Alternate history - What could tech 3 Gaul look like?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"Historically" includes everything from Sumer to a minute ago, a.

Not in this context which is the druids of Gaul. Their history ends when the Romans conquer Gaul and suppress them.

"A strong central government" is significantly less likely than literacy, IMO

True, but irrelevant. The premise of the alternate is that Rome stays out of Gaul and they form a Celtic empire...for a while. I was pointing out that it's more likely that a strong Celtic kingdom causes Rome to keep out than that Rome's absence leads to one. It's also more likely that a strong monarchy leads to the adoption of literacy than vice versa. And really a strong Celtic empire may be unlikely, but it's more likely than "Nazis conquer the world" and we've seen that one enough times.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Not in this context which is the druids of Gaul. Their history ends when the Romans conquer Gaul and suppress them.

The contex is couterfactual and historical medieval Gaelic poets seem relevant to the TL3 part. I was making a comparison to later Gaelic history and suggesting parallel development. When I said "historically they had an interest in literacy" I meant that in our history the poet class did.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The entire class of poet-priests and their huge formal schools probably do. They had an interest in literacy historically, even beyond the extents of the Empire, and even before Peglacius.

Not implausible. But they'll probably have to initially catch the spark for writing from somebody other than the Romans, in this case.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

Not implausible. But they'll probably have to initially catch the spark for writing from somebody other than the Romans, in this case.

They would still have trade contact with Macedonia, Greece and Rome. Probably Egypt, and Judea too.

[Mediolanum]

Not sure if you can throw gaels and continental celts together. They were much more advanced, strong influenced by greeks and latins (even before the conquest) and partly very different (Like the city-states of the celtiberians or the magistrates of the Aedui)

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

I'm interested in finding out what's going on in the eastern Mediterranean in this alternate history. Does christianity still happen, under some Ptolemaic king instead of Roman rule? Without Rome in the way, do the Parthians or Sasanians swallow up Greece? What about the Arab conquests?

The Seleucids rebuild the empire of alexander (Mostly, no anatolia and greece) and become buddhists and Greece is divided into merchant republics. A punic-numidian empire was created in West Africa. Anatolia is ruled by the pontos.

Not yet sure what to do with balkan and eastern europe.

[AlexanderHowl]

Seleucids did rebuild most of Alexander's Empire. They were Zorastrian and collapsed before existence of Christianity. While they had plenty of exposure to Buddhism, they only had minority Buddhist populations because the Persians preferred Zorastrianism.

Without Rome, the Seleucids would have conquered the Eastern Mediterranean, as it was Rome who broke the Seleucids in the Roman-Seleucid War. The consequences of their lose was to deprive them of the wealth of their Asia Minor territories, which left them vulnerable to rebellions in the rest of their empire, and to force them to pay a crippling endemnity, which left them unable to afford to defend themselves against the Parthians. The Seleucids lost sixty percent of their territory in the twenty years after their lose to the Romans.

A successful Seleucid Empire might have been the trigger for a civilized Gaul. Gaul would have just been too far away to conquer, but it would have been worth unifying into an allied nation to contain the Germans to the north and the Carthaginians to the west (as well as giving the Seleucids a trading partner). You might have seen the Seleucids send advisors, mercenaries, and treasure to one of the more civilized tribes and had them conquer the rest of Gaul (and possibly Belgae, Brittannia, and Iberia). The resulting Gaulic Kingdom would have probably had an Occitain flavor.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

There are several citations of ancient historians which say that, until the 3rd century B.C., a lot of Gaulish swords weren't really suitable for thrusting and Gauls preferred to hit with swings rather than thrusts.

The Celts were the most advanced workers of iron on the planet at the time. They invented mail armour and likely were the first to have drawn iron wire. We have extant La Tene swords - swords that are over two thousand years old - that can be bent almost double and flex back straight. A good book on this subject is Pleiner's The Celtic Sword. When the period sources do not corroborate observable facts then we are not interpreting the sources correctly. There is a lot of "primitive barbarian" bias pervading many Roman descriptions of the Celts and this needs to be taken into account.

Light chariots were in use in Britain during the first Roman conquest.

One could argue that this means that the British Celts were retarded in this regard since light chariot combat is a TL1 development. When they adopt more cavalry then they move to TL2 like everyone else.

Mail shirts with exposed limbs, six-feet spears and unarmoured horses make them medium cavalry, not heavy cavalry. As shown clearly in the confrontation betwenn 1,000 Parthian cataphracts and 4,000 Gaulish horsemen in the battle of Carrhae, Gauls were badly disadvantaged against true heavy cavalry, at least in face-to-face charges.

The terms "heavy" and "light" have nothing to do with the equipment being used. They are related to the role being performed by the unit. A naked man with a spear is classed as "heavy infantry" if he is standing in a shield wall or phalanx formation. A knight covered head to toe in plate armour is classed as "light cavalry" if he is performing a scouting or skirmishing role.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

True, but the role is determined by the context, and equipment, own and enemy, is a fundamental part of the context. I'd prefer to define Gaulish cavalry as medium cavalry: they were capable of shock tactics and they were reatively well armed, but they often fought on foot, and short spears and unarmoured horses makes them in huge disadvantage against both coeval heavy infantry and heavy cavalry regarding frontal engagement.

If we use this logic then every cavalry on the planet should be classed as medium cavalry.

In this specific example, kinda yes, the two major changes occurred in TL2 (mail armor was introducted from west and gradually replaced scale/lamellar armor - which remained in use, sometimes combined with mail, until the 15th century A.D.; and the introduction of stirrup and the modifies on saddle at very late TL2 - very early TL3). TL3 Persian cavalry changed more radically next to TL4, at the end of 14th century. Mail, lamellar, or the combination of the two were replaced by mail and plates, and later by mail combined with some parts of plate armor (cuirass, vambraces, rerebraces, pauldrons, poleyns and greaves).

And none of this changed the way they fought. All the changes in armour really did was to reduce the amount of weight they had to bear.

[AlexanderHowl]

No, I do think that the terms 'light', 'medium', and 'heavy' should relate to armor and shields. Light infantry should have an average DR 1-2 with small shields. Medium infantry should have an averge DR 3-4 with medium shields. Heavy infantry should have an average DR 5-6 with large shields.

Light infantry should have a one-handed weapon with an attack that deals a minimum of +0 damage. Medium infantry should have a one-handed weapon with an attack that deals a minimum of +1 damage. Heavy infantry should have a one-handed weapon with an attack that deals a minimum of +2 damage.

Alternatively, infantry can go with two-handed weapons. Light infantry should replace light shields with two-handed weapons with one attack that deals a minimum of +3 damage. Medium infantry should replace medium shields with two-handed weapons with one attack that deals a minimum of +4 damage. Heavy infantry should replace heavy shields with two-handed weapons with one attack that deals a minimum of +5 damage.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

No, I do think that the terms 'light', 'medium', and 'heavy' should relate to armor and shields.

This type of categorisation does not help organise tactics nor strategy. The convention was set up the way it is for commanders to better deploy their troops, not to satisfy our sensibilities.