DNA of Iberians from Europe

[Drac II]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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=3...of the Moors as close blood-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]

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=3...of the Moors as close blood-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[=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]

[=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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, Dalmatia and the lands to the north of Italy. In this war^[which?] the Ostrogoths and Visigoths began again to unite, if we may accept the witness of one writer^{[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, the power of Theoderic was practically extended over a large part of Gaul and over nearly the whole of the 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, 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 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 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.