Originally Posted by Power2the1
This was posted here I think by Ranika or somebody a long time ago I believe. Not sure how relevant it is here.
Vercingetorix's confederacy is often exaggerated way out of proportion. In truth, it was small and weak compared to any of the prior major powers of warring Gaul (we lack one; the Aquitanni/Lemovici alliance and their subjects). You have to realize, many Gauls, the soldiers and warriors particularly (what remained; most had been wiped out fighting eachother), were pretty staunch allies of the Romans, and Vercingetorix was not well-liked by most Gauls. He was seen as a tyrant, because he wanted to set himself up as king of Gaul. This didn't fly with the substantial number of tribes who wanted the magistrates back (the government which the Aedui inherited, the original government of Gaul). Some provided (substantially reduced) support to Vercingetorix, others withdrew their support entirely. He's not really much of a hero. He was, from the view of numerous other Gauls, self-serving, and not worth supporting (essentially considering 'What's the difference between a Gallic tyrant and a Roman tyrant?'; so little that there's no reason to fight for either).
Now, if we say no civil war, this assumes a few things. One, Ambicatus's kingdom of Gaul never collapsed. This means, probably, the Germanic invasions were repelled, and the Belgae probably more handily defeated (this matter was largely handled by the Carnutes). Two, there's been no crisis in this time that caused the little kings to lose faith in the magistrates. The Vergobret and the Gallic 'senate' are still in control of all of Gaul. We'll also assume that, for whatever reason, they've remained in more or less the same borders, though in reality the magistrates probably would have been accepting submission from numerous more tribes, and probably would've expanded more in Italy and conquered or otherwise subverted the central European Bononae (northern Boii) and maybe some Germans. However, for safety's sake, we'll just say they control a portion of northern modern Italy, modern France, a chunk of southeast Britain (where the Casse start in EB; they were effectively Gauls in most respects, and it had been part of the old kingdom), and pockets in northern Iberia.
Alright, so we have a substantial portion of Europe being administered by the magistrates, who handle grievances and deal with keeping the kings united against common threats, giving them a voice in the 'senate', and using the druids to reinforce the law and their own authority through religious means. It doesn't really matter what tribe then is 'leading' them, it may remain in the hands of the Biturges, or move to one of the wealthier traders in terms of power, but that means little if we're assuming it's united; whoever has the most power has kept Gaul in line, regardless. This means many things. Development of arms and armor is not slowed by borders (having to try and assimilate new developments by way of trade and copying first). So, innovation is going to spread quicker. Clan wars would still exist, but these are small affairs, and not near so devestating, b This means more urbanization; oppida appear earlier, and are refined sooner. Means there are more cities in Gaul, some possibly on the scale of earlier Manching (a much earlier Celtic city), or even larger along the main Gallic trade roads.
Gaul, then, already is more developed (which is a big point; one has to recognize that in terms of many arms and armor developments, the Gauls had outpaced the Romans for centuries in several areas, and were only recently overtaken in such developments by the applications of Marius's reforms, shortly before the conquest of Gaul; no mistake, those reforms have a huge impact on the viability of conquering Gaul), more heavily populated (larger population means larger armies, more innovaters among them, more invention yet, plus greater production in trade and business, meaning more money), and would be better developed in terms of infrastructure (to accomodate the larger population; the large oppida and such have very very well developed infrastructure to cope with dense local populations; such things would then likely be applied over a much wider area).
What would the Gallic army look like? Probably not too much different, really. However, EB has a kind of vision of it for late Gallic armies. The necessities of defending wider areas, with smaller portions of a populace, led to 'professionalization' of portions of the army. The warrior class is already, more or less, 'professional', but, with their lords providing them equipment, they'd be much more capable, with better quality weapons and armor than many could normally afford themselves. Also, due to the increase in development, and more workers due to the larger population, the price of helmets, mail, swords, etc., will all drop greatly, because there will be more people producing them, likely with methods advanced over those they had in a disunited Gaul. Before the collapse, Gauls (and Celts in general) were rapidly developing. They were innovative, creative people, who revolutionized many concepts of metalwork. However, in utter disunity, innovation travels slower, so they were, obviously, overtaken by their neighbors in the fields that had originally allowed them so much strength. Anyway, had they not been, the Gallic army would likely have cores of heavy infantry with spears, longswords, and javelins (rather similar to a legion, if 'looser'; such a thing was occuring in Galatia where they were free to develop in relative comfort due to their often good relations with neighbors and internal harmony), supported, as usual, by youth levies, militia-warbands, and others, as well as knights (the Brihentin), and probably a number of developments we can't speculate at because we never got a chance to see their earliest development (EB's 'Neitos' represent the shift the Gauls were taking to superior arms and professionally armed and equipped armies shortly before their end; not necessarily 'too little', but definitely came 'too late' to save Gaul).
So, the army is now larger, with larger cores of both heavy infantry, and heavy cavalry (the Brihentin would balloon in size as well, recall), and possibly the chariot refinements introduced in Britain. The Gauls already had a good grasp of tactics. Polybius is very clear on this; Telamon, despite being a loss for the Gauls, is clearly a sign of Gallic understanding of tactics, but they were still outnumbered and also ambushed; even so, they make a great account of themselves and their use of standard bearers is actually very impressive. Ambushed, they managed to draw up into two lines swiftly to try and repulse the enemy, with a battle line facing each side of the attacking force in very good order (Polybius even says the Romans were actually frightened how well they managed this; they were clearly quite disciplined in this matter). Again though, with a united Gaul, you have more innovators. So, tactically, they'll be more developed. Gauls already have a fair understanding of campaiging tactics (Brennos in Greece {different from Brennos who sacked Rome}; he knew how to concern the Greeks elsewhere, breaking off detachments to ravage the lands of various allies of his enemies, to draw them away, and used his often far more experienced troops to defeat the Greeks; if not for the storm at Delphi, he probably would've survived some time longer, though the reprecussions for sacking the temple, had he lived, would possibly have been something entirely different). So, they'll be more skilled tactically, so we can assume similar-to-better tactics than they can be noted as having done before.
We'll skip more extrapolation and go right to Roman war with Gaul. Pre-Marian Rome; probably wouldn't stand a chance at conquering Gaul. They really didn't stand much of one against a disunited Gaul, considering how hard a slog they had, often having to compromise, and such compromises were largely based on the ability to exploit disunity ('We'll provide you aide against X tribe'). Post-Marian could probably do it with some smart decisions. During Caesar's war with Gaul, there are two major factors to exploit. However, neither is really present here. Germanic incursions, while possibly still an issue, would not be nearly the threat they were to a disunified Gaul, which does not exist. There'd be no need to seek aide from the Romans (what got the Roman conquest of Gaul going anyway; remember that many parts of Gaul joined the Romans swiftly of their own choice to get aide against the Germans and their enemies in Gaul). So the only way Romans could enter Gaul is to invade. They won't have Gallic allies except dissidents. They'll definitely need more men. Also, a big unified Gaul undoubtedly has some allies. They would likely ally with Carthage out of their desire for trade; a unified Gaul providing soldiers to Carthage's campaigns in Italy during the Punic wars? Carthage may then still exist during the Roman invasion; Rome itself may be a non-factor or a portion of Carthage's state, in fact.
However, assuming Rome still survives to fight Gaul, it will invariably face a larger, stronger, and richer enemy. It'd probably be forced to focus on conquests elsewhere, and might ally itself with Gaul in this state to ensure not having to fight with them; even if they win, it'll be insanely hard fought, and a huge number of people will die. It's hardly impossible, but still, it'll look wholely different.
