Why Celtics And Romans Never Got Along

[Guest max]

why did they both hate each other... Can that hate be related to stonehenge

[Viggen]

Well i am aware that most people associate Celts with British Isles and Gaul,

 

BUT, around 200 BC under the leadership of the naurici 13 celtic/illyric tribes formed with some influence by the romans the only celtic kingdom that ever existed (as far as i know) 8 tribes are known by name, Ambidraven, Ambilinen, Ambisonten, Helvetii, Laianken, Norici, Saevaten and Uperaken

 

The celts (Taurisci, called Norici by the Romans) in Austria (Noricum) made already a pact of friendship in 170 BC with the romans (King Cincibilus)

 

In 49 BC Voccio then King of the Norici even helped Julius Caesar against Pompey

 

and were from BC 16 mostly peacefully incorporated into the roman empire and slowly assimilated by the romans but still had their own kings for a while...

 

so not every celt hated the Romans!

[Guest max]

Well i am aware that most people associate Celts with British Isles and Gaul,

 

BUT, around 200 BC under the leadership of the naurici 13 celtic/illyric tribes formed with some influence by the romans the only celtic kingdom that ever existed (as far as i know) 8 tribes are known by name, Ambidraven, Ambilinen, Ambisonten, Helvetii, Laianken, Norici, Saevaten and Uperaken

 

The celts (Taurisci, called Norici by the Romans) in Austria (Noricum) made already a pact of friendship in 170 BC with the romans (King Cincibilus)

 

In 49 BC Voccio then King of the Norici even helped Julius Caesar against Pompey

 

and were from BC 16 mostly peacefully incorporated into the roman empire and slowly assimilated by the romans but still had their own kings for a while...

 

so not every celt hated the Romans!

 

But they were constantly fighting.. wars and battles... obviously it wasnt for territory cus with the celtics, the Romans always formed borders.. Like the adrian wall... (sp) even with the borders the celtics would still attack the romans and the romans would to the celts too...

[longbow]

As the Romans advanced the Empire they were Advancing into Celtic lands (in the western case).So the Romans nearly allways had to fight the native tribes who occupied these territories.The Celts wouldnt allow the Romans to take over there homeland and there culture without a fight.

Hadrians wall was built as a defence against the Caledonii tribe but it was allso a statement to the people in Rome,a defenite barrier on the edge of the known world,the limit of the Roman Empire.But the Caledonii people didnt care about that,to them it was a Roman barrier built over there homeland.

[Viggen]

i dont want to be nitpicking but behind the Hadrian Wall lived the Picts and it is not proven that those people were celtic...

 

cheers

viggen

[longbow]

Yeah your correct Viggen,the Picti lived north of the wall from the 3rd century-9th century.I was thinking a little to early Agricolas battle with Calgacus of the Caledonii 85AD.

L

 

why did they both hate each other... Can that hate be related to stonehenge

the Celts never built Stonehenge,it was here long before the Celts migrated into Britain.

[Lacertus]

the Celts never built Stonehenge,it was here long before the Celts migrated into Britain.

Oh, yes. The monument's construction has been attributed to many ancient peoples throughout the years but the most captivating and enduring attribution has been to the Druids. This erroneous connection was first made around 3 centuries ago by the antiquary, John Aubrey. Julius Caesar and other Roman writers told of a Celtic priesthood who flourished around the time of their first conquest (55 BC). By this time, though, the stones had been standing for 2,000 years, and were, perhaps, already in a ruined condition. Besides, the Druids worshipped in forest temples and had no need for stone structures.

The best guess seems to be that the Stonehenge was begun by the people of the late Neolithic period (around 3000BC) and carried forward by people from a new economy which was arising at this time. These people used of pottery drinking vessels, began to use metal implements and to live in a more communal fashion than their ancestors. Some think that they may have been immigrants from the continent but that contention is not supported by archaeological evidence. It is likely that they were indigenous people doing the same old things in new ways.

[Ursus]

why did they both hate each other... Can that hate be related to stonehenge

 

 

I know every time I see Stonehenge, I want to go over and kick some British butt. Those people have no business piling stones like that.

[PerfectimusPrime]

In the end they did, Celts became Romans because they found Roman culture to be better. Of course, ROmans hated celts, but for understandable reasons, they had been fighting for centuries.

[Favonius Cornelius]

The Celts started it by sacking Rome. So the answer to your question is it's the barbaric Celts that asked for war.

[Ursus]

Well, you know, the Celts under Brennus invaded *Etruscan* territory in the Po Valley, not Roman. When the Roman ambassadors went to act as nuetral parties, they broke international law by taking up arms. The Gauls were understandably miffed and asked Rome to hand over the three guilty envoys. When the Romans stupidly refused, that was the beginning of the sack of Rome.

 

The Romans started it, and not very honorably. But the Romans also finished the war, much more honorably, by allowing the conquered Celtic elite to become Equestrians and Senators.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Let us turn the tables a moment. If the Romans attacked say, the Insubres, then you could be sure that all Celt nations in the area would have cooperated at least a little, because when one is attacked all are in danger.

 

Such is also the case in Italia. When Etruia is attacked, it is a problem for all neighboring nations as well, particularly when they share closer cultural and allied ties. Perhaps the Romans did not have any overt alliances with the Etruscans, but it is still true that the invasion was a problem for them. I have not heard of too many instances where the Celts paid much heed to the arts of diplomacy anyway, so if a target had loot and was a good chance at being defeated, you could be fairly certain they would strike. Better to parley from a distance than at home. Sadly, the Romans apparently bungled that effort.

 

What say ye to that bear-like one?

[Pantagathus]

i dont want to be nitpicking but behind the Hadrian Wall lived the Picts and it is not proven that those people were celtic...

 

cheers

viggen

 

I'm going to stand behind Viggen here. The Irish and indigenous Bretons were not "Celts" in fact, up until the end of the first millennia BC, the only "Celt" found there would have been a trader...

 

Furthermore, modern genetic geneography is producing results that is really going to require a paradigm shift in the way we look at historic migratory waves. What the data indicates is that the only migrations that had profound impact on the genetic composition of people in western europe occured in prehistory, i.e. the Paleolithic. (>10,000 BC)

 

Prime example is the percent distribution of Y chromosome haplogroup M343 (R1b). This comprises 80% - 90% of Ireland & Iberia and 70% of modern Brittan. These were the Magdalenians of the paleolithic and the megalith builders.

 

The current consensus is that the true "Celts" derived from Y chromosome haplogroup M170 (I). Unless the Celtic "Invasion" of Ireland was accomplished by women only it in fact doesn't seem to have ever occured...

[Favonius Cornelius]

i dont want to be nitpicking but behind the Hadrian Wall lived the Picts and it is not proven that those people were celtic...

 

cheers

viggen

Furthermore, modern genetic geneography is producing results that is really going to require a paradigm shift in the way we look at historic migratory waves. What the data indicates is that the only migrations that had profound impact on the genetic composition of people in western europe occured in prehistory, i.e. the Paleolithic. (>10,000 BC)

 

Prime example is the percent distribution of Y chromosome haplogroup M343 (R1b). This comprises 80% - 90% of Ireland & Iberia and 70% of modern Brittan. These were the Magdalenians of the paleolithic and the megalith builders.

 

The current consensus is that the true "Celts" derived from Y chromosome haplogroup M170 (I). Unless the Celtic "Invasion" of Ireland was accomplished by women only it in fact doesn't seem to have ever occured...

 

 

I have some problems with this use of modern day genetic coding to figure the migratory patterns of humans. I admit, it is in part due to the fact that I am not completly up to speed on the research on the specific genes they track and why they seem to think them reliable.

 

My first point/question is are these genes even an acceptable marker? Genes have funny ways of spreading themselves around in counter-intuititive ways. Just because there is a case where one gene was used to track a human or other species population does not mean that it works for them all.

 

Another consideration is the dominant or recessive nature of this gene. If the Celts over-ran Brittania, killed all male men and children and raped the women, if the native population has a dominent form of the gene then it will be dominant in their bastard offspring and seem as if no migration happened. Why not track a male gene instead? Where are these samples being taken and via what unbiased method?

[Northern Neil]

I always understood the Celts to be a linguistic, not a racial grouping. They appeared to differ in appearance in various geographical locations. For example, the Celtic -speaking Belgae are described as being tall and blonde haired - pretty similar to their neighbouring Germans, in fact, whereas the Ligurians and Celtiberians looked then much the same as they do now - raven haired and brown eyed. I figure that members of different races actually spoke Celtic, and so were by definition celts.