# Goths, Celts and Vikings



## Baron Opal (Aug 21, 2010)

So, if I was going to highlight the major differences between these cultures, what would they be?

The goal is to make stylistic differences between groups of humans; different races, if you will.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 21, 2010)

The Vikings are maritime where as neither the Celts or Goths are.

The Goths (in the period they are most known for) are a wandering people. The whole population can up stakes, pack everything into wagons and move. 
Their battle tactics can include the use of cavalry and wagon laagers.

For chieftans/kings Viking and Goth inheritence tends to be father to son but Celtic, every male out to second/third cousins have equal claim and the method of choosing from the claiments is elective, though butchering all opponents is considered legitimate.

Vikings tend to favour defensive battle tactics and let the enemy come to them and are primarily infantry.

Goths tend to be more mixed and it is hard to be definitive with regard to the celts. However,the Celtd tend to be agressive on the battlefield but most of the information is from earlier eras than either the Vikings or the Goths. So the Gauls tend to be swordsmen and the Britons were known for the use of Chariots, in the Irish Ulster Cycle of myth Chariots are mentioned all the time but by the time the Vikings hit Ireland, Irish armies are mosty infantry and the same applies in the wars with the Normans/English. In fact the Normans rapidly abandon heavy cavalry in Ireland the gorund was against it.Too much forest and bog.

That is it from me, off the tp of my head. I would have to rsearch it to tellyou much more.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 21, 2010)

I'm not sure I get what you're asking.

Rules-wise, there simply wouldn't be any significant differences to warrant separate racial listings. Although IIRC, the Celts both predate and outlasted the Goths who were really just a migratory group that were absorbed and conquered several times over by their own internal squabbles, the Huns and the Ottomans, and the Vikings appeared later than both groups.

So... firstly, if you're requiring historical accuracy, I'm not sure if all three groups ever appear as definable entities all within the same eras as each other. But if you're just going for flavour, then you kinda have to ask at which point in their respective histories are you talking about? Celts were a very diverse and largely dispersed culture that spanned... well... technically they're still around today, having simply been amalgamated by invading forces, but primarily remaining in Ireland, Wales, Britain, Scotland and France.

So the largest disparity is going to be technological, but again, what period do you choose? Vikings probably had iron weapons in their earliest incarnations but by the eleventh century had probably managed to adapt to steel, having raided and plundered throughout most of southern europe where steel was more well established, IIRC.

Point being... I think you need to define your question a great deal more before anyone can really narrow things down to a coherent or succinct answer.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 21, 2010)

Vikings came from Norway and Sweden, then spread to Iceland and Denmark (and Britain).

Goths came from Sweden, and spread to mainland Europe.

DNA-wise they're the same people. Norsemen.


----------



## Starman (Aug 21, 2010)

Some pictures should help define the differences.

Goth






Viking





Celt


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 21, 2010)

Baron Opal said:


> So, if I was going to highlight the major differences between these cultures, what would they be?
> 
> The goal is to make stylistic differences between groups of humans; different races, if you will.






ardoughter said:


> The Vikings are maritime where as neither the Celts or Goths are.




Actually the Celts were a maritime nation, at least some of them from before and up to the Roman period. How did the Celts get across the English channel or the Irish sea, but more than that, many peoples on the coast of Britain and Britainny saw the Irish as pirates, though they were all Celts. They lacked the superior clinker style viking ships, still had naval transport that could cross oceans, as the viking ships, but unlike most of the other galley style ships of the Mediterranean that could not.



ardoughter said:


> Vikings tend to favour defensive battle tactics and let the enemy come to them and are primarily infantry.
> 
> Goths tend to be more mixed and it is hard to be definitive with regard to the celts. However,the Celtd tend to be agressive on the battlefield but most of the information is from earlier eras than either the Vikings or the Goths. So the Gauls tend to be swordsmen and the Britons were known for the use of Chariots, in the Irish Ulster Cycle of myth Chariots are mentioned all the time but by the time the Vikings hit Ireland, Irish armies are mosty infantry and the same applies in the wars with the Normans/English. In fact the Normans rapidly abandon heavy cavalry in Ireland the gorund was against it.Too much forest and bog.
> 
> That is it from me, off the tp of my head. I would have to rsearch it to tellyou much more.




I would consider the Goths to be pre-Germanic peoples, whereas Vikings are a much later Germanic people. They didn't exist at the same time.

The big difference between Vikings and the other two mentioned human cultures, is that the former existed from about 800 AD to about 1100 AD, where as the Goths were from the early part of Dark Ages, sav 0 AD to about 500 AD - so I doubt a Goth ever met a Viking, they are from two distinctly different historic time periods, though in many ways are the same people.

Celts continue as an identifiable people up to the modern era, first appeared as a cultural force as far back as 3000 BC in central Europe, then spread outward in all directions, so by 1500 BC covered all of northern, western and parts of eastern Europe, even as far east as Northern India.



Kzach said:


> I'm not sure I get what you're asking.
> 
> Rules-wise, there simply wouldn't be any significant differences to warrant separate racial listings. Although IIRC, the Celts both predate and outlasted the Goths who were really just a migratory group that were absorbed and conquered several times over by their own internal squabbles, the Huns and the Ottomans, and the Vikings appeared later than both groups.
> 
> ...




While I can agree with much of the latter post, I am building an Iron Age Celtic setting myself, and I have three distinct human nations: the Celts, the Mediterranean culture Etruscan/Mycenaean city-states, and a Germanic people and I have some 'racial' distinctions between them, though technology is the primary differing factor.

While idiosyncracies exist between those cultures, the most interesting thing for me, is despite how 'modern', literate, and cultured the Mediterranean cultures were compared to the more barbaric northern cultures - social divisions, the distribution of wealth, the presence of slaves, who were the military and the educated were almost the same for all three human groups. Language, custom and technology were what set them apart.

Its your fantasy world, so you can do what you want, but Viking doesn't belong in a setting with Celts and Gothic tribes. Goths don't belong in a setting with Vikings and Celts - and for my Iron Age Celtic setting, neither Vikings nor Goths belong, as they are from another time 1000 to 2000 years later.

So it depends on 'when' your setting takes place, if you want to compare to Earth history.

GP


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 21, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Vikings came from Norway and Sweden, then spread to Iceland and Denmark (and Britain).
> 
> Goths came from Sweden, and spread to mainland Europe.
> 
> DNA-wise they're the same people. Norsemen.




Celts came from the Danube valley regions of eastern central Europe, so DNA wise is actually very close to the Norse peoples as well.

GP


----------



## Kzach (Aug 21, 2010)

This reminds me of a point of contention between a friend and I who identifies himself as a "Greek-Australian". He calls Turkey "occupied Greece" and distinguishes between Macedonians and Greeks and Albanians.

I love teasing him about it all 'cause it's all really about timing, isn't it? I mean, go back far enough and we're all apes, right? Turkish people mixed blood with Greeks, Celts dominated most of all of those regions at one time, Goths migrated down, Vikings pillaged, plundered and... well let's face it, they got their game on and produced a lot of offspring themselves. All these cultures could trace DNA back to each other at one point or another.

So I find it amusing that anyone identifies with a particular culture or race simply due to... tradition? You're Greek because you say you are, but your blood may come from Celtic, Goth, Ottoman, or hell, all three and then some


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 21, 2010)

Baron Opal said:


> So, if I was going to highlight the major differences between these cultures, what would they be?
> 
> The goal is to make stylistic differences between groups of humans; different races, if you will.




Celts are a bit hard. As others have mentioned, they're around for a very long time - Greek writers record them as early as 500BC, and there are still people around now who consider themselves Celtic though the last independent 'Celtic' state was absorbed towards the end of the middle ages. So, which Celts?

Goths and Vikings are more definable, though I'd use Norse rather than Viking - Viking is a particular 'career' choice rather than a culture. In both cases the basis of the society is the free farmer, owning their own land and fighting when they have to. They're answerable to lords, who use a variety of titles, who keep professional full-time soldiers in small numbers and adminster justice and taxation. Above that you have kings; the Goths at least were reasonably united, at least once they'd settled in Spain and Italy (Visigoths and Ostrogoths respectively). One noticeable difference is that viking society is a lot less united. More kings, controlling smaller regions, and a distinct tendency for people or small groups who don't like a particular king to head off somewhere else and settle down. Which they did over a large swathe of northern and eastern Europe.

Art, architecture, costume; these are big subjects. There are definite differences, but also variations within the group that are almost as wide as those between the groups. Superficially, celts prefer roundhouses, vikings longhouses, and goths either travel in their wagons or appropriate local architectural styles.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 21, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Actually the Celts were a maritime nation, at least some of them from before and up to the Roman period. How did the Celts get across the English channel or the Irish sea, but more than that, many peoples on the coast of Britain and Britainny saw the Irish as pirates, though they were all Celts. They lacked the superior clinker style viking ships, still had naval transport that could cross oceans, as the viking ships, but unlike most of the other galley style ships of the Mediterranean that could not.



The Romans did not walk across the English Channel. By the way do you have references for the ocean going capacity of Celtic shipping. I would be interested to hear of them because as far as I know Celtic shipping was pretty much costal with a quick dash across the Irish sea or the English Channel at best.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 21, 2010)

*No links...*



ardoughter said:


> The Romans did not walk across the English Channel. By the way do you have references for the ocean going capacity of Celtic shipping. I would be interested to hear of them because as far as I know Celtic shipping was pretty much costal with a quick dash across the Irish sea or the English Channel at best.




While I should I don't have time to dig up specific links, but... there are several skeptical to many mentions in the historic record. On the west coast of Britain, the term 'Black Shields' refered to pirates from Ireland who regularly raided coastal communities. The 'Black Shields' are mentioned having raided all the way to the coast of Spain. But arguably could have still remained a coastal ship rather than an ocean crossing one.

St. Andrew, a monk in Ireland in the 5th century recorded a manuscript of an ocean voyage to the New World, though highly disputed he describes seeing mountains and towers of glass on the ocean (ice bergs), a giant throwing burning rocks from a violent island (Icelandic volcanoes), and reaching a great expansive land to the west. He stayed for three years, then returned and wrote his manuscript. Whether you can believe it or not, the manuscript does exist.

St. Andrew crossed the ocean in a corracle. A bowl shaped ship capable of holding 20 or more people consisting of wood and whalebone timber framing, with skins tied and bound with pitch as the hull surface. Burning pitch was kept hot aboard ship to repair leaks as necessary. A single masted square sail was used for propulsion. With a deck, a large underdeck area existed for food, storage and barracks area. 3-5 corracles served as St. Andrew's fleet.

The Black Shield Celts used wooden single masted ships, rather than corracles. The Irish pirates we preyed on communities in the Mediterranean, they weren't exclusively in the Irish sea.

I've even read 'extremely skeptical' scholarly discussion regarding where the Tuatha de Danaan went, rather than a mystical land of fey (Tir na Nog), they went west... to the New World - and this wasn't at RPG board, but a university's Celtic studies board. Suggesting the first Celts of Ireland 'sailed to the west' 1500+ BC.

GP


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Aug 21, 2010)

Terms such as "Goth" and "Celt" are ill-defined, insofar as no particular consensus exists. "Celt" is particularly problematic, and _Celtic_ might be better understood as a shared set of cultural significators rather than any "race" as such.

To go _i viking_ is to engage in a particular activity, and so doesn't really lend itself to any kind of anthropological classification. Terms such as _Dane_ or _Norseman_ are somewhat interchangeable. The Old Norse and various Anglo-Saxon languages/dialects were probably mutually intelligible to a large extent; whether the Jutes were the Geats is debateable; whether the Geats and the Goths spring from the same source is also debateable. So it goes.

Frisians, Swedes, Franks, Thuringians.

All of these people spoke relatively similar Indo-European languages. Many of their core beliefs and practices were probably the same; they probably had pretty much the same original pantheon of deities, but with different names.

If you looking for some kind of essence which identifies these peoples as distinct from one another, I think you have to start with the literature.

The _Ulster Cycle_ and _Mabinogion_ for two different Celtic perspectives; the _Eddas_ and Sagas for the Viking mentality.


----------



## Baron Opal (Aug 21, 2010)

Kzach said:


> I'm not sure I get what you're asking.



Still working it out, myself.



Kzach said:


> Point being... I think you need to define your question a great deal more before anyone can really narrow things down to a coherent or succinct answer.






gamerprinter said:


> ...you can do what you want, but Viking doesn't belong in a setting with Celts and Gothic tribes. Goths don't belong in a setting with Vikings and Celts...






Sepulchrave II said:


> Terms such as "Goth" and "Celt" are ill-defined, insofar as no particular consensus exists. "Celt" is particularly problematic, and _Celtic_ might be better understood as a shared set of cultural significators rather than any "race" as such.



These were the answers I was expecting, unfortunately. From what I remembered, those terms were rather muddy and a bit self-referential.

In the past I've posted some things about my next setting. I'm taking the Cenozoic geologic record and attributing various things to strife between the forces of Order (titans) and Chaos (dragons). Ultimately, I want to have a human-centric campaign with some other races that are really humans at heart.

Dwarves are set. Lord Neander lead his people to the mountains at the headwaters of the river they called home. He lead them deep under the ground and there hid as the millennia passed. They have the most ancient culture, with many customs and lore that is strange to others. Not truly human, but cousins and close enough to not feel too threatened. They still have millennia old histories of first hand accounts of the excesses of the primal powers.

Elves are set. When Gallogaich started his thread he posted a picture and a theory that the stories of elves were extrapolated from the Nordic people. There was a picture that really caught my imagination. I thought, "with all of this strife, Ragnarok has happened. While Lord Neander was able to hide his people, Baldr, Magni and the rest lost theirs. Líf and Lífþrasir are the first elves. Now the population is big enough that some can go adventure, they are revealed to the world, and their gods have made them strong enough to survive."

I really enjoyed Monte Cook's vision of the giants from the Thomas Covenant stories. The Anakim have their massive buildings and ancient rituals in ruined lands. They have long labored to fix the wastes and their understanding of the rhythms of the world is showing them success. They have a strong Greco-Persian feel to them; an alternate universe's take on Alexander's and Aristotle's vision.

Now, to a certain extent the above are just reskinned fantasy races. But the conceit is that they are all _human_ (except for the dwarves), they just have a different culture. And it would be perfectly acceptible to have an elf friend in town and get jumped by some dwarf bandits in the wilds without too much clash of expectations.

Since I wanted a total of six races, cultures, flavors, whatever, I was going to have Egyptian, Celtic and Goth to be more "human" rather than "was human and then diverged a bit". The problem is, I couldn't get a good handle on the differences between Goths, Celts and Nordics.

And, here I am.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 22, 2010)

Sepulchrave II said:


> "Celt" is particularly problematic, and _Celtic_ might be better understood as a shared set of cultural significators rather than any "race" as such.




While there were different dialects, the Celtic language was shared by the Celtic peoples, really between Goidelic (Irish/Celtiberic) and Brythonic (Britain/Gallic) enough to identify the 'Celtic' peoples, though its true a large variety of cultures described the Celts, and they were not unified.

Other aspects shared by the Celts were their gods and laws. The sacred nature of the rituals to deliberately not record them, thus intrinsically illiterate was specifically unique to Celts.

GP


----------



## nedjer (Aug 22, 2010)

The Celts were short on opportunities at home so they moved to France and formed the Gaulish kingdoms. The guys liked ornamental facial hair and braiding.

The Goths were short on opportunities at home so they moved to France and formed the Frankish kingdoms. The guys liked ornamental facial hair and braiding.

The Vikings were short on opportunities at home so they moved to France and formed the Norman kingdoms. The guys liked ornamental facial hair and braiding.

No differences so far, but I'm working on it


----------



## Tuft (Aug 22, 2010)

Let's start with this one:

*The Vikings never ever wore horned helmets.* The horned helmet is a 19th century fancy, perpetuated by a plenitude of look-alike Wagnerian Opera performances. 

The vikings were merchants and traders, carrying trade goods really long distance along the coastlines of north-western Europe and the long rivers of the Eastern Europe. On those occasions when they did gather to major raids, it were very notable, though. One trade empire they founded survived, although in vastly different form. It was the one founded by the Rus Vikings, which later became known as - Russia. (This is not very popular by Russian historians, which like to stress the Slavic parts of their history  ) 

They did wash up every day and bathed once a week, which was seen as very barbaric by their contemporaries. (The Swedish name for Saturday is still "lördag", which originally meant "bath day"). 

They had a habit of electing their kings, did not have proper nobility, and had regular parliaments to decide matters of importance (the Icelandic parliament has been around almost 1100 years) which also was very barbaric.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 22, 2010)

> The Celts were short on opportunities at home so they moved to France and formed the Gaulish kingdoms. The guys liked ornamental facial hair and braiding.
> 
> The Goths were short on opportunities at home so they moved to France and formed the Frankish kingdoms. The guys liked ornamental facial hair and braiding.
> 
> ...



lol


----------



## jonesy (Aug 22, 2010)

Whereas the Swedes just stayed home braiding their own hair. What? 



Tuft said:


> *The Vikings never ever wore horned helmets.* The horned helmet is a 19th century fancy, perpetuated by a plenitude of look-alike Wagnerian Opera performances.



Don't say never ever. There is one, just one, depiction of a viking horned helmet:

Viking Navy Museum

There's always an exception. That guy might have been the laughing stock of the rest of the vikings.

"Here comes Olaf with his horned helmet. What a jester."


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 22, 2010)

Tuft said:


> Let's start with this one:
> 
> *The Vikings never ever wore horned helmets.* The horned helmet is a 19th century fancy, perpetuated by a plenitude of look-alike Wagnerian Opera performances.
> 
> The vikings were merchants and traders, carrying trade goods really long distance along the coastlines of north-western Europe and the long rivers of the Eastern Europe. On those occasions when they did gather to major raids, it were very notable, though. One trade empire they founded survived, although in vastly different form. It was the one founded by the Rus Vikings, which later became known as - Russia. (This is not very popular by Russian historians, which like to stress the Slavic parts of their history  )




It's a bit debatable how 'norse' they remained, to be fair. Archaeology suggests a very high level of continuity with the pre-existing populations, and byzantine influence is also noticeable.



> They did wash up every day and bathed once a week, which was seen as very barbaric by their contemporaries. (The Swedish name for Saturday is still "lördag", which originally meant "bath day").




There was an English monk who complained about this, claiming English girls shouldn't go out with vikings just because they washed regularly.



> They had a habit of electing their kings, did not have proper nobility, and had regular parliaments to decide matters of importance (the Icelandic parliament has been around almost 1100 years) which also was very barbaric.




Sometimes they were elected by the expedient of killing the old king and turning up at the election with a lot of heavily armed retainers, at which point it was usually concluded that they were the best candidate. Not entirely unlike the way the Mandate of Heaven sometimes passed on China, or god's favour in the Byzantine empire.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 23, 2010)

*Tannistry*

The Celts practiced what is known as tannistry. Most 'kingship' concepts in later eras was based heriditary father to son progression of royalty.

In Celtic society the land holders were all of the noble caste, which includes all warriors, druids, bards, historians, scientists. Being based on clans, they were closely related families with a common ancestor (grand father or great grandfather). The king or clan chief was appointed by vote among all land holders, which included smaller land holders outside the immediate clan. The appointed king had to best fit the clan ideals, a perfect physical specimin (any permanent injury or just being too old disqualified you for kingship.) Kings were voted in and voted out. Former kings are still members of clan nobility, so they were'nt just killed off nor removed from kingship by force.

The next king does not automatically go to the son, in fact almost never does, after a king is removed from office, its the next best representative to the clan ideal among the clan nobility. This could be the last king's brother, cousin, a younger uncle, an older nephew or the son. Whichever clan member was the right age, with the right experience. In some instances the chief or king elected was a woman, such as Boudicca being the most famous, but not the only example of it, though it was still rare.

The practice of tannistry was held at clan levels, tribal kingdoms, regional kingdoms and high kingdoms. Celtic governorship was fairly egalitarian and civilized compared to later Roman and medieval governments, where assassination and coup d' tat were how politics were practiced.

GP

PS: and no the 'horned helmets' weren't worn by the vikings, they were worn by the Celts a thousand years earlier.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 23, 2010)

Keith Taylor's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Bard-III-Wild-Keith-Taylor/dp/044104915X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282537103&sr=8-3"]Bard III[/ame] has a traditional Irish Bard in the employ of a Viking warrior-maiden. I recommend it if you're interested in historical fantasy.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Aug 23, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Don't say never ever. There is one, just one, depiction of a viking horned helmet:




The reason for the few horned helms found is largely unknown. If the couple pieces of art are to be believed the were worn as some sorta party by an individual or two. No one knows if they wore them outside the party or if the helm meant anything at the party.


----------



## Starfox (Aug 23, 2010)

We have little hard fact about the origin of the Goths. Their Swedish origin is today believed to be fanciful Swedish 15th century propaganda. Still, the shoe does not fit that badly; in many ways they are the precursors of the Vikings. Both Norsemen/vikings and Goths are germanic peoples; part of a larger culture. The Celts are also such a larger culture; comparing vikings to celts is like comparing Italians to Arabs; one is a nation, the other is a culture. My tip is to ignore the Goths and just think of them as a Norse subgroup. If you don't, you might as well invent them from scratch.

The naval issue is complicated by the fact that on Ireland, Celts and Germanic norsemen intermingled and created a nation (Dubliners) that became very good pirates and raiders. Some Irish raiders were thus descended from norsemen. But the Irish did raid long before the Norse came to their shores. Norse tales also tell how there were Irish monks on Iceland before the Norsemen settled there. Celtic naval technology might have been primitive, but they were not afraid to use it.

Vikings were a group of Norsemen who left their homes in search of adventure. They did so in larger numbers as the kings of their homeland gained more and more power. Not unexpectedly, the most chaotic and unruly Norse choose to leave when central authority became stronger, setting such places as Iceland. Scandinavia, the Norse homeland, was never really a "Viking" area: to be a viking was to go abroad. There are exceptions, such as King Knut (Canute) and Harald Hårdråda (Hardraada) and their invasions of England, who were more or less national wars made by kings who had first consolidated their power at home, but this was very late in the viking era. William the Conqueror was also Norse, the descendant of Norse who settled Normandy a century before and built a nation there. But neither of these are vikings, they are kings bent on conquest. "Proper" viking operations were on a much smaller scale, led by individuals rather than kings.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 23, 2010)

MortonStromgal said:


> The reason for the few horned helms found is largely unknown. If the couple pieces of art are to be believed the were worn as some sorta party by an individual or two. No one knows if they wore them outside the party or if the helm meant anything at the party.




So, you're saying wearing the horned helmet may be the Dark Ages version of drunkenly wearing a lampshade?


----------



## jonesy (Aug 23, 2010)

Starfox said:


> We have little hard fact about the origin of the Goths. Their Swedish origin is today believed to be fanciful Swedish 15th century propaganda. Still, the shoe does not fit that badly; in many ways they are the precursors of the Vikings.



Well yeah, one of the largest problems with these is defining the definitions. When you have people moving elsewhere, and other people moving there, and those people together "becoming" a whole other people,
at what point does a Swede end (for example), and at what point does a Goth begin? Or end?


----------



## MortonStromgal (Aug 23, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So, you're saying wearing the horned helmet may be the Dark Ages version of drunkenly wearing a lampshade?




Possibly, yes. We have more than one horned helm from the right era and places. We also have a couple art pieces where an individual has one on. But for all we know Burger King was using horned helms back then


----------



## kigmatzomat (Aug 24, 2010)

Baron Opal said:


> So, if I was going to highlight the major differences between these cultures, what would they be?
> 
> The goal is to make stylistic differences between groups of humans; different races, if you will.




Depends on when you want to use as a time-frame basis.  

The Celtic tribes wandered west across most of central Europe and then down the Iberian penninsula and over to displace the Picts in Britannia.

The (Ostro/Visi)Goths started out a few centuries later in the mountains near Romania and followed the same general path as the Celts.  The Goths had the disadvantage of taking the brunt of the Hunnish attacks, eventually driving them south into Italy (and rome), France, and around the Iberian coast to take Carthage in north Africa until the Romans put that down.

The vikings were Germanic Odin/Thor worshiping tribes that migrated west behind the Celts, but north of the Goths, into Scandinavia.  Except for the Finns, who have their own interesting take on axe-wielding thunder gods.

The Celtic and Germanic peoples each had a rich mythology that is fairly easy to research (the 1st Ed Deities & Demigods is a quick view of them that isn't totally mangled).  Many Celtic gods were incorporated into the pre-Christian Roman "pantheon".  There's not a lot about the pre-christian Goths, they were probably followers of the Roman Empire's mishmash of gods, but Christian goths were one of the first documented people with institutionalized freedom of religion.   

Militarily the Goths were infantry forces, partial to the heaviest armors ever used by the Roman Legions even after the Roman army moved to lighter armor to server as cavalry to counter Huns and Persians. Gothic influences on armors in western europe eventually evolved into the full plate armor of the  knights, after much effort to breed ginormous horses.   I think the Celts were partial to lighter armor, in part due to their limited metal production.    The germanic tribes were something of barbarians that had adopted roman ways from the necessity of fighting off the Huns.


----------



## Tuft (Aug 24, 2010)

I do recommend having a look at the "Terry Jones' Barbarians" documentary series for an interesting take on two of these cultures.


Barbarians - The Savage Goths
The Primitive Celts.avi


----------



## A2Z (Aug 24, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The Goths were short on opportunities at home so they moved to France and formed the Frankish kingdoms. The guys liked ornamental facial hair and braiding.



I think the Franks might argue that point.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 24, 2010)

A2Z said:


> I think the Franks might argue that point.



Which Franks? They were a group of people formed from many smaller groups of people of different ethnicities, some from the north, some from the east, including Celts from Gaul. Which really muddles up the whole issue.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 25, 2010)

A2Z said:


> I think the Franks might argue that point.






jonesy said:


> Which Franks?



The Zappa Franks. Those guys were weird.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 25, 2010)

The mystery deepens. The Normans turned against facial hair, braiding and hair in general. By the time they moved to Italy their knights were fervent stubbleheads. A guy on the BBC just told me, meaning a). must be true b). had some sort of historical significance, wtf?


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 26, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The mystery deepens. The Normans turned against facial hair, braiding and hair in general. By the time they moved to Italy their knights were fervent stubbleheads. A guy on the BBC just told me, meaning a). must be true b). had some sort of historical significance, wtf?




They adopted a type of helmet that rubbed the back of the head from the Franks. That rubbed away a patch of hair, and rather than look like monks they took to shaving their heads down to stubble. At least, that's the explanation I've read about.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 26, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> They adopted a type of helmet that rubbed the back of the head from the Franks. That rubbed away a patch of hair, and rather than look like monks they took to shaving their heads down to stubble. At least, that's the explanation I've read about.




I had difficulty taking Norman hair loss seriously but I went and looked and wtf? Here.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 28, 2010)

Haven't really been of any help to the OP, so I'd like to recommend some authentic Viking and Celtic source material: Horrible Histories Viscious Vikings and Cutthroat Celts books. Very funny and very real source material.

The Vikings get the TV treatment HERE 

iPlayer viewers can get a bunch of Series 2 episodes straight off and Youtube might have the odd episode. However, it's the books that get into the source material from the Vikings' bloodeagles to the entire Stormin' Normans book.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 30, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The Vikings get the TV treatment HERE



That link isn't available in my country, but I assume this is the same one?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qSkaAwKMD4]YouTube - Horrible Histories - Literally: The Viking Song[/ame]
That is great.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 30, 2010)

jonesy said:


> That link isn't available in my country, but I assume this is the same one?
> YouTube - Horrible Histories - Literally: The Viking Song
> That is great.





Literalleeee


----------



## Rasssputin (Apr 20, 2021)

ardoughter said:


> The Vikings are maritime where as neither the Celts or Goths are.
> 
> The Goths (in the period they are most known for) are a wandering people. The whole population can up stakes, pack everything into wagons and move.
> Their battle tactics can include the use of cavalry and wagon laagers.
> ...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Apr 20, 2021)

Holy Necro-Völkerwanderung


----------

