Talk:Gallic Empire

Untitled
The dates of this period in time are not concrete and the written evidence is often unreliable. Recent scholarship indicates that earlier accepted date for the reigns of the Gallic emperors (which are used on this page) are too early by several months to about a year. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I will update the dates to reflect the latest scholarship, which will essentially push back most of the dates on this, and the related pages, by about 1 year. Maximus Rex, 09:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't Imperium Gallorum be more correct? But was this formula ever actually used? No sense in creating a modern Latin formula. What's on the coins? Wetman 01:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know Latin. I saw "Imperium Galliarum" here. The coins make no mention of a "Gallic empire" and do not distinguish the Gallic emperors from the "true" Roman emperors. Maximus Rex 02:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I know some Latin, and Imperium Gallorum seems correct. It means "Empire of the Galli," as opposed to Imperium Galliarum, which would mean "Empire of the Galliae." The difference is gender (the first is masculine, the second feminine), and I'm pretty sure the Romans would have used the masculine form for the Gauls. Hallmark 01:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

David S. Potter in The Roman empire at bay uses the term Imperium Galiarum so that would appear to be correct. However he also says that it's capital was at Cologne, not Trier. Does anyone know how Trier got into this story?

Postumus moved the Capital (along with his Mint) to Cologne from Trier in about 268.


 * Just a note that Imperium Galliarum would mean "Empire of the Gauls" using Gaul in the geographic sense--that is, "Empire of the Gallic provinces". Much like "Emperor of All the Russias" or like you sometimes see pre-1866/1871 authors refer to "the Italies" or "the Germanies".  But yes, I too would like to see an incidence of its use in ancient sources--or at the very least, an acknowledgement that such a term never appears in the sources, even if it's being used by modern historians.  Binabik80 05:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anybody who has ever studied Caesar in Latin should know that Gaul is divided into three parts, so I think that makes sense.Tsunomaru 06:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now added a note attributing the phrase Galliarum ... imperium to Eutropius. Binabik80 is exactly right about why it's Galliarum (≈ of the Gaulish lands) rather than Gallorum (≈ of the Gauls as a people). Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ambicatus
This orphan stub page Ambicatus claims "Ambicatus was a Gallic king, as reported by Livy, who lived around 400 BC. Most likely he was the leader of the most powerful tribe in a military alliance." If this is true seems like this page should link to his page. Jeepday 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really, as 400 BC is about 650 years before the events described here ... --Jfruh (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Completeness?
Is there a reason this page doesn't make any mention of the fall of the Gallic Empire? Is there a dearth of sources on that subject? Jtmorgan (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just came here wondering the same thing. Even if there is a lack of sources, that should be mentioned. However, Crisis of the Third Century suggests it was reconquered by Aurelian Modest Genius talk 17:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing 118.208.219.125 (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationalist historians
In the "Causes" section: "...although the extent of "Gaulish" self-identification that nationalist historians have inferred is probably inflated." Which historians made this identification? Which historian said it is probably inflated? Besides the citing issue, there is one of neutrality. "Nationalist historians" sounds awfully like it's supposed to discredit the idea. I'm not really an expert on the subject, so I can't fix it myself. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note this complaint is over a year old now. Technically, the statement may be removed in the article.  I don't have any reference that supports the statement in the article and would also like to know where it came from. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Drinkwater says something along these lines, though his premise is that there was both separatism and continuity in the Gallic Empire. I'll reread the relevant section and see. (For "nationalist historians", presumably read Jules Michelet and others sharing a similar construction of Gaulish history as presaging the development of French nationhood. Agreed, it's not the most sympathetic-sounding phrase.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find anything, so I've rewritten that section with references. More remains to be done. Q·L·1968 ☿ 02:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Other map
Is there a map that shows the Gallic Empire at its maximum extent under Postumus, rather than under Tetricus in 271? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same thing - I see it has already been said. Does anyone know if such a map exists that can be used? The Gallic Empire is mentioned in a number of other articles and each time it is the map on this article that is used, showing only a small part of the empire at its maximum extent. Regards; Thanks Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked Commons for another map and didn't find one. I think it may just be that no one has made one yet.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cuchullain. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it looks like they just weren't well organized. I went over to Commons and created a category with all the maps and images I could find (here). There are some maps (including some in other languages) that apparently show the Gallic Empire under its fullest extent, but they're inaccurate in other ways. First is the date: they claim to depict 271, but Claudius Gothicus (re)took eastern Gallia Narbonensis in 269 and Hispania returned very shortly after. The Gallic Empire boundaries may be more or less accurate for the Empire's greatest extent in (say) 268, but the maps also show the Palmyrene Empire under its greatest extent, though Zenobia didn't conquer Egypt and Anatolia until 269. The best solution will probably be just making some new maps.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Last gallic emperor?
The list in the infobox lists faustinius but the infobox of tetricus I lists none. Koopinator (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Faustinius rebellled while Tetricus was still emperor, but did not successfully overthrow him and so did not succeed him as emperor. Psychotic   Spartan  123  20:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, I removed him from the infobox. Koopinator (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Roman Hispania
Just a question, did Roman Hispania actually break away from the Gallic Roman Empire after the death of Postumus? Because some say that it did or it didn't but might have some signs of discontent. I would agree with the latter one saying that the Provinces of Iberia nominally stayed as a part of the Gallic Roman Empire until it's collapse at the hands of Aurelian. Since the Gallic Roman Army would have simply march on to Spain and scare the locals into rejoining their side. Since there was only one Legion in Spain, the Legio VII Gemina. I believe that some of the locals disliked the Government of the Gallic Roman Empire but they never realigned with the forces of Aurelian until the aftermath of the battle of chalons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapnut1207 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Imperium Galliarum
I propose that this name be removed from the lede and infobox of this article. It implies that contemporary Latin-speakers had a "name" for this administration as a separate state, which is simply not true -- we note that the Latin phrase comes from Eutropius and isn't used as a name there, but rather as a phrase meaning "command over the Gallic provinces", but this is buried in a footnote. I'm not saying we should get rid of the article or even change its name -- the name "Gallic Empire" is well established in English-language historiography -- but to assert at the top of the article that there was a Latin name for this entity is false. --Jfruh (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has objected to this, I've gone ahead and made the change. --Jfruh (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What's about Raetia?
Raetia was a part of the Gallic Empire, too. There is the Augsburger Siegesaltar, which mentions Postumus. He later was erased(damnatio memoriae). But because of the fact that Postumus is mentioned in Augsburg - which was the Capital of Raetia - all of Raetia belonged to the Gallic Empire. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburger_Siegesaltar http://www.ubi-erat-lupa.org/monument.php?id=6338 There you can see the latin inscription. 2003:CD:3724:9174:FD73:9575:CC45:705A (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)