In France, this event is well known and taught in class (at least it was in the 80's).
As I remember it now, this was taught as a bittersweet moment in our history. We united, we were brave and fought a stronger army but still we were defeated and our chief was captured and killed by the enemy.
As a result we were colonized and we lost almost all our Celtic culture (Celtic culture remains present notably in Bretagne — Britain). But we were "civilized" by the Romans. I think this was taught as being a tough but positive thing.
Today I find it interesting to think about how "civilization" spreading if often a gruesome process and how it's seen centuries, if not (in this case), milleniums later.
It’s always funny how the Franks are seens as “us”, when looking throught history France has been washed by waves of invasions that all left deep cultural mixes.
Going to Normandy nowadays and looking at general public exposition it’s make pretty clear their ancestry is mostly from the Vikings and Nords.
In the east it’s also clear that their frenchness is a fluctuating and partial attribute.
All around the country, each region have a very clear multi-cultural past. And Paris and its periphery is a huge Petri dish of people coming from around the world with a significant number of families that have no ancestors that were in France more than four or five generation ago.
Books still present Franks as french people’s ancestors, but I wonder how teacher make it match with the reality when they teach their students.
The battle of Alesia took place several centuries before anyone heard about the Franks. The "us" the OP is referring to, is the Gauls.
I won't argue with the essence of your point though, although, for what I know, much of the nobility up to the 1800's was of Frankish descent, while Gallo-roman blood dominated among the commoners. So some heritage was there indeed.
> Books still present Franks as french people’s ancestors, but I wonder how teacher make it match with the reality when they teach their students.
I think the goal of using 'our ancestors the Gauls' was to create a shared history, to promote a national identity, without any regard to the actual ancestry of the actual population.
Also you have to put back the origin of this idea in his context: it's coming from the XIXth century, when moving away from the monarchy. The Gauls served as a common ancestry, without any reference to the previous monarchies, which explain why it was pushed by Napoleon III (who started up excavation looking for the site of Alesia) and the IIIrd Republic.
Sorry I mixed up Franks and Gaulois, which are two different things altogether.
The part I had in mind is the old “our ancestors, the gaulois” which is not taught as is anymore, but still stays very present in the minds through an almost exclusive focus on Gaulois’ side when depicting that time period (not just fantasy depictions like Asterix, but also a lot of documentaries and reconstitutions funded publicly)
Normandy is a small region in the north east of France. Brittany is a small region in the north west of France.
Some Vikings were exiled from what was Wessex, East Anglia etc., but became England.
This is why posh people in England sometimes call their dog "Rollo", Rollo was the Viking leader that the Normans descended from. The people that went on to invade England.
None of this invalidates the idea of France or England or French or English.
Ps. You were pointing to current trends, hence pointing toward Paris and peripheries or "four or five generations ago"
> As I remember it now, this was taught as a bittersweet moment in our history. We united, we were brave and fought a stronger army but still we were defeated and our chief was captured and killed by the enemy.
Isn't modern France mostly a descendant of the Frankish kingdoms, where the Franks are quite different than the Gauls and in any case arrived in the area far later than the Battle of Alesia?
Yes, but while in political terms the Gauls, Romans and Franks were distinct entities, in cultural terms the region was more of a melting pot. The Roman conquest of Gaul ended up blending their two cultures into a new, distinctive "Gallo-Roman" culture (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallo-Roman_culture), for instance, and then when the Franks came along their culture got blended in as well. So modern French identity has strains in it running back to all three sources.
Who remains one of the world's great historians. Sometimes we read old books because we want to understand how these books influenced the course of thought. But sometimes, old books are just genuinely good in their own right and would be just as good if published today: Aristotle, Thucydides, Tacitus, Aeschylus, and a bunch of other authors fit this latter mold. I wish more people read them.
Reminder: the Franks were Germanic invaders who kicked the Romano-Gaulish in the teeth. This is like Englishmen mourning King Arthur and his Romano-British followers, ignoring that their ancestors were probably more the Hengests and Horsas of the story.
But...Is it not more like Englishmen celebrating Alfred the Great? You know, the Anglo-Saxon leader. A Germanic peoples (Alfred's army was also made up of Britons)
Alfred would not be the correct analogy to Gaul/Rome. The Gauls were "Celtic" like Arthur's Britons. They were both facing invasions.
Alfred's French analogy would be Charles the Simple, who had to fight off the Norse invaders and made a treaty to give them Normandy. Though, it has to be said, Charles the Simple had a much better time of it.
I'm a bit dubious about the state of gaul civilization. History books weren't super solid and recent archeology uncovered new commercial routes and production sites (wine jars). The Roman Empire was great, no question, but I'm not sure if other countries were so far behind.
This was taught in Latin class in the US as well, although my mental image of the spikes was very different from the photo. I thought it would be on more of a downward slope.
Very roughly, Britons were the main population in southern Great Britain (roughly England, Wales and Scotland to the Firth of Forth), but were "squeezed" during the Anglo-Saxon settlement into more isolated pockets — Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall — and some crossed over to Brittany. How much of of the "squeeze" was population replacement as opposed to languistic and cultural change is up for debate.
> The six territories widely considered Celtic nations are Brittany (Breizh), Cornwall (Kernow), Wales (Cymru), Scotland (Alba), Ireland (Éire) and the Isle of Man (Mannin or Ellan Vannin).
I think this is an unnecessarily negative framing. All national and regional identities are mostly socially constructed "imagined communities"[1].
For example, most Americans aren't descended from colonial settlers, but they still identify with the colonists when they read about or discuss the Revolutionary War.
I would go further than say it is an unnecessarily negative framing, this idea always seemed pretentious to me, nowadays it seems supressive.
Are they really imagined? Or is this idea mostly a "social contruct" that is not really accepted as reality outside of a few "intellectuals". They seem to be describing their delusions of grandeur. Is it not them that have the problem?
The irony of course is that "Celtic" is a silly word to begin with. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the 'Celtic' culture of Gaul was reasonably similar (and quite close in cultural 'ancestry') to Roman culture anyway, making assimilation relatively painless. The British isles may have been a somewhat different case.
There’s no good reason to apply the word “Celtic” to the pre-Germanic inhabitants of the British Isles, other than some linguistic affinity. No ethnic affinity has been demonstrated. The word should be reserved for continental European cultures, as the Romans used it.
To be fair, "circumstantial evidence" in archaeology is just saying something because you found a pot that looks like another pot. There will plenty of "circumstantial evidence" to suggest the opposite. :)
That's not really how conquest works though. At least some of those original Celts reproduced with the Romans, and thus some genetic heritage continued.
> That's not really how conquest works though. At least some of those original Celts reproduced with the Romans, and thus some genetic heritage continued.
That's not really how nations or ethnic groups work, though. The fact that some "genetic heritage" from the Celts may be found today doesn't actually mean that Celtic culture has anything to do with the modern nation-state of France.
Not sure why this was posted here, but this is one of Caesar's greatest victories in the Gallic wars. The engineering capabilities of the Roman legions were very impressive. For those who don't know, Caesar had built a wall around the city of Alesia to blockade the defenders in. When a relief force was dispatched to attack the Romans and break the siege, Caesar built another wall and line of defenses to hold off the attacking relief force. The Romans were able to defeat the Gauls and add it to the Roman Empire (Republic).
To me the key takeaway of this is the desperation of the Gauls and the ruthlessness of the Romans. This part sums it up the best:
"The inhabitants of the town sent out their wives and children to save food for the fighters, hoping that Caesar would take them as captives and feed them. However, Caesar forbade their being admitted to his fortification."
As a young Greek, I had no idea the battle of Alesia was real. It was something that I read on Asterix, and since the name of the Gallic leader was Vercingetorix, I thought the entire thing was made up by Uderzo/Goscinny :-).
Thanks to the internet though, I discovered the facts a few years after I have read the reference in the comic book.
We know so little about our neighbours, about other countries!
Reading this made me realize how little Roman history I know. What's the best source for learning about the major people and events of that era?
EDIT: I guess what I'm really looking for is a hierarchy of topics, starting extremely broad (e.g. Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire) and drilling down into individual people and events. In other words, I want to do a breadth-first traversal, rather than depth-first.
That's an awesome book. One must remember that it was written by Caesar as a political tool - hence, it's more of a boastful biography rather than an objective non-fiction book. Never the less, the book is great anyhow.
Highly recommend this as well. His audiobook for the Storm before the Storm is also very good for the Republican period between the Gracchi and Marius/Sulla.
Punic Nightmares and Death Throes of the Republic cover other important bits of the Roman Republic, they're both incredibly good, but they aren't free anymore.
- Rubicon by Tom Holland
- SPQR by Mary Beard
- Dynasty by Tom Holland
- Caesar by Adrian Goldsworthy (more of a bio on Julius C, a bit drier than the above, has section on Alesia)
Thank you for the recommendation of Rubicon. I enjoyed reading through this thread so I thought I'd take you up on your recommendation. It was this first history book I've read in probably a decade, so I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy it but I absolutely loved it.
The Masters of Rome novels by Colleen McCullough are historically accurate, incredibly dramatic, gripping and realistic. They tell the story of Rome from the birth of Caesar in the Republic to the ascension of his successor Augustus in the Empire.
I, Claudius by Robert Graves is fascinating and very readable. One of the greatest examples of historical fiction. All of the major events of the book are historically accurate, and Graves just brings them to life with dialog and his knowledge of daily life in Rome. The sequel Claudius the God, is good, but honestly covers a less interesting period in Roman history.
Historically accurate-ish; she’s clear in her author’s notes that she created some characters to fill gaps. Would second the recommendation, though. The major events are generally real enough, and it’s a compelling way to read about it.
I recommend the TV series "I Claudius". Of course, you can read it as books as well, but I enjoyed the series. The books I have not read. Of course, it only covers a limited period of Roman history, but one that is quite famous.
There's a really good pro Age of Empires II battle where one of the players played this exact strategy. If you like strategy games you would enjoy the similarities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6spfnJMdd-k
The sophistication of Roman siege warfare. There is an entrenched enemy. Caesar's legions build miles of fortification to surround and starve out the enemy. Many more enemies come to break the siege. Caesar's legions build second miles long fortification, around the first.
It is a defining moment in Caesar's rise to fame and infamy, laying the groundwork for his eventual emperorship. Without this victory and Caesar's popular support, the history of Rome may have been very different.
There is a noble sacrifice by the Gallic general, Vercingetorix. Realizing the imminent defeat, he suggests to his people that they kill him or surrender him as a bargaining chip to receive lenience from the conquering Caesar. He does this knowing that the Roman tradition is to march defeated generals through the streets of Rome before ritually killing them. Turns out he got to be imprisoned for years before that "honor".
These are the three things that stood out most to me.
"laying the groundwork for his eventual emperorship".
Worth pointing out that Julius Caesar was never emperor and its difficult to say that he really aspired to such a position. Yes, he was dictator for life but Sulla had fairly recently been appointed dictator with no time limit applied so that wasn't without precedent. Working out what could have happened of he hadn't been assassinated is difficult. Did he take on many of the trappings of a king? Yes. Did he seem to try and avoid that same perception, such as with the crown at Lupercalia? Also yes. Whatever he was though, he certainly was not emperor.
True, but you could say similar things about his successor Augustus. He was outwardly modest and merely referred to himself as "First Citizen", not dictator. But for all practical purposes he was an emperor that ruled for decades.
There was a whole PR strategy related to this that went on for centuries. Many of the rulers after Julius Caesar talked about restoring power to senate and/or the citizens, and downplayed their own immense power, without actually doing much of anything to reduce it.
That said, it's certainly possible that Julius Caesar could have followed a similar path to Sulla. He very well might have had every intention of relinquishing power after a certain point.
From what I understand one big difference between Caesar and Augustus was that Caeser had a fairly sizable domestic agenda with a list of reforms that had been building up and getting frustrated for decades, so it's possible/plausible he was planning to retire once this was accomplished. As far as I know Augustus never had such firm plan aside from consolidating power.
But understanding the domestic politics of the time certainly isn't easy, it's hard enough to understand the internal politics of another country today but throw in a radically different set of political structures and issues.
The interesting bit about that is that "Alesia, and nobody knows where it is" as a theme in Asterix is actually biting satire on Vichy France. Very little in Asterix, until Goscinny died, is about Gauls and Romans, it's pretty much all about taking the mickey out of contemporary France.
Absolutely. But this was a surprise to me. I don't speak French and I read Asterix in my native Spanish as a young kid, I loved it to bits, and of course all modern and French-related jokes flew way over my head. Add to this that the Spanish (mis)translation got most of the jokes wrong, especially the puns. Some jokes were rendered nonsensical because the translator gave up and simply provided a literal translation.
That Asterix can be badly translated and still be loved by a kid who can't read French or understand politics is a testament to how good the comic was.
I know. I'm saying the Spanish translation of Asterix is known to be problematic, because the translator often made no effort (as in "this is too hard, I'll just translate this literally, even though it was a phonetic joke in French that gets lost in Spanish"). In recent years there was an attempt to provide a more idiomatic and careful translation to Latin American Spanish, but it was poorly received, because people like me who loved Asterix as kids were already used to the original nonsensical translations and were appalled when jokes and names of characters got "changed"! So it's a lose-lose situation at this point.
To my eternal shame [1], this is how I first learned about Vercingetorix. To this day I choose to believe he really dropped his shield on top of Caesar's feet.
This is a quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix - the best selling French/Belgian comic, first published in 1959, translated into 111 languages, and adapted into 13 films.
"The year is 50 BC. Gaul is entirely occupied by the Romans. Well, not entirely... One small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders. And life is not easy for the Roman legionaries who garrison the fortified camps of Totorum, Aquarium, Laudanum and Compendium"
As I remember it now, this was taught as a bittersweet moment in our history. We united, we were brave and fought a stronger army but still we were defeated and our chief was captured and killed by the enemy.
As a result we were colonized and we lost almost all our Celtic culture (Celtic culture remains present notably in Bretagne — Britain). But we were "civilized" by the Romans. I think this was taught as being a tough but positive thing.
Today I find it interesting to think about how "civilization" spreading if often a gruesome process and how it's seen centuries, if not (in this case), milleniums later.