Why weren't the Boii in EB1?

**Macilrille** · 04-02-2010, 22:48

Originally Posted by Bloody Sacha

The Boii are a topic seldom touched on in academic history. As a group of people who very literally pimp slapped and very probably enslaved the Aryan poster boys the "Cimbri" within the confines of modern day Germany no less they where regarded as an unfortunate fluke of nature, a temporal portal into a terrifying world where monkey spanks man. In addition to the first charge the Boii didn't even bother leaving any archeological evidence behind stating that they where obliterated by ze god men. For these grave offences against the fifth centuries favorite plot device the academic circles surrounding Boii culture and history have been consistently poisoned with the impression that the science was still out or that they where secretly Germanic even though they didn’t know it. This has been a process ongoing since the rediscovery and nationalization of central and northern European antiquity so I’m certainly not pointing any fingers at anyone here.

In the real world the Boii where easily the equivalent of the Aedui or the Arvernii individually, however the Boii probably weren’t as influential as the two combined. They are definitely without a doubt more historically relevant then the dubiously sourced Casse and probably a few others I’m not qualified to speak for. Game mechanics alone would have necessitated a two faction minimum for France so I cant pretend to be to disappointed. You did not answer your own question and you shouldn’t feel bad about having asked it. The Boii not being playable was obviously a design choice.

Now, not to be unwelcoming and patronising, but TBH unless you come up with some sources this, especially with phrases such as "Aryan poster boys" thrown in, looks more like the source of unsubstanciated claim and slander of academics I would expect to see on Youtube.

With all due respect, but this place holds pretty high standars as it should (and I take pride in doing my best to both uphold and further them), and AFAIK there is no source for such a claim, nor any need for such phrases.

**Bloody Sacha** · 04-03-2010, 01:22

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Now, not to be unwelcoming and patronising, but TBH unless you come up with some sources this, especially with phrases such as "Aryan poster boys" thrown in, looks more like the source of unsubstanciated claim and slander of academics I would expect to see on Youtube.

With all due respect, but this place holds pretty high standars as it should (and I take pride in doing my best to both uphold and further them), and AFAIK there is no source for such a claim, nor any need for such phrases.

What statement specifically would you like sourced? Obviously the Cimbri where not "aryan poster boys" and my references as such are clearly tongue and cheek towards the ever popular "völkisch" historian. Would you like me to prove that Celtic culture and history has been suppressed in academic circles for the glorification of other races, ethnicities and cultures?

"SCIENTIFIC" RACISM

Although their empire was acquired by military force and a divide and conquer strategy, the British attributed their success to Anglo-Saxon superiority. This old idea was brought up to date through pseudo-scientific theories of race.

Nineteenth century theorists divided humanity into "races" on the basis of external physical features. These "races" were said to have inherited differences not only of physique, but also of character. These "differnces" allowed the races to be placed in a heirarchy. Needless to say, the Teutons, who included the Anglo-Saxons, were placed at the top. Black people, especially "Hottentots" were at the bottom, with Celts (Irish) and Jews somewhere in between.

Anthropologists went around measuring people's skulls, and assigning them to different "races" on the basis of such factors as how far their jaws protruded. Celts and others were said to have more "primitive" features than Anglo-Saxons.

The physician John Beddoe invented the "index of nigrescence" a formula to identify the racial components of a given people. The Anglo-Saxon's "refined" features also came with a "superior" character. They were said to be industrious, thoughtful, clean, law-abiding and emotionally restrained, while the characters of the various colonized peoples were said to be the very opposite.

In 1850 the anatomist Robert Knox described the Celtic character as "Furious fanaticism; a love of war and disorder; a hatred for order and patient industry; no accumulative habits; restless; treacherous and uncertain: look to Ireland..." He drew the following conclusion:

"As a Saxon, I abhor all dynasties, monarchies and bayonet governments, but this latter seems to be the only one suitable for the Celtic man."

IRISH CHIMPANZEES

In the 1860s, the debate among scientists about the relationship of humans to animals prompted British racists to make frequent comparisons between Irish people, Black people and apes. The Cambridge historian Charles Kingsley wrote to his wife from Ireland in 1860: "I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours." (17.)

In 1862, the British historian Lord Acton wrote:

"The Celts are not among the progressive, initiative races, but among those which supply the materials rather than the impulse of history...The Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and the Teutons are the only makers of history, the only authors of advancement." He concluded: "Subjection to a people of a higher capacity for government is of itself no misfortune; and it is to most countries the condition of their political advancement." (21.)

In 1886 Lord Salisbury opposed Home Rule for Ireland with these words: "You would not confide free representative institutions to the Hottentots, for instance." Self government was only for people of the "Teutonic race."

Over here we have a period ethnic chart comparing the Anglo-Teutonic, Irish-Iberian and Negro races. https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4696/scientific.gif All of this material and a great deal more can be sourced here http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html The tome is itself sourced at the bottom. I'm surprised that you expected to see this all on youtube, I might have to check it out some time.

**Macilrille** · 04-03-2010, 12:18

Perhaps I did not phrase myself clearly- I am Danish after all, for you definately do not adress my points. Perhaps you put up a straw man for us to knock down, i dunno. I shall try and clarify.

1) "Pimp slapped Aryan Poster Boys" = Youtube level of debate, sorry but with the often low standard even on academic online fora TiC does not work unless you clearly spell it out that it is TiC. Unfortunately some of us have come to expect the worst online and thus miss out on subtleties.

2) "Enslavement of the Cimbrii by Boii". Now that is what I lack a source for. If I recall correctly the Boii repelled the Cimbrii and Teutons. However, some intermingling would be indicated by the name Boirix for the Cimbrii king later on as that means "King of The Boii". It also seems to me that the Boii were significantly weakened by this clash; perhaps a Pyhrric Victory, perhaps some Boiii left their homes to join in the great adventure of migration as the Cimbrii passed through or near their lands on their way to the Battle of Vercellae (we know that such happened both with later migrations, in the Viking Age and in the Crusades), perhaps both, or neither- it may have been something else. But their lands are later called "deserted" by the Romans, though the rising power of the Getai/Dacians under Burebista definetaly made inroads on them and might be the cause. The final death knell to the lands not taken by the Romans seems to have been delivered by another Suebi tribe; the Marcomanni as the latter moved in to escape Roman expansion and/or exploit a weakness. The resulting mixture seems to have created a very strong and vibrant realm that was to cause the Romans much trouble later on. But nowhere do I see a reliable source saying that the Boii enslaved the Cimbrii. Though likely some of the survivors of their last battle against Rome at Vercellae trying to get home would be enslaved by whatever tribes' lands they passed through. if there had been intermingling the likelyhood of that would be smaller though. In any case, it is not indicative of power to be able to enslave a bunch of defeated refugees...

3) So... you think nothing has happened in academia since 1945? I do not know where you are from in the world, but where I live lots have. I also seem to notice an awful lot of interest in Celt in the general media and populace. New Age, druidism. Lots of delusional tree-hugging idealists claiming to follow Celtic values. And in academia I believe there is a similar, if more enlightened and serious, trend. You might want to poke Power2the1 who is doing the Celtic factions of EB II and ask him what has happened since Nazism showed is the error of racist ways...

Hope that clarifies my quibble.

**athanaric** · 04-03-2010, 14:53

I don't know what's up with some people. Celts are quite popular nowadays, inside academy and in the real world as well. If anything, it's the Germanic tribes and peoples who've suffered from lack of attention, partly due to the lies of Nazi scum, who tried to utilize German culture for their own purposes. Also, Iranian peoples are largely ignored by scientists and the rest of society alike. But the Celts? Not so much.

Furthermore, scientific research isn't done by vilifying or belittling a cultural group just because it was unduly glorified in the past.

If people have ideological or nationalistic problems, they should just stop molesting historical tribes and peoples. I don't care if somebody has these problems, but please stop abusing history.

**Bloody Sacha** · 04-03-2010, 17:01

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Perhaps I did not phrase myself clearly- I am Danish after all, for you definately do not adress my points. Perhaps you put up a straw man for us to knock down, i dunno. I shall try and clarify.

1) straw man argument

2) "Enslavement of the Cimbrii by Boii". Now that is what I lack a source for. If I recall correctly the Boii repelled the Cimbrii and Teutons. However, some intermingling would be indicated by the name Boirix for the Cimbrii king later on as that means "King of The Boii". It also seems to me that the Boii were significantly weakened by this clash; perhaps a Pyhrric Victory, perhaps some Boiii left their homes to join in the great adventure of migration as the Cimbrii passed through or near their lands on their way to the Battle of Vercellae (we know that such happened both with later migrations, in the Viking Age and in the Crusades), perhaps both, or neither- it may have been something else. But their lands are later called "deserted" by the Romans, though the rising power of the Getai/Dacians under Burebista definetaly made inroads on them and might be the cause. The final death knell to the lands not taken by the Romans seems to have been delivered by another Suebi tribe; the Marcomanni as the latter moved in to escape Roman expansion and/or exploit a weakness. The resulting mixture seems to have created a very strong and vibrant realm that was to cause the Romans much trouble later on. But nowhere do I see a reliable source saying that the Boii enslaved the Cimbrii. Though likely some of the survivors of their last battle against Rome at Vercellae trying to get home would be enslaved by whatever tribes' lands they passed through. if there had been intermingling the likelyhood of that would be smaller though. In any case, it is not indicative of power to be able to enslave a bunch of defeated refugees...

3) facetious ad hominem

Hope that clarifies my quibble.

I’ll be more then glad to source my statement pertaining to the potential enslavement of the Cimbri by the Boii but first of all, lets be sure to quote me correctly.

“very probably enslaved the Aryan poster boys the "Cimbri"”

please note the qualifier in that statement.

2A: The evidence that the Boii enslaved the Cimbri is very clear. In De Bello Gallico Julius Caesar refers to the invasion of Norican territory as being led by a confederation led by the Boii that assaulted the city of Noreia. Here, Caesar is undoubtedly making a reference to the Cimbrian War of 115–101 BCE.

Lets go over the chain of events.

1: Cimbri lead by Unknown leader X attacks The Boii
2: They are defeated by the Boii
3: Years later Boiorix “King of the Boii" rules over them and with an inordinately large army goes on a rampage across Europe going toe to toe with Arvernii and Romans and everyone else who ever happened to get on the Boii nations hit list.
4. 50 years later Caesar refers to the Cimbrian war as being a Boii affair

In any other historical context that did not involve ze ubermen the forgone conclusion would be taken as fact but as I implied before and as I’ll reiterate in the most frank terms I can think of.

5. 1800 years later in the 19th century it becomes politically expedient for German nationalists to claim that the Cimbri where “Germanic” and therefore superior to all other races. Becoming the victims of cruel chance and circumstance in meeting their match against one of the other master races, the Romans. Even though it’s clear that the initial objective of the historians was to pick a vaguely successful tribe from Germany that was contemporary of classical civilization and to propagandize it the sheer willpower of Volkist historians allows this fabricated historical facade to float to the surface every time. That the Boii beat the Cimbri hand over fist in what was regarded as their own backyard was considered an abhorred blemish and is usually played down or flat out omitted from most historical texts. The direct evidence implying the vassalage of the Cimbrian army to a Celtic king is only met with mocking disbelief.

It is certainly theoretical however it is infinitely more likely that the Boii defeated and commandeered the Cimbri then the Volkist theory created in lieu of archaeological evidence in the 1800s. The Romans did not incorporate the use of the word “German” into their lexicon as an ethnic or political term until well over 50 years after the conclusion of the Cimbrean war, for the entire affair the Romans referred to them as “Cimbrean” or the far more telling term “the new Gauls” which makes any attempt to call the Cimbri “Germanic” anachronistic by default. Realistically, impartial historians will choose between the Cimbreans being Celtic or Germanic and can legitimately drum up evidence to support either claim. Regardless of which is ultimately true, that the Cimbri became subordinate to the Boii can be taken as fact. (Or as factual as anything else Julius Caesar said) According to his name, Boiorix had a pretty firm assessment of the situation.

2B) The ultimate fate of the Boii only leaves room for speculation and isn’t relevant in this context. Your statement that the Marcomanni where a Suebi tribe is as speculative as anything I’ve suggested and yet you state it as absolute fact. Furthermore the first recorded Marcomanni king (of a grand total of two) Maroboduus, the one who led the Marcomanni into Bohemia and the one you implied subverted Boii culture in their own homeland, has a blatantly Celtic name. Akin to many other kings who have Celtic names but where secretly German. This warped data is a good example of an academic circle pertaining to a Celtic subject being poisoned by Volkist History.

With this I have justified the content of my initial post, direct and implied. I am not ruling out the possibility that I’m wrong, no matter what is said we will all be wrong eventually. I will say that my vantage point is truly from the 21st century rather then 20th or 18th and while that doesn’t make me right by default, in this thread it certainly puts me ahead of the game. I now wash my hands of this thread.

**Hax** · 04-04-2010, 01:49

3) So... you think nothing has happened in academia since 1945? I do not know where you are from in the world, but where I live lots have. I also seem to notice an awful lot of interest in Celt in the general media and populace. New Age, druidism. Lots of delusional tree-hugging idealists claiming to follow Celtic values.

You rang? ;D

On a serious note, however, I must state that indeed, neo-paganism is becoming quite popular; what it has to do with ancient Celtic religion? I have no idea.

**Krusader** · 04-04-2010, 02:30

Originally Posted by Hax

You rang? ;D

On a serious note, however, I must state that indeed, neo-paganism is becoming quite popular; what it has to do with ancient Celtic religion? I have no idea.

Its attempting to to gain legality or authorization by using Celtic religion...often with some hilarious results. Read on a forum about a guy who visited a neopagan store which also had courses on Celtic religion. He left quickly after the instructor said celtic with an s not k and told how the Celts revered a Potato goddess...