Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Planetary_Nebula t1_j1s8gv7 wrote

Not that I'm 100% confident of this, but part of it is probably Roman culture/bigotry. The Romans considered Gauls to be the ancient enemies of Rome and utterly barbaric to boot. According to traditional Roman history, the Gauls sacked Rome ~390BC. A prominent Gaulic war leader that had some successes against the legions like Vercingetorix did would probably have caused uproar if he'd been allowed to live among the Romans.

103

DeadFyre t1_j1sabnq wrote

It's also my understanding that the Gauls had been particularly treacherous, with many erstwhile Gallic allies to the Romans luring the Romans in by asking for protective garrisons and then murdering them.

54

LisaToreMeApart t1_j1sj5ay wrote

The Gauls during the Late Republic truly frightened the Romans. Partly why Gaius Marius was named the First Man of Rome was because he repelled a very existential threat to Rome (Cimbrian War)

No wonder that only a generation or two later, Caesar felt it was necessary to kill Vercingetorix—to let him live was to show weakness against a very strong enemy

26

[deleted] t1_j1t3fgo wrote

The Gauls were not treacherous. Julius Caesar led an unjustified invasion of Gaul without senate approval, and by his own account committed genocide of both Celtic and Germanic peoples. He was truly a horrid man, and his assassins were too kind to him

21

Mnm0602 t1_j1sovwn wrote

I know this is well known but just wanted to point out Brennus and his boss move (according to Livy) after sacking Rome in 390:

“At last the Gauls consented to accept a ransom of a thousand pounds of gold. As it was being weighed out, the Roman tribune complained of some unfairness. Brennus at once threw his heavy sword into the scale; and when asked the meaning of the act, replied that it meant Vae victis (" woe to the conquered").”

18