WI: More Celtic migration to the East

What happens if the Celts migrated more towards the East and less towards the West?

I suppose you meant La Tene expansion?

Eastwards migrations were pretty much jeopardized by Scythians and Thracians, quite powerful peoples. Illyrians could be more easily subdued admittedly.

La Tene expansion was probably as much made by migrations than acculturation of pre-celtic cultures (Ligurians) or assimilation to non indo-europeans groups (Celtiberians)

Finally, the main trade roads, and other attractive regions in east were less interesting than western ones (stain road, by exemple) and, as said, pretty much blockaded by other strong peoples.

Let's assume that, for whatever reason, Celts still expand estwards rather than westwards.
-I suppose that Ligurians could have kept a greater cultural expansion region even if unlikely and finally absorbated, and that Iberian expansion could have kept everything SW of OTL Auvergne.

-No Celtiberians.

-Less important Latenian presence in British Isles. Pre-Celtic civilisation probably flourish there.

-Celtic Illyria

-Latenian Gaul (including Cisalpine) still happens, just less present.

-Possible Celtic Dacia, and overhall, a greatest presence in Black Sea shores.

-Maybe more celtic influence in Southern Germania than OTL (or at least, no germanisation of the parts south of Danube and OTL Bohemia)
 
Last edited:

Germaniac

Donor
The pannonian plains are a very tempting target for any migratory groups. What if they decide to settle down, that would lead to some pretty interesting butterflies.
 
Well say goodbye to Macedon.

Celts managed barely to raid Macedon when they were in strong expeditions in the III century.
As these expeditions asked for develloped rear bases, you'll have more likely a slow penetration of territory (like Slavs did in medieval Balkans). And somehow, I I don't see Persians being too much happy about wandering peasant messing with their clients.
 
Celts managed barely to raid Macedon when they were in strong expeditions in the III century.
As these expeditions asked for develloped rear bases, you'll have more likely a slow penetration of territory (like Slavs did in medieval Balkans). And somehow, I I don't see Persians being too much happy about wandering peasant messing with their clients.

Macedon was a far different beast in the third century than they were before Phillip. Whether or not the Celts come, its safe to say Macedon wouldn't remain an independent state for long if there was no Phillip esque figure to lead them.

ANd I don't get what you mean by "Barely raid". It was a pretty large Celtic invasion that took the life of the king of macedon...not to mention, it penetrated into central Anatolia...
 
Macedon was a far different beast in the third century than they were before Phillip. Whether or not the Celts come, its safe to say Macedon wouldn't remain an independent state for long if there was no Phillip esque figure to lead them.
You don't say?

Seriously, Macedonia up to V° Century was in Persian sphere of influence. And, I repeat myself, there's no way what was the major power of the region would have allowed wandering tribes to take over just like that Macedon and settling the door to their Empire. More likely they would have been pushed back in Dacia or along the northern shore of Black Sea (or, if we try exotism, being used as mercenaries as well, and settling some place in Persian Empire where it would look great in Achemenid peoples' collection)


ANd I don't get what you mean by "Barely raid". It was a pretty large Celtic invasion that took the life of the king of macedon...not to mention, it penetrated into central Anatolia...

By that I mean it was a raid, nothing more. Not an invasion, not a tentative to take over the land : just basically kick Macedon ass, take their shinies and go back to home.

You'll argue of Galatia, but Celto-Illyrian goal was more to serve as mercenaries at first : once defeated and without possibility to turn back west , they settled and kept on the mercenary job.
Saying it could have destroyed Macedonia or another hellenistic kingdom is at best an exageration.
 
A Galatian Empire would be interested.

If Celto-Illyrians had a saying about this, they would have avoided settling Anatolian highlans : Bythinia, Thrace could be interesting, from where they could have created an equivalent of Bosphorus or even Pontic kingdom if really lucky.

But I don't know if it would have fit the OP of WKK : after all it would have been an hellenized kingdom more than a really celtic one...
 

katchen

Banned
Could Celts have migrated into the Mahgreb, moving east from the Straits of Gibraltar all the way to Cyrenaica? And what would the impact have been if the Celts had displaced the Amazigh (Berber) peoples, possibly driving some of them to Senegal?
 

katchen

Banned
Then again, could the Celts have conquered and butterflied out Rome, going all the way down the Italian Peninsula to Sicily (Magna Hellas)?
 
Could Celts have migrated into the Mahgreb, moving east from the Straits of Gibraltar all the way to Cyrenaica? And what would the impact have been if the Celts had displaced the Amazigh (Berber) peoples, possibly driving some of them to Senegal?

Eh. The Celt living styles would be woefully unprepared for any sort of displacement of the Amazigh. Granted at this time the camel had not been introduced so they were not full blown Nomadic Bad Asses they were still Semi Nomadic Bad Asses with plenty of interior holdings that the Celts would not be able to really extend into. At best I would say they would only be able to control a swathe of coast and bribe the Amazigh as much as possible.
 
Maybe more Celts in Ukraina and they conquer the Bosporan Kingdom.




It's a coin from the king Leucon II of Bosphorus, look at the shield, it's look like a celtic shield. Maybe the king Leucon fight with the Celt. If the Celt win they took the kingdom and can resist century.

3706_Leucon_II_AE.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top