damian
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,915
I would suggest a read of Jonathan Glover's book Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century, for any who doubt Louis's observation here.
Regards
Damian
Ancient Celts- Pride or Prejudice??? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Currahee Chris
- Start date
I would suggest a read of Jonathan Glover's book Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century, for any who doubt Louis's observation here.
Regards
Damian
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,435
This is a very interesting thread to say the least but going back to my namesake's post early on in this thread I believe since it is the victors who write the history, they will label the losers with whatever tags they can to elevate the victors' feats. In addition, we often tend to characterize something as barbaric if we don't understand it. For example, our view of what we call "primitive societies" is, in fact, rather primitive since those societies may have had a rather developed hierarchical structure that at first blush we didn't understand or chose not to try to understand.
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
Completely agree Bob.
That's the reason why I've been holding off on any contributions. I'm waiting for this to get back onto Chris's original theme and read a few more opinions that relate to his post that kicked off this thread.
Having said that, some of the side-bar posts have been interesting in their own way as well.
Cheers
H
The remaining vestiges of Celtic culture are on the fringe of the territory they once dominated for some centuries. The earliest identifiable celtic culture (Halstatt/Le Tene) was in southern germany, southeast france northern switzerland areas. At some point they broke out or spread and either by battle or intimidation had a pretty far reaching dominion. They may have had a technilogical advantage with better metals in weapons and armor, but it can be assumed formed only a thin overlay in conquered areas, and rapidly mixed with the locals so to speak. They pushed down against both Greeks and Romans, and did make an impression by their appearence and ferocity.
But there is a strange transformation noticable in them. Ceaser's first move into Gaul was in response to a request by the Celts for his aid against Germanic tribes that were then invading over the Rhine. Ceaser defeated the German forces and then decided to take Gaul entire while he was there. The Gauls put up a spirited resistance but were of course defeated. From this moment on, Gaul was one of the calmest regions in the entire empire and rapidly assumed roman culture. For most of the time there was not a single legion stationed in gaul at all (say compare to 8 in the germanies). Only a small detachment of a few hundred was garrisoned in the regional capitol. The Celts here became very passive and when the western roman empire crumbled, were basically defenseless against the invading german tribes. They had loss all warlike skills.
My point is that every people have their time of barbaric ferocity, civilized flowering and stagnent decay. The cycle doesn't end of course and new groups are formed from bits and pieces of what was before. The most advanced region in the world around the mediteranean ( I am ignorant of other parts of the world) was the Middle east in the ealiest history (Ancient Mesopotamia) and again in the 600's AD, and probably again one day, at least it is to be hoped. For if they can, then it gives me hope we can, out of our own inevitable ashes.
But there is a strange transformation noticable in them. Ceaser's first move into Gaul was in response to a request by the Celts for his aid against Germanic tribes that were then invading over the Rhine. Ceaser defeated the German forces and then decided to take Gaul entire while he was there. The Gauls put up a spirited resistance but were of course defeated. From this moment on, Gaul was one of the calmest regions in the entire empire and rapidly assumed roman culture. For most of the time there was not a single legion stationed in gaul at all (say compare to 8 in the germanies). Only a small detachment of a few hundred was garrisoned in the regional capitol. The Celts here became very passive and when the western roman empire crumbled, were basically defenseless against the invading german tribes. They had loss all warlike skills.
My point is that every people have their time of barbaric ferocity, civilized flowering and stagnent decay. The cycle doesn't end of course and new groups are formed from bits and pieces of what was before. The most advanced region in the world around the mediteranean ( I am ignorant of other parts of the world) was the Middle east in the ealiest history (Ancient Mesopotamia) and again in the 600's AD, and probably again one day, at least it is to be hoped. For if they can, then it gives me hope we can, out of our own inevitable ashes.
UKReb
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,436
Most of our knowledge of ancient history is based on remains/archaeological digs and more importantly writings. Classical sources for the Celtic people are few and far between- primarily Posidonius and, as already mentioned, Caesar; and both saw them from their own particular perspective but we have no religious/cultural writings from the Celts themselves because as Caesar tells us the Celts were "prohibited" from writing things down.
Now I am absolutely no expert on Celtic culture just a life-time interest, same as Harry no doubt both being Brits, on where the hell we came from, because the British must be the only race made up of quite a cocktail of European and Mediterranean cultures.
What I have found in my study and travels (and it may not be correct) is that although there are many differences between the practices of European and British Celtic people there are also a lot of similarities. In fact a new wave of historians have suggested that Caesars simplistic geographical division of anyone north of the Rhine was Germanic and those south were Celtic was hopelessly wrong and both races were far more intermixed than Rome realised.
The South of England (where I live) was settled by the Belgic people and are definitely more closely tied to the Continental Celts while the North (sorry Harry) remained more insular. This I put down simply as trade across the English Channel and because Ireland had even less contact with Europe for hundreds of years is why they maintained their Celtic culture the longest.
Getting a bit heavy now but still a fascinating thread
Reb
Now I am absolutely no expert on Celtic culture just a life-time interest, same as Harry no doubt both being Brits, on where the hell we came from, because the British must be the only race made up of quite a cocktail of European and Mediterranean cultures.
What I have found in my study and travels (and it may not be correct) is that although there are many differences between the practices of European and British Celtic people there are also a lot of similarities. In fact a new wave of historians have suggested that Caesars simplistic geographical division of anyone north of the Rhine was Germanic and those south were Celtic was hopelessly wrong and both races were far more intermixed than Rome realised.
The South of England (where I live) was settled by the Belgic people and are definitely more closely tied to the Continental Celts while the North (sorry Harry) remained more insular. This I put down simply as trade across the English Channel and because Ireland had even less contact with Europe for hundreds of years is why they maintained their Celtic culture the longest.
Getting a bit heavy now but still a fascinating thread
Reb
The Rhine as a rough line between germanic and celtic peoples (probably more a east-west division) was certainly not true initially. At the time of celtic expansion celts were on both sides, and the germanic peoples still up north in scandinavia. But just to qualify here, there were already peoples, and probably several waves of people there in Europe prior to the celtic culture period. The celts themselves most likely were just a group of them that set up a more organized system and worked together, and assimilated their neighbors into there system.
But I think Ceaser knew that the Rhine was not a definative line and that some on the western bank claimed to be germanic (the Belgae ?), but I haven't read him in a while. Tacticus who came not too long after, and wrote specifically on the subject has celts and germanics on both sides of the Rhine, and frankly states with some tribes no one knows what they are. But he says that when in doubt, the tribe itself always claims the germanic decent. At this time, the germanic where already considered stronger militarily.
Uthred
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 372
One of the many things I enjoy along with understanding history is reading about the ancient celtic societies of areas like Scandanavia and the UK- Britain, Wales, Ireland and those people north of Hadrians wall
Time and again, we hear these people being described in textbooks, academia, etc as barbarians- were they really that bad??? Let's face it, the Romans were like some absurd fraternity that got murderously out of control- to the Romans, they were barbaric but the historical and archaeological record shows that Rome and other "Advanced" Societies were horrifically brutal for centuries. Why is that we just assume that since the ancient celts may have been somewhat unsophisticated by any reasonable measure, why does that mean they should be judged as barbarians??
Anyone else ever wonder about this- why does it seem like ancient celtic traditions and society are generally judged as barbaric when Rome, Greece, etc are judged somewhat less harshly. I find myself constantly fascinated when I read about the amazing seamanship and shipbuilding skills of the ancient viking cultures- just incredible!! Granted, the vikings were brutal and violent but where they any worse than any of the other socieities of their time?? I dunno- it just seems like these socities have just received such a bad shake and I think we have all just went along with it for so long that we don't sit back and say- hey, wait a minute here.
Well, Chris, Barbarians do not mean technologically challenged or uncivilized. What Barbarian originally meant was someone who spoke in a different language and had a different culture than the Greeks. The Romans used the word for anyone living outside their Empire, and Medieval monks used to those that attacked churches, monasteries and christianity in general.
Over time, under the generic term Barbarians, one could include such peoples as the Persians, who had a great civilization, the Celts, who were masters in metalurgy and poetry, for example, and the Vikings, kings of the ocean trade and raiding. I do not think the term Barbarian is prejudicial, except in a midia context, because sometimes we may hear someone call Bin Laden or Pol Pot Barbarians. But that is using this word completely out of context, really. These gentlemen are criminals, not Barbarians...
Uthred
debrito
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,435
The Celts did burn Rome to the ground not bad for so called Barbarians.
Great thread (a little deep for me) but very interesting
Peace.
The English (in between a cup or two of TEA) dropped more the 8 tons of bombs in Dresden, killing more than 100 000 peoples...Not too bad for the Civilized People
Evzone
Corporal
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 501
To be precise it's the British I think you are referring to rather than the English. Sarcastic comments of cups of tea I don't think is fair on the tens of thousands of airmen Bomber Command lost in WW2. I believe it wasn't in vain to stop the Nazis conducting their evil and barbaric reign of terror.
You are welcome to your opinion and I'm not defending Bomber Harris strategic air campaign, but if you're going to make a point a least make it with substance.
debrito
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,435
(Sorry for my English)
I always think that in the world today we tend to hide behind TWO words: Civilized and Democracy. In my point of view none of these really exist. On my previous post I just reply saying that civilized countries committee terrible thing as non-civilized one does….or did. Concerning Dresden, if we thinking as civilized people that bombing campaign were more than a CRIME that anything else, but in the same time I believe that there is no rule in a WAR…. So it was fair?
German was already defeated, it was just a matter of time, and I don’t see any military reason for bombing a city that had double its population with civilians trying and to escape from the Russians. We all know that for the western allies, the WWII was an AIR war they try to avoid ground confrontation as many as possible so it is normal that they suffered many losses from the air-battles, n’est-ce pas…and concerning the tea I think with all respect, that it is a big tradition in Great Britain to have a TEA break, I think by saying that I do not offended nobody and if I did, sorry for that….
Rod.
Evzone
Corporal
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 501
I think modern spin doctors would consign Dresden as a PR disaster in the post-war analysis of British bombing strategy. It is well documented in the British press the criticism Harris got then and still to this day for bombing Dresden, Cologne etc in the final days of WW2.
The area where I grew up in London was heavily bombed by the Luftwaffe. Although, I missed it all thankfully by a good 20 years, the elders who influenced my informative years remained anti-German throughout the post-war period and viewed the allied bombing campaign as retribution.
Personally I've always found it hard to come to terms with the sinking of the French fleet in 1940, but I can understand why it was done. Latterly, the sinking of the Belgrano has attracted much debate. Hard decisions lead to tragic consequences.
The area where I grew up in London was heavily bombed by the Luftwaffe. Although, I missed it all thankfully by a good 20 years, the elders who influenced my informative years remained anti-German throughout the post-war period and viewed the allied bombing campaign as retribution.
Personally I've always found it hard to come to terms with the sinking of the French fleet in 1940, but I can understand why it was done. Latterly, the sinking of the Belgrano has attracted much debate. Hard decisions lead to tragic consequences.
Uthred
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 372
The Celts did burn Rome to the ground not bad for so called Barbarians.
Great thread (a little deep for me) but very interesting
Peace.
Well, Ragnar, burning cities was a hobby among the Roman. The Celts, and later the Vandals, only made the Romans taste their own poison...
Uthred
Uthred
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 372
Here we have an example of the word 'barbaric' used in conjunction with the nazis (not really a people, rather the members of a political party) and this illustrates my point perfectly. The nazis were not 'barbaric' in the original sense of the word. Sure they commited war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they could be callled something else (monstruous, for instance) and we would understand the sentence just the same.
The real problem is that the Barbarians, all of them, had a terrible press in the past. Monks and scribes were counted among their enemies, not their allies. That's why one should be careful when using the word "barbarian" out of the context, one could be implying the Barbarians, the original ones, were bad, specially cruel or uncivilized, and that's not true. At least for many of the peoples we refer generically as the Barbarians.
Uthred
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,349
An interesting thread for sure and I hope we all try to keep our personal views less.......personal
Back to the so called barbarians. It should be noted that recent discoveries enabled via ground penetrating technology indicates that large towns and cities (civilizations) were much more common and widespread during the early ages than previously believed.
The simple fact is that the large towns and cities that had buildings (large and small) made of wood did not endure for long in the wetter climates. Conversely, buildings in dry climates that had few trees but plenty of stone building materials endure to this day such as the Pyramids and Greek buildings. Little wonder then that for so long the enduring dry climate buildings were viewed as being proof of "better" civilizations.
Back to the so called barbarians. It should be noted that recent discoveries enabled via ground penetrating technology indicates that large towns and cities (civilizations) were much more common and widespread during the early ages than previously believed.
The simple fact is that the large towns and cities that had buildings (large and small) made of wood did not endure for long in the wetter climates. Conversely, buildings in dry climates that had few trees but plenty of stone building materials endure to this day such as the Pyramids and Greek buildings. Little wonder then that for so long the enduring dry climate buildings were viewed as being proof of "better" civilizations.
Evzone
Corporal
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 501
Uthred I'm pleased I've illusrated your point perfectly. But I'm afraid to say that despite my thick anglo-saxon head (were they orginally barbarians?) the Nazis were barbaric to my mind and to a lot of people I know- take it all leave it. BTW you do make your point most articulatly and interestingly, most enjoyable read.
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,367
Human beings haven't evolved a bit in 25,000 years. We are all barbaric, some of us are just better able to hide our barbaric nature behind a thin mask we call civilization. Ancient Rome was called civilized, yet regularly massacred thousands in gladiatorial games. Before and during the rise of the Nazis, Germany's technology and culture would certainly have been considered highly civilized. During the middle ages, weren't both christendom and islam fond of referring to themselves as civilized and their rivals as barbarians? Frankly, I wouldn't trust any of our present day civilized governments as far as I could throw them. If murder, mayhem and destruction is in any government's political or economic interest, I would be willing to lay odds our present civilized nations would sign right up.