WI A Celtic Empire

This Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Carausius did remarkably well to be controlling Britain over two centuries before the actual conquest.

Unless you meant CE.

C.E. means "common era", and is analogous to Anno Domini.

B.C.E. is an abbrievation of "before common era". And analogous to Before Christ.
 
The Basques aren't Celtic at all, or even Indo-European. The Picts are generally considered to be Celts though, most surviving Pictish names are Celtic.

The relationship of the Picts with the Celts is a contentious issue. Historians seem to treat the two cultures as very distinct. They possibly were the last among the native British to actually have been assimilated with Celtic civilization.

While Basques aren't Indo-European, the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula was to some extent or another either colonized by immigrant Celts, or otherwise had adopted Celtic culture. Early Basques in the south, before the Roman occupation, may have been influenced by the Greek and Phoenician cultures. Still, well into the Roman period, they would be far removed from their Celticized cousins on the fringes of Britain.
 
Basques are Basques.

Most of what is considered "Celtic" these days is Romantic, 19th-century mythologizing which came in response to the perceived shortcomings of industrialization, capitalism, science, and the British empire. It's ironic that "Celtic" means, more or less, anyone-but-the-English. In reality, the English are more "Celtic" than the so-called Celtic nations of the British Isles. England received more (though not very many in aggregate) Celtic-speaking invaders than Ireland, Scotland or Wales. The great majority of the genetic heritage of both Great Britain and Ireland points in the direction of a pre-Celtic heritage; the closest relatives being, ironically, the Basques.

The reason why Celtic languages survived in Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland and in Brittany is, obviously, because they were isolated peninsulas on the edge of Europe. We don't know to what extent Celtic traditions survived, because, frankly, we don't know what they were. They didn't leave us with much. What we do know mostly comes from the Greeks and Romans.

So shame on you all! I'd expect more on a history forum. ;)

This is pretty much why I said that "the Basques aren't necessarily Celtic". After 500 years of Roman rule, they would not have had much in common culturally with their relatives in the British Isles.
 

Skokie

Banned
This is pretty much why I said that "the Basques aren't necessarily Celtic". After 500 years of Roman rule, they would not have had much in common culturally with their relatives in the British Isles.

Much more than 500 years! Great Britain and Ireland were settled from Iberia ("Basques" which is imprecise; Basques are just one remnant of a pre-Indo European linguistic culture on Iberia) by prehistoric people during the Stone Age or about 11,000 years ago. In other words, long before Indo-European languages (like Celtic) or even Stonehenge. They may have spoken the ancestor of Basque, but it's really just conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

And the Basques aren't Celts at all. "Celts"=speakers of Celtic languages, not necessarily a unified nation or civilization.
 
Right, when stuff is that far back, language and mish-mashed genetics (from the modern day) are about all we have to go from.

So Basque-related peoples arrived in Great Britain in 9,000 BC? Do the Sammi's arrival in Scandinavia predate that? I know the Berbers do by a long shot but I'm not sure if any other population we can pinpoint does.
 
The relationship of the Picts with the Celts is a contentious issue. Historians seem to treat the two cultures as very distinct. They possibly were the last among the native British to actually have been assimilated with Celtic civilization.

While Basques aren't Indo-European, the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula was to some extent or another either colonized by immigrant Celts, or otherwise had adopted Celtic culture. Early Basques in the south, before the Roman occupation, may have been influenced by the Greek and Phoenician cultures. Still, well into the Roman period, they would be far removed from their Celticized cousins on the fringes of Britain.

Generally, it seems quite likely that there was a greater variety of languages in Atlantic Europe (existing prior the Celtic incursion) from which the sole survivor to the present is Basque. Another attested (but so far problematic) is the Tartessian language, which may or may not have been related with Tartessian. Thing is, there may have been more than one immigration wave into the Atlantic region, specifically of Indo-European but non-Celtic peoples. For instance, Lusitanian is definitely Indo-European in character, but more primitive than Celtic. So, it's entirely possible the Picts were Celticized but originally non-Celtic Indo-European peoples.
 
Much more than 500 years! Great Britain and Ireland were settled from Iberia ("Basques" which is imprecise; Basques are just one remnant of a pre-Indo European linguistic culture on Iberia) by prehistoric people during the Stone Age or about 11,000 years ago. In other words, long before Indo-European languages (like Celtic) or even Stonehenge. They may have spoken the ancestor of Basque, but it's really just conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_the_British_Isles

And the Basques aren't Celts at all. "Celts"=speakers of Celtic languages, not necessarily a unified nation or civilization.

Except perhaps the Celtiberians, whom migrated into central Spain and intergrated with the native Iberian population. They spoke a Celtic language, but most of them were continuous Iberian natives.

As for the Basque term, I used it to distinguish the native Iberians from the other immigrant groups. And I thought I made myself clear by stating that they were only "influenced" by Celtic groups at one time in their history. If your talking about Modern Basque speakers, then okay. But I was refering to the ancient population from whom they originated. Calling their ancestors Basque was incidental.
 
Except perhaps the Celtiberians, whom migrated into central Spain and intergrated with the native Iberian population. They spoke a Celtic language, but most of them were continuous Iberian natives.

As for the Basque term, I used it to distinguish the native Iberians from the other immigrant groups. And I thought I made myself clear by stating that they were only "influenced" by Celtic groups at one time in their history. If your talking about Modern Basque speakers, then okay. But I was refering to the ancient population from whom they originated. Calling their ancestors Basque was incidental.

As far as it is known, Iberian and Basque are utterly unrelated. Having said this, modern Basque is very likely descended from Aquitanian (which may very well be called "Old Basque").
 
As far as it is known, Iberian and Basque are utterly unrelated. Having said this, modern Basque is very likely descended from Aquitanian (which may very well be called "Old Basque").

The languages may not be related, but with the dominance of Indo-European languages in Iberia, they would not have refrained from intermarriage.

My initial intent was to state that a culturally homogenous Celtic Empire in the Fourth Century would be impossible to achieve.
 
Okay, hmm let me think, A brythonic empire that includes Brittany, normandy, wales, england with scotland & ireland part of it but remaining autonomous as such.

With also a somehow Basque Nation able to secure its future and carve out a nation capable of suriving for a long time.

Because in my timeline I had wanted a Hispanic Empire of sorts to emerge as one of 'true' successor states to Rome along with a Gallic state and a Roman state that no longer saw beyond its Italic borders other than the regions towards the Byzantine empire
 
Top