Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I deleted them.
I don't want to fall into that light/dark antropologic stuff that i find so pathetic...
The only thing i have to say is that the "real" french are the ones who still live in the countryside. The cities have seen so many waves of internal or foreign migrations that they are no more significative of anything today.
I deleted them.
The only thing i have to say is that the "real" french are the ones who still live in the remote countrysides. The rest of the country has seen so many waves of internal or foreign migrations that it is no more representative of anything today.
Can you provide the research sources you are using?
I think that is a general rule for most countries
When I visited Paris first time, a big percentage of the people I saw were non native French people. Many were clearly Northern/Southern Africans and some definately mixed.
The picture was different outside Paris, at the countryside, where people looked more like what I have in mind when I think of French and clearly there were less non-French people. I didn't visit Southern France though where people probably look like typical Mediterraneans.
It's the same in Greece. If you visit the center of Athens you will see only immigrands, Near Eastern or Africans. You get the impression that you are in a different country because most of the Greeks that live in Athens have moved to the suburbs.
LOL
5) Virgil, on the Gauls :
Aurea caesaries ollis atque aurea vestis;
Tum lactae colla aurem innectuntur;
6) Cesar, on the Germans :
The high stature of the germans, their faces and the glare of their eyes which many times in our incounters have been insupportable...
The difference between you and me is that you believe every word the classicals said.
Come on, the germans were not all red haired blue eyed, the gauls were not all tall blond blue eyed, nor the women as tall and strong as the men...
They were tall and blond by roman standards, who imagined a fierce blond warrior when they thought about a gaul while the majority was peacefull peasants. It’s the same today with people who will think about a certain stereotype when they think about a french, a german, a romanian or an italian. Btw, some gauls bleached their hair, you already mentioned it.
Now just leave the laughable Tacitus and co, and tell me more about the graves: Where are those giants you’re talking about ? In their burials the gauls average about 1,70m or around 1,75 for the tallest, much more than the roman who thus saw them as very tall.
The French average for the men is 1,77m : we are taller than the Gauls...
Same for the hair color, black hair being rare in some regions while fair hair are more common, the romans had an impression of blondness which led to the ancient stereotype about the gauls. The majority of the ancient poets and "historians (lol)" used older descriptions who were for the most part testimonies heard from greek and latin merchants.
Now for the concern about complexions, who came in this thread saying "it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian)" ? Have you ever been to France or Italy (or Europe ?) for intelligence's sake ?
Who seems to care so much about the mythical appearance of Gauls and Germans ? As far as I know romanians have very little to do with them, so what’s the reason of your posts and all these quotes about peoples who are not part of your history ?
You sound so american... If you want to know what the Gauls and Germans looked like, just travel to France and Germany.
LOL
The difference between you and me is that you believe every word the classicals said.
Come on, the germans were not all red haired blue eyed, the gauls were not all tall blond blue eyed, nor the women as tall and strong as the men...
They were tall and blond by roman standards, who imagined a fierce blond warrior when they thought about a gaul while the majority was peacefull peasants....
....Now for the concern about complexions, who came in this thread saying "it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian)" ? Have you ever been to France or Italy (or Europe ?) for intelligence's sake ?
Who seems to care so much about the mythical appearance of Gauls and Germans ? As far as I know romanians have very little to do with them, so what’s the reason of your posts and all these quotes about peoples who are not part of your history ?
You sound so american... If you want to know what the Gauls and Germans looked like, just travel to France and Germany.
Indeed. Strange that a Romanian would be so concerned with Gauls / Celts / Germanics. Certainly, Romanians have no connections to Gauls / Celts and very little as regards Germanics.
Sir, as to romania and celts..
I should recommend that before you open your mouth on a topic, you may want to first appraise yourself of the facts..
There are celtic archaeological sites all over Romania, and the celts are a strong basis of our genetics.. I am R1b, my cousin. The romanian language is a romance language NOT a slavic tongue please remember.
Also, most of those 'romanians' that the west encounters are the despicable Gypsies who are of descendants of migrants from india, and are not romanian or european..
These people are not flocking out to benefit from the EU open borders and they are now the problem for all of you that they have long been for us actual romanians..
I an few decades their will be Roma gypsies calling themsleves 'french' etc.. since they live in your nation also now.
You are angered by information that you do not wish to hear, so instead of addressing this issue you have, you strike out at contemporaneous sources that you seek to impeach, as well as undertake to impeach ME personally, as you have little else to fall back upon.
The reality is, the germans again, and again, are referred to by ancient sources as a unmixed population, isolated people, without cities, that had little outside contact ,
(which would also be needed to standardise a highly recessive trait such as red hair)
..and a standard red hair color, seldom found in the roman world.
Isolated and unmixed euro populations in remote areas, traditionally ahve the highest appearance of RECCESIVE TRAITS like blond or red hair, as they have no dominant traits entering into the closed population to mask the recessive features..
Scandianvia,
Ireland,
Scottish highlands,
pre-contact Germany / Gaul,
all were perfect containers for reccesive traits to be established and standardized until infusion of outside blood brought in the dominant traits so often encountered throughout the roman world. So, the roman assertions actually are 'MENDELLIAN' in their occurance and reportage.
Whether you even believe the roman sources is totally seperate from whether the modern assertions of blond=german / red=gaul were the common belief of the ancient world.. in fact, as is now proven, that was the reverse of the assumption at that time.
Today, the misinformed identify blond hair with germans, but in the actual time period that the germans tribes were first encountered this was not at all the case.. Also today, a large portion of modern germanys population is Sorbs and Wends(east), who would not have been considered German to the Romans, or even in the Middle ages for that matter.. so we know they have heavy introgression from at least two huge populations, ALONG WITH the heavily romanized Bavarians(south), who would not have been genetically present among the Germans the romans first encountered.
IF the roman sources that actually encountered these populations prior to their intermixing had made the same phenotypical allegations of uniformity in appearance concerning ALL of the romans opponents of that time period, you COULD then impeach the contemporaneous sources as simply seeking to make fantastic, unsupported claims- the problem for your argument is, the romans fought-
Dacians (my own people),
Bulgars,
Avars,
Huns,
Spanish tribes,
Persians,
Ligurians (pre-empire), etc..
and on, and on... and they made NO such phenotypical claims concerning the appearance or uniformity of appearance of ANY of these other populations as having a uniform size, skin color, hair color, that was not already within routine standards for the roman world..
This is archaeologically confirmable as well.. we know of alesia, etc..
You claimed, we dig up skeletal remains and find only short men, these few bodies you find may be a romanized individual already, you know nothing of him, carbon dating is only useful within a time / date range
As to my concern for the appearance of the ancient gaulish/german tribes.. it is not a concern.
Correcting unknowing people asserting provably inaccurate information on a web site that also asserts to have all the accurate genetic information concerning ancient european populations IS my concern, as while it makes no difference to me a german//gauls appearance...
the foisting of this bad information from a HISTORICAL perspective, which is so readily available to all informed people and requires no scientific grasp, is indicative of what nonsense is being sold from those purporting to provide 'scientific' information on current genetics conclusions..
You would do well to take less offence and be more concerned for facts than some ill-based conclusion you have drawn.. also YES I have been to france and sadly, very sadly, i tell you, that I would not have thought i was even in europe based on the morrocan bazaar population I encountered- it is very sad you let your country be overrun and destroyed- the future of europe will be in the east I am afraid as the french threw away their manhood in endless battles with germany only to then at the conclusion give itself away to endless hordes of 'new mongols' from outside of europe.
What?!
Wow... Man, no offense, but i think that you have a problem...
What uniformity of appearance? Land down and stop your racial purity dream please. All your nazi like theory is based on 2-3 quotes from pseudo-historian like Tacite who never went to Germany! And then you talk about "entirely disproved facts concerning currents european genetic findings"? Where's your scientific mind? Who draw ill-based conclusion?
Cesar fought the batavi, ubii, tencteri, suevi, harudes, usipi, etc... one and a half century before Tacite's nonsense and he never said that the Germans were red haired. Hirtius and Cesar are much more reliable. He came, he saw, he won...
Now about the Gauls... They were mixed from the bigining, i already said it in the celt in Iberia and italo-celtic expansion threads.
Celtic tribes sacked Rome, looted Delphes, went everywhere from Portugal to Turkey, they were the prototype of the northern barbarian, so is it too difficult to understand that the giant fierce terrifying blond warrior caricature the ancient greeks and romans drawn, was just a caricature? Use your brain.
Currently, what we know about Alesia is that we still don't know where it really is...
1,70m is short for you? How tall do you think they were? 2,10m?
And how do you think we know about Hallstatt and La Tène? Because of the materials we found in the graves. One example, the Senons, the one who were about to destroy Rome. They were a La Tène tribe, probably related to the Senons in France who thus moved in Italy. What’s celtic about them? There is a continuity with the precedent people, they occupied the same places, same cemeteries, and their art is highly influenced by the Umbrian tribes, to the point that we can talk about a celticised umbrian tribe more than a umbrianised celtic tribe.
No comment.
What do you mean?
He came, he saw, he won --> i think that it's clear for people that i refer to the most popular quote of Cesar veni, vidi, vici (i went i saw i won). I mean that Cesar knew what he was talking about.
The problem is that Carpathia is refuting genetics finding because of the lack of proofs (and basically i agree with him), and then he build all a crazy theory about the germans and the Gauls, based on sayings that are obviously false...
This thread has been viewed 334525 times.