Wasn't Celtic Britain more advanced than Anglo-Saxon Britain?

Wasn't Celtic Britain more advanced than Anglo-Saxon Britain?

Attached: d3664b15e557395ddf44e4ad59b9dfe9.jpg (486x650, 100K)

No. Most of our ancestors chucked spears and liked bbq meat. Occassionally some of them wore blue wart. But if comparing technology development, in step with each other.

Norman Britain was the peak


Attached: 1538162512747.png (5028x2120, 845K)

Yes but after the Roman conquest of the South most of them ended up domesticated/Romanised. So when Rome pulled all it's men out of Britannia the Britons in what we would now call England were left weak and defenceless against the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians. At the same time in what we now call Scotland, the Gaels from Ireland invaded from the West and Norwegians from the North and thus the native Picts were also BTFOd.

Nah reformation Britain was the peak, kino attire and witchfinders.

The Romanization of Britian is essentially what modernized it. Or at least began the process.

slightly more advanced maybe, due to Roman influence though. Both Celts and Anglo-Saxons were barbarians generally

In terms of architecture, writing, etc, sure. On the other hand the Celts had superior agriculture and metal working to Rome which Rome would absorb.

>Celts had superior agriculture and metal working to Rome
no lol

Well you're all over weight funny talking drunks that spin yarns and stories according to data. Story tellers and bullshitting drunks get free passes last i read in a myth someplace.

Yes lol Celts were using mail armour before Rome even knew how to make it and had superior framing techniques. Sorry Burgerinius Mutticus but stomping on grapes all day isn't the be all end all of agriculture.

I think we can all acknowledge that the actual master race comes about as a result of various white ethnicities comingling.

It's true burgerfat of course you wouldn't learn that at school because laquesha was too busy twerking on your desk

Can't say on farming technique, but Romans did copy mail armor from the Celts.


Attached: 1555122847122.jpg (1280x964, 622K)


Attached: 1555124698278.jpg (1280x968, 818K)


Attached: 1555123214103.jpg (1280x955, 631K)

england is israeli clay

Attached: 1557933775179.png (700x1090, 815K)

Admittedly both those things weren't really superior as much as they were "different" and happened to be more efficient in a number of cases. We can't speak of "technology" in the ancient world, as much as valuable tradition and culture that gave them high civilization levels. Sure, some local population might have discovered and maintained a few good tricks and ideas, but It takes an exponentially higher civilization to develop massive architecture and maintain sprawling cities. I frankly don't know if a high civlization level is overall a good thing, however.

lmao no

Attached: male vs female leadership.png (316x612, 76K)


those kind of images are North European equivalent of Wakanda, basically

Those are Slavic paintings, guy.

This is what they took from us.

It was. You've just been brainwashed by English poofter propaganda.

Well yeah that was my initial point, that each had things that they did better than the other or thing they had the other didn't. Another thing people forget is that Rome ceased to be an ethnic faction quite quickly in it's existence and became an ideal to the point that Rome itself ended up full of Gauls, Iberians, Greeks, Semites, Germans, Italics, etc, and even people from the British Isles as apparently Pontius Pilate was from what is now called Scotland which would've made him either a Pict or Strathclyde Briton at the time. And as such was constantly adding anything from those cultures that they viewed as beneficial to their own like the damn borg.

>Female leader
Not surprising at all.

>Celts got btfo by Romans
>Celts had better armor
Pick one, retard.

It was more advanced when Anglo-Saxons (Isaac's Sons) turned to the Christian Faith

Please stop being retarded.

It's simply fact. They also had high tech devastating chariots while Romans barely used cavalry. Romans won through strict discipline and organization.

The difference was in organisation and access moron. The Celts functioned as independent tribes with Chiefs and their subordinates having access to the best armour and weapons. Rome had a standard across it's Legions of equipment, battle tactics, etc. Also the Romans were BTFOd by the Picts and the Scoti in battle, Niall of The Nine Hostages defeated a legion in battle and took horde of silver from them. The Celts even sacked Rome prior to Rome conquering Gaul, Rome didn't win every single encounter.

You're just as bad as English guys that like to claim they won every engagement with with Scotland.

how did the romans stomp the celts if they had better armor?

took a horde of silver*

>How did the Mongols stomp Euros when they had better armour
>How did the Allies stomp the Axis when they had better weapons
>How did North Vietrnam beat the US when the US had better tech
>How did Rome beat Hannibal when he had better stuff
Oh and btw the Scutum was also derived from Celtic shields.