How was the government system in Gaul?

[Araujo]

The Gauls were composed by many tribes, the aquitani, arverni, aedui, sequani, etc. There were some tribes who were subdued to a direct monarchy, with a king, which was the most primitive system of government and law in the "barbarian" world. These kings had absolute power, and they could do whatever they wanted, as declaring war to any other tribe, extarminating his own people, violate any woman in the tribe, etc. But I am really curious about how were the superior councils in Gaul. Like the Aedui: that same council would elect a superior magistrate, like a roman consul, who stayed in charge with limited power but almost like a king. I don't really understand quite well the government system of those tribes. Can someone help me guys?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Antonio,

I moved this post to this section, where it belongs.

There were some tribes who were subdued to a direct monarchy, with a king, which was the most primitive system of government and law in the "barbarian" world. These kings had absolute power, and they could do whatever they wanted, as declaring war to any other tribe, extarminating his own people, violate any woman in the tribe, etc.

I beg your pardon? Kings with absolute power? No kings in history had absolute power. Where do you get that information? Power to exterminate his own people or violate his own tribal women? I think that’s stuff from comic books, not from scientific study!

But I am really curious about how were the superior councils in Gaul. Like the Aedui: that same council would elect a superior magistrate, like a roman consul, who stayed in charge with limited power but almost like a king. I don't really understand quite well the government system of those tribes. Can someone help me guys?

It did not work that way. A tribe is a socially (more or less) coherent group – you are aware to which family and tribe you belong, sometimes regardless of where you live. But after the Roman conquest the tribal lands were (more or less) converted into a district with a capital (civitas) – meaning that you are governed by the council of your district, regardless of your original tribal ancestry.

Local magistrates were no consuls. They had no king-like powers.

[Francois]

That's a very hard topic, as we do not know clearly about each tribe's political organisation. You should take a look at Jean-Louis Bruneaux's books (Nos ancêtres les Gaulois, for example) which sums up very well what we do know today about the Gallic civilization...

[Folkert van Wijk]

Yes to know and understand anything about the Celtic society's will take a lot of reading.
In the prosess understanding more and more that it all was a lot more complex and more socialy balanced then one would think at first...

[Gobae]

These kings had absolute power, and they could do whatever they wanted, as declaring war to any other tribe, extarminating his own people, violate any woman in the tribe, etc.

Haha, not even close! Not only were there social issues with what you're suggesting, but the Celts had a system of laws (Brehon Laws) that restricted the actions of all levels of society and provided penalties for breaking those laws. While we do not know the specifics of the Brehon laws in Gaul, we can get a glimpse of what they may have been like by studying the surviving examples of Ancient Irish Law.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Hi Antonio. As with the Brehon Laws in Ireland, there is evidence of something similar in Wales. Whilst it dates from the 10th century, the Laws of Hywel Dda - or parts of them - are thought to be very ancient and, again, they don't point to a king with ultimate power. Because of its equality - relatively speaking - it caused problems with the church's Canon Law. For example: woman could divorce men for something as trivial as bad breath and illegitimate children had right to inheritance. In Brehon Law, the lowly had the same status as a Chieftain, which shocked the English when the Irish came to court!

As mentioned above, we can only guess what the system was in Gaul, and it must have varied between the regions with those in the north having a more Germanic form of governance. The Romans may have allowed client kings and queens in certain regions but they had to keep in line.

[Andy]

The magistrate you refer to is termed Vergobrate, elected to position. But above this person, like in some parts where a king still ruled (such as the Euburones who were ruled by two kings) the Druid was above this position, so the king/vergobrate did not have unlimted power, more I believe they were a public face/puppet of the druids.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Excellent point Andy. It does seem, and Caesar alludes to it, that the druids had the ultimate say, or, that nothing was done without consulting them. The Romans realised the power they had and, in Britannia, knew destroying their power base at Anglesey would weaken the kings. It has been argued that Boudica's revolt was as much to do with what happened to the Druids as what happened to her daughters and her inheritance. It would certainly explain how she could gather such support.

[Araujo]

Thanks for those explanations, they seem quite trustable. But still there were exceptional cases, weren't there? Can someone explain me what title did Vercingetorix have at the time of the Gauls' revolt, in 52 BC? There were many tribes and still those tribes had Vergobretes and sometimes kings, and Vercingetorix made himself king. So...?

[Arturus Uriconium]

As far as I'm aware, it was the druids who called for the rebellion in the first place and Vercingetorix was proclaimed king, or rather over lord, and did not make himself one.

[M. Demetrius]

I'm no expert on things Gallic, but I don't think Vercingetorix regarded himself as king. More like war chief. A few tribes owed him allegiance for whatever reason, but most of them joined his army by free choice, and a rare alliance with other tribes with whom they had ancestral feuds.

The most probable reason that Gaul fell so "easily" to Caesar, was that they did NOT have a federal government, but a very loose confederation (if that) of tribes related by marriages, etc., and did not band together from the outset to resist the common enemy. Caesar was able to defeat them in detail, group by group. Of course, he only divided them into three greater groups, the Belgae, Aquitanii, and Celtae. Among those, there were numerous subgroups he listed in De Bello Gallico, and called them tribes. For most of those we know but a little about their internal affairs, and largely, we only know what he told us, and he was not an impartial observer.

He doesn't make mention of kings as we understand kingship, though. More like Chiefs with clients.

[Gobae]

Vercingetorix could probably be more closely equated to General Eisenhower in WW2 when he was appointed "Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe". Vercingetorix oversaw and lead a confederation of Clans as "war leader" but didn't have the authority to rule them as a king would.

The main difference in my analogy is that Vercingetorix was also Chieftain of his clan while Eisenhower didn't (at that time) hold a political position. In fact that was probably the biggest issue delaying Vercingetorix's acceptance; the other clans had to balance accepting him as "war leader" while making sure they would retain the leadership of their chosen Chieftains.

[Clearchus_of_Sparta]

This may seem like a strange analogy, but its probably a little like someone who supports a football team that is not their local team. (Bear with me on this) Someone supports the team because they are sucessful rather than local.

The warrior culture of the keltoi determined social position by strength of arms as much as inherrited social hierarchy. By that I mean, you could rise to a position of power by being sucessful. Small cattle raids would raise your prestige and more warriors would want to bind themselves to your cause. (See also Devotio). Take into account the rebelliousness of youth against the established elder councils who Vercingetorix probably felt were not doing enough to stop the romans, and you have a scenario where he was almost pushed into taking that role by sicophantic followers who wanted the glory but not the responsibility of leading the campaign.

As previously stated the keltoi system of government was complex, and I have only scrated the surface. The druids did appear to wield a great deal of power over the tribes. Probably through fear of being excomunicated. Religeon had great power over individuals then and now. Shrouded in mystery even to other keltoi, they would seem frightening and not to be messed with. However the druids appear more interested in foreign policy (for want of a better term) rather than local affairs, although any major decision would certainly have seen them involved.

Hope this helps

[Alanus]

Vercingetorix could probably be more closely equated to General Eisenhower in WW2 when he was appointed "Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe". Vercingetorix oversaw and lead a confederation of Clans as "war leader" but didn't have the authority to rule them as a king would.

The main difference in my analogy is that Vercingetorix was also Chieftain of his clan while Eisenhower didn't (at that time) hold a political position. In fact that was probably the biggest issue delaying Vercingetorix's acceptance; the other clans had to balance accepting him as "war leader" while making sure they would retain the leadership of their chosen Chieftains.

Hi Gobae,

You hit the proper meaning of Vercigetorix. Here is a breakdown of the name according to the Thesaurus Linguae Gallae:

ver/uer = distinguished, peerless
cingeto = warrior
rix = king

This would be the same as a modern commander of allied troop operations. He had "generals" under him, such as Vercassivellaunus and two members of the Aedui; and evidently he could not make decisions without a councilliar vote. In this respect, his hands were frozen... perhaps one of the reasons they lost the war. :roll:

When it comes to the authority of Gallic kingships, they had to follow tribal rules, perhaps different within each tribe. The father of Vercingetorix was killed for trying to make himself the king of the Arverni; and I think this gives us an idea of the supreme power held by the magistracy and tribal council... along with the druids.