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
Wasn't "barbarian" just another word to say "foreigner/not us/not like us"?
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?
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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.
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.
When you let one group of people define "devlopment" for everyone else they'll always be ahead of the other groups.
I don't know about public baths but the germans had baths, hot baths too, apparently they bathed as soon as they woke upQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
"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...rmanygord.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.
That's most accurate answer here, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by manbaps
Maybe they shared those cauldrons? I don't think that hot springs are common enough to be found near all settlements.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by manbaps
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
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:
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
Ranika, your way of expressing yourself with words and your consice way of expressing your points NEVER fail to downright amaze me:bow:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
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).
No problem, This has happened before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
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.
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.
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).
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking
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.
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
Oh you hellenophile you. So cute.