Caesar And The Celts Documentary

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I happen to find a three part documentary on Caesar and the Celts. ENJOY!

It's not great but a good video.

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

Part 3

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Gratias tibi, Constantine.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

You're welcome...now if I could only find one on the real Constantine.

[Gaius Octavius]

Ouch!

The Celts liberality towards women, children and the aged is instructive. This may be the case with most, if not all, so-called stone age backward tribal societies.

 

I had always thought that Vercingetorix forced out of Alesia the non warriors because of the food problem. He had to hold out until the united tribes, allegedly 250,000 men, came to his rescue. Caesar, knowing this, did not allow the refugees to pass. Militarily, this sounds reasonable. But neither did Vercingetorix allow the refugees back into Alesia. This last seems to run contrary to the Celts principles.

 

I also find it hard to understand why a nation so blessed with gold, did not become a major player on the world scene. The Greeks were at Masilla doing business with the Celts and they could very easily have taken advantage of the Greek culture as the Romans did. The Italian Celts were abuted on the Etruscans. As regards Britain, the same might apply in the case of Punic traders. Their presence in Central Europe and Asia Minor also allowed them intercourse with other "more advanced" societies.

 

The commentary about the barbarity of Romans towards new borns seems a little overdone. After all, sacrificing of adults by the Druids is morally equivalent to exposing children and this was not a mandatory practice of the Romans. By the time of Caesar, I belive this practice had largely been only a memory.

 

I guess that the British Celts were quite a thorn in the Romans' backside as they kept four legions stationed there.

 

Thanks for pointing out the video.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Pertinax]

I think a strategic point that is often overlooked is that the Gallic and British tribes were interrelated , indeed a gallic chieftain could (and did at one stage ) claim overlordship of a british tribe.Given the quality of cross channel waterborne traffic from the Belgic area , any colonising power would have had to look over its shoulder at Britain as a fllaking extension of Gaul.

[Primus Pilus]

I also find it hard to understand why a nation so blessed with gold, did not become a major player on the world scene. The Greeks were at Masilla doing business with the Celts and they could very easily have taken advantage of the Greek culture as the Romans did. The Italian Celts were abuted on the Etruscans. As regards Britain, the same might apply in the case of Punic traders. Their presence in Central Europe and Asia Minor also allowed them intercourse with other "more advanced" societies.

 

Despite the attempts of many modern revisionists to paint Celts into a picture of empire, the Celtic societies remained secondary in stature simply because they were never unified. The Brennus (or Brennos) that invaded Italy and the man of the same name (perhaps title?) that later invaded Greece, which eventually resulted in Galatian settlement, was hardly an attempt at imperial expansion, but rather enrichment and advancement of his particular tribe. Even Vercingetorix' brief rebellion would hardly have lasted beyond repelling Caesar, as the victorious tribes would have certainly fractured off into old political divides. The Britannic Celts too were clearly fractured in the face of Roman invasion, each tribe playing personal cards for the gain of that tribe rather than 'Celtic' society as a whole. The notion of unity because of druidic law or religious conformity is simply an attempt to falsely create a historic Celtic empire.

 

However, as we know they did have far more to offer than many ancient sources would have us believe. It is also quite evident in my opinion, that had the Celts been unified, the shape of the present world could have been unrecognizable to us.

[Pertinax]

Sir Kenneth Clark (Civilisation) suggested that the Celtic attitude to gold was heavily informed by its use as a craft medium, ie: though they knew its value in the mundane physical world they put vast creative energy into crafts and weaponwork using it. In deed he suggests that the more amorphous the particular tribal group was ,in terms of physical manifestations of culture ie: the less materialistic or "visible" , the greater the energy put into working gold.

The argument was extrapolated into the Celtic socities of the Dark Ages , suggesting that the quality of craftsmanship peaked at the very time when all other types of cultural expression ( buildings, books, learning ) were at a nadir.

 

 

episode two ,if I remember, in this great work.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B...2620765-5794332

Edited June 15, 2006 by Pertinax

[Pantagathus]

Sir Kenneth Clark (Civilisation) suggested that the Celtic attitude to gold was heavily informed by its use as a craft medium

 

One must also keep in mind that the Celitc mind set in regards to power and social hierarchy was geared towards the practice of wealth destruction; i.e through lavish feasts and votive offerings of finely crafted luxury goods & symbolic weapons.

 

In this way, they were quite different from the Greco-Roman world of the 1st Millenium BC and almost completely opposite from the Punic mindset, which cared not only for the acquisition of wealth but mostly for the retention of it while at the same time having little regard for artistic expression and harmony via the 'plastic' arts.

[Rameses the Great]

It's a good slide show but I find it a bit insulting to the Romans and the civilized world. It is saying that they were ethically and overall better citizens than us. Celts used things not accustomed to the Roman world, so they were considered barbaric. In actuality they were not barbaric, just misunderstood.

 

However the video's attmept to make the Celts superior people to the Romans is just not right. They may not have been barabrians, but still nothing comapred to the Mediterranian world. They could not make large cities and were unable to make structures, tactics, and learning institutions.

 

Acredit the Celts in many ways and if they united who knows what may have happened. They may have repelled the Roman attacks. However they were not like Rome that can come together under one ruler and make a strong unitary army. That is why Rome was just better than the Celts.

 

Indeed, they were intelligent and strong people. Still Rome was stronger and knew how to win a victory, exploit it, and do whatever necessary to do what is right for her empire.

 

Just my opinion.

[Pantagathus]

Acredit the Celts in many ways and if they united who knows what may have happened.

 

Hmm, that's interesting! Primus Pilus said pretty much the exact same thing a few posts up...

[Rameses the Great]

Hmm, that's interesting! Primus Pilus said pretty much the exact same thing a few posts up...

 

Oh well, what goes around comes around. I like to voice my opinion by beeing...