What happened to the Gauls?

[Hegix]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Eduorius]

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 =)

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

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).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[The Celt]

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. Is it just me or was the mass genocide of innocents said to take place during the "Dark Ages" just an exaggerated assimilation?

[Pelopidas]

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.

[Tretii]

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.

[Pelopidas]

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.

[Maeran]

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.

[Caratacos]

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 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).

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.

[Anthony]

Blond hair is not necessarily Germanic, so that shouldn't be considered. Ancient Celts are regularly described as blondes.

[Maeran]

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.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

I think it was unlikely that gaullish was completely extinct by this stage

Highly unlikely. Even Punic was spoken until the 400s AD in North Africa.

[Anthony]

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.

[L.C.Cinna]

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.

[Eduorius]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Pelopidas]

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.

The majority of mankind is dark haired, no ? :D
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.

[Maeran]

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.

[Taliferno]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Pelopidas]

Sorry Maeran, I have mixed together your message and another, my mistake.

[Caratacos]

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.

[The Celt]

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.

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? I've really got to buy De Bello de Gallico.


@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.

[Obelics]

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.

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...

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Xtiaan72]

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.

[Pelopidas]

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

[Xtiaan72]

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.