View Full Version : In which department were the 'Barbarians' undeveloped compared to the civilised?
hellenes
10-31-2005, 19:23
Since finding out from the EBteam about the advances of the Barbarian factions and their technological achievement I have this question:
What made the "civilised" states like Hellenic states, the Roman states, Eastern states more civilised than the celts, germans or Sarmatians? Or on what real basis the barbarians where frowned upon by the civilised states?
PS:The Romans where barbarians too since they didnt speak Greek...~;) ~;)
Hellenes
Well, to my knoweldge *which I will admit is limited compared to most here* nothing really, other then the fact that the Grecco-Roman people ascribed that definition of them, that title of "Barbarian" and because of that its just sorta stuck over the ages.
But I suppose this would also tend to be dependant on what one's definition of "civilized" really is, and mine is much looser then most's
Conqueror
10-31-2005, 19:55
Wasn't "barbarian" just another word to say "foreigner/not us/not like us"?
Steppe Merc
10-31-2005, 20:16
There was no real justification. Some people had not as advanced (or no) buildings or didn't have writing, but some had finer art than Romans, or better stories (just not written down), or any other thing. There is little point in trying to judge ancient peoples, or their hatred for some of their contemporaries, they were how they were.
Speaking of wich I am no historian, doesn`t public baths, aqueducts, roads and big cities ring a bell?
Speaking of wich I am no historian, doesn`t public baths, aqueducts, roads and big cities ring a bell?
Actually, no. To some extent, pretty much every culture, that matters is relevant in EB, had these (with the exception of the Germans who didn't have aqueducts or major cities, as didn't the Steppe peoples).
By roads I think of the superior roman "highways", that surely took some time for "barbarians" to copy. And the how about the aqueducts and public baths, that also took some time, right?
I guess it depends on what time period we are in.
the_handsome_viking
10-31-2005, 20:49
They wore trousers and worshipped different gods, had strange hair styles and artworks, used soap and looked weird... oh and most importantly didn't speak Greek well..... I suppose technically some did speak Greek, I've read that the gauls recorded trade information in Greek characters which is quite funny really,
Oh and in Germania, Tacitus said that the Germans had a tradition that Hercules had been to their country and that they basically really thought highly of him and sang songs about him when going into battle so maybe their culture wasnt all that different after all...I mean even the romans adopted the cult of hercules
though I'm sure from the Greek perspective you can safely call them barbarians because they arent greeks and probably did have accents and languages that made the "bar-bar" sound, but other than that the term seems pretty loose and has been changed a lot over the years to mean different things.
What about developing logic and all things related. The very fact they didnt write stuff down is another undevelopment. Also incouraging people to look at the world and find answers to it rather than make stories about gods and the such like to explain it. Lets not forget the greeks invented maths and philosophy. Now im not saying the 'barbarian' nations and tribes werent as developed in alot of ways but surely there is enough evidence so suggest that the greeks, the romans to an extent, were more developed in alot of ways.
Its a similar sort of question to ask is africa more developed than the western world. Well development is measured in a variety of ways and to an extent i would say the western is.
QwertyMIDX
10-31-2005, 20:54
When you let one group of people define "devlopment" for everyone else they'll always be ahead of the other groups.
the_handsome_viking
10-31-2005, 21:01
Speaking of wich I am no historian, doesn`t public baths, aqueducts, roads and big cities ring a bell?
I don't know about public baths but the germans had baths, hot baths too, apparently they bathed as soon as they woke up
"The moment they rise from sleep, which they generally prolong till late in the day, they bathe, most frequently in warm water; as in a country where the winter is very long and severe."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/tacitus-germanygord.html
now unless they are using hot springs It would appears that some degree of engineering had to take place in order to alow just about every man to wake up and have a hot bath, but thats just my guess.
well its either that or they just sat in a cauldon with a fire under it, but apparently they were iron poor so i doubt they would have had the resources to build a cauldron for every family.
You missed the point i meant that it is possible to measure 'development' in various different ways and that is why it is hard to say who is more developed.
When you let one group of people define "devlopment" for everyone else they'll always be ahead of the other groups.
That's most accurate answer here, IMHO.
And Romans were lucky enought to have some civilized neighbours to teach them such words like "barbarians" and to explain their meaning, so they could use these words later ~D
Conqueror
10-31-2005, 21:26
Lets not forget the greeks invented maths and philosophy.
They practiced mathematics and philosophy and made important advancements there. But they didn't invent these things. The egyptians had good mathematics before the greeks. And philosophy was practiced by many peoples and it's hard to measure how "advanced" a culture's philosophy is :bow:
well its either that or they just sat in a cauldon with a fire under it, but apparently they were iron poor so i doubt they would have had the resources to build a cauldron for every family.
Maybe they shared those cauldrons? I don't think that hot springs are common enough to be found near all settlements.
They practiced mathematics and philosophy and made important advancements there. But they didn't invent these things. The egyptians had good mathematics before the greeks.
Egyptian mathematics did not progress further than to quantify things and not describe abstract entities, they pretty much only discovered 'everyday maths' arithmetic and geometry things that mattered. The progressed far further; they invented alot of concepts. Anyway the egyptians were, in my opinion, an advanced people for their time.
The point im trying to make is what have 'barbarian' (for lack of a better word) races contributed to our existance. Surely a level of developmet could the legacy it leaves behind?
Steppe Merc
10-31-2005, 21:45
What about developing logic and all things related. The very fact they didnt write stuff down is another undevelopment. Also incouraging people to look at the world and find answers to it rather than make stories about gods and the such like to explain it. Lets not forget the greeks invented maths and philosophy. Now im not saying the 'barbarian' nations and tribes werent as developed in alot of ways but surely there is enough evidence so suggest that the greeks, the romans to an extent, were more developed in alot of ways.
In that case the Romans and Greeks are barbarians. They were very superstitious. The Greeks even had a temple to a god they didn't know the name of! They were just as superstitious as the Iranians or Germans.
Oh, and about math, Persians used a decimal system for their armies, as did the later Mongols. Thats about as important as math can be. As long as you can count your fine, IMHO.
In that case the Romans and Greeks are barbarians. They were very superstitious. The Greeks even had a temple to a god they didn't know the name of! They were just as superstitious as the Iranians or Germans.
That is true religion is the bane on all societies its still evident today. I mean we still have religions to explain the unexplainable, the fact is the greeks actively tried to find natural answers to these question. I know alot of other cultures were doing the same at the time. To be honest i only know the history of medicine and i know for a fact most development doing the classical era was due to the greeks and then the romans adopting and again developing it. Then it all went into the crapper with the invasion of the barbarians. The dark ages were called that for a reason its commonly accepted humanity as whole went backwards during that time due to everyone adopting the invaders way of life.
Dagobert II
10-31-2005, 22:07
My Translation is akin to the Spaniards calling the
peoples of Latin America "Hispanics" the correct
expression is "anything other than European"
Or from MW::
1 : of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people.
:bow:
QwertyMIDX
10-31-2005, 22:12
Roman and Greek medicine were not any better at handling health problems than Celtic medicine was, if you study the history of medicine you should know that. Also, modern society owes a hell of a lot more to the "barbarian" cultures that overan Rome than to the Romans or the Greeks whose culture they in many ways adopted. Ask any serious Classicist and he or she will quickly tell you that the stuff in your 6th grade history of 10th grade government text books about the Greeks and Romans being the foundation of modern society is bullshit. In fact, a Classicist in training is telling you that right now.
They wore trousers and worshipped different gods, had strange hair styles and artworks, used soap and looked weird... oh and most importantly didn't speak Greek well..... I suppose technically some did speak Greek, I've read that the gauls recorded trade information in Greek characters which is quite funny really.
Why funny? The trade language of numerous people was Greek; all Gallic aristocracy were expected to be able to speak, as well as be able to read and write Greek. Greek was so widely spoken it's hardly unusual for some one to record things in Greek, even if it isn't their main language (this was even the case in the dark ages; Greek, even more so than Latin in some places, was the predominant language of written records). Considering the predominance of Greek in their usage as a trade language with the mediterannean, and the huge amount of trade they engaged in, it seems reasonable Greek characters would spill over into their use in their own language (when they felt it necessary to write; writing wasn't very popular, Celts believed it weakened the memory).
As for baths; the Celts didn't copy baths from Romans or Greeks, they had bathhouses as early as the Urnfeld culture, and were using soap around the same time. However, most Celts bathed privately, and in large settlements, like Bibracte, there was a piping system that used stone rivlets to transfer water from main, heated cisterns, to inhabitants' houses. This was either a late Hallstatt or early La Tene development, likely developed through trade with Greeks.
Also, what defines superstition? Civilized people in the ancient world sacrificed human beings to their gods, just the same as some barbarians did. And the civilized didn't necessarily look at the world through a pure lense of logic anymore than their nieghbors; Gauls said worshipping objects was a false practice (something they tended to impress upon those they invaded; while the Galatians invaded Greece, they had a habit of razing their temples or destroying anything they percieved to be idolataric). Indeed, in many ways, the Gauls saw many non-Celts as undeveloped or ignorant. This wasn't unusual though; everyone believed their civilization was best in some way, that's why they were part of it, and fostered it. From the Celtic point of view (which remains evident in later Celtic societies, such as in Ireland and Scotland), governmental models aside from their own were tyrannical; the Celtic governments were generally made of mounting tiers of electorates and semi-autonomous sub-states that answered to a mutually elected proto-confederal or federal body, like a kind of elective-feudalism (in fact, this was largely mixed with Germanic law as the basis of much of modern law mixed with classical laws; classical law was not the sole basis of modern society by any means). The concept of absolute monarchies was reprehensible (even the most powerful of known monarchies, that of the Arverni, was not actually that strong; the king was still an elected official, and could still be removed if he was seen as not serving the kingdom's interests; somewhat like a process of impeachment), and they placed a high value on personal freedoms, as well as an intense focus on morals (unlike many of their contemporaries in the ancient world, Celts had an extremely strong sense of good and evil, and right and wrong).
That isn't to say Celts were necessarily more advanced, but if you were to view things in the Celtic perception, their enemies were probably viewed as thuggish tyrants with no regard for good and evil, but only for their personal gain. The facelessness of many armies was probably also distasteful, for a society that prided itself on individuality (individuality is reflected in many things in Celtic society; such as Celtic helmets, while mass produced, often had slots and catches so ornaments could be attached by the owner, so he could personalize his appearance in battle). If one viewed the world from this perspective, the Romans were often monsterous, not civilized.
I'm not a cultural relativist, I should point out; I do believe certain societies were clearly underdeveloped compared to those around them. But the barbarians we're depicting, by and large, are those barbarian people who were not really backward, but different; they developed along a different path, largely, but they were developed (and developing) all the same. I believe this is part of the reason to depict them, because these groups, specifically, historically, were not as 'barbarous', stereotypically, as is often percieved. In fact, much of the things we're doing, like flavor texts, faction backgrounds, etc., is all geared toward trying to get the player a feel for how that people viewed the world. Through the lense of certain cultures, the world looks very different. Some people wanted wealth, some wanted power, some wanted a place for their people to live and develop (such as is often the case with Germans, who had poor, undeveloped lands), some believed they were fighting for what is essentially their people's birth-right (such as is the case of the Aedui), some believed conquest was the only path to peace and stability.
Why funny? The trade language of numerous people was Greek; all Gallic aristocracy were expected to be able to speak, as well as be able to read and write Greek. Greek was so widely spoken it's hardly unusual for some one to record things in Greek, even if it isn't their main language (this was even the case in the dark ages; Greek, even more so than Latin in some places, was the predominant language of written records). Considering the predominance of Greek in their usage as a trade language with the mediterannean, and the huge amount of trade they engaged in, it seems reasonable Greek characters would spill over into their use in their own language (when they felt it necessary to write; writing wasn't very popular, Celts believed it weakened the memory).
As for baths; the Celts didn't copy baths from Romans or Greeks, they had bathhouses as early as the Urnfeld culture, and were using soap around the same time. However, most Celts bathed privately, and in large settlements, like Bibracte, there was a piping system that used stone rivlets to transfer water from main, heated cisterns, to inhabitants' houses. This was either a late Hallstatt or early La Tene development, likely developed through trade with Greeks.
Also, what defines superstition? Civilized people in the ancient world sacrificed human beings to their gods, just the same as some barbarians did. And the civilized didn't necessarily look at the world through a pure lense of logic anymore than their nieghbors; Gauls said worshipping objects was a false practice (something they tended to impress upon those they invaded; while the Galatians invaded Greece, they had a habit of razing their temples or destroying anything they percieved to be idolataric). Indeed, in many ways, the Gauls saw many non-Celts as undeveloped or ignorant. This wasn't unusual though; everyone believed their civilization was best in some way, that's why they were part of it, and fostered it. From the Celtic point of view (which remains evident in later Celtic societies, such as in Ireland and Scotland), governmental models aside from their own were tyrannical; the Celtic governments were generally made of mounting tiers of electorates and semi-autonomous sub-states that answered to a mutually elected proto-confederal or federal body, like a kind of elective-feudalism (in fact, this was largely mixed with Germanic law as the basis of much of modern law mixed with classical laws; classical law was not the sole basis of modern society by any means). The concept of absolute monarchies was reprehensible (even the most powerful of known monarchies, that of the Arverni, was not actually that strong; the king was still an elected official, and could still be removed if he was seen as not serving the kingdom's interests; somewhat like a process of impeachment), and they placed a high value on personal freedoms, as well as an intense focus on morals (unlike many of their contemporaries in the ancient world, Celts had an extremely strong sense of good and evil, and right and wrong).
That isn't to say Celts were necessarily more advanced, but if you were to view things in the Celtic perception, their enemies were probably viewed as thuggish tyrants with no regard for good and evil, but only for their personal gain. The facelessness of many armies was probably also distasteful, for a society that prided itself on individuality (individuality is reflected in many things in Celtic society; such as Celtic helmets, while mass produced, often had slots and catches so ornaments could be attached by the owner, so he could personalize his appearance in battle). If one viewed the world from this perspective, the Romans were often monsterous, not civilized.
I'm not a cultural relativist, I should point out; I do believe certain societies were clearly underdeveloped compared to those around them. But the barbarians we're depicting, by and large, are those barbarian people who were not really backward, but different; they developed along a different path, largely, but they were developed (and developing) all the same. I believe this is part of the reason to depict them, because these groups, specifically, historically, were not as 'barbarous', stereotypically, as is often percieved. In fact, much of the things we're doing, like flavor texts, faction backgrounds, etc., is all geared toward trying to get the player a feel for how that people viewed the world. Through the lense of certain cultures, the world looks very different. Some people wanted wealth, some wanted power, some wanted a place for their people to live and develop (such as is often the case with Germans, who had poor, undeveloped lands), some believed they were fighting for what is essentially their people's birth-right (such as is the case of the Aedui), some believed conquest was the only path to peace and stability.
Ranika, your way of expressing yourself with words and your consice way of expressing your points NEVER fail to downright amaze me:bow:
the_handsome_viking
10-31-2005, 23:53
Why funny? It's funny by the definition of barbarian being one who is a non greek speaker, the "barbarians" could write in greek and therefore could most likely speak it. I just think thats quite funny.
It's funny by the definition of barbarian being one who is a non greek speaker, the "barbarians" could write in greek and therefore could most likely speak it. I just think thats quite funny.
Ah, alright, that makes sense. I misunderstood your context and was confused. And yes; Celts and Dacians could speak Greek quite often. As said, all Gallic aristocracy generally spoke Greek as a matter of principle, as well as Latin when the Romans had expanded their power, but before the conquest of Gaul. In fact, Caesar was wary of sending messages while campaigning in Gaul, because even the average soldier often had a rudimentary command of written Latin or Greek, and a messenger caught even by a scouting party could often reveal too much before the letter even reached the enemy general.
Sometimes, such as in the case of the Helveti, while the spoken language was Celtic, they would actually write their records in Greek (some suppose they felt their own language was too holy to be commited to writing; this wouldn't actually be that far off, according to some Irish legends about the eloquence and intellignece deity, Ogma, he developed Ogham writing as a secret code script for short messages, because it was wrong for the language to ever be written at length, for fear of the minds of adherents being weakened by not having to memorize everything). Since the memory and mental prowess was the most precious part of Celtic religion (far more so than physical prowess; warriors were indeed popular, but no one was given higher respect than those most educated members of society), it was important to them to encourage memorization to strengthen the mind; memorizing poems, songs, stories, war chants, etc. Celts often sang while marching; this was probably partly to encourage an appreciation of music and songs, keep step, and encourage memorization (a story or teaching recorded rythmically in poem or song is easier to remember; Celts and many other societies with lengthy oral traditions almost invariably have a great appreciation of song and poems because of their ease to recall to memory, and so had developed musical traditions).
the_handsome_viking
11-01-2005, 00:04
Ah, alright, that makes sense. I misunderstood your context and was confused.
No problem, This has happened before.
I feel like everytime I type something I accidently insult someone or create the impression that I have a negative opinion of the celts and germanic tribes.
Believe it or not, I am totally fascinated such peoples and really do feel that it is important in this day and age to put to rest the misconceptions about the cultures as being technologically inferior and morally backwards.
That is why I really like this mod and have offered my help to the EB team.
the_handsome_viking
11-01-2005, 00:36
I feel an increase in archeological attention on the celts will put and end to the idea of them being a bunch of muddy naked savages armed with stone age tools (which some people actually believe they were).
Why the west lost touch with this history? im not so sure, however I am starting to feel that the origins of these false ideas come from historians like Petrarch who seemed to be utterly obsessed with Rome and the concept of rome returning to its former glory, the man who created the "dark ages" concept.
you also have the likes of Edward Gibbon, author of the The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire who basically felt that once Rome fell the world plunged into darkness.
How could anyone that believed that the world plunged into darkness after the fall of the Rome, have a positive thing to say about the enemies of rome, like the gauls for example?
From their perspective rome was the light that set ablaze the uncivilized world, and unfortunatly these men were so influential that to this day most people will look at you funny if you say something like "the romans took their helmet design from the gauls" or "celts had chainmail before the romans", because it challenges all that they have been taught.
The reality of history is much more complex and in my opinion more interesting, than the wishful thinking of a few humanists and enlightenment thinkers.
Modestus
11-01-2005, 00:43
I would say that there is a tendency in all of us to be weary of meeting strangers even on a personal scale If one can imagine living in a time were ones knowledge of other cultures is limited, that almost certainly you would have had come from a culture that had its roots in a parochialism that we find very hard to understand today (even the Romans had to build villages). It is from these limited beginnings that your culture would then define its way of perceiving the world, it is very easy to imagine for example a culture that may use stone as a resource for building (simply because it was available) could consider other people who use wood inferior and make no mistake many of these presumptions have been past down to us so I would be very wary of trying to put a value on a civilisation.
Well, as PyschoV often points out, and it's extremely good point, the concept of the 'noble savage' also had an effect on marginalizing the developments of barbarians; the idea that 'savages' were noble and peaceful until the 'civilized' world came and conquered them; not taking into account these 'savages' civilizations, that were themselves civilized to the point of being expansionistic powers with goals not that far removed from their contemporaries. They're more like a useful name to such people; essentially 'Civilization is evil, look at what they did to X peaceful race of people, who were living blissfully before being civilized'; ignoring that X race or culture was not necessarily either blissful or uncivilized. Celts were a major threat for a very long time to many different people, not the least of which was Rome and the Greeks. Underestimation of Celtic warfare by Hellenes resulted in slaughter of countless armies and destruction of numerous cities as the Galatians cut a gout into the Greek world (an underestimation that wasn't repeated; Hellenes rightly adapted to this war by introducing equipment common to Celts, to better combat them). These were not 'noble savages', they were a civilized ancient people, doing largely what other ancient civilizations had a tendency to do; conquer as much land as they can and spread their way of life and expand their power base by force of arms.
Numerous later authors were often loathe to point things out like this, but much of the mediterranean was affected by barbarians very heavily. Celtic-style chain armor was used all over Europe by those who could get it, and Celtic-style weapons, as well as Celtic troops themselves, were employed by those who could afford them. Hardly savage, Celts were often even described as oppulent, for their abundance of precious metals and linen and textiles, to such an extent that many owned fancy jewelry or clothing, and there existed what today would be seen as a large middle-class composed of soldiers and craftsmen. Greek accounts of the Galatians often recorded them fighting as naked, but Galatian graves largely refute such an assertation, due to the amount of armor and clothing, though naked Gauls were no doubt present; Gaesatae fought nude. But this would not be a majority; most Celtic warriors fought at least partially clothed, and as time went on, fully clothed, and with fair-to-good quality equipment. There would be no reason for their equipment to have been used or copied so widely if it was as nearly as poor quality as some seem to have purport it as having been. No doubt, many poor warriors probably did have poor equipment, but actual soldiers (which Celts did have) would not be nearly so bad off (and this is represented in EB; you will see a wide, wide margin of quality between a slapped together warband as opposed to the more advanced soldiers with decent equipment).
Steppe Merc
11-01-2005, 01:20
From their perspective rome was the light that set ablaze the uncivilized world, and unfortunatly these men were so influential that to this day most people will look at you funny if you say something like "the romans took their helmet design from the gauls" or "celts had chainmail before the romans", because it challenges all that they have been taught.
No kidding, you have no idea how many times I had to correct my Art History teacher on her incorrect "teachings" of the Greeks and Romans. Ignorant dofus... she said the Parthians were Mesopatamians. :wall:
And as Ranika pointed out, many "barbarians" have advanced military thinking (though this may not be a good thing per se, it certiantly shows sophistication).
The predomonace of cavalry and many related inovations (saddles, heavy cavalry, stirrups, etc.) were pioneered by steppe peoples (and then taken up by other "barbarians", then finally adopted by the "civilized" peoples.
And the order and complex manuevers of many steppe armies far surpuses their civilized contemporaries, which came through not so much training as the life of the steppe and the fact that their leader wasn't just an elected official or someone who came to it by birthright, but also the fact that they had to be the best there was to keep their leadership position.
Teleklos Archelaou
11-01-2005, 01:42
We should have some sort of standard warning splash-screen here to make clear that some statements voiced here are made by individual members and are not necessarily the views of E.B. ~D
QwertyMIDX
11-01-2005, 01:44
Oh you hellenophile you. So cute.
the_handsome_viking
11-01-2005, 01:50
One thing that also is quite interesting to consider is that most of these rome-o-philes actually downplay their roman empire by trying to push the myth that the celts basically were caked in mud and armed with stones.
this mentality isnt in any way roman, the romans were very well aware of their ability.
the fact that the romans managed to conquer so many of them is actually a testiment to the ability of the romans, the celtic tribes were no push overs, , heck the gauls under brennus managed to capture just about the entire city of rome, and didnt leave until they had been payed handsomely in ransom.
These guys were tough and dangerous, and were worthy opponents.
Not to mention pushing halfway into Greece before getting turned back through raw attrition
Reverend Joe
11-01-2005, 02:21
EB has taught me so damn much... there's no way I can ever repay all of you for the knowledge I have gained from this place. It's like taking a high-level college course, only without all the papers and crap.
EB, I salute you. :bow:
the_handsome_viking
11-01-2005, 02:27
EB has taught me so damn much... there's no way I can ever repay all of you for the knowledge I have gained from this place. It's like taking a high-level college course, only without all the papers and crap.
EB, I salute you. :bow:
I couldn't agree more with the above statement, if only all historical games had this much work put into them, video gaming would become part of school
curriculum, just imagine a teacher asking a student about their home work saying " ok have you conquered the gauls yet?" the kid going " no not yet im having trouble capturing all their their settlements" and the teacher going "WHAT? GET TO THE BACK OF THE CLASS NOOB"
but seriously folks, I see a very bright future for video gaming, the military already uses video gaming for training purposes, I don't see why history couldnt come to life with a series of very complex video games to help students of all ages learn about history.
virtual reality training could be used for all levels of the work force too, but thats another story all together.
Imagine a teacher asking a student about their home work saying " ok have you conquered the gauls yet?" the kid going " no not yet im having trouble capturing all their their settlements" and the teacher going "WHAT? GET TO THE BACK OF THE CLASS NOOB"
I would pay MONEY to see that~:joker:
One example of what "barbarians" have contributed to modern society is a good portion of the laws of England, and by extension, the United States. This system of law is based on both the Roman Republic's Twelve Tables (c. mid 5th century BC) and Germanic law. (And revisionist historians might try to place the source of this system of law as tracing to the root of a particular modern religions', but, not to mention the Germanic law, the Roman Twelve Tables' origins can be traced, in good part, to the Code of Hammurabi, c. 2500 BC)
Hardly savage, Celts were often even described as oppulent, for their abundance of precious metals and linen and textiles, to such an extent that many owned fancy jewelry or clothing, and there existed what today would be seen as a large middle-class composed of soldiers and craftsmen.Didn't you and Matt determine that the Celts imported linothorax from Carthage? Why would they do this, if they had an abundance of linen? No expertise to craft the armor?
Divinus Arma
11-01-2005, 08:35
EB has taught me so damn much... there's no way I can ever repay all of you for the knowledge I have gained from this place. It's like taking a high-level college course, only without all the papers and crap.
EB, I salute you. :bow:
You ain't seen nothin yet.
Steppe Merc
11-01-2005, 13:05
We should have some sort of standard warning splash-screen here to make clear that some statements voiced here are made by individual members and are not necessarily the views of E.B. ~D
Man, what did I say this time? I tried to be um, sane, but I have difficulties, I know. ~;)
PSYCHO V
11-01-2005, 13:14
I think Ranika has pretty much covered it, good job.
We should have some sort of standard warning splash-screen here to make clear that some statements voiced here are made by individual members and are not necessarily the views of E.B. ~D
Ah yes.. one man's trash is another's treasure. We are an eclectic lot... just adds to EB's flavour imho ~:) ... as long as we finish the mod before killing each other ~;)
hellenes
11-01-2005, 13:16
Well unfortunately nobody answered my question...~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:
I didnt ask in which department they were advanced but in which they were LEFT BEHIND...
What made the Hellenes and the Hellenised barbarians called romans to develop phonetical writing and escape from the tribal nature?
What are the departments in which the Hellenic world was more advanced than the Celtic?
Hellenes
Teleklos Archelaou
11-01-2005, 15:44
I think location is one thing that partially answers your question H. The sea trade with Euboia and the Greek Isles brought many advances from the Near East before it could get further into the continent. Peoples willing to trade in those parts of Greece got access to an alphabet and then brought in things like their myths and many architectural and eventually scultpural developments. Then when things like coinage pops up in non-greek places nearby they quickly adopt it as well. Greeks and Romans (though sometimes both don't like to brag about it and were a bit revisionist in their histories at times about it too) were particularly open to a lot of new ideas that spread from the Near East, and then spread those ideas even further with all their expansion with colonies a century or two later.
Surely the 'barbarians' whoever that describes were underdeveloped in the construction department? Roman and Greek and (Parthian? Carthaginian? ...) buildings have stood the test of time (except the ones destroyed by the 'barbarians'). I dont know im not aware of many constructions of native germans lasting to present day...
Depends. Do you consider Vikings native Germans?
I'd say that the Graeco-Roman navies were more developed than other peoples', but that's not to say theirs was the best. Even though people are quick to point out that sea travel wasn't a strange and foreign idea to the Bearded Men, and it wasn't, but I'm reasonaby sure that the Graeco-Roman ships and naval exploits were greater than the Celts' or Germans'.
Didn't you and Matt determine that the Celts imported linothorax from Carthage? Why would they do this, if they had an abundance of linen? No expertise to craft the armor?
Not Celts all over, but the Goidils/Gaels specifically. They didn't have as much in production of linens and textiles. It seems to be a basis for later Gaelic padded coats that most soldiers wore in the dark ages.
Gauls and such didn't use linothorax; the inhabitants of Noricum did, but they made their own (copied from Etruscans).
And structurally, it depends on who and where. Technically, it was a bunch of barbarians (far more tribal barbarians than Celts or Germans even) that put together stonehenge, with less developed tools, and put up the Callanish stones, and Carnac, and all the other monoliths. Those are not small feats, and considering what they had to work with, it's a sign of clear understanding of architecture (and these people weren't as advanced as Celts or Germans or barbarians we're depicting). Also, depends on the particular construction. Technically, a Celtic oppida wall is more resistant to damage than old Roman stone walls; they would be packed with dirt and wood rods to absorb impacts. It's the same way people built forts after the advent of cannons, because it can cause a cannonball to bounce off, deflect, or do minimal damage. This is because Celts had a focus on defense, and also had to use what was immediately available (larger stone buildings remain in portions of Celtic regions where there was a lot of stone).
However, also, most of Celtic and Germanic Europe relied on wood structures, since it was what was available. Roman towns in Britain leave little more than Celtic towns in Britain do behind, because so much was made of wood, and decayed, though Romans often brought in stone for the bases of their houses, and used all stone construction in hillier regions where they could operate quarries, or in bigger towns or cities, where they would send stone to (but Celts did that too; Bibracte, for example, left plenty of stonework behind, foundations and the like). The Romans, however, focused on large works, made use of arches, etc. They were more developed in architecture, but it doesn't mean barbarians were running around in mudhuts, nor does it mean they couldn't develop large or complex edifices (like Eahmain Macha; it's not huge, but it's extremely impressive, a large round stone, dirt, and wood fort, that could take quite a blow from artillery, even by today's standards). Also, they were excellent with earthwork; Celts built their cities and towns on hills. And if there wasn't a hill around, they'd make one. Plenty of hillforts still exist, and those are generally on manmade hills. They also dug out rivers, or filled them in in some cases (based on sediment evidence, and would match with dark age Gaels and Picts tendency to dig or fill in creeks while on campaign, usually against one another).
Also, of tribal nature, that's poor wording. Celts were no more tribal than a collection of Greek city-states, and sometimes less so. Certainly they had tribes, but tribes were little more than a collection of families who believed they had a common ancestor. Having a 'tribal' society is not a sign of undevelopment, and is poorly stated I think. This isn't an attack on you or what not, I'm just saying, it's a misunderstanding of what a 'tribal' society necessarily is.
And I think Teleklos elaborated best for you; coinage and the like, and architecture is approached. However, a lot of that, by the point of 272, is fairly moot, at least in places like Dacia (which has many old buildings still intact) and Gaul, which had advanced coinage methods and such, absorbed from trading with Greeks and such. There are ultimately numerous things, but in the end, none of it is some trump card that makes the barbarian people appear truly ignorant of civilization, if you take into account what they did know, which many times includes things that the civilized world didn't.
And of naval travel, usually, but the exception is the Celtic Veneti. They used vastly superior ships to almost anyone in the ancient world probably short of Carthage (definitely not as wide spread use as Carthage I'd think), or the largest or longest distance of Greco-Roman ships. The pontone is a huge, galleon-like affair, extremely long distance, and caused Caesar substantial headaches, even with the Veneti weakened. This ship was clearly not of a type developed in the mediterranean, or a copy of one, and similar ships used by Celts and Germans formed the basis of later European ships in the northern seas. They're not at all poor quality, but the Veneti were also almost purely reliant on sea trade and travel (and piracy from that), so they had the impetus to make big ships.
Civil Engineering. Romans new about combined stresses and stress distrubutions of structures under loads.
This is why there buildings are around today. The Egyptian pyramid is not as a big a feat as the arch, sewer, or aqueducts the Romans build. I'm not sure if the barbaians really built any structures of importance. Maybe a few monuments, but nothing that could support the public.
The barbarians lacked civil engineers, so naturally they couldn't be 'civil'ized.
:)
Simetrical
11-02-2005, 05:10
Well unfortunately nobody answered my question...~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:
I didnt ask in which department they were advanced but in which they were LEFT BEHIND...
What made the Hellenes and the Hellenised barbarians called romans to develop phonetical writing and escape from the tribal nature?
What are the departments in which the Hellenic world was more advanced than the Celtic?Well, the most important is writing. Of course, many barbarians wrote a fair amount, but generally not great works or literature or philosophy or science or history. Which isn't to say they didn't know just as many stories or as much philosophy or science or history, only that they didn't write it down as often.
So why does that make the Greeks and Romans more civilized? Because the greatest Greek and Roman works were copied over a lot and translated, even after few knew Greek and Latin, just for their literary value.
And this, in turn, meant that succeeding generations, even unto the present day, read the Greek and Roman works, but not the Celtic or Germanic or steppe works.
And that meant that we all got the Greeks' and Romans' side of all the stories.
And that meant that the average person's account of the classical period was almost entirely derived from the Greek and Roman accounts. And you can guess the rest.
So basically, the idea of barbarism is in substantial part entirely based on our perspective, which was based on the Greco-Roman one. Anyone can read any of dozens of Greek and Roman authors, but not many have easy access to archeological findings. The Romans had a fair bit of respect for the Greeks, but not a lot for the Celts or Germans, and so there we have it.
However, it remains true that there are still some degrees of "civilization" that have some real meaning (not that barbaric cultures are any "worse" inherently than civilized ones, just less advanced in certain respects), and it's hard to argue that the Greeks and Romans don't end up basically on the top of the pile there. Let's use the AHD definition of civilization: "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."
1) Progress in the arts and sciences. Arts I don't know about, since I don't really think you can "progress" in art. But compare various civilizations' capabilities in the following fields, for instance: agriculture, architecture, biology, pure mathematics, and mechanical engineering.
1a) Agriculture: Practiced to some degree by all societies, except those we would consider the very most barbaric (hunter-gatherers, and nomads in general). The most civilized societies, on the other hand―which might include most of our area in our period, I don't actually know―relied exclusively on agriculture (including domestication of animals) to provide their staple foods, only hunting for sport or delicacy.
1b) Architecture: I'm pretty sure this is dominated by the Greeks and Romans (in our place and period, and this notice gets omitted from now on), maybe also the Carthaginians and some others to an extent. Who else used the arch or the dome? More significantly, who else went as near to pushing the limits of their materials' strength? Anyone can overbuild, but it takes science to build big stuff without using much more than you have to. This culminates in today's computer models, which we can use to evaluate exactly how much structural load we need to be able to handle.
1c) Biology: From amongst the Greeks and Romans, we have many people interested in analyzing nature, from Aristotle to Galen. They systematically noted down properties of the life around them. Did the "barbarians" do this too, on the same scale? Unfortunately, I doubt we know. If any did, I suspect their records are lost to time, so it's pretty difficult to prove either way. As noted, the Greeks' and Romans' works got copied over a lot more than others'.
1d) Pure mathematics: Again, it's possible that some unknown German independently discovered the area of a circle, the Pythagorean Theorem, and all that stuff, and nobody saw enough merit in it to copy it over. But in general, I think it's likely fair to say that the extent of math knowledge in Greece and Rome was probably a good deal greater than that in most of the other cultures we deal with. Euclid is still quite literally taught in college math courses.
1e) Mechanical engineering: The Greeks and Romans were able to build enormous mobile structures such as rams and helepolises. They were skilled with gears, even constructing differential gears (the knowledge of which was subsequently lost and only rediscovered in the 1820s). Heron of Alexandria even created a steam engine of sorts. There were many others as well, such as the Archimedean screw, valves, vending machines (http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/section21.html), a huge number of machines of all sorts. Here, at least, I think I can safely say that the skill of the Greeks and Romans was unparalleled in our time and place.2) Extensive use of record-keeping. From what I understand, the Celts kept records about as much as the Greeks and Romans did, and so did other cultures such as the Persians. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure record-keeping was pretty limited among the Germans and Sarmatians at least.
3) Complex political and social institutions. Well, I'm mostly in the dark here, knowing pretty much nothing about any political institutions but the Roman, about which I know a modest amount. The Romans, at least, had a hideous web of powers and responsibilities, about which very long books could be (and have been) written. You had a few different Assemblies, each appointing different magistrates and having different powers; then the Senate, which had an entirely different set of powers; the dozens of different kinds of magistrates, who all had different levels of power and authority in different matters.
On the other hand, the typical medieval feudal structure went something like: king > people owing fealty directly to king > people owing fealty directly to people owing fealty directly to king > . . . > local lords > commoners/serfs/peasants. All authority rested in the king, delegated to his subordinates, delegated again and again until you reached people with no authority. Have a problem? Go to the local lord when he's holding audience. Have a problem with what he says? Go to his superior lord (although obviously you'd have to be somebody significant to have any chance of getting anything changed by going to him). And, in theory, so on and so forth, until you get to the king, whose decisions are final. In practice it would obviously be a lot more complicated, but the legal power structure was clear and simple.
I'd be interested to hear what more knowledgeable people have to say about various cultures' performances in this areas. I suspect that if we hash things out by this definition, we'll have something roughly like Greeks, Romans > Celts, Carthaginians, Persians, Thracians > Germans > Scythians, or thereabouts.
And structurally, it depends on who and where. Technically, it was a bunch of barbarians (far more tribal barbarians than Celts or Germans even) that put together stonehenge, with less developed tools, and put up the Callanish stones, and Carnac, and all the other monoliths. Those are not small feats, and considering what they had to work with, it's a sign of clear understanding of architecture . . .Not at all. There are logistical difficulties in moving around such big stones, but in terms of architecture, you just need to choose properly-shaped ones and carefully stack them on top of each other. The reason Stonehenge still exists is, simply, overconstruction: the mere size of the rocks used means that it's extremely difficult to make them budge. The same principle applies, for instance, to most Egyptian monuments.
The essence of genuine architectural knowledge is the ability to construct usable structures with as little material as possible. Exactly how much stone do you need to make a bridge that would support an elephant? Well, the Celt would say (and correct me if I'm wrong here), let's just make the bridge four feet thick, that'll probably hold. And hold it will. But the Romans would call in their professional engineers, who would calculate it out and then build an arched bridge only one foot thick that could nevertheless support an elephant.
Now, which bridge will last longer? Probably the Celtic one, in the long run. But the Roman one will be much faster and cheaper to build, and it will serve the intended purpose perfectly well nevertheless. If it collapses five hundred years later, honestly, who cares? But if it was viewed as necessary for the particular project, the Greeks and Romans could build things that would stand the test of time; their advantage here was flexibility. Also, tall and narrow structures can't be overbuilt too much, because the weight of the added material will be too much for the lower parts of the structure to bear―without expert architectural knowledge, you can't build anything big and solid that's much less sloped than the Pyramids.
Really, architectural engineering has always been about pushing the limits. The Greeks and Romans (and probably Chinese and Indians as well, if not others, but I'm keeping this focused on classical Europe here) calculated approximate material strengths and devised clever weight-distribution techniques such as the arch, but they still had to overdesign quite a lot for complicated structures. Much more recently, the development of integral calculus allowed much more precise construction―the Eiffel Tower, for instance, would have been impossible for the Romans or Greeks to build (although to be fair, the blast furnace helped a lot there too). Finally, most recently of all, we have computers to crunch the numbers, allowing extremely precise calculation of the amounts of material needed for virtually anything. This is why architectural engineering is at its pinnacle: because our knowledge grants us flexibility.
Civil Engineering. Romans new about combined stresses and stress distrubutions of structures under loads.
This is why there buildings are around today. The Egyptian pyramid is not as a big a feat as the arch, sewer, or aqueducts the Romans build. I'm not sure if the barbaians really built any structures of importance. Maybe a few monuments, but nothing that could support the public.
The barbarians lacked civil engineers, so naturally they couldn't be 'civil'ized.
:)
Nothing that could support the public? Celts had, as stated, water-transfer systems that were used to move water quickly between houses (as well as flush 'cess' out; all drains generally went into the main 'cess duct', though this wasn't really that advanced, more of a flume which waste of all manner travelled, out to a deep pit or a dug out cesslake; similar, but actually cleaner compared to medieval cess works; waste water would flow into the flume from a bath or other construct, and held flush cess along the flume). Soaparies were a stable part of even smaller Celtic settlements (the presence of chunks of lye, for making soap, is present in almost any set of remains of a Celtic settlement). Farms technically supported the public, and Celtic farming was quite widespread and extremely capable (and they were fairly skilled with breeding new types of pack animals, such as mules, and developed a strain of wheat superior to anything we've managed to recreate today). Celts, Dacians, and Germans all had civil courts, though that's a political thing, rather than a structure (though is a 'civil work' of sorts). Of any argument one can use, a lack of public works is easily the most inaccurate or baseless. The most basic civil works exist in even the most simple societies out of necessity to support the population. Something doesn't need be a massive construct to support a whole population, though some things were (the flow-system of Bibracte and the lengthy water systems that served the city, not to mention the series of reservoirs and heated cisterns that fed into it).
Praefectus Praetoria
11-02-2005, 11:50
I am really impressed with some of the knowledge displayed on the forum. To be honest being pro-greaco-roman I always had a underlying hatred of the 'barbarian' cultures that eventually overran the empire. Having said that I never realised how advanced these 'barbarians' were and confined myself to the hollywood view of raggy clothed brutes. That is totally blown away by the findings of the 'aqueducts'/water systems employed by the Gauls(or whatever the correct name is). However, I do believe that the argument has gone too far the other way and that 'barbarians' were somehow an innocent people crushed by the tyranical might of Rome.
Mouzafphaerre
11-02-2005, 13:17
.
The barbarians were defeated. Rome conquered Gaul, destroyed Carthago and subdued the Hellenistic world. Being defeated does not necessiate being inferior. As you note, the flow turned backwards; Germans overran Rome, half of the empire became Hellenistic again and if you will, the remote cousins of Carthago, Arabs, founded one of the greatest civilizations ever.
Innocence and guilt have no place in political struggle. Power tolerates no vaccum. If one fails, another will replace it.
.
However, I do believe that the argument has gone too far the other way and that 'barbarians' were somehow an innocent people crushed by the tyranical might of Rome.
Who the hell said that? This is one of the statements I loathe because it does barbarians ill credit. I do think the Roman Empire (not the republic) was tyrannical, but it was run by a tyrannical government model. However, I don't see what that has to do with wars with barbarians; the republic went to war with barbarians plenty as well, and they were actual wars. Even with Gaul fractured to pieces, it took 10 years to completely subdue, the Dacians were a severe pain in the side of the Romans for quite a while, the Britons were irritatingly prone to rebellion and 'buying' invasions and raids by Caledonians (and then Picts) and Gaels, and later Saxons (to defend them from the Picts and Gaels...and then the same thing happened with Saxons; poor Brits had bad luck with mercenaries).
Some people I think were more 'innocent' than others, such as in Britain, but it was still a group of deposed British nobles who got the Romans to invade the island; it wasn't some wild excursion on part of the emperor (though he did agree to do it in part just to make himself look good, because he was seen as weak). I don't know where you're getting this vibe from.
Also, aqueducts is a strong statement; they weren't a huge system of moving water over a wide distance. It was a network of flowing water in stone edifices that served in larger Gallic cities (and some in more Gallic parts of Britain, such as in what would become Bath, when Romans converted the local system to the pipe-based system the Romans used to work the big spas; in both cases it was meant to feed into their baths and presumably other needs; Celts were very cleanly people who hated dirt and grime, and so bathed daily, removed their body hair {it could hold dirt to the skin} and generally avoided lots of facial hair {usually little more than a mustache, though it'd be a bit thick probably}).
Geoffrey S
11-02-2005, 16:06
Weren't there stories about Brennus wishing to leave Rome because of the horrendous smell? Celtic people were certainly very particular about personal hygiene.
Yes, Romans weren't exactly the clenliest people in the world and the Gauls were VERY into their personal hygene. Brennus and his army couldnt leave Rome quick enough due to the smell of the city, which they found horrendous...and of course the piles of dead didnt help much with the smell either.
the_handsome_viking
11-02-2005, 19:02
It's not that I doubt the idea that the gauls had water systems and aqueducts, I dont see why that wouldnt have been the case but, does anyone have any pictures or websites on this subject that I could look at?
I believe some online ethusiasts' sites have pictures of the archaeological site, with photos of the flumes and such. Those that the Romans didn't replace anyway; the Romans sent engineers to build houses and such for the local aristocracy, since it was ruled by the Aedui, who weren't just slight allies with the Romans; these were very close people and many influential Romans had close personal friends from the Aedui, or their associated fellows, and the Romans gave them a gift of several large villas in Bibracte. In the process though, they tore out a number of flumes and replaced them with pipes, though the market and temple part of the town I believe maintained the flumes as late as the 1500s (as it had been in regular use as a temple, then a Christian oratory, and even now a Franciscan monastary, so they kept a lot of the facilities intact for a while, though some parts of the town, including the flumes, were lost much earlier, and only uncovered in the 1900s).
the_handsome_viking
11-02-2005, 20:36
will gaul settlements in the mod feature these flumes? and if so is there any chance of seeing a picture of one of these settlements?
Modestus
11-02-2005, 21:09
A lot of the discussion seems to equate a certain knowledge with civilization and I sometimes wonder is this a fair criteria to use, as I said earlier some of the rules of the game that we use to define what is civilized have been past on to us from the victors (cultural) the fact that the colosseum still stands and is undoubtedly an impressive building, should this be considered a sign that this society was civilized? For us today the killing of thousands of people for entertainment does not seem so wonderful, in fact we would consider it barbaric. I appreciate that most Romans would have found nothing wrong with this but they and the Greeks applied their own standards for civilized and uncivilized some of those prejudices we have kept ourselves and more we have rightly changed.
Perhaps it would be better to say that all men are civilized and avoid comparisons because in the context of the history of the whole world we might as well say that those who invented hairspray have the only right to the title.
the_handsome_viking
11-02-2005, 21:37
I feel in many ways the guy was getting more at technological sophistication, civilization in manyways is just a byterm for this, so i suppose his questions have been answered in the posts above and before this page of this thread.
will gaul settlements in the mod feature these flumes? and if so is there any chance of seeing a picture of one of these settlements?
Celts will have baths, but I doubt they'll have these as a specific development for their towns; they're not as large or effective as aqueducts, and were more of a product of the desire for private bathing, so are really covered by the presence of baths.
the_handsome_viking
11-02-2005, 23:11
will the celts be able to build walls now? made of stone that is
We're working on appropriate walls for Iberians and Celts (we don't want to give them regular stone walls; they don't look right). The first public build may lack such walls, but we will get some good walls in for them eventually (if it takes too long, may give them regular stone walls as a placeholder, but I'd hope we can avoid that).
Trithemius
11-03-2005, 01:13
I feel in many ways the guy was getting more at technological sophistication, civilization in manyways is just a byterm for this, so i suppose his questions have been answered in the posts above and before this page of this thread.
"Technology" can also apply to social techniques that make activities more efficient - so things like a standing conscript army probably count as a technology too; although arguably so does the consensus-based systems of hierarchy building that some of the alleged barbarian civilisations made use of.
Technology doesn't just apply to manufacturing and engineering.
Steppe Merc
11-03-2005, 01:31
Indeed, it could be said that because some cultures made superior weapons they were more civilized, because that is certaintly technology. I mean, the composite bow of the nomads was a great peice of technology. That doesn't meant the Sarmatians were the most civilized people though.
Reverend Joe
11-03-2005, 02:34
Civilisation, advancement, etc. are all subjective. Most people who study literary works argue that Paradise Lost is the greatest book in western history, or at least the last great book, because all following books are compared to it. However, I could easily argue that Gilgamesh was far better, because it was simpler and had far less depth to its writing. If writing is measured by how straightforward and shallow the writing is, Paradise Lost is a miserable failure.
It's all about who is writing the definition.
the_handsome_viking
11-03-2005, 03:24
well measure it within relation to the mutual objective of all living things, survival.
a complex technologically sophisticated society will boost the life expectancy of a population significantly.
for example a society that has lots of toilets is a society that wont have people walking through feilds of shit every single day, which can give rise to all sorts of horrible infections and diseases.
a society that has a very powerful military will be able to protect its borders better.
a society that has very complex and effective medical practices is a society that will allow its population to overcome or completely be immune to various diseases and illnesses.
a society with an effective and logical political set up is a society that wont piss off itself off and start riots, if people believe that there is a certain degree of fair play going on they will be happy, if people feel their leader is a good leader they will be happy and therefore the survival of the people will be boosted.
a society with good forms of entertainment is a society that will keep its workforce under control, so that they dont sit around thinking about what problems there are within their society and then probably from that find a good reason to start a fight about something which reduces survival rates considerably.
a society with good housing will provide good shelter from the elements and security form the forces of criminalistic activity, and will therefore prolong the survival of its people, happy people in good homes will be happy to work and contribute to the society.
from what ive seen the celts and what not seemed to have a fairly long life expectancy, they were hardy folk afterall, and seemed to value clenliness.
I cant really say I know much about their housing and i know that the germanic tribes and what not romanised quite well and all of the barbarians to some extent addopted roman methods, but weither this was all forced or partly forced partly because the people saw the logic in what the romans were doing is really beyond me.
but as far are civilization goes, I think measurment of something within relation to its mutual objective is the best way to get results.
what is a good story?
id say a good story is a story that can inspire people to accomplish great feats that will allow mankind to reach greater heights in its quest for survival.
i could talk for hours about good stories though, and if anyone actually wants to talk to me about it you can im me or just say it in the thread, but i feel ive made my point.
Nothing that could support the public? Celts had, as stated, water-transfer systems that were used to move water quickly between houses (as well as flush 'cess' out; all drains generally went into the main 'cess duct', though this wasn't really that advanced, more of a flume which waste of all manner travelled, ......................Something doesn't need be a massive construct to support a whole population, though some things were (the flow-system of Bibracte and the lengthy water systems that served the city, not to mention the series of reservoirs and heated cisterns that fed into it).
I'm not sure if Celts understood open channel flow, or the physics of moving liquid. I think the ROmans did. Hmm. I'm not sure any more. They must have had some sort of mathematics to calculate flow rates, slopes, and to see if the flow would back up in the channels. Roman water works were over a great distance (miles).
I'm not sure what the flow-system of Bibracte is... HOw long did the pipe/channel run for?
Is it possible to call any one uncivilized?
Praefectus Praetoria
11-03-2005, 11:33
Who the hell said that?}). I think I put it wrongly. What I meant was that people who feel 'barbarians' were portrayed wrongly in popular culture, which they were, and who didn't have sufficient historical knowledge seemed to assume that if the romans had not invaded them that they would not have invaded italy. What I was trying to say was that in terms of respect for independence or peaceful existence was rarely observed by both sides and in many ways romans for all their engineering and military brilliance share many features with the 'hollywood' portrayal of 'barbarians'. Sorry if I offended anyone, I will choose my words more carefully next time.
I'm not sure what the flow-system of Bibracte is... HOw long did the pipe/channel run for?
Well, Bibracte itself was only about 300 or more acres at its apex (that being the fort itself, and center of the settlement; and that's around 300x250 acres), and more town sprawl around it. The system would've been used at least over the full length of the 'fort' (fort is the best word I can use here, I suppose, but that seems to imply a purely military use; anyway lets assume 300x250 for the length and width in acres). Between every house and building there would be this system. It's a pretty wide area (though it still wasn't as long as an aqueduct, nor was the construction as wide; however, it did allow the movement of water freely over a wide area). I guess your mileage may vary there depending on a number of things it's hard to estimate, without most or the entire network intact.
And I don't think it's impossible to call some one uncivilized; you just have to take into account what you're saying, and how you mean it. However, I cannot push enough (this would be a defense of the Romans) that morality is a poor measure. Certainly we can find parts of any ancient societies morals that are good or bad in certain lights. Watching people fight to the death, or executed, for entertainment is amoral and barbarous; one is wasting human life when there is nothing to be gained but entertainment. However, many societies didn't see it that way. It doesn't make it right by any means, and today such people would have to be punished, but then, that was not such a monstrosity. The religions and philosophies of the day have varying degrees of monstrous behavior; nobody was truly innocent of anything. Celts sacrificed criminals to their gods, in extremely horrible ways, but it might be said they way they did it was civilized; they clearly understood anatomy, the way organs and pressure points worked, and even must've had a vague grasp of nerve endings, because the way they could sacrifice people sometimes, would be mind-blowingly excrutiating. It's civilized to understand the human body (Celts were quite expert with many medicines and surgery, as their remains often show us healed breaks, signs of surgical scars, etc., and the prevalence of surgical tools in much of the Celtic world), but to do such things to it is monsterous. It isn't necessarily uncivilized to execute people (that's still bandied about today in arguments), but to do it in such a way that encourages suffering seems quite uncivilized. But it's done in a very civilized way.
That's just an example; countless things were done in a civilized manner that were brutish or barbarous. I believe you can say some one is uncivilized or civilized, but I believe you must be careful, because you do not want to be seen as endorsing those parts of a society which are not civilized in this process, nor denigrate the civilized portions of a society.
I think I put it wrongly. What I meant was that people who feel 'barbarians' were portrayed wrongly in popular culture, which they were, and who didn't have sufficient historical knowledge seemed to assume that if the romans had not invaded them that they would not have invaded italy. What I was trying to say was that in terms of respect for independence or peaceful existence was rarely observed by both sides and in many ways romans for all their engineering and military brilliance share many features with the 'hollywood' portrayal of 'barbarians'. Sorry if I offended anyone, I will choose my words more carefully next time.
Ah, I see. No, that is a irritating part for most barbarian scholars too. I don't begrudge the Romans; for one, they're all long dead now, so it makes no sense, nor do I lament for long past cultures, and two, they really weren't doing anything their neighbors weren't trying to do too. Everyone wanted a lot of land; maybe for different reasons, but the fact remains, to take land you had to fight. Should they have been expected to do less? They weren't the only ones trying to conquer land (and I think we depict that well enough in our faction descriptions); the Aedui wanted to retain control of Gaul, and then probably expand it, the Casse believed they could control all of Britain, and ensure its freedom (seriously; even Romans tend to qoute last words of Britons as being things like "I'm a free man, in a free state", as recorded by Caesar's campaigns, when a hostage/messenger was executed; to hell with Braveheart, that movie sucks {I know they didn't pitch it as historical, but come on...Wallace was a knight (Norman in culture at that), assholes, not some dirt farmer}, some one needs to make a movie with angried-up Britons instead...a good one, King Arthur sucks, ahistoric crap); the successor states wanted to rebuild Alexander's empire, or at least consolidate one of their own, etc. Everyone believed they had a right to rule lands, or that they could do those lands the most good, or that they were (in step with this conversation I suppose) a pinnacle of civilization (and thus generally believed they both could do lands good, as well as rule rightfully).
hellenes
11-03-2005, 21:05
But Ranika with the Celts being so advanced why the Romans called them barbarian (being barbarian themselves: ΠΑΣ ΜΗ ΕΛΛΗΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΣ) and not the Hellenes? The war against the Hellenic states wasnt less ferocious and tough (espesially against Makedonian Hellenes) there was a decent amount of hate but the Romans didnt view/portray the Hellenes as unwashed barbarians but they did with the Celts...
Did Celts have the level and complexity of Athenian Democracy?
Parthenon (which is alligned with galactic star system toghether with the Pyramids, btw if you extend the columns of Parthenon they meet at the top shaping a pyramid)?
Did they have the combination of steel discipline, simplicity and advancement of the Spartan state?
Did they have Alexander? Plato? Theater? OLYMPIC GAMES?
We all know where is the cradle of modern european civilisation...
Hellenes
Conqueror
11-03-2005, 21:43
Maybe the Romans copied so many things from the Greeks that they could't totally belittle them ~:joker:
Not that they didn't copy things from celts (or all other peoples, for that matter...)
Modestus
11-03-2005, 23:15
We all know where is the cradle of modern European civilisation” a small dirty looking pond at just the right temperature were molecules are able to replicate and become genes and DNA.
Steppe Merc
11-04-2005, 00:14
hellenes, they called them barbarians because they were prejudiced, as all people are. They wanted to belittle their enemies, and the easiest way to do so is to show them as inferior.
And the Greeks and Romans were far from perfect, or even civilized in the modern term. They were as superstitous as everyone else, and practiced hardly "civilized" sacrifices to honor their gods. They had human sacrifice, not to mention the gladiators, which was just for fun.
Their governments were highly corrupt, and far from fair. Many other societies, such as some nomadic Iranians, Celts and (I think) the Germans gave women far more rights and oppuronities.
As for the buildings, it seems to me many of them serve more the purpose to brag about the power of Rome, or to please their citizens, not for the pure joy of art.
And there were many extremely important people who were not part of the Greco-Roman world. For example, Cyrus who carved out the Persian empire. Then there was Shapur, who not only improved the Sassanian Empire, but managed to fight off three Roman Emporers, even capturing one of them. And those were just Persians.
The reason why we rember the Greeks and Romans was because that is what modern society chooses to rember. It makes modern Americans feel better when they are told that their government is based off of Rome, when in fact it has just as many Germanic laws. But Rome sounds more fancy, so that is emphasized. Modern historians suffer from the same problem as Roman and Greek conquers, they take sides and promote certaint people as better. However the Greeks and Romans were understandable, because most of the historians never even saw the people they were writing about, and they were often writing for a certaint ruler, or for a purpose. Modern historians have no such excuse, yet continue to paint an unfair and biased view towards civilized people.
Teleklos Archelaou
11-04-2005, 00:24
You're not the only one to mention it, but where is the Greek human sacrifice thing attested to? Not talking about bronze age Greece, but anything archaic/classical/hellenistic. It's not something I've gone hunting for before, but I'm curious to know what the evidence is.
Trithemius
11-04-2005, 01:24
But Ranika with the Celts being so advanced why the Romans called them barbarian (being barbarian themselves: ΠΑΣ ΜΗ ΕΛΛΗΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΣ) and not the Hellenes?
Because the Celts were different to the Romans to a greater degree than the Hellenes were. The Celts were also, to a certain extent, "closer" than the Hellenes were, so they were natural targets for propaganda that belittled and encouraged the destruction of their culture.
Aaaaand, heres why Greek Helenophiles piss me the hell off, you're all so in love with yourselves that its sickening. You obviously started this thread with the intention to prove that allll other cultures are inferior to the Greek master race which we "all" know invented everything under the sun including nuclear physics, oxygen, god, E=mc2, the Magna Carta and all forms of Auto Mobiles, not to mention discovering the Americas.
Theres obviouisly no point in arguing with you, becuase all you care about is glorifying your Greek proppaganda, you're not willing to listen to anyone's arguments because its a threat to your self-conciets.
Yeah...I'm aware this wasnt the time, or the place really...but people like Hellenes make me want to take a sledgehammer and smash in my computer monitor. ~;)
Reverend Joe
11-04-2005, 04:03
Aaaaand, heres why Greek Helenophiles piss me the hell off, you're all so in love with yourselves that its sickening. You obviously started this thread with the intention to prove that allll other cultures are inferior to the Greek master race which we "all" know invented everything under the sun including nuclear physics, oxygen, god, E=mc2, the Magna Carta and all forms of Auto Mobiles, not to mention discovering the Americas.
Theres obviouisly no point in arguing with you, becuase all you care about is glorifying your Greek proppaganda, you're not willing to listen to anyone's arguments because its a threat to your self-conciets.
Yeah...I'm aware this wasnt the time, or the place really...but people like Hellenes make me want to take a sledgehammer and smash in my computer monitor. ~;)
:stunned: Such aggression...
Please don't turn this into a flamefest or I will be forced to shut it down.
:hide: Sorry, sorry...I jumped the gun, my bad, I apologize for my remarks...I need to learn to control my temper...once again, sorry
Group hug~:grouphug:
QwertyMIDX
11-04-2005, 06:40
But Ranika with the Celts being so advanced why the Romans called them barbarian (being barbarian themselves: ΠΑΣ ΜΗ ΕΛΛΗΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΣ) and not the Hellenes? The war against the Hellenic states wasnt less ferocious and tough (espesially against Makedonian Hellenes) there was a decent amount of hate but the Romans didnt view/portray the Hellenes as unwashed barbarians but they did with the Celts...
Did Celts have the level and complexity of Athenian Democracy?
Parthenon (which is alligned with galactic star system toghether with the Pyramids, btw if you extend the columns of Parthenon they meet at the top shaping a pyramid)?
Did they have the combination of steel discipline, simplicity and advancement of the Spartan state?
Did they have Alexander? Plato? Theater? OLYMPIC GAMES?
We all know where is the cradle of modern european civilisation...
Hellenes
Probably because the Greeks were the culture that most influenced Roman devlopment. While the Romans were borrowing the culture, ideas and alphabet of the Greeks to the south they were terrified of Celtic invasions from the north.
Parthenon (which is alligned with galactic star system toghether with the Pyramids, btw if you extend the columns of Parthenon they meet at the top shaping a pyramid)?
Nonsense.
conon394
11-04-2005, 12:57
hellenes
Parthenon (which is alligned with galactic star system toghether with the Pyramids, btw if you extend the columns of Parthenon they meet at the top shaping a pyramid)?
I doubt it, I suppose you can find some star pattern; but most of the Parthenon’s refinement slight tilting, curves etc. are designed to overcome optical distortions that people looking at the structure would have experienced. One of the more obvious ones is making the columns a bit fat in the middle to avoid having them having a pinched in look. Why exactly would the Athenian democracy care to link the Parthenon to tombs in Egypt build by autocratic rulers who (as many Athenians would understand from Herodotus) were practically the spitting image of there own archetypes of the worst sort of tyrant?
Did they have Alexander?
Is Alexander an advance? Seeing as he imported to the Greek world Persian style absolute monarchy and suppressed Greek democracies and federalism, I don't see an advance.
Ranika
You have been very adroitly arguing for ‘advanced state’ of Celtic bathing and personal grooming. But I have to say I think Ctesibius opened a definite ‘grooming gap’ in favor of the Greeks when he developed the highly automated-pneumatic barber-shop for his father.
Steppe Merc
And the Greeks and Romans were far from perfect, or even civilized in the modern term. They were as superstitous as everyone else, and practiced hardly "civilized" sacrifices to honor their gods. They had human sacrifice, not to mention the gladiators, which was just for fun.
Their governments were highly corrupt, and far from fair. Many other societies, such as some nomadic Iranians, Celts and (I think) the Germans gave women far more rights and oppuronities.
While I’d certainly agree that Rome with its gladiatorial contests and associated games are a major moral black eye compared to Greece (and certainly with imperial era excess to just about anyone else; also I’m not clear if you are suggesting Greek human sacrifice?), I’m not sure some of you points are really defensible. In particular aside from the Scythian, etc steppe groups I don’t really see that the Greeks were any more repressive toward women than their contemporaries in Germany, Gaul or Persia. “Their governments were highly corrupt and far from fair” That really pretty much sums up most governments over most of the time. But I’d still give the Greeks the palm here by arguing the democracies they developed were about as fair and uncorrupt government as the ancient world had for polities larger than small villages and towns.
Note: I realize you were replying to a rather biased post…
Steppe Merc
11-04-2005, 13:04
I apologize, I didn't mean to say Greeks sacrificed humans, rather that Romans did. I should have specified that. :bow:
Teleklos Archelaou
11-04-2005, 15:32
Well the columns do all point inwards just slightly. This would ultimately mean that they do converge on a single point (if they were (magically ~D ) extended upwards). I think I've read that it would be approximately one mile above the parthenon that they would meet. That does technically mean that they would come together (from the four sides of the structure) as a "pyramid", even if it would be so strange looking that it wouldn't necessarily remind you of a pyramid.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the actual pyramids mind you. Just architectural refinements of the parthenon itself.
Byzantine Mercenary
11-04-2005, 15:36
the greeks were not the sole practicers of democracy, didn't the etruscians use democracy too?
But Ranika with the Celts being so advanced why the Romans called them barbarian (being barbarian themselves: ΠΑΣ ΜΗ ΕΛΛΗΝ ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΣ) and not the Hellenes? The war against the Hellenic states wasnt less ferocious and tough (espesially against Makedonian Hellenes) there was a decent amount of hate but the Romans didnt view/portray the Hellenes as unwashed barbarians but they did with the Celts...
Because culturally the Romans were closer to the Greeks. Also until the Roman empire was well into its decline Rome had only been sacked once. This was done by Celts and the memory haunted the Romans for a long time. Fear and hate go hand in hand.
Did Celts have the level and complexity of Athenian Democracy?
Ranika is better able to answer this than I am, but I think so. After all, Athens was just one city while the Audui coalition spanned several (meaning they must have had multiple levels of governement). I doubt it was as democratic as Athens, but then neither was Rome, so this does not make the Celts less civilized.
Did they have the combination of steel discipline, simplicity and advancement of the Spartan state?
No. Did Athens?
(Incidentally, Sparta didn't have the level and complexity of Athenian Democracy either.)
Did they have Alexander? Plato? Theater? OLYMPIC GAMES?
They did not have Alexander, but I fail to see how this counts as cultural advancement.
Neither did they have Plato, but then Chinese didn't either. Does that make them less civilized? I recall from earlier discussions on this forum that Gaulic druids were considered quite capable philosphers.
They did not have the Olympic Games, but they had something similar. (Though it had less prestige than the games. This is also yet another thing that China didn't have around this time.)
We all know where is the cradle of modern european civilisation...
Since when is the opinion of the uneducated masses the same as the truth?
Remember that all Western European states (with the exception of Greece) originated from the Barbarians that overran the Roman Empire. Are you telling me that their entire heritage was forgotten during the Renaissance?
What is considered civilized is a sort of fashion-thing (think of human sacrifice, slave labour or gladiatorial fights) and ever since the Renaissance the Greeks and Romans are "in". Yet that doesn't mean their opponents were uncultured "barbarians". The Celts could have taught the Greeks and Romans a lesson or two, and not just in warfare. The Romans certainly learned part of that lesson, and used it to conquer the world.
conon394
11-04-2005, 18:09
After all, Athens was just one city while the Audui coalition spanned several (meaning they must have had multiple levels of governement).
An interest thing that people forget is that Athens had at least two regional government levels (Athens may have only been one city but Attica certainly included several formerly independent towns: Marathon, Rhamnus, Eleusis etc.) and for the 4th century at least the additional supra structure of her second league and it’s synod as well.
Teleklos Archelaou
I did not mean to doubt the fact the columns did if projected meet an origin point, but rather just to doubt that this implied any connection with Egypt or star patterns.
cunctator
11-04-2005, 18:17
I apologize, I didn't mean to say Greeks sacrificed humans, rather that Romans did. I should have specified that. :bow:
Human sacrifices in roman history were very rare and sporadic and finally prohibited by the senate 97 BC in all terrotories under roman rule.
Why are many peolple today still so obsesed by the obviously stupid common roman definition of the term "barbarian" and use it to judge this very different cultures? I´ve hardly found it used in the works of roman historians I`ve read, not even in propaganda. And the ones that really try to describe and explain other cultures for their readers also don`t paint them as inferior and show the strenghts of them too.
And what modern historians paint an unfair and biased view towards civilized people? I don`t know exactly what historians in other countrys are writting about but I don`t know one who provides an unfair view of none graeco-romans. In the books I know the authors are either trying to be strictly neutral and scientific or fascinated and in love with the culture they are dealing with.
hellenes
11-04-2005, 21:22
Well I expected the responses in a mod called Europa Barbarorum thread ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:
But I must assure you that I had no intention of causing any kind of trouble to the hard working modders and that I accept 100% that the Roman story about the Celts was hugely biased.
As far as the "civilisation" is concerned Steppe Merc covered it for me. I was just confused with the wealth of information about the development of the Celts that I wanted to see the opinion of Celtic specialists about what they consider level of advance.
The important difference of Democracy and the Republic was well put by Rosarcux here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=168655#post168655 ...
Hellenes
Steppe Merc
11-04-2005, 21:37
As far as the "civilisation" is concerned Steppe Merc covered it for me.
I did? ~:confused:
hellenes
11-04-2005, 21:55
I did? ~:confused:
ooops sorry confused your avatar and Simetricals...~:eek: ~:eek: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:
Hellenes
Steppe Merc
11-04-2005, 23:01
Us long haired barbarians look all the same. ~;)
Human sacrifices in roman history were very rare and sporadic and finally prohibited by the senate 97 BC in all terrotories under roman rule.
Barbarian leaders were captured on campaign and shipped back to be ceremoniously slaughtered in Rome, Gauls and Iberians especially.
Teleklos Archelaou
11-05-2005, 04:06
Is the slaying of captured enemies (even after parading them through the streets) the same thing as human sacrifice? ~:confused:
An interest thing that people forget is that Athens had at least two regional government levels (Athens may have only been one city but Attica certainly included several formerly independent towns: Marathon, Rhamnus, Eleusis etc.) and for the 4th century at least the additional supra structure of her second league and it’s synod as well.
I stand corrected. :bow:
I think we should be very careful when giving our opinion about civilized!
At least in those days you killed someone face to face.
Now We're sitting in bombers waiting to push a button that can kill thouzands in one blow.
Now what’s so civilized about that?
If you ask me mankind has never been civilized.
We just always thought we where.
ps: sry about my English.
Steppe Merc
11-05-2005, 16:16
Is the slaying of captured enemies (even after parading them through the streets) the same thing as human sacrifice? ~:confused:
Not in my mind, unless they did it to honor a certain god...
Current politics have no place here. "Barbarian" was an ancient term with none of the connotations we give it today. What is clear is that we, modern people, have as a whole a misconception about who the "barbarians" were because the victors of conflicts labelled them as such. Bringing modern politics here was a bad idea. Next time I will delete such posts as trolling.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.