In a scenario where the celts are prevented from entering the po valley, (perhaps by a combined effort of Etruscan cities) how would this affect the development of the region, and where would these tribes migrate to instead?
WI: No celtic settlement in northern Italy
- Thread starter Ancient_Soul
- Start date
I think this would be a very good POD for an Etruscan hegemony in Italy.
Maybe they go more towards the Balkans?
It seems very difficult to prevent Celtic crossing of the Alps though...
Maybe they go more towards the Balkans?
It seems very difficult to prevent Celtic crossing of the Alps though...
We do not know if Ligurians were ever a real ethno-linguistic group, not only is the name apparently a Greek exonym, we also have no Ligurian inscriptions.
While pre Roman Italy is not my strong suit, absent the clets I imagine the etruscans would be the obvious winners.. . As I recall there were Greek colonies along the adriatic as well. A "Romanesque") Northern Italy of Etruscan city states, Greek colonies, and Venetic tribes is intriguing. Does Rome remain just a regional power, absent the sack?
The issue is why the celts wouldn't enter into Italy at all.
The issue is why the celts wouldn't enter into Italy at all.
I think the wars with Veii were more important in setting the stage for Roman imperialism. The Gallic sack actually seems to have had surprisingly little impact on Rome's long-term trajectory (which is one of the reasons why most modern historians think that the Gauls were mostly interested in carrying off moveable goods, rather than completely demolishing the city as the ancient sources suggest).