Was there a Kingdom of Britain before Caesar?

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Thankyou MisterFred, this; "Military matters are simply a subset of politics, nothing more." pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say. Hannibal defeated the Roman military pretty comprehensively at Trebia and Carrhae, and it is almost certain that the internal politics of Carthage was what put paid to Hannibal then marching onto Rome - instead Hannibal was restricted to what became a pointless and protracted campaign through Italy which ended up strengthening the ties between Rome and her Italian allies. It was the relative political unity of Rome, and the factional politik within Carthage that undid Hannibal - not the 'military might' of Rome.

When Viriathus waged war with those barbaric Lusotanians, how did the mighty Roman military overcome them? With the military superiority one should expect, given your account of Roman success? No, by bribing his emmissaries to Rome, who killed him in his sleep. And something very similar is likely to have occured with Quintus Sertorius.

How did the might of Rome deal with Jugurtha? By defeating him comprehensively on the battlefield? No, by having him betrayed and handed to them as a prisoner by King Bocchus.

To the suggestion that "Son, if it wasn't for Rome there probably would be no such thing as a modern Europe. France, Spain, and Italy, are all products of the social, political, and cultural structures that the Romans established."...; ignoring the condescending opening, are you suggesting that Europe would have sunk into the ocean had Rome not kept it afloat? What do you mean by such hyperbole? And then, in order to argue the predominant importance of the military of Rome you espouse the "social, political and cultural structures" that Rome "established"?! I'm not sure I understand how the implementation of social, political and cultural structures undermines, in any way, my argument that it was the political acumen of Rome that was, ultimately, their greatest strength... (I would also add that the diocese of France were based upon, as you say, the provinces/civitas of Roman Gaul which were based upon..... the tribal affiliations of pre-Roman Gaul - in other words, that the social, political and cultural structures that Rome "established"' were, in fact, the use of pre-exisitng structures.

You seem, if I understand you correctly(Slicknica), to believe the (Roman propogandist) idea that Europe would have been a cultural backwater were it not for them.. but there were clearly political/cultural progressions going on within these areas while outside of Roman influence. But, you are right in one respect, Rome has had a profound effect on modern Europe. Who were the allies within the Barbarion factions that Rome relied upon? Well, those souls who would feed the slave trade that Roman patricians relied upon more and more ( and by which they devalued the rights of lesser Roman citizens), in other words those who would sell their own people for a tidy profit in their own 'pocket', or for a few amphora of wine. That's a good starting point for all social, political and cultural structures, I'm sure. So, likely the feudal system that predominated in Europe through the medieval period is a result of Rome's intervention. Hooray for slavery and serfdom. Also the most intolerant political/religious hegemony in history can be laid at their doorstep. Hooray for religious persecution and patrician mysogeny.

Ahem...., so, back to the original point of this thread. I'll thank you again for your surety as to the political/social set-up of pre-Roman Britain, and I hope you can forgive my rudeness in preferring to take note that some serious historians, who have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to understand what can be understood from this period, really don't know. All I was asking - in a nutshell - was, is it worthwhile /historical to even have a strong political entity within Britain during the period of the late Republic. Thanks to oudysseos I think that any faction would have to be linked to a Belgic faction...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

As a point of discussion; Alesia is, on the face of it, a simple military blunder by Vercingetorix. I see this military blunder as being precipitated by the political instability of the Gallic uprising that he lead. Vercingetorix, I would argue, based his decision to remain within Alesia on the basis of the political situation he faced.

In order to even begin the rebellion he had to face down factions of the nobility within his own tribe. When the Aedui joined the uprising they attempted to have the command of it transferred to them - away from Vercingetorix. We see his internal enemies raise their heads again following the siege of Avaricum. There he was accused of 'treason' for having left the army without a commander. He managed to overcome these accusations by rightly showing how the army were left in a position unfavourable to attack by their enemies (as Caesar attests).

So, here he is at Alesia. The best military decision that he could make would have been to have escaped with his cavalry in order to co-ordinate the relief of Alesia. That way Caesar would be turned from the besieger to the besieged - with little hope of relief himself. So, Vercingetorix made a simple tactical blunder? I think that he knew that leaving Alesia un-commanded would have been the end of him, so he was left to trust to the military co-ordination ofothers....not all of whom were (perhaps) quite as...... committed as he was to ridding Gaul of the Romans.

Had Vercingetorix had the political power to do so he would almost certainly have escaped Alesia. He could not because the Gauls were divided by internal politicking.