Org Mobile Site
Thread: Celts = Barbarians?
Sorry if this thread does not belong here but I thought, "Where else to ask questions such as these but on the EB Forum!"
I was thinking the other day (and it hurts). Why did the Romans treat as and call the Celts "Barbarians"? Was it because they were viewed as not being 'civilized', or was it mainly from being xenophobic? For the Celts being so advanced in culture I fail to see how the romans could overlook this! Thanks in advance!
I was thinking the other day (and it hurts). Why did the Romans treat as and call the Celts "Barbarians"? Was it because they were viewed as not being 'civilized', or was it mainly from being xenophobic? For the Celts being so advanced in culture I fail to see how the romans could overlook this! Thanks in advance!
1) General xenophobia
2) The practice of Celtic men to let their beards grow, which was something..uncivilized.
3) The fact they had moustaches.
4) General xenophobia.
2) The practice of Celtic men to let their beards grow, which was something..uncivilized.
3) The fact they had moustaches.
4) General xenophobia.
Ummm xenophobia? Sure there was some of that going on, but I think the fact that the Gauls came down and vanquished Rome under Brennus might have had something to do with their dislike of them. Not to mention their way of fighting, and customs that the Romans found rather uncivilized.
Like soap.
Well, the Romans bathed almost daily, and I suspect that the Celts did not do so...
Originally Posted by :
Well, the Romans bathed almost daily, and I suspect that the Celts did not do so...
Yes, probably also those ones living in the insulae in the middle of Roma.Well, the Romans bathed almost daily, and I suspect that the Celts did not do so...
O_O
I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?
I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?
Well, Greeks largely called anyone who was not them "Barbaroi", so I would call it more related to xenophobia, as Hax put it, then anything else. Also, the Celts (like Germanic tribes) were not a tightly organised nation, and their countryside was not fairly populated, which along with their underdeveloped cities led Romans believe that the Celts lived in the wastelands and backwoods, unlike the other Mediterranean or Eastern cultures.
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market:
O_O
I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?
Their function was more social than that of hygiene. Really, people went to the baths mostly to socialise, gossip, meet friends, and relax. Little cleaning was involved in the ritual.O_O
I don't suppose you have completely forgotten the presence of baths in every major Roman settlement?
Of course, but the mere fact that they are in water, and towel off afterwards is a step up from Celts, and their mud.
Originally Posted by :
Of course, but the mere fact that they are in water, and towel off afterwards is a step up from Celts, and their mud.
Rivers rivers rivers.Of course, but the mere fact that they are in water, and towel off afterwards is a step up from Celts, and their mud.
Actually, for actually cleaning Romans too, adviced that you bathe in hot springs.
This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.
Originally Posted by :
This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.
I'm not sure on cleanliness, but there were several rules in Celtic society that advocated healthy living. Soldiers were fined if a normal couldn't fit around their belly.This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.
Well, you got me there. Romans are not the healthiest. Ever.
But what does that have to do with hygiene? I suppose obese people would be dirtier than a thin one, but it was still a minority.
But what does that have to do with hygiene? I suppose obese people would be dirtier than a thin one, but it was still a minority.
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market:
This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.
Except for those guys so crowded in Romes slums that they got epidemics.This is getting nowhere fast. However, I still believe that most Romans would still be cleaner than Celts. Celts are farmers, or fishers, or hunters, and I doubt there ability to stay clean in those conditions.
Most of the romans had acces to aquaeduct water and thermae and we know, that many romans used to clean their teeth and mouth with wine. And of course they had public toilets...
I doubt celts had it, but in fact we dont know
I assume celtic bigger settlement to be very dirty and smelly, but villages around rivers. Why should their inhabitents be not "clean". Mud etc. has nothing to do with bacterias etc. Maybe the celts were even healthier than the romans
But I guess the celts were barbarians to the romans, because they didnt build big cities with huge stone temples with gold etc. like in the greek-roman world.
I doubt celts had it, but in fact we dont know
I assume celtic bigger settlement to be very dirty and smelly, but villages around rivers. Why should their inhabitents be not "clean". Mud etc. has nothing to do with bacterias etc. Maybe the celts were even healthier than the romans
But I guess the celts were barbarians to the romans, because they didnt build big cities with huge stone temples with gold etc. like in the greek-roman world.
Of course, things are dependant on the times.
Quisque Est Barbarus Alio?
Y'all do know that Celts get the credit for inventing soap?
Now, I do not know how often the Roman baths were drained and replenished with fresh water, but, all those guys sharing the same filthy water in the same tub isn't my idea of hygiene. The Celts could bath in streams, rivers, pools, etc...I see less of a chance to bath nasty water like this.
The only stone structures for retaining water that I know of off hand is an oval basin (reconstructed) from an Aedui town, Bibracte I think. Stone water channels were found as well for water flow. But no, these are not common feature in Celtic towns at all.
Now, I do not know how often the Roman baths were drained and replenished with fresh water, but, all those guys sharing the same filthy water in the same tub isn't my idea of hygiene. The Celts could bath in streams, rivers, pools, etc...I see less of a chance to bath nasty water like this.
The only stone structures for retaining water that I know of off hand is an oval basin (reconstructed) from an Aedui town, Bibracte I think. Stone water channels were found as well for water flow. But no, these are not common feature in Celtic towns at all.
Romans didn't use baths for bathing, they used them for liesure. Sort of like going to the pool, or the hot springs, or the sauna today. Romans typically bathed by rubbing olive oil all over their bodies and scraping it off with a curved stick called a striegel. If they did bathe in baths they usually walked through a series of heated rooms and jumped in a cold pool at the end. Some baths, like those in Bath, were extensive however and had several heated pools. At any rate I highly doubt it was a big, nasty, dirty pool that everyone was flopping about in. But hey, if you want to freeze your jables off swimming in a river, have at it chums.
Hmmm...olive oil and a scraping stick, or soap and water. Hard decision 
I know it sounds odd! Although I've never done it so it might be great, but I wonder if it is difficult to get the striegel in those hard to reach places. ^^
I personally second the notion that celts are barbarians because of their moustaches. Moustaches are very barbaric. 
Perhaps it was just because they had such a wild attitude, were hairy, fought amongst themselves instead of doing proper politics
Perhaps it was just because they had such a wild attitude, were hairy, fought amongst themselves instead of doing proper politics
I'd like to add something that induced the Romans to believe that Celts were barbarians:
Human sacrifice!!!
The practice of head-hunting!!
No written laws- very little writing in general
no proper roads or aqueducts
and don't forget the position of women in society which was way too "liberal" for Romans
Human sacrifice!!!
The practice of head-hunting!!
No written laws- very little writing in general
no proper roads or aqueducts
and don't forget the position of women in society which was way too "liberal" for Romans
Intereting points! Thanks for taking the time to respond!
"I know it sounds odd! Although I've never done it so it might be great, but I wonder if it is difficult to get the striegel in those hard to reach places." <-- That made me LOL, waking the ol' lady up!
"I know it sounds odd! Although I've never done it so it might be great, but I wonder if it is difficult to get the striegel in those hard to reach places." <-- That made me LOL, waking the ol' lady up!
Romans also had soap factories (Soap was made of pee at that time... By the way^^)
interesting point ^^
the Celts were Barbarians in the sense of they had not Greek Culture (or stole from it, except for Greek scriptures, which they used for commercial purposes), and wearing beards.
But the Celts had a great culture too, and had Brennus not abandoned Rome (because it stank so much, as the EB-Trait says hahaahahaahahaaaaa) who knows, maybe we all would speak a Celtic language today
the Celts were Barbarians in the sense of they had not Greek Culture (or stole from it, except for Greek scriptures, which they used for commercial purposes), and wearing beards.
But the Celts had a great culture too, and had Brennus not abandoned Rome (because it stank so much, as the EB-Trait says hahaahahaahahaaaaa) who knows, maybe we all would speak a Celtic language today
Guys, please... I hope 99% of this thread is not serious despite the original poster actually asking to be enlightened, we should enlighten him, not confuse him more.
I am no expert on Celts, but on Germans and Rome (Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up- but he may just be passing stereotypical stuff). In any case I know what the Romans had that most others did not.
However, let us first define "barbarian" It has passed to us from Latin, which again had it from greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros). This basically mean a non-Greek and imitates the weird sounds they made when speaking instead of using a civilised language (Greek). The Athenians even used it to describe and deride other Greek tribes/polis on occasion. Though Plato rejected its use at all as it told nothing of the barbarians.
In any case, to the Greeks, then Romans it meant a person that was not Greek (or later Roman, for in fact the Romans were barbarians to the civilised Greeks, at least until they were conquered and their culture conquered the more brute and primitive Roman one). However it came to mean a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage (Tacitus on germans for example). There are similar ideas/labels in all urban societies across the world. I guess the Greeks were barbarians to the first civilised urban societies in "The Fertile Crest" where civilisation rose too.
Anyway, now for why the Celts were seen as barbarians by the Romans.
Actually go look here and have a laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso the Monthy Python crew were not unenlightened...
Rome had an organised state and army, a constitution, freedom (no kings) a well developed parlamentary system that was a model for at least one major modern one.
Rome had paved roads that endures to this day, bridges, acqueducts and sewers, temples, forums and arenas. Not to mention the theaters and the medicine. And while we are at it, Rome had science, it had engineering and medicine indeed, it had learned scholars, mathematicians and philosophers.
Now, much of this was learned from Greeks (and others mainly Etruscans), but Rome had it all, and Rome's genius was in adapting, learning from others and in fact not be xenophobic (Roman citizenship was always open to people of merit even in the Res Publica Romana, some argue that this strenghtened the realm others that when they diluted what was Roman by becoming multiethnic Rome became weak and fell).
You also seem to forget that Rome was not = Romans even when it was but a city-state in Latium. Most Romans were farmers, all soldiers came from peasant stock as these were hardy, strong and had many skills already that was required for life in the army as well as better suited to subject themselves to discipline and hardship then soft and spoiled city-dwellers. The point being that earth-grubbers are earth-grubbers everywhere. A Roman peasant would have been as dirty as a Celtic one, and both would be careful to wash a bit before eating and such. Being barbarian is not defined by your cleanliness, it is if anything defined by being part of an urban civilisation.
Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.
I hope this helped you Caligula (may I ask why on earth you chose that name? You might as well call yourself Idi Amin
) and I both welcome you and remind you that by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I definately encourage that;-)
I am no expert on Celts, but on Germans and Rome (Tacitus mentions, BTW, that the Germans bathed in cold rivers when they got up- but he may just be passing stereotypical stuff). In any case I know what the Romans had that most others did not.
However, let us first define "barbarian" It has passed to us from Latin, which again had it from greek βάρβαρος (bárbaros). This basically mean a non-Greek and imitates the weird sounds they made when speaking instead of using a civilised language (Greek). The Athenians even used it to describe and deride other Greek tribes/polis on occasion. Though Plato rejected its use at all as it told nothing of the barbarians.
In any case, to the Greeks, then Romans it meant a person that was not Greek (or later Roman, for in fact the Romans were barbarians to the civilised Greeks, at least until they were conquered and their culture conquered the more brute and primitive Roman one). However it came to mean a pejorative term for an uncivilized person, either in a general reference to a member of a nation or ethnos, typically a tribal society as seen by an urban civilization either viewed as inferior, or admired as a noble savage (Tacitus on germans for example). There are similar ideas/labels in all urban societies across the world. I guess the Greeks were barbarians to the first civilised urban societies in "The Fertile Crest" where civilisation rose too.
Anyway, now for why the Celts were seen as barbarians by the Romans.
Actually go look here and have a laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso the Monthy Python crew were not unenlightened...
Rome had an organised state and army, a constitution, freedom (no kings) a well developed parlamentary system that was a model for at least one major modern one.
Rome had paved roads that endures to this day, bridges, acqueducts and sewers, temples, forums and arenas. Not to mention the theaters and the medicine. And while we are at it, Rome had science, it had engineering and medicine indeed, it had learned scholars, mathematicians and philosophers.
Now, much of this was learned from Greeks (and others mainly Etruscans), but Rome had it all, and Rome's genius was in adapting, learning from others and in fact not be xenophobic (Roman citizenship was always open to people of merit even in the Res Publica Romana, some argue that this strenghtened the realm others that when they diluted what was Roman by becoming multiethnic Rome became weak and fell).
You also seem to forget that Rome was not = Romans even when it was but a city-state in Latium. Most Romans were farmers, all soldiers came from peasant stock as these were hardy, strong and had many skills already that was required for life in the army as well as better suited to subject themselves to discipline and hardship then soft and spoiled city-dwellers. The point being that earth-grubbers are earth-grubbers everywhere. A Roman peasant would have been as dirty as a Celtic one, and both would be careful to wash a bit before eating and such. Being barbarian is not defined by your cleanliness, it is if anything defined by being part of an urban civilisation.
Anyway I suspect the above are the reasons that Romans considered Celts barbarians. Despite the neo-romantic Celtic drivel idealising them as a high culture, they were not.
I hope this helped you Caligula (may I ask why on earth you chose that name? You might as well call yourself Idi Amin
) and I both welcome you and remind you that by installing EB you have agreed to read more history. I definately encourage that;-)The Celts were Barbarians because the Romans were the conquerors, and the conquerors are generally the ones to write history. A good comparison, is with the Victorians in Britain. They made up an inordinate amount of nonesense (e.g. people in Colombus time thought the World was flat-no they didn't), because it all added to their myth of "taming the noble savage". This then gave them free rein to go and "give civilization",(i.e. Conquer) far off parts of the World, like The Indian subcontinent. Thing is, they already had culture and civilization over there ;) .........A similar thing is quite probably happening at present with the US "bringing Democracy" (i.e. Conquer) to different far off parts of the world.
Just remember that virtually all the accounts we have today, were written by people controlled by Rome, if not Roman themselves. So expect a little bias..
It's basically a human psychological defence, call them "Barbarians" and it makes them almost sub human, so we don't feel too guilty when we do things to them we really shouldn't. No we as [Insert Conquerer nation for relevant period] were actually helping them.....helping them...yes that's it..;)
Julius Caesar himself summed it up well :-
Just remember that virtually all the accounts we have today, were written by people controlled by Rome, if not Roman themselves. So expect a little bias..
It's basically a human psychological defence, call them "Barbarians" and it makes them almost sub human, so we don't feel too guilty when we do things to them we really shouldn't. No we as [Insert Conquerer nation for relevant period] were actually helping them.....helping them...yes that's it..;)
Julius Caesar himself summed it up well :-
Originally Posted by :
It is the right of war for conquerors to treat those whom they have conquered according to their pleasure
And that includes writing history as they see fit.It is the right of war for conquerors to treat those whom they have conquered according to their pleasure
Did you not read what I wrote Drewski?
I was not going to comment on such a subjective and ideologically loaded statement and just let my other post stand (as it is the penultimate answer LOL), but...
The Romans did not actually need any excuses to go and conquer their neighbours. That they were there was excuse enough. So your argument is faulty when you assume that Romans labelled Celts barbarians in order to conquer them. Under Augustus there was certainly some of that "It is Rome's call to order and rule the world" in "The Augustan School" of poets etc (Ovid, Horats, et al), but by that time Celts had long since been conquered by Romans and Germans except for Britain, and the idea of Celts as barbarians is far older than Caesar's conquest of Gaul. In fact it also spans long periods of peace, trade and alliance with Celts as well as periods of war and hostility.
Remember that by installing EB, you agreed to read more history. I encourage that, enlightenment is always good.
I was not going to comment on such a subjective and ideologically loaded statement and just let my other post stand (as it is the penultimate answer LOL), but...
The Romans did not actually need any excuses to go and conquer their neighbours. That they were there was excuse enough. So your argument is faulty when you assume that Romans labelled Celts barbarians in order to conquer them. Under Augustus there was certainly some of that "It is Rome's call to order and rule the world" in "The Augustan School" of poets etc (Ovid, Horats, et al), but by that time Celts had long since been conquered by Romans and Germans except for Britain, and the idea of Celts as barbarians is far older than Caesar's conquest of Gaul. In fact it also spans long periods of peace, trade and alliance with Celts as well as periods of war and hostility.
Remember that by installing EB, you agreed to read more history. I encourage that, enlightenment is always good.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO