"Celtic and Gallic alliance?" Topic

hey everyone,

did the Celts and the Gauls ever make and Alliance to fight off Julius Caesars legions?

My understanding is they are one and the same.

Gaul is the Roman name for a region, Celts were people who inhabited that (and many other) region in Caesar's time. Thus the Celts in Gaul are often referred to as "Gauls".

Celts and Gauls? Well, the Gallic tribes *were* Celtic peoples, so…? But if you're thinking of Gauls and *Germans*, I can think of at least two cases, but only one directly involving JC.

In the great migration of the Cimbri and Teutones, ultimately quashed by Gaius Marius, some of the Gallic tribes supported them for a while, hosting them, and some may have actually accompanied them (such as the Boii, an eastern Celtic group of tribes). Some writers actually consider the Cimbri, and some the Teutones, as Celtic peoples, but they are a minority (the argument is based on the Celtic-seeming names of their tribes and leaders); most other dismiss the language issue, pointing to the long tiime these peoples spent in Gallic lands, and point to their clear identification by the Romans as Germanic.

Caesar himself took on the Belgae, of which the component tribes were part-Gallic, part-Germanic, or both, in their own views: some considered themselves Gauls, some Germans. (The remnants of the Cimbri and Teutones, in fact, constituted the Atuatuci, a Belgic tribe.)

But both those early instances could be explained by the tendency of the Romans, and we in turn, to make a more distinct separation between the two groupings of European peoples than they may have done themselves.

The closest you may find to an actual alliance would be the not-too-close relationship between Civilis's Germans and the concurrent Gallic revolt in the Year of the Four Emperors. Both were ticked at Rome, but no particularly solid alliance was formed.

Allen

Or, if you're asking about an alliance between British Celts (Britons) and Continental Gauls to resist Caesar, that's another thing.

Some of the Belgic tribes, or portions of them, moved across the channel to Britain: the Suessiones and Atrebates were on both sides of the Channel. Now Caesar *claimed* that the Britons aided the Continental Veneti while Caesar was subduing them, but Caesar was not unskilled at manufacturing pretexts for his wars.

Allen

Not really. which is why JC was able to conquer Gaul. The tribes didn't unite until it was too late.

Read Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. Good stuff. Easy to read and you can get any number of cheap paperback translations.

I read the "Gallic Wars", in Latin, at my sainted grandmother's knee. Honestly, I would probably recommedn for most folks that they start with a secondary analysis, such as Goldsworthy or even Jimenez, and *then* go to Caesar's (thank you, Jack!) own words. It's not that it isn't obvious to the reader when he is being self-serving, but it might be better to start with a more rounded description of events.

Allen

As for germanic and gallic tribes – Caesar mentions a couple of tribes who've migrated across the Rhine and 'become' one or the other.

The difference may not have been as great as some would have it.

"Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est…"

There you go, now you've made a start

…except for one small village…..

*runs*

All the Gauls are divided into three parts…

All the Gauls are divided into three parts…

…….. Would that be; Top, Middle and Bottom?
:)

Gaius

Keep in mind the Gauls / Celts are not a 'country'. They are composed of groups of tribes or city states (ophidia). Each local leader considered himself a king in all but name.

No doubt every conceivable alliance could have been made and probably was made over the 500 year run of Celtic dominance.

mjc

"Oh Asterix, he called me Fatty"….

Woo.

The actual question stands … I'm just home, and other reasons stop me from getting to my books, but Caesar does not use Celt for the bulk of Gaul and also refers to the Belgia as different again. As no Roman eye-witness source (Polybius is not an eye-wtness here) refers to the Brits as Celtic … the question stands
could the SW Gaul/Northern Iberians have made an alliance with the rest of Gaul?

Answer – probably (Vercingtorix allowing) not.

Gaul is the roman name given to the people that call themselves Celts.

If you say the Gauls, you have been romanized
If you say the Celts, you're a free Celt!

:)

Olivier
who is born in the former land of the Biturige Cubi Celt tribe.

I thought Keltoi was the Greek term for Gauls.

Do we even know what they called themselves as a nation of civilization? Did they think of themselves that way as the various Greeks thought of themselves as Hellenes?

There were no "nations" in any modern sense of the word. Even Rome was not a nation. Gauls who spoke the same lingo thought of themselves as "a people" composed of clans and tribes and "kingdoms", often at war with each other and "using the Romans" to get an edge (a myopic thing to do, only with 20-20 hindsight)….

I totally agree with Doug Larson; I feel we need to iron out who are/were the Celts. Just as Walter Scott invented "The War of the Roses" based on Shakespeare he invented a "Celtic" history that was pounced on by others. We base assumptions on C19th hypotheses that may not stand. The question stands.

Redrabs you persist in peddling this nonsense and so far have never been able to make your case. Last time you were particularly bizzare in your arguements. I honestly think you should stop.

To address the original question Vercingtorix gave it a good shot.

oh ya…..woops i meant to put Germans insteaad of Gauls…but ok that answered my question

thanks everyone

"…Caesar does not use Celt for the bulk of Gaul and also refers to the Belgia as different again…"

Actually, not-quite-yet-Divus Iulius wrote (honestly, I didn't think anyone *didn't* know this bit, but it may be only the first words that stick…):

"Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes, quaram unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam gui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appelantur."

"All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third."

In their own language they call themselves Celts. In our language we call them Gauls. What could possibly be more clear?

The Belgae were different (as described above, they themselves recognized a mix of "German" and "Celt"); and the Aquitani (later known as Vascones, still later known as Basques and Gascons: just follow the philology…), who had more in common with the "Iberian" Vascones across the Pyrenees (over to you, Jack).

Professor Kirke, how about we go down the pub and drown our sorrows, while we sing, "Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?"

Cheers, Aidancw. Hope it helped.

Allen

When I went to school, I was taught that "the Celts" was a misnomer, as "Celtic" is a culture, not "a" people. Actually, it is a culture that spread among many indigenous and migratory people, diverging into local variations as it spread. Thus, rather than "Celtic people" or "Celts" we were taught "Celtic Peoples" to account for all the different localities, Gaul being one of them, to where the culture spread.

I love it; a whole thread arguing a point the OP(ster) didn't even intend =D….

Sorry Oh . This is not sarcasm:
But as I put, this is a forum where you can post smidgeons of knowledge for a few days and then lose the "thread". I actually agree with Virtualscratchbuilder and feel that it encapsulates my views. I do see differences between the East and West of the British Isles (and Ireland, if you must). But these I put down to the importance of water transport in the pre-1700 period. I will not put myself forward as any sort of expert but feel from my understanding that Gaul was similar.

OK Reddrabs
In the Ancient World a Celt is someone who speaks a Celtic language and shares a range of cultural traits. For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about the populations of Britain and Gaul who were Celts. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

The linguistic evidence is overwhelming, the textual evidence supports this except if you misread it see Allen's correction above "All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third."

You may see differences between east and west in Britain and Gaul but those differences so far as they existed were between people who spoke the same language and shared cultural traits. Those people were all Celts.

i never knew so many were goign to argue about who's right….oh well…..it's entertainment at the least……

I do not and I are going to agree on this and the topic is now in TMP's vaults. However I am open to argument as I would like (for romantic reasons, if not more) to concede the matter. The linguistic evidence seems to be founded on a "Celtic original language": a common language. Can we find this? I would argue not: many languages have similarities and the term "Celtic" for certain similar languages dates from the C18th.
Therefore the linguistic evidence is not overwhelming. The archaeological evidence shows a fashion not a cultural hegemony. Ipso facto: no Celtic "empire" in Europe.

Aye there you go eloquent, logical and as convincing as ever. This is all a little bizzare Reddrabs and I'm not sure if I can clearly follow your arguement.

You will find linguists agree that a common Celtic language existed. The later division into Q Celtic (Irish, Scots Gaelic and Manx) and P Celtic (Welsh. Breton and Gallic) are all well mapped. Nor are the differences that great for example Q Celtic Mac and P Celtic Map both mean son. I could go but you get the picture Celtic languages are very similar because there Celtic and have the same root.

Okay I have to confess that I up until a few years ago called them Kelts. I guess it was from living in Germany and walking the Keltic Limes in Deutschland. I had a book by the same name and walked about 500km of them over a three or four year period. I guess they should be the Der romishe Limes in Deutschland to be more accurate.

So for the sake of argument I will go back to Kelts from here on out!
VR
James Mattes

Going back to the modified original question…"the" Germans and "the" Gauls did ally vs rome a few times – the Teutons & Cimbri had many gauls with them in their epic journey and battles that ended in 105 – possibly whole tribes.

the Helvetii were a confederation of tribes from "Germany"/Switzerland that probably included Celtic & German elements

but mostly they were happy to fight each other – by the time Rome as in contact with both of them Gaul was mostly subdued so no longer a source for allies for the Germans.

Sorry but just got back to TMP. "You will find linguists agree that a common Celtic language existed. The later division into Q Celtic (Irish, Scots Gaelic and Manx) and P Celtic (Welsh. Breton and Gallic) are all well mapped." I agree – but several linguists do not agree. They dsee diffrences as far back as written evidence. Also they point to many arguments of "this is now so this must have led to it" without proof. Just because it is well mapped does not mean it cannot be contested. I disagree with the mapping per se as I want sources and logic for each branch.

I feel that the issue is the term Celt. I try to keep it now for the inter-related nations around the eastern Atlantic whose cultures reacted to the centralising powers of Spain, France, and (especially) England.

Great to argue – as I said elsewhere we need a Yahoo group to thrash this out.

OK Redrabs more of the same from you. You should stand up your arguement or stop making it. There is so much wrong with what you saying I'm spoilt for choice as to where to start.

Why don't you tell us why the the mainland European Celts are not Celts? We can take it from there.

1. The term Celt comes from a reading in the 1800's that some European languages were related to the Welsh/Gallic/Gaelic set of languages. Also art from those areas showed distinctive connections with art from mainland Europe namely Hallstatt (German) and La Tene. Therefore they were related – no – the same.
But both show four issues. a) the break between Welsh/Gallc(Gaelic) goes back further.Lepontic distincly shows this from 500 BC. b) Many connections were trumpeted and differences subsumed : easy with any European languages {Irish and German share similarities}. c) A similarity does not mean more than a cultural link. I wear T-Shirts and jeans and speak "English" but I am not American. d) The most (in)famous examples of ancient Celts are the Gauls but even Caesar sees they as being three distinct groups. The question begs: why didn't the Celts leave the greatest heritage if they were so dominant. Instead we get "French".

Then we look at the background. Celts as a term is used by C16th-C18th Scottish and Welsh writers to refer to their area. The term becomes widespread and even the Austrians claim it. Give me evidence of this being acceptable.

This is becoming just tha' 'n' us rowin'. I've put up. Nad tha turn.

"Who still goes around calling himself a Norman?"
link
(There was supposedly an incident in the European Parliament some years ago when the French representative announced that a local agricultural problem under debate would be resolved by "la sagesse Normande" – the translation had the British reps collapsing in giggles…

Yes the word "Celt" was used by Roman etc writers but the word as used today does only link to that term by a series of conceptions: I am arguing we need to discuss every one of these conceptions.
Secondly, the word will have not only different connutations but also different meanings. As for Allen, yes I agree I am repeating his argument but in response to a question.
Thirdly,how do we know they were Gallo-Romans. A more centric nation has not quelled Vendeean,Catlanian nor Breton attributes with twice the time period.

So we progress Greek and Roman writers did indeed use Celt to describe people who spoke a Celtic language and shared cultural and social traits. The language spoken by those ancient peoples is part of a recognised group of Celtic languages some of which survive today. It really is that simple.

No as you are begging the question … link those people and the languages. Look I have explained at length (for TMP) and you make comments. Come out and argue.

You have explained nothing, your posts are barely literate. Unless your channeling James Joyce in which case, my apologies, highly literate.

But if you want more:

You ignore ancient texts clearly identifying Celtic peoples in a number of locations in continental Europe. That evidence covers a long time. So when say St Jerome talks about the accents of Gallic Trier being the same as he is hearing in Celtic Galatia he is telling us something he knows. Embedded in this body of evidence are reports of the same tribal names occuring in different locations so we have for example Parisi in Gaul and on the east coast of Britain. Or, we have Druids occuring in Gaul, Britain and Ireland.

It is misleading to say 'easy with any European languages {Irish and German share similarities}.' All Indo-European languages are related but P and Q Celtic are much more closely related to each other than to others in the group. Let me give you an example Brennus is the latinised name given to the Gaul who leads the sack of Rome. It could be his personal name or a title indicating kingship. A Welsh word for King is brenin. Not a great leap is it. Linguists take the view that the people of Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul in Italy spoke a Celtic language. This is unsuprising as it supports the textual evidence. A cursory glance at the coinage produced by Celtic areas show inscriptions of Celtic names. A number of Celtic words are found in Roman Latin. They come from Celts, speaking Celtic in Italy.

'The question begs: why didn't the Celts leave the greatest heritage if they were so dominant. Instead we get "French".'
You will find that usually the language of law eventually becomes the language of the people. Even so Gallic was still being spoken in Julian the Apostate's time and today there are a significant number of Celtic words in the French language. It's called French because of the Franks but you will note they are not speaking German.

You need to state why the Celts of Italy and Gaul were not Celts and to state the evidence as you see it.

Thank but no thanks for your continual carping about my English: please keep comments to the argument.
For several reasons, I have been unable to post a reply until now and, even so, I will have to be quick. Please remember TMP is a forum not a academic board.

You presume two issues that I cannot see as being supported by evidence.

One: to speak a Celtic language makes you a Celt.

To ignore, for brevity, the issues of a "Celtic" root-language, I intend to look at where ancient remains show such "Celtic" languages. This has been mapped by such scholars as Oppenheimer and Coles. You will find that there are concentrations in places where the Iceni lived (Eastern England), Belgica (north-eastern France), and south-east of the River Garonne in France, as well as elsewhere.

The Iceni were Britons. The Romans never referred to the British as Celts. Strabo states that the Britons were unlike Celts: "The men of Britain are taller than theCelti, and not so yellow-haired, although their bodies are of looser build." So their speaking a form of a Celtic language refutes the argument that to speak Celtic makes one a Celt.
The same goes for the other two area: Caesar states that these were not Celts: the Belgae he sees as having a Germanic origin, and the Aquitani are separated from the Celts by the River Garonne. However again forms of a Celtic language were used in those areas.

To further this argument: St Jerome's comment shows amazement: surely not the reaction of a person expecting a pan-Celtic culture.

The Parisii are interesting – they differ from other British tribes.

As for the closeness of the P and Q: I will leave that for now. I find that many linguistic arguments are circular: the studies are based on surviving Celtic languages and have been transposed elsewhere to find rather than prove links. A wide statement but one we can return to if we are allowed.

Two: "You need to state why the Celts of Italy and Gaul were not Celts and to state the evidence as you see it."

If they are Celts, then they are Celts.
However rephrase this. They may have been called Celts by outsiders but does that make them "Celts"?
The evidence for a Celtic language in Italy depends on Lepontic. As I stated above, this language seems to have separated from other forms of "Celtic" languages at a time we cannot get basck to with our resources. Could they have had some differences from the Gauls with whom they were allied? I feel this is so.

The issue is more than the above. Now the Hallstatt/La Tene cultural homeland theory is under a great deal of criticism, we can identify regional trends in art and in settlement. We need to work on this to bring out the rich tapestry of the past.
Also we need to be aware of the deep connections of the term "Celt". It means a lot to the Scots, Irish, Bretons, and Welsh: their links to the wild Gauls are emotive issues.

Lastly, again, TMP is a forum. I can argue more at length and with evidence, but is this the place for that? I write as I converse but, it may shock you OB, I can operate at a high academic level as well.

Redrabs this is much clearer. I too will be brief as its late.

There can be no other definition of a Celt than one who speaks a Celtic language. To depart from this ultimatley leads into the realms of psuedo scientific racism. It is a long time since anyone seriously talked about the 'Celtic Race' or the 'German Race' come to that.

Oppenheimer is not fit to make authorative pronouncements on this matter and has been told so by Linguists who are.

"The evidence for a Celtic language in Italy depends on Lepontic." No, it does not.

There is nothing particularly wild about the Gauls – I find this a puzzling statement.

Scots, Irish, Bretons, Manx, Cornish and Welsh are aware of being Celts – but its not news to them. There has been a little irratation at the antics of certain English academics engaging in identity politics outside their area of expertise but that is manageable.

TMP can sustain academic debates and does so regularly enough. I'm pleased you can operate on an academic level but you won't get far with Oppenheimer on this one.

Why not? I feel Oppenheimer summarises a great amount of criticism.

I agree we need to be brief. Please remember that I alluded to the political dimension of Celtic discussion: linguistics are very involved in this. The circular arguments of Celtic roots depend on linguistic decisions made 200 years ago and such underpin the whole matter. So to have such accepted theories disputed will cause serious dispute. In fact I feel Coles is far more daming. By the way, Coles was my tutor some 30+ years ago.

"Scots, Irish, Bretons, Manx, Cornish and Welsh are aware of being Celts – but its not news to them": as you will be aware I am better versed in the C17th and it would be news to them then.

"certain English academics engaging in identity politics outside their area of expertise" I understand this comment but have stated on TMP that the argument of Celtic origins cannot be subject to the cultural needs of a movement that really only began when George IV and Victoria made Walter Scott fashionable. I cannot see why the vibrant prehistory of these isles is not seen as that.

But good talking to you. Fancy a pint (or short) sometime?

Pints are good. Do you ever go to Salute or SELWG?

I think your caught in a malign circle here and maybe its a political one. That of course is beyond the realms of discussion here.

Livy, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Cicero and many others all talk, sometimes at length about Italian Celts. They knew Italian Celts, their motivation was to describe significant events or in Cicero's case to whinge. All this is solid evidence. Over and above this Romans talk about Cisalpine Gaul the bit in Italy and Trans Alpine Gaul the nearest bit of Gaul proper. Finaly there are a lot of Gallic loan words in Latin, So you see its just wrong to say "The evidence for a Celtic language in Italy depends on Lepontic.".

You right St Jerome was suprised at to hear the accents of Trier in Galatia but that is because the Galatians had left Trier before the rise of Rome. After all that time they're still speaking Gallic with the same accent.

'Scots, Irish, Bretons, Manx, Cornish and Welsh are aware of being Celts – but its not news to them": as you will be aware I am better versed in the C17th and it would be news to them then.' Then it will be no suprise to you after the nine years war the Irish legal case to the Spanish King for sanctury and maintainance was based in part on their origin in Galicia as described in Lebor Gabala. Nor would you be suprised by Eoghan Ruadh making a speech at Benburb specificaly refering to events in Lebor Gabala. He would not have made a reference his army could not understand.

I cannot comment on Coles but Oppenheimer is utterly discredited in academic circles for his 'Celtic' pronouncements. The verdict seems to be a 'Dan Brown'money making venture or 'dirty' politics at a time when the UK might break up. Please don't think I believe politics are ever 'clean' its just context.

So to paraphrase you I don't think the orins of the Celts can be subject to the political needs of a threatened establishment or even the emotional and psychological needs of a nation state contemplating a potentialy traumatic event.

totally going off track here

in one of my Latin class this year, we had one of the world experts in Latin pronunciation come and speak to us. He spoke to us in what they think the original Latin may have sounded like, and if anything, its sounds way much more like French that it does it Italian.

There are a lot of nasalization, and the m and the n at the end of words are often not pronounced. Gn, like in Gnaeus doesn't just ignore the G, but there is a speciific gutteral sound in place.

One big change in Italian is the C, Cicero become sissero, while in original Latin it was kikero.

sorry Ob

Delayed by leaking pipe and work… sheesh.

Can you point me to this discredited opinion … seriously … but it may be a while 'til I can read it. I would like to check it.
As for the Benburgh speech – cannot get to my notes just yet but I do remember reading contemporary bardic metaphorical language of which I was a bit critical.

As I stated, we need a better forum to continue.

Redrabs, Bad news about the pipe.

Anyway one of the problems with Oppenheimer is that his science does not pass muster with the Geneticists. You will find a lot on this if you search for it. Its worth remembering Genetics is not Oppenheimer's profession.

As a taster here is Francois Balloux illustrating some of the issues.

"Let us assume I gave a seminar. I would tell the audience about my latest results on the population history of the pigmy shrew. My findings would be based on a stretch of DNA comprising several metabolic genes, showing no signs of genetic recombination. Armed with sequences from a large number of individuals sampled over a broad geographical area, I would make some inference on the colonization routes and times. To make life easier, I would restrict my analysis to the mutations I liked best, with nice names having been given to related sequences, rather than relying on dull mathematical quantities. As I reach one of the key conclusions of the lecture, which would go as follows: 'It is obvious from the distribution of haplotypes Amanda, Eugenie* and Hector_2 that the Outer Hebrides were colonised about 50,000 years ago, this was followed by considerable population fluctuations, a bottleneck during the last Ice Age, a swift recovery and a dramatic recent expansion over the last 200 years and…'. Imagine that, at that climactic stage I was interrupted by someone in the audience. The impertinent would say, 'Sir, can I just ask you whether this confidence in your conclusions may not be misplaced; your analysis is based on a single genetic marker, which comprises genes with a central role in metabolism and is thus likely to have been affected by natural selection'. An awkward silence may ensue, as I would find it difficult to dismiss this criticism easily."

Oppenheimer also adopted what I have come to think of as the 'Roman Fort found in Ireland' approach courting controversy to increase sales and profile. He has been unable to reply his critics from the linguistic community as far as I recall. Nor is he doing very well with historians. His most vocal supporters have been 'Blairite' New Labour and the neo Nazi BNP. Both heavily engaged in a 'British' project I suppose. He may have intended the former but I'm pretty sure not the latter.

As to Eoin Rua his speech is not recorded in any Bardic convention and is very straight forward in its message. Its Benburb btw if your looking for it.

Hope the sbove is of some use to you.