Would it be safe to compare the Native American leader Tecumseh, who tried to unite the native tribes to fight off the whites (unsuccessfully) with Vercingétorix, the Celtic leader of the peoples of Gaul who tried to do the same thing against the Romans?
I got this issue from a history-based podcast from iTunes (by a guy named Dan Carlin). Do you agree on this issue or disagree?
2007-01-11 13:36:03 · 4 answers · asked by chrstnwrtr 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I have to disagree with John H.
The native Americans were attempting to defend their lands against invaders, just as were the Gauls. And the main fighting was not aginst the settlers, but against an Army that was aat least as well organized--and considerably more advanced by comparision.
You always have to be cautious about such comparisions--but within limits, its certainly a good one.
2007-01-11 14:23:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that the Gauls had more of a chance than their Indian counter parts, although I'm not nearly as well versed in American history as I am in ancient Euro history. The Romans also seemed to have more reason to fear the Gauls seeing that the Gauls flounced down into Italy in around 390 B.C.E. and sacked Rome in what had to be one heck of a raiding party
Generally speaking though, I think it's a pretty good analogy
2007-01-11 22:16:52 · answer #2 · answered by laetitia_gaudiumque 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Native Americans had to contend against the population pressure of settlers moving ever westward and armies dispatched to protect them. The Gauls fought against a highly organized and efficient army determined to make conquest.
It is difficult to compare the two situations.
2007-01-11 21:51:01 · answer #3 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can compare the Celtic struggle to the Indian Wars of the Americas, but as to individual battles, I'm not sure. Time marches on and things change.
2007-01-11 21:43:35 · answer #4 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋