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: