What If Ceasar was killed at Alesia

[Littlefoot]

If this has been asked already I apologize, but I didn't see it in the search. Anyway, Ever since I read Caesar’s "the Gallic Wars" I have often thought that the Battle of Alesia, namely the third day after the Gaul relief army arrived, was the most pivotal moment in history. I think this because if Caesar had died when he rode into the lines to rally his men, and if Vercingetorix had survived to lead a unified Gaul, then the loss of both the "Invincible" Caesar and his legions, mercenaries, and a pacified Gaul would not only limit the expansion of Rome, but her enemies would see their weakened state and launch invasions of lower Italy and Egypt would break away. Even If they were not invaded, Roman legions would still have to re-invade Gaul with no friendly tribes to help them out. And not to knock Pompey (spelling?), but he was no Caesar and would not have been as successful on the field. He probably would have been elected to be Protector in the immediate aftermath incase the Gauls came south and other hostile nations either attacked or broke away from the Empire. In any event, I do not see Rome becoming the great empire of our history that it was, and I doubt that they would have survived very much past the 30's or 20's BC. I am curious to see how members here think the rest of Roman History would have played out following Caesar’s death at Alesia. And in specific: 1) would Gaul have been re-invaded? (If yes and fail, or no, then would the Gauls adopt a written language and if they do not how would this affect things?) 2) Would the library at Alexandria have been burned? 3) Would Rome still have executed Jesus? 4) What would the modern world look like today based on your answers?

Any help cleaning this up or suggestions for more focused questions are appreciated.

[Thanas]

If this has been asked already I apologize, but I didn't see it in the search. Anyway, Ever since I read Caesar’s "the Gallic Wars" I have often thought that the Battle of Alesia, namely the third day after the Gaul relief army arrived, was the most pivotal moment in history. I think this because if Caesar had died when he rode into the lines to rally his men, and if Vercingetorix had survived to lead a unified Gaul,

What makes you think he would have enough support to lead a unified Gaul in the first place? And really, most pivotal moment in history?

then the loss of both the "Invincible" Caesar and his legions, mercenaries, and a pacified Gaul would not only limit the expansion of Rome, but her enemies would see their weakened state and launch invasions of lower Italy and Egypt would break away.

Why? What weakened state? Caesar's troops were not part of the official roman order of battle. There is no reason that Egypt would break away, since Pompey still exists. The only threat might be the gauls launching an invasion, but really, they have far bigger problems - namely the roman client states in gaul and of course the germans and their incursions. Besides, Vercingetorix' coalition really is not the instrument for offensive actions.

Even If they were not invaded, Roman legions would still have to re-invade Gaul with no friendly tribes to help them out. And not to knock Pompey (spelling?), but he was no Caesar and would not have been as successful on the field.

Don't write off Pompeius - his campaigns were masterpieces, especially his campaign against the pirates. He also outmaneuvered Caesar on several occasions and inflicted a disastrous defeat against him at Dyrrhachium. By all accounts, it was Caesar who should have lost the battle at Pharsalus, not Pompeius.

He probably would have been elected to be Protector in the immediate aftermath incase the Gauls came south and other hostile nations either attacked or broke away from the Empire. In any event, I do not see Rome becoming the great empire of our history that it was, and I doubt that they would have survived very much past the 30's or 20's BC.

And your argument for this is...where, exactly?

I am curious to see how members here think the rest of Roman History would have played out following Caesar’s death at Alesia. And in specific: 1) would Gaul have been re-invaded? (If yes and fail, or no, then would the Gauls adopt a written language and if they do not how would this affect things?)

Yes. Roman prestige would need a resounding victory over the gauls, and this time the whole might of the republic (which was able to field around 60 legions after all) will be coming for them.

2) Would the library at Alexandria have been burned?

That question is idiotic, as there is no reason for there to not be another civil war in the next 1800 years or so.

3) Would Rome still have executed Jesus?

Why do you even ask such a question?

4) What would the modern world look like today based on your answers?

Impossible to say.

[TC Pilot]

then the loss of both the "Invincible" Caesar and his legions, mercenaries, and a pacified Gaul would not only limit the expansion of Rome

Why would a defeat at Alesia stop Roman expansion? Not even Teutoburg did that.

but her enemies would see their weakened state and launch invasions of lower Italy

Who could possibly invade southern Italy?

and Egypt would break away.

Egypt didn't even break away when Rome was in the middle of a civil war. Why woud they do so now?

Even If they were not invaded, Roman legions would still have to re-invade Gaul with no friendly tribes to help them out.

Why would they have to re-invade?

And not to knock Pompey (spelling?), but he was no Caesar and would not have been as successful on the field.

Why?

In any event, I do not see Rome becoming the great empire of our history that it was, and I doubt that they would have survived very much past the 30's or 20's BC.

What are you talking about? Rome already controlled the civilized world and had systematically crushed any and all opponents to their hegemony of the Mediterranean world. It was quite safe from backwater barbarian hordes.

[Littlefoot]

Gaul was united behind Vercingetorix, the only states not behind him were those few sided with Caesar. With no Roman presence in their lands, they would have no reason to stay loyal with their brothers united against them. Vercingetorix's army may not have been offensive in nature, but that does not mean the senators would see an army of 100k+ that way or that Gauls could not now convince others more suited to offence to join them. The Goths and the Gauls had no love for each other, but does anyone see the Goths not involved at Alesia turning down a chance to loot Rome itself? As to Rome's client states in Gaul, how often did they act on Rome's behalf without a legion or ten in their territory? With no immediate Roman threat the Gauls would have time to assess their situation and realize the full extent of Caesar's campaign against them. Revenge is a strong motivator, especially among warriors. This could put Vercingetorix in a hard position. On one hand he needs to consolidate his position and bring the rest of the tribes under his control. He needs to prepare for a possible invasion from Rome. As for Rome itself, Did they even have 60 legions at this time? I will have to look into that. Egypt would break away why? Because they were a Vassel state and with Rome's attention in the North they would have the opportunity to do so. I asked the question about the Library because IF Egypt broke away and IF Rome sent reinforcements to the legions there (if they weren't recaled to deal with the Gauls) they would have to retake Alexandria. The battle would be land based, though the Romans may still have set fire to the harbor.

then the loss of both the "Invincible" Caesar and his legions, mercenaries, and a pacified Gaul would not only limit the expansion of Rome

Why would a defeat at Alesia stop Roman expansion? Not even Teutoburg did that.

Teutoburg was a loss, but not nearly as bad as losing the vast majority if not all of the legions north of the Alps.

[Thanas]

Listen, Littlefoot, use some spaces and punctuation between your sentences. I already have a burning hate for Alternate History and reading your posts does nothing but stoke the fires.

Gaul was united behind Vercingetorix, the only states not behind him were those few sided with Caesar. With no Roman presence in their lands, they would have no reason to stay loyal with their brothers united against them.

And you base this on...what, exactly?

Vercingetorix's army may not have been offensive in nature, but that does not mean the senators would see an army of 100k+ that way or that Gauls could not now convince others more suited to offence to join them.

Yes it does. Do you even know how limited the time window for the gauls to campaign is?

The Goths and the Gauls had no love for each other, but does anyone see the Goths not involved at Alesia turning down a chance to loot Rome itself?

What are the goths doing here in this scenario?

As to Rome's client states in Gaul, how often did they act on Rome's behalf without a legion or ten in their territory?

That's a bit of a tricky question. Luckily for the romans, they do not have to act on their behalf at all. They just have to defend themselves. And they were quite able to field a significant number of auxillia, as the gallic wars attests.

With no immediate Roman threat the Gauls would have time to assess their situation and realize the full extent of Caesar's campaign against them. Revenge is a strong motivator, especially among warriors.

Revenge was not a strong motivator in that time. You seem to have quite the wrong indication of tribal loyalties and revenge of that time.

This could put Vercingetorix in a hard position. On one hand he needs to consolidate his position and bring the rest of the tribes under his control. He needs to prepare for a possible invasion from Rome.

Why? Why would the gauls attack Rome? Please show that they even have the logistical means to support such an invasion.

As for Rome itself, Did they even have 60 legions at this time? I will have to look into that.

Don't bother. That is the number of legions fielded during the civil war - and it shows the extent of their manpower base. Besides, the romans do not need 60 legions to conquer Gaul.

Egypt would break away why? Because they were a Vassel state and with Rome's attention in the North they would have the opportunity to do so.

You would have to show that being a vassal was not preferable to being without a protector nation.

I asked the question about the Library because IF Egypt broke away and IF Rome sent reinforcements to the legions there (if they weren't recaled to deal with the Gauls) they would have to retake Alexandria. The battle would be land based, though the Romans may still have set fire to the harbor.

If you already have formulated an answer for yourself, why bother? And there are no roman legions in egypt if Caesar dies since he was the first one who stationed roman troops there.

then the loss of both the "Invincible" Caesar and his legions, mercenaries, and a pacified Gaul would not only limit the expansion of Rome

Why would a defeat at Alesia stop Roman expansion? Not even Teutoburg did that.

Teutoburg was a loss, but not nearly as bad as losing the vast majority if not all of the legions north of the Alps.

You misunderstand his point. The Romans were not in the habit of stopping an expansion only because legions were lost. If anything, loosing a legion caused the romans to be even more aggressive.

[Bilbo]

You misunderstand his point. The Romans were not in the habit of stopping an expansion only because legions were lost. If anything, loosing a legion caused the romans to be even more aggressive.

Reminds me of a line in the beginning of Josephus. When the Jews revolted a roman legion arrived and was destroyed by the Jews. While the other Jews were excited over their victory Josephus himself is not at all. He knows that destroying one legion has just invited the full wrath of the Romans down on the Jews.

[wautd]

I am curious to see how members here think the rest of Roman History would have played out following Caesar’s death at Alesia.

Unfortunatly for the Gauls, they were sitting on quite a few goldmines the Roman were more than happy to take over so I'd assume they'd get conquered eventually. Appearantly they were more civilized than previously thought, but a loose loose confederacy couldn't stand up against the military might of Rome. Western europe might have looked different if Gaul was conquered by a less genocidal commander though.

[Maxentius]

"Less genocidal"? What do you mean by that, exactly?

Caesar may have killed hundreds of thousands of Gauls during his Gallic campaigns, but the thing to be kept in mind is that such wholesale slaughter was not unusual for Roman commanders; in fact it could be argued that it was even commonplace. While Caesar was most certainly an extraordinary commander operating in extraordinary circumstances, I would go so far as to say that the Gauls were lucky they got stuck with Caesar, instead of another commander. The Republic is absolutely notorious for its strategic longevity, and the annihilation of Caesar's armies at Alesia could very well provoke the Senate into dispatching more legions into Gaul for the very purpose of destroying Vercingetorix.

This is, of course speculation, and my personal specialty is more towards the Imperial sphere of Roman history, but you will see this trend all the way back to the Punic Wars. The Romans hate to lose. It is, plainly put, unacceptable to the Roman people and the assemblies for the Republic to lose a war. Defeat will only press the Republic further into the conflict, as Republican Rome had a bit of a nasty tendency to treat nearly every war they waged as one of annihilation. Despite losing more than a hundred thousand men in one year to Hannibal, the Republic bounced back, raised new legions, and continued to campaign against the Poenici basically without losing a step. During the Cimbrian Wars, they reportedly lost anywhere from 80,000-120,000 men (most likely exaggerated to some degree) and under Marius, were ready to fight again within two years. This is a pattern you'll see consistently; that the Republic absorbs losses with almost frightening ease and is consistent in its will to fight its enemies to utter annihilation for the preservation of the state.

Granted, I'm having a bit of trouble remembering the political specifics regarding the Gallic campaigns (and Thanas is likely far, far better qualified to comment on this than I), as I believe technically several of the operations were illegal under Roman law, but public opinion alone could possibly force a punitive expedition, especially if a paranoia like the sort under Hannibal and later after Arausio sets in. It's very possible that Roman expansion would be stalled, but I doubt such a defeat would stop them cold, and indeed, may instead serve to galvanize the Republic.

[Thanas]

There are certainly way more genocidal commanders than Caesar around. One only needs to look at Marcus Porcius Cato, who proudly boasted that he had destroyed more towns in Hispania than he had spent days in that country.

Then a rumour was spread that the consul intended to take his army into Turdetania, and it was even reported-quite falsely-that he had actually marched against the secluded dwellers in the mountains. On this idle and absolutely groundless rumour seven fortified places belonging to the Bergistani revolted. The consul reduced them to submission without any serious fighting. After he had returned to Tarraco and before he made any further advance these same people again revolted and again they were subdued, but they were not treated so leniently. They were all sold into slavery to prevent any further disturbance of peace.

When the consul had gained possession of the town he gave orders [those who had been loyal to Rome were freed] the rest of the townsfolk be made over to the quaestor to be sold as slaves, and the brigands were summarily executed.

[wautd]

"Less genocidal"? What do you mean by that, exactly?

My memory is a little hazy but didn't the Gauls lost about a third of their population with another third enslaved? It's not a total genocide like with the kingdom of Dacia but for me it's close enough to call it one.

Offcourse, I'm willing to concede there are more genocidal commanders than Caesar. I'm far from an expert on the matter.

[Thanas]

"Less genocidal"? What do you mean by that, exactly?

My memory is a little hazy but didn't the Gauls lost about a third of their population with another third enslaved? It's not a total genocide like with the kingdom of Dacia but for me it's close enough to call it one.

Well, by that comparison you might just as well call 90% of all ancient wars of conquest genocides.

[Samuel]

Why does this sound like the setting of Code Geass?

[Stark]

you don't need to read past the idea that Egypt was a 'vassal' and would instantly break away to be not a vassal first chance it had to realise what nonsense this is. Forcing modern attitudes into history MAY not work.