Celts = Barbarians?

[Caligula]

Sorry if this thread does not belong here but I thought, "Where else to ask questions such as these but on the EB Forum!"

I was thinking the other day (and it hurts). Why did the Romans treat as and call the Celts "Barbarians"? Was it because they were viewed as not being 'civilized', or was it mainly from being xenophobic? For the Celts being so advanced in culture I fail to see how the romans could overlook this! Thanks in advance!

[Hax]

1) General xenophobia
2) The practice of Celtic men to let their beards grow, which was something..uncivilized.
3) The fact they had moustaches.
4) General xenophobia.

[Africanvs]

Ummm xenophobia? Sure there was some of that going on, but I think the fact that the Gauls came down and vanquished Rome under Brennus might have had something to do with their dislike of them. Not to mention their way of fighting, and customs that the Romans found rather uncivilized.

[bobbin]

Like soap.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, the Romans bathed almost daily, and I suspect that the Celts did not do so...

[Hax]

Well, the Romans bathed almost daily, and I suspect that the Celts did not do so...

Yes, probably also those ones living in the insulae in the middle of Roma.

[A Very Super Market]

O_O

I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, Greeks largely called anyone who was not them "Barbaroi", so I would call it more related to xenophobia, as Hax put it, then anything else. Also, the Celts (like Germanic tribes) were not a tightly organised nation, and their countryside was not fairly populated, which along with their underdeveloped cities led Romans believe that the Celts lived in the wastelands and backwoods, unlike the other Mediterranean or Eastern cultures.

[Aemilius Paulus]

O_O

I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?
Their function was more social than that of hygiene. Really, people went to the baths mostly to socialise, gossip, meet friends, and relax. Little cleaning was involved in the ritual.

[A Very Super Market]

Of course, but the mere fact that they are in water, and towel off afterwards is a step up from Celts, and their mud.

[Hax]

Of course, but the mere fact that they are in water, and towel off afterwards is a step up from Celts, and their mud.

Rivers rivers rivers.

Actually, for actually cleaning Romans too, adviced that you bathe in hot springs.

[A Very Super Market]

This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.

[Hax]

This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.

I'm not sure on cleanliness, but there were several rules in Celtic society that advocated healthy living. Soldiers were fined if a normal couldn't fit around their belly.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, you got me there. Romans are not the healthiest. Ever.

But what does that have to do with hygiene? I suppose obese people would be dirtier than a thin one, but it was still a minority.

[antisocialmunky]

This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.

Except for those guys so crowded in Romes slums that they got epidemics.:skull:

[seienchin]

Most of the romans had acces to aquaeduct water and thermae and we know, that many romans used to clean their teeth and mouth with wine. And of course they had public toilets...
I doubt celts had it, but in fact we dont know :book:
I assume celtic bigger settlement to be very dirty and smelly, but villages around rivers. Why should their inhabitents be not "clean". Mud etc. has nothing to do with bacterias etc. Maybe the celts were even healthier than the romans :juggle2:
But I guess the celts were barbarians to the romans, because they didnt build big cities with huge stone temples with gold etc. like in the greek-roman world.

[A Very Super Market]

Of course, things are dependant on the times.

[Rilder]

Quisque Est Barbarus Alio?

[Power2the1]

Y'all do know that Celts get the credit for inventing soap?

Now, I do not know how often the Roman baths were drained and replenished with fresh water, but, all those guys sharing the same filthy water in the same tub isn't my idea of hygiene. The Celts could bath in streams, rivers, pools, etc...I see less of a chance to bath nasty water like this.

The only stone structures for retaining water that I know of off hand is an oval basin (reconstructed) from an Aedui town, Bibracte I think. Stone water channels were found as well for water flow. But no, these are not common feature in Celtic towns at all.

[Africanvs]

Romans didn't use baths for bathing, they used them for liesure. Sort of like going to the pool, or the hot springs, or the sauna today. Romans typically bathed by rubbing olive oil all over their bodies and scraping it off with a curved stick called a striegel. If they did bathe in baths they usually walked through a series of heated rooms and jumped in a cold pool at the end. Some baths, like those in Bath, were extensive however and had several heated pools. At any rate I highly doubt it was a big, nasty, dirty pool that everyone was flopping about in. But hey, if you want to freeze your jables off swimming in a river, have at it chums.

[Power2the1]

Hmmm...olive oil and a scraping stick, or soap and water. Hard decision :tongue2:

[Africanvs]

I know it sounds odd! Although I've never done it so it might be great, but I wonder if it is difficult to get the striegel in those hard to reach places. ^^

[Lysimachos]

I personally second the notion that celts are barbarians because of their moustaches. Moustaches are very barbaric. :yes:

Perhaps it was just because they had such a wild attitude, were hairy, fought amongst themselves instead of doing proper politics :idea2:

[delablake]

I'd like to add something that induced the Romans to believe that Celts were barbarians:
Human sacrifice!!!
The practice of head-hunting!!
No written laws- very little writing in general
no proper roads or aqueducts
and don't forget the position of women in society which was way too "liberal" for Romans

[Caligula]

Intereting points! Thanks for taking the time to respond!:yes:

"I know it sounds odd! Although I've never done it so it might be great, but I wonder if it is difficult to get the striegel in those hard to reach places." <-- That made me LOL, waking the ol' lady up!:whip:

[seienchin]

Romans also had soap factories (Soap was made of pee at that time... By the way^^)
:book:

[SwissBarbar]

interesting point ^^

the Celts were Barbarians in the sense of they had not Greek Culture (or stole from it, except for Greek scriptures, which they used for commercial purposes), and wearing beards.

But the Celts had a great culture too, and had Brennus not abandoned Rome (because it stank so much, as the EB-Trait says hahaahahaahahaaaaa) who knows, maybe we all would speak a Celtic language today

[Macilrille]

Guys, please... I hope 99% of this thread is not serious despite the original poster actually asking to be enlightened, we should enlighten him, not confuse him more.

I am no expert on Celts, but on Germans and Rome (Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up- but he may just be passing stereotypical stuff). In any case I know what the Romans had that most others did not.

However, let us first define "barbarian" It has passed to us from Latin, which again had it from greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros). This basically mean a non-Greek and imitates the weird sounds they made when speaking instead of using a civilised language (Greek). The Athenians even used it to describe and deride other Greek tribes/polis on occasion. Though Plato rejected its use at all as it told nothing of the barbarians.

In any case, to the Greeks, then Romans it meant a person that was not Greek (or later Roman, for in fact the Romans were barbarians to the civilised Greeks, at least until they were conquered and their culture conquered the more brute and primitive Roman one). However it came to mean a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage (Tacitus on germans for example). There are similar ideas/labels in all urban societies across the world. I guess the Greeks were barbarians to the first civilised urban societies in "The Fertile Crest" where civilisation rose too.

Anyway, now for why the Celts were seen as barbarians by the Romans.

Actually go look here and have a laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso the Monthy Python crew were not unenlightened...

Rome had an organised state and army, a constitution, freedom (no kings) a well developed parlamentary system that was a model for at least one major modern one.

Rome had paved roads that endures to this day, bridges, acqueducts and sewers, temples, forums and arenas. Not to mention the theaters and the medicine. And while we are at it, Rome had science, it had engineering and medicine indeed, it had learned scholars, mathematicians and philosophers.

Now, much of this was learned from Greeks (and others mainly Etruscans), but Rome had it all, and Rome's genius was in adapting, learning from others and in fact not be xenophobic (Roman citizenship was always open to people of merit even in the Res Publica Romana, some argue that this strenghtened the realm others that when they diluted what was Roman by becoming multiethnic Rome became weak and fell).

You also seem to forget that Rome was not = Romans even when it was but a city-state in Latium. Most Romans were farmers, all soldiers came from peasant stock as these were hardy, strong and had many skills already that was required for life in the army as well as better suited to subject themselves to discipline and hardship then soft and spoiled city-dwellers. The point being that earth-grubbers are earth-grubbers everywhere. A Roman peasant would have been as dirty as a Celtic one, and both would be careful to wash a bit before eating and such. Being barbarian is not defined by your cleanliness, it is if anything defined by being part of an urban civilisation.

Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.

I hope this helped you Caligula (may I ask why on earth you chose that name? You might as well call yourself Idi Amin:dizzy2:) and I both welcome you and remind you that by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I definately encourage that;-)

[Drewski]

The Celts were Barbarians because the Romans were the conquerors, and the conquerors are generally the ones to write history. A good comparison, is with the Victorians in Britain. They made up an inordinate amount of nonesense (e.g. people in Colombus time thought the World was flat-no they didn't), because it all added to their myth of "taming the noble savage". This then gave them free rein to go and "give civilization",(i.e. Conquer) far off parts of the World, like The Indian subcontinent. Thing is, they already had culture and civilization over there ;) .........A similar thing is quite probably happening at present with the US "bringing Democracy" (i.e. Conquer) to different far off parts of the world.

Just remember that virtually all the accounts we have today, were written by people controlled by Rome, if not Roman themselves. So expect a little bias..

It's basically a human psychological defence, call them "Barbarians" and it makes them almost sub human, so we don't feel too guilty when we do things to them we really shouldn't. No we as were actually [I]helping them.....helping them...yes that's it..;)

Julius Caesar himself summed it up well :-
It is the right of war for conquerors to treat those whom they have conquered according to their pleasure

And that includes writing history as they see fit.

[Macilrille]

Did you not read what I wrote Drewski?

I was not going to comment on such a subjective and ideologically loaded statement and just let my other post stand (as it is the penultimate answer LOL), but...

The Romans did not actually need any excuses to go and conquer their neighbours. That they were there was excuse enough. So your argument is faulty when you assume that Romans labelled Celts barbarians in order to conquer them. Under Augustus there was certainly some of that "It is Rome's call to order and rule the world" in "The Augustan School" of poets etc (Ovid, Horats, et al), but by that time Celts had long since been conquered by Romans and Germans except for Britain, and the idea of Celts as barbarians is far older than Caesar's conquest of Gaul. In fact it also spans long periods of peace, trade and alliance with Celts as well as periods of war and hostility.

Remember that by installing EB, you agreed to read more history. I encourage that, enlightenment is always good.

[SwissBarbar]

Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.


I didn't say they had a "high-culture" as the greeks f.e.. I said they had a great (good, precious) culture and were not fithy, mud-crawling barbarians according to the prae-neo-romantic Celtic drivel looking like this:

https://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/migekill555/killakam/conan-the-barbarian.jpg


The Romans really were superior due to their ability to be open-minded and having the ability to adapt other people's achievements. Some people tend to forget, that many of these achievements were of Celtic origin.

Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd.



Apart from that, let me say I really appreciate your detailed and sophisticated post

[Macilrille]

SB, I was generalising, not pointing fingers at you ;-) but I am glad my slight bit of knowledge helped.

Did you enjoy the Life of Brian bits? I love to use that to illustrate Romanisation.

"Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd."

That cracked me up LOL. I love Switzerland BTW.

[Caligula]

@Macilrille - Excellent post, very informative. I love that movie, Life of Brian! :laugh4:

[Drewski]

Did you not read what I wrote Drewski?

I was not going to comment on such a subjective and ideologically loaded statement and just let my other post stand (as it is the penultimate answer LOL), but...

The Romans did not actually need any excuses to go and conquer their neighbours. That they were there was excuse enough. So your argument is faulty when you assume that Romans labelled Celts barbarians in order to conquer them. Under Augustus there was certainly some of that "It is Rome's call to order and rule the world" in "The Augustan School" of poets etc (Ovid, Horats, et al), but by that time Celts had long since been conquered by Romans and Germans except for Britain, and the idea of Celts as barbarians is far older than Caesar's conquest of Gaul. In fact it also spans long periods of peace, trade and alliance with Celts as well as periods of war and hostility.

Remember that by installing EB, you agreed to read more history. I encourage that, enlightenment is always good.

I was typing my post while yours was submitted, so they crossed over. Enjoyed your post btw.

I have read a massive amount of Roman History, and have learned to take a lot of it with a large pinch of salt. Which of course doesn't make it any less entertaining to read. You yourself, should know that objective views in Ancient History are almost impossible to come by. Almost everyone has a bias. I was just bringing my modern subjective view to the table ;)

[Macilrille]

Thank you, and I apologise for writing like a complete twat.

Objectivity is impossible in any historical context, or even in any human action. However, I percieved the post as being somewhat too subjective and monocausal. I hope you are not too miffed ;-)

[SwissBarbar]

SB, I was generalising, not pointing fingers at you ;-) but I am glad my slight bit of knowledge helped.

Did you enjoy the Life of Brian bits? I love to use that to illustrate Romanisation.

"Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd."

That cracked me up LOL. I love Switzerland BTW.


Hehe, yes, I very much like the film "Life of Brian" :laugh4: :laugh4:

I love Switzerland too *G* Have you been here? Where are u from?

[bobbin]

Y'all do know that Celts get the credit for inventing soap?
Rather unfairly too, as it had been around since ancient egyptian times

[antisocialmunky]

You know, honestly Ancient Gaul and hte moral rural areas of Europe probably smelled alot better than the cities because most of them had crap waste disposal systems :-\

[Lysimachos]

[...] and were not fithy, mud-crawling barbarians according to the prae-neo-romantic Celtic drivel looking like this: [...]

If they had looked like that they wouldn't have been conquered :laugh4:

[ziegenpeter]

O_O

I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?

In whick year?

[Africanvs]

I didn't say they had a "high-culture" as the greeks f.e.. I said they had a great (good, precious) culture and were not fithy, mud-crawling barbarians according to the prae-neo-romantic Celtic drivel looking like this:

https://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/migekill555/killakam/conan-the-barbarian.jpg


The Romans really were superior due to their ability to be open-minded and having the ability to adapt other people's achievements. Some people tend to forget, that many of these achievements were of Celtic origin.

Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd.



Apart from that, let me say I really appreciate your detailed and sophisticated post

Haha, neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd. I have to say an army of Conans would kick the crap out of any Roman legion, although he might want to invest in more armor than a furry cod piece.

[delablake]

Haha, neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd. I have to say an army of Conans would kick the crap out of any Roman legion, although he might want to invest in more armor than a furry cod piece.

Conan didn't actually exist, mind you. :laugh4:

[Macilrille]

He did not!?!?

What? Are you saying that Conan did not exist? Oh Noes! The horror! You must surely be mistaken sir;-)

Him and Red Sonya and Xena lived in a half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist hippie collective only taking up arms as evil, facist oppressors threatened by destroying their livelyhood. Everybody knows that ;-)

[Reverend Joe]

Haha, neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd.
Well, now, to be fair, the Celts did have a decent, somehwat advanced culture that influenced a lot of the peoples around them; you can't deny that they were a bunch of muddy hobos with pointy sticks. The main problem they had was a lack of some of the crucial elements necessary to make a truly great, lasting civilization. Chief among these was writing; without the mass communication that writing allowed (at least, among the upper classes) Celtic culture could never be unified in the way that the Greeks were, for example.

I personally second the notion that celts are barbarians because of their moustaches. Moustaches are very barbaric. :yes:
https://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1356/snapshot20090319.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/)

[Tollheit]

Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up

No, I don't think so.

Tacitus, Germania:

22. Statim e somno, quem plerumque in diem extrahunt, lavantur, saepius calida, ut apud quos plurimum hiems occupat.

Sounds more like hot baths.

[Macilrille]

True indeed when I checked something but my memory ;-) which fits what we know of later times in Scandinavia.

[vartan]

I don't know how to put this. I understand that 'everyone is a barbarian to someone', yes, I understand. But to me personally, as wrong as it may seem in comparison to the history texts I've read, I believe the true barbarians to be the Romans themselves. I have come across battles, where for instance, the greeks would raise their spears as a sign of surrender, and instead would be rewarded with slaughter. Did the Romans not know of the unwritten rules of war or did they do this intentionally? It almost seemed out of place, almost like Nietzsche all over again. I suppose it is this ruthlessness that allowed Rome to achieve so much.

[SwissBarbar]

If this is your measuring rod , every ancient culture would have been barbarian, incl. Hellenes if you think of Alexander the Great and what he did in Tyros.

[Banzai!]

Quisque Est Barbarus Alio?

Haha I was waiting for that. I wonder if I'm even qualified to give a balloon.

Greek perspective: everyone who is non-Greek is a barbarian!

This video shows how much cooler these so-called Barbarian factions are viz a viz Greeks. Fast forward several minutes in to get to the Gauls (starts of with Assyria then Scythia). Shrimpy pederast brown Greek in lino, wielding a tiny little dagger, is no match to big manly chainmail-clad Celt swinging his mighty sword!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnfhV01FXY0

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

I have to agree with SwissBarbar, if thats your measuring stick than every single culture on earth is barbaric, including most modern ones.

Every culture on earth has committed atrocities on its enemies, the Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the European nations (small pox on blankets really, was that necessary?). You can't really base a culture on its ability to do horrible things to its neighbor, as that’s less of a cultural thing and more of a human thing.

[delra]

India didn't attack another country for 5000 years (and counting)...

[Rilder]

India didn't attack another country for 5000 years (and counting)...

Errm isn't a unified India a recent thing?

Not sure though, don't know my history of that part of the world.

[A Very Super Market]

India was generally stable, with points of unbelievable upheaval in between. A bit like China.

[Zaknafien]

That is a bunch of garbage. There have been 3 major wars, 1 minor war, and numerous skirmishes and standoffs between India and Pakistan since just 1947. There was also a 1987 skirimish between India and China. There was the Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan war. etc, etc, etc.

[A Very Super Market]

Well gosh, the 20th century doesn't count for anything does it? I said "was" in response to a comment about an ununified India in the past.

[vartan]

I don't know if it'd be alright to say that every nation that ever existed committed 'barbaric' acts against some other nation. I'm sure there are exceptions...nothing too important to remember I suppose.

[kekailoa]

Monaco. I don't think they've done an aggressive thing in their life.

Or that tiny nation in Italy (not the Vatican, god, they've got blood on their hands).

Or Andorra. Or the one that starts with an L. God, my American education has been lacking.

On topic, I think the hair and the extreme lack of decorum at times shocked the stoic Romans. Not to stereotype, but the two cultures (although very similar in certain places) clashed in the most important areas. Religion, war, society, urban development, all of these were points of contention between the Romans and Celts.

[Macilrille]

I am going to repeat myself here, since the thread is a) going in circles, b) Going very OT with modernity and vague definitions of barbarism popping up again. I know it is a long post, but please indulge me.


Guys, please... I hope 99% of this thread is not serious despite the original poster actually asking to be enlightened, we should enlighten him, not confuse him more.

I am no expert on Celts, but on Germans and Rome (Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up- but he may just be passing stereotypical stuff). In any case I know what the Romans had that most others did not.

However, let us first define "barbarian" It has passed to us from Latin, which again had it from greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros). This basically mean a non-Greek and imitates the weird sounds they made when speaking instead of using a civilised language (Greek). The Athenians even used it to describe and deride other Greek tribes/polis on occasion. Though Plato rejected its use at all as it told nothing of the barbarians.

In any case, to the Greeks, then Romans it meant a person that was not Greek (or later Roman, for in fact the Romans were barbarians to the civilised Greeks, at least until they were conquered and their culture conquered the more brute and primitive Roman one). However it came to mean a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage (Tacitus on germans for example). There are similar ideas/labels in all urban societies across the world. I guess the Greeks were barbarians to the first civilised urban societies in "The Fertile Crest" where civilisation rose too.

Anyway, now for why the Celts were seen as barbarians by the Romans.

Actually go look here and have a laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso the Monthy Python crew were not unenlightened...

Rome had an organised state and army, a constitution, freedom (no kings) a well developed parlamentary system that was a model for at least one major modern one.

Rome had paved roads that endures to this day, bridges, acqueducts and sewers, temples, forums and arenas. Not to mention the theaters and the medicine. And while we are at it, Rome had science, it had engineering and medicine indeed, it had learned scholars, mathematicians and philosophers.

Now, much of this was learned from Greeks (and others mainly Etruscans), but Rome had it all, and Rome's genius was in adapting, learning from others and in fact not be xenophobic (Roman citizenship was always open to people of merit even in the Res Publica Romana, some argue that this strenghtened the realm others that when they diluted what was Roman by becoming multiethnic Rome became weak and fell).

You also seem to forget that Rome was not = Romans even when it was but a city-state in Latium. Most Romans were farmers, all soldiers came from peasant stock as these were hardy, strong and had many skills already that was required for life in the army as well as better suited to subject themselves to discipline and hardship then soft and spoiled city-dwellers. The point being that earth-grubbers are earth-grubbers everywhere. A Roman peasant would have been as dirty as a Celtic one, and both would be careful to wash a bit before eating and such. Being barbarian is not defined by your cleanliness, it is if anything defined by being part of an urban civilisation.

Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.

I hope this helped you Caligula (may I ask why on earth you chose that name? You might as well call yourself Idi Amin:dizzy2:) and I both welcome you and remind you that by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I definately encourage that;-)

If we continue to drift to modern time and politics I suggest Foot gets out the padlock.

[SwissBarbar]

Well gosh, the 20th century doesn't count for anything does it? I said "was" in response to a comment about an ununified India in the past.

India didn't attack another country for 5000 years (and continuing)"




Monaco. I don't think they've done an aggressive thing in their life.

Or that tiny nation in Italy (not the Vatican, god, they've got blood on their hands).

Or Andorra. Or the one that starts with an L. God, my American education has been lacking.

On topic, I think the hair and the extreme lack of decorum at times shocked the stoic Romans. Not to stereotype, but the two cultures (although very similar in certain places) clashed in the most important areas. Religion, war, society, urban development, all of these were points of contention between the Romans and Celts.

You mean the Principality of Liechtenstein?



Actually, the history of my people, the Swiss Confederation, is very peaceful, except maybe for some irrelevant centuries of mass slaughtering Habsburgians, Burgundians, Swabians, other Germans of the Holy Roman Empire, Italians, Spanish and Frenchmen.

[Caligula]

Don't forget Jamaica! :clown: How can one be violent and warlike when you smoke an ol'joint! :laugh4:

Silliness aside alot of the posts in here are very interesting and informative, thanks!