Other than religiously, how did the germanians and celts differ?
Friendly reminder:
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated, and a high level of discourse is expected. History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
Other urls found in this thread:
Genetically
Okay fair enough, linguistically too. But I meant more culturally, how they dressed and how they fought.
kys.
Different moments of migration from Asia I would assume. That said your friendly reminder is just the biggest magnet for exactly what you want to avoid.
Different languages
Different dress
Different legal traditions
Different genes
Different systems of kinship
Different methods of warfare
Different culture in general
In what ways were they similar, even?
I think OP wanted specific responses
Im not an expert but just general distinctions from what I have learned over the years.
The Celts, specifically the Gauls mainly, had a more advanced culture that was actually quite similar to the Romans and Greeks.
Developed towns, trade, metalworking, interactions with other groups deeper then just raiding.
The germanics where very savage in comparison to the gauls and idk if the term semi-nomadic is correct but they really didn't have any big towns or cities like the Gauls did.
OP isn't getting shit for that passive aggressive friendly reminder
Well to be fair threads like this might devolve into "hurr durr G*ermanoids wuz barbarianz" or something similar
You mean the celts and germanians were indo-europeans that came in different "waves"?
yep, like said.
Could you give some examples? IIRC Ptolemy (2nd c.) mentioned some germanic towns. I'm not sure about trade though, but an amber-for-bronze trade network from scandinavia to greece had existed since the bronze age. Other than that, how did their metalworking differ? The germanians definitely had smiths, didn't they?
This. Most threads on this subject does.
To my knowledge but I am pretty uninformed.
Trade wise I haven't seen much information on pre Roman Germania, but Im sure some form existed for a while, whereas Gaul had a very developed trade relationship with Romans, Greeks and Carthaginians.
The urban centers of Gaul was very big and organized and documented in comparison to whatever was in Germania which isn't very well documented.
The Gauls also projected force across a large area, fighting in wars from Spain to Italy, Balkans and small parts of Turkey.
Germanics where not as unified as the Gauls (who in turn where no where near as unified as the Romans) and because of that the Germanics never really had any military excursions outside of their homeland.
Gaul is actually very well documented and studied and Germania is kinda just there and a lot of that is Roman sources which could range from true, to total Roman propaganda.
I don't know the details about when those migrations either, but I assumed that the germanians and celts were descended from the same group of indo-europeans and developed different cultures after settling.
Sad tb h
Not trying to purposefully bash on Germans because its popular, but honestly there are a lot of other so called "barbarian" lands that where way more interesting and had a lot more potential.
Thrace and Dacia are both really interesting but there isn't a whole lot really known about them per-conquering.
Did the Germanics become more advanced due invading and settling old Roman provinces like Gaul and Britannia?
I think it was more to do with adopting Christianity.
Becoming Christian helped them interact and form relations with lots of other European people.
It also was a extremely valuable tool for unifying the Germanic people.
Before Charlemange, Germania or we you wanna call it was on a clear path towards progress and learning, but after his reign, it was definitely up there with anyone in Europe
I think the Anglo-Saxons became christian in 597, but when did the Franks christianise. If i recall correctly Lindisfarne monastery was a cultural centre in Europe with the finest art and scholars which came after christianisation so that supports your theory
I think thats when the Franks officially converted as well.
Besides the Roman Empire, they where the largest Christian nation, and with such a good location in the middle of Europe it was a very good spot for expanding power military and politically.
Christianization marked a huge turning point for a lot of nations in Europe, which always confused me when I saw Neo-pagans complaining about it.
And yes the Christians where not perfect, even Charlemange massacred tons of Saxons to get them to convert. But overall converting was a massive success, the Germanics probably benefited the most from it.
They went from the most perceived savages of Europe to the most advanced, unified, and developed in a span of a couple hundred years (Barring the Eastern Roman Empire / Byzantines who where always the top dog until 1000-1100 timeframe.)
Celts = Indo European R1b-carriers
Germanics = Pre Indo European I1-carriers + some Pre Indo European I2-carriers
Didn't Boniface convert the Saxons?
It was precisely what you stated here, the guy your responding to is placing too much weight on one specific religion and not the Germans moving into the more fertile roman provinces. They were always going to move up in status once they got all the riches and loot from being the overlords of much of the remnants of the western roman empire, even if christianity had never existed.
No, plenty of them wanted nothing to do with the new religion.
But christianity brought them closer to Rome and all their culture
So what did he do? Wikipedia laudes him as the founder of Christianity in western Europe as we know it
No Boniface was killed by the Saxons
He cut down Thors holy tree and the Frisians cut him down for it.
Roman culture predates christianity, if the empire had still been polytheist when they invaded they would still have moved closer to that culture, simply because it would make ruling their subjects easier.
Roman culture had been total shit since like 100AD.
The Western Roman Empire had been a steaming piling of corruption and filth long before the Germanics ever started invading.
The Germanics in Germania that went on to found the HRE didn't even rule over hardly any former Roman subjects, the Romans had little to do with their advancement besides Christianity.
The Germanics in Italy and Gaul, sure thats a different story, but in Germania proper it is much different.
So how did he change anything?
as far as I've understood it, he didn't really.
>>political corruption
This really isn't the big deal your making it out to be.
>>The Germanics in Germania that went on to found the HRE didn't even rule over hardly any former Roman subjects, the Romans had little to do with their advancement besides Christianity.
The HRE incorporated both Roman and German territory when it was founded. If you want to argue that the Germans who became overlords of the former WRE provinces wouldn't have used their newfound wealth and power to consolidate their position at home then you are simply mistaken. The peoples of Germania got nothing out of christianity that they wouldn't have gotten without it other then people being murdered for having different religious beliefs.
Largely this is round about the truth but obviously it is a little more complex.
People have to realize these cultures lived in proximity to each other for centuries and definitely didn't only diffuse in conflict but also trade... but the mistake people here tend to have is that there is a hard and fast cultural or genetic boundary with which to define them. Belgae; usually defined as a Celtic tribe; A LOT of germanic burial/religious traits; language was probably germanic. Bohemia is another great example... etymologically illustrating how closely they lived, the name would be loosely translated to home of the Boii, the tribe referenced is Celtic, the name is etymologically Germanic, the Boii - Heim - then the latin ending for all places. The Suebi ruled/lived there after the Boii as it never really fell under true Roman rule and is a perfect illustration of the relationship between Germanics and Celts.
The term Celt is a lot more problematic than Germanic; it includes a wide array of likely VERY unrelated peoples. Gauls were probably hugely distinct from the more alpine Celtic tribes cotti/raetians, who were probably more closely related to the cis-alpine Celts... or "insubres" who then are probably just the closest relative then to the Latins... Latins should be called Celtic honestly by virtue of the fact that Celt is such a wide umbrella term; as the Italic tribes and languages are DEFINITELY at the point in history wherein they branched off, a cis-alpine Celtic tribe is more closely related to the Italic people linguistically and genetically than they are related to another trans-alpine "Celtic" tribe.
One of the arguable top causes of the Empires collapse was corruption.
It completely destroyed the empire and stagnated it.
The Germans of former Roman lands did assimilate a decent chunk of Roman culture, thats why France, Italy, and Spain are still Latin derived languages.
From adopting Christianity up until the Protestant reformation it was a huge period of Success for Germany proper. Christianity was a big part of that.
Most centers of learning in the HRE where in monasteries and Bishoprics.
Monotheistic religions bring a degree of control and spirituality unity the pagan beliefs just simply cant.
ignore He is the patron saint of Germania, created the alliance between the papacy and the carolingians, created many dioceses and helped unify Europe under Catholicism despite (or perhaps aided by) his martyrdom.
People undervalue him because he was Anglo
>boniface
>Anglo
The absolute delusion of bongs...
>>One of the arguable top causes of the Empires collapse was corruption.
>>It completely destroyed the empire and stagnated it.
So? Are you going to argue that christianity prevents corruption now because that is blatantly bullshit.
>>From adopting Christianity up until the Protestant reformation it was a huge period of Success for Germany proper. Christianity was a big part of that.
That success would have happened regardless of religion.
>>Most centers of learning in the HRE where in monasteries and Bishoprics.
And in a polytheist successor state there would have been centers of learning associated with polytheist religion.
>>Monotheistic religions bring a degree of control and spirituality unity the pagan beliefs just simply cant.
None of this is actually necessary for things like centers of learning to exist and it comes with some really ugly downsides that on the whole make it not worthwhile.
not really, there isn't a genetic difference between the Continental Celts and the pre-Norse Germanic peoples.
>88
>that reminder
user, I...
Bullshit but I believe it :there is no difference between the East and West Rhine peoples save for minor linguistic ones.
Gauls and pre-Nordic Germani were the same people and diverged more and more as history continued on.
>inb4 Nordic = Germanic ethnically
You could point to doggerland even to link Scandinavia to Britain and Ireland.
France and Germany too.
not much of a difference here aside from the prominence of certain things.
Germans being farther away from the Med. world had less things from that place.
Gauls had more.
More trade = more advancement and more widespread items,
Nobles used iron weapons and armor, freemen used wooden weapons and armor, horses were used by nobles.
>language
partially, many cognates and common roots along with similarities and even commonalities.
When did Continental Germans speak German and Scandinavians speak Scandinavian?
Old Norse (Icelandic in its modern form) to Norwegian and Swedish?
English and Dutch from Old Anglish and High to Middle West German?
>dress
both wore pants, both fought semi nude, both wore animal skins and had animal imagery for the express purpose of intimidation and spiritual guidance on the battle field.
>legal traditions
nah, actually here they are pretty much the same, exchange Druids for town leaders and the two are nearly interchangeable. They both have the same code of ethics.
>genes
probably not, at least the modern and ancient Genetics do not say they are different.
>inb4 the French are direct descendents of ancient Gauls and Germans are direct descendents of Germanic tribesmen
There is of course genetic disparity as with any population anywhere, you can find such discrepancies and differences even in isolated places like Sardinia or the Orkneys.
They are genetically similar enough to be considered one people.
He was an Anglo-Saxon... he was a definitive Anglo-Saxon. Please you need to bring yourself over to /int/, if you aren't able to handle that truth...
What the fuck...
His name at birth was Wynfryth you retard
They were a hell of a lot poorer. Iron resources in Germany were pretty rare, i don't think thats the case today as much but thats because we have better technology, much less was available to ancient germans.
So they really, really lacked metal armour and weaponry even, often going into battle with clubs and fire hardened wooden spears
Christianity doesn't prevent corruption no, but it seems like corruption becomes a much larger and significant problem the more developed and bigger your empire is.
Polytheistic states just didn't function well in Europe besides Rome. And Rome had such a large number of issues that destroyed it religion doesn't even matter at that point.
Non Roman Europeans in general had been doing jack shit until they converted, so to say it would have happened anyway is kind of an argument you will never win.
We would have to travel to an alternate reality and back in time to actually settle the debate, whereas my debate, actually happened in history and proved to work.
to carry on...
on Gauls and Germanic living in what would become modern Germany and Denmark
>kinship
same, patronistic, clannish, tribal, kin-oaths, and such.
Can't really think of any differences here.
>warfare
The Germanic people were less honorable in battle preferring to fight only when they could win, this doesn't reflect military success, in fact they lost many times and were devastated beyond what they did to Rome in the Teutoburg forest, however they did give Rome a major defeat one that wouldn't be recovered from in nearly 100 years.
Gauls preferred to fight in the open on equal terms with their enemy.
Both did try to act in tactically sound ways, for instance both had very strong emphasis on cavalry fighting amongst infantry, this seems to be exclusive to these two groups.
Celts in the British Isles fought more so like the Germanics and less like the Gauls.
But in any case, some Gauls like the Nervii fought in Germanic style guerrilla wars.
Warfare is never methodized or stylized beyond the basic army compositions and battle plans, in which the Gauls and Germans had the same idea, combined arms in one decisive strike.
Although it is worth noting both had champion warfare as opposed to mass warfare.
>culture
Culture changes with the wind.
there is not a single nation or a single people or ethnic group who have a unified culture.
The differences between Celts (gauls) and pre-Nordic Germanics is negligible all things considered, at least in their early stages when compared to the rest of the world.
>Christianity doesn't prevent corruption no, but it seems like corruption becomes a much larger and significant problem the more developed and bigger your empire is.
Then this has nothing to do with anything at all then.
>>Polytheistic states just didn't function well in Europe besides Rome. And Rome had such a large number of issues that destroyed it religion doesn't even matter at that point.
Yeah they did, it's that they went christian before they could fully develop into something other then tribal confederations.
>>Non Roman Europeans in general had been doing jack shit until they converted, so to say it would have happened anyway is kind of an argument you will never win.
Oh bullshit, they didn't have written histories so therefore you think they did nothing.
>>We would have to travel to an alternate reality and back in time to actually settle the debate, whereas my debate, actually happened in history and proved to work.
The fuck are you talking about? The roman polytheists and the greeks before them had wealthy and powerful civilizations long before europe became christian. The only way your argument works is if there is something inherent to euro polytheism that prevents people who believe in it from building advanced civilizations. Since the Romans and Greeks existed, this assertion is flatly false.
German tribes were of purer Nordic racial type, not of mongrelized with Dinarics like the celts.
The literal centuries of trade and exchange of ideas that took place between the roman and the germanic realms also greatly helped germania advance.
The germanians that Marius and Julius Caesar fought against were almost the stereotypical half naked savages while the later confederations fielded pretty much the same type of soldiers as the romans.
dumb oversimplification. There were Celtic tribes, particularly probably scordisci and dardanian tribes that contributed the bulk of the nordid DNA to the current Eastern European nations of Poland and Slovakia; which explains neatly the presence of the nordid type in a nation that historically should have nearly none.
>I think it was more to do with adopting Christianity.
Except ofc that most germanic peoples adopted the "wrong" kind of christianity.
I've always wondered: can Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, be considered the birth place of modern Europeans? Ie, can all whites consider Russia as "Mother Russia"? I mean it makes sense with regards to how ancient the Kurgans were.
>Veeky Forums
Well, the original Hallstatt folk were the most stereotypical Nordids you can imagine...
But the westernmost Celts were heavily admixed with local dinaric and baskid women, giving them the modern "stereotypically anglo/irish look".
That was where the Eurasian steppe was so kinda, but Mother Russia as a term is specifically a slavic thing.
>Hallstatt folk were the most stereotypical Nordids
No, that look came from the steppe migrations.
>No, that look came from the steppe migrations.
Never heard of the term "Hallstatt Nordid"? It didn't come from nowhere.
Skulls found in Hallstatt had typically the most stereotypically Germanic traits. Then they migrated northwards and brought this look to Scandinavia.
So the Aryans didn't look Nordid?
Sure...? I can grant you that. Germanics who stayed east or south of the Elbe are also admixed and weren't any longer nordid. The original people who lived at the origin of both cultures were probably nordid....
They were Nordids, but with higher skulls... so-called Corded Nordids or Proto-Nordids...
Not the stereotypically Germanic Hallstat Nordics.
Bajuwars (Ancient-Middle age Bavarians) were still Nordic despite being east of Elbe. They had less extreme features though, but still in range.
>east
*South
> steppeniggers from the Black Sea have similar phenotypes to Hallstatt
Doubtful.
>baskid
what?
Were they actually basque or just classified as basque looking?
please explain to a layman what you fellas mean?
> steppeniggers from the Black Sea have similar phenotypes to Hallstatt
More like snowniggers from North Russia...
And yes, Hallstatt descended from them.
>Were they actually basque or just classified as basque looking?
Bell-Beaker ethnogenesis is still uncertain. Possibly they spoke something Basque-like. But in general just Basque-looking.
>Hallstatt descended from them.
Proofs?
who is the ideal Nord, the Hallstatt or the Corded Nordid?
What about Anglo-Saxon Tronder types?
Which is the ideal man that someone like Hitler would idolize or rather, who is most like the archetypal Germanic hero?
are Basques from the Middle East or are they residual Hunter Gatherers?
both?
We don't have much Hallstatt and Urnfield samples, because they tended to at least partially burn corpses...
It is generally accepted because of simple archaeology (and anthropology) that they were Indo-Germanics.
No. Hallstatt did not descend from any of the Volga/mierzanowice cultures. It is a clear successor of pre-indo European eastern Beaker culture/Urnfield culture. The nordid genes are NOT Indo-European this has to be said...
Depends on interpretation.
The most archaic Nord is Corded. The most Germanic and stereotypical Nord is Hallstatt.
>What about Anglo-Saxon Tronder types?
Generally more robust, "Cro-Magnid-like" Nordic types.
>Which is the ideal man that someone like Hitler would idolize or rather, who is most like the archetypal Germanic hero?
Hallstatt Nordic, you can spot it on NSDAP posters.
You sound like a nigger queer
They are the second wave of homo-sapiens into Europe and migrated over Gibraltar rather than from the Steppe.
Thanks, I was just curious because it seems pro-Nordic/Germanic propaganda has a certain "feel" to it, as in it favors one type of Nordic man over another type.
strong facial features over weaker ones.
>It is a clear successor of pre-indo European eastern Beaker culture/Urnfield culture.
Very brave claim, but you miss the fact that Bell-Beaker was Indo-Germanic admixed, and Urnfield was easternmost descendant, so even more Indo-Germanic.
And the stereotypical Bell-Beaker type was Dinaric (especially in the west and in Britain), not Nordid, although we do have (Corded) Nordid skulls from Bell Beaker culture tooo...
It is clear that Hallstatt is Indo-Germanic, not Dinaric or Baskid Beaker.
>The nordid genes are NOT Indo-European
this
to which racial group would they belong if we broke Europe down into Near Eastern Farmers, Hunter Gatherers, and Indo-Europeans?
So... Old Slavs were not Indo-European? Andronovo people were not Indo-European? Celts were not Indo-European?
"muh I1" is not going to save you there...
>The nordid genes are NOT Indo-European this has to be said...
been thinking this for a while.
Nordic and some parts of Germanic peoples are not Indo-European.
I think they are Paleo-European in racial origin. Culturally there is probably some overlap between Steppe and European.
>I think they are Paleo-European in racial origin
Very wrong, unless you count ANE and EHG as "Paleo-European"...
The genes for Blue eyes are not found outside of Europe in regards to their origin.
The gene for blonde hair that is currently prominent in Europe is the Paleo-European variant and not the Indo-European asiatic variant.
>The gene for blonde hair that is currently prominent in Europe is the Paleo-European variant and not the Indo-European asiatic variant.
There was no "Indo-European asiatic variant". Blond hair gene in Europe is the same as it was in the ANE...
No... old proto-slav cultures were probably the most quintessential indo-european and were not nordid in the least... They are indo-iranian satems descending from proto-iranians the same people that produced the scythians, veneti, sarmatians etc. Indo-europeans that lived like Altaic steppe people.... The Centum into-europeans who produced the proto-greek, italo-celtic, proto-Illyrian cultures were an EARLIER migration of proto-indo-europeans into Europe, out of Anatolia.
>No... old proto-slav cultures were probably the most quintessential indo-european and were not nordid in the least
Think again.
46 = Lechitic tribes
47 = Polabian tribes
48 = Bohemians
They had long skulls, narrow faces, narrow noses, and thanks to Arab and other historians we also know they were blond and blue eyed.
So how were they "not nordid in the least"?
>Blatant racism and trolling will not be tolerated
Oh yeah? Whatcha gonna do about it?
>were not nordid in the least
Probably not, they actually look really UP/Cromagnoid.
Holy shit guys the evidence for the blue-eye mutation not being indo-european in origin is in the fact that it is most prevalent in a country that is historically not indo-european and to this day does not speak an indo-european language.
Please deal with it. Nordids weren't Indo-European.
>Blond hair gene in Europe is the same as it was in the ANE...
no its not
its literally a separate independent evolution in 99% of non-Slavic or Nordic cases
First one is Robust Corded
Second one is classical Corded/East Nordid.
>its literally a separate independent evolution in 99% of non-Slavic or Nordic cases
Nope.
This is just pathetic dude. No matter how much a slav wants to be among their perceived Nordic master race (no matter how petty and childish that pursuit is) it just never will be the case. Slavs are the most ashamed of their origin and it just manifests itself in the most bleating cries of misled white-supremacy and reeks of cognitive dissonance..
You are mistaking the modern Slavs (who are indeed... brachycephalic mutts) and the Old Slavs (who were Nordics).
If you ever use "robust" to denote a phenotype it makes you look like a fucking brainlet.
yep
It is robust, maybe somewhat CM due to browridge... but still it's nothing more than a little primitive Corded Nordic type.
And second skull is a textbook Nordid.
Nope.
uh huh
> Arab and other historians we also know they were blond and blue eyed.
They got Germanics, Slavs, Uralics and Scythians mixed up all the time lmao. Also, those societies WERE mixed.
Nope.
You're that Polish autist aren't you? Half the time I see you mislabeling textbook UP people as "robust Nordics", it's intellectual dishonesty at best and literal brainletry at worst.
Also
>second skull is a textbook Nordid
It's literally the same phenotype as the first skull, it's just that the first skull is male while the second one is female.