Belgae: Kelts, Germans or something else?

[Moros]

Hi,
I had an argue about wether Belgae where Kelts or Germans . I tought it where Kelts wich spoke a Celtic language and shared some common stuff with Gauls, "Brittons" and Germans but were more like an "own kind" of people who had Celtic culture. The other ones said that Belgae were Germans and spoke German. So who's right? and what did they speak and how similar to Gauls, Germans and Brittons were they,...?

I know it doesn't has to do with EB but I figured that if there would be a place where people know about this stuff it would be here.

anyway, thx in advance.

[Sarcasm]

I think it was Ceasar who said they were germans...but you know how accurate he can be

Most of the cultural evidence left by the Belgae was more Celtic related than Germanic especialy in Britain and Hibernia I believe. But I don't think there's a definite answer to that question.

My guess? They were probably a mix of both breeds probably with the prevalence of the Celtic stratus of the population, but they could also be Germans who adopted the Celtic language and culture after crossing the Rhine into previously celtic lands.

Or even like the Vizigoths did in the Iberian peninsula, a german elite ruling over a conquered people and adopting the native customs. Or even the exact opposite; A Celtic elite ruling over a german population who adopted it's lords culture.

Now, did that answer your question?

[Ranika]

Judging by that they apparently spoke Gallic, and the artifacts left behind, they were ostensibly Celtic. If they were Germanic blooded people who adopted Celtic practice, they're still Celts. Celt is not a bloodline, it's a culture. So, it doesn't matter if they were descended from Germans (and not all of them would've been, plenty of Gauls and Brits had settled in the region too, likely had to do with trade), they were still 'Celts'. However, the danger is in lumping all Celts together. Celts were a varied group of multiple cultures, all part of a single 'super-culture' that covered most of Europe. However, they were invariably products of indigenous practices and invaders melding with Celtic practices either by conquest/assimilation, or due to the slow cultural eb of trade eventually converting their culture. Belgae I think it is safe to call Celts, but I would not call them Britons or Gauls. The eastern most were most likely descended from Germans, but still culturally Celtic. They may have maintained some Germanic practices or beliefs, but that doesn't make them German anymore than Helvetii writing in Greek characters made the Helvetii Hellenes.

[Sarcasm]

[Reverend Joe]

Ranika- sorry if this takes a while to answer... but I thought that the germans were a part of the Celtic "superculture"... am I wrong or what?

[Ranika]

Way off. Germanic culture is entirely its own. Germans and Celts mingled a lot, through both trade and war, of course. There was a kind of Germano-Celt/Celto-German culture that existed on the borders of Germanic and Celtic lands that we hope to represent in some fashion, but the fact of the situation was that Germans were a different people with entirely seperate customs, artwork, traditions, etc. When they descended into mainland Europe, Celtic culture had already dominated much of northern Europe, and the Germans were quite new by comparison. They certainly adopted a lot; they imported swords and then mimicked Celtic sword styles, chain armor, etc. However, a ton of people did that, and still weren't Celts. A true Celtic culture has a slew of beliefs, specific types of art, traditions, etc. It's very complicated, but it is safe to say that Germans are not Celts.

[Reverend Joe]

You are the god of history. You and the rest of EB.

[the_handsome_viking]

Way off. Germanic culture is entirely its own. Germans and Celts mingled a lot, through both trade and war, of course. There was a kind of Germano-Celt/Celto-German culture that existed on the borders of Germanic and Celtic lands that we hope to represent in some fashion, but the fact of the situation was that Germans were a different people with entirely seperate customs, artwork, traditions, etc. When they descended into mainland Europe, Celtic culture had already dominated much of northern Europe, and the Germans were quite new by comparison. They certainly adopted a lot; they imported swords and then mimicked Celtic sword styles, chain armor, etc. However, a ton of people did that, and still weren't Celts. A true Celtic culture has a slew of beliefs, specific types of art, traditions, etc. It's very complicated, but it is safe to say that Germans are not Celts.

what would you say the major difference was in terms of weapons and warfare?

[GoreBag]

Well, that would vary depending on the group in question, really. The Celts were the first to use iron weapons, though, but I don't think they had any conflicts with the Germans when that was of importance.

[Forgus]

I recall reading somewhere that all Germanic words connected to rulership have Celtic origins, suggesting that at one point Germans were ruled by a Celtic upper class.

[SaFe]

I second Ranika here,but it is interesting that the Nervii - a extremly warlike belgic tribe always took pride in their germanic heritage.

About distinctions in warfare and weapons:
Mainland celts had usually better weapons due to long experience with ironwork.
Germanics on the other hand were more able to adopt new tactics and fought more as units unlike the celts with their "everybody for himself" tactic and so slowly took the upper hand in the numerous clashes between those two cultures during many years. They also were not routed so easily after unsuccesful charges, as they fought with more discipline and in denser formations(shieldwalls for example which Caesar described as phalanx).
As example loosing his shield in battle or returning alife with the chieftain fallen was such a shame for a germanic free man, that he lost his right to take part in tribal meetings, could not vote anymore at the Thengaz (similar to the viking Thing) and was regarded a coward. It was not uncommon for those men to took their own life by hanging.
Interesting is that germanic cavalry was regarded superior to celtic and normally came on top in conflicts between the two.
Celts on the other hand were more adept at building fortified oppida's unlike germanic tribes who rarely, if ever settled together in great masses.
Other aspects were celts were superior to germanics were medicine and farming for example.

As Ranika already said there are many similarities between the two people as trade, inter-marriages and warfare was normal for them.
About the languages - there are many words similar in both - again very normal for neighbouring people, but it is new and sounds unlike to me that every proto-germanic word for king, leader, chieftain or whatelse is of celtic heritage.

[Ranika]

Celts fought as units, SaFe. That's why they had standard bearers (they would serve no purpose if everyone was in a free-for-all). Only lesser warriors 'fought for themselves' in any sense, and even they were obeying commands and organized into units based upon armament and age. Older Celts tended to fight in shieldwalls and tight supported formations, like the Helvetii, Arverni, and Remi tended to. Some Celtic cultures fought in very tight units on all levels (particularly Goidils, who had to due to the massive numbers of natives they put down in their formative years, Galatians, adopted from Hellenes likely, and the Belgae, who had similar problems that Goidils had and were accustomed to fighting disorganized enemies, so used tight small unit tactics). Tactics for Celts can't be based on 'all Celts fought like this'; there are too many Celts/demi-Celts, and of varied nature and origins that overall tactics aren't generally common. However, usually, at the smallest level, tribe/clan 'wars' (usually only a battle or two long, except in the cases of large confederations, which aren't really tribal war) were fought by warbands that were more or less just a small group of warriors, usually with

In terms of law, Celts rarely executed people (don't know about Germans; Safe?). They did sacrifice criminals convicted on festivals, and sometimes sacrificed prisoners, but execution for crime was rare; one was usually fined, or if they couldn't pay the fine, banished. If banished for murder, they could legally be killed by the offended family. Law was argued with a small group of elected local judges, presided by a more educated judge (a low 'druid', essentially) who would arbitrate. The only executions always had a religious nature to them (such as punishments for traitors, rapists, murder of children specifically, etc.; those who commited a blatantly religious offense).

Also, I've seen proto-Germanic, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to Celtic usually. A few things do, usually the names of deities and what not, but that should be expected from them spreading into Celtic regions.

[SaFe]

@Ran

I've meant in comparison to germanic warfare, celtic warfare was not as organized- tacticwise.
Bad english - that's all:-(
Naturally celtic armies fought as units but except the mentioned tribes from Ranika not in such formations as germanics normally did.

About law - executions were not too common, cause the germanics had that nice little thing in german called "Blutrache" - blood revenge!
So a Thengaz with a voting system was needed to help spare bloodshed between families or clans.
Executions of criminals, rapists and female adulterers were more common.
Also religious based executions were not unheard of - as example a man was killed every year in spring for the goddess Austron(Ostara-the eastern one) for a good harvest. The believe was that the dead man would rise again after a few days to watch over the tribe and bring good harvest.
This was considered a free death and a honour - not a brutal execution.
B.t.w. Ostara stands for fertility, harvest and rebirth. Her totem animal was the rabbit. I know a christian holiday with a similar name...

[Zero1]

You're talking about Easter, right?, Its named after a bastardization of Ostara, Eastara if I'm not mistaken.

[Moros]

thx for the replies guys!!!

[SaFe]

You're talking about Easter, right?, Its named after a bastardization of Ostara, Eastara if I'm not mistaken.

Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.

[BDC]

Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.

Bah, too happy and stressfree to be any sort of pre-runner to Christmas.

[maskoolin]

I think it was Ceasar who said they were germans...but you know how accurate he can be

Caesar said once that the Belgae are Celts , another time he said that they are Germans who passed the river "Rhein" and repulsed the former celtic inhabitants of the area ... so please ... built your own opinion

[Dux Corvanus]

Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.

Well, SaFe, it's not a particular merit of Germans to have discovered the winter solstice.

Many cultures around the world gave a religious meaning to solstices and equinoxes, meaning associated to the yearly seasonal cycle and the harvest timing, without having any direct contact among them.

But, yes, associating Christmas to winter solstice and Easter to spring equinox were two intelligent moves by primitive Christian Church in order to extend the new religion to pagan cultures. (In fact, if we are to believe the Bible descriptions of Jesus's birth circumstances, we'll find hard to believe there were shepherds abiding in the fields and keeping their flocks outside in a cold December night, even if it was in Palestine).

[Teutobod II]

Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.

sorry but thats on the 21st...

[Teutobod II]

Right and as a second important holiday: Germanics celebrated "Wintersonnenwende" at the 24th of December. They danced around a decorated tree and gave presents to each other.
Remember something?
As a sidenote this celebration often ended in a great party:-) with lots of met, ale and - if possible wine.

sorry, but that is on the 21st...

[Dux Corvanus]

sorry, but that is on the 21st...

Well, Winter solstice marks the REAL arrival of Winter, but the real natural date does not always coincide with official date. This is because a natural year -a cycle around the sun- does not last exactly 365 days, but 365 days, 5 hours and 51 minutes. Gregorian chalendar adds a day every four years -except every 400 years- to avoid an excessive lag respect of the natural seasonal cycle. In fact, that was the reason for Gregorian reform, since the Julian chalendar had a lag of more than 11 days, which affected to the calculation of the seasonal changes -and hence the plant and harvest procedures, so vital then.

So, it was not rare to have Winter Solstice on December 24th by the date -in Middle Ages- when the official church calendar was adopted.

BTW, SaFe referred to the solstice, not to a precise date. Germans didn't use Julian calendar.

[PSYCHO V]

Some food for thought;


AHISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF CELTIC HISTORY

The Celts have suffered from agenda based revisionism since the first accounts of their existence were recorded. Their history has been written and re-written over centuries, swayed by the tumult of ethno-political events, movements and agendas,... only recently being clawed back from obscurity.

It began with the writers of the classical period but was given new impetus in the new dawning of European national identity.

When the last Breton army was defeated in 1488 by the French, the Bretons were forced to sign the Treaty of Union between Brittany and France. Frenchman Jean le Fevre was sponsored by his King to write ‘Les Fleurs et Antiquitez des Gaules, ou il est traits des Anciens Philosophes Gaulois applelez Druides’ (1532) in which he stated “we are all Celts now”, claiming that the Germanic Franks and Celtic Bretons were all of the one Celtic stock.

Elias Schedius claimed that Celts and Germans were the same people and that the Druids were the ancestors of all German peoples (1648, De Dis Germanis). The later Nazi Germans drew heavily on such texts to support their ethic theories on the Aryan race of blond hair/blue eyes.

Whilst Germans and French both claimed Celtic roots, the mood was very different in England.
“Because the English had difficulty with accrediting the Celts with a strong culture or any ‘civilised’ talents or capabilities. After all, as conquerors, like the Romans, it would be imprudent of them to attribute any such qualities to those that they had conquered or were in the process of conquering, as they were at the time with the savage ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Irish in Ireland.” - (History of the Druids, Dr Peter Berresford Ellis, 2002). They found other ways of dealing with the history of the Celts.

Thomas Smith claimed that the Druids and Celts were of Jewish / Semitic stock and that “Abraham was the patriarch of the Druids” (1644, Syntagama de Druidum moribus ac institutis). John Aubrey, married reports of the New World with his version of the Celts stating that they were “different nations of haughty barbarians and noble savages” (1649, Ancient Wiltshire). John Web, drawing on the works of Inigo Jones (1573-1652) claimed that the Celts had “no art, no sculpture, no science, language, culture, architecture or common religious belief” (1655, The Most Remarkable Antiquity of Great Britain). He claimed that Celtic culture actually belonged to the Anglo Saxons, who had also erected Stonehenge.

Dr Walter Charleston disagreed and claimed Celtic culture for the Vikings, that they had built Stonehenge, (1663, Chorea Gigantum). Aylett Sammes claimed that the Druids were Phoenician bards who had influenced the ‘Celts’ with their ancient religion and culture (1676, Britannia Antiqua Illustrata). Rev Henry Rowlands traced the Druidic origins from Noah, stating that the Druids were the same as the patriarchal figures of the Old Testament. He dwelt heavily on the accounts of Celtic sacrifice, stating that these were “evidences that the Druids were following Old Testament traditions”, (1723, Mona Antiqua Restaurata).

By 1746, the last Jacobite uprising had been suppressed in Scotland, Ireland had been subdued since 1691, there had been no uprising in Cornwall since 1549 and Wales had been pacified since Tudor times. Outwardly the Celtic world was now at peace with England and again the Celts received a new history.

By the mid 1700s, John Aubrey's sentiments were adopted enmasse. The catalyst was the philosophical writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau which gained prominence throughout Europe. A key component of that philosophy was the concept of the "Noble Savage"; that is, humanity is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" and that good humanity is corrupted by civilisation / society. This fitted well and further cemented the depiction of the Celts as recorded by the Romans.

Poems by John Thomson (1700-174 , William Collins (1721-1759) and Thomas Gray (1716-1771) depicted the Druids / Celts as venerated nature-worshipping pacifists. William Stukeley is credited as the one who “brought the Druids both to Stonehenge and into modern folklore in a way that caught the fertile imaginations of subsequent writers” (Ellis) in his book (1740, Stonehenge, a temple restores to the British Druids).

By the mid 1700s the French were again having problems with the Bretons. French centralist policies were encroaching on Brittany’s autonomous status, guaranteed under the Acts of Union and several Breton leaders had been executed for attempting to reassert Breton independence. Simon Pelloutiers was sponsored by his King to write another work, claiming that “the religion of the Germanic Franks and the Celts was one and the same thing” (1740, Histoire des Gaulois)

In England, a ‘modern’ Druidic order, organised as a “friendly society with Masonic rituals” came into popularity. With the pious English having problems with some religious moral outrage about the re-emergence of a pagan priesthood as a group worthy of respect, the Druids received a Christian approval. William Cooke, rector of Oldbury, wrote a works arguing that the Druids were “so morally high minded that they were not ethically different from Christians”, (1754, An Enquiry into the Druidical and Patriarchal Religion)

In James MacPherson’s ‘History of Great Britain’ (1773), we see the Druids presented in the new romantic imagery of semi-deified ‘white wizards’. William Blake claimed that Britain was the original Holy Land and ‘Jerusalem’ was not far from ‘Primrose Hill’ He stated that Britons were directly descended from Abraham and that “the Druids of England had set out with missionary zeal in the mists of time to establish their sacred temples of Oak across the face of the world and create the one true religion” (Ellis). Blake claims that Christ was crucified to a sacred oak (1804, Jerusalem, the Emanation of Giant Albion).

Keeping in line with this move to mysticism, the Druidic order in England split in 1833. The new order called “The United Ancient Order of Druids” focussed more on the “pseud theosophical ideas and mystical aspects” of the ancient Druids, rather than the former society model. It was to this new group that a well-known Winston Churchill joined on the 15th of August 1908. At his inauguration, ”some of the participants were wearing false beards and looking more like applicants for a job as Santa Claus than any self respecting Druid” (Ellis). By 1918 there were five different sects of Druids vying to perform their own sacred rites in Britain alone.

“With the onset of the 1960s, Hippies and Alternative Religions regarded the Druids as fair game. The Druids were called upon as the prototypes of many ‘New Age’ ideas and credos. Sybyle Leek (1975, The complete Art to Witchcraft) claimed that she followed the “old religion very closely allied to Celtic witchcraft”. Yes, ‘Celtic witchcraft’ had suddenly arrived out of all the mishmash and hocus-pocus of modern Druidism” (Ellis). Gavin & Yvonne Frost (1978, A Witches guide to Life) stated, “We call our religion Celtic Witchcraft”. Ellis commented that this was “rooted in 16th & 17th century balderdash with a mind-blowing reinterpretation of history”

By the 1980s not only new age beliefs and witchcraft, but esoteric Christianity and even ‘corn circles’ were given a Celtic gloss. In the 1990s the likes of John Matthews conjured images of the Druids as Zen Masters of the ancient world (1991, The Celtic Shaman).



I think it’s worth finishing with a quote from Ellis:

Celtic and Druidic ‘truths’ of every description, from ‘arcane knowledge’, ‘karmic destiny’, ‘ the true path to enlightenment’ to ‘mystic awareness’ are solicited in the commercial deluge of New Age philosophies. The Druids and the Celts were there when our 17th and 18th century ancestors sought ‘Romanticism’ as a counter-balance to the ‘Age of Reason’ and industrialisation. It is not surprising that they are still being reinvented at this time because, in our sad and sorry contemporary world, people still want a quick fix on spirituality; because people, in the quest for truth and meaning in life, which seems the perennial human drive, prefer simple answers. It is easier to accept the cosy pictures of non-existent romantic / barbarian Celts and Druids rather than ponder the uncomfortable realities of these once proud, independent, sophisticated and advance peoples”. - (History of the Druids, Dr Peter Berresford Ellis, 2002)

[PSYCHO V]

In terms of law, Celts rarely executed people.They did sacrifice criminals convicted on festivals, and sometimes sacrificed prisoners, but execution for crime was rare; one was usually fined, or if they couldn't pay the fine, banished. If banished for murder, they could legally be killed by the offended family. Law was argued with a small group of elected local judges, presided by a more educated judge (a low 'druid', essentially) who would arbitrate. The only executions always had a religious nature to them (such as punishments for traitors, rapists, murder of children specifically, etc.; those who commited a blatantly religious offense)..

Yup, further to what Ran said.
The Celts had a strong sense of justice, right and wrong which they embodied in their justice system.

The Irish High King Ollamh Fodhla allegedly founded rule by legislature and drew up a system of law in 714BC. He Founded the great festival of Tara (Feis Temhrach) to be held every three years and at which laws were discussed and revised.

One of the most important functions of the Druids noticed by both Strabo and Caesar was that of judges in the Celtic law courts. Legal Druids could be a Solicitor called aignesa (to plead / argue one’s case), a Judge called breitheamh or Chief Magistrate called Aire Echta. Caesar mentions such magistrates such as Vergobret that was elected chief magistrate of the Aeduii in 52BC.

Both Strabo and Caesar state that Druids were entrusted with all legal decisions both in private and public cases. Strabo states that “the Druids are considered the most just of men”, but that all Judges had to cite a fasach (precedent / maxim) in making any decision to justify their decisions.

Caesar commented “their prestige as judges is immense, there is no appeal against their decisions”. If anyone refused the Druid’s decision, they were ostracised (dibert) from Celtic society and were to be “shunned by gods and man”. Interesting enough, we get our English word ‘boycott’ from the Irish when they instigated the ancient practice of dibert against Englishman Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott in 1880 for a famine induced by he and his countrymen.

[Zero1]

*Applauds*

Edit-On a sidenote, as a Person extremely interested in ancient pagan faiths and beliefs I find that "Celtic witchcraft" stuff, EXTREMELY amusing.

[Colovion]

From what I gather, Belgae are Germanic tribes who lived in the stated areas and bred with Celts for so long they were essentially Celtic and Germanic. I'd class them in a similar category as the modern English what with being Germanic Jutes, Angles and Saxons which bred with the Celtish stock of the British Isles to create the English of today.

[PSYCHO V]

From what I gather, Belgae are Germanic tribes who lived in the stated areas and bred with Celts for so long they were essentially Celtic and Germanic. I'd class them in a similar category as the modern English what with being Germanic Jutes, Angles and Saxons which bred with the Celtish stock of the British Isles to create the English of today.

No, the Belgae ('furious ones'), are thought to have originated in central Germany around the rivers Tauber and Main and (as Ranika has already mentioned) were Celtic by Culture and Tongue. Scholars suspect an ancient connection to the Volcae of Bavaria and other areas in the south of Germany.

They were originally Proto-La Tene / La Tene 'A' peoples that embraced the warrior cults and seem to have sprung form the wanning power of the old Halsatt chiefoms. With the emergence of the Germani (a distantly related Indo-European group) over the indigenious Urnfield and Halstatt remnants to the north, they began to inter-marry with these Germanics as they increasingly came into contact with them during the early 2nd C BC.

my2bob

[GoreBag]

*Applauds*

Edit-On a sidenote, as a Person extremely interested in ancient pagan faiths and beliefs I find that "Celtic witchcraft" stuff, EXTREMELY amusing.

I find them highly aggravating. I dated a Wiccan once. I won't do it again.


PSYCHO V got the Belgae nail on the head and quite simply put.

[Zero1]

Well they can be aggrivating, especially when they insist beyond all reason on things that just simply arent historically true...

"The ancient Celtic amazon race worshiped a divine feminine goddess and tapped into her divine glory to cast wonderous magical spells!!!...oh and there was a god sorta-almost-knda but he wasnt as important."

Crap like that makes me want to pull my hair out, Psycho V I applaud your efforts to unveil the truth about these diverse and intriguing people who have had their culture butchered over the past millenias.

[Ranika]

The funny/irritating thing about Celtic 'goddesses' is that they were, mostly, not overly central to Celtic religion, with the exception of a few very popular ones, specifically Epona, for her fertility and horse attributes. However, the deities of war, farming, trade, nature, etc., are generally male, as are deities of creation. Most female deities are actually minor local deities that patron things like rivers, lakes, and ponds (from which stem things like 'The Lady of the Lake'). For example, in ancient Gaelic religion, the main deity was Cromm Cruach (Dagda), a male deity, and to Gauls not under the Arverni, the main deities included the deity Cernunnos, a horned male deity who controlled nature, wealth, etc., and the Arverni replaced him with Sucellos, the Celtic hammer-god who was supposed to have created the world (which is actually where Dagda comes from, as Sucellos is one of the oldest and most common Celtic gods; the Arverni just built him up greatly in local worship to remove influence from the 'druids' in Aulercia, who controlled worship of Cernunnos). There were certainly important female deities to Celts, but the way that goddesses are built up by these silly modern wannabes is entirely ignorant of what Celtic religion was like. In modern so-called 'Celtic' paganism, the presence of male deities is extremely downplayed, with a focus on some 'goddess' with little if any basis in deities Celts actually believed. Also a bit funny, if they really were like pagan Celts, Celtic religion would probably not be so popular with the people they tend to be; Celtic religion is not 'relaxed' or nice toward others.