Back in the late 60's BCE, there was a long-standing rivalry within Celtic Gaul between the Aedui, who were building an empire of sorts, and the Sequani and Arverni, who were, in turn, threatened by the expansion of the (Roman-allied) Aedui. The latter party invited a king of the Suebi Germanic tribe, Ariovistus, to cross the Rhine and join them in an encircling movement to defeat the Aedui once and for all. They succeeded, and one Aedui druid was sent to Rome to appeal to the senate for aid. A general, one Julius Caesar, decided to go and help defeat Ariovistus' expanding hegemony over Gaul. Caesar eventually defeated Ariovistus at the Battle of The Vosges (58 BCE), vanquishing the Suebi. However, the Gallic tribes began to feel discomfort over Caesar's continued garrisoning of the region... and the rest is history.
But what if Ariovistus had managed to defeat the Romans? Say, by another, less competent general being sent instead of Caesar.
Could his Celto-Germanic kingdom continue growing in size?
 
Back in the late 60's BCE, there was a long-standing rivalry within Celtic Gaul between the Aedui, who were building an empire of sorts, and the Sequani and Arverni, who were, in turn, threatened by the expansion of the (Roman-allied) Aedui. The latter party invited a king of the Suebi Germanic tribe, Ariovistus, to cross the Rhine and join them in an encircling movement to defeat the Aedui once and for all. They succeeded, and one Aedui druid was sent to Rome to appeal to the senate for aid. A general, one Julius Caesar, decided to go and help defeat Ariovistus' expanding hegemony over Gaul. Caesar eventually defeated Ariovistus at the Battle of The Vosges (58 BCE), vanquishing the Suebi. However, the Gallic tribes began to feel discomfort over Caesar's continued garrisoning of the region... and the rest is history.
But what if Ariovistus had managed to defeat the Romans? Say, by another, less competent general being sent instead of Caesar.
Could his Celto-Germanic kingdom continue growing in size?
It wouldn't necessarily be a solidified kingdom. When the Romans are gone and the threat of Aedui hegemony is averted, Ariovist could have a hard time holding on and keeping it together.
 
It wouldn't necessarily be a solidified kingdom. When the Romans are gone and the threat of Aedui hegemony is averted, Ariovist could have a hard time holding on and keeping it together.
Could he end up alienating his former Arverni-Sequani allies, to the point in which they ally with Rome?
 
Could he end up alienating his former Arverni-Sequani allies, to the point in which they ally with Rome?
Nothing is excluded. Although how Rome generally views Gaul after they've been mauled there is open. Uniting large heterogeneous groups of the periphery at that Age usually works only for a limited time, or if you go on a massive raiding and conquering spree. Barred that, Ariovist will soon be history.
 
Back in the late 60's BCE, there was a long-standing rivalry within Celtic Gaul between the Aedui, who were building an empire of sorts, and the Sequani and Arverni, who were, in turn, threatened by the expansion of the (Roman-allied) Aedui. The latter party invited a king of the Suebi Germanic tribe, Ariovistus, to cross the Rhine and join them in an encircling movement to defeat the Aedui once and for all. They succeeded, and one Aedui druid was sent to Rome to appeal to the senate for aid. A general, one Julius Caesar, decided to go and help defeat Ariovistus' expanding hegemony over Gaul. Caesar eventually defeated Ariovistus at the Battle of The Vosges (58 BCE), vanquishing the Suebi. However, the Gallic tribes began to feel discomfort over Caesar's continued garrisoning of the region... and the rest is history.
But what if Ariovistus had managed to defeat the Romans? Say, by another, less competent general being sent instead of Caesar.
Could his Celto-Germanic kingdom continue growing in size?

The Romans didn't technically "send Caesar against Ariovistus". He was assigned to be the governor of Transalpine Gaul (the Roman province which bordered the Aedui) in 58 BCE, and from there he began to act as an arbitrator in Gallic politics, and it was his individual prerogative to intervene against Ariovistus rather than that of the senate or the Republic at-large. However, Julius Caesar was not originally supposed to govern Transalpine Gaul when he was assigned his provinces after his year in the consulship. The man originally sent to govern the area was the consul in 60 BCE Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, but he died in Rome in 59 BCE before he could assume his command in Gaul, so Caesar was spontaneously assigned to govern Metellus' province in addition to the provinces already selected for him. So realistically, the only way for Caesar to not be involved in Ariovistus' war in Gaul would be for Metellus to survive his premature death in 59 BCE and pursue a policy of neutrality in the tribal wars going on in the North. Metellus himself was an able general: he had served under Pompey in the Third Mithridatic War and under Cicero during the Catalinarian Conspiracy, so it's likely that if Metellus decided to intervene to help the Aedui, the Romans would win the resulting battles.

Secondarily, the Gauls would eventually rise up against Ariovistus as readily as they did against Caesar. Even the Sequani, who had called Ariovistus across the Rhine, had grown weary of his treatment of their people, and they were among the tribes who requested the aid of Caesar, so any prolonged German rule in Gaul would probably be unsustainable. The only real way Ariovistus could've sustained a territorial empire in Gaul would be with the full support of the Romans, which is not totally unfeasible because Ariovistus had been declared a Roman ally by Julius Caesar in 59 BCE during his consulship. A powerful Caesar governing Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum could potentially provide a base of support for Ariovistus' burgeoning empire in Gaul, perhaps even in opposition to Metellus (who was himself aligned with Cato and the optimates)
 
Top