Rise and Fall of the Gaulish Empire

203 BCE: Morcant Gwrtheryn creates the Gaulish Horde.

201 BCE: Second Punic War ends.

200 BCE: Gaulish invasion of Rome begins.

196 BCE: Gaulish horde pushes all the way to Siena.

190 BCE: Hispania and Sicily revolt against Rome.

188 BCE: Rome crumbles, Sardinia and Corsica breaks away from what remains of Rome. The Gaulish Horde is referred to afterwards as the “Gaulish Empire”.
188BCE.png

182 BCE: Macedon annexes large areas of Asia minor and Greece. Galatia is split between the Seleucids and Macedon.

174 BCE: Kingdom of Dalmatia forms.

171 BCE: Riagan Morcant takes the throne of the Gaulish Empire.

162 BCE: Hispania takes control of territories north of the Tagus River. Lusitanian’s unite against Hispania.

154 BCE: Carthage defeats Numidia.

143 BCE: Armorica forms.

132 BCE: The Seleucids defeat Macedon.

129 BCE: Macedon starts to crumble in southern Greece.

125 BCE: Gaulish campaign in northern Gaul. Belgica forms.

115 BCE: Rome falls to the Gaulish Empire.

102 BCE: Macedon is invaded again by the Seleucids.

53 BCE: Armorica is almost destroyed by the Gaulish Empire. The Armoricans set up a colony in Cornwall.

40 BCE: Hispania holds complete control of Iberia, after annexing Lusitania.

13 BCE: Carthage annexes eastern Numidia.

10 BCE: Batavia forms.

3 BCE: Frisia forms.

3 AD: Seleucid Empire collapses. Macedon expands back into Asia Minor.

26 AD: The Gaulish Empire expands into Germania.

27 AD: Great Italian Revolt: Sicily gains land and the Roman Republic is founded again.

43 AD: Suione is founded.

56 AD: Suione expands southwards.

63 AD: Langubardia forms.

34 AD-78 AD: War of the Coalition: Hispania, Armorica, Rome, Aquitaine, Belgica attack and win against the Gaulish Empire

92 AD: Sicily gains the rest of Gaulish Italy.

102-128 AD: The last Berber states are absorbed by Hispania and Carthage.

140 AD: Suione expands in Jutland.

143 AD: Dalmatia and Macedon expand in modern Albania.

167 AD: Parthia pushes the Syrian-Parthian border to the Euphrates.

183 AD: Macedon looses Albania to Sicily.

205 AD: Cyrencia is founded.

221 AD: Neapolitan revolution: Napoli breaks away from Sicily.

238 AD: Suione expands into Northern England.

242 AD: Macedon collapses.

250 AD: Albus is founded.

302 AD: The Empire of Axum expands all the way to Nubia.

321 AD: Armorica expands to East Anglia.

324 AD - 334 AD: Germanic Invasion of the Gaulish empire, which collapses.

334 AD: Kingdom of the Liga is founded from the remnants of the Gaulish Empire.

330 AD: Liguria is founded.

335 AD: Egyptian Revolt: Kingdom of Aaron and Alexandria is founded. Axum invades southern Egypt.

362 AD: The Kingdom of Aaron takes over Alexandria and Rump Syria.

374 AD: The Picts create Caledonia.

408 AD: Hunnic invasion of the Middle East.

410 AD: Germania annexes Langubardia.

413 AD: Armorica takes control of Northern England and Wales.

417 AD: Hunnic Empire annexes Galatia

421 AD: The Empire of Aaron Takes over Axumite Egypt, and Cyrancea.
421AD.png

426 AD: Napoli Annexes Sicily.

441 AD: Parthia shatters, Mesopotamia is annexed by the Empire of Aaron.

452 AD: Liguria expands northwards.

478 AD: Second Aaronic-Hunnic War. The Empire of Aaron expands northwards.

511 AD: Eprius takes over some of the Macedonian states,

517 AD: Armorica and the Kingdom of the Liga invade Belgica.

520 AD: Third Aaronic-Hunnic War. Hunnic empire collapses.

536 AD: Carthaginian nobles convert to Neoverioic.

542 AD: Masovia is founded.

568 AD: Lithuania is founded.

614 AD: Estonia is founded.

618 AD: Kingdom of the Liga is replaced with Gallia. Gallia annexes western Liguria.

632 AD: Empire of Aaron invades Galatia.

638 AD: Caledonia invades Hibernia.

640 AD: Suione reaches as north in the Baltic as Stockholm.

652 AD: Babylon breaks free of the Empire of Aaron.

668 AD: Tver is founded.

674 AD: Persia annexes Parthia.

683 AD: Persia takes over Babylon.

689 AD: Carthage is annexed by the Kingdom of Aaron,

692 AD: Gallia takes over its eastern neighbors.

712 AD: Persia takes over western Sindh.

736 AD: Caledonia annexes Suione Britain.

744 AD: The Empire of Aaron invades Greece.
744AD.png

753 AD: The Empire of Aaron gains land as far north as the Danube.

786 AD: Albania is annexed by the Huns.

803 AD: Carthage, Numidia, and Cyrancea break off the Empire of Aaron.

822 AD: Multiple states break off the EOA.

834 AD: The Empire of Aaron loses Greece.

836 AD: Persia beats the Hunnic empire in its southern lands.

846 AD: Gallia annexes Liguria.

852 AD: Belgica looses Batavia to Germania.’

873 AD: Neoverioic Galatia is founded.

886 AD: Neoverioic Syria is founded.

894 AD: Polan is established.

897 AD: Belgica War: Belgica is annexed by Gallia.

905 AD: Ruthenia is established.

916 AD: Estonia expands into Finland.

934 AD: The Empire of Aaron loses all of its territory other than the Nile Delta, and becomes the “Araronic States”

948 AD: Neoverioic South Iberia breaks off Hispania.

968 AD: Kiev is founded.

972 AD: Persia annexes the Modern Afghani lands.

972 AD: All accept southern Hibernia is owned by the Caledonians.

988 AD: Bosporus is annexed by Kiev.

997 AD: A horrid Plague ravages Gallia and surrounding nations, posioning all water supplies and kill a lot of the crops. This great death, which is last several decades, forms the belief that most of the gods were killed a replaced by only Two gods, a new religion develops. “Dyothea” Gallia breaks off and invades Gallia.

997AD.png
 
Last edited:
Hmm... there's a number of inaccuracies and OTLisms. I like the idea of a Hunnic empire in Anatolia, however. :D

I have a specific question: What exactly is "Hispania"?
 
Hispania is the Roman name for Iberia.

Yes, yes, I am aware of that. The name in turn derives from Punic "I-Shpani", which means something along the lines of "Land of the Hyrax" (since the Carthaginians mistook the indigenous rabbits of Iberia for hyraxes which were more familiar to them).

Now, the question I am actually asking is, what is this "Hispania" actually in your TL. It can't be possibly be a Roman-derived state, obviously.
 
Yes, yes, I am aware of that. The name in turn derives from Punic "I-Shpani", which means something along the lines of "Land of the Hyrax" (since the Carthaginians mistook the indigenous rabbits of Iberia for hyraxes which were more familiar to them).

Now, the question I am actually asking is, what is this "Hispania" actually in your TL. It can't be possibly be a Roman-derived state, obviously.

I did not know the other name of Iberia other than "Hispania". So I used the Roman Term. I did not think civilization would disappear after both Carthage and Rome lost the territory.
 
I did not know the other name of Iberia other than "Hispania". So I used the Roman Term. I did not think civilization would disappear after both Carthage and Rome lost the territory.

Why would Carthage lose the territory? Also, the problem is that the Iberian penninsula - even the Punic-influenced part - did not constitute a homogenous civilization. There's also a lot of other strange things in your TL. Like "Morcant Gwrtheryn" - that's totally not a Gaulish name. It's also difficult to assume how a unification of Gaul would take place in the first place. I mean, I've been working on a TL as well, and I was stumbled on the problem of unifying Gaul myself...
 
1. Why would Carthage lose the territory?


Also, the problem is that the Iberian penninsula - even the Punic-influenced part - did not constitute a homogenous civilization.

2.There's also a lot of other strange things in your TL. Like "Morcant Gwrtheryn" - that's totally not a Gaulish name.

It's also difficult to assume how a unification of Gaul would take place in the first place. I mean, I've been working on a TL as well, and I was stumbled on the problem of unifying Gaul myself...


1. The Gaulish Horde invaded after the end of the second Punic War.

2. I did not know.

3. I asked Evilprodigy if anything in it was not possible.
 
1. The Gaulish Horde invaded after the end of the second Punic War.

I totally didn't understand that from the map. You still don't explain how such an entity of "Hispania" would come into existence. :eek:

2. I did not know.

"Morcant Gwrtheryn" sounds actually like Welsh, which didn't exist (yet) by that time... :p

3. I asked Evilprodigy if anything in it was not possible.

I didn't know Evilprodigy was an expert on ancient Gaul... :eek:
 
I totally didn't understand that from the map. You still don't explain how such an entity of "Hispania" would come into existence. :eek:

"Morcant Gwrtheryn" sounds actually like Welsh, which didn't exist (yet) by that time... :p

I didn't know Evilprodigy was an expert on ancient Gaul... :eek:

"Morcant Gwrtheryn" came from this website i suggested using http://www.behindthename.com/random/

The origions are a bit troubling, when he asked me about this TL and how gaul could be unified i said the most likely way (still not too likely but still the most likely i could think of) was to unify against the common enemy Rome, just like the tribes in Britian did during the Boudica rebellion and even before that when Ceaser tried to invade
 
"Morcant Gwrtheryn" came from this website i suggested using http://www.behindthename.com/random/

Well, yeah, but that's an overtly Welsh name that is totally dissimilar from any Gaulish names.

The origions are a bit troubling, when he asked me about this TL and how gaul could be unified i said the most likely way (still not too likely but still the most likely i could think of) was to unify against the common enemy Rome, just like the tribes in Britian did during the Boudica rebellion and even before that when Ceaser tried to invade

Well, yes. Boudica was a good example, as was Vercingetorix and the first and second Brennus. The problem is, anyone of these were only able to consolidate a number of tribes under them for a while - it's very difficult to see how long-lasting power structures could have emerged from that. Like I said, the Celts, though efficient in spreading their culture, were poor empire builders.
 
Well, yeah, but that's an overtly Welsh name that is totally dissimilar from any Gaulish names.



Well, yes. Boudica was a good example, as was Vercingetorix and the first and second Brennus. The problem is, anyone of these were only able to consolidate a number of tribes under them for a while - it's very difficult to see how long-lasting power structures could have emerged from that. Like I said, the Celts, though efficient in spreading their culture, were poor empire builders.

Well then the website lied:p Names can always be changed, but it is a minor detail, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, you know? (Unless they are called Stinkweeds, or Crapflowers...)

Well it was a horde to begin with, then it became an empire, probably through the influence from Rome and infastructure in Italia that they took.... we could always say the guy got lucky too
 
All I can say is that TurkishCapybara has his work cut out for him in regard to research.

"Morcant Gwrtheryn" is not only a Welsh name, but is also a tad anachronistic.

He needs to do better than "Gaulish Horde". What were the exact tribes that composed this horde? And why is it imperative that this force destroy Rome in the late Third Century BCE? Rome's expansion was focused on Italy and the coastal areas of the Mediterraean at this time and wouldn't expand into Transalpine Gaul for about eighty years.

The Gauls were a collection of farflung individual tribes and emerging kingdoms whose' focus of expansion was normally against each other. The Arverni was the most powerful militarily and economically, but its aim was to keep the other Gaulish nations under its rule. But it's dominance only lasted a century, by which time Rome had grown beyond its own range in terms of manpower and had overpowered the Arverni, turning its vassals against them and conquering the southern coastline of Gaul. Limiting Gaulish access to Mediterranean trade with Rome itself, and ensuring political instability in northern Gaul for the next seventy years, a situation that Julius Caesar would take advantage of.

Iberia is culturally divided between Lusitanni and Celtiberians in the north, while the south and east were influenced by Punic and Greek influences.

"Belgica" is the Roman name for the ancient Low Countries. And the Germanic Frisians would have been as yet indistinct, in terms of material culture at least, from the Belgae. The Belgae, whom divided into multiple tribes and were distributed across Normandy, southern Britain, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, were Celtic, but were considered almost ethnically distinct from the Gauls.

And what is the background for the "Kingdom of Aaron" supposed to be?
 
"Morcant Gwrtheryn" is not only a Welsh name, but is also a tad anachronistic.
It was a name I got from Behindthename.com with "Ancient Celtic"
He needs to do better than "Gaulish Horde". What were the exact tribes that composed this horde? And why is it imperative that this force destroy Rome in the late Third Century BCE? Rome's expansion was focused on Italy and the coastal areas of the Mediterraean at this time and wouldn't expand into Transalpine Gaul for about eighty years.
I will need to look some of that up. But it is partially the same circumstances that the Huns formed in.
The Gauls were a collection of farflung individual tribes and emerging kingdoms whose' focus of expansion was normally against each other. The Arverni was the most powerful militarily and economically, but its aim was to keep the other Gaulish nations under its rule. But it's dominance only lasted a century, by which time Rome had grown beyond its own range in terms of manpower and had overpowered the Arverni, turning its vassals against them and conquering the southern coastline of Gaul. Limiting Gaulish access to Mediterranean trade with Rome itself, and ensuring political instability in northern Gaul for the next seventy years, a situation that Julius Caesar would take advantage of.
?

Iberia is culturally divided between Lusitanni and Celtiberians in the north, while the south and east were influenced by Punic and Greek influences.
I know this.
"Belgica" is the Roman name for the ancient Low Countries. And the Germanic Frisians would have been as yet indistinct, in terms of material culture at least, from the Belgae. The Belgae, whom divided into multiple tribes and were distributed across Normandy, southern Britain, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, were Celtic, but were considered almost ethnically distinct from the Gauls.
I have used multiple Latin terms.
And what is the background for the "Kingdom of Aaron" supposed to be?
A Caliphate-like state.
 
A Caliphate-like state.

I'm afraid that's very unlikely. Islamic law and social organisation came about in close contact with tweo state-church empires, the Sassanids and the Romans. It didn't develop in a vacuum. I could see a state based on an upper class of theophoboi, gentile converts to Alexandrine diaspora Judaism, if you want to push it.

Does your TL still allow for a Makkabi kingdom? That couldbe a powerful influence for theocracy.
 
"Morcant Gwrtheryn" is not only a Welsh name, but is also a tad anachronistic.

Well, that's self-explanatory because at that stage (3rd century BC), Welsh didn't exist yet as a recognizable language. At that point of time there probably still was a common Britonic language.

It was a name I got from Behindthename.com with "Ancient Celtic"

It's clearly not ancient Celtic. ;)

Iberia is culturally divided between Lusitanni and Celtiberians in the north, while the south and east were influenced by Punic and Greek influences.

It's even more complicated than that. You must distinguish between Celtiberia proper (basically the area of the upper Ebro valley) and the other Celtic-speaking areas (Gallaecia, Asturia, Cantabria), which probably had relatively little in common with Celtiberia. In the east (approximately from Catalonia to eastern Andalusia) you have the Iberians. In west of Andalusia as well as in the Algarve you had the Turdetani, who were probably the (mostly Celticized and Punicized?) descendants of the Tartessians. In the area of central Portugal and the Spanish Extremadura, you had the Lusitanians.

"Belgica" is the Roman name for the ancient Low Countries. And the Germanic Frisians would have been as yet indistinct, in terms of material culture at least, from the Belgae. The Belgae, whom divided into multiple tribes and were distributed across Normandy, southern Britain, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, were Celtic, but were considered almost ethnically distinct from the Gauls.

The general idea is that the Belgae spoke a language similar to Britonic rather than Gaulish. This is backed up by the fact that there are many very similar or tribal names in Gallia Belgica and in Britain. There's also the idea that the Belgae were at least partially Germanic (based on that claim by Caesar on the "undoubtably Germanic" nature of several Belgic tribes), but I tend to disagree because these have undoubtably Celtic names. Given how "Gallia" and "Germania" were largely geographic terms, my interpretation is that the "Germani Cisrhenani" were actually just Celtic-speaking peoples who originally dwelled on the right-bank of the Rhine.
 
The Huns, Mongols, Ancient Romans, Ancient Greeks, English, Chinese and Assyrians were too.

Not necessarily. The Romans had established their republic as a centralized hegemony over a limited geographic area before branching outside Italy. The English became a unified nation hundreds of years before there was a British Empire. The different Assyrian empires did not extend too much beyond the Levant and Iraq. The Hunnic and later Mongol empire were each ethnically heterogenous and culturally diverse collectives. And Chinese territorial expansion was rather gradual.

The Greeks, however, did expand their civilization into different directions. But the only unified Hellenic empire before the Common Era was founded by Macedonians, whom shared the same beliefs and culture as the Greeks, but were initially considered "barbarians". And even Alexander's expansion did not include subjugating the Greek communities in the western Mediterranean.

I'm not saying that an ATL Celtic empire is an improbability. But I don't think they would spontaneously gather into a "horde". In 203 BCE, Rome was too distracted with its war against Carthage to present an immediate threat to the Gauls north of the Alps, which in any case at the time , were themselves mostly vassals to the large and wealthy Arverni tribal kingdom. If Rome were to lose the Second Punic War, or if it was destroyed even earlier, the Arverni (based in modern Augverne) control over the Gaulish tribes could change from that of a feudal hegemony to that of a centralized political union. From there, you'll have the basis for a state with the resources and manpower to extend its territory.
 
Not necessarily. The Romans had established their republic as a centralized hegemony over a limited geographic area before branching outside Italy. The English became a unified nation hundreds of years before there was a British Empire. The different Assyrian empires did not extend too much beyond the Levant and Iraq. The Hunnic and later Mongol empire were each ethnically heterogenous and culturally diverse collectives. And Chinese territorial expansion was rather gradual.

The Greeks, however, did expand their civilization into different directions. But the only unified Hellenic empire before the Common Era was founded by Macedonians, whom shared the same beliefs and culture as the Greeks, but were initially considered "barbarians". And even Alexander's expansion did not include subjugating the Greek communities in the western Mediterranean.

I'm not saying that an ATL Celtic empire is an improbability. But I don't think they would spontaneously gather into a "horde". In 203 BCE, Rome was too distracted with its war against Carthage to present an immediate threat to the Gauls north of the Alps, which in any case at the time , were themselves mostly vassals to the large and wealthy Arverni tribal kingdom. If Rome were to lose the Second Punic War, or if it was destroyed even earlier, the Arverni (based in modern Augverne) control over the Gaulish tribes could change from that of a feudal hegemony to that of a centralized political union. From there, you'll have the basis for a state with the resources and manpower to extend its territory.
The Assyrians took over the Levant+Iraq? What's that supposed to mean? FWIW, they look about the same size to me. I don't object to your other points but not sure about this one.
 
The Assyrians took over the Levant+Iraq? What's that supposed to mean? FWIW, they look about the same size to me. I don't object to your other points but not sure about this one.

I meant that the bulk of the Assyrian Empire was in Iraq and the Levant. The point about that I was trying is that the Assyrians were a centralized polity rather than a politically divided civilization that expanded irratically. I did not know that this comment was going to cause confusion.
 
Top