Talk:Insubres

[Untitled]
What kind of name is Medhelan? It's not Gaulish (or if it is, it's spelled very eccentrically). QuartierLatin1968 22:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it does not exist. It is an hoax, invented by people who tried to make up a Gaulish word. A big discussion is taking place in the Italian wiki: look here. Unfortunately, hoaxes tend to spread in a very quick way. Let's hope to stop it before it spreads in many other wikis. --Vermondo 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Acerrae
Acerrae, described as the only fortified place of the Insubres, links to an article about Acerra in southern Italy. Is that the right one? It seems a long way from Insubria. Rojomoke (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! There are three places and should be three articles; the article ACERRAE in William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography covers them. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Acerrae is now a disambiguation page offering the links to Acerrae (Campania), Acerrae (Cisalpine Gaul), and Acerrae Vatriae. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Acerrae is identified by all authors as modern-day Pizzighettone, on the banks of the Adda river (Kruta, Manfredi, Grassi, etc...)

ethnicity
This statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me:

"Though ethnically Celtic at the time of Roman conquest, they were most likely the result of the fusion of pre-existing Ligurian, Celtic and Italic population strata with Gaulish tribes who had come from what is now southern France."

The first part of the statement (that they were ethnically "Celtic") seems contradicted by the fusion statement, which is unsupported by a scholarly reference. Note the fudge of "most likely," which means there must be discussion of this somewhere. "Gaulish" is usually used of the language, I think; "Gallic" of the peoples. Better is "Celtic-speaking," if that's the case.

That the Romans regarded them as Gauls, or Celtic, can be stated as fact; we can define their Celticity as asserted in ancient sources. Testing their Celticity in modern terms is a separate task.

Also, "at the time of Roman conquest" — what does that mean? The first Roman commanders crossed the Po and fought the Insubres in 224, but the article implies that the Romans were instantaneously successful. That wasn't the case. In 199, for instance, Insubres defeated Gn. Baebius Tamphilus at Ariminum, after it had been a Latin colony for decades; and that's pretty far south of Mediolanum. The article seems to omit Gallic victories. This is to fall prey to the myth of the Roman military steamroller as a kind of manifest destiny, when in fact there are various points in the Italo-Gallic wars when things could've gone a different direction, and momentarily did. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)