celts and caesar

henry.shane

hey

I'm starting a thesis soon and I wanted to do it on something like "rebuilding the damage from Caesar"....the point is and I do want to open a debate here, is that I feel Celtic culture at time was not that of thick barbarian people like that of Caesars commentaries. I want to prove that not only has the legagy of the Celts at this time been branded for Caesars political gain (especially Gauls, and the Britons) but also draw on some recent research which proves that these people actually were civil especially in comparison to some of the roman traditions at the time. I've heard that family law and the rights of women were were well ahead of that in Rome and that they developed a calendar system long before the Romans adopted the Egyptian calendar, not to mention an extensive trade system.

So my question: Were the Celts at the time a barbarian people or where they an advanced civilisation like the Romans but military weak and politically divided and simply put, different. Is this a case of the victors write the history books.

brianthebard

Not to rain on your parade but everything you mentioned in the first paragraph has already been well documented. As for finding out something new that's very unlikely given that the celts didn't write, therefore we are stuck with other peoples accounts of them. They definitely weren't on the same level of civilisation as the Romans, they were firmly tied to the clan system.

karen3212

Yes I have seen a programme recently on a UK station that says they were indeed more humane and different.
I think they were looking at the Irish laws to substantiate the theory. Though I must admit I'm totally confused by what I read on wikipedia.
I would really like to know more about the facts too or where they can be found.

boneless

You could start by reading Barry Cunliffe, "The Ancient Celts". He matches archaeological evidence to the written Classical sources in order to prove the veracity or to highlight the biases of the "civilised" writers of the time.

Zambia

Anyone know any reall good sites on roman history?

Pelagius

Seconded.

Then try Miranda Green.

boneless

Pelagius wrote:

Seconded.

Then try Miranda Green.

Her latest work is a masterpiece... seconded again!!

DublinWriter

brianthebard wrote:

Not to rain on your parade but everything you mentioned in the first paragraph has already been well documented.

Indeed, from popular books such as 'How the Irish Saved Civilisation' to numerous thesis at all levels on all aspects of Brehon Law.

brianthebard

I was thinking more along the lines of Irish kings and High kings by F. j. Byrne, but maybe your suggestion is a good read too.

OP I don't know where you are studying or what but perhaps you should check a few college websites such as www.nuim.ie, look for the celtic studies programmes and have a look through their reading lists. This may take a while and the nuim site can be hit and miss but I don't have a list of books on your topic to hand so this is the best I can offer.

Dontico

The Romans and Celts were both civilised and developed in different ways. So it would be hard to say which was better. It is commonly accepted that the Romans were more advance, but for people that actually research the subject, would argue that the Celts were better.

Look into the social structure and class divide. The Roman structure seemed to keep the bottom half down and the top half up(More like the American system). The Celts seemed to leave room for someone at the bottom to move upwards(more like the Irish).

brianthebard

Who has argued that the Celts were better? On what grounds? Was it their advanced transport system and running water? Their buildings? I like celts as much as the next person but to argue they were better is a tall order. And what you are saying about class divide (a concept which didn't even exist at the time) is wholly untrue, the Celts in brehon law display a caste system not unlike modern India. There is no room for movement in that system.

karen3212

brianthebard wrote:

Who has argued that the Celts were better? On what grounds? Was it their advanced transport system and running water? Their buildings? I like celts as much as the next person but to argue they were better is a tall order. And what you are saying about class divide (a concept which didn't even exist at the time) is wholly untrue, the Celts in brehon law display a caste system not unlike modern India. There is no room for movement in that system.

I definately thought the Celts were better to their women and children, and had more a payment from the family when somone committed a crime. There were Kings, Chieftains but a serf could work/buy his way up the line, and I thought the Chiefs were elected.
There was movement in the system, I thought quite a lot. Where did you get your information from, it is completely different to what I've read.

brianthebard

I got it from a module I did last year. Yes payment could be made for a crime, but it is suggested that this would have favoured the rich mainly. The Chief was elected from a family group. I don't believe there was much if any movement ito what could be considered a "class system" (but I hasten to add this term is not really true to the system they lived in) could you tell me what you have read?

karen3212

I read a book by Donnacha O Corrain, but it was about Celtic Ireland. So perhaps I'm getting carried away, I guess the OP was referring to Celts in general.

brianthebard

A lot of the Irish prehistoric world, I suppose the majority of it, is subject to a lot of interpretation. I don't think you are getting carried away, I'd like to hear more about what you've learned.