Ask an expert on the Migration Period anything

Can you tell us what you know of the jewish diaspora at the time? What were they up to? The earliest historic record that I have collected is this:

711 AD
Jews conspired with the Muslims to invade Visigothic Spain, aiding their conquests by opening the gates on towns and cities and being rewarded for their efforts by being granted overlordship of Christian territories, not to mention high titles in the Muslim courts. They betrayed their Christian neighbors and became tax collectors and slavers. When the Reconquista was completed, the Jews were held accountable for their crimes. They were given two options: Expulsion or conversion. Those who converted then proceeded to try and kick the Spanish monarchy from the inside, thus prompting the Inquisition.

Sicilians undoubtedly have a shitload of mudblood in 'em, as for spaniards they have about 2.5% moorish blood

Well I've never heard that before? Why didn't he?

Sorry, i just cant control my sides.

How did Justinian the First pull of one of the greatest reconquests of all time? Why couldn't he be fucking satisfied with it instead of pissing off the Franks and Lombards?

I'm aware that Dacia was constantly invaded numerous time during that time period, what I'm more concerned with is the inhabitants themselves. As you probably know, Romania is located in what roughly used to be Dacia. I wonder why a romance tongue would uniquely survive in this region

How did north africa change in its race over time? Were Carthaginians mostly white Phoenecians? How did niggers/sand niggers take over?

Feels good to be part basque.
the basque genes are the reason i`m not blonde, though

Phoenicians were Semites, like the Arabs and Jews, so I don't know why you'd think they were white

I'd just like to point out to the uninformed people in this thread that genetic tests prove Spaniards and Sicilians have little to no non-European DNA from the supposed raping and pillaging by Muslim invaders. Their genetics remain a mix of early European ethnic groups that settled there thousands of years ago, with only very minimal non-European (such as North-African) admixture.

do you speak basque?

I never really knew much about them, I always got the impression that they were more white

WE WUZ FONEESHANZ N SHEIT

this is kind of unrelated, but is there any sort of non-pozzed celtic nationalist movements outside of Ireland? because unfortunately the potatoniggers are cucked pretty badly.

Sadly no, it was my great great grandfather who was basque, so it got lost through the times.
I think my great granfather was the last one to speak it.

so were the berbers semitic as well?

Maybe they Carthaginian ones were partially? Hannibal Barca looks pretty white, but then again I don't know how accurate this Roman-made statue is

*the

No, but the founders of Carthage, who originate from the Levant, were

You can't apply the fall of the Roman Empire for multiculturalism. The tribes living in the edges of the Empire WANTED to be Roman. They converted en masse to catholicism to gain more favor from the Catholic church and expect more power from it. Their pagan religion incentivized power fracture; catholicism incentivized power centralization in the figure of a king. The tribes that kept themselves paganized but with a central monarchic figure (example: Alans, Suebi…) didn't last long nor had the same amount of success then the converted ones.

Jews retreated to the Eastern Empire, where commerce and development was more prevalent. In time, the east completely replaced the Western Roman Empire in power, and the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy simply became another tribal land (the capital was already moved and most of the elite who still had enough money moved East after the sacks of Rome in the 5th century).

Attila took most of the intelligence of which provinces were easier to raid and control. Scandinavia was never too productive to raid, since he already controled the commercial routes of amber to the Eastern Roman Empire (and was already taken maybe the biggest bribes in the history of men not to raid there).

The logical conclusion he had was that he simply had to buffer his borders there. So he conquered a tribe called the Thuringians and made them his allies. Only after his death the Thuringians started to gain autonomy and became perhaps one of the only Germanic tribes with Hunnish influences.

You have to understand that conquering both the West and East while managing dozens of kings and warchiefs near their borders was a gargantuan task. His focus was to assure the Eastern Empire didn't suffer the same fate as the West and reconquer Egypt, and secure the grain commercial routes. After his conquers throughout the Mediterranean and reconquering Italy, you also have to understand he had to recuperate his losses. So he only wasn't more successful because he ran out of money to pay his army, but at the very least he managed to take back the most valuable provinces that the West had lost and they could manage from their geographical location (Italy itself, Egypt and Northern Africa).

There are several Roman forts and villages in Dacia who managed to survive a great amount of time. Dacia is also unique in that it takes roughly the same amount of effort from both the West and the East to defend it from invasions. Not only that, it's the first line of defense from nomadic invasions coming from slavic lands. It made sense it stayed culturally influenced by it.

Carthaginians were not white in skin color. They are closer to the Phoenicians in culture and genetically.

Muslims did not destroy Spain when they conquered it. Like most invasions in the time period, the conquering was more peaceful than you'd think; they would simply remove the ruling elite from power and put their own people there. The Visigoths were already too battered economically and militarly to fight back.

From the genetic studies I've seen posted here Sicilians have 5-6% of Middle Eastern/North African blood. Not sure if I agree that's a shitload.

I am from burgundy, where were the burgudian from ?

How can i tell if i am one of their decendant ?

Also, on another related note. I would like to know what were the methods used by the romans to fight immigration and if christianity helped the roman empire disapear.

And to finish do you have any good book you would recommand on the subject ?

Wasn't there recently a study showing Phoenicians were genetically related to modern Spaniards or something along those lines? I remember seeing a thread about it here not long ago.

reminds me of getting my mom's genetic tests back. she's half sicilian and half lemkian yet has 25% Irish DNA for some reason

Wrong, they most definitely were - native Roman births, that is. That's why they had to use more and more mercenaries and auxiliaries in the first place, and why they had to open up citizenship for foreigners.

Those Thuringians were also called "Hermundurii".

May be related to the Norman invasion. I went to school with a Sicilian and he was a fucking ginger.

So, first off thanks for making this. Late Antiquity is one of the coolest times to study, IMO, so many lessons you can learn.

I'd like your opinion on the Crisis of the Third Century and its aftermath, in particular, your ruling on some of the time's defining figures.

Was Aurelian right to stop spending blood and treasure he didn't have on Dacia, or did it set a terrible precedent of decline?

Was Diocletian a hero or a misguided fool who only sent the empire back into civil war? Could the Tetrarchy have worked? It appears as if during the Three Empires period, while they were separate, the respective spheres of influence managed to keep themselves alive due to not having to focus on one front - yet once formally united into four spheres they went straight to murdering eachother once the word go was said.

Constantine, of course. Was he right in his conversion of the empire, or do you agree with Gibbon that Christianity was one of the principal reasons for the decline of the state? In my humble opinion, Constantine had the right idea but terrible execution. A unifying cultural force was needed, but christianity had always specialized in waging an eternal war against their hated enemies, the christians.

More awaiting, but I figured I'd offer you a fun one:

Which tribe do you think had the greatest effect on world history? spoiler: visigoths

And when i mean christianity helped disappear it's not a bait or anything, i am just curious.

Due to ONLY having to focus on one front, I should say. I've been up too long, forgib me.

I've heard this on here, but never seen it backed up, nor heard any explanation for how this could be. Modern birthrates are easily explained by contraception and abortion, but neither of those things existed in any serious form back in the day.

Were male Romans just fucking their slaves and neglecting their wives?

If Constantine wanted the empire to be unified religiously, he should have forced Roman paganism instead

definitely Gibbon's work

I don't know that he could, Christianity had been on the rise for years, even with Rome trying to stamp it out.

do you have any info on Pelagius of Asturias? How was a mere nobleman able to create a kingdom that held off the moors so well?

Also, what is the lasting legacy of the Visigoths?
Does their genetic legacy live on in modern spaniards, or were they too few in number to influence the greater population?
I know that the turks of modern Turkey are almost entirely just anatolians with some arabic admixture, and have almost no actual turkish blood, are modern spaniards just the same iberians that were there from the beginning?

That's greatly exaggerated, only a few Emperors really tried to stamp out Christianity
A lot of the stories of martyrdom and persecution are just myths

Good one. They just wanted the Christians to pay tribute to the state gods, but oy vey it's annudda shoah.

I would've picked Sol Invictus instead, but I'm not living in the 200s.

Julian attempted to do so, but roman paganism was.. weird, lacking a unifying factor, by that time mostly archaic. It gave rise to a few thousand cults and mysteries that simply became too much to manage cohesively over time.

Though the Vestal Virgins are friggin' cool.

pls don't turn this into a pagans vs christians thread laddis

what

Why the Visigoths, and hows exactly do you define "tribe" for the purpose of this question?

No. First, the ancients had contraception and abortion themselves, and in fact practiced it liberally. Killing children was actually very normal, accepted and widespread in those times.

What lead to declining birth rates in Rome was not some specific material cause, but the cyclical nature of empire (c.f Glubb) as well as ennui and hedonism. Gibbon mentions it as well.

(check)

But which of the "Roman paganisms"? There was a state cult, but the rest was highly localized and specific to every region and people.

This.

Were the romans aware of the fall of the roman empire ? Any texts on the subject ?

Christianity wasn't the only religion on the rise at the time though, Manicheanism was also getting a lot of converts at the same time, and could have overtaken Christianity if not for Constantine's endorsement.
It certainly seems that, whether or not it would have been better, ancient Roman Paganism was on a sharp decline and likely had its days numbered

This, and of course don't forget Mithras.

During the twilight of the Empire and the era just after it, there were a large number of wars fought between the various Christian sects and how the Catholics became the dominant sect of Christianity
This was also the era where you had the Orthodox/Catholic split

Agreed

do states often "make" religions? because if so they should really start doing that more often. I want to go to church and learn about the founding fathers killing mexicans

Hm, I'm not satisfied with that answer. That would imply that exists something like "progress" in metaphysical affairs.

Can someone shed some light on the case of the Balkans? How did they go from being Greek and Roman to Slavic and Turkish?

Slavic tribes came in and butchered everything.

Are there any good books on Roman contact with the Far East?

I was intrigued by the little snippets I came across a while ago about, IIRC, Chinese emissaries in Rome and Palmyra, and also Han Chinese possibly skirmishing with Roman auxiliaries somewhere near the Caspian.

Then the Ottomans buttfucked them

not "progress", but just like with nations, a lot of religions have a beginning, and an eventual end, being "conquered" by a new one that comes along. At the time, while there were thousands of roman cults, there was a mass drive in the populace for conversion to a new faith, be it Christianity or one of the more eastern faiths like Manicheanism.
This could have actually been spurred on by the decline, actually, as the degeneracy of roman life at the time, the corruption of political affairs, and the increasing number of foreigners could have been seen as omens and signs of the roman gods having failed the people.

Of course, it's tied in with mythos of the state
A good example in the current day is the Founding Fathers of the US
I'd be surprised to find a state without a religion

Invasions

slavic tribes and greeks really aren't that different genetically, and the ottoman invasion should explain the latter.
just think of slavs as feral greeks

Then they got removed.

slavs came down from Siberia and removed gyro and stayed there
then 800-1000 years later the roaches came in and raped everybody, leaving their disgusting genes in the greeks and shiptars

I think the main problem with comparing the Muslim migration to the fall of the Roman Empire is the value of the genetic stock moving into the region. Muslims taking over would doom Europe to ruin and be perpetually stuck in the same rut that the middle east has toiled through for the past 1400 years. Weren't the Germanic tribes moving in not so far removed genetically from the Romans and other people's living in the area?

Burgundians came from the modern region of Poland. They were a tribe with Slavic/Scandinavian influences. Contrary to the Goths, which originated from the scandinavian island of Gotland, Burgundians came from Bornholm. During the Migration Period, they were considered one of the most manipulative tribes, messing around with Roman emperors and tribes themselves. It wasn't surprising they were displaced two times, once by the Romans in the 5th century and then by Clovis I of the Franks in the 6th century. They were very influenced by the Romans during their kingdom, laying what is perhaps one of the most elaborate and pioneering law acts of the migrating tribes, the "Laws of Gundobad".

If you have Scandinavian blood, chances are you're a descendant of the original migrators.

Romans didn't fight immigration. They simply did not had the economical power to stop it. They instead adopted a denomination of "Roman' for any non-Roman who served their military for a specific amount of time. Also, to repress immigration in a time where more than 90% of your military force was composed of non-Romans would be political suicide.

Christianity helped the Roman Empire persevere. By using religion as a tool of power with the surrounding tribes, the Romans managed to make alliances to their favor. If it wasn't for it, many of Rome's allies during the Battle of Chalóns wouldn't be there, and most probably the result would be different (Attila would win, and probably would take the Roman Empire for himself).

Yes. Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe.

More people in Rome would equal more economical strife. More than 90% of the Romans in the 5th century survived through state money.

Yes, Hermunurii was one of the names for the tribes. Several nomenclatures changed during the Migration Period (Quadi/Marcomanni, for example, disappeared as well). The common theory for that was that they were absorbed by larger contingents of tribesmen and then later were named differently.

Aurelian was several years-short of restoring the empire to it's full power. However, the Hunnish/nomadic hordes were so big it wouldn't matter if he restored Dacia. There was simply not enough resources to mount a defensive strategy in that place. The "what if" scenarios are very dangerous to play with, but I'd say he left Dacia because after fighting the barbarian tribes, he realized there was no point in trying, at least in Dacia.

Hero. The fact his attempts were unsuccessful didn't mean they were useless. The Tetrarchy was an attempt to politically stabilize a crumbling empire; it could have worked for a short period of time, but it was too late for it to work (maybe it would have worked if it was set a century earlier, when the Empire reached it's peak).

Christianity, as I said earlier, made it possible for the Romans to culturally bring the barbarian tribes to their side and control. It was perhaps one of the biggest assets the Romans had to themselves when bargaining with the tribes for a share of their army.

The Vandals. If you'd had to pick one person that was the biggest responsible for Roman collapse, it was Gaiseric. He burned down the Roman fleets when retreating to north Africa, managed to steal a large part of it, took with him the tribe who had the best shot at stopping the Huns and sacked Rome less than a century before another sacking by the Visigoths.

The Visigoths were Roman pawns, and laid their mark on history, just like the Franks, but the Vandals laid a bigger hole in Roman economy than even the Huns. After Gaiseric occupied Carthage, he was the master of the Mediterranean with such a huge amount of pirate ships doing his bidding it was very simple to simply dock them in Rome and sack it. Meanwhile, the Romans couldn't get the precious grains from Egypt because the land routes took multiple times the average amount of time than sea ones, justifying the economical collapse.

I don't know enough of Pelagius (Visigoth king) to say anything you probably already know.

The legacy of the Visigoths was short-lived. Their focus was never to occupy Spain; the regions north of the Pyrenees were way more economically attractive for them. Their occupation in Spain was simply a consequence of wiping out the Suebi. However, you could say they preserved Roman law and traditions during the time they stayed there, by the simple fact Visigoths adopted most of Roman cultural values after they settled.

A villager living far away from the Western Roman Empire would have no clue. An aristocrat would be more aware, however, and would move his assets East. Those who stayed were forced to live under the threat of roaming raiders from tribal warriors, ever-increasing taxes, inflation, economical droughts and worse of all, no more backup from a central administration.

They still speak a latin derived language in Romania. Maybe the remaining latin speakers from various balkan areas decided to seek refuge in the Carpathians

I need to harness my autistic love for mythology and codify America's religion.
COMMANDMENT I: Immigrants suck for the indigenous peoples. yes, we were immigrants too, and look how it turned out for the indians.

Romanians are pretty interesting. I've met a dozen or so in my life, and half of them were slavic-looking, stocky, round faced, and blonde. The other half were quite swarthy with aquiline noses and more gracile proportions.

Kek, no. Slavs have nothing to do with Siberia (until the Russkies conquered it).

This point I don't understand - what does "economical power" have to do with it? If they had had the will and military power, they could have slaughtered them all.

Sounds realistic. Absolutely incredible, though…. our modern social security is quite tame in comparison to that.

But they didn't

Depends. "Germanic", when you say it, is a blanket term to all tribes living in the edges of the Roman Empire. Vandals, Visigoths and Burgundians were classified as "Germanic", yet their genetics were different.

You want to compare it the following way: when the Roman Empire fell, those who wanted to be there converted to their religion and culture. Not only that; the overwhelming majority of the Roman army was exactly compsed by people not from Rome itself. Paganism became a problem for anyone who wanted to become Roman; to be a Christian meant you were more likely to be accepted by your Roman peers.

The economical collapse had nothing to do with immigration, and more about a political, economical and military structure too big to sustain itself. If anything, immigrants helped maintain the empire longer, because they were manpower willing to do their bidding for a lower price tag than the common Roman, while still being acceptable to the Roman culture, regardless of how barbaric they were.

all fucking historical records depict carthage and phonecians as white. Like the real persians.

The latter you described are gypos, and other Romanians don't recognize them as ethnically Romanian

I'm a Roman aristrocrat. I need manpower to work on my winery. I can either pay for slaves or for freemen to do my job. Slaves are more expensive. Free men are cheaper, usually more effective if I have to form a militia because they come from nomad tribes who had to fight their way to reach where I am right now, and are also Christian. I also gain points with the local tribal chieftain because I'm hiring their people.

Who would you rather pick? Immigrants were cheap labour and came with numerous perks. Slaves were not only becoming more expensive because there was no one else to conquer but the slave trade routes were constantly under the threat of pirates.

You can't tell someone to kill their own people. The Romans hired tribesmen settled near their borders to be their military. They already put tribes in constant warring state so they didn't grow out of proportions. There was not enough money to make military campaigns, bribe or displace them. They did the best they could with what they had.

Maybe their elite were white, but 99.9% of the population were undoubtly as swarthy as they are today

Your average Phoenician merchant, aristrocrat or important person was as white as a Roman or a Greek. The term "mediterranean" is closer to reality.

how did the gypsies come to europe anyway? they're related to pajeets, right?

forgot to mention that gypos are obviously a minority, if a significant one, but are 1000 times more likely to immigrate, since they have no ties to this land

they walked from pajeetistan

The latter romanians are more related to the nomadic tribes in the Black Sea shores.

I agree, that's probably how it went down. Not too dissimilar to the current collusion of Big Capital, perhaps.

I agree, many people get hung up on today's state borders. I reckon that the whole mediterranean basin was visibly-ethnically much more homogenous and whiter than today, even and especially in North Africa.

Well, gypsies are said to have to large ethnic streams, the Roma and the Sinti. One of them came from India, the other one, allegedly, from Egypt.

they're pajeets that got kicked out of india, and every consecutive country afterwards, until they ended up in Europe
Fun fact: they gypsys practice a weird version of Christianity, and actually hold a legend in which a gypsy boy steals one of the nails that was to hold up Jesus on the cross. As a result, Jesus blessed him, and made it so stealing would not be a sin for gypsys.
Yes, they literally stole so much they had to make up a justification for it and say it was their religion.

genetics place them all with indian origin, with degrees of blending along the way

Yes, they're pretty much nomadic Pajeets

Were there any events in this period where group that once tolerated outsiders just flipped one day and started killing them?

Was there ever a group of people who went extinct through altruism?

Maybe in skin colour, but not ethnically. You can clearly see the difference between their European and Semitic phenotypes by comparing facial reconstructions from ancient bones.

That kind of reasoning sounds rather familiar…

merchants == high functioning gypsies

Might be, but the left one looks very Roman.

Was the guy from the second pic a (((merchant))) by profession?

That's because it is a Roman

"Sicily is a cultural pot of northern africans, italians, muslims and greeks.

Spaniards pre-Roman conquest were genetically closer to the Welsh (Indo-European culture). Pre-Muslim conquests they were a mix of Romans, Germanics and Welsh to the north. Now it really depends on the place. Closer to the south you get, more Muslim influence there is. Northern spain, however, you'll get a lot of pure indo-iberians in Basque territories (amazingly, the Basques were the only who managed to hold off Romans, Visigoths, Muslims and Franks; due to millenia of knowledge of the Pyrenées, whenever there was a military incursion in their villages, they'd just retreat to the mountains and take it back when the armies left."

This is probably the most retarded thing I've heard this entire month. I've been studying ancient genetics for years and the entirety of this was pulled out your ass.

Spaniards historically in the neolithic were a combination of western hunter gatherers, early european farmers and about 10 percent berber input. This has not changed. Most people don't actually realize that the north african genome exists in small frequencies, even in places that never had any possibility for genetic input from conquest, like france at 2 percent.

The ibereans were not ever anywhere close to welsh.

Sicilians are of the same makeup, though of a higher Early european farmer admixture and a lower north african admixture. The only admixture that's taken place is an increase in the western hunter gatherer genome as a result of permanent norman and lombard settlement after the expultion and massacre of the arabs and berbers.

The reason these populations went unchanged is because the southern invaders were never allowed to permanently settle, while the germans did.

Also, the basques didn't hold off the romans, that would be modern day portugal, aka historic lusitania. You've shown you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Try actually looking into autosomal genetics before pulling this autism out of your ass.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718088/

Because he is? That's the guy who built the Pantheon.

*Iberians

By whom?

Let me correct myself.

The sicilian population did become slightly changed, as a result of german settlement, not arab/berber.

The nose knows.

Britain and Hibernia experienced large scale iberian migration you fucking retard

The "I read a book once by some sketchy dude so i will now spread bullshit and misconception and also this piece of clay was had my ancestors 5000 years ago so it's rightfully mine now" thread.

But some posts are fine.

Not that I remember by head on the first.

But the second one there's an interesting case for a tribe that settled in modern France. They assimilated all captured war prisoners and culturally different tribesmen. Through time, after only several generations, their culture simply disappeared. We're talking about a tribe that left the Black Sea, travelled all the way throughout Europe, settled in modern France and disappeared there.

You have to first understand that the regions of Britanny, Devon/Cornwall and northern Spain have genetic ties. After that, realize that the Welsh are the most Britonnic you can get genetically without Anglo-Saxon/Norman interference.

Iberians were not Welsh. They were indo-europeans. You're mixing the time periods and regions. When you say "Iberians", you're mentioning the entire Iberian peninsula. However, I'm mentinoning northern Spain, specifically, the Basque regions.

Basques held off Romans. The fact the Romans occupied the Basque region never meant they had full control.

Also, Lusitania is modern Portugal. Basques were never even close there. But nice try trying to derail the thread, better luck next time.

You're using the term "German". German as in modern Germany? Maybe you mean "Germanic", which I estabilished already it was a blanket term which the Romans categorized nearly every tribe settled on their borders.

Your confusion with terms reflect your clumsy attempt at rebuttal here.

Just because they experienced an iberian migration doesn't mean spaniards were ever genetically the same as the modern welsh.

The turks migrated to anatolia, but that doesn't make modern turks the same as modern turkic peoples.

Where is your proof of any of this?

I don't know what posts you're talking about, but it reminds me of this

what tribe are we talking about here?

Yes, but still nothing to do with the Welsh, who are a quite young people.

The Alans, who were sarmatians.

We are mentioning "Welsh" here because if I said "Britonnic" it could be confused with Anglo-Saxons. Geographically, the early Welsh (at the time, Britons pre-Saxon invasions) were settled in Wales, Devon/Cornwall, Britanny and northern Iberia.

suggestion:

prefix all statements about peoples with a time period.

e.g. (c 2000 BCE) Iberians

names of modern peoples, or geographic expressions (often based on names of tribes at some time living there) are complicating this discussion

pretty sure the genetics guy and the migration period guy are talking past each other due to this issue

First pic related. I'm no expert on this period, but poorer nations generally have more kids. The same was true in the West before technology became omnipresent.

The Lomabrds were nords that assimilated german peoples they conquered in germania and moved into the italian penninsula to conquer it.

So yes, German people from Germania.

And no, German was not a blanket term. The germans very specifically categorized and documented the ethnicities of all barbarian tribes, including thracians (trax), Celts (Gauls), and of course the Detusch (Germans).

Your lack of referance to everything I stated other than semantic wordplay implies you have no rebuttle, so it seems like you're throwing bricks from a glass house.

*romans very specifically categorized.

It's a bit late, forgive me.

this is new

most western nations literally had the opposite situation (wrt to internal wealth classes) for the whole period for which we have records

industrial revolution and improvements in farming have changed the situation dramatically

Let me correct myself; the Britons pre-Anglo Saxons were called "Romano-Britons" because they were the descendants of the Romans who stayed in Britain after the 3rd century, and were a mixture of Romans, Picts and Britons. However, the constant raidings of Hibernians (modern Irish) and Picts (living in modern Scotland, and also related to the Britons through Celtic culture) themselves forced the Romano-Britons to call for mercenary help from Saxons, who in their turn called the Angles, and later on came the Jutes. The clusterfuck after they decided to stay in Britain resulted in the later Anglo-Saxon culture.

So if you say Lombards were Scandinavian, it wouldn't be incorrect, since they came from Scandinavia. They later on assimilated Germanic tribes. How much they assimilated would be questionable.

Now, I could be more specific, and say for example, the Visigoths are from the Chernyakhov branch culturally. This would separate them from Germanic tribes, because for example, Saxons didn't had Chernyakhov influence. Then, in this place, if you lump Saxons and Visigoths as "Germanic", that would be false.

The term "Germanic" leads to confusion because it can be applied culturally and geographically from different lenses. Same way Holla Forums wants to lump Romans and Scandinavians as "white", but not Jews, which is misleading, to say the least.

I don't know who you're replying too, so it's confusing. Click the post number in order to reply to someone

He's replying to me, the OP, because he doesn't believe the modern Welsh are related to the ancient Basques.

I'm trying to say to him the northern Iberians, Britanny and western Britain all had the same origin, culturally speaking.

7678b8, please read about Conan Meriadoc.

what exactly is it that makes you an expert ?

post proof if any exists , otherwise no thanks i had my fill of internet professors

Both Romans and Scandinavians are a europoid people who speak indo-european languages, while Jews are a semitic people from the middle-east. Where's the confusion?

The iberians have never been totally indo european.

They have never even been mostly indo-european in genetic makeup, I might add.

Find me proof that Neolithic or paleolithic iberia was 100 percent genetically identical to the original indo-european speakers. Not even basque country was ever majority indo european, and that's where the majority of indo european speakers settled. They were early european farmer before anything, and held a similar neolithic genome to north italy and southern france.

"Also, Lusitania is modern Portugal"

That's exactly what I said. Can you not read?

"Basques held off Romans."

No, they didn't. Lusitania was the last province to fall in iberia. That is a fact. I can find a map if you'd like.

Do you think white genocide can be stopped?

"I'm trying to say to him the northern Iberians, Britanny and western Britain all had the same origin, culturally speaking."

That's not what you said. You said "spaniards were genetically closer to the welsh" during pre-roman which is a blatant lie, hence as to why you haven't produced any proof.

Please tell me how can a tribe not be totally indo-european. They never left Europe. Iberians never left their place, which is in Europe.

I never claimed they were identical. I said they had the same cultural origin, same way nearly every "Germanic" tribe in the period had their origin in Scandinavia. The fact they later on had transformations in their culture due to assimilations and influences never takes away that. Basques suffered Roman influence, as well as any other tribe who had their neighbours conquered and then assimilated.

Modern Portugal never had Basque influences. The fact the Romans took Basque cities never meant they lost their culture. Basques still ruled over their lands because once the Romans left with their army, they would simply leave their mountain homes and raid the nearby cities. There was no way to conquer them because it was a logistical nightmare. Contrary to the Asturians and the Cantabrians, for example, who were completely obliterated, because guess what, they had no mountains to run off to. So pray tell me how we don't see Asturians and Cantabrians to this day forward, but we DO see Basques? How come of those three tribes, only one was still being mentioned as a tribe and identity by the Romans themselves, but the others weren't?

Because spaniards, specially to the north, are related to them. And the more to the south you went, the less they had ties, because the culture in those places are similar.

I already gave you proof. I told you to research into a name and so far you refused to even mention it.

Please tell me how can a tribe not be totally indo-european while never leaving europe*

...

Use greentext instead of quotes fucking newfag. >like this

...

When by "indo-european" one person means basically "genetically similar to yamnaya and related groups" i.e the group that invaded during the indo-european expansion. There was plenty of blending with the pre-existing groups (eg early euro farmers originally from anatolia), moreso in the mediterranean, meaning southern groups could not be very genetically related to the original indo-europeans, even if their language and other cultural elements originated from them.

"Please tell me how can a tribe not be totally indo-european while never leaving europe?"

Sure. The indo-european is a language group that originated in siberia. It's a foreign language to europe that was brought by a small minority of conquerors, who most europeans derive the names for their ethnicities from now.

They contributed only a small part to the original european gene pool, but totally replaced their culture and languages.

There is literally nowhere in the world that is entirely "indo-european" unless you're referring to language alone, which you specified yourself that you weren't.

No, you said

Now

>"Modern Portugal never had Basque influences"

Are you kidding? There's like maybe a 5 percent variation within their genome to this day. They're almost identical.

Also

That's not how the burden of proof works, Mr. "Expert".

not really a "small minority", they were pretty effective at killing off the locals in the north of europe, northern euros have a good chunk of ancestry similar to them, moreso on the male side than female

I said "spaniards were genetically closer to the welsh" because the subject were muslims in spain; yes, in that case, spaniards are closer genetically to the welsh than the muslims, because when you consider the amount of time muslims stayed in Spain compared to the culture branch who was previously there, it was minimal.

Again, you're confusing time periods here. Modern Portugal as in the geographical location, in the 5th century, didn't had Basque influence because they were still only present in the northern region of Spain. If today the Portuguese are related to the Basques, maybe it would mean that after 1.500 years they managed to migrate there and mix in, which would make sense with your 5% figure.

cf recent "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo European languages in Europe" paper

(read the supplements, they're open access)

nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

I'm not doing your homework. I gave you a name. You refuse to google it. If you won't even lift a finger to ease the burden, why would I ever gave you books and papers?

come on, man

Yet you also imply muslims impacted their genepool without citing any proof as well. Here's the thing: There's leaps and bounds of superficial assumption that this happened as a result of the darker features of spaniards, but everything in genetics points to southern europeans as a whole being originally superficially tan, dark haired, etc and gradually lightening as a result of IE conquest and other northern migrations. I have yet to see any proof showing impact on the iberian gene pool as a result of islamic conquest.

Being effective at killing does not equate to large numbers. The IE people were technologically superior to europe and conquest took place over hundreds of years while assimilating natives into their tribes.

So in other words, you can't prove what you said. Fair enough.

Most of the kids in Sicily are born with light features (blonde hair/blue eyes) and gain their pigmentation afterwards, rather then being born with it.

Only the first generation of Moors remained moorish. They were about 5% of the Spain population, and since they didn't bring any women with them, they had to marry spanish women.

Muslims stayed in Iberia for about 3-4 centuries. Visigoths stayed for about 2 centuries. Basques stayed in Iberia before Romans were Romans. Who do you think is going to have a bigger impact in the gene pool?

The fact I can prove or not is meaningless because you're not willing to check any proof I give.

Nice greentext, user.

Sicilians aren't even the darkest people in italy.

The darkest spot of italy is Sardinia, which is actually the closest genetically to otzi the iceman, who represents what neolithic northern italy looked like.

lmao no they did that because military service was 16-24 years depending on the era and the romans got tired of it and instead chose the logical logistical solution of recruiting from locals who were typically hardier than the soft romans.

I stand corrected, but the result isn't that most modern or classical europeans have a small minority of DNA from them, which was what you implied upthread.

Romans didn't get "tired" of their military ways. The old military simply couldn't be supported with an empire as massive as it was during the 2nd century.

Hence came forth the military reforms. Rome didn't need a conquering army; it needed military to support and defend their borders. Romans weren't "softer", they were simply more expensive to bring up to the frontiers. It was easier to recruit someone who already lived close to it.

If anything, the comparison between the Ancient roman army with the late empire one is blatant in that it was less organized, less well-prepared and also way less well-trained. And that was okay, because guess what, it was also cheaper and easier to maintain.

"Who do you think is going to have a bigger impact in the gene pool?"

That's not how emperical reasoning works. If you're going to go around saying saying X was admixed Y you prove them factually, and not with guesswork. The arabs and moors were expelled after conquest. Any reasonable person would realize this played a large part concerning the genome of modern spain.

You haven't given any proof, ergo you cannot prove what you've said. As I stated earlier the burden of proof is on you, not me. Perhaps you don't realize since you seem to be repeating yourself, but this means that it's your responsibility to prove yourself with your own research, and not mine.

Slavs invaded the balkans and colonized everything but Greece. They became Christian, and some countries joined the Byzantine empire.

Later, filthy turks came and spred their filthy genes and their shitty religion and culture. Some places of the Balkans were more affected then other (Albania, Bosnia).

That would be the assumption of many genetecists looking to map anthropological movements, currently.

The difficult part is that the IE people have a genome that comes up roughly the same as many western hunter gatherer paleolithic european samples so it's somewhat out for speculation.

I can tell you that most would be very surprised if there were even a nation who derives half it's entire heritage from the indo-europeans alone.

I blame the military reforms for the fall of the Empire. I'm aware they were necessary to control all their territories, but I'd much rather be understaffed with good men than adequately staffed with barbarians.

A barbarian was as effective as a Roman for the job they were assigned to. Protecting borders is very menial. You don't need an elite force for that, even in the most threatened locations. When you are invading, I can afford to have less trained soldiers if it means you'll have to lay siege to a fort. Specially during a time where sieges were rare, and you couldn't protect all villages with castles, because cavalry would lay waste to everyone anyway.

Also, in the 5th century, the biggest threat in an army was the horse archer. A mass of cavalry adequately trained to shoot from horseback was hands-down the best army you could have. Even cataphracts were trained in both lance and bow, to engage in a charge only when the enemy was already pelted with arrows. The military success of the Huns was exactly because of that, and nearly a thousand years later, the Mongols would repeat this success.

The ADMIXTURE plot in Haak et al linked upthread seems to show all modern northern euros having about 50% of it's genome from a yamnaya like population.

In the K=19 run (lower row in pic), the ANE (teal) and WHG (blue) are in about equal proportions, as they are in Yamnaya, so only way they have less than about 50% IE is if the IE invaders were way biased to ANE compared to Yamanaya, right?

To complete: the times of a heavily armored infantrymen marching in testudo formations was already gone. Only the nomads from the east had horseback archery traditions, and even though anyone could train a soldier to do it, they would still be inferior to a steppe warrior who spent his entire life riding a horse and hunting from its back.

and the K=20 run (top row) detects Yamnaya as one source pop (blue), and puts most north euros at 50% for that element

Indo european invaders were likely a combo of ANE and WHG.

We know for a fact that WHG has existed in europe since before their invasions and likely ANE in the east as well, however.

To what extent is the question?

It's almost a meaningless topic because both populations are clearly derived from the same ancestry, but simply geographically sperated.

They very likely weren't significantly EEF, as you see in orange, as EEF came to europe in about 6000 BC from anatolia as a result of a population expansion from their discovery of farming.

an you link me up? I haven't seen this study and it seems interesting.

*seperated

*Can you link

The point is that you can't get the 50:50 proportion of ANE/WHG ancestry that northern euro folks have without both components coming mainly from IE invaders, as earliest IE invader model population (yamnaya), are 50:50 WHG/ANE.

IE invasion contributed ~50% ancestry to northern euros, and 30-40% to southerners.

study:
nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html

hires version of plot excerpted above here:
biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/3855/field_highwire_adjunct_files/0/013433-1.pdf

Since you are an "expert" you should also know that the ancient 100% white aryan purest european finno ugric race used to have an empire spreading across Russia until the nigger slavs came during the slavic nigger migration and genocided my people

What's the best info on who the Sea Peoples actually were?

Haha, nerd

I'm an eighth and platinum blond

Sure, but at what price? Lowering the standards of the Legionaries? Risking them turning and sacking Rome?

Now, to be fair, hindsight is always 20/20, but the point about quality soldiers stands.

Case in point, as you mentioned, horse archers quickly became the new emerging threat, but historically, the Romans had previously and in multiple occasions evolved and adapted their military tactics to suit the battlefield. But with discipline now a shadow of it's former glory, such a endeavour was impossible.

I'm sure you know, but I'll mention this anyways for the less-informed anons who might wish to know more about the topic. While the mongolds are famous for their horse archery, they were quite profficient at all other forms of combat. This flexibility is what their success truly stemmed from.

A thread about genetics and history without shitposting and blatant false information? On Holla Forums?? Must be opposite day today.

That is 12th century BCE. I'm honestly not knowledgeable on that area.

The Legionnaires had ridicuolously high standards for a soldier. The late roman soldier was still one of the highest pays an unskilled freeman could apply to.

There was almost no single instance in Roman history where the quality of the troops interferred with the result of a battle. The only case where it could arguably be set was in Chalóns, but even still, the largest force were barbarian mercenaries, not roman soldiers. And for sake of reason, let's say they were exceptionally well-trained and prepared. It would still be a bunch of infantry trying to outperform a huge horde of horse archers and mounted steppe soldiers.

However, if you go to the Eastern Roman Empire, they still employed highly disciplined troops in their ranks. The clibanarii and cataphracts appeared in this period. So you can say the cataphracts became the late empire legionnaires. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to say they gave armored horses to armored soldiers. However, they still were not Roman; most were steppe mercenaries given Roman equipment and training.

I agree that the Mongols also adopted other forms of combat, but they also did what the Huns did; when they needed soldiers to capture a stronghold, for instance, they employed "allies" as infantry, or captured siege engineers from their enemies to raid fortified cities.

>>ancient.eu/carthage/

The Carthaginians were white. At least the upper and most of the middle class until Rome finally conquered the territory after the last punic war.

They were basically Greek mixed with the "Sea Peoples" (Phoenicians). Genetic testing showed they were more Europeans than Asian/African by far.

European*

Also, wrong image :-/ That's a map of Earth 66 Million Years ago.

Not OP but I will bite, since I am very passionate about history as well, and somewhat well read.
I would also like to compliment OP for the high quality thread and the legitimate and well articulated answers he is giving. Much above the average quality.

It is hard to define right or wrong in this case without entering in fanta-history. It was a justified but controversial decision, especially since the empire had its other share of problems elsewhere.
However, I think it was wrong, and quite a costly mistake in the long run

He brought incredible stability to the Empire. De facto, they had the first 20 years of stability and internal peace. In a sense he saved a collapsing Empire, and had some great intuitions.
Unfortunately, he was economically illiterate, and he made a mess of the cerimonial institutions as well.
The purge of the Christians brought other problems as well.

It worked while he was alive, but made a mess with the handling of the successors. In was a very unstable system by design, despite the clever legitimation of the pax deorum.

I more or less concur with you.
It could have been a good idea, but after the strife on the religious side it ended up a terrible one.
Probably the old mores revival by Diomitian would have been much metter if it did not pair it with such a violent purge.
On a side note, Gibbons is really one of the best and worst examples of a certain english approach to history which should really Really Really be set aside, taken down a couple of notches, and not considered a Bible.

It's a reconstruction of Marcus Vipsanius Fucking Agrippa, best general and engineer of his time, the man who won Augustus his throne and which built the Pantheon.

He was very much Roman, although from a very NOT aristocratic background.
If he were born a Patrician like a Claudius or a Domitius, history would have been very different

Please tell me anything you can on the spread and diffusion of Christianity during this period.

...

This is where you are somewhat wrong, OP

The problem was that the biggest challenge to the continuation of the Empire was economical.
Too much inflation and currency devalution, too many resources spent in civil wars in the 3rd Century and in stupid pet projects, in addition to the massive handouts, all of this brought trade, which had been the lifeblood of the Roman world, to a massive and grinding halt.
By half of the 3rd century, most provinces had entire areas that reverted to barter.

I got this. Wrote many articles about the "Sea Peoples"

Many claim that they have originated from Greece, or Turkey. Basically a Germanic/Celtic predecessor peoples who migrated due to a natural disaster.

They came with technology that the Egyptians had never seen (Ox drawn carts, armor, weaponry, farming tech, written alphabet, colour dyes, and advanced ships). They didn't come as armies looking to pillage, plunder, or capture territory. But as droves of families, clans, and a unique culture never seen in the Mediterranean. Horned helmets, long beards, and Aryan-esq. They were probably an European/Aryan mix that travelled south to Egypt and the Mediterranean looking to find better lands after their home sunk to the seas.

I personally support the theory that they originated from the Netherlands/Germany coastline region. There were large settlements and similar tech/tools found sunk along the coastline there. But it may have just been a similar culture… However, I still subscribe to the idea that they were at least a Europeans/Aryan Hybrid people that came with such advanced tech, the Egyptians were nervous as hell.

They allied with the Libyans of the area at that time who were enemies of Egypt and established several kingdoms across the Mediterranean (Mostly around Jordan/Syria, South Greece, and Northwest Egypt). The most notable surviving the coming generations and creating an advanced culture being the Phoenicians, Philistines, Sardinia/Sicilian, even Thracian.

They traveled back to their original homeland, explored the coastline, fished, traded, explored, colonized, and created a vast network of settlements using advanced astronomy/map making/sailing. They used compasses, used scopes to pear far distances, traveled/colonized areas of Cornwall in Briton and mined Tin. The Sea People literally help bring the world into the Bronze Age out of the Copper Age, and again into the Iron Age. They knew the importance of mining and establishing trade/naval dominance. They sacked Cyprus and Mycenae Greece on their way to Egypt. They wanted the Nile Delta for themselves.

Not to mention they were literally the hands that brought the Hittites to their end, allowing for the peaceful creation of a grand alliance between their peoples for a few decades with the plunder of the Hittites and surrounding client states as fuel.

Good article around the time of the sea people: archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/199503/who.were.the.sea.people.htm
and
touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm

Although it's not that great at citing material. Still a decent read.

Christianity was the perfect scapegoat for tribal chieftains to amass and centralize their power in their societies.

Paganic tribes had local chieftains appointed by their own clans as their leaders. Once they converted to Christianity, whenever the Romans had to choose between two brothers of a dead king, they'd always go for the one who are more leaning towards their own religion, for obvious reasons. Nearly every tribe that remained pagan and were settled near the empire (Alemanni/Suebi) were more leaning to be purged and assimilated by other tribes. Not even Arians (a branch of christianity by the time) were well-sought by the Empire. The Burgundians and Vandals, for instance, were Arians. Burgundians were wiped out by the Franks, and the Vandals remained in northern Africa before being displaced by Belisarius in the 6th century.

My rebuttal was to the ways of the military. I agree with you in that the reason why the empire collapse was mainly economical.

You seem to fail to understand the value of a disciplined force. While less disciplined forces can be just as effective in a given situation, discipline itself is what allows an army to readily employ new tactics as a single cohesive unit. This is where Roman military success stemmed from.

Another word for lowering standards and thus leading to military regression? Degeneracy

If a group is able to get enough resources to overwhelm another, more competent military force, that's good for them. But.such a defeat is caused by a disparity of resources. It has no bearing on the effectiveness of a foot soldier, or the importance of discipline within an army at large.

For instance, a Roman (or any other equally disciplined force) contingent with similar resources could either employ them much more effectively than an opposing force, or more readily adopt new tactics should their current ones prove ineffective.

Not him, but here's a great way to show just how disastrous this was. Note the logarithmic scale of the graph.

Thanks user. And nice dubs.

Wait what?
Weren't the Chinese We wuz compasses and shiet?

There was a cooling down period during the invasions.

Question for OP:
Why weren't the Slavs so aggressive as the Germanics were? Also, why did they get on the road so late?

I am not a historian but everything that you said is very reminiscent of the Ancient Minoans.
Some sources that might be helpful.

news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/04/new-evidence-suggests-need-rewrite-bronze-age-history

personal.cimat.mx:8181/~blaauwm/wiggles/Friedrich-etal-2006-Science-Santorini.pdf

researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Ramsey/publication/7136353_Chronology_for_the_Aegean_Late_Bronze_Age_1700-1400_BC/links/0c960516fb430e77d3000000.pdf

amazon.com/Egypt-Canaan-Israel-Imperialism-Literature/dp/9004194932

amazon.com/Ages-Chaos-III-Peoples-Sea/dp/190683315X

amazon.com/Collapse-Bronze-Age-Greece-Peoples/dp/0595136648/

amazon.com/1177-B-C-Civilization-Collapsed-Turning/dp/0691168385/

amazon.com/Sea-Peoples-Their-World-Reassessment/dp/0924171804

amazon.com/Peoples-Bronze-Mediterranean-c-1400-BC-1000/dp/1472806816

Well hello there Chaim, please tell me, why do you lie so?

Sardinians are actually pretty hot though. They're are actually just dark-skinned white people. They don't look Arab or nigger at all

I'm concerned about these Thuringians, does their Asian/Hunnic admixture live on in modern day Germanic populations? How numerous were they?

But that's true. Those Muslims were ones of their Golden Age. Not the inbred retards you see today.
They even brought many innovations from ME to benefit the economy. One of the reasons for Spain doing so good right from the start and the Renaissance was the Cordoba caliphate and it's wast libraries.

Does someone fill your faggot heads with this bullshit or do you make it up yourselves?

There was no reason to sack Spain after the last Visigoth king was killed in battled. All the administration surrendered to the Muslims, and even the nobles that were left supported the Muslims themselves.

There was not enough time, organization or cultural influence to make a permanent change in Thuringian societies while they were vassalized to Attila. They still were a tribe who were influenced by trade to the Slavs in the east, and by pressure from their northern borders by the Saxons. So you can speculate that Hunnic influence was brief.

Still, they were christianized and less "landed", so to speak, than their western neighbors. After the 8th century, they became fully christianized and absorbed by the Franks (the neighbors).

What about Baltic slavs? Where are they? And how much contact with german tribes and balts eg modern day Brandenburg/Berlin to Baltic?

Recently proven false, look at pic related

I'm Sardinian, are we really Berber-mixed or more Indo-European? I thought our original population was Etruscan but I found out about Muslim battles on my island and it made me wonder if my swarthiness as an Italian was for more reasons than just living on the Med.

Curonians were the Scandinavian pirates. Mentions in norse sagas of them being ruthless warriors are plentiful.

There was little contact between them and any tribe other than the Scandinavians. Whatever contact they had and the knowledge of it was lost by the Goths after the migration from Gotland. Other tribes who didn't migrate (Sweons/Danes) would still be plagued by them in the amber trade routes with the Eastern Empire.

I don't have much information on the Estonians, but due to the lack of Roman information on them, I'd assume they did not join the migrations.

Sardinia was under Roman domain longer than any other civilization. Though only a genetic test would tell you with precision how much Muslim blood you have on you, the region as a whole was always much more Romanized than anything.

Curious thing though; there are more Romanians in Sardinia today than all Muslim ethnicities, combined.

Hello proxy changing shill.
Filtered&reported

Nah, Sardinians have effectively 0% Sub-Saharan African admixture, while Berbers have >20%. If they influenced your genetics to any point of significance, Sardinians would have at least some SSA admixture.

As for Indo-European admixture, Sardinia is one of the few places in Europe where the Indo-Europeans did not leave a significant genetic mark, as you can see in

Is the western part of what is now modern Scotland ethnically Germanic Norse/Saxon rather than Pictish or Celtic as they see themselves mostly now.

I've found the Norse race-mixed a lot more when they invaded and the places they took fell culturally back too Celtic in time while the Saxon took and held land killing the natives. Such as the word "Welsh" meaning stranger in Saxon.

Sardinia, the Nuoro region to be more precise, is actually a blue zone too. My money would be on the really high reservatrol content in the wine since that region produces pitch black cannonau wine.

Forgive my inexperience with genetics, what exactly am I looking at? I can see that our orange bar is greater, but I don't really understand what this means other than that it seems we are a time capsule for neolithic man.

My concern lies in that the wikipedia page (
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuringii, "political history") claims

Would this Hunnic DNA have lived on? I'm primarily concerned by this because as a northern Dutchman I am pretty much completely descended from Saxon immigrants from the sixth century, and apparently the Saxons subjugated and assimilated them (the Thuringians), meaning that that taint would've lived on in the Saxons.

Great thread, by the way, really informative and it's one of my favourite periods.

"Yamnaya" means Aryan/indo-European, y'know, those guys the Führer was always talking about.

"Western European hunter gatherer" means a native of Europe before both the invasions of the farmers ("early Neolithic") and the Aryans ("Yamnaya")

This means you're almost completely descended from middle eastern farmers. which isn't as bad as it sounds, middle eastern =/= smelly arab shitskin

second pic related is just for bypass

bumparoo

Not really. You'd have to consider there's a ~1.500 year period to dillute that.

If it would serve for anything, a Thuringian who descended from a Hun today would have about what, 18 generations. And that is considering the Hun itself was pure-blood (let's not forget the Huns themselves interbred with the tribes they conquered; a half-Slav Hun wouldn't be too far-fetched, for example.

I'm actually 25% German so I'm not without my yamnaya blood, but most of the rest would be Sardinian.

Funnily enough, I found out that Sardinia is named after the 'Persian Hercules' Sardus which deepened my suspicions that we were fertile crescent dwellers at some point. As far as populations go, it bothers me that we are closer to the Spanish but then again what we now consider Spanish is different than ancient Spaniards.

Little side note, I have a Puerto Rican friend who I've been talking to about racial topics and he brought up that he's mostly descendant from Spaniards which seems to be true, but there's something else kicking around in his genes that seems Caribe-nigger tier. Could you expound a bit on that if you're familiar at all?

This fucking myth again.

There was no "Islamic golden age", it's a fucking myth, and you're a fucking reddit cuckfaggot for believing it.

Well except money and goods, and they did sack the country.

No, most did not.

Tell me, why do you spread these myths?

You're a fucking retard.

why don't you refute them then? calling people retards doesn't do anything.

you are not a good poster.

Up until recently historians believed the Vandals completely destroyed ("vandalized") Carthage when they made it their capital.

Now we know they simply occupied it.

There's no myth to be spread. Muslims did not destroy anything they didn't have to. Once a nation surrenders, there's no need to sack it; you already own it. You then go to the next step, which is administrate it.

How did the modern Danes of today come about?
They're clearly not fully Nordic, but not fully Germanic either.

Except that they did, like they burned all of those libraries for being haram, and raped and enslaved the local populace.

You're a fucking kike, or a cuck.

He hasn't proven anything, I'm a better poster than him for I post the truth.

Now go get your neghole pozzed you filthy faggot.

I suppose I worry a bit too much, but I don't have to tell a fellow Holla Forumsack how important racial purity is.

I have no prior knowledge of Puero Rico's demographics but I did some reading on the wikipedia page which states:

Apparently Puerto Rico was settled largely by Southern Spaniards and people from the Canary Islands, whose natives are genetically quite strange from the stories that survived about them, so the anomaly in his genes could be anything, really.

Care to provide any evidence whatsoever for any of your wild claims? The Muslim golden age did happen and yes it was because they stole all their shit from antique European civilizations, but that doesn't make it any less true

Germanic literally means Nordic, all Germanic peoples originate from Scandinavia, see my map here

Danes should be quite pure, the least pure "Germanics" are southern germans, who are mostly alpine and have simply been assimilated into germanic culture by invading tribes from the north.

Denmark and by extension all of scandinavia, northern Germany and the Netherlands should all be quite pure Germanic nordic

No, Dacia is mostly Transylvania. Romania proper is on the other side of the Carpathians. Transylvania wasn't a part of Romania until after ww1. And there are no rivers or mountains in Transylvania with Latin names, nor are there any mentions of them.
The Romanians follow Orthodox Christianity, while Croatia, Hungary and Poland converted to Catholicism. It suggests that Romanians weren't in what once was Dacia when the two split from each other, otherwise they would be a Catholic people. And there are is nearly no German influence in Romanian language, despite the numerous Germanic tribes that settled in the area. But there is significant Slavic influence, and also there are traces of some Albanian words. All in all, it suggests that the ancestors of the Romanians were primarily a Latin-speaking people from the Balkans, close to Albania, who migrated northward over the centuries. It explains the Orthodox religion and the strong Slavic and weak Germanic influence in the language.

See
You inbred shitskin retard.
Yeah, read a fucking book too.

Well i think things would have been different if it was an arab conquest and not a berber one maybe.
But can we even call them muslims ? If i am correct at the start of the spanish occupation it was far more relaxed than when the hardcore muslims from arabia come.

Another question, are the french a mix of gauls, romans and franks or it's something else completly ?

No it didn't, it's a myth.

Care to prove that it happened.
protip, you can't.

Stop swearing and insulting other Holla Forumsacks just because you're frustrated, I'd be willing to bet a thousand dollars I'm more "white" than you.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

From what I know, France is a very racially diverse country made up out of Gauls, Germanics, southern French who are mediterranian looking, and some sort of alpines in the east.

I don't know if/how much the Romans had influence on the Gallic population.

Stopped reading right there. The invasion of Spain started in 711, which is long before Charlemagne was even born, and was finished by around 720. They invaded Aquitaine in 732, where they were defeated by Charlemagne's GRANDFATHER, Charles Martel.

A self professed expert on the migration period should at least know this basic shit.

You're a cuck, and you're wrong.

You can't prove any of your claims, and you can't even confront my evidence.

You're a fucking faggot, and a cuck, and most likely a Jew.

user, it's obvious that he's a troll.

you clearly cannot handle discussion. go away child.

Believe it or not, there used to be a sect of Islam that was founded on secularism and scientific pursuit. This sect was later wiped out by the barbarous sects of Islam (all the rest) so this didn't last terribly long, but at some point the Islamic world did have cultural learning centers and economic hubs.

The muds of yore used to care more about becoming wealthy through trade than the more violent shitskins of today.

I'm not debating with you, someone else was, I'm not the least bit interested in the Islamic golden age or debating it, for that matter.

I've contributed more to this thread than you, and honestly you calling me a jew is fucking hilarious.

Can you stop changing proxies and replying to yourself?
It's fairly obvious you're one and the same poster from your writing style.

I know every thread has to be derailed per your instructions but please fuck off.

We didn't have a history one in a long time.

So, what happened to the old religion ? I bet some people tried to defend them.

Also, can the aftermath of the fall of rome be seen as a post apocalypse society or is it a different matter ?

I've provided evidence, you've got nothing.

Step up your game you worthless faggot.

Not outside of Baghdad.

Economics aside, the only site of learning that ever produced any scientific knowledge in the Mohammedan world was Baghdad, and many of the scholars were Assyrian Christian slaves who served in the Caliph's court.

No you haven't, you've contributed nothing, you're a cuck and a faggot, and I've discredited everything that you have to say, you have no proof or arguments.

Fuck off Ahmed, if you can't refute my arguments then you've lost, and the only one using proxies here is you.

I suggest we stop replying to the retard in our midst and stop him from single-handedly derailing this thread that has been more interesting thusfar than anything other for a while.

ROFL fam that is 2lol

forgive me its early I couldn't resist.. Cincider this an assholey bump

What are you even talking about, "basket people"?

thanks for the bump valued user

Yeah, you can't refute anything that I've said, so you decide to try and cover your ears, hoping that no one finds out the truth.

What a weak fucking faggot you are.

The true history of the Danes do not start up until Harald Bluetooth. Previous to that, we can only speculate based upon what Procopius mentioned in his notes, the archeological findings we got and any vague source of information we can have. Proto-Vikings didn't change much in their culture and way of life until the Viking era per se; they raided coastal settlements as pirates and never engaged in farming. They didn't join the migrations either.

The claim they're not neither Nordic nor Germanic is probably because they originated in a "sandwiched" area between Sweons, Saxons, Jutes and Angles. You can always assume that the geographical area a tribe is located in their origin point would suffer cultural influences from their neighbours due to trade, military encounters and other related activities. Since during the 5th Century both Saxons and Angles migrated most of their aristocracy and military to Britain, it wouldn't be impossible to theorize, for instance, that Danes started to occupy a power vacuum left by those tribes in modern Denmark.

The muslims that invaded Spain come from the Umayyad Caliphate, which had origin in modern Syria. As I mentioned numerous times, occupation through violence was different in that time. Berbers themselves had their attritions with the Umayyads.

It is important to note Islam was a very recent and new religion compared to Germanic paganism or Christianity, for example; a religion only a couple hundred years old didn't had enough time to mature into what it is today, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that during it's infancy, in a different time period, it would behave differently. Though I'd argue that muslims are very romanticized by western authors, there is numerous archeological findings in Spain from Visigothic times, which could mean they were not touched by Muslim occupation.

It depends on the time period you want to consider. Today's french are mostly the result of the Frankish domination of modern France, with little influence of other nations outside of Rome itself. Before the Franks, the Gauls were the inhabitants and main culture; Gauls were celts. After the Romans absorbed the Gauls, the culture left there was a mixture between both (what historian call "Gallo-Romans"; it simply meant the local population were Romanized Gauls, as in Britain with the "Romano-Britons".). The Franks were very Romanized, second only to Visigoths.

In some regions of France you'd have influence of Britannic celts (Britanny), but for the most part it is the result of Charlemagne's unification.

I'm pushing my general knowledge here; Charles Martel and Charlemagne were Early Middle Ages figures, not part of the Migration Period.

What old religion? Paganism? It became irrelevant, because it was a problem for tribal chieftains willing to ascend to power. Trying to stick to the old religion meant not having full backup of Rome, which was deemed essential to the survival of any tribe in the period.

You can say the the Migration Period was a Mad Max time between the Ancient and Medieval Era. There was no true apocalypse, but everything everywhere was reduced to it's most basic and rudimentary level. I mentioned this earlier; more than 90% of Rome's citizens were sustained by state benefits. The only region in the world that was having any sort of economical growth was in Constantinople, and even then there was some sort of problem with the huge bribes given to Attila.

You sound like a thick American, probably of Basque heritage, who has read some pop history book and thinks he's an expert. Why are you an expert lad?

Hey faggot, respond to already, it fucking destroys your cucked world view.

He isn't, he's completely full of shit.

Seriously, he's so wrong about fucking everything that I believe this entire thread is just an >>>Holla Forums troll.

Holy shit user you are truly autistic. Do you really think that there's a conspiracy out to get you? Nah, m9 your thread is just shit.

Can you expand upon this? How did the Danish Germanic tribes Saxons, angles, Jutes have the numbers to invade Britannia in such massive numbers to leave a massive genetic imprint, populate northern Germany and repopulate most of the Netherlands after floods and various other disasters wiped out the population that lived there before them?

Question for the autismos in the thread: If you think that OP is so wrong, and he may be, why don't you type up your own responses to questions people have in the thread instead of just responding to the people attempting to provide information? Maybe they read different source material that you disagree with, so talk about what source materials you gleaned your information from for the benefit of all. You people shitting on every response are just annoying.

They're lying, and anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of these subjects can immediately tell that they're full of shit.

If this were a table discussion, I'd bet $20 on this faggot:

Not actually knowing the difference between a primary and secondary source without looking at Google, let alone knowing how to tell the accuracy of a source in contrast to others from around the same time period.

That being said, I would like it if OP would provide some sources of his own. While the thread is fairly entertaining, and matches up pretty accurately with what I know coming from a household where history was always considered fairly important, it would be nice to see some degree of scholarly backing.

Some of us don't have the time to respond to one paragraph of bullshit with twelve paragraphs of why it's wrong lad

That's why this form of shitposting is so popular these days

He's a bullshitter the migrations of the Anglo-Saxons were tiny and one may dare say ecclectic socially. They never left a heavy print genetically except in Kent and a few other home counties. Their domination was cultural and filled a large vacuum left by Rome and so many of the Britons simply accepted it and aided them in hopes of gaining their own power and wealth. Look at the house of Cerdicing and the roots of the Wessexian Monarchy from which Elizabeth II is a direct descendant.

Further, the Germanic tribes which came to Britain had nothing close to what one may call a military. There were a great many invasions over hundreds of years and each one differed from the last in its aims, methodology and outcome.

And just so you know, posting a YouTube link does not count as providing a source. The sources would be the original text from which the information was taken. And if you want to post a video, save it as a Webm. If it is actually relevant, it will probably get deleted by Jewgle fairly soon anyways.

I used to think this, but things I've seen seem to prove that Saxons did leave a rather large imprint:

bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663

Also, look at this map

Let's not insult eachother and reduce this thread to shitflinging.

Yes they did, a majority of genetic material in Britain is from the Germanic peoples.

Yeah, because the fucking Arabs who conquered the land is a far more reliable source of information than the people who lived there.

He provides all sources in the video, he's an actual historian and is deeply familiar with the subject.

Which is provided in the video you fucking retard.

Do it yourself.

I'm saying, if you know so much why don't you respond to my questions or other user's questions instead of arguing with these, by your standards, lying kike shills? I'm sure we'd all appreciate it. If not, then you just come off as some poopooing loser who's just out to stifle discussion.

Then don't expect us to take you seriously when you won't even respond to people in the thread asking legitimate questions.

Every person using this word nowadays is a 4chan cuck so your opinion is instantly discredited.

Ok then.

Video starts with a woman making a highly pro-Islam view on Muslim conquests. So through this lens, it is acceptable for the author to swing it towards his views easier.

Latin Chronicle of 754 is the video's first source. It was written by a christian bishop. Any source material from christian sources describing non-christians at this period are highly biased and can't be trusted.

5:10 - So far, nothing he mentions from the Muslims are too different than what other tribes did to others when they conquered their territories.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a peaceful occupation, but it was as violent as any other at the time. You wanna paint me as a muslim apologist, fine, you want to equate my views with apologism when I'm simply stating there was no significant difference between warring tribes in the Migration Period.

And to mention yet again, the Muslim conquest of Spain was after the migration period.

Basques retained their culture throughout the centuries. Their neighbours didn't. This is undisputed fact. Ask any military expert about launching operations on mountainous terrain. Then ask them again how it would fare during ancient/medieval times. I didn't said they were godlike; I simply said whenever they were defeated, they'd retreat to their mountain homes, where it was easier to defend and hide and launch guerrila warfare, then regroup and strike again when the main force left their main cities.

They didn't invade.

Vortigern was the leader of Britannia during the 5th century. He was having a lot of trouble in unifying the Britannic rule in the region, because of fractured warlords in the island and the constant Pictish invasions. So he decided to call Hengist and Horsa, two mercenary brothers and sons of semi-legendary kings of the Saxons, Jutes and Angles.

Initially, Vortigern gave them a share of land in exchange for their services, but a conjucture of factors (no money to pay them, the ambitions of the brothers in Britain and their willing to seize power there) led them to revolt and not only occupy but subjulgate Vortigern to take Britain to themselves.

They expanded their territory from their recently handed-out land, like the island of Kent for the Jutes, Northumbria for the Angles and the regions near London for the Saxons. Creeping out and bringing more and more settlers and warriors from the Jutland peninsula, where most of the tribesmen were from, they pushed the Romano-Britons to the regions of Cornwall and Wales, where it was more difficult to carry military campaigns due to the natural obstacles there.

It is theorized, as I said earlier, that the Danes filled the vacuum left by these migrations to Britain in modern Denmark. Danes themselves weren't too far off culturally and genetically from the original owners of Jutland.

Sources: The Saxon Chronicle, An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

etto

Angles, Saxons and Jutes are Scandinavian, not Germanic.

Those "invasions" started as peaceful and escalated to military throughout the course of several years. There was little to offer to the Anglo-Saxon mercenaries other than land, and once they had it, they used it as a start point to push their domains west.

The Picts retreated north, where later on they would be absorbed and subjulgated by the Hibernians of Dal Riáda, which would later on be called the Scots.

Correction: Last source is The End of Roman Britain.

Because they're lying kike shills and people need to know that.

The dumb cunt says the same shit as you, you fucking cuck.

Yeah, you can't argue against it or it's validity, everything said in the document is even backed up by contemporary Mohammedan sources, you haven't made any argument as to why it is in any way less reliable of a source than the Mohammedan sources where they praise themselves.

It completely counters your description of events, you fucking cuck.

No it was much more violent than when Europeans conquered each other, we didn't use each other as sex slaves.

You are one, you explitly say that it was remarkably "peaceful", and then seek to minimize the rape and destruction of Spain by the fucking shitskins, you are a Mohammedan apologist.

Your assertion there is false, the Mohammedans were far more viscous than was normal.

By Rome's citizens you mean 90% of the population of the city of Rome; 90% of people who had the legal status of citizen and lived in the city Rome ;90% of people who were Roman citizens through all of the empire; or something else?
And how did it work exactly? Did they have to apply for "welfare", or it was just granted to them no questions asked? And was money or just food, or a mixture?

I believe that he means all of the Roman citizens who lived in the city of Rome, because I've heard that from other people.

Thanks a lot, I had heard of this before but I thought the "invitation" of the Saxons was merely a theory, rather than fact.

The Jutland peninsula being abandoned also makes sense, as the Juttish identity died out I suppose around the time that the Netherlands was repopulated and the migrations to England happened.

While Germanic is, as you've said before, a term very loosely used by the Romans, the modern term "Germanic" means the ethnicity that came out of Scandinavia modern day Denmark, southern Sweden and invaded a lot of continential Europe.

Wouldn't this mean that Germanic == Scandinavian?

Except you look like the child when you feel the need to say cuck or kike every sentence. It might be colloquial parlance on 4chan, but here you just look like a memespouting redditor. It makes me distrust your opinions by default because I've debated many people such as yourself who were wholly oblivious to their own obliviousness.

Dispassionate debate is the hallmark of intelligence, and so far you've exhibited none of that.

He is making excuses for the people who want to commit genocide on us, he's seeking to minimize the threat that they pose now, and the damage that they have done in the past, he is either an Arab, a kike, or a cuck.

I am not upset, I am calm, I'm merely pointing out the contents of his character.

You seem to be caught in a rather black and white world. It's very possible what he's saying is true to some extent. No one minimizes the threat of Arabs in the past but in the past at least a lot of their conquests had a purpose other than slaughter. They wouldn't always want to slaughter a population since their religion allows non-muslims to live as long as they pay their jizya. That's not to say that these populations are treated well however.

Nah dude, try getting through a couple responses with more than one sentence and without calling anyone a name and maybe people would take you more seriously. This is just a PSA since posters such as yourself drag the posting quality of this board down considerably. I prefer someone who can discuss a position I disagree with rather than someone saying cuck over and over.

Scandinavian is a subset of Germanic. Scandinavians = North Germanics. Germans, Austrians, Anglos, German Swiss and Dutch = West Germanics. Vandals and Goths = East Germanics.

90% of the citizens of Rome, regardless of their status of Romans or not, were using the Doles.

Food only. Poorer citizens were offered bread through reduced prices. Anyone standing in line would be able to buy it. I think the name of it was "dole". Obviously, with the collapse of the grain trade from Egypt, the dole would be much more expensive from a economical standpoint to the Empire to maintain, yet removing it would certainly mean riots.

The Suebi, who later on branched into the Alemanni, and the Franks, for example, could be classified as "Germanic", with no Scandinavian origins. A Germanic tribe was not necessarily Scandinavian.

Terms are loose because in this period there was a lot of cultural mixing. I'd simply say that the use of Germanic tribes is misleading, because several tribes did not have a Germanic origin point, and I see a lot of people use it from a Roman point of view, which is not wrong, but as I said before, can be misleading because of the cultural heritage of such tribes.

To be barbaric ~1.500-1000 years ago is certainly more understandable than today, especially in such a point of history where economic strife was such a problem. That doesn't excuse Islam for being barbaric today. The problem here is that you want me to conform to your point of view to be confortable around my ideas. You don't know what I think of Islam/Muslims today. To disagree with someone in a point of history does not mean to disagree in general terms. You want to be intellectually honest if you want to bring your points to debate, and I'm not willing to tell everyone that the Umayyad Caliphate commited white genocide in Spain and raped every single woman and children just to appease you and lose my credibility.

Visigoths actually came from the island of Gotland, in Scandinavia. Arguably, they're Scandinavian in origin, but their culture was remarkably similar to Eastern Europe tribes. One could say after the crossing in the North Sea they assimilated a lot of the culture from the Chernyakhov tribes.

No it isn't.

Yes, slaves and war-booty.

This is a misrepresentation of what jizya is meant to be, it's a system that is supposed to impoverish the population to such an extent that they'll eventually convert voluntarily, and the only people to whom the jizya system applied were Jews and Christians, pagans of various stripes were treated worse.

No, the cuck OP is doing that by spreading misinformation, I have provided evidence that proves he is lying.

I have (unlike the OP) provided evidence, that's all that is necessary.

They did rape considerably, and they took countless white Spanish women as sex slaves.

To call their conquest in any degree "peaceful" is a lie I only want for you to speak the truth of what happened, and so far you have not done that.

Give me the exact quote where I said the conquest was peaceful.

What you just said refers to culture and linguistic roots, rather than ethnicity.

Austrians/southern Germans are at most only half Germanic in older literature also known as "Nordic", the English vary between ~40% and ~80% depending on region.

All ethnically Germanic peoples came from Scandinavia, the Goths sailed from Scandinavia to Poland what is now Gdansk, the Saxons moved from middle Jutland, etc.

Source on the Suebi and Franks not being Scandinavian?

It seems to me like they are Scandinavian, but they simply moved out of Scandinavia earlier than other, earlier attested tribes, and as thus there is no documentation for it.

I would not know how it is possible for a Germanic tribe not to originate in Scandinavia, unless you postulate that the Suebi and the Franks were never really ethnically Germanic and merely adopted the Germanic culture from surrounding/conquering tribes.

It is known, for example, that the descendants of the Alemanni nowadays are southern Germans who are by no means ethnically Germanic, but I figured that this was simply a result of them being genetically assimilated into the already existing native Alpine population.

It seems to me that there is no reason to suggest that the Franks did not originate from Scandinavia, although we have no historical documentation of that, because of the fact that the somewhat mixed descendants of the Franks still exist in the southern Netherlands.

See
What you say is an outright lie, they didn't merely "replace the elite", they outright committed genocide on the local population in many areas.

Can you answer this one
since you missed it.
Thanks.

while this dude needs to learn how to write correctly, I agree with him
comes off as a massive muslim apologist. Here is the conquest, murder, rape, enslavement, and complete subjugation of an entire people, an event so brutal that the remaining spaniards would fight 700 years to retake their own land, and he says its the exact same as the small scale wars between tribes for land. He says that germanic tribes fighting each other, who spoke the same languages, came from the same type of lands, looked the same, and had the same religion, are the exact same as a foreign horde completely destroying an entire peninsula.
I see the exact same "christians were just as bad" sentiment in his words as I get from your common muslim-loving lefty

Franks were descendants of the Chatti. Sidonius does not describe their height in a time where Scandinavians are always mentioned by their stature.

All sources claim the Franks and the Chatti were inhabitants of the Rhine valley.

The Suebi are originated from the largest group origin, the Semnones, who were located in modern eastern Germany.

So the earliest mentions of these tribes are in the 2nd-3rd century. If they earlier on were living in Scandinavia, then their original tribes were already relocated elsewhere.

The Alemanni were a branch of the migrating Suebi who stayed near the cantons of modern Switzerland. The Alemanni were very ethnically diverse, sheltering Sarmatians, Visigoths, Burgundians and the Suebi themselves.

My bad must have missed it.

I don't have the exact source with me. But several Byzantine military strategy sources of the past say that the Slavs were very keen in the appliance of ambush tactics. Their favourite strategy was to lay and wait for an opportunity to waylay caravans or lesser military groups. The same source claims the best way to deal with them was with armored cavalry to chase them down. It also claimed they were unarmoured. So it's safe to say they used different tactics than the Germanic tribes (either using Roman tactics themselves or shieldwalls where they pelted the enemy with javelins before engaging, or waited a cavalry charge before countering; in the case of horse archers, the shieldwall would protect their own foot archers to shoot back).

I mentioned this earlier; the Huns and any steppe-dwelling tribe who wanted to raid Europe simply had to deal with Slavic settlements before reaching even modern Germany. So it meant that all horse-riding soldiers instead of raiding Roman settlements were happy to simply raid Slavic/Eastern Germany settlements instead. It was one of the reasons why the migrations to the west were so massive. The only chieftain who ever dared to step the raiding game up in larger scale was Attila, because he had previous knowledge of what was beyond these smaller, poorer villages, and just happened to be under the command of a large contingent of tribes after his father passed away and defeating his older brother, Bleda, in combat.

What are some good books about the Migration Period?

Some of these are papers.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
A History of the Alans in the West
Scandanavia and the Huns
The Huns, Rome, and the Birth of Europe
The History of the Franks
The Fragmentary History of Priscus: Attila, the Huns and the Roman Empire, Ad 430-476

So the bread from bread and circuses. I think the city itself was weakness of Rome. All those plebeians should have been soldier-peasants, like the ones in Byzantium. This way Italy would have a strong and "organic" defence force, thus easing the army's worries.

You linked one YT vid and think that's all you need to do to prove that your opinions are wholly valid. It's like you've never written an academic paper in your god damn life.

The problem is the risk of arming citizens in a period of economical decline; you never know when they're going to turn back on you and riot with the new gear they got. There was no central army to prevent this from happening; a disperse army would be way easier to control; whenever there was a mutiny, it would be a matter of simply dislocating adjacent groups to suppress it. And also, the fact a mutiny would happen at the borders meant the Romans had plenty of time to react until it reached the inner cities.

The proof of the matter for this rationale is the transference of the capital to Ravenna; the administrative power not being in the economical center meant probably that the Romans dodged a bullet every time the city was sacked.

There is the record of the Visigoths in the sacking of 410 that they simply went through Ravenna and ignored it, because they knew that Rome had way more riches to sack.

But what about the Germanic tribes in modern day Brandenburg/Pommern/Mecklenberg? How many slavs (eg pre German Pomeranians) and balts(eg pre German Prussians) there? Did they start mixing? Was a meeting point of all three types, no?

Which was fully sourced and contained all information necessary to discredit king cuck (OP).

And by doing so I have provided more evidence thank king cuck.

Also are Hunns turks or mongols or both? What about Avarrs? Whats the difference between turks and mongols and did they look the same back then (asiatic)?

Thanks for the clarification.

So if the Franks and the Suebi were not ethnically/originally Germanic, what were they? They must've assimilated quite a lot of Germanics on the way.

I know this does not fall exactly within your jurisdiction, but do you figure the modern day German Rhinelanders are descendents of the Franks, since they aren't exactly ethnically Germanic themselves, like most of middle/southern Germany.

The eastern Germanic tribes all migrated away or died out, I think most of the inhabitants of modern day eastern Germany are slavic, ethnically

What the hell is this map all about? There are no labels

Filtered my man. You offer nothing of interest.

I've meant a resettlement policy in Italy and the borders. Give the Plebeians a sword and a plot of land far from Rome, and the only thing he can destroy during a riot is his own shack. So instead of letting in barbarians they could have tried to settle their own poor there. Or keeping and feeding them at Rome was so much more cheaper that it wasn't feasible?

Wew lad.

Nomad people mixed a lot with everybody. Rich people often took wives from the families of other tribes' rich people. And poor people literally just kidnapped random women from any group. Add in polygamy, and you can imagine the mess. Huns went towards China first, and then to the other direction till they arrived in Europe. Imagine all the different kinds of women they acquired during all that traveling.

But eastern german region tribes were mixed with Germanics during the Balt Crusades, and all the settlements of the marches, including the Ostmark, Billungs, Nordmark etc weren't they?

than*

You are full of shit. You are not fooling anybody with your expertise. Muslims conquered southern french coastal area. It was called septimania and reached momentarily tours and poitiers in central france, although they held their southern french posessions only couple decades. Really you an expert? Also population of italy was declining from crisis of the third century. The central areas of empire could keep their population level stagnant and it led ever increasing recruitment of germanic and illyrian mercenaries called foederati. Really you are full of shit op. Yes the border regions of empire were still increasing their population. Anatolia and African provinces were still having stable demographic growth.

Mecklenberg was the place of a tribe named the Wends, which were the Slavs with the closest connections to the Saxons. Basically, the Saxons enforced their borders and prevented the Slavs from entering their territory, and the Wends simply settled nearby.

Brandenburg was partially under the domain of the Thuringians, Wends or Lombards, depending on the time period.

Pommem was the home of the Varini/Varni, which meant "defenders". Wikipedia mentions them settling in Mecklenberg, but they actually settled east from there (Mecklenberg was the closest region to the Saxons). The terms are slightly fuzzy because "Wends" were technically any Slavic tribesmen living near Germanic tribe borders. So there's a possibility that the Varini were the Wends themselves, and not a subsection.

Huns were caucasoid. They are technically Scythian, but Scythia is another umbrella term. It's safer to think of the Huns as a steppe tribe not related to the Sarmatians.

Indo-European tribes, maybe a separate classification of the celts living in different areas of Europe.

German Rhinelanders might be closer to Franks and Romans ethnically than those to the east, most definately, since the Rhine was very close to the limits of the Roman borders and were under the protection of the Ripuarian Franks.

This, however, is taking into consideration only the history up to the 5th century. I'm not certain if all the latter migrations might have affected it to the extent that these impacts were erased (unlikely).

Uh, no. There was plenty of damage a plebian could do if you gave him anything more dangerous than a stick.

The Romans only allowed Roman citizenship to barbarians after a few decades of military service. Non-roman citizens were mostly denied a lot of the infrastructure of the city. Most people were better off trying to live off the land than trying to make their lives work as a non-Roman citizen in Rome.

Keeping and feeding the poor was safer.

Baltic crusades were roughly 4-5 centuries after the migration period. Not my expertise.

Again your are full of shit. In Italy during Ostrogothic rule there was still working Roman infrastructure and senate. Gothic kings were even officially appointed by Eastern Roman Emperor. Italy did go downhill and tribal after Justinians general Belisarius's Gothic wars. When Byzantines tried to reconquer Italy. After that war Italy was in ruins and longobardi invaded and conquered countryside. Cities held as Byzantine outposts under the emperor appointed exarchs of Ravenna and pope who was also allies with emperor
But countryside was reduces to barbary. Fucking idiot.

A couple decades of power in a very specific area is not doing shit to a nation/country/people's identity, culture or anything, regardless of how destructive the invaders are.

No one claimed otherwise.

Foederati means "ally". A Foederati was a tribe that was granted land in exchange for military service. This is different than mercenary service, which was more loose. You can't call the Franks nor the Visigoths, for example 'mercenaries', because of the symbiotic relationship they had with the Romans. Also, Illyria was a Roman province; how are Romans hiring Roman mercenaries again?

African provinces had demographic growth because maybe the thousands of Vandals and Alans displaced by the Visigoths had something to do with it.

Anatolia was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, which I mentioned repeatedly; it was growing, in contrast to the Western Roman Empire.

That is about two centuries later. You're technically right in most of your assertions, but I'm not mentioning the 6th century here.

Again, my question is that why didn't they try to make the plebeians of Rome migrate out of the city. I'm sure the thought occurred to at least some people, so why didn't they try it? Or they tried it and didn't work for some reason?

How would you convince a starving, poor mass of indigents to move away from the only source of food they know how to get? A Roman plebian wasn't as knowledgeable in living from the land as a tribesmen near the Empire's borders.

I'd say you make a good point, though; a policy enforcing or incentivizing the plebians to go to the borders would work to empty the urban cities. But I don't know how you would convince a mass of people to leave the city most of the world still wanted to go to, poverty and structural crumbling aside.

That's utter bullshit. Sicily was under Kebab rule for, at most 150 years, and most of the Arabo-berbers lived in the cities of the Isle like palermo, Messina and Syracuse. The countryside was predominantly the old stock of Greeks with colonists from Italia and Phonecia also involved. When the Normans conquered the island in the early 11th Century many of the Arabo-berbers (a/k/a the Moors) were driven into the sea. Then in the 13th Century when the Island became an Aragonese possession there was a massive effort to colonize the Island with Spanish settlers from Northern Spain and ethnically cleanse the remaining the Moors from the cities and towns. I am sure most sicilians that cannot trace their roots to the 13th Century colonists have some "Moor" in them, but it's not kebab rape babies generally. Rather it's from the Moors who LARPed as Greeks after the Normans and Aragonese implemented their increasingly more severe anti-moon rock cult measures. You even have records of it after the Norman conquest, with parents with the most kebaby sounding names giving their kids hellenic names and registering them as Greek Orthodox.

Well, they certainly didn't have the media and the experience with mass education and propaganda to convince them to move and also teach them how to live. So I guess it's something they should have started at the time of the Republic, when they've had just started to migrate to Rome. And then the Gracchus brothers happened and nothing came to it.

There is a strong argument that Phonecians are not a semitic people or at least not semitic only. The claimed phonecian genetic haplogroup "J2" is found more among places colonized by ancient Greeks, like Crete and Western Sicily than in Lebanon. The fair assumption is the Phoenecian people are some greco-semitic hybrid. Not completely white but also not completely sand-niggers.

Having just now finished the video, it uses both Christian and Muslim sources. While you could argue that it was heavily biased overall, the passages it quotes from the Latin Chronicle of 754 checks out with Islamic documents.

LOL revisionist Spaniard detected.
Look at the scale too. You're massively north African.

Well yes. But the video is equating widespread brutality and rape through a case of a woman forced to marry her father's executioner; widespread persecution of christians through a passage that says 'fugitives', which could also mean criminal fugitives, and extortion through raising taxes.

Then proceeds to cite no evidence of people running to the mountains and live in the "wilderness". Well, maybe because BEYOND the mountains had non-muslim Franks.

Then there's this guy furiously building strawmens of myself being a muslim apologetic.

And I can't withstand the vocal frying of this video.

livescience.com/37092-southern-europeans-have-african-genes.html

Alright, thanks for the clarification.

Is there any proof for this? All evidence I've seen points towards them being of east-asian origin, or do you mean that because of all the assimilating they were doing they became majority Caucasoid over time?

This is quite interesting, I always thought that southern Europeans were tainted, although they always deny it fervently.

Caucasoid means from the Caucasus (region between Caspian and Black Sea), which is in Asia.

Their origin is from this place. During the Migration Period, they raided Gothic and Slavic settlements in the Pontic Steppes and Eastern Europe, forcing them to relocate (they would later on separate between Ostrogoths and Visigoths).

They assimilated conquered tribes, but it seems they retained their culture, contrary to the Sarmatians (Iranian people), who were from the Pontic Steppes as well, but lived in relative peace with Goths and Slavs.

With Caucasoid I mean Caucasoid as a racial term, I know that they passed the Caucasus on their gradual migration west.

An other thing you have to know about nomads, is that people work differently than in a settled agricultural society. There are no countries, and normally the biggest unit you can find is the tribe. Then you have tribal alliances, and then "countries" and "empires". Both of them are just gigantic tribal alliances, held together by the power and charisma of their rulers. There are a few "core" tribes, and new tribes are either join on their own, or they are conquered and forced to join.
So when Attila died then Huns stopped existing, because the gigantic tribal alliance was shattered in the infighting. So most of the tribes who once were Huns just stopped looking at themselves as Huns. Maybe the only exception are the core tribes of the Huns. But from the point of view of the nomads even the Germanic tribes were Huns, if they were under the Hun ruler. Then Attila died, and there wasn't a Hun ruler any more, so there weren't any Huns either.

Of course they are. You'd have to be blind to deny it.
So many times I thought a Portuguese or Italian were sand niggers. To be fair it never happened with a Spaniard, but that's because I didn't see many here and all the ones I saw came from the extreme north.

The Caucasus were not passage. They were the point of origin of the tribe, hence most of them were caucasoid first, and most probably through some degree of assimilation became more european as they advanced west, through they never lost their cultural identity.

It is important to note Attila also left several sons who quarreled amongst each other to unify the Hunnic horde again.

Yes, that's quite often how these tribal alliances were destroyed. Simple infighting. And if a tribe isn't interested in that, then there is nobody to keep them in the alliance, so if the infighting goes on for too long, then there won't be an alliance any more. That happened with the Huns too.

sounds like a cuck to me

That's probably why they fizzled out so quickly and so impotently after Attila died.

By the way, isn't Attila a word for father in Gothic? It seems quite strange to call a conquerer of your people who split your tribe in half "father".

Didn't the huns come from north-China/Mongolia? This is a description of Attila:

I have a half Spanish friend, and even though he's half Dutch he still looks rather brown, I couldn't differentiate between the Greeks I've met and sandniggers either.

First ever recorded mention of the Huns was in Scythia, near the Volga river. The Romans first record them as living beyond the Black Sea.

They went to China during their nomadic expeditions, but that doesn't mean their origin was from there.

That may be so, but all descriptions of their appearance from their era make it sound like they were decisively east-Asian:

make it seem like they had pitch black eyes, too.

The description would match mongolians too.

Yes, exactly why a lot of people think that they were the Xiongnu from Mongolia

my father is from caulonia, calabria - can you tell me where the genetics of this region are from?

Southern region of Italy. The further south you go in Italy, the more influence from Mediterranean cultures (Greeks, North Africans). However, Italy was and will always be a majorly Roman influenced country. As I've always mentioned, these are broad statistical strokes; only a genetic test would tell precisely what are the genetics from your father's lineage.

"Florencia"? What language is that map in?

Is this accurate? Were the British cut off from Europe and if so did this preserve their DNA?

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Give me specific examples, please.
Pics related is Miguel Veloso, a portuguese football player. His phenotype is exactly what the average portuguese man looks like.

Tell me, does he look like a sandnigger in these pictures?

In most of them, yes.

Dubious, but here he REALLY looks like a sandnigger

The Goths who plundered Rome in 410, had they grown up in Gothic enclaves within the Roman Empire (and so were Roman citizens) or were they born outside the Roman Empire? Relevant to modern comparisons.

Now, in which of these does he look like a sandnigger?

It really depends on the region. Wales, Devon and Cornwall are the most "pure" you can get in Britonic genes. However, it is unclear how much influence from Roman genes are there.

As you go east or north, the more Anglo-Saxon influence there is, as well as Norman (French/Frankish with Norse ancestry). Up in Scotland, gene groups are largely influenced by the Irish and the Picts.

The study would be correct, if they equate Norsemen genes with pre-Roman Britons'. I'm not a genetics expert, but Britain was in the past a melting pot of norse cultures with celts. Romans had some limited participation.

It's difficult to pinpoint. Alaric by the time held an army made entirely out of tribesmen from the regions he crossed with the sanction of Theodosius. Those men were born outside the Roman Empire (most likely from the regions where Alaric I amassed his army; Bulgaria/Romania).

Beter not let Natt, the leader of the Alt-Right and benevolent Etno-nationalist warrior against the eternal Swede , hear that.

You can too. Odoacer could have claimed the title of 'Roman Emperor' after having deposed Romulus Augustus, he went for 'King of Italy' instead. Obviously he didn't 'want to be Roman'.

Usual Anglo nonsense. Jutes exist in Denmark.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutland

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_I
'In 408, Western Emperor Flavius Honorius ordered the execution of Stilicho and his family, amid rumours that the general had made a deal with Alaric. Honorius then incited the Roman population to massacre tens of thousands of wives and children of foederati Goths serving in the Roman military. Subsequently, around 30,000 Gothic soldiers defected to Alaric, and joined his march on Rome to avenge their murdered families.[3]

Moving swiftly along Roman roads, Alaric sacked the cities of Aquileia and Cremona and ravaged the lands along the Adriatic Sea. The Visigothic leader thereupon laid siege to Rome in 408. Eventually, the Senate granted him a substantial subsidy. In addition, Alaric forced the Senate to liberate all 40,000 Gothic slaves in Rome. Honorius, however, refused to appoint Alaric as the commander of the Western Roman Army, and in 409 the Visigoths again surrounded Rome. Alaric lifted his blockade after proclaiming Attalus as Western Emperor. Attalus appointed him magister utriusque militiae ("master of both services") but refused to allow him to send an army into Africa. Negotiations with Honorius broke down, and Alaric deposed Attalus in the summer of 410, and besieged Rome for the third time. Allies within the capital opened the gates for him on August 24, and for three days his troops sacked the city.'

So at least part of them were Roman citizens.

I don't get the reference

I'm not even close to Anglo, read the thread.

The sandnigger delusion with any southern european people is just the fact that those countries actually have weather you can sunbathe in. The last picture with the snow is a good example of this, take a white guy from a country where you can get a tan just by walking outside and put him in Russia and he'll get whiter than his own teeth.

I have a mate with a pleasant tan that went to work in London for a year. Next I saw him he was whiter than the fucking walls and I could see the blue of his veins under the skin. He was also taking some vitamins to make up for lack of sun exposure as well.

Read the thread, we've been over this.

Chart in

livescience.com/37092-southern-europeans-have-african-genes.html

Stop shitposting

Is the general perception that the Romans of the late empire had become more decadent and less martially inclined correct?

What do you think of Anthropologist Peter Frost's genetic pacification theory? That is, that due to a long period of strong centralized government, the genes for aggression and martial spirit were removed from the Roman gene-pool, thereby genetically predisposing Romans to Christianity and submission.

unz.com/pfrost/was-christianity-responsible/

Peter Frost has also written extensively about genetic pacification of Europeans during the middle ages.

unz.com/pfrost/making-europeans-kinder-gentler/

The Chinese are of course the ultimate example of a population that has been genetically pacified by millenia under a strong totalitarian centralized government.

My jimmies are still rustled by Radio Free Skyrim going off the air, it was the funniest show on TRS. Do you have any news on what Natt is up to?

pnas.org/content/by/year/2013

What?

Also that article reads like WE WUZ-tier garbage

It became less inclined towards conquest of new territories, and more towards securing dominion over previous conquests. Decadence became more pronounced the more the economical crisis worsened.

As I've said before, Christianity gave the Roman Empire a stretch in their lifetime. If it led to its demise, I'm not exactly sure.

The second article mentions Sallic law as a bad thing for pacification, but does not mention that Sallic law was written by the Salian Franks, the most successful tribe in the Migration Period.

What you wrote is standard Anglo nonsense, However, Jutes didn't die out or Jutland get repopulated.

Again, read the fucking thread and read the post I was replying to, I'm nothing close to an Anglo.

Sup fellow history user. I might chime in if I give a shit about something.

So correct me if Im wrong OP but on the whole, any mixing of peoples in Europe is predominantly white + white or near enough? Obviously there is some mud in Spain, Portugal and Italy but on the whole we are a racially similar people?? I only ask as Im sick of the whole "there are no indigenous European people you're all a mix of different races" bullshit argument.

Germania, Francia, and Brittania didn't really have any "non-whites" migrate to those areas. However Dacia/Carpathia did have several Iranian and Turkish tribes conquer the region over this time period. They did try to go into German lands but were quickly pushed out.

Yes. Europe came close to a Caucasoid conquer with Attila.

You can say that yes, there was a mix of different races, but all who intermixed were indo-european.

Francia had several Sarmatian settlements, but that's it. The impact on the genetic pool was nearly non-existant.

Woes said he's working on a new radio show

I never said you were Anglo, I said what you said was standard Anglo nonsense.
Based on nothing. There is no archaeological evidence of Danes from the islands settling in Jutland at the time. Jutes are still there.

So Aryan then

Hooo shit, you guys are daft.

Slavs did not interact with nomad invasions, they were no buffer, because they only came into prominence as the result of the Migration Period

When the Huns conquered a swath of Europe they did not equally affect all the territories ascribed to them on maps. They chiefly focused on the Roman border where the resources were most qabundant and the access easy. To the North there was a forested area unfit for mounted archers, there, among others, lived a small group that we now known as Slavs. By 5th century the estimate of Slavic population was mere 3-4 milions (mind you prime antiquity Europe was like 200 millions). They neighbored larger Germanic and Indo-Iranian populations, but since they were more remote the trade was less intense, they were less reliant on the wider European economy and did not deforest their areas as much (also North was naturally more forested, you can draw a check mark across Europe, with Belarus between the two lines and you'll roughly get the divide). During the Migration Period people living South, East and West got driven out, then, after a while, the Asiatic nomads fucked themselves up, mostly just not being able to compete demographically or recover from major military losses and the way was cleared for the 'inna woods prepper people of the time.

Slavs took over 1/3rd of European landmass in about 3 centuries and greatly expanded in numbers. IMO one of the biggest unsung colonisations in history.

Which is why I said, "theorized", as in, no concrete evidence. No one knows how massive the migration to Britain was, but due to the Island of Kent becoming the seat of the Jutish kings, it would mean their aristocracy moved there.

Yes.

PS When I say "interact" I'm thinking war destruction and all that shit. It can be assumed some tribute was paid.

So… just like 2016 America?

Is this the beginning of the new dark ages?

How would you justify the lack of risings of Slavic tribes during the Migrations, then? How would you justify Huns only threatening western Europe with Attila, and not before? How would you justify the Saxons reinforcing their borders against the Slavic neighbours?

Which was why I said 'based on nothing', since people of the Anglosphere show no inclination to learn actual facts of archaeology and written history of Scandinavia.

Is that haplogroup I2? Because that's mine, and that's the pure Cro Magnon one. Apparently had its begins around Dalmatia.

Slavs were slaves to Iranian-speaking peoples, as evident from their languages having adopted large numbers of Iranian words.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_borrowings#Slavic_and_Iranian

Right, because it doesn't matter whether the citizens of Rome are Berbers, Syrians, or actual Romans. You need to read up on HBD.

But neither the Punics nor their colonies were Arab-colored prior to the Arab invasions.

More consistent with historical evidence is that the primary economic activity of the "Vlach" people was herding in mountainous areas, making it difficult to displace them.

Do you have any evidence/sources for any of these claims? Cost, efficiency, security, diplomacy?

The Alans kept on moving and were the hereditary nobility of parts of Spain and N. Africa, but ultimately conquered by the Arab hordes.

This is terribly ignorant. For most of human history there were no Indo-Europeans in Europe or in India. The Etruscans, Basques, possible the Sardinians (genetically, not linguistically) are remnants of pre-Indo-European peoples, as are the Iberian languages and the unidentifiable substrate languages in Germanic, Celtic, Greek, and Italic.

A few questions for you:

1. What do you know about the percentage of the population of different provinces that were slaves, where the slaves were imported from, and how much they changed the ethnic make-up of the Roman Empire?

2. To what extent were there major movements of refugees from the more exposed to less exposed parts of the Empire as it fell apart?

3. What was national/ethnic consciousness like during the period? The other day I saw someone arguing that the Byzantines thought of themselves as Romans and "Byzantine" was an anachronistic label from the 16th century; that's not consistent with what I've seen so I'm curious. I know about the extension of citizenship to all imperial subjects, so everyone was technically a "Roman citizen" by the third century, but I'm not convinced that they were blind to internal differences.

Just not true. There was a long history of punishing besieged towns with a sack, which was supposed to encourage other towns to surrender. Archaeologists date their sites by looking at layers of ash between conquests. And in many cases plunder was the main form of payment soldiers and generals expected to get - which was doubly true for the kinds of slave-raids the Arabs began launching continuously.

Slavs bordered both East-Germanics to the West and Scythes/Sarmatians to the East and South-East. Small groups will adopt more words from much larger ones, esp. if they introduce something new - are Swiss slaves to UK/USA?

You don't leave slaves to their own devices in a polity of their very own. You can have tributary relations, but that's not really documented. And again, what will mounted archers do in a thick primeval forest?

"Risings"?

When? 8th-9th century? Your sense of space is non-existant if you imagine pre-migration Saxons being threatened by Slavs. Half of Germania separated them from each other no matter how you draft the territories.

self claimed "expert" you are so full of shit

huns were clearly asiatic

Otzi has Y-haplogroup G-M201
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M201

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_with_Haplogroup_G

That fact that that page exists says more than enough.

They were probably central-asians from the steppes. Likely also related to the mongols.

I suspected as much but couldn't find anything certain on my own. Thank you OP.

Are Slavs White?

Actually the predecessors to the Huns, I can't remember their names, were western Mongol.

The Huns probably spoke an Iranic language and were morphologically mixed. Like the Tocharians, their mtDNA was largely asian but their yDNA Indo-European, at least in elite cemeteries. See:

wayback.archive.org/web/20110427172440/http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-15.pdf

yes, fuck off.

t. slav

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language

I'm anglo

Fuck off kike

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language
Yes - the actual attested lexicon is from a satem language. The origins of Hunnic proper names are unknown.

The live science article is indeed garbage, but the PNAS article itself is an interesting read:
pnas.org/content/110/29/11791.full?sid=7cdb8b33-13f5-4f22-9a6c-c4b3f6fb9eb7

Can't speak for methodology, I'll assume everything was properly done, but I can say Admixture software often produces curious results. I particularly like when all the Basques turn into their own genetic miracle at K=6 or when they go over 7 and suddenly 2 of the Germans turn reptilian with their own genetic cluster. Guess that's what happens when you pick 15 random people to represent a country.

But there is a strong indication backed by statistical work that there is a much higher concentration of northern African genes in Iberians than in northern Europeans. It seems hardly surprising that two landmasses so close to each other share some genetic markers when there was an history of war between said regions, and the fact that it's so low after 700 years of occupation shows some awe-inspiring kebab removal effort.

For comparison sake, since you don't seem to grasp what these numbers mean, visit this and check some countries and the admixture it reports:
admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

Fuck. Wrong thread.
-
Are you still here?

There's no official census on this, but by the 5th century, the slave population was being replaced steadily by free men. Not many of the slaves were from outside of Europe, though; there are studies which show the majority of slaves owned in the Roman Empire were Europeans themselves (The History of Rome, Grant)

The migrations were massively to the directions of the empires (West/East). Some tribes settled in the Balkan regions and others in the regions of modern France, Spain and Germany. Others were not granted status of Foederati, and settled afar from the borders.

Byzantines considered themselves Romans. A Roman citizen, regardless if he was living west or east, was a Roman. The majority of citizens were of Roman descent, and if they were Germanic/Scandinavian/Scythian, they were either non-Roman citizens in Roman land, or already older because they fulfilled the military contract to earn the citizenship status.

What I mean by "Risings' is that Slavic tribes were largely unsucessful in trying to develop themselves the best way they could, unlike other tribes (Visigoths, Franks, Vandals).

5th century. Saxons were never threatened, but historical records say they enforced border control to prevent Slavic incursions in their domain (hence the toponym "Wends", Slavs living near Saxon borders, as west as possible).

Turks brought them here. Turks are even a greater evil than kikes assuming we are speaking about different entities.

What was the point if all of them spoke Greek?

Being Roman was a political, not a linguistic categorie.

No fucking way. Even the most insidious and brutal Turk is a meek lamb when compared to the Jew.

Seems to be in Spanish.

But I ask again: What the fuck is that map all about? I have no clue what each colour represents.

You guys need to remember not to confuse linguistic and ethnic groups. Semitic is, by and large, a linguistic group (just like "Indo-European") so calling the Phoenicians or Carthaginians "Semitic" says nothing about their genetic make-up, only what language they spoke. Being from the region of Semitic languages, it's no surprise they spoke a Semitic language.

Any good sources on the Burgundians? I really like the story of the Nibelunglied and Wagner's Ring Cycle and am looking for more info on Gunther of Burgundy and his life, along with a historical basis for Hagen and Siegfried

"Indo-European" is a language group — at best it might also be a vague cultural group. It is not a genetic or ethnic group.

This, although it's more likely the Indo-Europeans originated in southern Russia.

Calling the Iranians of two-thousand years ago "nonwhite" is a bit of a stretch to be honest.

"Aryan" refers to a linguistic group, but yes, Iranians at that time were more-or-less European. Worst you might say is that they were a cousin people of a kind that no longer exist, far closer than any other non-European people today (as in very fucking close), but more distant than, say, the Poles to the Scots.

Interestingly, it wasn't true at the time but for the same reasons as poorer people having more kids today.

It has to do with relative hardship. Richer folks (aside from the (((elite)))) and especially the middle class share a disproportionate tax burden, meaning their livilihoods would take a much more direct hit by having more kids. When the gibs machine sets up shop people on the dole will see no real change to their standard of living and in many cases for the ghetto niggers an actual rise in wealth. They don't give a fuck about their kids so their free time isn't even too effected. Back in the medieval era, more children helped on a farm, preserved the family and didn't really effect your livelihood outside of the new mouth to feed. Now there's education, doctor's bills, smartphones, trend-matching, and a whole ton of other expenses that really create a massive dent in finances that were non-existent or much less of an issue back then. Also, with the massive number of distractions, women can ignore their biological clock until it becomes to loud or it's too late.

The middle class is disproportionately affected by tax burdens right now, therefore the overwhelmingly white middle class is shrinking significantly. My guess is that in Africa the aid people seem permanent to the black mind in that: if they're there now, how could they ever leave? Their small minds work tirelessly to not think about the future at all and they know more kids just means they'll still be provided for.

Our own medicine is dooming us, they survive the myriad of diseases as well.

I'm going to also posit that the dole in Rome probably didn't account for the number of kids. Our population boom coincided with the industrial revolution, the extra people were needed. Many people still keep the mindset of population growth= economic growth which is one of the hugest problems in the west right now.

There are a ton of other factors around reproductive rates, but those are the economic.

"Wend" was a blanket term for anything non-Germanic and non Roman, archetypal outsiders. Veneti - sometimes associated with Vandals, other times as separate folk - were also "Wends" and lived by the Baltic in 4th century. Illyrians were also considered "Wends". Slavs did not border any Saxons. They lived around modern day Belarus, away from the Baltic coast and occupied a territory comparable to that of a single Germanic tribe's. Meaning there is no way in hell they'd punch through all the way to Danemark. Give me the source for that 5th century written account.

What the fuck are you trying to say? "Develop" themselves? In what aspect?

Goths and Vandals fled their places of origin and took over Roman infrastructure and urban centers. Slavs expanded from a remote wilderness into half-abandoned tribal lands, previously of lower civilizational level than Rome, with comparatively almost no infrastructure left, since nomads are retarded when it comes to sustaining the things they capture. Doing so they spread out very thinly, in fact making material culture even harder to maintain. In this context what "risings of deleppments" are you comparing exactly, mr countryball?

Fuck you Shlomo Sicilians are 100% Aryan. Anyone who claims otherwise is a D&C kike.

1645 Blaeu, Germaniae veteris typus.

I've said it already; compared to other tribes. Several of them managed to gain status of Foederati; others managed to enter Roman service. I've compared them, for instance, to the Visigoths and the Franks. But for example, the Taifals didn't survive, but managed to ally themselves with the Visigoths, and were so successful in battles they became a Gaul unit to the Romans (Taifali iuniores).

The Germanic tribes spread out from Scandinavia. That is the reason they have common linguistic-cultural ties. "Germany" was originally occupied by Celts.

He is a Danish/Justish nationanalist, who is most famous for his podcast "Radio free Skyrim" in which he, a Dane, a Finn, another Dane, and a Swede, "discus" the situation up in Scandinavia.[spoiler]Radio free Skyrim has been shut down recently, due to a falling out between Natt and Pete (the Swede).
[/spoiler]

With this, he also is/was a regulair contributer to the Totenkopf gaming Channel.
youtu.be/EoUDpsOanps

With this, he also Wrote some articals for
ropeculture.org/.

And he also has been the guest on a fair amount of other podcast like, Radio free Columbia, The Danxit podcast with Millenial woes, and hanged fool.

People like his personality, and If you are not a C U C K civic-nationalistphilosophy.

How is that a reply to what I wrote? Do you have communication issues? Autism or some such?

got a question about the frogs, what tribe/subrace are they classified as? I know that they have celtic, germanic and latinic DNA but what exactly are they?

If I understand correctly, France was very multicultural, not in the pozzed way, but different regions spoke their own languages, had their own customs, etc, etc. Then the French revolution happened, and some bored idiots in Paris decided that everybody must confirm to an ideal French they came up with. Then the industrial revolution and the urbanization helped them in shaping the country to a much more unified image. So you'd have to region-by-region to figure out how the people before the 19th century were like.

Take a look at these to see what I mean:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d'oïl
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language

How based were the Visigoths?

You fucked up, kiddo.

The argument is cogent, and the source is valid, and it proves you wrong.