R1b L51-L11 Germanic Italo Celts: Rulers and conqueres of Bronze-Iron age west Europe

[Fire Haired]

My account has been acting up lately it has barely been working this whole thread might be messed up. With the paragraphs stuck together and other things also the format of threads on this webiste is really thin which will make it look longer. I want to ask Maciamo if he could make a Germanic Italo Celtic R1b L51 and subclades map or maybe L11 and subclades. The maps he does make are really good were he has specific subclade maps and he is constintley updating them. There is not enough room so if my account works well enough i will add a Germanic section on a post.

What are Germanic Italo Celts????​

The word is confusing because when people hear Germanic they think Germany or Scandinavia when they hear Italo they think Italy and when they hear Celtic they think Ireland or Scotland. Germanic Italo Celtic is a branch of the Indo European language family tree and they have their own branch of Y DNA(Marker in Y chromsome of DNA from father to son) R1b their branch is R1b L51. From the studies i have seen it only exists in western Europe and some parts of eastern Europe. The branch that is for sure unque to Germanic Italo Celts is R1b L11 which has two subclades Italo Celtic R1b S116/P312 and Germanic R1b S21/U106 there are also some Germanic subclades of R1b S116/P312 because when Italo Celts and proto German speakers were both in central Europe they mixed but the Germanic R1b S116/P312 subclades are very rare.There is no linguistic evidence that Germanic languages and Italo Celtic languages form their own branch of the Indo European language family tree but that is probably because they have been separate for 4,500-5,000years. Archaeology, modern Y DNA, and ancient Y DNA samples connect Germanic and Italo Celts. Their culture completely dominated Bronze - Iron age Europe from about 5,000-2,000ybp. In my opinion they are one of the most powerful people in history. Evidence is almost 50% of western European men trace their direct paternal line to Germanic Italo Celts this means the native paternal lines were killed in wars. I don't know if there has ever been a people group who dominated so much. It is like their culture never lost any wars till Rome. They are a age in western European history i call it the Germanic Italo Celtic Bronze-Iron warrior age because they spread mainly by conquering. Their age ended when Italic tribes in Italy were Hellnized/Greekifed then the Roman empire. Most of them also converted to Christainty during the Roman empire and alittle after and all of Europe's culture period was completly changed by Rome.

Origin of Germanic Italo Celts​

Through a mix of R1a1a M417 hunter gathers and farmers from Russia and Ukraine and R1b1a P297, R1b1a2 M269, R1b1a2a L23 north mid eastern farmers 6,000-8,000ybp gave birth to Indo European language, culture, and religion. Some early Indo European groups became dominated by R1b1a P297 like Germanic Italo Celts ancestral languages some became dominated by R1a1a M417 like Indo Iranian Balto Slavic ancestral language. It is hard to say exactly what ethnicity the first Indo European speakers were. Or what languages were started by what ethnic groups what were the people who spread the language like. All we know just about for sure is the Indo European language, culture, and religion started around Russia, Ukraine, north middle east about 6,000-8,000ybp. The R1b that's spread with Indo European languages originally came from the north mid east the R1a from Russia and Ukraine. It seems all Indo European languages even groups dominated by R1b migrated out of Russia and Ukraine. The R1b came to Russia and Ukraine from the north mid east then migrated to western Europe or whatever. There was also probably some central Asia influence since very very early Indo European cultures like Yamna even as far back as 5,600ybp extended to Kazakhstan the central Asian influence could be European, mid eastern, or Mongoloid.We have types of DNA from 5,000 and 6,000 year old Yamna Indo European people in Ukraine Russia area. Only some info was released in June 2013 they said the mtDNA haplogroups( Marker in Mitochondrial chromosome passed form mother to children) all had typical Caucasian groups so mid east and Europe with no Mongoloid groups. They had the same pale skin genes that dominate Europeans today and had the same phenotype as modern Europeans. Also that they had mainly brown eyes (probably also mainly brown hair) more than most modern Europeans but around the same rate as people in that area today. DNA from Indo Iranian Indo Europeans in central and eastern Asia some are 3,800 years old. Had mainly light hair and eyes and later remains had red hair and were shown to be very unrelated to mainly brown eyed Yamna people. Their ancestors never stepped foot west of Russia so they were about 100% from Indo Europeans that migrated east deep into Asia 5,000ybp. This shows that there were diff ethnic groups in Russia, Ukraine, north mid east area 6,000-8,000ybp Who knows which one the proto Germanic Italo Celts were apart of. Since there is a lot of evidence red hair in western Europe comes from the spread of Germanic Italo Celts that would mean they were European and probably more related to the type Indo Iranians came from.The people who spoke the ancestral language of Germanic Italo Celtic migrated probably from southern Russia and Ukraine to southeast Europe mainly around Bulgaria about 6,000ybp. They would have been dominated by R1b1a2a L23. From south east Europe they then migrated north and west and landed in central Germany by 5,000ybp. By this time they would have formed into R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11. The Germanic Italo Celts had superior bronze weapons, a very aggressive culture, War like Gods, and other things gave them a huge advantage over the native Bell Beaker culture so they were able to conquer central Europe from 5,000-4,500ybp. This could explain why out of 31 Y DNA samples in west Europe dating from 7,000-4,725ybp non had R1b but two 4,600 year old ones from central Germany had R1b one was for sure R1b1a2 M269 which shows the Germanic Italo Celts had arrived and were already dominating. From what we know this is probably how R1b migrated. If u look at the R1b subclades i named above and find them on this map u can also see how Germanic Italo Celts migrated.

Here is the R1b family tree it gives the people group or area it originated which helps.

The Germanic Italo Celts with mainly R1b L11 and some R1b L51 from 5,000-4,5000ybp conquered the native Bell Beaker culture. Which before had dominated just about all of western Europe. About 4,500ybp they split into Italo Celts and Germans(dont get confused with the country Germany). The Italo Celts formed into R1b S116 invaded and conquered modern day central France, Alps, Austria, Switzerland, south Germany, and most of central Germany starting the Unetice culture about 4,500-4,300ybp. The proto Germanic speakers formed into R1b S21 about 4,500ybp conquered northern Germany, Netherlands then 4,000ybp conquered Denmark and south Scandinavia started the Nordic bronze age culture. Probably some R1b S21 people who would have spoken a Germanic language or a related language to Germanic in central Germany where conquered and mixed with Italo Celts.

Italo Celts

Map of Italo Celtic R1b S11/P312 some very early italo Celtic speakers mixed with proto Germanic speakers while both were in central Europe. So there are also Germanic branchs of R1b S116 but they are pretty rare.

Like i said before the Italo Celts split from the Germans in modern day central Germany. Then migrated and conquered Alps, east France, and south Germany starting Unetice culture about 4,500-4,300ybp they also formed into R1b S116/P312 during this time.bronze swords from Unetice culture

It is hard to say when Celtic and Italic languages split but Italic speakers were apart of the same cultures in central Europe with many Celts till 3,200ybp. The Celts made the first major migrations they conquered all of modern day France and the areas once ruled by Unetice by 3,600-3,300ybp forming into Tumulus culture which decends from Unetice culture. The reason it is called Tumuls is because they had so many Kurgen/Tumli burials which is a traditional indo European burial. The oldest Kurgens found are 6,000 years old one from southeast Poland the other north Caucus.The proto Insular Celtic speakers with R1b L21 migrated from Tumuls culture in modern day France and conquered Britain and Ireland somewhere between 3,000-4,300ybp. The book of invasions written by Irish monks in the 1000's ad. Say there were 7 major invasions of Ireland the last one was one by Irish ancestors who were Gealic Celts who conquered the Fir blog. This could be talking about Insular Celtic conquering of Irleand about 3,000-4,000ybp. The Insular Celts were split into two groups the Gealic's from Ireland and the Brythonic's who took up all of Britain. The Insular Celts were kind of isolated from the rest of Europe and there is not as much known about them as their is about Gauls and other Celts. The Romans conquered the entire Hallstat/La Tene Celtic world but only the southern half of the Brythonic Insular Celtic world. The Brythonic Picts in Scotland and Geailic's in Ireland were never conquered by Rome but eventulley were conquered culturally and were converted to Christianity very quickly i think most people know the story of St. Patrick in Ireland. Gealic Celts from Ireland who were the Scots conquered the Picts and started the Kingdom of Scotland in the middle ages.Germanic tribes Angeals, Jutes, and Saxons and maybe others all coming from around Denmark, Netherlands, and northern Germany conquered southern and central Britain from 400-550ad. The western Roman empire was becoming weak and the Britons depended on Rome for military they had also lost alot of their identity. Many Insular Celts from Briton retreated into Britanny in western France which is why R1b L21 is so popular there. There were also invasions of Vikings from mainly around Denmark and south Scandinavia So all of these invasions lowered the percentages of R1b L21 in Britian. Map of the distribution of Insular Celtic R1b L21 before all the Germanic invasions in the late Roman period and middle ages R1b L21 would be as popular as it is in Ireland in all of Britain.

Tumlus culture also may have conquered most of Iberia and brought R1b Df27 or Celts and R1b Df27 came to Iberia in later migrations. Tumulus culture around the alps, South Germany, and east France formed into Urnfield culture. Urnfield culture became very dominate amoungst other Italo Celts. The Urnfield culture was able to spread their culture by force and trade throughout most of central Europe. They were dominated by R1b S28 they may be were R1b S28 originated. It lasted from 3,300-2,750ybp It gave birth to Celtic Hallstatt culture in central Europe and Italic Villnoeaven culture in northern Italy both were dominated by R1b S28.Map of the spread of Urnfield culture from 3,300-2,750ybp

Urnfield sowrds central Europe.

Urnfield weapons and armour from north Italy i would assume around 3,000 years old.

• 

3,000 year old Hallstatt Celtic bronze sword as u can see it is nearlly identical to the Urnfield sword from Italy and central Europe. They are the R1b S28 Italo Celtic sword. These are the types of swords Italic and Celtic Cheifs and high ranking warriors used to spread R1b S28 and cultures descended from Urnfield culture. The R1b S28 Celts and Italics descended from Urnfield culture in my opinion are some of the greatest warriors and conquers of all time.

Urnfield also gave birth to Hallstatt Celtic culture which started in the area Urnfield and Unetice culture originated. Hallstatt spread across all of modern day France conquering other Celts mainly culturally but also by military. It could have been Celts in southern and western France who spread into Iberia with R1b Df27 from 2,700-2,500ybp. Hallstat culture gave birth to La Tene culture around the same area Unetice, Urnfield, and Hallstatt culture were founded probably because that was the center of the Italo Celtic world. Hallstatt and La Tene culture were able to spread acroos the entire Celtic world, north east Italy, alot of land in eastern Europe just north of the Balkans and in central Turkey.Map of the expansions of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures during the Bronze Age and the Iron Age

Statue of a naked Hallstat/La Tene Celtic warrior in northern Italy. Hallstat/ La Tene Celtic warriors fought naked very ofentlley untill 200bc. They were seen as primitive barbarians by Mediterranean civilizations like Rome and as great warriors. Hallstat/La Tene Celtic warrior from TV show Deadliest warrior with traditional Urnfield R1b S28 Italo Celtic sword but it is Iron and longer. He has the right hair style, Facial hair, belt, cape, and war paintMap of Urnfield Italo Celtic R1b S28. Like i said before it was spread by Celts and Italics descended from Urnfield culture starting in central Europe around 3,500ybp. It was spread by conquest and trade mainly conquest. By warriors like the one on top who used the same style of sword. If u have R1b S28 there is no doubt ur direct fathers 2,000-3,500ybp used a swords just like the ones on top some probably fought in battles naked and in my opinion some of the greatest warriors of all time. If u are from Italy, central Europe, France, or any were there is R1b S28 u had ancestors like this.

The Hallstat Celts in The alps, France, and south Germany had constant contact, trade, and wars with Villnoeaven Italics in Italy. Which could explain why both started to use Iron around the same time. The R1b s28 Italic tribes who eventulley conquered just about all of Italy. Were heavily influenced by Greece and other Mediterranean civilizations like Estrucans who seem to have conquered most of central Italy about 3,500-3,000ybp but orignally came from somewhere in the middle east. The City Rome in Italy was founded in 753bc in Villnoaeven culture. Romans were a city state and had to slowly win over Italy from other Italic's, Celts, and Estrucans. Early Roman writing talks alot about wars they had with invading Hallstat/La Tene Celts who conquered much of northern Italy. What surprises me is they describe Hallstatt/La Tene Celts as complete foreigners even though they came from the same father culture but that is probably because of how much Italic's changed from Greek influence and they had been separated from the Celts culturally for over 500 years. Rome had lost alot of their Italic traditions and became like Greeks but they did not completely forget their old traditions. Ancient Roman writers wrote alot about how Rome had left their more simple ways and became like Greeks so they rembered who they used to be.Rome was able to conquer Italy from other Italic's, Celts and Estrucans by 218bc. Eventulley they became the powerhouse of the Mediterranean world conquering all land that borders the Mediterranean sea. Then went on to conquer the Hallstat/ La Tene Celtic world, Balkans, Greece, Dacai-Thracia, and mcuh of the middle east. The Romans probably had the most dominate and greatest military in history. It is true they had left most of their Italic traditions and became like Mediterranean civilizations but in military they thought of themselves as separate and tried to keep their traditions. Their main sword the Gladuis was invented by Hallstatt Celts in Iberia, their chain mail was invented by La Tene Celts from central Europe in 300bc, their main helmet also by La Tene Celts in central Europe. So alot of their military equipment was from Italo Celtic technology not Greek and Mediterranean. Map of farthest extent of Roman empire in 117ad.

It was the warriors like this who created the Roman empire. They would have been almost only Italian probably mainly central and southern Italian at least in the early Roman empire. So mainly R1b s28 and alot of their weapons were from Hallstat/ La Tene Celts so it formed form Italo Celtic technology. The Roman military is probably the most dominate and powerful military in Human history. Rome completely changed European history they brought a end to the age of Germanic Italo Celtic bronze-iron age tribal cultures. Roman influence also lead to the end to all tribal cultures in Europe like Slavic's. Before Rome, Europe was kind second second class right under the civilized world around the Mediterranean and also civilizations in east Asia and India. Rome in a way gave birth to the modern western world. Also Christianity became extremely popular in the Roman empire and through the Roman empire was able to spread across all of Europe and become the main religion

​

 

[Mikewww]

Is there any particular reason why you use the word "warrior" so many times? I'm sure there were warriors in multiple cultures but I think there were other kinds of roles in society too, that probably were critical.

 

[Fire Haired]

Here is a link to a better expample of this thread my account is messed u so this one is hard to read.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe

Mikewww ur right that people who where not warriors played major roles. The reason i keep mentioning warrior when it comes to Germanic Italo Celts and Indo Europeans. Conquest though is how they spread their language which takes warriors they had better more advanced weapons uselly than their enemies. Indo European culture like the Indo Aryans who wrote the Vedic script over 3,000 years old ago in India they had a strong military tradition. I know a lot of people do too like ancient Japaneses, Mongols, Romans most ancient people had their own military traditions. All people have warriors but Indo European people are probably the most successful in history.

I dont really know how the other parts of their society worked it is alot more simply to say this people conquered that people. If u look at the R1b page on this website Maciamo explains it in extreme detail. He says R1b spread to west Europe by Indo European conquest. I know the real people we are talking about who lived 5,000ybp their society was not completely focused on war but when they needed land or wanted food that is what they did and that is how they spread. I think the ancient la Tene Celts who Romans wrote abuot when they were invading and conquering areas of north Italy are a good example of what Germanic Italo Celts would have been like. The Gaulic chief Brennus said they invaded because they needed resouses, land, and their population was getting to big. Also he was really prideful and insulted Rome alot of times one of the things he said was if a weaker people have land a stronger people want there is nothing wrong with the stronger people conquering it.

 

[LeBrok]

Is there any particular reason why you use the word "warrior" so many times?

Because that's what excites him! He is the young hyperactive romantic warrior, in spirit so far. I'm sure it is the sentiment of 90% of young guys like him, to be a warrior,... and not the farmer.
We are warriors for couple of millions of years if not longer, and farmers only 10 thousand. Yet, I'm sure he won't agree with me that he's warrior-love is genetic, that this is his nature.

 

[Mikewww]

... Mikewww ur right that people who where not warriors played major roles. The reason i keep mentioning warrior when it comes to Germanic Italo Celts and Indo Europeans. Conquest though is how they spread their language which takes warriors they had better more advanced weapons uselly than their enemies

I wouldn't say use of force to take land or whatever is something only associated with Indo-European types, but I would not be surprised if they didn't expand by other methods rather than just direct conquest. Political wheeling/dealing, marriage alliances, trading, advanced herding and animal husbandry practices, etc. may have been other cultural advantages. There may have also been biological factors. They may have brought diseases that they themselves were resistant to. Perhaps the ability to drink milk as adults produced higher survival rates. Perhaps the women were just plain good child raisers or otherwise extra tough.

I'm not saying violence was not a major factor at all. It was what it was and it is what it is. I'm not trying to say these ancient folks weren't or couldn't be ruthless, cruel or of great honor and dignity in battle. However, I'm not sure we can prove more prior inhabitants in Europe died by the sword than by disease. If you can't prove that, I'm just asking you to consider that to glorify or emphasize conquest is not really conducive to research, objective conversation and learning.

I can't tell you how many conversations I've had where in reality someone was worried someone else (another haplogroup) was trying to steal the glory of IE, or of Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Gaels, Dalraitians or what have you. There's not much to be gained out of all of that. We are all descendants of hunters, gatherers, farmers, kings, paupers and warriors somewhere along the line.

 

[Mikewww]

.... good example of what Germanic Italo Celts would have been like.

You might consider a little more caution about a label like "Germanic Italo Celt". Many linguists do associate Italic and Celtic languages and theorize there was a common base language dialect, an "Italo-Celtic" dialect of IE so to speak.

However, I don't see a lot of agreement on where Germanic "roots" in to the IE tree. David Anthony ("The Horse, The Wheel, Language...." author) discusses this and uses the Ringe-Taylor-Warnow tree as his basis for discussion. Pre-Germanic dialects might root closer to Balto-Slavic lineages. I actually agree with you that Pre-Germanic broke off somewhere around the time that Italo-Celtic dialects broke off, but I don't really know. The fact that R1b-U106(S21) is a brother of R1b-P312(S116) gives some additional support but we really don't know. It's quite speculative.

 

[LeBrok]

I wouldn't say use of force to take land or whatever is something only associated with Indo-European types, but I would not be surprised if they didn't expand by other methods rather than just direct conquest. Political wheeling/dealing, marriage alliances, trading, advanced herding and animal husbandry practices, etc. may have been other cultural advantages. There may have also been biological factors. They may have brought diseases that they themselves were resistant to. Perhaps the ability to drink milk as adults produced higher survival rates. Perhaps the women were just plain good child raisers or otherwise extra tough.

Excellent point. Very often the economic factor is neglected. With bronze axe IE could clear more forests for new fields. Bronze made better plows, cycles and hummers. They could produce more and overpopulate locals. They've created bigger trade center to where nonIE locals were attracted to sell their goods, and learning new language in the process.
And off course, with bigger populations and bronze weapons they could conquer others much easier too.
It's not much different how Europeans conquered the world in last 500 years. Mostly due to much better economies, production, technology. Even later when they left many places, the locals are still using European languages as lingua franca in their countries. They build houses like europeans, dress like europeans, or use europeans technology and tools.
Economy, Economy, Economy.

PS. Will our politicians finally get that?

 

[Mikewww]

... It's not much different how Europeans conquered the world in last 500 years. Mostly due to much better economies, production, technology....

I really don't the answer, but I've asked myself who killed more Native Americans? Europeans in battle or disease?
My guess would be disease.

P.S. To your last question, LeBrok, the answer seems to be "let them eat cake" and they'll distribute the cake as they see fit.

 

[Ike]

Is there any particular reason why you use the word "warrior" so many times? I'm sure there were warriors in multiple cultures but I think there were other kinds of roles in society too, that probably were critical.

It had probably been even worse than that. There is no society if there are no warriors to defend it from marauders. Poor society means only slaves, rich society means a lot of gold, but then when you have a lots of money you can build fortified cities and pay for professional warriors. Marauders, on the other side, pick their prey according to their own strength.

In an organized society all other things are subordinated to defense. You need to breed horses for warriors, have good blacksmiths to make 'em shields and swords, have food to feed them, have a lot of money for all this. In order to obtain money you need to produce something valuable or to trade goods.

Marauders produce nothing, nor they do trade. They just live of other mens work. Same as today, whether on microcosmic or a global plane.

 

[Fire Haired]

Mikewww and Lebrok u know i exaggerated the conquering and warrior part of R1b L11-L51 Germanic Italo Celts. The reason is because that sounds alot cooler than talking about how they made beakers. Also that is how they spread their language, culture, religion, and y dna. How do u explain that naearlly 50% of west Euro's y dna is descended of R1b L51 they did not spread because of mainly economic things or disease Maybe those things did help but the final results was they conquered. The native men were killed in battle or after battle because they where seen as a threat that is why so much of their y dna was destroyed. War is extremely important in all people but it was above average important for Indo Europeans and Germanic Italo Celts. I dont see any other explanation for the spread of Indo European languages the Indo Aryans in the rig veda which is over 3,000 years old say they conquered India. Not a surprise 30% of people around the indus valley have R1a1a1b2 and it's subclades.

Mikewww i never said Indo European are the only to conquer. Ike i think u dont understand that all early Indo Europeans were tribal they lived in family tribes of probably 10,000's of people. They where not civilizations they probably did not have a currency just traded stuff if they paid people to be warriors it was through farm animals or something like that.

In tribal chiefdom people pretty much every male is excepted to fight in a war at somepoint in his life and learn to be able to for his whole life. So they did not exactly have a distinct warrior class everyone in a way was a warrior. Sure in modern america only some people are in the military but almost all human societies before america where not like that.

 

[Ike]

Mikewww i never said Indo European are the only to conquer. Ike i think u dont understand that all early Indo Europeans were tribal they lived in family tribes of probably 10,000's of people. They where not civilizations they probably did not have a currency just traded stuff if they paid people to be warriors it was through farm animals or something like that.

I perfectly understand that. I'm just using contemporary language and familiar examples to describe a process that evolved and changed over the thousands of years, without getting into details.

Anyway, some old eastern kingdoms waged wars amongst each other long before Europeans. It seems to me that Europeans started to spread around and conquer manically as soon as they grasped "the value of gold". There was no point riding a 1000 km to steal a herd of goats from someone, but a bag of silver coins would be a much more desirable loot.

 

[Mikewww]

Mikewww and Lebrok u know i exaggerated the conquering and warrior part of R1b L11-L51 Germanic Italo Celts. The reason is because that sounds alot cooler than talking about how they made beakers.

I'm not sure what you intend to communicate as your sincere belief or what you think you are saying is an exaggeration. Being cool is okay, but some people are trying to learn about their ancestry and may not know what is factual, probable, possible or an exaggeration.

Also that is how they spread their language, culture, religion, and y dna. How do u explain that naearlly 50% of west Euro's y dna is descended of R1b L51 they did not spread because of mainly economic things or disease Maybe those things did help but the final results was they conquered. The native men were killed in battle or after battle because they where seen as a threat that is why so much of their y dna was destroyed. War is extremely important in all people but it was above average important for Indo Europeans and Germanic Italo Celts. I dont see any other explanation for the spread of Indo European languages the Indo Aryans in the rig veda which is over 3,000 years old say they conquered India. Not a surprise 30% of people around the indus valley have R1a1a1b2 and it's subclades.

I believe there was a lot of violence in ancient times, but you are asserting with great emphasis the "warriors" and the "conquering" aspects of all of this. Since you are asserting a position, you should be prepared to back it up.
See the Wikipedia article sources:

"From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States military, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere has declined, the direct cause mostly from disease, to 1.8 million from around 50 million"​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history (see Wikipedia sources)

If you think in the European Bronze Age, it was mostly battle casualties changing the Y DNA, that's fine, just show us some evidence. What percentage of Y DNA replacement is from fighting? and how do you derive that number? and what research did you use for that?

Mikewww i never said Indo European are the only to conquer...

I never said you did, but you are emphasizing this. Your article is not necessarily a balanced view.

In tribal chiefdom people pretty much every male is excepted to fight in a war at somepoint in his life and learn to be able to for his whole life. So they did not exactly have a distinct warrior class everyone in a way was a warrior. Sure in modern america only some people are in the military but almost all human societies before america where not like that.

Are you an anthropologist or sociologist? or an Indo-European researcher? I am not so I can not speak in detail as to their social organization.

I have ancestors who fought actively in multiple battles in the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, as well as relatives who were in most of the 20th century American wars and conflicts. I am aware of the differences between modern American life and times not so long ago, however, it all depends on where you live and violence is not non-existent, today. I don't think we need any lectures on that.

 

[Fire Haired]

Mikewww ur right i should not exaggerate i did a little but it is the truth that Germanic Italo Celts were incredible warriors also the Romans were and they spread their language, culture, religion, and y dna by the spear, sword, bone and arrow, and axe that is also how Rome became powerful. Ur right that Europeans took north and south america not because of direct conquest except the Spanish did. They claimed native american land reasoned with native Americans and when ever they rebelled the native Americans stoood no chance they had less people and way worse weapons.

The La Tene Gauls from 400-200bc migrated and conquered in the exact same way earlier Italo Celts and Germanic Italo Celts did but La Tene Celts were recorded by Romans and Greeks. La Tene Gauls ravaged northern and central Italy and sacked Rome in 390bc. There are literally books Romans's wrote in that time and right after it happened about these invasions they have tons of quotes from the chief of those Gaulic tribe's Brennus which just meanthe was in a high ranking family or king in Celtic languages. Basically he was extremely prideful and insulted Rome and other people all the time. He said that his people were getting to big needed land and resources and when weak people like Rome are in their way it is the stronger people's right to take those things.

Similar groups of La Tene Gauls who were also lead by someone named Brennus. Conquered alot of eastern Europe around that time and sacked cities in Greece there is 1-5% R1b S28 in the areas they conquered and settled including central Turkey. They probably had the same reasons for conquering as all indo Europeans did. There is also no doubt they were a aggressive group of people more than average in ancient times which is another reason they were able to conquer and had a scary reputation.

 

[Degredado]

That's an interesting point, Mikewww. Maybe the R1b's brought some illness(es) with them, which they were already immune to, but to which the natives (mainly hg I folks) weren't? Historically, most plagues/flus/epidemic diseases in general seem to appear in Asia first, and then spread from there. And we must also consider that Western Europe was probably only populated by a few pockets of lost souls before the R1b's came and multiplied like rabbits (granted that the R1b's might not have been that numerous themselves).

I have always found the old idea of the Indo European Chuck Norris-like invaders arriving in their panzer-chariots with their godly weapons and putting everyone on their knees, somewhat cartoonish and over-romantic. And no, this is not a dig at Fire Haired at all, I just think there might have been other - unknown and possibly stronger - factors behind the R1b domination.

While I'm at it, am I being completely ignorant when I wonder about just how much of an effect chariots of 5000 years ago could have had in battle, in the heavily forested and mountainous lands of Western Europe? Just how agile and deadly were these things, even for their time? Or did their main advantage just come from the fact that they helped in logistics, i.e., bringing weapons, food, women, etc?

 

[Fire Haired]

Degredado i think there is no doubt that Indo Europeans spread their language, culture,religion, and y dna by conquering because they were extremly agressive and had good weapons. It was the same story every time. When Indo European culture Corded ware arrived in eastern Europe over 5,000ybp for somereason they where able to tak almost all of it and south scandnavia. When Germanic Italo Celts arrived in Germany they conquered and were able to eventulley take all of western Europe. When Indo Iranians arrived in central asia they dominated they conquered areas in Siberia took land in China, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and alot of Iraq Syria area. The Hittites dominated Antolia they where one of the most powerful people in the ancient middle east because of their chariots and very aggressive culture.

The Indo Iranians who wrote the rig veda over 3,000ybp war was very important to them. Indra was probably their main God and he road a chariot and he was kind of a war God he pretty he was very similar to Thor. The Indo Iranians in the Rig veda say they conquered India and Pakistan. The 1,000 year old book of invasions written by Irish monks who were trying to keep their ancestors stories alive and also added stuff from Greeks, Romans, and the Bible to their stories. They say that Irish peopl's ancestors come from the 7th and last invasion of Ireland where they conquered a people they called Fir blog this is probably talking about R1b L21 Insular Celtic conquering of Ireland over 3,000ybp.

I dont see any other way to explain why Indo European Y DNa is almost 50% of total European Y DNa and over 30% around the Indus valley. It is because they conquered that is the most obvious answer to me in all of this. They did not kill in disease they specifically killed off the native male lines meaning probably because they killed the men in battle. There is a reason why most mtDNA is Europe is Paloithic(Cro magnon time) while most Y DNA is Neolithic or Indo European bronze age. I think mainly G2a, with some E1b1b V13, and possibly J1 farmers coquered Europe from 6,000-10,000ybp. They did not just spread the culture of farming they killed hunter gathers who would have been probably only hg I. Degredado when Germanic Italo Celts came to west Europe Spain, France, and Italy would have been probably mainly G2a, with alot of I2a1a and E1b1b V13. Central Europeans would have been mainly I1a subclades, I2a2, and G2a. It is kind of unknown what British and Irish had possibly I2a1b or I2a2 and defintley some G2a and maybe E1b1b V13, non Uralic Scandinavians would have been only I1a mainly I1a2.

 

[nordicwarrior]

Let me apologize on behalf of my fellow hg. I brethren for not humbly lining up to be massacred like the unfortunate natives of both Australia and the Americas. We hg. I members should have realized early on that R1b was the ultimate gift to this planet; and we should have dutifully given our lives so that R1b members could thrive untethered and unhampered through their new European lands.

And yes F.H., the fierce Celtic battle technique has been fully enhanced by your group's brilliant red hair and glowing alabaster skin. Your R1b ancestral freckles have served only to further highlight your tribes' stunning whiteness.

Please remember, R1b has not only ushered the savage sport of golf to the forefront of mankind's psyche, you all have also introduced the hyper-masculine kilt for all to um, enjoy.

Thank you again my trusty R1b leaders. We would be lost without your forceful guidance.

 

[nordicwarrior]

Now you know I HAD to write this... can only have my cage rattled so much. My apologies to the more grounded Eupedia reader.

 

[Nobody1]

Hg I retaliates against Hg R1b

...........lets see if R1b can make a come back

 

[nordicwarrior]

I don't know where you come up with these GIFs, glad you find'em though!

 

[Fire Haired]

The European Union should start taking Y DNA tests on their leaders or anyone with equal rights to make so we can but hg I people back in slavery. I wish all hg I people were as loyal to their R1b L51-L11 masters as u nordicquarreler. Maybe u can be my families personal slave F.Y.I. we kill run aways.

I think this guy was I2a1b

nordicquarreler i was not trying to say R1b L51-L11 Germanic italo Celts are some how superior just we deserve to have u hg I people as our slaves. I was trying to tell how they spread in a interesting way people would want to read. I have R1b L11(X Germanic U106, X Insular Celtic L21, X Urnfield Italo Gaulish U152). U have I1 probably I1a since I1b is extremely rare only found around Belgium and central Germany. If ur direct line goes to Scandinavia or Denmark ur probably I1a2. Those are just our direct male lines. Our ancestry overall probably is not that diff.

Orignally R1b was around Iran 18,000ybp. It only got to Russia Ukriane area in early Indo European times probably 6,000-8,000ybp. Where there was either a bottle neck or they conquered a group of people there. Then there was a R1b people with European heritage that eventulley spread from the steppes to west Europe and spoke proto Germanic Italo Celtic langauge. Who ever the group of Europeans 6,000-8,000ybp around the steppes who received R1b through either peacful inter marraige or were conquered they are maybe the source of red hair in west Europe but originally were not R1b. Probably R1a1a1 M417 or sometype of hg I maybe I2a1b.

I really dont understand this i have heard people on this website say it so many times. teh R1b P312 Celts invaded Iberians with Cro magnon I2a1a. Or that R1b invaded hg I in west europe. Iberians would have been mainly G2a when Celts first invaded. Spain, France, and Italy before Germanic Italo Celtic invasion were probably mainly G2a, with also alot of E1b1b V13 and I2a1a. They were not all hg I central Europeans were probably mainly I1a and I2a2 and then non Urlaic Scandnvains were probably all I1a well before Corded ware culture when proto Germanic speakers came they were a mix of I1a and R1a1a1b.

Cro magnon Paloithic times were way before Indo European times. They were hunter gathers who already had been conquered by G2a, E1b1b V13, and possibly J1 farmers in the Neolithic age. It seems that all Europeans trace most of their ancestry to the first hg I people so even though my direct male lineage is not hg I the vast majority of my ancestry goes back to them.