PDA

View Full Version : The Celts as Giants?



Sigrid
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 05:43 PM
Celts were purported to be the world's tallest folk and some of the fiercest, fairest - and cleanest. And their women could fight like tigers. Where on earth have these amazing warrior people all gone?

------------

Many historians confirm the great height of these wandering Celts. The ancient Greek historian Pausanias, for example, called them the world's tallest people.

Gerhard Herm, his modern counterpart, agrees. He describes them as "blond giants" who struck terror in the hearts of every foe, even in the mightiest of mighty Rome, which they fought several ferocious wars with and which they once captured, sacked, and burnt to the ground. Of course, not all Celts were giants.The average-size ones probably towered no more than a foot above ordinary men. But their ranks also contained substantial numbers who rose to a gigantic stature. At the utmost divergence from the mean, some Celts even stood to a colossal height, perhaps as tall as or taller than the nine-foot-nine Goliath, or even Og, who required a bed over thirteen feet long.

And in the words of Ammianus Marcellanus:

The voices of most of them are formidable and threatening, alike when they are good-natured or angry. But all of them with equal care keep clean and neat, and in those districts, particularly in Aquitania, no man or woman can be seen, be they never so poor, in soiled and ragged clothing, as elsewhere.

Source (http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/UK/UK3.html)

More here:

http://sacredfire.net/history.html

Ryan Kirk
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 12:30 PM
Archaelogy shows that the Celts and Germans were significantly larger then the Romans. The Romans were surviving on a primarily grain based diet and were smaller in stature then their northern neighbours who had a more meat and fat based diet.

But still, they were only percieved as being giants by the Romans because of this difference. Ancient Celts and Germans were still smaller then we are today because of a lack of nutrition and a hard life. I forget who did the study, but I think the average size of a Roman remains was around five feet or five feet one inch, while the average Celt or German was around five feet six inches to six feet.

Sigrid
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 01:22 PM
I once saw a TV documentary in the seventies on a comparison between Anglo-Saxon skeletal remains and native ones in Britain. The differences were quite staggering. The Saxons bones were longer, bigger, denser and much stronger. They were obviously far larger people and far physically stronger. They have found people of over six feet tall and and women of up to six feet in ancient gravesites and there is one case of a skeleton six feet six.

I have a definite suspicion that the politically correct left is asking us to look only at diet in terms of how tall people are. I disagree. I think there are people who are naturally tall and that this is purely genetic. It may be based on initial evolution but I believe these existed in ancient times too and were systematically wiped out in too many unnecessary wars because they made the best warriors. We paid for this folly by killing off nature's finest specimens in idiot slaughter.

Even the Chacapoya, the "warriors of the clouds" in ancient Peru, a people no one wants to investigate ethnically but who were wiped out by the Incas and named by them, were described as very tall. The rest of South Amerinds are particularly short and stocky, so who were these???? They always avoid the issue and if pressed revert to the diet theory, which I do not entirely buy, if at all in some cases.

Ryan Kirk
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 01:28 PM
There is no archaelogical evidence for a race of people averaging between 6 foot and 6 foot 6 inches. I'm sure there were isolated cases. There are always people of extremes in every area and time period. But overall our ancestors were no larger then we were and if anything they were smaller. Even over the last hundred years the height and weight of average white males has increased because of better healthcare and nutrition.

I've seen several exhibits of viking age artifacts at museums in Ottawa, Halifax, and L'Anse aux Meadows. The common thing between all three exhibits that surprised me is that the armour and weapons are small. They aren't tiny, but they are definitely smaller then what would fit a man today. All the archaelogical evidence points towards our ancestors being smaller then us, but in turn taller then the Romans. They were giants only by comparison.

Sigrid
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 02:56 PM
If you look at a medieval knight's horse you will see not some sprightly elegant riding hack but a large job that would need a large long legged man to ride it and control it. If you look at the amount of heavy metal armour and weaponry these men had to carry and wear you would need large powerful men to get the job done. There was a shield, a lance or spear, a sword, sometimes a battle axe and some sort of club. A helmet and chainmail and armour plating. The sheer heat generated inside this stuff must have been overwhelming. Hand to hand combat dressed like this once one had been wiped off one's mount required more brute strength.

The evidence that Saxons were large is defintely there. I saw the bones. They were not of isolated individuals but of the invaders on the whole in comparison to the natives. Also peasants had bad diets and were often pushed down the food chain because they lacked the physical prowess to become warriors or knights. The warriors were fewer and often wiped out. We have only the stories and legends left but as far as I am concerned where there is smoke there is fire. Gang Rolf the Norman chieftain, too large to sit a horse, would have been a very prolific progenitor and so would his knights have been. These people all over the world tried to place their genes into as much of the population as possible the same way animals do when one powerful male services many females in a herd or a powerful alpha pair breed in a pack or pride. Physical strength in those days meant might.

Some people are just smaller. Among the Africans for example you get tall thin warrior groups like the Massai, very fierce and very independent. You get gigantic powerfully built North Africans among the Ivory Coast people and the Nigerians, etc. Hence their utility as slaves. They used them not because they despised them but because they were physically perfect for the job. They treated them harshly because no one wants to be a slave and they would have escaped if not confined by chains and beaten down by the whip. Then you go down to the South of Africa and have the Zulus, very warlike, excellent fighters and very proud but much smaller and much lighter in skin tone than the Northern people. You go further and the people become almost yellow and very small and frail looking. They look like midgets in comparison with a large Northern African.

The whites of South Africa have the Boers who have a mixture of Dutch (Frisian), German and French blood. The Dutch looking ones can be easily over six foot and their women can be anything up to five foot eleven and these are not sparse examples. The Anglo-Saxons tend to be large and tall and fair. When they are not it is usually because they are not actual Anglo-Saxons. The sizes tend to be quite stable over time. Which means they were the same size as their ancestors. I had a six foot six tall Nordic uncle who had a six foot six tall son. I have a six foot ten tall female cousin and she is married to a six foot tall Englishman. They have 3 enormous sons. They had an enormous grandfather. To me that is genetics. And I believe that protein eating Northern ancestors would have been large from way back, their lifestyles of hard manual labour making them less prone to the sunken chested limp looking contraptions we are faced with in cities today, all choosing, often deliberately at the instigation of the left, the ugliest drippiest mates they can lay their hands on. And often they aren't really satisfied unless they are also of a different race. The result where I am has seen some odd looking blotchy skinned semi-Afros with orange wild hair and brown spots across their faces of various heights and looks to make them a very unpredictable type from a phenotypical point of view. There is no knowing what their kids will look like and they tend to range widely, especially if they don't go back into one or other group and stay there, washing out the sometimes disastrous effects of their enthusiasm to embrace diversity. Africans who mate with other Africans have strong offspring who grow into their heritage naturally and feel very much at home in it and feel they own it legitimately and don't have to sort of beg to belong to anything or anyone. They belong by folkright. And so they should.

I am betting that when we have somehow managed to chuck the whole filthy cartload of lefties over a cliff we will see a much different research material appearing to what we see now from this bogus horde of social engineers. At the moment much of what they say and do has a purpose that is not related to science or the advancement of knowledge but to the advancement instead of their own agenda. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact. Everything they do these days carries a politically correct tag. I used to hope this wasn't the case but I have been convinced that they are a burden to human progress. They don't even like the word "progress" any more. They think it may offend someone. They have gone mad and anyone giving them the time of day is helping them to spread their lunacy far and wide.

They are into genetics big time because this is where they are going to drive in the wedge to establish their own agenda. "We are all exactly the same in every way" is coming soon to a science and social studies textbook near you, if it hasn't already made an appearance.:mad:

Ryan Kirk
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I'm not arguing that everyone is the same in everyway. I'm simply saying that it's accepted fact that white men today compared to white men a hundred years ago are bigger and healthier, and the same goes for a thousand years back.

Children who are denied proper nutrition do not grow as tall as those who are well fed even today. Genes predispose a race to certain characteristics, but most things aren't as simple as genes alone. Most things in our world are the result of an interaction between genetics and environment. Our genes may predispose us to reaching heights of over 6 feet today, and they do. The white race is known for it's height and people still talk about the Norwegians and Anglo-Saxons as being tall etc. But they used to be shorter then they are today.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/graphics/pagecontent/AvgHeightInches.gif

A study by Else Roesdahl:

"The examination of skeletons from different localities in Scandinavia reveals that the average height of the Vikings was a little less than that of today: men were about 5 ft 7-3/4 in. tall and women 5 ft 2-1/2 in. The most extensive recent anthropological study was carried out in Denmark, but the situation must have been similar elsewhere. Skeletons of people as tall as 6 ft 1/2 in. have been found, and those in richly furnished Viking graves - belonging to high- ranking people - were on average considerably taller than those in the more ordinary graves, undoubtedly because of better living conditions."

Of course kings were taller then the norm, because they ate like kings. But the majority of ancient Germanic and Celtic cultures were not giants by todays standards as you put it earlier, only by standards of their times. And the tall warriors who sacked Rome would not have been all Kings and nobility. Ancient Germanic society was one of the yeoman, most of the armies and fighting forces would have been made up of average farmers and members of society.

Sigrid
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Yes, true. There really is no big deal about being big. Often large people are handicapped by being so tall. The average human is smaller. I would not like to see the end of tall Europeans any more than I would like to see the demise of blonds or redheads. However I believe that the mythologies of many races are based on certain fact that became folklore. For example the tiny "hobbits" of the Indonesian island discovered recently are in the folklore of the place. This little race did exist. Finding their bones helps us to imagine that the giants and elves and dwarves and the great Asa and Vans may have lived too, once when things were not what they are now and that these people may, on account of their being so unusual and perhaps few in number, made their way into legend. (Call me an optimist at best and a romantic at worst. Guilty as charged. :) )

Mathieu
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 11:35 PM
This little race did exist. Finding their bones helps us to imagine that the giants and elves and dwarves and the great Asa and Vans may have lived too, once when things were not what they are now and that these people may, on account of their being so unusual and perhaps few in number, made their way into legend. (Call me an optimist at best and a romantic at worst. Guilty as charged. :) )


There was an interesting article in a National Geographic last year (? I can't find it right now) about Titans in Greece or Anatolia. The scientists were able to reconstruct a very tall human-looking "man" by using the bones of an elephant, it could partly explain some legends about those creatures :)

Sigrid
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 06:37 AM
Mathieu, I think much still lies hidden in archaeological discoveries not yet made. Much lies in inaccessible places and much may have been buried under rocks or floodwaters or ice. The legends have these geographical factors alongside the Titans and the Elves and the Giants and Gods and strange beasts. We need bodies and artefacts and buried citadels and encampments. Since China opened up there have been astonishing discoveries. The Americans are working with Chinese archaeologists on a number of projects. It is fuelling the out of Asia regional theory and bringing to light lost civilizations in these areas. I think over the next few hundred years a sea change will occur in the way we have been thinking about a lot of things, and people. :)

I use the following site to get daily archaeological news:

http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm