Hello, I'm new here so I hope I'm not posting something that's already been covered. Anyways, here it goes, how could Continental Celtic languages such as Celtiberian and Gaulish survive to modern day? Would they be better off surviving in the mountainous regions like the Alps and Pyrenees? I'm a bit of a linguiphile and take a great interest in dead languages. Once again I apologize if this has been covered already.
A Celtic Language Question
- Thread starter Brennus
- Start date
The Pyrenees would be the best bet for long-term survival. Modern day? Unlikely except as Irish is today, in small areas and shrinking rapidly.
The Celts stop fighting among themselves and destroy Rome. Rome survives to conquer Gaul the Celt Language dies Rome dies Celt lives.
Quite so if Rome becomes a power as OTL then the only hope for the Celts is to come up with Legions of thier own. As long as the Celts Tactics are inferior to Rome,Rome wins. Only by destroying Rome/or making Rome a second rate power, can the Celt Language dominate SW Europe.
In that case you need a very early POD, because the celtic languages never were spoken in the Pyrenees. In ancient times the people of that place spoke something similar to Basque.
celtic languages do survive in europe - breton is still spoken in france, although this may be an offshoot more of brittonic p-celtic than gaulish.
as for a POD, maybe if the celts did not spread to western europe but stayed further east, only moving into france at the same time as the franks, goths etc...?
as for a POD, maybe if the celts did not spread to western europe but stayed further east, only moving into france at the same time as the franks, goths etc...?
Not necessarily. If the Romans had not conquered Britain, but smashed the Germans instead and rolled up to the Elbe, there would be no Angles, Saxons and Jutes. England thus would not have been England, but Belgaeland or some other construct.
In addition, without William the Bastard's successful invasion, you would not get an amalgam of native language (either Celtic or Old English) and French.
OK so Celt still doesn't come to dominate SW Europe, but it would replace English as the chosen langauge of the Net and thus dominate the world.
As the Belgae were a Contenital tribe this too would fill the requirements.Not necessarily. If the Romans had not conquered Britain, but smashed the Germans instead and rolled up to the Elbe, there would be no Angles, Saxons and Jutes. England thus would not have been England, but Belgaeland or some other construct.
In addition, without William the Bastard's successful invasion, you would not get an amalgam of native language (either Celtic or Old English) and French.
OK so Celt still doesn't come to dominate SW Europe, but it would replace English as the chosen langauge of the Net and thus dominate the world.
The Belgae weren't the tribe in Britain though. That hono(u)r goes to the forebears of the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons, collectively known as, unsurprisingly, Britons. The Picts, as well, but I'm not sure what group they belong to, Gaelic or Brythonic or one of the extinct groups.
noone knows what origin the picts are - though it seems likely they were a mix of celtic and pre-celtic culture. there language and culture is little known and they were illiterate for the most part. the belgae were a subgroup of celts, who had branches in gaul and britain (the SE), most of the tribes in britain indeed may have had connections to the gauls, or it may have been that the romans were just unimaginative when it came to names - the latin names are mostly from totem animals so its not unlikely that two diff tribes could call themselves 'the fox people' -the romans called them the same thing. though it's possible that they were immigrants from gaul - there was a parisii tribe in northern france and also in north east england (humberside, the paris of the north!). belgae means white or bright or something like that - the same root word gives us balefire and baltic apparently.
anyway, the name britain/briton comes from pritani meaning painted, and referred to all the people of britain as they used tattoos unlike the gauls i think. anyway, this was not a tribal name but an umbrella term.
anyway, the name britain/briton comes from pritani meaning painted, and referred to all the people of britain as they used tattoos unlike the gauls i think. anyway, this was not a tribal name but an umbrella term.
Thande
Donor
Although early Anglo-Saxon historians preferred the explanation that the Britons were descended from a Trojan refugee called Brutus (-> Bruton -> Britain), I think because it gave them an excuse for conquest
I've never seen a satisfactory explanation as to what group the Picts belonged to either...
"The Pictish language has not survived. Evidence is limited to place names and to the names of people found on monuments and the contemporary records. The evidence of place-names and personal names argue strongly that the Picts spoke Insular Celtic languages related to the more southerly Brythonic languages.[54] A number of inscriptions have been argued to be non-Celtic, and on this basis, it has been suggested that non-Celtic languages were also in use.["
wikipedia.
wikipedia.
Caesar had mentioned that some tribes in Britain were actualy the Belgae.
Not necessarily. If the Romans had not conquered Britain, but smashed the Germans instead and rolled up to the Elbe, there would be no Angles, Saxons and Jutes. England thus would not have been England, but Belgaeland or some other construct.
In addition, without William the Bastard's successful invasion, you would not get an amalgam of native language (either Celtic or Old English) and French.
OK so Celt still doesn't come to dominate SW Europe, but it would replace English as the chosen langauge of the Net and thus dominate the world.
Assuming things other way evolve as today...
HueyLong
Banned
They were spoken on both sides of the Pyrenees, so its not a big step to place them in the mountains.
How about Rome splitting apart sooner. Maybe we´d have it trisected, quadrsected and so on earlier, leading to an independent state in the area of modern France.
The people haven´t been that latinised if Rome splits into a civil war at an early point. (Maybe a failed Augustus).
If that country stays strong maybe they´d be able to hold out the Germans. Or maybe we still get Franks flowing in, but they celticise like they were latinised.
Is this complete bollocks, or does some of this make sense?
The people haven´t been that latinised if Rome splits into a civil war at an early point. (Maybe a failed Augustus).
If that country stays strong maybe they´d be able to hold out the Germans. Or maybe we still get Franks flowing in, but they celticise like they were latinised.
Is this complete bollocks, or does some of this make sense?
Actually, the Belgae were in Britain as well as on the continent. They were one of many different tribes that collectively made up the group we now call the "Britons."
Damn migrations. Why can't people just stay put and make things easier for us?