AHC: Celtic Persia
- Thread starter Muwatalli'
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
What do you actually mean by this?
Persia settled by Celts is pretty much impossible seeing as Persia was home to a long history of empires both native and Mesopotamian, and the closest the Celts got was Italy (if you count the Gauls as Celts).
Ditto for Celtic ruled Persia, with the exception of an extremely convoluted series of events leading to a Celtic British isles, united as a single nation and conquering Persia during the Age of Imperialsim, requiring multiple PoDs in all likelyhood.
The only other one I can think of is a surviving Celtic and Nestorian Churches that for some reason decide to unite into a single priesthood that happens to mean the Celtic Church is followed in Persia.
Persia settled by Celts is pretty much impossible seeing as Persia was home to a long history of empires both native and Mesopotamian, and the closest the Celts got was Italy (if you count the Gauls as Celts).
Ditto for Celtic ruled Persia, with the exception of an extremely convoluted series of events leading to a Celtic British isles, united as a single nation and conquering Persia during the Age of Imperialsim, requiring multiple PoDs in all likelyhood.
The only other one I can think of is a surviving Celtic and Nestorian Churches that for some reason decide to unite into a single priesthood that happens to mean the Celtic Church is followed in Persia.
The Celts did cross the Bosphorus and end up in Galatia, and there established themselves as the finest mercenaries, but I can't imagine how or why the Celts would want to trek all the way to Persia when they're perfectly content where they were.
Of course, one could just alter the migration patterns, so somehow the Persians end up in Gaul, while the Celts end up in Persia, but that would be so far back that the butterflies would be overwhelming.
A Persia which is either inhabited by mainly Celts or a Persia where the majority language is a Celtic one.
Not going to happen. It's too far, and the Celts that would be making this trek would be seeing plenty of suitable land to conquer and settle on the way there - why cross more mountains, deserts, rivers, etc. to make it to Persia, specifically, when you could settle Phoenicia or something (assuming they must go past Anatolia, which I don't think there's much reason why they should). Plus, they'd lose a lot of numbers getting there in the first place, and would have difficulty even usurping as populous a land as Persia from such a distance.
Now, as an alternative suggestion for a "barbarian" Persia, the Scythians, provided they have a pretty large wave, could make their way there and settle. After all, they did a pretty good job disrupting the Medes in the early sixth century BC, and had the capacity to do something like this for a long time afterwards.
EDIT: What time are you thinking this takes place? I suppose that makes a difference: I'm thinking post-whenever the Galatians came along (around 280 BC, right?), and I suppose the Galatians could find themselves as mercenaries under the Seleucids and fight in their eastern provinces, and some permanently settle out there, but that's about the extent I see - no mass migration.
Now, as an alternative suggestion for a "barbarian" Persia, the Scythians, provided they have a pretty large wave, could make their way there and settle. After all, they did a pretty good job disrupting the Medes in the early sixth century BC, and had the capacity to do something like this for a long time afterwards.
EDIT: What time are you thinking this takes place? I suppose that makes a difference: I'm thinking post-whenever the Galatians came along (around 280 BC, right?), and I suppose the Galatians could find themselves as mercenaries under the Seleucids and fight in their eastern provinces, and some permanently settle out there, but that's about the extent I see - no mass migration.
Last edited:
Persia is too far from the Celtic homelands in western-central-northern Europe. Even the group that managed to carve a niche for themselves in the highlands of central Anatolia only numbered in the thousands when they first arrived and chose to settle in a location that was quite remote and would have been especially difficult to access during certain times of the year.
Are there any Celtic tribes a tenth of that strength or any part of that population at any point? That would require movement of ethnic groups that wouldn't be seen until the mid first millenium AD.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
That's what happened in OTL, besides the Celtifying the Eastern Mediterranean since there's little chance of that happening. Only an extremely small minority of the Celts that participated in the invasion of the Balkans moved into Asia Minor and settled there. Granted, more could had moved across the Hellespont than OTL and a larger area in Asia Minor can become Celtic but I don't see it really making much of a difference.
Actually legend holds that Celts/Gauls are actually Egyptian in origin, or maybe even Phoenician.
Kaiphranos
Donor
Yeah, I'd toss that one in the same pile as the "Germans are actually Assyrians" one I ran across somewhere...
Ah, but that is where you fail to mock me. That is a myth, what I stated was a legend that actually has historically accurate genealogies to back it up. And a legend is also different from a myth. But at least you tried.