AHC: United Celtica

I am thinking, what is the chances of a powerful celtic or other power developing around the Rhine? Or some united celtic power in some other location? Is there any specific PODs that could lead to a sizeable celtic kingdom?
Celts are always fascinating and so is basically any conversation at AH.com so this should be interesting.
 
Well, the obvious problem would be that, even if the Gaul acknwoledged they were part of the same cultural group, they were still divided between statlets. More or less like the Greeks.

I say the Gaul, but it's true too for Brittons, Celtiberians, Lepontics...

But you have still ways to create a dominant kingdom, even if it doesn't unify the Celts, and even dominant it would look more to the Corinthian League of Phillipos II than an actual kingdom.

Arverni could became THE kingdom of Central Gaul, around the II century. OTL, they had an hegemony from Loire basin to Mediterranea, and only the rivals peoples of Sequani and Edueni, plus the roman victories, crushed their power.
Well, that and the inner rivalities.

For the Rhine, the Helveti alliance could be a good choice. By exemple, make them more willing to migrate the long of the Rhine rather than crossind Eduen territory. It would be still the issue of German peoples to fight or deal with, but if sucessfull, they could create an hegemony of the Rhine.

But "united celtic" is an anachronism. I don't know who said in "irritating clichés" it was a victorian creation, but it's mainly the case.
 
But "united celtic" is an anachronism. I don't know who said in "irritating clichés" it was a victorian creation, but it's mainly the case.

Considering that the Gauls referred to themselves as Celtos, and the Greeks knew them as Keltoi, in this instance, it is actually the proper description.
 
Considering that the Gauls referred to themselves as Celtos, and the Greeks knew them as Keltoi, in this instance, it is actually the proper description.

Well, French people called itself "Frankish" until the XVI. It doesn't make them Germans, as Gaul calling themselves (as a global indentity, not principal one) "Celtos" didn't make them the same people in all Europe.

So, yes, a part of Gaul peoples were Celts and called themselves Keltos (not all though), but what is important is to make the difference between the Celtic group, and the objectives sub-groups.

Besides, there is an abusive use of Celts todays, as if Gaul, Celtiberians, Brittons or Irish shared the same identity and culture, not talking about institutional features.

So, historically "Celtica" is not covering a reality other than linguistic and super-cultural.

I rest my case : "United Celtica" is an anchronism, as "United Greece" would be one for Classical Hellade.
 
Well, French people called itself "Frankish" until the XVI. It doesn't make them Germans, as Gaul calling themselves (as a global indentity, not principal one) "Celtos" didn't make them the same people in all Europe.

So, yes, a part of Gaul peoples were Celts and called themselves Keltos (not all though), but what is important is to make the difference between the Celtic group, and the objectives sub-groups.

Besides, there is an abusive use of Celts todays, as if Gaul, Celtiberians, Brittons or Irish shared the same identity and culture, not talking about institutional features.

So, historically "Celtica" is not covering a reality other than linguistic and super-cultural.

I rest my case : "United Celtica" is an anchronism, as "United Greece" would be one for Classical Hellade.

I think you are really misunderstanding things. The term "Celtica" is not being used as a term to include the British Isles, Iberia, Gaul, N. Italy, Germany, Pannonia, Serbia, and Anatolia, nor has it EVER been used as such.

The term Celtica means Gaul specifically. It is the more ancient term used by the Greeks, and possibly something similar by the Celtos themselves. At this time, only Gauls referred to themselves as Celtos, not the Britons, not the Belgae, not the Celtiberians- just the Gauls. It is like the Greeks calling themselves Hellenes, and therefore we might call Greece Hellas as another name for the same place.
 
I think you are really misunderstanding things. The term "Celtica" is not being used as a term to include the British Isles, Iberia, Gaul, N. Italy, Germany, Pannonia, Serbia, and Anatolia, nor has it EVER been used as such.
The problem is that the greek geographs didn't have a precise idea of what was the end of Celtica. Before the arbitrarian borders made by Caesar, "Celtica" could be as well Pannonians than non-celts of Gaul as Ibero-Aquitans or Ligurians.

It's the main reason for why we use here the word Gaul. Besides, even the name of Gallia Celtica only covers a part of the actual celtic Gaul, while covering non certain gallic peoples or political alliance that didn't concerned Gaul only (such as Heveltii)

The term Celtica means Gaul specifically. It is the more ancient term used by the Greeks, and possibly something similar by the Celtos themselves. At this time, only Gauls referred to themselves as Celtos, not the Britons, not the Belgae, not the Celtiberians- just the Gauls. It is like the Greeks calling themselves Hellenes, and therefore we might call Greece Hellas as another name for the same place.

The problem, again, is that the Greeks called Keltoi everything they found between Atlantic and Mediterranea. If it was in Gaul, they called it Celts.

For the celts outside Gaul that didn't used the word, it's dubious. What is certain, is that greek and romans didn't used Keltoi for Brittons. That said, they used it for continental celts including Belgians ones.

Furthermore, there wasn't a real difference between Pannonians and Gaul, except the political borders, at the contrary of Celtiberians or Lepontics.

Or we're calling Celtica all celtic peoples, in a modern sense; or we use it to call objective Gallic peoples including the ones outside "regular" Gallia (including Danubian ones).

Again, the Gauls called themselves first by their

For your exemple for Greece, it's quite my point : all of greek settlements in Mediteranea were greeks, but because they didn't all belonged to Hellas, we (and they) used different words : Great Greace, Pontic, or Massaliots.
They all acknowleded being greeks, but were first about their more immediate identity.

Besides, i'm quite astonished by your claim Beglians weren't Gauls : there is in the sources many things that would proove the contrary : the facts that ancient authors called Belgians peoples we know being Gauls, the fact the language was similar between southern and northern peoples (not talking about Galatoi). In fact, the only non-Gaul people of Belgia would have been Germans and not part of celtics people.

So, i think there is a misunderstanding here. What you call Celtica, is here mainly for or the "(Gallia) Celtica" that is only a part of the Gaul people while including non-celtics peoples (but having sometimes a celtic domination) as Ligurians, Iberians of Gaul, Aquitanii, or it's used for the whole Celtic world.
For Gaul, we use Gaul or Gallia.

What i meant, is that an united celt kingdom, that would be rid of division among peoples of Gaul, or elsewhere, would have been impossible as a real state, and would have looked like more as an hegemony.
 
The problem is that the greek geographs didn't have a precise idea of what was the end of Celtica. Before the arbitrarian borders made by Caesar, "Celtica" could be as well Pannonians than non-celts of Gaul as Ibero-Aquitans or Ligurians.

It's the main reason for why we use here the word Gaul. Besides, even the name of Gallia Celtica only covers a part of the actual celtic Gaul, while covering non certain gallic peoples or political alliance that didn't concerned Gaul only (such as Heveltii)



The problem, again, is that the Greeks called Keltoi everything they found between Atlantic and Mediterranea. If it was in Gaul, they called it Celts.

For the celts outside Gaul that didn't used the word, it's dubious. What is certain, is that greek and romans didn't used Keltoi for Brittons. That said, they used it for continental celts including Belgians ones.

Furthermore, there wasn't a real difference between Pannonians and Gaul, except the political borders, at the contrary of Celtiberians or Lepontics.

Or we're calling Celtica all celtic peoples, in a modern sense; or we use it to call objective Gallic peoples including the ones outside "regular" Gallia (including Danubian ones).

Again, the Gauls called themselves first by their

For your exemple for Greece, it's quite my point : all of greek settlements in Mediteranea were greeks, but because they didn't all belonged to Hellas, we (and they) used different words : Great Greace, Pontic, or Massaliots.
They all acknowleded being greeks, but were first about their more immediate identity.

Besides, i'm quite astonished by your claim Beglians weren't Gauls : there is in the sources many things that would proove the contrary : the facts that ancient authors called Belgians peoples we know being Gauls, the fact the language was similar between southern and northern peoples (not talking about Galatoi). In fact, the only non-Gaul people of Belgia would have been Germans and not part of celtics people.

So, i think there is a misunderstanding here. What you call Celtica, is here mainly for or the "(Gallia) Celtica" that is only a part of the Gaul people while including non-celtics peoples (but having sometimes a celtic domination) as Ligurians, Iberians of Gaul, Aquitanii, or it's used for the whole Celtic world.
For Gaul, we use Gaul or Gallia.

What i meant, is that an united celt kingdom, that would be rid of division among peoples of Gaul, or elsewhere, would have been impossible as a real state, and would have looked like more as an hegemony.

I see your point. It really is just nasty semantics when it all comes down to it.

As for what I said about the Belgae being separate from the Gauls, it probably again comes down to semantics. The Belgae by and large differentiated themselves from their southern counterparts. I theorize that they had roots east of the Rhine, considering that many called themselves "Germanic" which back then really just meant from across the Rhine.

They were indeed very closely related culturally. The relationship might be akin to Americans and English: clearly related, but still distinct. Also, it is documented that it was the Belgae who migrated to Britain, not the Gauls, which I think it a notable distinction to make.
 
I see your point. It really is just nasty semantics when it all comes down to it.
Oh yeah. I worked recently on the habitations in independent Celtica, and it's a hell to have even a theoric distinction between Gauls as Celts and Gauls as inhabitants of Celtica.

As for what I said about the Belgae being separate from the Gauls, it probably again comes down to semantics. The Belgae by and large differentiated themselves from their southern counterparts. I theorize that they had roots east of the Rhine, considering that many called themselves "Germanic" which back then really just meant from across the Rhine.
Some Beglians tribe were certainly germanized, or even german under celtic domination (as the celto-ligurian of Provence). But peoples as Venetii of Armorica where sometimes considered as Belgians when we know they were Gallic. It would go in the way of a regional subdivision of Belgians more about political alliances (more tied with German and Britons than other Gauls), a more important germanization maybe too.

Besides, we have a testimony regarding gallic language that appears to be the same in Galatia and Augusta Trevorum at the end of Roman Empire. As the Galatians are probably more issued from southern Gauls than northern ones, it could be a sign that the language of the Belgian were more closely tied if not the same to the Gaul language.
Apaprently, the Belgians and the Gauls of Comata didn't need translators to pass agreement.

They were indeed very closely related culturally. The relationship might be akin to Americans and English: clearly related, but still distinct. Also, it is documented that it was the Belgae who migrated to Britain, not the Gauls, which I think it a notable distinction to make.
Well it is documented that Belgians migrated to Britain, when the island was already populated with earlier celtic populations. For me it's quite similar with the high medieval Frisons that settled communauties in southern England. Belgians encountered an already present insular background they influenced.

I don't know if it was a study about the Brittonic peoples distinctions and the continental influences.
 
Top