Celts or Gauls???

[Pangur Bán]

?There is something extremely silly about fireaxis' decision to include the Gauls instead of the Celts. The Gauls were Celts, but they were an ethnic subsection of the Celts. The term primarily denotes the Celts who lived in modern day France, the Low Countries and Northern Italy. This means that the Celts of the British Isles (and Brittany in fact) are excluded, as well as those from Asia Minor and Iberia.
The Gauls on their own had some notable achievements, military innovations, sacking Rome, etc; but the Celts as a larger group achieved much more and possess more fame. For instance, the Golden Age of native Irish culture (John the Scot for instance), the Celtic Church, King Arthur, the Highlanders and the Highland military system, tartan, whisky/ey, etc. Added to this, there are no living Gauls whereas there are living Breton, Irish, Scottish and Welsh speakers. Plus, even the non-Celtic speakers of these countries feel a affinity with the Celts in general that they do with the Gauls, as do the millions of North Americans with Highland or Irish descent.

The most puzzling thing is what exactly fireaxis hope to gain from changing the Celts to the Gauls, except a more logical city-list and UU. They were willing to forget about this for the Romans, so why not the Celts

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Doesn't bother me. There's always the editor

 

[Frodo Bolson]

Perhaps they like the Asterix books?

 

[Richard III]

Does bother me, actually. I associate Gaul with France, rightly or wrongly. We don't need another France, even in perception!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Richard III
Does bother me, actually. I associate Gaul with France, rightly or wrongly. We don't need another France, even in perception!

The French are primarily Franks.

 

[Kilroy]

I agree. I also don't believe they've settled on what civs they're introducing yet. It seems there are some conflicting reports.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by Richard III
Does bother me, actually. I associate Gaul with France, rightly or wrongly. We don't need another France, even in perception!

We don't need another Britain either with the Celts!!

 

[docceh]

Originally posted by allhailIndia


We don't need another Britain either with the Celts!!

Being an extremely proud and patriotic scotsman, i take offense to that statement!!!

We don't have a Britain, we have ENGLAND. England is not Britain.

I would like to see the Celts rather than Gaul as theres nothin better than nuking every 1 of Ms. Elizabeth's cities into kingdom come as some form of Scottish civ.

 

[DaSilva]

Originally posted by docceh


Being an extremely proud and patriotic scotsman, i take offense to that statement!!!

We don't have a Britain, we have ENGLAND. England is not Britain.

I would like to see the Celts rather than Gaul as theres nothin better than nuking every 1 of Ms. Elizabeth's cities into kingdom come as some form of Scottish civ.

Took the words right outta my keyboard

 

[Richard III]

First, AllhailIndia, I would be quite pleased to see two or three more Britains, actually . Might convince all of my Scottish cousins that there is some joy in union after all; without it, I'd be herding sheep outside Inverness and pillaging Yorkshire on weekends right now, and that is simply not on!

Second, Zachriel, that may be, but there is this old phrase about "Gallic sensibilities" in reference to France; I think its accepted that an awful lot of those Franks boinked an awful lot of Gauls to produce the monstrocity we see today.

 

[Arioch]

Celts rather than Gauls please!
The only possible excuse for choosing Gauls is that there are some ignorant people whose only experience of the Celts is Mel Gibson -1 character and they know many more 'Gauls': Asterix, Obelix etc.
If the Gauls are to be included we may as well have the Prussian, Italian and Saxon civilisations as they conflict just as well with existing civs.

 

[Pangur Bán]

good point Arioch .

 

[Arioch]

Very kind, IMO having groups like the Prussians, Saxons and Italians makes MORE sense than the Gauls

 

[Frodo Bolson]

Who is Obliex? That's not even a gaul name, all male names finish with "ix". And he's not fat, maybe just a bit big of torax.

 

[ColdFever]

"Celts" indeed would be better, as it comprises the "Gauls" AND the "Britanni", here is what MS Encarta says:

The word Celt is derived from Keltoi, the name given to these people by Herodotus and other Greek writers. To the Romans, the Continental Celts were known as Galli, or Gauls; those in the British Isles were called Britanni.

from:
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761563428

 

[creilly66]

For all intents and purposes, it should be Celts - though technically wrong...

"It is perhaps worth noting that for the purists the 'Celtic' label is unacceptable. The modern name for the Celts derives from the classical Greek word keltoi ... The Romans, in contrast to the Greeks, used the term 'Galli'. In retrospect, modern scholars might have been better advised to adopt 'Gallic' rather than 'Celtic' for the overall label. It is closer to what many of the Celts call themselves, namely 'Gaels'. But by the time the issue arose, 'Gallic' had already been reserved for reference to ancient Gaul, and by extension, to modern France. So 'Celtic' stuck."

(Davies, Norman. "The Isles: A History". p. 51)

So, to make it clear, Firaxis should have stayed away from the words Gaul or Gallic. To be proper it should be Gaels and Gaelic, but it would have been perfectly acceptable to have used Celtic instead, as was done in Civ II.

 

[Parsifal]

I don't think we should have barbarian civs like the Celts anyway, But if we're going to have them they shouldn't be called the Gauls.

As for the Scots, Irish and Welsh, as Celtic civs they accomplished nothing other than being too backward to withstand the superior English. The modern Irish, Scots and Welsh (along with the Canadians, Australians, etc,) should be included in the English civ.
They are all English really. It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too.

 

[Caranamrta]

The Gauls are Celts, but in Civ2 the continental Celts were negligated, and the Celts was identical to the Welsh... The Gauls, the Britons, the Welsh, Scots (SP?) and Irish are all Celtic.

And the fact is that the continental Celts, the Gauls was more significant than any Celtic group of the British Island. If we want a Celtic civilization, this must be rather Gallic than Irish or Welsh. It must be originated in the continent.

 

[pompeynunn]

Originally posted by Parsifal
I don't think we should have barbarian civs like the Celts anyway, But if we're going to have them they shouldn't be called the Gauls.

As for the Scots, Irish and Welsh, as Celtic civs they accomplished nothing other than being too backward to withstand the superior English. The modern Irish, Scots and Welsh (along with the Canadians, Australians, etc,) should be included in the English civ.
They are all English really. It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too.

Boy, do you Yanks have a skewed view of British history!

I'm English living in Scotland, and if I suggested that modern Scots are really English to anybody up here, I would be lucky to get out of the pub alive! I still can't get used to watching an England football match in a pub with Scots cheering on the other team. Ireland is really English? Well, you're having a joke aren't you?

As for the Celtic civs, they were one of the few civs that managed to withstand the onslaught of Rome. Why do you think they built Hadrian's wall? They couldn't conquer Scotland, so built a wall to 'keep those nasty barbarians out'. The Celts managed to withstand the 'superior English' for 2 millenia - not bad for such a backward civ eh? (God, how I'm hating all this sticking up for the Jocks!)

Finally, you say: "It would be much more fun if Dublin, Glasgow, Syndney, Toronto were in the the English city list. Much more realistic too." Following this logic then, can we also include New York, Washington etc. etc. in our English civ as well - rather weakens your argument doesn't it?

Personally, I would rather England was replaced by Great Britain, because it was Great Britain which was the real global power, not just England, and that would then include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (but note, not the Republic of Ireland!). That would then weaken the case for a Celtic Civ though. Much as I like the idea of Celtic Civ, there are already too many European Civs, especially if we include the Vikings and Spain as potential new civs. It would be nice to have some more African, South American or Asian civs instead.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by pompeynunn
Personally, I would rather England was replaced by Great Britain, because it was Great Britain which was the real global power, not just England, and that would then include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (but note, not the Republic of Ireland!).

I agree with most of what you said quite strongly, but I have to take issue at this.

Why exactly would you include Northern Ireland, yet not the rest of Ireland? Ireland was a part of The British state for a long time, and has only been independant for less than a century.

It would, although it may offend some modern Irish sensibilities, be just as viable to include Ireland in a hypothetical 'British' civ as it is to include cities such as Minsk, Kiev, etc in the present Russian one - even though they are now no longer under Russian control and are parts of The Ukraine, Belarus, etc.

Just to end, Parsifal: if you tried to tell any Irish or Scotish person they were English you would be angling for a knuckle sandwich.