Celtic questions

[lobf]

Im going on the most common theory that Britain was more "celtic" during the pre roman era than during the "germanic" migrations of the late roman empire.

Now if you mean now... then yes maybe they are since that the Angles and Saxons are supposed to have migrated into britain forming the kingdoms that would make up auld Angle-land and the lowlands of scotland were never really gaelic and more Northumbrian in dark age Britain.

Reading Oppenheimer on the genetic make up of Britain and Ireland shows that maybe the population hasnt changed much at all since the ice age ended.

Maybe you should go into more detail Lobf?

I was in fact referring to present-day descendants of Saxons and Angles. Did the Normans leave a serious genetic footprint on the island?

[Elmetiacos]

I was in fact referring to present-day descendants of Saxons and Angles. Did the Normans leave a serious genetic footprint on the island?

The study quoted suggests Angles, Saxons and Jutes left not much of a genetic footprint anywhere except along the coast of East Anglia (the "Saxon Shore" of Late Roman Britain, in fact) Oppenheimer's interpretation of the results in Myths of British Ancestry unfortunately might be politely called a little eccentric and less politely, outright faces-on-Mars crankery. I agree that "migrationism" and the idea of genocidal Saxons is probably wrong, but if he wants to demonstrate that the Belgae spoke Germanic, he needs to explain why all their placenames and personal names seem to be Celtic. Shifting proto-Celtic back to 7000BC may also raise some eyebrows.

[HunGeneral]

I know it's a bit offtopic but since were (also) talking about how misunderstood barbarians were:

- Stirrups (more known as a fact) aswell as Shirts and Underwear were brought to Europa by the Nomads of the east. (as much as I know even Herodot wrote about it but declared it as a sign of barbarism)

- These nomads did place meat under the staddle but not to soften it but to make sure the saddle doesn't rub too much in the horses back.

- The Germanic tribes were also quite democratic. The King (konig - I think its not written with ö as in Modern German) was elected by the Thing (gemanic council) and came from the nobility. He had to travel is his realm all the time to spread the "königsglück" (kings - luck: some kind of blessing by the gods). In case of war he lead the warriors to battle but if he wasn't capeable then the Thing elected a "Herzog" who would lead the army of the tribe (he didn't need to be a noble, infact he could be anyone who was held apropiate).
In case of great disasters (natural or military) the konig had to be sacraficed to the gods since the "königsglück" had abandoned him. ( if I know right then this Tradition survived to the 11. century in the Scandinavian Peninsula) (correct me if I'm wrong)

- There was a similar Instituion among the eastern nomads - a leader was elected by the nobles (or named by the Ruler of another People if the tribe had been subjucated). The high-shaman had pronounced the choosen as the leader of their People. Somehow like this: "You shall lead our people for 40 years... but after that you must die". After the time elapsed or a great disaster had struck them they sacraficed the ruler. (sounds cruel but here is some explenation: a very spread form of rule amongst theese Nomads was the so called "dual principality" (or something like that) - this meant there were two leaders: one who was the tribal (religious) leader "- his naming has been stated above) and a miltary leader who would lead the warriors of the tribe. The first was held a more important position - he represented the soul of the Tribe and was the conection to the gods. He couldn't take part in any battle (think of the effect on moral it would have if he fell - or just seemd to have fallen). By "sacraficing" him they just sent him back to the gods who he had represented for years. (besides on the steppes every weakness could have decisive consequences - a tribe always needed a clear minded Leader).

[blitzkrieg80]

The Germanic tribes were also quite democratic. The King (konig - I think its not written with ö as in Modern German) was elected by the Thing (gemanic council) and came from the nobility. He had to travel is his realm all the time to spread the "königsglück" (kings - luck: some kind of blessing by the gods). In case of war he lead the warriors to battle but if he wasn't capeable then the Thing elected a "Herzog" who would lead the army of the tribe (he didn't need to be a noble, infact he could be anyone who was held apropiate).
In case of great disasters (natural or military) the konig had to be sacraficed to the gods since the "königsglück" had abandoned him. ( if I know right then this Tradition survived to the 11. century in the Scandinavian Peninsula) (correct me if I'm wrong)

what you speak of is medieval and not to be confused with a timeline of late antiquity where the idea of 'king' actually develops in the first place. the reason kings seems less monarchical is because they are more like 'petty kings' aka chieftains. the very system of nobility set up in EB moreso represents the progression since they had developed native concepts of wide-reaching monarchy but the borrowing of Celtic rix along with Roman-inspire demand for a deal-making monarchy actually brought about what we know of in the Cyning / Kuning - 'descendant of [noble] kin'... the tradition of patrimonial title was due to Augustus and the Roman Emperor tradition, although the Celtic peoples similarly inspired such a thing to be en vogue, besides general overall legitimacy to control of the population. the less and less socially demanding of freedom and their natural rights the people became, the more hereditary nobility and government became. Christianity was widely adopted in Europe (not because Jesus said wise things, although he very much said wise things... so some conversion could be true) but because it solidified political control through 'divine right' and common religion. There are plenty of truly religious people who followed Jesus' word, but there are plenty who always do so in name only to fit in socially (rather than being burned at the stake) and those who use religion as a tool, Marx's opiate of the masses. Marxism is very 'realist' in that if you look to who has the most to gain, there you have any explanation of motivation and the means of the subsequent manipulation.

Luck has an interesting place in Germanic spirituality because it is 'grace bestowed from the gods' and it even has the same meaning as good fortune, good 'health' as well as 'whole'-someness... the origins of the modern words 'hail' 'whole' 'heal' 'health', 'holy' and 'hale' (more archaic but true to the etymology in usage). these aspects were indeed sort of implications of having the gods' grace and Wulfila in his Gothic bible uses the term Go weihs instead of heil because of the native religious implication which would always be tied to their spirituality / old pagan beliefs... he uses another native term, from IE weik which interestingly is related to 'life force,' this term was not immediately accessible, the word for 'awe/fear-inspiring holiness' of the gods, it was their remoteness where 'the taboo' penetrates the believer, this reflected the Christian God better to Wulfila while circumventing old terminology to redefine their awareness. 'Witch' comes from this word, literally as a 'practicer of weih.' I have made it so both of these terms are used in EB to educate these interesting concepts - the 'Taboo shrine of Nerthus' is clearly different from the benevolent 'Lake of Luck' in concept of spirituality.

also, the true reason for the King traveling the countrside was tax-collection aka tribute. before the tax-collectors of Rome whose system was borrowed ... the only alternative was for the ruling government to go around and force his subjects to pay respect. just like nowadays, nobody is going to go out of their way to lose money, especially to some arbitrary 'lord' who doesn't do anything for you except take your stuff. in times when the defense of the people was part of the deal and chivalry, there was more loyalty involved, but just as today, some people are greedy and would take protection and not pay, or take money and not protect. basically, it's a lot like gang 'protection' plans and their systematic collection as a political structure. there is also nothing wrong with it. some churches cast out people if they don't pay a certain percentage tithe, so no one is exempt from this... much why Benjamin Franklin said - "there are only 2 things certain in life... Death and Taxes" The 'sheriff' position of Norman England actually comes from OE 'shire-reeve' who was a magistrate court official who went around judging cases, but more so they helped unburden the personal load for the king to oversee to his tax-collection and tax-collectors, especially over a large domain, full of greedy nobles. Theses sheriffs actually only answered to him and he made them watch the loyalty and corruption of his other tax-collectors and governors.

[cmacq]

A Branch Too Far



Sometimes it doesn't take too long to find the fatal flaw in these thingy’s. Right, I've looked into this population replacement/augmentation thing, by way of the archaeology, for a good deal of time now, and I've noticed several interesting patterns. I'll share them, but first I've got to get myself to work, as its both a field day, and I'm thinking a rain day.

In the meantime, can anyone familiar with the genetic study in question, tell me the number of actual individuals used in the study and how these plot out geographically, what were the range of attributes identified; and of these how many clusters were noted and how do they plot out geographically. I'm thinking that what we have here is a case of scientific slight of hand. For example; we have an island called X were 20 related women and 20 related man live (total 40 with no children). Then on year one a group of 65 adult men with no women invade island X and kill all but 5 of the adult native men. This group of 65 newcomers now represents about 2/3s of the total population, and they go on the bred and have children with all 20 of the native women. However using the type of DNA the study used, 1000 years later the newcomers would be represented in about 0/0 percent of the sample. If I'm correct, then these genetic studies are yet another huge waste of time and money. In other words, a wee bit meaningless.



CmacQ

[Cyrus]

wow all this is very interesting, so wich would be the society that inslaved women the most? if it's greeks don't bother explianing it ('cause i read all about that in school) but if it's not i'd like some more info on'em.
Let me get this straight if i build 4 LV3 markets and aedui only have a province(with however a LV3 market in it) and i am not shure about Casse will I get the reforms?
Can herodotus really be held in account here? i read every book by him and 1) he never mentions celts IIRC and 2) persians were the ones who wore underpants and pants, that's written in almost every Alexander the great biografy, eg Valerio Massimo Manzoni's Alexandros.