Military Review

Peter Connolly on the Celts and their Arms (Part 2)

43
In the first part, “Hallstatt and La Ten: on the verge between bronze and iron. (Part of 1) ”it was not only about how“ iron came to Europe ”, but also about the Celts - the people who settled throughout Europe, but did not create their own state. And now, following the logic of things, you will need to write about the Celts, but ... who wrote the best about them, so that it is sufficiently scientific, popular, and interesting? Well, of course, the British historian Peter Connolly, who wrote three books on the military history of antiquity, and in great detail (in sufficient detail, let's say) dismantled military affairs from the Celts. And this is what he says: Celts from the territory of southern Germany spread almost throughout Western Europe. In the V century. BC. Their settlements met in Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, as well as in certain areas of France, Spain and Britain. A century later, they crossed the Alps and found themselves in northern Italy. The first tribe, descending into the valley of the river Po, were insubri. They settled in Lombardy, and made Milan their capital. They were followed by tribes of fighting, lingons, kenomans, and others, who quickly conquered most of the valley of the Po River and drove the Etruscans out of the Apennines. The last tribe was the Senons, who settled on the coastal territory north of Ancona. They plundered Rome at the beginning of the IV. Well, the name “Celts”, which we use today, from the Greek language is “kel-toi”, although the Romans themselves called the people who lived in the valley of Pau and on the lands of France, Gauls (Galli). In the IV. Celts gradually moved to the Balkans, and in the beginning of the III c. invaded Macedonia and Thrace. Having laid waste to them, they moved to Asia Minor and finally settled on lands in Galatia, where they received the name Galatians.


Peter Connolly on the Celts and their Arms (Part 2)

Celtic embassy at the court of Alexander the Great. Having received the ambassadors, he asked them what they were afraid of more than anything, expecting to hear in response that they were afraid of him, Alexander, however, the ambassadors replied: “We are afraid that the sky will fall and crush us, that the earth will open and devour us, that the sea will overflow and absorb us. " That is, the Celts said they were not afraid of anyone. Alexander of Macedon was very angry, but decided that he would have too much honor to fight the barbarians and preferred to start a war with the Persian state. Figure by Angus McBride.

At one time, a very interesting book about barbarians, including the Celts, was written by the English historian Timothy Newark. It was called "Barbarians" *, and the drawings for it were made by the famous British artist Angus MacBride (unfortunately now deceased).

Then in the IV. the Gauls subjected to regular raids on the land of central Italy. Etruscans, Latins and Samnites had to make a lot of effort to repel the Gallic threat, but it did not completely disappear. Perhaps, only the Romans managed to cope with the Celts. To this end, they conducted their mass beatings in northern Italy, and in Spain, and in France. The valley of the Po River they cleared of the Celts after the war with Hannibal and, therefore, that in the middle of the II century. BC. Polybius of the Celts said that only "in few places beyond the Alps" the Celts still remained.



Unfortunately, most of the information about the Celts comes from their enemies - the Greeks and also the Romans, so you can trust her, but ... with caution. In addition, it is very often very specific properties. For example, the Sicilian historian Diodorus describes the Celts as warriors wearing multi-colored clothing, with long mustaches and hair that they drench in the lime so that they stand upright like a horse's mane. But agree that a lot of this information does not squeeze!


Celtic helmet. France, around 350 BC Archaeological Museum of the city of Angouleme. This impressive work of art was buried in a cave in western France. The entire helmet is covered with a thin gold leaf and decorated with coral inserts.

At first the Romans were very afraid of the Celts, who also seemed to be giants because of their height. But then they recognized their weak points, learned to use them, and began to treat them with disdain. But no matter how great this contempt was, the Romans recognized that led by a good commander the Celts could be excellent warriors. After all, it was they who made up half the army of Hannibal, which, in turn, for 15 years had won victories over the legions of Rome one after another. And then the Romans themselves realized how valuable these people are and for centuries they joined the ranks of their army.


Bronze helmet from Somme peat bogs. Museum Saint-Germain, France.

As is known, many early societies had a warrior class. The Celts, too, were no exception to this rule. They had warriors who came from the middle and upper layers of society. They were given the right to fight, while the poor, according to Diodorus of Sicily, were either squires or operated war chariots and no more.


Celts. Figure by Angus McBride.

Moreover, the Celt was a warrior in the most direct and heroic sense of the word. His whole life was viewed solely from the point of view of personal participation in the war and victories won in it in order to prove his courage and win fame on the battlefield. But unrestrained courage in the absence of military discipline often led the Celts to heavy defeats.

In the fifth book of his work, Diodorus gave a detailed and, most likely, fairly accurate description of the Celt warrior. But here it must be remembered that 350 years have passed between the first clash of Rome with the Celts at the battle of Allia and the conquest of Gaul by Caesar - the time that Diodorus described - that is, a whole era. A lot has changed in weapons, and in battle tactics. So again, trust Diodorus one hundred percent should not be!


Celts from the pile settlement. Figure by Angus McBride.

Whatever it was, but along Diodorus, the Celtic warrior was armed with a long sword, which he wore on his right side on a chain, and besides him with a spear or throwing darts. Many warriors fought naked, while others, in contrast, had chain mail and bronze helmets. They are often decorated with chased figures or plates with images of animals or birds. He could have a long, as tall as a man, shield that it was customary to cover with relief bronze ornaments.


"Shield of Whitham", 400 - 300 BC. er Culture La Ten. The shield was found on the Witham River in the vicinity of Lincolnshire, England in 1826. Further excavations revealed artifacts such as a sword, a spear, and part of a human skull. The shield is now in the British Museum.

In the battles with the enemy cavalry, the Celts used two-wheeled war chariots. Entering into battle, the warrior first threw darts at the enemy, after which, like the heroes of Homer, he went off the chariot and fought with the sword. The bravest warriors began the battle, in turn calling the bravest opponent to the doubles match. If the challenge was accepted, his instigator could sing a laudatory song in front of him, and show the enemy his naked ass, so that everyone could see that he so despised him.


Celts on chariots. Figure by Angus McBride.

The Romans highly honored those of their generals who accepted such a challenge and won in such a single duel. They were given the honorable right to dedicate the best part of the war booty to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius ("Giver of Mining" or "Bearing Victory"). There were also the second and third part of the dedicated loot, which were also dedicated to the gods, but this already depended on the rank of the winner. For example, in the IV. Titus Manlius defeated a huge Celt in the battle and, tearing the golden hryvnia (torkves) from his neck, earned it the nickname Torquat. And Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 222 BC. killed in a duel of the Gallic leader Viridomar.

Well, if the Celtic warrior killed his opponent, he cut off his head and hung it on the neck of his horse. Then the armor was removed from the slain, and the winner sang a victory song over the enemy's corpse. The captured trophies could be nailed to the wall of his home, and the severed heads of the most famous enemies even embalmed in cedar oil. For example, the Celts acted with the head of the consul Lucius Postum, who was killed by them in 216, which was then exhibited in their temple. The excavations in Entremont proved that such heads were not just trophies, but also part of a religious ritual, as they were located in certain places and were clearly used for religious purposes.


"Helmet of Linz" (reconstruction). Linz Castle Museum (Upper Austria). Hallstatt Culture, 700 BC

At the same time, absolutely all ancient authors are unanimous in that the Celts did not value strategy or tactics, and everything they did was influenced by momentary motives, that is, the Celts had the so-called ochlocracy or mob power. In battle, they also acted in mobs, although the presence of pipes and standards, depicted in particular on the arch in Orange, shows that, at least, they had a military organization. So, Caesar, in his Notes on the Gallic War, writes about how the pilums of the Roman legionnaires pierced the closed rows of Celtic shields - an impossible situation if the enemy pounces on you in a "crowd." That is, the Celts should have had some sort of phalanx, otherwise where could the “rows of shields” come from?

Thus, it turns out that the Celts were not so "wild" and knew the correct construction on the battlefield. In the battle of Telamon, as Polybius writes about it, they were attacked from two sides, but they didn’t get confused, but fought in four men, deployed in both directions. And the Romans were frightened by this impeccable system, and the wild rumble and noise that the Celts made, having countless trumpeters, and their warriors also shouted their battle cries. And then Polybius says that the Celts were inferior to the Romans only in arms, as their swords and shields were inferior in quality to the Romans.


Celtic sword with scabbard, 60 BC. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

The Romans reported four types of Celtic warriors: heavily armed infantrymen, lightly armed infantrymen, horsemen and chariot warriors. And judging by ancient sources, the heavily armed infantrymen are swordsmen, and lightly armed ones are throwers of darts.

Dionysius reports that the Celts tend to raise the sword above their heads, rotate them in the air and bring down the blow on the enemy as if they were chopping wood. This method of working with a sword made a very strong impression on their opponents. But the Romans very soon learned to resist him. So Polybius argues that they took the first blow on the upper edge of the shield, which on Roman shields was reinforced with an iron plate. The Celtic sword, which had a weak tempering, was bent from hitting this edge, so that the warrior straightened it with his foot, and while he did this, the legionnaire could easily attack him! In addition, the chop took time, it could be reflected with a shield and at the same time hit from under his stomach with a thrusting strike, which the Celtic could not reflect.

It is believed that the statement of Polybius, that the sword was bent almost in half - an exaggeration. Sometimes it probably happened, but in general, Celtic swords had good quality. Peter Connolly writes that he saw a sword from Lake Neuchâtel dating back to the time of Polybius, and it was possible to bend it almost doubled, but he immediately assumed his former form. Connolly writes that Polybius mentions the Celtic custom of wearing bracelets in a battle. But if these were bracelets similar to those found in Britain, then this would most likely be possible. It is unlikely that such heavy bracelets would be able to hold onto his hand when the warrior twisted his sword in the air, and then struck them with the strongest slashing blow!

* Newark, T. Barbarians. Hong Kong, Concord Publications Co., 1998.
Author:
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 7 December 2015 08: 06
    0
    Thanks, I was waiting .. the second part .. I hope there will be more?
    1. kalibr
      7 December 2015 09: 15
      +1
      There will be 3 and now in operation 4 ...
  2. IS-80
    IS-80 7 December 2015 08: 31
    +1
    Quote: anodonta
    Not a word about chariots in the works of contemporaries.

    How not? In Caesar's notes on the Gallic War - "Galli currus ambulante incurrenti repente ab dextro latere".
  3. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 7 December 2015 08: 45
    +3
    Funny article, very.
    As if a respected author set a goal. collect all the legends and myths regarding the Celts.
    Separately, reading wherever it goes is good.
    It is worth uniting everything together - there lived such reckless guys who created something like a military order, while magnificent blacksmiths and fighters. They loved to sing on the battlefield, and also straighten their armor with their foot.
    Despite the excellent weapons, according to the dressing, the Romans nevertheless excelled everyone's head and very deftly put their iron-bound shields under terrifying blows. For some reason, copper shields were not suitable for these purposes. As well as shields made of wood and leather. What kind of steel was on the rim of Roman shields? And who made it?
    Among other things, the Celts, for God’s sake, knows how long the KARE battle formation was opened - well, I understood it in the way that describes how they deftly fought on both sides simultaneously.
    Fifteen years under the leadership of Hannibal, they rattled these Romans (true, moreover) as they wanted. It was then that they began to concede to any Roman rabble fighting for citizenship.
    Chariots ... generally apotheosis. On which fields the funny Celts were dissected in chariots, with one single dart-sulitsa.
    In short, I have not trusted Roman historians for a long time. After such a selection, as on order, trust generally falls below the plinth.
    .
    And if you compare another way to cut off the head of the enemies and put it on display - bad parallels are obtained.
    ....
    Exactly, like a review of the series "St. John's Wort" by F. Cooper - a crescendo of beauty and a decrescendo of reality.
    .
    Thank you, Vyacheslav.
    1. kalibr
      7 December 2015 09: 19
      +4
      Glad you liked it. But there is no particular merit here. All this was studied in detail by Peter Connolly. But the British have a peculiar, I would say chatty, manner of presentation. After all, despite all the shortcomings of our education, we were taught "academicism" and in a certain respect this is not bad, as you can see. Allows you to more completely present information, avoid unnecessary "chatter" and make it visible - as you yourself noticed. So the integration of world science is a very useful thing.
      1. Riv
        Riv 7 December 2015 10: 18
        +2
        Conolly is still a storyteller. No worse than Polybius. :) Well, how was the Celtic weapon worse than the Roman when it was much better?

        From the writings of Pliny, it is known that the Celts mined and processed iron ore. The illustrations in the article depict armor, which the Romans did not even dream of. The same Polybius wrote that the use of bronze was limited to the manufacture of armor, and weapons were made of steel. But it was exactly the same mild steel as the Celts. Moreover, the latter in addition, and the armor was made of steel. Caesar (the boy will not lie!) In his notes mentions that the Celts / Gauls used heavy plate armor in battle, covering a person from head to toe. Breaking through such armor was a big problem. And supposedly in such armor slaves fought.

        And the warships of the Celts? Again according to Caesar: they were made so firmly that the rams of the liburns could not break them. Judging by the description, they are quite adapted even to ocean voyages.
        1. AK64
          AK64 7 December 2015 11: 37
          0
          in-in; on Conolly something "to study" I would be careful ...
          1. kalibr
            7 December 2015 12: 09
            +1
            Do you know something better?
            1. AK64
              AK64 7 December 2015 14: 18
              +2
              It is the Celts or the ancient war in general?

              I don’t know any serious Celtic historians. (Which is not surprising, given the thousand-year dominance of the Germans on the continent: how many of those Celts, and from those Celts, are there any more?) But this does not make Canolly serious and reliable.

              The ancient war "as a whole" is so overwhelming work that anyone who tackles the "whole problem" will inevitably become a superficial murderer.
              1. kalibr
                7 December 2015 17: 26
                0
                That's it! I take only English-language historiography and there are a lot of books on it alone. But ... to read them all and choose the best author is simply unrealistic. Same with Connolly. There is fish for fishlessness and cancer. And we have a tradition - to criticize, strive for the ideal ... but ... "step by step" no one wants to go. And I remember how they pecked the same Gorelik. Here he is not right and wrong, and stretching ... but no one did better. The same Englishmen are studying the military history of Russia from his book. Nobody did the best!
            2. kalibr
              7 December 2015 17: 37
              +1
              That's what ... put a minus? Demand is not a sin! Is that a manifestation of a personal relationship?
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 7 December 2015 12: 02
          +1
          He is of course a storyteller. Moreover, he judges (in his old books quoted) from the bell tower of the time when he was preparing his books.
          But no one offers to take his word for it without question. Here, the seemingly much more illuminated theme of the action of the Roman legion on the battlefield (not at the level - half a legion across the battlefield back and forth, but at the level of the centurian or maniple fighters, based on their weapons) is rather vague. And you just want the "Manual of a young soldier" and "Charter" of the Celtic army with illustrations.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 7 December 2015 12: 07
      +3
      In the story with the Celts, everything is very controversial. Starting from the assertion that they did not have a state, which is extremely doubtful - rather, a single empire was not created, but principalities existed, and ending with the supposedly primitiveness of material culture and the savagery of morals in general.
      After all, all written information about them exists only from the words of the victorious Celts of the opponents, who did not suffer from a scientific, unbiased approach to the description of enemies.
      I don’t even remember just neutral sources, such as a visiting traveler from countries that did not directly compete and did not fight with the Celts.
      1. kalibr
        7 December 2015 17: 30
        0
        Yes, you are right, and the Romans most likely went to extremes in their description, and hardly any of them traveled in the "remote Celtic" forests. Or fields ... What do we have from the material? Celtic shields are solid wood without fittings, Roman 2-3 layers of "shingles" are often with fittings. It is clear that plywood is stronger. The length of the swords is different ... tactics, well that's all. Well, an indirect proof of the lack of centralized power, the fact that Rome smashed them piece by piece.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 7 December 2015 19: 17
          +1
          The Romans just did not have a special fantasy, did not fall into mysticism
          were with a slight sense of humor. Therefore, their descriptions of countries, customs,
          weapons of other nations are usually distinguished by accuracy and conciseness.
          At least this applies to their conquests in the East.
          They can be trusted.
          Connolly's Dignity: He is not "politicized." He is not "for" the Celts, and "for"
          Romans. The most correct approach to history. Do not look for someone whose ancestors are "grandfathers"
          2000 years ago and not begin to swell with pride for them ...
        2. Aljavad
          Aljavad 8 December 2015 18: 23
          0
          and hardly any of them traveled in the "deep Celtic" forests. Or fields ...


          Traces of Roman traders can be traced back to Scandinavia. The merchants were in no hurry to describe the "fishing spots". (They wrote about this in "Around the World" in the 1970s and 80s).

          And there were no less conservatives than there are now. A certain Greek from Massilia (Pytheas, or what?) Sailed to the Far North, and stated his observations. So "all progressive humanity" bellowed for 200-300 years. The name of a liar has become a proverb! Just think: water spilled on the ground does not make mud, but a kindled fire does! How can you believe him? It's true about griffins on the Riphean mountains and cyclops with centaurs. And so that the sun does not go down - a lie!
          This is again about ancient sources. Everything needs to be filtered. But, unfortunately, it is far from always from the point of view of modern common sense. And then the fomen begin ...
      2. Aljavad
        Aljavad 8 December 2015 03: 12
        0
        that they didn’t have a state, which is extremely doubtful - rather, a single empire was not created, but principalities existed,


        Rather - "chiefdoms", on authority. Cities were, began to be managed somehow. But little is heard about the "princes". More often - elders and leaders. (although I read Caesar in translation ...)

        In general, the power structure was very different from the Mediterranean. Like mores in general. And so - WILD !!!! wink
  4. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 7 December 2015 10: 19
    0
    Thank you for the continuation of the topic. Something you were gone for a long time. The photos are wonderful. I read a significant part of your articles in Pravda.ru. I am satisfied with this. I received your books. Rad. I read it in 2016.
    Until evening. Regards.
    1. kalibr
      7 December 2015 12: 11
      0
      The fact that I do not exist for a long time does not depend on me. How much they tell me, so much I write. You also have all the best!
  5. Wolf
    Wolf 7 December 2015 10: 23
    0
    Kelty, Geti, Gothi, Heti, Hititi and Goth RAD GOST, RADGOST German historians call him RADGEST! ;)! :) Maybe one bit too or not? :)
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 7 December 2015 11: 54
      0
      Kelty, Geti, Gothi, Heti, Hititi and Goth RAD GOST, RADGOST
      Only GOST we still lacked ...
    2. Aljavad
      Aljavad 8 December 2015 03: 17
      0
      Kelty, Geti, Gothi, Heti, Hititi and Goth RAD GOST, RADGOST German historians call him RADGEST! ;)! :) Maybe one bit too or not? :)


      Here in the wilds of the Congo live "Bo-ro-ro". And in the jungle of the Amazon - also "bororo". Are they related?
      Also hitites with geths and massagets. More people than the sounds of speech.
  6. washi
    washi 7 December 2015 13: 18
    +1
    Civilization has always moved to Europe from the East.
    They just didn’t call us. And Scythians and Celts and Huns and Tatars.
    We probably won't know the real history without a time machine, or a state program like Hitler's "legacy of the ancestors"
    1. kalibr
      7 December 2015 17: 34
      0
      It is also necessary to dig and dig and conduct analyzes of skulls and bones, to find out migration routes, types of people, types of tools. And it is very expensive.
      1. venaya
        venaya 7 December 2015 19: 05
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        It is also necessary to dig and dig and conduct analyzes of skulls and bones, to find out migration routes, types of people, types of tools. And it is very expensive.

        Yes, it’s honest to say a lot of things have already been excavated, the main problem is that nothing is published. Recently I tried to find the books of a famous American researcher in this field, so out of five of his translated books, not one is available anyway, whose censorship rules without limit, it’s simply not possible to breathe.
        1. kalibr
          7 December 2015 19: 44
          0
          You know, I don’t feel it, but maybe we’re watching different books. I just have the impression that everything can be found, obtained and read. As for translated books, it may have already ended? Circulations are small now ...
          1. venaya
            venaya 7 December 2015 20: 04
            +1
            I mean the books of Michael Cremo, to me even in English, especially in a lecture in Moscow he recommended exactly the original in English, there is more information than in translation. Circulations have nothing to do with it, there were also electronic versions, it just pinched.
            1. kalibr
              7 December 2015 20: 21
              0
              I don’t know this. What is he writing about?
              1. venaya
                venaya 7 December 2015 21: 50
                0
                "What is he writing about?"- he, Michael Cremo, is fond of collecting research of some scientists from all over the world, who were not published almost anywhere, and even pressed on the place of work due to the inconsistency of their scientific conclusions with generally accepted scientific positions. a regularity with which it is difficult to disagree. Perhaps here lies the secret of a special attitude to his work, the conclusions from which may not be liked by anyone. By the way, one of its provisions I found even in a recent article on VO, is interesting.
                1. kalibr
                  7 December 2015 23: 10
                  +1
                  Very interesting. But I don't know. But ... to create a theory that folds into a logical sequence is not so difficult. Take A. Kazantsev's novel Faetians. There, too, everything is very logically connected into one whole.
                  1. venaya
                    venaya 7 December 2015 23: 26
                    0
                    "creating a theory that develops into a logical sequence is not so difficult"- I will disappoint you, he does not create any theories, he just honestly conveys scientific data that does not fit into existing theories, that is, he is a malicious destroyer of generally accepted theories, which he very much annoyed very, very many people. His merit is only that that he honestly conveys the data of scientific research of practitioners, and not at all theorists who cheat on their theories. Remember the adage: “If an experiment does not fit into theory, so much the worse for an experiment.” This truth, unfortunately, applies just to many existing theories and is attributed to scientific authorities.Conservative-minded people hate Michael for this, which is not surprising.
        2. Aljavad
          Aljavad 8 December 2015 03: 19
          +1
          Yes, it’s honest to say a lot of things have already been excavated, the main problem is that nothing is published. Recently I tried to find the books of a famous American researcher in this field, so out of five of his translated books, not one is available anyway, whose censorship rules without limit, it’s simply not possible to breathe.


          Libraries "update collections" regularly.
    2. venaya
      venaya 7 December 2015 18: 48
      0
      Quote: Vasya
      Civilization has always moved to Europe from the East. They just didn’t call us. And Scythians and Celts and Huns and Tatars.

      I, too, have always suspected that all the confusion in historical research begins with the very terminology and the concepts that define them. For example, you write about the movement of civilization, so excuse me, but the term "Europe" just means "west", the Phoenicians imposed it on us from their African language, so if something moves, it is most likely still from the center to the outskirts, which western that eastern. So a word like "Scythians" is said to be more correctly called "sketes" (skete, wandering, cattle right there), "Tatars" - so this is generally military specialization and not nationality, and other words originally had a completely different meaning than that which nowadays it is customary to call this word. There are already articles that deny the meaning of the word "Celts"as a kind of nationality or ethnos, most likely a completely invented word sucked out of the finger. In the scientific community and their publications, unlike journalism, terminology is treated more carefully, punctually examining the origin of each word and determining what can be defined by this term. Therefore, reading nonfiction articles, such as this translation, is already becoming difficult for me, everything gets confused from the very beginning.I look at the pictures, but how different the people of modern France, once Galia (and there was another, Russian name for these places) countries, and more resemble in appearance today's residents of the Volga region. ”There is still a lot I want to say, but there is clearly not enough space here on the site.
      1. kalibr
        7 December 2015 19: 48
        0
        I had a "scientific" article on the military affairs of some "axmen" in the Volga region in the magazine Parabellum. But uninteresting and boring from the abundance of all sorts of terms and references. And here ... this is a paraphrase of Connolly with the addition of something new that appeared after the publication of his book "Greece and Rome in Wars". A "serious" article here will simply be of little interest to anyone.
        1. venaya
          venaya 7 December 2015 20: 16
          +1
          Correctly you put the term "scientific" in quotation marks. For me personally, in order to understand something easier to meet with the author of an article or report, you get thousands of times more useful information, and the articles themselves may indeed be not interesting, they are too specific. I just meant that the careless use of the most used terminology fundamentally confuses the reader. This is some kind of illness for almost all authors, they do not think about the fact that their terminology is just malicious, perhaps this is done on purpose, for unpublished purposes.
          1. kalibr
            7 December 2015 20: 23
            0
            It is also 100% true. For example, the introduction into circulation of such terms as "red-brown" (90s), "grant eaters" (today), etc. But in this case, probably, Connolly can hardly be suspected of this.
            1. venaya
              venaya 7 December 2015 20: 40
              0
              "Connolly can hardly be suspected of this"- so here he is the same victim as everyone else! He boldly takes advantage of the mistakes of previous authors without introducing any corrections. This is a common mistake: one mistake is superimposed on another, and so on. And the result is a complete bullshit, completely devoid of any meaning and finally clouding the minds of the reader. I suspect that this is done, including on purpose, otherwise the article (book) will simply not be passed. A peculiar form of censorship, the purpose: debelization, I do not observe other options for explanation.
              1. kalibr
                7 December 2015 23: 13
                0
                I don’t know what about censorship, although I worked with many publishers and editors, both English and ours. Sometimes they found fault with it very much, and sometimes it went like that. The British demand confirmation by links to photos from museums and books by famous authors. So I didn't notice that someone is standing and not missing. And the ignorance of the editors is still ... I know that very well! And if you publish an article in a scientific journal for money, then write whatever you want! At least about crushing water in a mortar. Baba Yaga and stupa. The genesis of the stupa as a vehicle for Baba Yaga. In my opinion, no one reads them at all. I had one article in a scientific journal with an error in the title ... what is it about.
                1. Aljavad
                  Aljavad 8 December 2015 03: 34
                  0
                  In my opinion no one reads them at all. I have one article in a scientific journal with an error in the title ... what can I say.


                  Another 20 years ago they wrote that in the then computer they put: 1. dictionary of scientific vocabulary, 2. English grammar, 3. formal requirements for a scientific article. At the exit, we had a sci-fi abracadabra, which is easy! - printed a couple of scientific journals!
                2. Aljavad
                  Aljavad 8 December 2015 15: 48
                  0
                  I have one article in a scientific journal with an error in the title ... what can I say.


                  Another 20 years ago they wrote that in the then computer they put: 1. dictionary of scientific vocabulary, 2. English grammar, 3. formal requirements for a scientific article. At the exit, we had a sci-fi abracadabra, which is easy! - printed a couple of scientific journals!
  7. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 7 December 2015 15: 30
    0
    And they also had "wonderful" traditions of human sacrifice from a wicker man to chopping up prisoners of war and hanging not only heads but also arms and legs on fences and trees. A nice little place was a Celtic village.
  8. Bully
    Bully 7 December 2015 17: 06
    +1
    Strange ?! V.N. Tatishchev, referring to Diodorus of Sicily, says that the Slavs under the name of Geneti, Gaul and Meshen during the Trojan War moved from Paflagonia and Colchis to Europe and the Mediterranean coast seized to Italy, they built Venice ...
    1. venaya
      venaya 7 December 2015 19: 46
      0
      Quote: Bully
      Strange ?! V.N. Tatishchev, citing Diodorus of Sicily, says that the Slavs under the name of Geneti, Gaul ... Venice was built ...

      Well, Venice and Genoa were built similarly by the Veneti, now called differently, for example s-ven-s - Scandinavian rocky Veneti, there are many other examples. The term Slavs appears only in the XNUMXth century, probably about the Latin word "sklaven" (sklav) appeared in the XNUMXth century, which in turn is consonant with the Etruscan "falconers" (sun worshipers, the image of the sun god was always with the head of a falcon, even in Egypt). There is a feeling that the term is generally quite left-wing, I myself try not to use it.
      1. Bully
        Bully 7 December 2015 21: 26
        0
        Quote: venaya
        The term Slavs appears only in the XNUMXth century, probably about the Latin word sklav

        Everything is exactly the opposite. The Romanesque sklav / slave (slave) comes from the name Slavs. It's no secret that most of the slaves in the Roman Empire were Slavs. In general, the Slavic names speak for themselves. And they appeared long before R.Kh. And everywhere the root is "glory". Here is a fragment from the essay by Yegor Ivanovich Klassen:
        1. venaya
          venaya 7 December 2015 22: 10
          0
          "And everywhere the root is "glory""- You give data from a book published in 1848, I also read it like many others. I gave you a later interpretation of the origin of this term, modern researchers. Unfortunately, Klassen is no longer with us, I still think that he would agree with our, later interpretation, all the same, the volume of scientific research today has grown significantly.By the way, in this book there is a drawing of an Etruscan cameo depicting a young girl with a text in the language and with letters close to ours, today's, it is useful to hang it too, otherwise I was mucked here by non-believers , already horror.
  9. Bully
    Bully 7 December 2015 21: 28
    0
    ..........