Your question might be too specific, so I’ll ask a broader follow-up: how would the romans treat conquered territory? What were the differences between a town that yielded and a town that fought, and how would they view the romans afterwards?
Here I will mostly work of Caesar's Commentarii de bello Gallico, because that is what I am currently reading and therefore it is fresh in my mind.
Gaul in antiquity was not a state in any modern sense of the word, Caesar emphasizes divisions of Gaul in the first two sentences of the Commentarii:
All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.
And later he describes additional divisions of each of these groups. Price and Thonemann (2011)^2 interpret that as Gallic society being a society dominated by oppida. Oppida are fortified villages on hilltops, that dominate the surrounding countryside, and we should think of the various "tribes," or civitates as Caesar calls them, as either single oppida or coalitions of oppida. To my taste, that smacks perhaps a bit too much of realpolitik, but is probably a good way to think of the scale of Gallic society.^3
After that introduction, we can look at concrete examples. For the leaders of a civitates that is consistently allied with Rome, the Roman conquest was certainly quite lucrative, they would be given entire civitates as new clients, if they sufficiently distinguish themselves and their descendants would be in a good position to be successful in the Roman empire.
For people who resist the conquest, it depends on how they resist. After the Battle of of the Sabis in 57 BC, where the Nervii attacked the Roman legions in open battle, that is largely in accord with Roman ideas of conduct in warfare, Caesar describes the surrender of the surviving Nervii:
This battle being ended, and the nation and name of the Nervii being almost reduced to annihilation, their old men, whom together with the boys and women we have stated to have been collected together in the fenny places and marshes, on this battle having been reported to them, since they were convinced that nothing was an obstacle to the conquerors, and nothing safe to the conquered, sent embassadors to Caesar by the consent of all who remained, and surrendered themselves to him; and in recounting the calamity of their state, said that their senators were reduced from 600 to three; that from 60,000 men they [were reduced] to scarcely 500 who could bear arms; whom Caesar, that he might appear to use compassion toward the wretched and the suppliant, most carefully spared; and ordered them to enjoy their own territories and towns, and commanded their neighbors that they should restrain themselves and their dependents from offering injury or outrage [to them].
On the other hand, directly afterwards Caesar reports about a siege of the Atuatuci. They first feigned peace negotiations and afterwards attacked the Romans. Caesar describes their fate quite chillingly:
The day after [the battle], Caesar, after breaking open the gates, which there was no one then to defend, and sending in our soldiers, sold the whole spoil of that town. The number of 53,000 persons was reported to him by those who had bought them.
The question if we can believe Caesar remains of course, and considering that many in the intended audience had military experience, I think that we can assume that none of these actions stretched credulity far in the minds of Roman senators, even if the account is probably somewhat idealized according to Roman values. So the range of experiences should reflect the range of experiences of getting conquered by Caesar quite well. That is, the individual experience is not so much universal in all of Gaul, but depends on the specific actions taken by an individual or by a specific civitates, wether that is being given slaves, as spoils of war for service as auxiliaries, or being given as a slave.
^1 I am going to quote the english translation from Perseus, see there for the original.
^2 Price, S & Thonemann, P, The Birth of Classical Europe, Penguin, London, 2011
^3 For a taste of that particular debate, see footnote 5 on the Wikipedia article on the Helvii, and references therein. I will use civitas to basically mean named group of Gauls.
Hey all,
If you frequent the sub, you know the drill. If you're here from /r/all, or browse only occasionally, please be aware we have strict rules here intended to enforce the very high bar we expect from comments, so before posting, please read our rules. We remove comments which don't comply, and consider everyone forewarned. If you have feedback or commentary about how things are run here, please don't post it in this thread. We'll just remove it. We love to hear thoughtful and constructive feedback via modmail however.
It can take time for an answer to show up, so we thank you for your patience. We know you're here because the question sounds interesting, and we eagerly await an answer just like you! While you wait though, there is tons of great content already written, which you can find through our Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly "Best Of" feature, and Facebook. If you don't want to forget to check back late, consider a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, or the 'RES' Subscribe feature.
Again though, please remember the rules, and be conscious of them while you browse or write. If you don't like how this subreddit is run, keep in mind that this method has seen us continue to succeed and grow for years, and isn't going to change, so at least try and make your complaint original. /r/AskHistory exists, so whining about the rules to us is like going into a fancy restaurant to throw a tantrum because they don't sell chicken nuggets, even though Chick-fil-A is nextdoor.