Celts

[Favonius Cornelius]

I've heard tell some folk seem to think that Celts were a wondrous society of great art, material successes, with rich religious and cultural accomplishments. I've heard tell some think that these same Celts were the innocent victims of a totally corrupt society bent on torture and death.

 

I would never try to claim that the Celts did not have great accomplishments, but their downfall by the hands of the victorious Roman legions had more to do with the Celtic drive for warfare and conflict (aka 'honor'); which in turn militarized the Iberian peoples, the Romans, and the Macedonians into training themselves to be better soldiers to protect themselves. Iberians went on to be the most intractable people in their Roman provinces for a full century and were renowned mercenaries, the Macedonian Alexander the Great went on to conquer the Persian empire, and the Roman's founded the greatest of empires.

 

The Celts created their own downfall and failed to adapt in time as did those who were invaded by the Celts...and I'll have words with anyone who says otherwise...

[Rameses the Great]

The Celts created their own downfall and failed to adapt in time as did those who were invaded by the Celts...and I'll have words with anyone who says otherwise...

 

Well, can't you say that for every other nation? I mean they all had some downfall and if not some outside force overwhelmed them, it would not have mattered. The above statement makes sense to me. Adapting to new challenges that arise are part of what makes a protected, healthy, and civilized empire.

 

Alaric saw a weakness in the Roman army, exploited it, and Rome failed to adapt. This led to the downfall of the empire. Greece failed to adapt to the Roman tactics and army and fell.

 

It does not surprise me nations adapt everyday, allowing flexibility. We've seen it again and again in the time of history. However I feel like the Celts would have fell regardless of adapting to the Roman army. At that time, they were no match no matter how many angles you look at it.

[Ursus]

Revision takes two forms:

 

1) New Age tofu eaters who ascribe everything under the sun to Celts

2) Modern day Celtic nationalists who confuse ethnicity with culture, and see in the Celts something of a long lost uber race.

 

These two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

The revision goes too far, agreed. But Celtic contributions have been overlooked, I think. Unlike the Germans, the Celts were worth conquering because of the relative level of civilization.

 

Yes, their great downfall was the disunity of the various tribes. I don't think any serious scholar will give you an argument. Part of the reason is that the tribes closest to Rome were easily and sometimes almost willingly assimilated. In the very early empire there were more Senators from Gallia Narbonesis than Greece. That is a testament to how willing and how capable some of the Celtics tribes were to enjoy the fruits of classical society.

[Pertinax]

When Tofu eaters go bad:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

[Chyhoedd da]

Hmm my history books must be wrong.

 

Mine tell me when Rome fell, the Legions packed thier bags and left while the people intermingled/jonied the Celtic tribes ..... that they were never defeated 9at least on the Isles) Look at Ireland, still its language is very very similar to the old tongue.

 

Celts prevailed in teh end, maybe not in Gaul and Germania and Iberia, but Brittania, Eire, Caladonia 9and darn I forget Wales latin name)

[P.Clodius]

Hmm my history books must be wrong.

 

Mine tell me when Rome fell, the Legions packed thier bags and left while the people intermingled/jonied the Celtic tribes ..... that they were never defeated 9at least on the Isles) Look at Ireland, still its language is very very similar to the old tongue.

 

Celts prevailed in teh end, maybe not in Gaul and Germania and Iberia, but Brittania, Eire, Caladonia 9and darn I forget Wales latin name)

See Ursus' point number 2, I think you'll fit into that catagory

[M. Porcius Cato]

Celts prevailed in teh end

 

Prevailed over what? Yes, they weren't utterly wiped out, but no one was trying to do that, so against what exactly did they prevail? Perhaps literacy?

[Primus Pilus]

Celts prevailed in teh end

 

I think perhaps the argument works much better regarding Germanics than Celts.

[Kosmo]

True, celts were one of the reasons for the european expansion of the Roman Empire. Those weaklings were the perfect enemy: disunited, unorganized, heavy drinkers, individualistic and loving a petty fight, but not a major war.

If the romans would not wipe them the germans were willing to do it.

In my opinion this is the best reason for why the romans moved in Galia. To prevent the germans establishing a strong kingdom there.

Never in their history the celts showed any interest in unity and political organisations.

Hibernian chieftains attacked by vikings or norman knights were carrying the same small raids and infighting like the britons a 1.000 years earlier when attacked by romans.

 

PS Celts raided Macedonia during the reign of Ptolemeu Keraunos (that they killed) long after the establishment of the powerfull macedonian army by Philip II.

[Viggen]

Never in their history the celts showed any interest in unity and political organisations.

 

May i mention Noricum? The regional celts united there and had a kingdom for a while, even after they were peacefully integrated into the roman empire, they had for a long time their own princeps, btw. not every celt was a brit or a french

[Kosmo]

It is true that in the East celts showed some skill for political organisation. The kingdom of Tylis controlled Thracia for almost a 100 years and Galatia in Central Anatolia existed even longer. This is maybe because of the need to control the local populations and because they were already organised as an army.

Anyway, I think that between the Eastern and Western Celts were large differences.

[Favonius Cornelius]

PS Celts raided Macedonia during the reign of Ptolemeu Keraunos (that they killed) long after the establishment of the powerfull macedonian army by Philip II.

 

What of the Danubians and Thracians? They raided for quite some time. Or are they considered of a different ethnic stock?

[Kosmo]

Thracians were indo-europeans like celts, but they have no other connection being of different ethnic stock. Never heard before of Danubians.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

If heard that the various 'barbarians' invaded Roman soil because they wanted to be like/live like Romans. I think they could have easily accomplishd it if they didn't forcably.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Thracians were indo-europeans like celts, but they have no other connection being of different ethnic stock. Never heard before of Danubians.

 

 

You sure about that?

 

http://macdonnellofleinster.com/Celtic%20Empire%20Map.jpg