"Decline and fall of the Roman myth"

[Goffredo]

I finally decided to read the "article" about roman myth that started this thread.

I found only one sentence worth pondering about: the claim that we owe more to barbarians than to romans in togas. In a way that is true but not naively because of straightforward contributions, but in more complex ways due to the flexibility and eagerness of the barbarians changed their ways and tried many in many cases to adopt some of the roman ones. In the best cases they gave new lymph and helped create a fertile hybrid culture. Instead where the "barbarians" were less eager to change their ways (longobards in italy) and lived a parallel and parasitic existence they did more damage than good.

I found the article suspect. Sorry if I offend anyone. It a-critically substitutes the roman myth with a new one, the myth of advanced and sophisticated Celts. Too many celtic maniacs prove to be ignorant of history and anthropology to attribute this celt-supremacy idea much status. Many of these people have actually read tonnes of Dan-Brown-like books about Celtic bla bla, about Merlins, Boudiceas, or similars and have the feeling they know more, and in particular know actually more about history. Many DaVinci-Code readers feel they know more about the history of christianity and even theology!

Well,... at least people read! Its modern society and culture. True but we should never forget that there is a huge market for these psuedo-historical myths. Hence there is a huge industry that creates psuedo-experts, psuedo-historians, psuedo-knowledge, that fuel the book, film, documentary industires, and flood articles in periodcals, webpages, newpapers. A real industry that creates an incredible amount of information but with very little sense of critique. Is it culture? Yes, it is our modern culture, but with a small c.

Jeff

p.s. The romans did destroy the celtic culture in northern italy, in spain, gaul and britain, but to claim or imply that the celts were equal and even superior in subtle ways to the roman-greek culture is more foolish than to make conventional claims of roman superiority. Different levels of foolishness. It is difficult and maybe ultimately foolish to claim to have an absolute way to compare cultures, but it is more foolish to say that comparisons cannot be made and really foolish to say that all cultures are equal. Different levels of foolishness.

The main reason it is fashionable today to avoid comparisons is that we rightfully shun away from the risk of justifying a culture destroying another. Inferior? Then it was right to wipe them out! No, that is illogical, a logical error. It is not as fool-proof as saying "Socrates is human, all humans are mortal, hence Socrates is mortal". We, in our culture, have acquired in history a fundamental notion that it is immoral for a culture to destroy another. Period. But to say that this is because all cultures are equivalent, and that one should not make comparisons is illogical too.

[tlclark]

Goffredo:

I found the article suspect. Sorry if I offend anyone. It a-critically substitutes the roman myth with a new one, the myth of advanced and sophisticated Celts. Too many celtic maniacs prove to be ignorant of history and anthropology to attribute this celt-supremacy idea much status.

Loved this post.

BTW - every year when I get to Hiberno-Saxon art I have to disabuse the rampant Celtophilia here in America.

Dublin was founded by Vikings.
Interlace isn't Celtic, it's germanic
Christianity was brought to Ireland by the Copts, not St. Patrick.
And St. Patrick was British!! and probably not a celt.

I think Celt-o-mania is a by product of the high numbers of Irish and Scottish immigrants. My home state has a huge Welsh population and lots of welsh festivals. What's ironic is that many of the welsh "traditions" were invented by English Lords in the 18th/19th C. because they found the customs of their tennants too pedestrian, so they invented more "Authentic" traditions.

So in the Inter-mountain west of the USA there are people who are vaguely celtic celebrating their heritage with manufactured traditions that most of the people in Wales have long since abandoned as phony.

Culture is amazing isn't it?

Thanks for the great post.

Travis

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, watched it last night!

And it was ba-aaad.

Why? Well, mr Jones seemed like he had a bone to pick with the Romans, and that point had to be made without the proper scientific method.

First of all, I've said it before, much information of the Celts and their truly wonderful culture is long known, it's not news. And we all know that Romans made a point of painting a bad picture of their neighbours, 'selling'them to their audiences as true barbarians, uncivilised and dangerous. We don't believe that, but Terry Jones makes it sound as if we do.

Sources - recognising the Celts had no written sources (and he applauded them almost for that), he used Julius Caesar. And of course, when Old Julius was known to polish his own role when falsely calling his conquest of Gaul 'a protection of the Gaul', Jones criticised him as a bloody killer. But when Julius Caesar writes about millions killed or enslaved, Jones suddenly does take his word for it.
But when vercingetorix explls ten of thousands of civilians from Alesia ('to get them to safety'), it's the monstrous Romans who not only refuse to let them pass, but it's due to thse same monstrous Romans (who 'of course' want to attack when Vercingetorix would have re-opened his gates to let his peole back in) that these poor wretches die a horrible death of starvatian and exposure. War is hell, but only the Romans are to blame - according to Jones.

Laws - Jones paints a very rosy picture of the position of women in Celtic society. How? Well, he takes one grave of a Gallic rich and powerful women, around 300-200 BC, and recites a lot of laws from Ireland -7th c. AD. And E Presto! there's your evidence that all Celts had these laws, always. Compare our laws today with our laws a 1000 years ago, compare both groups and call them unchanged - you'd be laughed at.

Culture - Judging from a dig at Bibracte and nothing much else, Jones paints a picture of Celts having a civilisation rich in ities, rich in mines, and all connected through a netwrk of roads, which are all shown as dead strait. To me, that's falsifying information.
Of course Celts had towns - but not cities as we call them cities between 300 BC and 300 AD. Much of these cities were large, sure, but contained much open space.
Of course the Celts had roads, connectinf settlement - but not anything like the Roman roads (construction) or the Roman road netwok, that of a different scale altogether. But Jones never pointed that out.

Celts - and there we have the biggest problem; who were the Celts anyway? I'll not go into that quagmire hre.. But to take a name and stick that onto a group of peoples and tribes which shared language, culture, material development (but not all of them together at the same time) over a 1000 years and give them one name and treat them as if similar - that's just not scientifically correct.

All in all, I found this documentary extremely shallow and at times unscientific, even propaganda. Not worthy to what Terry Jones has done in the past.



Next week - the Goths.

[tlclark]

OK, watched it last night!

And it was ba-aaad.

I figured as much

Laws - Jones paints a very rosy picture of the position of women in Celtic society. How? Well, he takes one grave of a Gallic rich and powerful women, around 300-200 BC, and recites a lot of laws from Ireland -7th c. AD. And E Presto! there's your evidence that all Celts had these laws, always. Compare our laws today with our laws a 1000 years ago, compare both groups and call them unchanged - you'd be laughed at.

What? You mean I can't claim primo nocture here in the states because it existed in England 1000 years ago! DARN!

Actually, this is doubly laughable because outside the Etruscans, the Romans had some of the most enlightened laws regarding women of the age. Roman matrons were not to be trifled with and even slaves that had six male children were granted their freedom. Of course, it was oppressive by today's standards, but that's beside the point. Scholars keep trying to find enlightened people in the past, but it's just projection and self-guilt over our own age. We really DO live in the golden age of man.

Celts - and there we have the biggest problem; who were the Celts anyway? I'll not go into that quagmire hre.. But to take a name and stick that onto a group of peoples and tribes which shared language, culture, material development (but not all of them together at the same time) over a 1000 years and give them one name and treat them as if similar - that's just not scientifically correct.

Helen Evans, curator of the Medieval exhibits of the Met in NY once said in a lecture that if you applied the same standards to the US that you did to the Barbarians, we would be "migrational" peoples too.

Great post. Thanks for the review.

Travis

[Chuck Russell]

havent watched it yet, but tivo recorded it. please tell me.... there isnt a scene like in his crusade documentry where he walks around in a speedo is there? (shutters) ahhhhhhhhhhhh

[Robert Vermaat]

please tell me.... there isnt a scene like in his crusade documentry where he walks around in a speedo is there? (shutters) ahhhhhhhhhhhh

Nope, rest assured. It was too cold for him, probably... :twisted:

[Chuck Russell]

thats good. i think my wife thru up a lil in her mouth when he walked out of the water like he was smugglen 2 cherries and a slim jim there

[Robert Vermaat]

like he was smugglen 2 cherries and a slim jim there

[tlclark]

Ok, now this thread is starting to link up with where the "slave-re-enactor" thead has gone.

Do all Roman threads degrade to male genatalia eventually? :roll:

[Tarbicus]

Do all Roman threads degrade to male genatalia eventually? :roll:

Of course not.

<Imagine a photo of a phallic pendant because Travis blushed>

[Virilis]

Aha, a new recruit! Welcome on board! Or should we say a new member :wink: ...

O Tempora O mores!

[tlclark]

Aha, a new recruit! Welcome on board! Or should we say a new member :wink: ...

O Tempora O mores!

hock: oops: :roll: !!!!!!

[Tarbicus]

Sorry Travis, I changed my post.

like he was smugglen 2 cherries and a slim jim there

There's no slim jim in my house, only a big fat hairy one.

:wink:

[Praefectusclassis]

<Imagine a photo of a phallic pendant because Travis blushed>

:lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, part two, watched it until I dozed off...

Not the Goths (as advertised), but Varus and Dacian wars.

I won't repeat myself, it was the (by now) normal Roman-bashing stuff, painting Germans and Dacians as far more civilised then they actually were and concentrating on the very bad Roman character, who only wanted Dacia because of the gold, murdering a entire people into oblivion for it.

Of cuorse there were details:
Such as Terry Jones (popularly) referring to Arminius as 'Herman the German' (even if that's etymologically totally wrong),
such as Arminius being portrayed.. in a leather seggie hock: .. with an Intercisa helmet!!! hock: hock: Well, he was apparently so civilised that he wore equipment 300 years ahead of him.

I also loved the discussion on the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa (yep,typed that in one go!). Picture this: Jones and Expert walking through some vague runs, discussing the nature of the settlement.
Jones spot half-open pipes: "did they have plumbing"?
Expert chuckles "Well maybe the caught the rain and drained it into cisterns".
Jones: "so they had hot and cold running water"?
Expert chucles more: "well at least cold water".
After which Jones concludes that "the Dacians had plumbing, comparable to Greek culture, with several luxuries added".

One wonders where he gets it all from.. :evil: