Perhaps Euclid used some tacit assumptions which he overlooked to list, but nothing more serious than that. I'd refer you to any of several excellent books on the history and philosophy of mathematics. Of course, this doesn't reflect badly on Euclid because he wasn't in the business of creating axiomatic systems in the modern sense. He understood himself to be engaged in what we would now call physics, i.e., saying things about spatial relations in the real world. In short, I don't think so.
Idealization is an aspect of physics just as much as of mathematics.
This doesn't imply that physicists are uninterested in actual gases. Similarly Euclid was idealizing real circles and lines, and working out the implications of those ideal forms, but his interest in those particular ideal forms was due to their correspondence with true spatial relations. He wasn't interested in formal relations based on artificial or arbitrary axiom systems. Perhaps so, but let's return to your claim that Gauss over- turned an established body of knowledge with his proof of the fundamental theorem. It wasn't just a single proof by D'Alembert.