Why is popular media determined to portray the Celts as technologically inferior savages?

T. Sponge shit eater

What dice do I roll when attacking with my third leg then

Romans be keepin dem northies down

So did the Greeks, but no one considers them to be technologically inferior savages.

The Greeks didn't fight naked.

ALSO

The Celts were technologically inferior

Romans had:

1)massive cities
2)aqueducts
3)toilets+sewers
4)theaters
5)roads
6)books and literature
7)massive 50 meters long ships
8)several stories high buildings
9)monumental temples
10)concrete

Celts lived like Italians lived in the Neolithic, with sparsely populated villages with 0 infrastructure, no writing, no monumental temples/sanctuaries were they could congregate, no urban planning/division of neighbourhoods, no squares, the most they had were some shitty hill forts built with wood or some other bronze age tier citadels in the very best occurrences.

While Rome had several cities exceeding 100,000 inhabitants and Rome itself being a million inhabitants.

>Why is popular media determined to portray the Celts as technologically inferior savages?
Because they're almost invariably fighting the romans.
Look at the pic you posted: how would the average pleb manage to see the difference between romans and gauls?
It's the same with late empire romans wearing early empire attire, can't distinguish them from the germs otherwise.

Ryse: Son of Rome is basically historical fantasy. You got stuff like a tribe of Scots who are all 8 feet tall and LARP as Minotaurs. I liked the game since it had nice graphics and the environments such as the city of Rome itself were interesting but it's historical accuracy is just bad.

I would argue all of your bulletpoints, is signs of being a great empire, since they existed in inferior societies.
So Rome has all those, but in greater qualities. Including roadwork(layers as oppose to lacquered wood), more culture from higher population base.

The same is true of modern socities, and their export. And even if its mentioned in fiction(plumbing, cars, population, technology), they never show a caveman/feudalist to have a realistic reaction.

I'm not saying they were pygmies tier, they are surely portrayed to be more savage than they were but they were technologically and socially inferior to the Romans

If real history is anything to go by? Romans where the savages, per definition.

Culturally? The curse of the oral tradition is that it dies without retelling, so the sources is vague for anything non written.

That is kind of like saying an aircraft carrier is no different from a sailing ship. The Romans must have had to figure out a few things to do them on such a large scale. You can see this after their collapse, even though Western Europe was reduced to squabbling tribes as it was before Rome, they were building churches, recording history, minting coins, their armies were a little more organized with systems of levies trained to fight in the shield wall. Irish monasteries and their beautiful work is a startling example of this, a previous backwater outshined neighboring pagan Anglo-Saxon England, despite having never been touched by Rome and still being a bit of a backwater economically, plagued by constant cattle raids between tribes.

I concede I am wholly unqualified to list the 100s of little innovations the Romans developed, but the Romans obviously changed everything. The idea that all they did was transfer Greek knowledge to these regions, pimp it a little and did nothing else over centuries is not realistic.

The Celts and Gauls had roads, cities, towns, fortifications, irrigation, barter and trade systems, and so on. Caesar and other Romans even remark the Celtics in general were a "civilized" people unlike the Germanics and invented things like chainmail armor.

>Why is popular media determined to portray the Celts as technologically inferior savages?

Because they were? Advanced metallurgy is not the only thing that matters, doubly so since this expertise was limited by the Celts feeble economy, resulting in most of their warriors not benefiting from the chainmail armor they invented. In every other area bar metallurgy, the Romans were a thousand years ahead of the Celts.

Propaganda was one of the many things Romans excelled at.
The "barbarian" meme survived to this day.

I disagree. Just lack of research and poor creativity/storytelling in part of the director, screenwriter, and producer

>roads

Nope, a trackway is not a road.

>cities

An oppidium is not a city.

>towns

Define "town". Note: the big villages the Cets had don't count.

>irrigation

Neither needed nor utilized in any Celtic region.

>barter and trade systems

You mean like literally every bunch of savages ever encountered? You realize "uncontacted" tribes in the Amazon conduct trade with other tribes?

>fortifications

This is the one fact in your whole post, the Celts, being the warlike barbarians they were, excelled at fortification and weapon manufacture.

I never understood why people shit on the celts. They clearly have risen up from their primitive life styles to being the bearers of western civilization.
Also
>guiness

It has nothing to do with Romans, but rather with (((current trend))) and (((creative license))), 19th century opera even do better ffs

> excelled at fortification

Romans were far superior in that too and besieged Celt "forts" like a can of peas

(You) are retarded.

i didn't know you could reach pre-colonial America if you walked far north enough into the Brittish isles, totally blew my mind watching that movie.

Celts were to diverse to have a single culture, most likely they had their diferences based where they were and what materials were available.

tbf I bet the celts in the british highlands and cumbria etc were pretty primitive.

i remember thinking it was super weird that they turned a bunch of highland cowpokes into full on mohican berserker injuns

Not anymore than their mainland counterparts.

I never knew kurt cobain was an ancient celt

the greeks wrestled naked, they didn't go to war naked

did they really have swords that long in the 1st century BC?

Because the left side looks cool

I assume you either have never opened a book on ancient cultures or play a lot of Rome Total War and its sequel. Please get an even minimally informed opinion before setting your fingers on the keyboard again.

Celts and Germans were barbarians compared to the Romans. Just look what the latter built and what the former destroyed.

Brits and Germans together are the reason mankind will never be rid of Christianity

Yes right, you ignorant retard

The Celts actually minted and used many different types of coins. They used silver more commonly than gold because silver in Gaul was far more plentiful. Most coinage from the Celts was either a low-grade bronze or very tin-heavy alloy because of their proximity to Britain and its tin deposits and because of the tin deposits in Brittany.

Most of what Rome imported from the Celts was manufactured crafts and metalworkings. The Celts were an extremely iconographic people as a whole, and were veritable masters of crafts and metalworking by the time Rome had significant exposure to Gallia Transalpina (Gaul Across the Alps) because of this.

Also, where are you getting your information from? You sound like those guys that claim Russians only ever used human waves in WW2 and the T-34 only had a modicum of success against the SUPERIOR GERMAN PANZERS because there were half a million of them present in every engagement from 1942 onward. Please fact check some.

Gallic fortifications like Gergovia and Alesia were relatively rare, as large and urban areas weren't common among the Gauls. However, they were formidable enough that Caesar and his legions were forced to starve the defenders out and unable to take on the defenders in battle, as the Romans had been able to do basically every other time they invaded someone.

At least you cede the point and admit I'm right.

No one used horns. Itdget knocked off your head

Celts were famous for their long swords

Yeah.

It was a symbol of status and honour in the tribe.

The Celts in general had many swords.

More often several inches longer than a Roman sword, but the Celtic long sword was closer to an arming sword of the high middle ages.

Idk if you're baiting, but negative depictions of European cultures are not automatically a Jewish conspiracy, the Romans clearly tried to portray the Celts as blood lusted savages to justify their conquests and their assimilation into Roman culture. You sound like a fucking afrikang trying to argue that all negative depictions of Africans are a recent fabrication by non-blacks to try to undermine black masculinity or whatever.

Regardless, why is it so hard to admit that even though the Celts, Germanic groups and other peoples encountered by the Romans obviously had more primitive infrastructure, more sparse settlements, no writing, and other technological shortcomings, they were obviously not uncivilized brutes? They created many innovations that were used long after their subjugation, and some even today, such as chain mail and Germanic and later Common law.
On the subject of Celtic inventions, it's a common belief in France that the Gauls invented Barrels and Pants, however I've only ever found this claim in French language sources. Does anyone know any more about the history of those specific inventions?

have the roman shave, and have standardized gear.
how hard is that?

Too hard for someone that either has no understanding of history or thinks their audience is half blind.

all film makers are from the humanities part, eh?

film makers are from the "deadliest warrior" and "vikings" side of humanities.

The Gauls were barbarian niggers barely capable of sentience

nonsense

Correct

What a pathetic little retard in denial you are

WE WUZ KINGS!!!

It's almost funny (it's actually sad) how you've never addressed any of his points

Celtiberian master race

Rome will fear our horse pee and falcata

White genocide

Why need armour when your abs are stronger than steel user?

Those are Iberians. And lusitanians weren't Celts, but an Indo-European culture.

Yup, and they bended a lot, I think it was polybius than said they some times had to straight them in mid combat. It was a feautre too, better bend than broke.

>And lusitanians weren't Celts,

Lol no

They worshipped Gaulish gods like Epona and had a Celtic language

They had Celtic influences but most of their culture came from pre indo European backgrounds

South Lusitans were Pre Indoeuropean Turdetans

I just realized what I said sounded off

When I compared a Celtic long sword to a medieval arming sword I only mean in blade lenght. Not shape or anything else like that

One word to describe the Celts. Comfy.

On the left
>Noble warrior aka 1% of any army
On the right
>Slightly above average status warrior of a post-roman kingdom who comprised a significant part of the army

Not to mention the actual Roman soldiers that the Celts should be compared to who managed to equip even their poor conscript marian mules with armor matching the richest celts.

>a post-roman kingdom who comprised a significant part of the army

which had minuscule numbers of soldiers either way.

Noblemen were the best equipped men among Celtic armies, that is true, but the average fighter wouldn't be ass-naked unless he was into that ritual shit. They'd wear skins and have at least a shield, a helmet and a spear.

I wouldn't say furs...celts were very big on woven cloth and had a sort of linothorax (Similar in look but completely different in materials used) that was used often by those of the warrior class.

Of course overall they had inferior equipment to the Romans, if they didn't they wouldn't have been under their rule for so long. But that doesn't make them savages, as they were clearly capable of making things at least somewhat on par with what the Romans made, even if they were much rarer in Celtic societies. They were limited by their sparser settlements and their further distance from the Mediterranean which had helped to spread civilization. from the Middle east to Europe and Africa

You're thinking of Gaesatae which were a pseudo-tribe of Mercenaries that lived in the Alps. The Romans encountered them when they fought the Insubres and the Greeks encountered them when they were raided by Brennus and his hordes. They took magical brews to make them impervious pain, so why wear armor when you can move faster without it and still have the same protection?
Also I think that they evolved a blood clotting "disorder", some Swiss descended from these tribesmen have abnormally thick blood. If you aren't bleeding out all the time in war then it becomes a disorder in old age and you need vaso-dilators.
But not all of the Celts. The Gauls shouldn't be called "Celtic" they should be their own separate category since they are technologically and in some ways culturally different from the Brythonic and Gaelic Celts.
Gaul had massive cities, or at least cities on par with Rome when they were living next to each other.
The Gauls had water retention methods and sewage systems on par with any other civilization. They had theaters in the sense they built their drinking halls in such a way that a bard or multiple bards could sing or stage a play. Misconception that the Romans built the first roads in Gaul. Gaul had stone roads, the Romans built stone and cement roads and made them wider. The Romans actually got their width of the road by measuring the width of a chariot's wheels, which they may or may not have encountered in Gaul. Needless to say the Gauls used the same method. Gaul had seafaring ships we can assume since they launched a raid into Norway, Sweden, and the Baltic states somewhere between 1500-500 B.C.
Gallic buildings did not need to built high, however in Scotland they built stone towers larger than Roman Arches.
The gods of Gaul did not reside in temples but in groves.
>concrete meme
Come on now.
Gauls had a complex system of education for their aristocracy. This does denote some sort of knowledge preservation.

A trackway inlaid with stone and wider enough for a chariot is a road.
An "oppidium" which contains over 25,000 people is a city.
>big villages don't count
yes they do
>irrigation
wanderingangus.com/celtic-knowledge/celtic-farmers
When you barter with wine and gold you are above Amazonian leaf traders.

This

This is a golden post

The gauls truly were a marvel

But unfortunately they were in Rome's way.

Makes me sad

I love learning about gaul.

>The Gauls shouldn't be called "Celtic" they should be their own separate category since they are technologically and in some ways culturally different from the Brythonic and Gaelic Celts.

There's truth to this, but the Romans used Gaul and Celt to refer to any continental Celtic people. They used Briton to refer to the Celtic peoples of the British isles.

>Gaul had seafaring ships we can assume since they launched a raid into Norway, Sweden, and the Baltic states somewhere between 1500-500 B.C.

Got any more info on this? I've never heard of it.

The Lusitani most likely weren't Celts, they were some sort of Indo-European culture though unlike the Aquitanians.

Much of northern Spain and Portugal was heavily influenced by Celtic conquerors.

Are Celts the most consistently fashionable of all the European peoples?

As are most film watchers.

Hell shit like Total War is specifically targeting history fans and the number 1 complaint is "all look same" "factions are boring" etc.

Then warhammer releases and its the best selling TW title to date. Plebs want stylized. Stylized vikings, barbars, crusaders, samurai, and so on. "historically accurate" doesn't appeal to the mass market.

don't bother.

>Total War is specifically targeting history fans
Really? I admittedly only ever played Medieval 2, but I never got the feeling it was meant to be particularly realistic, just your run of the mill middle ages setting with the twist of separated real time tactics and turn based strategy.

The average person cannot be assed to do their own historical research. We are a society of leaves that do not think about the tree we all belong to. The average person still think Julius Caesar was an emperor and that George III of the UK was some kind of fucking tyrant.

Actually how related are modern Celts to ancient Celts, i know that ancient insular Celts and continental Celts were already different. But how related are they, apart from languages?

How is it pronounced? Kelt or Selt?
I hear both.

Put it this way, people in Ireland, the Highlands of Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany are largely genetically the same people they were in ancient times (the Isle of Man has a massive immigrant population so they're a special case, even historically they were considered by the Irish and Scottish to be "foreign Gaels" due to their Norse-Gaelic society). Whether or not you'd consider them Celts at all is another matter, they were culturally and linguistically Celtic but genetically speaking it's a little iffy.

I've never heard Selt apart from referring to the Scottish football team Celtic. None of the surviving Celtic languages have soft C sounds so Kelt is right I'd say.

Thanks, good to know.

TW, about until Empire, does not have realistic uniforms. For example, in M2TW, they save time and space by having basic units like peasants or catapults that are or are not reskined by region, common units, like Feudal nights in Europe, in each region supplemented by a few units unique to one or a few factions like Jinetes in Iberia or Caroccio standard in Milan, and then having little to no variation inside of the unit. Since all the soldiers look so similar, to make them easily recognizable the game colour codes everything, which is ironic since the middle ages was a time where there was little to no standardization inside armies.

This is different from most media such as films and shows where differentiation is done by making the enemies as different as possible and appealing to stereotypes of Romans and barbarians so that the audience instantly recognizes them.

>TW, about until Empire,

You're aware that was almost ten years ago and other TW games have released since, right?

>left: Belgae shit
>right: Southern Gallic Ubermensch
The civilized ones quickly adapted to the equivalent cultures that came to dominate them, and they quickly stopped being "Celts".

>Comfy
XD so comfy hehe
shut up faggot this is for real discussion not your gay ideas of "comfy"

Romans stabbed at weak spots, such as under the arms and shoulders.

Because they were. Fucking Celts and Vikings were the least efficient warrior on the planet. Even the Zulu waged war against colonial armies and won.

What movie?

>>concrete meme
how is that a meme though?

im not the guy who wrote comfy, but shit man why so mad

The leather bondage armour they us3 inVikings/ Last Kingdom are still way better than the animal bone, face pierced look Hollywood used to give Celts/germanics

Of course they were crazy, illiterate, worthless barbarians! That's why they destroyed civilisation, scattered learning, smashed achievement.

because it was not like modern concrete at all?

>Gaul had massive cities, or at least cities on par with Rome

Lol what?

For instance?

>The Gauls had water retention methods and sewage systems on par with any other civilization.

They most definitely did not.

>Gaul had seafaring ships we can assume since they launched a raid into Norway,

That's different from the massive ships the Romans had

>they built stone towers larger than Roman Arches.

Those all date pretty late (200 bc-2st century ad) and were an exception

>Gauls had a complex system of education for their aristocracy.

No, they did not.

My favourite bit is when they turned the saxons in king arthur into racists

The Eagle

The king was a fag making up excuses not to let his men to be next to chicks

>for example that they practiced cannibalism.

As I recall there's actual archaeological evidence of this with the Celtic settlements in Turkey.