Celtic overpowered!

[PSYCHO V]

I enjoyed your posts in this thread so far I'm a bit surprised to see something like that. You seem to have read quite a lot on the topic, so why back up your arguments with something as stupid as this? Sorry nothing against you but you talk about bias in Roman sources and then post a quote which is surely biased and completely unscientific. Is that taken from a novel? No offence here. BTW great discussion.

No as cited it is from Daithi O Hogain, Professor of Celtic Studies, University of Dublin. I believe he is para-phrasing Siculus amongst others.

I'm studying ancient history at university and I think a modern historian should try to avoid any kind of bias or steroetypes like "greedy Romans", "uncivilised barbarians" and so on...

I assume you have similar problems with the likes of Tacitus’ Roman “Pillagers of the world” etc etc.
Unfortunately, I believe you’ve jumped to all sorts of assumptions here and missed the wood through the trees. These are the Roman accounts and neither the aforementioned scholar nor I believe they should be taken on face value. Whilst there is often truth still there, accounts tend to be wrapped up in a whole lot of bolox. …best examples Livy & Caesar imho.

Oh I know that such things happened. It is the way it is written. for example "Roman greed". A completely unscientific statement. As if all Romans were greedy and Roman expansion was driven by greed. I haven't read this specific author but he sounds biased and unprofessional in this quote, and I guess he is. Many people pretend to be an authority, or are called such by some people, but this kind of bias and sentimental involvement and message disqualifies him. Using nationalistic prejudice is not welcome in science and is unprofessional…..etc etc.

“Unscientific”? As a student of ancient history I’m sure you’d be well aware that ‘Romanic’ historians wrote for their audience under the patronage of a Roman leader / family. Hence we do have ‘biased’ / politically expedient Roman accounts condemning the actions of other Romans / Roman dynasties / families, etc. eg. Plutarch, Poseidonius, Polybius, etc etc.

I fully agree with what SaFe said, that's why I didn't like the "greedy, evil Romans vs innocent, poor Celts" mood of the quote. A historian should not mark events as good or bad out of personal preference..

Again, I believe you are the one adding the qualitative dimension here. The only ones who mention “barbarians”, “greed” etc are the Roman / Greek historians themselves. The addition of the “evil” / “poor” nomenclatures are entirely your doing..no doubt to make your point.
All I ask is that people look at the facts in a holistic manner and don’t regress to 2D stereo-types. One needs to keep an open mind and refrain from knee-jerk assumptions whenever others recount less that flattering aspects of their own pets. Fact is often stranger and more complex than fiction.

That's true. The problem is that we have only very very few sources and non of them is without bias. It's a pitty we don't have more things from the celts, parthians, germanics and so on. Of course they would contain the same things the Romans wrote just the other way round when it comes to cruelty and such but it would make things much easier for us.

Absolutely!