Talk:Gaul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject European history (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Celts (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Gaul is not Gallia[edit]

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)


' Seem ' = Contested -[edit]

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?


Again - wher is the fact?[edit]

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.


REmoval of map[edit]

REmoval of map

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.

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.



Bog bodies[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Religion[edit]

The Religion section here is just awful - it's filled with factual errors and is written in a very immature style (it reads like a middle school book report). We need to work on this one, folks! Cagwinn (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Along with "Celtic polytheism," whatever that is, and the stubbish Gallo-Roman religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I know facts are scarce about classical Celtic Paganism, but it's worse for it to just be brushed aside as "basically the same as the Roman gods..." As though we of Neopagan communities don't have enough issues with reclamation and reconstruction. I can't count the number of times that we've had some yokel try and use a very poorly written Wikipedia article against us.99.179.127.63 (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Celts" topics are very garbled, not just due to editorial incompetence, but because they are really very difficult to cover. "Celtic polytheism" should make clear it is about ancient Continental Celtic religion. Insular evidence could be used to assist in the reconstruction of early Celtic religion, but trying to cover Insular history at the same time as ancient Gaul, things will always go wrong. Perhaps even rename the thing to "Gallic reliigon" or something, just to make its scope managable. Whatever can be reconstructed for Insular Celtic should go into an article about the early Insular Celts. "late prehistoric" (Dark Ages) Irish and Welsh, finally, should again go into separate articles. This will lead to some fragmentation, yes, but everything is better than the current hodge-podge.

The problem is aggravated, of course, by the constant trickle of edits by people who do not have the first clue about the topic (but nevertheless have strong feelings about it). This is a result of the "Celtic revival" and the resulting (a) Celtic nationalism and (b) Celtic esotericism/neopaganism. This gives us such articles as Celtic nature worship , including gems like

"The Celts of the ancient world believed that many spirits and divine beings inhabited the world around them, and that humans could establish a rapport with these beings."

Well, replace "Celts" with any name of any people whatsoever and the sentence will still have the same truth value, but the "Celts" are the ones who get singled out for this type of human cultural universal.

Regarding the name, we have established for years that "Gaul" is not derived from "Gallia", and that "Gaul" is the modern English term for all of Gaul, but some people will always feel compelled to argue that the "Gauls" are the "Galli" and do therefore not include the Belgae. This is depressing. I have tried to fix this once again, but people should really pay better attention to this article. One editor seems to have gone around citing Caesar to establish that "the Gaulish language was only spoken in Gallia Celtica". Never mind that the name Gaulish didn't even exist in Caesar's time, it is also utterly impossible to derive any linguistic conclusion to citing primary sources like that. There is a reason why Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on expert seconrady literature, not on home-rolled interpretations of ancient primary texts. --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The etymology of the name Gaul[edit]

I know that several "linguists" will not agree with my comment here, but the term Celt (Kelt, not "Tselt") & Gaul are related (from my own studies). The ancient common "Indo European" word ( was Gal or Gul or Gala which meant "Throat", "Language" - coming out of a throat and singing, speaking like seaGuls (Guls), Galus (a rooster in Italian), or Glagolica or Golos, in Slavic ("voice") or Galeb (seaGul); Gala in Sanskrit, etc. The correct meaning of Kelts (Gauls) was "Speakers" or "those who speak". Language of "birds".

Yeah, why trust "linguists" with all their stupid degrees and scientific methods?? Blah, better to just make up your own etymologies for everything - untrained people always know better than specialists, am I right?? Cagwinn (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Goropius Becanus will always give birth to descendants, because imagination is individual and innate, when science demands a bit of common sense.Nortmannus (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Cagwinn you may be right Angelica-Dominus-Sabre (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope my sarcasm was obvious. Cagwinn (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't mind the blocked sock of User:Blade-of-the-South. I expect he was just trying to add some contribs on a topic he knows or cares very little about in order to circumvent the semiprotection of Ghouta chemical attack. Alas, "intel boys" have foiled him again... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre section opening to "The Gauls"[edit]

I clicked on the TOC and was greeted with "The Druids were not the only political force in Gaul, however..." which is an awful opening for a section. Especially when scrolling up a bit to the end of the previous section yields no insight as to this alleged Druidic force. Huw Powell (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the article's history and this is a remnant from several years back, when the Religion section preceded the Social Structures and Tribes section. So typical for Wikipedia - people make edits and move sections around without any regard to the narrative flow of the article as a whole.Cagwinn (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)