Confusion about the Gauls

[Praxus]

I just started reading Polybius and I am now into his second book where he is describing the Gallic invasions of Italy. He seems to use the words "Celts" and "Gauls" interchangably. Now are these people the same or are they two different cultures? Or am I misreading it?

Thanks

<FC: Fixed the sloppy spelling error in the title. Sloppy, sloppy.>

Edited December 26, 2004 by Free Capitalist

[BurgessLau]

I just started reading Polybius and I am now into his second book where he is describing the Gallic invasions of Italy. He seems to use the words "Celts" and "Gauls" interchangably. Now are these people the same or are they two different cultures? Or am I misreading it?

Thanks

Specifically, what passages are you looking at, by section as well as book?

Does your text have an index? Look up "Celts." Mine says: "Celts, see Gauls." I take that as a bit of evidence for equivalence, at least in this translation.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry for "Gauls" seems to confirm that. "Gauls" today means mostly, apparently, ancient people from a certain area N and NW of Italia. "Celts" today refers to an ancient people who had a certain culture (which apparently they imported into Gaul c. 900 BCE). In the ways I have heard it used, "Celts" is a term having a far wider range than Gauls. However, how a particular Greek writer used the appropriate Greek (or Hellenized Latin?) term might be another matter.

I do notice, however, at II.15, near the end, Polybius distinguishes Transalpine Gauls from other groups living nearby, but he also says that is a geographic designation not an ethnic one. And at II.18, the terms are definitely interchangeable, in my text's translation. But at II.19, the Transalpine Gauls seem to be threatening the Celts. Good luck! Now I see why you are confused.

If the details are important to you, I would take this approach: Tie each group to a place and time and follow them that way, perhaps even numbering them or naming them with your own names (the TAs who came to province X in the year xxx, for example). Welcome to ancient texts!

[Praxus]

Specifically, what passages are you looking at, by book and section?

Does your text have an index? Look up "Celts." Mine says: "Celts, see Gauls." I take that as a bit of evidence for equivalence, at least in this translation.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry for "Gauls" seems to confirm that. "Gauls" today means mostly, apparently, ancient people from a certain area N and NW of Italia. "Celts" today refers to an ancient people who had a certain culture (which apparently they imported into Gaul c. 900 BCE). In the ways I have heard it used, "Celts" is a term having a far wider range than Gauls. However, how a particular Greek writer used the appropriate Greek (or Hellenized Latin?) term might be another matter.

An example of what I am talking about can be found in Book 2, Section 32 (I have an edition translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert). So what your saying is that anyone who lives in the region of Gaul was considered Gaulic, but Celts were simply a culture that happened to live in parts of Gaul, so thoose paticular Celts are also called Gauls?

[Free Capitalist]

The way I understand it, Gauls is a geographic designation for people living above Italy, on both sides of the Alps; the designation of Celts, on the other hand, seem to be a cultural identification. For example, Britons, Gauls, and much of Spain (Iberia) was called Celtic in Classical times, and is confirmed by modern ethnography. Britons and Gauls shared a lot of cultural values for example, such as sharing the gods, technological proficiencies, and spiritual importance of the druids.

To give an example of who wasn't a Celt in Europe, you can take the Germans, the other dominant cultura/ethnic group in the subcontinent at the time. I guess culturally you could divide the whole of Europe and Spain into roughly three cultures - Celts, Germans, and Lousitani (modern Portugal). Celts really were everywhere in those days occupying much of southern and western Europe, much of Britain, and much of Spain; those living north of Italy were Gallic Celts. Of course this ethnic group never became politically unified, and thus was never able to leverage its expanses. At first they were conquered by the Romans, and then by the Germans in the Dark Ages (Angles, etc).

[BurgessLau]

An example of what I am talking about can be found in Book 2, Section 32 (I have an edition translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert). So what your saying is that anyone who lives in the region of Gaul was considered Gaulic, but Celts were simply a culture that happened to live in parts of Gaul, so thoose paticular Celts are also called Gauls?

Yes, the Celtic culture (and society bearing it) was far wider spread than France (Gaul, Gallia), extending from Britain, at least in parts, to (if I recall correctly) Central Europe (perhaps their original homeland?) at one point. The Gauls were those Celts living in Gallia. (Today the French are still called "Gallic.")

I see two issues here. First, what did Polybius mean by the terms he was using? (Without the Greek text, I can't tell at all.) Second, what do the English terms mean today -- and did the translator use the appropriate ones?

Today -- according to the way I have generally seen the term used -- "Celts" refers to a culture extending at one point far wider than Gaul (France basically, I suppose), but certainly far wider than "Transalpine Gaul," which is the area just beyond the Alps.

In earlier passages, Polybius tells of some of the people coming into northern Italy. First, he says, were Celts (from somewhere north apparently), and then they were threatened by Transalpine Gauls, that is, Celts who were from a certain region (just beyond the Alps).

In the II.32 passage, yes, he does equate Celts and Gauls, but he seems careful to distinguish Celts who were allies of the Romans from those other Celts (whom he here calls Gauls). In fact, Polybius, half way through 32, says the Celts (as allies of the Romans) and Gauls (as enemies of the Romans) were fellow-nationals and therefore might not be trustworthy. So, here they are the same ethnic group.

That is the best I can do working only from an English text. The important thing to keep in mind is that, as usual, the Romans allied with some people and opposed others -- even in the same ethnic group.

P. S. -- Free Capitalist's description matches what I know. Part of the problem is which time period is being discussed. The Celts were culturally more powerful -- though usually politically disintegrated -- at some times than at others. Judging from Polybius's comments in the passages cited, the Celts did not get together much but feared each other as much as they feared the Romans.

P. S. 2 -- Here is a possible analogy. A U. S. politician might have spoken, 20 years ago, of "Soviets" and "Russians." The terms could have been synonymous or distinct depending on the usage the speaker intended. Soviet was wider than Russian, just as Celtic was far wider than Gaul. But as always you must look at a particular writer's use in a particular passage and try to figure out who he is talking about. Such things keep scholars occupied in continuing debate.

If you aren't already saturated, here is another possible analogy: As "Hispanics" are to "Spaniards," "Celts" are to "Gauls." The first of each pair is primarily a cultural term that has a vast range of referents, and the second is narrowly geographic.

[BurgessLau]

[...]Celts really were everywhere in those days occupying much of southern and western Europe, much of Britain, and much of Spain; those living north of Italy were Gallic Celts. Of course this ethnic group never became politically unified [...]

You have made a fascinating point here. The Romans, at least in the Republic and early Empire, were masters of political integration. The ancient Greeks never learned that skill very well, on a large scale. The Celts were even worse in that respect. The founders of the U. S. -- perhaps partly inspired and guided by ancient examples of successes and failures -- created the best solution up to their time: A free republic with a written constitution guaranteeing individual rights and with built-in checks and balances.

[Alon]

According to the Roman designation, Gauls are a Celtic people who lived in France, but Celts also made up the populations of Spain, Britain, northern Italy and even reached North Africa.

However, the Romans weren't very precise about naming the different people they met and often grouped many tribes who did not identify themselves as the same nation into one category.

Thus, "Celts" includes many tribes who would not have associated themselves with other members of that designation.

I highly recommend a book called The Myth of Nations which looks at how influential nationalist scholarship of the 19th century has been on our view of the past. Basically, scholars of that era grouped ancient tribes according to the borders of modern nation states, but with little reason to do so. Ancient Lotharingians (who lived in modern day north eastern France), for example, would have had much more ethnic and linguistic similarities to German tribes just across the Rhine than they would to Celts of Brittany (north western France).

[Alon]

You have made a fascinating point here. The Romans, at least in the Republic and early Empire, were masters of political integration. The ancient Greeks never learned that skill very well, on a large scale. The Celts were even worse in that respect. The founders of the U. S. -- perhaps partly inspired and guided by ancient examples of successes and failures -- created the best solution up to their time: A free republic with a written constitution guaranteeing individual rights and with built-in checks and balances.

I think it is more accurate to say that the Romans were masters of political pragmatism and masters of war. Their unification of Italy was acheived wholly through conquest but they also realized that they must share the reigns of government with the conquered if their empire was to survive.

The Athenians were fairly aggressive conquerors as well but too jealously guarded the rights of citizenship. I think that is one of their greatest failures. Had Athenians granted citizenship rights to the Delian League, I am certain they would have expanded far beyond their historic limits as a unified force.

See my earlier post about the Celts. The Celts were many, ethnically distinct, tribes who did not see themselves as one people. Nor did the Italians or the Greeks, for that matter.

[BurgessLau]

Ancient Lotharingians (who lived in modern day north eastern France), for example, would have had much more ethnic and linguistic similarities to German tribes just across the Rhine [...]

The time period of this thread is the time of Polybius (2nd century BCE) and earlier. Are you saying that at that time the Lotharingians inhabited what is now Lorraine (in the far NE of modern France)? If so, wasn't that area -- at the time of Polybius -- considered by the Romans to be outside Gaul?

Besides, weren't the Lotharingians a Germanic people who crossed the Rhine into Lorraine hundreds of years after the time of Polybius?

[Free Capitalist]

Alon, although this isn't the thread for Rome vs Athens, I"ll add that there is more to the explanation, of why Rome could maintain an empire and Athens couldn't, than simply violence and citizenship. Athens very early in her Empire (within decades) resorted to extortion of tribute from her allies, openly acknowledging what they did was justified by might, not right. Up until the end of the Republic, Rome did not demand any plunder or tribute from its allies, only men to fight alongside her men in common wars. The only ones to get tribute slapped on them were subdued enemies, because they were deemed responsible for the war and thus the ones who had to repay the costs required to pursue it.

[Praxus]

Thanks for the more then adequate answer:)

[DavidOdden]

If you're interested, here is a map showing the assumed distribution of the Celts (and / or their influence), the inner area in NE France being around 1500 BC and the larger area being around 400 BC after their expansion. The term "Celt" derives from Greek keltoi "hidden" and is attributed to the historian Hekataios. "Gaul" comes from Latin (Gallus and related forms), which is presumably an indigenous Celtic ethnonym; it is the source of the words Galician (in NW Spain) and Galatian (in Anatolia), referring to Celtic settlements.

[Alon]

The time period of this thread is the time of Polybius (2nd century BCE) and earlier. Are you saying that at that time the Lotharingians inhabited what is now Lorraine (in the far NE of modern France)? If so, wasn't that area -- at the time of Polybius -- considered by the Romans to be outside Gaul?

Besides, weren't the Lotharingians a Germanic people who crossed the Rhine into Lorraine hundreds of years after the time of Polybius?

You are correct, the Lotharingians were Germanic and inhabited the area long after Polybius. My point was that we shouldn't think of ancient peoples in terms by which they were misappropriately labelled. The book I mentioned does provide some examples from the Roman world as well. Thus, Gauls had no national identity and it would be a mistake to think of them as one political unit.

To the Romans, a Gaul was anyone who resided in that province. A better example might be a Pagan living in Judea was still considered a Judean. Modern scholars, however, moulded ancient peoples into the framework of 19th century political identity.

[Praxus]

Is it worth reading Book 12 (Criticisms of Timaeus and His Approach to History)? Doesn't seem to have much to do with Roman History.

[punk]

Alon, although this isn't the thread for Rome vs Athens, I"ll add that there is more to the explanation, of why Rome could maintain an empire and Athens couldn't, than simply violence and citizenship. Athens very early in her Empire (within decades) resorted to extortion of tribute from her allies, openly acknowledging what they did was justified by might, not right. Up until the end of the Republic, Rome did not demand any plunder or tribute from its allies, only men to fight alongside her men in common wars. The only ones to get tribute slapped on them were subdued enemies, because they were deemed responsible for the war and thus the ones who had to repay the costs required to pursue it.

So what you are saying is that Rome would decide nation A was an enemy then go to nation B and say we need some help fighting our "common enemy" nation A. Now nation B knows that if it doesn't do what Rome says, Rome will decide that nation B is an enemy, then invade it and impose tribute. So nation B goes along and becomes an "ally" of Rome and sends some people to fight nation A.

But of course in spite of all this nation B is still "free" and doesn't pay tribute.

Hmmm...

If the Roman Republic were around today no one would confuse it with a peaceful liberal democracy, yet people praise the Roman Republic and condemn contemporary France which is far its superior on that score.

[JRoberts]

yet people praise the Roman Republic and condemn contemporary France which is far its superior on that score.

May I ask where you got this idea from?

I would love for you to back this up.

[Free Capitalist]

So what you are saying is [followed by a bunch of nonsense].

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[Alon]

Punk,

First of all, many Italian tribes amalgamated into Rome because of an actual common enemy, others were glad to join for the rights of citizenship in a powerful city-state, yet others were conquered.

When we refer to a nation, modern or ancient, as "free" we do not mean that it is not conquered by its neighbours, we mean that it is a society which recognizes individual rights. Whether a nation is free from foreign conquerors or not is irrelevant to whether it is in fact an individual-rights recognizing society.

Of course, slavery was an integral institution to many ancient economies, and in that regard Rome was no different from any other society. But with respect to Rome's recognition of the individual rights of her citizens, it far surpassed its neighbours or any other ancient people except those Greek city-states governed by democracy. A Roman citizen, when accused, had a right to a defense attorney, could not be executed, could appeal the verdict to the assembly of the people, had a say in the affairs of state, could run for office, etc. etc.

With the above in mind we praise the Roman republic which was a society far ahead of its time in its recognition of the citizen's rights. Farther ahead than many societies today. That you would make a comparison between the Roman republic and the French republic is absurd. Of course Rome had many faults when compared with modern day liberal democracies, liberal-democracies are not only the product of Roman institutions but had 2000 years to evolve from their Roman ancestor!