sharrukin and khelvan thank you for your posts: very interesting reading. It seems there very well may have been a simple road network of sorts. Before I retract my position regarding the civilizational level of the "barbarians" however, I would like to ask a few questions.

Quote Originally Posted by khelvan
First, both the Gauls and the Britons had written language. Gallic Nobles usually spoke Latin and Greek, in addition to Gallic. They (the Gauls) wrote using Greek letters.
The transliteration you refer to was most probably due to Gaul contacts with the Greek colony Massila. How common do you assume this to have been? The general thrust of Celtic culture seems to have been based upon an oral tradition. I know there was the ogham system that was a primitive script primarily used for divination and only used by the Druids, but I don't believe a larger literary culture existed. Are you rejecting this view and suggesting there was a literary inculcation?


For instance, the Celts were an extremely clean people. They invented soap; they bathed regularly, they shaved off all body hair as they felt it was dirty, and some even burned the hair off with a substance made of lye so that it would not grow back. The Celts felt the Romans were the "dirty" ones.
I believe it was Pliny the Elder who made this claim.

The Celts were much more advanced than you believe in the area of engineering. In fact, the Romans did not build their own siege artillery until somewhere around 70 to 50 BCE. Until this point, they relied on captured siege artillery. Where the Celts had several older types of siege artillery, including the Chythrsydh and Cyrthcanepo, both similar to the bricoli in function, and large-bolt firing systems such as the Chwythstwg (and no, don't ask me to pronounce it).
This is one of the more surprising of your claims. Romans had been exposed to Greek siege craft at least from the Third Century. While it is well known the Romans were not the Greeks equal in this field, you seem to be suggesting that Rome couldn't reproduce siege artillery. What do you base this on? I recall reference to siege craft during the Punic Wars if my memory is correct, are you suggesting these were simply pilfered?

I don't know what a Chythrsydh or Cyrthcanepo are. I've never heard of them. Are they torsion powered or spring operated? Could you expand on this? I find this very interesting: what would be historic examples of their use during a siege?


Both the Iberians and the southern Gauls landed on Ireland in huge numbers, both building entire cities practically overnight. This clearly required large fleets. Just because the Romans never fought naval action against the barbarians, does not mean they did not have the capability to build fleets of ships - they had, and did.
Actually the Veneti built ships: a rather large number to fight the Romans as I recall, but were badly beaten. My point wasn't that ship building was beyond Celtic knowledge, but I did question their ability to build ships of sophistication capable of and used for distance trade or naval combat (with exceptions noted).

The Celts built large, stone-walled cities, and were divided into two kingdoms under the direct control of a single king, with organized nobility. These were the Arverni and Aedui - they held direct, strong control over numerous tribes. These were not loose confederacies of independent tribes - the Celts were feudalists. A tribe in Gaul was actually like a medieval fiefdom; it had a chieftain (who operated like a lord) in charge of it, who answered to the king.
Are you thinking of oppida? If so, these were not large walled cities as much as hill fortresses. The immergence of these is usually cited as a marked change in Celt practice. Previously Celt cities did not have such defensive measures.

The reference to the Arveni and Aedui respectively from the modern Lyon and Burgundy regions I also find interesting. I recall mention of at least twenty different major tribes within Gaul. Are you suggesting these other tribes were subservient to and recognized the lordship of the Arveni or Aedui?


The Celts had a highly advanced calendar system
I thought there was no consensus on exactly what was the Celt calendar system.

My general opinion has been that the Celts were a people who existed on the periphery of a more advance cultural apparatus generally centered around the Mediterranean. Contacts with this more advanced civilization naturally had an impact on a number of levels. Nonetheless, this was an asymmetric relationship, by and large, and the Celts were the dependant group. You have brought up a number of intriguing points. I look forward to your reply.