This man genocided over a million gauls, how come he isn't villified?

Yes

>Believing he killed aIllinois gauls

t. filthy Gaul lover.

gaul et delenda est

Caesar said the Gauls were extremely civilized compared to the Germanics he encountered. They had permanent settlements, fortifications, roads, trade routes, clothing, engaged in diplomacy, and so on.

>Who are the French

>Who are the French

A people with no cultural links to the Gauls due to a combination of Roman Conquest, Frankish Conquest, and thorough Christianization.

>A people with no cultural links to the Gauls
Wrong.
>combination of Roman Conquest
Wrong
>Frankish Conquest
Wrong
>Christianization
Wrong

Sacrebleu c'est lui une holocauste vraiment!

>muh one gorillion

Par for the course of human history

People are still too busy sucking his dick to notice all the shit he did.

I got some bad news for you, in 2000 years time nobody is going to care about modern genocides either. Hitler will be most reviled for being a failure, not for being murderous.

Great argument. Perhaps you should state why it is wrong instead of posting "wrong"

>The French aren't Gaulic meme
Great argument. Perhaps you should do some research in the future instead of being a moron.

It was revenge for the sack of Rome and the loss of the history of early Rome, which is more valuable than a bunch of Gauls.

Not the same guy, but the French do have pretty much no connections to the Gauls. If you disagree with that maybe you should explain why.

Remember this guy

Not him, but what do you mean by "connections"?
Genetically, there is no indication that any big population replacement happened.
I recall a paper by Ralph&Coop which hinted at the fact that Iberia, Italy and France pretty much weren't affected by the migration period that much. And makes sense really, Gallia was hugely populated even back then, you can hardly genetically shift a population that big.

I mean cultural connections. Gaulic is lost, there's no influence of it whatsoever on the french language, no traditions that can be tied to that are either ... So, yeah, there's still Vercingetorix but he's not really considered as a national hero and people wouldn't say the french nation begun with him.

Ah in that case most is lost, but are you sure there are no influences in the language? I assume the Gaulic substratum penetrated the Latin one in some way, no? I'm no expert on that so I don't know really.

I'm not an expert either, but from what I've read, only 150-200 words with strict Gaulic origin still remain in French.

However, Gaulic is still fairly misunderstood, so maybe it'll change in the future. In any case, it would stay irrelevant as to what most of the french consider their national identity.

>still retain between 200 to 300+ words of Gaulish origin in modern French despite influences of Latin and Vulgar Latin turning Gaulic into French
>more Celtic connection with their predecessors then the English
>Romanized Gauls assimilated the Franks and Normans later on
>"no connection"

You are pretty wrong.

Its over 200 words of Gaulic origin are still in use in modern French. Also Gauls/Romanized Gaulics pretty much assimilated everyone. They were never assimilated in turn. Hence why invaders were constantly merged into their fold genetically and culturally.

You keep saying I'm wrong but provides nothing. Either you do, or stop replying to my post, because this is leading to nothing.

Also 200 words is nothing. There's more words coming from English or Arabic than that.

30% of English is from French.
30% of English is from Latin.

Stop posting.

>English
So bastard French is your counter argument?

Who says anything about English ? Maybe you should pay a little more attention to other's posts.

>muh pure language
I suggest you pick up a book of linguistics. Any book would do, considering you obviosly start at nothing.

Bretons litteraly hug obelisks

Comfirmed for not knowing latin

Did somebody say French bastard?

I'm French and I don't care.

In fact, why should anyone even give a fuck ? They were savages.
Same goes for the american indians, you did well Ameribros.

>They were savages.

well meme'd my friend

>book of linguistics

He is as of late.
I know a few sjws who shove him into the same camp as Columbus and feel they should be portrayed as villains in history books.

> He believes in the Gaulocaust
> Muh one gaulillion

>portrayed as villains in history books
are history books supposed to be unbiased and impartial?

The modern French certainly have some connection to the Gauls, look at most French place names and population genetics.

However, culturally, linguistically and politically speaking the French are well and truly a Romance people. They have long since stopped being a Celtic people, arguing otherwise is equivalent to arguing that modern Turks are Hellenistic, or Croatians are Illyrian or Romance.

Of course, people frequently refer to the Irish as Celts, despite the fact that many of them are much more culturally similar to someone in Britain than their ancestors a few hundred years ago. Of course there are still Irish speakers alive, whereas the last Gaulic speakers died over a thousand years ago.

No slave morality saying you should feel bad for winning.