Who was more civilized in ancient times?
Ancient Gaul or ancient Iberia?

Iberia was like a second Italy by the time the empire fell

all you need to know is that of all the people of the iberian peninsula the celts were the less advanced, and even those celts were probably better than the ones in gaul.

>>17859997
roman iberia was indeed far richer than gaul was but I think OP was talking about before romanization.
roman iberia also birthed far more relevant political and literary figures

>>17859857 (OP)
Iberia had some cradle of civilizations in the south like Tartessos plus the Punic influence of Carthage
Its definitely them

>>17859857 (OP)
Excluding Carthaginian, Greek, and Roman settlements? It would be Gaul.

>>17860015
I'm the author of this post and this is what I look like.

>>17860015
Yeah brother the Gauls who were described as literal negroes by the Romans are more advanced than a civilization capable of doing this in the VI century before christ

>>17859857 (OP)
Gaul and Iberia roughly shared in urbanisation and development before the Romans rolled up. They both had considerable cities, peoples with organised administrations and politics.

>>17859857 (OP)
Depend which ancient times you meant
During the Bronze Age most of Spain was a celtic shithole, but there was Tartessos being a somehwat large civilized organized kingdom. Meanwhile, Gauls were unilaterally tribal, mostly unorganized societies.
After the end of the Bronze Age, the collapse of international trade and Tartessos quite literally sinking in silt, Spain had little to zero civilized areas. Most were Phoenician enclaves. Gaul was much the same at the time, with Massalia serving as the singular center of civilization unequaled by any kind of celtic settlement until the constructions of the oppidae from around 200 to 50 BC. Basically I'd say they were even because Massalia was fucking massive compared to places like Gadir, because it was a neuralgic center on the Tin Road.
Carthage conquered Iberia but didn't do much with it except conscript auxiliaries and mercs into the Barcid private army.
Then Rome forcibly made the question moot with both when they conquered them. The eastern coast of Spain and Southern Coast of gaul became highly urbanized, being around the main trade area of the Mediterranean, while the rest slowly urbanized
tl;dr Spain was maybe a bit higher than Gaul during the Bronze age but kind of regressed and then both were mostly equal in economical and development stature until the end of Antiquity.

>>17860205
>After the end of the Bronze Age, the collapse of international trade and Tartessos quite literally sinking in silt, Spain had little to zero civilized areas. Most were Phoenician enclaves. Gaul was much the same at the time, with Massalia serving as the singular center of civilization unequaled by any kind of celtic settlement until the constructions of the oppidae from around 200 to 50 BC. Basically I'd say they were even because Massalia was fucking massive compared to places like Gadir, because it was a neuralgic center on the Tin Road.
No the Iberians were noticeably more evolved than the Celts and even the Celts of Iberia were probably slightly ahead of the Gaullish ones.

>>17860266
By the Iberians I'm referring to the Iberian (and by extension the Turdetanians who were the successors of Tartessos) speakers, not all the inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula.

Spain was richer and more advanced than France for most of history, roughly up until the last 2 centuries. Many ignore this but historically it was far more common for people to immigrate from France into Spain to flee poverty than the other way around.

>>17859857 (OP)
>Who was less barbaric?
>Barbarian A?
>Or
>Barbarian B?
Shit question OP.

>>17861150
Stupid post, Britons and Gaul were both barbarians but the latter was a lot more advanced.

Bump

>>17859857 (OP)
It's a stupid question because you're not specifying "ancient times". Iberia has existed for millions of years and Gaul existed for nearly a millenium. Are you referring to fucking Classical Antiquity? How do you define "civilized"? Iberia as the chad and Gaul as the basedjak? Iberia in particular had multiple ethnicities in the same region. Gauls had diversity too and really, they were just the western subgroups of the last Celtic expansion from present-day Germany.

Iberia had "Iberians" (a confusing equivocation) living in present-day Catalonia and the eastern coasts. They spoke a non-Indo-European language that is also not easily related to Basque. During Classical Antiquity, they interacted with Phoenicians, Greeks and other more developed peoples, becoming more urbanized and economically advanced in the process. They invented their own writing system and therefore had all of the basic features of preindustrial civilization before conquest. The southwest of Iberia had the Tartessians who were also pre-Indo-European and elude ethno-linguistic classification. They urbanized, engaged in Mediterranean trade and invented a Greek-derived writing system similarly to Iberians. In the northwest of Iberia, there was an ethnic group called the Lusitanians, who spoke a language partially exhibiting Celtic qualities. It may have come from the first Celtic expansion outside Central Europe (Urnfield?). The Lusitanians were less urbanized and less economically connected and evidence of their exposure to writing consists of adoption of foreign scripts. They may be considered the ethnic precursor to the Portuguese. The Basques (or Aquitinians) were more remote and non-literate and continued to be basic iron age tribespeople until conquest. They lived much further into the Pyrenees and the southwest of France than they do in recent memory.

>>17862588
(Continue autism)
The remaining blob in the middle of the Iberian peninsula was full of Celtiberians, Celtic-speaking migrant rapespawn. Some of them had a writing system while others may not have. Evidence is scarce but generally, more remote, inland and mountain regions had less connection to Mediterranean civilizing influence.

Gaul on the other hand was generally full of Celtic Gauls who had done the old prehistoric rape genocide routine on Atlantic Bronze Age people around 800 BC, who may have been Vasconic-speaking, around the same time Greeks readopted writing. As far as literacy, Gaullish tribes varied in their adoption of Hellenic writing and used it more near coastal trade outposts like Marsalla. Leading up to fullscale Roman invasion, they gradually formed larger settlements called oppida. It's a general trend in preindustrial history that exposure to trade networks came with population growth and growing settlements. Generally speaking, Celts were a distinct culture of fair-skinned snowniggers. Before Roman conquest, Celts were generally less advanced than Mediterranean peoples because the geographical spread of technological development simply had yet to reach them.

>>17862588
Lusitanians should not be confused with the Portuguese. Half of Lusitania belongs now to Spain, while Portugal started as a kingdom outside of what was considered Lusitania.

>>17862588
>They lived much further into the Pyrenees and the southwest of France than they do in recent memory.
Gascons are still a thing, they just don't speak Basques anymore.
>>17862589
>Celts were a distinct culture of fair-skinned snowniggers
They were meds who clustered with present day Iberians, southern French and northern Italians. Their elites and predecessors displayed even more ANF than average.
>Iberia as the chad and Gaul as the basedjak?
Your rambling pretty much lead to this conclusion