[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

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.

You are overlooking at a few facts: Rome was not founded upon a one only people. Other than the Italic Latins, the non Indo-European (Middle Eastern) Etruscan element was central to the construction of Roman Culture and Civilization, as well as other Italic and Celtic (Gaulish) elements.

But most important, the time period of the clash between Rome and the Gauls coincides with the medium to late stages of a Celtic culture known as the Civilization of La Tène.

In fact it is with two different civilizational forces that Rome has to meet in its early stages: the Celts and the Carthaginians.

No, I am not missing it - you are. Rome was aristocratic, and based on blood lineages, that of Graeco-Romans.

I'm afraid that you are confusing the concept of aristocratic here, strangely enough with the concept of democratic. You should look into the adoption figures of adoptio and adrogatio in the Roman society, which were common in the Senatorial class and which crossed the borders not only between patricians and plebeians, but also with libertos (freed slaves).

Personally, I know of one case of adoptio minus plena (the adopted remains in the potestas of his biological family, but he acquires a legal succession in the family of the adopter including the right to use the cognomen), in an old Roman family.

This should give you an idea of the legal terms involved: LacusCurtius • Roman Law — Adoption (Smith\'s Dictionary, 1875)

I agree - but you are failing to mention the Barbarian Gallic invasions, perhaps out of pride or simply ignorance - likely the former.

Actually, out of consistency as you can figure from my response farther above.

These clashes between Rome and the Celts (and Carthage) belong to a momentum of civilizational change, or releave.

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.

This is indeed my prerogative. Please, allow me to explain.

For a start, germanicness is too vast and too generic a concept to be truly meaningful when referring to the identity of peoples of solid and ancient heritages. Often used as a meta-linguistic and meta-cultural concept, its impact over those peoples is the contrary to the impact over other peoples which are today considered as Germanic.

But most important, with the particular case of the Goths and Spain, one must take into account a number of important details. One such is that the Goths (and, in general, all or most other tribes of an East Germanic origin) had forged their character and their identity through a long and legendary wandering that set them apart enough from their primitive (in the sense of primigenial, but not assuming it as an absolute primigenial origin) Germanic character and identity.

Indeed they had evolved away from what it is the Germanic Urheimat, for a time enough to mark a character and an identity of their own. A Gothic one.

And they continued to do so until they settled in Hispania, and beyond until the days when they were assimilated in the ethnogenesis of the Hispanic peoples.

It was though, the meeting of peoples with cultural differences

Which I admit, providing that you admit the differences between the Goths and the bulk of the Germanic peoples.

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.

I'm sure that it must be merely coincidential that you are mentioning the "installation" of "Germanic elites" in a general context, when we are speaking of Spain.

I mean that I'm sure that you do not ignore that it was a whole people that migrated and settled in Spain, and that the military nobility that was established lived side by side with the true local aristocratic elite.

As for the related cultural developments, I take it that you refer to cultural stagnation as well as to the lack of ability to administrative efficiency of the Roman Empire, which crystalized in the "loss of Spain". But before you jump to conclusions, let me tell you that I assume that as part of our heritage (the Gothic part) and that I do not make responsible for it to a wide and generic supposed Germanic character. And less so to the largely unrelated modern Germanic peoples.

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.

You are mixing up things here. The home-stay bit that I've mentioned points to something non related to the particular issue that you are dealing with here.

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

It is more complex than a simple "were transformed into Romanitas". They were a dynamic part of what came to be Romanitas. Do translate the concepts of adoptio, from individual stirpes to gentis.

whereas the Northern areas (and with Northern, I mean upper Germania, Scandinavia, non-Roman Britain, AS Britain), kept true to their culture persistently

The Roman Empire was not a homogenous as you might think. There was, always, an underlying feeling of what was called provincial identity apart from the central Roman administration. Further, this identity resurged after the fall of Rome in the less romanicized areas.

and fought the Roman Empire. But ultimately, the difference is merely chronological

Absolutely. The long centuries long conquest of Hispania and the conquest of Gallia took place at a time when Rome was a young, dynamic and expansive force.

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.

I have never denied that the northern populations assimilated Romanitas. I believe that I've pointed to that as a fact, several times.

It is in fact others who do so, through a primitivistic neo-tribalism which they wrongly call folkism, which constantly contradicts itself when it pretends not to be related to it at times, while other times it pretends to be central to it.