Celts or Gauls?

[greycat]

Also the Teutoni (singular: Teuton) could have been of Celtic or German origin. They came from Jutland north of Germany During the late 2nd century BC.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teuton

Edited November 12, 2013 by greycat

[Rodmar]

I will answer to you about the German and Germania in the proper topic.

For now, the fact that true Germanic people's Iron Age spawning area (Jutland, then now northern Germany) is not the same as true Celtic people's Iron Age spawning areas (Austria, then several spots up to the Trier parallel), as well as strong cultural differences (language, religion, social hierarchy) are enough for me to not consider the German as Celts, or reciprocally. As time pass, there comes necessarily a time when you have to reckon that two groups of Indo-european people are not the same people anymore, should have they been "cousin" thousand years ago.

Also, I never heard about Celts claiming territories over Germans. It was rather the opposite, the Celt being driven away south then west and east as soon as the German's expansion arose. The only case I could imagine is some temporary land reclamation after a migrating Germanic tribe had been destroyed by the Romans, but it would have been only an opportunistic and natural "fill in the freed gaps" behaviour.

[greycat]

Also, I never heard about Celts claiming territories over Germans. It was rather the opposite, the Celt being driven away south then west and east as soon as the German's expansion arose. The only case I could imagine is some temporary land reclamation after a migrating Germanic tribe had been destroyed by the Romans, but it would have been only an opportunistic and natural "fill in the freed gaps" behaviour.

Caesar [The Gallic War, book 6, chapters 11-28]

And there was formerly a time when the Gauls excelled the Germans in prowess, and waged war on them offensively, and, on account of the great number of their people and the insufficiency of their land, sent colonies over the Rhine. Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful and lie around the Hercynian forests (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia) and settled there. Which nation to this time retains its position in those settlements, and has a very high character for justice and military merit: now also they continue in the same scarcity, indulgence, hardihood, as the Germans, and use the same food and dress; but their proximity to the Province and knowledge of commodities from countries beyond the sea supplies to the Gauls many things tending to luxury as well as civilization. Accustomed by degrees to be overmatched and worsted in many engagements, they do not even compare themselves to the Germans in prowess.

[greycat]

For now, the fact that true Germanic people's Iron Age spawning area (Jutland, then now northern Germany) is not the same as true Celtic people's Iron Age spawning areas (Austria, then several spots up to the Trier parallel), as well as strong cultural differences (language, religion, social hierarchy) are enough for me to not consider the German as Celts, or reciprocally.

Cassius Dio in Roman History (c. 220 AD)

The Rhine issues from the Celtic Alps, a little outside of Rhaetia, and proceeding westward, bounds Gaul and its inhabitants on the left, and the Germans on the right, and finally empties into the ocean. This river has always down to the present time been considered the boundary, ever since these tribes gained their different names; for very anciently both peoples dwelling on either side of the river were called Celts.

.

[greycat]

I will answer to you about the German and Germania in the proper topic.

For now, the fact that true Germanic people's Iron Age spawning area (Jutland, then now northern Germany) is not the same as true Celtic people's Iron Age spawning areas (Austria, then several spots up to the Trier parallel), as well as strong cultural differences (language, religion, social hierarchy) are enough for me to not consider the German as Celts, or reciprocally. As time pass, there comes necessarily a time when you have to reckon that two groups of Indo-european people are not the same people anymore, should have they been "cousin" thousand years ago.

Strabo, Greek geographer, philosopher and historian 64/63 BC – c. AD 24 .) Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας).

Edited November 12, 2013 by greycat

[greycat]

I do not believe the Celts were a genetic race. If that were true the Irish would not be Celts. Through DNA we know the people there were originally of Spanish decent and mixed with the Celts from the Gauls.

[greycat]

As time pass, there comes necessarily a time when you have to reckon that two groups of Indo-european people are not the same people anymore, should have they been "cousin" thousand years ago.

According to both Strabo and Ceasar the word Celt was borrowed from a local tribal name. So by these standards only this tribe would have been Celtic. This same thing was done with the Teutons a tribe that is believed to be of Celtic or Germanic origin and now refers to a German. It was Romans who created the term Germani and nobody else. I tend to follow the Greek writers as well as Roman writers. I do not understand the people that think everything Ceasar says is truth while disregarding other scholars of the time.

Edited December 28, 2013 by greycat

[Mythos_Ruler]

That's all fine and dandy what Strabo and Caesar and the ancients said. But what does modern scholarship say?

[greycat]

That's all fine and dandy what Strabo and Caesar and the ancients said. But what does modern scholarship say?

Archeology is the only place where there are really any new ideas. They use the name La Tène culture.

"Some of the societies that are archaeologically identified with La Tène material culture were identified by Greek and Roman authors from the 5th century onwards as Keltoi ("Celts") and Galli ("Gauls")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%A8ne_culture

[greycat]

This was one of the more recent Celtic oppidum finds from 1990's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

[Romulus]

There's some evidence that the Celts were Dorians.

Dorians were the first Greek settlers. It is however not really supported because most of the evidence is vanished by shear time.

In my honest opinion, the Celts originated from the east and the later day Goth movements in the first century were a type of repeat demonstrating to us our the Celtic people came into existence.

This is true with Hunic peoples and the whole emergence of the barbarians. These were the fathers of the Celts.

[Prodigal Son]

Dorians were one of various tribes amongst the latest ancient settlers of the Greek region. They certainly wouldn't be the first Greeks, by regional definition. (On "racial" definition don't get me started, most people here in Greece believe in bullshit due to nationalist propaganda). However they were not that many, so if what you say holds true (first time I hear about it though) it's more possible that Dorians were a branch of Celts than the opposite.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Dorians it's supposes to be very ancient group. It's even before of first Sumerians.

[Prodigal Son]

Haven't seen a source for that either. Can't be certain against it, as times before the Dorians reached Southern Greece are actually pre-historic, but I guess that's mostly a theory rather than something with proof.

[Romulus]

Well according to mainsteam history the Dorians were the first settlers of Greece and Minoa Crete.

But, the Dorians before they settled in Greece there's a possibility that a branch ventured west and occupied Germania and Gaul eventually settling in Briton.

The Dorians are very ancient indeed and because of this good luck findong any VALID sources about them.

It just remains theory and hardly factual by any standard.

[Prodigal Son]

Do you mean they were the first "Greek" settlers? Or the first settlers in general for those regions? The first depends on how you define Greeks. Second one is certainly wrong.

On the rest agreed, it's not impossible but it's too hard to know, so we'd better accept we don't know (yet, might find out sometime), rather than make such things appear like facts.

[Romulus]

Yeah according to a text book I have here which is in actual fact a type of atlas.

It states that the Dorians in 1000-1100 BC from north-west of Greece invaded and conquered in quote "the sophisticated Myceneans" and settled in an arc stretching from the Peloponnese through the Southern aegean islands to mainland Anatolia (Turky)

Now technically the Myceneans weren't technically Greek in the sense we know it, or before Greece was even born into a nation identified as Helenes.

And one can only imagine that note it said "sophisticated" which all this was was the first barbaric incursions reminiscent of the early Goth and Hunic invasions. Like a type of cycle that repeats every 1000 years or so.

The Huns and the like were the later descendants of the Dorians. This also explains the Mysterious appearance of the Turkish horse archers that overran the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia.

Horse archery was the art of the Mongols and the Huns and I bet the Turkish horse archers were Huns.

Here's the thing, after Atilla's war what happened to the Huns? They had to of gone somewhere and because they didn't have a country, colony or city you can know exactly or pin point a place of origin.

Parthia were exceptional horse archers but these people too were composition of assyrians/babylonians/persian and definitely the Dorian Hunic variants

But talking about the expanse and movement of peoples in a by-gone-era are just tautologies and its like talking about race and the Aryans and soon this crosses the line of controversy and certainly becomes folklore.

[Prodigal Son]

Yeah according to a text book I have here which is in actual fact a type of atlas.

It states that the Dorians in 1000-1100 BC from north-west of Greece invaded and conquered in quote "the sophisticated Myceneans" and settled in an arc stretching from the Peloponnese through the Southern aegean islands to mainland Anatolia (Turky)

Now technically the Myceneans weren't technically Greek in the sense we know it, or before Greece was even born into a nation identified as Helenes.

And one can only imagine that note it said "sophisticated" which all this was was the first barbaric incursions reminiscent of the early Goth and Hunic invasions. Like a type of cycle that repeats every 1000 years or so.

The Huns and the like were the later descendants of the Dorians. This also explains the Mysterious appearance of the Turkish horse archers that overran the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia.

Horse archery was the art of the Mongols and the Huns and I bet the Turkish horse archers were Huns.

Here's the thing, after Atilla's war what happened to the Huns? They had to of gone somewhere and because they didn't have a country, colony or city you can know exactly or pin point a place of origin.

Parthia were exceptional horse archers but these people too were composition of assyrians/babylonians/persian and definitely the Dorian Hunic variants

But talking about the expanse and movement of peoples in a by-gone-era are just tautologies and its like talking about race and the Aryans and soon this crosses the line of controversy and certainly becomes folklore.

Many parts of this don't make sense at all. Is that your description of it missing some arguments or you did include every point from the original text?

[Romulus]

This was from the textbook

It states that the Dorians in 1000-1100 BC from

north-west of Greece invaded and conquered in

quote "the sophisticated Myceneans" and settled in

an arc stretching from the Peloponnese through the

Southern aegean islands to mainland Anatolia

(Turky)

_____________

The paragraphs below that I included based on my views

[Prodigal Son]

So from that quote you end up relating Dorians with so many different people? Based on what?

Edited January 2, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Romulus]

Relate them how?

For a point of clarity, I'm using the Doring as a pure stock of origin and I'm relating them by influence and because of overwhelming numbers which I assume was the factor of their successful incursion that they then became the composition of these other off shoots of peoples mainly inhabiting the eastern and north-eastern Europe

[Prodigal Son]

Even if all those people are somehow related (we all are after all, but I mean them being off-shots of the same large group, to which I can hardly see any evidence), how do you conclude in naming the large group Dorians, while all we know about Dorians is them being a part of ancient Greeks?

[Romulus]

The Dorians were not part of ancient Greece. They appeared from further north and north-east.

There is little to no evidence of what I am concluding as I have stated, because these are my theories and opinions, but it makes perfect sense.

[Prodigal Son]

By "all we know about Dorians is them being a part of ancient Greeks" I mean we only have documented accounts of them as migriting and mostly living in the Aegean/Greek region. This does not include all of their background of course, which we don't know currently and might never learn.

But what you claim makes no perfect sense, maybe no sense at all, especially the way you support it. Other people moved from the north to Greece as well. Other people moved elsewhere from other regions. See, if I say that Huns, Celts, Turks, Parthians, Mongols, Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians are subgroups of the Ionians or Slavs or Goths, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as saying all those people were subgroups of Dorians.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Romulus]

What doesn't make sense?

Perhaps you not looking at it in the perspective I am.

Its not that I support the theory, because its mine anyway, but it is highly plausible.

I'm really not talking about Mongols, that is way to far east for this topic. But again I'm reiterating my above posts here, the Dorians migrated to Greece, they didn't come from Greece. But my theory and that is one of them, as I have several states that a sub clan of break away Dorian migrants settled and colonized western Europe.

The biggest question here is, we don't know who was around in western Europe at that stage as if there were Celts or people before them might of been we don't know.

in texts books it reads that 400 BCE the Celts appeared.... That's the Bronze Age btw. Well from where?? Poof out of fresh air? Nope. The migrants had to have come from the east.... And paradoxically not necessarily.

So the point is whether my theory makes sense? Well yes it does.

The Dorians as we assume based on speculation appeared in Greece roughly 1000 BCE. I seem to support that just maybe a colony of these people greatly expanded in the nothingness and stark western Europe and populated the area. Whether the they became Celts or not. The fact is they probably went there. This I suspect occurred in 900-600 BCE.

The sudden appearance of Celts in 400 BCE is the climax period or peak of the Dorian migrants who then started to forn cultures and factions within western Europe. The Celts have no written records and most of what we really know come the Greeks and Romans with regards to Western Europe.