|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaul article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 31, 2004, December 31, 2005, and December 31, 2006.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
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 126.96.36.199 (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.
' 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?
Again - wher is the fact?
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.
Attempts do not mean fact. Where is the proof? Load of Bull.
Removal of map
Removal of map
Wher in history does map show ANY part of Europe / Britain / Russia / Japan or anywhere called Celticia?
Pure Bull. Proof please? Show origins of this map with the word Celticia on it.
Removal of other map:
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 historical fact.
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)
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.188.8.131.52 (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)
Is it not fair to say that the language of the Belgae is unknown and that there is no reason to think they shared a language with Gallia Celtica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The etymology of the name Gaul
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)
- 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)
- I hope my sarcasm was obvious. Cagwinn (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Bizarre section opening to "The Gauls"
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)
Etymology of "Gaul"
The article currently claims "The English Gaul is from French Gaule and is unrelated to Latin Gallia, despite superficial similarity (Latin Gallia would have regularly been turned to *Jaille in French)."; however, the normally reliable and cautious etymonline opines: Gaul (n.) 1560s, "an inhabitant of ancient Gaul," from French Gaule, from Latin Gallia, from Gallus "a Gaul." (Cf. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Gaul&allowed_in_frame=0 . Note that etymonline refers to the inhabitant, not the area. This is unlikely to be the cause of the inconsistency, however.)
Depending on who is right, the Wikipedia claim should either be altered or given a strong reference, particularly since the claim is contrary to expectation.
- This Wikipedia entry is right and etymonline.com (which is not even a reliable source, by the way) is wrong. Cagwinn (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170127015146/http://www.howlsedhes.co.uk/cgi-bin/diskwe.pl to http://www.howlsedhes.co.uk/cgi-bin/diskwe.pl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.