Julius Ceasar defeated at Alesia

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Ok recently this is a follow up to the thread was closed for not being specific enough.

For those of you who aren't familar with Vercinggetorix's revolt, here's a short summary. Ceasar was in Britain for the second time when Vercigetorix bcame the king of the arverni and united the whole of Gaul in a revolt against the Romans. Ceasar quickly returned and they fought a scorched earth campaign against him. Eventually this led to the Battle of Alesia. Alesia was a big fort in which Vercigetorix and his army were surrounded by the Romans. The Romans built a huge double wall around the fort to protect them from the sallying defenders and any relief force. Eventually a huge relief army arrived and attacked. The Romans were massively outnumbered but they still won in the end.

What would have happened if the Gauls had destroyed the Roman army and killed Ceasar?

[DisgruntledGoat]

Considering the republic had been faced with social upheaval for centuries at that point, plebs vs. patricians, I don't think his death would have prevented a populist general from taking absolute power. Clearly with Caesar dead in 54BC Octavian would never become Augustus. Marcus Antonius may have tried something... but I don't think he would have had the character, or the popular backing, to oppose the senate. Likely, some other unknowable would have risen to power (perhaps with a parthian or german conquest). Anyways, my point is that his death would only be a delaying action for the onset of the empire.

[dacder]

Im pretty sure crassus would take power.

[Offensive Bias]

I'd think that Pompey the Great would try and avenge his death. Crassus was dead by this time, wasn't he? Or did he die in 53 BC?

[Mulattothrasher]

This is from a Celtic standpoint, and not a Roman one, as the Celts are much more interesting to me.

First off, Vercingetorix did not really unite "all of Gaul," although many tribes sent warriors to the cause of defeating the Romans. The Beglae are particular in their wanting to fight in their own way and not join a pan-Gallic confederation.

Anyway, if Uerkingetorix (his Gallic name), could have defeated Caesar, I think that the Gauls, or many of them, would have organized a counter offensive into the Provence at the least, to rid their brothers of the Roman yoke. In times of crisis, the Celts usually will appoint a single leader. This can be seen in Gaul, Britain, and Galatia. As Uerkingetorix had the support of many tribes, more tribes would come over to him and, in reality, most, if not all, of Gaul would lend him, the foremost warlord and savior of Gaul, their resources. Could a united Gaul defy the universe? Perhaps.

Going back to the Province, Uerkingetorix had already commanded nearby tribes to raid it, to divert Cesar's forces who, in spite of his so called invincibility and modern day form of hero worship, effectively cut off his own troops and their supply during all of this. Smart generalship that. Anyway, victory at Alesia would surely give the Gauls in Provence the means of gaining their territories and freedoms easily. The successes of the pro-Gallic factions would effective wipe away the pro-Roman factions in Gaul.

Uerkingotorix was firm on training and disciplining the men under his generalship as Cesar's records show before Alesia. His men in the, now former, Provence, would maintain garrisons there for tribes resisting his alliance and war would come to the region for tribes with pro-Roman tendencies. Infact, its also through that he was a Celtic knight in Roman cavalry, so would, as did Arminius, intimate knowledge of roman tactics, and also weaknesses.

Would Italy be a target? The Celts there had, since around 190 B.C., been controlled by the Romans. Would they, too, wish for their former independence, or were they too Romanized? If the answers is they wanted to return to formers glories, I am sure that the Gauls would assist, militarily, their Northern Italian brothers of throwing off the Roman yoke there.

This is interesting scenario, Uerkingetorix in Northern Italy, fresh off of successful campaigns against pro-Roman Gauls in his path. Here you have the Boii, Insubres, Senones (sackers of Romes hundred's of years before). Would Uerkingetorx invade central Italy and attempt to take Rome once again? Would he ally with Roman nobles or commoners. Would Rome enter truce negotiations? Who knows...

[hellheaven1987]

Vercinggetorix would probably get assasined before he could even try something...

[Mulattothrasher]

Quite true. Orgetorix of the Eluetoi (Helvetti) is mentioned as attempting to overreach the laws of his tribe's constitution and was killed. If Uerkingetorix, or any other leader attempted this, surely they'd be targets if assassination as well. However, others like Dumnorix, who attempted supreme power of the Aeduoi (Aedui) and, along with the Eluetoi, was attempting mastery over Gaul, was not killed, despite his involvement with Orgetorix and his bunch. Weird stuff.

[dacder]

I'd think that Pompey the Great would try and avenge his death. Crassus was dead by this time, wasn't he? Or did he die in 53 BC?

whoops I ment pompey
oh and alesia was 52b.c

[hellheaven1987]

Quite true. Orgetorix of the Eluetoi (Helvetti) is mentioned as attempting to overreach the laws of his tribe's constitution and was killed. If Uerkingetorix, or any other leader attempted this, surely they'd be targets if assassination as well. However, others like Dumnorix, who attempted supreme power of the Aeduoi (Aedui) and, along with the Eluetoi, was attempting mastery over Gaul, was not killed, despite his involvement with Orgetorix and his bunch. Weird stuff.

Well, Vercinggetorix controlled only a loss-confederation, so it is quite difficult to to imagine how that organization would not break into internal fight once the original purpose was fulfilled. It is more possible that Roman and Gaul would simply remain in stalemate, as internal problems would prevent any of them to act aggressively.

[Blarni]

From the Gallic point of view I suspect not a lot would have worked out for the better. A victorious Vercingetorix may - may - have galvanized Gaul into a more united front to challenge Rome, but I suspect with the common enemy gone his leadership would have then been ignored by his allies if not outrightly resisted.

In Rome itself I imagine conquering Gaul would have become a fixation as Parthia, Britain and Germany did for later emperors. Ultimately they would have pulled it off (assuming Caesar's death didn't completely alter its course) , there was simply too much going against the Gauls - they had enormous wealth, gold mines, a tribal/kingdom based culture easily picked off one at a time and a fertile country with few natural obstacles to make invading it too difficult and expensive (a luxury of the Germans).

[SigniferOne]

Anyway, if Uerkingetorix (his Gallic name), could have defeated Caesar, I think that the Gauls, or many of them, would have organized a counter offensive into the Provence at the least, to rid their brothers of the Roman yoke.

??

Why?

[conon394]

Would he ally with Roman nobles or commoners. Would Rome enter truce negotiations? Who knows...

I think the answer is obvious - Rome did not negotiate with Pyrrhus and not With Hannibal why would they negotiate with a Gaul? Why would either Roman commons or nobles see an outsider as someone to negotiate with? In reality the only result of Caesar's defeat if it produced a hostile to Rome quasi-stable coalition of Celtic tribes would be galvanizing Rome to action under the leadership of men like Pompey and Cassius - crushing Vercingetorix a few years later than J did.

[DisgruntledGoat]

I didn't address the gallic question in my post because, as conan has pointed out its rather obvious what would happen. Couple the earlier sack of rome by gauls the death of a pro-counsel of rome would put the people and the senate into an uproar. Gaul would have to be punished and rome would spare no expense to see it done.

[hellheaven1987]

I think the answer is obvious - Rome did not negotiate with Pyrrhus and not With Hannibal why would they negotiate with a Gaul? Why would either Roman commons or nobles see an outsider as someone to negotiate with? In reality the only result of Caesar's defeat if it produced a hostile to Rome quasi-stable coalition of Celtic tribes would be galvanizing Rome to action under the leadership of men like Pompey and Cassius - crushing Vercingetorix a few years later than J did.

I doubt that. It was highly possible that a group of Senate would simply stated Caesar got what he deserved and favored non-aggressive policies if Gaul was not hostile to Rome (which, considering the internal problems of Gaul confederation, was highly possible).

[conon394]

Lest this point be waved away it important to remember just what the situation was. The Social war was over and Italy was not only one of the mostly densely populated places in the Med but also now a fully integrated element of the Republic - its dissenters (in Italy) either appeased or eliminated. Rome controlled a vast amount of Imperial holdings beyond Italy and JC had been fighting his war with only a fraction of of the Republic/Empire's resources. In some ways the had Vercingetorix defeated JC and even looked like he could have kept some kind of coalition together he might have galvanized the Republic to actually conquer more of Western/Northern Europe than it did. A republic with a unity of purpose might have in one fell swooped deemed not just Gaul but everyone nearby needed to be schooled too. Don't forget while the Empire rued the loss of 3 legions the Republic usually just felt that was a reason to sent 6 or 12 next time...

---

doubt that. It was highly possible that a group of Senate would simply stated Caesar got what he deserved and favored non-aggressive policies if Gaul was not hostile to Rome (which, considering the internal problems of Gaul confederation, was highly possible).

Umm loss of Roman honor, threats to the friends of the Republic, memories of the sack of Rome and no Civil war issues (Pompey last man standing) - are you kidding me the Senate would easily have granted Pompey the charge to crush Gaul, avenge Rome (and appease the popular supports of JC) and deliver a killing in profits...

[DisgruntledGoat]

Don't forget. Germania WAS punished for the loss of the three legions. A succession of roman generals laid waste to province.

[hellheaven1987]

Lest this point be waved away it important to remember just what the situation was. The Social war was over and Italy was not only one of the mostly densely populated places in the Med but also now a fully integrated element of the Republic - its dissenters (in Italy) either appeased or eliminated. Rome controlled a vast amount of Imperial holdings beyond Italy and JC had been fighting his war with only a fraction of of the Republic/Empire's resources. In some ways the had Vercingetorix defeated JC and even looked like he could have kept some kind of coalition together he might have galvanized the Republic to actually conquer more of Western/Northern Europe than it did. A republic with a unity of purpose might have in one fell swooped deemed not just Gaul but everyone nearby needed to be schooled too. Don't forget while the Empire rued the loss of 3 legions the Republic usually just felt that was a reason to sent 6 or 12 next time...

However, we had to consider that Senate was not in a good relation with Caesar, and conquering Gaul was never an official policy of Republic. Unless Vercingetorix did something crazy like invading Republic, it was more possible that Senate would prefer to have at least a neutral, if not friendly, pro-Roman Gaul instead waging unnecessary war and justify Caesar's case in Gaul.

I don't see how Gaul would not turn pro-Roman anyway, since they seem unable to defend themselves well against German.

[Athenian Alexandros]

Rome would have eventually tried to conquer gaul anyway. Caesars destruction would only delay it, the succession of roman attacks on germania is a prime example. Romans always avenged their defeats and the loss of the legionary eagles would prompt a movement in rome to avenge the defeat. I can only really the gauls breaking up after the defeat of caesar, the germans didnt unite into a full confederacy after teutoburg forest so the gauls would more than likely have acted the same way.

[Offensive Bias]

That was only because Arminius was hated. Sure, they liked him well enough when he fought the Romans and won, but afterwards, he wasn't very well liked and was assassinated and his united confederacy tore itself apart. Unless Vercingetorix proved to be a good leader, then most likely the same would have happened. I think he would have forced tribal favouritism, favouring his own tribe against others and making a lot of enemies. Plus, sending the citizens of Alesia to die inbetween two armies wouldn't have helped his cause much either.

[hellheaven1987]

That was only because Arminius was hated. Sure, they liked him well enough when he fought the Romans and won, but afterwards, he wasn't very well liked and was assassinated and his united confederacy tore itself apart. Unless Vercingetorix proved to be a good leader, then most likely the same would have happened. I think he would have forced tribal favouritism, favouring his own tribe against others and making a lot of enemies. Plus, sending the citizens of Alesia to die inbetween two armies wouldn't have helped his cause much either.

Well, by the time of Siege of Alesia Gaulic tribes could be roughly divided into south and north. Hence a large scale broke down of Gaulic confederation into small tribual warfare again was quite unlikely, but it would most probably turn into a northern confederation against southern confederation, with southern confederation had full support from Roman.