Talk:Gaul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Needs more citations, better structuring and summary style.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Celts Gaul is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.


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. 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)

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] /* 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).

[edit] 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)


[edit] ' Seem ' = Contested -

Many cultural traits of the early Celts seem to have been carried northwest up the Danube Valley, although this issue is contested. It seems as if they derived many of their skills (like metal-working), as well as certain facets of their culture, from Balkan peoples.

What cultural traits - where - who says?


[edit] 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)

[edit] Again - wher is the fact?

Quote:

There also have been attempts to trace Keltoi and Galatai to a single origin. It is most likely that the terms originated as names of minor tribes *Kel-to and/or Gal(a)-to- which were the earliest to come into contact with the Roman world, but which have disappeared without leaving a historical record.[2]

Attempts do not mean fact. Where is the proof? Load of Bull.


[edit] REmoval of map

REmoval of map

Map of Gaul circa 58 BC.
Map of Gaul circa 58 BC.

Wher in history does map show ANY part of Europe / Britain / Russia / Japan or anywher called Celticia?

Pure Bull. Proof please? Show origins of this map with the word Celticia on it.

Removal of other map:

A map of Gaul in the 1st century BC, showing the relative positions of the Celtic tribes.
A map of Gaul in the 1st century BC, showing the relative positions of the Celtic tribes.

Again - show proof of any map anywhere showu=ing Celticia on it. Please.


These maps need to be removed - they have no - I say again no historcal fact.



[edit] Gaul article is seriuous;y 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)