Celts or Gauls?

[greycat]

Celtics from Roman Province 50AD ?

So the Roman calling this celts Britons from Britania?

We get the name Celt from more modern times like vikings.

[greycat]

The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml

[Lion.Kanzen]

And in Spanish we called o them celtas... So you say my word celta is for Vikings?

[greycat]

So the Roman calling this celts Britons from Britania?

Britannia

The first writer to use a form of the name was the Greek explorer and geographer Pytheas in the 4th century BC. Pytheas referred to Prettanike or Brettaniai, a group of islands off the coast of North-Western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia

[greycat]

And in Spanish we called o them celtas... So you say my word celta is for Vikings?

no sry... I mean we created the word viking at later time. from Old Norse vīkingr

First Known Use: 1807

Origin of Celt Late Latin celtis chisel First Known Use: 1715

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

edited

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[Lion.Kanzen]

Perfect. So what the problem? I see this post discussing but I don't know why.

[greycat]

These are not proper terms to be historically accurate i.m.o. Maybe it is because I am a neopagan. I just learn to make my own game I guess.

...I am also a historical war gamer.

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

My only problem is Celts were not in England in 500 BC. There is no evidence of this.

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

No evidence until around time of Caesar.

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[Lion.Kanzen]

But if that true we don't make a faction for that.

[greycat]

But if that true we don't make a faction for that.

sry...I can't always get my ideas through...I have social anxiety disorder and ocd.

This would be a general indicator of when they were there. "The earliest Gallo-Belgic coins that have been found in Britain date to before 100 BC, perhaps as early as 150 BC."

wikipedia

Julius Caesar first landed in Britain on August 26th, 55 BC, but it was almost another hundred years before the Romans actually conquered Britain in AD 43.

source:http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/julius-caesar%E2%80%99s-first-landing-britain

Caesar's Gallic Wars essays chronicle the history of his military engagements during the years 58-51 B.C. in Gaul, Germany, and Britain.

source:http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/g/gallic-wars/book-summary

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

This is why most people are misinformed. I will stop posting now.

In the 1970s the continuity model was taken to an extreme, popularized by Colin Burgess in his book The Age of Stonehenge which theorized that Celtic culture in Great Britain "emerged" rather than resulted from invasion and that the Celts were not invading aliens, but the descendants of the people of Stonehenge. The existence of Celtic language elsewhere in Europe, however, and the dating of the Proto-Celtic culture and language to the Bronze Age, makes the most extreme claims of continuity impossible

New World Enclclopedia:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Celts

Edited October 19, 2013 by greycat

[oshron]

My only problem is Celts were not in England in 500 BC. There is no evidence of this.

No evidence until around time of Caesar.

which is all still in the range of 500 BC to 1 BC. Alexander wasn't born until 356 BC, to give you a bit more context; the civs presented in the game just have to have been at their peak during the course of the game (for further context, it's planned that hypothetical Western/Imperial Romans will be dated specifically to Trajan's reign, when the Roman Empire was at the hegiht of its power)

[Mythos_Ruler]

greycat: What exactly are you arguing for? What change to the game are you advocating? The Britons in our game hail from around the time of Caesar, which as you indicated means there is evidence that they were Celtic at that time.

Also, controversial theories from fringe authors shall not be entertained. The consensus of modern scholarship has been that the Britons of this time were Celts (or Celtic). So, that's how we are depicting them.

About the terms "Celt" vs. "Gaul" or "Gallic," we are using the term "Gallic" and "Gaul" as a geographical notation. Nothing more. In a similar vein we are using "Iberian" to denote the peoples of Iberia, rather than a specific tribe.

[greycat]

greycat: What exactly are you arguing for? What change to the game are you advocating? The Britons in our game hail from around the time of Caesar, which as you indicated means there is evidence that they were Celtic at that time.

I realize it is my own issue and others don't share my thoughts.

Mostly this...

The term "Celts" (Keltoi, Celtae) in ancient ethnography did not extend to the Britons, although some writers noted their culture was very similar to that of the Gauls (i.e. Continental Celtic groups).

[greycat]

By calling the Celts British in the game says to me that they are now the civilization of those they displaced.

[greycat]

ok.. I see my error in thinking.

The British would be a culture of mostly Celtic origin at the time(there was people there already not considered Celts by ancient authors).

The rest of the factions seem to be cultures?

If they were just called Celts in game that would work also i.m.o. They would be a tribe of Celts in Britain. But not be representing the British culture as a whole.

However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th century.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml

Edited October 20, 2013 by greycat

[Loki1950]

Hi greycat here is a book that might interest you and others its a historical novel set in the time period starts in Erie ends with the sack of Olympus (279 BC) by the Celts the view point character is one Bran Mac Morgor of Ulster a charioteer who gets exiled.

Raven of Destiny by Peter Tremaye and the Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/Raven-Destiny-Peter-Tremayne/dp/0451146204 good story

Enjoy the Choice

[greycat]

Hi greycat here is a book that might interest you and others its a historical novel set in the time period starts in Erie ends with the sack of Olympus (279 BC) by the Celts the view point character is one Bran Mac Morgor of Ulster a charioteer who gets exiled.

Raven of Destiny by Peter Tremaye and the Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/Raven-Destiny-Peter-Tremayne/dp/0451146204 good story

Enjoy the Choice

Thanks.

[greycat]

In my own words. I feel the Celts would have never called themselves British. It was not my intention to seem like I was arguing, I was using this as a forum. Thanks for listening to my opinion.

Edited October 20, 2013 by greycat

[GunChleoc]

They probably called themselves by the name of the tribe they belonged to. Since there were multiple tribes, using a geographical term just like we to for the Gauls will have to suffice.

[greycat]

They probably called themselves by the name of the tribe they belonged to. Since there were multiple tribes, using a geographical term just like we to for the Gauls will have to suffice.

True, but Celt was a name given to us by them from multiple sources. Gaul was a name given by the Romans only. Like I said this just my own opinion. So we can discuss... Gaul apparently came from one tribal name then applied as a geographical location. Also the name Gaul was later dropped by cartographers and replaced by a region called Celtica which encompassed the region. Romans liked to divide things by areas they could control and not based on the people.

Edited October 20, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

In my opinion using Gaul would be the akin to taking one native American tribal name and then applying it to a whole region that you wanted to control, but not reflecting any of the other tribal names. I think during a certain time period(during the Gallic wars)this would be appropriate but not to all the time the game covers...

Edited October 20, 2013 by greycat

[Loki1950]

In my opinion using Gaul would be the akin to taking one native American tribal name and then applying it to a whole region that you wanted to control, but not reflecting any of the other tribal names. I think during a certain time period(during the Gallic wars)this would be appropriate but not to all the time the game covers...

Very good analogy but they where linked together by culture,language and trade with cultural institutions such as the druids providing continuity.

Enjoy the Choice