Printable View
I'm guessing that this would be a good place to ask a general question. The historical knowledge here rivals or exceeds most universities :)
What happened to the Gauls as a people? I can find no mention of them after the Romans took over. Were they completely romanized and interbred by the time that the Franks came and "took over"?
Thanks
Well the Gauls persist until this day in France. The number of Franks who actually arrived and their impact on the gene-pool is difficult to judge exactly but it wasn't a complete wiping out of the previous population by any measure.
To answer the other half of your question, yes the Gauls were thougherly Romanised but they remained Gauls, rather like the Southern Britons their culture was a mixture of Roman and Celtic but the higher up you went the social ladder the more Roman and the less Celtic (or Gallic) I would think, and vice versa.
Others have a far greater knowledge than I though, I'm just a Roman.
Following the theme.
During the late empire there where no Celtic names around in Gaul right?
By what I have read almost all the population of Gauls in northern Italy were sold as slaves (Boii).
I would also like to know if someone knows how much the Romans and the later Germans influence the genetic pool in the populations of Western Europe (Hispania, Gallia, Brittain, etc)?
Thanks =)
In England, the Angles and Saxons killed the men and married the women. At least that is what I have heard. So the genetic pool should be much "germanized", whatever that means. And remember that the Normans were genetically Germans too, although coming from France (after they came to France from Scandinavia).
Actually there never were that many Saxons, Suth Seaxe was apparently founded by Alle with only three Keels, which could be as few as 60 or as many as 180 men.
In reality the Saxons formed the enfranchised, landed society while the Romano-Britons were the slaves and poor in general. You are correct about them marrying into British families though, there does seem to have been some "breeding out" of the British at the higher levels of society.
Fundamentally though the genetic baseline is the same as before the Celtic invasions.
This brings up something I noticed about Britian today. When I look at lower class Brits like Cockneys, Welsh, Yorkshire men and Cornish(among many others) they seem to resemble the Romans and the Celts(from what I've seen) as far as facial features go. However the upper class citizens of the UK look pretty much like anybody from Norway, Denmark, or Germany.:inquisitive: Is it just me or was the mass genocide of innocents said to take place during the "Dark Ages" just an exaggerated assimilation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Personnaly, I live in Alsace ( France ), and I can't really say if someone is German, Italian or Norwegian just by looking at his face.
I know jews with blond hairs and blue eyes ( yeah, so long for the pure blood semitic origins :p ) and Germans with black hairs and eyes...
Aniway, the genetic pools in Europa, or at least in West Europa os really a fancy mix.
For the Gauls, they were indeed romanized, beginnning by the upper classes, who were highly romanized even before Caesar was born: remember that the Aeduï were Roman allied against the Arverni coalition of Vercingetorix.
The Gauls nobles tend to use " Senat " and magistrates, and caetera.
So it is not presomptuous to think that a certain number of French are of Gallic origins, especially if they were so numerous as we think nowadays ( something like 10 millions " Gauls "at the time of Caesar, including Helveti and Belgae, of course )
In Britain, I could harshly imagine the german invaders slaugthering more than a little percentage of the initial population. Remember that just 10% of a whole people is already a gargantuous amount.
I'me not a specialist, but in my opinion, the same mixing happens like everywhere when an invaders came and take the rule of the country...the high classes could change, the grat land owners and nobles in general, but for the rest of the population...
When the Norman came to England, it was after a little time in France, and it's impossible they just keep breeding with their own people: the marital alliances need weedings, and the Vikings were not SO numerous.
So, from what I understood in this post, All Gauls are still present in France then? Despite having different names?
It's a funny thing, I am living in France myself, although not being French. Every time I try to ask French people why country called France and not Gallium or something, they cannot give me straight answer.
Franks, basically, of German origin, came and settled in this country, so it was named after them.
What about the rest of population? Were they still Gauls? Anyway, the question about what happening with Gauls bothered me since and no one could give an answer.
The Francs are indeed Germanic invaders.
But they were very few ( something like 500 000, including wives and childrens, for the greatest estimations )
They win.
So the country is now France.
But, 2000 years after, does an ethnic origin really exist ?
I think not, but it's an open question.
From what I understand about the process (which does come pretty much entirely from The Oxford History of Medieval Europe) the Franks in France, like the Lombards in northern Italy, pretty much left the towns alone and ignored the farmers. They wanted to rule, not tear the fabric of Roman society apart.
As such, apart from any surviving Gallic aristocrats (and if you think about it, it's unlikely that any of them would remember they were Gauls), the Romano-Gauls carried on as they were. Indeed, it was through them that 'rural Latin' became Old French.
This was not the case in Britain. While the new arrivals probably did replace the upper classes of Romano-British society but not the lower strata of society, Roman infrastructure largely disappeared here. This could as easily be the natives adopting Anglo-Saxon lifestyles as it being imposed upon them.
I have to say that the appearance of modern Britons has little to do with it, especially since the inferred similarity of them to celts changes depending on who wants the link. You could just as easily point out that the south east countryside is full of rather germanic looking people (flaxen blond hair) and the north (home to me) has strong linguistic connections with Scandinavia. And without doubt many of the settlers within the Danelaw that contributed to the genetic makeup of the region were poor farmers.
I think it was unlikely that gaullish was completely extinct by this stage. It's just that people with gaulish names didn't make the history books as they would have been "unimportant" rurals (that would probably have been bilingual).Quote:
Originally Posted by Eduorius
As to the gauls of N. italy, it's true there would have been many slaves taken in the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul but i think "almost all" may be an exaggeration. Remember Spartacus during his slave rebellion (73-71 BC) recruited heavily from the cisalpine gauls before he was finally defeated.
Cisalpine Gaul became Gallia Togata-- that is, the land of gauls who wear the toga. To put things in perspective the 'Roman Epic' the Aeneid was written by a cisalpine gaul-- he just wrote, spoke and dressed like any other Roman is all. And Livy, who wrote the Ad Urbe condita the history of Rome, was a native of Patavium, as well I believe.
But i'm not a Roman historian (yet) so there are others more equiped to answer on this I am sure.
It's important to remember that all it takes is 2-3 generations for the descendants of one culture to become natives of another.
Blond hair is not necessarily Germanic, so that shouldn't be considered. Ancient Celts are regularly described as blondes.
But most of the English are dark haired. My point was more that you could say this just as well as that, rather than an attempt to map the ethnic origins of the people of Britain- who are very mixed indeed.
Highly unlikely. Even Punic was spoken until the 400s AD in North Africa.Quote:
I think it was unlikely that gaullish was completely extinct by this stage
Some early Christian saints as late as the 6th century are said to have known Gaullish, as a seperate language entirely from Latin (the vernacular of high ranking Gauls is invariably referenced as Latin), which implies at least rural Gauls kept some form of their older languages for a centuries after the Roman conquest of Gaul.
I don't have my books at hand at the moment but just one example which might help a bit. The numbers are from Wolfram.
The Visigoths for example were around 120.000 people including women, children and old people. 1/5th of these were fighters only. For the Osthrogoths in Italy numbers are similar (around 150.000), numbers for the Vandals are even a bit lower.So numbers for the Franks are around that as well I would say. So we have all in all maybe 200.000 germanics living in an area with a romano-celtic population of about 6 million.
Here's a quote from an essay I wrote on the contract between the Roman empire and the Goths when the Goths were allowed to settle in a part of Gallia(just a quick translation so please forgive my mistakes):
to sum it up> the romans wanted to keep the foederati, like the goths for example, together. So they were not settled all over the country but were given parts of the big aristocratic and state owned farms.of these they recieved:
"...the Goths recieved 1/3rd of all slaves, 2/3rds of the land and half of all farmbuildings, garden and forrests. Effectively this means that the Goths were given 2/3rd of all land owned by coloni while the slaves were still employed by big domestic farming estates."
This means that in those big estates the masters employed slaves as well as coloni ("free" farmers). these farmers and the land they worked on where now given to the Goths and worked for them while the parts where slaves were employed were still kept by the Romans or the Roman state.
The higher classes coexisted and cooperate with the germanic lords and Roman magistrates and such things were still kept. there was usually germanic and Roman law at the same time and sometimes mixed even after the Western empire ceased to execute any power in these areas.
So while the lower classes practically remained the same as before the upper classes mixed.
Hope this helps a bit.
We dont have to forget that the Romans made some colonies for their veterans in Northern Italy and Southern Gaul. This area was more Romanized than the rest of Gaul.
Even during medieval ages there was a big difference between the armies of south and northern France, the South being more Romanized specially in the cavalry equipment than the Frank descendants in the north.
And also even tough the Romans didnt exterminate the Celtic population they tried to supress the druid religion because it caused rebellions.
Actuyally the Romans just targeted the druids, not the religion. As to the collapse of Roman Society in Britain, in one of my issues of the CBA magazine there was an examination of the various dykes and earthworks that sprang up after the Romans left. The general conclusion was that as soon as the Romans departed Britannia pretty much splintered back into the sperate tribal kingdoms and that by the time the Sais arrived there wasn't much Roman culture left to destroy.
The majority of mankind is dark haired, no ? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Maeran
And blond hair is more present in the description of Celtic than in the description of old germans... just remember that the Scandinavian were far more red-haired, and Tacitus said the same things for the germanic tribes he knows...the pure aryan with blond hair and blue eyes is a romantic creation.
Like I said before, mapping genetical origins by facial traits is near impossible...what would you say when you face an algerian with blond hairs, or a german with brown eyes and hairs ?
And if you see a black-skinned man, you know he could be certainly of African origins ( but he could also being an aborigen of Australia or an inhabitant of South India ! )...but what part of Africa, yes ?
Same thing for the Gallic or German or Franks or whatever else " origins "
"When you look into your genetical pool, the only thing you are certain to find, it's a king and a criminal"..doesn't remember of who this quoting came.
My posts on that subject from the start were pointing out that appearance is no guide to ethnicity. This was in response to The Celt's comment about 'lower class Brits'. He said that they show celtic features while the upper classes appear more germanic.
I pointed out that precisely the opposite could be said with equal validity.
Which means I agree with you.
Although if celts were characterised as 'fair' in appearance (how I've seen that description) and that meant blonde, then the majority of Britons being dark haired would invalidate them being typical celts. If the description was a correct description for all celts, something I doubt.
In any case, I understand 'celt' as more of a cultural term than an ethnicity. We've gotten away from the idea that every cultural change neccessarily means an invasion by a distinct people.
Trinity (I think, might have been one of the other Dublin universities) produced a map showing the genetic makeup. Basically Ireland, Scotland, most of England (apart from NE and SE), Brittany and northern Iberia where all the same race. Only in SE England was there a majority of Saxon blood. Interestingly NE England wasn't Scandanavian but instead Gallic Celt, almost exactly the same as 'native' parisians(sp?). This is backed up in the archaeological record with both Paris and NE England practicing chariot burial whereas their immediate neighbours didn't. I cant remember the rest of modern France, but I think it was fairly mixed and all over the place.
That sounds plausable but a study done a few years ago established that there are a high proportion of male Norse ancestors in the Danelaw.
Don't forget, unlike the Saxons the Vikings were actually driven out within a few generations, it's unlikely the genetics had as much chance to "travel down" the social strata, hence less Norse blood.
In answer to the question about who Britons are, most a decended from pre-Celtic stock.
Sorry Maeran, I have mixed together your message and another, my mistake.
I think it also pertinent to mention the breakaway Imperium Galliarum (Gallic Empire) which consisted of Gaul, Britain and Hispania during the crisis of the third century. Though there we many reasons for it's establishment the name itself leads me to believe there would have been at least a bit of cultural identification involved (though this shouldn't be exaggerated). It wasn't their intension to war with the Roman Empire moreso it was to take care of their own interests and defence against the threat of the Germans.
Ah that makes a lot more sense! Thx for clearing that up for me Maeran. And yes there were and are a lot of Dark Haired Britons I think Anthony was referring to those Britons who were of Belgae stock.(I.e the Casse) Didn't Caesar say they had wild blond hair? Or was it just Wild hair?:book: I've really got to buy De Bello de Gallico.:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeran
@Caractos:Yes there was an Roman break away empire that called itself the "Gallic Empire". However, this was more about political backing than cultural recognition. The Imperator that rebelled was named Postumus(Marcas Cassianius Latinius)and for awhile he adopted the title "RESTITVTOR GALLIAR(um?)" which means "The Restorer of the Gauls". But, after awhile he changed that motto to "ROMA AETERNA" along with "RESTITVTOR ORBIS" among others so he really didn't relate to the Gauls that much though he might have been one himself he was very romanized.
really an explicative post, i condivide this position, from my readings, i always found that the hight classed were mixed up (gallic-romans and germans) and the lower classes remained almost the same...Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
off-topic:
another point is to not confuse the Feudalization (cavalry, castles etc.) with a sort of germanization. The Feudalization was just an economical process, and it wasn't started if there weren't the economical factors. Infact until the Islamic invasion the Barbarized Europe still used to live in the ancient way (it was "barbarized" but the barbarians were "assimilated" in some way). It was the Islamic invasion of the South (africa and middle East), that totally changed the customs of the Europe, there were no more economical interchanges between the south and the North.
Well, Moorish raids (in addition to those by the Vikings and various steppe peoples, particularly the Hungarian-Magyars) are often cited as one trigger for the developement of the European pattern of castle feudalism - a need for locally stationed, rapidly responding heavy cavalry to deal with the raiders and a network of local fortifications for them to operate from and to sustain ultimate territorial control in an emergency.
Incidentally, I wouldn't put all that much stock on the amount of contemporary commentary on the fair hair of the Celts and others. Contemporary witnesses did not, after all, recount so much what they saw but rather what made an impression on them; and for the Mediterranean peoples, used to fairly dark hair, blond hair would obviously have been an unusual and striking thing and thus draw disproportionate amounts of attention and commentary. Of course after the Romans conquered Gaul and the most of the rest of Celtic Europe (and settled to a long and very uneasy border with the Germans) the novelty sort of wore off and light hair among Germans would not by itself anymore merit much attention; red hair, if conspicuously more common than among the Gauls for example, conversely of course would.
It's sort of how the small numbers of armoured lancers in Sarmatian armies drew completely disproportionate levels of attention from their enemies, with the majority backbone of light horse-archers duly playing a second fiddle in contemporay accounts.
Just curious if any of you guys have read Guns, Germs and Steel or seen the PBS documentary?
There is a lot of discussion in both about genetic markers and how they can be
used to track the migration of peoples through time.
Apparently these genes are most easily identified in insolated groups of people that have had very little contact with other peoples.
Certain tribes is Africa and South America have easily isolated ancient gene markers that are easy to track. And so do people from Iceland.
That Icelandic gene is present in almost every caucasian person in Britian and the U.S. And it is dominate in most coastal areas in Wales and Scotland. Fascinating stuff.
The Vikings definately got around.
Yeah...but never forget that for this marker, you only need ONE ancestor who gave it to your whole lineage...just one men, or one women, in dozens of generations...so it's not so difficult to have it, especially whn you are trapped into a desolated island :p
Well, that's the point. It's hard to pin-point these markers without really rare, isolated groups of people. But now we know what that Icelandic marker means so we can trace the migrations of those people. And trace their impact on other peoples. That small group of people had a huge impact because they were the greatest explorers of their age. That's fascinating.
Just think about it, The history of all the people in the world is in our bloodlines if we can just isolate the genes.
I agree with you (about the political backing vs cultural indentifaction as reason for its inception). But in reference to the topic of the thread i thought it would be an important example to illustrate that the gauls didn't dissapear they just became romanised. Though i think the fact that Postumus chose "Restorer of the gauls" is evidence enough for a substantial amount of cultural/ethnic identification-- no matter how romanised they had become. The fact that he changed his motto probably had something to do with the fact that he was Emperor of more than just gauls as apposed to the fact that he didn't identify with gauls.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celt
I fully agree. From what I read about Postumus he was looking to intrude on the "legitimate" Emporer in Rome hence the change in titles.(Unfortunately for him that was not a smart move)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caratacos
Eh, wasn't "Gaul" also a geographical and adminstrative term for the region and its inhabitants ? I've never heard of the Romans even having tried to rename the place, and why would they anyway ?
Wasn't "Gaul" a Roman word anyways?
Dunno. What'd the hairy barbarian fellows call it ?
Gaul may be from the old Celtic word 'Gelh', 'Powerful', or is maybe derived from the Gallos river (many Gallic tribes had hydronyms). Timaeus I think it was applied the origin of 'gala', 'milk', for the name, referencing their relatively (to Greeks) pale skin.
In English..France is France.
In other languages?
I mean in Greece for example is Gallia,in Italy Francia...
Which is the memory for other countries?
It's Frankrijk and Frankreich in Dutch and German respectively, the meaning of wich should be fairly obvious.
The Romans called it "Gallia" I believe. It was divided into provinces.
I have never heard of this. Anything I've read on Anglo-Saxon England does point to the intermarrying being very low, and the Anglo-Saxons keeping mostly to their own kind, AFAIK it did occur but wasn't widespread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
All good points. But please don't call the Norse "Vikings." Norse will do fine. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Calling Norse people "vikings" is a bit like calling the dutch/spanish/english of the 17th century to be "pirates." Viking means precisely the same as pirate. In fact, these pirates and vikings were outcast from their own societies, and were even hunted down by Norse kings and chieftains, and spanish/english/dutch kings. It's just one of the many misconceptions of "viking history" - yes the era is known as "viking era", due to their influence of terror. But the actual influence of these ruthless thugs is far lower than the influence of brute Norse military agression, which was an entirely different enterprise from "viking." The truth about these people is a lot different from the picture most people get.
Don't forget Icelandic people are just isolated Norse, viewed from that point of view the fact that a Norse marker turns up all over isn't at all surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtiaan72
They also speak an extremely archaic form of Norse.
Of coarse I know it's a Norse marker, I'm got Vikiing blood myself! (My mother is native Swedish). Some of their coastal settlements were as few as 5 to 20 families. Such impact on the Anglo-saxon/ celtic gene pool was still a little startling for me.
Frankrike in Swedish, I know that much - the Germanic relations of the language are pretty obvious, no ? We Finns use a derived form Ranska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Incidentally, Germany is Allemagne in French AFAIK - and I'll eat the hat I don't have if that isn't a reference to the Alemanni (which, by what I've read, means roughly "all of them" - presumably a Late Roman impression of which tribes were swarming over the borders...:beam: ) of the Migrations...
My grandmother was Swedish. And Swedish is the largest whole part in my mixed heritage. Yea Sweden! :sweden:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtiaan72
Weren't the Alemanni just one Germanic tribe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Btw, what is up with naming Germany? Nobody seems to have the same name for it. I think everyone should just call it "Deutschland", I've never understood why English uses the Roman name for the general area.
In Spanish its Alemania and yeah it must come from the Alamani tribe.
Alemani...this is not the "latinisation" of all-man, litteraly: " all mens " ? :]
I remember something about them, living in Alsace before being crushed by Clovis.
A federation, methinks. There were a lot of those over the years, and certainly if I was a chieftain who was about to go pick a fight with the damn Roman Empire I'd try to get some of my peers into it as well !Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
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. It may stem for some rather obscure word for some kind of profession or somesuch as well though, as AFAIK does our word for Sweden Ruotsi (either from dhruots, a term for the crew of some common type of ship in the fashion of the old Saxon keel, or some geographical locale) - which I've also seen suggested as the root for the word rus and hence Russia. Which we, in turn, call Venäjä - which is apparently derived from archaic Finnish terms concerning the netherworld and thereafter, ie. realms beyond a (imaginary) border, as well as the related word for a dead person vainaja (ie. someone who has "crossed the border")...
But really, the etymology of place-names is an academic field by itself. I've no idea where the name Suomi, Finnish for Finland, comes from for example, although looking at it I wouldn't be surprised if it had some distant connections with Sámi, the Lapps, whose distant ancestors our distant ancestors displaced to the north a bazillion years ago (as in "Stone Age")...
:dizzy2:
Head hurts.
:dizzy2:
My theory is everyone should just call a country what the people in that country call it. (And watch stupid people everywhere explode with confusion.)
Heh. I've read an anecdotal tale of someone asking Sir James Frazer if he'd actually ever met any of these savages he wrote so much about ? The story goes that Sir Frazer looked aghast and exclaimed, "Heavens no!"... ~D
I believe litterally "Viking" means "expedition" and as such is perfectly applicable. I can find no reference to it meaning "pirate" being of Scandanavian descent myself it's not a word that bothers me (although, I'm Swedish rather than Norse or Danish.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shigawire
Norse means Norway and can cause confusion.
I find it decidedly ironic that this thread about gauls has been "invaded" by waves of germanic dicsussion (starting with anglo-saxons, Franks and now Scandinavians). Very amusing :laugh4:.
(in that it mirrors history... ahh if i have to explain it it's obviously not funny :sad:)
:hijacked:
I thought that sort of developement was normal ?
Nah, gå viking quite specifically meant a raiding expedition. Not that the trading trips wouldn't have jumped whatever targets of opportunity they thought their considerably lesser assets were sufficient for in the grand tradition of all seamen of them olden days mind you, but I understand the Scandinavians of the day made a rather clear distinction concerning the primary goal involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
'Course, given the widely different requirements between the two when it came to ships and personal gear and so on, that's only sensible.
I think we all concluded that the Gauls were "Romanized" and that there are many Celtic descendant people in France.
What you think about Romans? How much do the Roman conquest of all the Mediterranean influenced in the genetic pool of the different populations? This were Roman descendants or just natives that were "Romanized"?
What I wonder is about the Galatians. They were in the middle of present day Turkey.
I know they were incorporated into the Roman empire, but I wander what happened in the centuries after. You know, after the fall of the Roman empire, the spread of Islam, the comming of the Mongols, and the rising of the Ottoman Turks.:book: :book: :book:
Yes,but the memory for some people is different...Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
And i don't think that is very simple...
I was reading that France and England had a conflict for the name "Bretagne" (France division) because of this name see"Great Britain".
For Greece France is Gallia,because of Gauls...
Switzerland for Greece is Helvetia,because of a Celtic tribe Helvetii...
By the way...the name Switzerland...which is the etymology of the word?
In Norwegian we mostly name people or countries after their own terms, but also many are named after English/Latin terms.
Germany is Tyskland which I still wonder why, closest thing is Teutons perhaps.
And while Swedes & Danes call Greece for Grekenland, in Norway we call it Hellas.
Switzerland is called Sveits & France is Frankrike.
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. Then you have Slavs who were settled in Anatolia by early Byzantine emperors and who later on called themselves Greeks.
As for Italy, I remember reading that 90.000 Lombard men settled there so Lombard blood is probably in many Italians' veins.
Also the Muslim army that conquered Visigothic Iberia apparently didn't have any women with them. Which meant that when these Muslim soldiers settled in Iberia and intermarried.
are you sure in modern greek it is still Gallia? do you speak greek? If it is so, it's very interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkiviadis
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...
I've seen one theory suggesting "swiss" was originally an insult used by the South German Landsknecht mercenaries of their Helvetian Reisläufer competitors-cum-archenemies, meaning something along the lines of swineherd and/or "swine intimate" (as the text put it). Since, you know, a good portion of the Helvetian mercs came from the poor mountain regions and all, where that was a common profession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkiviadis
The latter took it in stride and adopted it as a sort of honorary badge (much like the British "Old Contemptibles" regular army before WW1), in the spirit of "we may be Swiss but we still kick your asses!"
Or that's what I've read anyway. That one of the original three founding cantons of the Confederacy was (and is) called Schwyz might also have something to do with it.
Yep, all that is correct. Germania, Italia, ispania, Brettania, Mauretania, Libye, all that from modern Greek maps. Dunno. Must be byzantium that common Italo-greek history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelics
Yet we call Lusotannan Portogalia
Obelics, as Keravnos said in modern Greek is still Gallia...Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelics
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"
Oh jeez, how I could I miss that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Teutobod II
...now where the hell is that really embarrased smiley...
Deutschland = Tyskland
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
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.
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 Krusader
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.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.
Tyske = Teutonic/GermanicQuote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
:bow:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna
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.