PDA

View Full Version : DNA of Iberians from Europe



Pages : [1] 2

Johannes
24-05-15, 15:39
I have exhausted my search for anyone here who had covered the Iberians from Europe. Even Maciamo on his "Genetic Origins of the Iberian People" skips the Iberians when he covers the Mesolithic and Neolithic and then skips into the Celts. Its incredible that no one has come out with the DNA of Iberians. Iberians were the first to inhabit Spain and Portugal. It is believed that they arrived from the farthest area of the Mediterranean during the Neolithic period (6,000-5,000 BCE). Some historians have stated that the Iberians were related to the Ligurians of Southern Gaul. Others have asserted that their originated in North Africa and migrated into Europe. While others claim that they were the same as the Basques. The Iberians did live very close to the Basques. Iberian towns were located from the Ebro River (hence the name "Iberian" and which is next to Navarra, the original homeland of the Basques) and settled all of the eastern sea board from Catalonia to Andalusia. During the 6th and 5th centuries the Celts arrived and occupied all of the center and northwest of the peninsula. In the center of the peninsula the Celts mixed with the Iberians and created the CeltiIberians. All of this but no DNA. It is clear that the bulk of the Iberian towns (and population) were located in the eastern seaboard of the peninsula and in southern Spain. When the Carthegenians colonized parts of southern Iberia they mixed with the locals. But it was the Romans who completely changed both the culture and the DNA of the Iberians. Did Iberians bring the R1b from Anatolia? Where they a proto-Celtic people? Were they related to the Basques? Or were the Iberians a Mesolithic people that carried I1a?

Twilight
24-05-15, 23:32
I don't think there is actually a known single origin for the Iberians at this point, although according to ancestrydna the average Spaniard/Portugese has about 51% Iberian.

During the Spanish Neolithic, we are looking at 2 groups of people; La Almagra, Cardium Pottery and Tardenoisian cultures making up the Iberian people before the Celts arrived to create the celtiberians
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#late_neolithic

Drac II
25-05-15, 12:41
When the Carthegenians colonized parts of southern Iberia they mixed with the locals. But it was the Romans who completely changed both the culture and the DNA of the Iberians.

Neither the Carthaginians nor the Romans came to Iberia in huge numbers. They were only foreign minorities who established themselves as ruling elites, while the bulk of the population were just the natives who were already there before, as it usually happens with military invasions. So trying to attribute any supposed large change in the DNA of the Iberians on either of them is not very plausible.

Culture is a very different thing. Cultural/religious/linguistic elements from one population can be easily adopted and assimilated by another one with totally different origins without requiring any large population interactions between the two.

Johannes
30-05-15, 17:24
So it seems like the Iberians were I2a, I1b, G2a, and E1b1?

Johannes
30-05-15, 17:48
QUOTEhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#41876785)=Drac II;457778]Neither the Carthaginians nor the Romans came to Iberia in huge numbers. They were only foreign minorities who established themselves as ruling elites, while the bulk of the population were just the natives who were already there before, as it usually happens with military invasions. So trying to attribute any supposed large change in the DNA of the Iberians on either of them is not very plausible.

Culture is a very different thing. Cultural/religious/linguistic elements from one population can be easily adopted and assimilated by another one with totally different origins without requiring any large population interactions between the two.[ QUOTEhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#3135190)]

I know the Carthaginians did not constitute a large amount of male soldiers to mate with Iberian women. But certainly the four Roman Legions stationed in Iberia did make a considerable amount of DNA to the peninsula. Plus many Romans migrated to Iberia for free lands and other means. Therefore a considerable amount of DNA from Italy and other places was transferred into Iberia. Iberia only contained about 4 millions. Therefore a several thousands of males will make a considerable contribution in the DNA. You sound Spaniard are pure or something. Are you saying Iberians are pure race????

Hauteville
31-05-15, 12:24
Phoenician (and Carthaginians who were Phoenicias themselves) colonization was somewhat different from the Greek colonization and Roman one different as well.
Greeks founded ex novo and populated their cities with their people (like early English in western american coast for example), Punic colonization was more like a commercial influences in the other native populations and their cities were more like multicultural emporiums, while Roman colonization is more like a large group of Italic families who settled in the pre existent cities and pre populated with local people.
I.e group of Romans who settled in an existent and populated city of Celts in England.

Johannes
31-05-15, 13:07
Phoenician (and Carthaginians who were Phoenicias themselves) colonization was somewhat different from the Greek colonization and Roman one different as well.
Greeks founded ex novo and populated their cities with their people (like early English in western american coast for example), Punic colonization was more like a commercial influences in the other native populations and their cities were more like multicultural emporiums, while Roman colonization is more like a large group of Italic families who settled in the pre existent cities and pre populated with local people.
I.e group of Romans who settled in an existent and populated city of Celts in England.
That is correct. Virtually all of Andalusia and the eastern sea board of Spain was populated by Roman veterans and other Italians who came to settle on free land given by the emperors. We don't know the exact numbers but they were large. Usually after 25 years of service in the army the emperor gave the veterans land. This was dome to facilitate integration and they basically helped establish the Latin culture in the Iberian peninsula. Also the vast majority of the veterans married Iberian women (Celtic and Iberian) and thus added to the DNA.

Johannes
31-05-15, 13:14
Neither the Carthaginians nor the Romans came to Iberia in huge numbers. They were only foreign minorities who established themselves as ruling elites, while the bulk of the population were just the natives who were already there before, as it usually happens with military invasions. So trying to attribute any supposed large change in the DNA of the Iberians on either of them is not very plausible.

Culture is a very different thing. Cultural/religious/linguistic elements from one population can be easily adopted and assimilated by another one with totally different origins without requiring any large population interactions between the two.
The Roman conquest of Iberia was not just a "military invasion." Many soldiers in the 200 year span settled in Iberia an mostly married local women. Except Gaul Iberia was the most important part of the Roman Empire. Four legions were stationed in Iberia and they were rotated for roughly 200 years. If a legion consisted of 8,000-10,000 men then in 200 years a lot of DNA was transferred into Iberia through sexual contact and marriage with local women. I am not saying the DNA contribution of Italians was huge but I think it was significant in altering certain parts of the Iberian peninsula, such as Andalusia and possibly Catalonia.

Drac II
31-05-15, 14:49
I know the Carthaginians did not constitute a large amount of male soldiers to mate with Iberian women. But certainly the four Roman Legions stationed in Iberia did make a considerable amount of DNA to the peninsula. Plus many Romans migrated to Iberia for free lands and other means. Therefore a considerable amount of DNA from Italy and other places was transferred into Iberia. Iberia only contained about 4 millions. Therefore a several thousands of males will make a considerable contribution in the DNA. You sound Spaniard are pure or something. Are you saying Iberians are pure race????

The population of Iberia during Roman times was about 6 million inhabitants:

https://books.google.com/books?id=NdJjn1HpSy4C&pg=PA6&dq=%22+The+population+of+Roman+Iberia+at+its+heigh t+is+ordinarily+estimated+at+6,000,000%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=avFqVb67GYTJsAW9t4Fw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20The%20population%20of%20Roman%20Iberia%20a t%20its%20height%20is%20ordinarily%20estimated%20a t%206%2C000%2C000%22&f=false

"The population of Roman Iberia at its height is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"

Plus over 90% of the inhabitants lived in rural areas (see same source as above), in other words: farmers, shepherds, miners, fishermen, woodsmen, etc. These people would hardly have much contact with foreigners. In fact they would have had very little contact even with other native Iberians/Celts/Celtiberians from other distant parts of the very same peninsula, let alone with small foreign minorities from abroad.

So some few thousand Roman soldiers distributed in garrisons and cities through the geography of the peninsula are hardly an impressive number. To put the numbers of Roman soldiers you cited into perspective: they did not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia.



The Roman conquest of Iberia was not just a "military invasion." Many soldiers in the 200 year span settled in Iberia an mostly married local women. Except Gaul Iberia was the most important part of the Roman Empire. Four legions were stationed in Iberia and they were rotated for roughly 200 years. If a legion consisted of 8,000-10,000 men then in 200 years a lot of DNA was transferred into Iberia through sexual contact and marriage with local women. I am not saying the DNA contribution of Italians was huge but I think it was significant in altering certain parts of the Iberian peninsula, such as Andalusia and possibly Catalonia.

There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants (the majority of whom couldn't care less about who was nominally in control of the government, as long as they left them alone and did not overtax them.) The majority of the Iberian and Celtic/Celtiberian population of the peninsula hardly had much contact with the foreign Roman minority:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fRBpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22it+was+only+a+small+percentage+of+middle-+and+upper-class+Spaniards+who+gained+any+direct+contact+with +Rome+and+the+Romans.%22&dq=%22it+was+only+a+small+percentage+of+middle-+and+upper-class+Spaniards+who+gained+any+direct+contact+with +Rome+and+the+Romans.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TQFrVc3iEITysAWtnYCYDg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ

"...it was only a small percentage of middle- and upper-class Spaniards who gained any direct contact with Rome and the Romans. It was only in the towns of Andalusia, the east coast and the Ebro valley that there was any marked transition to Roman manners and the Roman way of life, in the first century a.d. The great contrast between city and country that is so noticeable in modern Spain, must have existed then.""

Hauteville
31-05-15, 21:22
Romans were Italic and basically brothers of Celts.
My city had strong Roman colonization but it's true that outside modern Italy the modern Spain was the second strategical point in the Roman period for agriculture of the wheat due the sun and the climate.

Vallicanus
31-05-15, 22:55
From the time of Hadrian Italians were few in the legions who generally recruited locally.

Most Italian legionaries from Augustus onwards came from the north, notably Cisalpine Gaul.

Fluffy
01-06-15, 04:48
So it seems like the Iberians were I2a, I1b, G2a, and E1b1?

In terms of Y DNA I would say yes.

Johannes
02-06-15, 15:51
I don't think there is actually a known single origin for the Iberians at this point, although according to ancestrydna the average Spaniard/Portugese has about 51% Iberian.

During the Spanish Neolithic, we are looking at 2 groups of people; La Almagra, Cardium Pottery and Tardenoisian cultures making up the Iberian people before the Celts arrived to create the celtiberians
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#late_neolithic

According to the DNA maps it seems the Iberians were a mix of the Meaglithic (I2a, I2b, G2a, and E1b1b) and Bell Beaker (EV13, G2a, I2a, R1b-P312) peoples. But since the Iberians arrive during the Neolithic roughly around 5,000-3,000 BCE they make a strong case for being candidates for R1b-P312.

So from 6,000-5,000 BCE it seems that Neolithic farmers who carried G2a, E-M78-81, E-V13, T, J1 were the first to enter the Iberian peninsula from the Balkans. Then from 3,000-2500 BCE we see an intrusion of R1b-P312 folk. According to scholars the Iberians arrived in the Iberian peninsula during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. This coincided with the entry of the Iberians into the Iberian peninsula. This makes sense because the earliest folk to arrive in Western Europe from the east had R1b. Aren't the Basques likewise R1b? can someone please tell me the R1b subclade of the Basques?

Therefore either the Iberians belong to the Printed Cordium Culture or to the R1b folk. In other words, they were either from Middle East or "Aryan" folk who spoke a pre-Indo-European language close to the Celts.

Johannes
02-06-15, 16:11
"There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants"

How can you possibly admit that there were "a few thousands"??? You make me laugh! I will agree with you on the Carthaginians and "Moors." But on others not. The Roman legions were composed of Italians until the Age of Augustus. After that the Romans became seriously decadent and they began to use foreigners or provincials in their armies. If you take 8,000 Italians per legion and multiply by four and 8 periods of rotation of service it comes to over 250,000 males. If they were all sexually starving and ready to settle, you can imagine the result. The same with the Germanics. On average German nations numbered 200,000. If you take Swabians and Goths only that is about half a million. Clearly not "a few thousands."

Johannes
02-06-15, 16:22
From the time of Hadrian Italians were few in the legions who generally recruited locally.

Most Italian legionaries from Augustus onwards came from the north, notably Cisalpine Gaul.

We can roughly divide the participation of Italians into the legions into two periods: 1) from the time of the founding of the Roman Republic all were Italians until the time of Julius Caesar. During that time all veterans were given lands for their serve (25 years usually). Then after the Carthaginians were defeated and the Romans conquered the Greek kingdoms (220-100 BC) the greedy Roman patriarchs took over all the lands in Italy. Thus most Italians had to move out of Italy into other lands. This is why the emperors gave lands in Gaul and Iberia to the veterans. After the Italians became hopelessly decadent the soldiers came usually from Gaul, Iberia, and Germany.

Johannes
02-06-15, 16:26
Romans were Italic and basically brothers of Celts. My city had strong Roman colonization but it's true that outside modern Italy the modern Spain was the second strategical point in the Roman period for agriculture of the wheat due the sun and the climate.

Not by the 1st century BCE. By the time of Julius Caesar, most Romans were very mixed with Greeks, Etruscans, and other North African-Middle Eastern peoples. This is why Romans were generally short, dark haired and eyed, and swarthy. They resembled Jews or Syrians more than Celts. And during the Roman Empire the Italinas became even more mixed by importation of blacks and more Semites. So no they are not related to Celts.

Angela
03-06-15, 01:54
Not by the 1st century BCE. By the time of Julius Caesar, most Romans were very mixed with Greeks, Etruscans, and other North African-Middle Eastern peoples. This is why Romans were generally short, dark haired and eyed, and swarthy. They resembled Jews or Syrians more than Celts. And during the Roman Empire the Italinas became even more mixed by importation of blacks and more Semites. So no they are not related to Celts.

Was there some big discovery of ancient Dna from Republican Rome and then from the time of Julius Caesar and then again from the later Empire and they were all compared and somehow I missed it? Or is this anthrofora genetics and history, perhaps?

These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

Third of all, many slaves were freedmen who had sold themselves into slavery.

Fourth of all, slaves were used, used up, usually, all over the empire, on the galleys, in the mines, and on the latifundia, and not just in Italy, and increasingly so as the Empire went on. Given the results from Ralph and Coop discussed below, most of them didn't survive to procreate. Not even the many women put to work in brothels were allowed to keep their children, as the many grave sites full of newborns and aborted fetuses can attest. It wasn't like the American south where because the importation of slaves from Africa was outlawed relatively early on they had to breed them; for a long time during the Empire there was always a new rebellion on the horizon, so they could afford to "waste" them. It's certainly a terrible thing, but those were terrible times, very brutal indeed.

Now, it's true that the slave system during the Roman Empire was different from that of the American south in that the exceptionally able slaves sometimes managed to get their manumission and rise in society, occasionally to great heights, because "racism" as we understand it today didn't really exist. You have to imagine an American south where enslaved Africans were present, but also freed Africans who owned their own shops, and a few who could become very wealthy, and even wind up in the national legislature. It's difficult to imagine, yes, but that's how it was in the Greek and Roman worlds.

So, you would think there would have been some gene flow into the "native" population from these freedmen, whom one would have to assume included Gauls and Germans and Dacians as well as Greeks and Syrians and Jews, unless you think the northerners were dumber and less able on average than the Easterners. Of course, that might have been true to a certain extent. An educated Greek scribe or Syrian entertainer or Jewish metal merchant might have been a lot more valuable than some farmer from the north who might just be sent to a latifundia or mine, but I don't think we know enough to speculate about that.

As to how many manumitted slaves there might have been in any particular country, of what particular ancestry, and how much gene flow there might have been into the "native" population, I don't know. I used to think there must have been a significant amount of it. However, if Ralph and Coop were correct in their IBD study (and don't modify their results in their new upcoming paper), there has been no significant inflow of new genetic material into Italy since about 300 BC, which is late enough for the Celts (Gauls) into northern Italy, and the Greeks diffusing up from Magna Graecia, but not late enough to incorporate hordes of slaves from anywhere, either from Europe or the Near East.

"There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years."

Also, "we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2 (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio-1001555-g002)) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years."

I have wondered if perhaps it doesn't register as "new" gene flow because it's just the same old "Near Eastern" farmer ancestry that came into Europe with the Neolithic, but they seem to indicate not. Also, there's the "Italian cline" to consider, where, as Ralph and Coop put it, the Italian cline shows a " distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland."

If slaves came from Britain and Gaul and Germany and Dacia as well as Greece and the Near East, did they decide to send all the slaves from the Near East to the south and all the Germans and Gauls to the north for some reason? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, so maybe they're correct.

See: Ralph and Coop for the source of the quotes.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

As for physical appearance, the Romans were by no means all short and dark. Regardless, what would that have to do with whether the Italics were related to the Celts? You are aware that the two languages are very related yes? And that they came from the steppe, presumably, with the Indo-Europeans? And that the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were "darker" than modern Europeans, even darker than many modern Italians or Iberians? You're also aware that not all the "Celtic" tribes were fair? Have you ever heard of the Silures? Perhaps you haven't read all the recent papers about the relatively recent selection for "fairness" in Europe and it's relationship to the environment?

I would suggest you use our search engine. It's quite good...there are numerous papers and discussions which might help you catch up.

Fire Haired14
03-06-15, 08:03
According to the DNA maps it seems the Iberians were a mix of the Meaglithic (I2a, I2b, G2a, and E1b1b) and Bell Beaker (EV13, G2a, I2a, R1b-P312) peoples. But since the Iberians arrive during the Neolithic roughly around 5,000-3,000 BCE they make a strong case for being candidates for R1b-P312.

So from 6,000-5,000 BCE it seems that Neolithic farmers who carried G2a, E-M78-81, E-V13, T, J1 were the first to enter the Iberian peninsula from the Balkans. Then from 3,000-2500 BCE we see an intrusion of R1b-P312 folk. According to scholars the Iberians arrived in the Iberian peninsula during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. This coincided with the entry of the Iberians into the Iberian peninsula. This makes sense because the earliest folk to arrive in Western Europe from the east had R1b. Aren't the Basques likewise R1b? can someone please tell me the R1b subclade of the Basques?

Therefore either the Iberians belong to the Printed Cordium Culture or to the R1b folk. In other words, they were either from Middle East or "Aryan" folk who spoke a pre-Indo-European language close to the Celts.

I've read that R1b in Basuqe, Iberians, and SouthWest French belong mostly to R1b-DF27(subclade of P312). I've read about DF27 subclades which are "Basque-specific". So, R1b in Basque may be mostly from pretty recent founder effects.

It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia, while P312 also exists in Celts, Basque, Italics, Germans, and probably: Estruscans and all the other pre-Roman people of Italy. Iberians weren't Indo European. And Aryan is a name only used for some Indo Iranians from South, Central, and West Asia. It's not used for all Indo Europeans. It's meaning has been perverted to mean Indo European or white or European.

Fire Haired14
03-06-15, 08:12
Romans were Italic and basically brothers of Celts.
My city had strong Roman colonization but it's true that outside modern Italy the modern Spain was the second strategical point in the Roman period for agriculture of the wheat due the sun and the climate.

From what I've heard there probably is a close relationship between Celts and Italics. The Bronze age Urnfield culture was in Italy and Central Europe, and was at least partly culturally ancestral to the Gauls and Italics. The high amount of R1b-U152 in Italy and Central Europe clearly reflects this.

Also, Tuscans can fit as about 50% Bronze age Hungarian and 30% Unetice or Urnfield(Using Eurogenes ANE K8). Either way there's clear Yamnaya, Corded Ware, etc. related blood in Tuscans, as there is in France and Germany(Former Gaulish lands).

Fire Haired14
03-06-15, 08:30
The Ancient Iberians are an interesting subject. I wish there was someone here who knew a lot about them. My guess is their language(and Basque) arrived in Neolithic times.

So, their Y DNA originally was probably mostly G2a, I2a, T, H, R1b1(xM269), and E1b-M78(That's what Neolithic Y DNA suggests, see here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12G2cfjG0wHWarsl5bB99ridFmvUWzqlZfZ6_e_R6oIA/edit)) and their overall genetic makeup would have been like Middle Neolithic European genomes(40-50 WHG, 60-50 ENF).

When using ANE K8 to estimate Middle Neolithic Spanish(Basque, Iberian, and related speakers?), Bronze age German, and Middle Eastern(NW Africa, Near East) proportions for Iberians, most come out with even amounts of Bronze age German/MN Spanish and the remaining being Middle Eastern. Basque though come out ~70% MN Spanish and ~30% Bronze age German, with no Middle Eastern.

Sile
03-06-15, 08:39
Was there some big discovery of ancient Dna from Republican Rome and then from the time of Julius Caesar and then again from the later Empire and they were all compared and somehow I missed it? Or is this anthrofora genetics and history, perhaps?

These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

Third of all, many slaves were freedmen who had sold themselves into slavery.

Fourth of all, slaves were used, used up, usually, all over the empire, on the galleys, in the mines, and on the latifundia, and not just in Italy, and increasingly so as the Empire went on. Given the results from Ralph and Coop discussed below, most of them didn't survive to procreate. Not even the many women put to work in brothels were allowed to keep their children, as the many grave sites full of newborns and aborted fetuses can attest. It wasn't like the American south where because the importation of slaves from Africa was outlawed relatively early on they had to breed them; for a long time during the Empire there was always a new rebellion on the horizon, so they could afford to "waste" them. It's certainly a terrible thing, but those were terrible times, very brutal indeed.

Now, it's true that the slave system during the Roman Empire was different from that of the American south in that the exceptionally able slaves sometimes managed to get their manumission and rise in society, occasionally to great heights, because "racism" as we understand it today didn't really exist. You have to imagine an American south where enslaved Africans were present, but also freed Africans who owned their own shops, and a few who could become very wealthy, and even wind up in the national legislature. It's difficult to imagine, yes, but that's how it was in the Greek and Roman worlds.

So, you would think there would have been some gene flow into the "native" population from these freedmen, whom one would have to assume included Gauls and Germans and Dacians as well as Greeks and Syrians and Jews, unless you think the northerners were dumber and less able on average than the Easterners. Of course, that might have been true to a certain extent. An educated Greek scribe or Syrian entertainer or Jewish metal merchant might have been a lot more valuable than some farmer from the north who might just be sent to a latifundia or mine, but I don't think we know enough to speculate about that.

As to how many manumitted slaves there might have been in any particular country, of what particular ancestry, and how much gene flow there might have been into the "native" population, I don't know. I used to think there must have been a significant amount of it. However, if Ralph and Coop were correct in their IBD study (and don't modify their results in their new upcoming paper), there has been no significant inflow of new genetic material into Italy since about 300 BC, which is late enough for the Celts (Gauls) into northern Italy, and the Greeks diffusing up from Magna Graecia, but not late enough to incorporate hordes of slaves from anywhere, either from Europe or the Near East.

"There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years."

Also, "we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2 (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio-1001555-g002)) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years."

I have wondered if perhaps it doesn't register as "new" gene flow because it's just the same old "Near Eastern" farmer ancestry that came into Europe with the Neolithic, but they seem to indicate not. Also, there's the "Italian cline" to consider, where, as Ralph and Coop put it, the Italian cline shows a " distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland."

If slaves came from Britain and Gaul and Germany and Dacia as well as Greece and the Near East, did they decide to send all the slaves from the Near East to the south and all the Germans and Gauls to the north for some reason? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, so maybe they're correct.

See: Ralph and Coop for the source of the quotes.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

As for physical appearance, the Romans were by no means all short and dark. Regardless, what would that have to do with whether the Italics were related to the Celts? You are aware that the two languages are very related yes? And that they came from the steppe, presumably, with the Indo-Europeans? And that the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were "darker" than modern Europeans, even darker than many modern Italians or Iberians? You're also aware that not all the "Celtic" tribes were fair? Have you ever heard of the Silures? Perhaps you haven't read all the recent papers about the relatively recent selection for "fairness" in Europe and it's relationship to the environment?

I would suggest you use our search engine. It's quite good...there are numerous papers and discussions which might help you catch up.

you need to take it step by step.

Romans where once only Latin
after they conquered south-italians, the Romans where in majority south-Italians
after they conquered etruscans and umbrians they gained some central italians, but the majority where still south-Italians.
At the time of the hannibal wars there was only south and central italians as Romans.
At the time of the MAcedonians wars there was only south and central italians, plus Iberians
At the time of the Gallic wars , there was only south and central italians, Greeks plus Iberians plus numibians ( from north africa )
At the time of the British invasion , there was only south and central italians, Greeks plus Iberians.

etc

The composition of Romans was different in every century
The Time of the Republic was Different to the time of the Empire in regards to Roman legions

Johannes
03-06-15, 12:42
Phoenician (and Carthaginians who were Phoenicias themselves) colonization was somewhat different from the Greek colonization and Roman one different as well. Greeks founded ex novo and populated their cities with their people (like early English in western american coast for example), Punic colonization was more like a commercial influences in the other native populations and their cities were more like multicultural emporiums, while Roman colonization is more like a large group of Italic families who settled in the pre existent cities and pre populated with local people.
I.e group of Romans who settled in an existent and populated city of Celts in England.

That's what I was trying to say, but I focused on the Italian soldiers instead of the immigrants. The Romans brought a significant amount of DNA ONLY into the southern ad eastern areas of the Iberian peninsula, i.e., Andalusia, Valencia, and catalonia

Johannes
03-06-15, 14:01
Was there some big discovery of ancient Dna from Republican Rome and then from the time of Julius Caesar and then again from the later Empire and they were all compared and somehow I missed it? Or is this anthrofora genetics and history, perhaps?

These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

Third of all, many slaves were freedmen who had sold themselves into slavery.

Fourth of all, slaves were used, used up, usually, all over the empire, on the galleys, in the mines, and on the latifundia, and not just in Italy, and increasingly so as the Empire went on. Given the results from Ralph and Coop discussed below, most of them didn't survive to procreate. Not even the many women put to work in brothels were allowed to keep their children, as the many grave sites full of newborns and aborted fetuses can attest. It wasn't like the American south where because the importation of slaves from Africa was outlawed relatively early on they had to breed them; for a long time during the Empire there was always a new rebellion on the horizon, so they could afford to "waste" them. It's certainly a terrible thing, but those were terrible times, very brutal indeed.

Now, it's true that the slave system during the Roman Empire was different from that of the American south in that the exceptionally able slaves sometimes managed to get their manumission and rise in society, occasionally to great heights, because "racism" as we understand it today didn't really exist. You have to imagine an American south where enslaved Africans were present, but also freed Africans who owned their own shops, and a few who could become very wealthy, and even wind up in the national legislature. It's difficult to imagine, yes, but that's how it was in the Greek and Roman worlds.

So, you would think there would have been some gene flow into the "native" population from these freedmen, whom one would have to assume included Gauls and Germans and Dacians as well as Greeks and Syrians and Jews, unless you think the northerners were dumber and less able on average than the Easterners. Of course, that might have been true to a certain extent. An educated Greek scribe or Syrian entertainer or Jewish metal merchant might have been a lot more valuable than some farmer from the north who might just be sent to a latifundia or mine, but I don't think we know enough to speculate about that.

As to how many manumitted slaves there might have been in any particular country, of what particular ancestry, and how much gene flow there might have been into the "native" population, I don't know. I used to think there must have been a significant amount of it. However, if Ralph and Coop were correct in their IBD study (and don't modify their results in their new upcoming paper), there has been no significant inflow of new genetic material into Italy since about 300 BC, which is late enough for the Celts (Gauls) into northern Italy, and the Greeks diffusing up from Magna Graecia, but not late enough to incorporate hordes of slaves from anywhere, either from Europe or the Near East.

"There is relatively little common ancestry shared between the Italian peninsula and other locations, and what there is seems to derive mostly from longer ago than 2,500 ya. An exception is that Italy and the neighboring Balkan populations share small but significant numbers of common ancestors in the last 1,500 years."

Also, "we have seen significant modern substructure within Italy (i.e., Figure 2 (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio-1001555-g002)) that predates most of this common ancestry, and estimate that most of the common ancestry shared between Italy and other populations is older than about 2,300 years."

I have wondered if perhaps it doesn't register as "new" gene flow because it's just the same old "Near Eastern" farmer ancestry that came into Europe with the Neolithic, but they seem to indicate not. Also, there's the "Italian cline" to consider, where, as Ralph and Coop put it, the Italian cline shows a " distinctly bimodal distribution of numbers of IBD blocks that each Italian shares with both French-speaking Swiss and the United Kingdom, and that these numbers are strongly correlated. Furthermore, the amount that Italians share with these two populations varies continuously from values typical for Turkey and Cyprus, to values typical for France and Switzerland."

If slaves came from Britain and Gaul and Germany and Dacia as well as Greece and the Near East, did they decide to send all the slaves from the Near East to the south and all the Germans and Gauls to the north for some reason? That doesn't seem to make any sense either, so maybe they're correct.

See: Ralph and Coop for the source of the quotes.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

As for physical appearance, the Romans were by no means all short and dark. Regardless, what would that have to do with whether the Italics were related to the Celts? You are aware that the two languages are very related yes? And that they came from the steppe, presumably, with the Indo-Europeans? And that the Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were "darker" than modern Europeans, even darker than many modern Italians or Iberians? You're also aware that not all the "Celtic" tribes were fair? Have you ever heard of the Silures? Perhaps you haven't read all the recent papers about the relatively recent selection for "fairness" in Europe and it's relationship to the environment?

I would suggest you use our search engine. It's quite good...there are numerous papers and discussions which might help you catch up.


First of all I am an amateur historian and not a professional geneticist. I teach history and I mainly use historical sources to explain my reasons. And no-- these are not guesses. I never said the Romans imported hordes of Blacks into Rome or the provinces. I meant to say that the majority came from Syria, Judea and North Africa (more specifically Egypt), including Blacks. How many Blacks were imported no one knows. Either way these people mixed with the Romans and created the modern Italians. (Did you know that by the 5th century AD the majority of the population in Rome was non-Roman?) Yes there were many European slaves but an examination of the Italian DNA and the classical sources points to more Middle Eastern-North African than European. Even if there were 50% European and 50% non-European the Italians were mixed to a considerable extent. These figures clearly show that Italians are among the most mixed of all the peoples of Europe:


Italy (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml#frequency)
4.5
3
2.5
4
39
9
15.5
3
13.5
2.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif


North Italy

7
1
3.5
4.5
49.5
7.5
10
1.5
11
2
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif


Tuscany

4
1.5
2.5
4
52.5
9
11.5
2
9
2
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate07.gif


Central Italy

2.5
2
1.5
3
36
11
23
5
11.5
3
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif


South Italy

2.5
3.5
1
3
27.5
10.5
21.5
4
18.5
2.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif


Sicily

3.5
3
1
4.5
26
8.5
23
3.5
20.5
4
1
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif



As you can see some Italians are not even European as their DNA is more than 50% Middle Eastern/North African.

You dont have to tell me that Ancient Romans were related to the Celts. I know that. 4,000 years ago they were related but by the time of Julius Caesar the Romans were different. Language does not determine race. No one knows what the ancient Romans looked like but we do know that the Etruscans conquered the Romans and the Romans borrowed heavily fro Etruscans -- the legions, government, religion, and even manners. They also mixed with them. After the Romans conquered the Greeks they mixed with them as well. The Greeks were not fully European or "Aryan." We know from historical sources that the Ionians were descended form ancient peoples (Pelasgian?) who originally did not speak Greek. They adopted Greek probably in order to do business with the invading Mykenaians. Even Thucydides tell us on the causes of the Peloponnesian War that one of the reasons for the Spartans in deciding to go to war was that they suspected the Athenians were not Greek. Races change very rapidly over time when mixed with others that look different. Therefore the Romans were very mixed by the time of Caesar.

Yes not all Romans were short, dark and swarthy. There were some tall, blondes, and red heads but they were a very small minority Only north of the Po valley were Italians fair and Celtic-looking, But these were not considered Roman). After the Celts were conquered they added more light hair to the "Romans." The same can be said of the Germans later on. However, the Romans, in general, were short, dark haired and eyed, and of fair to swarthy complexion. We see the evidence in their paintings, sculptures, and murals. I am also aware that not all Celts were blond or red haired with tall-muscular bodies. Some were dark. Yes I know who the Silures were. Again language does not determine race. Many peoples that were conquered by the Celts adopted the Celtic language. BUT , in general, the classical sources described the Celts as looking very similar to Germans. Even Julius Caesar got the Celts confused wit the Germans and vise versa.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Dying_GaulDSCF6738.jpg/170px-Dying_GaulDSCF6738.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Dying_Gaul_Musei_Capitolini_MC747.jpg/220px-Dying_Gaul_Musei_Capitolini_MC747.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg/310px-0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg

You can try and give me all this fancy DNA evidence to support your claims but history is also important.

Drac II
03-06-15, 14:15
"There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants"

How can you possibly admit that there were "a few thousands"??? You make me laugh! I will agree with you on the Carthaginians and "Moors." But on others not. The Roman legions were composed of Italians until the Age of Augustus. After that the Romans became seriously decadent and they began to use foreigners or provincials in their armies. If you take 8,000 Italians per legion and multiply by four and 8 periods of rotation of service it comes to over 250,000 males. If they were all sexually starving and ready to settle, you can imagine the result. The same with the Germanics. On average German nations numbered 200,000. If you take Swabians and Goths only that is about half a million. Clearly not "a few thousands."

Look at the numbers you originally cited, they do not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia. And by using the new (and likely inflated) numbers they still only would make up about 4% of the population. No matter how you want to look at it, the Romans in Iberia were only a very small minority. Ditto for the Vandals, Swabians and Goths. You are only dealing with military interventions here, not with actual migrations of entire populations. On top of that, these foreigners would have had very little contact with the bulk of the population of the peninsula, who lived in rural areas.

Johannes
03-06-15, 14:25
I've read that R1b in Basuqe, Iberians, and SouthWest French belong mostly to R1b-DF27(subclade of P312). I've read about DF27 subclades which are "Basque-specific". So, R1b in Basque may be mostly from pretty recent founder effects.

It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia, while P312 also exists in Celts, Basque, Italics, Germans, and probably: Estruscans and all the other pre-Roman people of Italy. Iberians weren't Indo European. And Aryan is a name only used for some Indo Iranians from South, Central, and West Asia. It's not used for all Indo Europeans. It's meaning has been perverted to mean Indo European or white or European.

I am sorry my friend but you seem to have contradicted yourself. You say on the one hand that Iberians and Basques carried R1b-P312,. Then you say that "It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia". Historians never said Iberians were native to the Iberian peninsula. They came from the Balkans or North Africa (I personally think they were European who migrated from the east). So if the Iberians did introduce R1b along with the others, then they were probably related to pre-Celtic peoples, who spoke a pre-Indo European language.

Aryan is not specific to Central Asian peoples. The word is found in many Indo-European languages. It means "noble." We find the root "Arios" in names among the Celts, Germans, and Greeks. For example, Aristotle = noble and Ariovistus (Suebic king). It is found all over Europe and Asia. No the Nazis did not pervert the term "Aryan." The original Aryans were Europeans (probably related to the Skythians) who moved into India and Iran. And yes -- they were white.

Drac II
03-06-15, 14:26
These are guesses, and not very well informed guesses either. Had you actually done any academic research into the subject you would know that the number of Sub Saharan Africans imported into Europe by the Romans was very small; the empire only reached the Sahara. (It's true we have the remains from the Roman era of a rather wealthy SSA woman in northern Britain, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, I think.)There was trade with SSAfrica, yes, and East Africa, and so some were bought and sold, but nothing like the numbers who came into Iberia, for example, especially Portugal after the New World was conquered. Watching "The Gladiator" doesn't count as a history lesson, you know.

Sub-Saharan slaves were also brought to "Renaissance" Italy, and their estimated numbers do not appear very different from those imported into Iberia or England during those imperial days.


Second of all, slaves came from all the Roman conquests, which means there were just as many, if not more, British and Gallic and German and Dacian and Thracian slaves as there were Greeks, and Syrians, and then Jews. You might find it interesting to read about how the sale of slaves from Gaul made Caesar such a wealthy man that he was able to buy the support of the Roman mobs.

The majority of scholars on the subject point out that the majority of slaves and free foreign citizens in Rome came from the Eastern parts of the empire (i.e. what today are Greece, southern Balkans, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt)

Johannes
03-06-15, 14:34
Look at the numbers you originally cited, they do not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia. And by using the new (and likely inflated) numbers they still only would make up about 4% of the population. No matter how you want to look at it, the Romans in Iberia were only a very small minority. Ditto for the Vandals, Swabians and Goths. You are only dealing with military interventions here, not with actual migrations of entire populations. On top of that, these foreigners would have had very little contact with the bulk of the population of the peninsula, who lived in rural areas.

No no no Drac: you misunderstood me: I mean only in Andalusia and probably Valencia and Catalonia regions. This is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the peninsula. I never meant to state the whole of Iberia. Iberia is as big as Ukraine! The Celts in Iberia remained pure or relatively pure. Only the Iberians!

The vast majority of the Germanics lived in small towns and villages in the North of Iberia. Germans disliked living in cities. Only the high nobles and their entourage lived in the cities. Recognize the term "Campos?" These all refer to Gothic "camps" or towns in Castile but also in Extremadura. After the Moorish invasion many Germanics moved to the mountains and mixed with the Basques, Cantabrians, and Gallicians. What is a Castilian? the union of a Goth soldier and a Basque woman. What is a Galician? A Suabian and a Celt. What is an Asturian? A Goth and a Celt. What is an Aragonese? A Frank and a Basque.

Drac II
03-06-15, 14:39
you need to take it step by step.

Romans where once only Latin
after they conquered south-italians, the Romans where in majority south-Italians
after they conquered etruscans and umbrians they gained some central italians, but the majority where still south-Italians.
At the time of the hannibal wars there was only south and central italians as Romans.
At the time of the MAcedonians wars there was only south and central italians, plus Iberians
At the time of the Gallic wars , there was only south and central italians, Greeks plus Iberians plus numibians ( from north africa )

I think you mean Numidians.


At the time of the British invasion , there was only south and central italians, Greeks plus Iberians.

etc

The composition of Romans was different in every century
The Time of the Republic was Different to the time of the Empire in regards to Roman legions

At the time of the invasion of Britain the Roman armies would have included people from all over the empire, much more so than actual Romans proper. We are talking about a time when even many of the emperors were themselves foreigners, like Septimius Severus, a Libyan who actually died in Britain while planning a military campaign to Scotland. We have a very good idea of this from surviving Roman-era data on the composition of the legions stationed in Britain:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hnsTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&dq=%22The+Notitia+Imperii+shows+us+that+bodies+of+ Syrians,+Cilicians,+Spaniards,+Moors,+Thracians,+D almatians,+Frisians,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YPVuVYa7CsjcsAXyxIIY&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Notitia%20Imperii%20shows%20us%20that%2 0bodies%20of%20Syrians%2C%20Cilicians%2C%20Spaniar ds%2C%20Moors%2C%20Thracians%2C%20Dalmatians%2C%20 Frisians%2C%22&f=false

"The Notitia Imperii shows us that bodies of Syrians, Cilicians, Spaniards, Moors, Thracians, Dalmatians, Frisians, & c., formed the military colonists of the stations in Britain ; and when even the emperors themselves were often not of Italian birth, and the most trusted officers and governors provincials or even barbarians, we have no reason to suppose that any notable proportion of genuine Roman blood found its way to this country."

Drac II
03-06-15, 14:44
No no no Drac: you misunderstood me: I mean only in Andalusia and probably Valencia and Catalonia regions. This is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the peninsula. I never meant to state the whole of Iberia. Iberia is as big as Ukraine! The Celts in Iberia remained pure or relatively pure. Only the Iberians!

The vast majority of the Germanics lived in small towns and villages in the North of Iberia. Germans disliked living in cities. Only the high nobles and their entourage lived in the cities. Recognize the term "Campos?" These all refer to Gothic "camps" or towns in Castile but also in Extremadura. After the Moorish invasion many Germanics moved to the mountains and mixed with the Basques, Cantabrians, and Gallicians. What is a Castilian? the union of a Goth soldier and a Basque woman. What is a Galician? A Suabian and a Celt. What is an Asturian? A Goth and a Celt. What is an Aragonese? A Frank and a Basque.

If you look at the quote I posted earlier from scholars on the subject, you will see that the Roman influence on Andalucia and the Eastern parts of Iberia was mostly cultural, not ethnic. The Romans simply did not come in large enough numbers to have a very significant impact on the ethnic make up. And I agree with you about the other areas of Iberia: the Roman presence was even less in those places. But I also think that the Germanic influence was small. Their numbers were not huge when compared to the numbers of native Iberians and Celtiberians/Celts already living in the peninsula from way before any of these later foreign minorities came.

Vallicanus
03-06-15, 15:22
First of all I am an amateur historian and not a professional geneticist. I teach history and I mainly use historical sources to explain my reasons. And no-- these are not guesses. I never said the Romans imported hordes of Blacks into Rome or the provinces. I meant to say that the majority came from Syria, Judea and North Africa (more specifically Egypt), including Blacks. How many Blacks were imported no one knows. Either way these people mixed with the Romans and created the modern Italians. (Did you know that by the 5th century AD the majority of the population in Rome was non-Roman?) Yes there were many European slaves but an examination of the Italian DNA and the classical sources points to more Middle Eastern-North African than European. Even if there were 50% European and 50% non-European the Italians were mixed to a considerable extent. These figures clearly show that Italians are among the most mixed of all the peoples of Europe:


Italy (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml#frequency)

4.5

3

2.5

4

39

9

15.5

3

13.5

2.5



http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif



North Italy

7

1

3.5

4.5

49.5

7.5

10

1.5

11

2



http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif



Tuscany

4

1.5

2.5

4

52.5

9

11.5

2

9

2



http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate07.gif



Central Italy

2.5

2

1.5

3

36

11

23

5

11.5

3



http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif



South Italy

2.5

3.5

1

3

27.5

10.5

21.5

4

18.5

2.5



http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif



Sicily

3.5

3

1

4.5

26

8.5

23

3.5

20.5

4

1


http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif




As you can see some Italians are not even European as their DNA is more than 50% Middle Eastern/North African.

You dont have to tell me that Ancient Romans were related to the Celts. I know that. 4,000 years ago they were related but by the time of Julius Caesar the Romans were different. Language does not determine race. No one knows what the ancient Romans looked like but we do know that the Etruscans conquered the Romans and the Romans borrowed heavily fro Etruscans -- the legions, government, religion, and even manners. They also mixed with them. After the Romans conquered the Greeks they mixed with them as well. The Greeks were not fully European or "Aryan." We know from historical sources that the Ionians were descended form ancient peoples (Pelasgian?) who originally did not speak Greek. They adopted Greek probably in order to do business with the invading Mykenaians. Even Thucydides tell us on the causes of the Peloponnesian War that one of the reasons for the Spartans in deciding to go to war was that they suspected the Athenians were not Greek. Races change very rapidly over time when mixed with others that look different. Therefore the Romans were very mixed by the time of Caesar.

Yes not all Romans were short, dark and swarthy. There were some tall, blondes, and red heads but they were a very small minority Only north of the Po valley were Italians fair and Celtic-looking, But these were not considered Roman). After the Celts were conquered they added more light hair to the "Romans." The same can be said of the Germans later on. However, the Romans, in general, were short, dark haired and eyed, and of fair to swarthy complexion. We see the evidence in their paintings, sculptures, and murals. I am also aware that not all Celts were blond or red haired with tall-muscular bodies. Some were dark. Yes I know who the Silures were. Again language does not determine race. Many peoples that were conquered by the Celts adopted the Celtic language. BUT , in general, the classical sources described the Celts as looking very similar to Germans. Even Julius Caesar got the Celts confused wit the Germans and vise versa.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Dying_GaulDSCF6738.jpg/170px-Dying_GaulDSCF6738.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Dying_Gaul_Musei_Capitolini_MC747.jpg/220px-Dying_Gaul_Musei_Capitolini_MC747.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg/310px-0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg

You can try and give me all this fancy DNA evidence to support your claims but history is also important.

The table above is useless without headings.

Fire Haired14
03-06-15, 16:08
I am sorry my friend but you seem to have contradicted yourself. You say on the one hand that Iberians and Basques carried R1b-P312,. Then you say that "It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia". Historians never said Iberians were native to the Iberian peninsula. They came from the Balkans or North Africa (I personally think they were European who migrated from the east). So if the Iberians did introduce R1b along with the others, then they were probably related to pre-Celtic peoples, who spoke a pre-Indo European language.

Aryan is not specific to Central Asian peoples. The word is found in many Indo-European languages. It means "noble." We find the root "Arios" in names among the Celts, Germans, and Greeks. For example, Aristotle = noble and Ariovistus (Suebic king). It is found all over Europe and Asia. No the Nazis did not pervert the term "Aryan." The original Aryans were Europeans (probably related to the Skythians) who moved into India and Iran. And yes -- they were white.

The Iberians were not Indo European. So, they can't be related to Celts by language. You can argue for relation in anything else but language(I guess except for some exchange of words, etc.). Of course it is possible linguistic relatives of Iberians once were widespread in Europe and are the source of R1b-P312. But, the Iberians we know from written records can not be, because they only lived in Spain.

Is Aryan as an ethnic name used in Europe? If not, it shouldn't be a label for any Europeans. People began to use "Aryan" as a label for all Indo Europeans in the 1800s. They got the word from ancient Indo Iranian scripts, and Aryan was then used as a label by many people, because they assumed they were the real Aryans(or Indo Europeans) instead of South and West Asians. Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race).

People do miss use the word Aryan nowadays. If you'd ask an average Joe, if anything he'd say Aryan means German or white. This is a perverted meaning of the word.

What evidence do you have the 'Original Aryans" were European or white? You shouldn't just assume this is the truth. Modern Europeans are a mix of Pre-Historic ones who were distinct from each other, and also people from East, West Asia and North Africa. When going back 5,000 years there was no European, like the ones we know today. In East and West Europe 5,000 years ago, they were as differnt as West Asians and Europeans are from each other today.

For all we know Aryan wasn't used as an ethnic name till way after Steppe-descended Indo Iranian speakers mixed with natives in Central, South, and West Asia. By the time they called themselves Aryans they could have been very mixed. But anyways, lets say the proto-proto Indo Iranians from the Steppe called themselves Aryans.

They still were probably not European in the modern sense, just like Yamnaya genomes weren't. They would be more like first cousins. 50-90%(varying by each region) of Europeans blood comes from very differnt people than the Yamnaya. Even, if the original Indo Iranians looked European and genetically closely related to Europeans, that doesn't give Euros the right to call themselves Aryans. Should Finnish people call themselves Gealic, because they're related to Irish? No.

Johannes
03-06-15, 16:43
The table above is useless without headings.

Those are from Edupedia.

Johannes
03-06-15, 17:02
Region/Haplogroup
I1
I2*/I2a
I2b
R1a
R1b
G
J2
J*/J1
E1b1b
T
Q
N
Sample size

Pax Augusta
03-06-15, 17:20
First of all I am an amateur historian and not a professional geneticist. I teach history and I mainly use historical sources to explain my reasons.

Do you teach what? LOL

Angela
03-06-15, 18:40
First of all I am an amateur historian and not a professional geneticist. I teach history and I mainly use historical sources to explain my reasons. And no-- these are not guesses. I never said the Romans imported hordes of Blacks into Rome or the provinces. I meant to say that the majority came from Syria, Judea and North Africa (more specifically Egypt), including Blacks. How many Blacks were imported no one knows. Either way these people mixed with the Romans and created the modern Italians. (Did you know that by the 5th century AD the majority of the population in Rome was non-Roman?) Yes there were many European slaves but an examination of the Italian DNA and the classical sources points to more Middle Eastern-North African than European. Even if there were 50% European and 50% non-European the Italians were mixed to a considerable extent. These figures clearly show that Italians are among the most mixed of all the peoples of Europe:


Italy (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/italian_dna.shtml#frequency)
4.5
3
2.5
4
39
9
15.5
3
13.5
2.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif


North Italy
7
1
3.5
4.5
49.5
7.5
10
1.5
11
2
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate11.gif


Tuscany
4
1.5
2.5
4
52.5
9
11.5
2
9
2
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate07.gif


Central Italy
2.5
2
1.5
3
36
11
23
5
11.5
3
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif


South Italy
2.5
3.5
1
3
27.5
10.5
21.5
4
18.5
2.5
0
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif


Sicily
3.5
3
1
4.5
26
8.5
23
3.5
20.5
4
1
0
http://www.eupedia.com/images/design/rate09.gif



As you can see some Italians are not even European as their DNA is more than 50% Middle Eastern/North African.

You dont have to tell me that Ancient Romans were related to the Celts. I know that. 4,000 years ago they were related but by the time of Julius Caesar the Romans were different. Language does not determine race. No one knows what the ancient Romans looked like but we do know that the Etruscans conquered the Romans and the Romans borrowed heavily fro Etruscans -- the legions, government, religion, and even manners. They also mixed with them. After the Romans conquered the Greeks they mixed with them as well. The Greeks were not fully European or "Aryan." We know from historical sources that the Ionians were descended form ancient peoples (Pelasgian?) who originally did not speak Greek. They adopted Greek probably in order to do business with the invading Mykenaians. Even Thucydides tell us on the causes of the Peloponnesian War that one of the reasons for the Spartans in deciding to go to war was that they suspected the Athenians were not Greek. Races change very rapidly over time when mixed with others that look different. Therefore the Romans were very mixed by the time of Caesar.

Yes not all Romans were short, dark and swarthy. There were some tall, blondes, and red heads but they were a very small minority Only north of the Po valley were Italians fair and Celtic-looking, But these were not considered Roman). After the Celts were conquered they added more light hair to the "Romans." The same can be said of the Germans later on. However, the Romans, in general, were short, dark haired and eyed, and of fair to swarthy complexion. We see the evidence in their paintings, sculptures, and murals. I am also aware that not all Celts were blond or red haired with tall-muscular bodies. Some were dark. Yes I know who the Silures were. Again language does not determine race. Many peoples that were conquered by the Celts adopted the Celtic language. BUT , in general, the classical sources described the Celts as looking very similar to Germans. Even Julius Caesar got the Celts confused wit the Germans and vise versa.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Dying_GaulDSCF6738.jpg/170px-Dying_GaulDSCF6738.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Dying_Gaul_Musei_Capitolini_MC747.jpg/220px-Dying_Gaul_Musei_Capitolini_MC747.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg/310px-0_Galata_Morente_-_Musei_Capitolini_%281%29.jpg

You can try and give me all this fancy DNA evidence to support your claims but history is also important.

I think you need to brush up on your classical history if you are going to be teaching European history, even if it's only in elementary school.

How do you think the Romans got all their slaves? They got them in the same way that all the ancient empires did, by war and conquest. First, they conquered and enslaved other peoples on the Italian peninsula, like the Sabines, and then the losers in the Social Wars, and then the people of Magna Graecia, and then Greece, and then the peoples of the northern part of the peninsula, like my own Ligurians, and the Spaniards, and the Gauls (400,000 in the first Gallic Wars alone), and the Germans, and the British tribes, and the people of Pannonia, and the Illyrians, and Thracians, and Dacians, and yes the Jews, in two major wars. The slaves from each of these regions had their own methods of fighting which they brought to the gladiatorial arena. Have you never read about any of these conquests and the slaves taken and sold as a result of them? You've never heard about the triumphs awarded to the generals where these slaves were paraded? You have no dim memory of any of this? Anyone who's ever read even a chapter on Roman history would know this, much less a whole volume.

Plus, Dna doesn't lie; historians do...Even when we're talking about modern historians writing about the the ancient world, they are extrapolating from very scant data or using ancient "historians" who are not historians in the modern sense at all. Dna can be massaged, but there are enough accredited scientists studying it that the truth does emerge eventually.

Regardless, you proclaim you don't know anything about genetics and then post a genetics table?

Still, it doesn't matter; if you understood the implications of the chart you could not be drawing these types of conclusions from it.

You really need to do some research before opining further. Otherwise, it's like pontificating on the differences between types of birds when you've never read Darwin.

See Lazaridis et al:
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552

See Gamba et al:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html

See Haak et al:
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

7269

Northern Spain is Pais Vasco.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Admixtures-Lazaridis.png

As a supposed "Germanic Celt", you might be interested to discover how much of your own ancestry comes from the "Near East". At least 80% of the EEF figure is "Near Eastern". When we actually get some ancient genomes from the Near East we'll see if the figure is even higher. In rough terms, the difference between current Near Easterners and the EEF is that the EEF had some WHG and no ANE and the modern Near Easterners, in addition to their EEF, have a big chunk of ANE (which also came into Europe after the Neolithic) and, depending on the area, a minority slice of SSA (up to 10% in Palestinians, and at noise levels in most of the northern Near East. Western Eurasia is one big conglomeration of three ancient ancestral groups in differing proportions. That's the long and the short of it.

When you've read and absorbed the information there, I might be willing to discuss this further. Otherwise, there's really no point.

You know, I was politely asked this morning by another member to give some of our new and obviously inexperienced posters some slack since they are so clearly uninformed. I took it under advisement. :) My first instinct was correct. This isn't simple lack of information, with which I hope I'm always patient and polite; this is purposeful distortion of history and willful ignorance of science.

Btw, it has just occurred to me that once again the obsession of some hobbyists with Italian genetics has taken over a thread dedicated to another topic. I apologize for my own contribution to that. From now on, please post your comments about Italian genetics on an appropriate thread. You have an abundance of choices. This is a thread about the DNA of Iberians.

Ed. The attachment is below. I don't know why it didn't post originally.

7270

Hauteville
03-06-15, 19:57
Blacks in Roman times?is this a joke or i haven't understand that post?lol
About the slaves, they came from everywhere the Empire but many were relocated not only in Italy but outside Italy and in other parts of the Empire, so technically all the modern nations under the Roman empire had slaves from everywhere.
Anyway in the Roman era they barely know ancient Berbers but about the blacks I really doubt.

Hauteville
03-06-15, 20:01
Sub-Saharan slaves were also brought to "Renaissance" Italy, and their estimated numbers do not appear very different from those imported into Iberia or England during those imperial days.

Italy hadn't black slave trade unlike Lisbon and Seville ;)

Sile
03-06-15, 21:25
Italy hadn't black slave trade unlike Lisbon and Seville ;)

Italy had more white slaves than black ones..........but from what I read from historians

slavery stopped in Venice in 1435 and stopped in Genoa in 1477 ............I do not know about other Italian medieval states

Vukodav
03-06-15, 22:21
Celts were an insignificant minority in Iberia. Indeed there is no genetic difference between Celtic and non Celtic areas in Iberia.

Johannes is a dreamer. In-Deep subclades analysis has proved that the Italian J and E haplotypes belong to the European branches and not to the Jewish/MENA ones.

Also IBD anaylis from Botigue et al proved that there is no recent (last 4000 years) Jewish and MENA admixture in Italy.

Ancient Etruscans plotted between modern Italians, Iberians and South Slavs and were very far from Anatolians and other MENAs.

Fire Haired14
03-06-15, 23:59
Ancient Etruscans plotted between modern Italians, Iberians and South Slavs and were very far from Anatolians and other MENAs.

By 500BC Estruscans could have become mostly native, and lost most of their original Estruscan blood. We have to consider that possibility.

Sile
04-06-15, 08:09
I think you mean Numidians.



thanks



At the time of the invasion of Britain the Roman armies would have included people from all over the empire, much more so than actual Romans proper. We are talking about a time when even many of the emperors were themselves foreigners, like Septimius Severus, a Libyan who actually died in Britain while planning a military campaign to Scotland. We have a very good idea of this from surviving Roman-era data on the composition of the legions stationed in Britain:

https://books.google.com/books?id=hnsTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA31&dq=%22The+Notitia+Imperii+shows+us+that+bodies+of+ Syrians,+Cilicians,+Spaniards,+Moors,+Thracians,+D almatians,+Frisians,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YPVuVYa7CsjcsAXyxIIY&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Notitia%20Imperii%20shows%20us%20that%2 0bodies%20of%20Syrians%2C%20Cilicians%2C%20Spaniar ds%2C%20Moors%2C%20Thracians%2C%20Dalmatians%2C%20 Frisians%2C%22&f=false

"The Notitia Imperii shows us that bodies of Syrians, Cilicians, Spaniards, Moors, Thracians, Dalmatians, Frisians, & c., formed the military colonists of the stations in Britain ; and when even the emperors themselves were often not of Italian birth, and the most trusted officers and governors provincials or even barbarians, we have no reason to suppose that any notable proportion of genuine Roman blood found its way to this country."

In the first invasion of Britain there was no Illyrians, thracians, alpine or north-italians people in the Roman legions, as these places where still independent from Roman rule. so southern, central italian plus iberians would have been the vast majority that went into britain.

Drac II
04-06-15, 08:59
Italy hadn't black slave trade unlike Lisbon and Seville ;)

But it was a customer of those slave trading cities.

Drac II
04-06-15, 09:15
See Haak et al:
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

7269

Northern Spain is Pais Vasco.

Does it specifically say so anywhere in the study? Otherwise that is quite unlikely since they already have a separate place for the results of Basque samples, so these must be from elsewhere in northern Spain.

Drac II
04-06-15, 09:21
Celts were an insignificant minority in Iberia.

That's not what scholars on the subject say.



Also IBD anaylis from Botigue et al proved that there is no recent (last 4000 years) Jewish and MENA admixture in Italy.

On the contrary, that study actually claims that Middle Eastern input in southern Europe is "recent", maybe as recent as only 200-300 years ago. They also claimed similarly for African DNA. It's a paper that has not been supported by more proper autosomal studies.

Drac II
04-06-15, 09:27
Blacks in Roman times?is this a joke or i haven't understand that post?lol

Anyway in the Roman era they barely know ancient Berbers but about the blacks I really doubt.

The Romans were certainly acquainted with black Africans and left quite a few depictions of them in their art. Needless to say, their portrayals of black Africans show very different phenotype from their art work depicting North Africans, which shows them as Caucasoids not Negroids.


About the slaves, they came from everywhere the Empire but many were relocated not only in Italy but outside Italy and in other parts of the Empire, so technically all the modern nations under the Roman empire had slaves from everywhere.

Italy being the center of the empire it goes without saying that the majority of the slaves were imported there. The other parts of the empire actually supplied the slaves for Rome.

Vukodav
04-06-15, 10:12
That's not what scholars on the subject say.

It doesn't matter what Iberian "experts" suppose. There is no genetic difference between Celtic and non Celtic areas of Iberia. Indeed the highest frequencies of "Celtic" or "Italo Celtic" haplotypes like U152 and L21 are in the non Celtic non Indo European areas like the Basque countries or Catalonia. Outside of these, Celtic haplotypes are almost nonexistent.

So the Celts were an insignificant minority and all the Celtiberians were Celtized natives.


On the contrary, that study actually claims that Middle Eastern input in southern Europe is "recent", maybe as recent as only 200-300 years ago. They also claimed similarly for African DNA. It's a paper that has not been supported by more proper autosomal studies.

You are confusing North African and Middle Eastern ADMIXTURES.

"Southern Europe" is a wide word. Botigue et al found significant recent Middle Eastern admixture in Greece and in Cyprus, which were dominated by Turks for almos 500 years. On the other hand the study failed to find recent MENA admixture in Italy. See the figure 7 in the Supplentary figures.

Hauteville
04-06-15, 10:21
But it was a customer of those slave trading cities.
By the 1500s, the black population increased due to slavery. In 1600, the population of Lisbon and Algarve was reported at 10%

http://www.afropedea.org/afro-portuguese

http://usslave.blogspot.it/2012/11/slaves-in-16th-century-seville.html

http://elcorreoweb.es/historico/el-ultimo-esclavo-de-sevilla-GEEC311412

http://elbichocurioso.blogspot.it/2014/01/los-negros-de-gibraleon.html

http://flamenco001.blogspot.it/2011/08/negros-y-mulatos-en-las-cunas-flamencas.html

http://mrdomingo.com/2013/04/10/la-desconocida-historia-de-la-esclavitud-en-espana/

Hauteville
04-06-15, 10:56
On the contrary, that study actually claims that Middle Eastern input in southern Europe is "recent", maybe as recent as only 200-300 years ago. They also claimed similarly for African DNA. It's a paper that has not been supported by more proper autosomal studies.
Paschou et al has studied many Italians and Greeks and the conclusion was that the Near Eastern input is from the pre-Roman times.

Hauteville
04-06-15, 11:08
But it was a customer of those slave trading cities.
In 1600, the population of Lisbon and Algarve was reported at 10%.

http://www.afropedea.org/afro-portuguese

Милан М.
04-06-15, 19:20
Does anyone has any better data for Y-Dna from Andalusia,Spain?Thanks.

Drac II
05-06-15, 10:38
It doesn't matter what Iberian "experts" suppose. There is no genetic difference between Celtic and non Celtic areas of Iberia. Indeed the highest frequencies of "Celtic" or "Italo Celtic" haplotypes like U152 and L21 are in the non Celtic non Indo European areas like the Basque countries or Catalonia. Outside of these, Celtic haplotypes are almost nonexistent.

So the Celts were an insignificant minority and all the Celtiberians were Celtized natives.

It's not just "Iberian experts" who say quite differently but also those from other countries. And there is no single homogeneous "Celtic" genetic make-up. The Celts were a conglomerate of peoples and therefore would not have been genetically homogeneous.




You are confusing North African and Middle Eastern ADMIXTURES.

"Southern Europe" is a wide word. Botigue et al found significant recent Middle Eastern admixture in Greece and in Cyprus, which were dominated by Turks for almos 500 years. On the other hand the study failed to find recent MENA admixture in Italy. See the figure 7 in the Supplentary figures.

The authors include Italy as "southeastern Europe" in that paper. They also strangely enough did not include Egypt as North Africa. It is a sloppy paper with many dubious assumptions.

Drac II
05-06-15, 11:45
In 1600, the population of Lisbon and Algarve was reported at 10%.

http://www.afropedea.org/afro-portuguese

Lisbon and Algarve were somewhat higher, as Portugal was more deeply involved in the slave trade and for a longer time than Spain. The slave population of Seville was about 7%:

https://books.google.com/books?id=OCvGcjoz0R8C&pg=PA67&dq=slave+population+seville+7%25&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wGhxVb_HDoaSsAXW2IPQBw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slave%20population%20seville%207%25&f=false

Genoa's was around 4-5%:

https://books.google.com/books?id=d2dN5vh2200C&pg=PA283&dq=the+genoese+slave+population+%224+to+5%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oG9xVeymCIKYsAWx_4D4CA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20genoese%20slave%20population%20%224%20to%2 05%22&f=false

Vukodav
05-06-15, 13:14
Estimates of slaves vary with the source.

According to this 10% of population of Southern Portugal and the province of Sevilla in Spain, was made up of Black African slaves.

Between 1460 and 1640 between 350.000 and 400.000 Black African slaves were imported to Spain and Portugal.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/origins-slavery/essays/iberian-roots-transatlantic-slave-trade-1440%E2%80%931640

Black slaves made 10% of total population of Azores and Madeira.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/AZORES/2004-07/1088812080

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira#Settlement

Hauteville
05-06-15, 18:21
Genova hadn't black slaves, most of the slaves in Italy were from the Balkans while some black in Spain got high status like Juan Latino and Juan de Pareja.
Look at that, even today there are some of the descendent who show african traits.

http://elbichocurioso.blogspot.it/2014/01/los-negros-de-gibraleon.html

And Alcacer do Sal was the most important city with high black settlements.

http://www.cm-alcacerdosal.pt/PT/Visitar/percursospedestres/Paginas/PasseiodosNegros.aspx

Please post me Italian cities with descendent of black slaves if you want.

PS: I'm not anti Iberian but this guy usually attacks Italians.

Angela
05-06-15, 19:56
I'm well aware that some posters try to turn every thread about Iberians into a thread about Italians, and that it's difficult not to respond if something in a post is incorrect or misleading. However, please, let's all stay on topic, including me. :) If not, I'll just move the off topic comments to the first appropriate thread I can find. Thank you.

Drac II
06-06-15, 11:42
Estimates of slaves vary with the source.

According to this 10% of population of Southern Portugal and the province of Sevilla in Spain, was made up of Black African slaves.

Between 1460 and 1640 between 350.000 and 400.000 Black African slaves were imported to Spain and Portugal.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/origins-slavery/essays/iberian-roots-transatlantic-slave-trade-1440%E2%80%931640


Link is not fully visible, plus such a figure does not take into account all the slaves in Portugal and Spain who were exported to the American possessions of these empires.

Vukodav
06-06-15, 12:29
Wrong. 99% of Black Slaves in America arrived directly from Africa, not from Iberia. The figure I've posted refers only to the period between 1460 and 1640.Slavery was abolished only in 1840 in Iberia. Obviosuly the total number of imported black slaves in Iberia in the period between 1460 and 1840 is double than that and probably between 700.000 and 800.000.

Pax Augusta
06-06-15, 12:34
PS: these Italian guys usually attack Iberians, therefore the necessity to address their manipulations.


This is a thread about Iberians. You're blaming Italians but you're doing the same, you attack all the time Italians here on Eupedia.

Drac II
06-06-15, 13:20
Wrong. 99% of Black Slaves in America arrived directly from Africa, not from Iberia. The figure I've posted refers only to the period between 1460 and 1640.Slavery was abolished only in 1840 in Iberia. Obviosuly the total number of imported black slaves in Iberia in the period between 1460 and 1840 is double than that and probably between 700.000 and 800.000.

Apparently you did not bother to read the link I posted clearly indicating that the early Africans imported into the Spanish possessions in America came from the slaves already in Spain, not directly from Africa.

Spain's participation in the slave trade actually decreased with time, not increased, so your estimates are quite mistaken.

Angela
06-06-15, 16:12
Posts numbered 55,56,57,59,61,64, and 65 have been removed as off-topic. You were warned in post number 54. It was obviously read because there was even a response to it. In the face of the fact that this is obvious resistance to moderation I did not go to the bother of finding an appropriate thread for them.

Stay on topic.

Pax Augusta
06-06-15, 18:30
Link is not fully visible, plus such a figure does not take into account all the slaves in Portugal and Spain who were exported to the American possessions of these empires.

Tamar Herzog (Harvard University), How Did Early-Modern Slaves in Spain Disappear? The Antecedents, 2012

(...) But was slavery a purely colonial affair, as these statements indicate?

Despite this general amnesia, slaves and the descendants of slaves were present in early-modern Spain, and their numbers were not particularly small. To cite just a few examples, we know that in mid-sixteenth-century Seville 7.4 percent of censused inhabitants were slaves and that between 1682 and 1729 the slave population of Cádiz was extremely large, making up perhaps as much as 15 percent of the total urban population. In other cities, such as Málaga, Granada, Las Palmas, Huelva, and Palos de la Frontera, as many as one in ten residents may have been slaves. Between 1539 and 1699, 1,384 slave children were baptized in the small Andalucian town of Lucena, with an average of 400 children every thirty years. Similar numbers may have been true also for Córdoba. Historians who studied slavery in Spain thus concluded that Renaissance and perhaps even early-modern Spain may have had the largest African population in Europe.(...)

(...) Not only did Spain have a huge population of slaves, a population that by the late sixteenth century was mostly composed of individuals of African descent, and not only were slaves present (although in varying numbers) all over the peninsula and in all social milieus, but also their numbers did not necessarily drop at the end of the sixteenth century as historians once believe. Recent research suggests that slavery and the presence of Africans continued to be important factors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even into the early nineteenth century. Indications for this continuity are everywhere to be found: in 1837 the Cortes debated a law to abolish slavery in the peninsula; and in 1851 the proposal for a new civil code included the issue of peninsular slavery (neither in 1837 nor in 1851 was action taken, and indeed slavery was never formally abolished in Spain—it is possible that it gradually died out on its own). We also know that slaves were massively present in eighteenth-century Cádiz, still forming perhaps as much as 10 percent of the local population, and local newspapers continued to advertise their sale. The situation in Granada may have been similar. In both cities, however, there are indications that while slavery may have persisted into the early nineteenth century, by the mid-eighteenth century the numbers of slaves may have been dropping. It is also possible that, by that time, most slaves were held by people who had contacts with the Americas or were recent arrivals, which perhaps helps explain the connection made between slavery and colonialism. (...)

(...)In recent years, the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science has supported collaborative research projects aimed at understanding the African experience in Spain. One such project, based in Granada, has as its aim to “analyze the evolution of the black African population in Spain from the 16th to the 19th century,” “to bring to center stage the presence of both slaves and freedmen of sub-Saharan origin in Spain,” and “to contribute in this way to the recuperation of the social memory and the recognition of African legacy.”

But like all issues of memory, at stake are not necessarily hard facts but how they are integrated, experienced, and reproduced. We already have sufficient evidence that slavery existed in Spain, that it was an important phenomenon, and that during the early-modern period most slaves were of African descent. What we need perhaps are not additional studies but an evaluation of why memory of them disappeared and what it will take to awaken it.



Source: http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/how-did-early-modern-slaves-spain-disappear-antecedents

Drac II
07-06-15, 10:35
Posts numbered 55,56,57,59,61,64, and 65 have been removed as off-topic. You were warned in post number 54. It was obviously read because there was even a response to it. In the face of the fact that this is obvious resistance to moderation I did not go to the bother of finding an appropriate thread for them.

Stay on topic.

The reply to post 54 was technically "on topic", which you created yourself, namely the claim that some people turn Iberian threads into Italian threads, yet we can also see the opposite with some users having a tendency to turn Italian threads into Iberian ones.

And just for the record, the person who started deviating the thread towards Italy does not claim to be "Iberian", as far as I can tell.

Drac II
07-06-15, 11:35
Tamar Herzog (Harvard University), How Did Early-Modern Slaves in Spain Disappear? The Antecedents, 2012

(...) But was slavery a purely colonial affair, as these statements indicate?

Despite this general amnesia, slaves and the descendants of slaves were present in early-modern Spain, and their numbers were not particularly small. To cite just a few examples, we know that in mid-sixteenth-century Seville 7.4 percent of censused inhabitants were slaves and that between 1682 and 1729 the slave population of Cádiz was extremely large, making up perhaps as much as 15 percent of the total urban population. In other cities, such as Málaga, Granada, Las Palmas, Huelva, and Palos de la Frontera, as many as one in ten residents may have been slaves. Between 1539 and 1699, 1,384 slave children were baptized in the small Andalucian town of Lucena, with an average of 400 children every thirty years. Similar numbers may have been true also for Córdoba. Historians who studied slavery in Spain thus concluded that Renaissance and perhaps even early-modern Spain may have had the largest African population in Europe.(...)

(...) Not only did Spain have a huge population of slaves, a population that by the late sixteenth century was mostly composed of individuals of African descent, and not only were slaves present (although in varying numbers) all over the peninsula and in all social milieus, but also their numbers did not necessarily drop at the end of the sixteenth century as historians once believe. Recent research suggests that slavery and the presence of Africans continued to be important factors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even into the early nineteenth century. Indications for this continuity are everywhere to be found: in 1837 the Cortes debated a law to abolish slavery in the peninsula; and in 1851 the proposal for a new civil code included the issue of peninsular slavery (neither in 1837 nor in 1851 was action taken, and indeed slavery was never formally abolished in Spain—it is possible that it gradually died out on its own). We also know that slaves were massively present in eighteenth-century Cádiz, still forming perhaps as much as 10 percent of the local population, and local newspapers continued to advertise their sale. The situation in Granada may have been similar. In both cities, however, there are indications that while slavery may have persisted into the early nineteenth century, by the mid-eighteenth century the numbers of slaves may have been dropping. It is also possible that, by that time, most slaves were held by people who had contacts with the Americas or were recent arrivals, which perhaps helps explain the connection made between slavery and colonialism. (...)

(...)In recent years, the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science has supported collaborative research projects aimed at understanding the African experience in Spain. One such project, based in Granada, has as its aim to “analyze the evolution of the black African population in Spain from the 16th to the 19th century,” “to bring to center stage the presence of both slaves and freedmen of sub-Saharan origin in Spain,” and “to contribute in this way to the recuperation of the social memory and the recognition of African legacy.”

But like all issues of memory, at stake are not necessarily hard facts but how they are integrated, experienced, and reproduced. We already have sufficient evidence that slavery existed in Spain, that it was an important phenomenon, and that during the early-modern period most slaves were of African descent. What we need perhaps are not additional studies but an evaluation of why memory of them disappeared and what it will take to awaken it.



Source: http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/how-did-early-modern-slaves-spain-disappear-antecedents

"African" here is somewhat misleading, since this word also includes North African slaves, not only sub-Saharans. Plus the author herself is aware that by the 18th century the number of slaves was already lower. Such estimates also do not take into account the slaves that did not permanently remain in Spain and ended up being sent to the New World. The practice was common enough in the 16th century that at least three royal edicts trying to stop it were issued:

https://books.google.com/books?id=kpO6Jz5btJUC&pg=PA36&dq=royal+cedulas+%281526,+1531,+and+1543%29+prohib ited+the+introduction+into+the+New+World+of+the+so-called+ladino+slaves.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jgh0VdCWM42xyATJzKzwDw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=royal%20cedulas%20(1526%2C%201531%2C%20and%20154 3)%20prohibited%20the%20introduction%20into%20the% 20New%20World%20of%20the%20so-called%20ladino%20slaves.%22&f=false

"For instance, several royal cedulas (1526, 1531, and 1543) prohibited the introduction into the New World of the so-called ladino slaves. This term referred to slaves who had become familiar with Iberian cultures, particularly with the Portuguese or Castilian languages. According to these laws, any slave who had lived in Portugal or Spain for a whole year could be considered a ladino."

In 16th-17th century slave markets of New World areas, like Peru, both kinds of black slaves were offered for sale:

https://books.google.com/books?id=zwerAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA78&dq=But+another+type+of+slave+was+also+available+in +the+Lima+market+in+large+numbers:+the+ladino&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TA10VejHBozBsAX5gIHYAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=But%20another%20type%20of%20slave%20was%20also%2 0available%20in%20the%20Lima%20market%20in%20large %20numbers%3A%20the%20ladino&f=false

"But another type of slave was also available in the Lima market in large numbers: the ladino, a black who to a greater or lesser extent was Spanish except for skin color and lingering ties with his African tribal group and its culture."

Hauteville
07-06-15, 11:54
Find me a city in Italy with descendent of black slaves like Gibraleon and Alcacer do Sal, please.
No anti Iberism but it's funny that Drac called Italians africans while the higher african DNA in Europe is in most of Iberia.

Drac II
07-06-15, 12:05
Find me a city in Italy with descendent of black slaves like Gibraleon and Alcacer do Sal, please.
No anti Iberism but it's funny that Drac called Italians africans while the higher african DNA in Europe is in most of Iberia.

You are off topic again. Also nobody in this thread called Italians "Africans". And "higher African DNA in Europe" can be quite disputed, it depends on which studies you want to use for your particular agenda.

Hauteville
07-06-15, 12:24
You and your Basque friend who called us Africans in that thread, "nobody called Italians Africans" lol
Every genetic results show what I have said for Iberia, sorry.


Find me a city in Italy with descendent of black slaves like Gibraleon and Alcacer do Sal, please.

Oh yes

Drac II
07-06-15, 13:38
You and your Basque friend who called us Africans in that thread, "nobody called Italians Africans" lol
Every genetic results show what I have said for Iberia, sorry.



Oh yes

The guy who deviated the thread towards Italy is neither my friend nor does he claim to be "Iberian", as far as I know. And I don't recall that he exactly said that "Italians are Africans".

Every genetic study? Really? If you separate "Iberia" into the two separate nations that compose it instead of considering it as one, things are not as clear as you would like them to be. Sorry.

Slaves in Italy were brought mostly to the big cities, like Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, Venice, etc. not to small towns like Gibraleon (your link explains that those people might descend from slaves who were marooned there from a slave ship that had problems, not purposefully imported to the area.)

Vukodav
07-06-15, 13:52
Slaves in Italy were brought mostly to the big cities, like Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, Venice, etc. not to small towns like Gibraleon (your link explains that those people descend from slaves who were marooned there from a slave ship that had problems, not purposefully imported to the area.)

Please post recorded evidence that large numbers of black slaves arrived in these cities, like detailed numbers, not general percentages of slaves, which include large numbers of East European slaves, since Italy has been importing tens of thousands of Slavic and Baltic slaves annually since the early Middle Ages.

Iberia imported 700.000-800.000 black slaves between 1460 and 1840. Very few or none of them ended up in America, untill proven otherwise.

By the end of 17th century, black slaves made up 10% of population of the province of Cadiz in Spain.

https://books.google.it/books?id=ATq5_6h2AT0C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=slaves+cadiz&source=bl&ots=5NN5s7YUA3&sig=KoWi6J_cY1C0nA8g3UKKxTondBM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XzN0VZHLGMXaUf6igugL&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=slaves%20cadiz&f=false

Angela
07-06-15, 14:00
OK. I've had it. The next person who refuses moderation and posts on matters relating to Italian genetics is going to get an infraction. Is that understood?

Drac II
07-06-15, 14:12
Please post recorded evidence that large numbers of black slaves arrived in these cities, like detailed numbers, not general percentages of slaves, which include large numbers of East European slaves, since Italy has been importing tens of thousands of Slavic and Baltic slaves annually since the early Middle Ages.

Iberia imported 700.000-800.000 black slaves between 1460 and 1840. Very few or none of them ended up in America, untill proven otherwise.

The one who needs to actually prove such numbers is you, that's your "estimate", not one by actual academics on the subject. And I already provided information on the fact that considerable numbers of slaves in America came from the slaves in Spain. Portugal also did similar things, even selling them to other European nations. Not every slave that was imported to Iberia remained in Iberia.

The usual figure for slaves in 16th century Spain is 100,000, and about half of the slave population were not black Africans but North Africans and people from the Ottoman empire (which at this period already included the Balkans):

https://books.google.com/books?id=iXd_BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Slaves+spain+around+100000&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bz10VceqHMzzsAWC1YOIAQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Slaves%20spain%20around%20100000&f=false

Angela
07-06-15, 14:12
I don't see how it matters when the SSA in Iberians arrived, or the North African, for that matter. It is what it is. To deny it exists is ridiculous.

We are also talking about very minority components here, especially in terms of the SSA. It doesn't make either the Portuguese or the Spanish less European than anyone else in Europe.

It's a non issue as far as I'm concerned, other than as a matter of intellectual interest.

Pax Augusta
07-06-15, 16:29
"African" here is somewhat misleading, since this word also includes North African slaves, not only sub-Saharans. Plus the author herself is aware that by the 18th century the number of slaves was already lower. Such estimates also do not take into account the slaves that did not permanently remain in Spain and ended up being sent to the New World. The practice was common enough in the 16th century that at least three royal edicts trying to stop it were issued:

It's a study of an Harvard professor and is extremely clear.



Slaves in Italy were brought mostly to the big cities, like Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, Venice, etc. not to small towns like Gibraleon (your link explains that those people might descend from slaves who were marooned there from a slave ship that had problems, not purposefully imported to the area.)

I don't undestand why you can't discuss about Iberia without involving Italy. Btw in Italy there were two main slave trades: one in Venice, the other one in Genoa. Venice was mainly focused on slaves from east, while Genova had more trades with Spain and Portugal.

Sally McKee, Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy, 2008

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth- century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement. The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans. Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

(...) The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. (...) Black Africans never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy (...).

(...) In contrast to the export trade, the number of slaves (of every ethnicities) who remained in Italy is easier to estimate. Slaves did not constitute a significant proportion of any urban population in Italy, with the possible exception of Palermo. Henri Bresc estimates that no more than 12% of Sicily’s principle city belonged in the servile category, but, given how small his sample is, it is reasonable to question whether it was really that high. Even in Genoa, whose slave population must have been comparable to Palermo’s, the number of slaves there is thought to have fluctuated between 2 and 5%. The estimates vary between 3000 at any time in the 100 years between 1360 and 1460. Slavery in Siena had nearly died out by 1400. While Florence held about 1000 slaves at the end of the fourteenth century, the number had fallen to less than 400 by 1427, with very few households possessing more than one slave. Boni and Delort counted only 200 slaves in Pisa between 1410 and 1434. Estimating the number of slaves at any time in Venice, Italy’s other major slavetrading power, presents a challenge because of the misleading nature of the evidence. Lane refers to ‘hundreds of slaves’ among the household servants there, which seems plausible, given that population levels in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries fell below 100,000. But there are signs that the proportion of slaves in Venice never approached the proportion found in Genoa. Although slaves are easily found in the fifteenth-century court records relating to crime, their absolute number is not high. (...)

Angela
07-06-15, 16:52
Pax Augusta;458927]

I don't undestand why you can't discuss about Iberia without involving Italy. Btw in Italy there were two main slave trades: one in Venice, the other one in Genoa. Venice was mainly focused on slaves from east, while Genova had more trades with Spain and Portugal.

Sally McKee, Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy, 2008

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth- century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement. The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans. Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

(...) The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. (...) Black Africans never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy (...).

(...) In contrast to the export trade, the number of slaves (of every ethnicities) who remained in Italy is easier to estimate. Slaves did not constitute a significant proportion of any urban population in Italy, with the possible exception of Palermo. Henri Bresc estimates that no more than 12% of Sicily’s principle city belonged in the servile category, but, given how small his sample is, it is reasonable to question whether it was really that high. Even in Genoa, whose slave population must have been comparable to Palermo’s, the number of slaves there is thought to have fluctuated between 2 and 5%. The estimates vary between 3000 at any time in the 100 years between 1360 and 1460. Slavery in Siena had nearly died out by 1400. While Florence held about 1000 slaves at the end of the fourteenth century, the number had fallen to less than 400 by 1427, with very few households possessing more than one slave. Boni and Delort counted only 200 slaves in Pisa between 1410 and 1434. Estimating the number of slaves at any time in Venice, Italy’s other major slavetrading power, presents a challenge because of the misleading nature of the evidence. Lane refers to ‘hundreds of slaves’ among the household servants there, which seems plausible, given that population levels in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries fell below 100,000. But there are signs that the proportion of slaves in Venice never approached the proportion found in Genoa. Although slaves are easily found in the fifteenth-century court records relating to crime, their absolute number is not high. (...)

I meant what I said..


"OK. I've had it. The next person who refuses moderation and posts on matters relating to Italian genetics is going to get an infraction. Is that understood? "

Pax Augusta
07-06-15, 17:46
I meant what I said..
"OK. I've had it. The next person who refuses moderation and posts on matters relating to Italian genetics is going to get an infraction. Is that understood? "




Sorry, got it.

Vukodav
08-06-15, 08:47
By 500BC Estruscans could have become mostly native, and lost most of their original Estruscan blood. We have to consider that possibility.

Hundreds of ancient Etruscan mtdna lineages have been analyzed by Ghirotto et al 2013 and compared with both ancient and modern populations, and the conclusion is that the separation times between Etruscans and Anatolians is more than 5000 years, which de facto disproves the Anatolian theory.

Drac II
08-06-15, 10:25
It's a study of an Harvard professor and is extremely clear.




I don't undestand why you can't discuss about Iberia without involving Italy. Btw in Italy there were two main slave trades: one in Venice, the other one in Genoa. Venice was mainly focused on slaves from east, while Genova had more trades with Spain and Portugal.

Sally McKee, Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy, 2008

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth- century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement. The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans. Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

(...) The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. (...) Black Africans never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy (...).

(...) In contrast to the export trade, the number of slaves (of every ethnicities) who remained in Italy is easier to estimate. Slaves did not constitute a significant proportion of any urban population in Italy, with the possible exception of Palermo. Henri Bresc estimates that no more than 12% of Sicily’s principle city belonged in the servile category, but, given how small his sample is, it is reasonable to question whether it was really that high. Even in Genoa, whose slave population must have been comparable to Palermo’s, the number of slaves there is thought to have fluctuated between 2 and 5%. The estimates vary between 3000 at any time in the 100 years between 1360 and 1460. Slavery in Siena had nearly died out by 1400. While Florence held about 1000 slaves at the end of the fourteenth century, the number had fallen to less than 400 by 1427, with very few households possessing more than one slave. Boni and Delort counted only 200 slaves in Pisa between 1410 and 1434. Estimating the number of slaves at any time in Venice, Italy’s other major slavetrading power, presents a challenge because of the misleading nature of the evidence. Lane refers to ‘hundreds of slaves’ among the household servants there, which seems plausible, given that population levels in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries fell below 100,000. But there are signs that the proportion of slaves in Venice never approached the proportion found in Genoa. Although slaves are easily found in the fifteenth-century court records relating to crime, their absolute number is not high. (...)

Yes, it is clear, and she acknowledges that by the 18th century the number of slaves had already gone down. Did you actually read everything? Plus once again, the word "African" also includes North Africans. As I showed in another academic source, about half of the slaves in 16th century Spain were in fact North Africans and people obtained from Ottoman empire lands.

As to your question: I didn't bring up Italy, it was a couple of other users who did. The person who started the thread brought up the topic of Romans in Iberia from the very first post, so technically Italy has something to do with this thread, but during Roman times. And the McKee paper is only about the 15th century period.

Johannes
08-06-15, 18:06
I've read that R1b in Basuqe, Iberians, and SouthWest French belong mostly to R1b-DF27(subclade of P312). I've read about DF27 subclades which are "Basque-specific". So, R1b in Basque may be mostly from pretty recent founder effects.

It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia, while P312 also exists in Celts, Basque, Italics, Germans, and probably: Estruscans and all the other pre-Roman people of Italy. Iberians weren't Indo European. And Aryan is a name only used for some Indo Iranians from South, Central, and West Asia. It's not used for all Indo Europeans. It's meaning has been perverted to mean Indo European or white or European.

So it would seem that Iberians would have brought R1b P312 which created the common basque/French subclade R1b DF27? What do you mean Iberians only existed in Iberia? R1b P312 came from somewhere east of Europe and its probably a Pre-Indo-European people, who were similar to Celts and Romans. The Iberians probably spoke an Pre-Indo European language and maybe basque is this type?

Johannes
08-06-15, 18:27
The reply to post 54 was technically "on topic", which you created yourself, namely the claim that some people turn Iberian threads into Italian threads, yet we can also see the opposite with some users having a tendency to turn Italian threads into Iberian ones.

And just for the record, the person who started deviating the thread towards Italy does not claim to be "Iberian", as far as I can tell.

Yes I have "Iberian" DNA. That's why I started this Iberian/Basque thread hoping to find some solution to the enigma of "Iberians and Basques."

Drac II
09-06-15, 10:44
Yes I have "Iberian" DNA. That's why I started this Iberian/Basque thread hoping to find some solution to the enigma of "Iberians and Basques."

You are not from Iberia, but an American, right? You also list other backgrounds in your profile.

Johannes
09-06-15, 15:52
The population of Iberia during Roman times was about 6 million inhabitants:

https://books.google.com/books?id=NdJjn1HpSy4C&pg=PA6&dq=%22+The+population+of+Roman+Iberia+at+its+heigh t+is+ordinarily+estimated+at+6,000,000%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=avFqVb67GYTJsAW9t4Fw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20The%20population%20of%20Roman%20Iberia%20a t%20its%20height%20is%20ordinarily%20estimated%20a t%206%2C000%2C000%22&f=false

"The population of Roman Iberia at its height is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"

Plus over 90% of the inhabitants lived in rural areas (see same source as above), in other words: farmers, shepherds, miners, fishermen, woodsmen, etc. These people would hardly have much contact with foreigners. In fact they would have had very little contact even with other native Iberians/Celts/Celtiberians from other distant parts of the very same peninsula, let alone with small foreign minorities from abroad.

So some few thousand Roman soldiers distributed in garrisons and cities through the geography of the peninsula are hardly an impressive number. To put the numbers of Roman soldiers you cited into perspective: they did not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia.




There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants (the majority of whom couldn't care less about who was nominally in control of the government, as long as they left them alone and did not overtax them.) The majority of the Iberian and Celtic/Celtiberian population of the peninsula hardly had much contact with the foreign Roman minority:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fRBpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22it+was+only+a+small+percentage+of+middle-+and+upper-class+Spaniards+who+gained+any+direct+contact+with +Rome+and+the+Romans.%22&dq=%22it+was+only+a+small+percentage+of+middle-+and+upper-class+Spaniards+who+gained+any+direct+contact+with +Rome+and+the+Romans.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TQFrVc3iEITysAWtnYCYDg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ

"...it was only a small percentage of middle- and upper-class Spaniards who gained any direct contact with Rome and the Romans. It was only in the towns of Andalusia, the east coast and the Ebro valley that there was any marked transition to Roman manners and the Roman way of life, in the first century a.d. The great contrast between city and country that is so noticeable in modern Spain, must have existed then.""

I checked your historian and I believe he is wrong. Population of Iberia was closer to 4 millions. My source is Spanish. Google "La evolución de la población española en la época precensal." I doubt the Iberian population would have deceased by 2 millions from 100 BCE to the time of Augustus. Of course many thousands were killed and enslaved during the Iberian Wars, but I think the Spanish article is true.

Johannes
09-06-15, 16:04
You are not from Iberia, but an American, right? You also list other backgrounds in your profile.

Yes I am American but many of my ancestors were from Iberia -- Old Castile and Basque country. My ancestors were basically Germanics, Celts, and Iberians (if we can include the Basques in this category).

I did not deviate the topic from Iberians to Italians. Its the Italian woman here who did it. All I said was that by the time of Julius Caesar the Romans looked very different form Celts. I further stated that during the Roman Empire the Romans mixed extensively so that the Italians now look like Middle Eastern people, but then she suddenly began to spout all this arrogant condensation and abuse from her.

So do you think the Iberians carried R1b P312 which created the Basque marker? I am beginning to realize that the Iberians were probably the same as the Basques and that they were a Pre-Indo-European people similar to Celts and early Romans. This explains why Basques have so much R1b. Unfortunately no one seems to know anything about Iberians.

Angela
09-06-15, 16:14
Did I rain on your parade or something?:grin::laughing: Otherwise, the word you might have been searching for is "condescension".

Honestly, you need a really great sense of humor to be a moderator on this site.:smile:

For the record, I'm an equal opportunity enforcer. Nonsense and illogical statements are pointed out no matter the ethnicity of the source, as is violation of forum rules. Nor do unsubstantiated racist remarks or homophobic or misogynist remarks have any place in reasoned debate. I'm patient and forbearing, but not that forbearing, so be advised.

Johannes
09-06-15, 16:44
Look at the numbers you originally cited, they do not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia. And by using the new (and likely inflated) numbers they still only would make up about 4% of the population. No matter how you want to look at it, the Romans in Iberia were only a very small minority. Ditto for the Vandals, Swabians and Goths. You are only dealing with military interventions here, not with actual migrations of entire populations. On top of that, these foreigners would have had very little contact with the bulk of the population of the peninsula, who lived in rural areas.

The population of Iberia was 4 millions. Most of the peopel lived in the south and eastern coast. Lets speculate for a moment: Andalusia and the eastern sea board constitutes about 2/3 of the population (most llived in cities and the rest of Iberia was populated by Celts in small tomws). Therefore about 2.5 millions lived in these areas. Italians came here and mixed with Iberians. So my calculations would make an infusion of 10% DNA into Iberians.

As far as Germanics: its logical to infer that all conquerors would get the best lands and best women: Therefore they would multiply much more than the conquered people or the subjects. Therefore the Germanic population of Iberia would have doubled and probably tripled by the 8th century. I am aware that there were famines and economic stagnation (Plagues hit Iberia shortly before the Muslim Invasion). But the people who possess the best lands tend to breed more children. This is common sense. Therefore by my calculations -- given that there were 4 millions in Iberia throughout the 5th to 8th centuries (Dark Ages) -- the Germanic population would have increased to around 20%. I remember reading an article a long time ago by a scholar who studied the names of males in Iberia and he stated that 85% were Gothic but after the Muslim invasion 85% were Catholic saints. This proved that the Goths were admired and that there was no racial hatred between Germanics and Ibero-Romans. This agrees with the Anglo-Saxon settlements in England and Scotland. The winners get the best land and multiply; while the losers get the worst and dont multiply.

Johannes
09-06-15, 17:04
Did I rain on your parade or something?:grin::laughing: Otherwise, the word you might have been searching for is "condescension".

Honestly, you need a really great sense of humor to be a moderator on this site.:smile:

For the record, I'm an equal opportunity enforcer. Nonsense and illogical statements are pointed out no matter the ethnicity of the source, as is violation of forum rules. Nor do unsubstantiated racist remarks or homophobic or misogynist remarks have any place in reasoned debate. I'm patient and forbearing, but not that forbearing, so be advised.

Yes I dont like arguing with you because its clear that you are arrogant and have some agenda: for example, if you dislike or someone makes a mistake or you disagree with someone you become arrogant and try to deluge everyone with you genetic information and then discredit them. I never made "nonsense or illogical statements" YOU are the one who thinks I did. That is your opinion. By the way: I dont think you are so knowledgeable about history. And I appreciate it if you stop responding to my posts. Its annoying. I learn very little from you.

Vukodav
09-06-15, 17:29
Goths made just 1% of Iberian population and were mostly assimilated Balkaners, Greeks, Italians and Southern French, not pure breed Germanics from Sweden.

After the Moorish conquest of Iberia, many Goths were either killed or fled north to the kingdom of the Franks. The few who remained, converted to Islam and mixed with the Moors.

Angela
09-06-15, 17:35
Yes I dont like arguing with you because its clear that you are arrogant and have some agenda: for example, if you dislike or someone makes a mistake or you disagree with someone you become arrogant and try to deluge everyone with you genetic information and then discredit them. I never made "nonsense or illogical statements" YOU are the one who thinks I did. That is your opinion. By the way: I dont think you are so knowledgeable about history. And I appreciate it if you stop responding to my posts. Its annoying. I learn very little from you.

Members here, including moderators, can read and respond to any post or thread they choose. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them. I myself, unfortunately, have to try to read a lot of them, and particularly those of people likely to step over the line, who are often the most uninformed and the likeliest to distort data. Keep your comments civil, however, or you will get an infraction. I have been looking at my stats, and I have been lax in comparison to my fellow moderators.

Drac II
10-06-15, 11:57
Goths made just 1% of Iberian population and were mostly assimilated Balkaners, Greeks, Italians and Southern French, not pure breed Germanics from Sweden.

After the Moorish conquest of Iberia, many Goths were either killed or fled north to the kingdom of the Franks. The few who remained, converted to Islam and mixed with the Moors.

And you can back up most of these claims? Somehow I suspect you don't.

Drac II
10-06-15, 12:08
I checked your historian and I believe he is wrong. Population of Iberia was closer to 4 millions. My source is Spanish. Google "La evolución de la población española en la época precensal." I doubt the Iberian population would have deceased by 2 millions from 100 BCE to the time of Augustus. Of course many thousands were killed and enslaved during the Iberian Wars, but I think the Spanish article is true.

That's just some WikiPedia article written by who-knows-who and it does not seem to offer any references for such Roman-era estimates. Plus there's huge gaps of hundreds of years between them. And also all of them are for the centuries AD.

Drac II
10-06-15, 12:11
Yes I am American but many of my ancestors were from Iberia -- Old Castile and Basque country. My ancestors were basically Germanics, Celts, and Iberians (if we can include the Basques in this category).

I did not deviate the topic from Iberians to Italians. Its the Italian woman here who did it. All I said was that by the time of Julius Caesar the Romans looked very different form Celts. I further stated that during the Roman Empire the Romans mixed extensively so that the Italians now look like Middle Eastern people, but then she suddenly began to spout all this arrogant condensation and abuse from her.

So do you think the Iberians carried R1b P312 which created the Basque marker? I am beginning to realize that the Iberians were probably the same as the Basques and that they were a Pre-Indo-European people similar to Celts and early Romans. This explains why Basques have so much R1b. Unfortunately no one seems to know anything about Iberians.

That the Iberians were pre-Indo-Europeans there is little doubt about, the language they spoke was not Indo-European. It wasn't Semitic either. It belongs in a similar class as Basque. Celtic languages, on the other hand, are Indo-European.

Vukodav
10-06-15, 13:08
And you can back up most of these claims? Somehow I suspect you don't.

About the percentage of Visigoths in Iberia read:

Ripoll López, Gisela (1989). "Características generales del poblamiento y la arqueología funeraria visigoda de Hispania" . Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, S. I, Prehist. y Arqueol., t. 2. pp. 389–418.

About the fate of Visigoths after the Moorish conquest of Iberia read:

Baxter Wolf, Kenneth (8 May 2014). Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 1107634814.

Johannes
10-06-15, 13:56
Goths made just 1% of Iberian population and were mostly assimilated Balkaners, Greeks, Italians and Southern French, not pure breed Germanics from Sweden.

After the Moorish conquest of Iberia, many Goths were either killed or fled north to the kingdom of the Franks. The few who remained, converted to Islam and mixed with the Moors.

Your comment here is rather simplistic to say the least. 1) The Goths never assimilated peoples from the Balkans or Greece. The Goths were composed of two nations: West (Visi) Goths and East (Ostro) Goths. They also had cousin nations living next to them, i.e., The Gepids, Heruli, and Rugii. The Goths occupied an area roughly composing of Western Ukraine, Moldova, and Transylvania. The Gepids, Heruli, and Rugii occupied areas in what is Hungary and Slovakia. After the Huns began attacking the Goths the Visigoths did move into Bulgaria and settled there but they were mistreated and quickly rebelled. After the destruction of four legions they pillaged Greece and moved into Serbia. They wanted to settle but the Roman Emperor offered them lands in the west. They eventually settled in SW France and Iberia. if they assimilated anyone of any consequence it was the Celts of France and Iberians. The Ostrogoths did live in Ukraine and then Romania. So they probably did gains some Skythian and Sarmatian DNA and later the cocktail of Italy. There was some mixing but you grossly exaggerate.

1% of the population? Where do you get such figures? From old Spanish historians who were totally ignorant about the Goths? There was only 4 million Ibero-Romans when the Germans arrived. The Swabians and the Goths probably numbered around a half million. And I am certain they increased their numbers in the 300 years of peace in the Iberian peninsula. My estimate is they numbered around 13-15% of the population. And they did not mix with the Ibero-Romans until after the Moorish occupation.

The Moors never exterminated a large amounts of Germanics. Almost all the Germanics fled to the mountains of the North and into SW France and returned almost immediately. The Goths who converted to Islam were the few nobles who wanted to retain their lands. Your analysis is so simplistic you make me laugh.

Johannes
10-06-15, 14:04
About the percentage of Visigoths in Iberia read:

Ripoll López, Gisela (1989). "Características generales del poblamiento y la arqueología funeraria visigoda de Hispania" . Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, S. I, Prehist. y Arqueol., t. 2. pp. 389–418.

About the fate of Visigoths after the Moorish conquest of Iberia read:

Baxter Wolf, Kenneth (8 May 2014). Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 1107634814.

Ripoll Lopez is outdated. I read this when I was in BSU. She was using sources from old Spanish historians and there was very little study of the Goths at that time. She should not be trusted. I also read Kenneth Baxter. He wrote an article and then made it into a book. I read both and he does not know exactly what was the number of Goths. He only concentrates on the plight of the Christian Martyrs in Andalusia during the 9th century. He does deal with the Andalusi-Goths who converted to Islam to retain their lands and enter the Muslim bureaucracy but only by using individual examples. Again you exaggerate my friend.

Drac II
10-06-15, 14:05
About the percentage of Visigoths in Iberia read:

Ripoll López, Gisela (1989). "Características generales del poblamiento y la arqueología funeraria visigoda de Hispania" . Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, S. I, Prehist. y Arqueol., t. 2. pp. 389–418.

The author concludes that the Visigothic population was somewhere around 130,000 to 150,000 tops (page 396.) If we consider the usual 6 million figure for the population of Iberia in Roman times, then they would have made up about 2.5% of the population, not 1%.


About the fate of Visigoths after the Moorish conquest of Iberia read:

Baxter Wolf, Kenneth (8 May 2014). Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 1107634814.

I took a look at pages 14-15, but there doesn't seem to be anything there about supposed massive killings of Visigoths and most of the remaining ones fleeing to France. Those pages deal mostly with taxation in the Muslim parts of Iberia.

Johannes
10-06-15, 14:09
That the Iberians were pre-Indo-Europeans there is little doubt about, the language they spoke was not Indo-European. It wasn't Semitic either. It belongs in a similar class as Basque. Celtic languages, on the other hand, are Indo-European.

so based on similarities between Iberian and Basque languages plus the R1b subclades they were both related? R1b in the Basque regions is about 80%. In Catalonia-Valencia 60-70%. That is were the Iberians lived. So there must be some connection.

Johannes
10-06-15, 14:11
That's just some WikiPedia article written by who-knows-who and it does not seem to offer any references for such Roman-era estimates. Plus there's huge gaps of hundreds of years between them. And also all of them are for the centuries AD.

And were does your source get his for his book? does he explain???

Vukodav
10-06-15, 14:32
The author concludes that the Visigothic population was somewhere around 130,000 to 150,000 tops (page 396.) If we consider the usual 6 million figure for the population of Iberia in Roman times, then they would have made up about 2.5% of the population, not 1%.

No the author says they were less than 130-150.000.

"Como conclusión podemos decir que no existe ningún dato estadísticofiable, pero que, aún siendo todos ellos hipotéticos, permiten creerque el número de pobladores visigodos de la Península Ibérica no superóla cifra total de 130.000 o 150.000 individuos."

Regarding the total number of Hispano Romans read pp 392

"El mismo historiador, considera más verosímilun número aproximado de 200.000 visigodos frente a unos ocho o nuevemillones de hispanorromanos. Por el contrario García Gallo, eleva mucho más el número de hispanorromanos y los calcula en unos docemillones "

There were between 8-12 million of Hispano Romans, so they made up about 1-2% of the poplation.

More than half of those Goths were probably assimilated Southern French, since only 70-90.000 Goths were living in France before migrating to Iberia.

"En el momento en que los visigodos consiguen el tratado de instalaciónen la Gallia en el año 418, su número oscila entre unas 50.000 y100.000 personas. Esto representaría una cifra aproximada de 70.000 a90.000 individuos visigodos en el territorio peninsular hispánico duranteel siglo VI, teniendo en cuenta que un cierto número de familias se quedaríaen el territorio aquitano y sin tomar en consideración aquellos quesiguieron habitando en la Narbonense."

Johannes
10-06-15, 15:24
The author concludes that the Visigothic population was somewhere around 130,000 to 150,000 tops (page 396.) If we consider the usual 6 million figure for the population of Iberia in Roman times, then they would have made up about 2.5% of the population, not 1%.

I took a look at pages 14-15, but there doesn't seem to be anything there about supposed massive killings of Visigoths and most of the remaining ones fleeing to France. Those pages deal mostly with taxation in the Muslim parts of Iberia.

I will agree that after the goths arrived in SW France they numbered 150,000 because they had fought many battles and lost a lot of men. But then you take into consideration that the Goths lived more or less in peace for 300 years their numbers must have increased. History teaches us that the people who conquer other people get the best land and multiply faster than the conquered. We need to include the numbers of the Swabians as well. thus together they must have doubled their numbers by the time the Muslims arrived. Dont trust Spanish historians. They are third rate. Read the English and better the Germans. I never understood why Spaniards have ignored the Germanics in Iberia (probably because they were liberal and hated Franco and his Fascists??)

Johannes
10-06-15, 15:31
No the author says they were less than 130-150.000.

"Como conclusión podemos decir que no existe ningún dato estadísticofiable, pero que, aún siendo todos ellos hipotéticos, permiten creerque el número de pobladores visigodos de la Península Ibérica no superóla cifra total de 130.000 o 150.000 individuos."

Regarding the total number of Hispano Romans read pp 392

"El mismo historiador, considera más verosímilun número aproximado de 200.000 visigodos frente a unos ocho o nuevemillones de hispanorromanos. Por el contrario García Gallo, eleva mucho más el número de hispanorromanos y los calcula en unos docemillones "

There were between 8-12 million of Hispano Romans, so they made up about 1-2% of the poplation.

More than half of those Goths were probably assimilated Southern French, since only 70-90.000 Goths were living in France before migrating to Iberia.

"En el momento en que los visigodos consiguen el tratado de instalaciónen la Gallia en el año 418, su número oscila entre unas 50.000 y100.000 personas. Esto representaría una cifra aproximada de 70.000 a90.000 individuos visigodos en el territorio peninsular hispánico duranteel siglo VI, teniendo en cuenta que un cierto número de familias se quedaríaen el territorio aquitano y sin tomar en consideración aquellos quesiguieron habitando en la Narbonense."

Those figures for the Ibero-Romans are grossly inaccurate. When you take into consideration the economic depression, wars, famines, people leaving the cities for the country, and the dramatic decrease of population during the end of the Roman Empire, t would have been impossible to feed that many people at that time. Population figures during the 5th century were very low. Western Europe was basically depopulated. Dont use Spanish sources. Try reading English versions.

You think that people during those times mixed like they do today? Sure all the Goths will mix with the population they ruled! You are so funny!

Angela
10-06-15, 16:07
Luckily, we have an IBD analysis to hand:

"On the other hand, we find that France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than Turkey and Cyprus), and are the regions of continental Europe thought to have been least affected by the Slavic and Hunnic migrations. These regions were, however, moved into by Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals), which suggests that perhaps the Germanic migrations/invasions of these regions entailed a smaller degree of population replacement than the Slavic and/or Hunnic, or perhaps that the Germanic groups were less genealogically cohesive. This is consistent with the argument that the Slavs moved into relatively depopulated areas, while Gothic “migrations” may have been takeovers by small groups of extant populations [54] (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1001555-Halsall1),[55] (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1001555-Kobyliski1)."

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

Franco didn't come into power until the 1930s. Many speculations by historians, if not these particular ones, that the Goths were a very small group date to long before that, so no it's not an anti-German because anti-fascist conspiracy. Plus, the Italians invented fascism, unfortunately, not the Germans, so I don't know what that would have to do with anything.

Regardless, while it's notoriously difficult to pinpoint numbers of groups of people in the distant past, groups either exhibit IBD sharing with certain other groups or they don't. In this case they don't.

Hauteville
10-06-15, 16:49
Here the map of Germanic heritage in Europe.

http://s28.postimg.org/8y4ooca59/Germanic_Europe.gif (http://postimage.org/)

Vukodav
10-06-15, 16:57
Are you sure that map is correct?

Maciamo recently uploaded a new version.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif

http://eupedia.com/forum/threads/28866-Map-of-Germanic-paternal-lineages

Vukodav
10-06-15, 17:02
I will agree that after the goths arrived in SW France they numbered 150,000 because they had fought many battles and lost a lot of men. But then you take into consideration that the Goths lived more or less in peace for 300 years their numbers must have increased. History teaches us that the people who conquer other people get the best land and multiply faster than the conquered. We need to include the numbers of the Swabians as well. thus together they must have doubled their numbers by the time the Muslims arrived. Dont trust Spanish historians. They are third rate. Read the English and better the Germans. I never understood why Spaniards have ignored the Germanics in Iberia (probably because they were liberal and hated Franco and his Fascists??)

Goths didn't live in peace for 300 years. They were fighting against Romans, Franks, Byzantines, Vandals, Basques, even between themselves. They were all but peaceful.


Those figures for the Ibero-Romans are grossly inaccurate. When you take into consideration the economic depression, wars, famines, people leaving the cities for the country, and the dramatic decrease of population during the end of the Roman Empire, t would have been impossible to feed that many people at that time. Population figures during the 5th century were very low. Western Europe was basically depopulated. Dont use Spanish sources. Try reading English versions.

You think that people during those times mixed like they do today? Sure all the Goths will mix with the population they ruled! You are so funny!

Iberia wasn't touched by Barbarian invasions until the 5th centudy AD, whereas other imperial territories like Italy, the Balkans, the Levant... had to endure centuries of foreign invasions and raids. Italy and the Balkans were devastated by Magyars, Avars, Huns, etc...

LeBrok
10-06-15, 17:05
Iberia wasn't untouched by Barbarian invasion untill the 5th centudy AD, whereas other imperial territories like Italy, the Balkans, the Levant... had the endure centuries of foreign invasions and raids. Italy and the Balkans were devastated by Magyars, Avars, Huns, etc... Don't forget Slavs and Goths.

Hauteville
10-06-15, 17:11
Are you sure that map is correct?

Maciamo recently uploaded a new version.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Germanic_Europe.gif

http://eupedia.com/forum/threads/28866-Map-of-Germanic-paternal-lineages
Ok thanks.
It's still extremely minimal the Visigoth heritage there.

Johannes
10-06-15, 17:25
Ok thanks.
It's still extremely minimal the Visigoth heritage there.

I dont think this map is correct. Maybe Maciamo should wait for more people to be tested in Castlie, Asturias, and Extremadura. Either way it does reflect at lest somewhat I have been arguing. Its certainly not 1%. It shows between 1% to 10% but I bet its more than that.

Angela
10-06-15, 17:36
Maybe people should pay attention to actual genetic IBD Analysis. Ydna is not an accurate predictor of overall admixture.

There was no significant admixture with Goths.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555


Dna doesn't lie.

Johannes
10-06-15, 17:49
That's just some WikiPedia article written by who-knows-who and it does not seem to offer any references for such Roman-era estimates. Plus there's huge gaps of hundreds of years between them. And also all of them are for the centuries AD.

Dont be so arrogant. Look and read the article. Its says quite clearly at the end of the article were they got their sources. Its in Spanish but they are not trying to swindle the reader.

Hauteville
10-06-15, 18:37
Maybe people should pay attention to actual genetic IBD Analysis. Ydna is not an accurate predictor of overall admixture.

There was no significant admixture with Goths.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555


Dna doesn't lie.
Notice the incongruence of them: zero moorish, jewish of punic blood but a lot of celts and goths. Yes sure.

Degredado
10-06-15, 21:12
Notice the incongruence of them: zero moorish, jewish of punic blood but a lot of celts and goths. Yes sure.

Iberians always inflate their Celtic/Visigothic ancestry and negate all Phoenician/Arabic/Jewish heritage (I wonder if they don't think anyone notices this bias?). To claim that the Goths left a significant genetic mark in Iberia while claiming that the Moors (who ruled the peninsula for much longer) left none or close to none is just ridiculous. If Iberians overstated both of these influences, or minimized both, it would be alright, no one would say a word.

LeBrok
11-06-15, 02:58
Iberians always inflate their Celtic/Visigothic ancestry and negate all Phoenician/Arabic/Jewish heritage (I wonder if they don't think anyone notices this bias?). To claim that the Goths left a significant genetic mark in Iberia while claiming that the Moors (who ruled the peninsula for much longer) left none or close to none is just ridiculous. If Iberians overstated both of these influences, or minimized both, it would be alright, no one would say a word.
You nailed it!

Drac II
11-06-15, 11:53
No the author says they were less than 130-150.000.

"Como conclusión podemos decir que no existe ningún dato estadísticofiable, pero que, aún siendo todos ellos hipotéticos, permiten creerque el número de pobladores visigodos de la Península Ibérica no superóla cifra total de 130.000 o 150.000 individuos."

Regarding the total number of Hispano Romans read pp 392

"El mismo historiador, considera más verosímilun número aproximado de 200.000 visigodos frente a unos ocho o nuevemillones de hispanorromanos. Por el contrario García Gallo, eleva mucho más el número de hispanorromanos y los calcula en unos docemillones "

There were between 8-12 million of Hispano Romans, so they made up about 1-2% of the poplation.

More than half of those Goths were probably assimilated Southern French, since only 70-90.000 Goths were living in France before migrating to Iberia.

"En el momento en que los visigodos consiguen el tratado de instalaciónen la Gallia en el año 418, su número oscila entre unas 50.000 y100.000 personas. Esto representaría una cifra aproximada de 70.000 a90.000 individuos visigodos en el territorio peninsular hispánico duranteel siglo VI, teniendo en cuenta que un cierto número de familias se quedaríaen el territorio aquitano y sin tomar en consideración aquellos quesiguieron habitando en la Narbonense."

You need to brush up on your Spanish. The author is saying that the total number of Goths did not go beyond the 150,000 figure, it does not necessarily mean that they were not 150,000. Translation of what she says:

"As a conclusion we can say that there does not exist any reliable statistic data, but that, even though all of them are hypothetical, they allow us to think that the number of Visigothic inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula did not go beyond 130,000 or 150,000 individuals."

She is accepting the 130,000 to 150,000 estimate as plausible, just not more than that. And she is only citing someone else's calculations for the total population of Iberia, she is not necessarily endorsing it. She remains silent about her own conclusions on this topic. She cites several figures from different historians. The author I cited earlier says that the more usual estimate is 6 million inhabitants.

Drac II
11-06-15, 12:10
Iberians always inflate their Celtic/Visigothic ancestry and negate all Phoenician/Arabic/Jewish heritage (I wonder if they don't think anyone notices this bias?). To claim that the Goths left a significant genetic mark in Iberia while claiming that the Moors (who ruled the peninsula for much longer) left none or close to none is just ridiculous. If Iberians overstated both of these influences, or minimized both, it would be alright, no one would say a word.

Funny how you are always in these threads trying to vent your issues about "Iberians". We have established that the person trying to inflate the influence of both Visigoths and Romans in Iberia in this thread is not from Iberia but an American, so you can stop projecting your own issues on "Iberians".

Drac II
11-06-15, 12:14
Notice the incongruence of them: zero moorish, jewish of punic blood but a lot of celts and goths. Yes sure.

Strange and ironic comment, coming from someone who actually tries to do just that with his own country.

Drac II
11-06-15, 12:17
Dont be so arrogant. Look and read the article. Its says quite clearly at the end of the article were they got their sources. Its in Spanish but they are not trying to swindle the reader.

Where does that Wiki article cite any references regarding the population of Iberia during Roman times? The source I cited for the 6 million figure is straight from a book published by Cambridge University.

Johannes
11-06-15, 13:16
Iberians always inflate their Celtic/Visigothic ancestry and negate all Phoenician/Arabic/Jewish heritage (I wonder if they don't think anyone notices this bias?). To claim that the Goths left a significant genetic mark in Iberia while claiming that the Moors (who ruled the peninsula for much longer) left none or close to none is just ridiculous. If Iberians overstated both of these influences, or minimized both, it would be alright, no one would say a word.

I dont know who you are talking about but I am not "Iberian." And I never claimed the Goths left any significant DNA. Do you think 5-10% is significant? Who said the Moors left no DNA??? I never said anything of what you accuse. You are the one who seems to have a bias against the so-called "Iberians" and its clear that you know very little about the subject as well.

Johannes
11-06-15, 13:19
Iberians always inflate their Celtic/Visigothic ancestry and negate all Phoenician/Arabic/Jewish heritage (I wonder if they don't think anyone notices this bias?). To claim that the Goths left a significant genetic mark in Iberia while claiming that the Moors (who ruled the peninsula for much longer) left none or close to none is just ridiculous. If Iberians overstated both of these influences, or minimized both, it would be alright, no one would say a word.

I just noticed you have Iberian DNA on both sides (R1b DF27 and U5). You are a funny fellow to make such ridiculous claims against your own kind.

Johannes
11-06-15, 13:20
Where does that Wiki article cite any references regarding the population of Iberia during Roman times? The source I cited for the 6 million figure is straight from a book published by Cambridge University.

Anybody can publish any book from any publishing company and it does not mean they are accurate. So what if its from Cambridge??? Where does he get the source?

Johannes
11-06-15, 13:32
Notice the incongruence of them: zero moorish, jewish of punic blood but a lot of celts and goths. Yes sure.

I can tell from your comment that you have some issues and bias against "Iberians." But I am not sure to whom you are talking about. As for Moorish/Semitic DNA its certainly not zero and who ever said it is ignorant. However, its not significant. As for the Celts: any one with a brain in his head can see that its significant. Iberia has 60-80% R1b my friend and most of it is R1b DF 27. That is a Basque-Celtic marker. Dont you think its significant??? and we are not counting the Germanic DNA that is also R1b.

By the way I started this post to see if anyone could help me resolve the mystery of the Iberians who could have brought the R1b P-312, which in turn created R1b DF27. So far I see nothing.

Drac II
11-06-15, 13:48
Anybody can publish any book from any publishing company and it does not mean they are accurate. So what if its from Cambridge??? Where does he get the source?

Cambridge University is not in the habit of letting just about "anybody" publish books and articles using their name. They only publish studies by academics. The historian in question is referring to a general consensus about the total population of Iberia during Roman times.

Johannes
11-06-15, 14:05
You need to brush up on your Spanish. The author is saying that the total number of Goths did not go beyond the 150,000 figure, it does not necessarily mean that they were not 150,000. Translation of what she says:

"As a conclusion we can say that there does not exist any reliable statistic data, but that, even though all of them are hypothetical, they allow us to think that the number of Visigothic inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula did not go beyond 130,000 or 150,000 individuals."

She is accepting the 130,000 to 150,000 estimate as plausible, just not more than that. And she is only citing someone else's calculations for the total population of Iberia, she is not necessarily endorsing it. She remains silent about her own conclusions on this topic. She cites several figures from different historians. The author I cited earlier says that the more usual estimate is 6 million inhabitants.

Yes you are right: I need to improve my Spanish. But thanks for the translation. It makes it easier for me to understand. So I am also willing to accept 150,000 but they must have increased their numbers given that in 300 years they dont just stop having children. Historians tell us that the Roman Emperors wanted to put the Germans as far away from Italy as possible and they gave the Goths the best lands in SW France and Iberia. Eventually the Goths left SW France and moved into Iberia. The Goths also defeated the Swabians in Galicia. So it goes against common sense that their number stagnated or even declined so that the Goths disappeared form the earth. Look at what happened in England. The Anglo-Saxon numbered somewhat similar to the Goths and Swabians. In 100 years the Anglo-Saxons took over all the best lands in England and Scotland and increased their numbers by perhaps threefold. Of course England and the Scottish Lowlands constitute a much smaller size in area (about 1/4) compared to Iberia. Never the less the Swabians and Goths must have increased their numbers and probably reached 20%, which is not significant, but certainly not zero or 1%.

Vukodav
11-06-15, 14:06
DF27 is not Celtic. Eupedia map about ItaloCeltic y dna was made by an amateur and not by an academical author.

Johannes
11-06-15, 14:09
Cambridge University is not in the habit of letting just about "anybody" publish books and articles using their name. They only publish studies by academics. The historian in question is referring to a general consensus about the total population of Iberia during Roman times.

Academics are not gods. And what is the general concensus? All the historians who write about Iberian history? Does he site any primary sources or any journals? Its sounds like he is guessing.

Drac II
11-06-15, 14:36
Yes you are right: I need to improve my Spanish. But thanks for the translation. It makes it easier for me to understand. So I am also willing to accept 150,000 but they must have increased their numbers given that in 300 years they dont just stop having children. Historians tell us that the Roman Emperors wanted to put the Germans as far away from Italy as possible and they gave the Goths the best lands in SW France and Iberia. Eventually the Goths left SW France and moved into Iberia. The Goths also defeated the Swabians in Galicia. So it goes against common sense that their number stagnated or even declined so that the Goths disappeared form the earth. Look at what happened in England. The Anglo-Saxon numbered somewhat similar to the Goths and Swabians. In 100 years the Anglo-Saxons took over all the best lands in England and Scotland and increased their numbers by perhaps threefold. Of course England and the Scottish Lowlands constitute a much smaller size in area (about 1/4) compared to Iberia. Never the less the Swabians and Goths must have increased their numbers and probably reached 20%, which is not significant, but certainly not zero or 1%.

Look carefully, that post was not in reply to one of yours but that of another user who thought that his source was saying that the Visigoths in Iberia must have numbered less than 150,000. But that is not exactly the case.

Drac II
11-06-15, 14:43
Academics are not gods. And what is the general concensus? All the historians who write about Iberian history? Does he site any primary sources or any journals? Its sounds like he is guessing.

No, but they are knowledgeable about the subject they specialize in and therefore are better authorities than people who do not make a career out of these subjects. Since he is referring to a common calculation among historians for the population of the Iberian Peninsula in those times, he just mentions it. He did not feel the need to prove it. He just accepts it as good enough and goes on with his analysis.

Johannes
11-06-15, 18:11
No, but they are knowledgeable about the subject they specialize in and therefore are better authorities than people who do not make a career out of these subjects. Since he is referring to a common calculation among historians for the population of the Iberian Peninsula in those times, he just mentions it. He did not feel the need to prove it. He just accepts it as good enough and goes on with his analysis.

So therefore he is guessing. Its that simple. Who cares if he is an "academic." He is guessing just like we are. What about the sources I gave you? Whats the difference? You just accept his numbers because it fits better to your opinions. And I like the other source because it fits better to my opinion. :-)

Drac II
12-06-15, 12:33
So therefore he is guessing. Its that simple. Who cares if he is an "academic." He is guessing just like we are. What about the sources I gave you? Whats the difference? You just accept his numbers because it fits better to your opinions. And I like the other source because it fits better to my opinion. :-)

Your source mentions no authority behind it, they do not cite their sources. Mine is a professional historian who gets his writings published by Cambridge University. Which part of this simple fact is it that you are having problems with? As for guessing: some guesses are more educated than others. Since very precise data on population numbers from those times has not survived, the next best thing is to come up with estimates based on what data has survived.

Johannes
12-06-15, 17:49
Your source mentions no authority behind it, they do not cite their sources.
I understand what you are saying. I know professional historians are more reliable that others. The language was in Spanish. There was a lot a explanation and and did not read it. I thought it might have sources from professors. I am wondering why they even posted it on the internet. What did it say?

OK it does not matter anyway what the population was at the time. However, the Goths and Swabians must have increased their numbers because there were no major invasions or traumatic events until the Muslims arrived (and that is roughly 250 years).

If according to some people in this forum DF27 in is not a Celtic marker. I know its an Iberian-Basque-Atlantic marker. But why is it not Celtic? If Basques are R1b DF27 and its very common among modern Iberians, what is the percent of Celtic DNA in Iberia and what are the subclades?

Johannes
12-06-15, 18:46
DF27 is not Celtic. Eupedia map about ItaloCeltic y dna was made by an amateur and not by an academical author.

R1b DF 27 is a derivative of R1b P312. R1b P312 also created the Italo-Celtic and Germanic marker. So are Basques and Iberians related?

Tomenable
12-06-15, 19:02
Maciamo recently uploaded a new version.

I'm wondering what exactly is counted as Germanic Y-DNA, and why.

Counting all of R1b-U106 and I1 as originally Germanic is doubtful, even if it correlates best with Germanic languages.

It would also be nice to see a map of Balto-Slavic Y-DNA, by the way.

Tomenable
12-06-15, 19:08
Maybe people should pay attention to actual genetic IBD Analysis. Ydna is not an accurate predictor of overall admixture.

There was no significant admixture with Goths.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

Dna doesn't lie.

Do we even have any samples of Gothic ancient DNA from burials of Gothic people ???

I suggest to dig for some bones in Crimea - that's where Gothic-speakers survived for the longest time.

Speculating which DNA might be Gothic by looking at modern distribution and frequencies, is wrong. R1b was for a long time believed to be from the Paleolithic LGM refuge in Iberia, just due to its modern distribution.

How erroneous that was, I don't need to remind anyone here.

Johannes
12-06-15, 19:17
Do we even have any samples of Gothic ancient DNA from burials of Gothic people ???

I suggest to dig for some bones in Crimea - that's where Gothic-speakers survived for the longest time.

Speculating which DNA might be Gothic by looking at modern distribution and frequencies, is wrong. R1b was for a long time believed to be from the Paleolithic LGM refuge in Iberia, just due to its modern distribution.

How erroneous that was, I don't need to remind anyone here.

The Crimea would be an excellent idea. But Iberia must have many burials of Germanics. I am sure all the Gothic settlements that have been discovered recently in Castile would have some remains. Why they dont do it or publish it beats me.

Drac II
13-06-15, 13:49
I understand what you are saying. I know professional historians are more reliable that others. The language was in Spanish. There was a lot a explanation and and did not read it. I thought it might have sources from professors. I am wondering why they even posted it on the internet. What did it say?

OK it does not matter anyway what the population was at the time. However, the Goths and Swabians must have increased their numbers because there were no major invasions or traumatic events until the Muslims arrived (and that is roughly 250 years).

If according to some people in this forum DF27 in is not a Celtic marker. I know its an Iberian-Basque-Atlantic marker. But why is it not Celtic? If Basques are R1b DF27 and its very common among modern Iberians, what is the percent of Celtic DNA in Iberia and what are the subclades?

I am not necessarily saying that the authors of that article did not use reliable sources on the subject of the total population, the problem is that they do not mention any. For all we know a lot of what they wrote on the subject can be the conjectures of the people who wrote it, not information they got from academic sources. They should have indicated the sources they used in the footnotes, so that they can be checked out.

It does matter if you are trying to get an idea of what percentage of the Iberian population was made up of Visigoths or any other Germanics.

As for those genetic markers being labelled "Celtic", "Germanic" and such: Keep in mind that these designations are somewhat arbitrary. They seem to be mostly based on where these markers are most abundant today. Eupedia considers the "Iberian-Gascon" branch of R1b as "Celtic", for reasons briefly explained here:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/celtic_trivia.shtml

Johannes
13-06-15, 15:00
I am not necessarily saying that the authors of that article did not use reliable sources on the subject of the total population, the problem is that they do not mention any. For all we know a lot of what they wrote on the subject can be the conjectures of the people who wrote it, not information they got from academic sources. They should have indicated the sources they used in the footnotes, so that they can be checked out.

It does matter if you are trying to get an idea of what percentage of the Iberian population was made up of Visigoths or any other Germanics.

As for those genetic markers being labelled "Celtic", "Germanic" and such: Keep in mind that these designations are somewhat arbitrary. They seem to be mostly based on where these markers are most abundant today. Eupedia considers the "Iberian-Gascon" branch of R1b as "Celtic", for reasons briefly explained here:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/celtic_trivia.shtml

"Genetic studies determined that most of the ancient Celtic men belonged to the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-S116 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#European). Two Early Bronze Age migrations brought the L21 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#L21) subclade to north-west France and the British Isles, and the DF27 subclade to south-west France and Iberia. The third major Celtic subclade is S28 (aka U152) (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#S28-U152), which is associated with the expansion of the Hallstatt and La Tène Celts, as well as with Italic tribes."

Since Iberia contains 60-85% R1b 312 (S116) with DF 27 as the subclade most common in Iberia, this proves that the majority of Iberians today are descendants of Celts and that Iberians and Basques are related to Celts. The Iberians and Basques probably did not speak an Indo-European language because they came at the time before Indo- European had developed? Or perhaps the Celts invaded the Iberian peninsula and slaughtered many of the native and took many women as concubines and lost their Celtic language in eastern and south Iberia. There is no other solution to this paradox. By the way Drac what is your ethnic background? I see you live in USA but have no more information.

Sile
13-06-15, 20:02
"Genetic studies determined that most of the ancient Celtic men belonged to the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-S116 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#European). Two Early Bronze Age migrations brought the L21 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#L21) subclade to north-west France and the British Isles, and the DF27 subclade to south-west France and Iberia. The third major Celtic subclade is S28 (aka U152) (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#S28-U152), which is associated with the expansion of the Hallstatt and La Tène Celts, as well as with Italic tribes."

Since Iberia contains 60-85% R1b 312 (S116) with DF 27 as the subclade most common in Iberia, this proves that the majority of Iberians today are descendants of Celts and that Iberians and Basques are related to Celts. The Iberians and Basques probably did not speak an Indo-European language because they came at the time before Indo- European had developed? Or perhaps the Celts invaded the Iberian peninsula and slaughtered many of the native and took many women as concubines and lost their Celtic language in eastern and south Iberia. There is no other solution to this paradox. By the way Drac what is your ethnic background? I see you live in USA but have no more information.

he has a catalan avatar which i doubt is his personnel family one.

Johannes
14-06-15, 08:19
I'm wondering what exactly is counted as Germanic Y-DNA, and why.

Counting all of R1b-U106 and I1 as originally Germanic is doubtful, even if it correlates best with Germanic languages.

It would also be nice to see a map of Balto-Slavic Y-DNA, by the way.

I agree. But what about I2a1?? Is this Germanic or Slav? What is the frequency in Germany and Scandinavia, especially Sweden? I would also like to see in Balto-Slavic regions, like Poland and Lithuania?

Johannes
14-06-15, 08:41
I'm wondering what exactly is counted as Germanic Y-DNA, and why.

Counting all of R1b-U106 and I1 as originally Germanic is doubtful, even if it correlates best with Germanic languages.

It would also be nice to see a map of Balto-Slavic Y-DNA, by the way.

I agree. But what about I2a1?? Is this Germanic or Slav? What is the frequency in Germany and Scandinavia, especially Sweden? I would also like to see in Balto-Slavic regions, like Poland and Lithuania?

OK by looking at Eupedia it says I2a1 is 5-10% in "Germanic" countries so I will assume Sweden is included as well. But its silent about Poland and Lithuania. But then if we look at the map below:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

the percentages for Poland, Baltic countries, and even Iberia are the same (5-10%), although in Sweden its quite low. But then it says:

"The second great expansion of I2a-Din took place with the Slavic migration in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. I2a-Din had started to mix with Proto-Indo-Euroepan R1a around Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland during the Corded Ware period (2900-2400 BCE), then disseminated more uniformly across Proto-Slavic tribes during the Bronze and Iron Ages. After Germanic tribes living in eastern Germany and Poland, like the Goths, the Vandals and the Burgundians, invaded the Roman Empire, the Slavs from further east filled the vacuum."

So it seems that I2a1 was carried by the Goths and other Eastern Germans as well and got it from the Slavs??? or left it in Poland after they migrated south. Any thoughts Tomenable?

Sile
14-06-15, 09:12
I agree. But what about I2a1?? Is this Germanic or Slav? What is the frequency in Germany and Scandinavia, especially Sweden? I would also like to see in Balto-Slavic regions, like Poland and Lithuania?

OK by looking at Eupedia it says I2a1 is 5-10% in "Germanic" countries so I will assume Sweden is included as well. But its silent about Poland and Lithuania. But then if we look at the map below:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

the percentages for Poland, Baltic countries, and even Iberia are the same (5-10%), although in Sweden its quite low. But then it says:

"The second great expansion of I2a-Din took place with the Slavic migration in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. I2a-Din had started to mix with Proto-Indo-Euroepan R1a around Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus and Poland during the Corded Ware period (2900-2400 BCE), then disseminated more uniformly across Proto-Slavic tribes during the Bronze and Iron Ages. After Germanic tribes living in eastern Germany and Poland, like the Goths, the Vandals and the Burgundians, invaded the Roman Empire, the Slavs from further east filled the vacuum."

So it seems that I2a1 was carried by the Goths and other Eastern Germans as well and got it from the Slavs??? or left it in Poland after they migrated south. Any thoughts Tomenable?

they just found 3 ancient I2a1 in North-Italy............is this map still valid?

RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a
RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327

LeBrok
14-06-15, 19:20
they just found 3 ancient I2a1 in North-Italy............is this map still valid?

RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a
RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327

Seems like you got lost in temporal dimension again, Sile. This map describes distribution of I2a1 of today, it has nothing to do with location of ancient Y. Why should it be change then?

Sile
14-06-15, 21:26
Seems like you got lost in temporal dimension again, Sile. This map describes distribution of I2a1 of today, it has nothing to do with location of ancient Y. Why should it be change then?

Have you seen Maciano's sources for Italy......one states pre-roman populace .......is this not ancient?

Do you actually see for any marker the list of sources that Maciano uses for that marker

Johannes
15-06-15, 16:23
they just found 3 ancient I2a1 in North-Italy............is this map still valid?

RISE486 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327
RISE487 Italy Remedello I2a1a
RISE489 Italy Remedello I2a1a1a-L672/S327

It shows you Sile how unreliable these so called "statistics" or "studies" are in this forum.

Angela
15-06-15, 20:55
The map shows MODERN distributions, i.e. distributions TODAY, or given the parameters that are used in sampling, from one hundred years ago. It has nothing to do with ancient dna distributions.

Does it have to be pointed out once again that modern Ydna distributions are not necessarily comparable to the ancient dna that was present in the same area 5,000 years ago? Ydna fluctuates with time. None of this should be news to anyone who has been reading dna papers for the last ten years.

Johannes
16-06-15, 14:35
The population of Iberia during Roman times was about 6 million inhabitants:

https://books.google.com/books?id=NdJjn1HpSy4C&pg=PA6&dq=%22+The+population+of+Roman+Iberia+at+its+heigh t+is+ordinarily+estimated+at+6,000,000%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=avFqVb67GYTJsAW9t4Fw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20The%20population%20of%20Roman%20Iberia%20a t%20its%20height%20is%20ordinarily%20estimated%20a t%206%2C000%2C000%22&f=false

"The population of Roman Iberia at its height is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"

Does your historian state what was the population of Iberian during the 5th century AD? Because I just noted that you mentioned "at its height" not at the end. If the population of Iberia increased and then declined we need to know what was the population at the end of the Roman Empire. I got mixed up with responding to other posts and just wanted to know what was the non Germanic population during the 5th century AD NOT at its height. So 4 million seems to be about right.

Here is another source that I found: "Estimates of the total population of Europe are speculative, but at the time of Charlemagne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne) it is thought to have been between 25 and 30 million, and of this more than half were in the Carolingian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian) Empire that covered modern France, the Low Countries, western Germany, Austria, Slovenia, northern Italy and part of northern Spain.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#cite_note-numbers-1)" The citation combines sources from David Herlihy article "Medieval Demography" in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Middle_Ages) (see Bibliography this article), and from Josiah C. Russell, "Population in Europe" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html), in Carlo M. Cipolla, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. I: The Middle Ages, (Glasgow : Collins/Fontana, 1972), 25–71.

Demographic history of Europe[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_demography&action=edit&section=1)]

The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#cite_note-numbers-1)


280–400 (Late Antiquity): population decline[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
400–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
1250–1350 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a high level.
1350–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline.
1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.


So if we can imagine during the Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages (200-1000 AD) and estimate the population of Europe to be 25-30 million and subtract 60% who lived in the Carolinian Empire you get 15-18 million. Since about 2 million were in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales you get 13-16 left. Then we take 3 million (I am using 4 millions and subtract 1 million in the north) from Iberia we get 10- 13. Scandinavia and the rest of Italy probably combined had 4 million you get 6 -9. But then we need to subtract the Slavs, Greeks, and other Balkan peoples. Thus 6-9 million seems about right for the rest of Europe. It will help if your source mentioned the figure during the 5th century AD.

Here is another source: "According to Colin McEvedy (http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0140512497), in 737 after the Muslim Conquest of Spain, the population on the peninsula was around 4 million. " from The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History: Revised Edition (Hist Atlas) Paperback– November 3, 1992[/COLOR]

by Colin McEvedy (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Colin+McEvedy&search-alias=books&text=Colin+McEvedy&sort=relevancerank) [COLOR=#555555 !important](Author), David Woodroffe (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_2?ie=UTF8&field-author=David+Woodroffe&search-alias=books&text=David+Woodroffe&sort=relevancerank) (Illustrator)

Thus my 4 million seems about right. Thus the Germanic population would have been around 8% but it must have been higher as they probably slowly increased. Given that the Anglo-Saxon population increased about three times and then its safe to say in Iberia it would have been around 20%.

Drac II
17-06-15, 13:59
Does your historian state what was the population of Iberian during the 5th century AD? Because I just noted that you mentioned "at its height" not at the end. If the population of Iberia increased and then declined we need to know what was the population at the end of the Roman Empire. I got mixed up with responding to other posts and just wanted to know what was the non Germanic population during the 5th century AD NOT at its height. So 4 million seems to be about right.

Here is another source that I found: "Estimates of the total population of Europe are speculative, but at the time of Charlemagne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne) it is thought to have been between 25 and 30 million, and of this more than half were in the Carolingian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian) Empire that covered modern France, the Low Countries, western Germany, Austria, Slovenia, northern Italy and part of northern Spain.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#cite_note-numbers-1)" The citation combines sources from David Herlihy article "Medieval Demography" in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Middle_Ages) (see Bibliography this article), and from Josiah C. Russell, "Population in Europe" (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html), in Carlo M. Cipolla, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. I: The Middle Ages, (Glasgow : Collins/Fontana, 1972), 25–71.

Demographic history of Europe[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_demography&action=edit&section=1)]

The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#cite_note-numbers-1)


280–400 (Late Antiquity): population decline[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
400–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
1250–1350 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a high level.
1350–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline.
1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.


So if we can imagine during the Late Antiquity to Early Middle Ages (200-1000 AD) and estimate the population of Europe to be 25-30 million and subtract 60% who lived in the Carolinian Empire you get 15-18 million. Since about 2 million were in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales you get 13-16 left. Then we take 3 million (I am using 4 millions and subtract 1 million in the north) from Iberia we get 10- 13. Scandinavia and the rest of Italy probably combined had 4 million you get 6 -9. But then we need to subtract the Slavs, Greeks, and other Balkan peoples. Thus 6-9 million seems about right for the rest of Europe. It will help if your source mentioned the figure during the 5th century AD.

Here is another source: "According to Colin McEvedy (http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0140512497), in 737 after the Muslim Conquest of Spain, the population on the peninsula was around 4 million. " from The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History: Revised Edition (Hist Atlas) Paperback– November 3, 1992[/COLOR]

by Colin McEvedy (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Colin+McEvedy&search-alias=books&text=Colin+McEvedy&sort=relevancerank) [COLOR=#555555 !important](Author), David Woodroffe (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_2?ie=UTF8&field-author=David+Woodroffe&search-alias=books&text=David+Woodroffe&sort=relevancerank) (Illustrator)

Thus my 4 million seems about right. Thus the Germanic population would have been around 8% but it must have been higher as they probably slowly increased. Given that the Anglo-Saxon population increased about three times and then its safe to say in Iberia it would have been around 20%.

These figures are for very late Roman and very early medieval times, so if there was a drop from 6 to 4 million it would have included the Visigothic population that was already in Iberia too.

Also, even if we took the 4 million figure at the time of their entrance in Iberia, 150,000 people among 4 million people are only 3.75% of the population, not 8%. If by "Germanic" you also mean the Vandals and Swabians, then we would have to know more about their numbers in Iberia.

Johannes
17-06-15, 17:36
These figures are for very late Roman and very early medieval times, so if there was a drop from 6 to 4 million it would have included the Visigothic population that was already in Iberia too.

Also, even if we took the 4 million figure at the time of their entrance in Iberia, 150,000 people among 4 million people are only 3.75% of the population, not 8%. If by "Germanic" you also mean the Vandals and Swabians, then we would have to know more about their numbers in Iberia.

The numbers of an average nation or tribe during the early Middle Ages was around 200,00-250,000. The Goths were not the only Germanics who came into Iberia -- there were also Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (not Germanic but probably had a lot of R1a and I2a). Therefore if I include these numbers they would reach about 400,00-500,000 or 10-13% of the population. Plus they were the masters: they had the best land and were richer than the Ibero-Romans (well not all). Therefore these Germanics would have doubled and perhaps tripled their numbers at the expense of the Ibero-Romans. Think about it: when you have more money and land you have more children. Its simple. It does not matter what the conditions are. The ones who have more food make more babies.

I read a journal while I was in graduate school that researched Germanic surnames among the Iberian population during the 7th century and it turned out that they were very popular and then suddenly the surnames switched to Christian names after the Muslim occupation. That hinted that the Germans were popular and discounted the common historiography that Goths were unpopular. I wish I preserved the notes but it seems that Germanic DNA is much higher that what Maciamo puts in his maps.

Drac II
18-06-15, 13:53
The numbers of an average nation or tribe during the early Middle Ages was around 200,00-250,000. The Goths were not the only Germanics who came into Iberia -- there were also Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (not Germanic but probably had a lot of R1a and I2a). Therefore if I include these numbers they would reach about 400,00-500,000 or 10-13% of the population. Plus they were the masters: they had the best land and were richer than the Ibero-Romans (well not all). Therefore these Germanics would have doubled and perhaps tripled their numbers at the expense of the Ibero-Romans. Think about it: when you have more money and land you have more children. Its simple. It does not matter what the conditions are. The ones who have more food make more babies.

I read a journal while I was in graduate school that researched Germanic surnames among the Iberian population during the 7th century and it turned out that they were very popular and then suddenly the surnames switched to Christian names after the Muslim occupation. That hinted that the Germans were popular and discounted the common historiography that Goths were unpopular. I wish I preserved the notes but it seems that Germanic DNA is much higher that what Maciamo puts in his maps.

Those are a lot of assumptions there. The numbers of Visigoths was more in the 150,000 range, and we would need to know more about the numbers of Vandals and Swabians (the Alans do not seem to have been Germanic) and if they were actually less numerous than the Visigoths. You are also overlooking how largely outnumbered they would have been by the natives everywhere they settled, and that these Germanic tribes were frequently fighting with each other and even themselves for control. In fact, one of the arguments that historians use to explain why the Islamic incursion into Iberia was so successful and encountered little resistance was because of this division and struggle among the Visigoths (one of the Visigothic factions of that time allied itself with the Muslims against their very own Visigothic rivals, and it was them who very likely were actually responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place), and because the native population did not care at all about the Visigoths and their struggles for power. The Muslim intervention would have been considered a welcome change of government compared to that of the Visigoths.

Vukodav
18-06-15, 14:24
Vandals, Suevi and Alans had to fight against both Franks and Visigoths before reaching Iberia.

This tribal federation lost about 30.000 men in the battle of Mainz against the Franks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mainz_(406)

After that more than 80.000 Vandals and allies left Iberia to Africa under Genseric according to Procopius.

Johannes
19-06-15, 16:25
Those are a lot of assumptions there. The numbers of Visigoths was more in the 150,000 range, and we would need to know more about the numbers of Vandals and Swabians (the Alans do not seem to have been Germanic) and if they were actually less numerous than the Visigoths. You are also overlooking how largely outnumbered they would have been by the natives everywhere they settled, and that these Germanic tribes were frequently fighting with each other and even themselves for control. In fact, one of the arguments that historians use to explain why the Islamic incursion into Iberia was so successful and encountered little resistance was because of this division and struggle among the Visigoths (one of the Visigothic factions of that time allied itself with the Muslims against their very own Visigothic rivals, and it was them who very likely were actually responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place), and because the native population did not care at all about the Visigoths and their struggles for power. The Muslim intervention would have been considered a welcome change of government compared to that of the Visigoths.

You dont know what you are talking about. There is no evidence that the Iberian natives hated the Goths or welcomed the Berbers because of their hatred of Goths. All this is Muslim propaganda by Muslim writers who wrote about the events afterwards (and they are very unreliable) and pure speculation by third rate Spanish historians. The evidence seems to point that the natives did care about their Gothic kings and government. In fact they were utterly baffled when they saw such strange people (Berbers) in their mist. You use pure assumptions, only you like to take the low level figure, typical of Hispanic writers, and your information seems to always come form the internet (poor source) and some writers I never heard about.

The Goths never mixed with the Ibero-Roman population. This was once of the issues with their rule (the other was religion). However, the Goths turned out to be good administrators. They unified the peninsula and eventually produced one culture. The only problem with the Goths -- and Germans in general -- is that they used the old tribal system of electing the "strongest" candidate to be king no matter what the issue of the previous king. Its clear from reading the chronicles that Witiza produced either a weak successor or a very young one. Therefore the nobility and bishops elected Roderick because he was the most powerful duke in the peninsula. What went wrong was the stupid "Witiza" opposition party allowed these Berbers to enter and defeat the party of Roderick (they even deserted the king during battle) -- it was a coup that went terribly wrong. Thats all. After this the Franks and other Germanic kings eliminated this system and allowed for hereditary succession of kings. Therefore they eliminated this problem (the Goths were too late).

Your assumptions of the "easy" nature of the conquest by Muslims is very simplistic. You should start reading journals or books instead of the Wikipedia. The Muslims never "conquered" Iberia. There is evidence that the Goths and Ibero-Romans resisted the Berbers for a while (around 50 years) and that an Arab army had to come in and help the Berbers. The evidence points to treaties made by the Muslims and native European nobility.

Putting it simply the Goths and Ibero-Romans were initially baffled by these weird strangers and the Muslims could not defeat or conquer them. The solution was made: the Muslims asked the Gothic and Ibero-Roman nobility that they could keep their lands and power if the converted to Islam. Otherwise the Muslims will try to destroy them and strip them of their lands. Thats how the Muslims "conquered " Iberia. It was a treaty of convenience. Your knowledge of Iberian history is weak my friend.

Vallicanus
19-06-15, 17:12
Johannes, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own FACTS!

Drac is correct but your view of how Spain became Muslim is mostly fiction.

Johannes
19-06-15, 18:44
Johannes, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own FACTS!

Drac is correct but your view of how Spain became Muslim is mostly fiction.


You are clearly an ignorant of what you are talking about. You obviously never read anything beyond "wikipedia" and to say "Drac is correct" is a clear indication that you are very ignorant. Go find another post to put your opinions on. Drac knows only what he gets from internet or very little from other sources -- like you.

tirsoespada
20-06-15, 09:55
Johanes is right, seek for the Banu Quasi, one of the most importants families ruling the Ebro valley; they were the offsprings of Count Casio, a visigoth leader himself

Vallicanus
20-06-15, 10:28
You are clearly an ignorant of what you are talking about. You obviously never read anything beyond "wikipedia" and to say "Drac is correct" is a clear indication that you are very ignorant. Go find another post to put your opinions on. Drac knows only what he gets from internet or very little from other sources -- like you.

Most of Christian Spain surrendered to Islam. Simple as that.

Vallicanus
20-06-15, 10:32
Johanes is right, seek for the Banu Quasi, one of the most importants families ruling the Ebro valley; they were the offsprings of Count Casio, a visigoth leader himself

Proof of Visigothic weakness and collaboration.

Johannes
20-06-15, 13:12
Johanes is right, seek for the Banu Quasi, one of the most importants families ruling the Ebro valley; they were the offsprings of Count Casio, a visigoth leader himself

That's right: Count Casio was a classic example of conversion by convenience. Another example was Count Thudmir of Murcia. The Muslims never had the power to subdue all of the peninsula. They were extremely lucky to have had a party of traitors on the Gothic camp. Without the coup the Muslims would have never had a chance. That's why they sought out to make treaties with the Goths. 1/4 of the peninsula was never "conquered." That's the size of England alone! No Muslim settled anywhere north of Toledo. All the Muslim territories in the North were under Gothic converts to Islam like the House of Casio. All of the family members of the Casio married Christian Basque nobles until the 13th century.

Johannes
20-06-15, 13:18
Proof of Visigothic weakness and collaboration.

No its not proof of any "weakness". Simply put: the Goths lost their king and many southern Gothic nobles in a battle that was supposed to have been an easy win. Thus the Gothic nobility in the south was destroyed and this caused a lot of confusion. Worse there was a coup and many northern Goths had betrayed their king. THUS the Goths in the south had not choice but to convert in order to keep their lands and wealth. In fact many Gothic families in Andalusia had no one to protect them as the only ones left were the bishops. The Goths had created a highly centralized system of order. Once this was destroyed it created confusion. They didn't have cars and telephones then. News of the event took months to reach the north. By then the Goths had become disorganized and the larger Muslim armies threatened them with loss of the lands. So they converted out of convenience.

Drac II
20-06-15, 15:11
You dont know what you are talking about. There is no evidence that the Iberian natives hated the Goths or welcomed the Berbers because of their hatred of Goths. All this is Muslim propaganda by Muslim writers who wrote about the events afterwards (and they are very unreliable) and pure speculation by third rate Spanish historians. The evidence seems to point that the natives did care about their Gothic kings and government. In fact they were utterly baffled when they saw such strange people (Berbers) in their mist. You use pure assumptions, only you like to take the low level figure, typical of Hispanic writers, and your information seems to always come form the internet (poor source) and some writers I never heard about.

The Goths never mixed with the Ibero-Roman population. This was once of the issues with their rule (the other was religion). However, the Goths turned out to be good administrators. They unified the peninsula and eventually produced one culture. The only problem with the Goths -- and Germans in general -- is that they used the old tribal system of electing the "strongest" candidate to be king no matter what the issue of the previous king. Its clear from reading the chronicles that Witiza produced either a weak successor or a very young one. Therefore the nobility and bishops elected Roderick because he was the most powerful duke in the peninsula. What went wrong was the stupid "Witiza" opposition party allowed these Berbers to enter and defeat the party of Roderick (they even deserted the king during battle) -- it was a coup that went terribly wrong. Thats all. After this the Franks and other Germanic kings eliminated this system and allowed for hereditary succession of kings. Therefore they eliminated this problem (the Goths were too late).

Your assumptions of the "easy" nature of the conquest by Muslims is very simplistic. You should start reading journals or books instead of the Wikipedia. The Muslims never "conquered" Iberia. There is evidence that the Goths and Ibero-Romans resisted the Berbers for a while (around 50 years) and that an Arab army had to come in and help the Berbers. The evidence points to treaties made by the Muslims and native European nobility.

Putting it simply the Goths and Ibero-Romans were initially baffled by these weird strangers and the Muslims could not defeat or conquer them. The solution was made: the Muslims asked the Gothic and Ibero-Roman nobility that they could keep their lands and power if the converted to Islam. Otherwise the Muslims will try to destroy them and strip them of their lands. Thats how the Muslims "conquered " Iberia. It was a treaty of convenience. Your knowledge of Iberian history is weak my friend.

Funny coming from the guy who actually quotes Wikipedia articles. I am the one who quotes from actual scholars on Iberian history, not you. You have never heard of them because it is plain to anyone that you do not bother to read books by actual historians, and just invent your own "facts" whenever it suits you. All I have to do is quote passages like this to easily show that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that the Visigoths, like other Germanic tribes, were rather inept rulers who were regularly fighting everyone and even themselves and did not have the loyalty of most of the native people behind them:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JGoqcg22N4gC&pg=PA3&dq=The+sudden+and+stunning+Muslim+conquest+of+most +of+the+peninsula+is+to+be+explained+primarily+by+ political+weakness&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EmaFVe_oEMaoyATt05CoBg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20sudden%20and%20stunning%20Muslim%20conques t%20of%20most%20of%20the%20peninsula%20is%20to%20b e%20explained%20primarily%20by%20political%20weakn ess&f=false

Page 3:


"The sudden and stunning Muslim conquest of most of the peninsula in 711-714 is to be explained primarily by political weakness... "


Pages 4-6:


"It cannot be held, however, that the moralizing of St. Isidoro and other Church leaders had more than a modest effect on the behavior of the Visigothic monarchy and elite. Though conditions did improve in the final Visigothic century, more Visigothic rulers had been murdered before 610 than died natural deaths. Persistent internal strife among the elite was the primary cause of the final overthrow of the kingdom... Even the Muslims were astounded and deeply impressed by the relative ease with which most of the peninsula fell to their modest forces, a process they could explain only as the inscrutable will of God... The failure of the Visigothic elite was evidently decisive. Foreign intervention was no novelty: Byzantium had earlier held the southeastern corner of the peninsula for some time, and there had been several Frankish invasions as well. The subversion of the Witizan clan, which had recently lost the monarchy to a rival, was central. One of their members, Bishop Oppas of Seville, played a leading role in trying to discourage further resistance after initial Muslim victories. Though such maneuvers ultimately ended in disaster, various combinations of treachery and opportunism among the Visigothic aristocracy were the probable key to the Muslim triumph.


The notion that Visigothic Spain fell before an overpowering onslaught of Islamic fervor and might is probably no more convincing in the spiritual than in the military realm. BY 711 Islamic expansion was nearly a century old, and we do not even know for sure that the first wave of North African invaders was fully converted to the new religion, since most of them were recruited from the formerly Christian kabyles of Northern Morocco. The function of religious fervor in the Islamic invaders should not of course be discounted, but their initial policy of religious tolerance was equally or more important. Ordinary Hispanic Christians may at first have had difficulty in viewing Islam as more than a kind of nonmalevolent heterodoxy (Indeed, for centuries it was fairly standard for Christians to view it as a heresy rather than as a completely different religion.) Most of the peninsula's population failed to glimpse the decisive importance of what at first appeared to be a rather superficial politico-military takeover. The Muslims were so few in number, and the genuine Arabs fewer yet, that they could not easily have been recognized as the vanguard of a definitive change in culture and civilization. It should be remembered that in the eighth century, before "western civilization" had really begun, there was considerably less difference in technology, culture, or general style of life between a west Mediterranean Catholic and a North African or east Mediterranean Muslim society than there would be between, say, Spain and the Maghgrib or the Near East by the close of the Middle Ages.


The ordinary Catholic population was not yet used to resisting military overlords. Other small bands of Visigoths or Suevi had earlier wandered across the peninsula virtually without opposition; after the breakdown of the elite and of their military power, resistance from the Christian population had disappeared. Moreover, there were certain apparent advantages for the common people in Muslim rule. The initial tax on unbelievers levied on all Christians apparently began at a figure below the levies exacted by the Visigothic system. The Jewish minority, who had sometimes been severely persecuted under the Visigothic Catholic state, could apparently only gain from the Islamic system of domination.


The subsequent process of Islamic and oriental acculturation that took place in the peninsula between the eighth and tenth centuries is one of the most fascinating if obscure developments in all Hispanic history. It was accomplished, first of all, by means of cultural diffusion and conversion, not by mass migration."


Otherwise you would be hard-pressed to explain how could such a small minority of foreigners manage to "conquer" almost an entire peninsula in a few years if the Visigothic minority that was nominally in charge really had had the support of the majority of the native population. Unless you want to absurdly believe that the Arabs and Berbers of those times were Supermen who could only be defeated with Kryptonite and thus were able to take over so much territory already occupied by millions of people fiercely loyal to the Visigoths. The historical evidence speaks loudly in favor of the fact that the natives weren't particularly thrilled to have the Visigoths around with their petty struggles. The fact that Islam managed to survive on Iberian soil for much longer than the Visigothic ways also points towards a more favorable view by a large number of the native population to this form of government, otherwise you can rest assured that Islam would not have lasted anywhere near as long on the peninsula had the majority of the native population fiercely opposed it.

Drac II
20-06-15, 15:16
Proof of Visigothic weakness and collaboration.

Indeed. It is very ironic that many Spanish Christians have tended to romanticize the Visigoths as these supposed "saviors" of Christianity in the peninsula and the leaders of the "Reconquista" when in fact it was the Visigoths who were mostly responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place. What they are so proud of was in fact led mostly by Iberian and Celtiberian natives in the northern parts who refused to accept Islam and maintained Christianity alive and eventually to predominate in the peninsula, not by these Visigothic foreigners and their petty quarrels. In fact, most of the early converts to Islam in Iberia were the Goths, not the native people.

Johannes
20-06-15, 16:37
I am the one who quotes from actual scholars on Iberian history, not you. You have never heard of them because it is plain to anyone that you do not bother to read books by actual historians, and just invent your own "facts" whenever it suits you. All I have to do is quote passages like this to easily show that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that the Visigoths, like other Germanic tribes, were rather inept rulers who were regularly fighting everyone and even themselves and did not have the loyalty of most of the native people behind them:

Page 3:


"The sudden and stunning Muslim conquest of most of the peninsula in 711-714 is to be explained primarily by political weakness... "


Pages 4-6:


"Though conditions did improve in the final Visigothic century, more Visigothic rulers had been murdered before 610 than died natural deaths. Persistent internal strife among the elite was the primary cause of the final overthrow of the kingdom ... The failure of the Visigothic elite was evidently decisive. The subversion of the Witizan clan, which had recently lost the monarchy to a rival, was central. One of their members, Bishop Oppas of Seville, played a leading role in trying to discourage further resistance after initial Muslim victories. Though such maneuvers ultimately ended in disaster, various combinations of treachery and opportunism among the Visigothic aristocracy were the probable key to the Muslim triumph.

The notion that Visigothic Spain fell before an overpowering onslaught of Islamic fervor and might is probably no more convincing in the spiritual than in the military realm.

Most of the peninsula's population failed to glimpse the decisive importance of what at first appeared to be a rather superficial politico-military takeover. The Muslims were so few in number, and the genuine Arabs fewer yet, that they could not easily have been recognized as the vanguard of a definitive change in culture and civilization. "


Otherwise you would be hard-pressed to explain how could such a small minority of foreigners manage to "conquer" almost an entire peninsula in a few years if the Visigothic minority that was nominally in charge really had had the support of the majority of the native population. . . The historical evidence speaks loudly in favor of the fact that the natives weren't particularly thrilled to have the Visigoths around with their petty struggles. The fact that Islam managed to survive on Iberian soil for much longer than the Visigothic ways also points towards a more favorable view by a large number of the native population to this form of government, otherwise you can rest assured that Islam would not have lasted anywhere near as long on the peninsula had the majority of the native population fiercely opposed it.

I cannot use primary sources because I live and work in China for now. If I had a library then I could easily cross check my sources but for now I am stuck with the internet. The problem with you is that you are an arrogant guy who uses sources to prove your point, but if you have someone else who offers new or different information you become arrogant insulting man.

If you pay attention you will see that your historian is saying basically the same thing I said (and I am using my memory) but uses an adjective "weakness" in a very bad or imprecise way. What your historian should have used is "political strife."

Any person with a brain can tell you that ALL of the nobility throughout history has practiced political strife or competition. If the Goths were "weak" then the Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Scandinavians, the Mongols, the Blacks, the Indians, and even our politicians all practice Macheavellian tactics were all "weak." The only problem with the Goths is that their tactics ended in disaster. OK? It was a coup that went terribly wrong. This has very little to do with popularity or "weakness." You have obviously been conditioned by the old school who wrote about how the Goths were drunken and incompetent idiots. But there is little or no evidence that they were as such.

Johannes
20-06-15, 16:48
Indeed. It is very ironic that many Spanish Christians have tended to romanticize the Visigoths as these supposed "saviors" of Christianity in the peninsula and the leaders of the "Reconquista" when in fact it was the Visigoths who were mostly responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place. What they are so proud of was in fact led mostly by Iberian and Celtiberian natives in the northern parts who refused to accept Islam and maintained Christianity alive and eventually to predominate in the peninsula, not by these Visigothic foreigners and their petty quarrels. In fact, most of the early converts to Islam in Iberia were the Goths, not the native people.

And who do you think the Spanish and Portuguese high and low nobility belonged to???? The evidence points to a massive flight to the mountains of northern Iberia by mostly northern Germanics and the population who lived among them. The Goths did not ALL convert. It was mostly the Andalusi Goths who converted -- and no wonder -- many were killed and the ones who were left needed to keep their lands (most of the surviving Andalusi Goths were women and bishops). The Goths never invited the Muslims into Spain. They came by accident and were very lucky that they won a battle that should have never been won. The problem with you is you are biased against Germanics and you fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees with you. The same goes with others posts I have read. You are simply arrogant and stubborn.

Drac II
21-06-15, 13:42
I cannot use primary sources because I live and work in China for now. If I had a library then I could easily cross check my sources but for now I am stuck with the internet. The problem with you is that you are an arrogant guy who uses sources to prove your point, but if you have someone else who offers new or different information you become arrogant insulting man.

If you pay attention you will see that your historian is saying basically the same thing I said (and I am using my memory) but uses an adjective "weakness" in a very bad or imprecise way. What your historian should have used is "political strife."

Any person with a brain can tell you that ALL of the nobility throughout history has practiced political strife or competition. If the Goths were "weak" then the Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Scandinavians, the Mongols, the Blacks, the Indians, and even our politicians all practice Macheavellian tactics were all "weak." The only problem with the Goths is that their tactics ended in disaster. OK? It was a coup that went terribly wrong. This has very little to do with popularity or "weakness." You have obviously been conditioned by the old school who wrote about how the Goths were drunken and incompetent idiots. But there is little or no evidence that they were as such.

Using academic sources written by experts in the field is the only reasonable way to support your points in arguments about historical matters. So I don't understand why you think this is "arrogant". This is just how normal debate works.

The fact that the Goths could not even be at peace with themselves pretty much says a lot about them and their manner of running things. Such an unstable government could hardly have had much support from the local peoples. The natives did not care about backing up the Visigoths, and the Visigoths themselves were divided against each other, some of them supporting the Muslim intervention. No wonder that once the Visigothic factions that opposed the Muslim intervention were defeated, Islam was barely opposed and only failed to establish itself in the more northern parts of the peninsula.

Drac II
21-06-15, 13:56
And who do you think the Spanish and Portuguese high and low nobility belonged to???? The evidence points to a massive flight to the mountains of northern Iberia by mostly northern Germanics and the population who lived among them. The Goths did not ALL convert. It was mostly the Andalusi Goths who converted -- and no wonder -- many were killed and the ones who were left needed to keep their lands (most of the surviving Andalusi Goths were women and bishops). The Goths never invited the Muslims into Spain. They came by accident and were very lucky that they won a battle that should have never been won. The problem with you is you are biased against Germanics and you fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees with you. The same goes with others posts I have read. You are simply arrogant and stubborn.

There's several possible historical accounts explaining how Islam made it to the Iberian peninsula, one of them is about one of these Visigothic factions inviting the Muslims to intervene in favor of their struggles with other Visigoths in the peninsula. But whether a direct invitation is true or not, the fact is that some Visigothic factions did support these newcomers once they had gained a foothold in Iberia and even started converting to their religion. So directly or indirectly the Visigoths played a key role in the presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.

Johannes
30-06-15, 23:28
There's several possible historical accounts explaining how Islam made it to the Iberian peninsula, one of them is about one of these Visigothic factions inviting the Muslims to intervene in favor of their struggles with other Visigoths in the peninsula. But whether a direct invitation is true or not, the fact is that some Visigothic factions did support these newcomers once they had gained a foothold in Iberia and even started converting to their religion. So directly or indirectly the Visigoths played a key role in the presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.

There are only two versions of the events as we know it: 1) The Muslim version that states that "the Will of God" caused the victory (and is not to be trusted); and 2) The Chronicle of 785 that gives "reasons" for the events from the Gothic side. The Chronicle accuses the Goths of fighting among themselves and of becoming corrupt but it uses typical Christian imagery about "the sins of man (the Goths)" as the main causes the disaster. This is typical Christian BS and is not to be trusted.

There was never any Visigothic "faction" that invited and willing aided the Muslims. That's even more BS. What we can infer from the sources (by the use of reason) is that the party of Witiza invited some count from North Africa (no one knows if he was Byzantine or Goth) to bring a Berber Army and that during the battle the party of Witiza would betray the King and leave the field. Once the King was defeated it was understood that the Berbers and the "count" would be paid off and everything would be OK. But the Berber leader Tarik knew that the Jews were a fifth column and would help conquer the cities of Seville and Cordoba. This is what caused the Berbers to continue on with their conquests. The Berbers would never had succeeded had it not been for the Jews who opened the gates of Cordoba and Seville, became their guides, and garrisoned the captured cities. After the Jews helped open the gates of the cities the bewildered population gave up without a fight or it caused a massive panic of the populations who began to desert the cities and move north. Even Tarik was astonished when he arrived to find Toledo completely empty of all citizens. Some Goths resisted (for example, Achila the principal traitor was certainly killed and Count Pelayo defeated the Muslims in Covadonga) and many made treaties. But since there were no telephones or TV's at that time by the time the news reached certain cities it was too late -- therefore it explains the "deals" or treaties made by the surviving Goths and Muslims. if you look at the map the only areas "conquered " by the Muslims were the areas ruled by King Roderik and Duke Achila and all the rest of the retainers. The Center and Northwest were never conquered.

Thus the only ones who hated the Goths were the Jews because the Gothic kings had threatened to enslave them if they did not convert. If you bother to read more than one book it clearly states that, yes, in the beginning the Goths were unpopular only because they were originally a barbarian nation (and they looked very different) and practiced the Arian form of Christianity. But when King Reccared converted the Goths and Swabians into Catholicism then they were not hated any more (or at least there is no evidence that they were hated). All this you read about the supposed "unpopularity" of the Goths is pure speculation by historians who have traditionally been biased towards the Goths. In fact, I read a journal during the 1990's that studied the names of people from the Iberian peninsula and the vast majority had Germanic names right before the conquest. Then after the conquest they changed to Christian ones. This clearly shows that the Goths were not hated or unpopular. I can go further in stating that during the 8-9th centuries the Muslims were clearly unpopular as is shown with the many Christian martyrs in Andalusia. In fact the Muslims had a lot of difficulty controlling the regions they had tricked into submission until the reign of Rahman II. After that the Iberians began to convert en masse not because they loved their Muslim rulers but because of great frustration of not being liberated and of economic advancement and avoidance of the head tax.

Drac II
01-07-15, 15:50
There are only two versions of the events as we know it: 1) The Muslim version that states that "the Will of God" caused the victory (and is not to be trusted); and 2) The Chronicle of 785 that gives "reasons" for the events from the Gothic side. The Chronicle accuses the Goths of fighting among themselves and of becoming corrupt but it uses typical Christian imagery about "the sins of man (the Goths)" as the main causes the disaster. This is typical Christian BS and is not to be trusted.

There was never any Visigothic "faction" that invited and willing aided the Muslims. That's even more BS. What we can infer from the sources (by the use of reason) is that the party of Witiza invited some count from North Africa (no one knows if he was Byzantine or Goth) to bring a Berber Army and that during the battle the party of Witiza would betray the King and leave the field. Once the King was defeated it was understood that the Berbers and the "count" would be paid off and everything would be OK. But the Berber leader Tarik knew that the Jews were a fifth column and would help conquer the cities of Seville and Cordoba. This is what caused the Berbers to continue on with their conquests. The Berbers would never had succeeded had it not been for the Jews who opened the gates of Cordoba and Seville, became their guides, and garrisoned the captured cities. After the Jews helped open the gates of the cities the bewildered population gave up without a fight or it caused a massive panic of the populations who began to desert the cities and move north. Even Tarik was astonished when he arrived to find Toledo completely empty of all citizens. Some Goths resisted (for example, Achila the principal traitor was certainly killed and Count Pelayo defeated the Muslims in Covadonga) and many made treaties. But since there were no telephones or TV's at that time by the time the news reached certain cities it was too late -- therefore it explains the "deals" or treaties made by the surviving Goths and Muslims. if you look at the map the only areas "conquered " by the Muslims were the areas ruled by King Roderik and Duke Achila and all the rest of the retainers. The Center and Northwest were never conquered.

Thus the only ones who hated the Goths were the Jews because the Gothic kings had threatened to enslave them if they did not convert. If you bother to read more than one book it clearly states that, yes, in the beginning the Goths were unpopular only because they were originally a barbarian nation (and they looked very different) and practiced the Arian form of Christianity. But when King Reccared converted the Goths and Swabians into Catholicism then they were not hated any more (or at least there is no evidence that they were hated). All this you read about the supposed "unpopularity" of the Goths is pure speculation by historians who have traditionally been biased towards the Goths. In fact, I read a journal during the 1990's that studied the names of people from the Iberian peninsula and the vast majority had Germanic names right before the conquest. Then after the conquest they changed to Christian ones. This clearly shows that the Goths were not hated or unpopular. I can go further in stating that during the 8-9th centuries the Muslims were clearly unpopular as is shown with the many Christian martyrs in Andalusia. In fact the Muslims had a lot of difficulty controlling the regions they had tricked into submission until the reign of Rahman II. After that the Iberians began to convert en masse not because they loved their Muslim rulers but because of great frustration of not being liberated and of economic advancement and avoidance of the head tax.

There are more versions of what happened, and the one you just told in fact implicates the Goths in the presence of Islam in Iberia all the same. And the claim that Pelayo was a "Visigoth" is a legend promoted by later documents, like the "Cronica Albedense" in the 9th century. In fact, some historians even doubt the existence of "Pelayo". Be that as it may, the Visigoths hardly played any significant role in the "Reconquista". On the contrary, it was them who first set the example of how convenient it was in those times to convert to Islam instead.

Johannes
01-07-15, 22:35
the Visigoths hardly played any significant role in the "Reconquista". On the contrary, it was them who first set the example of how convenient it was in those times to convert to Islam instead.

What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."

You really do believe in the myth about the "invisigoths" do you? That all the Goths became Muslim and no Goths exited after that??? OK I dont want to argue about the Goths anymore as it is a waste of time since you are stubborn and very biased against them. (I guess all the Spanisrds and Portuguese were Celts who reconquered the Iberian peninsula? ;-)

Here is something important that we might investigate:

New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2015114a.html (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2015114a.html)

Abstract

"The dissection of S116 in more than 1500 individuals from Atlantic Europe and the Iberian Peninsula has provided important clues about the controversial evolutionary history of M269. First, the results do not point to an origin of M269 in the Franco–Cantabrian refuge, owing to the lack of sublineage diversity within M269, which supports the new theories proposing its origin in Eastern Europe. Second, S116 shows frequency peaks and spatial distribution that differ from those previously proposed, indicating an origin farther west, and it also shows a high frequency in the Atlantic coastline. Third, an outstanding frequency of the DF27 sublineage has been found in Iberia, with a restricted distribution pattern inside this peninsula and a frequency maximum in the area of the Franco–Cantabrian refuge. This entire panorama indicates an old arrival of M269 into Western Europe, because it has generated at least two episodes of expansion in the Franco–Cantabrian area. This study demonstrates the importance of continuing the dissection of the M269 lineage in different European populations because the discovery and study of new sublineages can adjust or even completely revise the theories about European peopling, as has been the case for the place of origin of M269."

It's behind a paywall so that's all I can offer. Obviously, nothing can be evaluated based on this. I'll see if at least the data tables are available.

Ed. They are, and here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...2015114s1.html (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2015114s1.html)


Have you read this article? Do you know about Iberians? if you do let me know what are the conclusions. It might open a new way of understanding the Iberians.

Drac II
02-07-15, 14:55
What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."

You really do believe in the myth about the "invisigoths" do you? That all the Goths became Muslim and no Goths exited after that??? OK I dont want to argue about the Goths anymore as it is a waste of time since you are stubborn and very biased against them. (I guess all the Spanisrds and Portuguese were Celts who reconquered the Iberian peninsula? ;-)

Here is something important that we might investigate:

New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2015114a.html (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2015114a.html)

Abstract

"The dissection of S116 in more than 1500 individuals from Atlantic Europe and the Iberian Peninsula has provided important clues about the controversial evolutionary history of M269. First, the results do not point to an origin of M269 in the Franco–Cantabrian refuge, owing to the lack of sublineage diversity within M269, which supports the new theories proposing its origin in Eastern Europe. Second, S116 shows frequency peaks and spatial distribution that differ from those previously proposed, indicating an origin farther west, and it also shows a high frequency in the Atlantic coastline. Third, an outstanding frequency of the DF27 sublineage has been found in Iberia, with a restricted distribution pattern inside this peninsula and a frequency maximum in the area of the Franco–Cantabrian refuge. This entire panorama indicates an old arrival of M269 into Western Europe, because it has generated at least two episodes of expansion in the Franco–Cantabrian area. This study demonstrates the importance of continuing the dissection of the M269 lineage in different European populations because the discovery and study of new sublineages can adjust or even completely revise the theories about European peopling, as has been the case for the place of origin of M269."

It's behind a paywall so that's all I can offer. Obviously, nothing can be evaluated based on this. I'll see if at least the data tables are available.

Ed. They are, and here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...2015114s1.html (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2015114s1.html)


Have you read this article? Do you know about Iberians? if you do let me know what are the conclusions. It might open a new way of understanding the Iberians.

The Visigoths had a very limited presence in northern Iberia, with the exception of some northeastern regions (Catalonia, for example.) These were not the territories that they concentrated in. It is absurd to try to attribute the bulk of the "Reconquista", a process that took centuries to accomplish, to this numerically insignificant minority. As for the -ez surnames, that system was of Visigothic origin indeed, but that does not mean that all the people adopting such surnames were themselves Visigoths. Not any more than when the Visigoths themselves started converting to Islam and adopting Arabic names really made them "Arabs" in a true ethnic sense. If we had to believe in this type of logic, then almost everyone in the Muslim world today must be ethnically "Arabs" because they have Arab-sounding names. Yet any historian will easily tell you that this is not the case at all, in fact, quite the contrary: genuine Arabs are a minority of the Muslim world. Imposing the names of your particular ethnic/cultural background on those of others, be it through conquest or cultural diffusion, does not really change your actual ethnic or racial origin. It is the same thing with language or religion. Such cultural traits of one group have been fairly easily adopted by or imposed on others throughout history. Just think on how many people today have English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch names, yet come from very diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds that originally had nothing to do with the countries where those names originated.

Gracchus
02-07-15, 21:41
[QUOTE=Johannes;461372]What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."


It did not take Goth to consider someone "Hidalgo".
the nobles were known for example in the Kingdom of Valencia as "Ciutadans" in parts of Castilla were called "Infanzn".

The requirements could vary from one realm to another, Catalonia, Castile, Valencia, etc.
In short, to consider someone "Hidalgo" or "Ciutadan"

1. should not exist in your ascendant, any Jew or Muslim, in any of your family lines. These studies were known as "purity of blood tests". It was necessary, for example to enter a, whose members were to be noble military order. It was the same also to qualify for public office in the government of towns or cities. Still retain many of these documents "purity of blood tests", because with them, demonstrate your nobility therefore also exempt you from paying taxes.

2. Serve the king when he will call to war and have at least one horse.

3 None of your family to your great-grandparents should have worked in a job considered "villain": butcher, baker, miller...

4. These people lived their income without work.

Google Translate

Johannes
03-07-15, 01:04
[QUOTE=Johannes;461372]What are you talking about???? All of the Spanish nobility was descended from the Goths. In fact if you were not of Gothic origin you would have never been considered a noble. In the beginning all of the nobility was of Gothic origin and later mixed with other European monarchs. In fact, if you wanted to be considered a "noble" you had to prove you had have Gothic ancestry and no Jewish and Moorish blood. Surnames, such as, Gutierrez, Fernandez, Galindez, Ramirez, or Gonzalez all indicated Gothic origins. Anyone who possessed a Gothic surname was immediately made into a noble. Have you heard of "Hidalgo?" It used to mean "son of a goth" or "son of something (high/important)."

It did not take Goth to consider someone "Hidalgo".
the nobles were known for example in the Kingdom of Valencia as "Ciutadans" in parts of Castilla were called "Infanz�n".

The requirements could vary from one realm to another, Catalonia, Castile, Valencia, etc.
In short, to consider someone "Hidalgo" or "Ciutadan"

1. should not exist in your ascendant, any Jew or Muslim, in any of your family lines. These studies were known as "purity of blood tests". It was necessary, for example to enter a, whose members were to be noble military order. It was the same also to qualify for public office in the government of towns or cities. Still retain many of these documents "purity of blood tests", because with them, demonstrate your nobility therefore also exempt you from paying taxes.

2. Serve the king when he will call to war and have at least one horse.

3 None of your family to your great-grandparents should have worked in a job considered "villain": butcher, baker, miller...

4. These people lived their income without work.Google Translate

I know all that you are saying but what you are indicating is the lower nobility. In the beginning if you were from the high nibility, i.e., counts, marquises, dukes, and kings, you had to have Gothic lineage to be considered, otherwise you were not allowed in the higher ranks. Of course later on many people who belonged to the merchant class or someone who was an extraordinary soldier, administrator, or diplomat, could attain noble status but they were never allowed to belong to the high nobility. "Hidalgo" and "Cuitadan" became very common among the lower orders and it eventually became overused. For example, when Queen Isabella granted the Fueros to the Basques the Basques insisted that she make all Basques "hidalgos" or lower nobles because they had no Moorish or Jewish blood. Isabella reluctantly agreed but by then the term "Hidalgo" had become quite common. What I meant by "Hidalgo" is in the beginning of the Reconquista you had to be a Goth or a descendent of a Goth to be considered a noble.

Johannes
03-07-15, 01:10
The Visigoths had a very limited presence in northern Iberia, with the exception of some northeastern regions (Catalonia, for example.) These were not the territories that they concentrated in. It is absurd to try to attribute the bulk of the "Reconquista", a process that took centuries to accomplish, to this numerically insignificant minority. As for the -ez surnames, that system was of Visigothic origin indeed, but that does not mean that all the people adopting such surnames were themselves Visigoths. Not any more than when the Visigoths themselves started converting to Islam and adopting Arabic names really made them "Arabs" in a true ethnic sense. If we had to believe in this type of logic, then almost everyone in the Muslim world today must be ethnically "Arabs" because they have Arab-sounding names. Yet any historian will easily tell you that this is not the case at all, in fact, quite the contrary: genuine Arabs are a minority of the Muslim world. Imposing the names of your particular ethnic/cultural background on those of others, be it through conquest or cultural diffusion, does not really change your actual ethnic or racial origin. It is the same thing with language or religion. Such cultural traits of one group have been fairly easily adopted by or imposed on others throughout history. Just think on how many people today have English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch names, yet come from very diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds that originally had nothing to do with the countries where those names originated.


Yes yes I know what you are saying: what I am trying to tell you is that in the periods between the 6th and 8th beginning all Gothic people were granted automatic noble status. Yes later on many people adopted Gothic names -- as the journal I mentioned described how by in the beginning of Gthic rule Goths were unpopular but by the middlle of the 8th century many people who were not of Gothic origin began to adopt Gothic names -- but later on it became quite common for anyone to have a "Gothic" surname. However, at the start of the Reconquista if you were trying to prove you were of noble staus you HAD to prove you were of Gothic origin.

Anyway, you did not answer my question about the article on Iberian DNA?

Johannes
03-07-15, 03:34
The Visigoths had a very limited presence in northern Iberia, with the exception of some northeastern regions (Catalonia, for example.) These were not the territories that they concentrated in.

Wrong: I dont know what you have been smoking and reading or because you are conditioned by the outdated historians. The Goths settled en masse in areas of northern Spain and southern France -- areas around Aquitaine, Castile and Leon, Asturias, Estremadura (Merida), and Navarre-Aragon, but not Catalonia or southern Spain or anywhere in the south of Iberia. Of course we need to add the Swabians who settled only in Northern Portugal, Galicia, and Leon. And we can also add part of the Vandal tribe (Hasdingi).

If you dont belive me then here is a quote from wikipedia: "Visigothic settlement was concentrated along the Garonne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garonne) River between Bordeaux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux) and Toulouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse) in Aquitaine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitaine), and later in Spain and Portugal around the Ebro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebro) River, around the city of Mérida, between the upper reaches of the Douro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douro) River, in Tierra de Campos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_de_Campos) also known as Campi Gothorum in Central Castile and León (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castile_and_Le%C3%B3n), Asturias and Toledo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain), and along the Tagus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagus) River north of Lisbon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon). Little Visigothic settlement occurred elsewhere in the kingdom."

Maybe you need a map to see???

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDPivmKtUFyY4s-pENASyLQb7KyPAyoh-taSXOAxF4AvpT29Bl

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Hispania_418_AD.PNG/220px-Hispania_418_AD.PNG

Drac II
03-07-15, 17:49
Wrong: I dont know what you have been smoking and reading or because you are conditioned by the outdated historians. The Goths settled en masse in areas of northern Spain and southern France -- areas around Aquitaine, Castile and Leon, Asturias, Estremadura (Merida), and Navarre-Aragon, but not Catalonia or southern Spain or anywhere in the south of Iberia. Of course we need to add the Swabians who settled only in Northern Portugal, Galicia, and Leon. And we can also add part of the Vandal tribe (Hasdingi).

If you dont belive me then here is a quote from wikipedia: "Visigothic settlement was concentrated along the Garonne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garonne) River between Bordeaux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeaux) and Toulouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse) in Aquitaine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitaine), and later in Spain and Portugal around the Ebro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebro) River, around the city of Mérida, between the upper reaches of the Douro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douro) River, in Tierra de Campos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_de_Campos) also known as Campi Gothorum in Central Castile and León (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castile_and_Le%C3%B3n), Asturias and Toledo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain), and along the Tagus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagus) River north of Lisbon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon). Little Visigothic settlement occurred elsewhere in the kingdom."

Maybe you need a map to see???

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDPivmKtUFyY4s-pENASyLQb7KyPAyoh-taSXOAxF4AvpT29Bl

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Hispania_418_AD.PNG/220px-Hispania_418_AD.PNG

The Wikipedia quote in fact actually supports more what I said than what you claim. Do you know where the Ebro river is? It is in northeast Spain and flows all the way down to the coast of Catalonia.

Maps don't show what you claim either, plus they only show who was nominally in charge of such territories, that does not mean that all the northern areas of the Visigothic kingdom had significant Visigothic presence. If you look at maps of Roman Iberia you will also see the whole of it under nominal Roman rule, but it is well known to historians that many areas of Iberia hardly had any Roman presence at all and the local people basically lived in their own ancestral ways and were hardly in contact with the Romans (already discussed earlier in the thread, and which you fully agreed. So there is hardly much difference with the case of the Goths or the Muslims, for that matter. Nominal control does not actually mean real control by a strong presence of the people supposedly in charge of a given territory. There is a huge difference.)

Johannes
05-07-15, 01:50
The Wikipedia quote in fact actually supports more what I said than what you claim. Do you know where the Ebro river is? It is in northeast Spain and flows all the way down to the coast of Catalonia.

Maps don't show what you claim either, plus they only show who was nominally in charge of such territories, that does not mean that all the northern areas of the Visigothic kingdom had significant Visigothic presence. If you look at maps of Roman Iberia you will also see the whole of it under nominal Roman rule, but it is well known to historians that many areas of Iberia hardly had any Roman presence at all and the local people basically lived in their own ancestral ways and were hardly in contact with the Romans (already discussed earlier in the thread, and which you fully agreed. So there is hardly much difference with the case of the Goths or the Muslims, for that matter. Nominal control does not actually mean real control by a strong presence of the people supposedly in charge of a given territory. There is a huge difference.)

Drac sometimes I dont know what to think about you. Its so frustrating debating you! You are by far the most stubborn man I ever met.

I know where the Ebro River is and there were never any significant Goths in Catalonia! What you are thinking of is the Franks who settled in Catalonia after Charlemagne invaded. I know the maps show "political control" but this is not what I am talking about!!! I am talking about settlement areas! Get it? I know the Swabians controlled all of northern Portugal and Galicia but this does not mean they settled in the whole area! For example, The Swabians only settled en mass around Braga and surrounding areas. Likewise the Goths controlled the whole Iberian peninsula but it does not mean they settled all over the peninsula! Jesus Christ why dont you pay attention!? The areas where the Goths, Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (they were not Germanics) settled and made a significant impact on the gene pool where -- Northern Portugal, Castile-Leon, Galicia, Asturias, and Extremadura. Thats all. OK?

Why dont you answer about the Iberian article I sent you?

Drac II
05-07-15, 18:20
Drac sometimes I dont know what to think about you. Its so frustrating debating you! You are by far the most stubborn man I ever met.

I know where the Ebro River is and there were never any significant Goths in Catalonia! What you are thinking of is the Franks who settled in Catalonia after Charlemagne invaded. I know the maps show "political control" but this is not what I am talking about!!! I am talking about settlement areas! Get it? I know the Swabians controlled all of northern Portugal and Galicia but this does not mean they settled in the whole area! For example, The Swabians only settled en mass around Braga and surrounding areas. Likewise the Goths controlled the whole Iberian peninsula but it does not mean they settled all over the peninsula! Jesus Christ why dont you pay attention!? The areas where the Goths, Swabians, Vandals, and Alans (they were not Germanics) settled and made a significant impact on the gene pool where -- Northern Portugal, Castile-Leon, Galicia, Asturias, and Extremadura. Thats all. OK?

Why dont you answer about the Iberian article I sent you?

Even the capital of the Visigothic kingdom was in Barcelona before it was moved to Toledo, and yet you want to claim there never was any significant Visigothic presence in Catalonia? And you are the one posting political maps as if they meant something regarding Visigothic presence, not me. You should pay attention to what you post. Most of the Visigothic settlement was in the south and center, not the north of the peninsula.

We already briefly mentioned the DF27 subclade. There is not much else to say other than it may or may not be "Celtic". As for M269, that one is found all over Spain, France and the British Isles at high percentages (50%+)

Johannes
12-07-15, 18:17
Indeed. It is very ironic that many Spanish Christians have tended to romanticize the Visigoths as these supposed "saviors" of Christianity in the peninsula and the leaders of the "Reconquista" when in fact it was the Visigoths who were mostly responsible for bringing Islam into Iberia in the first place. What they are so proud of was in fact led mostly by Iberian and Celtiberian natives in the northern parts who refused to accept Islam and maintained Christianity alive and eventually to predominate in the peninsula, not by these Visigothic foreigners and their petty quarrels. In fact, most of the early converts to Islam in Iberia were the Goths, not the native people.

I know I stopped arguing with you about the Goths because of your stubborn and biased attitude about the Goths. However, I forgot to mention this: And who do you think were the leaders of the Reconquista? It wasn't your Celts or Iberians. It was the Goths. Without the Gothic nobility nothing would have happened, see? If it would have been the Celtic-Hispano-Romans it would have become something like Bosnia.

Brennos
13-07-15, 14:13
I know I stopped arguing with you about the Goths because of your stubborn and biased attitude about the Goths. However, I forgot to mention this: And who do you think were the leaders of the Reconquista? It wasn't your Celts or Iberians. It was the Goths. Without the Gothic nobility nothing would have happened, see? If it would have been the Celtic-Hispano-Romans it would have become something like Bosnia.

Not all Goths were the authors of Reconquista: the Banu Qasi converted to Islam and created an Islamic principality in the North.

I would better say that some germanic and basque nobles were the leaders of Reconquista, nobles that absorbed Frankish culture and manners.

Drac II
13-07-15, 16:56
I know I stopped arguing with you about the Goths because of your stubborn and biased attitude about the Goths. However, I forgot to mention this: And who do you think were the leaders of the Reconquista? It wasn't your Celts or Iberians. It was the Goths. Without the Gothic nobility nothing would have happened, see? If it would have been the Celtic-Hispano-Romans it would have become something like Bosnia.

The Reconquista was initiated in the NW, so it was the people from those areas who are mostly responsible for it.

Drac II
13-07-15, 17:00
Not all Goths were the authors of Reconquista: the Banu Qasi converted to Islam and created an Islamic principality in the North.

I would better say that some germanic and basque nobles were the leaders of Reconquista, nobles that absorbed Frankish culture and manners.

The "Reconquista" started in the NW, not the NE, so it was people like Asturians, Galicians and Leonese who led that movement, not Basques, and also the northern Iberian peoples furthest away from the Franks.

Johannes
14-07-15, 16:19
The "Reconquista" started in the NW, not the NE, so it was people like Asturians, Galicians and Leonese who led that movement, not Basques, and also the northern Iberian peoples furthest away from the Franks.

Drac you are right that the reconquest began in the NW. But you are both wrong in who initiated it: The Reconquista was begun by mostly Gothic refugees from the south and north and their former vassals of the north -- Asturians, Galicians, Cantabrians, and Basques. You both forget that over a million people scrambled from the south and center and fled into the mountains of Asturias. You also forget that the largest concentration of Goths was in Old Castile (Campos Godos) - an area of towns and villages from Palencia to Toledo (the largest city settled by Goths -- Merida was the second largest) to Saragossa. All of these towns and villages were deserted to a man and thus the bulk of the Goths, including many Swabians and thousands of Celts fled to the mountains in the north.

The Christian leadership was almost 100% Germanic (Goths and Swabians and Franks) because they were the leaders to begin with. The Basques did little of any significance in helping the reconquest. They made treaties with the Muslims in order to keep their rights and properties. The ones who fought the Muslims on a yearly basis from the beginning (750 AD) were the Castlians and Leonese and they were mostly Germanics and Celts (and some Basques and Cantabrians). This is why Spain was founded by the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile.

Banu Qasi was a Gothic noble who made treaties with the Muslims in order to secure his rule over Saragossa. But they never married Muslims. They married mostly Basque nobles.

The Franks did help and fought the Muslims. They created the Hispanic March and founded the County of Catalonia. But they did little afterwards.

Drac II
15-07-15, 04:31
Drac you are right that the reconquest began in the NW. But you are both wrong in who initiated it: The Reconquista was begun by mostly Gothic refugees from the south and north and their former vassals of the north -- Asturians, Galicians, Cantabrians, and Basques. You both forget that over a million people scrambled from the south and center and fled into the mountains of Asturias. You also forget that the largest concentration of Goths was in Old Castile (Campos Godos) - an area of towns and villages from Palencia to Toledo (the largest city settled by Goths -- Merida was the second largest) to Saragossa. All of these towns and villages were deserted to a man and thus the bulk of the Goths, including many Swabians and thousands of Celts fled to the mountains in the north.

The Christian leadership was almost 100% Germanic (Goths and Swabians and Franks) because they were the leaders to begin with. The Basques did little of any significance in helping the reconquest. They made treaties with the Muslims in order to keep their rights and properties. The ones who fought the Muslims on a yearly basis from the beginning (750 AD) were the Castlians and Leonese and they were mostly Germanics and Celts (and some Basques and Cantabrians). This is why Spain was founded by the Kingdoms of Leon and Castile.

Banu Qasi was a Gothic noble who made treaties with the Muslims in order to secure his rule over Saragossa. But they never married Muslims. They married mostly Basque nobles.

The Franks did help and fought the Muslims. They created the Hispanic March and founded the County of Catalonia. But they did little afterwards.

The role of the Visigoths in all this is questionable at best, since it has been exaggerated by later chroniclers seeking to "legitimize" the emerging independent Iberian kingdoms of the north by linking them to the old kingdom of the Goths prior to the Muslim intervention. Important figures of the "Reconquista" simply either feigned Visigothic origins or Visigothic origins were foisted on them centuries later (feigning Arabic origins, by the way, was also done on the other side of this story: among those who converted to Islam, in order for them to have it easier to climb the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy had self-appointed itself at the top.) This whole thing was then uncritically accepted and even more exaggerated by many later historians, specially Germanic ones, who wanted to attribute anything they considered positive to their own peoples, while at the same time conveniently overlooking the very role that those same Germanic peoples had in what they did not consider so positive. Modern historical criticism has rather different opinions of the whole thing.

Johannes
18-07-15, 02:11
The role of the Visigoths in all this is questionable at best, since it has been exaggerated by later chroniclers seeking to "legitimize" the emerging independent Iberian kingdoms of the north by linking them to the old kingdom of the Goths prior to the Muslim intervention. Important figures of the "Reconquista" simply either feigned Visigothic origins or Visigothic origins were foisted on them centuries later (feigning Arabic origins, by the way, was also done on the other side of this story: among those who converted to Islam, in order for them to have it easier to climb the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy had self-appointed itself at the top.) This whole thing was then uncritically accepted and even more exaggerated by many later historians, specially Germanic ones, who wanted to attribute anything they considered positive to their own peoples, while at the same time conveniently overlooking the very role that those same Germanic peoples had in what they did not consider so positive. Modern historical criticism has rather different opinions of the whole thing.

Modern historical research is mainly aimed at getting tenured. This is what you seem to not understand. Everything about what happened to the Goths during the Muslim occupation has pretty much been figured out. There are just two schools of interpretation: 1) the old school that praises the Goths as being the saviors of Spain (which I belong) and 2) the Marxist or leftist interpretation that seems to diminish the role of the Goths as incompetent fools (you belong to that one). I am not adding nothing new here. All I did was to research the evidence and found that the old research was correct and the new as suspect. The difference between you an me on this topic is that you seem to follow slave-like any new book that comes out. BUT there is nothing more to say on this topic. All these new books are just repeating what was found before. It';s just that you don't get it.

Johannes
18-07-15, 02:45
The role of the Visigoths in all this is questionable at best, since it has been exaggerated by later chroniclers seeking to "legitimize" the emerging independent Iberian kingdoms of the north by linking them to the old kingdom of the Goths prior to the Muslim intervention. Important figures of the "Reconquista" simply either feigned Visigothic origins or Visigothic origins were foisted on them centuries later (feigning Arabic origins, by the way, was also done on the other side of this story: among those who converted to Islam, in order for them to have it easier to climb the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy had self-appointed itself at the top.) This whole thing was then uncritically accepted and even more exaggerated by many later historians, specially Germanic ones, who wanted to attribute anything they considered positive to their own peoples, while at the same time conveniently overlooking the very role that those same Germanic peoples had in what they did not consider so positive. Modern historical criticism has rather different opinions of the whole thing.

Drac the Goths were one of the tallest people of Scandinavia and they mostly had blue eyes and blonde/reddish hair. It would have been extremely hard for a swarthy Hispano-Roman or Iberian or Basque to falsify his papers and pass for a Goth or Swabian! The only one who could get away with this might have been a Celt. But the people in those times were not stupid. You had to have hard proof. So no; no one can just say: Hey I am a Goth and be given noble status!

Brennos
18-07-15, 10:56
Drac the Goths were one of the tallest people of Scandinavia and they mostly had blue eyes and blonde/reddish hair. It would have been extremely hard for a swarthy Hispano-Roman or Iberian or Basque to falsify his papers and pass for a Goth or Swabian! The only one who could get away with this might have been a Celt. But the people in those times were not stupid. You had to have hard proof. So no; no one can just say: Hey I am a Goth and be given noble status!

This is the least scientific sententia I have ever read...

We are speaking of Medieval Iberia: hair and eye colour of original Celts or HIspano-romans were highly mixed at that time and so were the Goth traits, because your fantastic germanic supermen didn't take the first flight from Stockholm to reach Spain, but they took a long journey from Scania and they carried a lor of other germanic tribes, like Lombards did.

The Goths were the first with Franks to open marriage between their nobles and notable women of Roman ancestry. And, also, Basques were and are among the palest people on the Earth...

Drac II
18-07-15, 16:54
Modern historical research is mainly aimed at getting tenured. This is what you seem to not understand. Everything about what happened to the Goths during the Muslim occupation has pretty much been figured out. There are just two schools of interpretation: 1) the old school that praises the Goths as being the saviors of Spain (which I belong) and 2) the Marxist or leftist interpretation that seems to diminish the role of the Goths as incompetent fools (you belong to that one). I am not adding nothing new here. All I did was to research the evidence and found that the old research was correct and the new as suspect. The difference between you an me on this topic is that you seem to follow slave-like any new book that comes out. BUT there is nothing more to say on this topic. All these new books are just repeating what was found before. It';s just that you don't get it.

What you call "Marxist or leftist interpretation" is just normal historical scholarship, while what you call "old school" are indeed old legends, usually invented centuries later by people with certain agendas, which you seem to swallow hook, line and sinker without much criticism.

Drac II
18-07-15, 17:56
Drac the Goths were one of the tallest people of Scandinavia and they mostly had blue eyes and blonde/reddish hair. It would have been extremely hard for a swarthy Hispano-Roman or Iberian or Basque to falsify his papers and pass for a Goth or Swabian! The only one who could get away with this might have been a Celt. But the people in those times were not stupid. You had to have hard proof. So no; no one can just say: Hey I am a Goth and be given noble status!

The Visigoths did not even come from Scandinavia to begin with (modern research finds that the oldest evidence of what can be called "Gothic" culture come from Poland), and they even believed that the "Moors" were their close blood-relatives (this belief of the Goths is recorded by Isidore of Seville in his "Etymologies".) So much for your absurd physical-appearance objections. Any Roman, Iberian, Basque or Celt who wanted to feign a Gothic origin could have done it, even more so in an age when the Visigothic Kingdom no longer existed. In fact, later on many of the Visigoths who converted to Islam started feigning Arab origins themselves in order to have it easier to climb up the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy self-appointed itself to. People have a tendency of inventing stuff as it suits them if they see an opportunity for personal gain. The Goths were no exception.

Johannes
22-07-15, 01:34
The Visigoths did not even come from Scandinavia to begin with (modern research finds that the oldest evidence of what can be called "Gothic" culture come from Poland), and they even believed that the "Moors" were their close blood-relatives (this belief of the Goths is recorded by Isidore of Seville in his "Etymologies".) So much for your absurd physical-appearance objections. Any Roman, Iberian, Basque or Celt who wanted to feign a Gothic origin could have done it, even more so in an age when the Visigothic Kingdom no longer existed. In fact, later on many of the Visigoths who converted to Islam started feigning Arab origins themselves in order to have it easier to climb up the social ladder, where the Arab aristocracy self-appointed itself to. People have a tendency of inventing stuff as it suits them if they see an opportunity for personal gain. The Goths were no exception.

Anyone who thinks that Goths did not come from Scandinavia or were not Germanic-looking is either hopelessly biased or has an agenda. Plus one who believes that the Goths were related to the Moors is even more hopelessly biased, or weird. The only thing that is absurd is you: all you do is follow slave-like anyone who has a PhD and believe everything about them. You have no ability to form your own opinions. You would have made a poor researcher and/or historian. All you do is ignore all the evidence that does not conform to your opinions and turn it into "absurd or fantastic opinions" (to suit your prejudices). You are very similar to the Mexican/Latino guys you once argued with your Catalan avatar that the Spanish are all pure Celts. I am guessing you are a Hispanic as well but with a different agenda.

Johannes
22-07-15, 01:38
This is the least scientific sententia I have ever read...

We are speaking of Medieval Iberia: hair and eye colour of original Celts or HIspano-romans were highly mixed at that time and so were the Goth traits, because your fantastic germanic supermen didn't take the first flight from Stockholm to reach Spain, but they took a long journey from Scania and they carried a lor of other germanic tribes, like Lombards did.

The Goths were the first with Franks to open marriage between their nobles and notable women of Roman ancestry. And, also, Basques were and are among the palest people on the Earth...

That's because you are not very knowledgeable. You are just wildly speculating. It's obvious from your answers that you don't know history very well or even seen real Basques. I lived among Basques for 16 years in Idaho and I even visited the Basque country (plus I am part-Basque) and they do not even look remotely like Germanics or pale or whatever your imagination has produced. In fact Basques are very Mediterranean-looking. Of course they mixed with Celts and Goths but in a very limited capacity and the overwhelming majority of Basques would never pass for Germanic people.

It would have been extremely difficult for Germanics, who were all considered noble, to mix so freely with the conquered peoples as your imagination makes out. Yes there was some mixture with Hispano-Romans (as it is obvious) but it was only among the nobility. If you bother to read history you will find that every ethnic group lived separately and mixed very rarely or not at all. In Spain, were the country is very rugged, it would have been almost impossible for people to mix. Most lived all their lives in total isolation from each other.

Drac II
22-07-15, 20:52
Anyone who thinks that Goths did not come from Scandinavia or were not Germanic-looking is either hopelessly biased or has an agenda. Plus one who believes that the Goths were related to the Moors is even more hopelessly biased, or weird. The only thing that is absurd is you: all you do is follow slave-like anyone who has a PhD and believe everything about them. You have no ability to form your own opinions. You would have made a poor researcher and/or historian. All you do is ignore all the evidence that does not conform to your opinions and turn it into "absurd or fantastic opinions" (to suit your prejudices). You are very similar to the Mexican/Latino guys you once argued with your Catalan avatar that the Spanish are all pure Celts. I am guessing you are a Hispanic as well but with a different agenda.

Don't tell it to me, tell it to the archaeologists who have investigated the matter and don't find much evidence that the Goths came from Scandinavia. The earliest examples of Gothic culture come from Poland.

I am glad you think that "one who believes that the Goths were related to the Moors is even more hopelessly biased, or weird" since, as I already informed you, that was the belief of the Goths themselves, which is recorded by Isidore of Seville in the 6th-7th century AD, a man who was very well acquainted with them and even might have had Gothic ancestry on his mother's side:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3ep502syZv8C&pg=PA198&dq=Hence+also+the+idea+among+the+Goths+is+to+speak +of+the+Moors+as+close+blood-relatives&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIq_n517LvxgIViFuICh0gZgLV#v=on epage&q=Hence%20also%20the%20idea%20among%20the%20Goths% 20is%20to%20speak%20of%20the%20Moors%20as%20close% 20blood-relatives&f=false

"The Getulians are said to have been Getae who, setting out from their homeland with a huge force on ships, occupied the region of the Syrtes in Libya and were named by derivation Getulians, because they came from the Getae. Hence also the idea among the Goths is to speak of the Moors as close blood-relatives of themselves from their ancient affinity." (page 198)

Like I said, you have no ability to debate and back up your claims with actual authorities on any given subject. All you do is invent stuff when the actual evidence does not suit you.

Johannes
23-07-15, 01:14
Don't tell it to me, tell it to the archaeologists who have investigated the matter and don't find much evidence that the Goths came from Scandinavia. The earliest examples of Gothic culture come from Poland.

I am glad you think that "one who believes that the Goths were related to the Moors is even more hopelessly biased, or weird" since, as I already informed you, that was the belief of the Goths themselves, which is recorded by Isidore of Seville in the 6th-7th century AD, a man who was very well acquainted with them and even might have had Gothic ancestry on his mother's side:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3ep502syZv8C&pg=PA198&dq=Hence+also+the+idea+among+the+Goths+is+to+speak +of+the+Moors+as+close+blood-relatives&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIq_n517LvxgIViFuICh0gZgLV#v=on epage&q=Hence%20also%20the%20idea%20among%20the%20Goths% 20is%20to%20speak%20of%20the%20Moors%20as%20close% 20blood-relatives&f=false

"The Getulians are said to have been Getae who, setting out from their homeland with a huge force on ships, occupied the region of the Syrtes in Libya and were named by derivation Getulians, because they came from the Getae. Hence also the idea among the Goths is to speak of the Moors as close blood-relatives of themselves from their ancient affinity." (page 198)

Like I said, you have no ability to debate and back up your claims with actual authorities on any given subject. All you do is invent stuff when the actual evidence does not suit you.

I read about Isidore and I respect him and yes he was of Gothic origin. BUT if he said this then he was WRONG or got some facts wrong. OK? Not everything written by historians (even famous ones) are correct. You seem to follow everything a historian or theologian says like its gospel.

The Goths spoke an Eastern Germanic dialect, not Slavic one, and their culture (Wielbark) was very Germanic (although there are some traces of mixture with Slavs). So their most likely origin was Scandinavia. Not Poland. And I am willing to concede that if they migrated from Germany into Poland then they might not have come from Scandinavia. But that does not change anything. Their oral history states they were from Scandinavia. So what if archaelogists have not found any evidence. The Goths were Germanic. Period.

Drac II
23-07-15, 18:09
I read about Isidore and I respect him and yes he was of Gothic origin. BUT if he said this then he was WRONG or got some facts wrong. OK? Not everything written by historians (even famous ones) are correct. You seem to follow everything a historian or theologian says like its gospel.

The Goths spoke an Eastern Germanic dialect, not Slavic one, and their culture (Wielbark) was very Germanic (although there are some traces of mixture with Slavs). So their most likely origin was Scandinavia. Not Poland. And I am willing to concede that if they migrated from Germany into Poland then they might not have come from Scandinavia. But that does not change anything. Their oral history states they were from Scandinavia. So what if archaelogists have not found any evidence. The Goths were Germanic. Period.

Isidore is only reporting what the Goths believed. He is not making stuff up or saying he actually believed their claims.

Being "Germanic" does not mean being necessarily from Scandinavia. And if the Goths really came from Scandinavia then we should expect to find the oldest evidence of their culture in that area of the world, not somewhere else. So far the oldest evidence is in Poland, so that is the most likely place of their origin, as the evidence currently stands.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight: you imply that if the oral tradition of the Goths says they were from Scandinavia we must accept it, even if archaeological evidence is at odds with this claim, yet when their same oral traditions say that they had a close blood-relationship with the "Moors" we must for some strange reason discard it right away? It would be nice if you get your story straight. The fact is that both claims are merely legends. Historians and archaeologists are more interested in actual evidence.

Johannes
02-08-15, 02:00
Isidore is only reporting what the Goths believed. He is not making stuff up or saying he actually believed their claims.

Being "Germanic" does not mean being necessarily from Scandinavia. And if the Goths really came from Scandinavia then we should expect to find the oldest evidence of their culture in that area of the world, not somewhere else. So far the oldest evidence is in Poland, so that is the most likely place of their origin, as the evidence currently stands.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight: you imply that if the oral tradition of the Goths says they were from Scandinavia we must accept it, even if archaeological evidence is at odds with this claim, yet when their same oral traditions say that they had a close blood-relationship with the "Moors" we must for some strange reason discard it right away? It would be nice if you get your story straight. The fact is that both claims are merely legends. Historians and archaeologists are more interested in actual evidence.

First of all I never read St. Isidore saying the Goths were similar in blood to the Berbers! He lived in the 6-7th centuries and what you are saying is probably something he read as myth. So if he stated that "The Getulians are said to have been Getae who, setting out from their homeland with a huge force on ships, occupied the region of the Syrtes in Libya and were named by derivation Getulians, because they came from the Getae. Hence also the idea among the Goths is to speak of the Moors as close blood-relatives of themselves from their ancient affinity." (page 198) " Who are the "Getulians or Getae"??? He jumps from one source to another and makes a claim that it's true! He is probably confusing it with the Vandals not Goths. Even if Goths landed in Libya (which they never did) does not prove anything about blood relationship. This is all circumstacial evidence (myth) and he probably did not understand what he was saying (borrowing from other suspicious sources). This proves that you are a poor researcher. You get things from some historian or other source and then you make some conclusion based on their flimsy evidence or erroneous conclusions and say "here it is! I am right! You are wrong!!" You need a higher level of of interpretation or analysis of the sources to make more accurate conclusions. If Isidore made that claim then he is not to be trusted.

Drac II
03-08-15, 05:24
First of all I never read St. Isidore saying the Goths were similar in blood to the Berbers! He lived in the 6-7th centuries and what you are saying is probably something he read as myth. So if he stated that "The Getulians are said to have been Getae who, setting out from their homeland with a huge force on ships, occupied the region of the Syrtes in Libya and were named by derivation Getulians, because they came from the Getae. Hence also the idea among the Goths is to speak of the Moors as close blood-relatives of themselves from their ancient affinity." (page 198) " Who are the "Getulians or Getae"??? He jumps from one source to another and makes a claim that it's true! He is probably confusing it with the Vandals not Goths. Even if Goths landed in Libya (which they never did) does not prove anything about blood relationship. This is all circumstacial evidence (myth) and he probably did not understand what he was saying (borrowing from other suspicious sources). This proves that you are a poor researcher. You get things from some historian or other source and then you make some conclusion based on their flimsy evidence or erroneous conclusions and say "here it is! I am right! You are wrong!!" You need a higher level of of interpretation or analysis of the sources to make more accurate conclusions. If Isidore made that claim then he is not to be trusted.

The only poor researcher here is you. Find out first who were the peoples that Isidore is talking about, then talk. And like I said, Isidore is not saying he believes any of this, he is just reporting the belief of the Goths.

Brennos
03-08-15, 08:18
That's because you are not very knowledgeable. You are just wildly speculating. It's obvious from your answers that you don't know history very well or even seen real Basques. I lived among Basques for 16 years in Idaho and I even visited the Basque country (plus I am part-Basque) and they do not even look remotely like Germanics or pale or whatever your imagination has produced. In fact Basques are very Mediterranean-looking. Of course they mixed with Celts and Goths but in a very limited capacity and the overwhelming majority of Basques would never pass for Germanic people.

It would have been extremely difficult for Germanics, who were all considered noble, to mix so freely with the conquered peoples as your imagination makes out. Yes there was some mixture with Hispano-Romans (as it is obvious) but it was only among the nobility. If you bother to read history you will find that every ethnic group lived separately and mixed very rarely or not at all. In Spain, were the country is very rugged, it would have been almost impossible for people to mix. Most lived all their lives in total isolation from each other.


You don't know what you are saying:

a) Basques are among the palest people in Europe. See: http://anthrospain.blogspot.it/2011/08/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html
and http://racialreality.blogspot.it/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html ;

b) Germanic tribes didn't make any military invasion: it was a migration of an entire tribe, with laws, goods, beliefs, men, women, children and also scaldii, i.e. people halfway between freemen and slaves. Slaves and scaldii were abundantly Germanic too: slaves were war prisoners from other tribes, scaldii could also have been members of the tribe that lost their free status;

c) perhaps you don't know Frankish and Visigothic law: their nobles were the first to marry Hispano-roman and Gallo-roman women. Other Germanic tribes didn't do the same, like Ostrogoths in Italy. The result: Ostrogoth kingdom was wiped from Italy, Frankish kingdom was the most important political institution in Europe.

Johannes
04-08-15, 23:59
You don't know what you are saying:

a) Basques are among the palest people in Europe. See: http://anthrospain.blogspot.it/2011/08/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html
and http://racialreality.blogspot.it/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html ;

b) Germanic tribes didn't make any military invasion: it was a migration of an entire tribe, with laws, goods, beliefs, men, women, children and also scaldii, i.e. people halfway between freemen and slaves. Slaves and scaldii were abundantly Germanic too: slaves were war prisoners from other tribes, scaldii could also have been members of the tribe that lost their free status;

c) perhaps you don't know Frankish and Visigothic law: their nobles were the first to marry Hispano-roman and Gallo-roman women. Other Germanic tribes didn't do the same, like Ostrogoths in Italy. The result: Ostrogoth kingdom was wiped from Italy, Frankish kingdom was the most important political institution in Europe.

a) Have you been to Spain or Idaho? have you ever seen Basques in reality and not on studies or youtube? If you have not then you don't know what you are talking about.
b) I know all that. The Roman Emperor gave the Visigoths Iberia as a place to govern as feodorati. But the Goths in Spain lived completly seperate from the natives. Only the nobles and their entourage followed them in the cities. Their Germanic looks made them very different and their religion (Arian Christianity) made them even more unpopular. Yes there were German slaves from war but all the Goths were considered equal or noble.
c) I told you already in my last post that Goths did marry Hispano-Roman nobles but the vast majority lived in their towns and villages in Extremadura and Castile. The Goths only started to mix with the locals after the Muslim invasion. That's when the Goths lost their ethnic identification. But the Castilians, Leonese, Asturians, Galicians, and even some Basques have Gothic blood coursing in their veins.

The Ostrogoths did not lose their kingdom because they refused to marry Italian nobles! They lost it because Emperor Justinian wanted to reconquer Italy, Iberia, and North Africa. He felt that Germans governing the Western Roman Empire was an insult to Roma dignity. It had very little to do with Italian marriage alliances.

The Franks were successful not because they were better than the Goths, but because they adopted Catholicism and made alliances with the popes. It was pure politics (the Goths were more honest).

Brennos
05-08-15, 14:48
[=Johannes;463892]a) Have you been to Spain or Idaho? have you ever seen Basques in reality and not on studies or youtube? If you have not then you don't know what you are talking about.
b) I know all that. The Roman Emperor gave the Visigoths Iberia as a place to govern as feodorati. But the Goths in Spain lived completly seperate from the natives. Only the nobles and their entourage followed them in the cities. Their Germanic looks made them very different and their religion (Arian Christianity) made them even more unpopular. Yes there were German slaves from war but all the Goths were considered equal or noble.
c) I told you already in my last post that Goths did marry Hispano-Roman nobles but the vast majority lived in their towns and villages in Extremadura and Castile. The Goths only started to mix with the locals after the Muslim invasion. That's when the Goths lost their ethnic identification. But the Castilians, Leonese, Asturians, Galicians, and even some Basques have Gothic blood coursing in their veins.

The Ostrogoths did not lose their kingdom because they refused to marry Italian nobles! They lost it because Emperor Justinian wanted to reconquer Italy, Iberia, and North Africa. He felt that Germans governing the Western Roman Empire was an insult to Roma dignity. It had very little to do with Italian marriage alliances.

The Franks were successful not because they were better than the Goths, but because they adopted Catholicism and made alliances with the popes. It was pure politics (the Goths were more honest).[/QUOTE]

You don't understand the point: the Ostrogoths lost their power because they were weakened by their own apartheid government. The italo- roman élites who represented the bureaucracy were against those germanic barbarians that wasn't able to integrate themselves in the italic society. So, Justinian was aided by the italic notability and nobility.

Reality or not, the studies I provided are about basque people IN EUROPE. Idaho basques are likely mixed with other ethnic groups. If you don't believe in those studies...well, tell Jablomsky and Chaplin your points. And yes, I visited all Spain, also the Basque country. I live in Italy: I'm not an American who pretend to know european history better than europeans.

All equals? Are you really saying that? Perhaps you have a romantic viosion of history...I will take note about American Umiversities: they teach a really romantic view of european history.
All germanic tribes were composed by three "castes": freemen, scaldii or scaldiones, and slaves. Laws regulated also intermarriage between castes, and also with stranger.

Johannes
06-08-15, 01:12
[=Johannes;463892]a) Have you been to Spain or Idaho? have you ever seen Basques in reality and not on studies or youtube? If you have not then you don't know what you are talking about.
b) I know all that. The Roman Emperor gave the Visigoths Iberia as a place to govern as feodorati. But the Goths in Spain lived completly seperate from the natives. Only the nobles and their entourage followed them in the cities. Their Germanic looks made them very different and their religion (Arian Christianity) made them even more unpopular. Yes there were German slaves from war but all the Goths were considered equal or noble.
c) I told you already in my last post that Goths did marry Hispano-Roman nobles but the vast majority lived in their towns and villages in Extremadura and Castile. The Goths only started to mix with the locals after the Muslim invasion. That's when the Goths lost their ethnic identification. But the Castilians, Leonese, Asturians, Galicians, and even some Basques have Gothic blood coursing in their veins.

The Ostrogoths did not lose their kingdom because they refused to marry Italian nobles! They lost it because Emperor Justinian wanted to reconquer Italy, Iberia, and North Africa. He felt that Germans governing the Western Roman Empire was an insult to Roma dignity. It had very little to do with Italian marriage alliances.

The Franks were successful not because they were better than the Goths, but because they adopted Catholicism and made alliances with the popes. It was pure politics (the Goths were more honest).

You don't understand the point: the Ostrogoths lost their power because they were weakened by their own apartheid government. The italo- roman élites who represented the bureaucracy were against those germanic barbarians that wasn't able to integrate themselves in the italic society. So, Justinian was aided by the italic notability and nobility.

Reality or not, the studies I provided are about basque people IN EUROPE. Idaho basques are likely mixed with other ethnic groups. If you don't believe in those studies...well, tell Jablomsky and Chaplin your points. And yes, I visited all Spain, also the Basque country. I live in Italy: I'm not an American who pretend to know european history better than europeans.

All equals? Are you really saying that? Perhaps you have a romantic viosion of history...I will take note about American Umiversities: they teach a really romantic view of european history.
All germanic tribes were composed by three "castes": freemen, scaldii or scaldiones, and slaves. Laws regulated also intermarriage between castes, and also with stranger.[/QUOTE]

I do understand and I know more European history that you. We dont learn "romantic" versions of European History. It's obvious the Goths were unpopular both in Iberia and Italy. The Ostrogoths lost their kingdome inItaly to the Byzantines and the Visigoths to the Berbers/Arabs. But it was not just about apartheid. Yes they did not want to mix with the Italians or Iberians. But if it wasn't for Justinian the Iberians and Italian nobles would have swallowed their pride (and hate) and been ruled by Germans forever. Justinian tried to conquer Iberia as well but he failed. Only in N. Africa and Italy did he succeed. But Italy was totally devastated and Italians did not start to develop until the 12-13th centuries. And in Iberia it was a bunch of Gothic idiots that gambled on a coup that went terribly wrong and it took them 300 years to dominate most of the the peninsula. If it wasn't for the Almohad/Almoravid invasions the Iberian Muslims would have been expelled in the 11-12th centuries.

Scaldii??? where do you get this term from? I never heard of it. Yes some Germans gambled and lost their freedom but they had a chance to retain it. Most Germans were not divided into such ridiculous categories as you stated. All were basically equal under the law. Slavery among fellow Germans would have been impossible or rare. Yes nobles had a higher status but they could be pulled down if they abused their power. And yes, Germans did not want to mix with Hisano-Romans and Italians. During the Middle Ages if you wanted to claim noble status you had to prove you were of German ancestry (in Italy it was some ancient Roman family). Otherwise the chances of anyone entering the noble calss would have been zero. As far as lower nobility, you had to prove you were of Gothic origin in Iberia. In France it was Frankish ancestry. In England Anglo-Saxon and Norman.

No Basques in Idaho dont mix with other ethnic groups. You know who they mixed with? Mostly white people. Not Italians or other Meds, but mostly Germanics and Celts. You still believe in that BS study? Who cares about Jablonsky or Chaplain. They are just as human as you and I and they canmake mistakes. Why dont you work on your critical thinking skills and see real people. Dont believe everything that is published. You claimed to have visited Spain and the Basque Country? And you still think they have one of the whitest people in Europe?

Brennos
06-08-15, 07:55
I do understand and I know more European history that you. We dont learn "romantic" versions of European History. It's obvious the Goths were unpopular both in Iberia and Italy. The Ostrogoths lost their kingdome inItaly to the Byzantines and the Visigoths to the Berbers/Arabs. But it was not just about apartheid. Yes they did not want to mix with the Italians or Iberians. But if it wasn't for Justinian the Iberians and Italian nobles would have swallowed their pride (and hate) and been ruled by Germans forever. Justinian tried to conquer Iberia as well but he failed. Only in N. Africa and Italy did he succeed. But Italy was totally devastated and Italians did not start to develop until the 12-13th centuries. And in Iberia it was a bunch of Gothic idiots that gambled on a coup that went terribly wrong and it took them 300 years to dominate most of the the peninsula. If it wasn't for the Almohad/Almoravid invasions the Iberian Muslims would have been expelled in the 11-12th centuries.

Scaldii??? where do you get this term from? I never heard of it. Yes some Germans gambled and lost their freedom but they had a chance to retain it. Most Germans were not divided into such ridiculous categories as you stated. All were basically equal under the law. Slavery among fellow Germans would have been impossible or rare. Yes nobles had a higher status but they could be pulled down if they abused their power. And yes, Germans did not want to mix with Hisano-Romans and Italians. During the Middle Ages if you wanted to claim noble status you had to prove you were of German ancestry (in Italy it was some ancient Roman family). Otherwise the chances of anyone entering the noble calss would have been zero. As far as lower nobility, you had to prove you were of Gothic origin in Iberia. In France it was Frankish ancestry. In England Anglo-Saxon and Norman.

No Basques in Idaho dont mix with other ethnic groups. You know who they mixed with? Mostly white people. Not Italians or other Meds, but mostly Germanics and Celts. You still believe in that BS study? Who cares about Jablonsky or Chaplain. They are just as human as you and I and they canmake mistakes. Why dont you work on your critical thinking skills and see real people. Dont believe everything that is published. You claimed to have visited Spain and the Basque Country? And you still think they have one of the whitest people in Europe?

a) I'm sorry: the automatic corrector on my mobile phone changed haldiones and haldii in scaldiones and scaldii;

b) the point is this, if you don't understand, I'll tell you plain and clear: Ostrogoth society was weak, so it attracted Justinian, who saw the good moment to act when he understood that there were two élites, one germanic, enemy and minoritarian, and one italic, friend and majoritarian. If the Ostrogoths had behad like Franks, probably they would have resisted the Bizantine invasion better;

c) germanic society was indeed divided in castes, even if those castes were more mobile than other castes. All equals... rarely I heard such a biased assumption. The equals were the freemen! Those who bore weapons. And among them there was nobility;

d) obviously you know european history better than me: the other difference between my culture and yours is that mine isn't biased. You look like those young boys who believe in a not-so-clear germanic superior spirit and ethnic group and want to demonstrate that only germanic peoples brought civilisation to the poor Europe. I suggest to be less biased and romantic when speaking of history: your behaviour is a real insult against your intelligence and culture;

e) when I visited the Basque country the first thing I thought was: they are taller and paler than their neighbours. I don't know: perhaps I saw your phantomatic germanic minority of the Basque country.

Drac II
07-08-15, 07:28
e) when I visited the Basque country the first thing I thought was: they are taller and paler than their neighbours. I don't know: perhaps I saw your phantomatic germanic minority of the Basque country.

Considering that in Spain their "neighbors" are Navarrans, Riojans, Cantabrians and Castillian-Leonese I find that hard to believe. Jablonski & Chaplin also used Leonese samples in their study, and they were only about one point below the Basques in skin tone. The only way to tell Basques apart from other northern Spaniards is by their surnames, not by how tall or pale they are. But you are right that "Johannes" doesn't know what he is talking about.

Brennos
07-08-15, 07:43
Considering that in Spain their "neighbors" are Navarrans, Riojans, Cantabrians and Castillian-Leonese I find that hard to believe. Jablonski & Chaplin also used Leonese samples in their study, and they were only about one point below the Basques in skin tone. The only way to tell Basques apart from other northern Spaniards is by their surnames, not by how tall or pale they are. But you are right that "Johannes" doesn't know what he is talking about.

I'm sorry Drac, I didn't specify the neighbours: I meant Frenchmen from Languedoc and Spaniards from the south (specifically, Seville and Extremadura). When I went to Catalunya and Galicia and Cantabria I were younger and I wasn't interested yet in anthropology.

Johannes
08-08-15, 03:10
a) I'm sorry: the automatic corrector on my mobile phone changed haldiones and haldii in scaldiones and scaldii;

b) the point is this, if you don't understand, I'll tell you plain and clear: Ostrogoth society was weak, so it attracted Justinian, who saw the good moment to act when he understood that there were two élites, one germanic, enemy and minoritarian, and one italic, friend and majoritarian. If the Ostrogoths had behad like Franks, probably they would have resisted the Bizantine invasion better;

c) germanic society was indeed divided in castes, even if those castes were more mobile than other castes. All equals... rarely I heard such a biased assumption. The equals were the freemen! Those who bore weapons. And among them there was nobility;

d) obviously you know european history better than me: the other difference between my culture and yours is that mine isn't biased. You look like those young boys who believe in a not-so-clear germanic superior spirit and ethnic group and want to demonstrate that only germanic peoples brought civilisation to the poor Europe. I suggest to be less biased and romantic when speaking of history: your behaviour is a real insult against your intelligence and culture;

e) when I visited the Basque country the first thing I thought was: they are taller and paler than their neighbours. I don't know: perhaps I saw your phantomatic germanic minority of the Basque country.

a) OK Brennos are you trying to debate here if you know more about about Gothic history than me? Theodoric was the greatest Gothic king ever. He ruled over Italy, parts of Slovania, Croatia, and Austria, and had co-rulership with the Visigoths in southern France and all of Iberia. He was the greatest German in the early Middle Ages. His power was so huge that it caused Emperor Justinian to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. It was only when Theodoric died that Justinian decided to invade. There was some Italian politics about apartheid, BUT it was the split in German ruling class that made Justinian's decision to go to war (the Visigoths and Ostrogoths decided to split their rule). The Germans were growing too strong: they controlled all Iberia, France, and Italy. Theodoric was trying to create a Gothic Empire. That's why Justinian tried to reconquer Italy, Iberia, and North Africa (Iberia he failed).
b) German society was not weak. It was just in constant war with other Germans and Byzantines.
d) You must have some romantic version of Basques. Its understandable since you Italians are darker than some other Western Europeans. However, have you ever realized that in Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, and Basque Country it rains all the time??? Dont you think the weather makes a difference in skin tones? Maybe you confused Basques with other NW Europeans?

Brennos
08-08-15, 09:40
a) OK Brennos are you trying to debate here if you know more about about Gothic history than me? Theodoric was the greatest Gothic king ever. He ruled over Italy, parts of Slovania, Croatia, and Austria, and had co-rulership with the Visigoths in southern France and all of Iberia. He was the greatest German in the early Middle Ages. His power was so huge that it caused Emperor Justinian to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. It was only when Theodoric died that Justinian decided to invade. There was some Italian politics about apartheid, BUT it was the split in German ruling class that made Justinian's decision to go to war (the Visigoths and Ostrogoths decided to split their rule). The Germans were growing too strong: they controlled all Iberia, France, and Italy. Theodoric was trying to create a Gothic Empire. That's why Justinian tried to reconquer Italy, Iberia, and North Africa (Iberia he failed).
b) German society was not weak. It was just in constant war with other Germans and Byzantines.
d) You must have some romantic version of Basques. Its understandable since you Italians are darker than some other Western Europeans. However, have you ever realized that in Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, and Basque Country it rains all the time??? Dont you think the weather makes a difference in skin tones? Maybe you confused Basques with other NW Europeans?

a) Theoderic wasn't the greatest gothig king ever... he wasn't so farsighted. Instead, the Visigothic king Alarik II was much more intelligent and farsighted.

The power wasn't so huge that Justinian wanted to conquer back the western part of Empire: Justinian saw the internal weakness of the Ostrogoth kingdom and understood that it was the moment to act. It is called geopolitical thinking, but - perhaps - you don't know what does it mean. It is surely better to believe in a romantic view of medieval history.

And, very ridiculous, the germanic kingdoms weren't so fearful for Justinian: all germanic kingdoms were at war with each other!

b) Germanic societies were indeed weak, because they couldn't understand and begin integration a and in a social-political tissue - the roman one - where economy was much more complex than the archaic system of germanic tribes, and also the whole system of honors and government (for example, see the double system of élites that were formed in the government of those germanic kingdoms) was different. And...yes, I can suggest you hundreds of books on the argument. Only few germanic leaders understood the changement and were successful;

d) I haven't a romantic view of Basques: I only told you what I saw in my several travels in Spain, and I only gave you a study on their skin tone. Nothing more than evidence. And, of course, your childish way to discuss (i.e. "Its understandable since you Italians are darker than some other Western Europeans") makes very useless to have a conversation with you. And, also, in northern Spain doesn't rain all time: are you really trying to discuss cleverly, or do you only want to say childish thing without any mean in a conversation? And if it rains all the day, the studies I produced were about skin tone in parts of body not exposed to sun... have you read those studies?

And, if I didn't say it, my genealogy trace back to the frankish and lombard Italy: my family originated from a germanic harimann who lived in Bergamo. But, as you can see, I'm not biased and I see my origins for what they are.

Sile
08-08-15, 21:11
a) Theoderic wasn't the greatest gothig king ever... he wasn't so farsighted. Instead, the Visigothic king Alarik II was much more intelligent and farsighted.

The power wasn't so huge that Justinian wanted to conquer back the western part of Empire: Justinian saw the internal weakness of the Ostrogoth kingdom and understood that it was the moment to act. It is called geopolitical thinking, but - perhaps - you don't know what does it mean. It is surely better to believe in a romantic view of medieval history.

And, very ridiculous, the germanic kingdoms weren't so fearful for Justinian: all germanic kingdoms were at war with each other!

b) Germanic societies were indeed weak, because they couldn't understand and begin integration a and in a social-political tissue - the roman one - where economy was much more complex than the archaic system of germanic tribes, and also the whole system of honors and government (for example, see the double system of élites that were formed in the government of those germanic kingdoms) was different. And...yes, I can suggest you hundreds of books on the argument. Only few germanic leaders understood the changement and were successful;

d) I haven't a romantic view of Basques: I only told you what I saw in my several travels in Spain, and I only gave you a study on their skin tone. Nothing more than evidence. And, of course, your childish way to discuss (i.e. "Its understandable since you Italians are darker than some other Western Europeans") makes very useless to have a conversation with you. And, also, in northern Spain doesn't rain all time: are you really trying to discuss cleverly, or do you only want to say childish thing without any mean in a conversation? And if it rains all the day, the studies I produced were about skin tone in parts of body not exposed to sun... have you read those studies?

And, if I didn't say it, my genealogy trace back to the frankish and lombard Italy: my family originated from a germanic harimann who lived in Bergamo. But, as you can see, I'm not biased and I see my origins for what they are.

There are different Franks in Italy.........the Salian franks had their capital at Verona and extended east to Castelfranco ( castle of the franks )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salian_Franks
East of Castelfranco where the swabians until the friul

Franks are ancient west germans from franconia lands and lombards are ancient east germans

I also believe that there is a connection between Basque through southern french through to Bergamo in regards to AuDna

Johannes
08-08-15, 22:54
a) Theoderic wasn't the greatest gothig king ever... he wasn't so farsighted. Instead, the Visigothic king Alarik II was much more intelligent and farsighted.

The power wasn't so huge that Justinian wanted to conquer back the western part of Empire: Justinian saw the internal weakness of the Ostrogoth kingdom and understood that it was the moment to act. It is called geopolitical thinking, but - perhaps - you don't know what does it mean. It is surely better to believe in a romantic view of medieval history.

And, very ridiculous, the germanic kingdoms weren't so fearful for Justinian: all germanic kingdoms were at war with each other!

b) Germanic societies were indeed weak, because they couldn't understand and begin integration a and in a social-political tissue - the roman one - where economy was much more complex than the archaic system of germanic tribes, and also the whole system of honors and government (for example, see the double system of élites that were formed in the government of those germanic kingdoms) was different. And...yes, I can suggest you hundreds of books on the argument. Only few germanic leaders understood the changement and were successful;

d) I haven't a romantic view of Basques: I only told you what I saw in my several travels in Spain, and I only gave you a study on their skin tone. Nothing more than evidence. And, of course, your childish way to discuss (i.e. "Its understandable since you Italians are darker than some other Western Europeans") makes very useless to have a conversation with you. And, also, in northern Spain doesn't rain all time: are you really trying to discuss cleverly, or do you only want to say childish thing without any mean in a conversation? And if it rains all the day, the studies I produced were about skin tone in parts of body not exposed to sun... have you read those studies?

And, if I didn't say it, my genealogy trace back to the frankish and lombard Italy: my family originated from a germanic harimann who lived in Bergamo. But, as you can see, I'm not biased and I see my origins for what they are.

LOL -- You are very funny man. You think when someone has different perspective from you they are "childish."

a) Theoderic was called "the great" for a reason my friend. Theoderic was perhaps the greatest Gothic king compared to all the rest (maybe Alaric I was the greatest in that he brought all his people out of danger in E. Roman Empire and sacked Rome and established a kingdom in S France. Alaric II was a great king but was killed at the Battle of Vouille and lost all of Aquitaine). Theoderich also brought the West and East Goths together. It was a territory so huge that his power was too strong. This is why Justinian wanted to destroy the Goths. I know my history and it is obvious you have read something different. But I know a I am almost always right: read here:

" Ostrogothic power was fully established over Italy, Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily), Dalmatia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia_(Roman_province)) and the lands to the north of Italy. In this war[which? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] the Ostrogoths and Visigoths began again to unite, if we may accept the witness of one writer[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] that Theoderic was helped by Visigothic auxiliaries. The two branches of the nation were soon brought much more closely together; after he was forced to become regent of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse), the power of Theoderic was practically extended over a large part of Gaul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul) and over nearly the whole of the Iberian peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_peninsula). Theoderic also attempted to forge an alliance with the Frankish and Burgundian kingdoms by means of a series of diplomatic marriages. This strengthening of power eventually led the Byzantine emperor to fear that Theoderic would become too strong, and motivated his subsequent alliance with the Frankish king, Clovis I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I), to counter and ultimately overthrow the Ostrogoths." wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths.

Here is another wikipedia entry which supports my assertions about the Goths: "no writer is more instructive than Salvian of Marseilles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvian_of_Marseilles) in the 5th century, whose work, De Gubernatione Dei, is full of passages contrasting the vices of the Romans with the virtues of the "barbarians", especially of the Goths. In all such pictures we must allow a good deal for exaggeration both ways, but there must be a groundwork of truth. The chief virtues that the Roman Catholic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) presbyter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter) praises in the Arian Goths are their chastity, their piety according to their own creed, their tolerance towards the Catholics under their rule, and their general good treatment of their Roman subjects."

Gothic rule was generally positive in Iberia, S France, and Italy. Anyone who claims, like Dac, that they were weak or stupid is not an expert in Gothic history.

Thank god for wikipedia! Almost everything I am debating comes out of my head but I can back up some of my research with wikipedia. I dont have the luxury to cross check but later when I move to USA I can check my notes or check the books/journals. Again: before you put in your two cents try to do some research because you can make an ass of yourself if you are not careful. Also you need to take out of your head this "romantic view" of history. It does not exit in USA or anywhere in the world anymore.

b) Yes Germanic societies had a "weakness" in that they still retained ancient traditions that could cause problems with a system based on non-tribal traditions. One was the election and overthrow of kings by election (it was a common democratic practice used by German tribes but it turned disastrous when used in large kingdoms). The Germans always practiced Machiavellian tactics and many rulers were killed (the most disastrous practice of removing kings by election was the loss of S Iberian to the Muslims.) But they all eventually adopted the hereditary system, which eliminated most of the problems of succession. Another weakness was their apartheid which you well demonstrated. But they would have eventually integrated in time (like the Franks, Lombards, Burgundians -- even the Alemans in Alsace-Lorraine and Vikings in Normandy). The third weakness was their religion. Germans have traditionally been more honest with their religion than Italians and followed Arianism, which was more logical than Catholicism. All Germans understood the Roman system but they wanted to integrate it with Germanic traditions (many German rulers were taught to be Romans way back since Arminius. Germans were proud and did not want to carbon copy the Roman system into their society). In fact the union of Roman and German systems/traditions created the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe.

d) I know Basques because I am part Basque and have seen them in reality. Some are fair and some are swarthy or dark like your Italians. They are a mix of proto-Celts (Iberians), Celts, and Neolithic peoples. You can believe what you want. Basques are not important anyway.

Johannes
09-08-15, 02:34
What you call "Marxist or leftist interpretation" is just normal historical scholarship, while what you call "old school" are indeed old legends, usually invented centuries later by people with certain agendas, which you seem to swallow hook, line and sinker without much criticism.

No, "Marxist or leftist interpretation" it's not "normal historical scholarship." They have an agenda just like you do, the difference is you cannot see it. You follow everything slave-like. Plus you have this hidden or crypto-Hispanic agenda that makes everything about the Goths as useless.

Anyone who believes the "old school" is full of legends is a fool. The research is legitimate. So historians just made things up and followed legends? man you are ridiculous.

There are no agendas with me, or at least I try not to make any. I read everything there is out there on this topic and made my interpretations. You have been brainwashed by the Marxist interpretation. That is all. History is all about interpretation or perspective. Mine is legitimate.

My suspicion is that your critical knowledge of Early Medieval History of Iberia is weak but you try to cover it by using all these Marxist or "new" books as legitimate or try to make yourself seem like an expert. You only read two or three pages and use it as ammunation to counter a point but what you need to do is a thorough research of all the literature.

Brennos
09-08-15, 10:44
LOL -- You are very funny man. You think when someone has different perspective from you they are "childish."

a) Theoderic was called "the great" for a reason my friend. Theoderic was perhaps the greatest Gothic king compared to all the rest (maybe Alaric I was the greatest in that he brought all his people out of danger in E. Roman Empire and sacked Rome and established a kingdom in S France. Alaric II was a great king but was killed at the Battle of Vouille and lost all of Aquitaine). Theoderich also brought the West and East Goths together. It was a territory so huge that his power was too strong. This is why Justinian wanted to destroy the Goths. I know my history and it is obvious you have read something different. But I know a I am almost always right: read here:

" Ostrogothic power was fully established over Italy, Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily), Dalmatia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia_(Roman_province)) and the lands to the north of Italy. In this war[which? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] the Ostrogoths and Visigoths began again to unite, if we may accept the witness of one writer[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] that Theoderic was helped by Visigothic auxiliaries. The two branches of the nation were soon brought much more closely together; after he was forced to become regent of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse), the power of Theoderic was practically extended over a large part of Gaul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul) and over nearly the whole of the Iberian peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_peninsula). Theoderic also attempted to forge an alliance with the Frankish and Burgundian kingdoms by means of a series of diplomatic marriages. This strengthening of power eventually led the Byzantine emperor to fear that Theoderic would become too strong, and motivated his subsequent alliance with the Frankish king, Clovis I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I), to counter and ultimately overthrow the Ostrogoths." wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths.

Here is another wikipedia entry which supports my assertions about the Goths: "no writer is more instructive than Salvian of Marseilles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvian_of_Marseilles) in the 5th century, whose work, De Gubernatione Dei, is full of passages contrasting the vices of the Romans with the virtues of the "barbarians", especially of the Goths. In all such pictures we must allow a good deal for exaggeration both ways, but there must be a groundwork of truth. The chief virtues that the Roman Catholic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) presbyter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter) praises in the Arian Goths are their chastity, their piety according to their own creed, their tolerance towards the Catholics under their rule, and their general good treatment of their Roman subjects."

Gothic rule was generally positive in Iberia, S France, and Italy. Anyone who claims, like Dac, that they were weak or stupid is not an expert in Gothic history.

Thank god for wikipedia! Almost everything I am debating comes out of my head but I can back up some of my research with wikipedia. I dont have the luxury to cross check but later when I move to USA I can check my notes or check the books/journals. Again: before you put in your two cents try to do some research because you can make an ass of yourself if you are not careful. Also you need to take out of your head this "romantic view" of history. It does not exit in USA or anywhere in the world anymore.

b) Yes Germanic societies had a "weakness" in that they still retained ancient traditions that could cause problems with a system based on non-tribal traditions. One was the election and overthrow of kings by election (it was a common democratic practice used by German tribes but it turned disastrous when used in large kingdoms). The Germans always practiced Machiavellian tactics and many rulers were killed (the most disastrous practice of removing kings by election was the loss of S Iberian to the Muslims.) But they all eventually adopted the hereditary system, which eliminated most of the problems of succession. Another weakness was their apartheid which you well demonstrated. But they would have eventually integrated in time (like the Franks, Lombards, Burgundians -- even the Alemans in Alsace-Lorraine and Vikings in Normandy). The third weakness was their religion. Germans have traditionally been more honest with their religion than Italians and followed Arianism, which was more logical than Catholicism. All Germans understood the Roman system but they wanted to integrate it with Germanic traditions (many German rulers were taught to be Romans way back since Arminius. Germans were proud and did not want to carbon copy the Roman system into their society). In fact the union of Roman and German systems/traditions created the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe.

d) I know Basques because I am part Basque and have seen them in reality. Some are fair and some are swarthy or dark like your Italians. They are a mix of proto-Celts (Iberians), Celts, and Neolithic peoples. You can believe what you want. Basques are not important anyway.


Different assumption are childish? Are you serious? You wrote that "it is understandable because italians are darker"... what the hell does it work with the discussion we are leading? We were speaking of Basque and you made unuseful my arguments with that idiotic statement! When a person haven't got any good argument, well, he goes with racist assumptions. Well done, Johannes! You are really a good history scholar...

To discuss with you is very unuseful: you aren't capable of any discussion. Your assumption could easily dubbed by me if and only if I said that you glorify germanic tribes because it is understandable, germanic barbarians were the least civilized people in Europe. But I DIDN'T because it had nothing to do with argument. You don't know the basic laws of a clean discussion.

Your behaviour is so stubborn, that it is a shame that moderator haven't banned you yet.

And Iberians are PROTO-CELTS? So, they spoke a proto-celtic language? What a new! We have another crypto indoeuropean people.

Obviously Wikipedia is the main source for serious scholars... but shut up! I had twenty books on the argument in bibliography when I was at the University in Italy and all scholars were prone to think that Theoderic was yes strong, but also very weak because of the internal weakness of Ostrogoth society. So, if you think.... but what I'm arguing? It is impossible to have a correct discussion with you. Bye.

Brennos
09-08-15, 10:45
No, "Marxist or leftist interpretation" it's not "normal historical scholarship." They have an agenda just like you do, the difference is you cannot see it. You follow everything slave-like. Plus you have this hidden or crypto-Hispanic agenda that makes everything about the Goths as useless.

Anyone who believes the "old school" is full of legends is a fool. The research is legitimate. So historians just made things up and followed legends? man you are ridiculous.

There are no agendas with me, or at least I try not to make any. I read everything there is out there on this topic and made my interpretations. You have been brainwashed by the Marxist interpretation. That is all. History is all about interpretation or perspective. Mine is legitimate.

My suspicion is that your critical knowledge of Early Medieval History of Iberia is weak but you try to cover it by using all these Marxist or "new" books as legitimate or try to make yourself seem like an expert. You only read two or three pages and use it as ammunation to counter a point but what you need to do is a thorough research of all the literature.

You have no agenda? I'm sincerely amazed, because all your statements point to a well built agenda.

Brennos
09-08-15, 10:51
a) OK Brennos are you trying to debate here if you know more about about Gothic history than me? Theodoric was the greatest Gothic king ever. He ruled over Italy, parts of Slovania, Croatia, and Austria, and had co-rulership with the Visigoths in southern France and all of Iberia. He was the greatest German in the early Middle Ages. His power was so huge that it caused Emperor Justinian to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. It was only when Theodoric died that Justinian decided to invade. There was some Italian politics about apartheid, BUT it was the sp

This is a unequivocal evidence of your arrogance. And your arrogance speaks for itself.

Johannes
09-08-15, 18:21
This is a unequivocal evidence of your arrogance. And your arrogance speaks for itself.

It is not arrogance: I already showed you proof that I was correct, and I only used wikipedia to cross check what was ingrained in my mind from past research. I dont live in USA now. I work in China as a teacher. So I cannot give you quotes from recent books like Drac. But I do know my history. I made a thorough research on the Germans and Goths and that is what I remembered. If your professors in Italy said it had some weak system, then OK, I am willing to accept your (or their) interpretation but I think mine is better. And I am not the only one who agrees. Just check wikipedia and other historians. History is about interpretation of the facts or perspective. You have a 'marxist" interpretation. I know much of what the marxists did was great work but they went overboard on their interpretations. It's not all just about structures or common people; great men make history too. I just dont agree completely with the marxists (you do).

Johannes
09-08-15, 18:22
You have no agenda? I'm sincerely amazed, because all your statements point to a well built agenda.

And what is that "agenda" you think I have? I am curious to know what it is.

Johannes
09-08-15, 18:28
Different assumption are childish? Are you serious? You wrote that "it is understandable because italians are darker"... what the hell does it work with the discussion we are leading? We were speaking of Basque and you made unuseful my arguments with that idiotic statement! When a person haven't got any good argument, well, he goes with racist assumptions. Well done, Johannes! You are really a good history scholar...

To discuss with you is very unuseful: you aren't capable of any discussion. Your assumption could easily dubbed by me if and only if I said that you glorify germanic tribes because it is understandable, germanic barbarians were the least civilized people in Europe. But I DIDN'T because it had nothing to do with argument. You don't know the basic laws of a clean discussion.

Your behaviour is so stubborn, that it is a shame that moderator haven't banned you yet.

And Iberians are PROTO-CELTS? So, they spoke a proto-celtic language? What a new! We have another crypto indoeuropean people.

Obviously Wikipedia is the main source for serious scholars... but shut up! I had twenty books on the argument in bibliography when I was at the University in Italy and all scholars were prone to think that Theoderic was yes strong, but also very weak because of the internal weakness of Ostrogoth society. So, if you think.... but what I'm arguing? It is impossible to have a correct discussion with you. Bye.

Now now, tisk tisk: the problem here is that you are too emotional. And emotional people make childish remarks. Just because you get all emotional does not mean I cannot debate or discuss. If you dont agree with my interpretations of data or sources then dont argue or debate me. Simple.

Brennos
09-08-15, 18:56
It is not arrogance: I already showed you proof that I was correct, and I only used wikipedia to cross check what was ingrained in my mind from past research. I dont live in USA now. I work in China as a teacher. So I cannot give you quotes from recent books like Drac. But I do know my history. I made a thorough research on the Germans and Goths and that is what I remembered. If your professors in Italy said it had some weak system, then OK, I am willing to accept your (or their) interpretation but I think mine is better. And I am not the only one who agrees. Just check wikipedia and other historians. History is about interpretation of the facts or perspective. You have a 'marxist" interpretation. I know much of what the marxists did was great work but they went overboard on their interpretations. It's not all just about structures or common people; great men make history too. I just dont agree completely with the marxists (you do).


I was speaking of University professors in Italy who are leading doctorate schools. But, obviously, your interpretation is better: you are the mouth of the Truth.

Brennos
09-08-15, 18:57
And what is that "agenda" you think I have? I am curious to know what it is.

Your agenda? To oversize the germanic role in Southern Europe.

Brennos
09-08-15, 19:09
Now now, tisk tisk: the problem here is that you are too emotional. And emotional people make childish remarks. Just because you get all emotional does not mean I cannot debate or discuss. If you dont agree with my interpretations of data or sources then dont argue or debate me. Simple.

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.

LeBrok
09-08-15, 19:19
Your agenda? To oversize the germanic role in Southern Europe. I agree, and not only. We see similar romanticizing Germanic role, looks or actions when discussion history of northern Europe with Johannes. At the same time ridiculing ethnicity Germanics fought in the past.

Drac II
10-08-15, 07:39
No, "Marxist or leftist interpretation" it's not "normal historical scholarship." They have an agenda just like you do, the difference is you cannot see it. You follow everything slave-like. Plus you have this hidden or crypto-Hispanic agenda that makes everything about the Goths as useless.

Anyone who believes the "old school" is full of legends is a fool. The research is legitimate. So historians just made things up and followed legends? man you are ridiculous.

There are no agendas with me, or at least I try not to make any. I read everything there is out there on this topic and made my interpretations. You have been brainwashed by the Marxist interpretation. That is all. History is all about interpretation or perspective. Mine is legitimate.

My suspicion is that your critical knowledge of Early Medieval History of Iberia is weak but you try to cover it by using all these Marxist or "new" books as legitimate or try to make yourself seem like an expert. You only read two or three pages and use it as ammunation to counter a point but what you need to do is a thorough research of all the literature.

You don't get it: what you arbitrarily call "Marxist or leftist interpretation" is just normal historical scholarship. The books and historians I quote are all just normal academics who specialize in these subjects. Since they do not say what you want to hear (mostly unconfirmed old legends and romanticized notions that are considered hardly reliable by modern academic standards), then you give them this "Marxist" label in order to try to discredit them. Ironically, you are the one who uses mostly Wikipedia, a "Free Encyclopedia", which features articles written by anyone who simply wants to, including bona fide Marxists.

Drac II
10-08-15, 07:55
I was speaking of University professors in Italy who are leading doctorate schools. But, obviously, your interpretation is better: you are the mouth of the Truth.

"Johannes" is armed with Wikipedia, the "Free Encyclopedia", very often written by Professor Who-Knows-Who, so beware! Actual scholars specializing on these subjects do not have a prayer!

And even then he often uses it poorly. For example, Wikipedia could have answered what he was so puzzled about regarding the people that Isidore of Seville was talking about in the passage I quoted from his "Etymologies". Incredibly enough, "Johannes" wants to convince us that he is actually a "historian".

Johannes
10-08-15, 13:40
"Johannes" is armed with Wikipedia, the "Free Encyclopedia", very often written by Professor Who-Knows-Who, so beware! Actual scholars specializing on these subjects do not have a prayer!

And even then he often uses it poorly. For example, Wikipedia could have answered what he was so puzzled about regarding the people that Isidore of Seville was talking about in the passage I quoted from his "Etymologies". Incredibly enough, "Johannes" wants to convince us that he is actually a "historian".

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?

Johannes
10-08-15, 13:47
You don't get it: what you arbitrarily call "Marxist or leftist interpretation" is just normal historical scholarship. The books and historians I quote are all just normal academics who specialize in these subjects. Since they do not say what you want to hear (mostly unconfirmed old legends and romanticized notions that are considered hardly reliable by modern academic standards), then you give them this "Marxist" label in order to try to discredit them. Ironically, you are the one who uses mostly Wikipedia, a "Free Encyclopedia", which features articles written by anyone who simply wants to, including bona fide Marxists.

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:

Brennos
10-08-15, 14:19
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?

Quod demonstrandum erat: who was emotional here? Who was the arrogant?

And... nobody believes that Iberians are pure Celts... you see too many ghosts.

But keep going with your stubborn belief in your superior Truth, even if there are plenty of people that don't follow your biased view of history.

Johannes
10-08-15, 14:30
Your agenda? To oversize the germanic role in Southern Europe.

Overemphasize the role of Germanics in Southern Europe??? Are you serious? What planet are you living in? So you think Germans did little to develop the cultures of Europe?

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.

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. Either way the Germans ruled your country for 1,000 years (the Ostrogoths, Lombards, Franks, HRE, and Normans) either directly or indirectly. Most of the Italian high nobility was descended from Germans. Plus the Germans introduced the Gothic cathedral, the feudal order, and helped make Catholic religion the dominant religion in Europe (and throughout they helped keep alive the classical knowledge of the Greeks and Romans). In short, the Germans are responsible for creating the culture of the Middle Ages in Europe.

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.

As far as the Goths in Iberia, they kept the Muslims in check and eventually reconquered all of the Iberian peninsula (and ethnically cleansed the Muslim population). Of course the common Goths lost their identity because they had to mix with the Celts, Basques, and whatever Iberio-Romans were left in the north in order to survive and became "Leonese, Castilians, and Aragonese." Either way they did contribute to the development of Iberia and eventually of Southern Europe. For example, they created a centralized government and were tolerant of others. Only the Church made intolerance possible (for example, the case with the Jews and heretics).

For your information if it wasn't for Germans Europe would have been speaking Arabic and worshiping Allah. 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).

So is this overstating the Germanic role?

Johannes
10-08-15, 14:39
Quod demonstrandum erat: who was emotional here? Who was the arrogant?

And... nobody believes that Iberians are pure Celts... you see too many ghosts.

But keep going with your stubborn belief in your superior Truth, even if there are plenty of people that don't follow your biased view of history.

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

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?:thinking:

Johannes
10-08-15, 14:44
I agree, and not only. We see similar romanticizing Germanic role, looks or actions when discussion history of northern Europe with Johannes. At the same time ridiculing ethnicity Germanics fought in the past.

You are so biased: why dont you read what Drac and Brennos say about me? They are always trying to ridicule me but you obviously don't pay attention. Plus your knowledge of history is not very impressive.

Brennos
10-08-15, 18:14
You are so biased: why dont you read what Drac and Brennos say about me? They are always trying to ridicule me but you obviously don't pay attention. Plus your knowledge of history is not very impressive.

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.

Brennos
10-08-15, 18:16
Drac and his Catalan avatars believe it. They claim Iberians are pure Celts.:laughing:

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?:thinking:

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

Brennos
10-08-15, 18:24
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
11-08-15, 00:29
"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
11-08-15, 00:46
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
11-08-15, 03:28
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
11-08-15, 17:51
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
11-08-15, 17:55
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
11-08-15, 18:26
Drac and his Catalan avatars believe it. They claim Iberians are pure Celts.:laughing: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?:thinking: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
11-08-15, 18:31
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
31-08-15, 18:50
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. :laughing:

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
31-08-15, 18:54
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?:laughing:

Drac II
01-09-15, 07:12
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. :laughing:

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? :laughing: 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
01-09-15, 15:00
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
01-09-15, 17:09
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
03-09-15, 16:59
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? :laughing: 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
03-09-15, 17:08
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? :laughing: 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
05-09-15, 01:45
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
05-09-15, 01:50
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
05-09-15, 02:21
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
05-09-15, 02:35
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.

Drac II
05-09-15, 02:56
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.

Since nothing that can be identified as "Gothic" culture-wise has been found older than what has been found in Poland, then the logical conclusion, in light of current archaeological evidence, is that the Goths originated in Poland. Speculating about where other Germanic-speaking cultures came from does not clarify this, since we are dealing specifically with the Goths and the characteristics that set them apart from other groups.

In the case of Islam the record is even clearer and there is no dispute whatsoever since the oldest evidence for this religion all comes from Arabia. Everyone in the world who has practiced this religion at any point in history got it either directly or indirectly from the Arabs.

Tomenable
05-09-15, 03:07
Since nothing that can be identified as "Gothic" culture-wise has been found older than what has been found in Poland, then the logical conclusion, in light of current archaeological evidence, is that the Goths originated in Poland.

There is evidence of cultural links and migrations between Scandinavia and southern coast of the Baltic Sea at that time.

And M. Kulikowski actually questions the "Gothicness" of archaeological cultures which were Gothic according to Heather. Some other scholars also question the "Gothicness" of archaeological cultures and claim that Goths never lived in Poland.

Frederik Kortlandt, "The Origin of the Goths", cites a theory about South German origin of Goths based on linguistic links:

"(...) Claims that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southermost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (...)"

F. Kortlandt, "The Origin of the Goths", page 1.

Let's add that "the southernmost part of the Germanic territories" is not Poland, but somewhere near the Roman frontier.

Also supporters of the autochthonistic origin of West Slavs claim that Germanic tribes didn't live in Poland.

================================

It is actually safest to assume, that Proto-Gothic originated in Scandinavia, as all of Proto-Germanic originated there.

How did those languages and tribes spread after leaving Scandinavia is another issue, here there are many controversies.

Sile
05-09-15, 04:04
There is evidence of cultural links and migrations between Scandinavia and southern coast of the Baltic Sea at that time.

And M. Kulikowski actually questions the "Gothicness" of archaeological cultures which were Gothic according to Heather. Some other scholars also question the "Gothicness" of archaeological cultures and claim that Goths never lived in Poland.

Frederik Kortlandt, "The Origin of the Goths", cites a theory about South German origin of Goths based on linguistic links:

"(...) Claims that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southermost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (...)"

F. Kortlandt, "The Origin of the Goths", page 1.

Let's add that "the southernmost part of the Germanic territories" is not Poland, but somewhere near the Roman frontier.

Also supporters of the autochthonistic origin of West Slavs claim that Germanic tribes didn't live in Poland.

================================

It is actually safest to assume, that Proto-Gothic originated in Scandinavia, as all of Proto-Germanic originated there.

How did those languages and tribes spread after leaving Scandinavia is another issue, here there are many controversies.

the question should be ......since goths destroyed sarmatians and incorporated the remainder into gothic armies, then what marker did goths leave in italy and Spain.........what are these sarmatian markers


next, Goths to me where always from poland, .....gothones cousins of goths in Poland, ........Gutes, getes .........are they all the same when the language is noted as different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlander

gutes are from gotland....getes are from sweden

Drac II
07-09-15, 07:08
There is evidence of cultural links and migrations between Scandinavia and southern coast of the Baltic Sea at that time.

And M. Kulikowski actually questions the "Gothicness" of archaeological cultures which were Gothic according to Heather. Some other scholars also question the "Gothicness" of archaeological cultures and claim that Goths never lived in Poland.

Frederik Kortlandt, "The Origin of the Goths", cites a theory about South German origin of Goths based on linguistic links:

"(...) Claims that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southermost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (...)"

F. Kortlandt, "The Origin of the Goths", page 1.

Let's add that "the southernmost part of the Germanic territories" is not Poland, but somewhere near the Roman frontier.

Also supporters of the autochthonistic origin of West Slavs claim that Germanic tribes didn't live in Poland.

================================

It is actually safest to assume, that Proto-Gothic originated in Scandinavia, as all of Proto-Germanic originated there.

How did those languages and tribes spread after leaving Scandinavia is another issue, here there are many controversies.

Heather is only one among many scholars who have concluded that the oldest evidence for Gothic culture is found in Poland. But whether it was in Poland or Germany, the point is that the archaeological evidence uncovered so far does not point towards Scandinavia as the origin of the Goths.

Johannes
10-09-15, 13:56
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.

You like to answer my posts because you probably have no job and get bored all day. If you were so knowledgeable you would have ignored me since you think I am so "wrong." But it's clear to me you are not that knowledgeable. You also don't debate; you split hairs and never offer any knowledge that adds to our understanding. You just say "this is the facts, etc . . . " This is why many here ignore you. I also asked you what ethnic background and what are your credentials but you never answer. You seem like some kind of an expert but you are not fooling me.

Johannes
10-09-15, 14:09
Heather is only one among many scholars who have concluded that the oldest evidence for Gothic culture is found in Poland. But whether it was in Poland or Germany, the point is that the archaeological evidence uncovered so far does not point towards Scandinavia as the origin of the Goths.

That's right: "so far." We need to wait and see what the future brings. And yes i read Peter Heather. I don't care if you doubt it. Jordanes and other writers claimed that Goths came from Scandinavia. Since they spoke an Eastern Germanic language and their culture was Germanic, then it's safe to assume they came from the Germanic homeland, i.e., Scandinavia.

Johannes
10-09-15, 14:18
the question should be ......since goths destroyed sarmatians and incorporated the remainder into gothic armies, then what marker did goths leave in italy and Spain.........what are these sarmatian markers


next, Goths to me where always from poland, .....gothones cousins of goths in Poland, ........Gutes, getes .........are they all the same when the language is noted as different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotlander

gutes are from gotland....getes are from sweden

Probably the Ostrogoths picked up a lot of Sarmatian and Skythian DNA since they ruled southern Ukraine for almost 200 years. The Visigoths moved more west but also would have picked up some Skythian DNA. But what exactly was Sarmatian and Skythian DNA?

This is exactly my point: I know the Goths lived in Poland for many years but Jordanes stated that they came form Scandinavia. Since Goths were Germanic then it was obvious to assume they came from there. Yet this guy criticizes me for making things up or giving "simple" answers. He is the most stubborn and disrespectful commentator in this forum. You cannot debate him because he does not want to believe anything that is different from what's ingrained in his brain.

Johannes
10-09-15, 14:25
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.


I bet if Kulikowski was in this forum this Drac guy would have insulted him and accused him of being a "charlatan" and "wrong." Anything that is different to him will only reinforce his stubborness that he is right in everything and everyone else is wrong.

Johannes
10-09-15, 14:42
Heather is only one among many scholars who have concluded that the oldest evidence for Gothic culture is found in Poland. But whether it was in Poland or Germany, the point is that the archaeological evidence uncovered so far does not point towards Scandinavia as the origin of the Goths.

OK, but if you go back, way back, it did originate somewhere either in Northern Germany, Denmark, or Southern Scandinavia. This is the original homeland of all Germanic peoples. Are you saying the Goths were not Germanic??

Sile
10-09-15, 20:22
OK, but if you go back, way back, it did originate somewhere either in Northern Germany, Denmark, or Southern Scandinavia. This is the original homeland of all Germanic peoples. Are you saying the Goths were not Germanic??

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/spaniards-do-have-moorish-admixture/

iberians have a lot of north-african markers............but where these prior moor or berber