Please depict the GAULS accuratly this time

[Occhi Di Davide]

I can list those fields were they equalled and even surpassed the romans :
-philosophy & theology : the druids weren't only religious leaders. In fact, like many civilizations of that time, the priest and scientist class were the same, look at the egyptians, the persians, the mayans... They were great philosophers, even the greeks and the roman praised the deepness of their thoughs




-Litterature : the fact that they didn't write doesn't mean they had not complex litterature. In fact their poems, essays and stories were transmitted orally. Even today most people have heard of the bards, which is a testimony to their prowess in this fields. They capable of Literary techniques that would have put sometimes some of todays writer to shame. Their litterature wasn't just instinctive.
-Craftmanship : it's one of those fields were they were often (not always) surpassing the romans. Everything ivolving smithing or building objects (made of woods, or other materials). They were by far the finest metal workers in antiquity, smithing being very complex in nature, this is a testimony of their overall level of advancement. They invented the mailcoat (that revolutionized armament ), the plow (that indisputably revolutionized agriculture) and had left a lot of very fine artworks, most of them having only been recently uncovered. They also invented the barell, one of the most ingenious way to transport liquids and other goods.
-MAthematics : yeah, now i know most people are surprise and often don't believe it when they hear this, because it's really the antithesis of today's cliche image of the gauls. But the druids did travel a lot, goign to place like alexiandria, the capital of sience at the time (great library) to discuss and exchange theory with the others sicientist (greek,romans,egyptians sometimes even indians). What we know for sure is that they had the same knowledge of those people. What we don't know yet is if they discovered theorems themselves. Since they did not leave any written notes, it's hard to tell. So I'm going to assume theey didn't had a big impact on mathematical theories and were just educated, just like the romans : the romans didn't really liked abstract thinking themselves, so both gauls and romans are probably equals in those fields.
- Art : it's difficult tho judge art, and I think you can never say one painting is superior to another. You can't judge creativity But, you can judge the level of complexity, the level technique used, and the overall finesse . In those two, the gauls were equals to the romans.They made extremely fine piece piece of art, mainly using metals and wood, while the romans prefered marble and stone. I've many books with lots of pictures about the art of the two civs, and myself i can tell they they are both equals when it comes to the finesse.


In the fields of architecture, the romans surpassed the gauls, like they surpassed everybody anyway.
But that doesn't means the gauls had a primitive architecture. In fact they had a very unique style.
Again contrary to the popular belief, they did build more than just huts and longhouse. Their cities were fully paved, like their roads, their road systhem was one of the most develloped and well kept of those time, with every roads being made of stone or woods. Only the poorer lived in huts, and most of them had big houses, improved from generations to generations, with fine artwork all around the house, low relief, sculptures, and paintings. The cities had big administrative buildings, again with lots of artwork and decorations, large public facilities (even baths, although not as extended as the romans ones), large central places...


If you want to picture one of their largest oppdiums (cities), just imagine any other big cities of that times (carthage, sparta, even rome) just a bit smaller (there was a bigger rural population) and replace the stone and marble by a wood/stone combo and metal working : you have your gaul oppidium, the same grandeur, the same imposing feeling (or almost, let's not exagerate )

You are exaggerating a little bit, don't you think?

[Anna_Gein]

Yes and instead of making something constructive you are just trolling.
Without purpose since he won't reply ...

[Red Hue]

The misconceptions and myths we have of the Celts is so pervasive that it makes it very difficult to sort truth from the xenophobic ravings of the Romans and Greeks. To them those who spoke other languages or didn’t share their culture were more animal than man and likely had little to show the cultured and civilized peoples.

Roman and Greek writings tell us that the Celts were the preeminent barbarians. They were the Boogey Men that mothers frightened their children. They dressed in skins, planted no crops, held wives in common, and painted themselves blue. Nothing much above animals screaming into battle nude, excepting the paint, of course. The Greeks of all people tell us that they had no interest in the opposite sex and disdained the company of women. Yet somehow they managed to reproduce and populate most of Europe, asexually I presume.

Am I being too harsh? The Classical World did have an overblown view of themselves, rather much like the vestigial views of the stereotypical Italian waiter. But then you have episodes like this: http://balkancelts.wordpress.com/201...tian-genocide/

What is more interesting is that all historic focus is on naked Celtic warriors while the Roman say that they took almost all of their military kit from the Celts. Helmets, swords, shields, chain mail, the list goes on. The Greeks and Macedonians tell us of them fighting in shield walls very much like the Romans. Caesar also talks of phalanx formations against his cavalry when fighting the Helvetii. We have recovered Celtic armor. We know they made breastplates, chain mail and one very distinctive type which was scale sewn to linen over chain mail. That sounds much like a brigantine over chain. Transitional armor of the middle ages.

I don’t dispute that Celtic farmers could not afford much armor or that some warriors went to battle mostly naked to prove their bravery but if they made such good armor are we still to believe they never made any use of it? I suppose it was good that some Celtic Chief showed up dressed in his grave goods so the Romans could copy it. Yet most of the records only say they fought as mobs, albeit mobs who carried standards, for what ever reason…certainly not to distinguish between units, of course.

We have descriptions of battles stating that the clothing of the enemy gave them protection from arrow and javelins. Most descriptions are very vague. Tacitus wrote that their strength lies in their infantry but some had strong a cavalry arm as well.

Much of the Barbarian motif is false propaganda, most likely for political reasons. We have no reason to believe that they only dressed in animal skins, held wives in common, and we can label a lie to the grow no crops easily. Britain and America did the same to the Germans of the First World War, taking the most cultured country in Europe and passing them off as barbarous warmongers. But that image, still in large part, persists to this day.

If they were such undisciplined fighters why were the hired by every power of the time that could manage it? Why are their cities and towns so well protected. Why did they have coinage, paved roads, and a trade network from the Atlantic to the Black Sea? The Romans not only took their kit, they also took their infantry tactics, shield wall and short sword. Roman Cavalry adopted the spath from the Celts. We have some mention of them rotating fresher troops to the for of battle and resting the others.

In describing the difference between Celtic and Celtiberian warriors it was said that the later wore leather and bronze or bronze scale instead of chainmail.

It is also interesting to note that Celts produced steel. This was an art the Romans themselves never mastered but continued to rely upon the conquered craftsmen after they were integrated into the Republic and later Empire. They also came up with pattern welding.

The Romans didn’t learn everything the Celts had to offer, however. Among the things they rejected was the iron Celtic plow. While Roman agriculture was advanced by Celtic contacts, to reach its highpoint in the late Republic and early Empire periods, it was not what it could have been. It not only cut deeper into the soil but also turned it at the same time, eliminating the need to double plow. It would seem while Pliny though the Celtic Plow superior to the Roman it was abandoned, seemingly because they though that iron would poison the soil. They did take their harvesting machine but crop rotation and fertilizers were dropped. The iron plow had to wait until the 1700s to be reintroduced in the west. In China it came into being around 450AD. Another item they seem to have disdained was soap.
Of their engineering and architecture we know little, except, they had a very good road network, built using stone or wood, their city walls we made in such a way as to make breeching by siege weapons in effective, they built with stone or wood and some buildings may have had at least three levels.

It was the Celts who improved the wheel, giving it spokes and the iron tire. They also improved the wheel hub and used iron axels. Their design remained unchanged until the invention of the pneumatic tire. They brought the world the wooden barrel too. When was the last time you saw something packaged in an amphora?

It is a myth that they did not write. They used the scripts of the Greeks and later the Roman. We have inscriptions in Gaul using the Greek alphabet and going back to roughly the same time as the first sack of Rome.

What they didn’t leave were any in-depth records, long lists of their achievements, and a bank of literature. If it was not inscribed in metal or stone it didn’t survive. But what we do know from the Romans themselves is that Gauls were in great demand as tutors and educators. More so even than the Greeks during the Empire.

Far from being the backward barbarians of Roman writings, they were sought after to teach their children. What higher recommendation could you give them?

[Prnn]

he may be a bit of a fanboy who didn't correctly source his material, but the core of his argument stands against all opposition.

It doesn't.
At all.

[Durnaug]

It doesn't.
At all.

The Romans were civilised enough to record their barbarity ;-)

"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." Tacitus the Roman

It is too simplistic to think of the Romans as "the goodies" and the barbarians as the "evil horde". Far, far too simplistic. I am not "putting down" the Ancient Romans but just pointing out that even they had the self-awareness to understand their own limitations.

Of course, the Spartans are the real goodies of Ancient Europe... ...fine I'll get my coat.

[Red Hue]

It doesn't.
At all.

Perhaps you would like to tell us which parts of the OP were pulled from nowhere?

I have seen a few posts that need further documentation to prove a point, rather than relying on hearsay but little I have not heard before.

The claim of Celtic mathematical sophistication is not an idle one. The Calendar of Coligny is highly sophisticated. The find is dated at about 50 AD but the original work could be far older. The druids were banned, after all, and the Julian Calendar was the system in use.

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Coligny/ColignyPart1.htm

We know that their governance was well ordered and sophisticated, far from any dictatorial ruler ship. That they had judges and a complex system of laws. This is not just taken as anecdotal information from Ireland. Judges were also recorded as far away as Galicia in Asia Minor. Their road network was extensive and may very well have predated the first Roman roads. Certainly their transportation requirements far exceeded those of the Romans.

Caesar says they used the Greek alphabet to record civil and legal affairs but religious writings were forbidden. He was sure of the size of the Helvetii host because he found their census documents. The reason we lack such documents is because they wrote on wood with a wax covering. Caesar tells us that as well.

In the first sack of Rome, to me it is the Romans who come off at fault. The Celts were seeking redress of wrongs while the Romans neglected their own laws and brought it upon themselves. Even the Helvetii requested permission and Roman protection on their move. Caesar denied it and used the migration as a pretext for war. I am sure all those gold mines in Gaul had nothing at all to do with it.

[Prnn]

The Romans were civilised enough to record their barbarity ;-)

"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." Tacitus the Roman

It is too simplistic to think of the Romans as "the goodies" and the barbarians as the "evil horde". Far, far too simplistic. I am not "putting down" the Ancient Romans but just pointing out that even they had the self-awareness to understand their own limitations.

Of course, the Spartans are the real goodies of Ancient Europe... ...fine I'll get my coat.

The goodies were obviously the Egyptians.
Can't do much harm when you're not doing much.

No one called Rome "good" and the gauls "bad".
I'm merely remarking that the OP is pulling stuff straight out of the ether.

[Fabricus]

The Romans were civilised enough to record their barbarity ;-)

"They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace." Tacitus the Roman

It is too simplistic to think of the Romans as "the goodies" and the barbarians as the "evil horde". Far, far too simplistic. I am not "putting down" the Ancient Romans but just pointing out that even they had the self-awareness to understand their own limitations.

ITAQUE.

[thebestant]

if you have ever played Roma Surrectum 2 a mod for RTW1 they do a good job of portraying the different barbarian clans especially with their unique clothing and equipment, i don't know about the cities though ive never looked at them but the barbarians definitely feel a lot better. i suggest you download it you wont be disappoint.

[Ichon]

I think the main reason people have hard time admitting Celts were fairly advanced is that Romans defeated them but the result was Romano-Gallic civilization while most written records are from Celt competitosr Greeks and Romans. As much as Greeks contributed to Roman civilization Celts made the same or larger contributions.

Main problem for Celts allowing Roman conquest was political disunity and Romans had already learned how to handle that with Samnites and the other Italian tribes. Romans were able to divide and conquer time and again and the few times Roman power was actually tested the Romans were more often than not able to have a strong general in place due to the Roman system of political advancement which for all its flaws did tend to promote stronger generals over time especially compared to power based on inheritance.

Also the Romans were probably the closest of known ancient civilizations to practice total war in the full meaning if an enemy refused to submit. If Celt tribe defeated another tribe they losers were subsumed into the victors tribe. When Romans defeated a Celt tribe which had been offered protectorate status earlier if submitting to Roman authority most were enslaved, a quarter killed, and the rest left to serve Roman colonists and the culture of the tribe was eliminated to make an example. The notable exceptions were Scipio in Iberia where he needed the allegiance of Iberians to take the war to N Africa and Caesar who needed Gauls to help him against Pompey and empowered him to march on Rome instead of putting down repeat rebellions as so often happened in the 50 years after Roman conquests in other places.

Only because Roman conquests were so eventually so successful elsewhere did they manage to have the armies to defeat even quarreling Celt tribes. Celts were the last power geographically close to Rome to be conquered. Spain, Africa, Greece, Anatolia, were all conquered before Gaul despite Gaul being closer. It seems a common idea is that Gaul was conquered last because it had little of value but Gallia was one of the richest provinces of the Empire and there is a reason Celt aristocratic families were allowed to remain in power and eventually given not only Roman citizenship but Senatorial rank by Claudius.

[Akrotatos]

I think the main reason people have hard time admitting Celts were fairly advanced is that Romans defeated them but the result was Romano-Gallic civilization while most written records are from Celt competitosr Greeks and Romans. As much as Greeks contributed to Roman civilization Celts made the same or larger contributions.

I think the main reason people have a hard time admitting the Celts were fairly advanced is because the majority of the people that try to put that fact on the spotlight overdo it. It's one thing to say Celts were not the unwashed barbarians depicted in Roman propaganda and another to casually compare Celtic and Greco-roman settlements, roads etc.

and while we are on that subject how did the Celts contributed more than the Greeks to the Roman civilisation? Or the Etruscans?

[Prnn]

I think the main reason people have hard time admitting Celts were fairly advanced is that Romans defeated them but the result was Romano-Gallic civilization while most written records are from Celt competitosr Greeks and Romans. As much as Greeks contributed to Roman civilization Celts made the same or larger contributions.

Pardon?
Could you...
Could you give me some evidence of that?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't seem to find any.

[Red Hue]

I think the main reason people have hard time admitting Celts were fairly advanced is that Romans defeated them but the result was Romano-Gallic civilization while most written records are from Celt competitosr Greeks and Romans. As much as Greeks contributed to Roman civilization Celts made the same or larger contributions.

Main problem for Celts allowing Roman conquest was political disunity and Romans had already learned how to handle that with Samnites and the other Italian tribes. Romans were able to divide and conquer time and again and the few times Roman power was actually tested the Romans were more often than not able to have a strong general in place due to the Roman system of political advancement which for all its flaws did tend to promote stronger generals over time especially compared to power based on inheritance.

Also the Romans were probably the closest of known ancient civilizations to practice total war in the full meaning if an enemy refused to submit. If Celt tribe defeated another tribe they losers were subsumed into the victors tribe. When Romans defeated a Celt tribe which had been offered protectorate status earlier if submitting to Roman authority most were enslaved, a quarter killed, and the rest left to serve Roman colonists and the culture of the tribe was eliminated to make an example. The notable exceptions were Scipio in Iberia where he needed the allegiance of Iberians to take the war to N Africa and Caesar who needed Gauls to help him against Pompey and empowered him to march on Rome instead of putting down repeat rebellions as so often happened in the 50 years after Roman conquests in other places.

Only because Roman conquests were so eventually so successful elsewhere did they manage to have the armies to defeat even quarreling Celt tribes. Celts were the last power geographically close to Rome to be conquered. Spain, Africa, Greece, Anatolia, were all conquered before Gaul despite Gaul being closer. It seems a common idea is that Gaul was conquered last because it had little of value but Gallia was one of the richest provinces of the Empire and there is a reason Celt aristocratic families were allowed to remain in power and eventually given not only Roman citizenship but Senatorial rank by Claudius.

You touch on some key points here. Knowledge of the Celts was nothing new, of course. Some 40 year before they are said to have had a strong league of tribes that defeated incursions from across the Rhine. They had an amazing trade network but their major customers were the Romans. They were also the major market for Roman luxury good and wine. The Romans had doubled wine production and still could have sold more. What is more, the Celts could pay in gold. The Romans had discontinued gold coins.
It was known that this league had recently broken up. Add to that Caesar’s desperate need of cash and some 400 gold mines somewhere across the border.

Caesar had motive and opportunity. The Helvetii were no threat and had even asked for Roman permission and escort for their move. Most were women and children, certainly not raiding war bands.
The rest is history.

After Caesar’s conquest of Gaul the value of gold in Rome fell by 25%. Caesar was out of debt and much admired for the glory of his exploits.

[Polydamas]

Wrong, the German tribes indeed used the phalanx, or better to say long spears, so that was acurrate in the game.

It isn't called a phalanx though. It is known by three names: sheltron, schiltrom, or shiltron. It looks a bit like a phalanx, but the spears are held a little bit differently and it doesn't look as clean or as professional.

Phalanx

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Schiltron

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ichon]

Pardon?
Could you...
Could you give me some evidence of that?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't seem to find any.

Military contributions are the most well documented and since Roman military conquered so much surely those are significant contributions. There are also agricultural, mining, and other contributions but I am at work and don't have time to give sources but I've a day off tomorrow and have a couple threads to respond to along with this.

The point is not that Romans or Gauls were more civilized than the other but but saying Celts were uncivilized is bs.

[Anna_Gein]

The Romans made a great use of the world phalanx. Even their late soldier fighting in dense formation with the first rank form something similar of a shield-wall the rest would throw javelins to their enemy. (Ironically something similar to their earlier Germans enemies).
No one has said that the Germans tribe would fight in a similar way of Alexander's phalanx

[Moorish guy]

very funny OP, its common knowledge that the celts lived underground and in caves and their main weappon was the might tree trunk, projectile weapons ranged from rocks to boulders!

[Shigawire]

It's true that Roman propaganda about the "barbarians" has survived well into the modern era. I realize that the bias is skewed in favor of a derisive rendition of the celts.
But it is possible to overcompensate too far the other direction too. Not being able to write has a tendency to diminish the capabilities of engineering.

[Ichon]

It's true that Roman propaganda about the "barbarians" has survived well into the modern era. I realize that the bias is skewed in favor of a derisive rendition of the celts.
But it is possible to overcompensate too far the other direction too. Not being able to write has a tendency to diminish the capabilities of engineering.

It is not like engineering is completely impossible without writing either nor many other advances. I really don't know enough if Celts had writing or not, I've read claims they did have some form of it and also that is not widely accepted by historians at least at this point. Writing makes engineering easier and advances more widely shared but doesn't enable or make it impossible on its own.

Still I don't think engineering is the defining characteristic of civilization though being capable of advanced engineering is probably an indicator of other aspects.

Celts, Greeks, and Romans all influenced each other. Greek coinage spread up the trade rivers into Celt lands while metallurgy, linen, commodities, and leather goods went south to Italy and Greece. Rome gained arms, armor, and cavalry styles from Celts. Romans originally prized writing less than Greeks while oratory was deemed the superior art and that is one of the reasons Gauls as tutors were esteemed along with some cultural reservations about Greek ways. Anyway- there is too much to write here and its sometimes a chore to find links to public sources or scan pages from books but you are correct that some people go to far in either direction of how civilized or uncivilized ancient peoples were. Romans had slavery, cruel punishments, decimation, gladiator games, etc but are somehow usually still civilized merely because they conquered widest area and adopted good traditions from other cultures they conquered or traded with.

[Occhi Di Davide]

I can list those fields were they equalled and even surpassed the romans :
-philosophy & theology : the druids weren't only religious leaders. In fact, like many civilizations of that time, the priest and scientist class were the same, look at the egyptians, the persians, the mayans... They were great philosophers, even the greeks and the roman praised the deepness of their thoughs

Would you seriously compare a druid, with the oratory and eclectism by a Cicero? One of a hundred names i could take. What makes the difference is the specific and severe education Roman philosophers had. Telling a story about the wolf and the grape is not exactly like hearing the rhethoric by a Quintilian for example

-Litterature : the fact that they didn't write doesn't mean they had not complex litterature. In fact their poems, essays and stories were transmitted orally. Even today most people have heard of the bards, which is a testimony to their prowess in this fields. They capable of Literary techniques that would have put sometimes some of todays writer to shame. Their litterature wasn't just instinctive.

And an oral story said by a druid, makes the Gaulish and Roman literature equals? Equals to any books written by a Cicero?

-Craftmanship : it's one of those fields were they were often (not always) surpassing the romans. Everything ivolving smithing or building objects (made of woods, or other materials). They were by far the finest metal workers in antiquity, smithing being very complex in nature, this is a testimony of their overall level of advancement. They invented the mailcoat (that revolutionized armament ), the plow (that indisputably revolutionized agriculture) and had left a lot of very fine artworks, most of them having only been recently uncovered. They also invented the barell, one of the most ingenious way to transport liquids and other goods.

Sennetdjem Tomb, 1200 BC





So your theory is that the Egyptians have stolen the plow, or were influenced by the Gaulish people?


Wasn't the chain mail invented by the Babylonians? Read Jeremiah, 51:3 or books like The Ancient World by Richard A Gabriel for example

The barrel was invented in Mesopotamia thousands years ago.


And about craftmanship, yes they were far superior to things like these

-MAthematics : yeah, now i know most people are surprise and often don't believe it when they hear this, because it's really the antithesis of today's cliche image of the gauls. But the druids did travel a lot, goign to place like alexiandria, the capital of sience at the time (great library) to discuss and exchange theory with the others sicientist (greek,romans,egyptians sometimes even indians). What we know for sure is that they had the same knowledge of those people. What we don't know yet is if they discovered theorems themselves. Since they did not leave any written notes, it's hard to tell. So I'm going to assume theey didn't had a big impact on mathematical theories and were just educated, just like the romans : the romans didn't really liked abstract thinking themselves, so both gauls and romans are probably equals in those fields.

Where the Roman mathematics went to end..









I'll finish to dismantle Akarnir theories tomorrow