PDA

View Full Version : What is the Difference Between Celtic and Germanic?



Caledonian
Monday, September 20th, 2010, 11:35 PM
What's the difference between Celtic versus Germanic?

Is there a difference?

The ancient Gauls are defined as Celtic many times but their culture always seem to resemble one that was Germanic.

I'll use that as one analogy of where I often enough get confused.

Then there is also the way how the Celts of the British isles migrated from mainland Europe in ancient times probally from a group that was very closely related to the group that later on evolved into the ancient Germans.

I would appreciate someone more knowledgeable than myself to explain this fully to me.

Wynterwade
Monday, September 20th, 2010, 11:57 PM
I was very confused the same way you were a few months ago.

Here is the shocker- the Celtics originated in southern Germany with the Hallstatt Culture around 6,000 BC. The Danube is named after the Celtic god- Danu.

Here is anouther shocker- At one point they were spread from Ukraine to Turkey to Spain to Ireland- I'm not joking.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Celts_in_Europe.png

Check out the link for more information on customs language and etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

Over time the Germanic Tribes grew and moved downward into Germany between 750 BC (Dark color) and 1AD (Yellow) .
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Germanic_tribes_(750BC-1AD).png

Check out the link for more information about language customs etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanics

I also bought 2 books that I haven't had time to read yet
1) A history of the vikings (doesn't really go before 500 AD though)
2) The Celts? (Can't quite remember the name but it's a good one)

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:06 AM
So by that illustration are the Celts and Germans that terribly different or very close to being similar?

I would say by them deriving from the Danube of southern modern Germany that would make them a very close related culture. ;)

The Celts of the south and the Germans of the north in that historical period would of have to derived together from a same ancestor I would think not to mention before the Germanic cultures immigrated south from the northern Scandinavian territories you would think there would be some trade between both respected cultures.

Wynterwade
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:15 AM
Genetically they are really similar (does depend on the location though).

Culturally they were very different in religion, language and behavior.

What are the exact differences? I don't quite remember exactly off the top of my head right now. But I think it's how they bury their dead (Germanics did mounds I think- or was that celtics? I don't remember), Celtics were more lax in sex and the Germanics were strict (according to some Roman Emperor I believe). Their clothes were different. Celtics had Druids. That's all that comes to my mind right now.

You can easily dig through information on more examples on wikipedia. Some Greek or Roman guy traveled around Europe documenting the behavior of the Celtics and Germanics but I don't remember who that is right now.

Ediruc
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:20 AM
At one point the Celts were of a high aristocracy over us Germans. But, as later Germanic tribes proved (The Angles, Jutes, and Saxons), Germanics make better warriors and set themselves up above Celts (like in Great Britain).

In fact, some of my writings and short fiction stories deal with this relationship between Germanics and Celts. The Germanic in all of them is always undermining the Celt.

Hawx
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:25 AM
They have always been the same people, britain was part of europe until 8,000 years ago when britain was cut off by the english channel, even today there's little effort in crossing the channel by canoe. Stop reading roman properganda, that includes "xtian histories", look at the genetics, look at the physical appearance, look at the pagan cultures. Britain and Germania have always been the same people.

Elessar
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:28 AM
What's the difference between Celtic versus Germanic?

Is there a difference?

The ancient Gauls are defined as Celtic many times but their culture always seem to resemble one that was Germanic.

I'll use that as one analogy of where I often enough get confused.

Then there is also the way how the Celts of the British isles migrated from mainland Europe in ancient times probally from a group that was very closely related to the group that later on evolved into the ancient Germans.

I would appreciate someone more knowledgeable than myself to explain this fully to me.

Think of it this way: The Celts and the Germans were only called so by their Mediterranean neighbors. For instance if you and your tribe were called the AlaricLachlans and your rival tribe were called the so and so's, and a more technologically advanced more powerful culture came in and said you were Germans and your rivals were Celts simply because they lived on the other side of a river. Celt comes from the Greek word Keltoi. Romans referred to them as Gauls.

The only clearly distinguishable feature of the 2 peoples is the Language they spoke. Germanics spoke Germanic language, Celtics spoke Celtic. Culturally as well there were apparent differences. Just because they were "Celt" doesn't mean they were all the same. Most of them were waring amoungst themselves or Rome and Greece. Moreover Celt is an umbrella term.

Racially speaking, they weren't too far off from eachother, depending on their location. Obviously a Celtiberian isn't so close to A Suebii as a Gaul would be. mainly along the Rhein and Franco-German border does one see the line between Celt and German get murky. Elsewhere in Europe were more autonomous and distinguishable tribes of celts.


At one point the Celts were of a high aristocracy over us Germans. But, as later Germanic tribes proved (The Angles, Jutes, and Saxons), Germanics make better warriors and set themselves up above Celts (like in Great Britain).


I'm not too familiar with Celtic supremacy putting "us" Germans down?

Wynterwade
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:31 AM
I was really bored one day so I wrote down all the towns and cities that my ancestors were from during the 1500's and 1600's.

Then I tried to trace those areas back to around the year 1000 and most were Germanic.

However, as I tracked them back even further to the year 0 the balance started to shift wildly towards the Celtics with something like 95% Celtic and only 5% Germanic (who were Angle and Saxon and Jute Viking Immigrants to England and Scotland).

Genetic studies have been done in England to determine how much Viking ancestry the English have and the most it is today in some port cities was something like 10% Scandinavian ancestry (by paternal lines). This is in one of my previous posts titled "much of Germany was 100% Celtic?" or something like that.

Elessar
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:39 AM
I was really bored one day so I wrote down all the towns and cities that my ancestors were from during the 1500's and 1600's.

Then I tried to trace those areas back to around the year 1000 and most were Germanic.

However, as I tracked them back even further to the year 0 the balance started to shift wildly towards the Celtics with something like 95% Celtic and only 5% Germanic (who were Angle and Saxon and Jute Viking Immigrants to England and Scotland).


That's true, especially in Germany place-names were overwhelmingly Celtic, then Germanized, as linguists infer that Germania was once inhabbited by Celtic tribes prior to about 0 ad, that give the names to places like Bavaria, the river Ems, Ansbach, Bonn, Mainz, and plenty others.

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 12:53 AM
The last centuries before the Roman invasion saw an influx of mixed Germanic-Celtic speaking refugees from Gaul (approximately modern day France and Belgium) known as the Belgae, who were displaced as the Roman Empire expanded around 50 BC. They settled along most of the coastline of Southern Britain between about 200 BC and AD 43. A Gaulish tribe known as the Parisii, who had cultural links to the continent, appeared in north-east England.


It is disputed whether Iron Age Britons were "Celts", with some academics such as John Collis[15] and Simon James[16] actively opposing the idea of 'Celtic Britain', since the term was only applied at this time to a tribe in Gaul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain



So if the Gauls were Germanic or closely related that would mean that ancient Britain before the Saxon invasion were also equally Germanic to the Saxons?

I also noticed how nobody talks about Ireland at this forum but we can't forget the Viking conquests of Ireland where I'm thinking there is a bit of Germanic influence in Irish culture.

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:04 AM
Genetically they are really similar (does depend on the location though).

Culturally they were very different in religion, language and behavior.

What are the exact differences? I don't quite remember exactly off the top of my head right now. But I think it's how they bury their dead (Germanics did mounds I think- or was that celtics? I don't remember), Celtics were more lax in sex and the Germanics were strict (according to some Roman Emperor I believe). Their clothes were different. Celtics had Druids. That's all that comes to my mind right now.

You can easily dig through information on more examples on wikipedia. Some Greek or Roman guy traveled around Europe documenting the behavior of the Celtics and Germanics but I don't remember who that is right now.

I think only the language is the seperating factor as the religion and behavior of the Celts versus the Germans were very similar.

I think I remember how some classical writers of ancient Greece and Rome if I can recall correctly in memory often enough confused the two groups beyond language because the Germans had their own religious priests that acted similar to the druids not to mention both were identical in physical appearance where both had a very warrior like structure of culture.


At one point the Celts were of a high aristocracy over us Germans. But, as later Germanic tribes proved (The Angles, Jutes, and Saxons), Germanics make better warriors and set themselves up above Celts (like in Great Britain).

In fact, some of my writings and short fiction stories deal with this relationship between Germanics and Celts. The Germanic in all of them is always undermining the Celt.

I don't know if the Germans were better then the Celts.

The Celts sacked Rome first and raided the temple of Delphi famously in ancient Greece. Both ancient Rome and Greece used Celtic warriors as elite mercenary soldiers in their war campaigns where later ancient Rome used elite Gaul horsemen.

Hannibal of Carthage made use of the Celts as mercenary warriors on his assault to Rome too.

The Celts were really a victim of history as they got caught up in war with the Romans to the south and the northern tribes of the Germans evading from the north in a two front war to which they could not win.

Wynterwade
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:17 AM
the religion and behavior of the Celts versus the Germans were very similar.They were very different in behavior and religion and the difference is easily noticeable. I found the book you should check out "Rise of the Celts" sells for 1$ on amazon. I wish I knew a more recent one but that one should be gold to you. The difference was vast (between germanics and celtics) in almost every area.


I think I remember how some classical writers of ancient Greece and Rome if I can recall correctly in memory often enough confused the two groups beyond language because the Germans had their own religious priests that acted similar to the druids not to mention both were identical in physical appearance where both had a very warrior like structure of culture.The Romans got them confused because they called everybody who wasn't Roman a Barbarian. They were actually very different.


I don't know if the Germans were better then the Celts.Who cares about comparing stuff like that. The Celtics were dominate during a different time period than the Germanics (a couple thousand years apart).

And here's the kicker...
All these groups probably were not the original cultural groups into Europe. The Proto-Indo European nomadic horsemen influenced much of Europe and their language is what we still speak today (They are from Southern Russia). (The language that is more European than German, Swedish or any other langaue is probably Bosque- a PROTO-Indo-European Language (left over from before the nomadic horsemen influence linguistically)- probably the only Language actually native to western Europe)

If you want to learn about the Proto-Indo-European people and genetic evolution I'd recommend the book "the 10,000 year explosion"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the jist of it if you don't want to read it...
The Proto-Indoeuropean group came from the Caucuses (in present day Southern Russia) between the Black and Caspian Seas (Not in Turkey). They spread widely because they were Nomadic Horsemen (Much like the gigantic Mongol Expansion we are familiar with) and also the Proto-IE's drank milk while most of Europe was Lactose intolerant.

They were probably ruthlessly militant in taking over new territory (much like all the other nomadic groups that took over vast amounts of land).

Also something important to understand is that while they were able to take over new territory to impose their language, their genetic influences were probably not that great. Over thousands of years a few of their genes like lactose tolerance were slightly more beneficial and spread through most of the population (very slowly). Overtime some of the territory that they took over that spoke an Indo-European language, took over other territories and overtime almost all of europe began to speak indo-european languages.

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:30 AM
Somthing interesting I found on Ireland's prehistory


Insular Celtic likely reached Britain and Ireland in the Iron Age, the general consensus being that it spread from the continental Hallstatt culture. The Celtic tribes of Ireland include the Brigantes, a name which also belonged to the largest tribe of northern and midland Britain. Another tribe by the 2nd century AD was the Manapii, possibly the same people as the Menapii, a Belgic tribe of northern Gaul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland#Copper_and_Bronze_Ag es_.282500.E2.80.93700_BC.29

The reason that is interesting is because Ireland has always been presumed to be a dominantly Celtic nation in comparison to Britain and Scotland that became Saxonized.

[Even alot of tribes in ancient Britain and parts of modern day Scotland prior to the Saxon invasion came from northern Gaul and modern day Belgium.]


Going by Walhalla's statement: Racially speaking, they weren't too far off from eachother, depending on their location. Obviously a Celtiberian isn't so close to A Suebii as a Gaul would be. mainly along the Rhein and Franco-German border does one see the line between Celt and German get murky.

Wynterwade
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:38 AM
Insular Celtic likely reached Britain and Ireland in the Iron Age

This refers to the cultural and linguistic influence on Ireland. The Iron Age was relatively late in archeological terms. There were people there long before.

This might also come as a shock........
I've read very credible sources that says that half of Ireland was covered with ice during the Ice Age. The other half was good land and was probably populated (I like to think that this is how the Brunns evolved there but I really don't know). How about the people of Ireland today- How did these people get there? Some have said that they probably descended from Northern Spanish Ship traders. This is how the sub-racial category North-Atlantid was formed (a cross between Atlanto-Med and Keltic-Nordid)

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:41 AM
This refers to the cultural and linguistic influence on Ireland. The Iron Age was relatively late in archeological terms. There were people there long before.

This might also come as a shock........
I've read very credible sources that says that half of Ireland was covered with ice during the Ice Age. The other half was good land and was probably populated. How did these people get here? Some have said that they probably descended from Northern Spanish Ship traders. This is how the sub-racial category North-Atlantid was formed (a cross between Atlanto-Med and Keltic-Nordid)

I've heard similar things in reading history in the past when I used to read more of the subject but according to the wiki quote some of the Irish tribes ranged from Southern Britain where those same tribes of Britain descended from northern Gaul and modern day Belgium.

I have no doubt that prehistoric neolithic people were residing in the great isles long before Celts or Germanic tribes arrived.

Wynterwade
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:44 AM
Irish tribes ranged from Southern Britain where those same tribes of Britain descended from northern Gaul and Belgium.

I don't really know. I have heard geneticists say that Irish are closely related to the Spanish. Maybe a combination of the two.

I've heard that the Spanish influence has become much greater today because....
The spanish ship traders moved into the costal cities in Wales, Cornwall, Southern England and Ireland. As the Industrial revolution happend the population in the cities boomed and those with Spanish influence (North-Atlantids and Atlantids (what I am)) increased greatly.

Caledonian
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 01:56 AM
I don't really know. I have heard geneticists say that Irish are closely related to the Spanish. Maybe a combination of the two.

I've heard that the Spanish influence has become much greater today because....
The spanish ship traders moved into the costal cities in Wales, Cornwall, Southern England and Ireland. As the Industrial revolution happend the population in the cities boomed and those with Spanish influence (North-Atlantids and Atlantids (what I am)) increased greatly.

Well I wonder how modern geneticists take into account a hundred and eighty years of viking or Norman raids and occupation into account of the genetical structure of the Irish when it concerns Ireland's history.

Ediruc
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 02:27 AM
I'm not too familiar with Celtic supremacy putting "us" Germans down?

From "Celtic Myths and Legends" by T.W. Rollerston Chapter 1: The Celts in Ancient History, PG 10-11:


CELTS AND GERMANS: But, as we have mentioned before, this territory was by no means inhabited by the Celt alone. In particular we have to ask, who and where were the Germans, the Teuto-Gothic tribes, who eventually took the place of the Celts as the great Northern menace to classical civilization?

They are mentioned by Pytheas, the eminent Greek traveller and geographer, about 300 BC, but they play no part in history till , under the name of Cimbri and Teutones, they descended on Italy to be vanquished by Marius at the close of the second century. The ancient Greek geographers prior to Pytheas know nothing of them, and assign all the territories now known as Germanic to various Celtic tribes.

The explanation given by de Jubainville, and based by him on various philological considerations, is that the Germans were a subject people, comparable to those "un-free tribes" who existed in Gaul and in ancient Ireland. They lived under the Celtic dominion, and had no independent political existence.....

But, then again, that is just an explanation ;) Later we know the Germans revolted and the Celts lost their political influence and empire.


...Two things however, the Celts either could not or would not impose on the subjugated German tribes -- their language and their religion. In these two great factors of race-unity and pride lay the seeds of the ultimate German uprising and overthrow of the Celtic supremacy.--PG. 12

Elessar
Tuesday, September 21st, 2010, 02:55 AM
From "Celtic Myths and Legends" by T.W. Rollerston Chapter 1: The Celts in Ancient History, PG 10-11:



But, then again, that is just an explanation ;) Later we know the Germans revolted and the Celts lost their political influence and empire.

I don't see it so cut and dry. Certain Germanic tribes may have fell under the dominion of celtic tribes, but certainly not the whole of Germania was subject to the Celts. As if one tribal culture was better than another.

Rev. Jupiter
Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 06:47 PM
Due to a number of factors, including migrations, subsistence strategies, trade routes, and territorial conflicts, I doubt that there will ever be an terribly precise way of separating the culture, genetics, or history of the Germanics from that of the Celts. The most we have to work with are vague concepts of identity that came about in fairly recent history, and to be honest that's good enough for me.