Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
I don't know where you get the idea that the Gauls were a barbarian people, in the time period that we are speaking. Obviously you are missing nearly 500 years of civilizational progress among the Gauls, which had been preceded by other 500 years of formation towards Romanitas.
|
I did not address any specific time period, but the general period of the Roman Empire and the period of the existence of Gauls as a distinctive people. Yes, after they were Romanized, one might not look upon them as barbarians - however, that does not erase the Gallic invasions dating back to 400 BC, and it does not mean that Gauls were looked upon by Graeco-Romans as a non-Barbarian people, and it was not before 212 that any significant part of the populations of the Roman Empire outside of Italy were given citizenship - which was not well looked upon by the citizens of Italia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
Those Gauls, Hispanians or Britannians were in fact Gallo-Romans, Hispano-Romans or Britano-Romans. The ruling elites were the provincial senatorial aristocracies. Not foreigners. Rome, at the top, was not built upon democratic principles of blood from top to bottom, but upon aristocratic principles of elites upon the substrata of the local Gentilitas societies, which were the ones based on blood lineages. It is One Thousand years of evolution leading to the formation of Europa that you are missing.
|
No, I am not missing it - you are. Rome was aristocratic, and based on blood lineages, that of Graeco-Romans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
Seneca was not an Italo-Roman. He was a Hispano-Roman. And so were Hadrian, Trajan, and others. And the same with Gallo-Romans or Britano-Romans.
|
Sure - they were Romans, as in citizens of the Roman Empire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
For the Barbarian peoples, Rome was an ideal destination to reach. Their paradise on earth. The Goths first and latter the Franks aimed to be a part of it. The Goths failed at sustaining a Western Roman Empire, and the Franks maintained one which was a pale shadow of it, and that only after they assimilated and submitted to this very same concept of Romanitas.
|
I agree - but you are failing to mention the Barbarian Gallic invasions, perhaps out of pride or simply ignorance - likely the former. I have also noticed that you will do much to avoid admitting to any Germanic affiliations to have spawned the modern Spaniards, but it is indeniable - it also indeniable that it only constituted a component, and not a majority of the people that come to be Spaniards. It was though, the meeting of peoples with cultural differences that created the modern culture - including the meeting of Gauls with Graeco-Roman culture, and later, the installation of Germanic elites and the related cultural developments. That they have done nothing for the respective countries involved (France, Spain) is far from the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mynydd
Well, for best or for worst it is, again, our heritage alone. We are not only the children of a father and a mother. Our lineages started long ago and they are long. Be them Celts and Iberians, Hispano-Romans, or Goths. And that is why I said that there is no need to emply any self-styled version of political correctness to avoid offending the modern populations of northern Europe. Because this has nothing to do with you, but with us.
|
Matters so extentious as the Roman Empire certainly have a lot to do with all parts of Europe - or rather, had, at the time it was present. Such things affect the entire continent. You mentioned earlier that Northern populations havent been affected as you have from this period, because we were home-stayers - well, I disagree and agree. The majority of the populations (masses) of most of Western Europe is continuous since migrations that date back to 10,000 BCE, which we can trace through Y-DNA lineage and make sense of from the associated climatic changes. The difference is that the areas which were the Roman Empire were culturally transformed, into Romanitas, whereas the Northern areas (and with Northern, I mean upper Germania, Scandinavia, non-Roman Britain, AS Britain), kept true to their culture persistently, and fought the Roman Empire. But ultimately, the difference is merely chronological - for the northern populations have at some point also had some cultural developments comparable to Romanitas, and that is both Christianity and every aspect of our cultural progress, something which is distinctively marked in things such as architecture. You could perhaps call movements such as Protestantism a step away from any kind of Romanitas, because the Christian/Catholic church was exactly that.