Did the Romans consider Gaul conquered even before Caesar's campaigns?

**Aenima** · February 11, 2013, 08:01 AM

I'm reading Caesar's Gallic Wars at the moment, and one thing that strikes me is how the Gauls fighting the Romans is considered a "rebellion." This is incredibly odd to me, as I'd always thought of the Gauls, while not being unified, as being a collection of sovereign tribes (granted, some under the control of others) that didn't bend the knee to Rome. Granted, they had diplomatic relations with the Republic, but the impression I get from this book is that the Romans considered Gaul theirs long before Vercingetorix and his men were defeated, thus describing them as rebels, and their fight as a rebellion, or uprising, rather than a war against an invasion.

Anyone with a better understanding of the subject care to fill me in?

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · February 11, 2013, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Aenima

Anyone with a better understanding of the subject care to fill me in?

Wiki covers the political background well enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars

South-eastern Gaul (Transalpine Gaul) was already a Roman province before the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transalpine_Gaul

The Arveni were a Roman client state (Protectorate, in EB terminology) and the Aedui were Roman allies.

Remember, an alliance, in Roman terms, doesn't mean an equal partnership - it means Rome is the big guy (like the 20th Century USSR in the Warsaw Pact), the ally is the little guy who follows 'suggestions' without question (like 20th Century Poland or Rumania in the Warsaw Pact. And like Cold War Poland and Rumania, most of the Gallic tribes were former enemies of their powerful 'ally', and weren't exactly overjoyed to be under Roman hegemony, even though they hadn't been made into Roman provinces (yet).

**Aenima** · February 11, 2013, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Wiki covers the political background well enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars

South-eastern Gaul (Transalpine Gaul) was already a Roman province before the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transalpine_Gaul

The Arveni were a Roman client state (Protectorate, in EB terminology) and the Aedui were Roman allies.

Remember, an alliance, in Roman terms, doesn't mean an equal partnership - it means Rome is the big guy (like the 20th Century USSR in the Warsaw Pact), the ally is the little guy who follows 'suggestions' without question (like 20th Century Poland or Rumania in the Warsaw Pact. And like Poland and Rumania, most of the Gallic tribes were former enemies of Rome, and weren't exactly overjoyed to be under Roman hegemony, even though they hadn't been made into Roman provinces (yet).

Ahh, thanks, that makes sense. I was aware of the Roman ownership of land in southern Gaul, but had no idea that Rome was so politically involved with the rest of Gaul. I thought that Gaul was mostly alien to them, and that before the Aedui asking for help they didn't have any real involvement there.

Learn something new every day!

**Boriak** · February 11, 2013, 10:38 AM

This only confirms that Gaul was far from a barbarian country.

**Petite Wolf** · February 11, 2013, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Boriak

This only confirms that Gaul was far from a barbarian country.

Oh the Gallic tribes - and all other "barbarian" tribes - are far from barbarians. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn't know anything about them. I'm pretty sure the Romans considered anyone who wasn't Roman or Greek a barbarian, and the reason they're portrayed as barbarians IMO is because of how many written primary sources there are left over from Greeks and Romans and how few there are from "barbarian" tribes. This is because - IIRC - they passed down all their traditions and stories and such verbally rather than through literature.

As the EB slogan says, "Everyone is a barbarian to someone."

**Boriak** · February 12, 2013, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Petite Wolf

Oh the Gallic tribes - and all other "barbarian" tribes - are far from barbarians. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn't know anything about them. I'm pretty sure the Romans considered anyone who wasn't Roman or Greek a barbarian, and the reason they're portrayed as barbarians IMO is because of how many written primary sources there are left over from Greeks and Romans and how few there are from "barbarian" tribes. This is because - IIRC - they passed down all their traditions and stories and such verbally rather than through literature.

As the EB slogan says, "Everyone is a barbarian to someone."

In short, this only confirms that Gaul was far from a barbarian country.

**DizzyRainbow** · February 11, 2013, 05:27 PM

By calling it a rebellion, my interpretation is that Caesar was probably justifying his war against gaul with the senate.

How is that book, by the way? (sorry, kinda off subject but i'm curious)

**Aenima** · February 12, 2013, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by DizzyRainbow

By calling it a rebellion, my interpretation is that Caesar was probably justifying his war against gaul with the senate.

How is that book, by the way? (sorry, kinda off subject but i'm curious)

Oh, definitely. I've always heard it described as propaganda, but when reading it you really understand that it is. For example, assisting the Aedui isn't described as what it clearly was, a pretext to get Roman soldiers camped within Gaul, but instead you're given a picture that Caesar is valiantly defending the allies of the Republic, as mandated by the Senate. Such a good chap, that Caesar!

As for the book itself, I'm actually really enjoying it, highly recommend it if you've got spare time and feel like delving into a bit of history. What's weird, though, was seeing Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus, the main characters from HBO's TV series "Rome," mentioned here. Obviously HBO got inspiration from the book for them, and I already knew they'd lifted the names from this book, but it just felt weird seeing their names in a book that was originally penned before 1AD.

**Petite Wolf** · February 12, 2013, 05:39 AM

Pretty much. It just gets to me how many people think humans are so simple as to be able to be classified in to such things as "simple-minded, unwashed barbarian hordes" and "civilised people."

**Boriak** · February 12, 2013, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Petite Wolf

Pretty much. It just gets to me how many people think humans are so simple as to be able to be classified in to such things as "simple-minded, unwashed barbarian hordes" and "civilised people."

Most people here know better, I think. As to others... You can try to explain it to them. I try when I'm in a good mood. Some learn. Others: