Why is it that people have more love for Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Phoenicia compared to Thracians, Illyrians, Celts, and Vikings?

"Love for" ?

You need to explain what you mean - says the Celtic Viking.

nordmann wrote:

"Love for" ?

You need to explain what you mean - says the Celtic Viking.

Celts and Norsemen are entirely different people. What in the most nightmarish parts of Gehenna are you talking about? You're saying to me that I have extremely limited knowledge of the Roman Empire yet you can't even tell the difference between a Celt and a Nordic? I can bet 100% that you think the Greeks and the Romans were one and that you also think Egyptians and Mesopotamians are the same.

nordmann wrote:

"Love for" ?

You need to explain what you mean - says the Celtic Viking.

Oh come on. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

This probably isn't the time to introduce you to the notion that "Celtic" as an ethnic descriptor only originated in late 19th century rudimentary anthropology, or indeed that "Viking" refers to an occupation and not a race. Some of them certainly deserve a little love though, I heartily agree.

But this is getting tedious now. Have you any contribution to make to actual historical discussion or are you merely trolling the site? Your grasp of even basic historical concepts appears to be extremely flimsy indeed, and while that in itself does not preclude anyone from engaging in discussion, some self awareness regarding one's ignorance might be seen as the very minimum requirement to avoid inadvertently offending others through gratuitously dismissing their well intended efforts to help you understand even these basic concepts and to avoid using historical terms with such inaccuracy.

Of course the alternative explanation for the tone and content of your posts thus far could be that there is nothing inadvertent about either, and that means "trolling". Deliberate disruption of the site will only bring about a prompt, effective and entirely predictable response.

So careful how you respond to this.

nordmann wrote:

This probably isn't the time to introduce you to the notion that "Celtic" as an ethnic descriptor only originated in late 19th century rudimentary anthropology, or indeed that "Viking" refers to an occupation and not a race. Some of them certainly deserve a little love though, I heartily agree.

Yes, the Celts are indeed a separate race from the Nordics. As for the case of Vikings, does it even matter that I used the wrong term? You knew exactly that I was referring to Norsemen when I said Viking. And yes, most Vikings are indeed warlike and that is evidenced by their religion being essentially warlike. You only go to Valhalla if you die in battle. Stop saying that the Celts and the Norse are the same people. You might as well say that Chinese and Nigerians are the same people based on your logic.

nordmann wrote:

Your grasp of even basic historical concepts appears to be extremely flimsy indeed,

Is this coming from the topic involving the Roman Empire? I know what you are talking about. I don't think the ancient Romans were nazis but I also cannot accept your thinking that the ancient Romans were tolerant saints. My pink gladiatrix lady will probably not get killed by the Roman law but the fact is that she will most likely have many cases of being beaten and being mocked by Roman pagans due to her qualities and appearance that is just way way out of the ordinary for ancient history.

Yes, there were a lot of weird peoples in ancient history such as the prankster prostitute cosplayer Elagabalus and the actor emperor Caligula. Elagabalus loves pranking and dressing up as a prostitute while Caligula is an actor and actors are considered in the same league as prostitutes during the Roman Empire but guess what? None of them were ever thought of as good and none of them ended up in a good place and those "weirdos" were not even close to my pink gladiatrix lady in fashion and qualities.

Seriously man, Roman women weren't even allowed to hold political power and the high standing Roman women didn't even walked the streets as that would be beneath them and instead they were carried by their slaves. This just goes to show that ancient Romans were very heavily invested in dignity compare to what you think. You think they were so liberal and tolerant when it comes to fashion. You think the Roman Empire looks like something out of Comic con.

The Romans even thought actors are no different from prostitutes and that female gymnastics are immoral. You really think a Roman father will just let her teenage daughter act and dress like my singing dancing pink gladiatrix lady? I will accept that view of yours if I am on an LSD trip.

nordmann wrote:

Of course the alternative explanation for the tone and content of your posts thus far could be that there is nothing inadvertent about either, and that means "trolling".

I am not trolling. You also have to remember that many people such as me wouldn't blindly accept views and that I will also argue with you. For example is you think my pink gladiatrix lady wouldn't be mocked or beaten a bit in the Roman Empire. Seriously man, even the most modern and the most prosperous parts of the world such as Japan, UK, and the USA have discrimination and racism so what makes you think that every single person in the ancient Roman Empire would NOT mock and beat my pink gladiatrix lady? As for me "trolling", the reason why my response to you guys was a bit blunt is because you don't even take me seriously in my questions such as the "Egyptian haircuts" and this one which is about Middle Easterns vs Europeans.

If we eliminate a malevolent application, impudently expressed, of feigned ignorance, then we are left with a presumption of innocent but impudent expression of actual ignorance. This of course simply begs a second question regarding the nature and reason behind such ignorance. A child, for example, can be forgiven ignorance, and in fact it is even usefully expressed on their part if and when it then leads others to helpfully correcting their knowledge deficit. It doesn't help of course if the child is impudent, but then this too can be tolerated as the goal of education supersedes the impediment of precocity or insolence in most cases. If no longer a child then something conceivably more tragic and certainly more difficult to countenance has occurred - the individual has managed through mental limitation, or profound lack of opportunity, or (hopefully not) malicious interference from another party, to avoid acquiring even the most basic level of cognisance required to broach discussion on any topic with the maturity required to sustain a conversation.

A brief but thorough examination of your previous contribution might illustrate the dilemma both you and your interlocutors face. I will simply point out the obvious items:

Yes, the Celts are indeed a separate race from the Nordics.
Use of "Nordic" aside, there was no single race called the "Celts", and some of those within that linguistic category (for such is the true application of the term) were antecedents of the later Danish populations.

And yes, most Vikings are indeed warlike and that is evidenced by their religion being essentially warlike. You only go to Valhalla if you die in battle.
Valhalla is one assembly point in the afterlife and not even reserved for those who died in battle but rather those who will be recruited to fight in Ragnarok, though it is true you won't find women there. Which should at least make you curious about where everyone else ends up in such religious belief? Your knowledge of Hel, Folkvang, the fields and lakes of Ran etc is obviously non-existent or you would not have proclaimed Valhalla as the sole destination of the dead.

Stop saying that the Celts and the Norse are the same people.
That's easy. I didn't, but I did point out the false dichotomy in your errant thinking.

Is this coming from the topic involving the Roman Empire?
No, it's from all your comments thus far.

I don't think the ancient Romans were nazis but I also cannot accept your thinking that the ancient Romans were tolerant saints.
A point no one made, least of all me. Your comprehension of English seems to have let you down.

My pink gladiatrix lady will probably not get killed by the Roman law but the fact is that she will most likely have many cases of being beaten and being mocked by Roman pagans due to her qualities and appearance that is just way way out of the ordinary for ancient history.
In the absence of any obvious patronage she will be lucky to find enough food to survive, even before legal or illegal means are employed to dispatch her.

Yes, there were a lot of weird peoples in ancient history such as the prankster prostitute cosplayer Elagabalus and the actor emperor Caligula.
Strange examples of your point - as their "eccentricities" contributed each to their respective deaths. Your Pink Lady by your own admission is even "weirder" and has no protection such as they enjoyed.

Seriously man, Roman women weren't even allowed to hold political power and the high standing Roman women didn't even walked the streets as that would be beneath them and instead they were carried by their slaves.
True about official power, but terribly naive if you think they therefore held no power. And "carried" suggests all availed of litters all of the time. That was a slow and cumbersome method and not confined to female use anyway. It was useful in some circumstances but not however in others. Depending on the street and the reason to be out at whatever time then simply to walk with escorts was by far the more practical option.

This just goes to show that ancient Romans were very heavily invested in dignity compare to what you think.
I "think" dignitas as understood in Rome was not only heavily invested in but formed the basis of all social and personal perceptions of self.

You think they were so liberal and tolerant when it comes to fashion. You think the Roman Empire looks like something out of Comic con.
When reviewed over a thousand years any culture's fashion sense can be seen to have been liberally interpreted. This does not translate into tolerance in any given period though. "Comic con" is not something I'm familiar with, though I have suspected you of trying to instigate one, right enough.

The Romans even thought actors are no different from prostitutes and that female gymnastics are immoral. You really think a Roman father will just let her teenage daughter act and dress like my singing dancing pink gladiatrix lady? I will accept that view of yours if I am on an LSD trip.
A gladiator might have no problem with his daughter following in his footsteps, such things happened. A poor man might not stand in his daughter's way if her aberrant behaviour gave her an advantage in life, such happened also. You should not need to destroy your brain cells even further to acknowledge the extreme limitations within your presumption.

I am not trolling.
Hmm ....

Cain Ravenstone wrote:

Why is it that people have more love for Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Phoenicia compared to Thracians, Illyrians, Celts, and Vikings?

Some poll data is probably needed to back up that assertion Cain. For my part (and I think that the word 'love' is maybe too strong) but in terms of interest then I would rank the list as follows:

1. Phoenicia - its trading ethos, ability to create wealth and its maritime glamour are hard to beat, I'm also fascinated by its Punic successor Carthage.
 
2. Illyria - I'm not that interested in ancient Illyria but the Napoleonic and later Hapsburg state would have been a delightful place to visit for any tourist in the first half of the 19th century.
 
3. Egypt - needless to say that there's an awful lot of history to choose from here, but if I had to choose then I'd probably go for the 300 years of the Ptolemaic basileia.  
 
4. Vikings - I'm more interested in the later vikings and particularly those who got furthest from Scandinavia such as the Varangian guard of the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople.

5. Celts - as nordmann has said this is a disputed term, but using it in its 19th century linguistic sense, then I've always wanted to visit Galicia in European Iberia. That's not to be confused with Galicia in Asia Minor (although I wouldn't mind visiting there too) or to be confused with Caucasian Iberia. If or when this pandemic subsides then I'm thinking of attempting the Camino de Santiago.
   
6. Thracians - I've limited interested in the Thracians. Their main role seemed to have been to get conquered by whichever ancient power was about to become top dog - i.e. Persia, Macedonia and Rome. A sort of weathervane people in others words. That said, Spartacus himself was Thracian so they probably have something to teach us.
 
7. Mesopotamia - for such famous and ancient civilizations, I have shockingly little interest in Babylon and Nineveh etc. No doubt Green George will probably disabuse me of my ignorance in this.

I am not a moderator just an ordinary person interested in discussing history, in awe of the knowledge of some who use this forum and am generally disdainful of newly potted theories that are meant to look clever and discerning. You walk on quick sands here with the depth of knowledge that could be brought to light. I of course make quite an ass of my self too... and delight in toying with anyone else on the same path.

Now about what people love.......that's like generalising on providing a selection of pot noodles for a crowd you do not know. The coffee table book lot delve into anything which is startling - for a bit then they move on. I have yet to find anyone who gets a kick out of Phoenicia... not even the Phoencians because they made a huge effort to get out and about for a thousand years of setting colonies and trading posts. Where they did  it and the results are more fascinating than Tyre and Sidon..... apart from  mass slaughter there by Alexander the not so great. How they influence Etruria and Etruscans is interesting but not in the remit of your being loved stuff. Dedicated scholarship is not the same as niblits of knowledge - real intellects through all time have had to suffer the silliness of lesser minds.

In my teens I once had a longish conversation - one to one and alone with Sir Michael Tippett who had just launched his great Midsummer Madness opera at Covent Garden. I cringe with memory of the things I said and asked about - but he was charming, tried to enlighten me and looked mighty relieved when the sherry was brought round. I learned a huge lesson about being smartarsed with the schooled - unless I know them well - or think I do. You might be startled by what some people here know.

Vizzer wrote:

Cain Ravenstone wrote:

Why is it that people have more love for Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Phoenicia compared to Thracians, Illyrians, Celts, and Vikings?

Some poll data is probably needed to back up that assertion Cain. For my part (and I think that the word 'love' is maybe too strong) but in terms of interest then I would rank the list as follows:

1. Phoenicia - its trading ethos, ability to create wealth and its maritime glamour are hard to beat, I'm also fascinated by its Punic successor Carthage.
 
2. Illyria - I'm not that interested in ancient Illyria but the Napoleonic and later Hapsburg state would have been a delightful place to visit for any tourist in the first half of the 19th century.
 
3. Egypt - needless to say that there's an awful lot of history to choose from here, but if I had to choose then I'd probably go for the 300 years of the Ptolemaic basileia.  
 
4. Vikings - I'm more interested in the later vikings and particularly those who got furthest from Scandinavia such as the Varangian guard of the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople.

5. Celts - as nordmann has said this is a disputed term, but using it in its 19th century linguistic sense, then I've always wanted to visit Galicia in European Iberia. That's not to be confused with Galicia in Asia Minor (although I wouldn't mind visiting there too) or to be confused with Caucasian Iberia. If or when this pandemic subsides then I'm thinking of attempting the Camino de Santiago.
   
6. Thracians - I've limited interested in the Thracians. Their main role seemed to have been to get conquered by whichever ancient power was about to become top dog - i.e. Persia, Macedonia and Rome. A sort of weathervane people in others words. That said, Spartacus himself was Thracian so they probably have something to teach us.
 
7. Mesopotamia - for such famous and ancient civilizations, I have shockingly little interest in Babylon and Nineveh etc. No doubt Green George will probably disabuse me of my ignorance in this.

I am talking about people thinking that Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Phoenicians had far more achievements than the Vikings, Celts, Illyrians, and Thracians.

People thinking about achievements is not the same thing as having 'more love for' various places and peoples. Indeed that choice of wording was queried by nordmann at the beginning of the thread. That said - those achievements need to be listed and examples of people's thoughts on them need to be provided in order for this to be evaluated.

nordmann wrote:

If we eliminate a malevolent application, impudently expressed, of feigned ignorance, then we are left with a presumption of innocent but impudent expression of actual ignorance. This of course simply begs a second question regarding the nature and reason behind such ignorance. A child, for example, can be forgiven ignorance, and in fact it is even usefully expressed on their part if and when it then leads others to helpfully correcting their knowledge deficit. It doesn't help of course if the child is impudent, but then this too can be tolerated as the goal of education supersedes the impediment of precocity or insolence in most cases. If no longer a child then something conceivably more tragic and certainly more difficult to countenance has occurred - the individual has managed through mental limitation, or profound lack of opportunity, or (hopefully not) malicious interference from another party, to avoid acquiring even the most basic level of cognisance required to broach discussion on any topic with the maturity required to sustain a conversation.

Wow you wrote that incredibly long essay describing me as dumb when I obviously do not care. So much fancy terms yet I don't even care cause those are nothing but mere opinions. The fact is that I am right. For example is that Celts are indeed a culture of their own. They even had their own mythology. Another example of why I'm right is also the fact that you think the ancient Romans are so super tolerant (which is funnier than any AAA Hollywood comedy) while I don't. Lots of crazy stuff happened in that Roman Empire and you have to remember that. Sorry man but I am clearly right here so much that essay you composed is nothing but a big fat load of fancy gibber.

nordmann wrote:

Use of "Nordic" aside, there was no single race called the "Celts", and some of those within that linguistic category (for such is the true application of the term) were antecedents of the later Danish populations.

Yes, there were Celts. They existed as a separate culture with their own unique separate religion. Why are you pushing this notion that they were not separate? I'm starting to think that the person I am communicating with on the other side of the screen is nothing but a 46 year old with the mentality of a 5 year old who sniffs LSD for breakfast on a daily basis. You again made another comical LSD induced assumption by saying that the later Danish populations came from the Celts. The Danes like all Norse populations were all Germanic populations descended from Germanic tribes. They weren't Celtic.

You really love indulging in the fantasy of others being one people despite them being different, do you? Like many racist around the world, I have no doubts that you also most likely think that Japanese and Koreans were actually just Chinese who practiced kung fu. You also most likely think that Carthaginians are Egyptians just because Carthaginians were in North Africa like Egyptians. You most likely also think that
Persians are Arabs just because they are Muslims in the Middle East when in fact that they are actually Indo Europeans.

This is the best comedy I've ever watched.

nordmann wrote:

Valhalla is one assembly point in the afterlife and not even reserved for those who died in battle but rather those who will be recruited to fight in Ragnarok, though it is true you won't find women there. Which should at least make you curious about where everyone else ends up in such religious belief? Your knowledge of Hel, Folkvang, the fields and lakes of Ran etc is obviously non-existent or you would not have proclaimed Valhalla as the sole destination of the dead.

You know what? You are indeed right...

...for people who are on an LSD trip mixed with Ecstasy. Yeah.

I never said Valhalla is the only afterlife destination in Norse mythology. Stop putting words in my mouth. I just said that Valhalla is the only place that Vikings want to end up in after they die. Sorry man but your knowledge of who goes to Valhalla further confirms to me that the person I am communicating with on the other side of the screen is probably your amateur deceiver who loves deceiving others with completely false information but has less than average basic brain capacity in choosing his next victim. You're not going to deceive me cause I know Norse mythology. I am not a newbie in the Internet. I have been here for a long time dealing with trolls so you aren't fooling anyone here.

It is clear that you go to Valhalla if you die in battle otherwise you'll just end up in Helheim. I'm not really sure if Helheim is a place of brutal punishment and torture like the Judeo Christian Hell or just a plain old boring frozen wasteland but it is pretty clear that Vikings never EVER wanted to be in Helheim and Helheim's queen goddess Hel is portrayed as very evil and one of the main villains in Ragnarok. This further confirms that all Norse peoples want to go to Valhalla and how will you go to Valhalla? By dying in battle of course.

As for Ran, you also made me laugh again. Ran is not a place but a being.

Folkvang on the otherhand is just like Valhalla meaning you only go there if you die in battle so how does that help you against my claim that all Vikings were warlike? Zero. Ran and Folkvang weren't pleasant places for innocent people who never died in battle like you think. You simpleton. Again, what great show of comedy you orchestrated. You have great talent in comedy. You will definitely beat Conan o'Brien in his game.

nordmann wrote:

That's easy. I didn't, but I did point out the false dichotomy in your errant thinking.

Yes you did. You just said that Celts as unique culture did not exist and also that Danes came from Celts. Read your comments again. Apparently, you are also suffering from brain deformity.

nordmann wrote:

No, it's from all your comments thus far.

Really? You mean I am ignorant of Scythians wearing tunics and pajamas? I clearly said that they wore tunics and pajamas which is clearly true. You know what? I don't care about mere opinions about me as they are just mere opinions. Not worth my time.

nordmann wrote:

A point no one made, least of all me.

Yes you made that point by thinking that Romans will not wired to be racist when in fact they are. Apparently according to your logic, the Romans never thought of others such as Jews, Carthaginians, Celts, Thracians, and Syrians as inferior Non-Hellenic barbarians. Seriously, did you get your knowledge of the Romans from fictional books such as the Lord of the Rings? Are you sure they are even Romans? They're probably not Romans but are some fictional fantasy empire of light fighting the Lord of Darkness himself. You're probably talking about Demacia of League of Legends except they were an Empire and their fighting against a Satanic overlord. Check your doctor so he can give yourself a diagnosis on Schizophrenia.

nordmann wrote:

Your comprehension of English seems to have let you down.

Well are you sure if your basic cognitive abilities are even working? Even if I lack English comprehension, that's far better than lacking basic cognitive sense. We aren't talking about English but about the tolerance of the Roman Empire.

nordmann wrote:

In the absence of any obvious patronage she will be lucky to find enough food to survive,

Where is she gonna get that food? You think people will just freely give that to her? I never said that every Roman will discriminate her. I just said that there will be many cases of her being discriminated.

nordmann wrote:

even before legal or illegal means are employed to dispatch her.

I never said she is invincible. I never said that she won't have any chance of acquiring food before she is caught. You got some nice LSD induced common "sense" there.

nordmann wrote:

Strange examples of your point - as their "eccentricities" contributed each to their respective deaths. Your Pink Lady by your own admission is even "weirder" and has no protection such as they enjoyed.

You just confirmed my point. Exactly, the oddities of Caligula and Elagabalus contributed to their demise which is what I said.

Again, you confirmed my point again by saying that my pink lady is weirder than Elagabalus and Caligula and that she has a far higher chance of dying due to her not having power and protection.

Thank you! You self contradicting LSD candy muncher!

And for that, You should be saying this:

nordmann wrote:

Your comprehension of English seems to have let you down.

To you!

nordmann wrote:

True about official power, but terribly naive if you think they therefore held no power.

Did I say they didn't have any power at all? I just said they didn't have political power. Not all forms of power are political, Mr. LSD man. I know for a fact that Roman women have the rights to take control of businesses.

nordmann wrote:

And "carried" suggests all availed of litters all of the time. That was a slow and cumbersome method and not confined to female use anyway. It was useful in some circumstances but not however in others. Depending on the street and the reason to be out at whatever time then simply to walk with escorts was by far the more practical option.

I am talking about noble Roman women and not your typical Roman women. Yes, they were indeed carried by slaves instead of walking. Stop saying the opposite of reality when reality is obviously true. Amateurs deceivers won't work on me.

nordmann wrote:

I "think" dignitas as understood in Rome was not only heavily invested in but formed the basis of all social and personal perceptions of self.

I am not talking about dignitas. I am talking about how Romans are so heavily invested in how they are looked upon in society. Nice English comprehension.

nordmann wrote:

When reviewed over a thousand years any culture's fashion sense can be seen to have been liberally interpreted. This does not translate into tolerance in any given period though.

Does that even matter? The fact is that Romans weren't that unbothered when it comes to encountering extremely exotic fashion such as my pink lady's. And yes, the Romans required every citizen to wear a toga and especially for female citizens to wear chastity togas.

nordmann wrote:

"Comic con" is not something I'm familiar with, though I have suspected you of trying to instigate one, right enough.

How about if you start researching what I mean? Use the internet. Ang person with a common sense will use the Internet if they encounter a new form of term. Seriously, just look at the diversity of costumes in Comic con.

nordmann wrote:

A gladiator might have no problem with his daughter following in his footsteps, such things happened. A poor man might not stand in his daughter's way if her aberrant behaviour gave her an advantage in life, such happened also.

I am talking about your average well off Roman freeman. I am not talking about a desperate slave. Plus, most gladiators were slaves in the Roman Empire. I didn't say that Romans were not gonna swallow their pride if they are desperate.

Moreover, gladiator combatants ar emostly slaves. Gladiatorial combat is shameful in the eyes of Romans. You are forgetting the fact that most gladiators are desperate slaves. No average SANE freeman Roman with enough food and shelter will just enter the gladiatorial life. Being a gladiator is not easy. You can die anytime and are pitted against wild animals like lions. You are also basically a prisoner. You think an average economically stable SANE freeman Roman will do that? What do you eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner that caused you to type this? LSD?

Your attempt to use a desperate Roman slave as an example shows how desperate you are for a reply but unfortunate for you, I am still right.

And for that, you should tell this to yourself and not to me:

nordmann wrote:

You should not need to destroy your brain cells even further to acknowledge the extreme limitations within your presumption.

In conclusion, my debate opponent is a 46 year old with the mind of a 5 year old LSD lover.
Period.

Cain, I think you've mistaken this forum for one of the many platforms which accommodate your standard of discourse. This site isn't one of them - whatever chance it has of encouraging intelligent debate, even between people of vehemently opposing views, could never survive a surfeit of contributors such as yourself. Thanks for dropping in, and best of luck with your Pink Lady fantasy. However I see no advantage to yourself or to anyone else here in maintaining communication in which one party signally fails to read, let alone comprehend, what their interlocutor has just taken time to tell them.

Disagreement is the essence of debate, and that is good. However argument, as you may know from having read Hegel's Dialectics, even when at its most vitriolic will always be a self-defeating exercise should reason be subsumed in excessive and pointless passion, measured intelligible structure of thought be displaced by wantonly unintelligible destruction of language itself and, crucially, intelligence be overwhelmed by base and instinctive parodies of wit governed solely by anger. To respect your opponent you therefore first have to respect your own reason, your own method, and your own intelligence. By the same token, failure to respect your opponent simply betrays a crippling lack of self-respect and a fundamental failure to master any of these three integral traits which together constitute the basic civility, humanity and dignity on which all productive discourse depends.

You're always welcome back of course, once you've overcome what appears to be this rather crucial impediment to your communicative skills. Of course this sentiment itself presumes that you've actually read what I have just written (the words, I mean, and not what you imagine them to be) and understood it. So I am curbing my optimism in that respect.