What happened to the Gauls?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-12-2007, 22:06

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** · 03-12-2007, 22:15

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

**Caratacos** · 03-12-2007, 22:56

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.

**Shigawire** · 03-14-2007, 17:06

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

All good points. But please don't call the Norse "Vikings." Norse will do fine.

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-15-2007, 03:33

Originally Posted by Shigawire

All good points. But please don't call the Norse "Vikings." Norse will do fine.

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.

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.)

Norse means Norway and can cause confusion.

**Caratacos** · 03-15-2007, 03:50

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

.

(in that it mirrors history... ahh if i have to explain it it's obviously not funny

)

**Watchman** · 03-15-2007, 04:02

I thought that sort of developement was normal ?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.)

Norse means Norway and can cause confusion.

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.

'Course, given the widely different requirements between the two when it came to ships and personal gear and so on, that's only sensible.

**Eduorius** · 03-15-2007, 04:58

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"?

**NeoSpartan** · 03-15-2007, 05:32

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.