there's almost never going to be a point in were you can say with certainty that you've found all possible remains of that time and place and that the pure random luck of millennia hasn't just destroyed the relevant evidence while sparing what exists today. Proving a negative from over two thousand years ago is no easy task and just assuming that you've done it and the question is now completely solve is not really good practice. The lack of evidence is a good data-point to bring up along with all the other evidence and written sources in weighing which outcomes you think might be more probable then others, but not to just bylthely drop as "uh, actually Rome was never sacked by the Gauls".
WI: Celts win the Battle of Telamon, and sack Rome?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
-
- Tags
- celts roman republic romans
Out of curiosity, what's the archaeological evidence for the Gothic and Vandal sacks of rome?
Few evidence actually, since both were also more focused on plundering rather than destroying. The pavement of the Basilica Emilia still has traces of burnt coins which melted within it during the 410 sack, but in both cases diplomacy saved Rome from a much more devastating fate. These are also facts we’re aware of since we have the testimony of people contemporary to those events who saw it with their own eyes or knew people who did, so even if there were no traces at all, they would be 100% irrefutable.
You’re right, but the buildings are there, the burning isn’t, and there are no absolutely reliable accounts on the matter. Besides, I said, in light of archeology, and archeology alone, there are no traces of the disastrous sack Livy reports. I’m not debating the fact Rome was plundered and her goods stolen, I’m saying it was never destroyed like the author of the thread suggested might happen if the Gauls defeated Rome in 225. Is it certain Rome wasn’t destroyed? No, nothing is about that period, but all evidence suggests that very likely no destructive sack happened. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Can it be possible that the same is true here for the sack of Rome? As I see it there are a few different things to consider: Something happened between a band of mostly Gallic soldiers and the Romans around that time that halted or slowed Roman ascendancy for a time, and that left an indelible mark on the Roman psyche, so that the Romans always had a sense of fear and anger towards Gauls. There are no contemporary accounts of it because there are almost no contemporary accounts of any of Roman history at this time. Later Roman annalists, writers, politicians, etc. played it up and possibly exaggerated it, and mixed in a lot of "lessons," cliches and fabrications into the common story over time. And that there is little to no archaeological evidence that it actually happened.
Finally, we have the common modern suggestion that this was actually a band of mercenaries passing through and plundering, rather than a migratory tribe. Assuming that's the case, it seems to me here that the safest conjecture is that there was a sack of some sort, focused on plundering rather than destroying. This is something that would particularly make sense if this was a band of mercenaries, who would be more interested in gold and other valuables than destruction. It would also play into the common story told between Brennus's Gauls and the weighted scales-which also suggests that those who sacked the city were primarily interested in gold. In that case, there might not be much archaeological evidence of the sack, which would fit our current dearth of such evidence.
From there you can say it's size, scale, and impact were exaggerated by subsequent generations of Romans, who also invented much of the details. This seems like a far more reasonable explanation than calling into question whether Rome was actually sacked at all. If this is the point you were trying to make, I apologize for the long winded tangent, but it wasn't entirely clear. Though I will say, when a lot of people mention "sack" on here, I assume it includes just a plundering, and they're not always referring specifically to great physical destruction (as, as you mentioned, was also the case in the Gothic sack of Rome).
Yeah, I realize it wasn’t that clear, I should have just said “there would probably be no terrible sack in 225 since there was no terrible sack in 390”.
The thread is getting derailed, we need to get back to the subject, what if the Celts had won Telamon and sacked Rome? If Rome can't be sacked, then what effects would a Telamon victory have?
If the Celts won at Telamon, they would have continued their withdraw, even more weighed down by plunder than they were when they began to do so for just that reason. What remains of the Roman forces fall back to a more defensible position, and the Roman forces (which apparently numbered 40,000, though I have serious doubts about that figure tbh) that were sent to raid Boii territory are recalled. Perhaps they even encounter the Gaesatae forces on their way back, or they don't. In any case, the war resumes and Rome does not get sacked.