The Celtic "Beam Sea" versus the Macedonian Maserati
I'm a huge fan of Hardcore History and all things Dan Carlin; I've listened to every HH episode as it's come out since King Of Kings, almost every episode HHA, and most of the back catalogue. This current series has completely captured my attention since getting very into Greek and Macedonian history again.
I keep thinking, however, that Dan's (defensible) interpretation of Alexander's fortune (getting the keys to a gassed up Maserati) is at odds with his take on the Celts being "caught in a beam sea." After all, wouldn't Macedon fit that "partially cooked" description Dan gives the Latinizing Gauls? Trapped between the more barbarian Illyrians, Thracians, Paeonians, and even Epirotes and the more settled, wealthy, and sophisticates Greek city-states and kingdoms, to say nothing of the Persian Empire, why are we to envy Alexander but pity Vercingetorix? Why were the Celts devoid of their former barbarian toughness, but the Macedonians more than a match for their more "barbarous" neighbors on the field of battle?
It may be easy to say that Darius III was no Ceaser, but the King of King (as pointed out by Dan & elsewhere) had re-conquered Egypt and settled internal conflicts. And Rome was hardly the picture of stability in 55 BC, having just survived one protracted period of civil wars and on a collision course for another one.
In my opinion, Dan gets the Maserati part correct with the Macedonians but is broadly wrong about the Celts being "softer" because of their more settled lifestyle. But I'm curious if others have come to the same conclusion.