Celts = Barbarians?

[Caligula]

Intereting points! Thanks for taking the time to respond!

"I know it sounds odd! Although I've never done it so it might be great, but I wonder if it is difficult to get the striegel in those hard to reach places." <-- That made me LOL, waking the ol' lady up!

[seienchin]

Romans also had soap factories (Soap was made of pee at that time... By the way^^)

[SwissBarbar]

interesting point ^^

the Celts were Barbarians in the sense of they had not Greek Culture (or stole from it, except for Greek scriptures, which they used for commercial purposes), and wearing beards.

But the Celts had a great culture too, and had Brennus not abandoned Rome (because it stank so much, as the EB-Trait says hahaahahaahahaaaaa) who knows, maybe we all would speak a Celtic language today

[Macilrille]

Guys, please... I hope 99% of this thread is not serious despite the original poster actually asking to be enlightened, we should enlighten him, not confuse him more.

I am no expert on Celts, but on Germans and Rome (Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up- but he may just be passing stereotypical stuff). In any case I know what the Romans had that most others did not.

However, let us first define "barbarian" It has passed to us from Latin, which again had it from greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros). This basically mean a non-Greek and imitates the weird sounds they made when speaking instead of using a civilised language (Greek). The Athenians even used it to describe and deride other Greek tribes/polis on occasion. Though Plato rejected its use at all as it told nothing of the barbarians.

In any case, to the Greeks, then Romans it meant a person that was not Greek (or later Roman, for in fact the Romans were barbarians to the civilised Greeks, at least until they were conquered and their culture conquered the more brute and primitive Roman one). However it came to mean a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage (Tacitus on germans for example). There are similar ideas/labels in all urban societies across the world. I guess the Greeks were barbarians to the first civilised urban societies in "The Fertile Crest" where civilisation rose too.

Anyway, now for why the Celts were seen as barbarians by the Romans.

Actually go look here and have a laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso the Monthy Python crew were not unenlightened...

Rome had an organised state and army, a constitution, freedom (no kings) a well developed parlamentary system that was a model for at least one major modern one.

Rome had paved roads that endures to this day, bridges, acqueducts and sewers, temples, forums and arenas. Not to mention the theaters and the medicine. And while we are at it, Rome had science, it had engineering and medicine indeed, it had learned scholars, mathematicians and philosophers.

Now, much of this was learned from Greeks (and others mainly Etruscans), but Rome had it all, and Rome's genius was in adapting, learning from others and in fact not be xenophobic (Roman citizenship was always open to people of merit even in the Res Publica Romana, some argue that this strenghtened the realm others that when they diluted what was Roman by becoming multiethnic Rome became weak and fell).

You also seem to forget that Rome was not = Romans even when it was but a city-state in Latium. Most Romans were farmers, all soldiers came from peasant stock as these were hardy, strong and had many skills already that was required for life in the army as well as better suited to subject themselves to discipline and hardship then soft and spoiled city-dwellers. The point being that earth-grubbers are earth-grubbers everywhere. A Roman peasant would have been as dirty as a Celtic one, and both would be careful to wash a bit before eating and such. Being barbarian is not defined by your cleanliness, it is if anything defined by being part of an urban civilisation.

Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.

I hope this helped you Caligula (may I ask why on earth you chose that name? You might as well call yourself Idi Amin) and I both welcome you and remind you that by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I definately encourage that;-)

[SwissBarbar]

Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.

I didn't say they had a "high-culture" as the greeks f.e.. I said they had a great (good, precious) culture and were not fithy, mud-crawling barbarians according to the prae-neo-romantic Celtic drivel looking like this:




The Romans really were superior due to their ability to be open-minded and having the ability to adapt other people's achievements. Some people tend to forget, that many of these achievements were of Celtic origin.

Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd.



Apart from that, let me say I really appreciate your detailed and sophisticated post

[Macilrille]

SB, I was generalising, not pointing fingers at you ;-) but I am glad my slight bit of knowledge helped.

Did you enjoy the Life of Brian bits? I love to use that to illustrate Romanisation.

"Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd."

That cracked me up LOL. I love Switzerland BTW.

[Caligula]

@Macilrille - Excellent post, very informative. I love that movie, Life of Brian!

[SwissBarbar]

SB, I was generalising, not pointing fingers at you ;-) but I am glad my slight bit of knowledge helped.

Did you enjoy the Life of Brian bits? I love to use that to illustrate Romanisation.

"Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd."

That cracked me up LOL. I love Switzerland BTW.

Hehe, yes, I very much like the film "Life of Brian"

I love Switzerland too *G* Have you been here? Where are u from?

[Lysimachos]

[...] and were not fithy, mud-crawling barbarians according to the prae-neo-romantic Celtic drivel looking like this: [...]

If they had looked like that they wouldn't have been conquered

[Africanvs]

I didn't say they had a "high-culture" as the greeks f.e.. I said they had a great (good, precious) culture and were not fithy, mud-crawling barbarians according to the prae-neo-romantic Celtic drivel looking like this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Romans really were superior due to their ability to be open-minded and having the ability to adapt other people's achievements. Some people tend to forget, that many of these achievements were of Celtic origin.

Don't confuse me with a neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd.



Apart from that, let me say I really appreciate your detailed and sophisticated post

Haha, neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd. I have to say an army of Conans would kick the crap out of any Roman legion, although he might want to invest in more armor than a furry cod piece.

[delablake]

Haha, neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd. I have to say an army of Conans would kick the crap out of any Roman legion, although he might want to invest in more armor than a furry cod piece.

Conan didn't actually exist, mind you.

[Reverend Joe]

Haha, neo-romantic , half-esoteric, druid-in-the-mist - poster-loving nerd.

Well, now, to be fair, the Celts did have a decent, somehwat advanced culture that influenced a lot of the peoples around them; you can't deny that they were a bunch of muddy hobos with pointy sticks. The main problem they had was a lack of some of the crucial elements necessary to make a truly great, lasting civilization. Chief among these was writing; without the mass communication that writing allowed (at least, among the upper classes) Celtic culture could never be unified in the way that the Greeks were, for example.

I personally second the notion that celts are barbarians because of their moustaches. Moustaches are very barbaric.

[Tollheit]

Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up

No, I don't think so.

Tacitus, Germania:

22. Statim e somno, quem plerumque in diem extrahunt, lavantur, saepius calida, ut apud quos plurimum hiems occupat.

Sounds more like hot baths.

[Macilrille]

True indeed when I checked something but my memory ;-) which fits what we know of later times in Scandinavia.

[vartan]

I don't know how to put this. I understand that 'everyone is a barbarian to someone', yes, I understand. But to me personally, as wrong as it may seem in comparison to the history texts I've read, I believe the true barbarians to be the Romans themselves. I have come across battles, where for instance, the greeks would raise their spears as a sign of surrender, and instead would be rewarded with slaughter. Did the Romans not know of the unwritten rules of war or did they do this intentionally? It almost seemed out of place, almost like Nietzsche all over again. I suppose it is this ruthlessness that allowed Rome to achieve so much.

[Macilrille]

I am going to repeat myself here, since the thread is a) going in circles, b) Going very OT with modernity and vague definitions of barbarism popping up again. I know it is a long post, but please indulge me.

Guys, please... I hope 99% of this thread is not serious despite the original poster actually asking to be enlightened, we should enlighten him, not confuse him more.

I am no expert on Celts, but on Germans and Rome (Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up- but he may just be passing stereotypical stuff). In any case I know what the Romans had that most others did not.

However, let us first define "barbarian" It has passed to us from Latin, which again had it from greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros). This basically mean a non-Greek and imitates the weird sounds they made when speaking instead of using a civilised language (Greek). The Athenians even used it to describe and deride other Greek tribes/polis on occasion. Though Plato rejected its use at all as it told nothing of the barbarians.

In any case, to the Greeks, then Romans it meant a person that was not Greek (or later Roman, for in fact the Romans were barbarians to the civilised Greeks, at least until they were conquered and their culture conquered the more brute and primitive Roman one). However it came to mean a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage (Tacitus on germans for example). There are similar ideas/labels in all urban societies across the world. I guess the Greeks were barbarians to the first civilised urban societies in "The Fertile Crest" where civilisation rose too.

Anyway, now for why the Celts were seen as barbarians by the Romans.

Actually go look here and have a laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso the Monthy Python crew were not unenlightened...

Rome had an organised state and army, a constitution, freedom (no kings) a well developed parlamentary system that was a model for at least one major modern one.

Rome had paved roads that endures to this day, bridges, acqueducts and sewers, temples, forums and arenas. Not to mention the theaters and the medicine. And while we are at it, Rome had science, it had engineering and medicine indeed, it had learned scholars, mathematicians and philosophers.

Now, much of this was learned from Greeks (and others mainly Etruscans), but Rome had it all, and Rome's genius was in adapting, learning from others and in fact not be xenophobic (Roman citizenship was always open to people of merit even in the Res Publica Romana, some argue that this strenghtened the realm others that when they diluted what was Roman by becoming multiethnic Rome became weak and fell).

You also seem to forget that Rome was not = Romans even when it was but a city-state in Latium. Most Romans were farmers, all soldiers came from peasant stock as these were hardy, strong and had many skills already that was required for life in the army as well as better suited to subject themselves to discipline and hardship then soft and spoiled city-dwellers. The point being that earth-grubbers are earth-grubbers everywhere. A Roman peasant would have been as dirty as a Celtic one, and both would be careful to wash a bit before eating and such. Being barbarian is not defined by your cleanliness, it is if anything defined by being part of an urban civilisation.

Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.

I hope this helped you Caligula (may I ask why on earth you chose that name? You might as well call yourself Idi Amin) and I both welcome you and remind you that by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I definately encourage that;-)

If we continue to drift to modern time and politics I suggest Foot gets out the padlock.

[Drewski]

The Celts were Barbarians because the Romans were the conquerors, and the conquerors are generally the ones to write history. A good comparison, is with the Victorians in Britain. They made up an inordinate amount of nonesense (e.g. people in Colombus time thought the World was flat-no they didn't), because it all added to their myth of "taming the noble savage". This then gave them free rein to go and "give civilization",(i.e. Conquer) far off parts of the World, like The Indian subcontinent. Thing is, they already had culture and civilization over there ;) .........A similar thing is quite probably happening at present with the US "bringing Democracy" (i.e. Conquer) to different far off parts of the world.

Just remember that virtually all the accounts we have today, were written by people controlled by Rome, if not Roman themselves. So expect a little bias..

It's basically a human psychological defence, call them "Barbarians" and it makes them almost sub human, so we don't feel too guilty when we do things to them we really shouldn't. No we as [Insert Conquerer nation for relevant period] were actually helping them.....helping them...yes that's it..;)

Julius Caesar himself summed it up well :-

It is the right of war for conquerors to treat those whom they have conquered according to their pleasure

And that includes writing history as they see fit.

[Macilrille]

Did you not read what I wrote Drewski?

I was not going to comment on such a subjective and ideologically loaded statement and just let my other post stand (as it is the penultimate answer LOL), but...

The Romans did not actually need any excuses to go and conquer their neighbours. That they were there was excuse enough. So your argument is faulty when you assume that Romans labelled Celts barbarians in order to conquer them. Under Augustus there was certainly some of that "It is Rome's call to order and rule the world" in "The Augustan School" of poets etc (Ovid, Horats, et al), but by that time Celts had long since been conquered by Romans and Germans except for Britain, and the idea of Celts as barbarians is far older than Caesar's conquest of Gaul. In fact it also spans long periods of peace, trade and alliance with Celts as well as periods of war and hostility.

Remember that by installing EB, you agreed to read more history. I encourage that, enlightenment is always good.

[Drewski]

Did you not read what I wrote Drewski?

I was not going to comment on such a subjective and ideologically loaded statement and just let my other post stand (as it is the penultimate answer LOL), but...

The Romans did not actually need any excuses to go and conquer their neighbours. That they were there was excuse enough. So your argument is faulty when you assume that Romans labelled Celts barbarians in order to conquer them. Under Augustus there was certainly some of that "It is Rome's call to order and rule the world" in "The Augustan School" of poets etc (Ovid, Horats, et al), but by that time Celts had long since been conquered by Romans and Germans except for Britain, and the idea of Celts as barbarians is far older than Caesar's conquest of Gaul. In fact it also spans long periods of peace, trade and alliance with Celts as well as periods of war and hostility.

Remember that by installing EB, you agreed to read more history. I encourage that, enlightenment is always good.

I was typing my post while yours was submitted, so they crossed over. Enjoyed your post btw.

I have read a massive amount of Roman History, and have learned to take a lot of it with a large pinch of salt. Which of course doesn't make it any less entertaining to read. You yourself, should know that objective views in Ancient History are almost impossible to come by. Almost everyone has a bias. I was just bringing my modern subjective view to the table ;)

[Macilrille]

Thank you, and I apologise for writing like a complete twat.

Objectivity is impossible in any historical context, or even in any human action. However, I percieved the post as being somewhat too subjective and monocausal. I hope you are not too miffed ;-)