Technological and Cultural achievements of Non-Romans

Keltoi are very cultured and sophisticated people. Yet much of their culture and achievements were either mis-credited to the Romans, or the Romans wiped them out through genocide. Here I'd like to discuss the wonderful achievements and cultural relics the Non-Romans have achieved. For example: the Aquaduct.

I'll kick off with some stuff about the Keltoi:

A Celtic town has been discovered in Southern Germany between Stuttgart and Ulm. It's walls surround an area of 6 square miles - 4 times that of the Aventine wall of Rome.
Another example is the large Celtic city of Manching, the capital of the Vindelici. It had walls 5 miles in circumference. It was burnt and looted by Romans in 15 BC.
Celtic cities were far from silly huts with straw thatched on the roofs. One clear example of their expertise was the crannog, a timber-framed circular house, built on an artificial island in the middle of a lake or bog. Boulders were sunk and used as foundation, in combination with timbers. The houses would be up to 50 ft in diameter.

That's from Terry Jones' Barbarians, isn't it? It's important to source your quotes, so people can look it up.

BTW, who invented the aquaduct? AFAIK the reason the Romans are associated with aquaducts is not because they invented them, but because of the scale and number of their aquaducts.

That would make for an interesting topic if we leave out pathologic hate for Romans for a while.
And you'd better come up with sources for "genocide". It's a very strong word and thus, accusations in this direction should be well documented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

Keltoi are very cultured and sophisticated people. Yet much of their culture and achievements were either mis-credited to the Romans, or the Romans wiped them out through genocide. Here I'd like to discuss the wonderful achievements and cultural relics the Non-Romans have achieved. For example: the Aquaduct.

I'll kick off with some stuff about the Keltoi:

A Celtic town has been discovered in Southern Germany between Stuttgart and Ulm. It's walls surround an area of 6 square miles - 4 times that of the Aventine wall of Rome.
Another example is the large Celtic city of Manching, the capital of the Vindelici. It had walls 5 miles in circumference. It was burnt and looted by Romans in 15 BC.
Celtic cities were far from silly huts with straw thatched on the roofs. One clear example of their expertise was the crannog, a timber-framed circular house, built on an artificial island in the middle of a lake or bog. Boulders were sunk and used as foundation, in combination with timbers. The houses would be up to 50 ft in diameter.

---

Good grief satax... if you want to... make a "Romaiontonoi" Forum in the org... at least we are decent enough to not be doing stuff like this... this is beyond desperate, unrelated to EB and plainly bias...

~Jirisys (It's aquEduct... not aquAduct)

Whoa, don't use genocide for ancient times. The people back then do not have our views of genocide, as most were either practicing that (and hence wouldn't recognize it as evil) through exterminating, enslaving (same,) or mixing the two when conquering. A few you would call virtuous, planting puppet rulers or allowing subjugated people to live as they want as long as they pay their taxes to the new rulers. I don't think the ancient "virtuous" rulers would see it that way, more like they just need a compliant tax paying population instead of a decimated or even worse a hostile one.

In any case weren't the Romans more famous for adopting and improving (more like expanding) innovations from other cultures rather than outright invention?

Romans annihilate Celts. Anglo-Saxons annihilate Native Americans. History repeats itself. Ain't that a :daisy: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Romans annihilate Celts. Anglo-Saxons annihilate Native Americans. History repeats itself.

---

Er... No. Julius Caesar may have made a big dent in Gaul's population, but the Romans never attempted to replace or marginalize the Gauls. Why would they? So the situation is not comparable to the colonization of the new world (and the Anglo-Saxons were hardly the only ones to mistreat the Native Americans).

And yes, I quite agree that the using the word genocide for the Classical world is misplaced.

For the record: IIRC Terry Jones only uses the word genocide in the context of the conquest of Dacia. This based on the facts that Roman authors claimed very few Dacians survived Trajan's conquest and Dacia was strongly Romanized while being one of the most short-lived Roman provinces. But that's hardly conclusive evidence, and even Jones admits that his argument is shaky. Following the conquest Dacian auxiliaries were posted all over the empire: to me this suggests an strong push to integrate the Dacians into the empire rather than an attempt to empty their homeland.

The OP contains several statements that could do with more evidence, but let's keep this discussion civil.

Anyone posting in a serious discussion without citing sources thus disproves his own seriousnes...

Quote sources people or no one will take what you say seriously.

FINE! I'll go read the book, it's on my bookshelf already.:clown:

I don't think the average EB'er needs a lesson about this. EB is focussed on presenting all cultures equally and we are much better informed than people who base history upon hollywood movies.

Talking about genocide here seems a bit harsh, in history people kill each other,

As long as this stays a poltie thread it may bring some good discussions.

~Fluvius

Hmmm... at least Maion was bright and decent, can someone enlighten me as to what happened to him?

Whatever my feeling for your little hate-group, I can (and has in other posts) document how the Roman treatment of enemies were harsh even for their times. And I do quote sources in contrast to less accomplished "historians" and posters. If one wants to be taken seriously that is sort of the first step to take.

However, as jirisys rightly points out; to some extent everybody practiced genocide. If the ram has touched the wall, the city will not be spared was the adage AFAICR. So you can strike that off the list. Romans were only marginally harsher than others, and as I do not judge the past with the sensitive and politically correct eyes of today, I do not mind them being a bit rough- they were merely more successful than others.

The rest is all common knowledge here, why repeat it if not to propagate again the hatred of an ancient culture depicted in a computer game certain people harbour?

I admit that I can hardly take such seriously, just like any other hate-thread here, be it against Celt, Romans or Hellenes. So, silence from me in this thread from now on. PM me if you want to raise an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Hmmm... at least Maion was bright and decent, can someone enlighten me as to what happened to him?

[..]

---

Good ol' Maion suddenly disappeared a year ago, his profile page looked messy, however I stumbled upon the VM option suddenly working again. He was not banned IIRC and since VM opened up I havn't seen him posting on the forum though.

~Fluvius

If you want a serious discussion, then so be it. If that is really the case then this thread should stay unlocked.

I'm sorry for my initial reaction, but I have been conditioned by previous threads to suspect the worst.

The SPQR-flamers of the EB forums is much like the US-bashers in politics, it's very convinient and correct to do. Flaming the SPQR is easy, you don't have to take classes in history, rhetoric, political science, and you can still claim that the Romans "were a plague" and didn't "contribute with anything of their own". Flaming the SPQR is correct, since it was the greatest empire of it's time and there seem to be an unwritten law today to always cheer for the weak. Finally, flaming the SPQR is :daisy: LAME, GET OVER IT!

Here I go and break my word...

Though I basically agree with you guys. This thread has been allowed to stay unlocked as sata insisted to Ludens that all he wished was a serious discussion on a high level. Now, I will hardly call what he posts/posted high level or serious, but despite my deep disgust with the Roman/hatred, let us not flame the haters. Personally I think it is a pretense and that it is far from the level on which I prefer to discuss, but those commenting should not sink to a lower level- which some have- refute the claims with arguments if you disagree with him or point out politely (as I tried to in my first post) what you think of it. But do not sink to their level or lower, by doing that you loose the moral high ground. Stay up there, keep your path clean and behave!

Edit, what we see here is the effect of the Roman-haters spamming and lack of seriousness. Even when they attempt a sort of seriousness, our reaction is conditioned by their hundreds of posts of spam- guess they have conditioned us well... In any case, they made their bed, hope they enjoy lying in it where no-one except themselves can take them seriously.

Back to silence.

I myself am not so strongly a "kill Romans because they're Romans" kind of person. I'm more of a resistance against the quite gigantic pro-Roman bias that exists among so many people I meet. I like to educate them on many different levels about non-Roman achievements (the Celtic invention of soap, Tacitus, a Roman[!]'s mention of Germanic daily bathing, as well as their basically founding the modern West, and the advanced Persian road system and human rights are some of my favorites), and try to especially eliminate the "stupid, greedy barbarians that will inevitably be destroyed by the inevitable legions with the inevitable LS" kind of attitude. I find myself to be quite successful in this when talking to most people I meet, especially since most people I know are either 13-15 or are fellow Texas country bumpkins:clown:
I believe this thread in itself is an extremely good thing, so long as radicals on both sides (looks at sata and jirisys) don't blow this out of proportion. This can be, not an anti-Roman thread, but rather a pro non-Roman one, so it's not pointless hating.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great

I myself am not so strongly a "kill Romans because they're Romans" kind of person. I'm more of a resistance against the quite gigantic pro-Roman bias that exists among so many people I meet. I like to educate them on many different levels about non-Roman achievements (the Celtic invention of soap, Tacitus, a Roman[!]'s mention of Germanic daily bathing, as well as their basically founding the modern West, and the advanced Persian road system and human rights are some of my favorites), and try to especially eliminate the "stupid, greedy barbarians that will inevitably be destroyed by the inevitable legions with the inevitable LS" kind of attitude. I find myself to be quite successful in this when talking to most people I meet, especially since most people I know are either 13-15 or are fellow Texas country bumpkins:clown:
I believe this thread in itself is an extremely good thing, so long as radicals on both sides (looks at sata and jirisys) don't blow this out of proportion. This can be, not an anti-Roman thread, but rather a pro non-Roman one, so it's not pointless hating.:2thumbsup:

---

Ouch you called me a radical... i'm not one to adore the romans, i like what they achieved... in matters of scientific, linguistic, military and arquitectural developement (one part i loved about their way of conquering, is that, while they having their religion, they didn't go about destroying the other people's ones when they conquered, which i find very mature for their slaughters and massacres on the battlefield)... I do not go around proclaiming what romans did or didn't (as i was trying to point out in the earlier post) i just go around liking what the romans did, i also like the greeks for that matter (i like to play as them in the campaign too), i like the saka (only in-game, i'm not much of an expert on those tribes) I am hardly a radical.

However, what i hate the most is these flagrant (if that word exists:clown:), flaming, idiotic, useless and bias posts and threads, if there would be REAL evidence, about the romans killing every single person of a region, i would take it, there's nothing i can do, they did it, i wouldn't go around defending them, it would be useless, and bias too. I even got to like some of the romaioktonoi here, like Megas Meth, Arthur (be my friend:clown:), cute wolf, Duguntz, or even Jebiv... we have some fun and some laughs (netlaughs), but i wouldn't care for them if they were just spamming me with romaioktonoi stuff, i would find it very bothering, first of all because it's an opinion, not an argument or a position over something, second, because it would be pointless to do so.

I would gladly not be called a "radical" i just plain and simple like them (i don't see any Napoleoktonoi groups in here, do you?).

@ Jaertecken... i wouldn't want to start a political discussion here, but you seem to be pretty nationalistic towards the US... i see why, maybe you live in it... if you lived in a country they intervened politically, militarily or economically (that would be about 178 of the 185) then you would dislike the US because they ruined your government, your economy, and most importantly: your life. But if you want to start a political discussion, PM me and let's meet in the backroom

~Jirisys ( )

A little something about the greek minds of that time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plato's opinion of the invention of the Alphabet and the possibility to be able to write and thus preserve the knowledge:

This invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.

---

:gah::gah::gah:

Hellenes have not invented writing, but their writing was the lingua franca then and directly or indirectly spawned much of the european languages....Interesting how Plato would say that...

Can I coin the term EB Superstar? cause I see a documentary right now. Maion is fine and well. I talk to him very frequently. Maybe he just doesn't use the forum. Big deal. With the manner of some threads, it wouldn't be a surprise. Re: thread title--I'm still amazed at the achievements of non-Romans. Whether or not those achievements of these non-Romans get the same amount of spotlight as the Roman achievements do is another debate.

And often these achievements are credited to the Romans..... :sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Er... No. Julius Caesar may have made a big dent in Gaul's population, but the Romans never attempted to replace or marginalize the Gauls. Why would they? So the situation is not comparable to the colonization of the new world (and the Anglo-Saxons were hardly the only ones to mistreat the Native Americans).

And yes, I quite agree that the using the word genocide for the Classical world is misplaced.

For the record: IIRC Terry Jones only uses the word genocide in the context of the conquest of Dacia. This based on the facts that Roman authors claimed very few Dacians survived Trajan's conquest and Dacia was strongly Romanized while being one of the most short-lived Roman provinces. But that's hardly conclusive evidence, and even Jones admits that his argument is shaky. Following the conquest Dacian auxiliaries were posted all over the empire: to me this suggests an strong push to integrate the Dacians into the empire rather than an attempt to empty their homeland.

The OP contains several statements that could do with more evidence, but let's keep this discussion civil.

---

Terry did indeed say that the claim was likely exaggerated, and may even have been referring to the destruction of the dacian nobility. he mentioned that the Romans said that only 40 dacians or sth survived. that's obviously not true, since the Romans (as you ourself say), posted Dacian Auxilliaries. though that does raise a question: how on earth did the Romans impose a complete cultural and linguistic 180 on Dacia, if they didn't completely destroy the population itself? there aren't even as many dacian words in Romanian as one would expect them to have, as germanic languages ended up doing to latin in Gaul.

EDIT: the videos of the guy are here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0674011842168#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

And often these achievements are credited to the Romans..... :sad:

---

Uhm, often? Pretty much the only example of that happening that I can think of is Aquaeducts, and the reason for that is obvious: Romans used them on a far greater level than anyone up until their time. The genius of the Romans was not necessarily one of invention, but of recognizing the potential uses of various inventions and implementing them to their fullest effect.

Also, with regard to the genocide comment, I agree with the people here that genocide is not really an appropriate term to use for the ancient world. However, if you insist on using it, I'd point out that arguably the greatest act of genocide in the ancient world was perpetrated not BY the Romans, but AGAINST them: Mithradates slaughter of the Roman citizens of Asia Minor. According to ancient statistics, between 80,000-150,000 noncombatants were killed. (Adrienne Mayor, The Poison King, p. 13). Don't make accusations of genocide, Sata. It isn't an appropriate term for the ancient world, and even if it were, the cultures you are defending would be guilty as well. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

However, if you insist on using it, I'd point out that arguably the greatest act of genocide up until 1940's Germany was perpetrated not BY the Romans, but AGAINST them: Mithradates slaughter of the Roman citizens of Asia Minor. According to ancient statistics, about 80,000 noncombatants were killed. (Adrienne Mayor, The Poison King, p. 22-23).

---

Wut??? You're missing a few in between, especially one that happened in the very same place, in the early twentieth century.

Looking back, Mayor doesn't say the worst - that's my mistake. However, she does make a very good case for it being one of the most vicious acts of mass-murder in world history, so I supposed the phrase "worst case of genocide up until WWII" should be changed to say "one of the worst cases of genocide up until WWII." My mistake. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satalexton

And often these achievements are credited to the Romans..... :sad:

---

No evidence, no questions, no response to other people's argument. You wrote you wanted an academic discussion, but I don't see it here. Since you don't want to convince anyone, I don't see this thread going anywhere, apart from turning into a Romaioktonoi bashfest.

Thread closed.

Edit: for the record, Maion was not banned. Permabans of established members are a rare event on the .Org, and are always announced in this thread (spambots, alt accounts and troll acounts are another matter). However, a member who frequently breaks the forum rules will have his posting privileges temporarily suspended. This is a matter between said member and the staff, however, and it is not publicly discussed unless the member chooses to do so.