Talk:Gallia Belgica

[Untitled]

Eenjurg (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I think I noticed a mistake in this article.

Original: 'It began as one of the three main provinces of Gaul (known as the Tres Galliae the other two being Gallia Aquitania and Gallia Lugdunensis) described by its Roman conqueror Julius Caesar.'

I guess the writer means that Caesar divided Gaul into three parts (Belgica, Celtica and Aquitania) and not three provinces, since it only were official provinces under Augustus in 22 BC.

[PJ De Mat]

In a Belgian Latin-French dictionary (edited in Brussels in 1826 by P. J. De Mat) the word "Belga" is translated as "Flamand" (Flemish).

I'm surprised and doubtful about the translation of "Belga" into "Flamand". Is it possible to have a reliable reference for this statement? --Explorer62 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

[Untitled]

is it possible to put dates in for this article? Stevenmitchell 13:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this still a stub? i've seen some pages only a little longer that weren't. Penguinofhonor 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Moulin Chokshi

Article is overall comprehensive. Still, there may be some things you might think about adding. First, a contents heading section could be helpful. Next, you might want to talk about the main industries of this region if possible. "The Franks emerged victorious and the region corresponding to the original Gallia Belgica became in the 5th century the center of Superscript textClovis' merovingian kingdom and during the 8th century the heart of the carolingian empire." The superscript text didn't seem to work, not sure why. You may want to make the name Galba a link so that they can read about the Galba page in Wikipedia. "A series of uprisings following the 57 B.C. conquest." This is a fragment. I like how you talk about the influence of Rome on culture of the region. You may want to explain what a Canton is or link it to its Wikipedia article. I also like how you list the cities of the region. "The area is the historical heart of the Low Countries, an historical region corresponding roughly to the current Benelux group of states, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg as well as the French Flanders and some part of the Rhineland." This sentence should either be in the Introduction section or maybe be cut all together. In your reference section, you may want to list them last name first and then alphabetize them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoulinChokshi (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Hariharan Vijay

Lots of information - definitely good work unearthing data from journals and databases. A few more sections, perhaps - almost everything about the region has been fitted under the History section. Or if you feel it is appropriate appropriate the way it is, think about sub-sections under 'History' - Battle against Caesar, Restructuring, etc., or something along those lines.

There are no links to other wiki articles in the first half of the History section, and that would definitely help. You also might consider switching the last sentence of the same section to the introduction, since that goes along with current places in the region.

Flows very smoothly, and no spelling errors that I noticed. I especially like the part you've written about the kind of assimilation into the Roman Empire (paragraphs 3 and 4). I'd just add more sections to partition the ideas and topics better. Nice job overall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.105.138.233 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Alex Sandhu

Overall this is an extremely good article that covers all of the relevant information well. A contents table would be helpful and it might be nice to split the history section into more parts so one can easily skip to certain time periods. One might want to split the history section at the point in which the Gauls were conquered. Then, one could discuss the subsequent governing and split as a second section. Then, as a third section one could discuss the loss of Roman control of the region. There is a great use of citation so one knows where the information is coming from. One might want to link more of the terms in the body so the reader can access more detailed information on certain topics. The inclusion of Caesar's commentary is a great primary source. There is also a great list of references at the end of the article. Overall, a great encyclopedia entry that could use a little more organization.

change of wording/removal of unwarranted ethnic claim

I have changed the text "continued adherence to the Germanic idea of a divisible inheritance." To “Salic patrimony” which is of unknown origins and shared among the Celts.

I have also removed this inflammatory conjectural paragraph, which is based on loosely interpreted conjecture of Tacitus and Strabo. At no point does either Tacitus or Strabo state explicitly that the southern “weak” belgea where Celts and the north “another league” tribes where German and even if they did this is hardly worthy evidence as according to Tacitus if you have a home, wear a shield and like to travel, your German.

”Mostly French historians interpreted the last sentence as: all Belgians were Gauls, and they were the bravest amongst them. A closer examination of Caesar's texts, together with comments of Strabo and Tacitus ("Germania", par 28) reveal that only the southern Belgian tribes were Gauls, the northern ones were Germanic. So only those southern Gaulish Belgians were " the bravest amongst the Gauls". Caesar had severe problems in subduing the northern tribes who clearly fought in another league. Bloody Sacha (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Caesar and the Belgae

By hazard, we found this removal:

• 12:57, 11 March 2005 213.219.183.206 (Talk) (remove Belgae page paste job of 193.128.236.66) (undo)

of this edit:

• (cur) (last) 12:15, 11 March 2005 BerndGehrmann (Talk | contribs) m (de:) (undo)

I reproduce the removed text here.

The Belgae were a group of nations or tribes living in north-eastern Gaul, on the west bank of the Rhine, in the 1st century BC, and later also attested in Britain. Their name survives in modern Belgium.

Julius Caesar in his De Bello Gallico divided the people of Gaul at the time of his conquests (58 - 51 BC) into three broad groups: the Aquitani, Galli (who in their own language were called Celtae) and Belgae, all of whom had their own customs and language. He noted that the Belgae, being furthest from the developed civilisation of Rome and closest to the Germans, were the bravest of the three.

Origins of the Belgae

Whether the Belgae were Celts or Germans occupied 19th century and early 20th century historians. Caesar claims that most of the Belgae were descended from tribes who had long ago crossed the Rhine from Germania. However most of the tribal and personal names recorded are identifiably Celtic. It seems likely that the Belgae had a mixture of Celtic and Germanic ancestry. Perhaps they were Germanic people ruled by a Celtic élite, or were a political alliance of Celtic and Germanic tribes.

Tribes who belonged to the Belgae included the Remi, Bellovaci, Suessiones, Nervii, Atrebates, Ambiani, Morini, Menapii, Caleti, Veliocasses and Viromandui. Caesar says one tribe, the Atuatuci, were descended from the Germanic Cimbri and Teutones, and describes four others, the Condrusi, Eburones, Caerosi and Paemani, as German tribes (although Ambiorix, a later leader of the Eburones, has a Celtic name). Other tribes that may have been included among the Belgae were the Leuci, Treveri, Tungri and Mediomatrici. Posidonius includes the Armoricani in Brittany as well.

Conquest of the Belgae

Caesar conquered the Belgae, beginning in 57 BC. He writes that the Belgae were conspiring and arming themselves in response to his earlier conquests, and in response to this threat he raised two new legions and ordered his Gallic allies the Aedui to invade the territory of the Bellovaci. Wary of the numbers and bravery of the Belgae, he initially avoided a pitched battle, resorting mainly to cavalry skirmishes to probe their strengths and weaknesses. Once he was satisfied his troops were a match for them, he made camp on a low hill protected by a marsh at the front and the river Aisne behind, near Bibrax (between modern Laon and Reims) in the territory of the Remi.

The Belgae attacked over the river, but were repulsed after a fierce battle. Realising they could not dislodge the Romans and aware of the approach of the Aedui to the lands of the Bellovaci, the Belgae decided to disband their combined force and return to their own lands. Whichever tribe Caesar attacked first, the others would come to its defence. They broke camp shortly before midnight. At daybreak, satisfied the retreat was not a trap, Caesar sent cavalry to harrass the rearguard, followed by three legions, and many of the Belgae were killed.

Caesar next marched into the territory of the Suessiones and besieged the town of Noviodunum (Soissons). Seeing the Romans' siege engines, the Suessiones surrendered, and Caesar turned his attention to the Bellovaci, who had retreated into the fortress of Bratuspantium (between modern Amiens and Beauvais). They quickly surrendered, as did the Ambiani.

The Nervii, along with the Atrebates, Viromandui, decided to fight (the Atuatuci had also agreed to join them but had not yet arrived). They concealed themselves in the forests and attacked the approaching Roman column at the river Sambre. Their attack was so quick and unexpected that some of the Romans didn't have time to take the covers off their shields or even put on their helmets. The element of surprise briefly left the Romans exposed. However Caesar grabbed a shield, made his way to the front line, and quickly organised his forces. The two legions who had been guarding the baggage train at the rear arrived and helped to turn the tide of the battle. Caesar says the Nervii were almost anihilated in the battle, and is is effusive in his tribute to their bravery, calling them "heroes".

The Atuatuci, who were marching to their aid, turned back on hearing of the defeat and retreated to one stronghold, were put under siege, and soon surrendered and handed over their arms. However the surrender was a ploy, and the Atuatuci, armed with weapons they had hidden, tried to break out during the night. The Romans had the advantage of position and killed four thousand. The rest, about fifty-three thousand, were sold into slavery.

In 53 BC Ambiorix of the Eburones wiped out 15 cohorts and the Eburones, Nervii, Menapii and Morinii revolted again only to be put down by Caesar. The Belgae fought in the uprising of Vercingetorix in 52 BC.

After their final subjugation, Caesar combined the three parts of Gaul, the territory of the Belgae, Celtae and Aquitani into a single unwieldy province (Gallia Comata, "long-haired Gaul") that was reorganized by Augustus Caesar into its traditional cultural divisions. The province of Gallia Belgica was bounded on its east by the Rhine and extended all the way from the North Sea to Lake Constance (Lacus Brigantinus), including parts of what is now western Switzerland, with its capital at the city of the Remi (Reims). Under Diocletian, Belgica Prima (capital, Augusta Trevirorum, Trier) and Belgica Secunda (capital Reims) formed part of the diocese of Gaul.

The Belgae outside Gaul

The Belgae had made their way across the English Channel into southern England in Caesar's time (Bello Gallica ii:4 and v:12), and settled in some of the southern counties where among their towns were Magnus Portus (Portsmouth) and Venta Belgarum (Winchester).

It is likely that a branch of the Belgae also settled in Ireland, represented by the historical Builg and the mythological Fir Bolg

• My question is: is this text completely useless? Had it been copied blindly from an existing source? Or could at least parts of it be used? Then, for what reasons was it removed completely? Ad43 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the entire text of the Belgae article as it stood at that time had been copied and pasted into this article, creating a massive unnecessary duplication. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Of course that must be avoided. A certain overlap should be allowed, but a proper demarcation is needed. Anyhow, a couple of cross-references would be helpful. Or better: shouldn't both articles be merged in the first place? Ad43 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Today part of..." listing somehow leaves off both Andorra and Monaco - why?

"Today part of" lists:

Belgium

France

Luxembourg

Germany

Netherlands

Yet somehow leaves off the sister-Romance nations of France Andorra and Monaco.

yours,

Sean Thomas YEARWOOD

Gallia Belgica ("Belgian Gaul"), as opposed to greater Gaul which it was part of, simply did not stretch that far south.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)