Battle of Alesia
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
The modern French culture is a direct descendant of Gallo-Roman culture, which is basically Roman culture with a little Gaulish influence.
In fact, a state's national identity is based on almost anything but facts.
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.
> 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).
"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."
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1430/caesar-epic-battle-...
What r your opinions ?
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!
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.
After watching a video, you can then research further but generally I've found his videos have sufficient detail and are accurate.
The coverage of punic wars, late republic, early empire, crisis of the third century are my favorite arcs.
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)
Another comment mentioned I, Claudius, which is also excellent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the correction and detail.
Well, not entirely... One small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders.
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.
[1] I'm actually proud of this!
[1] let's not get into this particular can of translating worms :P
"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"