What happened to the Gauls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obelics

are you sure in modern greek it is still Gallia? do you speak greek? If it is so, it's very interesting...

regarding the other names, while we only use Francia for ex-Gallia, we can use Lusitania for Portogallo (when we want to use a more sophisticated language), and Penisola Iberica for Spagna (when we want to refer to geographic of both Spagna and Portogallo).

Ah.... and Germany is still Germania.

PS: anyway a lot of synonimous are going lost, cause young people only speak the language of the TV, i bet if i go on the street and ask what is Lusitania, nobody can answer anymore. But if i say Portogallo, everyone know, but just because the football...

---

Obelics, as Keravnos said in modern Greek is still Gallia...

I reported Swiss and France because i think for this 2 names we named different from the other countries...
And until now Peninsula Iberica is the geographical name for Spain and Portugal...

Krusader i think that you you are the only country in Europe that calls us as we call our selves...very interesting...

The East people,Arabs,Persian etc...calls us yunan from ionian tribe...

"And for the record, the Swedes call it Tyskland. No idea why. We finns call it Saksa, probably because our main overseas connections there were with the region of Saxony or something. I know Hanseatic League traders were often called kauppasaksi (roughly, "Saxon merchant") back in the day."

seems obvious, "kauppa" looks like "kaufen"= buying => "Kaufmann" => merchant in German...

"Germany is Tyskland which I still wonder why, closest thing is Teutons perhaps."

it probably comes from the Old Highgerman "*diutisk" meaning something like "language of the poeple" => 'deutsch' => "Deutschland"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teutobod II

"Germany is Tyskland which I still wonder why, closest thing is Teutons perhaps."

it probably comes from the Old Highgerman "*diutisk" meaning something like "language of the poeple" => 'deutsch' => "Deutschland"

---

Oh jeez, how I could I miss that...
...now where the hell is that really embarrased smiley...

Deutschland = Tyskland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

As for conquered peoples in the Roman empire, most seem have been romanized a lot yet still being non-romans by blood. Many non-Romans were given citizenship, also as many non-Romans married into Roman families to gain citizenship protection.
Also I remember reading that some of the Roman ruins, baths and similar in England were discovered to have been built by romanized Briton kings & chieftains. By some generations many peoples would call themselves Romans. For example the Greeks in Byzantine Empire called themselves rhomaioi, at least among the upper echelons of society..

---

You have to be careful with that. "Roman" is not an ethnic term, at least since the early 1st century BC. It's a cultural, political and legal identity which united people of different ethnic backgrounds. It's more like me saying I'm European.

and it was not only the upper classes calling themselves "Romans" but the lower classes as well, especially in the "byzantine" empire you mentioned. People actually forgot pretty soon about their "gallic" or "briton" or "spanic" origin. Remember no such concept of race and nation as nowadays existed and people were definded by culture and the government around them. And it seems the vast majority was actually quite comfortable living in the empire. That changed in the late empire where people still defined themselves as Romans but were happy to live in areas controlled by "germanics" because they didn't have to pay that many taxes.to make it simple lol. there was no real connection between the people defined by culture and the state in antiquity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

As for Italy, I remember reading that 90.000 Lombard men settled there so Lombard blood is probably in many Italians' veins.

---

For this read my post on page 1. While you are right about a mix of blood you shouldn't forget that the germanics were very few among the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna

You have to be careful with that. "Roman" is not an ethnic term, at least since the early 1st century BC. It's a cultural, political and legal identity which united people of different ethnic backgrounds. It's more like me saying I'm European.

and it was not only the upper classes calling themselves "Romans" but the lower classes as well, especially in the "byzantine" empire you mentioned. People actually forgot pretty soon about their "gallic" or "briton" or "spanic" origin.

---

This isn't totally true. Britons oftened identified themselves as Britons against the Saxons, and in their church liturgy defined between themselves and the Romans (which they term anyone in Gaul, but for some Armoricans after a point (early Bretons) who were either Irish or Brythonic). Galaecians identified more readily with the Irish (who claimed their descent from Galaecians) that even today some Galaecians embrace Gaelic culture (though so do some other Spaniards and Portugeuse, but that would be due to the influx of Irish nobility and their tribes after the 'Flight of the Earls'; there are Irish Spaniards, Portugeuse, and Mexicans who have their origin from that event). It isn't even 'forgot pretty soon'. The Britons were quite notable in their disparity from others, including Romans, particularly when the Irish converted to Christianity. The basis of the Irish Gaelic/Brythonic alliance was that neither was 'Roman nor German, but yet Christian', enticing Irish mercenaries to aide against the Saxons. They certainly considered themselves 'Roman' in a respect, but that they 'forgot' their background is completely false; they certainly did not, and used it as leverage later. However, on the same coin, they considered themselves Roman enough to once consider themselves heirs of the empire. However, 'forgot' of their origin is patently false.

Hmm, so I have to apologize. I just assumed that what happened in Britain was similar to other provinces like Gallia or Hispania or the greek east. I never really read much about early history of the british isles so please forgive me. I know there were other provinces which kept more of their own identity than others, egypt is a good example, while others like the gauls or greeks were "romanized" quite quickly although I don't like the term "romanize" here as it was more of a melting of cultures. What the Romans originally provided was actually the basis, the frame, the legal and political background (the Romans were above all practical people and politicians) while the cultural and technical innovations and features were provided by the hellenes, gauls and others. The Romans biggest achievment is being open for such things and providing the possibility for cultural exchange. That's why i don't think the term "romanized" is correct because what the Romans "introduced" in Gallia for example was a hellenized "Romanity" same goes the other way round.

Another thing I would like to add is that "movement" was relatively high in the Roman empire. During the centuries of its existance masses of people moved from one part to another. Just take the army as an example, legionaries and auxilias were moved all over the empire and intermarried with locals frequently and actually often stayed in those areas after retiring. in a timespan of several 100 years this creates quite a mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Germany is Tyskland which I still wonder why, closest thing is Teutons perhaps.

---

Tyske = Teutonic/Germanic

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna

Hmm, so I have to apologize. I just assumed that what happened in Britain was similar to other provinces like Gallia or Hispania or the greek east. I never really read much about early history of the british isles so please forgive me. I know there were other provinces which kept more of their own identity than others, egypt is a good example, while others like the gauls or greeks were "romanized" quite quickly although I don't like the term "romanize" here as it was more of a melting of cultures. What the Romans originally provided was actually the basis, the frame, the legal and political background (the Romans were above all practical people and politicians) while the cultural and technical innovations and features were provided by the hellenes, gauls and others. The Romans biggest achievment is being open for such things and providing the possibility for cultural exchange. That's why i don't think the term "romanized" is correct because what the Romans "introduced" in Gallia for example was a hellenized "Romanity" same goes the other way round.

Another thing I would like to add is that "movement" was relatively high in the Roman empire. During the centuries of its existance masses of people moved from one part to another. Just take the army as an example, legionaries and auxilias were moved all over the empire and intermarried with locals frequently and actually often stayed in those areas after retiring. in a timespan of several 100 years this creates quite a mix.

---

Even in this sense, one must realize Gauls were not 'romanized' that quickly. Certainly the noble classes allied to them probably were quickest, but rural Gauls spoke their own language for centuries. Exchange of custom is a slow process, and takes many centuries. Gaul wasn't actually, in the scheme of things, Roman that long. Certainly long enough for some major, notable changes, but that they 'forgot' they were Gauls is not wholely correct either. The safest route is to state that, while Celts in Roman conquered territories were at times willing to convert culturally, others were not so much, and yet others perhaps simply misunderstood what the Romans wanted. Britain acts in that Roman culture really only ever penetrated the upper class. Only in 'Roman' towns were the regular people ever identifiably Romans. Outside of them, Celts would be identifiable, though not so much as before. But their dress and custom would be seperate enough for one studying them to recognize a clear disparity between the Roman-like city dwellers and their rural associates. Mind Romans were hiring 'Celtic' mercenaries in Gaul into the ADs, implying there were 'Celts' present (though perception of them may have changed; the key thing is, they were recognized as a seperate culture inhabitting the same area), and the Galatians, who they'd allied with and ultimately annexed before Gaul still spoke their own language and had their own customs many centuries into the ADs.

The Romans were not supermen; it's impossible they'd have eliminated Gallic culture in as relatively short a period as they had, when cultures which were ruled longer by foreigners remained aspects so unique as to make them still then notably seperate cultures. At the same time, one must mind they wouldn't be Celts of the mid-late iron age either, even without Roman influence. They were an inventive people; it's why Celts covered so much territory. Hundreds of years later, they'd not look much like the Gauls of the 300s/200s/100s BC, even if they'd consolidated power and remained independent. Their developments would've certainly seen a different people (though clearly derived), than their predecessors.