Printable View
First, re-read what I said. 10,000 people lived inside the wall. We don't know how many lived outside the wall. Cities are not measured solely by those that live inside the wall; they are often in the minority.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that the way to measure the advancement of a culture is to count the number of people that lived in cities?
khelvan:
couple of points:
Soap is hardly a Celtic invention, soap or perhaps soap-like compounds are fairly common in numerous societies, the ancient societies of the mid-east, Greece, etc...
“The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).”
I really would like you defend this statement in more detail. I don’t want to sound like a jerk, but I feel it’s a rather extreme position. I cannot think of a single bit of archeological evidence or historical narrative that provides support for any Celtic bolt throwing artillery. The devices, as you describe them sound like springnals a medieval device, unattested in the Classical world.
As for the Romans; Appian’s description of the fall of Carthago Nova to the Romans in 210 BC, certainly seems to suggest they were able to build a large amount of catapults, at the site and use them effectively. More specifically in around 80 B.C. Sulla is most certainly described as building catapults for the siege of Athens. I realize 80 B.C. is near the time you suggest but, it is earlier and presented as a completely normal event, not special or noteworthy (contra say the Roman navel effort in the first Punic War).
More generally seeing as The Greeks invented catapults, and as far I know, all the siege engineers and catapult designers that appear in the historical record ( at least until the imperial period) are Greeks, you could argue the same for Carthage as well (the part about capturing or buying everything).
The Panda Centurion:
“Every last piece of equipment of the Roman soldier from the abandonment of the phalanx to the development of the lorica segmentata (Montefortino helmet, chainmail, gladius, scutum) except the pilum was of original "barbarian" invention. The Montefortino helmet was immensely popular among Roman soldiers in the Republican period and Imperial period, and was standard issue for several centuries; the helmet was Celtic. Chainmail was the favoured armour of the Roman soldier for centuries because of its flexibility and proctective capabilities; it was a Celtic invention. The magnificient "gladius hispannicus" or "spanish sword" which the Romans used until their collapse was Iberian in origin. The scutum, or long, flat shield, which the Romans used universally until the disappearance of both their empires was Celtic in origin. The "Coolus" type helmet used by the Romans after the Montefortino went out of style was Gallic in origin and the Romans never managed to dupicate its superb craftsmanship without the help of Celtic smiths. Additionally, the reason the Romans never adopted the Iberian falcata was because they could never achieve the same level of metalworking skill as the Iberians.
Ignorant and savage my foot; go read a book, Pindar. The Romans would never have achieved what they did without "barbarian" inventions and innovations.”
Well actually I wouldn’t be so sure on the scutum. The scutum may be based on the Celtic shield but it’s also possible that the scutum is of italic origin and the Celts adopted it…
On the swords, while the style of sword might well have been adopted from Spanish styles, I disagree on the metal working argument. First the Falcata style weapon is attested all over the Classical Mediterranean and the Near East, it’s source culture is most likely in the middle east. Second in the broadest analysis of Roman and Celtic swords I’ve ever come across, it’s the Republican era Roman weapons with display the best construction and metallurgy, vs. either Celtic or Imperial roman examples.
The Celts may have invented chain mail and the helmet styles you suggest, but I think it’s noteworthy that they were only used by a tiny elite, the vast majority of Celts never befitted from their supposed technological prowess. The average Celt was forced to face his armored, helmet wearing, shield carrying Roman opponent with little more than a shield and spear or third rate sword.
edits: grammer only
Khelvan, how many people live in a city attests a great deal to its height of civilization. It requires enormous technological, administrative, social, and economic resources to enable so many people live in such a small area. The Celts may have been an "urban" culture compared to, say, nomadic Arabs, but compared to Greeks, Carthage or Romans they could not be compared in their urbanization. They had practically none in comparison, except for a few rare "metropolises" which rivaled small Roman towns in size.
Plus, as Conon said, metallurgical analysis of archaeological evidence suggests Celtic swords were of inferior quality to Roman Republican issues. And please provide DIRECT references to:
1) Celtic siege weapons
2) Brennus' "letter" to his Greek friend
Civilization is not measured based on urban density, it is measured by surplus population as a whole. Rome and Carthage had concentrated population centers, where in northern europe this is not the case. Gaul had a series of smaller population centers.
Edit: Personal attack removed. Dsryow, if you back up your statements elsewhere, I will respond to you here. I tore apart your lies about EB, and so you have now taken it to be your mission to follow me around and try to poke holes in any of my arguments you can? I will not give you the satisfaction.
Conon - on Rome not building siege engines until the first century BC; all our secondary (i.e. historian) sources agree on this, that make reference to it, and we have found absolutely no primary evidence to contradict it, though anecdotes such as the one you refer to also exist to support the opposite point. These secondary sources state that Carthage was building its own siege weapons, and that the sack of Carthage was one of the primary ways for Rome to acquire them.
In addition, the Irish historian I describe in posts above provided me the information on Celtic siege engines. He works directly with the as yet untranslated (though he is working on them) ancient histories of the Goidilics and other Celts. His work is not yet published. I trust his work over any historian that does not have access to the same materials. I have encouraged him to publish his work, but he isn't ready to do that, yet.
I do not wish to close this topic, so please keep it on topic. If it keeps on going about wether barbarians were really barbaric I shall move the discussion to the Monastery.
And please remember that R:TW is just a game. Nothing to get personal about.
Khelvan, get a grip.
I made a very strong distinction between my condemnantion of EB's original premise, and my disagreement with it as an organization, which I would criticize regardless of what its aim was. You did not tear any arguments up, I said my bit and you said yours, so I just left it to the rest of the people decide who's right. Arguing with you is completely pointless - you said you like Rome the best, but you go around spreading more lies and propaganda about barbarians than every other barbarian fanboy I know. So as long as people like you are still around, people like me will always be still around. Get used to it.
I assumed you were honestly saying you liked Rome. And I assumed you were a mature non-teenage person. Well, even after editing out the immature insult your post sounds insulting, so it looks like I was wrong in both of my assumptions.
And moreover, you cannot hold up as indisputable fact the works of a historian that have not even been published yet. I can publish some nonsense and call myself a historian too, but that will not make it so. Your friend has to pass the muster of the historical experts before you can treat his words as truth. But the fact that you're not willing to wait that long, and want to attribute siege weapons to Celts at the shortest notice, include them in EB as if they are already common-place facts of history without any verification from other the history scholars, shows just how "unbiased" you are, and whom you are "unbiased" in favor of.
Dsyrow seriously I don't know about you but I think it's more probable that person is giving facts rather than him being some kind of crazy barbarian fanatic that no longer favours the romans :-/
lol
I dont know about you but that's my opinion
Apparently this discussion is not going to work well. Closed.