Historical accuracy of Celtic units?

I have just recently started to follow EB and everything I have seen so far has left me floored - everything is absolutley stunning!

I've been skimming through the various threads trying to glean as much info on this mod as possible and I like the strict historical path that this mod has taken. However, I do have a question regarding the Celtic units as presented in Sheep's "Lost Art..." thread.

What sources were used for the creation of the two hammer units, (Orddmohrnaght and Ordocorii), and for the two-handed swordsmen (Calwr Chlaiddyfwir)?

I've been infatuated with the ancient Celtic peoples for quite sometime, but have never come across mention of hammers/warhammers being used as tools of war. Nor have I heard of any use of two-handed swords.

Can anyone fill me in on the historical aspect of these units?

Thanks!

On the hammer units: First, we may not have model space for the Ordocorii, so I'll stick with the Goidilic unit for now.

Two-handed hammers have been found in numerous burials; For instance, three two-handed hammers were found in a single burial north of Wexford in Ireland. The most prolific burial was was found in the burial of a Brehon judge/druid south of Sligo, where in were found numerous other objects.

The Ulster Cycles and the Book of the Dun Cow mention the hammer as the favored weapon of the Volunts, Carrants, and Bannats. Feinachas (the Gaelic laws) also make mention of hammers, and who is allowed to use them (only those deemed champions by their chieftains; only cheiftains and higher arras may purchase or order production of hammers). The cycle Toighal mentions the usage of two-handed hammers (modified work hammers, actually) as a common method of countering armor from foreign invaders (usually Britons, with chain or bronze plate).

A few stories about Cu Chullain, including some found in the Tain, have him training with a two-handed hammer as well as a sword. He had trained to fight with it under a female teacher; it was a fairly common Goidilic weapon. The poem 'Dun da nFerg' states plainly that the hammer (both one and two-handed) was the favored weapon of devoted followers of the Dagda (as he used a large hammer). Dun da nFerg is a poem about an attack on a fortress (the fort of Ferg), beset by a number of tribes from Britain, and compares them to Gallic invaders. It mentions what weapons both sides used (and talks briefly about the 'foreigners from the south sea'; Gaul). It mentions both two-handed hammers and two-handed swords, in addition to many other weapons. Every weapon and piece of armor mentioned, we've at least found chunks of, so clearly the weapons exist. According to it, while the hammers and swords were rare, they weren't THAT rare.

I'll get you references for the two-handed swords (in addition to the references in Dun da nFerg above) later.

khelvan

Is it not a bit of a problem to base a unit heavily on epic legends? On might ask why the Greeks don't get cart-sized stone throwing soldiers ala the Iliad. Is there any evidence of 2 handed hammers being used by Celts in any actual historic record or found in battle field excavations (in the Classical era)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Is it not a bit of a problem to base a unit heavily on epic legends?

---

It would be, if we were. The stories of Cu Chullain are the only ones that you might be able to paint with that broad brush, and the evidence is compelling without them. So feel free to strike them from the list, if you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

On might ask why the Greeks don't get cart-sized stone throwing soldiers ala the Iliad.

---

Because we don't use legendary epics such as the Iliad as evidence for weapons, armor, or units.

Dun da nFerg was not a legendary epic, it was a work of history. No magic, legendary champions, or extravagance of any sort is found in it. It is surprisingly low key. It is a poem about an historical event; the Celts used such stories as a way to make the history easier to memorize. The poem mentions Gaul in the past tense, but states that the Britons still posed a threat, so it was post Gallic conquest, but before the southern Britons were conquered by the Romans.

The oral traditions of the Celts have resulted in three categories of works, if you will: Legendary epics, works of a religious nature, and serious histories. Of the three, only the serious histories can give us specific information about the Celtic military, for instance; the others are useful only for general information and for clues about Celtic culture, and perhaps corroboration of things found elsewhere.

While we cannot call the recorded oral histories 100% accurate, this does not invalidate them. Many things have been located as a direct result of the translation of these histories, or previous discoveries corroborating information found in them; burials, remains of objects and places, battle sites, and so on. Like any ancient work, the oral histories are evaluated on an individual basis as to their validity and accuracy.

We are careful to note which of the three 'categories' the information we use comes from, and are careful about the individual sources we use, noting which are more and which are less accurate. The stories of Cu Chullain would be less so, Dun da nFerg more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Is there any evidence of 2 handed hammers being used by Celts in any actual historic record or found in battle field excavations (in the Classical era)?

---

Dun da nFerg IS an actual historical record. Others exist, as well.

However, I have answered this above, though perhaps I was not precise enough. Chunks of all the weapons and armor noted in Dun da nFerg have been found in battlefield excavations, notably one east of Gort, south of Loughrea, near the Burren. Edit: Including parts of two-handed hammers and two-handed swords.

You mention some of your evidence, but i'm interested what direct physical evidence you have for these units in the Iron Age (particularly the period of the game). Aside from the later texts (which describe a period demonstrably different to that of the era of the RTW game and is a whole different issue in itself), can you expand upon the archaeological evidence you give. You mention a couple of iron age finds and excavations. Do you have the site names for these rather than the rough geographical locations? It's rather hard to find them in the archaeological excavation database without a wee bit more detail. I know of plenty of evidence of hammers used in metal-working of the period, but didn't know that there were hammers were used militarily at the time.

Not disagreeing but just interested in the artefacts.

Incidentally the 'Dun na nFerg'. Is that part of another body of work? I don't think i know of it. Perhaps it has an alternative name?


Lastly since i virtually never post here but do scan over the forum every so often. Good luck with mod. It looks like it will be fascinating and of a very high standard. ~:cheers:

Erm, the Táin and other Irish/Gaelic/Goidilic epics would generally come from the Iron Age. The surviving version of the Táin is the (rather biased) version taken down by monks in the early middle ages of a version of the legend from the 400s to 500s. The legend is older than that. (Trust me, I have an exam on this in Irish on Friday)
Regarding epics and historical value, the Iliad is an exaggerated version of the state of affairs at the time. I.e. Chariots, single combat, etc, in a highly stylised form.
The Táin is not unbelievable for the military detail in it, rather the scale of that, as well as the prowess of those involved is exaggerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymous_joe

Erm, the Táin and other Irish/Gaelic/Goidilic epics would generally come from the Iron Age. The surviving version of the Táin is the (rather biased) version taken down by monks in the early middle ages of a version of the legend from the 400s to 500s. The legend is older than that. (Trust me, I have an exam on this in Irish on Friday)

---

That there may also hold some problems as the Tain and the Iliad are both epic tales passed down from generation to generation orally and then at some point in time written down. Who is to say that as time passed military terms for arms, armor, tactics, etc were adapted to fit the period in which the story was told/written down? Therefore is the Tain of 500 A.description an accurate descritption of the Celtic (Irish) world/culture when the Tain was actually created?

Another example is the tales of King Arthur... Ask the common person on the street and he would probably describe Arthur as the stereotypical "knight in shining armor" like you would see at a Renaissance Festival. However, based on archaeology of the time period when the historical Arthur possibly existed such a description would be false.

Now, Khelvan, you did mention that the Iliad wasn't used as evidence for arms and armor, could it possibly be because of what I described above? If so, could not this theory also be applied to Dun na nFerg?

I'm not really trying to prove you wrong or bash your sources, but after casually "studying" the ancient Celts, (esp. their area of warfare), for the past eight or so years, I really have not heard of the use of hammers or two-handed swords. However, it does come to my attention, that most of my sources seem to deal with the continental and British Celts when mostly speaking on warfare - not much info is really given on the Celts of Ireland. And I seem to recall that the typical long slashing sword that typified the Celtic warrior in Greek and Roman eyes was never really in vouge in Ireland, correct me if I am wrong. With that in mind the Irish Celts may very well have employed a variety of arms... but then again I still want to see/read the sources that back these units up.

Mmmm, you have a point in that the evidence isn't perhaps 100% concrete cast in iron proof that hammers were used by gauls in prechristian times, but I imagine 100% cast in iron proof is hard to come by a nation without written records.

Some additional references: One site as yet unmentioned was Rockfield. While Rockfield itself is a bronze age site, an iron age site is adjacent. That site is filled with cremated bones and the like, as well as chunks of weapons. Most are too damaged to be identified, but a few can be pieced together, including a hammer (though one-handed), and a few swords.

Excavations at Newtown reveal similar objects, though the span of objects dates in Newtown is between c. 3000 BC up to c. 500 AD. Tons of archaeological material there. Houses, a type of triangular structure, cremation pits, burial pits, weapons, some remaining chunks of armor, etc. Parts of a two-handed sword (reconstructed, though it has only a slightly longer blade than a longsword would have, the weight and grip clearly suggest it was used in two hands) were found, dating to about 250 - 150 BC. Two relatively intact two-handed hammers was found there. Some surmise they were work hammers, but some theorize, due to the large spike on the back, they were probably warhammers (which generally doubled as both anyway). They're both dated to around 300 - 250 BC. There's a lull in artifacts there, until around 400 - 500 AD, when an enclosure was constructed around the area, but for our purposes, the hammers and sword is what we'll pay attention to.

There's also Ballykane Hill. In addition to both neolithic and medieval artifacts, there've been found some iron age artifacts, including a similar sword, and a few one handed hammers with a similar rear spike. The full findings and dates of those items are still being assessed. At Curraghgraigue Upper, an excavation found a stone age burial pit, but the pit also has burials the whole way up to the early dark ages. A larger two-handed sword was found there (but the size of both the remains that accompanied it, and the weapon itself, suggest it was specially made for the individual), as well as a few remains of axes, hammers, and swords, though they're all in much worse condition. This site is accompanied by a nearby neolithic flat cemetary site, but that's of no interest to the point to be made here. The hammers and two-handed weapons are dwarfed in number by remains of other weapons (particularly axes and spearheads, but also short and mid-length swords), but they were present.

Contemporary Celtic historians who specialize in the early Irish Celts, based on the available physical evidence and corroborating transcription of oral histories believe that it is likely that two-handed hammers were somewhat uncommon, but did exist within Goidilic armies. For our purposes, their rarity can be attested to in game by proper balancing of cost and availability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

That there may also hold some problems as the Tain and the Iliad are both epic tales passed down from generation to generation orally and then at some point in time written down. Who is to say that as time passed military terms for arms, armor, tactics, etc were adapted to fit the period in which the story was told/written down? Therefore is the Tain of 500 A.description an accurate descritption of the Celtic (Irish) world/culture when the Tain was actually created?

---

The Tain is an epic tale full of extravagance, meant to impress. Its accuracy is questionable not because of the oral tradition, nor any assumed adaptation, but because of the style in which it was developed and told. The Tain includes Irish legends and such, and is more like the Illiad; for our purposes in understanding the Celts, it represents culture and other general information about the Celts, but more fantasy when it comes to the military and a serious look at historical events.

It was not meant as a serious history.

Now, assuming we are discussing the serious historical work, Dun na nFerg, we can't call it 100% accurate to period, but fairly accurate. Things would change, but hardly in any great level. Aside from what we'll discuss below about the purpose of the oral historian, one should keep in mind; Ireland changed remarkably little, based on archaeological evidence, from about 300 BC until about 600 AD. At most, ringforts and cashels appeared, but otherwise, we find essentially the exact same items we found before except they'd begun to write. Christianity did bring changes in the 400s and 500s, but the Irish church was isolated. They were not initially affected by exterior cultures in any great extent by Christianity. The military didn't seem to change. The same types of weapons and the like are found from both the period it describes, and the period it was written down. The Irish Celts had no need to change in that gap. They had successfully driven off their enemies, they could defeat Britons and Caledonians (their only real nemeses); they didn't need to change anything as far as they saw it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Another example is the tales of King Arthur... Ask the common person on the street and he would probably describe Arthur as the stereotypical "knight in shining armor" like you would see at a Renaissance Festival. However, based on archaeology of the time period when the historical Arthur possibly existed such a description would be false.

---

The tales of King Arthur are no example here. The actual occurences it was based on happened in post-Roman Britain. Writing already existed there. It has nothing to do with oral traditions. Additionally, it neglects that, by that point, the trained storytellers and historians who memorized these things had been wiped out in the area. In Ireland, they still existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Now, Khelvan, you did mention that the Iliad wasn't used as evidence for arms and armor, could it possibly be because of what I described above? If so, could not this theory also be applied to Dun na nFerg?

---

No, and no. I have already stated that we use legendary epics and religious works as, at best, circumstantial evidence to support a case already presented. They cannot be relied upon for serious military and historical information, as it contains much fantasy and extravagance. Dun na nFerg contains none of these things. It's about serious events. It, at the very least, offers a general view of what the military was like, its weapons, armor, and tactics. You must have missed my statement that there is a very clear difference between the legendary epic, religious, and historical works resulting from the transcription of the Celtic oral histories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

And I seem to recall that the typical long slashing sword that typified the Celtic warrior in Greek and Roman eyes was never really in vouge in Ireland, correct me if I am wrong.

---

It was used there, but was rarer, yes. The favored sword was a shorter slashing and thrusting sword. We won't have long swords or two-handed swords for Goidilic units; out of five planned Goidilic units, only one will have swords, and they will be comparatively short. The two-handed swords will be available to a Lugian (Celts from Eastern Europe) regional unit, and possibly a very rare, elite unit representing Briton champions.

The Romans (including Tacitus, I believe) refer to Briton two-handed swords, though slightly out of period; period evidence exists, but the Briton unit is not definite yet, and may be dropped en lieu of another unit if the need arises. These two-handed swords were not the massive swords of Medieval times mind you, they're more or less a somewhat widened longsword blade, slightly longer. They're mentioned in numerous cycles, and have been found both in Britain and Poland in archaeological dig sites from the period. Brodhaie states that an invading king from southern Britain, and his twenty guards, all had two-handed swords. Brodhaie's origins probably predate the conquest of Gaul, based on references in it, so it is an even older work than Dun na nFerg. Luachmharleannbann (Also known as Lomharlebann, Lomharleabhair, or Lomhapaisti) says, plainly, that the invaders from the south of Ilba/Alba (Britain), before the Romans came, used to invade and their greatest champions carried great, heavy swords in two hands. It differentiates heavily between the pre and post-Romans in Britain and between the 'Broitaigh/Cumrataigh' (midland Britons) and 'Goalla' (southern Britons/Gauls).

I must make a note about the oral tradition that so many people misunderstand. Those responsible for the oral recording of Celtic history weren't just random individuals who memorized factoids, they were trained professionals who had to be able to recite bloodlines and histories without flaw. The misconception brought up by referencing the game "telephone" doesn't apply; there aren't politics or personal interest to be taken into account, and those unable to recite the histories accurately were not given the responsibility. The people chosen to memorize certain things were often from tribes outside the series of events (when available) so their biases don't really come into play. The men who were training the next generation of historians dedicated their lives to memorizing portions of histories. While mistakes would be made, simply based on how heavily they trained in these things, it's most unlikely that they would be grevious mistakes. More mistakes would be made scribing. There were more scribes, with substantially more varied opinions, and no real 'quality control'. You weren't allowed to be a historian in a Celtic society without the ability to perfectly recite lengthy histories exactly as they were related to you.

Many people would unquestionably view Titus Livius as a strong source of ancient information, regardless of the fact that he sometimes wrote of events generations prior to his time, and exhibits a very strong, demonstrable bias in his writing. Based on corroborating physical and textual evidence, the transcriptions of the Celtic oral histories (the serious histories, not the legendary epics) compare favorably to a writer like Livy.

In addition, the legendary epics are the works that have been celebrated and translated to English. They're full of extravagant language and wild, exciting tales. They are the ones that receive attention and are sought. The serious histories are dry and rather boring, so like many rather important 'historic' poems and other oral recordings, they are generally ignored today in favor of the legendary works.

If you would like to continue this discussion with me, I ask that you recognize that there are different forms of transcribed oral tradition. Calling Dun na nFerg and similar citations "legendary epics" and then doubting them is attacking a straw man argument. We recognize which of our sources are legendary, and which are not, and I hope you will respect us enough to at least acknowledge that.

Edit: typos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greek_fire19

Mmmm, you have a point in that the evidence isn't perhaps 100% concrete cast in iron proof that hammers were used by gauls in prechristian times, but I imagine 100% cast in iron proof is hard to come by a nation without written records.

---

As I state above, the textual evidence is at least as compelling as something written about by Livy, and arguably moreso, even without the introduction of archaeological evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Some additional references... (A lot of really good information on archaeological finds)

---

Wonderful information and very interesting! The only thing that I might ask is perhaps the war hammers and two-handers were used for ceremonial purposes - more for show than actual use on the battlefield? Since swords were considered an elite weapon, and only the upper class warriors (either on foot or horse) would wield them in battle, could not a larger version of the battlefield weapon be granted to those truly elite - those great champions, as a status symbol?

Later in your post you mention texts that make this idea not so far fetched...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

The Romans (including Tacitus, I believe) refer to Briton two-handed swords, though slightly out of period; period evidence exists, but the Briton unit is not definite yet, and may be dropped en lieu of another unit if the need arises. These two-handed swords were not the massive swords of Medieval times mind you, they're more or less a somewhat widened longsword blade, slightly longer. They're mentioned in numerous cycles, and have been found both in Britain and Poland in archaeological dig sites from the period. Brodhaie states that an invading king from southern Britain, and his twenty guards, all had two-handed swords. Brodhaie's origins probably predate the conquest of Gaul, based on references in it, so it is an even older work than Dun na nFerg. Luachmharleannbann (Also known as Lomharlebann, Lomharleabhair, or Lomhapaisti) says, plainly, that the invaders from the south of Ilba/Alba (Britain), before the Romans came, used to invade and their greatest champions carried great, heavy swords in two hands. It differentiates heavily between the pre and post-Romans in Britain and between the 'Broitaigh/Cumrataigh' (midland Britons) and 'Goalla' (southern Britons/Gauls).

---

Now I haven't read any of the sources that you give, so I can't say whether or not these mentioned swords were used in battle but I would assume that would be the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

The tales of King Arthur are no example here...

---

Point taken. After re-reading my post I can see that it looked that I was stating that the tales of King Arthur was another example of oral tradition - where as I really meant it as an example of tales changing as they are handed down over the years. I mistakenly didn't present it as such...

Now in regards to my statement about Dun na nFerg and your reply, I didn't mean to imply that like the Iliad and Tain that it is a legendary epic. I did read your statement that there are different forms of oral literature, legendary epic, religious, and historical and I fully agree with you on that stance. The whole point to my previous post was that could it be possible that over time tales - whether it be passed down orally or written, or whether it be legendary or historical - could change, taking on attributes of later eras?

The simple answer would be yes, all tales handed down through the years have some change in them as we have them now, from when they originally were conceived, (in the case of legendary tales), or occurred, (in the case of historical).

However, you make a good point in regards to how little such tales, (especially in regards to Irish historic tales), have changed when you explained how little Irish culture changed very little from 300 BC to 600 AD. Also your excellent explanation of the Celtic oral tradition furthers this point.

Now let me see if I have this straight. The legendary tales are only used as circumstantial evidence to back up evidence based in historic texts that have correlating archaeological evidence as well?

And if that being the case, such is the reasoning behind the two-handed swordsmen and hammer units, correct?

Last thing: Is there any published material I can get my hands on for Dun na nFerg and any other texts you mentioned in your post? Any good books on the topic of Celtic Ireland you would suggest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Since swords were considered an elite weapon, and only the upper class warriors (either on foot or horse) would wield them in battle, could not a larger version of the battlefield weapon be granted to those truly elite - those great champions, as a status symbol?

Later in your post you mention texts that make this idea not so far fetched...

---

That's true, the archaeological evidence is often ambiguous. Artifacts are found, or pieces of artifacts, and a determination must be made of their possible use.

The Celts didn't go in much for overly ceremonial weapons (though they did have ceremonial armor, they were more like costuming of a sort). They were mentioned in Dun da nFerg as being used in battle, and Luachmahrleannbann states plainly that the hammers were for breaking shields and bronzeplates (bronze discs used as chestplates, similar to the Roman pectorale) and helmets, and for killing horses (by breaking their legs, or using the rear spike to kill them). The hammer, in this case, is definitely a battlefield weapon; the flat crushing head and the rear spike are clearly for specialized purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Now I haven't read any of the sources that you give, so I can't say whether or not these mentioned swords were used in battle but I would assume that would be the case?

---

Aside from the two battle references above, the two-handed swords appear in other battle references as well, being stated plainly as being used in combat (King Gorm was killed by a Goalla using one).

However, if you are referring to Goidilic two-handed swords (which won't be found in EB), references and items are found relating to battle. While we find more items (as the Goidils were a larger culture than the southern Britons, a 'Gallic' culture) and references (because the Goidilic/Gaelic histories remained longer), two-handed swords were comparatively more rare in the Goidilic military than in the southern Briton military. Most common use in battle was by Mildhabrehondan (Judge-Champions), 'druid' warriors; they were in very small numbers though. Numerous Goidilic champions and such were remarked to use two-handed swords in battle.

As an aside, Goidilic 'druids' were like other Celtic 'druids;' they were philosophers, priests, historians, scientists, doctors, and so on - the higher educated individuals in the society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Point taken. After re-reading my post I can see that it looked that I was stating that the tales of King Arthur was another example of oral tradition - where as I really meant it as an example of tales changing as they are handed down over the years.

---

Fair enough, but keep in mind that this is still a comment on oral tradition. The oral traditions were not like what we might think of as common tales or legends being passed down. These were rigidly trained, tested, and controlled historians. Legends will be embellished or changed to a much greater degree, especially considering that the area you are referencing was once home to this oral tradition, and all those trained in the tradition were gone. We can't compare the legend of King Arthur to one of the historical poems of the Celts, or even one of the legendary tales from the oral tradition.

An analogy would be, for me, the difference between reading and/or being told a tale, and then attempting to rewrite it whole (the passing down of common tales or legends), and being trained to memorize, by rote, word for word, the entire tale (the tradition of oral histories). These people were similar to later day scribes, but even more disciplined. That they used their memories rather than paper does not invalidate their training and ability, and an argument can be made that in some cases they would be more accurate, as stricter controls were in place. Some examples of this tradition can still be found today, in remote areas of Ireland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Now in regards to my statement about Dun na nFerg and your reply, I didn't mean to imply that like the Iliad and Tain that it is a legendary epic. I did read your statement that there are different forms of oral literature, legendary epic, religious, and historical and I fully agree with you on that stance. The whole point to my previous post was that could it be possible that over time tales - whether it be passed down orally or written, or whether it be legendary or historical - could change, taking on attributes of later eras?

The simple answer would be yes, all tales handed down through the years have some change in them as we have them now, from when they originally were conceived, (in the case of legendary tales), or occurred, (in the case of historical).

---

If I was a bit short with you, I apologize. We have had a recent influx of newly-registered complainants, who attack our research because we do not always hold to the Roman/Greek canon. There are some out there who feel that if it isn't found in Latin or Greek, it is revisionist history. I am sorry if your post count led me to subconciously leap to a conclusion, and it affected my manners.

There must be some allotment for change over the eras, certainly. However, my point has been that we have compilations from oral historians that have been as detailed, informative, and corroborated as Polybius, but since they come from the oral tradition they are immediately made suspect. We must take any work of history and evaluate it for what it is, whether it be Polybius or Dun na nFerg. If we read Polybius and understand what the makeup of the Roman Legion was c. 150 BC, why must we assume some greater degradation of history in a similarly strong, clear, corroborated history of the Celtic military? Does translation into English and wide availability to the public make Polybius a better source of information?

The point I make, and you respond to below, is ancillary, in my opinion. If Celtic histories lead us to undiscovered objects, dig sites, battlegrounds, and so on; if information in them is corroborated in works from Rome to Greece to Carthage; if details found in them fit perfectly to explain the usage or purpose of physical objects found in dig sites, why is the tendency of people to question them as degraded, merely because they were recorded by trained oral rather than written historians? The Celtic oral tradition has its benefits and drawbacks, but in the end individual works must be evaluated for accuracy as an individual work, not given a blanket judgement, which seems to happen all too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

However, you make a good point in regards to how little such tales, (especially in regards to Irish historic tales), have changed when you explained how little Irish culture changed very little from 300 BC to 600 AD. Also your excellent explanation of the Celtic oral tradition furthers this point.

Now let me see if I have this straight. The legendary tales are only used as circumstantial evidence to back up evidence based in historic texts that have correlating archaeological evidence as well?

And if that being the case, such is the reasoning behind the two-handed swordsmen and hammer units, correct?

---

I hope you will be willing to accept evidence without the corroboration of an insular culture, because the Britons and Gauls were changed dramatically through Roman conquest, and we'll be using some evidence from pre-Roman sources for our military. Luckily for our sanity (due to said questioners, above), not too much of it disagrees with the romanticized (pun intended) notion of the Celts, but we must always keep in mind the bias and circumstance of writers such as Caesar (who never faced the true might of the Gauls, fighting against what amounted to untrained levies, the veteran armies of Aedui and Arverni/Sequani having destroyed each other).

Your evaluation is correct. Though we aren't re-inventing the wheel. When we say that "contemporary Celtic historians" say such and such, we are able to say it because we have a professional, contemporary one in our ranks. The unfortunate reality when it comes to defending our choices is that many people won't have read some of the sources we cite; if we're lucky they are in the process of translation to modern Irish, or have already been so, if not, they're still likely in Old Irish. Few of those that have been translated to Irish have been translated to English, and like many translated works they take years to become publically available.

Also, there is lots of evidence for many different, strange things, both physical and textual. A single sword found of a particularly distinct type might be held up as evidence for that type of sword being somewhat common in the military of a particular area. This is a trap we do our best not to fall into; we try to give the militaries of the various factions we depict as objective an evaluation as possible, based on a number of different sources. We won't be showing, for instance, the very rare Goidilic two-handed sword, even though we could pick out and display numerous references to it. Perhaps, if we had made the Goidilics a faction, a single, very rare unit (perhaps bodyguards) might have been given it, but that would have been up for debate.

In the end we're doing our best to show the various militaries as accurately as possible. There was much variety to be found throughout the ancient world at war, and we hope to show weapons and tactics that were common as common in our mod, and those that were rare as being rare, but try to show how diverse some of these militaries really were. A similar amount of detail and thought has gone into our other factions, and I am working to put together a database of info on the more controversial units, including another hot topic, the Carthaginians. So far, we've avoided a similar conversation like this about them, but I know it is coming, because our members are drawing from as-yet unpublished finds that they themselves took part in discovering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glewas

Last thing: Is there any published material I can get my hands on for Dun na nFerg and any other texts you mentioned in your post? Any good books on the topic of Celtic Ireland you would suggest?

---

I have passed this request on, and I will let you know if some of the more obscure works are available. The Dun na nFerg may be translated and available; if so, you might be able to find it under the name "the Fort of Ferg," or "the Fort of Fergal/Fergus." A suggestion for a primer might be "The History of Ireland" (can't recall the author), and the Book of Invasions might help, but it is fairly unreliable, except in a general sense. It sometimes follows the appropriate invasion routes, but is interspersed with purely legendary accounts, so culling fact from fiction is often difficult. I'll let you know if we come up with anything more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Your evaluation is correct. Though we aren't re-inventing the wheel. When we say that "contemporary Celtic historians" say such and such, we are able to say it because we have a professional, contemporary one in our ranks. The unfortunate reality when it comes to defending our choices is that many people won't have read some of the sources we cite; if we're lucky they are in the process of translation to modern Irish, or have already been so, if not, they're still likely in Old Irish. Few of those that have been translated to Irish have been translated to English, and like many translated works they take years to become publically available.

---

Ouch. Not a fun language to play with. And modern Irish has changed a lot from old Irish. Tends to be difficult to work with though, whether modern or old. Still, it's my ancestral tongue, so have to make an effort I suppose. ~;)

Interest in Irish culture seems to be increasing, especially as we're one of the few surviving Celtic peoples, with a vibrant(-ish) Celtic language.

To back up Khelvan, the veracity of reports of relatively unchanged culture here from 300bc to 500ad or so is unquestionable, as the Irish became even more isolated from the rest of the world following Roman conquest of Britain, and the arrival of Christianity caused an end to the casual invasion of our neighbours. Regarding unchanging society, allow me point out that Brehon law, or versions thereof were still in use up to medieval times widely, and, in more isolated areas for even longer.

Agus go n'éiri libh leis an "mod."

Since this mod emphasises historical accuracy, shouldn't most 'barbarian' units have a mix of weapons?
Warhammers only unit? Swords only unit ? Unlikely.

Why's it unlikely? They were 'barbarians' not idiots. Anyway, Khelvan, Ranika or one of the others will explain and give sources in all likelihood...

Well, the point is not worth debating. We can't mix weapon types within a unit, even if we wanted to. We probably wouldn't; 'Barbarian' armies were, for the most part, organized, just as 'civilized' armies were organized, though with different militaries and tactics. 'Barbarian' militaries were not formless mobs, as Hollywood would have you believe. Different armor types would be more likely, but we can't do that. We can't even change clothing or coloring between men in a unit.

It just isn't physically possible in the game engine, and as such there's no point worrying about it.

Actually, regarding CEltic units, what size will they be? Will they be around the 40 mark like vanilla?

That varies per unit, as all of our units do. Lesser units will generally have more men, and greater units fewer men. Chariot units, for instance, will be very small.

Will Celtic armies be numerically similar to the Romans, for example, or larger?

Or, being armies of trained soldiers pre civil war, would they have had smaller armies?

Generally, the size of units will be similar across all armies, the differences being in unit cost and availability, to represent where factions had advantages in manpower or cost. For instance, horse units will be cheaper for steppe factions.

There are many reasons to do it this way, but one of them is that we are limited in the number of units that show up on the battlefield. If we make one faction have too much of an advantage in manpower or quality on the battlefield -itself-, based on the number of units that can fit in the battle, it is likely that this faction will always win the battles on the battlefield. So we must be careful that we don't give too much of a battlefield advantage. Limitations in the game engine force us to make choices in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

... 'Barbarian' armies were, for the most part, organized, just as 'civilized' armies were organized...

---

Interesting. Unfortunately quick google search didn't provide anything revolutionary:
greco-romans = advanced gear, tactics and formations
barbarians = basic stuff + no mentioning of formations whatsoever ( greeks+romans ,rome/byz+barbs ,general tactics )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonymous_joe

...Khelvan, Ranika or one of the others will [...] give sources in all likelihood...

---

I'd be interested.

Until then, I'll stick with "Hollywood's version" of barbarians as "formless mobs"

The Brehon laws state, when talking about military, that Goidils/Gaels organized into multiples of 5 (25-50-100-150-200-etc.) for their units. Additionally, they were arrayed in groups based on their weapon and the size of their shield, and quality of their armor. This is similar to other Celts (such as the Arverni nobles, who used oval shields, and formed a shield wall; they were organized into units that defended one another). Organizing into units based on weapons is common sense; it doesn't take a logistical genius to see the benefit of using the same weapons in a group. Note that Celts and Germans are both creditted with using spear walls like a phalanx, and shieldwalls. The Belgae are creditted with using a testudo like formation to get into position to sap walls by Caesar (and their shields have been found to generally be of the same shape; an interlocking hexagonal shape, so as to absent gaps). Clearly, they aren't just mobs. We're not talking about some wild band of raiders, we're talking about organized armies. The Greeks and Macedonians saw them when they came through Greece (eventually settling in Tylis and Galatia); the Macedonian army wasn't decimated by a wild band. The Celts sent unarmored shortswordsmen at their phalanxes; they would use a small shield to knock the pikes up, and roll underneath, to stab the pikemen in their stomachs. That's why phalanxes in Pergamon had a row that knelt. With the phalanx disintegrated, heavier armed longswordsmen would just the soldiers and cut them down, often accompanied by cavalry rushing the flanks. However, they weren't confined to just battle field tactics, they also paid attention to political and cultural situations. When invading Greece, on the march to Delphi, they sent organized detachments to burn the areas around certain cities, to draw away some of the allies in their way (since they would return to defend their homes). Those aren't actions undertaken by a rampaging mob; they were being led by an educated militarist, and he was purely Celtic (Brennos; not the one who sacked Rome, though he used similar tactics).

Google provides nothing usually, because the internet is ineffective for finding anything decent. Greek and Roman accounts are, while not perfect by any means to begin with, dumbed down drastically; if the Celts had all fought in wild mobs, why did the Romans note that the Helveti (Celts from the Alps) fight in an organized, disciplined phalanx? Common sense is absent from the theory that barbarians all fought in mobs. It simply doesn't attest to why they got as far as they did, or persisted as long as they did. Even with a fragmented, broken Gaul, Romans took nearly a decade to conquer it, and didn't even have to deal with the older Gallic professionals, who had all killed eachother or begun working for the Romans. Gauls would've had no chance at all of getting through Macedonia (let alone getting as near to Delphi as they did, and weather helped the Greeks there, though if the weather hadn't been disadvantageous to the Celts, the Greeks probably still could have won). Additionally, on the subject of the Galatian migration; if they were all such a disorganized horde, why did some Greeks ally with them? They had Hellenic cavalry and soldiers that accompanied them. Why did Greeks and Romans copy their armor and weapons? Greeks began to use the oval theuros shield and chain armor, clearly based on what Galatians were carrying. Galatians, who were just Gauls in Asia Minor, were used as heavy infantry and elites by numerous surrounding armies; often, they weren't even asked to take up fighting in another style. They wanted them to fight like Gauls; they used Gallic equipment, weapons (usually, though Galatians weren't unchanging either, they adopted what they saw as useful, just like anyone else; they began using akinakes to some extent), and tactics, because they were good against eastern armies that weren't used to fighting Celts. The situation is vastly more complex than 'they were a rampaging horde'.

interesting stuff! i didn't know anything about the gaul-macedon conflict. is this excerpt from a paper by someone named nick griffin pretty accurate (i found it via google :wideeyed:)? also, what are some good sources of more detailed info on brennus' march through greece?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nick griffin

Even the well-organized civilizations of Greece and Rome were hard-pressed by the Celtic expansion. According to Livy's The Gallic Wars , the Celts of Gaul, impelled by overpopulation, formed a confederation under Ambicatus, king of the Bituriges. He sent out two colonial expeditions, each under the command of one of his nephews. Sigovesus led one column eastward through the forests of Germany and down the Danube, while Bellovesus commanded an invasion of Italy over the Alps in 396 B.C.

Certain areas north of the River Po had already been settled by Celts in the previous century, and the estimated 300,000 newcomers passed through these peacefully. Further south, however, the cities of the Etruscan civilization were looted and destroyed. The people of the Boii tribe, whose original homeland still bears the name Bohemia, seized the countryside around their new settlement, which we know today as Bologna. Related tribes founded other towns, including Milan.

After a brief pause, the push south continued in 387 B.C. A Roman army sent to oppose them was so terrified by the war cries of some 30,000 Gauls that the soldiers panicked. The Roman force was utterly destroyed, and the triumphant Celts swept southward. A powerful army under Brennus completed the humiliation by occupying Rome and extracting an enormous ransom of gold before withdrawing to the north.

For the next 40 years Celtic armies terrorized Italy. Rome was attacked three more times, and much of central and northern Italy was repeatedly looted and laid waste.


Livy, however, also records that the ill-disciplined tribesmen often drank themselves into oblivion and grew fat on the rich but easy pickings. The invaders were decimated by plague and later by famine. Even worse, they had no idea of the power of organization. Where the Celts had tribal loyalties and reckless individual bravery, the Romans had devotion to the state and iron discipline.

Rome raised and trained new armies from the south and, around 349 B.C., went on the offensive. According to the Graeco-Roman historian Polybius, the Celts, once again marching to plunder Rome, were so surprised to encounter serious opposition that they fled. A series of Roman victories drove the surviving Celts back to the north. By 335 B.C. they were forced to accept harsh peace terms and settled down in Cisalpine Gaul (i.e., Gaul on the Italian side of the Alps), as the Romans named the new Celtic colony, noted for its productive agriculture.

Nothing is known directly of the movements of the colonial expedition sent out by Ambicatus to the east. Around this time, however, Celtic settlements appeared along the lower Danube and in parts of the Balkans. By 369 B.C. the Gaulish population of the region was strong enough for Celtic mercenaries to play a notable part in the Peloponnesian War.

From then on, Celts were regularly employed by the Greeks, both in their own civil wars and against their neighbors to the east. In 335 B.C. a delegation of Celts from the Adriatic paid court to Alexander the Great, who asked whether it were true that their people feared nothing. "Only," they replied, "that the sky might fall."

Hellenic civilization was by now fading rapidly, owing to widespread race-mixing between the Indo-European masters and their aboriginal slaves. In 280 B.C. the Celts moved to take advantage of this decadence. Two Celtic armies routed the Macedonian army. Macedonian resistance ended when a third army of Celts, commanded by another Brennus, arrived the following year to deliver the coup de grace. Brennus' army was estimated at 150,000 foot and up to 20,000 horse and almost certainly included many former mercenaries with experience of Greek military organization.

In any event, having dealt with the Macedonians, Brennus marched on Greece. A largely Athenian army tried to hold the strategic pass at Thermopylae but was defeated much more easily than the Spartans had been two centuries earlier. Town after town went up in flames. Even Delphi was sacked and its sacred oracle looted. Some confusion followed, and Brennus was wounded, according to the Greeks by the god Apollo himself.

The Celts withdrew in good order, but Brennus, disgraced by the withdrawal and injury, committed suicide, and his mighty host broke up. A Celtic kingdom was established in Thrace, but a combination of interbreeding with the earlier inhabitants and pressure from its Greek neighbors meant that it was quickly Hellenized and overwhelmed.

Other Celts took service under various warring Greek rulers or moved northward founding various towns, including Belgrade. A thin line of Celtic placenames even runs along the coast of the Black Sea north of the Danube, with a scattering of La Tene artifacts being found in southern Russia, including a cemetery near Kiev, and as far as the Sea of Azov.

An army of 10,000 Celts with a similar number of dependents were invited to Asia Minor by a local king in 278 B.C. They quickly found it more profitable to operate on their own account, ravaging and extracting tribute from the terrified cities. Their antics were curbed eight years later by a crushing defeat at the hands of a Syrian force equipped with elephants. The majority then settled on a series of poor plateaux henceforth known as Galatia, now in Turkey.

---

Aside from qouting Livy (who doesn't do history much favors by denigrating Rome's enemies in a fashion that no one else, even those who vehemently hated Celts, tended to), it's fairly accurate. Livy's account of Celts doesn't mesh well with other accounts. Celts were called 'decadent', not because they drank themselves stupid or fought in hordes, but because they were so rich and powerful from conquest and raids that they found many precious metals simply weren't that valuable to them anymore; they were considered pretentious and rather snobbish (the Gauls left Rome rather than conquer it because the stench of the city offended them; they were extremely cleanly people who ritually bathed before and after battle to make sure they didn't smell). However, Brennos (the Galatian) didn't commit suicide from disgrace, he commited suicide because his son had been killed (the caern marking his burial place, back in Gaul, says so, in Greek, but the site was destroyed during bombing in WW2). Also, he makes the destruction in Greece sound much more epic than it was; while the Celts did destroy a great deal, they actually did not penetrate very far south. They crushed the Macedonians in a very fierce conflict, and two of the three armies continued east. One (Brennos's) marched on Delphi and the subsequent events led to his suicide.

yeah, i knew you were going to hate on livy.. ~;)

thanks for the analysis & corrections. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vytis

Interesting. Unfortunately quick google search didn't provide anything revolutionary:
greco-romans = advanced gear, tactics and formations
barbarians = basic stuff + no mentioning of formations whatsoever ( greeks+romans ,rome/byz+barbs ,general tactics )


I'd be interested.

Until then, I'll stick with "Hollywood's version" of barbarians as "formless mobs"

---

Yay for the google gang!

the fountain of all knowledge...


(real historians know to ask jeeves)

Well, Google Scholar is slightly more worthwhile, at least, although it doesn't have enough material indexed to be really great, and the engine it uses isn't that useful for books. Like, a search for "Celtic army composition" got me this . . . which has approximately nothing to do with armies, but to be fair, it does have to do with Celtic composition, and it looks pretty scholarly.

-Simetrical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Yay for the google gang!

---

seriously, what's going on? is there a coordinated effort or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Like, a search for "Celtic army composition" got me this . . .

---

and a search for "celtic armies" got me this. :wideeyed:

what si this sudden burst of 'if its not on google it doenst excist'-crap please people. EB I 80%historians and 20% modders working their asses of. Have a little faith...
I sure do. google (and hollywood) cannot compete with diploma's and actual books (http://battellemedia.com/archives/old%20book%206.gif for the people among you who forgot what it was)

EB knows what its doing, and people googling to check if its real do not. Just the fact that Hollywood portraits Barbarians as mobs means it was the opposit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Brennos/Celts vs. Macedonia/Greeks...

---

Thank you. Interesting view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Google provides nothing usually...

---

Let's try anyway: gaul invasion macedonia
Hm. A somewhat different view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

google...cannot compete with diploma's and actual books...

---

Do not underestimate the power of Google ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

Just the fact that Hollywood portraits Barbarians as mobs means it was the opposit

---

Of course
~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

...EB I 80%historians and 20% modders working their asses of.

---

80% historians? Impressive. I didn't know that.
Professional or 'graduated non-experts' ?



Anyway, if you think that 'barbarians' were equal or superior in 'civilization' to greco-romans, that's fine by me. After all, every historian has his own version of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vytis

Let's try anyway: gaul invasion macedonia
Hm. A somewhat different view.

Anyway, if you think that 'barbarians' were equal or superior in 'civilization' to greco-romans, that's fine by me. After all, every historian has his own version of history.

---

213,200 Gauls and mighty decent of them to let themselves be counted that way. Very cooperative chaps when you think about it. And the Greeks were outnumbered only 8-1. I wonder what made those Greek fellows hire out Gauls as mercenaries them being so useless as soldiers and all. This Pausanias fellow was born around the year 115 AD and wrote his guide between the years 143 and 161 AD which would put him 430 years after the 280 BC invasion. That after 430 years he was able to discover the numbers of gauls and Greeks so accurately is clearly a testimony to the superior civilization of the Greeks.

No one said anything about Celts being 'superior' to Greeks, simply not inferior. Setting up strawmen and knocking them down does make one feel so bright though, doesn't it? Celts were seen as having great value as soldiers, because they were excellent shock soldiers with sound tactics for beating many types of enemies; they had tactical flexibility, with great variety of weapons and armor, like any successful military of the period. If the Celts who went through Greece were so markedly inferior, why did they adopt the Celtic oval shield, and chain armor, and even fight in a manner similar to Celts (the thureophoroi)? Because it was effective. Galatians were hired in large numbers, not to fight as mobs, but to fight in Galatian units, in the same manner they were accustomed. Their leaders often didn't want them Hellenized; their enemies knew Hellenic warfare. Celtic warfare had many contingencies developed to combat it though. It's not at all that Greeks couldn't beat Celts, they did on numerous occassions, but so was the inverse, and it wasn't about mobs. Think logically. What good is a mob against a phalanx? It has no chance of getting through it; even at 8-1 odds, a mob will be annihilated. Disciplined cavalry will ride over them. That wasn't the case though; Celts fought and beat phalanxes and disciplined cavalry, sometimes at numerical disadvantage. It's not a matter of 'superiority', but also not a matter of a fluke; sometimes the Celts had a better commander, or better trained/more experienced soldiers, etc., and sometimes they didn't. It's not like Celts' enemies just rolled over them. Once again; Romans in fractured Gaul, with decimated armies. It took 8 years to pacify Gaul. People around Galatia lived in terror of Galatian maruaders, even in defended cities. Caesar left Britain as a debacle (Prom can complain how he wants, but every professional historian I know, including Roman historians, views Britain as a huge mistake on his part). When the Romans returned to Britain, they generally hired other British tribes to pacify those that wouldn't ally with the Romans. Why would they do that if they were just a bunch of mobs? Peasant mobs were easily handled by the Romans (IE; Boudicca), but actual Celtic warriors, they didn't want to have to fight if they could avoid it. Why is it Sarmatian auxiliaries (fighting just like Sarmatians always had), not Romans, had to drive back the massive invasion of Goidils and Picts nearing the abandonment of Britain?

Also, why do you keep using 'Google'? As established; Google is junk. No one here trusts the internet for reliable historical information. You can 'prove' just about anything you want from the internet (I was once shown 'proof' that Slavs inhabitted eastern Europe during the Roman period; that'd be a big damn surprise to Pannonians, Dacians, Toa Celts, and everyone else who actually did inhabit the region). Any further attempts to qoute anything found on the internet should probably just be ignored.

What is it with all these insanely anal people who don't know anything about history constantly trying to "prove" that Romans and Greeks were superior to "those damned dirty smelly barbarians who fought in mobs with oversized two headed axes"? Is it some sort of nationalistic garbage or just stuborness combined with common misconception?

It seriously confuses me, why are people so resistant to knowledge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vytis

Do not underestimate the power of Google ~:)
80% historians? Impressive. I didn't know that.
Professional or 'graduated non-experts' ?

---

~;) nice touch, but Im not an EB member, my knowledge is very superficial (spulling, i know..) but most of them proffesional or have a degree or a big hobby.
Your vision of 'barbarians' is partially the reason of EB for making this mod. They were great people, intellectually equal to us. Its a shame CA/Hollywood portrait these peopel like retards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Also, why do you keep using 'Google'? As established; Google is junk. No one here trusts the internet for reliable historical information. You can 'prove' just about anything you want from the internet (I was once shown 'proof' that Slavs inhabitted eastern Europe during the Roman period; that'd be a big damn surprise to Pannonians, Dacians, Toa Celts, and everyone else who actually did inhabit the region). Any further attempts to qoute anything found on the internet should probably just be ignored.

---

OMG help http://www.mt.net/~watcher/antimars.html Mars is gonna invade. I found it on google, so people. kis sthe persons you love. give your a wife a hug. get some booze, sigarettes and video games. enjoy your last weeks! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

Your vision of 'barbarians'...

---

I don't have my own vision. Yet. For now I accept the popular ('Hollywood') version by default because it's a predominant one.
I'm here in this forum to get a different perspective. And some facts that would support that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

...common misconception...

---

Now if only you could prove that it's a misconception...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

...why...Celts...why...Romans...

---

At first I was tempted to argue your interpretations on a point to point basis but decided against it. Thanks for articulating your views though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Also, why do you keep using 'Google'?...No one here trusts the internet for reliable historical information. You can 'prove' just about anything you want from the internet...

---

You can 'prove' almost anything you want by using history books. Just have to pick the 'right' author.


[QUOT=Ranika] As established; Google is junk.[/QUOTE]
Did I miss something? When was it established? By whom?
Internet (and google included) is a tool for research. A very powerful tool. Texts, maps, forums, discussions, analisies, theories, etc., etc. Let's not forget that this forum is part of internet. How can someone possibly say that all this 'should probably just be ignored' .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zero1

It seriously confuses me, why are people so resistant to knowledge?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vytis

I don't have my own vision. Yet. For now I accept the popular ('Hollywood') version by default because it's a predominant one.
I'm here in this forum to get a different perspective. And some facts that would support that.

---

Err, what exactly are you looking for? I thought facts had been provided.

And "predominant" where? Surely not in academia?

Looks like he just likes to swim against the tide... ~D

Vytis, Internet is a huge source of information, but gives no clue about the quality of some of that information -it's rare the site that includes its sources or a bibliography, so some level of knowledge is necessary to discern the serious stuff from the run-of-the-mill simplistic view. Besides, don't forget that most of this info has been simply extracted and condensed from books, so the deepest -and generally most arid- stuff remains in the original sources without ever being uploaded, while you only get a general view from the net. Useful for making the school homework, but not for a deep, serious research.

As for the "popular" vision about "uncivilized" barbarians is a known decimononique cliché, inspired in an obsolete etnocentrical view of non-writing cultures as savage and demanding 'redemption'. This kind of view rejoices in the most exotic and romantic aspects of History -making spectacular movies and novels- and serves as a perfect vehicle for the exaltation of Western culture uses and morals.

Of course, a deeper and non-subjective review reveals a world infinitely richer in both material and cultural aspects than the old tales and romantic engravings that were used in our traditional education, and the discovery of the barbarian sources compensates for an until now one-sided and biased view of the facts -always told by the winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vytis

You can 'prove' almost anything you want by using history books. Just have to pick the 'right' author.

---

and you cant with google?
the books Eb has read werent picked up at toy's R us.They were books based on actual facts. by people who did research.
Google, on the other hand, gives info from more than a million writers. from wich at least 80% has not even a fraction of the knowledge EB has. And the 20% that do have the knowledge read teh sma ebooks as EB.

Fact: the books we have are ancient sources. all of them are on paper. Th einternet has been aroudn for just 30 years, google only 10. Not every source has been digitalysized.

I not judging you. but the main vieuw is not always the right vieuw.

Note: Jerby is a fan, not a member of the EB team. We don't believe that EB is enlightened, and everyone else is a part of the ignorant masses. We do believe that more than a cursory read of Greek & Roman sources reveals that the romantic notion of "barbarians" doesn't hold true, even without the benefit of works from other sources.

i stated that earlier. im just defending you guys.
in a way, it pisses me of: EB has peopel studying years, and are now making a point. and some chap comes in and says: i just spent five minute son google and you gusy are wrong

No culture was ever barbaric, especially at this time period. All cultures have their own beatiful creations and are advanced in there own way. It just so happens that only two cultures who are to say the least very biased against outsiders make up almost all of the written records of that time.

If you pay attention to what this guy is saying he's obviously a troll, in essence its "I accept the hollywood portrayal of barbarians because its predominant and therefore it must be true and you guys can't prove me wrong nahnahnahnahnahnah"

He's just trying to stir the pot, people like this plague the internet...In fact the official definition is "Enfant Provocateur" http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...rovocateur.htm