I've been looking for an excuse to go the Northern Isles for a long time: now I have one. Excellent.
Printable View
I've been looking for an excuse to go the Northern Isles for a long time: now I have one. Excellent.
Sooo... Ba' is a big fight over a ball? Like a municipal version of "kill the guy with the ball"?
EB, once again you outdo yourselves...very nice, and I'm glad to see you stick to your guns against PC! British Isles is a good name, me thinks.
Pardon me, but why do the Rycalwre helmets look like they have two large metal breasts on them? O_o
The British Isles (including Ireland I believe) were known as "the Isles of the Mighty" way back when, why not call them that?
Of the British Isles thing; I'm Irish (very much so, I'm actually descended from Gaelic Irish, not Norman settlers or subsequent English or Scottish landlords), and it doesn't offend me. It's simply a term. I'd considered some other things, but very little would be 'recognizable' to large groups of people. It isn't a legitimate political term anymore, but to explain the position of a region, it works fine. Some early names including 'The Holy Islands' (from Celtic myth that surmised that one of the two major islands; Ireland or Britain; was a kind of holy land), 'Islands of the Mighty' (as mentioned), 'The Tin Islands' (from which we get the name 'Britain'), and a whole mileu of other names. I may look into changing it later, but right now, for the sake of simplicity and recognizability, British Isles works fine. Everyone who looks at the previews will know where that is, and what it constitutes.
What do you think? ~:confused:
From the Independent comes an interesting bit of revisionism:
The history of Britain will have to be rewritten. The AD43 Roman invasion never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated political spin by a weak Emperor Claudius.
A series of astonishing archaeological findings of Roman military equipment, to be revealed this week, will prove that the Romans had already arrived decades earlier - and that they had been welcomed with open arms by ancient Britons.
The discovery of swords, helmets and armour in Chichester, Sussex, dates back to a period between the late first century BC and the early first century AD- almost 50 years before the supposed invasion. Archaeologists who have studied the finds believe it will turn conventional Roman history taught in schools on its head. "It is like discovering that the Second World War started in 1938," said Dr David Rudkin, a Roman expert leading the work.
The discoveries in Sussex will be revealed on Saturday during a Time Team special on Channel 4 analysing the Roman invasion. Tony Robinson, presenter of Time Team, said: "One of the frustrating things with history is that things become set in stone. We all believe it to be true. It is great to challenge some of the most commonly accepted pieces of our history."
Dr Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, said it would prove controversial. "It turns the conventional view taught in all the textbooks on its head," he said. "It is going to cause lively debate among Roman specialists."
The AD43 Roman invasion is one of the best-known events in British history. More than 40,000 Roman soldiers are believed to have landed in Richborough, Kent, before carving their way through the English countryside.
The evidence unearthed in Sussex overturns this theory. Archaeologists now believe that the Romans arrived up to 50 years earlier in Chichester. They were welcomed as liberators, overthrowing a series of tyrannical tribal kings who had been terrorising clans across southern England.
Sussex and Hampshire became part of the Roman Empire 50 years before the invasion that historians have always believed was the birth of Roman Britain.
The findings and their implications will be published by Dr Rudkin later this year. The discoveries have centred on Fishbourne Roman Palace in Sussex. Artefacts found there in a V-shaped ditch include part of a copper alloy sword scabbard fitting that archaeologists have dated to the period between the late first century BC and early first century AD.
Dr Miles Russell, a senior archaeologist at Bournemouth University who has studied the evidence, said: "All this talk of the Romans arriving in AD43 is just wrong. We get so fixated on the idea of a single invasion. It is far more piecemeal. In Sussex and Hampshire they were in togas and speaking Latin five decades before everyone else."
According to Dr Russell, it was in Emperor Claudius's interest to "spin" the invasion of AD43 as a great triumph against strong opposition. Claudius had become emperor two years earlier but his position following the death of Caligula was tenuous. A bold military adventure to expand the empire would tighten Claudius's grip in Rome and prove his credentials as a strong leader.
"Every period of history has its own spin doctors, and Claudius spun the invasion to look strong," Dr Russell said. "But Britain was Roman before Claudius got here."
Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain during the Iron Age in 55BC, but storms on the journey from Boulogne, in France, to Dover caused Caesar's two legions to turn back. A force of five legions tried again in May 54BC and landed in Dover before marching towards London, defeating Cassivellaunus the King of Catuvellauni in Hertfordshire. News of an impending rebellion in Gaul caused Caesar to retreat, but not before he had made his mark.
Britain at this stage in history was not one unified country, rather some 25 tribes often at war with each other. Not all tribes joined the coalition to fight Caesar. For example, the Trinovantes appealed to Caesar to protect them from Cassivellaunus who had run a series of raids into their territory.
Dr Francis Pryor said that the findings in Sussex prove that relationships between tribes in southern England and the Romans continued after Caesar's attempted invasion. "The suggestion that they arrived in Chichester makes plenty of sense. We were a pretty fierce force but the Romans had a relatively easy run. This would have been a liberation of a friendly tribe - not an invasion."
Oxford historian Dr Martin Henig, a Roman art specialist, said that the whole of southern England could have been a Roman protectorate for nearly 50 years prior to the AD43 invasion. "There is a possibility that there were actually Roman soldiers based in Britain during the whole period from the end of the first century BC," he said.
Time Team will unveil their findings in a live two-hour special on Saturday evening on Channel 4. It will form part of the biggest ever archaeological examination of Roman Britain running over eight days and involving hundreds of archaeologists at sites across Britain. The series will investigate every aspect of the Romans' rule of Britain, from the supposed invasion to their departure 400 years later.
I've read that; for EB, this means nothing, this would all affect a period around/just after the end of the mod. For British history; personal opinion, they're rushing ahead a bit and inferring things based on proof that's just recently been attained without proper research. That isn't to say they're wrong, by any means, but I feel they've been rushing forth a bit quick; it's like when a Roman fort was found in Ireland, and there was a lot of otherwise respectable professionals saying it was proof of Roman invasion, only to find it was probably just for trade. They're respectable historians, but when a major find is discovered, a lot of people (perfectly learned, respectable historians) 'jump the gun', as it were; we want to know so much more than we do, and we want to know it now. Clearly, there were Romans there, but in what context has not been proven; some tribes in southern Britain were friendly to Romans, and may have allowed a Roman garrison, but that doesn't mean the Romans had the whole south as a protectorate, though it is possible. I'd say, it's best to give it a little, and wait a while longer before saying it's concrete one way or another.
And then it's the question of Caesar's invasions: we don't know ALL the details of ALL their movements. They could well have settled some time around the area, before leaving. Did the owners of those found items really land in Chirchester? Have they found proof of a disembark there? And datation of that kind of non-organic stuff, based only in style, is unlikely to have that sheer accuracy.
It only proves Roman presence before 43 AD, something that we knew yet. Ranika's right, mass media and show-bound scholars tend to sound the trumpet too early. Let them make a serious research, and then, make the special on TV. Not on Saturday, OMG.
The article didn't say that they had found any coins in with the other objects they located, making the dating process difficult indeed. With the certainty with which they are talking, perhaps there were coins in there and the article merely forgot to mention it. Like others have said, there are too many possibilities to assume that southern Britain was a Roman protectorate at that time. It may well be impossible to prove that -- but a few artifacts in one hole in the ground is not overwhelming evidence.
The media are always a nightmare about these kinds of things - exaggerating, obsessed with firsts and biggests and constantly talking how some find has overturned 'previous theories'. Pretty irritating. Very few people would dispute pre-43 contact (it's just a question of how much), but the media has to turn this into some big deal. Almost every media account of a project or excavation or whatever that i've worked on has been strewn with errors.
Francis Pryor, while an excellent archaeologist, can also be slightly prone to hyperbole though. Some of his points are very interesting, but i would personally say he's slightly off the mark on a couple of issues in his recent 2 books.
The media loves to sensationalize these things, and it is interesting, but it's hardly earth shattering, and not over-turning any theories; at best, it'll strengthen our understanding of how much Roman contact was in Britain, and how many Romans/Romanized-Gauls were cohabiting with Britons. To say it's proof that Britons welcomed them with open arms and that southern Britain was a protectorate is advancing way beyond what they actually have; it's historians and journalists wanting to be the one's to be come up with earth-shattering news that'll change how percieve history, but it's simply not the case. A find of this size, even with coins to date it or other things, proves little except there were people in southern Britain from the Roman Empire; that doesn't change our perception of British history in the slightest, it only makes it clearer. Journalism like this has a horrible habit of misinforming people; without more to support it, this is just another find, which aren't that uncommon. They're interesting, they offer insight, but this is a mountain from a molehill without proper examination, and even when properly examined, I doubt it'd offer near the grand expectation this article is putting forth; however, I'll note again, it's not impossible, but given what they are said to have found, I highly doubt they can reasonably infer it.
Back on track with the thread; chariots are going to be the general unit probably, but the nature of combat in EB, for some factions (Celtic factions included) does sometimes rely on specialized units that perform special tasks; so, the general is meant to be used in a certain way (like any chariot unit). Another part of Briton specialization I'm wanting to explore is to use units that increase morale more extensively; the average Briton unit will have slightly less than average morale, and the use of 'elites' to encourage them to fight will be necessary to sustain them in prolonged fights, representing tribal tactics that use champions and chariots as a rallying point. This is really not even tested yet, and will require some planning. The idea is to represent the extremely tribal nature of the Britons, and their focus on their hero culture; they used champions and chariots and the like as rallying points. It's also meant to contrast them against other factions, especially the culturally related Gauls; Gauls were similar, but not nearly so based on the small tribe level.
One thing I find specially annoying, is that new fashion of presenting any evidence of uncommon burial or violent death in ancient times as the fruit of some mysterious ritual of magic ceremony. It's specially irritating about any Celtic or German finding. I don't doubt this kind of thing existed, but, IMHO, I guess there were also robbery and common murder in ancient times, no? But every time they find a guy stabbed to death and thrown to a river, they insist and insist in stories about witches and druids that were sunk to avoid them returning from the other world.
It's like all that crap about linking Celts to New Age hippy-like movements and relaxing music CDs full of synthesized violins and bagpipes -with a misty landscape in the cover...
From the Romantic vision of the 'orc-like barbarians', to an Arcadian paradise full of Tolkienish misticism and Conan warriors. Reality doesn't sell well, I guess...
Real hippies listen to Grateful Dead, not some weird bagpipes. ~;)Quote:
It's like all that crap about linking Celts to New Age hippy-like movements and relaxing music CDs full of synthesized violins and bagpipes -with a misty landscape in the cover...
And about the find, was it just weapons and armor? Isn't it just possible that some British traded with Romans?
The realistic Celt is horribly boring to many people; they weren't at war, they were traders and metallurgists. And they weren't at war constantly. Nor were they ultra-mystic or unusual; outsiders didn't see druids as mythic, they were philosophers and scientists a lot of the time, and priests. They had normal functions in their society, like priests and other learned men had in Hellenic and Roman societies. They did what smart people did; they went to schools and got educated and then went and practiced whatever they'd been trained for. And new age 'Celtic' music seems devoid of what actual Celtic music of the period was probably composed of. While early bagpipes did exist, on the scant few accounts of high society Celtic music itself (whenever it's mentioned, it's usually that it accompanies things; singers and so on that sing for their patrons, or play instruments, etc., but what they're playing is rarely described) it's generally described as loud and boisterous, or very low and cryptic; it probably wasn't 'relaxing' generally; much of the idea was to tell stories or encourage one to fight. Celtic stories are generally violent or in some way off-setting, and it's unlikely they'd be relaxing. That isn't to say relaxing Celtic music probably didn't exist; everyone wants to just relax at times, but Celts were big on celebration of victories and achievements, and lamentations for failures, the dead, anything that was percieved as having gone wrong; either one is not really that nice to try and nod off to.
However, 'new-age' Celts are more popular; they're mystic and mysterious and we know nothing about them, and they're so enlightened; it's not the case. Celts were human. Not everything they did was ritual. We have found bodies that have been clearly executed in ritual fashion (and can be attested because the same methods are used on several other bodies), but Celtic society was extremely harsh on those who disobeyed the law; murderers in a lot of places probably had good reason to dispose of a body in a way that it would not be found. Rarely did Celts simply execute. You would be fined first; if you couldn't afford that, you'd be outcast, and anyone could legally kill you. If you were lucky. If you were unlucky, they would select you for ritual sacrifice, which was going to hurt, a whole lot. When Celts executed people, they did so in horrific manners. You're damn right some bodies are probably just a smarter criminal covering up things he did; burying a body in a bog, or throwing it in the river, would at the time, hopefully, keep some one from finding out that you killed some one.
There is this whole romantacist idea that our ancestors were these mysterious supermen with strange rituals we can never understand and magical powers and super enlightened ways of doing things etc. etc.
Simply put, people like to fantasize about our ancestors being more then just "human", personally I think it stems from the almost empty monotiny of modern life. We like to dream about a bygone age of magical druids carving away missletoe with gold sickles and using it to preform magic spells or what have you. The reality is they were human just like us, but like already said reality doesnt sell.
BTW, Ranika's description of the Druid "They did what smart people did; they went to schools and got educated and then went and practiced whatever they'd been trained for", is the truest I've read in awhile. Its always, "They were these barbarian canibals who ate babies by the light of jackolanterns" or "They were these magical beings of super enlightenment who used missletoe to cure all the world's known ailments". :dizzy2:
Druids were intelligent; as has been stated before, they clearly had an advanced understanding of medicine and chemistry, but only comparable to the rest of the ancient world. We often too swiftly discount just how smart iron age civilizations were. They could perform brain surgery, and formulate chemicals and medicines, but they weren't supermen or magic. They were learned scientists and doctors, in that respect, like any other culture's equivalent; they would study a 'higher' calling (medicine, history, philosophy, science, religion, etc.); anything requiring extensive education, and would spend their lives practicing that. There wasn't anything mystical about it; they were Celtic college graduates, essentially. The most learned in the society.
On the other side of things, in their religious role, druids did commit ritual sacrifice. They would ritually kill animals as well as people. The modern Celtophilic revisionism that they never commited sacrifice is simply a lie. We know they did, and it'd not be unsurprising if they were proud of it. Put yourself in the ancient mindset; that'd be a great way to show your faith and dedication. On the same note, though, they weren't horrid monsters. They weren't that different from so many other pagans, who practiced the exact same way, with ritual execution or animal sacrifice. It's nothing isolated, by any means. The druid was, in the religious role, the same as any ancient priest; not particularly grand, or remarkably reprehensible by the means of the time. A big problem is trying to view them through, or justify them to, a modern morality system. Yes, they did things that we would (and should) view as morally incorrect; they killed people, like prisoners of war, who were otherwise innocent, in grisly ways. In their time though, that was not unusual. You can't say they were evil without saying a huge chunk of cultures were; if you can say that any culture that commited human sacrifice was commiting an evil (like I do), I don't think you can be denigrated for it. But to say one, and not the other, was barbarous because of this practice, you're being a hypocrit. And trying to ignore those things to make them more palatable to modern sensibilities is ignorant as well; you're lying about a people, boldly, just to justify them to your sense.
It's like 'Celtophiles' who hate Rome; why? Celts attempted the same thing, and had, at one time, a rather well-formed kingdom. The Romans, by modern standards, could be viewed as cruel, or self-important, or powermongering, but they weren't part of the modern world. Empire was the goal of everyone. That was the way of life then. Enslaving people, destroying their homes, and their families, and everything that really matters to some one; these are horrible things to us, but then, those were common practices. For Celtophiles; were Celts so kind to the natives they conquered? Did they allow their culture to persist? Where are the pre-Celts of Ireland and their entire culture? Utterly wiped out; conquered, subjugated, and their culture annihilated. Pre-Celts of Gaul? Do you even think of them? They were obliterated to the extent that Gauls became the basis of what we view as Celtic; all other Celts are measured by how similar they are to Gauls. Why were Romans so much worse? They did the exact same thing. You can't blame them for being more successful at it, they did the same thing, over a wider area. That is a sad thing, today. It was not something that was really thought of much then; one might lament the passing of a great culture, but that was life. Civilization was fickle. Measuring it by modern morality, if it's human sacrifice or conquest or anything else, is pointless; it's not how they viewed things, and they didn't understand evil and good to be the same things we do.
Ranika:
Which modern european language is the most affected by ancient Gallic?!
I know some Gallic loan words in Dutch but to call dutch a Gallic language or even a celtic language is very very wrong ;-)..
I personally think French is the most affected by Gallic but it wouldn't be very much...
Modern French has very little Gallic, it's more Germanic and Latin than Celtic by this time. Really, it's hard to say; a number of languages have Gallic loan words. It would arguably be Irish, but Irish isn't like Gallic at all, but, like Dutch, it has some Gallic loan words. Swiss has some Gallic words too, but we don't call their language Gallic. Modern Irish, however, probably has the most, but it's not Gallic at all. The base root of Irish is Q-Celtic, which is closest to the 'pure' Celtic language; Gallic has a lot of Greek, and a lot of influence on and from Latin. Really, a lot of 'Gallic' influence in modern languages (like French) we'd probably see as Latin influence before we'd call it Gallic.
Do you mean that Irish is closer to proto-celtic than Gallic?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranika
It make sense because ireland is relative more isolated than Gaul.
Ranika do you know some exemples of gallic.
I have seen lots of gallic texts but are there sounds files of people trying to speak gallic?
I like to hear them ~:)
The reason the Irish language would be closer to proto-Celtic is not about isolationism (entirely, anyway); it has nomadicism. The original speakers of the base Celtic language spread in all directions. Some spread really far, really fast, before they could spend sufficient time in a region to adopt a great deal of foreign influence (though they surely adopted some). The Gaelic language family is an example of very fast moving nomads, who then became a very insular people. Gallic was always heavily affected by Greek, probably Semetic languages, and by Latin; it would have been vastly more modified than the base Q-Celtic language would've been. Same with P-Celtic languages; so much Punic and Greek in them. Q-Celtic has some Punic influence in early languages (as it ended up being isolated largely in Iberia for a period), and later, of course, the Gaelic languages formed, and started adopting a lot more, but they have remained closer to root than Gallic would have.
As for speaking Gallic, I have heard people speak proposed pronunciations and carry on brief conversations in Gallic for the sake of trying to get an idea of how Gallic conversation would sound, but I know of no recordings online, and we don't really know how accurate it all is.
Here Here, Ranika! Excellent points on common misconceptions!
Even Gaeilge's been heavily influenced over the years, mainly by English and French, as well as elements of Norse languages. 'Pure' languages are rare enough in Europe, as there are very few isolated peoples, instead, years of interaction has led to similarities in all the languages.
Regarding Druids and their equivalents in other societies, animal sacrifice was common among Celts, yes, and human sacrifice was not unknown, but look at the revered and vaunted Greeks. Animal sacrifice was an important tenet of the Greek and Roman religions. Human sacrifice was uncommon (I think) but certainly there are mentions of it. (Agamemnon and Iphigenia for example)
Right; I didn't mean to imply modern Irish is by any means 'pure', but it is more similar to what we believe to be the base Celtic language than Gallic, though Norman-French, Norse, and English are prevalent in the modern dialects.
What do you mean with Irish? I suppose you don't refer to the English they speak overthere, but their own language, wich not many people do speak if I'm correct. And what about Fries? The thing people speak in Friesland, the north of the Netherlands.
That's very similar to Old English - so similar in fact that if you know enough Anglo-Saxon you can get by alright in Friesland, assuming you want to recruit warbands of warriors, fight in shield walls, buy cows and farm rather than hire cars or book plane flights.
Wouldn't Welsh, Breton or Cornish be closer to Gallic, despite loanwords?
Also, I have heard that Gallo displays more Gallic influence than standard French but this could just be confusions due to Breton influences, I do not know.
Haven't various people attempted to reconstruct some Romance languages from the Latin up and got something completely different from modern French etc.?
More people speak Irish now than used to; it's still one of our official national languages, and some areas still speak it as the first language (like my home), mainly in the west, where it's generally common enough that one can at least expect some one nearby to understand at least a handful of simple conversational speech. We do not call Irish 'Gaelic' in casual speech (I've explained this before); the Irish term is 'Gaeilge', when speaking in Irish, but in common speech in English, most call the language 'Irish'; Irish is a Celtic language from the Q-Celtic family, which are collectively called Goedelic or Gaelic languages. Modern Irish has a lot of Norse, Norman-French, and then English influences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonk
I've heard that Welsh, as a language, is less compromised than either Scots or Irish Gaelic. I never bothered to verify this information, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
As for 'Celtophiles', as you put them, I think it's more of a case of "us vs. them" when they hate Romans. It's not because what they did was despicable, it's that they did to their ancestors.
Welsh has a great deal of Semetic, Greek, Latin (proto-Welsh influences; these three), Gaelic, Saxon, Norman-French, and then English influence. I've heard arguments that it's 'less compromised', but that's more and more seen as probably unlikely. The Irish language (at least, certain dialects) had the station of being very isolated, even from conquerors. Welsh; conqueroring languages were right on top of it, and they were smashed right against other languages constantly. The Irish language in the east is probably more compromised than Welsh, but I'd wager western/island dialects are probably less compromised.