08-02-2010, 08:44 AM
Quote:I hope I'm not stupid, because I was in places I couldn't care less about the local history or ethnography or even language. Conversely, I know of foreigners in my own city, businessmen or globe-trotters, who (knowing they won't live a lifetime here) also don't pay much attention to such details. Not everyone is an ethnographer, not everyone is a scholar. It's fallacious to find in every source a man/woman eager to tell an accurate account on what the modern scholar wants to know.
There's a consistent body of literature on Otherness in Greek and Roman writings. Here's a quick find on Germans in De Bello Gallico, more precisely on Gauls vs Germans and on ethnography as justification for Roman political and military agenda.
Back to the original question, not only Caesar's claim is disputed by Strabo (probably because they read differently their common source), but the "Kelt" name was known to Greeks for several centuries. Even Strabo acknowledged that: "the people [...] whom the men of former times named Celtae" (IV.1.14).
Ceasar was not just an everyman was he ... he was the foremost militarian/politician of his time and I find it incredulous that you
Quote:don't believe Julius Caesar was particularly well-informed about the ethnography of the places where he campaignedas I would have thought that it was a pre-requisite that such knowledge was available at the very least so that he would needed to know who to divide in order to conquer.
Ceasar was a political animal and I find it hard to believe that he would not be aware of tribal and political alliances within the local population as his political survival depend very much on success.
Conal Moran
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
