Mighty Veil
First Post
I like Germanic. It's similar, very, to vikings, but more land oriented. And more on eastern euro and definetly more on the Paladin knights and Teutonic kinghts.
Vikings or Celts
- Thread starter Turanil
- Start date
Psychic Warrior
First Post
tetsujin28 said:
And yet everyone in this thread knew exactly what the OP was talking about when he selected 'Celts' as one of the choices...
tetsujin28
First Post
Not the point. I selected 'neither', as I run historically-based games. If you're fine running fantasy Celts, hey, more power to you. No harm, no foul. There's no Wrong Bad Fun in someone running a game of Slaine, and I'd probably have a lot of fun playing in it. But that wasn't the question, which was what would I choose. I'm simply answering for me, not for the rest of the world.Psychic Warrior said:
Also, the problematic use of 'Celts' is far more than a mere issue of semantics. It's something that's been taking place in archaeology and historical studies for quite some time. It has a lot to do with the old "pots = people" fallacy.
Last edited:
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
Agemegos said:
'Occupied for about a generation and a half' doesn't count.
Both and More!
Both is the best choice.
In real life, they are closely connected groups. Dublin and Donegal (Irish for dun = fortress, gal = foregners) were founded by Vikings, not Celts. Irish red heads are really of Scandinavian genetic background. The "pure" Scandinavian culture of Iceland includes a lot of Irish blood, and the Irish discovered the place first and told the Vikings.
I'm mostly Irish-American, but also with English, Cornish (related to the Welsh), and Norwegian blood. In the UK, people assumed I was English until I talked (they'd ask directions, then look pained at my accent, and ask someone else!), and believed me when I said I was Cornish to the Cornish, and Irish to the Irish. In Norway, people assumed I was Norwegian. Basically, the whole North Sea to Irish Sea region is one big Northwestern European melting pot, certainly genetically and to a lesser extent culturally.
I agree with people complaining about the Enya-ization and neo-pagan crap that passes for Celtic these days. I'd get some Celts that are more like the Dunlandings of Tolkien, and less like touchy-feely New Agers.
In my Greyhawk campaign, there are lots of Vikings, some Celts, some American Indians, and some Mongol horse warriors. Why should fantasy be less diverse than our world?
Both is the best choice.
In real life, they are closely connected groups. Dublin and Donegal (Irish for dun = fortress, gal = foregners) were founded by Vikings, not Celts. Irish red heads are really of Scandinavian genetic background. The "pure" Scandinavian culture of Iceland includes a lot of Irish blood, and the Irish discovered the place first and told the Vikings.
I'm mostly Irish-American, but also with English, Cornish (related to the Welsh), and Norwegian blood. In the UK, people assumed I was English until I talked (they'd ask directions, then look pained at my accent, and ask someone else!), and believed me when I said I was Cornish to the Cornish, and Irish to the Irish. In Norway, people assumed I was Norwegian. Basically, the whole North Sea to Irish Sea region is one big Northwestern European melting pot, certainly genetically and to a lesser extent culturally.
I agree with people complaining about the Enya-ization and neo-pagan crap that passes for Celtic these days. I'd get some Celts that are more like the Dunlandings of Tolkien, and less like touchy-feely New Agers.
In my Greyhawk campaign, there are lots of Vikings, some Celts, some American Indians, and some Mongol horse warriors. Why should fantasy be less diverse than our world?
Nyaricus
First Post
I voted other, because your reasoning seems a bit . . . shortsighted. There were many barbarous cultures at one point or another, and i don't see why you wouldn't endeavour to include a few choice for the players - otherwise they will all end up playing A) Orc Barbarians or B) Vking/Cletic Barbarians. Kinda niche and chiche, don't you think?
Kuld
Explorer
tetsujin28 said:
Oh, I disagree. It is the same Indo-European culture that swept west across Europe. Many anthropologists would agree that it was not the people per se but their language and culture that dominated most of Western Europe at the time (La Tene?) An empire built on cultural propagation rather than military conquest.
Correct me if I’m wrong, me anthro classes were quite some time ago.
tetsujin28
First Post
There is no evidence of an 'Indo-European culture'. This is the result of a confusion between language and culture. If you can find a copy, I recommend Colin Renfrew's (one of the most respected archaeologists and linguists dealing with Indo-European origins) article, "Prehistory and the identity of Europe, or, don't let's be beastly to the Hungarians" in P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, and C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities. It's a good volume in general, and has lots of good articles on the 'Celtic question'.Kuld said:
Some statements in the article are especially worth noting:
"...I shall argue again, as others have done recently...that 'the Celts' never existed in any meaningful sense, although it is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss and analyse the extent to which languages which we would classify as Celtic were spoken at any given time. Similarly, it is clear, I think, that there was never an ethnic unit that could properly be called 'Indo-European'
...
[T]here is never likely to have been a 'Celtic nation', if that term implies an association of populations possessing some coherently-unified social organization. Certainly there is no archaeological evidence for such an association.
...
In the same way, it is highly unlikely that there was ever any kind of Indo-European social unity in Europe.
...
There is thus emphatically no basic presupposition that family relationships among languages are likely to be accompanied by social bonding among communities." (pgs. 128-129)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Poll
