Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
\'The myth of Celtic and Roman Britain\'
#1
Salvete

I have recently been gathering research on Britain during the Roman invasion, and have stumbled upon an issue raised by te 'real history radio'. It states that there apparently was no such thing as a 'Celtic' Britain. This appears to be a very controvertial argument, as it has always been believed Britain was Celtic.

"The first myth is that of 'Celts' in Britain.There were NONE! Wilson and Blackett'sresearch is supported by brave academicsProfessor John Collis and Dr Simon Jameswho, together, prove that not until 1707did the terms Celtic and British becomefatally joined in a marriage of ideological expedience...Before that there were no hill-dwelling, primitive magick-worshipping 'Celts' in ourhistory books but, instead, we had the real, non-fictional ancient British Khumry whose advanced civilization, fierce independenceand warlike nature helped build a powerfulBritish nation of between 8-10 million peopleable to defeat the invading and hated Romans 60 times in battle.Pictured here, Julius Caesar whose armieswere smashed by the triumphant Khumry and their brothers throughout the land.(Pic copyright A. Hassell, with thanks.)This is an important show as these two myths have been used to attack, denigrate and ridiculethe massive and real achievements of our nobleancestors."

This theory has been bothering me since. A non-Celtic Britain? Living in Britain myself, there appears to be a lot of Celtic influence (though most of England is influenced more by Norman and Germannic culture). Could this 'Khumry' culture just be an invention to glorify Welsh heritage (particularly that of the south), as appears to, considering most of it support does come from Wales itself and not from England.

What are your views on this? Was there really no Celtic Britain? Would we really be correct to consider a Khumry rather than a Celtic civilisation dominated the British Isles?

Grazie, Valete

Lorenzo
Lorenzo Perring-Mattiassi/Florivs Virilis

COHORS I BATAVORUM M.C.R.P.F
Reply
#2
Maybe you should define first what "Celtic" means, before you start bothering... ^^
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#3
Was this on the Alternate Histories channel?
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#4
Quote: Was there really no Celtic Britain?


Depends on how the word 'Celtic' is being used and this ties in with a debate taking place on another RAT thread:-
link from old RAT

Did the people in Britain think of themselves as being 'Celts'? Almost certainly not, it's a label that wasn't applied to them until the early 18th century (be a Welshman).

Did the people in Britain use languages and employ the cultural stylings that are now covered by the "catch all" term 'Celtic'? Yes.

As for 'Khumry'...it's usually spelt Cymry isn't it?

Mind you, spotting Wilson and Blackett's name on anything is usually enough for me to :-
a)Take a contrary stance and
b) Take up a stout stick. With nails in it.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
#5
In general, the people of Britain during the first century BC and AD are regarded as Britons. The tribal differences were not always clear, for instance the sea faring peoples of the french coast were not Gallic. The Belgae were not Germanic, the Batavii either. The names they were given by Caesar, Tacitus and other authors are the closest you can get to what they might have called themselves. So basically in the UK you would have the Britons, the picts, and thats about it Tongue

The celtic myth has more to do with the artforms of Norwegian and Danish raiders, Saxons, probably some inspired Angles et cetera. Also the book of Kells and other manuscripts, jewels and what have you which are regarded as "Celtic" these days are art forms which are certainly not dating back to the "Celtic" era, but at least 800 years later and this runs well into the middle ages.

The new pagans, new druids, neo celts and other "morons" who like to feel there is an ancestral bond between the so called Celts and them prove over and over again that they have no clue whatsoever about the Celtic tribes.. even the celebration of Samhain, Herne and other pagan thingies have nothing to do
with the ancient Celts.

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply
#6
It is true that I am generalsing, and as it appears, making a mistake, by using the term 'Celtic'. Every tribe had their differences, yet they had cultural similarities also. The tribes of Britain were hardly united, but some tribes shared similarities with one another e.g. religious practices and festivals, their way of war etc.

(Something I forgot to point out: I am by no means (as you have probably guessed aready) an expert on the enemies of Rome. However, I am meaning to change this by finding out more about them, so feel free to raise any other points not covered, I am here to learn).

What I'm trying to get at is whether the culture of Britain was so different to that on the continant e.g. with the Gallic Tribes. I think I am correct in thinking that there was a lot of influence in southern Britain from the likes of the tribes that occupied modern-day Belgium, so the tribes from Britain could not have been completely different to those that came form the mainland.
Lorenzo Perring-Mattiassi/Florivs Virilis

COHORS I BATAVORUM M.C.R.P.F
Reply
#7
Here's the podcast in question, if anyone fancies a listen:

[url:2ngnas8n]http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=33500[/url]


The speaker doesn't actually seem all that bothered about what 'Celtic' may or may not mean, only that the ancient Britons weren't it, whatever it was :wink: .

Essentially, the thesis is that ancient Britain was a vast and highly developed civilisation, unique amongst its neighbours, and that all claims to the contrary are part of a nefarious Victorian conspiracy to do down 'our ancestors' (although why the rather pro-Briton Victorians should want to do such a thing is unknown). This conspiracy is supported to this day by a similarly rascally 'London elite', who in fact control all historical teaching in a quasi-Stalinist fashion these days.

This elite is apparently behind such canards as the 'Roman conquest of Britain', which the speaker claims never happened... Julius Caesar was driven from the island by the heroic Brits (Caesar's own writings are used as proof, oddly), and Claudius only managed to occupy a few areas controlled by traitorous Belgic immigrants (again, Tacitus is used as proof of this...).

Then, in 80AD, the last Roman governor 'Sallustus' was executed by Domitian (strangely, as he wasn't emperor at that time) and the Romans pulled out... Hadrian arrived on a 'diplomatic visit', built a few forts (why?) than left again, and the wall was only constructed by Severus (why?). From then on, the Roman empire was actually controlled by British kings under Latin pseudonymns, all the way up to King Arthur... All of this is apparently clear to anyone who studies the 'true facts of history' - Geoffrey of Monmouth, for example.... :roll:

As for real (rather than imaginary) historical study - I don't believe there is or ever has been any consensus on who or what 'Celtic' might signify exactly, or to what extent ancient Britain could be regarded as such. There is, I think, evidence of strong continental influence over at least the southern part of the island from the 1st C BC - so if the Gauls were 'celtic', so probably were the Britons, in the south at least. Essentially, however, the differences are probably semantic - there are tribal chiefs recorded in Caledonia in the third century with perfectly good Gallo-celtic names.

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply
#8
Actually the Picts were a later 'general' name for the northern Caledones.
The tribes north of the border went under a multitude of names, unfortunately i do not have any reference material on hand as i for got to pack my new
edition of Mons Graupius, or any of the other books I have on Briton north of the Border.
But, whatever name they went by, I believe the were seen as of a similar family to the rest of the european tribes who were grouped under the term Gual.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#9
Hi Lorenzo,
Quote:I have recently been gathering research on Britain during the Roman invasion, and have stumbled upon an issue raised by te 'real history radio'. It states that there apparently was no such thing as a 'Celtic' Britain. This appears to be a very controvertial argument, as it has always been believed Britain was Celtic.

"The first myth is that of 'Celts' in Britain.There were NONE! Wilson and Blackett'sresearch is supported by brave academicsProfessor John Collis and Dr Simon Jameswho, together, prove that not until 1707did the terms Celtic and British becomefatally joined in a marriage of ideological expedience...Before that there were no hill-dwelling, primitive magick-worshipping 'Celts' in ourhistory books but, instead, we had the real, non-fictional ancient British Khumry whose advanced civilization, fierce independenceand warlike nature helped build a powerfulBritish nation of between 8-10 million peopleable to defeat the invading and hated Romans 60 times in battle.Pictured here, Julius Caesar whose armieswere smashed by the triumphant Khumry and their brothers throughout the land.(Pic copyright A. Hassell, with thanks.)This is an important show as these two myths have been used to attack, denigrate and ridiculethe massive and real achievements of our nobleancestors."
Well, you can relax! Big Grin
First of all these gentlemen do not exactly say that there were no Celts in Britain, but that our modern picture of the celts in Britain is totally false.

However, that's just a technicality, since Wilson & Blackett have stated a lot of things that are completely unfounded and unproven.
their theory is that the British (or Khumry as they unhelpfully insist on naming them) not only fought off every Roman attack, but even when they agreed to let in Roman influence, remainened fully independent under British kings etc etc etc. This is largely what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote, but added to in extremis.
All unproven, devoid of any good source, be it historical or archaeological.

I've read a book of theirs, and they claim that the British built London before the Romans, walls and all, and that the Brititish even built all the Roman roads in Britain. To name a few things.
All he rest is stuff like that. Best ignore it. Discussion with them is useless (or with the host of their believers), you'll be shouted down, as I was. Putting forward evidence to the contrary is also useless, they'll claim it's either forged or ignore it. Of course, what they have come up up (of course not documented at all) is all fantastic evidence etc etc etc. Much of the fundament of their historical story is also based on a forgery, not theirs, but that of Iolo Morganwg, a fellow born as Edward Williams (1747 – 1826) who unfortunately had much impact on Welsh culture by producing forgeries of historical documents describing an alternative history of Britain. W & B swallowed the lot and, uncritically, went on to use his tales.

W& B have also, unfortunately, been controversial in their dealings with the general public, both Englin\\sh and Welsh governments, archaeological institutes in either Wales or England and even students in general, whom are accused by W & B of a great number of things (from centuries of conspiracy to lazyless as a character flaw) over the past decade. Even this forum has felt the sting of them, daring to speak against their ideas. :wink:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#10
Quote:Much of the fundament of their historical story is also based on a forgery...

Excellent use of 'fundament' there, Robert. :lol:

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply
#11
So did Wilson & Blackett blame the advanced nature of the Khumry on illegal aliens from Atlantis yet and that Stonehenge was their "Stargate"!!! Confusedhock: :lol:
I am all for looking outside the box but their claims are a little out of this world.
I think the roads were made by the British... but under Roman supervision. :lol:
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply
#12
Quote:So did Wilson & Blackett blame the advanced nature of the Khumry on illegal aliens from Atlantis yet and that Stonehenge was their "Stargate"!!! Confusedhock: :lol:

I'm sure they will, at some stage.

If you want to amuse and infuriate yourself in equal measures, read their "The Holy Kingdom-The Quest for the Real King Arthur".
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
#13
Quote:If you want to amuse and infuriate yourself in equal measures, read their "The Holy Kingdom-The Quest for the Real King Arthur".
Which was also written by their 'ghostwriter' Adrian Gilbert. It's the one I read and commented on here back in 1999, a review which 'followed' me for years! Big Grin
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#14
Quote:
Medicus matt:1wn6rmz8 Wrote:If you want to amuse and infuriate yourself in equal measures, read their "The Holy Kingdom-The Quest for the Real King Arthur".
Which was also written by their 'ghostwriter' Adrian Gilbert. It's the one I read and commented on here back in 1999, a review which 'followed' me for years! Big Grin


Hehe..I did the same thing on the UK amazon site....didn't use my infamous 'distance' rating system though.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker

[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
Reply
#15
I have read stuff like this before and it isn't surprising. It is sad that they can be published in this day and age. I could write some pretty crazy stuff and even base it off of history but that doesn't make it true.
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Britain Celtic 1st Century AD Shield + Sword Belt Antoninus05 12 5,149 03-08-2012, 06:45 AM
Last Post: bloodseekerboi1

Forum Jump: