Celts had the biggest empire in Europe. Better than Roma.
Why does it never get talked about? Matter of fact why are celts so lost in history and never talked about when they are the true Europeans and the ones who civilised Europe before Roma? They invented Art.
Anglo saxon hygiene:
>As with the Elizabethans, the anglo-Saxons didn't really believe in washing their bodies much. In fact, monks were said to have a maximum of five baths a year, and that was considered to be overdoing it. It appears that at least one commentator of the time may have cottoned on to something when he observed that the Danish habit of bathing and combing the hair every Saturday seemed to score the Danish men points with the women.
>Celts probably even washed their hands in the mornings with their tallow soaps and as they bathed. Given how embedded their cultural hygiene practices were, their hand-washing rates may have far exceeded today’s rates in the United States, which fall below 50% for many groups. Ahem, citizens of the United States. Are you going to let the ancient Celts out-do you in hygiene?
>In spite of the soup-straining facial hair, however, the Celts were very much into shaving, which kept away pestilent vermin, and even had nail clippers to keep their fingernail growth in check.
>a Celtic warrior had to bathe before a meal or before battle.
>But for many ancient Celts, hygiene was an important part of their culture. Did you know that they often get credit for having invented soap, or at least for passing it off to the Romans?
More civilised than Romans.
Okay they didn't invent it but they were the first Europeans to be doing sophisticated art. Everyone started copying them, see the vikings copying celtic art.
Hallstats were most definitely an empire, so were gauls.
They had chieftans.
Hochdorf for example
If you want to learn more read:
>Why does it never get talked about?
They didn't have written language, and their entire history was memorized. They were actually noted for having excellent memory.
>hurr they were just a culture
Bullshit, I'll wager there was a lot more cohesion than you give them. Especially in the beginning of their rise.
you're fucking retarded
You think illiterate people don't know how to talk?
>hey didn't have written language
Again, nice strawman.
They clearly had the ability to write if they had a written language. Show me proof they can't write, mine is they had their own written language.
They weren't tribal. They were civilised. Washed everyday with soap, had organised trade, communications, had cities.
Because it pales in comparison to the empire before it.
So you don't know what "tribal" means too.
Fun fact: The ancient Israelites were civilized. They had organized trade and cities, built a pretty nice temple, wrote a series of books that wound up influencing the world a lot.
Despite this, they were a tribal society.
>The Proto-Celtic language, also called Common Celtic, is the reconstructed ancestor language
>While Continental Celtic presents much substantiation for its phonology, and some for morphology, recorded material is too scanty [!!!] to allow a secure reconstruction of syntax. Although some complete sentences are recorded in Gaulish and Celtiberian, the oldest substantial Celtic literature is found in Old Irish [6th century AD], the earliest recorded of the Insular Celtic languages.
>They weren't tribal. They were civilised.
You're hopelessly confused about what any of the words you're using mean, aren't you?
Empire, tribal, civilized etc.
1) They were not. Semi-nomadic at the very most, but there's also quite a bit of evidence of agriculturalism, which you know, isn't exactly nomadic.
2) The two are not mutually exclusive. A lot of Amerindians were both tribal and nomadic.
"Tribal" refers to a system of social organization you nitwit.
Tribal structure aside, most of their progress did occur under Solomon's united monarchy or much later in the Judean periods, so basically when they were ruled by something resembling a unitary state rather than tribal confederations.
>I'll wager there was a lot more cohesion than you give them.
Sick argument, m8. Look, all I'm arguing is that they preserved early Indo-European practices of sending younger high-status men out to conquer their own domains. This would put them firmly in line with the other relatively low-admixture early IE peoples, like Germanics, Balts, Slavs, Tocharians, etc.
>>hey didn't have written language
>Again, nice strawman.
>They clearly had the ability to write if they had a written language. Show me proof they can't write, mine is they had their own written language.
Not him but the article you linked is to the language and says nothing about orthography/ writing.
Having language (i.e., basically all humans) does NOT imply having writing (i.e., only certain civilizations who developed a writing system).
The letters you're looking at on the Wikipedia article are not from a Proto-Celtic writing system. They are using phonetic symbols of mainly the Latin alphabet to represent the sounds of the Proto-Celtic language.
>if we know what the sounds were then that knowledge must come from their actual writings, therefore the Celts had writing
No dawg, look up language reconstruction.
You have not (yet) shown that they had writing or "their own written language."
They're not arguing that all celts were illiterate, they're arguing that the celts didnt have their own written language.
And they're correct, there is no universal celtic written language, though there are local examples of different ones;
Further confusing the issue is that these examples are considered to be non-indo european in origin and so invite debate as to whether they are celtic, or were adapted from the previous inhabitants.
So they borrowed scripts from the two preeminent civilizations of the period, for epigraphs?
That doesn't demonstrate that they had writing. It demonstrates that they were taught how to use the Latin and Greek scripts, by Latins and Greeks.
OP is also assuming all Celts spoke the same language, and that those inscriptions are thus representative of all Celtic peoples and all Celtic languages/dialects.
On top of that, Proto-Celtic (which is what OP linked to) is extremely old in comparison to what would have been spoken in the 700-100 BC range of the OP.
This is a good post. Except that both those writing systems are dated to 700-1000 years after OPs 'Celtic Empire', and again demonstrate disparity within the Celtic culture/linguistic group that suggests there was no wider unity among them.
I'm either misreading that argument or find it really weird.
E.g. Pre-Alexandrian Greeks didn't have a common written language either but clearly we aren't disputing the existence of Greek dialects that used closely related versions of the Greek alphabet?
How's that different from the existence of Celtic epigraphy in various areas, written in various alphabets? Only in intensity but not every Greek region was Athens with its high (for the time) literacy, either. Hell even most areas in the ancient Near East cut a bad figure compared to Athenian literacy.
And the Latin alphabet was directly based on the Greek with few changes (even fewer than Phoenician -> Greek) so the Romans didn't have writing?
No, of course Celtic wasn't a single "language" and of course there was no "Celtic unity", let alone a "Celtic empire" (no one took that seriously) but the existence of dialects with common features that were written down isn't in dispute.
The greeks shared a single alphabet. It had minor differences, but they would be similar to comparing British and American english. Different word choices and spellings. Most dialects were intelligible to other speakers.
The difference with Celtic is that for one thing, Celtic scripts and records are much much older than Greek or Latin. Which is important to the topic of this thread, which is an imaginary Celtic Empire and writing system.
Some Celtic tribes did adopt writing, but they didn't develop it independently, and if they did it was very late.
Latin and Greek comparison is retarded, because no Classicist is going to tell you that Latin society was autochthonic or developed their own writing system. Latin culture and writing are heavily influenced by, based upon, and intertwined with their that of their Greek neighbours.
It is perfectly valid to say the Celts and Germanics achieved the status of being civilized, but it was a direct result of Latin/Roman influence. Just like Greek and Etruscan influence led to Latin/Roman civilization.
I think /his/ in particular doesn't like to hear the truth about the Celts because they so easily demolished Rome, Greece was afraid of them and were the first conquerors. /his/ is a bunch of Romephiles.
Nigga I'm an eastboo and hates the Romaboos on here, but even I can tell you are full of shit.
OP screams of this one Gothic girl that claimed Celts had more rights for women than any part of the pre-modern world.
hallstats weren't even a people. do you mean helvetii? definitely not an empire
and gauls were never an empire. different confederations of tribes, sure, but no empire
but yeah continental celts were sw33t
It's funny how people think, because the Celts used Latin and Greek script that therefore they had none of their own. Alot of Germans speak and write English because it is so widespread. Why would Celts have their own script when they can just use Latin and Greek and it's more universal?
right. and the celts didnt have great administration to invent writing systems. the norse futhark runes were based on the latin alphabet too. i don't think it's a great insult to note how they didn't create their own writing system. not many writing systems have been created from scratch throughout history
They didn't speak a Celtic language, which is usually the primary standard by which we determine who is and who is not Celtic. Lusitanian was an Indo-European language, usually being identified as pre-Celtic and occasionally as "para-Celtic," but not Celtic.