Talk:Gaul/Archive 1

Archive 1

Header

Can we get a map here? --Tubby 20:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems that several are needed:

• topographic map of the region (so the natural physical boundaries can be seen - alps, rhine, north sea, pyrenees
• map of the roman provinces (at several time periods - gallic wars, augustan reform, diocletian reform)
• map of tribal locations and territories
• map of roman gaul civitates

I might be able to help with some of that. I have copyright free topographic data, coastlines, and rivers. I can plot symbols given the lat/long. Other boundaries take time to plot. --Nantonos 01:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

"The Gauls sacked Rome circa 390 BC, destroying all Roman historical records to that point." Where is that coming from???? Could someone elaborate on that pont? olivier 03:43 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

The link to Iberians in the second paragraph points somewhere nonsensical.

• Yes it is. The two relevant links on the resulting disambiguation page are Hispania and Iberian language, and since Hispania is already linked to in the article text, I'm going to send that link to Iberian language.Binabik80 18:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs a rewrite. The Celts never referred to themselves as Celts. Gaul and Gallic are terms that, according to the Romans, were used by the "celts" to describe themselves. Hence Gaelic, Gaul, Galicia (both in spain and turkey, yes they settled there over 2000 years ago). Gaul and Gallic aren't just English terms, they are the terms that the "celts" used to describe themselves.--Dumbo1 01:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Well, in Gallic Wars Caesar states that the name the Gauls call themselves in their own language is Celt (according to Historical Atlas of the Celtic World); I'm aware that there are a number of theories regarding which Indo-European root the word Celt comes from, but so far as I know the most commonly accepted theories all hold that it is a Celtic word. A quick googlesearch for the etymology of Gaul reveals three theories: from the Celtic word for "brave", the Celtic word for "white" or the Germanic word for "foreigner".Binabik80 18:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why this image doesn't qualify as fair use? It demonstrates how it advances knowledge of the arts through the addition of something new. → JarlaxleArtemis 22:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond here, then copy my response to your talk page, since I'm not sure a discussion of this really belongs here.

I'm no expert on copyright law; a glance through your talk page shows several people who have been there who do seem to have a pretty good understanding of the issues at hand, so perhaps you might want to try asking one of them, especially Rhobite, who removed the image from this article in the first place.

After a look through the article on fair use, however, it strikes me that use of the image here violates two of the four determining factors for fair use:

1. 1. Purpose and character. Use of the image in this Wikipedia article was derivative, not transformative. Its use here didn't "stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public" by adding something new to its original conception; rather, it "aim[ed] to only 'supersede the objects' of the original". It's a map of Roman Gaul to illustrate articles about Roman Gaul on Encarta's website, and its use here is simply as a map of Roman Gaul in the Wikipedia article on Roman Gaul, without permission from the copyright holder (Encarta).
   2. Effect upon work's value. This deals more with the general principle of using Encarta images on Wikipedia than on the specific use of a map of Roman Gaul. Widespread instance of this would damage Encarta's ability to exploit their original work, both by (a) superseding the object of the original work, and by (b) destroying Encarta's potential licensing market for their original work (they can't very well charge others to use their work if they're letting us get away with using them for free).

My understanding is that the only really cut-and-dry instances of US fair use is when the use revolves around the original work itself: criticising it, reviewing it, parodying it, teaching about it, etc. But even then (and I can't imagine why we'd ever be parodying or reviewing Encarta), I'd check with someone more knowleageable than me before using Encarta images. But incorporating Encarta's work into our own is right out. Hope that helps. Binabik80 01:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reorganize, disambiguate, split?

The subject matter and the nature of inbound links suggest that a more systematic approach to the topic is needed. For example, it should be more clearly distinguished whether we're talking about the region or the tribal group. Ultimately, they probably warrant separate articles, though I'm not sure whether to make that simply Gaul for the region and Gauls for the people, or make this into a disambiguation page and put the articles at "Gaul (region)" and something else for the people — Gaul (tribe); Gallic peoples? --Michael Snow 21:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it's a mess. I tried Roman Gaul. The list I took form de:, but it should be checked. dab (ᛏ) 21:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no 'tribal group' called Gaul. Gaul is usually used to refer to the collection of three provinces - Gallia Aquitania, Gallia Celtica, Gallia Belgica. It is also, at an earlier period, used to refer to Gallia Cisalpina (northern Italy, north of the river Po).

I have tried to clear up some of the obvious errors in the list of Gaulish tribes - the unweildy list needs to be split by province, though. --Nantonos 01:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the list of tribes below, linking instead to the better List of peoples of Gaul which lists them plus their capitals. --Nantonos 02:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that list, obviously, or it would have saved me some time. So yeah, my incomplete list can just be thrown away. However, my point was that the "peoples of Gaul" should be discussed on this article, and the list was a beginning. But concerning, "There is no 'tribal group' called Gaul", I disagree: How do you suggest the (pre-Roman-conquest) speakers of Gaulish should be referred to as a group? Gauls, I expect. So either we have to make Gauls a separate article, or discuss them here. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the people of Gaul, collectively, should be discussed here and should be called Gauls. However, the idea that they formed a unified political group, while popular among French academics in the period 1870-1940, has no factual basis. This is what I meant by 'no tribal group'. There was not a single tribe; you could not talk to 'the leader of the Gauls'. Hence, of course, the espablishment of the Condate Altar in Lyon, for representatives of all the Gaulish tribes to meet. --Nantonos 14:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, has this been taken care of? I was redirected here from "Gauls", and I was looking for (as Dbachmann said) "the (pre-Roman-conquest) speakers of Gaulish[...]as a group". Is there an article that would be more clear than this one about that?--24.58.164.194 12:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (ViolinGirl)

Gaulish or Gaelic?

I believe the correct way to address the language of the Gauls is Gaelic not gaulish. --Vidushi 15:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gaelic actually refers to the native languages and cultures of Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man. The language and culture of Gaul are described in English as Gaulish or Gallic; while Gallic is probably the more common of the two, it does carry a degree of ambiguity that Gaulish does not, since it is also a vaguely poetic adjective used to describe modernday France and her people.

Gaulish is the correct and current term to refer to the language of Gaul, or Gallo-Brittonic to talk of the (assumed similar/identical) language of Gaul and pre-Roman Britain. Perhaps you are confusing it with the language of the Gaels, whose language is indeed Gaelic. --Nantonos 16:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Another point about language

"South of the Loire they spoke Occitan, a language closely related to Latin"

this describes the situation between the Frankish conquest and modern times, not the situation at the time of Cesar's conquest. Occitan is not "closely related to Latin" any more than French or Spanish are, it is a descendant of Latin just like French, Spanish, Italian and the other Romance languages. It arose from the fact that the Gauls, like the Iberians (or most of them) adopted the language of the Romans once they became part of the Roman Empire. In the northern half of the country the language underwent a different kind of evolution after the Frankish conquest, when the Franks (who controlled mostly the northern part) adopted the form of Latin that had by now become the general speech of the country but their pronunciation (they were now the dominant class) greatly influenced this form of Latin. The sentence containing the reference to Occitan should definitely be deleted as it is anachronistic by several centuries.

Suzifount (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

update: after double-checking in your excellent pages on Occitan and Occitania, I removed the offending sentence from the Gaul article. Suzifount (talk)

A case of Interpretatio graeca/romana?

According to this entry: "Their system of gods and goddesses was loose, there being certian deities which virtually every Gallic person worshiped, as well as tribal and household gods. Many of the major gods were related to Greek gods; the primary one worshiped at the arrival of Caesar was Teutates, the Gallic equivalent of Mercury. The "father god" in Gallic worship was "Dis Pater," who could be assigned Roman name "Saturn." However, there was no real theology, just an "ever-expanding, ever-shifting, formless chaos" of modes of worship."

I do not know much about Gallic religion but how sure are we that Teutates and Dis Pater were equivalents to Mercury and Saturn respectively. I think this should be clarified or at least referenced to a non-Graeco-Roman (that is, modern and neutral) source. To assume that their ancient gods are "our" (the deities with which we are most familiar) may be oversimplifying and overshadowing a distinct culture's belief, perhaps a modern case of interpretatio graeca.

---

From a quick google it appears that Dis Pater was a Roman deity of the underworld. The name means "Rich Father" and is cognate with Pluto (Plouton), itself derived from ploutos (rich). It appears that the Gauls confused the name with a derivative of Dyeus Phter (Sky Father), the chief Indo-European god, whose name survived in Roman times as Jupiter (Jove Father), and they therefore believed that Dis Pater was an ancestor of theirs.

Thus the Gauls believed that their Dis Pater was the the Dis Pater of the Romans, but in etymological terms he was cognate with Jupiter. In actual fact, of course, he was not absolutely identical to either.

I got my info from http://www.celtnet.org.uk/gods_d/dis_pater.html and a couple of other places - Ireneshusband 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Religious Bias

"In terms of their religion, the Gauls were relatively undeveloped"

This statement is unnecessarily judgmental. It tells us nothing that the rest of the paragraph does not tell us.

"However there was no real theology, just an 'ever-expanding, ever-shifting, formless chaos' of modes of worship."

If something is in quotes then presumably someone is being quoted. A citation is needed. The phrase quoted is a rather florid value judgement. It is one that would be quite appropriate in a history textbook, but not in a reference encyclopedia, unless, that is, the scholarly debates on the subject are themselves being discussed. - Ireneshusband 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Would Benefit from More Sources

"Their system of gods and goddesses was loose, there being certain deities which virtually every Gallic person worshiped, as well as tribal and household gods. Many of the major gods were related to Greek gods; the primary god worshiped at the time of the arrival of Caesar was Teutates, the Gallic equivalent of Mercury. The "father god" in Gallic worship was "Dis Pater," who could be assigned the Roman name "Saturn." However there was no real theology, just an "ever-expanding, ever-shifting, formless chaos" of modes of worship."

Though we've lost a great deal of information about the various modes of Celtic religion, Continental and otherwise, we can, from our current knowledge, safely assume that, while the Celtic "pantheon" may have varied from country to country and, to a smaller extent, tribe to tribe, Celtic worship was not a "loose" system. Consider the stratified developments in pre-Christian Ireland, with the various classes of intelligentsia and the rigorous training they undertook to attain their social positions. As for Teutates being the primary deity worshipped in Gaul at the time of the Roman invasions, there's no way to know this for certain. In fact, little can be said to be certain in regards to our knowledge of the Gauls, at least in regards to that about which the Romans wrote. Much of Caesar's commentary on the Gauls must be taken with more than a grain of salt, being that he wrote for the purposes of recording his prowess in war and satisfying his ego, and in an effort to convince his superiors of the necessity of stamping out Gaulish power and surplanting it with Empirical authority. Other Roman writers were, more often than not, merely restating Caesar's opinions of the Gauls, as they weren't even around to witness free Gaul and its culture. As a final note, it is unlikely that Teutates was "the equivalent of Mercury". Teutates was most likely a title, not a name, given to a tribe's "patron" (for lack of a better word). According to Peter Berresford Ellis, a Gaulish version of the pan-Celtic deity Lugh, probably known by something like "Lugus," is the most likely to have been considered by Caesar to be the Gaulish Mercury.

--Art MacAilein 19:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

/* Etymology of gallia etc vs Goidelic 'gall' */

Section on the etymology of gallia and galatia and so forth is excellent. It is interesting to note that we have the word "gall" in Goidelic (OIr., Mod. ScG. "gall", 'a foreigner'). Can we say anything worthwhile about a possible link here? (Worth looking the word up in LEIA, which I don't have access to just now.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CecilWard (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Goscinny and Uderzo

We need to point out, perhaps under "trivia", that Gaul, or Roman Gaul, is the home of Asterix and Obelix. This bullet should be accompanied by a picture. --Nantonos 09:32, 02 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Proof needed

Removal of:

In English, the word Gaul (French: Gaulois) may also refer to a Celtic inhabitant of that region, although the expression may be used more generally for all ancient speakers of the Gaulish language (a derivative of early Celtic) who were widespread in Europe and extended even into central Anatolia by Roman times. In this way, "Gaul" and "Celt" are sometimes used interchangeably

How are Celt and Gaul used interchangeably? Celt is a modern word. Gauls did not call themselves Celts. Prof that Gauls called themselves Celts please.

Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico 1.1. --Nicknack009 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaul article is seriuously flawed - pure fantasy

At NO time in History was the word Celticia EVER used. This article is eriously flawed and is being wokrd by fantasists. Proof - I mean historical proof needed. Pure Bullcrap.

Strabo, among other ancient writers, used the term "Celtica", as used on the map (not "Celticia" which you have made up). So you're wrong. --Nicknack009 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Give - some - no ANT evidence to to wher the name Celtica comes from:

\You ae abusing Wikipedia with your POV. GIVE EVIDENCE

Strabo, Geography 4:5.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 14.1; Ptolemy, Tetrabiblios 2.62; Pliny the Elder, Natural History 4.105 (in Latin - the English translation on Perseus translates it as "Celtic Gaul"). Now stop bothering people who know more than you with your invincible ignorance. --Nicknack009 12:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Chill out Mallerd (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to concur with those that say that this article, in particular these maps, are substantially flawed. If you are editing the page in a controversial section please cite references and not just go with what you have heard. The most accurate and well supported position is the one that should be taken.

2nd REmoval of the maps - this article needs serious attention

Maps removed again - this artcle is seriously flawed. Attention needed to the original research. Celticia was NEVER used before very modern times.

Please stop. These maps are based on sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, how do you stop a determined vandal who switches IP addresses regularly? --Nicknack009 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We persist reverting, until he/she gets bored.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No I am not a vandal - you are not able to give ANY historical data as to wher these maps came from. You are abusing wikipedia by your persistent POV on certain subjetcs. YOU are the vandals.

3rd removal of these false maps.

I gave you Strabo. I gave you Caesar. I have now given you links to passages from Strabo, Pliny, Dionysius and Ptolemy. You know nothing about this subject, you have added nothing constructive, you do not listen when you are corrected but persist in the same misguided points, you do not sign your edits and you keep changing your IP address. You are a vandal and a troll, and I have requested this article be semi-protected so it can't be edited by people without a user ID. If you get a user ID and persist in this behaviour, I will have you blocked as a vandal. --Nicknack009 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

4th Removal of false maps dating from 1800's

Romans - Ceasar - Brythons - I haver checked the REAL history behind all of this. The word Celt was INVENTED in 1829. Gaul was called GAUL that is why this article is called GAUL - stoopid.

Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary, s.v., "Celt" gives citations for the term *in English* (to say nothing of ancient sources, which other editors have already cited extensively) as early as 1607. From Edward Topsell's "The historie of foure-footed beastes", 251: "The Indians were wont to use no bridles, like the Graecians and Celts." So there is no ground whatsoever for the claim that the word was invented in 1829. 140.247.236.242 16:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

To Wikipedia Editors being persuaded to ahve this article protected. The people behind this correction of history are doing it for a POV. Do not be duped. Gaul was GAUL. Not a made up name. Just because these people do not like this article being Edited in the way all wikipedia articles are being edited is NOT an excuse and I will look to have the protection revoked. Grow up.

Did you read any of the links I gave you? No? Why am I not surprised? --Nicknack009 02:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats GAUL - spelt G A U L - not some made up mystical load of bull. Proof that there was a Celtica - and don't throw books by Celtic authors at us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk)

Who is us, may I ask? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic material must be verifiable- You verify NOTHING - ABUSE OF WIKIPEDIA

FALSE MAPS + MADE UP WORDS = ABUSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk)

I am waiting for you to stop quoting Celtic authors from the 19th Century and come up with some REAL evidence. YOu have NONE. You abuse wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.94.211 (talk)

Right, I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark now, but I get the feeling that you once trolled a forum, under the name of "Ifan", with similar arguments as on this page, and almost every other page about Celts. I also seem to remember that you can't see URLs, ignoring them and claiming you have more sources, despite the fact that you haven't. How much of that was correct? And since when were Pliny and Strabo "19th century Celtic authors"? AledJames 14:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"don't throw books by Celtic authors at us. — by 209.82.94.211" In addition to the above arguments, wouldn't the existence of "Celtic authors" be somewhat indicative of a "celtica." 209.82.94.211's campaign of "Nordic Vandalism" has spanned many different articles (all about celts) and he should be dealt with, failing that we will have to protect every single Celtic page on wikipedia, I have just cleaned up a page about "Galatians" that has been vandalized in a similar idiotic manner. 70.187.156.140 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Bloody Sacha

Shouldn't there be a seperate page for the ethnic group/tribe?

Just a suggestion, but wouldn't it make sense to have one? I mean Gaul is just the land. The people should have their own page, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Bóruma (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

it was just a matter of someone doing it. Gauls. dab (𒁳) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Travian

I'm removing Travian from the "see also" section as its a computer game that, while it mentions the gauls, has little to do with history. If we were to include such pop culture type things then the list would need to include such things as the Asterix Comics and Rome Total War. Sxoa (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

hm

Gaul (Latin: Gallia) was the Roman name

Hm, this seems to contradict itself. Does Roman not mean how the Romans themselves called the area of France, or does it mean how English language calls the area of France during Roman times. Mallerd (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Social Structure

The section begins obviously in the middle of a thought -- as is and seems always to have been the case with Gauls, from which this is taken, and which should probably be deleted. DavidOaks (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

doubts

• Just an English context shows, that the same linguistical root can be turned either in a palatal or in a rounded way: The Irish town of Galway, in English pronounced like Gaule, in Irish language is called Gaillimh and pronounced almost as palatal as French "fille".
• The Greek names Galata and Galatia even contain the "t" of "Celtic".
• The tendency to turn an “l“ into an “u“ is not strictly limited to positions before consonants: French "peau" corresponds to Italian "pelle".
• Last not least, the Germanic (and partly Slavic) names for the Celts on one hand and the subjects of the Roman Empire on the other were identical:
  • English "Welsh" stands for the people and culture of Wales,
  • German "welsch" stands for people and culture of Gallia and Gallia Cisalpina,
  • Wallachia, German "Wallachei", is the southern part of Romania, an several (partly former) Roman speaking minorities in the danube region in Slavic languages are called Vlakhy or Vlashski (English transcription).

So I dare to consider the discrimination between Celtic and Gaulle too sophisticated.--Ulamm (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Galata: Galata was not a Greek name! There are several theories concerning the origin of the name Galata. According to the Italians, the name comes from Calata (meaning downward slope) as the neighbourhood is sloped and goes downwards to the sea from a hilltop. This etymology is correct! so Galata and Galatia are not cognates! Böri (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture of Gaul

"while the heavily forested northern Gaul had almost no cities outside of fortified compounds (or oppida) used in times of war."

It is a common misconception to consider that Gaul was heavily forested. In fact, recent archaeological evidences show that everywhere in Gaul the forests were in decline, making way for agriculture. See: Michel Reddé, "Des barbares très civilisés," L'Histoire, n° 282, December 2003.

Mathieu Ferradou (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oversimplification in religion

"Many of the major gods were related to Greek gods; the primary god worshiped at the time of the arrival of Caesar was Teutates, the Gallic equivalent of Mercury. The "father god" in Gallic worship was "Dis Pater" (cf. Dyaus Pitar), who could be assigned the Roman name "Saturn". However there was no real known theology, just a set of related and evolving traditions of worship."

Another common misconception. "Teutatès" was a name quoted by Lucain (Latin poet of the 1st century B.C.) as the most famous Gallic god, except that Joseph Vendryes has demonstrated that it was not a god but a qualification, "a teutatès," i.e. the god of the tribe. So many gods could bear the qualification "teutatès." (Jean-Louis Brunaux, Les religions gauloises. Rituels celtiques de la Gaule indépendante, Paris, Errance, 1996, pg. 52-53.)

Mathieu Ferradou (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

All Indo-European peoples' gods are ultimately related, as their religion stems from the same Proto-Indo-European source. Teutates is amply attested as the name of a god and not just a generic title. I have no idea where you came up with that bit about there being "no known theology!"Cagwinn (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bog bodies

I noticed that someone deleted Spain from the long "See also" section. Seems reasonable. Hispania, however, might be relevant because of the Celtiberian population and relations along the border. The idea that bog bodies might be found from Gaul also was new to me, and indeed the article on the subject doesn't seem to discuss any from France or greater Gaul. So I wonder about the usefulness of that link. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are "Gallia" and "Gael" cognates?

Gael: 1810, from Scottish Gaelic Gaidheal "member of the Gaelic race," corresponding to O.Ir. Goidhel (cf. L. Gallus). The native name in both Ireland and Scotland, Gael was first used in English exclusively of Scottish Highlanders. from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Gael&searchmode=none It says: O.Ir. Goidhel (cf. L. Gallus), Is it true? Böri (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not cognates. From this very article: "The name Gaul is sometimes erroneously linked to the ethnic name Gael, which is derived from Old Irish Goidel (borrowed, in turn, from Old Welsh Guoidel "Irishman", now spelled Gwyddel, from a Brittonic root *Wēdelos meaning literally "forest person, wild man"[4]); the names are, thus, unrelated." Cagwinn (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cagwinn, I'm not convinced that such is the case - to me at least, there is no logic in the notion that a group of people would self-identify by a foreign word in their own language. It seems unlikely that the Irish people's names for themselves and their language would come from Welsh, particularly from what would seem to be a slightly derogatory term. It would be possible that they might use the Welsh term when interacting with the Welsh people or others met through contact with Wales, but the chances of it becoming so embedded in their psyche that the term becomes applied 'internally' are in my opinion, very slim.

In fact, I think it is no great leap to see how 'Gaeltacht' (originally refering to speakers of Gaelic, now applied geographically), or some dialect thereof, could be rendered as 'Keltoi' in Greek, and the similarity between Gallia and Gael is obvious. However, for the purposes of the content of the related articles, my opinion is just that, an opinion, and does not meet the criteria for wp:verify whereas the theories to the contrary do (at least until I find a source that backs me up). Gabhala (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, don't take this the wrong way, but who cares if you're convinced or not? This is the scholarly consensus. If you can prove that the professional scholars are wrong and their evidence faulty, then go ahead and do it (in a peer-reviewed academic journal, of course). The relevant sources are in the main article, by the way (if you actually read the article, you would already know that).Cagwinn (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the abrasive tone? I have already conceded that the current sources and consensus are against me and that I need to find a source to support the theory. Gabhala (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I told you not to take offense! Real scientists don't look for evidence to support a theory - as objectively as possible (and without preconceived notions) they examine a set of data, then draw their conclusions from it.Cagwinn (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this Welsh-origin theory originated with Sir John Rhys, a Welshman, and is based purely on the similarity between the words. Not a hint of preconceived notions, there. On the other hand, certain ancient Irish traditions suggest the origins of the term lies with a common ancestor - named as Gadelius in some sources. The question is, are a people more likely to name themselves after a common ancestor (still evident in Gaelic surnames) or self-identify by a foreign word for 'savages'? Or for that matter, is there any other cases where an ethnic population have taken to self-identifying in their own language by a derogatory term from a foreign language? I think we are all the victims of a bronze-age Welsh pun...Gabhala (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, the 'Name' section is very contradictory - "The English Gaul and French French: Gaule, Gaulois, in spite of superficial similarity, are unrelated to Latin Gallia, Galli. They are rather derived from the Germanic term walha, "foreigner, Romanized person", an exonym applied by Germanic speakers to Celts". This section essentially just says that the Germanic rendering of the word for 'Celts' is unrelated to the Latin rendering of the same term...hmmm...Gabhala (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you just don't seem to have much of a grasp over the linguistic and cultural issues at play here. I suggest you conduct some more research (a lot more research, actually).Cagwinn (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words. The linguistic issues trace the Welsh word back to its PIE origins, and do nothing to prove the alleged borrowing. The evidence for the borrowing is solely based on similarity, and referenced back to a single 19th Century Welsh writer.Gabhala (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are arguing from ignorance - do some proper research on the subject, then get back to us.Cagwinn (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaul < Walha; I know that... but I asked: Are "Gallia" and "Gael" cognates? It's an important question... Do we know the correct etymologies of "Keltoi" / Celt, "Galatai" and "Gaidheal"? Böri (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not cognates, as has already been explicitly spelled out in the article.Cagwinn (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Böri is right to suggest that the etymology of the Greek and Latin ethnonyms for the Celts, such as Keltoi, Galatai, and Celtae (this last in Julius Caesar) remains an unresolved matter. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is still a minor amount debate about the exact etymology of Keltoi/Galatai/Celtae/Galli, but it is widely accepted that they are all derived from Celtic originals and derivatives of PIE roots such as *kel- "to rise up/b e elevated" or *gal- "to be powerful". There is no possible connection between any of these names and Ir/W. Goidel/Gwyddel - even to suggest such a thing displays a keen lack of understanding of Celtic historical phonology.Cagwinn (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This degree of certainty does not exist. Your tone is unduly insulting, as I said nothing about the etymology of Goidel. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, then it should be easy for you to provide us with several citations from modern articles/books written by linguists, in which alternate hypotheses are proposed. I'll wait with bated breath for you post them here. I never claimed that you said anything the etymology of Goidel - my comments were directed to user Gabhala and towards the source that Böri cited in his original post. Cagwinn (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"I'll wait with baited breath" - is that a Freudian slip? Your comments to one and all here are uncivil in the extreme. You should strike them all. Scolaire (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And no, just correcting the spelling of "bated" does not make it "better"! Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's easy for me to point to a source that summarizes the state of the question succinctly, and introduces reasonable doubt about whether your contempt is earned (actually, WP:CIV might be invoked for that): see this entry by Philip Freeman in Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia (ABC-Clio, 2006), edited by John T. Koch. Here's another note from Patrick Sims-Williams (1998) stating that the etymologies of the Keltoi/Celtae/Galatai are uncertain. A linguistics bibliography will take more time, but Celticists do not regard this issue as resolved. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you cite contradict what I have stated in regards to the etymology. For a fuller discussion by Sims-Williams, see:

Patrick Sims-Williams, Celtomania and Celtoscepticism, CMCS 36, 1998, pp. 1-35.

From pp. 21-22: "Some classical writers show a preference between the three terms Keltoi, Galatai and Galli, but others tend to use them synonymously, and it seems impossible to detect any original distinction between them. As usual with proper names, their etymologies cannot be proved; but Keltoi has been plausibly derived from a root *kel- 'exalt', so meaning 'the high ones, uchelwyr, and Galatai and Galli from the root *gal- "to be able", so meaning 'the capable, valorous ones'. Yet the remarkable coincidence that both Keltoi and Galatai contain a velar stop plus /l/ and /t/ suggests that they may be related, as Kenneth Jackson, for one, thought. Did the ethnonyms reach the classical world through languages which confused, or did not make a phonemic distinction between, voiceless and voiced stops? Could one perhaps derive all three terms, Keltoi, Galatai, and Galli, by understandable phonetic processes, from a single preform - perhaps Proto-Celtic *kltoi, 'concealed ones, ?guerillas'? If so, the form said by Caesar to be used by the inhabitants of central Gaul of themselves - Celtae (with /kel-/ rather than the expected Celtic /kli-/) — would have been reborrowed from the classical world, which is by no means impossible."

From Stefan Zimmer's entry "The Celtic Languages" in Koch, John, "Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia", ANC-CLIO, 2006, p. 371: "§1. Ancient names for Celtic-speaking peoples on the Continent. Celti (Κελτοι, Κέλτοι), Galatae (Γαλάται), Celtae, and Galli are names used by Greek and Latin authors for the Celtic-speaking tribes in northern Italy and westcentral Europe, north of the Alps, and later also in Anatolia (present-day Turkey). The name Celtiberi (Greek Κελτίβηρεσ) was used for those in central Spain (see Celtiberia; Celtiberian; Greek and Roman accounts). No generally agreed etymology exists for these names. Possible roots include IE *k´el- ‘to hide’ (also in Old Irish celid), IE *k´el- ‘to heat’ or *kel- ‘to impel’ for *Kelt-, and probably IE *gelh2- ‘power’(also in OIr. and Welsh gâl ‘a warlike blow’) for Galatae, Γαλάται, and maybe also Galli."

See also: McCone, Kim. "Greek Κελτός and Γαλάτης, Latin Gallus 'Gaul'", Die Sprache 46/1, 2006 (2008), pp. 94-111. Abstract: "This paper will argue: (1) That all three words are native Celtic in origin; (2) That the key to providing a hitherto lacking phonologically, morphologically and semantically satisfactory etymology of Keltoi is supplied by Caesar's statement that the Gauls regard themselves as descendants of Dis Pater; (3) That the native Gaulish *galatis underlying Greek Galatës is a derivative of *galä > OIr. gal ‘ardour, fury, prowess’, both based upon the PIE root *ĝhelh3 also seen, for instance, in Greek khlöros and English yellow; (4) That Latin Gallus also derives from Gaulish *galatis, apparent irregularities in its development being explicable by positing indirect borrowing via Etruscan."Cagwinn (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010

Yes, Freeman's entry takes note of Sims-WIlliams's argument, without endorsing it as the only solution or final word. And S-W himself in the quotation above dances around excessively rigid conclusions with question marks and modal auxiliaries. I would also point out for Gabhala in particular Koch's own discussion of the word "Gaelic", which is much lengthier than Freeman's, and quite useful, concluding that "The popular idea that Gaelic is related to the names Gaul and Galatia is incorrect" (scroll down in these search results to pp. 776–777). This is in Google Books, so best wishes on access. I have the McCone reference but haven't read the article; I've always found McCone's work very illuminating, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The point being, while there is room for debate on the specifics of the etymology, all of these Celticists agree on regarding the Greek/Latin ethnic names Keltoi/Celtae/Galatai/Galli as being of Celtic origin.Cagwinn (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My response had to do with the degree of certainty with which scholars express their views on the subject, which should not be overstated, and with taking a less combative stance, which hardly furthers the useful exchange of information among editors. If McCone connects this to the Galli being descendants of Dis Pater, then you've made me more interested in reading the article, since I'm more interested in culture than linguistics per se. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the context of the original question, and some of the comments directed at me, I think I may have miscommunicated my position on this. My issue is not (necessarily) with the 'Gael is not cognate with Galli' bit, per se, but rather with the 'because Gael is borrowed from Old Welsh Guoidel/Gwyddel' bit. Firstly, as per Koch, cited in the article and linked above by Cynwolfe, the borrowing would have had to have been from pre-Old Welsh Brythonic. Rather than ranting here, on what is already a long thread, I have outlined what I believe to be the main flaws in the Welsh-origin theory on my talk page, if anyone cares...(and if not, that's OK, too) Gabhala (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you do not seem to understand the linguistic complexities involved here (nor do you seem to have a proper handle on the chronology that Koch et al have established for the borrowing) - but hey, don't let that stop you from making "factually-challenged" statements in a public forum!Cagwinn (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll need to be a little more specific than a vague "you just don't understand". Fact is the article says from 'Old Welsh', and in the citation, Koch specifically says from Brythonic in the early half of the 7th Century, almost two centuries prior to the accepted beginning of Old Welsh as a language. Fact is that the chronology given in the citation fails to account fully for the term also being used by the Scottish Gaels (Dal Riata). Fact is the Irish Gaels had been settling in Britain (Wales, Cornwall, Scotland) during the 3 centuries prior to the alleged borrowing, while in the citation Koch paints a picture of 7th century Irish Gaels emerging from isolation and in need of an ethnic identity to distinguish themselves from their newly discovered neighbours. If there is other information available that puts a different context on all of this, please don't keep it to yourself - include it in the article, or at least provide the citations... Gabhala (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can't comprehend the article because you don't understand the terminology being used, that is your problem, not mine. The 7th-9th century form of Welsh is often called "Neo-Brittonic/Brythonic", "Archaic Welsh", or "Early Old Welsh". Your remark that Koch depicts the Irish as coming out of isolation in the 7th century is not quite accurate - this is his actual wording:

"The borrowing of the language name and corresponding group name in the 7th century can be understood in the context of an Irish people — relatively recently Christian, literate, especially in their own vernacular, involved in Britain through colonization (Dál Riata; Dyfed), centrally involved in the national churches of the Picts and Northumbria, and engaged in high-level missionary activity (peregrinatio) in Frankia and Italy. They were newly aware of themselves as a linguistically defined nation among many, coming into contact with new words and stories with which to express this awareness." Cagwinn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? After your remark about 'factually challenged', you follow up with a statement that essentially implies that if an article contains misleading and inaccurate terminology, then it's the reader's problem for not being enough of an expert in the subject to be able to decipher what was really meant? If you can't provide me with a compelling reason not to, I intend to edit that particular statement in the article to replace 'Old Welsh' with 'Brythonic' (or if you feel another term is more appropiate, we can use that - but 'Old Welsh' as it stands is clearly misleading to readers)

On the other point, you are arguing semantics, not substance. "...They were newly aware of themselves as a linguistically defined nation among many..." - newly aware? After 300 years of settlement amongst at least the Britons and Picts, and presumably an exposure to the Romanised populations that would have existed in those areas? One would assume that they would have noticed these others spoke different languages during this time, especially if they were 'borrowing' words from them. Since the vernacular literacy Koch refers to includes the Ogham script, supposedly based on either Latin or Germanic, and developed sometime between 100 BC and the 4th Century AD, further demonstrates a much earlier exposure to foreign languages. And yet, in the 7th century, the Irish were 'newly aware' of their linguistic ethnicity? There's a pretty big hole in that logic.

And I notice, you have provided no information to address the apparent 20-year window defined by Koch in the reference for the borrowed identity to take sufficient hold among the Irish to embed itself with the Dal Riata before the kingdom's decline. Gabhala (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This I hate dealing with internet zealots! You clearly have a fixed notion on the origins of the name Goidel in which it is absolutely impossible for it to be anything other than a native name - never mind that it has no meaning in Irish, nor an etymology (whereas it does have a meaning in Welsh and can be etymologized via Brittonic, as many scholars have noted over the past century)! Is your sense of identity so fragile that you cannot bear to admit that Goidel was a Welsh word in origin? Hey, I'm Irish, too, and I got over the fact that it was a borrowed name fairly quickly, once I examined the facts with a clear mind! If you refuse to do the proper research for yourself and learn why this has become the accepted etymology among professional scholars, then nothing that I can post here is going to help you.Cagwinn (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I have no fixed idea as to the origins of the name, and the fact that it can be etymologized in Welsh and Brythonic is great, but the scenario and timelines given in the references and/or the article make little sense and at times appear contradictory when the Dal Riata and Deisi are factored in (Manx is less problematic, but still should be considered). As for being Irish - I'm Irish-born (of several generations), but my ancestry isn't Gaelic, so my sense of identity is completely irrelevant in this case. My interest in things Celtic stems from a fiercely Gaelic primary school teacher in my childhood, rather than a sense of personal identity.

Since the name also appears as a personal name in both the Book of Llandaff and LGE, the ancestor theory could make sense and would also explain the difficulty in finding an Irish etymology. At the risk of venturing into OR territory is it not even possible that the spelling of a similar sounding word was borrowed from the Welsh when Gaelic started using the Latin script, rather than the word itself?

If you're aware of something I'm missing regarding why the Irish would wait more than 300 years before differentiating themselves from the foreign ethnic groups they had been encountering, and as to how the descendants of the Dal Riata came to assume the same borrowed identity as those Irish who remained on the island, surely it would be simpler to just point me (and future readers) in the right direction. Obviously, if the articles and the provided references create apparent contradictions and cause confusion in someone who has a basic familiarity with the topics in question, then I think the topic needs some more work. Gabhala (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

quite a long thread for a question that could just by answered by "no"... --dab (𒁳) 21:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has a problem. When we look up "Gaul" in a dictionary, we almost always see it identified as deriving from Latin's Gallia. The theory of Germanic origin may be correct, it may be the consensus of modern linguists, but it needs to be identified as such. When people see that established sources say one thing, yet Wikipedia says another, Wikipedia doesn't win the battle. Stick to the neutral point of view. Additionally, even if the "consensus" is mentioned with neutrality, it needs to be established. I see nothing of the sort, only a collection of individual sources. A better approach would be something like: "While sources generally attribute the the modern usage Gaul to Latin Gallia, the following modern linguists say such-and-such.." However when you simply delete all views you don't like, you come off sounding like a loon.Ignatiusboethius (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the article has a problem - rather the problem may be with Wikipedians' over-reliance on really old sources; why should we show any deference to outdated, inaccurate dictionaries (and specifically which one[s] are you referring to?)? Should Wikipedia eternally be 50-100 years behind modern scientific research, out of some sort of bizarre desire for pure neutrality? Seems misguided to me. Cagwinn (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cagwinn, and point to the WP:UNDUE section of the neutrality policy. Nowhere does it state that Wikipedia is obliged to perpetuate all the errors of the ages, or science articles would become impossible to write. On the other hand, we have an article on geocentricism to explain the concept as a matter of intellectual history. I reworded the sentence in question here slightly; the assertion was weakened by an oddly placed adversative clause. A footnote could be added, however (and Ignatiusboethius is welcome to do so) explaining that older or popularizing sources sometimes make this connection. You'd need to specify some actual examples, however. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason is to explain why readers see one thing when they look at most reference works, but another when they look here. Wikipedia need not show deference to outdated sources, only acknowledge their existence. The question which needs answering is: who thinks that Gaul/Gael/Gallia are cognates? However I'm certainly not the best person for the job, I'm pointing out what I see as a structural flaw in the way information is presented. Someone actually familiar with this supposed modern consensus of academia must explain and document it in proper Wikipedian style. All the building blocks are already in the article or on this talk page. Ignatiusboethius (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Millions and millions

The following statement has bothered me for a long time:

As many as a million people (probably 1 in 5 of the Gauls) died, another million were enslaved, 300 tribes were subjugated and 800 cities were destroyed during the Gallic Wars.

There are so many things wrong with it (300 tribes? 800 "cities" in Gaul? seriously?) that I don't know where to start. Ancient demography simply doesn't support these numbers. Eventually I'll get around to compiling the vast body of scholarship that contradicts it. In the meantime, however, I'll post stuff here as I happen on it by chance.

• "The claim that one million Gauls came to Rome as slaves, and a modern variant of this to the effect that one million Celts fell into slavery, in consequence of Caesar's Gallic campaigns of 58–51 B.C., are not to be accepted. The second statement is a distortion of the assertion of Plutarch and Appian that a million Celts were slain or captured during those years." It goes on with specifics about why these totals can't be taken seriously. See William L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (American Philosophical Society, 1955), p. 63.

This source is more than a half-century old, but I don't think we'll find contradictory scholarship that's newer. The numbers "300" and "800" dwarf Caesar's own account, and he would have motive to inflate; his numbers (such as the size of troop contingents) are usually taken as exaggerations. I hope someone else will take the initiative and research this properly. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaul is not Gallia

This name of 'Gaul' is just created about the middle of the 16th century. I don't support this name totally forged by some writers belonging to the sects (certainly Jesuitic). The meaning of GAULE is 'Country of Excrements' from CAU, GAU. We cannot accept a such name.

GALLIA from the Welsh verb GALLU [galee] or Country of Galli (Welsh) or Great-Galles comes from the Welsh language, tongue of Gallia or French.

The map of this article are also wrong. Celtica is also a late invention, a pure mystification, an hoax or myth. Don't forget that the writing of one pseudo "Cesar" [kaizer] are copies from the 9th century, and never from -50 BC. So all is wrong.

This article is appallingly bad. A simple copy from very bad books; for me totally stupid. I could to explain a lot of thing, but not in English, that will take to too much time. So, you have still to search several years to find the true about GALLIA [galia], country of Welsh. The letter G moves in C, V, W, CH, & others. So GALL [GUELSH, GELSH) = VELCH, ELSH, WELSH, GALL, GALLES, &c. The letter A = E. You have to learn the Welsh to understand the French.

CELTICA from Latin means a sort of granary, if my memory is good (to verify?), a place where the romans invaders could to supply their legion. We count 3 celticas or armoricas = place for rapes, radish, beets, root vegetables. I advise you to open a good dictionary of Latin to control these names (A book not writed by a churchy or holly joe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.11.25.39 (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but Gauls have been conflated with Celts. Not all Gauls were Celts and not all Celts were Gauls.

In fact pretty much every entry regarding Gauls on Wikipedia classifies the Belgic tribes of Gaul as Celts whereas contemporary writers were specific that there were different in language and culture.