In which department were the 'Barbarians' undeveloped compared to the civilised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chester

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praefectus Praetoria

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).

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

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...)

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)?

---

Nonsense.

hellenes

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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…

I apologize, I didn't mean to say Greeks sacrificed humans, rather that Romans did. I should have specified that. :bow:

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.

the greeks were not the sole practicers of democracy, didn't the etruscians use democracy too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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.

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/showt...655#post168655 ...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

As far as the "civilisation" is concerned Steppe Merc covered it for me.

---

I did? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I did? ~:confused:

---

ooops sorry confused your avatar and Simetricals...~:eek: ~:eek: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:

Hellenes

Us long haired barbarians look all the same. ~;)