WI: Romans Lose at Allia?

Whatever territory such empire could conquer and could be able to maintain, it needed a capital, some pivotal center from where the empire would be ruled.

There is no consensus as to which Celtic tribes arrived in Italy, nor as to whether they arrived in waves or as one chunk that subsequently spread throughout Italy dividing it into warring zones.

There is a good deal of possibility that Italy was settled from both northern Europe, and from Greece. I would assume that the Greeks traveled across the Adriatic and took over the country to the south of the line that runs above Rome and horizontally cuts Italy in two. North of the line, you would have Celts while south of the line a Hellenic ethnicity. That is not to say that Boii or other Celtic tribes had not settled in southern Italy, they may well have done so, but it was the Hellenes who took control of southern Italy. The territory known as Alba Longa became the future Rome.
 
Last edited:
Whatever territory such empire could conquer and could be able to maintain, it needed a capital, some pivotal center from where the empire would be ruled.

They're that far spread out, I don't think they would form themselves into a massive empire straight away. The Celts were no different than the Greeks in the respect that they extended their culture over a wider geographic area, but were never truly unified as a people. Any Celtic empire would concievibly develop in Gaul, Italy, or in the Balkans.

There is no consensus as to which Celtic tribes arrived in Italy, nor as to whether they arrived in waves or as one chunk that subsequently spread throughout Italy dividing it into warring zones.

The Cisalpine Celtic tribes arrived in northern Italy in seperate waves. The Insubres, whom may have founded Milan in Lombardy, were amng the first to arrive in the 600's BCE. The Lingones, the Boii, and the Senones arrived in Italy in 400 BCE.

There is a good deal of possibility that Italy was settled from both northern Europe, and from Greece. I would assume that the Greeks traveled across the Adriatic and took over the country to the south of the line that runs above Rome and horizontally cuts Italy in two. North of the line, you would have Celts while south of the line a Hellenic ethnicity. That is not to say that Boii or other Celtic tribes had not settled in southern Italy, they may well have done so, but it was the Hellenes who took control of southern Italy.

Magna Graecia/Megale Hellas, from the Eighth Century BCE, was settled by colonists from various city-states. Rhegion (Reggio di Calabria) was settled by the inhabitants of both Chalcis and Messenia in 720 BCE. Taras (Tarentum/Taranto) was the only overseas settlement founded by Spartans in 706 BCE. Neopolis (Naples) was settled by Euboeans. And Syracuse was founded in 734 by colonists from Tenea and Corinth.

Further inland in the south, Oscan-speaking peoples such as the Samnites and the Lucanians inhabited the regions of Calabria and Apulia. While before the coming of the Celts, the Etruscans were dominant in Latium, Umbria, Etruria (Tuscany), and as far as modern Lombardy.

The territory known as Alba Longa became the future Rome.

Alba Longa was supposedly toppled from its position as hegemon of the Latin League by Rome in the Seventh Century BCE.
 
It seems one tactic adapted by the Celts in eastern Europe and Anatolia to deal with the Hellenistic Phalanx was arming some of their warriors with shortswords and smaller roundshields, where they would charge forward, roll beneath the first rank of the Sarrissa-armed troops, and gut them, creating a gap in the front line so the rest kindred could charge through it. Probably while in wedge-formation.
 
Alba Longa is considered to be the birthplace of Rome. Whoever the ancient people inhabiting the area around future Rome were, either their descendants or their invaders gained control of the region. If we are talking invaders, then there is quite a few to choose from. I use Alba Longa for proto Roman to distinguish the territory around Rome from its neighbors. To separate early Celts from Italics may turn out to be difficult; however, against the wave theory speaks the distribution of italic dialects throughout Italy. They don’t have a close kin outside Italy, none of them has. They either developed in situ and diversified a long time into the past, or were brought in one or two waves relatively recently, I’ll take your time line for granted here, and were distributed across the country. You need to admit that the original set out place is missing.
 
Alba Longa was the legendary birthplace of Romulus and Remus, the former being the founder of Rome. Rome would later subjugate Alba Longa during the reign of Hostus Hostilius, the third King of Rome.

Latin has plenty of Etruscan, Celtic, and Greek loanwords. Carpentum (cart), Lancea (light spear), Gaesum (long spear), Materis (javelin), and Caballus (horse) were imported from the Gallic language.
 
Romulus and Remus are legendary characters. They probably didn’t exist. You have Celtic tribes coming to Italy around the time the Romans begun subjugating the nearest to Rome landscape. Then you have waves of immigrants coming to southern Italy, also around the same time. Two ethnicities within Italy begin to develop; the southern formed by the Greeks and the northern formed by the Celts. Also, you have the local Etruscans, presumably toward the north, but they also appear around Napoli. Who were the Romans themselves? Given that Alba Longa had been conquered, they must have been outsiders.
 
So you might end up with an area of Celtic cultural dominance roughy equivalent to OTL's Rome? It's unlikely that any one power would be able to unite these areas seeing as they have roughly equivalent technologies and statecraft and the whole Euro-Med region would be divided into Celtic-dominated states, heavily influenced by the Greeks. Combining Celtic weaponry, tactics and ferocity with Greek discipline... Awesome thought.

Hellenistic culture would still remain strong in the eastern Mediterranean even if they were conquered by Celtic mercenary armies. I should probably exclude the Seleucid Syrians from this fate, unless their empire somehow breaksdown or the Parthians succeed despite the removal of Rome from the picture. But I can certainly see the kindoms of Macedonia, Epirus, Pergamon, Bithynia, Pontos, and at a stretch, Egypt, eventually falling to either a rebellion by Celtic mercenaries, or expansionist Celtic states from Italy or the Balkans by the First Century CE. Tribal unions based in Gaul would have to eliminate their immediate rivals before expanding outward.

Religion throughout this area would probably resemble that of the Scordisii in your Sweboz TL, but on a greatly expanded scale, with priests proseltyzing among the Jews, Dacians and Germanics, bringing the area into a sort of religious unity, which combined with competition between medium-large scale states could lead to very fast discoveries and dissemination of ideas. Hm, a sort of European Hinduism, if you will, a polytheistic religion with an organized structure and great local variation, although likely lacking such a firm caste system.

I reckon the Scordisci and the Galatians may have had their own equivelant to the Druid Caste, so if they stepped up their game in a Rome-less ATL, we could see some serious developments in theology and religious practice. But competition may occur from the Thraco-Dacian cult of Zalmoxis, a sort of proto-Monotheism native to eastern Europe.

I think before there is a chance of Jewish conversion to European Celtic Polytheism, the Temple would have to be destroyed. The Diaspora Jews used the Oral Torah, so they would likely diverge into seperate fringe-cults, or would gradually forget their heritage and assimilate with the dominant culture.

Linguistically, the Celtic languages, specifically the Gaulish parent to the languages in Gaul, Italy, the Balkans and Galatia, will eventually diverge a la Vulgar Latin into the Romance languages. Iberia, Britain and Ireland will be a bit different, provided they stay out of the Gaulish zone of conquest. Iberia, in particular, could go a few different ways, Punic, Celtic, Celtiberian, Iberian, probably one or two others I'm forgetting.

Unless Carthage's ruling elite is replaced by ambitious military strongmen, it will soon be conquered by new dynamic empires from the northern Mediterranean, or subsumed by the increasingly unified and Punicized native Libyan kingdoms, such as Numidia.

Spain could be unified eventually by the Lusitani or the Celtiberian Arevaci, or be conquered over time by a united Gaul.

So, I'm seeing a Helleno-Gaulish cultural fusion more or less dominant in the European-Mediterranean region, with some very strong local variation in Egypt and Syria, and slightly less strong in Germania, Dacia, Spain, the Isles and North Africa. This, however, basically hinges on little further expansion, and assumes that these states don't tend towards a large-scale political unity. If some Celtic Empire does result, with the same assimilationist tendencies as Rome, well, Egypt would remain distinctive, linguistically and religiously, but otherwise, much more uniformity.

I envision that a Scordisci-Boii-Volcae alliance topples Macedonia, establishes a new kindom as far south as Thessaly, and exacts tribute from the Greek city-states after repeated military raids and sackings.

The Davas (fortified cities) of Dacia could oppose Celtic dominance in the Balkans, and use the Cult of Zalmoxis as a unifying ideology.

Continued reliance on mercenaries due to frequent wars with the Seleucids may make Ptolemaic Egypt prone to uprisings by either native Egyptians or dissatisfied soldiers. Sizable contingents of Gallic or Galatian warriors could band together, and seize key cities along the Nile. A successful Celtic takeover could see the new ruler adopt the the title of Pharoah, seek the support of the native priesthoods, and assimilate gradually into the Hellenized populace.

The British Celtic tribes could gradually form into larger polities, or be subsumed by a growing Gallic empire. When it comes to this ATL's version of the Viking Age, it would be interesting to see how far the large ships of the Gallic Venetii tribe would be improved upon. Settlement in Iceland could could occur earlier by the Irish. Maybe further trips may take them as far as North America.

Germania could become another target of Gallic colonization, or completely adopt Celtic culture as their own. Some tribes, the Belgae, Helveti and the Treveri may have been Germanic in origin.

Also, a form of democracy may well be adopted by most of these states, Celtic and Athenian practices mesh well in this area.

Some Celtic tribes practiced a republican form of government (the Aedui). If the Celts come to dominate in Greece, they may leave the governmental structures of the individual Greek city-states intact, provided they recognize them as their overlords, and pay them tribute. Down the centuries Greek-style temple compounds could be administered by a professional priestly class descended or derived from the Druids. The Oracles could be used by Hellenic Druids as a way of interpreting the Will of the Gods.

I'm really liking this idea, by the way, don't remember if I said that already.

Glad you like it.:)
 
Last edited:
Romulus and Remus are legendary characters. They probably didn’t exist. You have Celtic tribes coming to Italy around the time the Romans begun subjugating the nearest to Rome landscape. Then you have waves of immigrants coming to southern Italy, also around the same time. Two ethnicities within Italy begin to develop; the southern formed by the Greeks and the northern formed by the Celts. Also, you have the local Etruscans, presumably toward the north, but they also appear around Napoli. Who were the Romans themselves? Given that Alba Longa had been conquered, they must have been outsiders.

Romulus and Remus are more likely based on real people whom existed in a pre-literate culture, and whose' exploits were embellished over the centuries. The Latin groups lived on the margins of greater cultures like the Etruscans, the Phoenicians, and the Greeks. The Latins are considered an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group whom long resided in the Italian Peninsula. Their civilization was influenced by the Etruscans, whom themselves were not Indo-European, and could have migrated from Anatolia (they were a maratime power from the start), or could have originated beyond the Alps.
 
That’s fine, but the Romans or their ancestors were nothing else than another IE tribe residing in Italy. They were surrounded by IE tribes. When waves of the Celtic tribes started coming to Italy around 700BC, the ethnical and linguistic landscape of Italy underwent major makeover. These Celts are suspected to become actual Oscans, Umbrians, and also, around the future Rome, Romans. Nothing exceptional about the immediate ancestors of Rome save for the fact that they would later swallow up the rest.

I am not convinced that the Celts begun arriving at around that time, I take here your word for granted. If that was the case; then you have the building of the Roman state following the Celtic expansion into Italy, the two events shortly spaced from one another on the time line. There is a problem here given that the Italic tribes at the time of the early Rome had already become differentiated and quite distinctly so. It is more likely that they already had been established throughout Italy for centuries before the first signs of the early Rome started to appear. Within this period Italic Celts had become separated from Gaul’s and other Celtic tribes living north of the Alps.

Etruscan origin is unclear. The best bet is to give them the status of the original inhabitants. For one, without them, you would have an empty Italy, which was not the case and no one really to put in place of them.

Where do you source your theory about the wavelike arrival of Celts into Italy in the period 800 to 400 BC from?
 
That’s fine, but the Romans or their ancestors were nothing else than another IE tribe residing in Italy. They were surrounded by IE tribes. When waves of the Celtic tribes started coming to Italy around 700BC, the ethnical and linguistic landscape of Italy underwent major makeover. These Celts are suspected to become actual Oscans, Umbrians, and also, around the future Rome, Romans. Nothing exceptional about the immediate ancestors of Rome save for the fact that they would later swallow up the rest.

The Oscans and Latin peoples are descended from even earlier migrations of Indo-Europeans. So they are not descended from the Celts. The Celts of the Hallstatt Culture appear in the historical record as early as 1200 BCE. With the La Tene Culture appearing around 500-550 BCE.

I am not convinced that the Celts begun arriving at around that time, I take here your word for granted. If that was the case; then you have the building of the Roman state following the Celtic expansion into Italy, the two events shortly spaced from one another on the time line. There is a problem here given that the Italic tribes at the time of the early Rome had already become differentiated and quite distinctly so. It is more likely that they already had been established throughout Italy for centuries before the first signs of the early Rome started to appear. Within this period Italic Celts had become separated from Gaul’s and other Celtic tribes living north of the Alps.

The development of the Roman state occured independently of the Celtic migrations into Italy.

Etruscan origin is unclear. The best bet is to give them the status of the original inhabitants. For one, without them, you would have an empty Italy, which was not the case and no one really to put in place of them.

The Alpine Raetian people may have been related to the Etruscans. The Y-chromosome Haplegroup G, which is considered rare enough in most of Europe, is found in the modern inhabitants of the Tyrol region of Austria.

Where do you source your theory about the wavelike arrival of Celts into Italy in the period 800 to 400 BC from?

Titus Livius and Diodorus Siculus are the two earliest literary sources that I know about.
 
Last edited:
I'm bumping this in the hopes of restarting the discussion by the time I wake up tomorrow.

Lysandros posited a Gaulish conquest of Carthage earlier up. Now I'm wondering what the resulting society would look like. Gaul-dominated, politically, but most of the merchants would probably still be Punics, resulting in an interesting balance of power. What would be the extent of Gaulish settlement in Africa? Enough to change the language and/or religion completely? Probably not, just trying to get the conversation started.

Anyway, respond.
 
Top