Irish Translation Forum

Whoops, I didn't go that far into this thread, I guess Breandon already answered the question.

Dallas , it depends. Sometimes they just raided for plunder ,like when they sacked rome in 390 B.C. or when they invaded greece. Other times it could've just been that they needed more land for their population or they needed better land for cultivation,like in the case of the Helvetti tribe. The celts were a very proud and individualistic people, many of them hired themselves out as mercanaries for money and adventure,even serving in egyptian armies and fighting for Hannibal in the punic wars.

they also regularly beat the tar out of each other, forcing smaller tribes to migrate to get away from the expanding larger ones. In the case of Ireland, the legend has it that it was a vision of the draoi of king Miled of Iberia (Spain/Portugal) that his tribe had to settle in a distant island land (Ireland). After his death, king Miled's sons led the tribe to Ireland and, after a brief war with the locals (presumed to have been earlier Brythonic Celts similar to the Picts), settled in and have been there ever since.
As for why so many ended up in America, Canada, and Australia, blame Cromwell for starters, and then move down a long list of people and reasons to include famines, plagues, forced diaspora, enslavement, economic hardships, and the lure of the Great American Shiney Thing. Since there's nowhere else to go from here, as everything has already been settled and claimed, we're thinking Mars is next on our grand migration tour

The celts never invaded places
they were the ppl in the places
They lived in everything from Germany, France, spain, holland belgium northern italy greece asia minor and the britisih isles
eventually the celts were pushed back by the romans from the south and the germanic tribes from the east
they were pushed back so far to just scotland and ireland
Brittany is another highly celtic influenced place.....

I'd have to disagree with collis about the celts not invading. You wouldn't call the sack of Rome an invasion? They also invaded Greece and attacked Delphi. I would call that an invasion. They definately weren't invited to do that!

Redwolf wrote:I thought it was the Germans who sacked Rome.

Redwolf

They did as well.
The Gaulic tribes sacked it first, then the Germans, Huns, and other warm and fuzzy people took successive turns sacking Rome or beating the crap out of the Empire until it went bye bye.

Redwolf, the gaulish celts sacked Rome earlier. I mean centuries earlier. This served as a wake up call to the Romans,after all if they could attack and burn the capital whats to stop further invasions and permanent settlement. This event forced the Romans to beef up their army and make some changes. Centuries later when Ceasar conquered Gaul it was almost like sweet revenge. The Romans never fogot or forgave for the Gaulish sack of Rome!

celticrebel wrote:Redwolf, the gaulish celts sacked Rome earlier. I mean centuries earlier. This served as a wake up call to the Romans,after all if they could attack and burn the capital whats to stop further invasions and permanent settlement. This event forced the Romans to beef up their army and make some changes. Centuries later when Ceasar conquered Gaul it was almost like sweet revenge. The Romans never fogot or forgave for the Gaulish sack of Rome!

Yeah, the Gauls trashed Rome in around 300 BC then it wasn't till around 700 years later that the Vandals got to Rome. Alaric. king of the Visgoths sacked Rome in 454 AD, I think.