Do you think that Europe as a whole of of been better off if Caesar never conquered Gaul...

Christianity was not foreign to central Europe, and speaking of a single "European paganism" is brainlet tier.

>Central Europe would be completely Germanic (a good thing),
What makes you think that? Germania was purely a geographical term. It was inhabited by Slavs, Balts, Sarmatians, Scythians and Celts.

And what makes you think Huns wouldn't invade anyway?

I worded that badly, I didn't mean to imply that there was a single European pagan religion.

Also please explain how Christianity was not foreign to central Europe.

It would be so utterly unrecognisable that any assumptions about it would be based on nothing.

They would simply attack rome instead of doing anything useful.
Even with rome gone they spend hundreds of years fighting each other before there is real progress, they destroyed their own culture.

>the Gauls were holding their own against the Germanic tribes until the Roman conquest
After the conquest too, for hundreds of years.

I made a mistake as well. It was foreign to central Europe, but not Southern Europe. You seemed to imply it was foreign to ALL of Europe. But lets be real: Geographic had destined the rest of Europe to be Romanized at one point or another. Lets see their options
>Go East and run into Siberia. Inhabitants include nomadic Turkics and Mongols
>Go West and hit the Atlantic ocean. Eventually thought difficulty you reach North America. It's inhabitants
>Go South and run into the rich and ancient civilizations of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Persia.

While central Europe wouldn't be "100% pure Germanic", in a scenario where the Germanic migrations into the west and south were far more limited, central Europe would without a doubt be considerably more Germanic than in reality where Slavs at one point dominated central Europe as far west as the Elbe.

Also I didn't suggest that the Huns wouldn't invade. But there's a solid 400 years between the Roman conquest of Gaul and the emergence of the Huns in Europe, and a lot could change in that time as a result of a different outcome in Gaul. While I think the Germanic migrations were to a degree inevitable, their migration patterns were by no means set in stone, Huns or not.

But there is no evidence for Germania ever being predominantly 'Germanic'.

Who are you referring to when you say "their options"?

Which Germanic tribes do you consider to be not Germanic and what instead do you consider them to be?

Northern Europeans. Mostly Germanics and Celts.

I suppose it was inevitable for those peoples to at least be heavily influenced by Rome, but not getting conquered and occupied for half a millenium would surely lessen the impact of Romanization on the Celts significantly.

The Irish are the perfect example of what the Celts would have become if left alone, and Ireland didn't have neither cities nor infrastructure untill the Norman invasion of the XII century.

>Ireland was comparable in development to Gaul

>Do you think that Europe as a whole of of been better off if Caesar never conquered Gaul?
No. Caesar did nothing wrong except being too merciful to his defeated enemies
>in the process of becoming urbanized
But they were utterly hamstrung by political disunity and constant infighting. Caesar didn’t just invade Gaul like a ruthless conqueror, he came invited to help them settle their differences and then stayed and played the Gallic tribes off of each other
>urbanized society
Rome’s political unity allowed for greater degree of urbanization because people weren’t at each other’s throats based on who’s tribe wronged who.
>why did Romans destroy
Because it was the fucking iron ages. If the Romans didn’t do it to the Celts, the Celts would have gladly done it to the Romans.

This

Gauls would've been able to hold back Germanic if they weren't sent on other fronts (Italy/Illyria/Levant).

Except the Gauls couldn’t repel the Germanics on their own, and had it not been for Caesar turning away the Suebi under the Germanic king Ariovistus, he’d have likely overrun and conquered Gaul.

They lasted against the Germanics for centuries afterwords because they had the full throated support of the Roman State. When that went away, they were easily conquered by Visigoths, Franks, and other migrating Germanic super-tribes

Ireland is the Celtic land by definition, French faggot. Everything we know about Celts come from them and the few thing Romans wrote about them.

Whereas southern "Gaul" was Greek-Roman in its character before Ceaser conquest.

>After the conquest too, for hundreds of years.
Not entirely, prior to the Roman conquest of Gaul the Germanic tribes were largely contained to the right bank of the Rhine. But Caesar's actions in Belgica severely weakened the Belgae and opened up the process of Germanic expansion across the Rhine. One example of this is the Eburones, as they were completely destroyed by Caesar who invited other tribes to plunder their lands, resulting in the Germanic Tungri taking over the land of the Eburones.

>When that went away, they were easily conquered by Visigoths, Franks, and other migrating Germanic super-tribes
The Gallo-Romans of Migration Period can't be considered the same as the Gauls of the 1st Century BC. It's natural that Roman Gaul was conquered when Rome was in decline. Prior to the Roman conquest, Gaul was strong and wouldn't have been conquered as easily as the declining Romans were. Yes, Ariovistus managed to conquer land in Gaul, but he really only expanded his rule into Alsace and he never could have taken all of Gaul. Overall the Germanics were being held at bay.

>political unity

*devolves into civil war*

>Ireland is the Celtic land by definition, French faggot. Everything we know about Celts come from them and the few thing Romans wrote about them.
because it was a conservative backwater, same as Iceland is the source of everything we know about the pre-christian Nords, while Sweden was a regional power and a mini-empire.

t. Irish person

>Whereas southern "Gaul" was Greek-Roman in its character before Ceaser conquest.
Don't be silly.

What about the Irish and Scots? They're celtic, the romans never touched them and yet they are still savage animals today?

Germanic kings couldn’t conquer such socially primitive societies, by the Romans reforming society to such an extent, they made it easy for foreigners to just take over administration.

...

...

...

...

They’re called Oppida. Which were large Celtic towns. You can find plenty of reconstructions if you google “Celtic Oppidum”

youtu.be/-64kHmCJGMA

who else hillfort here

note the foundations of a small roman temple