Gauls

Continuation of the Atlantic Theory of Homer's Ilias and Odyssey (part 1: Atlantic Troy). Odysseus' wanderings after his departure from Troy. Study of Atlantic authors De Grave, Cailleux, Gideon, Wilkens, Vinci. Identification of Ismaros as Brittany, Bay of Douarnenez.

Throughout history, the Druids have always been seen as sorcerers who had a strong bond with nature. Ancestral knowledge holders within Celtic society, directed all religious activity as the highest authority linked to the gods, practiced human sacrifices and festivals organized as Imbolc, Beltaine, Lugnasad or Samain, etc.. all aspects of which are discussed in this article.

For know the controversial history of the Druids in the Celtic world, will investigate the sources of its origin, through stories of classic texts and medieval legends of Gaul, Britain and Ireland. His role in Celtic society surpassed the religious sphere, covering war, politics, medicine and the law. Almost unknown is the participation of women in this institution.

We know that the Gauls didn’t leave any written material and their culture and history are known today by third-part reports and by archeological studies. Therefore, the theme of Gauls’ representations in Caesar, Livy and Pliny the Elder, as it comprehends the temporal period from the I Century B.C. to I A.C., is the main objective of this academic paper, as it coincides with the moment in wich Gaul was conquered and transformed into a Roman province.
In the beginning of this paper we offer a reflection about the word “barbarian” itself; besides we focus on the concept of barbarity – and civilization – among Greeks and Romans. Thereafter we talk about the expansion of Rome’s domain and how was the contact between Romans and Gauls. In addition, we put forward to research some Latin passages about the Gauls, and the sources are: De bello Gallico (The Gallic War), of Caesar, Ab urbe condita (The History of Rome), of Livy, and in the Historia naturalis (Natural History), of Pliny, the Elder. In this analysis of the Latin passages we will be able to realize how the rhetoric of Gauls’ representations is structured and how the construction of the image of the barbarian worked. We will also make some considerations about what was by the Romans from the I Century B.C. to I A.C. considered as barbarian (or civilized). Furthermore we make a research of the rhetoric elements used by Caesar, Livy and Pliny to distinguish the Gauls, as well to analyze the type of vocabulary and representative figures applied in these descriptions. Finally we close this academic paper by bringing some facts of what is know today by the Gauls through historiographical and archeological researches.

After the disturbances caused in the early 270s BCE by several forays of barbarians – soon called either Galatai or Keltoi in our sources – Delphi became an anchor for a vigorous strain of barbaromachic innovations, knowledge-ordering, and mythologization. Resources for these innovations included the tradition of Delphi’s preservation from the alleged Persian attack, the already-existing imagery from ethnographies of northern peoples, ideas about divine epiphany, and some mythistorical narratives such as the brigandage of Orchomenian Phlegyans. The different Hellenistic polities, dynasties and koina had widely differing motives for their use of the Delphic sanctuary as a conceptual hub for narratives of barbarian hubris and the defence of Hellas, but what is common to all is the creative reapplication of existing knowledge base that had connections to either the spatial, ritual or mythical aspects of Apollo’s sanctuary.

This paper will discuss Delphi’s role as an ideological and epistemological hub for Greek and Roman barbaromachic narratives from the Galatian invasions until the Late Republic. Many of the literary sources from the most fertile, Hellenistic period of innovations are fragmentary in nature, but enough has been preserved for us to draw some conjectures about the different uses that the Galatian attack was put to among the Greeks and even in inter-cultural communication. As the ‘new universal barbarians’ (Marszal 2000, 222), Galatae/Galli offered a common template for ancient debates on identity, belonging, piety, ritual, and Hellenicity. The paper will also propose that Delphi may have been instrumental for the Roman adoption of the ethnonym Galli as a common name tag for their North-Italian adversaries. The epistemological anchoring of Roman elite’s barbaromachic posturing on Delphi is clearly visible in the literary and epigraphic sources.

Initially written in Greek and published in the Greek monthly ‘Trito Mati’ – ‘Third Eye’ (February 1992), before my adhesion to Islam, under author’s name ‘Cosmas Megalommatis’, successively translated by me in French and published in France, and more recently translated in 1999 in English and published in various media.

At this point, I want to thank the translator for this excellent English translation. My adhesion to Islam did not make me change my approach and opinion in anything related to this subject as developed in this text.

Published in the Origin of Nations magazine, vol.3, no.3. (1999): pages 2-3, 12-20 and online:
http://www.originofnations.org/books,%20papers/Elizabeth%20II.pdf

The original Greek text can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/49102838/Απόγονοι_των_Ισραηλιτών_οι_Βρεταννοί_

First performed in 1831, Norma, ou L’infanticide, literary source of Felice Romani’s libretto for Bellini, is the sixth play – and feminine portrait – by Alexandre Soumet, considered by his contemporaries at fist as a romantic playwright, then as a classical author. A member of the Académie française since 1824, Soumet adopted a Gallic subject, before Norma, in Pharamond (1825). Condemned during the Enlightenment as a period of barbarity and superstition, ancient Gaul recovers a preeminent place in French theatre and literature, at the beginning of the new century. Pharamond, as well as Le siège de Corinthe (1826), presents a number of topics recalled in Norma: in particular, the main character’s visions, in which recent or past accidents prepare the brilliant future of the nation, are a preliminary signal of her strangeness before the fial mad scene. The establishment of the Académie celtique, in 1804, and the publication of La Gaule poétique by Louis Antoine
de Marchangy, in 1813, promote a new perception of Gallic imagination, founded on a poetic contemplation and astonishment. In such a way, the paper underlines the complex pattern of historical, literary and theatrical references that converge in Soumet’s play and are mirrored in Norma’s libretto.

Whatever one thinks of Julius Caesar and his motives behind writing his war commentaries, he has done posterity the service of giving a voice to an otherwise mute and unknowable cultural presence of the ancient world: the peoples of Gaul. Caesar deems his ‘barbarian’ opponents worthy of a voice in his narrative, even if that voice is fabricated and only serves to justify their subjugation. In the account of the Helvetii in Book 1, Divico provides the first instance of substantial enemy speech. This paper analyzes the way in which Divico’s words set the groundwork for a strong and carefully organized justification for the Helvetii campaign.
Divico enters at a midway point in the narrative, delivers his threat to Caesar, and then departs and is not heard of again. His purpose within the account is to voice a challenge to Rome and to Caesar, to which Caesar is then able to respond. However, Divico is not restricted to providing Caesar with a platform for defending Roman frontier policy. He is an equally convenient mouthpiece for any criticisms of Caesar back in Rome, allowing Caesar to defend himself while still maintaining an atmosphere of ‘us vs. them.’
When he enters the narrative, Divico assumes the position of enemy chieftain, even though his actual role appears to be that of respected warrior and elder rather than actual authority. But his significance rests on his former implication in the defeat of Cassius’ legions fifty years before [Radin; Moscovich]. Divico heads the Helvetii parlay following the destruction of the Tigurini by Caesar’s cavalry, ostensibly to reach a peace agreement. However, Divico’s words are anything but peaceful, and he goes so far as to threaten a disaster similar to that which befell Cassius. Divico’s voice characterizes the dangerous nature of Gallic temperament, legitimizing and necessitating subsequent Roman action [Otis].
Caesar’s limited use of Divico (for the old warrior does not appear again after his speech) is consciously symbolic. Divico’s arrival carries the associations of the past Roman iniuria, which Caesar couples with the private grievance – the death of his kinsman. Divico’s arrogant words allow Caesar to demonstrate how the private and public are aligned in his motivation, which in turn legitimizes his actions in the Republic’s best interest [Martin]. The use of a ‘foreign voice’ also avoids the petty pointing of fingers, enabling Caesar to counter claims brought against him without identifying the original claimant as a Roman [Murphy]. By using Divico to necessitate a reply, Caesar maintains the focus of a foreign enemy while still effectively defending himself against his critics back in Rome.
The ‘foreign voice’ argument in this paper follows the same line of thought which Andrew Riggsby has so aptly used in his book Caesar in Gaul and Rome. Caesar “displaces the burden of argument” within the text and avoids the appearance of overt self-justification (Riggsby 214). Yet whereas Riggsby focuses on Caesar’s use of intertext to craft a subtle argument, this paper analyzes Caesar’s use of the non-Roman voice as justification for himself and for Rome’s presence in Gaul.

Presented at APA Conference in 2015 - adapted from chapter of undergraduate honors thesis.

Two senators named Syagrius are consuls in 381 and 382 AD. The analysis of all the sources suggest that in 381 AD the first consul was chosen by the Emperor Gratian: (Afranius) Syagrius, who was praetorian prefect in office (June 380-August 382 AD, maybe in the Gauls); the second one was the consul chosen by the Emperor Theodosius Ist: Eucherius, former Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, in 377 AD, and oncle of Theodosius («patruus Theodosii»). Some of Simmachus’ letters point to Syagrius as influential with Gratian, as it seems, both as Magister Officiorum, in 379 AD, and as praetorian prefect. As was the practice from the second half of the 3rd century, the praetorian prefect Syagrius obtained the ordinary consulate during his term of office, an honor which he held on 1 January 381, as «consul prior» in the pars of Gratian, and «posterior» in that of Theodosius. Almost a century later, Sidonius Apollinaris allow us to affirm that Syagrius founded a dynasty of Gallic aristocrats, endowed with great patrimonies in Gaul in the 5th century, and capable of reaching the praetorian prefecture of the Gauls in the succession of generations; (Afranius) Syagrius was undoubtedly the illustrious ancestor (by his mother’s side) of the nobleman Tonantius Ferreolus, prefect of Gauls in 451-453 AD. In 382 AD the first consul was Claudius Antonius, former praetorian prfect, in 376-378 AD, choosen by the Emperor Gratian; the second consul was chosen by Theodosius Ist: he too is named Syagrius, but this senator has been proconsul or vicarius Africae in 379 AD, and, according to the testimony of Themistius, he could be an acquired relative of Theodosius («adfinis Theodosii»), as already Eucherius, paternal uncle of the prince and consul in 381 AD.

Em seu discurso Pro Fonteio, do ano 69 a.C., Cícero defendeu Fonteio, que era propretor na Gália e acusado pelos habitantes locais (os alóbroges) de governar mal a província. É importante ter em mente que, no contexto jurídico, Cícero tinha um claro propósito em sua fala ao tribunal, que era acusar ou defender alguém. Com esse objetivo, a argumentação que Cícero apresentava à sua audiência era, em essência, uma construção verbal que ele tinha liberdade para manipular do melhor jeito que lhe aprouvesse, de modo que ele pudesse persuadir e convencer o seu público a favor das suas alegações. Este trabalho pretende discutir como Cícero defendeu Fonteio fundamentando sua argumentação na caracterização dos gauleses como sendo os maiores e mais cruéis inimigos de Roma. Para tanto, faz-se a análise de certos trechos desse discurso, estudando as figuras argumentativas e o vocabulário empregado pelo orador latino para fazer esse desfavorável retrato da nação gaulesa dos alóbroges.

Abstract: In his speech Pro Fonteio, of 69 BCE, Cicero has defended Fonteius, who was the propretor in Gaul and was accused by the local i n h a b i t a nt s (t h e a l lo b r o g e s) o f b a d administrating the province. It is important to keep in mind that, in a legal context, Cicero had a clear purpose in his speaking to the court, which was to accuse or to defend someone. With this objective, the argumentation that Cicero presented to his audience was, essentially, a verbal construction that he was free to manipulate in the best way he would like, so he could persuade and convince his public of his statements. This paper aims to discuss how Cicero has defended Fonteius by constructing his argumentation on the Gauls' characterization as the biggest and most cruel enemies of Rome. Therefore, there is an analysis of some parts of the speech, concerning the argumentative pictures and the vocabulary applied by the Latin orator to make that unfavorable portrait of the Gaul nation of the allobroges.

The article above one of Gaius Julius Caesar's campaigns conducted during the conquest of Gaul, where faced with Gaulish maritime tribes. It has been discussed operations on  both land  and sea, which this Roman General conducted  against Veneti from the Armocinan peninsula. It also contains a description of the armed actions of legate Quintus Titurius Sabinus in the area of „Normandy" tribes.

This article challenges the concept of “Hellenization” – the claim that Greek culture, religion, and language was imposed on non-Greeks – by examining cross-cultural interactions and transformations in commercial settlements.  More specifically, the article investigates the linguistic practices of multicultural harbor towns by examining a series of 6th and 5th century BCE inscriptions from a commercial settlement in Spain and some Roman-period texts that comment on linguistic practices in Iberia and Gaul.  The inscriptions suggest that scripts, loan words, and literacy were markers of neither ethnicity nor “Hellenization.” On the contrary, they highlight the cooperation between Greek and Iberian traders and the partnerships that formed in conducting commerce.  Literary sources offer a radically different view of interactions among ethnic groups in commercial settlements.  They cast the relationship between Greeks and non-Greeks in Iberia and Gaul as a civilizing one, with Greeks introducing Greek culture and teaching indigenous populations to speak and write in Greek.  This trope, I argue, is commonplace in Roman-period texts and reflects a deliberately Roman imperialist perspective rather than a Greek practice.

Sabemos que os gauleses nao deixaram nenhum material escrito, e sua cultura e historia nos sao conhecidas apenas por relatos de terceiros ou por estudos arqueologicos. Por isso, o tema das representacoes dos gauleses em Cesar, Tito Livio e Plinio, que compreende o periodo entre o seculo I a.C. a I d.C., e o foco principal desta pesquisa, ja que corresponde ao momento em que a Galia e definivamente conquistada pelos romanos e transformada em provincia. Propomos, no comeco deste trabalho, uma reflexao sobre o proprio etimo barb ro, lem de bord mos o conceito de b rbarie e de civilidade entre gregos e romanos. Em seguida, falaremos sobre a expansao do dominio de Roma e como foi o contato entre romanos e gauleses. Apos essa investigacao, nos propomos a estudar a fundo algumas passagens latinas sobre os gauleses, cujas fontes sao: o De bello Gallico (Sobre a guerra da Galia), de Cesar; o Ab urbe condita (Da fundacao da Cidade), de Tito Livio; e a Historia naturalis (Historia natural), de...

Este trabajo analiza el episodio de los galos del libro 5 (§ 33-49) de Ab urbe condita. Una difundida lectura de esos capítulos sostiene que allí podemos observar un primer momento en que Livio presentaría una inversión de identidades entre galos y romanos y un segundo momento en que cada pueblo volvería a encarnar su propia identidad. Considerando esto, el objetivo de este trabajo es doble. Primero, revisar la lectura sugerida de la inversión y, segundo, ofrecer una explicación diferente de ese cambio que parece tener lugar en la narración al respecto del comportamiento de galos y romanos. Para ello, el artículo se estructura en dos partes. Primero, estudiamos la caracterización de los galos durante todo el episodio, es decir antes y después del cambio mencionado, para revisar si efectivamente se puede verificar una representación diferente de este pueblo en esos dos momentos. Segundo, analizamos la interpretación que se atribuye a Camilo de la apariencia de los galos, la que nos permite plantear una lectura diferente de lo que pasa entre galos y romanos en el episodio. Una lectura que guarda relación con la situación político-moral en Roma.

This paper deals with Liv. V.33-49, where the Gauls appear for the first time in Ab urbe condita. One popular reading of these chapters suggests that Livy presents in a first part of the narrative an inversion of identities between Gauls and Romans and then, in a second part, a reversion of this situation. Considering this, this article has a double purpose. First, to review this reading and, second, to offer a different explanation of the Gallic and Roman behavioral change in those chapters. In order to do this, in the first part this work studies the Gallic characterization along the episode, and in the second it analyzes the interpretation of the Gallic appearance that Livy attributes to Camillus in the speech that he delivers at Ardea. This paper suggests that in this speech we can identify a key that allows us to read the episode in another fashion. A reading that is strongly related to the politico-moral situation in Rome.

https://grecorromana.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/0.9.-moreno-e28093-cuando-los-romanos-conocieron-a-los-galos-una-reinterpretaciocc81n-de-la-narraciocc81n-de-livio-del-ataque-bacc81rbaro-a-roma-.pdf

This article explores an early modern French colonial account: the history of New France by Marc Lescarbot, one of Champlain's early companions to the settlement of Annapolis. Lescarbot, lawyer and historian, tells french history from a utopian point of view: in a peaceful conquest, Gauls and Indians will unite as the New French people. His vision is based on etymological and cabalistic interpretations.

The aim of this article is to present the Alpine campaign of the legate Servius Sulpicius Galba, a subordinate of Caesar, representing one of the episodes of the Roman struggle against the Gallic tribes. This commander was given the task of occupying the present-day Great St Bernard Pass, and subjugating the local peoples.

Initially, the legate succeeded in defeating those peoples who inhabited the upper part of the Rhone valley, and he decided to winter in the captured territory. However, the overconfidence of Caesar’s subordinate, as well as the failure to take adequate precautions, led to the uprising of the highlanders. Its main event was fought in the autumn of 57 BC – the Battle of Octodurus, which the Romans won. Despite the success in this clash, the Romans decided to leave Octodurus and the Alps. Thus Caesar’s plan to take control, at least over part, of the Alpine massif ended in failure.