New Historical Civilizations!!!

[sam]

In Every Total War In Europe Portugal Is Not Integrated As A Civilization ,it Is Always A Rebel Country Or A Part Of Spain!!1
In Rtw Portugal Was Called Lusitania And It Was An Ethnical Civilization Independent Wich Had Several Victories Against The Spanish Tribes , Carthage Or Even The Mighty Romans.
Around 100 Bc It Even Conquered The Iberian Peninsula And Threathened Rome Itself!!!
So If In This New Mod Of Rtw (europa Barbarum) You Want A More Historical Gameplay You Should At Least Put The Lusitanian Faction As Independent And Not A Part Of Spain. It's Capital City Is Scallabis Wich By The Way Never Was A Spanhish Town But Always A Lusitanian Town.
Another Fact Wich Proves The Importance Of This Civilization :
When The Peninsula Was Conquered By The Romans It Was Divided In Three Parts , One Of These Parts Was Called Lusitania

[saulot333]

I guess the problem is, as always, the limited slots which could be used for the factions...Lusitania could well be a good faction to add but not if the cost is axing Briton or Sarmatia, for example

[The Wizard]

Lusitania is part of the Iberian faction because, historically, and mind you I am generalizing to an extent, it was no different from the Celtiberians of the plateau at the center of the peninsular.

Lusitania was so Celtic, so to say, that there was actually a distinctly Celtic tribe living in the northeastern part of the region, called the Celtii.

As I said, I have been generalizing. The forces commanded by the commander you speak of, Viriatus, were largely composed of the Celtiberian Lusitanians. However, in the southern part of Lusitania, there was a tribe (of which I forget the name) which was under influence of the Iberian culture nearby, in the Baetica region. This was a culture which was more urban, less tribal, and above all more influenced by the Carthaginians (since the 3rd century BC) than the Celtiberians to the north.

And Viriatus never threatened Rome. True, he defeated a few legions, but his was only a rebel incursion which was brought to heel after nearly a decade.

Romans were a people which could be horrifyingly cruel to those that had opposed them, but also surprisingly benevolent. In the case of Lusitania, which was part of the province of Hispania Ulterior until the rule of Augustus, or perhaps even later, until the second half of the 1st century AD, it was the latter. For their spirit, which never seemed to die down, they were granted their own province. But the Romans were also pragmatic. Lusitania, as a province separate from Hispania Ulterior, could be more easily monitored and managed by its own governor. In any case, their cultural identity had little to do with it, for modern Portugal at the time was mostly Celtiberian, and for a small part Iberian in character.

The Portuguese culture itself came into being as a separate entity from the other cultures and languages in the peninsular when the Germanic Suebi (Swabians) moved in, in the 5th century AD. Their kingdom was absorbed by the Visigothic kingdom in the 7th century, but by then they had already made their mark on the region they had settled in (roughly modern Portugal, but also a sizeable portion of Galicia).



~Wiz

[Sarcasm]

Ehum......I should really dispute this......it has serious some misconceptions.....maybe later.

[Dux Corvanus]

Aymar and Sarcasm -who are Portuguese- can give you better explanations than me. Anyway, I must state that using prerroman cultures as basis for a nationalistic feeling is totally pointless. Actual Portuguese are not Lusitanian, the same that Spanish are not Celtiberian, nor are the British Britons.

Thousands of years have passed, many peoples and cultures have settled here and there making a complex ethnic mosaic, so we can't recognize ourselves in peoples and cultures that were before us just because they were in the same place we are now.

Specially in Western Europe, national feelings are based in events which happened after the fall of Roman Empire, and more precisely, in early and medium Middle Ages.

1) Portugal and Spain are not in the game. They didn't exist yet. There were a number of Celtic and Mediterranean cultures that dwelled in the peninsule, and we call with the generic name of Iberia.

The story of Portugal as the nation we know today starts when the early Kings of Asturia and Leon founded the County of Portugal as a frontier mark with the muslims around the 9th century AD. Alphonse VI of Castile gave the County to Henry of Burgundy, his son-in-law, in 1095. After Alphonse VI's death, Henry of Burgundy soon claimed autonomy in 1109, and in 1139, Alphonse Enriques, his son, took the title of King of Portugal, and anounced an independence that was in fact effective since decades before.

Soon, Portugal adquired the unique characters that distinguishes it from any other nation in Europe, and fought fiercely to keep its independence. From the 14th to 18th centuries it was a colonial power of the first order, and played a crucial role in European History and the age of Discoveries.

But, what was the role of Portugal in 272 BC? The same that Spain or France: none. They didn't exist.

2) Asuming that Viriato's Lusitans 'conquered the whole peninsula and threatened Rome' is plainly exagerated and painfully misinformed. No peninsular native culture got so far, nor even tried.

3) Scallabis was not Spanish nor Portuguese, it was Lusitan.

4) When the Romans conquered the peninsule, they divided it in two provinces: Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior. It was not until 27 AD that Agripa formed Lusitania from Hispania Ulterior in order to put it under a praetor and better kick the rebellious local asses, while the other part (Baetica) was put under consular administration because of its high degree of integration in the Roman world.

5) There is no such thing as "ethnical civilizations", unless you're talking about III Reich.

6) English does not use capitals for every single word.

@ Wizard: The southern tribe you talk about are the turdetani, cultural inheritors of the Tartessos civilization.

[The Wizard]

Ehum......I should really dispute this......it has serious some misconceptions.....maybe later.

Hum... so the Lusitani really were more different than I assumed? Tell me more -- I demand it. Or are you talking of the first post? I hope so, for my sake

And Dux Corvanus, I think was talking of the Conii. They lived in what is now known as the Algarve. Although I am no expert on Lusitania.



~Wiz

[Shigawire]

Useless trivia:

Portugal is a continuation of the Latin name for a city called "Portus Cale", which means "the Port of Cale" (Cale being a settlement in the area).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Lusitania is part of the Iberian faction because, historically, and mind you I am generalizing to an extent, it was no different from the Celtiberians of the plateau at the center of the peninsular.

Lusitania was so Celtic, so to say, that there was actually a distinctly Celtic tribe living in the northeastern part of the region, called the Celtii.

Sorry, but, although with Celtic cultural influence, many of their gods and traditions were indegenous. They considered the Celticii living in the soutern area of Lusitania and Carpetanii (to the east) as descendants of Celtic invaders and the Vetonii (eastern Lusitania), Conii(southern Portugal) and Turdetanii as indegenous like themselves. We have to recognize, however, that Lusitanians possessed many celtic cultural influences and like many others tribes intermingled somehow with early celtic invaders (circa 800BC - Hallstatt period IIRC).

You can find more info here:

As I said, I have been generalizing. The forces commanded by the commander you speak of, Viriatus, were largely composed of the Celtiberian Lusitanians. However, in the southern part of Lusitania, there was a tribe (of which I forget the name) which was under influence of the Iberian culture nearby, in the Baetica region. This was a culture which was more urban, less tribal, and above all more influenced by the Carthaginians (since the 3rd century BC) than the Celtiberians to the north.

4 tribes in the southern vicinity of Viriatos power area in those days. Celticii, Conii, Turdelanii and Turdetanii.

And the Celtiberians (Oretanii, Carpetanii, Arevacii, Lusonii, etc...) considered themselves different from the Lusitanian tribes.

You can find more info here:

And Viriatus never threatened Rome. True, he defeated a few legions, but his was only a rebel incursion which was brought to heel after nearly a decade.

Viriatos threatening Rome is just fantasy. He treatened Roman power in the peninsula for a decade, after many humiliating defeats inflicted on the Roman legions.

Romans were a people which could be horrifyingly cruel to those that had opposed them, but also surprisingly benevolent. In the case of Lusitania, which was part of the province of Hispania Ulterior until the rule of Augustus, or perhaps even later, until the second half of the 1st century AD, it was the latter.

Sorry but you are completelly mistaken. That "benevolent" action was unavoidable and imposed by two main factors:

-The constant rebellions in the area, when under Roman administration.
-The several treaties enforced by Viriatos on Rome in earlier times, enforced them to take in to consideration other administrative approaches after conquest.

For their spirit, which never seemed to die down, they were granted their own province. But the Romans were also pragmatic. Lusitania, as a province separate from Hispania Ulterior, could be more easily monitored and managed by its own governor. In any case, their cultural identity had little to do with it, for modern Portugal at the time was mostly Celtiberian, and for a small part Iberian in character.

Please do not incurr in the mistake of confusing Portugal with Lusitania. They are different areas with just a central common part. The Lusitania area wasn't mostly celtiberian. In fact, that is a bit of a stretch. It was a mantle of several cultural, religious and ethnic influnces. But prodominantly indo-european. The area that Portugal presently ocuppies had that and typically Celtic areas as you can see in the first map. So, we can say 50% of each influence in the area that Portugal ocupies today.

The Portuguese culture itself came into being as a separate entity from the other cultures and languages in the peninsular when the Germanic Suebi (Swabians) moved in, in the 5th century AD. Their kingdom was absorbed by the Visigothic kingdom in the 7th century, but by then they had already made their mark on the region they had settled in (roughly modern Portugal, but also a sizeable portion of Galicia).

~Wiz

That is true also. But there was already distinction between the different areas of the peninsula back in Viriatos time. They still exist today although many alterations mixed the process even more throughout the times. "Spanish" is an optimistic concept if used in anything more than in a very general way.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Aymar and Sarcasm -who are Portuguese- can give you better explanations than me. Anyway, I must state that using prerroman cultures as basis for a nationalistic feeling is totally pointless. Actual Portuguese are not Lusitanian, the same that Spanish are not Celtiberian, nor are the British Britons.

Thousands of years have passed, many peoples and cultures have settled here and there making a complex ethnic mosaic, so we can't recognize ourselves in peoples and cultures that were before us just because they were in the same place we are now.

Specially in Western Europe, national feelings are based in events which happened after the fall of Roman Empire, and more precisely, in early and medium Middle Ages.

1) Portugal and Spain are not in the game. They didn't exist yet. There were a number of Celtic and Mediterranean cultures that dwelled in the peninsule, and we call with the generic name of Iberia.

The story of Portugal as the nation we know today starts when the early Kings of Asturia and Leon founded the County of Portugal as a frontier mark with the muslims around the 9th century AD. Alphonse VI of Castile gave the County to Henry of Burgundy, his son-in-law, in 1095. After Alphonse VI's death, Henry of Burgundy soon claimed autonomy in 1109, and in 1139, Alphonse Enriques, his son, took the title of King of Portugal, and anounced an independence that was in fact effective since decades before.

Soon, Portugal adquired the unique characters that distinguishes it from any other nation in Europe, and fought fiercely to keep its independence. From the 14th to 18th centuries it was a colonial power of the first order, and played a crucial role in European History and the age of Discoveries.

But, what was the role of Portugal in 272 BC? The same that Spain or France: none. They didn't exist.

2) Asuming that Viriato's Lusitans 'conquered the whole peninsula and threatened Rome' is plainly exagerated and painfully misinformed. No peninsular native culture got so far, nor even tried.

3) Scallabis was not Spanish nor Portuguese, it was Lusitan.

4) When the Romans conquered the peninsule, they divided it in two provinces: Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior. It was not until 27 AD that Agripa formed Lusitania from Hispania Ulterior in order to put it under a praetor and better kick the rebellious local asses, while the other part (Baetica) was put under consular administration because of its high degree of integration in the Roman world.

5) There is no such thing as "ethnical civilizations", unless you're talking about III Reich.

6) English does not use capitals for every single word.

@ Wizard: The southern tribe you talk about are the turdetani, cultural inheritors of the Tartessos civilization.

I couldn't have said it better.

One little trivia though: Scallabis only gained real importance in Roman times.

[The Wizard]

Sorry but you are completelly mistaken. That "benevolent" action was unavoidable and imposed by two main factors:

-The constant rebellions in the area, when under Roman administration.
-The several treaties enforced by Viriatos on Rome in earlier times, enforced them to take in to consideration other administrative approaches after conquest.

As I said right after I said it could have been an example of Roman benevolence... personally I realized the former was probably bullocks while the pragmatic approach was so Roman that it had a large chance of being correct.

Please do not incurr in the mistake of confusing Portugal with Lusitania. They are different areas with just a central common part. The Lusitania area wasn't mostly celtiberian. In fact, that is a bit of a stretch. It was a mantle of several cultural, religious and ethnic influnces. But prodominantly indo-european. The area that Portugal presently ocuppies had that and typically Celtic areas as you can see in the first map. So, we can say 50% of each influence in the area that Portugal ocupies today.

Do not worry, I did not. I merely mentioned 'modern Portugal' as a region to show the approximate area where the Lusitani lived.

And as I deduce from the map you provided, Lusitania was in south under Turtedanic influence (in the modern Algarve), in the approximate center (not completely though) under the influence of the confusing nomer of 'Iberian', and in the north under Celtiberian influence, which was, IIRC, not that very much different from Iberian.

What I did not know, however, was that the region was already culturally distinct, to an extent, in the day.

And I called Lusitania 'so Celtic' because there was a distinctly Celtic tribe (of course not the same as the Celts of the La Tène culture, but apparently more distinctly Celtic than their Celtiberian cousins) living inside it, the 'Celtii' in my post, by which I meant the Celticii. These Celticii were not part of the Halstatt migrations, but came later, when the mainland Atlantic Celts had advanced into their La Tène culture, correct? Which might explain their more distinctly Celtic nature.

In any case, I by no means meant to say that Lusitania was predominately under Celtic influence.



~Wiz

[Dux Corvanus]

Hum... so the Lusitani really were more different than I assumed? Tell me more -- I demand it. Or are you talking of the first post? I hope so, for my sake

Well, in fact, Lusitani were not Celtiberians, at least, they had significant cultural differences, although they were related by means of Celtic influence.

What they did not, is singing fados or making bacalao (cod fish) recipes. Not did the Cassi take tea at five o'clock, nor the Romans ate spaghetti.

To take back our modern concepts of state and national identity to ancient peoples who just lived where we live now, is simply a wrong way, and the most simple instrument of nationalistic governments to radicalize national feelings by the manipulation of History.

It's like saying the Neanderthal Man was a German. Not long ago, when the Otztal man was discovered, some Austrian tabloids rushed to publish the news as "The first Austrian". Not much later, when they discovered the finding was just some meters inside the Italian frontier, the Italian magazines joyfully displayed: "The first Italian". Now, there's a bitter polemic about where must the frozen guy rest, according to his 'nationality'. But, believe me: the poor murdered guy didn't know what the f**k Austria or Italia were, nor did he speak German nor Italian, because... those things didn't exist, and the Alps were just big mountains around the valley where he lived.

Here in south Spain, in Andalusia, the local government excites continuously the pride of the Andalusian citizens with the glories and excellence of muslim Omeyan culture. You know, common places about delightful gardens, sensitive poets, higienic baths, translation of the classics, three religions living peacefully -most of all is a manipulated cr*p. (Believe me, I work for the Andalusian Ministry of Culture) Now I hear guys blaming the 'evil dirty northern Christians' for destroying such a brilliant culture... forgotting that the 'evil northern Christians' are mostly their ancestors, the ones who took the muslims' lands and cities and exiled them to North Africa.

I myself I'm a modern Cantabrian. Should I dare claiming myself as the descendent of the brave warriors that fought August's legions?

Nay. My ancestors come from all parts of Spain and Europe. Ancient Cantabrian people was defeated, anihilated, sold as slaves. The survivors mixed with Romans and other peoples, travelled, came and went, their blood dispersed all over the world. How many modern Cantabrians can look at an ancient Cantabrian depiction and say 'daddy'?

None.

Nationalism based in ancient History just sucks.

[The Wizard]

I fully agree with you.

Here in the Netherlands, the national myth is that we descend straight from the tribe of the Batavii. Which is not true -- the core of our nation, the provinces of South and North Holland, are inhabited by people who descend from the tribe of the Frisii.

Now, the Frisii were a tribal confederation which was very old, and which expanded in the time of the Great Migrations. Its tribes lived all along the Waddenzee, which is that part of the North Sea which runs from the 'corner' between Denmark and Germany to the southernmost of the islands of the Netherlands, Texel. Their main territorial advance, if one could even call it that, was into what is now Noord- and Zuid-Holland. Subsequently this tall, fair-skinned tribe forms the basis of the people from the provinces of Holland. And that is only those two provinces, I haven't even begun about the other fourteen. And that for such a small piece of land

Personally one could call me a Frank. This is for two reasons: my family on my mother's side are Huguenots, thus they come from France, in this case Southern France, around Toulouse. They stayed pretty French in character, since where they live there is a large amount of people of Huguenot descent. The second reason is because my family on my father's side comes from the southern Netherlands, which was part of the Frankish heartland of Austrasia (its name under the Merovingians and Carolingians, but the region itself, and its Frankish character, existed long before Clodovech came along) from the time the Franks became foederati of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. And to say that 'part' of me is purely Frankish is bullocks -- the Franks mixed with Celts, Romans, and anything else they found in Austrasia at the time. And the term 'pure' is a wrong word to begin with, but I use it because of the lack of alternatives.

But, mind you, that's the so-called 'ethnic' character of myself. The term itself is biased, but I simply mean of which peoples the blood which runs in my veins descends. And no-one can claim that is pure, for that is an impossibility. Pure itself is a wrong term anyways. In any case, being technically a Frank (with 25% Jewish blood as well; yes, I'm a mixed bag ), my nationality is Dutch. And even that isn't fully true -- I was born and grew up on the Dutch Antilles. Now there's a brain-teaser, isn't there?



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

What they did not, is singing fados or making bacalao (cod fish) recipes.

Bacalhau.

To take back our modern concepts of state and national identity to ancient peoples who just lived where we live now, is simply a wrong way, and the most simple instrument of nationalistic governments to radicalize national feelings by the manipulation of History.

It's like saying the Neanderthal Man was a German. Not long ago, when the Otztal man was discovered, some Austrian tabloids rushed to publish the news as "The first Austrian". Not much later, when they discovered the finding was just some meters inside the Italian frontier, the Italian magazines joyfully displayed: "The first Italian". Now, there's a bitter polemic about where must the frozen guy rest, according to his 'nationality'. But, believe me: the poor murdered guy didn't know what the f**k Austria or Italia were, nor did he speak German nor Italian, because... those things didn't exist, and the Alps were just big mountains around the valley where he lived.

Here in south Spain, in Andalusia, the local government excites continuously the pride of the Andalusian citizens with the glories and excellence of muslim Omeyan culture. You know, common places about delightful gardens, sensitive poets, higienic baths, translation of the classics, three religions living peacefully -most of all is a manipulated cr*p. (Believe me, I work for the Andalusian Ministry of Culture) Now I hear guys blaming the 'evil dirty northern Christians' for destroying such a brilliant culture... forgotting that the 'evil northern Christians' are mostly their ancestors, the ones who took the muslims' lands and cities and exiled them to North Africa.

HE!HE!HE! Very true. Bias according to political agendas is paramout everywhere you look in these days.

I myself I'm a modern Cantabrian. Should I dare claiming myself as the descendent of the brave warriors that fought August's legions?

Your ascendecy might even have some Roman blood.

Nay. My ancestors come from all parts of Spain and Europe. Ancient Cantabrian people was defeated, anihilated, sold as slaves. The survivors mixed with Romans and other peoples, travelled, came and went, their blood dispersed all over the world. How many modern Cantabrians can look at an ancient Cantabrian depiction and say 'daddy'?

None.

Nationalism based in ancient History just sucks.

HE!HE!HE! Good points.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I fully agree with you.

Here in the Netherlands, the national myth is that we descend straight from the tribe of the Batavii. Which is not true -- the core of our nation, the provinces of South and North Holland, are inhabited by people who descend from the tribe of the Frisii.

Now, the Frisii were a tribal confederation which was very old, and which expanded in the time of the Great Migrations. Its tribes lived all along the Waddenzee, which is that part of the North Sea which runs from the 'corner' between Denmark and Germany to the southernmost of the islands of the Netherlands, Texel. Their main territorial advance, if one could even call it that, was into what is now Noord- and Zuid-Holland. Subsequently this tall, fair-skinned tribe forms the basis of the people from the provinces of Holland. And that is only those two provinces, I haven't even begun about the other fourteen. And that for such a small piece of land

Personally one could call me a Frank. This is for two reasons: my family on my mother's side are Huguenots, thus they come from France, in this case Southern France, around Toulouse. They stayed pretty French in character, since where they live there is a large amount of people of Huguenot descent. The second reason is because my family on my father's side comes from the southern Netherlands, which was part of the Frankish heartland of Austrasia (its name under the Merovingians and Carolingians, but the region itself, and its Frankish character, existed long before Clodovech came along) from the time the Franks became foederati of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. And to say that 'part' of me is purely Frankish is bullocks -- the Franks mixed with Celts, Romans, and anything else they found in Austrasia at the time. And the term 'pure' is a wrong word to begin with, but I use it because of the lack of alternatives.

But, mind you, that's the so-called 'ethnic' character of myself. The term itself is biased, but I simply mean of which peoples the blood which runs in my veins descends. And no-one can claim that is pure, for that is an impossibility. Pure itself is a wrong term anyways. In any case, being technically a Frank (with 25% Jewish blood as well; yes, I'm a mixed bag ), my nationality is Dutch. And even that isn't fully true -- I was born and grew up on the Dutch Antilles. Now there's a brain-teaser, isn't there?

HE!HE!HE! We can say that from almost any person in Europe. "Pure" is a completelly ridiculous concept. Even in the paleolitic there never was really such a concept, let alone in later times with full migrations and intermingling.

[eadingas]

You mean all my historic education based on volumes of Asterix is wrong?? :D

[Spacemonk]

according to christians we all have pure adam & eva blood :p

[sam]

I ve not made myself clear (maybe it's because I do not speak very well english), when in around 100 BC I said lusitanians threathened Rome I wasn't speaking of Viriato but of Quinto Sertorio a roman general who came to lusitania and led them into several victories he conquered the peninsula and divided it it into two regions one of them was lusitania the other was celtiberia. He created a senate in evora and occupied les passes dans les Alpes d'où il menaça Rome toutte puissante...
Then you say that the lusitans are not the Portuguese's ancestors well if you say that to any History teacher in Portugal (or even in france by the way) well that person will be anoid for example when you say you speak portuguese you say you are Lusofono and luso comes from lusitano
French say they are descendents from gaulish people say to them that isn't true and they'll spit on you!!(no kidding it already happenned to me)
I'm not portuguese by the way but I know lot's of them and they are very atached to their past and the fact that in medieval tw Portugal was integrated as rebels anoys them really!!
When I said ethnical civilization I wanted to say ethnie ( french word ) which designates a people like lusitans or greeks or sarmatians saxons...
And above all Im not speaking of purity of races or anything like that I'm just speaking of a game for god sake J'essaye pas de vous impiger des discours raciaux. Talking of purity for me would be ironic my mother is french but her parents were austrian and swedish my father's parents were irish and portuguese so you see i cannot speak of purity!!!

Sorry for all these confusions!!

[Dux Corvanus]

I ve not made myself clear (maybe it's because I do not speak very well english), when in around 100 BC I said lusitanians threathened Rome I wasn't speaking of Viriato but of Quinto Sertorio a roman general who came to lusitania and led them into several victories he conquered the peninsula and divided it it into two regions one of them was lusitania the other was celtiberia. He created a senate in evora and occupied les passes dans les Alpes d'où il menaça Rome toutte puissante...

That's an episode of Roman civil wars. Sertorio was a follower of Marius. He found support in the peninsule -from all parts of the peninsule, not only Lusitania- and used Iberian troops as a client army, part of the Marian army. But still was -a Roman army. And he didn't divide anything, nor he conquered the peninsula, but established foedus with many local chieftains.

Then you say that the lusitans are not the Portuguese's ancestors well if you say that to any History teacher in Portugal (or even in france by the way) well that person will be anoid

Worst for him.

for example when you say you speak portuguese you say you are Lusofono and luso comes from lusitano

And they say Hispanoamericano to refer to American Spanish speakers. Both Spain/Spanish and Hispano come from Hispania. But Hispania is the way Romans called the whole peninsule, including Lusitania. And they say francofono to say someone speaks French. Franco- comes from frank, but French don't speak Frank -a germanic tongue.

As you see, mass media is supremely ignorant and seeks nice words with a feeble ethimological basis.

French say they are descendents from gaulish people say to them that isn't true and they'll spit on you!!(no kidding it already happenned to me)

They shouldn't: they're wrong. The French nation has his roots in the western Frank kingdom of the three formed after the disintegration of the Caroligian Empire, following the Verdun treaty division among the three sons of emperor Ludwig in 843, Charles I being the first king. A germanic origin, which has nothing to do with Celtic ancestors.

[jerby]

well, there were many tribes back, then and they cant all be portraited and since "faction" like bactria, seleucids, romans etc were far more important the the (as it seems to me) rebbellion of portugal.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I ve not made myself clear (maybe it's because I do not speak very well english), when in around 100 BC I said lusitanians threathened Rome I wasn't speaking of Viriato but of Quinto Sertorio a roman general who came to lusitania and led them into several victories he conquered the peninsula and divided it it into two regions one of them was lusitania the other was celtiberia. He created a senate in evora and occupied les passes dans les Alpes d'où il menaça Rome toutte puissante...

Read Dux Corvanus's reply.

Then you say that the lusitans are not the Portuguese's ancestors well if you say that to any History teacher in Portugal (or even in france by the way) well that person will be anoid for example when you say you speak portuguese you say you are Lusofono and luso comes from lusitano

I am a Portuguese and I'm not annoyed. We have some blood from them, yes. And somewhat less from the Romans too, also from the Suebii, from the Alans, from the Visigoths, from the Berbers, etc... I could go on and on.

What matters here is that the Lusitanian's heritage regarding the Portuguese is more an inspiration to Portuguese independance than anything else. It is a concept, an idea more then an ethnic (although there is some), cultural or religious heritage.

French say they are descendents from gaulish people say to them that isn't true and they'll spit on you!!(no kidding it already happenned to me)

They are wrong. They might identify themselves as Gauls but it's the same thing has with Lusitanians vs Portuguese. There is some Roman and a lot of Frankish, Burgundian, etc... blood among the French. And culturally and religiously, they descend from Charlemagne's middle age empire, not a politeistic, animistic warriot socciety as was the case with Gauls.

What people think is unimportant in these matters. What historians know as fact is what is important.

I'm not portuguese by the way but I know lot's of them and they are very atached to their past and the fact that in medieval tw Portugal was integrated as rebels anoys them really!!

Well, I have to agree it annoyed me too, but what to expect from thise Brits?

When I said ethnical civilization I wanted to say ethnie ( french word ) which designates a people like lusitans or greeks or sarmatians saxons...
And above all Im not speaking of purity of races or anything like that I'm just speaking of a game for god sake J'essaye pas de vous impiger des discours raciaux. Talking of purity for me would be ironic my mother is french but her parents were austrian and swedish my father's parents were irish and portuguese so you see i cannot speak of purity!!!

Sorry for all these confusions!!

Well, Saxons mixed with Angles and Jutes and a bit with Romano-Britons (Welsh and Cornish). Vikings with Franks creating the people of Normandy. Lusitanians with Romans, Suebii, Alans, Visigoths, Berbers, etc...

So, identifying Portuguese with Lusitanians is "optimistic" to say the least. Specially in regard to culture or religion. A bit less regarding ethnicity.

[Dux Corvanus]

Well, I have to agree it annoyed me too, but what to expect from thise Brits?

Yeah, it was quite a deception. Even if they added Aragon in the expansion to have a more complex peninsular depiction, I still missed Portugal and Navarre, and deplored the simplistic way the muslim factions were treated as well -with those 'Almohads' getting all the stuff. Not to talk about Eastern Europe. Looks like, the farer from UK, the less interest they took in the thing.

[Brutus]

And that is only those two provinces, I haven't even begun about the other fourteen. And that for such a small piece of land

Last time I checked we still only had 12 provinces

Personally one could call me a Frank. This is for two reasons: my family on my mother's side are Huguenots, thus they come from France, in this case Southern France, around Toulouse. They stayed pretty French in character, since where they live there is a large amount of people of Huguenot descent. The second reason is because my family on my father's side comes from the southern Netherlands, which was part of the Frankish heartland of Austrasia (its name under the Merovingians and Carolingians, but the region itself, and its Frankish character, existed long before Clodovech came along) from the time the Franks became foederati of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD. And to say that 'part' of me is purely Frankish is bullocks -- the Franks mixed with Celts, Romans, and anything else they found in Austrasia at the time. And the term 'pure' is a wrong word to begin with, but I use it because of the lack of alternatives.

But, mind you, that's the so-called 'ethnic' character of myself. The term itself is biased, but I simply mean of which peoples the blood which runs in my veins descends. And no-one can claim that is pure, for that is an impossibility. Pure itself is a wrong term anyways. In any case, being technically a Frank (with 25% Jewish blood as well; yes, I'm a mixed bag ), my nationality is Dutch. And even that isn't fully true -- I was born and grew up on the Dutch Antilles. Now there's a brain-teaser, isn't there?



~Wiz

With this I totally agree, all this so-called ethnic stuff is mostly bullsh**. However, in respect to your 'frankish' descent, It is true that the soutern Netherlands once were part of Austrasia, thus being Frankish (though with high quantities of other peoples like for example the Frisians mixing in, as you said). However, your huguenot descet from southern France does actually not mean any Frankish descent; it is unlikely many 'real Franks' went to live south of the Loire, at least their relative proportion would get lower and lower. Depending on the region Roman, Visigoth or Burgundian 'descent' would be more plausible.

Sorry, I can be a "Pietje Precies" at times

[The Wizard]

Actually southern France is more Frankish than you assume, but a lot less Frankish than northern France. It's a big melting pot over there, really.

You have a much greater Visigothic presence on the Mediterranean coast, because there they remained for a good two centuries longer than elsewhere in modern France. Then you have the Basques who once predominated across the Garonne, in Gascony. And then there is the Arab influence (a city in the Provence, Fraxinetum, was mostly in Arab hands until the first half of the 8th century AD).

But, even though these peoples remained virtually independent and homogenous (a bad term, but I use it with lack of alternatives), they were conquered by Pepin, the father of Charlemagne (the Aquitanians and Gascons, unified in the Duchy of Aquitaine, were actually conquered by Charles Martel) in the 8th century. There is a reason why the Occitan language is largely extinct nowadays, surviving here and there in the Provence. Sure, the southern French have their own dialect in the form of Languedoc French(langue d'Occitane; language of Aquitaine), but the fact that they speak French, which they did over the course of several centuries spanning from the late Middle Ages to the 18th or 19th centuries, is proof enough of the fact that the region has become far more French in character than it was in the time of courtly love etcetera.

But, my family emigrated to the Netherlands when Louis XIV chased all the huguenots out of France. They spoke French, being nobility which had become Protestant, and being nobility they had to be able to speak French to interact with the central government in Paris, and the provincial governors they sent out. But you can clearly see in my mother's family their Mediterranean features, showing Roman, Basque and perhaps Arab influence.

I'm quite aware of the fact that there are so many influences in Aquitaine, but Toulouse was already in the 17th century quite far in the process of losing its Occitan character.

Bah, who cares; the sole thing that defines you is you.



~Wiz

[Dux Corvanus]

Ah, Occitan, old Provençal...! The langue d'Oc, the tongue of the troubadours! It's really full of a music essence...

Can vei la lauzeta mover
De joi sas alas contral rai,
Que s'oblid' e.s laissa chazer
Per la doussor c'al cor li vai,
Ai! Tan grans enveya m'en ve
De cui qu'eu veya jauzion,
Meravilhas ai, car desse
Lo cor de dezirer nom fon.

Bernart de Ventadorn

[The Wizard]

Yep... the only thing spoken a lot that is reminiscient of it is its sister language, Catalan. Although there is a movement for recognition of the Occitan language and culture, and even a harder core of that movement which advocates independence of the ancient territory of Aquitaine at the most, and the Provence at the least, like the ETA. Less militant though.

The fact remains, however, that simply too few Occitan speakers remain, making the claims of the movement weakly backed and therefore largely ignored, as far as I know. Or does the French government acknowledge Occitan as an official language, like the Spanish government does of Catalan?



~Wiz

[Spendios]

Here in Toulouse there are a lot of Occitan's associations who try to make this culture live but for the moment the only thing they have been allowed to do is to rename some streets in Occitan. Even the "calandretas" which are bilingual schools are not really developped. The main problem in that the government doesn't recognise any power to local cultures like occitan, corsican, breton which are only considered as folklore for parisian tourists...
Macarel de parisenc !

[Dux Corvanus]

Yep... the only thing spoken a lot that is reminiscient of it is its sister language, Catalan.

Yeah, it's easy to see the similarities.

Although there is a movement for recognition of the Occitan language and culture, and even a harder core of that movement which advocates independence of the ancient territory of Aquitaine at the most, and the Provence at the least, like the ETA. Less militant though.

Less militant for sure, and thank God for that. Because ETA's nationalist terrorism scores more than 1000 victims in the last 30 years -while Basque Country has national rights officially recognized, Basque is an official language, they enjoy their own parlament, own laws, own police, etc. and have received nothing else than privileges in the last 500 years, except for the years of Franco's dictatorship...

The fact remains, however, that simply too few Occitan speakers remain, making the claims of the movement weakly backed and therefore largely ignored, as far as I know. Or does the French government acknowledge Occitan as an official language, like the Spanish government does of Catalan?

Certainly they should, but France politics -even in times of the Borbons- has always been furiously centralist. Spanish example -with a growing feeling of national disintegration and increasing nationalistic uproar- is not going to encourage them, anyway.

And now, end of contemporary politics. (Rules of the house, I'm afraid)

[LegVIIGemina-Tarraconense]

Yep... the only thing spoken a lot that is reminiscient of it is its sister language, Catalan. Although there is a movement for recognition of the Occitan language and culture, and even a harder core of that movement which advocates independence of the ancient territory of Aquitaine at the most, and the Provence at the least, like the ETA. Less militant though.

The fact remains, however, that simply too few Occitan speakers remain, making the claims of the movement weakly backed and therefore largely ignored, as far as I know. Or does the French government acknowledge Occitan as an official language, like the Spanish government does of Catalan?



~Wiz

Only the Catalan government does recognise the occitan language, spoken by less than 6,000 people in the north-west corner of Catalonia (Vall d'Aran). The Vall d'Aran (Aran Valley) is almost an autonomy within Catalonia. Except few valleys in western Italy where occitan is also spoken (Valadas), the rest of the occitan territory is found in France, the country that outstands for being the most repressive in Europe against their own languages and cultures other than official French . And I stop here because this is not the appropiate forum to talk about politics.

[bodidley]

Actually southern France is more Frankish than you assume, but a lot less Frankish than northern France. It's a big melting pot over there, really.

You have a much greater Visigothic presence on the Mediterranean coast, because there they remained for a good two centuries longer than elsewhere in modern France. Then you have the Basques who once predominated across the Garonne, in Gascony. And then there is the Arab influence (a city in the Provence, Fraxinetum, was mostly in Arab hands until the first half of the 8th century AD).

~Wiz

The dynamics of ancestrial or ethnic makeup are largely determined by the nature of the cultural exchange. To make a few examples as simple as they possibly can be (and I know we can make them much more complicated): In the island of Britain the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et. al drove the local Britons to modern day Wales, Cornwall, Britanny, and Scotland, so the English are with the exception of some Cornish not descended from the Britons (meaning that they have been ironically desparaging their ancestors with the the legend of King Arthur for almost 1000 years). In France, even though the Romans killed and enslaved many Gauls, and there were large migrations of Franks and Burgundians, since the invaders "mixed" (far less fun of a word than what actually happened ) with the local people and did not replace them, and since the invaders were not a clear majority, most people in France probably have Gallic ancestors,but of course they are a mixed people. While it would be incorrect to equate a certain tribe directly with national heritage, it would also be incorrect to say that it negates the ancestrial link of people to that tribe. After all, you need all of your ancestors to exist, and if you can only link your heritage to one ancestor of a certain tribe, then that ancestor had many ancestors of that tribe, etc. etc. The situation is further complicated by cultural exchange not equating with ethnic exchange.

I can definately understand your ideas about the complications of heritage, Wiz, after all, how couldn't a French Calvinist of Yankee English Protestant, French Catholic Canadian, Norwegian, Scottish, and probably Native American descent who has an Anglicisation of a Francophonation of a Dutch name which is almost exclusively present in America not understand?

[The Wizard]

Last time I checked we still only had 12 provinces

Don't blame me -- I'm from the Antilles.



~Wiz