*********************************
That's right out of the backwoods of academic nonsense. It was the Romans who fed Christians to the lions, but that was not savage? It was the Romans who pitted Gladiators against each other for sport, but that was not savage? It was the Romans who wrote the history from which you develop this nonesense. The Celts were no more savage than the times.
What a pile of BS. What musty old book are you clipping that from? The Celts untimately kicked the Romans a$$, and that was the end of that tyranny. You don't even know who the Celts are, which is what makes your post so laughable.
When it comes to ancient history in general and Celtic ancient history in particular, DensaMensa, you seem rather uneducated.
Roman history is one of my hobbies and I have a special interest in the Celts since I am a direct descendant of the Celts of Galicia in Northwest Spain. The reason that I am a blonde and blue-eyed "Hispanic" is that, behind the Cantabrian Mountains, my Celtic ancestors, in their hill-top fortresses, were the last Celts to remain unconquered on the European Continent until the Cantabrian Wars that last from 26 B.C. to 19 B.C. They had to be conquered by Augustus' best General, Agrippa. After that, they were not conquered by the Visigoths, or by the Suevi or by the Moorish invaders of Spain.
If you know of any other Celtic tribe on the Continent that remained unconquered after the Cantabrian War, please enlighten us because historians don't know of any.
If you are referring to the Germanic invasions of the Visigoths, Vandals, Suevi, et al, at the time of the Fall of Rome, they were not Celts.
If you are referring to Hadrian's decision not to complete the conquest of the Picts in Scotland, that hardly qualifies as "kicking the Roman's @ss".
"Savages" is not a Roman term. It is an American idiom that has been used historically in American history to refer to those cultures that are not "civilized". In the 1800's, "Indian savages" was the common expression. In Roman times, the equivalent term would have been the Greek term "Barbarian".
What aspect of ancient Celtic history would you like to debate with me, DensaMensa?
The Urn-field Celts, the Halstatt Celts, the Celtic invasions of Greece and Anatolia, the Celtiberians in central Spain, the Castro culture in northwest Spain, the battle tactics of Vercingetorix or Boadicea, Celtic cultural practices from torques to battle customs to head trophies?
The question, DensaMensa, is do you know who the Celts were and do you know their ancient history? Do you think that "Celts" is merely a synonym for "Irish" or the name of a basketball team? Do you have them confused with the Germans? Do you know anything about ancient history other than what you have seen in Hollywood movies?
>I have a special interest in the Celts since I am a direct descendant of the Celts of Galicia in Northwest Spain. The reason that I am a blonde and blue-eyed "Hispanic" is that, behind the Cantabrian Mountains, my Celtic ancestors, ...
I don't doubt what you say is true, but I'm a bit troubled by your cock-surety about it all. If you had said "I think..." I would be more inclined to trust what you say. Do you have a real complete and honest genealogical trail you can share, or is this all just supposition and imaginative history based on guessing, your blue eyes, and some sort of identity theology?
>If you are referring to the Germanic invasions of the Visigoths, Vandals, Suevi, et al, at the time of the Fall of Rome, they were not Celts.
Hmmm... Then who were they? I thought the Germani Tribe, after whom Germany was named but is not currently occupied was a Celtic Tribe?
>"Savages" is not a Roman term. It is an American idiom that has been used historically in American history to refer to those cultures that are not "civilized". In the 1800's, "Indian savages" was the common expression. In Roman times, the equivalent term would have been the Greek term "Barbarian".
I think Densa Mensa was indicating that the Roman behaviour in the Forum and perhaps elsewhere was far was civilized, and since they and the Greeks wrote much of the His-Story of the time, it is suspect. Is that in error?
Thanks.