DNA of Iberians from Europe

[Brennos]

Drac and his Catalan avatars believe it. They claim Iberians are pure Celts.

If you dont like my form of 'truth" why dont you go away? Why do you keep arguing? Is there some complex that you suffer from?

This post speaks for itself: you can't argue without leading arguments on personal attack.

 

[Brennos]

All I did is to try to reeducate them, but no, guys like Drac, who have some weird complex, tries to constantly prove that he was right, for example, as far as population, he erroneously believed that there were 7 million Iberians during the 8th century (this was the figure from the height of the Roman Empire). Then after I proved to him that, yes 4-5 million is a closer figure, he stubbornly disagreed and went on to the history of the Goths, which by the way he is weak but does not acknowledge, and the argument has keep going on and on until now.

The Germans did contribute immensely in the development of the culture of Europe, especially in Spain (less in Portugal), France, and England. Only in Italy was it less.

The only drawback to the Germans is in allowing the Pope and Catholicism to get too much power -- The Donation of Constantine, for example -- and in turn made Europeans more stupid. Had the Franks not converted to Catholicism and adopted Arianism (which is more logical) and forced the ignorant population to become more rational instead of mystical, Europe might have had a Renaissance much earlier. But alas the ugly head of ignorance always pops up and threatens societies when you least expect it.

"trying to educate"... firstly, it could be a great idea to be educated with good manners.

The second part is great: do you understand what are you doing? You judge history. History can't be judged, but only understood and studied. This is the paradigm of arrogance: being the judge of history.

 

[Johannes]

"trying to educate"... firstly, it could be a great idea to be educated with good manners.

The second part is great: do you understand what are you doing? You judge history. History can't be judged, but only understood and studied. This is the paradigm of arrogance: being the judge of history.

You misunderstood by my supposed "arrogance". I was just fed up with trying to prove what I know about history and having all these people pester me about how much more they know about the subject. If I came across as aggressive or arrogant blame it on this forum. I am usually calm and can give a good debate. But when I get these creatures on this forum trying to tell me how ignorant I am it makes me cynical.

Yes agree historians should not judge but sometimes they have no choice on the matter, especially on our Catholic tradition. And every historian would agree I am right on that one.

 

[Johannes]

There isn't worse blind than who doesn't want to see...

Nobody wants to say that germanic peoples didn't give anything to European culture. We are only saying that your try to emphasize germanic apportion to European history is somewhat ridiculous and without any historical evidence.

I think that if you make a conference with your interpretation of history here in Italy, you will be ridiculed by any scholar.

And we don't want to ridicule you: your biased interpretation of Southern European history does.

If you think it is so ridiculous, then why do you want to argue so badly???? Why dont you ignore me and go away?

And why would I care a fiddle about doing a conference in Italy??? I have debated with professors before and they dont scare me. I am a teacher too and know my history. The professors are simply highly paid researchers that dont know how to teach. Just because they study tax records or demographic changes or economic ups and downs, does not mean they know more about what has been discovered in the past. We were talking about Germanic contribution to Europe. I simply do not believe that peoples or structures made as much change as the leading actors in the past. The actors who changed history were usually from the upper classes. Some events, such as, Wyatt's Revolt, the Cathar Crusade, the Comunero Revolt in Castile, the Peasants Revolt, the French and Russian Revolutions, people and the structures of society did make an impact and changed history. But I am not arguing about that, am I?

So if you dont want to ridicule why dont you just fade away? OR if you want to contribute to the debate why dont you offer evidence to back up your claims instead of just trying to ridicule or use emotional language??? Show me how Theoderic was not great? Or how the Germanics did not have a great influence in European history? Prove to me that great men or elites did not influence or change history in the past, especially during the Middle Ages? Show me how you Marxist interpretation of history proves that people and structures are the leading actors of change in the Middle Ages?

 

[Johannes]

I'm sorry, but you can't see the real world: I'm so calm, that I can pass for a dead man. You are the man who - without any reason - made childish assumptions on my arguments picking idiotic racist ideas about skin tone of Basques and Italians. And now, I'm really interested in what did your racist assumption have to do with all the discussion, because the logical link doesn't exist. But I think my curiosity won't be satisfied, because there isn't any logical explanation to your flights of fancy of Pindaric memory.

Here, we aren't arguing about interpretation... we are arguing about history. Perhaps, you - and I'm very serious - don't understand that in Universities exist research and the so-called academic consensus about an argument. Personal interpretations aren't the field of sciences... truth and proofs are. If you don't understand the difference... well, I don't know how is it possible to talk with you about culture. And I'm not the only person here who think you don't know what are you talking about.

I'm not emotional: it is the fact that I'm discussing with a teacher that can't understand what history does mean that make me a little bit dumbfounded.

Otherwise, I let you fight your personal crusade about your personal interpretation of history.

P.s.: Marxist interpretation of history is presented along with other interpretations in Italian schools. Perhaps, we Italians have a much more wide view of things than yours.

If you are so calm why do your post reveal such hysterical reactions? Or why do you try so hard to ridicule me without offering a single shred of evidence?

There is no such thing as a pure "personal interpretation" of history. All my knowledge was gotten from reading from other researchers/historians in the past, just like you do. All I do is analyze the information and create an interpretation. So dont give me this crap about "personal interpretation." If your Italian scholars are so advanced then why do you ridicule what is so common in European History? If you adopt other perspectives why are you so negative of mine or the old school?? Is it some kind of hysteria that Italians have about the old school? Is it nationalism? Or is it your Marxist tradition? Or is it your personal bias that makes you so negative?

 

[Drac II]

How else can I back up an argument with a pig-headed mind like yours? You are always eager to debate me because you have some complex I don't know what. Yes you have books at your disposal from Amazon and you check (but never fully read) then in order to find proof for your interpretation. So I need to use something to counter what your stubborn mind keep putting out. By the way you always use wikipedia so I don't understand what you are talking about.

Anyone who thinks non-Marxist historians believe in legends, that Arabs are white, and Iberians are pure Celts has some loose bolts in his head. If you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and to try to ridicule me, why don't you disappear and go to your never land? Go and cross check all you want until you die?

The one with the weird complex is you, always making up strange claims you can't really back up. You are not fooling anyone with this "I am a professional historian" frivolous claim. Anyone can easily see through it. Do yourself a favor and take your own advice: stop embarrassing yourself and "disappear".

 

[Drac II]

The problem with you is you are always putting your two-cents on everything but don't pay attention to what people write. I never said Marxist historiography was crap like you label all non-Marxist historians. I do respect some of what they wrote but not all. I just respect the non-Marxist interpretation of history more than you do. You just think the Marxists have the key to the Truth. But no my friend non-Marxist interpretation is not all about legends. I'll tell you what: why don't you do me and everyone else a favor and disappear? How about that? Deal?? Go convince others of your versions of genetics and history?:bored:

For like the billionth time already: those are not any "Marxist historians", just normal ones from normal academic institutions. Your claims, on the other hand, often seem like a mix between those of Nordicist and an Afrocentrist charlatans.

 

[Drac II]

Drac and his Catalan avatars believe it. They claim Iberians are pure Celts.If you dont like my form of 'truth" why dont you go away? Why do you keep arguing? Is there some complex that you suffer from?

Now you are just building straw man arguments. No one said anything of the sort. The difference, however, is that, unlike the Goths, the Celts were present in Iberia in larger numbers and since much older times, so they did make an important contribution.

 

[Drac II]

In fact this silly debate about Goths and Germans began by accident. If you bother to read my introduction to this post I was trying to increase my knowledge of the genetic composition of the Iberian peninsula. I was only interested in 1) what kind of DNA the Celts, Iberians, Basques had, how they might be related, and what was the "true" genetic composition of the Germanics. That is all. Virtually no one here knows anything about it. Maciamo makes vague claims about the Germanics by giving them a 1-10% of the total DNA and he totally ignores the Iberians. Others know absolutely nothing about them. But then I began to get these messages from ignorant persons that claimed the Goths had virtually zero contribution to the Iberian DNA or that they were very mixed, blah blah blah. All I did is to try to reeducate them, but no, guys like Drac, who have some weird complex, tries to constantly prove that he was right, for example, as far as population, he erroneously believed that there were 7 million Iberians during the 8th century (this was the figure from the height of the Roman Empire). Then after I proved to him that, yes 4-5 million is a closer figure, he stubbornly disagreed and went on to the history of the Goths, which by the way he is weak but does not acknowledge, and the argument has keep going on and on until now.

In fact this shows one of your many mistakes. The figures you attempted to provide in a desperate attempt to try to make it look as if the Goths were present in Iberia in a larger proportion than they really were, are in fact from very late Roman and early medieval times, quite AFTER the Goths had already been in Iberia, so the population decrease of the peninsula included them as well. Certainly not what you were hoping for. Anyone can easily check this by going back in the thread and reading the pertinent posts. So by all means keep on "advising" others to do so, since it shows your many mistaken claims.

If it wasn't for the Goths in Iberia and the Franks in France your ancestors would have been conquered very easily (in fact, the Arabs conquered Sicily and parts of S. Italy).

Ironically, if it wasn't for the Goths and their petty constant quarrels among themselves and their beliefs (they practiced a form of Christianity that was seen as closer to Islam, and actually thought the Moors were their kin), Islam would probably have never entered Iberia in the first place, or at least it certainly wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

 

[Johannes]

The one with the weird complex is you, always making up strange claims you can't really back up. You are not fooling anyone with this "I am a professional historian" frivolous claim. Anyone can easily see through it. Do yourself a favor and take your own advice: stop embarrassing yourself and "disappear".

I have come back from my vacation and re-read these posts: after reading these it reinforces my I belief that you are ignorant fool. I dont have any complex. Its you who has some weird complex. All I can say is that you are weird.

Your lucky some of these monitors accept your weird claims but your not fooling anyone. It is clear from you that you have no expertise in what your talking about (especially about Spanish history about Goths or Iberians). Have you noticed no one answers your posts??? I thought you were intelligent or well-read but you are pathetic. You put in your "two cents" but you dont add or educate anything about a subject. No wonder no one respects you. I am surprised you have not left this forum. Why dont you take your "Iberians are pure Celtic" fantasy to some other forum where they have nationalistic Spaniard or (worse) Portuguese who can believe it.

I'll tell you what: Why dont you tell me what books and articles on the Goths you have read: we can settle this now. I'll be surprised if you read one book or article.:cool-v:

 

[Johannes]

Ironically, if it wasn't for the Goths and their petty constant quarrels among themselves and their beliefs (they practiced a form of Christianity that was seen as closer to Islam, and actually thought the Moors were their kin), Islam would probably have never entered Iberia in the first place, or at least it certainly wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

This clearly shows you are an ignorant. You clearly show that you have very little knowledge about early Medieval European (Spanish) History. You are pathetic. Why dont you try to read some books first and then try to show off?

 

[Drac II]

I have come back from my vacation and re-read these posts: after reading these it reinforces my I belief that you are ignorant fool. I dont have any complex. Its you who has some weird complex. All I can say is that you are weird.

Your lucky some of these monitors accept your weird claims but your not fooling anyone. It is clear from you that you have no expertise in what your talking about (especially about Spanish history about Goths or Iberians). Have you noticed no one answers your posts??? I thought you were intelligent or well-read but you are pathetic. You put in your "two cents" but you dont add or educate anything about a subject. No wonder no one respects you. I am surprised you have not left this forum. Why dont you take your "Iberians are pure Celtic" fantasy to some other forum where they have nationalistic Spaniard or (worse) Portuguese who can believe it.

I'll tell you what: Why dont you tell me what books and articles on the Goths you have read: we can settle this now. I'll be surprised if you read one book or article.:cool-v:

What do you mean you "came back"? You have been wandering around the site and posting (usually claptrap) constantly since I posted these comments here. It took you this long to concoct and post such a mediocre retort? Instead of asking strange questions to others who actually have cited books and articles for your education, you should be asking those questions to yourself, since it is you who usually can't back up your strange claims with actually valid sources.

 

[Angela]

You two want to disagree, disagree, but any further personal insults, such as you are pathetic, or no one respects you, or you are the one with the weird complex, is going to get an infraction. And I don't want to hear, "he started it first". This isn't kindergarden.

 

[Johannes]

Here is what I have read:
1) Wolfram, Herwig: The Goths (1988) -- this was my first book on the History of the Goths.
2) Fletcher, Richard; Moorish Spain (1992) and The Quest for El Cid (1989). Fletcher asserted that the Visigothic rule was weak or was not united. He also introduced Bullit's Conversion Curve on how the European Christians converted to Islam during the 8th to 11th centuries.
3. Thompson. E. A.: The Goths in Spain (1969) -- A dull book. All I remember is that he claimed that the Goths were decadent and deserved to be punished by the Arab invasion.
4. Collins, Roger: The Arab Conquest of Spain: 710-797 (1986) and Visigothic Spain. He is the first historian to reject the claim that the Visigothic state was weak or not unified. In fact he claims that it was the first state that actually unified the whole peninsula and that it was strong and highly centralized. The Goths were not "decadent" but were simply "side-swapped" by a coup they never saw coming and no one (Iberian or Germanics) expected the Berbers and later Arabs to have taken over as they did. Basically the invasion was a surprise to everyone. I agreed with this thesis.
5. Poole-Lane, Stanley: The Story of the Moors in Spain (1886) -- claimed in a very awkward manner that the Moors were African or Black. That African Black Culture was superior to Europeans (especially Spanish). This book is ridiculous but it was very popular for about 100 years. It's still printed.
6. Heather, Peter: The Goths. History of the Goths from which I remember reading but forgot much of what it contained about the Visigoths.

I also read several articles at my university on Early Medieval European History and Hispanic Studies.

Now tell me: Am I making things up? I am in agreement with Collins. So does he make things up? is he a 'charlatan' too? Why don't you debate Collins? It would be hilarious to see you get shot down with your lack of knowledge.

In order to get my masters and possible doctoral degree, I had to read all this stuff. What degrees do you have? What you have read?

 

[Johannes]

What do you mean you "came back"? You have been wandering around the site and posting (usually claptrap) constantly since I posted these comments here. It took you this long to concoct and post such a mediocre retort? Instead of asking strange questions to others who actually have cited books and articles for your education, you should be asking those questions to yourself, since it is you who usually can't back up your strange claims with actually valid sources.

If you are such an expert then why do you always answer my posts? is this some kind of mania on your part? Are you obsessed with my "mediocre" posts? Why dont you educate us about your amazing knowledge of history and genetics? Why dont you tell us about your credentials? Are you afraid you will be known as a weird Latino that has no credentials? maybe you have no education? maybe you are a charlatan?

 

[Johannes]

What do you mean you "came back"? You have been wandering around the site and posting (usually claptrap) constantly since I posted these comments here. It took you this long to concoct and post such a mediocre retort? Instead of asking strange questions to others who actually have cited books and articles for your education, you should be asking those questions to yourself, since it is you who usually can't back up your strange claims with actually valid sources.

Ooooh. Your such a genius: If you are such an expert then why do you always answer my "mediocre" posts? is this some kind of mania on your part? Are you obsessed with my "mediocre" posts? Why dont you tell us about your credentials? Are you afraid you will be known as a weird Latino and have no credentials? maybe you are a charlatan?:grin:

 

[Drac II]

If you are such an expert then why do you always answer my posts? is this some kind of mania on your part? Are you obsessed with my "mediocre" posts? Why dont you educate us about your amazing knowledge of history and genetics? Why dont you tell us about your credentials? Are you afraid you will be known as a weird Latino that has no credentials? maybe you have no education? maybe you are a charlatan?

I answer your posts because they are often wrong, plain and simple. Why should your incorrect and strange claims be allowed to go on unchallenged? That's the real reason why you dislike the fact that some people around here confront your posts, nothing else.

 

[Drac II]

Here is what I have read:
1) Wolfram, Herwig: The Goths (1988) -- this was my first book on the History of the Goths.
2) Fletcher, Richard; Moorish Spain (1992) and The Quest for El Cid (1989). Fletcher asserted that the Visigothic rule was weak or was not united. He also introduced Bullit's Conversion Curve on how the European Christians converted to Islam during the 8th to 11th centuries.
3. Thompson. E. A.: The Goths in Spain (1969) -- A dull book. All I remember is that he claimed that the Goths were decadent and deserved to be punished by the Arab invasion.
4. Collins, Roger: The Arab Conquest of Spain: 710-797 (1986) and Visigothic Spain. He is the first historian to reject the claim that the Visigothic state was weak or not unified. In fact he claims that it was the first state that actually unified the whole peninsula and that it was strong and highly centralized. The Goths were not "decadent" but were simply "side-swapped" by a coup they never saw coming and no one (Iberian or Germanics) expected the Berbers and later Arabs to have taken over as they did. Basically the invasion was a surprise to everyone. I agreed with this thesis.
5. Poole-Lane, Stanley: The Story of the Moors in Spain (1886) -- claimed in a very awkward manner that the Moors were African or Black. That African Black Culture was superior to Europeans (especially Spanish). This book is ridiculous but it was very popular for about 100 years. It's still printed.
6. Heather, Peter: The Goths. History of the Goths from which I remember reading but forgot much of what it contained about the Visigoths.

I also read several articles at my university on Early Medieval European History and Hispanic Studies.

Now tell me: Am I making things up? I am in agreement with Collins. So does he make things up? is he a 'charlatan' too? Why don't you debate Collins? It would be hilarious to see you get shot down with your lack of knowledge.

In order to get my masters and possible doctoral degree, I had to read all this stuff. What degrees do you have? What you have read?

It is very doubtful that you really have read many of these books you refer to. For example, earlier in the thread when I informed you that modern evidence does not suggest that the Goths came from Scandinavia but actually from Poland, you reacted in the usual manner: surprise followed by scorn and denial. Had you really read Peter Heather, you would already have been aware of this, since he talks about it.

 

[Tomenable]

Drac II,

The ultimate origin of Proto-Germanic language was in Scandinavia & Denmark in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.

So ultimately carriers (speakers) of some form of Proto-Gothic had also come from there.

Saying that Goths came from Poland not Scandinavia can only be as much true as saying that Islam came to Iberia from North Africa and not from Arabia. Goths maybe came from Poland, but some part of ancestors of Goths had come from Scandinavia before.

Germanic-speakers started to expand from Scandinavia and Denmark approximately during the 4th century BCE.

If you think that Proto-Germanic evolved in Poland, or in a large area encompassing also Poland - then no, this is wrong.

 

[Tomenable]

So Peter Heather says, that Goths came from Poland - and not from Scandinavia.

But if you ask for example Michael Kulikowski instead of Peter Heather, he will tell you that Goths came not from Poland, but just from behind the border of the Roman Empire (i.e. Goths lived on the other side of the border, next to the Empire, and came from there). And it is also 100% true, just like it is true that Muslims came to Iberia from the opposite site of the Strait of Gibraltar.

"Goths were a product of the Roman frontier" - this is what Kulikowski wrote, if I recall correctly.

However, we all know that the ultimate origin of Islam and Muslims was in Arabia.