No announcement yet.

Vercingetorix defeats Julius Caesar

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vercingetorix defeats Julius Caesar

    Vercingetorix is successfully relieved at Alesia, destroys the bulk of Caesar's forces and kills him (a Celtic Teutoberg Forest result). -slain when spotted rallying his troops to resist [shades of John Reynolds at Gettysburg ] Given that the Celts were also engaged in a debilitating struggle with the Germans, would this insure a Celtic northwestern Europe? Or would there be a Roman reaction akin to their setbacks with Carthage and spur them on all the more to react to the disaster? Assume he avoids the fate of Arminius and leads, even if more as a leader of disparate factions then as a dictator.

    One thing (among many ) I do not know, how was the topography (forests, etc.) of 1st Century B.C. Gaul in comparison to Germany? Could the Celts, with a modicum of continued unity) have maintained effective resistance.

    If so, you get into an interesting alternate history, with Celtic and Germanic spheres of influence making things "interesting" for geopolitics with the Roman and Parthian powers to their south and east. And, of course, with Celtic Britain developing quite differently.
    Last edited by Tuor; 21 Nov 09, 21:09.

  • #2
    The Celts had a sophistcated civilzation compared to the Germans, in some ways equal to Rome. If the Celts can defend against the Romans the Germans could take them down for there was one weakness even the Romans could exploit: The upper classes were passionate, intempermate fighters like the Anti-bellum southern plantation owner, and they basicly enslaved the other 90-95% of the population. By this time the Roman republic was no stranger to enselfed peasants. Nonetheless, the Romans were able to hold the land in Gaul better than Germany because the Gaulic peasants were freer than they were under the rule of their old classes. If an Arminus could crack the defenses of the Celts, and they could do this easier than take the Romans, game over.

    It is fair to call the Germans uncivilized, but they were free. No real farms and villiages that could be taken down in week meant there was no chance at the power aquisition the Gaulic lords could do. It also made them unconquerable until Charlemane. There was no way to pacify Germany and make a profit doing it.

    As for Rome...Romans never forgave the Celts as a race for the sack of Rome circa 300-400 BC. Romans were afraid of Celts, and if it hadn't been for overstrech, they would have eventually conquered Scotland and Ireland to make sure it never happened again. Trust me, I just read Romans and Barbarians and the guy who conquered souther Scotland seriously considered going to Ireland, but lacks the logistics to do that AND fight the Picts. So yeah, I see Pompey being sent end to whup the Celts, which probably would have happened. The later debacle at Dyrracium was launched to satify the Senators in his camp.

    Now with no Ceasar, the Augustan reorganization becomes impossible, as Octavian cannot use Ceasar's name to liquidate the guts of the Republic. Without real reform, the Repbulican senators will still crush the non-Romans with horrible, illeagal taxes, demand new conquests. The Republic, without a fixed army can raise a lot more soldiers and could conquer all of Britian, but be best on Greeks, ad nausium rebelling against tyranical taxes and the would be warlords overthrowing the Senate every few years. This could be the end of the Republic, unless there comes some administrative genius to rally the less greedy particians to reform the nature of the republic, and restore old Roman respect for the rule of law, namely the 12 tables. That Rome would be better than the one we got, but who could do this without becoming an Emperor in all but name?
    How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
    275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird


    Latest Topics