Re: Celtic Origins



bernard wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > Alan Crozier wrote:
> > >
> > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:43D80FA8.4AA3C3D7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alan Crozier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:43D72E62.7BB1CC4D@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I recall, the Celtic people moved from East to West.
> > > They
> > > > > were
> > > > > > located north of the Illyrians at around 600 -> 400 BCE,
> > > and
> > > > > this is
> > > > > > established from ancient Greek records. Livius also writes
> > > > > about Roman
> > > > > > Senate gifts to the Celtic King Cincibilus, 170 BCE. Among
> > > the
> > > > > gifts
> > > > > > were horses including equipment and their grooms and
> > > trainers
> > > > > (Livius,
> > > > > > 43; 5, 1-10). It is only later that they moved to central
> > > > > Europe and
> > > > > > were party to the fall of the Roman Empire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two questions:
> > > > > You seem to say that they were located north of the
> > > Illyrians
> > > > > but later moved to central Europe. That's not much of a
> > > move, is
> > > > > it?
> > > >
> > > > No, but that is where mention of them first occurs. One can't
> > > even say
> > > > it was a "shift" to anywhere - perhaps they already existed in
> > > other
> > > > areas but were unknown as "Celts". There is some mention of
> > > them
> > > > having come from the Black Sea area, probably the west coast
> > > of it.
> > > > However that is mainly mythology/legend and not solid
> > > evidence.
> > > >
> > > > > How were Celtic peoples involved in the fall of the Roman
> > > > > Empire?
> > > >
> > > > They sacked Rome itself! It would appear that they had split
> > > into two
> > > > groups around that time, one on the northern foothills, into
> > > the
> > > > Austrian Alps (the Hallstatt culture) - another on the
> > > Southern side
> > > > of the Alps south of Switzerland extending to the Po river.
> > > Though the
> > > > combined area is shown on some population maps to have
> > > belonged to the
> > > > one people.
> > >
> > > So the sack of the very small Roman Republic by Gauls in 387 BC
> > > was the start of the fall of the huge Roman Empire 800 years
> > > later? Sorry, I don't see the causal connection at all. Despite
> > > the sack of Rome in 387 BC, the power of Rome grew immensely.
> > > From a small area comprising Latium it spread to cover the
> > > entire Mediterranean world and the Near East. And you say the
> > > Celts "were party to the fall of the Roman Empire"?
> >
> > That's what happens when you rely on memory solely - I ascribed the
> > sacking of Rome to the wrong side of the Epoch. Still the Celts were
> > part of the cause (not the sole cause) of the fall of Rome with their
> > constant insurrections in Gaul. Many of the Celtic people sided with
> > Hannibal, and in fact the Cisalpine Gaul couldn't be fully "pacified"
> > till after the defeat of Hannibal (247 - 182 BCE). Odovacar can be
> > blamed for the final blow to the Western Empire. The former Celtic
> > areas of Raetia and Noricum had been well and truly "Romanised" by
> > then too....
>
> After the defeat of Vercingetorix, Julius Caesar effectively destroyed
> the Gauls with savage repression and ethnic cleansing.

I think "destroyed" is a bit too strong a word for it - that he tried
to, is true enough. A Celtic tribe, called the "Amoricans" (No they
were not yanks), had revolted in northern part of Gaul. That tribe was
located across the channel from Britain and were quickly joined by
several other tribes in the area. Including the seagoing "Veneti", who
were allied with tribes in the southern portions of Britain.

Eventually Caesar did "pacify" the Celts in Britain about 42 BCE- but
ultimately this conquest caused more problems. It had released the
Germanic tribes to cause trouble, the Celts had kept in check
previously. For instance, Ariovistus the Suebiin chief wo crossed the
Rhine in 58 AD and acted as a "protector" to the Gaulic Celts who
aided him in the war against the Romans - 9 CE Arminius massacred the
Roman Legions commanded by Varus in the Teutoburg Forest,
north-western Germany. The northern Roman Armies were now fighting a
war on two fronts.

The Romans stories of the Celts, tell of two tribes that were
particularly fierce. One was in Scythia, and the other was in Hibernia
(Ireland). The Celtic tribes were scattered all over the place. For
instance in Illyricum, the Breuci tribe were settled on the Save river
in northern Bosnia who revolted against the Roman rule - the Scordisci
tribe settled the area of northern Serbia where the Save and Drave
rivers meet. It is thought they migrated there from the Scordus
mountain range in western Macedonia. Tiberius fought against a number
of various tribes, including Celtic tribes around 9 -> 6 BCE in
Illyricum and Dalmatia (Suetonius 12 Caesars).

But there were constant little uprisings in Gaul - eg the "Bacaudae"
rebellions in Northern Gaul of 286->7 AD, Amandus and Aelianus are
said to have been two of their leaders - E.M. Wightman (Gallia
Belgica) believes they were local Gallic landowners who fought the
Romans...... the "Bacaudae" reappear again in the 5th century in a
battle for control of parts of Gaul and the Ebro valley....


> I understand that Odovacer ( Odacer in Gibbon) was the Gothic King who
> ruled Rome after the collapse of the Western Empire.

He is variously reported as a "barbarian", Germanic and Gothic, and
all are probably true.

> Gibbon also wrote that he nominally acted as vice-regent to the Emperor
> in Constantinople.

According to the Byzantine historian Malchus, the last Western
Emperor, Romulus, dispatched a "letter of resignation" to the eastern
emperor Zeno, and returning the imperial regalia of office, saying the
empire now needed only a single emperor, in Constantinople.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Celtic Origins
    ... Still the Celts were ... > were allied with tribes in the southern portions of Britain. ... > Roman Legions commanded by Varus in the Teutoburg Forest, ... > north-western Germany. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Celtic Origins
    ... Still the Celts were ... had revolted in northern part of Gaul. ... > were allied with tribes in the southern portions of Britain. ... > Roman Legions commanded by Varus in the Teutoburg Forest, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Empires and Barbarians
    ... So migration was sometimes closer organised invasion for ... Heather writes well, too, so I recommend his book. ... I suppose it would depend on which Germanic tribes you think were ... we'd have to look at the Roman view of the "vagina gentis". ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Empires and Barbarians
    ... So migration was sometimes closer organised invasion for ... Heather writes well, too, so I recommend his book. ... I suppose it would depend on which Germanic tribes you think were ... we'd have to look at the Roman view of the "vagina gentis". ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Empires and Barbarians
    ... So migration was sometimes closer organised invasion ... Heather writes well, too, so I recommend his book. ... I suppose it would depend on which Germanic tribes you think were ... we'd have to look at the Roman view of the "vagina gentis". ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
Loading