Northern Europeans lived in Mud Hu-

>Northern Europeans lived in Mud Hu-

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattle_and_daub
resourcesforhistory.com/Celtic_round_houses.htm#gsc.tab=0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akershus_Fortress
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>implying the walls aren't made out of mud and literal shit

show me those stone castles they never built

You're right. They made wattle and daub instead.
>Wattle and daub is a composite building material used for making walls, in which a woven lattice of wooden strips called wattle is daubed with a sticky material usually made of some combination of wet soil, clay, sand, animal dung and straw.
>animal dung
>animal
>dung
Literally worse than Africans.

It... it's very hygienic... There's no smell....

What is actually interesting is how clay housing became unfeasible in the Northern Mediterranean latitudes whereas stone and mortar tended to be untrustworthy in the Baltic regions due to the ice-erosion. Wood however was plentiful in both climes and is even today used to great effect in Northern Europe.

They weren’t.

Anyone that thinks cavemen existed after the disappearence of the Neanderthals disappeared is a brainlet not worth responding to.

pic related

> stone and mortar tended to be untrustworthy in the Baltic regions
Baltic region lacks in stone, that's why everything was constructed out of bricks (like cathedrals, castles).

>Anyone that thinks cavemen existed after the disappearence of the Neanderthals disappeared
what?

Mud was one of the component of earliest concrete.

Now what?

We *are* Neanderthal in the same proportion as that relative number of Sapiens and Neanderthal ~40,000 BP adjusted for their fertility rate given the fact that it seems only the daughters of Neanderthal males and Sapiens females were viable as evidenced by the absence of Neanderthal Y and mtDNA haplogroups in modern humans.

Seems more likely to me that given the rate of replacement in genetics, especially as concerns Y-dna, it's almost necessary that any haplogroup specific contributions the Neanderthal made washed out before the modern era. It may not be possible to speak conclusively on the matter of fertility between Neanderthal and Sapiens, but it should be noted that they were closer related to each other than different chimp sub-species are to one another.

Kind of an autistic question, but if continental Celtic oppida had continued to develop without being destroyed or taken over or whatever by the Romans, would it be fair to assume that they would have eventually developed into towns and cities akin to those of medieval western Europe, or were such towns and cities a direct consequence of Roman influence? Also were the typical half-timbered buildings of medieval western Europe more a of a "native" Celtic/Germanic development or would they not have existed without the Romans?

Savages don't stop being savages user

They weren’t savages. They had large urban centers, coinage, culture, paved roads etc.

>he thinks it meant city walls and not the walls of the buildings

Kek

>tribal cannibals living in mudhuts that threw away the lives of aleysia for their own, using women and children as meat shields against Romans, worshipping animist gods, wearing bones into battle, burning all of their own crops before lauching an assault on their enemy at alesia
savages by defintion. No state, no civilization, just savages.

You’re a petty idiot

ad hominem

>large urban centers

No

Good job, you basically repeated every single piece of Roman propaganda that modern historians would laugh at.

They were made out of timber and wood. Why would they be made out any other martial?

Oppida were large urban centers. Even Caesar would agree.

You deserve to be called an idiot.

>You deserve to be called an idiot.
innocent until proven guilty

>Savages don't stop being savages
I understand civilization was handed down from the heavens, yes?

Hard to know. The medieval period was marked by an initial decline in cities in some parts of Europe and a big move towards rural life. The medieval village was actually a unique system of organisation quite unique to the period. And no, a village is not just a collection of houses.

Through the help of multiple countries and a series of torturous conquests, civilization is established.

But granite's plentiful, though I admit it might not have been readily available.
What I'm referring to is how rainwater accumulation in Autumn and freezing during Winter can cause damage to things unlike wood, even bricks, so most of the cathedrals and castles were usually built around originally wooden constructions (though this usually applies to most places, including Rome) and mortared buildings never really supplanted wooden buildings in general.

This doesn't count as a civilization?

A state and government must establish a state-sponsored religion, military, written or unwritten law or laws for the codification of the government and state, establish infrastructure through out it, and have a low crime rate, have defacto rule over itself, have a concept of merit, and have some form of currency. To be a civilization

Celtic Oppida had a monarchy, a military, a sponsored religion, a standardized currency, paved roads, laws etc.

Caesar even said that Oppida had a settlement hierarchy. That sounds pretty close to a civilization to me.

>religion
it did not. There is never any codification of animist rituals

Were you unaware of the druids? I wouldn't blame you if you were, Romans were pretty persistent about it.

>and have some form of currency

So sumerians and all civilizations before 600 be weren’t civilizations?

druids were not a part of an organized religion, and was just a shaman.

>Africans don't live in mud hu-

I guess Soviet Russia wasn't a civilization.

>all these arbitrary rules
If you have agriculture then you're a civilisation

Yes they were you drooling retard how about you open a fucking book once in your life instead of embarrassing yourself

>/pol/ brainlet appears

Yes, they were
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattle_and_daub

they weren't. Its why so much of the world despised them and murdered people over them.
The Aztecs had agriculture and they were just murderous savages. If you're wondering why this concept exists, its because they cannot advance in their own, even through revolutions. There must be war to move them beyond their savage state. Usually they have to be conquered. Its like being sick, but the sickness is in the very society you live in.

No. Just no.
Agriculture does not mean civilization.

Civilization is literally Social ordering in such a way so as to highlight the merits of collectivization and individualism without also bringing outtheir detriments.
Its driving force is culture.

Really? Do you know what an organised religion is? Because they lacked infrastructure, recognition of other religions and states, rituals to prove conversion that can be done at a young age (six) etc.

Who the fuck you're calling a brainlet? The article says nothing about the Celts employing it.

>Social ordering in such a way so as to highlight the merits of collectivization and individualism without also bringing outtheir detriments.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

How to spot the brainlet /pol/tard trying way to hard to sound smart

It's been ubiquitous throughout Europe since the fucking neolithic era, brainlet. Yes, the Celts used it.

Pic fucking related; it's a celtic wattle and daub roundhouse

>the Aztecs were savages
>thinking savage is even a useful term
Fuck off with your white nonsense

Old Europeans did.

>Cucuteni-Trypillian houses were burned as a way to strengthen the structure of the walls, and to insulate the floor against dampness and mold. Krichevski proposed that the fire would harden the clay within the walls and floors, effectively turning it into a hard ceramic surface
>Wattle-and-daub construction is prone to dilapidation, which would suggest that after a period of time the buildings would naturally begin to show signs of much wear and disrepair, posing a potential threat to its occupants and others. In such a case, it could be argued that the solution would be to have an entire settlement's structures burned in such a way as to produce a plentiful supply of hardened, fired ceramic material to use in reconstructing new houses out of the old
>Some scholars have theorized that the buildings were burned ritually, regularly and deliberately in order to mark the end of the "life" of the house. The terms "Domicide" and "Domithanasia" have been coined to refer to this practice.[1]

>Muh cherry picked google image

Nice Romano-British city you got there, brainlet.

resourcesforhistory.com/Celtic_round_houses.htm#gsc.tab=0

It's actually an iberian Celtic oppidum. Go look up Celtic Oppida and you'll find plenty of Gaulish Long Houses.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum

I honestly would rather live in a Gallic long house than live in a cramped Roman Insula.

A.k.a. a shitty apartment block.

Which regularly burned down due to the retardation of one of its occupants.

Enjoy starving to death

Name an Iron Age city in which fires weren't a constant threat.

I don't think that'll be an issue.

fuck being in these things when they collapsed

>western europe and central europe=northern europe

I'll be taking that, peasant.

Insulae burned down at a much higher rate than other communal dwellings in the world at the time, due to the massive (for the period) population density in one of them.

Seriously though, can someone explain why the fuck nothing in this thread is about Northern Europe. Not even OPs picture

Because northern European architecture is entirely uninteresting, much like their culture.

But what did OP mean then? What was his objective?

Also if you were living in a Roman insula that caught on fire. You’d have to run down so many staircases and hallways. In a Gaulish house, you could just run to the front door and you’re already out.

Forgot pic.

To be an uninformed /pol/shitposter who is advancing a romanticized and entirely ignorant view of European history that elevates it beyond it's true levels of advancement at the time, especially compared to Oriental, Mediterranean or even African cultures.

Everything I said was factual. Are you telling me that Oppida never existed?

Oppida is not Northern European

They were to busy conquering the world. Architecture back then was a matter of slaves.

Caesar coined the term “Oppida” to refer to the large Celtic settlements that he found during his conquest of Gaul.

That's very interesting, but it still isn't Northern European

Do you understand what the term 'Northern European' even means? Like, it's not even Celtic. It's Nordic.

Anything that's North to the Alps is Nordic to you medniggers.

>Anything that's North to the Alps is Nordic to you medniggers.
Who the fuck believes that? Are you an Amerimutt?

I'm from Belgium. I am not Northern European.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

OP you make a lot of threads but they are of little value. Please stop.

He's the monarch, it's already his.

Kinda ironic, since only a mednigger would believe this

I meant that when the peasant wants to eat those crops instead he'll actually be tithing them to the king, and the church. Very little of it will actually be for him and his family to eat.

>France
>Northern Europe
Even Caesar made a clear distinction between Gallic and Germanic tribes.

>Very little of it will actually be for him and his family to eat.

What part of not the monarch's don't you understand? Up to and including the peasant. If the peasant, a servant bonded to his liege, grows food that belongs to the liege, on land that is the monarchs demesne, then yes it belongs to the monarch and nothing more is entitled to the literal peon.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Nothing you're saying runs contrary to the point I was making, we're literally in agreement.

Except you keep saying the monarch takes it, when it's already his. It's a poor frame of reference because it's obviously biased against the rights entitled to each through their own social contract.

It was in answer to the /pol/tard assuming that those lush fields would go to the benefit of the person living in the long houses, my post was to counter that and point out that the benefit would instead go to the nobility, which is entirely true. At no point was I saying that, from a legal standpoint, the property was not already in monarch's domain through the social contract.

Well by that line of thinking, wouldn't the Roman plebs be starving to death as well?

easy peasy japanesy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akershus_Fortress

you have already proven it yourself

>Gauls
>Northern Europeans

Pick one, Sven

>reverse image search
>gallic settlement

yeah the celts were already semi civilized as described by roman historians which is why they were easily assimilated into roman culture. germanics were savage nomads.

usually it's a means of leading up to repeated insults about britain, geramany, belgium and the netherlands, none of which are northern european

most of these celtic buildings look similar to the ones the people of the mediterranean were living in when the mesopotamians developed the first civilisation

it's almost as if each arbitrarily-defined group didn't magically attain an equal level of architectural advancement simultaneously

truly remarkable

I nerver made an argument or motion in favor of that conclusion. cause ergo sum you are wrong

>low crime rate
The ciy of Rome had literally the highest crime rate in the world for 300 years

there has to be a conviction for it to be a crime. Force theorists aren't criminals

The funniest thing here is

What does it prove?

We've always known that different peoples live at different levels of technology (or rather with differents sets of technology, sometimes being advanced in one field and backwards in another). Very often these are due to outside factors - having lots of contact to others (remember the romans copied from etruscans and greeks a lot), having favourable climatic conditions etc.

Presumably, Veeky Forums also ascribes to the idea that different peoples have different innate properties (like intelligence, lawfulness etc.) that allow it to build a civilization. But then we know that these people are all related and split at some point (not very far in the past in some cases). Thus these properties must have developed in different directions during this time - and this again allows us to infer that people have genetically developed during historic times.

Ergo, if we're looking at a people that lived at a low level of technology not explicable by outside factors (which is always open to debate of course) we could argue that they must have been genetically inferior. If they then manage to advance and in fact rise above others, the likely explanation would be that they have in fact developed towards superiority. So what does it really matter to the present if a people was different in the past?

*blocks your path*

Enjoy your frostbite, Halfdan

Most Celtic dwellings were quite cozy actually.