Celtic/roman Culture

[Augustus]

Im 3/4 irish and a quater dutch, i live in England, im pagan, im a fair hand with a sword and a dead shot with a bow, i have long brown hair and a beard, im 17 and i dont like Romans, does that make me celtic ? what is celtic? i mean how can you class the majority of europe in the iron age as one Celtic people, why dont you use the tribe names ? Helveti, Brigantines, Iceni ?

So I am a Basqueman, and my ancestors served in the Roman Army! Plus a bow is no match for a balista, muhahaha!

And we can class the Celts because they had a generally uniform culture, religion, and language.

[Guest Carpe Jugulum 2 lost password]

ive got a latin name because i mlike the motto, and it sounds better

[Fatboy]

Hmmmn, I suppose I better try and contribute to this thread instead of boasting of my Celtic credentials, possibly at the risk of exposing my shamefully patchy knowledge about ancient Celtic culture

It seem's to me that once conquered, many Celtic tribes would have very little trouble adjusting to the Romanistion of their culture. By the time of Caesars conquest of Gaul for instance, they had been in contact with the Romans for hundreds of years, and the Greeks and various other metropolitan civilisations for hundreds of years before that. Its hard to imagine a Celtic warrior who had lived for in Alexandria while serving as a mercenary finding Romanisation too much of a culture shock.

Celts were not quite the illiterate savages they are made out to be, the lack of a written legacy was mostly a cultural decision. The Druids specifically prohibited the writing down of their traditions and knowledge as it would detract from their own power and importance as the " gatekeepers " of tribal culture.When dealing with purely practical things, the Celts wrote all the time, they simply used Greek or Latin characters to write their own language.The appearance of Roman writers of Celtic stock - Cornelius Nepos etc - so early in Roman history suggests the intellectual leap necessary was not too great.

When it comes to things such as building and urbanisation, the Celts are also underrated ( though only slightly ). They had bulit quite an extensive road network accross northern Europe long before the Romans arrived there.Using Caesar's conquest of Gaul as an example again, his armies were not trudging intrepidly through untamed wilderness, they moved quickly along the road network - and they weren't building them as they went along, they were Celtic roads.

Analysis of Caesars campigns against Vercingetorix clearly shows a relatively civilised landscape of towns and farmland, and an enemy well schooled in the art of military tactics, organisation and manuvre, even if this degenerated into the famous wild frontal charge when battle was joined.

Celtic culture was never really interested in urbanisation, but nevertheless they founded a great many, sometimes quite large towns. Cities such as Milan, Como and Turin were supposedly founded by Celts.

Their technology in metalworking and weaponry was, as everyone knows, very advanced too.

My object here, I should stress, is not to play up the achievments of Celtic culture. I think on the whole, the image of the Celts handed down to us through history is probably quite fair. I mean, when compared to the Romans; their roads were poor, their towns tiny, their armies a rabble, technology inferior and their culture the oral tradition of a backward people - definitely barbarians to an urbane Roman citizen.

As Ursus says the Celts were only on the way to developing proper civilisation ( If at all ).

I guess I'm trying to point out how intertwined Roman and Celtic culture was for such a long time and how a mix of Celtic and Roman beliefs/attitudes is not contradictory at all, as the Celts were so deeply influenced by the Romans even before being absorbed by them.

I'm quite ignorant of the intricacies of this for everyday life, but certainly, in most places Celtic religion and customs coexisted effortlessly with Roman influences and institutions quite soon after capitulation to the Empire/Republic.

Roman writers repeatedly refer to the Celts as eloquent speakers, which suggests a large degree of empathy with the motivations and ideals expressed by them. The famous speech of the captured Celtic chieftain Caratacos in AD 51 when brought before Emperor Claudius defeated and in chains, certainly struck a chord with the Romans, who recognised the heroic values he espoused and gave him a comfortable retirement in the country instead of the usual treatment handed out to Vercingetorix et al.

So I feel the Roman and Celtic world views were different but certainly not irreconcilable and their cultures blended quite easily.

 

Oh, also

QUOTE " they seemed to believe in reincarnation "

Yes, they belived in two related dimensions, the world we live in and the Otherworld, when you died in this one you went to the Otherworld and when you died there you came back again. And yeah, you certainly would be concerned with what you left behind in this life if you thought you'd be coming back again soon

[Augustus]

Why dont you use the tribe names ? Helveti, Brigantines, Iceni ?

The Helvetii were a Germanic tribe.

[Ursus]

Nice post, fatboy. I never knew about the Celtic road network. Interesting.

 

I plan to do some serious research on the links between Celtic and Roman societies that occured after Roman conquest.

 

I suppose the greatest difference between the two cultures would be the status of women, with Rome being somewhat less accomodating. Indeed, most of the modern Celtic pagans I have met are actually progressive leaning, feminist type women who came to Celtic culture precisely because they were looking for a system that was friendly to their feminist politics.

[Zeke]

Intresting discussion we got going here....

I never knew the Celts built roads either

 

Zeke

[Zeke]

Yes I have heard the situation in the present day country of Italy is quite odd. In the North it is heavlily industirlized and looks like a western European advanced country. While south of Rome it is like Albania or something with huge farms that are really poor.

 

Zeke

[Ursus]

This thread actually inspired me to read a book by one of the world's foremost Celtophiles. I'll leave the review here rather than in the Media forum since it's not Roman based. Oh, Happy St. Patrick's day.

 

The Celts: A History

Peter Berresford Ellis

 

I have always been woefully ignorant of the Celts. In a desperate attempt to remedy that malady, I bought Ellis' book. There is also a certain overlap between Celtic and Roman histories, and I felt as a Romanophile I needed to know something about the other side.

 

Ellis first tackles the subject of the Celt's alleged illiteracy. He then outlines several sectors of Celtic society. He then offers some examples of Celtic high cultural achievements. Finally, he gives us a sketch of Celtic history from distant origins to Christian conversion.

 

Ellis writes in a clear and organized manner, and I had no problem digesting all the unfamiliar information he was throwing at me. There are times when he goes unncessarily the extra mile to drive home a point, but I stop far short of calling his style pedantic. Indeed, he manages to cram much information in a book that is suprisingly short and light. There are also some pictures and illustrations buried throughout the book, and suggestions for further reading.

 

I am now better acquainted with the Celts, and more respectful of their achievements which have been underrated by society. I have even developed an interest in furthering my studies on the matter. In that sense, Ellis achieved his aims, at least with this reader.

 

However, I am not going to bestow this work with an unqualified rating. There are some serious issues in the manner in which it is presented. For one thing, since most writings on the Celts come to us from Greco-Roman sources, there has always been an issue of how much we can trust the alleged biases of a people who were often at war with the Celts. For Ellis, there seems to be a double standard. When the classical authors say something about the Celts that make them seem smart and cool, he readily embraces their views. When the Classical authors say the slightest negative thing about the Celts, Ellis dismisses them as evil propagandists.

 

How convenient.

 

The author waxes eloquent about the achievements of the Celts and is always comparing them to other ancient societies, usually the Romans for whom Ellis seems to sneer in high contempt. As a Romanophile, I can see Ellis' own biases and prejudices against Roman society. Does being a good Celtophile mean despising the Romans? I don't think so, but then I'm admittedly biased myself as a Romanophile. I would have loved Ellis to devote more time to the fascinating subject of Celto-Roman society, where the cultures and the religions of the conquerers and conquered co-existed more or less peacefully and the Celts became valued members of Romans society. Ellis seems to largely gloss over these centuries of history. Again, conveniently.

 

Let's take the Celtic achievements in perspective. The Celts did build roads and buildings. But they built them with wood, which is prone to rotting. This is why few Celtic constructions have survived today, and why most people don't associate Celts with engineering feats. The Romans, on the other hand, built with stone and marble, which is why many of their creations are still around and why we marvel at their works.

 

Ellis points out the Celts could write when they had to, but otherwise frowned on doing so as the Druidic caste did not want to lose its intellectual control over the people, or have its knowledge stolen by enemies. Fine. But the fact remains that the ancient Celts didn't write things down. Which means most of their legacy necessarily comes to us through the eyes of hostile Greek and Roman contacts. Let's not complain that Caesar slandered the Celts in his writings; if the Druidic caste had not been so paranoid and parochial, they could have let the Celts speak for themselves, and we wouldn't have to rely on Caesar's biased accounts for our knowledge of Celtic society.

 

The image the Romans left us of the Celts as being illiterate, savage warriors may not be totally accurate. But all in all I do find that Ellis overstates his case in trying to correct the image. The basic theme of the Celts being less advanced than their Mediterranean and Oriental peers is I think still deserved on the whole. The contributions that the Celtic peoples made within the framework of Romanization would make a fascinating subject, but neither Ellis nor many other Celtophiles seem especially interested in the subject.

 

Ellis dissmisses academics critical of Celtic society as having an agenda against modern Celtic nationalism. I wonder if Ellis has his own agenda in the opposite direction.

 

As I said, I have a greater appreciation for the Celts and am inspired to learn more about them, and I thank the author for that. But I do feel there is some sort of agenda here to make the Celts the greatest thing since sliced bread, and conversely to turn Rome into the boogeyman of the Ancient World. The Celts lost the war with Caesar; get over it already

[Primus Pilus]

Excellent review Ursus. You are both inspiring and embarrassing me for not putting my nose to the grindstone and writing some more

[Ursus]

You do enough for the site as it is, PP. You have a nice little summary of Roman history going. A treasure trove for students and Romanophiles everywhere.

[Ursus]

With Samhain coming up, I think I'll bump some older Celtic threads. Maybe some of the new members of the forum would like to add anything.