Talk:Galatia

message: A sample of contemporary Gallic music from Anatolia:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjRokAijvS4&mode=related&search=  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.151.46 (talk) 07:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
They were an intermixture of Gauls and Greeks, and hence were called Gallo-Graeci, and the country Gallo-Graecia. I have cut this from Eaton's Dictionary as the indigenous inhabitants of central Anatolia, though marginally hellenized, were not Greeks. Wetman 06:04, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Galatian Music

message: "it is claimed that the Galatian invasion of 275 BC gave modern Turkey a smattering of the present-day population who have red hair and green eyes." I moved this here, as no responsible such claim would be made in print, in view of more than a millennium of slave trade with the north, which is likely to have had its effects on the population mix. See Varangian for some details. --Wetman 21:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "red hair and green eyes" 

message: Could it be possible that the facts in this article be sourced? This would make back-checking facts easier and wikipedia in general more reputable. Robotbeat 12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Could someone here who knows the subject area help expand/correct the Ptolemy Keraunos article? I want to add to that article the relevant material here about Brennus and/or Bolgius (not mentioned in this article, but mentioned here), but I am confused because there seem to be inconsistencies:
1 - "In 279, a new enemy appeared in what is now northern Bulgaria: the Galatians. They belonged to the La Tène-culture, which had its heartland in northeastern France and southern Germany. In the fifth and fourth centuries, it had expanded to the west into the countries where people spoke a language that modern scholars call 'Celtic'. Because the Greeks used the word 'Celt' to describe all barbarians in the west (except for those on the British isles), twentieth-century scholars have used the word 'Celtic' to describe all La Tène-people, even when they did not live in the west and did not speak a Celtic language. Therefore, the Galatians are sometimes called Celts, which is in fact incorrect but has the advantage that people immediately understand that the Galatians were savages." and "In the spring of 279, their leader Bolgius invaded Macedonia, and when Keraunos offered battle, he was defeated, captured, and decapitated."
2 - "Ptolemy Keraunos was killed in the wars against the Gauls of Bolgius and Brennus, who were migrating to what became known as Galatia."
3 - "The Galatians were in their origin a part of that great Celtic migration which invaded Macedon, led by the 'second' Brennus, a Gaulish chief. He invaded Greece in 281 BCE with a huge warband and was turned back in the nick of time from plundering the temple of Apollo at Delphi. At the same time, another Gaulish group were migrating with their women and children through Thrace. They had split off from Brennus' Gauls in 279 BCE, and had migrated into Thrace under their leaders Leonnorius and Lutarius. These Gaulish invaders appeared in Asia Minor in 278–277 BCE; others invaded Macedon, killed the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy Ceraunus but were eventually ousted by Antigonus Gonatas, the grandson of the defeated diadoch Antigonus the One-Eyed." 
I've also copied this to Ptolemy Keraunos. Thanks for any advice/help. Carcharoth 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied to it on Talk:Ptolemy Keraunos Septentrionalis 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ptolemy Keraunos

message: This section of narrative has a sequential problem with the dating.  It seems the author lost track of BCE and contemporary CE dating, leaving a chronology that has sequential problems.  According to the text, the Galations invaded Greece in 281 BCE, led by Brennus, yet another group of Galatians had split "off from Brennus Gauls in 279" BCE, which is 2 years later, even though the text seems to presume it was 2 years earlier.  This needs to be fixed...  I have excerpted the text below for easier reference...
"by the 'second' Brennus, a Gaulish chief. He invaded Greece in 281 BC with a huge warband and was turned back in the nick of time from plundering the temple of Apollo at Delphi. At the same time, another Gaulish group were migrating with their women and children through Thrace. They had split off from Brennus' Gauls in 279 BC, and had migrated into Thrace under their leaders Leonnorius and Lutarius. These Gaulish invaders appeared in Asia Minor in 278–277 BC;   Stevenmitchell 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incongruity of Dating Used

message: I have moved this here, so that someone who understands it can re-edit it and return it to the article Wetman 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gallic colonies were continued by the Franks." 
"Gallic" in English is not an equivalent of Gaulish. What connection with medieval crusaders in Asia Minor is being asserted here, and on what grounds, to what purpose?. Wetman 06:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: impenetrable unsourced assertion

message: What did the bible have to say about the Galatians, their pre-christian religion, their customs, etc? Castravalva (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No way I'm wading into the morass of this article, but regarding your question, Castravalva, there is a really interesting book that looks at how Paul the Apostle tailors his message to his Galatian audience: Susan Elliott, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 248 (London: T&T Clark International, 2003). Unfortunately, no Google Books preview, but an information page here. As the subtitle indicates, Elliott takes seriously the traditional religious environment that Paul militates against. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible

message: The map is okay except that it features Lydia in yellow and not Galatia! We need to have one with Galatia in yellow. Student7 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: This paragraph is baffling:
'Seeing something of a Hellenized savage in the Galatians, Francis Bacon and other Renaissance writers inaccurately called them "Gallo-Graeci," and the country "Gallo-Graecia".'
There is an embedded note exclaiming something about Gallograeci not being a 'Roman' name. Assuming Latin is meant (and it may not be), this is false. Gallograeci is indeed used in Latin, even during the Republic, to refer to the Galatians, though sometimes they are just Galli. If Bacon et al. use the word, they've gotten it from the ancient sources. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans regarded the Gauls/Celts/Galatians as "savages" per se, though they might view them as savage warriors; they were considered barbarians, which is not the same thing. (Some Greeks regarded the Romans as barbarians, but not "savages" in the sense of primitive.) Cynwolfe (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallograeci

message: This article is fairly comprehensive from the perspective of Biblical scholarship which is good.  However it seems to ignore most of the Roman history.  Although the Galatians were called Galatae by the Romans, shouldn't we flush out the latter history, providing a bit more continuity.  The Galatians didn't simply disappear but played a large part in Roman history, and featured a fairly dominant spot in Roman Historical sources.
For example in Strabo's Geography, Book VII, Ch.1  we find mention of how the Galatians were renamed by the Romans.  Again in [Geography, Book VII, Ch. 2  the Galatians interacted with the Cimbri etc.  Similarly other sources make mention too, such as Polybius, Diodorus, etc. all record subsequent history of the Galatians which could clarify this articles latter history.  
I can understand that most interest in the Galatians may stem from a Biblical interest, but I'm still somewhat surprised that this article hasn't flushed out the subsequent Roman history as I would think the latter history of the Galatians as Galatae would be of interest and the article the richer.  Thoughts?  LinuxDude (talk)
:Sure Why not? As long as the meter of the rest of the article isn't messed up. Just be sure that the authors are trustworthy from the distance of the 21st century. Some observations may no longer be perceived as correct. The problem (I assume) is organization of material and section titles. Good luck! Student7 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What about Roman History?