Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "Norse Magic and Beliefs" channel.

  1. No on in history ever called any British Islander "Celt" so what makes you a Celt? Linguistic academics from 1582? Who named your language "Celtic" only because he though it came from the Celtici from Spain?
    8
  2. 12:38 - "Romans conquered almost all of Celtic lands relatively easily" - No, only Gauls was easy (8 years). Iberia was hard (200 years) and Strabo and Siculus also noted as much.
    8
  3.  @NevisYsbryd  The first person to marry the names "Celtic" and "Gaelic" was George Buchanan in 1582. He did so only linguistically, and because, according to him, the Celtici of Spain brought those languages to Scotland and Ireland. Hence it should be noted it is only modernly (starting from 1582) and not historically that there is any association between Celtic and Gaelic - and from 1582 onwards the association was meant to be purely linguistic and academic, not in any way ancestrally or historically.
    6
  4. 11:00 - Julius Caesar is not the most detailed source of the Celts by far... he was peddling on disinformation according to his closest allies who wrote as much.
    5
  5.  @jp16k92  It didn't happen. The Romans were engaged in negative propaganda against its adversaries. This is widely known. Almost none of the Roman accusations against the tribes they deemed barbarians has any historical validity.
    5
  6.  @uptown_rider8078  All Iberians have between 30% and 31% Yamnaya ("Germanic" loosely) autosomal DNA from the Eastern Bell-Beakers. Germans have around 44% of that same Yamnaya autosomal DNA. Icelandic people have the most at 53%.
    5
  7. The Celts were not a nordic people. The name "Celt" is not found natively anywhere in the British Isles, nor in Ireland, nor in northern France. It is only found in southern France and Iberia in items of native peoples. The northern French people and the British Islanders knew themselves probably as Belgae, as that tribe carried its name to both England and Ireland. Otherwise, northern peoples do not have any connection to the name "Celts".
    4
  8.  @gandolfthorstefn1780  The Silures and the Picts were possibly the two farthest people from the Romans; no wonder they could not beat them; this is hardly to their credit but rather a large component of this is due to their remoteness and their poverty which was not interesting to the Romans.
    3
  9. 11:27 "we just don't have any written sources calling Brits Celts" well then you can't say "but we know they were Celts", can you? No, you cannot.
    3
  10. 10:00 In Geographica, book 3, chapter 2, section 15, line 3, he says clearly that the Celts were of the same ethnicity ("kinship") as the Turdetani who were ethnically southern Portuguese. In 4.1.1, 4.1.14 and 4.4.1 he explains that Celts in Gallia are only the Narbonensis, those who live in the extreme south by the gulf. Everyone else in Gallia, he says, are Gallians, not Celts. Diodorus Siculus (V.32.1) agrees with him exactly. Also Augustus, after Caesar, correctly denominated Gallia Narbonensis as "Gallia Celtica" taking that name away from "Gallia Lugdunensis" which had been given to it incorrectly by Caesar.
    3
  11.  @NevisYsbryd  "and Celtic is not one specific group genetically or culturally but an umbrella category of loosely related groups with genetic and cultural overlap. " This is where you are wrong. It was never that. This new concept arose in the 19th century with Romanticism and Nordicism in the Victorian Age. Today in academia, "Celtic" is no longer "an umbrella category of loosely related groups with genetic and cultural overlap" as all of that is still the Childean and Kossinean approach to archaeology, which is now outdated. Instead we have reverted back to the view that the Celts were only those peoples who called themselves Celts, such as the Keltai of southern France and the Celti of Lusitania and the Celtici around them in western Iberia. No one else can be called "Celtic" today anymore. Take pride in the Scottish having called themselves Caledonians and never Celts.
    3
  12. @z2fh3le8j Hi, I apologize for being rude earlier. I will try here to be much more constructive. "Aye, it's not like this person is incorrect about the origin of the world Celt/Celtic. That isn't even argued. But the fact is, Celtic has been used now for centuries to describe a much broader region of peoples who's cultural types are similar (gods, traditions, languages etc). Much like the Norse and Saxon can be considered Germanic its a cultural type." Thank you for acknowledging where we do agree (the original meaning of Celt/Celtic). I understand this extended meaning. Your parallel with Germanic encompassing Norse and Saxon argues the point well. I even accept this extended meaning. I just object at the point where the -ic is clipped out of Celtic and then all of a sudden the Irish and the British have become "the" Celts. This is inevitably the slippery slope that has been happening ever since the end of the Victorian and Romanticist eras. All the BBC documentaries called "The Celts" and dozens of popular books and hundreds of popular mentions to it contribute to the daily confusion that has lead many people today to say proudly "I'm an Irish and I'm a Celt!" when no Norse or Saxon person would say "I'm a Norse/Saxon and I'm a German!". Do you acknowledge that this has been an issue and that this crosses the line of what should be acceptable? I also gave you a parallel example with Norse/Saxon and Germans. "And ultimately it comes down to that, originally Celtic referred to a specific people, now it refers to both that and a cultural type of people. I.e cruithne, picti, celti, pritani, gaul, gael, etc can all fall under the cultural type of Celtic. This isn't a theft, it just is what it is." And I would not object to that were it not for the constant slippery slope that suddenly allows the British and the Irish to be "the" Celts and to collect all the military glory associated with the ancient Celts. "And the new meaning is a heavily ingrained in the identity of British Isle countries, especially Wales, Ireland, Scotland. You go down any high street in these countries and you will see references to Celtic identity by means of shops, sport teams, museums, symbolism in tattoos, clothing, music etc. " This has actually been convincingly argued against in many celtosceptic academic papers, where it is shown that the idea of anything Celtic does not have a substantial presence in most so-called Celtic countries. Not to mention, again, it was a recent idea popularized with Victorian Romanticism at the turn of the 19th century. It was heavily tied with biblical ideas of connecting the British ancestry with Japheth through the Celts, and therefore heavily clad in mysticism. There are many Irish and other Gaels and Brythons today who are proud of their ancestry and confidently proclaim the Irish and the British are not Celts and were never Celts, and that there is nothing Celtic about those islands. I could quote you dozens of academics who say the same. It is a matter of spreading that information to more people, which has been happening slowly. "Arguably the fact the word Celt of Celtic was the world chosen of these cultural groups to be used as the cultural type is more complimentary no? It could have easily been the word Brittonic for the cultural type and this guy would be sat here kicking off about how only the people in the British Isles went by this title and we shouldn't be using it as a means of describing cultural type" I understand your point, but do you not agree that, if this was ever a compliment, it sure backfired, as now the Spanish, the Portuguese and the southern French are thought to be only "marginal Celts" and seen as "the least Celtic" when in fact they were the ones who variously called themselves Celtici, Celti, Celtiati, Celtigun, etc? This is a "compliment" just like naming the country "Mexico" was a compliment to the Mexicas (the Mexica people or tribe that originated the name). Sure, the whole country was named after them, but now everyone gets to call themselves "Mexican" when in fact only the Mexicas are "Mexica". Now you could argue, hey, at least there's a suffix difference between the two. I would say yes, at least there is that suffix differentiating them indeed. Because as I said, the Irish and the British are all too quick to drop the -ic suffix from their given "Celtic" only to call themselves "the Celts" and collect military valor, while in the same breath classing Spanish, Portuguese and southern French as "less Celtic" in all their maps and documentaries. Just like the Mexica, the people of Portugal (from *kale likely cognate with *kelt, and the only region in Iberia where the tribal name Celti appeared without suffix), Galicia (likewise from *kale; the Celtici inhabited it; also, it has places like the several Celtigos from *kelt), Spain (places like Celtiberia, Celtica, Celti were documented there, the latter two in the southwest in Baetica and Peñaflor respectively) and southern France (where the Celti without suffix are sporadically found in personal items, likely Celtic colonies in Narbo and Marseille) still exist and still remember that they are the direct descendants of the historical people who called themselves Celts and from which the Greeks and Romans admittedly generalized their usage of "Celts" as Strabo and Pliny explained and alluded to. In this way, this compliment sure backfired for them. Do you think it would be too much to ask that the Irish and the British and everyone else who became Celtic from this modern meaning of the word attain themselves to using "Celtic" and not clipping that down to "Celt", so as to leave "Celt" reserved for those Spanish, Portuguese and French people who still exist? I am not asking this ironically, I am trying to reach an agreement that is reasonable.
    3
  13.  @user-jz2fh3le8j  " And if I may make that statement the peoples of the British Isles are Celtic but not the Celts and nor of the Celts as by the peoples who originally used the term in title. We are Celtic via the collective cultural type only." Thank you for saying that. This is how it was originally meant to be, but through this process it often ends up confused, and clearing up that confusion is not always easy with the lay public. "I also agree how despite the suffix, for some it is an area of confusion as you say." Thank you. And it's not easy to propose a solution. Even the name "Celtic" with the suffix technically belongs to the Spanish (Celtici) and the Galicians (same) so even "Celtic" is being graciously lent by the Spanish to western Europe to use as a general "Celtic". It was not the Romans or the Greeks who added that -ic there - they saw it from the natives using it in Spain. But Spain is very laid-back and is happy to share "Celtic". But then the British and Irish also took "Celt" and often use it to exclude those they took it from. At some point the Celts will end up with no identity and the British with their (southwestern Europeans') identity, if this continues. I think Academia is doing its part, especially in the last few years, to correct this mistake. They are much more careful about who they call Celts now. Proof of that is the documentary The Celtic World on Amazon (from The Great Courses) which does call western Iberians "Celts" on maps twice, and never calls any British or Irish "Celts" on any map while clarifying they were not considered Celts before modern academia. I am open to learning to share this term correctly but right now the side that is misbehaving the most is the side that is being lent the name to use, namely the British and the Irish. Because I do not see an immediate way to resolve this, this is why I was suggesting to disconnect the terms "Celt" and "Celtic" entirely from Britain and Ireland, as many academics now do. Unfortunately we do not know what the Bell-Beakers collectively called themselves, and I do not see a new term like "Celtish" taking off in the Anglosphere. And if nothing changes then the Celts will lose their identity to the Celtics. I am open to suggestions. "That would be like the area formally known as Germania and the Germanic countries within it being seen as lesser Germanic that Norway or Sweden or somet of that nature." That is a very apt parallel to the situation of the Celts, native of southwestern Europe. They are currently considered lesser Celts y most publications, living "at the margins" of the "Celtic core" of "Hallstatt and La Tene" which we already know to be the previously running paradigm. "But aye for me I'm aware we are Celtic by cultural type not by ancestory to the Celti whom we know via DNA we didn't seem to interbreed with to a high degree and most likely just had alliance and trade with." I think that alliance survives in a slightly different shape in the oldest alliance in the world, between England and Portugal, the Treaty of Windsor.
    3
  14. Unfortunately this is not correct. Celts were not nordic peoples, they were southwestern peoples. Herodotus first located the Celts beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which means they can only have been originally from western Iberia. Indeed that is the only place where people calling themselves Celts are found through their artifacts. Then Diodorus Siculus and Strabo both said "Celts in Gallia are only in the south; everyone else is Gallic (Gaul)", so the Greeks knew that "Celts" were not a nordic people.
    3
  15.  @FaithfulOfBrigantia  "Romans also describe the Caledonians (Sctoland) as having nordic features, and then assume this must mean they were of Germanic origin, implying they associated Nordic features with Germanics not Celts. They do the same with the Belgae, who are considered Gallic, but NOT Celtic, and also sometimes argued to be of Germanic origin or at least heavy Germanic mixture." Yes, that was Tacitus in Agricola, Chapter XI, "The reddish (_rutilae_) hair and large limbs of the Caledonians proclaim a German origin". "They do the same with the Belgae, who are considered Gallic, but NOT Celtic, and also sometimes argued to be of Germanic origin or at least heavy Germanic mixture." Yes, that was Caesar in Bello Gallico, Book II, Chapter 4, "that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung, from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions;". Also note that Strabo in Geographica, Book 3, Chapter 2, section 5, line 3, agrees with Polybius in saying that the Celts were ethnically like the southern Portuguese: "in the case of the Turdetani (southern Portuguese), and with the Celtici on account of their proximity, as Polybius has stated, due to their consanguinity and kinship." Pliny also says the people who actually call themselves Celts were ethnically central Portuguese: "Mirobrigenses qui Celtici cognominantur" (meaning "the central-Portuguese people of Mirobriga, who call themselves Celts by surname"). (Source: Pliny, Natural History, Book IV, paragraph 118, confirmed independently by epigraphic evidence "CAIUS PORCIUS SEVERUS MIROBRIGENSIS CELTICUS ANNORUM LX" inscription found in Mirobriga, Portugal) And finally, that same Pliny reiterates the idea of Celts being ethnically Portuguese by saying "Celticos a Celtiberis ex Lusitania advenisse manifestum est sacris, lingua, oppidorum vocabulis, quae cognominibus in Baetica distinguntur" (Source: Pliny, Natural History, 3.13.5), meaning "It is obvious that the Celts originate from those Celtiberians out of Lusitania, on account of their religion, language, city names and surnames which distinguish them in Baetica".
    3
  16. ​ @ce5894  "Other than the Gauls (whom the Greeks recorded as referring to themselves as Celts) there's no evidence to suggest other tribes did, or did not. " Oof, you're very uninformed. There are hundreds of ancient tombstones only in western Iberia with the names "Celti", "Celtiati", "Celtici", "Celtigun", etc. It is quite silly to see people who have no right to use the name of the Celts and no direct inheritance of the name of the Celts wanting to use the name of the Celts instead of the names of their own ancestors. But the truth is only Lusitanians and Galicians called themselves Celts (yes, even though everyone wants to believe Lusitanian was not a "Celtic language", whatever that means, since "Celtic" was never a language in ancient times, this only started in 1582 among British scholars). Go ahead and do your own research but your ancestors are laughing at your confusion around their names. They never saw themselves as Celts. There is some evidence they saw themselves as Gallians and as Belgians (yes both Irish and British used the name of the Belgians natively, look up "Builg"). "Neither did the Anglo-Saxons or Jutes and other tribes refer to themselves as German." That is right, and they are not German. Do you see English people saying "I'm German"? No. You are confusing linguistic designations. The only people who called themselves Germani (and those people did exist) were the western Germans (there is an entire paper on that called "Developing the Germani in Roman Studies"). The others had their own names. What is so hard to understand about this? Look at the case of the Illyrians which happened throughout Greek chronicling: the Greeks first said the Illyrians were a specific people, then later said they were an entire country, then later they were all Balkanic peoples. The term European was also first only referring to Macedonians, then to Balkanic peoples, then to all Europeans. All terms went through that path, or most of the commonly used ones that became famous, at least. The same happened to Celts. Strabo even says so, saying the Greeks generalized the name of the Celts of southern France to all Galatians of France due to the fame of the Narbonese Celts who of course lived right next to colonizing Greeks. I could go on and on but I recommend you start loving your own ancestors, their history and their name, and honor those things, instead of trying to adopt foreign history.
    2
  17. That is correct. Ancient Greeks and Romans despite noticing some Celts being blonde-and-blue eyed, when they saw a people who were mostly blonde-and-blue eyed they assumed they were originally Germanic, not Celtic.
    2
  18.  @Cornflakes-sr3nq  The whole of Spain is between 29% and 31% Yamnaya directly from Switzerland and southwestern Germany from 2,500 BC to 1,800 BC when the Corded Ware Eastern Bell Beakers mixed with the Iberian Maritime Bell Beakers. So even the Iberians who are the "least Germanic" of the Celts are still almost a third Germanic. The others even more so as expected from being closer to Germany. Keep in mind the most Germanic people are 53% Yamnaya so that is the "upper limit" of current Europeans. Given that, 31% is not little.
    2
  19.  @brutalisaxeworth3024  Britons were never Celts - they never called themselves by that name nor did anyone else call them that name.
    2
  20. This is now no longer speculation but the standard theory in academia, with Patrick Sims-Williams, a Celtoskeptic, being the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies which regulates all academic Celtic Studies programs. The "Hallstatt = Celts" theory died after he published his pivotal paper "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West".
    2
  21.  @MattieK09  "Which paper?" "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" by Patrick Sims-Williams. It comprehensively explains why Hallstatt and La Tene were not Celtic.
    2
  22. I'm way more on the right politically than you and I'm here to tell you De Bello Gallico is completely inadequate as a historical source. A close source to Caesar wrote that he put that together without any care for reality or truth. And indeed both Strabo and Siculus after Caesar corrected his description of the Celts, saying there were only Celts in southwestern Europe and not in the north, and that Caesar did not know anything about ethnography, much less Geography.
    2
  23. Scotland is not Celtic, it is Caledonian. There is no historical relationship between Celts and Scotland.
    2
  24.  @user-jz2fh3le8j  " they can't get their head around the concept that the word Celtic has breached the borders of its original intended meaning and will remain so." Just say "we want to steal the name", you don't have to use that many words.
    2
  25.  @user-rt8dh4se3e  "certainly the references above will make for interesting reading thank you. perhaps you should feel impatient, but honestly you seem to be on the defensive and given the childlike wisdom of people like myself I recommend have compassion and educate as best you can. you are very knowledgeable about this." Thank you for the feedback. I will try to be more patient. Please ask any questions if you have them. It is sad to me to see that people supposedly interested on history do not act respectfully about the issue of historical identity and use ethnonymic names without care or reason.
    2
  26. @t8dh4se3e " I will checkout the references you mentioned. I am interested in the cultures in Europe at this time. are there any good books you would recommend on this subject or other tribes peoples of Europe at the time?" The only good books about the Celts currently in existence that I am aware of, which incorporate the latest findings, are John Collis' "The Celts - Origins, Myths and Inventions" and Simon James' "The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention?". I have read both and I can recommend both. In this regard, while I have not read this, I could suppose it to be a good book, judging by its abstract which mentions the Celtic problematic and also mentions the two books above by Simon James and John Collis; that would be Manuel Fernandez-Gotz' "Celts: art and identity exhibition: New Celticism at the British Museum. I know, long title. I also recommend reading whatever recent papers you find about the Celts on ResearchGate (dot net) and Academia (dot edu), you need an email but otherwise it's free. As for other tribes and peoples of Europe, I do not know of any specifically up-to-date books on that subject in general. If you are interested in a given group I can try and find the best information on it for you. My methods are not secret, I simply look to see what opinions are currently being published and what opinions are the underdogs that are about to overtake the current paradigm, as sometimes there is one as was the case for the topic of the Celts until a few years ago - today its paradigm shift is complete.
    2
  27.  @user-rt8dh4se3e  For instance, if you're interested in the Germani, a paper you must read is Cheryl Louise Clay's "Developing the 'Germani' in Roman Studies". You will be amazed at the findings, trust me.
    2
  28.  @user-np5qf6gm7f  "dude get a life xD you probably spent hours with these comments for nothing" I unironically thank you for being concerned with me. However these comments are a result of years of research that has been catalogued for easy access and which is being organized to be made available publicly. As such not only do these answers not take much time but they help prepare the material for publication.
    2
  29. ​ @FaithfulOfBrigantia  Now that you edited your post, I am proud of how well-informed you are, and I bet you will enjoy my well-cited post corroborating everything you said.
    2
  30. The Scottish people never historically called themselves Celts nor were they ever referred to as Celts by anyone in history. They are not Celts. Only linguists call them that, and that is because of a misconception at the time of naming those languages that Breton was the survival of Gaulish.
    1
  31. ​ @ce5894  "Brythonic tongues in Strathclyde, Gwynedd, Cumbria and Breton, not to mention the P-Celtic tongue of their Pictish cousins = Celtic. The beautiful Goedelic lilts of my Dalriadan ancestors = Celtic. All of which had developed from the proto celtic of the Atlantic seaways. " Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Many Celtic academics (like John Collis) have already pointed out that languages were historically named after the people who spoke them, not the other way around. This thing of saying "the Irish are Celts because they speak a Celtic language" only started in the 1900's. Before that, the language you spoke was always called a name derived from the name of the people who spoke it. So only a people called "Celts" (as in actually called that by themselves, like the Celti in Lusitania and the Celtici in Galicia did, not by Greeks or Romans) could have spoken "Celtic". In fact so much so was the naming of languages after the people, that Tacitus once said that the Galatians spoke "Germanice", betraying that languages were named after the ethnicity of the people who spoke it; no people has ever been named historically after the language they spoke: a clear example of that is the Romans who spoke Latin (a language started by a specific tribe called Latini) and yet the Romans never dared to call themselves "the Latins". Only you and other misinformed people by linguistic academics are going around daring to call yourself by the name of the people who happened to have originated the language you currently speak. Also consider that if you are "Celtic" because of your language, well, most Irish and Scottish people no longer speak "Celtic", so that means you should stop calling yourself "Celts" and now call yourself "Germans" instead. See how that doesn't make any sense?
    1
  32. 11:17 - not true that only Gauls were called "Celts" by the Romans. Pliny said clearly there were people who called themselves Celts in Mirobriga (modern-day central Portugal).
    1
  33. Hence the history you are reading cannot possibly be true. Those were just smears by the Romans against the people they sought to conquer. Obviously Germanic peoples were always the most liberal, started health care and socialism, etc.
    1
  34.  @tutenhamon9625  "Germanic are mix of Scandinavian Celts and Baltic people" Yes but that hides details. Germanic people are a Beaker-like EEF component (like the Celts) plus a Yamnaya component (like the Germanics) and a small amount of Baltic.
    1
  35.  @gcanaday1  "That isn't what he said." Don't think I'm going to follow up on such a low-effort contribution to the conversation that I can barely understand who the "he" is or what you're referring to at all.
    1
  36. Then why is there no social trust in many places in Africa such that they can barely start any group enterprise? Farmers are constantly pillaged over there.
    1
  37. ​ @brutalisaxeworth3024  "One of these that split off would go on to become the Celtic culture. For the majority of their history, the Celts actually dominated much of central Europe. Eventually they made their way to the British isles and completely wiped out and replaced the hunter gatherers there. The Celts living on the islands then split into different tribal affiliations like the Picts, Welsh, and, you guessed it, THE BRITTONS." This is a fantasy and there is no documentary evidence linking the word or name "Celts" historically to the Britons nor to the Welsh, Picts, Irish, etc. There's no such thing as "Celtic culture", that is a Romanticist invention of British academics - not the whole world is British and most of the Celtic academics do not accept this association between Britons and Celts, including the current President of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, Patrick Sims-Williams, which regulates all academic Celtic Studies programs. There was never any association between the name of the Celts and anything in Central Europe nor in the British Isles nor specifically in Ireland. If there were you would simply show it.
    1
  38.  @jp16k92  No such thing as "British Celts" , the name "Celts" never occurred natively historically in the British Isles nor in Ireland, until George Buchanan in 1582 called your languages "Celtic" because he though they came originally from the Celtici of Spain.
    1
  39.  @Dovahkiin0117  People are people and the Romans were interested in conquering Iberia and they were spending their ink and paper on that and only that, not on any inspiration to make an encyclopedia of those people.
    1
  40. Celtic is not Hallstatt anymore. Read the paper by Sims-Williams.
    1
  41.  @Bcfcuklhpwalker  Yes Sims knows about that. Do you know about the Builg in Ireland and the Belgae in England? The British Islanders had an association with the name of the Belgae, not with the name of the Celts.
    1
  42. The Portuguese are the only people truly "Celtic" as they are the only ones who called themselves "Celts" in their own personal items and tombstones. And indeed Herodotus said the Celts lived beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) which narrows Iberia down to Portugal and Galicia as being the home of the Celts. Everyone else, according to Strabo and Siculus, were not Celts but "Gallians" which we today call "Gauls". Don't let Germanic people take your exclusive Celtic ancestry from you.
    1
  43. Forget the Alps, the Celts are not associated with the Alps. Read Patrick Sims-Williams "An alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West" where he explains why Hallstatt and La Tene were not actually Celtic and should not be associated with them. Otherwise you are correct that Celtic languages come from standardized Bell Beaker dialects.
    1
  44. The Irish were never known as "Celts" historically until 1582 a linguistic named their languages "Celtic" because he thought they came from the Celtici in Spain. So if anyone is "Celt" it is the Spaniards who are descendants of the people who called themselves Celts, not anyone from Ireland who never called themselves Celts.
    1
  45. The Irish and Scots are not Celts, they never called themselves Celts, and this only started linguistically because George Buchanan in 1582 decided to call Irish and Scottish languages "Celtic" because he thought and he said those languages came from Spain where the Celtici lived. So the only reason The British Isles have anything to do linguistically only with the term "Celtic" is due to their supposed connection to Spain.
    1
  46. ​ @BrianBorumaMacCennetig367  "The term British isles is problematic." I understand that, however Ireland was indeed called "Britannia Minor" by the Romans, so the name "British" does belong historically to Ireland. Compared to Ireland's inexistent historical relationship with the name "Celt", the name "British" at least was used to refer to the Irish historically. And if you really think British Isles is problematic then please from not on refer to the Iberian Peninsula as the Celtiberian Peninsula - there aren't just Iberians there.
    1
  47. ​ @CelticHound357  "Used as it's intentions. An umbrella term. And yes, I know they never called themselves Celts. But to say the Scots and Irish Gael didn't mix with the, "Celts." If you say so." Why use an umbrella term? Just use their own name. They had their own names. The Irish called themselves Gaels, Goidels, Hibernians, Fenians, etc. No need to go stealing the name of western Iberians and southern French just because you like it and then acting like they can use that name because they might have mixed with the Celts. Don't do that. Let each people have their own name. The people who called themselves Celts in their own names as inscribed in their own personal pottery and tombstones lived mostly in western Iberia with colonies in Narbo and Massilia. Everywhere else, other tribes had their own names that did not use the word "Celt". The Greeks knowingly generalized the name of the Celts to all Galatians as Strabo explains in Book 4.
    1
  48. ​ @BrianBorumaMacCennetig367  "Not really british in modern use is a nationality thus it can't be used. " Who cares what things are today? What matters is what they were originally. If you disagree, we will never agree. Today anyone can give any meaning to any word. Back then words meant something. Hence the original meaning rules. "I doubt the Irish would ever call themselves little Britain anything. " Well, Britannia simply means "shapeful" so I can see the Irish calling two islands "big shapeful" and "little shapeful" without that implying anything little about them as a people. "So the term was never used by the Irish themselves and thus doesn't exist as a term in historical records in ireland, Éire does which the greeks called Irene - Ἰέρνη." Would you look at that, when the Irish don't want a name they certainly know how to argue against it - "the term was never used by the Irish themselves and thus doesn't exist as a term in historical records in ireland" - well guess what, the same exact thing can be said of the term "Celt" in Ireland and Britain: "the term was never used by the Irish themselves and thus doesn't exist as a term in historical records in ireland". "The Irish aren't british stop trying to push your nationality onto people, that's called imperialism." That's not where I'm coming from. I'm coming from "if the Irish can use something as arbitrary as the 19th century name of their language 'Celtic' to refer to themselves as 'Celts', then certainly by that measure they should be called British since they were actually called that by the ancient Greeks - who by the way never called the Irish 'Celts'.". That's where I'm coming from - all of a sudden you are an expert in researching which names the Irish used for themselves, but when it comes time to use "Celts" for yourselves you never seem to remember how to do that research! Unbelievable.
    1
  49. ​ @BrianBorumaMacCennetig367  "by the greeks and the romans is the key bit of information here, not by the Irish themselves. The term celt was never used by the Irish nor was the term british it's the same argument." Well okay if you accept that then fine, but you must admit most of your compatriot Irish people have been skirting this rule and only closely revising against their being called "British" but never quite applying that same level of revision against their being called "Celts". In my opinion the Irish have practiced military impostorship against the western Iberians and southern French who actually were called Celts and who are the people the Greeks and Romans had in mind when they mentioned Celts - as most of the citations about the Celts being about tribes in Iberia goes to show.
    1
  50.  @BrianBorumaMacCennetig367  The Greeks did not invent the term "Britannia", it is a native name to the British Isles, potentially including Ireland. "The Irish and celts are far to independent and prideful to do such a thing." Then show that independence and help Irish people stop calling themselves Celts which "Last of all we have no evidence of the term little britian within ireland if such a term was used by the Irish it would survive into modern times like Éire or Irene does, yet no such term exists within ireland and never has."
    1