I must add that any argument that the Celts were better warriors because they had more time to devote to training doesn't exactly have support, because both had a warrior aristocracy... So neither (of them) had an advantage in quality or training, just real world factors like arms/armor. One might argue that Tacitus said so and so, but that is hardly proof... Tacitus may be the only source concerning the time, but he calls them "Germans" for Christ's sake, something that is a fact that they never called themselves unless it was to explain their identity to their retarded neighbors- that's evidence enough to say he's full of it... Distinct grave sites found with greater riches does not prove anything either, other than those noblemen had more wealth... it's just a simple fact that the lower classes do farming and grunt-work, and it's really doubtful that the upper classes would participate for personal fun. Cultures who have drastic changes in their infrastructure as proposed by an egalitarian-to-aristocracy switch would then have traces of that change and difference in their oral culture... there is no evidence of that concerning Germanic culture, in fact, the culture shows itself to be very solid and steady... the few linguistic changes which happen are in terms of kingship because of their unique curbing of that power, but otherwise... loan-words for trade from Romans, so we know they didn't have a money-market system... what else? they borrow the word for a byrnie mailcoat...
Bookmarks