Unified Gaul: How to do it, what does it look like, and what is its potential?

This is something I've wanted to discuss for a while.

As the title suggests, this thread is completely devoted to the idea of a Unified Gaul during the Classical Period.

My first main question is the obvious one - how do we unify the Gauls (and it has to be just Gauls/Celtae, at least initially - so no saying the Roman conquests unified Gaul, or arguing for the Germanic tribes to conquer Gaul, or having the Belgae or Aquitani lead the conquest) into one state? The Gauls, were, obviously, a very divided people for much of their history. The Arverni, who were based in Auvergne, seem to be the best candidate - they held hegemony over wide swaths of Gaul, and eventually had to be broken up by the Romans in 121 BC, and their rise has been compared to that of Rome in Italy. Their most famous Kings, Luernios and Bituitus, appear to have been father and son, and, while very little is known of them, they appear to have been powerful rulers. Vercingetorix, also, was an Arverni, and he actually did lead a briefly unified Gaul. The other main candidate would probably be the Aedui tribe, who led the strongest opposing confederacy to the Arverni. Also to consider is Rome - does Rome need to be destroyed for a Unified Gaul to emerge, does such a Gallic state need an impetus to unify like Caesar's invasion for a unifying leader like Vercingetorix to emerge, or could Gaul develop into a unified state with Rome still around, but without Roman intervention?

My second question, as on the title, is what would such a state look like? By that, I mean the political, cultural, and religious ramifications of a unified Gallic state as a whole. Now, obviously, some of the changes that would come along depend on the factors that lead to unification - is it a process that "naturally" came about, or did Rome or some other state force an initially temporary union, that became permanent? What tribe in the end unified it? But, ignoring those questions until they're debated and answered as best we can, there are other questions - for instance, what role might the druids play? How Hellenized might the Celtic gods become as the state expands, if at all? How urbanized can Gaul get? Which regions could see the biggest cities emerge? How might the Gaulish military develop? And how could such a state realistically politically centralize, as, under any scenario, Gaul would be a very decentralized state?

And, finally, what is the potential of a unified Gaul? Such a state would have a huge population base that even the Romans in Italy can't match. With their being as warlike, as a whole, as the Romans on top of that, expansion seems likely. Where might such a state expand to? Is a European empire that could rival what the Romans did IOTL possible for the Gauls?

Now, obviously, I'm asking quite a bit, so that's why I'm hoping to divide up all my questions into these three main questions, that, ideally, we would tackle one at a time, until we have a pretty solid idea of, well, what the most likely hypothetical unified Gallic state might be like in the Mediterranean world. I can't be the only one who's salivated at the idea! :D So, beginning with my first question, what is the best way to create a unified Gaul?

I'll start: honestly, I think the best chance we have of seeing Gaul consolidate under the rule of one state is by destroying Rome. When we destroy Rome probably doesn't matter, but should be done as late as possible (Hannibal's time, or a bit after) so that the rise of the Arverni can still happen un-butterflied. With them out of the way, I think it quite possible that the Arverni could rule a united Gaul by 1 AD, as they appear to have been on that track. Thoughts? Questions on what I'm trying to discuss?
 
Last edited:
Here's a map, for reference:

gaul.gif
 
My idea of a a unified Gaul would look something like Merovingian France. By that, I don't mean that the Averni over-king would continually divide his kingdom between his sons (then again, he might) but in terms of regional government, there would be cities and regions that follow different sets of laws while acknowledging the over-lordship of the Arverni Verrix. The early years of this state would require the dynastic inter-marriage between the dominant Arverni family with the main princely-houses of the Bituriges, the Aedui, Carnutes, Allobroges, Sequani, Baiocasse (Bayeaux, Normandy), Limoges (Limousin, Anjou) and others. The early unified Gaulish state would resemble a sprawling feudalistic realm. Not an immediate threat to the Mediterranean world, but could still withstand much of what their enemies could throw against them.

Cities like Gergovia (now the village of Gergovie), Bibracte (Mont Beuvray), Paris (named after the Parisii tribe that founded it), the Biturige cities of Burdigala (Bordeaux) and Avaricon (Bourges), the Carnute-Aulerce centres of Cenabum (Orleans) and Autricon (Chartres) would have been some of the top cities in Gaul before the Common Era. And if the Arverni need to, Massalia (Marseille), Nice (Nicaea) and Monoikos (Monaco) could end up under their dominion also. These would be the most urban and cosmopolitan cities in all of Gaul and its main outlet to the Mediterranean world.
 
Last edited:
It is possible you need leaders who has the drive to do this. Obviously the Roman need to be defeated but not destroyed for the Gauls to have a common threat to fight against.
 
It is possible you need leaders who has the drive to do this. Obviously the Roman need to be defeated but not destroyed for the Gauls to have a common threat to fight against.

Or destroy Rome and have Italy unite under some other Italiote group, which will be a serious foe but not as badass as Rome. Or perhaps make Cathage the enemy. Frankly, if Rome unifies Italy and is anything like OTL's republic, I think Gaul is screwed.

Bruce
 
My idea of a a unified Gaul would look something like Merovingian France. By that, I don't mean that the Averni over-king would continually divide his kingdom between his sons (then again, he might) but in terms of regional government, there would be cities and regions that follow different sets of laws while acknowledging the over-lordship of the Arverni Verrix. The early years of this state would require the dynastic inter-marriage between the dominant Arverni family with the main princely-houses of the Bituriges, the Aedui, Carnutes, Allobroges, Sequani, Baiocasse (Bayeaux, Normandy), Limoges (Limousin, Anjou) and others. The early unified Gaulish state would resemble a sprawling feudalistic realm. Not an immediate threat to the Mediterranean world, but could still withstand much of what their enemies could throw against them.

Cities like Gergovia (now the village of Gergovie), Bibracte (Mont Beuvray), Paris (named after the Parisii tribe that founded it), the Biturige cities of Burdigala (Bordeaux) and Avaricon (Bourges), the Carnute-Aulerce centres of Cenabum (Orleans) and Autricon (Chartres) would have been some of the top cities in Gaul before the Common Era. And if the Arverni need to, Massalia (Marseille), Nice (Nicaea) and Monoikos (Monaco) could end up under their dominion also. These would be the most urban and cosmopolitan cities in all of Gaul and its main outlet to the Mediterranean world.

Do you know if Celtic succession was similar to the Franks? That'd be unfortunate, for the purposes of the thread. Interesting and ironic, but unfortunate.

Anyways, I'm inclined to agree that Merovingian France might be a good look at what an early unified Gaul might look like. France has a pretty long standing tradition of being really, really decentralized, and united only in name, and that might be the case for the early Arverni. The question is, how do we consolidate the state from there?

As for cities... were there any Gallic settlements of note on the English channel? The power would, of course, in such a state be focused in the south and towards the Mediterranean, but it seems like a northern port city to trade with the British Celts would rise up at some point.

Xgentis said:
It is possible you need leaders who has the drive to do this. Obviously the Roman need to be defeated but not destroyed for the Gauls to have a common threat to fight against.

B_Munro said:
Or destroy Rome and have Italy unite under some other Italiote group, which will be a serious foe but not as badass as Rome. Or perhaps make Cathage the enemy. Frankly, if Rome unifies Italy and is anything like OTL's republic, I think Gaul is screwed.

As I said, I'm leaning towards thinking that Rome might be too powerful for a Gallic state to develop next to. Maybe longer lasting Etruscans, or Carthage, is the right balance between being threatening enough to be a catalyst for such a development, but not threatening enough to actually threaten such a state.
 
Last edited:
Do you know if Celtic succession was similar to the Franks? That'd be unfortunate, for the purposes of the thread. Interesting and ironic, but unfortunate.

Anyways, I'm inclined to agree that Merovingian France might be a good look at what an early unified Gaul might look like. France has a pretty long standing tradition of being really, really decentralized, and united only in name, and that might be the case for the early Arverni. The question is, how do we consolidate the state from there?

As for cities... were there any Gallic settlements of note on the English channel? The power would, of course, in such a state be focused in the south and towards the Mediterranean, but it seems like a northern port city to trade with the British Celts would rise up at some point.

Its my understanding that the Arverni high kings were elected. Mind you, Vercingetorix's father attempted to become king of the Arverni, so some families in the tribe may have ancestral claims to the kingship. Perhaps something like Tanistry (an ancient Gaelic custom) was practised by the Gauls? In any case, any princely family would do what it can to keep their grip on the office of Verrix for successive generations.

The most important Celtic cities would be those close to the major north-south trade routes or those with a particular religious significance (Carnute-ruled Orleans for example).

In a scenario where Rome is prematurely destroyed for whatever reason, it would be a major assumption that something else from Italy or the Mediterranean in general would rise up to "take Rome's place". Chances are that whatever tribal-kingdom comes to dominate the Gauls won't faces any challenges from the outside world. To put this into perspective, did any of the Greeks or Carthaginians care about Rome's expansion across Italy before the Samnite Wars and the conflict with Pyrrhus of Epirus?

As for the northern coast of Gaul, they were not as urbanized as further south, but they had a strong maratime tradition. One force to be reckoned with in the northern seas was the Veneti of Amorica (now Brittany). As long as there is a single powerful state keeping the rest in line while merging the various local kingdoms through dynastic intermarriage and inheritance, Arverni Gaul shouldn't be facing any major opposition to its existence for about two or three hundred years.
 
Its my understanding that the Arverni high kings were elected. Mind you, Vercingetorix's father attempted to become king of the Arverni, so some families in the tribe may have ancestral claims to the kingship. Perhaps something like Tanistry (an ancient Gaelic custom) was practised by the Gauls? In any case, any princely family would do what it can to keep their grip on the office of Verrix for successive generations.

Right... I'd imagine that the Arverni Verrix-ship is sort of like the HRE, or, for an ancient example, pre-Oligarchial Carthage, in that while it's an elected monarchy, it's dominated by only a couple families, and usually just one at a time. So it's probably more or less hereditary.

The most important Celtic cities would be those close to the major north-south trade routes or those with a particular religious significance (Carnute-ruled Orleans for example).

What, exactly, was the religious significance of Orleans for the Gauls? I want to say that that's where druids met annually - is that right, or even remotely close?

In a scenario where Rome is prematurely destroyed for whatever reason, it would be a major assumption that something else from Italy or the Mediterranean in general would rise up to "take Rome's place". Chances are that whatever tribal-kingdom comes to dominate the Gauls won't faces any challenges from the outside world. To put this into perspective, did any of the Greeks or Carthaginians care about Rome's expansion across Italy before the Samnite Wars and the conflict with Pyrrhus of Epirus?

Good point.

As for the northern coast of Gaul, they were not as urbanized as further south, but they had a strong maratime tradition. One force to be reckoned with in the northern seas was the Veneti of Amorica (now Brittany). As long as there is a single powerful state keeping the rest in line while merging the various local kingdoms through dynastic intermarriage and inheritance, Arverni Gaul shouldn't be facing any major opposition to its existence for about two or three hundred years.

How difficult might the Veneti be bring into the Arverni sphere of influence? I understand that they've got a bit of an independent streak...
 
What, exactly, was the religious significance of Orleans for the Gauls? I want to say that that's where druids met annually - is that right, or even remotely close?

Cenabum/Orleans was where all the Druids and religious leaders of Gaul met on a yearly basis. Whatever shared theology the Gauls had was decided or debated on in these synod-like meetings.


How difficult might the Veneti be bring into the Arverni sphere of influence? I understand that they've got a bit of an independent streak...

The Veneti and other coastal peoples lived on trade and piracy. There is no special or urgent need for them to join or be coerced into the Arverni kingdom. Brittany IOTL didn't become part of the Frankish realm until the Carolingian-era and even then, it was still linguistically and ethnically distinct from the French as the Welsh and Cornish were from the English.
 
I've been pondering this myself for a while. I've come up with a few ideas. Let's give this a similar POD to my timeline in which Rome is snuffed out in it's early days.

So, if we have an Arverni unified Gaul (most likely, but not the only possibility), that means that we have a loose confederation of allied tribes centered around the Arverni by 120 B.C. which encompass all of Gallia Narbonensis and a little more land to the north. Examples of tribes in alliance to them would be, but not limited to, the Sequani, Allobroges, Salluvi, Santones, Sordones, and Tectosages.

The Verrix, I think, would probably resemble the Persian Emperors; King of Kings, High Kings, who rule over a number of sub-kings. The Arverni would probably use religion to legitimize their overlordship. As I understand it, Avaricum, the capital of the Bituriges , was a holy city. The Bituriges, from what we know, were the hegemonic rulers before the Arverni. The Bituriges seemed to have used religion to do this. They produced a large number of Druids, and even during Vercingetorix's revolt, the one city he refused to burn was Avaricum because of it's religious significance. If the Arverni make claim to the legacy of the Bituriges, and if the Bituriges support the Arverni (which, by the way, means something like Superior Ones), they would have a religious legitimization to their rule over Gaul.

Now, early consolidation of their power of the region would be difficult. The Arverni walked a fine line between being the benevolent leaders and the harsh oppressor, and if they pissed off too many tribes, they'd be done for. Slowly, but surely, the Arverni would have to assimilate, colonize, subjugate, and/or destroy their surrounding tribes in a not dissimilar way to how the Romans handled the many peoples of Italy. First and foremost the Arverni would work to consolidate their hold on southern Gaul. Their monopolization of Mediterranean trade made them extremely rich, and afforded them better weapons and better armor, as well as other things which I will talk about later. The control of rivers like the Rhone, Loire, and Garonne rivers made them THE ONLY source the Mediterranean world could go to for the goods that Gaul supplied (slaves, wool, mercenaries, soap, ect.). Also, they effectively became the middlemen between Britain (and their tin) and the Mediterranean-- After all, which seems smarter, sail around all of Iberia, or cut through Gaul by the Loire, walk two days, then sail down the Rhone? Complete control of this region and its trade routes would give the Arverni a HUGE leg up on the competition (i.e. the Aedui).

Now, speaking of the competition, how would the Arverni not only handle the Aedui, but the Cimbri, Boii, and Sweboz? Well, it should be noted that the latter 3 all invaded and raided Gaul after the Arverni were toppled from their position of power by the Romans and hugely depopulated. Though it is by no means a sure thing, my bet would be that the Arverni (and their allies) could fight off the Cimbri and Boii, and also that the Sweboz would never have even invaded. Now, the Aedui are the hard guys to beat. The Sequani only just managed to defeat them by the skin of their teeth by introducing (against the advice of their then weakened ally, the Arverni) the Sweboz into Gaul as mercenaries. The Sequani and Aedui were almost at constant war, and it is possible that with the help of a still intact Arverni confederation that the Aedui would have been defeated by ~60 B.C.

I don't think all of Gaul can be unified without outside pressure any earlier than ~80 A.D.

Now, Lysandros already mentioned the some of the would-be major cities (however, I think Massalia and the other Greek cities on the coast would surely be taken by Gauls by 120 B.C.), but there would also be cities established as something like Arverni colonies throughout Gaul, populating the country in a similar way to how the Romans did in Italy. There is some precedent to believe that Gauls would do this, and as they increasingly urbanized, this would result in the establishment of new cities.

Culturally, Gaul would be very different. I think the warlike nature of their society would result in several civil wars, as well as wars of expansion, before we can have what would be called a stable unified Gaul. In the south, you would have a lot of Greek influence from cities like Massalia. Verrix's would likely adopt certain aspects of Greek clothing and culture for prestige. Further north, the influence would be less apparent, and probably the region more poor, less densely populated (though still relatively well) and more agrarian (though the south would still be pretty agrarian).

If I were to get more imaginative, I could see the Arverni exiling rebellious or enemy tribes to Britain, or into Italia or Germania. War with the Germanic tribes across the Rhine seems inevitable, however the Arverni (I think) would likely prove to be very helpful allies to the Carthaginians, who I doubt would be capable of expanding into Gaul.
 
I made two maps a while back while brainstorming these ideas. Here's one of some early expansion and consolidation.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize how big this file is... ugh.

Arvernibrigas.png
 
Actually, the gauls could had conquered the italics, the difference between continental celtic is like west slavic and south slavic, the etruscans prevented them to be a single linguistic community just like what magyars do west and south slavic.
 
Actually, the gauls could had conquered the italics, the difference between continental celtic is like west slavic and south slavic, the etruscans prevented them to be a single linguistic community just like what magyars do west and south slavic.

erm. no.

The Italic languages, while related, were not identifiably Celtic. It's more like Baltic and Slavic.

Also, the separate branches of Celtic languages (P-Celtic and Q-Celtic) have branched off from each other for over 2500 years, and are probably less related to each other than any other languages put under the same group than any others in the Indo-European family.

However, if a unified Gaul did manage to stand on its own, it could actually invade Italy.
 
erm. no.

The Italic languages, while related, were not identifiably Celtic. It's more like Baltic and Slavic.

Also, the separate branches of Celtic languages (P-Celtic and Q-Celtic) have branched off from each other for over 2500 years, and are probably less related to each other than any other languages put under the same group than any others in the Indo-European family.

However, if a unified Gaul did manage to stand on its own, it could actually invade Italy.

If the Celts assimilate Etruscans instead of the Italics, the Italics would be next to be assimilated by the Celts.
 
If the Celts assimilate Etruscans instead of the Italics, the Italics would be next to be assimilated by the Celts.

What makes you think that the Italic peoples (Veneti, Samnites, Latins, Umbrians, Sabines, Lucani, or Brutti) would be unable to ward off a few roving tribes of Celts... you know, like they did OTL.
 
The fact that they also did in fact sack Rome itself.

When Rome was in it's infancy. Rome was also on the border of the Tiber. Trust me, I have a whole TL about the Senones sacking Rome.

But these assumptions that all of Italy would fall into the Celtosphere do a great discredit to the other peoples living in Italy who were more than capable of fighting off the Celts (which they did), and also to retaining their culture. I think that there would be Celtic influences definitely, but I don't think that the Italic languages would become Celtic languages any more than they would become Greek languages (the Greeks had also settled in Italy at the time). Recall how the Samnites, an Italic tribe, outlasted the Celtic tribes in Italy during the Social Wars.
 
When Rome was in it's infancy. Rome was also on the border of the Tiber. Trust me, I have a whole TL about the Senones sacking Rome.

But these assumptions that all of Italy would fall into the Celtosphere do a great discredit to the other peoples living in Italy who were more than capable of fighting off the Celts (which they did), and also to retaining their culture. I think that there would be Celtic influences definitely, but I don't think that the Italic languages would become Celtic languages any more than they would become Greek languages (the Greeks had also settled in Italy at the time). Recall how the Samnites, an Italic tribe, outlasted the Celtic tribes in Italy during the Social Wars.

Well, I'm not thinking the Celts could dominate the entire Italian Peninsula. But if there were a unified Gaulish state, I think that un-unified Italic tribes would succumb; not all of them, but they'd have a disadvantage. Personally, I think that whatever the TL, a unified Italian state would rise, so that disadvantage would disappear, it's just a matter of how long it exists. And the languages becoming one? I agree with the idea that they'd stay separate.
 
Well, I'm not thinking the Celts could dominate the entire Italian Peninsula. But if there were a unified Gaulish state, I think that un-unified Italic tribes would succumb; not all of them, but they'd have a disadvantage. Personally, I think that whatever the TL, a unified Italian state would rise, so that disadvantage would disappear, it's just a matter of how long it exists. And the languages becoming one? I agree with the idea that they'd stay separate.

Seems like we are arguing the same thing ;)
 
Top