Films & Series I, Caesar: The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1997)

I guess it was this attitude that allowed Germanic tribes, who were much more pragmatic in warfare, to move further south.
In the end the Celts were crushed between the Germanic tribes moving south and the expanding Roman Empire.

IMO the Germanic tribes were climate refugees.
There are no signs of excessive violence in the Nordic Bronze age, but during that time grapes grew in Scandinavia, which means it was a lot warmer than today.
At the end of the Nordic Bronze age, the neolithic settlements in middle Scandinavia were abandonned and replaced by Uralic HG.


P.S. note that climate warming never caused major problems on a global scale, it was always climate cooling that caused major problems

The problem of the Celts were that they, the more they developed culturally, united the weaknesses of both sides, the lack of discipline and cohesion of the Barbarians, the socially too stratified and corrupted society of the civilised world. The Romans were the better civilisation, the Germanics the better Barbarians. The moment for the Celts was before they became part-urbanised in large oppida, used coins and monetarism, where still rather tribal and clan based. When they began to move, culturally, they got caught. The Germanics on the other hand were for quite a long time separated from the Celts by the Central German fortress Hallstatt people, which, from my point of view, were no Germanics and no Celts, but another, unknown Centum group or something in between. Germanics and Celts first teamed up to crush those, the Germanics conquered their Northern territory, the Celts the Southern one. The direct contact with the La Tene culture caused the first Latenisation and new contacts to the "outer world", after the isolation, this was a big push. The second was when East Germanics began to conquer and assimilate Eastern Celts, especially in the territory of what is now Poland. This caused the second Latenisation, which revolutionised the Germanic society. Originally the Jastorf Germanics deliberately distinguished themselves from the elitist, princely Hallstatt culture with their more simple, modest, egalitarian and clan based society. With the East Germanics, the warlord and his retinue, a much more stratified society, sometimes even approaching statehood, emerged, and spread from the East to the West and to North, up to Scandinavia.

So when the Celts were in decline, the Germanics took the best they had and used it for their own development, before introducing urban settlements and money economy. If you read up on Celts and their conflicts, bribes and corruption played already a much bigger role, so did the aristocracy and their retinue. This was more a feudal than a tribal society, which, I have to repeat it, is not more effective in the Barbarian nor the state and civilised ways. So it was just consequential that they were replaced by those which were better in the more specialised roles, namely Romans and Germanics.
Their originally biggest advantage was, by the way, probably in iron working. They got great innovations in military technology and tactics, from the start, but the Romans were the first to copy it and use it for mass production and their standing, well-trained armies, combined with the other advantages they gathered from other people around the Mediterranean. The Celts, militarily, didn't evolve as much from early La Tene on, contrary to Romans and Germanics. So they simply lost their initial advantage and fell behind. Since their economies and trade routes were all interconnected, when the tribes in Gallia were breaking away, even those in Central Europe got severely weakened and the whole Celtic civilisation fell apart.
 
Last edited:
The problem of the Celts were that they, the more they developed culturally, united the weaknesses of both sides, the lack of discipline and cohesion of the Barbarians, the socially too stratified and corrupted society of the civilised world. The Romans were the better civilisation, the Germanics the better Barbarians. The moment for the Celts was before they became part-urbanised in large oppida, used coins and monetarism, where still rather tribal and clan based. When they began to move, culturally, they got caught. The Germanics on the other hand were for quite a long time separated from the Celts by the Central German fortress Hallstatt people, which, from my point of view, were no Germanics and no Celts, but another, unknown Centum group or something in between. Germanics and Celts first teamed up to crush those, the Germanics conquered their Northern territory, the Celts the Southern one. The direct contact with the La Tene culture caused the first Latenisation and new contacts to the "outer world", after the isolation, this was a big push. The second was when East Germanics began to conquer and assimilate Eastern Celts, especially in the territory of what is now Poland. This caused the second Latenisation, which revolutionised the Germanic society. Originally the Jastorf Germanics deliberately distinguished themselves from the elitist, princely Hallstatt culture with their more simple, modest, egalitarian and clan based society. With the East Germanics, the warlord and his retinue, a much more stratified society, sometimes even approaching statehood, emerged, and spread from the East to the West and to North, up to Scandinavia.

So when the Celts were in decline, the Germanics took the best they had and used it for their own development, before introducing urban settlements and money economy. If you read up on Celts and their conflicts, bribes and corruption played already a much bigger role, so did the aristocracy and their retinue. This was more a feudal than a tribal society, which, I have to repeat it, is not more effective in the Barbarian nor the state and civilised ways. So it was just consequential that they were replaced by those which were better in the more specialised roles, namely Romans and Germanics.
Their originally biggest advantage was, by the way, probably in iron working. They got great innovations in military technology and tactics, from the start, but the Romans were the first to copy it and use it for mass production and their standing, well-trained armies, combined with the other advantages they gathered from other people around the Mediterranean. The Celts, militarily, didn't evolve as much from early La Tene on, contrary to Romans and Germanics. So they simply lost their initial advantage and fell behind. Since their economies and trade routes were all interconnected, when the tribes in Gallia were breaking away, even those in Central Europe got severely weakened and the whole Celtic civilisation fell apart.


wouldn't be so sure if the celts were that inferior to the germanics. the celts had not only to deal with the germanics but with the romans too.
Caesar often times wrote about the germanics beeing too strong for the celts but this could easely just be an excuse for Caesar to invade gaul becaue "protecting gaul, and in the end also rome, from germanics" was the main pretext Caesar used to occupy that region. the fear of germanics in rome was the ace up his sleeve. so of course if he was smart he would try to make germanics look as terrifying as possible.

he also often writes how germanics boasted about their fighting strength à la "noone can defeat us, we are the strongest of all" but again this could just be invented. also when usipetes or tencteri boasted that they are stronger than anyone only the suebi can defeat them. imo this is all just propaganda. because guess who defeated the Suebi before?
 
wouldn't be so sure if the celts were that inferior to the germanics. the celts had not only to deal with the germanics but with the romans too.
Caesar often times wrote about the germanics beeing too strong for the celts but this could easely just be an excuse for Caesar to invade gaul becaue "protecting gaul, and in the end also rome, from germanics" was the main pretext Caesar used to occupy that region. the fear of germanics in rome was the ace up his sleeve. so of course if he was smart he would try to make germanics look as terrifying as possible.

he also often writes how germanics boasted about their fighting strength ? la "noone can defeat us, we are the strongest of all" but again this could just be invented. also when usipetes or tencteri boasted that they are stronger than anyone only the suebi can defeat them. imo this is all just propaganda. because guess who defeated the Suebi before?

One of the main reasons the Suebi were feared so much is that, at that time, they were way ahead in their organisation and more an alliance, a fused tribe, like the later Franks, Bavarians, Thuringians and others, and no longer small, strictly ethnic units. So what they had, before the others, were especially the numbers and good, trained warriors. So they were on the way to what I described before for the East Germanics. We also know that many Celts sought protection or refuge among strong Germanic tribes, becoming part of them.
The shift is pretty clear though, from early La Tene to the Roman Age, that the Germanics got the upper hand the better their equipment got, which was the main Celtic advantage.
The Celtic equipment was, initially, quite innovative, but it remained more restricted to the elite, whereas the Romans equipped their whole legions with the same gear, probably even of lower quality, but every single soldier, what the Celts never achieved. Like the swords, shields, helmets, armour - especially chain mail. When the Romans were attacked and plundered by the Celts, which was their big trauma until Caesar defeated the Gallians, the Romans were still equipped in what I would describe a "cheap Greek version" of weapons and armour. The later legionary looks more like Celtic elite warriors of that time than their Roman predecessors. Which is actually the main point about both the Celtic expansion and success, as well as their downfall and defeat.
 
Yes. The Celts were brave warriors but too individualistic and lacking a proper group strategy. The Gauls didn't like using archers, slingers or artillery (onagers, ballistae) as they considered it a cowardly way of fighting that didn't earn glory to the warriors. This exaggerated sense of individual glory is also why they didn't use group formations like shield walls or testudos. That was their biggest weakness against the organised and pragmatic Romans.

But Roman legions benefited from the inclusion of Gallic auxiliaries (and later full Gallo-Roman legionaries) joined their ranks and adopted Roman discipline and tactics melded with Celtic courage and vigour. Even in Caesar's time many legionaries were recruited among Romanised Celts, such as the 14th legion, which was made up almost entirely of Cisalpine Gauls.

The brilliance of Roman military strategy can even be credited in helping to forge the independence of the United States. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington used the Fabian Strategy to defeat the British Army:

https://www.thoughtco.com/fabian-strategy-overview-2361096
 
This is another manifestation of woke-ness,

Here we have a classics professor that wants to stop universities from teaching about Ancient Greece, and Rome. Because he thinks it is a part of white supremacy, etc:

https://theweek.com/articles/965573/cancel-classics

Again, this is what woke-ness is, it is essentially neo-maoism, they want to erase the past, and rebuild it into something else.

3tuzSQ7l.png


The Classics are my blood; Greco-Roman Civilization is my blood. I find it RACIST that it is being vilified and slated for cancellation by woke-Maoists.
 
3tuzSQ7l.png


The Classics are my blood; Greco-Roman Civilization is my blood. I find it RACIST that it is being vilified and slated for cancellation by woke-Maoists.

you are taking cultural critique and critique on the glorification of ancient civilizations as racist critique on your blood?
 
^^lmao I knew you would have something to say about my post. After all, you're as woke as they come.


Yeah, I think it should be glorified, it has been for centuries.

Without the glorification of Ancient Greece, and Rome, you would not have had the Renaissance, for example.
 
One of the main reasons the Suebi were feared so much is that, at that time, they were way ahead in their organisation and more an alliance, a fused tribe, like the later Franks, Bavarians, Thuringians and others, and no longer small, strictly ethnic units. So what they had, before the others, were especially the numbers and good, trained warriors. So they were on the way to what I described before for the East Germanics. We also know that many Celts sought protection or refuge among strong Germanic tribes, becoming part of them.
The shift is pretty clear though, from early La Tene to the Roman Age, that the Germanics got the upper hand the better their equipment got, which was the main Celtic advantage.
The Celtic equipment was, initially, quite innovative, but it remained more restricted to the elite, whereas the Romans equipped their whole legions with the same gear, probably even of lower quality, but every single soldier, what the Celts never achieved. Like the swords, shields, helmets, armour - especially chain mail. When the Romans were attacked and plundered by the Celts, which was their big trauma until Caesar defeated the Gallians, the Romans were still equipped in what I would describe a "cheap Greek version" of weapons and armour. The later legionary looks more like Celtic elite warriors of that time than their Roman predecessors. Which is actually the main point about both the Celtic expansion and success, as well as their downfall and defeat.

sure but the suebi got slapped by the roman tactics as hard as the celts. would the celts have been able to deal with the germanics themselves? we don't know, we just have Caesars words and those we should read like a chinese schoolbook about modern chinese politics.
who knows, maybe some of those germanic tribes in gaul might actually have been mercenaries employed by celts against Caesar.
 
^^lmao I knew you would have something to say about my post. After all, you're as woke as they come.


Yeah, I think it should be glorified, it has been for centuries.

Without the glorification of Ancient Greece, and Rome, you would not have had the Renaissance, for example.

that is your opinion. but why should the argument about their glorification be a racist attack against your "blood"?
 
that is your opinion. but why should the argument about their glorification be a racist attack against your "blood"?

I was actually being facetious, and sarcastic with the RACISM accusation, because of how often that is thrown around nowadays. Especially by the woke people claiming studying the classics is "racist"/white supremacist. But I am sure there is some underlying racism or perhaps envy, at the heart of their objection to teaching the classics.
 
I was actually being facetious, and sarcastic with the RACISM accusation, because of how often that is thrown around nowadays. Especially by the woke people claiming studying the classics is "racist"/white supremacist. But I am sure there is some underlying racism or perhaps envy, at the heart of their objection to teaching the classics.

that seems to be an entirely american problem. here, the romans are actually a symbol of a foreign even exotic people bringing development to the backward natives.

stil there was a lot more development after the romans, even during the "dark" middle ages.
 
that seems to be an entirely american problem. here, the romans are actually a symbol of a foreign even exotic people bringing development to the backward natives.

Really, if they are seen in such a way, why do most of the nations in Europe, from Britain, all the way to Russia, emulate their systems, culture, iconography, state religion, etc?

Who are they exotic to, Arabs like yourself?
 
^^lmao I knew you would have something to say about my post. After all, you're as woke as they come.


Yeah, I think it should be glorified, it has been for centuries.

Without the glorification of Ancient Greece, and Rome, you would not have had the Renaissance, for example.

it depends how you define the Renaissance
if you define the Renaissance as a cultural phenomenon, yes it was about the ancient world, it inspired Michelangelo as an artist
the Renaissance in a broader sense, as a movement toward critical and free thinking, no, scientists like Galileo, Newton or Copernicus relied on findings of their own and their contemporary colleages
for the latter I think Renaissance is not the proper term, enlightment may be a better term

glorification is out nowadays, as is enlightment
todays narrative is that Europeans are colonisers bringing only exploitation and white people inherited all the privileges established, they need to be reprogrammed and even taught a lesson in humidity
 
it depends how you define the Renaissance
if you define the Renaissance as a cultural phenomenon, yes it was about the ancient world, it inspired Michelangelo as an artist
the Renaissance in a broader sense, as a movement toward critical and free thinking, no, scientists like Galileo, Newton or Copernicus relied on findings of their own and their contemporary colleages
for the latter I think Renaissance is not the proper term, enlightment may be a better term

glorification is out nowadays, as is enlightment
todays narrative is that Europeans are colonisers bringing only exploitation and white people inherited all the privileges established, they need to be reprogrammed and even taught a lesson in humidity
This is the core of the ideology of woke-ness. It is a neo-maoism, that seeks to deracinate the ideas and culture of western civilization.
 
Really, if they are seen in such a way, why do most of the nations in Europe, from Britain, all the way to Russia, emulate their systems, culture, iconography, state religion, etc?

well, simply because something is exotic it doesn't mean that people shouldn't adapt it and that it has to be removed, right? especially not centuries later.

Who are they exotic to, Arabs like yourself?
they were exotic to contemporary germanic barbarians. don't see why anyones modern ethnicity would matter here. they are no more exotic to an arab, especially if was for example a german with arab ancestry, than to any other german.
 
well, simply because something is exotic it doesn't mean that people shouldn't adapt it and that it has to be removed, right? especially not centuries later.


they were exotic to contemporary germanic barbarians. don't see why anyones modern ethnicity would matter here.

Rome is essentially a fractured civilization-state post-mortem. The culture, the systems, etc live on, but are isolated to into smaller autonomous nation-states.
 

This thread has been viewed 17969 times.

Back
Top