Third XP: Yay or Nay?

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, the argument is weak. As I already said, they're not in my top ~30 of big civs, if it were entirely up to me there would be no Celtic civ in the game (if you're right about anything it's that that spot would be much better filled by Srivijaya or Monomotapa). However, given the choice between a La Tene civ and a medival British civ I feel that the La Tene Celts are a much better choice for the reasons I cited. Of course the reasoning is going to be weak, it's gonna be based on BS arguments either way, it's a BS civ.

OK, it's good you're honest about that. As you know, I think more non-Western "civilizations" should be added before the addition of new Western civs. Putting, say, the Gaels and Lithuanians on my list (which I warned people of btw ) was very much a concession to my own taste (as you'll see I stressed at the time). I mean, given my deep interest in both cultures, if I'm not going to suggest them, then who will? Given a choice between the ancient Gauls/Britons and a medieval Celtic civ, I'd very much go for the latter. This is my taste. Now I could probably put a good series of arguments that convinced me and others who already share my taste that they're a better choice (I could prolly make a better case that they're a better addition to Civ 4 for world map, butterfly and longevity reasons), but ultimately no such arguments will or can appeal to pure objectivity. You were the one doing the city list, and in a position to influence the choice of leaders. C'est la vie.

Originally posted by Locutus

What do you think the role of the Khmer is?

Representing the Khmer! Or at least Indo-China (defined in the colonialist French way). If there's a consensus in the civ community that only one civ from "South-East Asia" should be added ... it's a huge, populous area with a long history of great civilizations ... then there's nothing I can do about it. To appeal to civer logic though, there is a huge area to the south of Indo-China, all those islands, currently unrepresented. I think Srivijaya is a very reasonable request by most sets of reasoning forwarded to govern the addition of civs.

Originally posted by Locutus
There's a wide variety of reasons why this isn't true. I'm not gonna defend yet another bad choice by Firaxis, but to address the points you mention the Native Americans represent Canada also so Siberia is not bigger at all (far from it) and it would be very conservative to say that the more advanced cultures of North America were at least as advanced as any native Siberian tribe (Iroquois, Pueblo people, Mississippi and other mound builders, etc). But of course the only reason the Native Americans were really included was for PR, so there's hardly a point in arguing about this.

Depends what Siberian culture you were talking about. Not all Siberians lived in caves and spent their lives chasing wolves and reindeer. Some in the far West had towns and most medieval technology by the time the Russians started to invade in the reign of Ivan the Terrible. One usually means by "Native Americans" native peoples from within the boundaries of the United States (excluding Hawaii and Alaska), hence the term (and its variations) "Native Americans and Alaskan Natives". But if it does include Canada - I presume you've seen the city-list - then I totally concede the point. I also concede Native Americans are a better inclusion if you include the Anasazi and such like, though in my mind the civilization in question is very much focussed on Plains Indians. But I hope you'll admit that the reason Native Americans (or a culturally realistic subsection) will always be included in Civ games, but Siberians never even considered, is that most Westerners don't even know Siberia has natives.

Originally posted by Locutus But of course the only reason the Native Americans were really included was for PR, so there's hardly a point in arguing about this.

Well, personally speaking, I'm very happy with their inclusion in the game.

Originally posted by Locutus
I never said they had an influence on anyone, which I definitely would never say either. But I wouldn't say that the Uighurs or Sogdians had a significant impact on China either, that's just as much of a stretch.

I dunno, the Uighurs created one of the largest Empires in early medieval history, and were the dominant foreign power in China for a good century or so. The Sogdians too were the greatest Eurasian trading people from classical period until the Arab invasions. There were thousands of them in China. Chinese society was significantly affected in the late antique and Tang period by foreigners, including the introduction of foreign religions (such as Buddhism) and foreign products (e.g. glass). Chinese civilization was the greatest civilization in the pre-modern world, and I think having an impact on medieval China is a good argument for taking certain civilizations seriously (not that that would ever be the only reason for including any civ). I find it very difficult to see how the Carthaginians can be regarded as more important that the Uighurs or Sogdians.

Originally posted by Locutus
No, I agree. Celt is a very bad term to describe any post-Roman British person, since most people will think you're talking about the same people as the La Tene/Hallstatt Celts

Maybe in Holland everyone knows about the La Tene/Hallstatt Celts, but in every society I've ever lived in, 99 % of people have never heard of them. I guarantee you, even if it's not for the best of historical reasons, most people will think of the Irish when they think of Celts ... in the English-speaking world and its dependencies (for popular knowledge of Western History) at least.

Regarding the term Celt (again), it's a bad term for even the civilization currently included. It's not good IMHO for any civilization to be called Celts; either Gauls, Britons or Gaels. But if you use the word "Celts", then it implies you're speaking of all speakers of Celtic languages, hence why the first thing (or one of the first) you'll hear people say if you suggest an Irish, Welsh or Scottish civ is "the Celts are already included".

Originally posted by Locutus
The word Celts to refer to the ancient Celts has continuously and fairly consistently been in use since at least the 5th century BC. No, they weren't a terribly unified people and there are problems with it, but the same is truy of many other names. To refer to the medieval/modern people of Britain as Celts is a modern concept that was devised specifically and quite misleadingly to create a link between these modern people and the ancient Celts.

The word "Celt" is a term of Greek origin, and not used that much at all until the early modern period outside that language (even got replaced by the Latin term, probably of Celtic origin, in Greek itself). The people who the Greeks called Keltoi were called by the Latins Galli. And in fact when common "Celticness" is discussed in the later middle ages, the terms first used are derived from the Latin word (Greek words got a coolness factor later). It was observed that the people of Wales spoke a similar language and had a culture similar to those in Ireland and Scotland (see examples I gave in previous posts), but you are correct that this wasn't styled Celticness or thought of with any similar abstraction, just seen in terms of being of as "pre-English" in origin. As far as I know, the Celts of the island of Britain in the Roman period (the Britons) are hardly ever called Galli or Keltoi if at all; true, they were "like the Gauls", just as the Scots and Irish were like the Welsh. But in the game, Boudica is a leader of the "Celts". Boudica is a Briton; the contemporary terminology (since you take that - rightly - to be important) puts Boudica in the same cultural and ethnic group as the medieval Welsh, not the Gauls. Hence besides using a word which in modern English refers to speakers of all Celtic language, the game is using the term "Celt" in a similar if not the same way. Your perspective makes the "Celts" a bad addition as a civ, it does not make grouping all ancient Celts more legitimate than grouping all medieval Celts, or both. You either divide them in the way supported by sources, Galli, Britones (adding later Scoti and Picti as they come into the records after the 3rd cent.), or you use the term in the modern way. The middle line you're taking is unsustainable.

Originally posted by Locutus
As I've pointed out, it's jingoistic propaganda.

"Pointing something out", more accurately, alleging something without support, does not make it true.

Originally posted by Locutus
If you want to find a name to describe the medieval 'Celts' that's perfectly fine, but find one based on history, not on fairy tales (I've suggested Gaels, it still has its problems in that it doesn't include Welsh but is much better than Celts which doesn't cover anyone; the term British itself isn't too bad either TBH).

OK, this is basic terminology which you really ought not to be getting wrong. A "Gael" is a speaker of the Gaelic language (now languages); calling a Welsh person a "Gael" is inaccurate and has not at any point in history been accurate, since they are Brythonic speakers not Goidelic speakers (these languages were not in the middle ages, nor in the modern era, mutually comprehenisible, even to the extent that Dutch and High German are). Grouping the two under that term makes no more sense than calling Bulgarians and Poles collectively "Poles". The Britons or Britsh are the Welsh people. "Welsh" comes from a Germanic word meaning "outsider" or "foreigner" (of which Walloon shares etymology), and was used in Old English (along with Bret) to described the native Britons who the English were subduing. A Gaelic speaker in Old English was a "Scot" (Scottas). No-one except the English called the Welsh anything but Britones until the 12th century, and "Britons" is still a commonly used word for them until THE 17TH CENTURY, when it began to be employed for "propaganda" reasons to promote unity between the peoples of the island. The Welsh, Scots and Irish were never a common people except to modern linguists and historians seeking usable terminology; but the word everyone today except you uses for them is "Celts", the same word they invented to unite all the ancient speakers of Celtic languages. It is an accurate linguistic term, and so far as language implies a common origin, usable to a certain degree in other senses; but it should not be overused, and it should be remembered that it meant nothing to either ancient or medieval Celtic speakers in their entirety.

Originally posted by Locutus

You would be very wrong there. Ignoring people who disagree with you doesn't make them go away, you know. Well, maybe it does for you, but you're not convincing anyone else.

This was a response, everyone, to "No salaried Celticist or linguist in the world argues that the Gauls or the Atlantic Celts don't share a language group (one comparable with the Germanic or Slavic family)."

Locutus, if you can find any serious salaried scholar who says that the Atlantic Celts and ancient Gauls did not/do not share the same language group, I will personally dance on my head while reading Martian poetry.

Have a good one.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
No, but you are a Westerner; your own idea of "importance" is very much shaped by that; not to mention you need to have heard of them to recommend them.

Of the 12 civs I recommended to Firaxis 3 were European, and the ones that they went with (Dutch and Portuguese) were at the very bottom of my list. You're making completely unfounded assumptions.

Eurocentric. Mongolia is not really central Asia, and Sogdia is almost as close to Egypt as to Mongolia.

Ever heard of the Chagatai? Timurid? Moghul?

The Khmer represent Srivijaya not more than the Russians represent Germany. I mean seriously ... apply those kind of standards to Europe and you'll end up with only one or two civs there.

Either way, as I said there isn't enough room in Civ to include hundreds of civilizations, so yes, some civs end up representing entire regions, especially if these regions had few obviously good civs to choose from. Mongolia represents Central Asia, the Khmer SE Asia. If you'd argue that the Uighur or Sogdians would be as good a choice of civ as Germany or France you're view of history is the polar opposite of Eurocentric, which is just as bad. Last time I checked there were no (significant numbers of) people in Africa or America speaking Uighur or Sogdian...

Well, my two degress in history have kept me busy enough in the past, as my Ph. D. keeps me busy now. I'm not British, nor Scottish really for that matters, though I live now and study in Scotland. And I've travelled the world plenty, for all that matters. I just don't using supreme technological power derived being part of greater European civilization, then taking over some stone-age brown people armed only with melons and mangos is an impressive civilizational achievement. International history is so much deeper than a few transient colonial Empires. Yes the Dutch controlled Indonesia for a little while, but if that's what gets them in the game, surely a native Indonesian civilization would be more worthy. Still, one has to cater to various tastes; the Dutch are there and I accept it. But don't expect me to buy any "importance" arguments you throw at me if I don't agree with the reasoning.

It's clear to me you are not at all familiar with the colonial era and the impact that has had on the world. That's fine, as we've both pointed out one person can never know more than a tiny fraction of all of human history, but for someone who keeps accusing me of not knowing enough about most of history and having the wrong priorities of what's important that's pretty rich.

I know a fair deal about European history, about Asian and African history, about ancient history, about the medieval era, about colonial and modern history, etc. My knowledge of any of these topics obviously isn't nearly as deep as your knowledge of the medieval 'Celts' and probably a couple of other areas of history that you've studied, but my knowledge is very broad.

If ones knowledge is very specialised one is in no position to judge how ones particular area of expertise compares to other topics. If ones knowledge of history is very generalised one is in a better position to compare how one area compares to another, but of course one suffers from the problem that one lacks the depth of knowledge to make a truly comprehensive argument. We both have to know the limitations of our knowledge, and you seem in no position to judge any of the colonial civs in the game, you only seem familiar with early medieval Europe where indeed you could make a good argument that one or two civs would be sufficient to represent the entire continent. A thousand years have passed since then though and a lot has happened in that time. Especially in the context of Civilization, since a disproportionately large portion of the game takes place in those last 1000 years.

We have plenty of primary sources, your claim simply isn't true (I recommend Koch and Carey's Celtic Heroic Age which contains a good range of them).

I obviously haven't read that but judging from what I can find about it it discusses 3 topics: classic (Roman and Greek) literature, the Ulster cycle (preserved from a 12th century work, first written down about 200 years earlier) and Brittonic sources, which are early medieval works. These are all either Roman/Greek or medieval British sources. If I didn't know better I'd ask you if you even knew what a primary source is... the earliest of the British works is 500 years too young to qualify.

If you think you do, why don't you put forward the names of some historians and linguists who back you up (I already know btw you won't be able to give any ).

How about John Collis? "Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions"? Or Stephen Oppenheimer ("The Origins of the British,")? Simon James ("The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention")? Or Bryan Sykes ("Blood of the Isles") or Malcolm Chapman ("The Celts: The Construction of a Myth")? I've obviously not read all of their works but I'm not making this sh*t up as I go along, my views are based on a wide body of scientific work with which I'm sufficiently familiar.

Would they?

Yes, check out just about any fan-made Celtic mod for any of the Civ games. Virtually all of them have the likes of Vercingetorix or Brennus as leader but modern and medieval British cities in their city list. Pretty much all of them are a mixture between the classic Celts and the modern British. People with Scottish/Irish/Welsh background (whether they were born in Britain themselves or their ancestors were) love nothing more than to associate themselves with an ancient culture without there being any basis to believe this -- I've said it several times before and I'll say it again: nationalistic fairy tales.

But again, I'm not getting into this discussion, this will be my last post on the topic (feel free to retort, but I shall leave it at that).

Sources for the Celts are pretty good in fact, in comparative terms, both ancient and medieval. The amount of information in JUlius Caesar, for instance, is virtually unheard of for any native European people (Tacitus' account of your own ancestors, the ancient Germans, doesn't compare) and for instance, a study by Posidonius, mostly non-extant today, was used by many later historians and provides a great deal of information about Gaulish society. We really can say quite a bit about the ancient Celts.

Yes, I've read these. I've studied De Bello Gallico particularly closely in fact (both when I first took Latin lessons like so many other students of the language and later in life), which I have to say is a particularly humourous work of fiction. Excellent propagandist, Caesar was, he clearly knew what he was doing and how to appeal to the imagination of the average Roman rather than the well-educated senators and other equites at which most of the Roman literature is aimed -- but writing a work of history for future generations was not what he was doing. Yes, of course there's some knowledge to be gleaned from it, but it's a far cry from being an authoritative source on Celtic society.

You have some serious issues with your prejudice about this subject. This is prolly as a result of getting most of your experience of historical debate on computer game forums. Not a good standard may I venture. I suggest very strongly you take a serious academic course or do some serious reading before you go on spouting off to people who're going to take your views seriously.

Again with the unfounded assumptions. I've enjoyed plenty of academic education and discourse, thank you very much. But I don't parade my PhDs around as evidence that my authority should not be questioned, that's rather poor form.

[guermantes]

@Locutus and Niall

Do you get salary based on how much you debate on Apolyton? Nothing about the content of the discussion, but I am just amazed you have this much time...

[Robert]

Locutus: Still, if you really wanted to, there are IMO three MAJOR civs missing from the game: Assyria, Nubia and Phoenicia

I also think that the Hebrew civilization is among the MAJOR civilization. The jews had a big impact on the world, the civilization that gave birth to the 3 major monotheistic religions. The cultural impact of the Jewish people is huge. Not to mention the general impact on the western civilization or their political impact on the 20th and 21th century.

[Will9]

Originally posted by CyberShy

I also think that the Hebrew civilization is among the MAJOR civilization. The jews had a big impact on the world, the civilization that gave birth to the 3 major monotheistic religions. The cultural impact of the Jewish people is huge. Not to mention the general impact on the western civilization or their political impact on the 20th and 21th century.

One of the biggest reasons why the Hebrews should get in is they were the greatest underdogs of the ancient world. It seemed that no matter how many times one of the great powers conquered them, they'd always reform.

[Alexander I]

I agree with CyberShy and Will9 here.
The Hebrews' global impact is extensive. Their culture has persisted in one form or another down to the modern day, and the religions they gave birth to currently dominate the globe.

I mean, who would have thought that the Roman Empire would convert to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, a carpenter from Judea, the most obscure province in the empire?

To an extent, the western world is still Jerusalem-centric; many of our conflicts and controversies are centered around the "Holy Land." That's why America favors Israel over Palestine, IMHO.

[wodan11]

I think part of the problem with the Hebrews is the lack of distinction in the game between a nation and a culture. They are treated as the same thing. Thus, for a culture which historically has been more of a nation "in exile", it's more difficult for the game to rationalize it.

Wodan

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by wodan11
I think part of the problem with the Hebrews is the lack of distinction in the game between a nation and a culture. They are treated as the same thing. Thus, for a culture which historically has been more of a nation "in exile", it's more difficult for the game to rationalize it.

Wodan

Well, the Celts, Zulus, and Native Americans are in basically because of popular demand and because people are familiar with them.

I think the majority of the western world is familiar in some way with the history of the Hebrews. In fact, their history is given a disproportionate amount of attention, if once goes by the "Civ" standard.

Just the sheer fact that everybody is so familiar with their history should say something about their impact on the world. That's longevity. The Srivijaya were great in their time and were forgotten. The Hebrews were small, even during their attempts at empire under David and Solomon, yet they are still talked about and debated in every corner of the west.

[DrSpike]

This thread makes me miss the Adolf Hitler threads.

[Brutus66]

It's better than what the fact sheet has become (but not by much).
Come on, Pinchak, we're counting on you to create a thread that will relieve the tedium while we count down to the BtS release date.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Well, the Celts, Zulus, and Native Americans are in basically because of popular demand and because people are familiar with them.

I think the majority of the western world is familiar in some way with the history of the Hebrews. In fact, their history is given a disproportionate amount of attention, if once goes by the "Civ" standard.

Just the sheer fact that everybody is so familiar with their history should say something about their impact on the world. That's longevity. The Srivijaya were great in their time and were forgotten. The Hebrews were small, even during their attempts at empire under David and Solomon, yet they are still talked about and debated in every corner of the west.

That's all fine, and actually I agree with what you say, but that doesn't really have anything to do with my point.

Honestly I would prefer the Hebrews over the Native Americans. There are just too many logical inconsistencies about the latter. OTOH the Zulu and Celts don't bother me.

Wodan

[Niall Becc]

Locutus, please pardon me for being away so long. I got busy and then forgot about this. But better late than never, eh?

Originally posted by Locutus


Of the 12 civs I recommended to Firaxis 3 were European, and the ones that they went with (Dutch and Portuguese) were at the very bottom of my list. You're making completely unfounded assumptions.

My "assumptions" are based on what you have said in this thread. The non-European ones you have been suggesting in this thread (the Moors, Assyrians, Israel, Nubians) all get their importance from having a role in the popular canon of European Universal history ... which is what I mean by "Eurocentric".

Originally posted by Locutus

Ever heard of the Chagatai? Timurid? Moghul?

Arguably the last two are better described as "Turkic" than Mongolian. This argument, btw, would be an argument for getting rid of the Persians because Alexander and the Macedonians/Greeks are in the game, getting rid of the French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc, because the Romans are in the game. I could go on.

I would not oppose BTW the addition of a generic Turkic civ for central Asia (though I don't know if I would advocate it), but this would prolly confuse people because the Ottoman Turkicized Anatolians are in the game.

Originally posted by Locutus

Either way, as I said there isn't enough room in Civ to include hundreds of civilizations, so yes, some civs end up representing entire regions, especially if these regions had few obviously good civs to choose from. Mongolia represents Central Asia, the Khmer SE Asia.

Who said there was? And why do we need hundreds of civs to represent areas as civilized, important and populous as Central Asia and South-East Asia. One civ for Indo-China, maybe; not necessarily for "south-east Asia". One civ at least for central Asia could hardly bring anything away from the game.

Originally posted by Locutus
If you'd argue that the Uighur or Sogdians would be as good a choice of civ as Germany or France you're view of history is the polar opposite of Eurocentric, which is just as bad.

But you know I've not been arguing that. This seems to be disingenous.

Originally posted by Locutus
It's clear to me you are not at all familiar with the colonial era and the impact that has had on the world. That's fine, as we've both pointed out one person can never know more than a tiny fraction of all of human history, but for someone who keeps accusing me of not knowing enough about most of history and having the wrong priorities of what's important that's pretty rich.

How do you know what I know? We've not even discussed colonial empires. As it happens, I'm quite decently read in a few of them.

Originally posted by Locutus

If ones knowledge is very specialised one is in no position to judge how ones particular area of expertise compares to other topics. If ones knowledge of history is very generalised one is in a better position to compare how one area compares to another, but of course one suffers from the problem that one lacks the depth of knowledge to make a truly comprehensive argument. We both have to know the limitations of our knowledge, and you seem in no position to judge any of the colonial civs in the game, you only seem familiar with early medieval Europe where indeed you could make a good argument that one or two civs would be sufficient to represent the entire continent. A thousand years have passed since then though and a lot has happened in that time. Especially in the context of Civilization, since a disproportionately large portion of the game takes place in those last 1000 years.

Depth of knowledge doesn't necessarily come at the expense of breadth. Anyone in any profession knows that you have to specialize at some stage in order to be of any use to anyone. Please remember, the ancient and medieval eras constitute the vast majority of the historical period in the Old World. To me, prioritizing some modern western European states (let alone calling them "civilizations") because they used their access to a common European technological advantage in order to transiently subjugate (often only nominally) a few much less advanced areas is distortion when it comes at the expense of greater, more distinctive and longer lasting states/cultures. But let's be clear, this argument is made in the context of civs like the Netherlands and Portugal being in already; I'm not advocating their removal. But when civs like this are in the game, or ones like Carthage, it's difficult to accept those arguments for Srivijaya (or even Sailendra), Sogdia, etc, not being in the game. The reason the latter are not in the game is frankly because they have not yet being granted a de facto place in the European/Western popular historical canon; this will I'm pretty confident change in time as the continued globalization of this canon (of which Civ 4 is a part) broadens its sophistication.

Originally posted by Locutus
I obviously haven't read that but judging from what I can find about it it discusses 3 topics: classic (Roman and Greek) literature, the Ulster cycle (preserved from a 12th century work, first written down about 200 years earlier) and Brittonic sources, which are early medieval works. These are all either Roman/Greek or medieval British sources. If I didn't know better I'd ask you if you even knew what a primary source is... the earliest of the British works is 500 years too young to qualify.

I mentioned that book to you because it has some of those native Gaulish texts (mainly inscriptions) printed in both the original and English, and is popular (I believe it is in its fourth or fifth edition now).

Originally posted by Locutus If I didn't know better I'd ask you if you even knew what a primary source is... the earliest of the British works is 500 years too young to qualify.

Please now ...

Originally posted by Locutus
How about John Collis? "Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions"? Or Stephen Oppenheimer ("The Origins of the British,")? Simon James ("The Atlantic Celts - Ancient People or Modern Invention")? Or Bryan Sykes ("Blood of the Isles") or Malcolm Chapman ("The Celts: The Construction of a Myth")? I've obviously not read all of their works but I'm not making this sh*t up as I go along, my views are based on a wide body of scientific work with which I'm sufficiently familiar.

You are misunderstanding them my friend. They are not arguing what you are claiming (i.e. that the Celtic language family does not exist), but putting exaggerated emphasis on the fact that the term "Celt" is a made up term (similar books ought to come out on the "Byzantines", "Slavs", "Teutons", etc, in order to balance this). The latter of course is widely understood by every serious scholar. It's only in popular history that the term "Celt" gets the spurious understanding that you are so hostile to.

Regarding this hostility, please bare in mind, this was the product of genuine attempts of early modern/late medieval scholars to undertand the origins of certain European peoples. It was hijacked by Romanticists and others in the age when language became the be and end all of history (I'm sure you are well aware of other manifestations of this in "Germanic" central Europe in the same period). I should also point out to you that the people who hijacked it were just as much (probably more so) "racist" Anglo-Saxon Teutonists who denigrated the Celtic-speaking peoples of their own time, as they were romantic Celtic nationalists. Of the latter, only the Irish really pushed that point of view into the 20th century.

Originally posted by Locutus


Yes, check out just about any fan-made Celtic mod for any of the Civ games. Virtually all of them have the likes of Vercingetorix or Brennus as leader but modern and medieval British cities in their city list. Pretty much all of them are a mixture between the classic Celts and the modern British.

I don't recall any Celt mods for Civ 4 (I didn't get into that game until after Warlords), but from Civ 3, I remember "Brian Boru" and King Arthur being the most suggested leaders.

Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, check out just about any fan-made Celtic mod for any of the Civ games. Virtually all of them have the likes of Vercingetorix or Brennus as leader but modern and medieval British cities in their city list. Pretty much all of them are a mixture between the classic Celts and the modern British. People with Scottish/Irish/Welsh background (whether they were born in Britain themselves or their ancestors were) love nothing more than to associate themselves with an ancient culture without there being any basis to believe this -- I've said it several times before and I'll say it again: nationalistic fairy tales.

Well, firstly, it's not quite a fairy tale, it's fossilized historical understandings from the pre-late 20th Century scholarship which has to some extent stayed in the popular mind (which is the case with most popular history). Secondly, I don't think nationalists from the "Celtic fringe" of the British Isles (which is no longer linguistically "Celtic") are particular perpetrators of it. At most, if questioned they claim they come from the people who were there in the middle ages and before, who just happened to speak Celtic languages; not unreasonable, and they demonstrably do. I'd say it's more North Americans and others from other countries who are more likely to make the association with ancient Gauls. That being said, the Irish are often bad with it, because of the way their historical consciousness and education system worked into the mid-20th century. I met an Irish woman in Turkey who told me that the "Irish once conquered Turkey"; I didn't think it worth my while to point out to her that the people she was talking about were not Irish.

Originally posted by Locutus
Yes, I've read these. I've studied De Bello Gallico particularly closely in fact (both when I first took Latin lessons like so many other students of the language and later in life), which I have to say is a particularly humourous work of fiction.

De Bello Gallico is certainly not a "work of fiction". It has some problems like any historical source, but much of the ethnographic material (even ignoring the political and military stuff) is simply wonderful. Used with care, it can be and is used by all historians of the era and topic.

Originally posted by Locutus

Again with the unfounded assumptions. I've enjoyed plenty of academic education and discourse, thank you very much. But I don't parade my PhDs around as evidence that my authority should not be questioned, that's rather poor form.

I'm very glad for you. But who's "parading" their Ph.Ds?

[Blaupanzer]

Niall, you did point out your degrees as a basis for authority. I'm not sure the response by Locutus was fair, but most of us don't use our degrees as a basis for our discussions here. I also have a Masters in history, but the basis of one's thesis and/or dissertation is more useful to our authority. After all "History" is a pretty wide field.

I do have to agree that most of who are not scholars in the particular field do think of the Celts as the Irish and the Highlanders (most of whom originated in Ireland and invaded Scotland.)

[Kuciwalker]

Jesus, could you cut back on the spam just a bit?

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Niall, you did point out your degrees as a basis for authority. I'm not sure the response by Locutus was fair, but most of us don't use our degrees as a basis for our discussions here.

I had to read again to see if I even mentioned any degrees; as I remember it now, it was a response to a suggestion that I do more reading ... as in, I do quite enough reading.

And incidentally, it's perfectly fair IMHO to mention what qualifications one has as part of a discussion (which I didn't do), so long as, lacking other trust, one can verify them (which one can't here). It is nice after all to know who one is talking to. They are important, which is why people pay so much money and spend so much time doing them. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Jesus, could you cut back on the spam just a bit?

I'm not sure Jesus reads the Apolyton message boards. Go over to Civfanatics and ask Him there.