the Che Guevara of the Gaul : never captured in battle (in fact, at the difference of Che, never captured at all), seen as a hero by his men and as a bastard by his foes (contrary to Vercingetorix that he praise, Cesar always hated Ambiorix that he never suceed to really defeat).
The Southern Gaul is quite un-receltizable : Pilnus consider the province as another Italy by the culture and the prosperity.
Celtic Gaul with a certain roman influence : Vercingetorix's victory. Vercingetorix didn't much serached to crush the Romans to make them quit the Gaul. No decisive battle of any kind.
A victory of Vercingetorix would certainly allow Caesar or the Romans if the Iulius is dead, to preserve many alliances in Gaul and maybe some territories in Aquitaine and Helvetia.
Northern and Southern Gallo-Roman (the northern gave the french, the southern the occitan) : Succesfull "Gallic Empire". You need the crush of the Roman Empire and no Aurelianus, but it could make it.
Be careful, the so-called "Gallic Empire" ,ever considered itself as "Gaul" and even less "celtic". It was a Roman Empire, with senate, coins, using latin, etc.
The better equivalent would be the Byzantine Empire, that considered itself Roman during all its history.
Northern Gallo-Roman : Defeat of Clovis at Soissons, Syagrius control Northern Gaul from Loire to Rhine.
Celtic Gauls with the littlest roman influence : Make Ambiorix succed to defeat the Romans army with the help of Germans. Killing Cesar is a bonus.
Ambiorix was the Che Guevara of the Gaul : never captured in battle (in fact, at the difference of Che, never captured at all), seen as a hero by his men and as a bastard by his foes (contrary to Vercingetorix that he praise, Cesar always hated Ambiorix that he never suceed to really defeat).
The Southern Gaul is quite un-receltizable : Pilnus consider the province as another Italy by the culture and the prosperity.
Celtic Gaul with a certain roman influence : Vercingetorix's victory. Vercingetorix didn't much serached to crush the Romans to make them quit the Gaul. No decisive battle of any kind.
A victory of Vercingetorix would certainly allow Caesar or the Romans if the Iulius is dead, to preserve many alliances in Gaul and maybe some territories in Aquitaine and Helvetia.
Northern and Southern Gallo-Roman (the northern gave the french, the southern the occitan) : Succesfull "Gallic Empire". You need the crush of the Roman Empire and no Aurelianus, but it could make it.
Be careful, the so-called "Gallic Empire" ,ever considered itself as "Gaul" and even less "celtic". It was a Roman Empire, with senate, coins, using latin, etc.
The better equivalent would be the Byzantine Empire, that considered itself Roman during all its history.
Northern Gallo-Roman : Defeat of Clovis at Soissons, Syagrius control Northern Gaul from Loire to Rhine.
Actually, if you want the Italics remained separated from the Continental Celts you should have the Etruscans survive, if the Etruscans are destroyed by the Celts earlier the Celts will merge or integrate the Italic people instead, I think the Celts assimilating the Romans and other Italics is less ASB compared to what happened in OTL.
Last edited:
The Celts are just another group of conquerers who imposed their language and culture upon a larger, pre-existant indigenous population, just like the Romans and the Germanic tribes. The French, just like the British and Irish, can derive the largest portion of their genetic heritage from the first agricultural peoples to settle in Europe after the Ice Age, predating the Indo-European language family. The Gauls are a part of the French genetic make-up, just like the Romans and the Franks, but not base of it.