Brennus,
"««Secondly , the aboriginal cultures that the Romans found in Spain (both Iberian and Celtic) were more primitive than those they found in Gaul. The same was true of Britain. Therefore, it was eaiser for Spaniards to make the transition to Romanization than for Gauls.»» "
What you say is completely amazing, how can you write this without realizing it is a pure nonsense.
What do you mean by "Primitive", technologies?
It does not mean these peoples did not have their own society with their own rules, language.
That's silly.
If we follow what you say, why aren't the aborigenas integrated to the actual white australian society.
Why the american indians aren't integrated in the us society.
# Anthropology. A person belonging to a nonindustrial, often tribal society, especially a society characterized by a low level of economic complexity.
# An unsophisticated person.
# One that is at a low or early stage of development.
#
1. One belonging to an early stage in the development of an artistic trend, especially a painter of the pre-Renaissance period.
2. An artist having or affecting a simple, direct, unschooled style, as of painting.
3. A self-taught artist.
4. A work of art created by a primitive artist.
About the Gauls, it was the opposite, the societies were very similar between between inhabitants of Gauls and Romans. Because of buziness, similar religion (composed of different gods: one for wine, one for war...), Mediteranean sea and natural communications: foundation of Nice and Marseille by the greeks.
Posters should really be trying to relate their posts to language as much as possible. In this particular case, my argument is that peoples with higher levels of culture or civilization have a better chance of keeping all or some of their language than people in more primitive societies. For example, European colonialism never eliminated Hindi, Chinese or Japanese but did lead to the demise of many tribal languages.
---Brennus
"««Secondly , the aboriginal cultures that the Romans found in Spain (both Iberian and Celtic) were more primitive than those they found in Gaul. The same was true of Britain. Therefore, it was eaiser for Spaniards to make the transition to Romanization than for Gauls.»» "
What you say is completely amazing, how can you write this without realizing it is a pure nonsense.
What do you mean by "Primitive", technologies?
It does not mean these peoples did not have their own society with their own rules, language.
That's silly.
If we follow what you say, why aren't the aborigenas integrated to the actual white australian society.
Why the american indians aren't integrated in the us society.
# Anthropology. A person belonging to a nonindustrial, often tribal society, especially a society characterized by a low level of economic complexity.
# An unsophisticated person.
# One that is at a low or early stage of development.
#
1. One belonging to an early stage in the development of an artistic trend, especially a painter of the pre-Renaissance period.
2. An artist having or affecting a simple, direct, unschooled style, as of painting.
3. A self-taught artist.
4. A work of art created by a primitive artist.
About the Gauls, it was the opposite, the societies were very similar between between inhabitants of Gauls and Romans. Because of buziness, similar religion (composed of different gods: one for wine, one for war...), Mediteranean sea and natural communications: foundation of Nice and Marseille by the greeks.
Posters should really be trying to relate their posts to language as much as possible. In this particular case, my argument is that peoples with higher levels of culture or civilization have a better chance of keeping all or some of their language than people in more primitive societies. For example, European colonialism never eliminated Hindi, Chinese or Japanese but did lead to the demise of many tribal languages.
---Brennus