Talk:Gauls

Untitled
Possibly redirecting to Celt is more sensible, but I defer to others more knowledgeable on the issue. Stan Shebs 00:10 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

What in the name of Azathoth are all those lines doing up top? Get rid of em ASAP. 71.111.63.194 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

images
Although it's great to see more images with the article, there are perhaps too many. Graphics clutter can be a problem for those viewing the page on some devices. Perhaps a few of these could be organized into a gallery? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

merge
Since celt and gaul are two names for the same people the article should be merged with celts. The map also is bad, it should show the full extent of celts or only galia. Renato Ferreira da Rocha (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Galatians redirect
Why does "Galatians" redirect to this page, when the vast majority of the usage of the world "Galatians" is in reference to the New Testament book Epistle to the Galatians?--Bigh Whigh (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. Galatians should be the disambiguation page, and even if it redirected to the people, it should go to Galatia, not here—though Galatai or Galatae might be a different matter. Unless someone objects, I'm going to redirect "Galatians" to Galatians (disambiguation). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Surely I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that it couldn't be that simple. There's a labyrinth of redirects as it turns out. Will report back here on what I ended up doing. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, please check what I've done at Galatian and Galatians, both of which are dabs. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Note especially that the Greeks called "Gauls" (milk in Greek, hence the word galaxy also from the Greek) residents of the area because they were white as milk. From the Gauls arose today's France.

Most ancient Greek cities in France were built in 3000 BC. about ongoing campaign of Hercules to America. But in later years was a considerable number of colonies for which there are even more elements because the shortest time distance.

In Marseille specifically the Greeks settled many years ago when Phokeans Asia Minor (Greek colony of Phocaea in Asia Minor around 800BC.) not being able to face the fire of the Persians, as Athens and Sparta refused to send help, then fled to Gaul and founded Marseilles.

Herodotus attributes (A 63):

" And they FOKAEON Utu, naftiliisi MAKRHS echrisanto First of the Greeks, and know Adriin, and Tyrsinon and Ivirian and Tartisso Utu eisi The katadexantes . "

( The Fokeians first by the Greeks used the shipping for long trips and reached the coasts of the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Iberian peninsula )! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.121.143.31 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallic Ireland
Would a section on ireland not be appropriate seeing as its inhabitants were all celtic/gallic tribes from the continent as the graphic details Caomhan27 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would think not, since Ireland is not part of Gaul. Even if one accepted that Ireland was settled by Celtic peoples from the continent precisely as this map indicates, it would be like having a section on the United States in an article on Europe. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Slightly convoluted the united states analogy seeing as it would involve multiple ethnic groups but an article on the history of united states would have to include details on its european ancestory and vice versa an article on europe would most likely have to include the colonisation of north america by europeans, so it would make sense that although not deemed to be part of "gaul" the fact that ireland was colonised entirely by gallic tribes would be worthy of note in the article.Caomhan27 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose my concern is that in terms of article scope, Gauls needs to be distinguished from Celts. (And you seem to have done something rather odd to my signature above, which I am correcting.) Cynwolfe (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There do seem to have been some Gaulish tribes settled in Britain and Ireland in antiquity that anciently maintained some memory of their Gaulish roots (the Belgic tribes in Britain during Julius Caesar's days and the Laigin in Ireland, for example), so, if we are going to include the Balkans and Asia Minor, it wouldn't be inappropriate to mention these countries as well. Cynewolfe's point stands, however, that we should be confusing the terms "Gallic"/"Gauls" (which is usually - in modern scholarship, anyway, restricted to the peoples of Gaul proper) from "Celtic"/"Celts", which is a catch-all term for a much wider swath of culturally and linguistically related peoples. Cagwinn (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, please excuse my fumbling last night; I was tired. Galatians used to redirect here (see section above). Although Greco-Roman sources are unusually consistent in identifying the Celtic-speaking Galatians as Gauls in the strict sense of "coming from Gallia", certainly the Galatians need their own article. The redirect seems to reflect the very real confusion (or rather, lack of distinction) of terminology in Latin and Greek, in which words for Gauls and Galatians can be used rather interchangeably. So the only other thing I would say is that (as is well known) with the exception of certain Celtic peoples (such as the Atrebates) that Classical sources identify explicitly as having both a continental and insular presence, the Greeks and Romans seem not to regard the Gauls and the "Hibernians" as the same people, not in the sense that Corinthians and Athenians are "Graeci" to the Romans, and Aedui and Sequani are Galli. This is simply a matter of being clear, and of citing the archaeology and linguistic evidence that link the Celts of the continent to the Celts of Ireland. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The term gauls is still conserved in the article if what is discussed is only the direct migration of the "gaulish tribes" such as the belgae and the menapii and caucii (both belgie) to ireland and seeing as ireland had a small population at the time this influx would have had a significant impact.Caomhan27 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Gauls are the inhabitants of ancient Gaul, and/or the speakers of the Gaulish language. I seriously fail to see how this can be so difficult. Yes, words have origins. For example, the word "Celts" is derived from the tribal name of the Celtae, the word Gallic (but *not* Gauls) from the tribal name Galli, and the word English is derived from the Angles. Still, the article about Celts is not about the specific tribe Celtae, nor is the article  English people about the Angli or inhabitants of northern Germany. So why should an article called "Gauls" be about Caesar's Galli in particular? The name "Gaul" does not even derive from Galli, it is just the term for "the inhabitants of ancient Gaul". --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Roman Gaul
I noticed the end of the paragraph cuts off, suggesting an edit might have resulted in some potentially substantial cropping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.153.186 (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Era style for article (BC/AC or BCE/CE)
Just letting you know that changed the era style for this article, without leaving a reason in the edit summaries (see this diff of the multiple edits). This is not supposed to be arbitrarily changed without consensus: see WP:ERA. As a result of the mass changes, an image link broke, which I repaired. I have no preference, one way or the other, for BC/AC or BCE/CE. It might be helpful to have some consensus among editors to this article and/or to have explain why the changes were made. Thanks! -   t  u coxn \ talk 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Gallic or Gaulish?
This article seems to use the words Gallic and Gaulish interchangeably? This is not explained at Gauls: should it be? What is the difference, and could the article standardize on one or the other? I want to make things easier for readers (like me) who don't know much about archaeology or ancient Europe.

This relates to earlier question at Talk:Entremont (oppidum)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Main picture
The main picture on this page doesn't belong to Roman Zazvorka, it's taken from the game Total War: Rome 2. Author of this photo, please consider disclaiming your claim on this picture, as it definitely falls under copyright of SEGA. Michael123cz (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Gauls invaded by Gauls
Currently, the article states "Following the climate deterioration in the late Nordic Bronze Age, Celtic Gaul was invaded in the 5th century BC by tribes later called Gauls originating in the Rhine valley.[1]" I think this has several problems: 1) The cited source says nothing about the Nordic Bronze Age (and the Nordic Bronze Age article says nothing about the Gauls), so the connection looks like synthesis. (Its not unreasonable that there was a connection, but it needs a proper source). 2) The current text implies that Celtic Gauls were invaded by another group of people who latter became known as Gauls themselves. The actual source says "By the 5th century BC the Gauls had migrated south from the Rhine River valley to the Mediterranean coast", and makes no mention of the people living there first. (And from looking at the maps of Celtic spread, I'm not sure they could have been Celts, unless they had arrived very recently).Iapetus (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence to better match the source, although really we should be using a proper secondary source rather than a brief article in another encyclopedia. Iapetus (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Gaul vs Celt?
There seems to be a lot of points in this article which use Gaul and Celt interchangeably, muddling if the group mentioned is from Roman Gaul or some other Celtic group. There needs to be greater clarification as to what definition of Gaul is being used at any given time. -MVD31590 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with this. What do you suggest doing to improve this in the article? FULBERT (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well I think we should first go through and find geographic errors by cross-checking other cited articles. For example I'm 99% sure that references to Gauls living in southern Germany actually refers to the earlier La Tene culture. -MVD31590 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article equates Gauls with Celts.--Berig (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Eravisci is missing from the list of Gaulish tribes.
Please someone add it to the list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eravisci Chroma710 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are Children's books used as References?
Why are books written for young children cited as references for an adult topic? There is no reason Katheryn Hinds should be used for adult topics in Wikipedia. She writes for children. Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Social structure unreferenced for years
The Social structure subsection has so many citation needed tags. Some of these have been left unresolved since 2013.

Seriously, why would y’all leave these unresolved for so long.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in that section that can't be fixed as far as I can tell, so why not fix it yourself? Also, you're not by any chance thinking of deleting the entire section like you did here, are you? That's not very helpful.  Tewdar   13:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I’m busy with other things.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - what, like this sort of thing? This is not helpful.  Tewdar   06:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine I’ll see what I can do.CycoMa1 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It might take a while.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Take your time.  Tewdar   06:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)