Why do romeboos refuse to accept that the ancient Gallic tribes were a civilization?

Attached: 932B47C8-A8AA-4F9C-B4D1-CB41388B07A2.jpg (750x461, 127K)

Attached: 8E2BF080-D35E-4151-83B8-9A67AACAF40F.jpg (585x329, 110K)

Attached: A47D29E4-CCCA-448B-A1A1-0251CD15FE58.jpg (800x600, 129K)

so did the niggers in africa

That’s hard to believe.

Attached: 13D86276-4AEB-4AC9-B423-359C022A1337.jpg (361x346, 53K)

Yeah the castro culture was in Iberia even if “Celtic”

Attached: 11551881-182D-4F43-9C27-A3A0650BDDB9.gif (436x357, 10K)

Why did they allow themselves to get cucked so hard by Germanics? The Belgae fared well against them, and yet the larger and stronger tribes in the south got raped by the Suebi and were forced to beg for Roman help.

Because this board is full of hypocrites that will condemn Germany for the holocaust

But when the roman genocides come up its all about “spreading civilization” and every greasy wop is a goo boi that dindu nuffin
The Gauls are just the ones we KNOW were genocides there were probably dozens more

This proves that there was no Europe before Christianity. Not even the Celts themselves were united.

Just because they can build civilized shit doesn't mean they're still barbarians in a roman's eye

WE

Will

SLAVE

Wow they built like 5 small urban centers over a territory going from Ireland to the Eastern Mediterranean, incredible. meanwhile Italy had cities much bigger than their biggest Celtic oppidum in every corner of the republic and much better infrastructure, literature and art

They were fighting with iron
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Africa

Attached: download (22).jpg (359x140, 5K)

The fuck boys who glorify the Roman Republic/Empire need to be spayed.

>Civilisations are equal
>Civilization=technology
No.

>not as big as rome so doesnt count

Attached: 1516861802998.gif (400x206, 1.76M)

>biggest celtic cities would be considered small towns in any corner of the imperivm

Not just as Rome but compared to most relevant Roman cities

Writing system?
Nothing more complex than african writing system.
Great philosophers?
No.
Cunning politicians?
No.
Ruthless talented generals?
No, they just gathered them all together with the promise if sex slaves n shit then threw them at the enemy.
Legendary builders?
Kek.
Did they ever experience the heights of decadence?
Nope, they were always so poor and their industry so inefficient that they banged out agains real civilizations relebtlessly.
Did they ever fall to it leaving in their wake a world that was changed forever?
No.

That is why they are not a civilization.

The fat that you think semi nomadic settlers leaving a few traces of shit huts here and there is somehow comparable to large permanent cities connected by roads guarded by strings of fortresses, garrisons that consistently communicated with each other in such a way as to simulate a super organism is indicative of your retarded.

Julius Caesar reported that there were scores of Oppida in Gaul alone. Stop lying.

...

The average oppidum wasn't an urban center, I've already said the only ones that could be considered urban centers were 5 or little more than that, the average oppidum was a stone fence with a few huts in it, not a city

/thread

Caesar himself said the Gauls were civilized in the sense they were properly sedentary:

>trading and bartering systems
>well developed roads
>fortified cities and villages
>properly clothed not naked or running around in leather or animal-skinned tatters like Germanics
>highly advanced metal working; chain-mail was likely invented by them and passed onto the Romans and later even to the Persians and others in the Near East and Central Asia
>developed agricultural centers
Caesar himself had respect for the Gauls.

Something tells me you never thoroughly researched this subject and you’re going by your bias opinion.

Caesar had to tell a good story about his war, also yes obviously they weren't cavemen but they weren't certainly on the same level of civilization of the Romans

I never said anything about being on par with Romans in terms of something as unquantifable as ranking a civilization but they were not primitive in any sense compared to Romans outside of lacking a proper writing system.

>but they weren't certainly on the same level of civilization of the Romans

No one has ever said that you moron.

The Romans had aqueducts going on for several kilometers, functioning massive underground sewers, running water, extensive literature including epic poems, comedic and tragic theatrical works, works of physics (Lucretius), philosophy. 4 stories tall building, giant theaters and stadiums

You can post all of these fancy cities
You can post all you want about their metalurgy
You can post all you want about their roads
But did they have a written language? Runes don't count if they had runes

>point out ignoring literature and writing
>goes on a tangent about it anyway
Funny how Romans wouldn't have plated or chain-mail if not for the Gauls though. Or the fact irrigation and waterworks also existed for them as well.

> wouldn't have plated or chain-mail
What? The Mycenaeans already had plate armor 1000 years before the Gallic wars

Plate armor isn’t the same as chain mail.

...

Bronze plate.

Yes and?

Steel is not the same as bronze.

Why don't Gallicboos accept Julius Caesar as their lord and savior?

Because then they would have to admit that R*man """"""""Civilization""""""" destroyed another civilization like barbaric savages.

The average R*man lived in a clay hut in the middle of nowhere like a savage.

>The average R*man lived in a clay hut in the middle of nowhere like a savage.
No he didn't, most Romans lived in cities or large rural villages with houses not "clay huts"
>Because then they would have to admit that R*man """"""""Civilization""""""" destroyed another civilization like barbaric savages.
Oh yes they destroyed it by introducing aqueducts, a writing system, theaters, sewers, cities much bigger and much more well planned than the very few celtic urban centers, a much better road network, yes, it makes perfect sense.

Celts had iron, not steel, and while celts might have been the first to develop iron mail that's still up to debate

Having cities, roads, and metallurgy makes you a culture, not a civilization

The defining feature of civilization is institutionalized unification. Whether it’s a loose affiliation of decentralized states bound by a common religion, mercantile states bound by trade, or a centralized empire ruled by an absolute despot, it’s the shared historical narrative and morals of the body politic which transcend geography and give all the disparate elements a common ideal to strive towards that makes a culture a civilization. When these ideals have been carried to their logical conclusions the civilization peters out as the potential for creative expression reaches the point of exhaustion, old ideas no longer resonate due to the influence of new technologies on society, new ideas are either uninspired rehashes of old ideas or so new and radical as to threaten the established order. When that happens all that’s left are cynical blood politics and the anti-ideological struggle to secure the biggest slice of the unraveling pie, while the more sclerotic elements of society cling to empty platitudes even as more and more extreme manifestations do not produce the predicted effect.

The Celts did not have this. Like their Roman counterparts it was the clan, or extended family, which formed the basic unit of society. However the Celts never developed anything more organized than a town council, while Rome went on to unify multiple city states under a single polity. While the Celts disdained reading and writing as something that makes men soft and effeminate, for the Romans it gave them a means of easily distributing the official Roman narrative that kept them united even as central authority broke down and periphery groups took hold of the reins of power. When Caesar began his conquest of Gaul he entered as a friend of the Gallic people, settling disputes and driving away Germanics who would have almost certainly conquered them, and been a lot more ruthless about it.

Attached: E7752DDE-E38E-4222-B3EF-64A86E72DD46.jpg (770x480, 404K)

That doesn't justify murdering people like savages.

The pagan ethical tradition prized homicide as the noblest act a man could preform, especially vengeance slayings or state sponsored violence. It was not only inevitable, the Celts would have had no compunctions about doing it to the Romans if the situation had been reversed.

This is the ethical tradition which broke down during Pax Romana and what was replaced by Christianity, which views all violence as a sin, whose only morally acceptable use is self-defense. That’s also why it was cool in antiquity to run for office on a platform of murdering foreigners and taking their stuff, while in the common era violence always came with a rationalization.

The Gallic tribes were never united, had they been, they could have destroyed the Romans.

Tell that to your beloved Celts

Keltic genocide never happened.

Enough with this retarded meme, Europe has never been united. Even in the modern era the EU is a sad joke that will likely break apart over the coming decades.

The same could said about european colonialism

I don't doubt that Celts would have done the same thing. The thing is, I don't buy into the whole "Rome is civilized. Celts/Germanics are not" when in my mind Rome was only slightly less barbaric.

Its not up to debate. If you are trying to claim Sea People tier civilizations were advanced as those who came well after the Bronze Age collapse then I don't know what to tell you.

>Writing system?
Use of Greek alphabet in Gaul influenced by the Massilians, later inscriptions dating to Roman Gaul are mostly in the Latin alphabet and have been found principally in central France.

We even have evidence of the Boii using writing in areas as far from Gaul as Bohemia, but the wax tablets didn't last, though the writings pens (so-called stylus) did.

Not to mention the inscriptions on coins.

>Great philosophers?
Long oral tradition maintained by the druids, sadly lost due to Roman intervention and the dying out of druids.
One druid (Diviacus) was even a guest of Cicero, who spoke of his his knowledge of divination, astronomy and natural philosophy. Caesar himself named him only as a skilled diplomat.

>Ruthless talented generals?
By the oral nature of their culture and it's subsequent extinction naturally lost, but even excluding Vercingetorix, Caesar notes the courage of Gaulish commanders.
And by the way, what is Brennus, both the Italian and the Greek one, huh?

>Legendary builders?
Interesting structures certainly, and murus gallicus is pretty awesome.

>Did they ever experience the heights of decadence?
Even with the decadence meme, I'm pretty sure the Gauls did engage in some pretty cool decadence while plundering Etruscan cities, Rome and Greece.
Also, the stay of the Galatians in Egypt must've been pretty decadent, with all the Egyptian and Greek qt3.14's

>Did they ever fall to it leaving in their wake a world that was changed forever?
In a way, they did. The ornamental tradition of their art was to go insular, and only the Gothic style picked that up later.

>>muh christfaggotry was superior lied about the real reasons they went off to kill people
>>but honesty is totally a christian virtue you guys!
I lol everytime I think about the decline of christianity in the first world. It's precisely what such a pathetic religion deserves.

Shut up tranny

concept art for skyrim?

>the defining feature of civilization is institutionalized unification
No it fucking isn't, stop talking out of your ass.

Rome fuck boys btfo.

>The definining feature of civilization is institutionalized unification.
No.
>Having cities, roads, and metallurgy makes you a culture
No.

This reads as a copypasta full of shit.

>Celts disdained reading and writing as something that makes men soft and effeminate

Literally what? Source?

>slightly
Life is a game of inches, that’s my point. Even if they were both crude Iron Age societies fueled by conquest, the slight minutiae of their behavior led to some pretty significant differences over time, so that by the time Julius Caesar was driving the Helvetii back into the Alps, the Celts were at a significant disadvantage over the Roman, owing to an overall lack of organization

Christianity has reached the same point that the pagan oral traditions reached in late antiquity: its ideals are so old and a reflection of such a different age that its lessons and morals are no longer resonating with people like they once did.

And yes, in the early days Christianity was really just paganism with a new coat of paint and people did the same things they always did. But the fact that now people had to come up with an elaborate excuse to plot a murder stands in stark contrast to leaders of antiquity who felt no such compunctions beyond concerns of realpolitik

Find me a single surviving Celtic document that was written in an original Celtic language

And now you realize just how poor oral traditions are at spreading and communicating knowledge, and why having a system of writing is a fundamental feature of civilization

>you’re wrong because my fee-fees say so

>>But the fact that now people had to come up with an elaborate excuse to plot a murder stands in stark contrast to leaders of antiquity who felt no such compunctions beyond concerns of realpolitik
Heh no. The reason why modern leaders have to come up with elaborate excuses for wars has nothing to do with christian morals and has everything to do with life being so good for the average person that serving in the military no longer appeals. Oh and looting countries for resources has become more expensive then it's worth for various reasons unrelated to religious moralizing as well.

>>life being so good for the average person that serving in the military for strictly self-interested reasons no longer appeals

Thing is, the Druids were the only people in Celtic societies that were allowed to be literate and they likely had writings of various sorts that the romans likely burned because the Druids were seen as being threats to Roman rule in places like Gaul and Britannia. The Celtiberians were actually more literate then their northern cousins, but none of their writings survive.

Divine Right of Kings was the quintessential governing philosophy for the first 1500 years or so of western history, which stated that the reason a king got to be king is because God wanted it that way, and if God didn’t want it, he wouldn’t have let the king crawl out of his mother’s vagina. Every action taken by rulers in this age revolves around the idea that he was God’s ordained ruler on Earth. During the sack of Rome, Christian Ostrogoths deliberately avoided attacking churches or anyone seeking shelter in them, and that’s something you never saw pagans do for other pagans

Never? I find that doubtful. Even so, that's a trivial difference that doesn't matter much.

But the problem with oral traditions is the same problem you ran into as a school child playing telephone with your friends: information gets warped over time as individual communicators put their own spin on knowledge that is passed along, so no real sense of national unification of ideals can emerge, and Celts on one side of the country don’t know or care that much about Celts in other areas because of how barely little they’d know about each other, as one of the prime features of oral traditions is that they were jealously guarded secrets.

I'm not necessarily arguing against this. I was merely pointing out that even if the Gauls for example had a lot of written texts, the Romans would likely have burned all or most of them when they conquered the place in question simply as a means of cutting off future sources of rebellions to Roman authority. Carthage was literate, for example, and yet how much of their writing has survived?

It’s literally this
Nobody on this board can accept that the third reich was no different than the first

It may seem trivial, but it matters bigly in the long run due to compound interest.

And no where in the pagan ethical tradition is compassion prioritized as the proper behavior of individuals. If you can find any primary sources to counter this claim I’m all ears, but when it comes to the Christian religion we see references to compassion permeating its thought processes even at the earliest stages. Even if early Christians were little better than the pagans they had displaced, it got the ball rolling that would culminate with early modern Christians killing each other over who was more Christlike and compassionate. It’s a bitter irony, yes, but one that matters later when the total fraction of the human population embroiled in conflict drops to historic lows

Nazi Germany and the Roman Empire are not comparable. The Holocaust was a deliberate attempt to exterminate broad swathes of people for no reason other then idiotic German racial theory mixed in with left over antisemitism from the middle ages. When the Romans annihilated a city or group of people, or just really came down on people like a ton of bricks, it was almost always because of either rebellion or the fear of rebellion against Roman rule. The Nazis would kill you for reasons far more trivial then that.

>Carthage was literate, for example, and yet how much of their writing has survived?
That’s why Carthage isn’t considered a “civilization” in its own right, but can rather be thought of as a competitor with Rome to be the ruler of classical western civilization, just like the Celts.

Simply having writing is an important step, but it’s not enough. Great ideas are not built by logs of agricultural shipments, they are built by thematic narratives which inspire disparate groups of people to put aside their regional differences and unite towards a shared goal. Writing them down means that they can be transmitted with vastly greater accuracy so people can stay on message even if their holy men never meet.

>>And no where in the pagan ethical tradition is compassion prioritized as the proper behavior of individuals.
Achilles does not find peace until he lets the father of his enemy give said enemy a proper burial.
Nero, the horrendous monster in christian mythology let refugees from the fires that were destroying rome take shelter in his palace. Caesar and Augustus were at least partly motivated for the concerns of the common people of Rome when they enacted their various reforms.
There are other examples I could bring up if I spent some time looking things up on wiki and elsewhere, but honestly those three should be enough.
>>early modern Christians killing each other over who was more Christlike and compassionate.
Heh no. Early modern christians were killing each other over who controlled the most land and wealth, just the same as everyone else did.

>>It’s a bitter irony, yes, but one that matters later when the total fraction of the human population embroiled in conflict drops to historic lows
Dude, there's a lot more people around in modern times. Of course you see the percentage of the population being killed in wars shrink, especially when you take the change over to professional militaries into account.

True, but the example of of the Vedas being transited by oral tradition is one that can show us closely how well-preserved the oral tradition can be, even in an Indo-European tradition.
My father worked with a Palestinian muslim, whose uncle was an imam - he knew the whole Quran by memory.

The key to preservation was rhymes.

>>Carthage isn't considered a civilization because Rome destroyed most of the stuff that proved they had a civilization.
This is very poor logic. The Carthaginians were a competing civilization that Rome destroyed.

First, you ignored my request for sauce on the presented information.
Second, as pointed out, Gauls used the Greek alphabet for their own language. We have various references to it (Caesar relates that census accounts written in the Greek alphabet were found among the Helvetii.)
Third, here are several examples of Gaulish inscriptions:
mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=Esempi&id=61&lang=en

Achilles finding peace does not change the fact that his short violent life of glory was something that pagans sought to emulate.
>Caesar Augustus, compassionate
They were populists, there’s a huge difference
>land and wealth
Every religion is a reflection of realpolitik, even societies who put “none” as their official religion. The difference is in how rulers justify their cruelty to their subjects, and whether that fools enough people for him to continue clinging to power.

>a lot more people
Thanks to the great acceleration, a scientific revolution which got its start in the medieval Catholic universities of Carolingian France. But the reason I said percentage of population is to reflect the fact that violence permeates the lives of a far smaller fraction of the total numbers of humans on the planet. There may have been far less people in Celtic France than there were in Vichy France, but more of those people were embroiled in regional conflicts with each other than they were in modern times

All from the fucking Roman era for fuck's sake

True, but it takes a deep-felt desire to perpetuate these ideas when the economic incentive to preserve them evaporates. The reason why we consider classical civilization and western civilization to be reflections of the same thing is because of Christian monks (and their middle eastern counterparts, of course) copying and preserving their literary traditions so that they survived the transition.

Civilization is an end game process, we don’t really recognize them until after thet’re past the point of forming.

Classical western civilization was centered around maritime trade in the Mediterranean and whichever society dominated the rest would go on to define the character and nature of the emerging civilization. In practice classical western civilization was not strictly Roman, but also part Grecian, part Egyptian, part Hebrew, part North African, and part Celtic, all mixing together during he Pax Romana to create an indivisible set of ideals binding society together.

A Carthage dominated western world would still be centered around maritime trade in the Mediterranean, it would just have inherited a distinctly Carthaginian flavor during the ensuing period of peaceful political unification.

Because you’re asking me to prove a negative.

>Greek alphabet
Keeping logs of grain shipments doesn’t mean you have a civilization. It’s having a literary tradition and historical narrative which speaks to people outside of its geo-political interest zone. It’s a collective consciousness felt by every individual.

Celts has no such collective conscious. Celts identified by their clan, and little else. The lack of fraternity amongst Celts is precisely why Caesar’s strategy of divide and conquer was so effective

>>Achilles finding peace does not change the fact that his short violent life of glory was something that pagans sought to emulate.
That doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of compassion as well. If there wasn't why include the bit about him only finding peace when he gave that consideration to his enemies father?

>>They were populists, there’s a huge difference
Of course they were populists. If you don't think that means they didn't have compassion for their fellow roman citizens then that is your excessive cynicism and not mine.

>>Every religion is a reflection of realpolitik, even societies who put “none” as their official religion. The difference is in how rulers justify their cruelty to their subjects, and whether that fools enough people for him to continue clinging to power.
So you prefer being lied to instead of people being honest about their intentions? I don't consider this to be progress and the middle ages when the christian churches were at the height of their power were not a peaceful time.

>>Thanks to the great acceleration, a scientific revolution which got its start in the medieval Catholic universities of Carolingian France.
The earliest antecendents of modern scientific thinking can be found in polytheist Greece, not catholic universities. Furthermore, the population difference has much more to do with the gradual rejection of christian religious thinking and a search for naturalist causes for events and the various technological advances that eventually came from that. Stuff that happened when Charlemagen was a distant memory.
>>But the reason I said percentage of population is to reflect the fact that violence permeates the lives of a far smaller fraction of the total numbers of humans on the planet.
Yeah this has to do with the specialization of labor, and the efficiency gains from that. Not religious moralizing.

>That doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition of compassion as well.
What it means is that compassion simply wasn’t prioritized, so anyone who wanted to worship Ares or Zeus wouldn’t be punished if they decided to act in a more self-serving manner.
>populism
Populism means that a ruler justifies himself with the lowest common denominator. Compassion is inferred but not required: the Barcids were notorious oligarchs who dominated Carthaginian society with crass demagoguery that pitted the poor masses against landed property owners in order to serve their own interests. There was little about their behavior that you would describe as being politically compassionate.
>prefer being lied to?
Of course not, but I am interested in learning the process that humans went through towards realizing why it’s bad to lie to people.
>Middle Ages
Were extremely peaceful, comparatively speaking. It’s the early modern era when shit really hits the fan inn Europe, owing to the breakdown of the Divine Right of Kings theory and it’s eventual supplication by modern naturalisic political theory