Ancient genomes from Iceland reveal the making of a human population

[bicicleur 2]

Germanics did in south-germany and Austria to name one area

was there a language for the elite and a native language for the peasants?

 

[Alpenjager]

Updated Geographic distribution of the ancestry in ancient Iceland

 

[Northener]

was there a language for the elite and a native language for the peasants?

I consider this a kind of Romanesk question!

I think in the German area's the language between the elite and the native peasants....

Peter Schrijver (2017) stated that the Frisians before the migration age probably spoke a kind of Celtic. After the Germanization of the North Dutch they spoke 'German with a Celtic accent....' 'old Frisian' like their counterparts (Brittonic>Anglo-Saxon) spoke 'old English'.

I guess in the more Romanized area's like for example in parts of Belgium there were more differentiated languages between the elite and the farmers....

 

[Alpenjager]

That's interesting. Could you provide some sources for that? I mean of dates and indicia of "Gaelic" presence in Ireland pre-Norse migrations, and indications that is pre-Christian era as well.

All samples are dated in this Icelandic study. And those are labeled as pre-christian

 

[Jovialis]

Updated Geographic distribution of the ancestry in ancient Iceland

View attachment 10255

I've asked you kindly to provide links of where you're finding these images. You can certainly link the image.

 

[Alpenjager]

I've asked you kindly to provide links of where you're finding these images.

The images are made by me using the data found in the study. The image with the samples is perfectly found in the paper.

 

[Northener]

double posting

 

[Angela]

"More importantly, no matter the era, no matter the groups involved, I'm always for the civilized "core" against the "barbarians" of the periphery. "
would you also be for the "barbarian" core against the "civilized" periphery? note the quote.

the reason why the lombards should not be extempted, is not because of your comparison with rome. if i compared them with rome i could certainly get some good arguments for them too.
btw if you compare lombard to romans to make an example on why lombards should not be extempted and then only mention all the points in which the romans were better, no, the "good" guys according to you, aren't you somehow implying that if the lombards actually were like the romans they should be extempted and thus the romans themselves should be extempted?

you already mentioned the points why you dislike rome but you did not mention any of these points when you compared the romans to the lombards.


"Consider yourself ignored"

and why should i do that?

Because I planned to put you on ignore, which means I can't read your posts. You join a considerable and always growing list. I just didn't get to it. I will now.

Don't think that means you can go "rogue" and ignore forum rules, however, like insulting other members. Report buttons have their uses, and if necessary I can unblock to read the offending posts. There are also other moderators.

 

[Ailchu]

Because I planned to put you on ignore, which means I can't read your posts. You join a considerable and always growing list. I just didn't get to it. I will now.

Don't think that means you can go "rogue" and ignore forum rules, however, like insulting other members. Report buttons have their uses, and if necessary I can unblock to read the offending posts. There are also other moderators.

i don't think i insulted you or someone else in the last posts. maybe you could say, that there are jibes in some of them but there certainly are jibes in your posts too.

 

[Expredel]

so, did the germanics force their language on conquered people? or did they actually adopt it? i do not celebrate the lombard conquest or the saxon one or the viking one. i dislike them. but why should i differentiate between these conquerors only based on their thechnological or social standards? roman society was probably not really superior to the ones of the people they conquered anyway.

Back in the days rulers were very clear about what they expected of their subjects, though this often resulted in resentment.

As politics evolved it became clear that a subjected people cannot be directly forced into submission. A sense of fear must be instilled, but the source of the fear must not be clear. The subject must have a sense of control without actually having any control. Subtle messaging is used to form social networks, with the promise of power and influence for the dominant ideology. And as the Chinese say, the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut, except that after the tall blades are cut, other blades will become the tallest. Rather than using centralized power and money for brutal oppression, it's more effective to hire an army of lobbyists that infiltrate hubs of power / information and influence / control them.

So the simple protection scheme offered by the Romans (taxes in return for military protection) has evolved into something more sinister. While true civilizations are based on good values (truth and honor) these anti-civilizations are based on lies and fear. George Orwell reasoned that complete totalitarianism required eternal war against other totalitarian states, the flaw in his thinking was that he didn't envision that an anti-civilization can and will wage an eternal war against human nature and reality.

So to answer your questions, the older civilizations all seemed fairly noble in intention to me, void of genuine evil as we witness it in modern times.

 

[Ailchu]

imo you cant just force someone to speak your language. there needs to be long enough contact. the germanics were simply not able to impose their language on such huge areas as the romans did it. the germanics settled among the natives who outnumbered them. when they settled they often did not stay germanic maybe because they often lost the connection to their origin lands. and thats because, and also the reason why, they did not have a "germanic empire" but just tribes who moved to settle somewhere else. their conquests formed new kingdoms that were often independant unlike rome who conquered regions to implement them in their growing empire and made them dependant. that's what makes rome imperialistic. and that's also why rome liked to use punitive campaigns and control the conquered people with fear. there was constant latin culture flow into the conquered regions because they always stayed connected to the roman core. the germanics often moved and then settled somewhere while the romans conquered and then placed military and colonies that were ultimately under the control of rome
that's also why i think the brits and maybe also the gallo-romans got conquered by the germanics. they were too dependant on rome. when the romans left it was like losing the head for the britons.

 

[Angela]

imo you cant just force someone to speak your language. there needs to be long enough contact. the germanics were simply not able to impose their language on such huge areas as the romans did it. the germanics settled among the natives who outnumbered them. when they settled they often did not stay germanic maybe because they often lost the connection to their origin lands. and thats because, and also the reason why, they did not have a "germanic empire" but just tribes who moved to settle somewhere else. their conquests formed new kingdoms that were often independant unlike rome who conquered regions to implement them in their growing empire and made them dependant. that's what makes rome imperialistic. and that's also why rome liked to use punitive campaigns and control the conquered people with fear. there was constant latin culture flow into the conquered regions because they always stayed connected to the roman core. the germanics often moved and then settled somewhere while the romans conquered and then placed military and colonies that were ultimately under the control of rome
that's also why i think the brits and maybe also the gallo-romans got conquered by the germanics. they were too dependant on rome. when the romans left it was like losing the head for the britons.

There were a lot more Germanics in Italy than there were Romans in other parts of Europe as a percentage of the population in each case. The fact is that even while the Lombards discriminated against the native population, and despite some prior decreases in that population, the Germanic tribesmen didn't have the numbers, the literacy, or the first clue how to govern, administrate or even collect taxes in what was left of Rome in the Italian peninsula. They had to turn all of that over to the natives. It could be argued, indeed, that the Goths had no desire to destroy it, but rather wanted to be part of it. It was the Lombards who couldn't maintain what was left because they didn't trust the natives as much, and because unlike the Goths, they hadn't already been partially Romanized through long contact with the Roman Empire.

You're right that with the Germanics, it boiled down to a question of numbers. In places like Italy and Spain and much of France, where they were such a minority and where there were many more indicia of Roman civilization left, they weren't able to impose their language. Let's not forget, too, that they were largely illiterate.

In England, where perhaps they numbered 1/3 of the population, they were indeed successful. That's why we're now all speaking a Germanic language.

Rome was a different case. The conquered people spoke Latin because they didn't stay a conquered, subject people for long. (Nor was it all about conquest. A lot of it was about making alliances with different groups. You know: divide and conquer.)

Within quite extraordinarily short periods after such "conquests", the local elites were co-opted with wealth, positions of authority, as tax collectors who could keep a percentage of the tax collected etc. Local gods were represented in Roman temples. Locals went to the arena, the baths, had access to imported goods. As time passed, locals could become citizens, with all the civil rights of Romans. Heck, all over Europe people without a drop of "Italianate" ancestry considered themselves proud "Romans". They "wanted" to learn Latin; no one had to force them.

Have you never heard of "Romanization"? Dozens and dozens of books and papers have been written about it. You really can't discuss these issues meaningfully without a grasp of the history of these periods. Just google it. Or pick up a good volume on the Roman empire. I can recommend Peter Heather's "Empires and Barbarians".

As for the Germanics not wanting to create empires, that's absolutely untrue. Not wanting to do something is different from not having the ability. Again, read Peter Heather. He's probably the most accessible and readable for lay people on this topic. As soon as they had the wherewithal they definitely tried. What on earth else was Charlemagne all about? Even later in the Middle Ages they created what they called the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire,as the saying goes, much as they tried), and fought over which Germanic king should be "Emperor" or Caesar. Italy was still the golden prize. Then there was the German "Kaiser" and Russian "Czar". The Romans cast a very large shadow, much imitated, but never equaled. That's why even into the 19th century Nordicists wanted so desperately to believe the Romans were actually Nordics. In the east, in the eastern half of the Roman Empire, Greeks and Anatolians and Armenians were calling themselves "Romans" until 1453.

As I said, you have to read and know history to understand why certain things occurred.

 

[MOESAN]

and Christian Europeans were called 'roumi' or 'roomi' /ru:mi/ in arab language - That said, as long as Germanics kept geographical contatcst between them, they imposed their languages in the regions conquered by them (Austria, Switzerland, parts of France...); I wonder if thedefinitive lost of germanic in France was not due to the sharing out of the Frankish empire (rupture of ancient links with the other germanic tribes and kind of isolation for a minority? Because spite the latin was the official administrative language in the Charlemagne 's times, himself had frankish as native language and it was still the case of the Germanic elites in his time .
In fact, the naming is not in itself proof of a linguistic domination: ar frankish is lost but the ancient Gallia became France -

 

[Northener]

There were a lot more Germanics in Italy than there were Romans in other parts of Europe as a percentage of the population in each case. The fact is that even while the Lombards discriminated against the native population, and despite some prior decreases in that population, the Germanic tribesmen didn't have the numbers, the literacy, or the first clue how to govern, administrate or even collect taxes in what was left of Rome in the Italian peninsula. They had to turn all of that over to the natives. It could be argued, indeed, that the Goths had no desire to destroy it, but rather wanted to be part of it. It was the Lombards who couldn't maintain what was left because they didn't trust the natives as much, and because unlike the Goths, they hadn't already been partially Romanized through long contact with the Roman Empire.

You're right that with the Germanics, it boiled down to a question of numbers. In places like Italy and Spain and much of France, where they were such a minority and where there were many more indicia of Roman civilization left, they weren't able to impose their language. Let's not forget, too, that they were largely illiterate.

In England, where perhaps they numbered 1/3 of the population, they were indeed successful. That's why we're now all speaking a Germanic language.

Rome was a different case. The conquered people spoke Latin because they didn't stay a conquered, subject people for long. (Nor was it all about conquest. A lot of it was about making alliances with different groups. You know: divide and conquer.)

Within quite extraordinarily short periods after such "conquests", the local elites were co-opted with wealth, positions of authority, as tax collectors who could keep a percentage of the tax collected etc. Local gods were represented in Roman temples. Locals went to the arena, the baths, had access to imported goods. As time passed, locals could become citizens, with all the civil rights of Romans. Heck, all over Europe people without a drop of "Italianate" ancestry considered themselves proud "Romans". They "wanted" to learn Latin; no one had to force them.

Have you never heard of "Romanization"? Dozens and dozens of books and papers have been written about it. You really can't discuss these issues meaningfully without a grasp of the history of these periods. Just google it. Or pick up a good volume on the Roman empire. I can recommend Peter Heather's "Empires and Barbarians".

As for the Germanics not wanting to create empires, that's absolutely untrue. Not wanting to do something is different from not having the ability. Again, read Peter Heather. He's probably the most accessible and readable for lay people on this topic. As soon as they had the wherewithal they definitely tried. What on earth else was Charlemagne all about? Even later in the Middle Ages they created what they called the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire,as the saying goes, much as they tried), and fought over which Germanic king should be "Emperor" or Caesar. Italy was still the golden prize. Then there was the German "Kaiser" and Russian "Czar". The Romans cast a very large shadow, much imitated, but never equaled. That's why even into the 19th century Nordicists wanted so desperately to believe the Romans were actually Nordics. In the east, in the eastern half of the Roman Empire, Greeks and Anatolians and Armenians were calling themselves "Romans" until 1453.

As I said, you have to read and know history to understand why certain things occurred.

Angela I don’t question the uniqueness and the result of the Roman civilization. My son still learns Latin at secondary school, beside Greek.

But still your tone contains some Roman pride. Nice to see on the one hand, nothing wrong with that. But when the nose gets to high you can probably miss something.

The thing is that the Romans made a statue for themselves vis a vis the barbarians. But partly due to the Roman civilization they were not as wild as it seemed like. In the end they were pretty well organized had at fist their own kind of alphabet (runes), a gift system that maintained the political power.

In the end there was, see the rise and fall of the Roman empire (good old Gibbon) a decline .... due to factors still discussed.

IMO the ‘karls’ of the Germans laid some kind of foundation of the middle class and of entrepreneurship. With all the pro’s and cons. But this was in the end more dynamic than the hierarchical, client patron system of the Roman world...

That kind of system seemed very attractive for the Franks Moesan! First they were indeed Germans just above the Rhine/IJssel then they went to nowadays Belgium headquarter Tournai/ Doornik to chance it for even more Romanized Paris....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Angela]

Angela I don’t question the uniqueness and the result of the Roman civilization. My son still learns Latin at secondary school, beside Greek.

But still your tone contains some Roman pride. Nice to see on the one hand, nothing wrong with that. But when the nose gets to high you can probably miss something.

The thing is that the Romans made a statue for themselves vis a vis the barbarians. But partly due to the Roman civilization they were not as wild as it seemed like. In the end they were pretty well organized had at fist their own kind of alphabet (runes), a gift system that maintained the political power.

In the end there was, see the rise and fall of the Roman empire (good old Gibbon) a decline .... due to factors still discussed.

IMO the ‘karls’ of the Germans laid some kind of foundation of the middle class and of entrepreneurship. With all the pro’s and cons. But this was in the end more dynamic than the hierarchical, client patron system of the Roman world...

That kind of system seemed very attractive for the Franks Moesan! First they were indeed Germans just above the Rhine/IJssel then they went to nowadays Belgium headquarter Tournai/ Doornik to chance it for even more Romanized Paris....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

I'm sorry you see it as an ethnic "pride" thing on my part, Northener, because I value your input, and respect your opinion. All I can do is assure you that it isn't. Some of my ancestry is from them, yes, but it's probably equally from people they conquered, and whom they then either killed, enslaved, or exiled. I hold no grudges. That was the way of the ancient world. They picked the wrong side, although hindsight is, of course, 20/20. I also assure you I see the warts of the Roman character and culture very clearly. I find nothing admirable in conquest, slavery, the gladiatorial contests etc. Nor do I find the posturing about how simple, noble, brave and honest they were very attractive. Some particular individuals I downright abhor as people, Sulla for one, Cato the Elder, I could go on and on.

Fwiw, I don't really start to "identify" with "my people", until the Middle Ages. That's, imo, when our "identity" was forged. If you've ever seen the cultural stuff I publish, Italians don't run around in Roman togas, re-fighting those old battles. Our celebrations center around our city-states of the Medieval and Renaissance times. They were extremely flawed as groups and individuals as well. I don't see anyone through rose colored glasses, including myself.

Be that as it may, Rome in those centuries represented the civilized "core", the place where a prosperous, sophisticated, complex culture, relatively safe within its borders, held sway. Its fall was calamitous for all Europeans within those borders, even if it is natural for all empires to fall. It took hundreds if not a thousand years and more to recover and re-attain some of those accomplishments and that standard of living. I feel the same about the Han versus the Mongolians etc. It's the cycle of history. It makes no difference if I share ancestry with the group I'm describing as the civilized "core" or not.

Facts, however, are facts, even if they might wound our pride a bit.

Everything I've written on the subject of the Roman Empire, its fall, and the well known process called "Romanization" comes from texts and papers by Anglophone scholars, both English and American, written within the last thirty or so years, some of which I studied at university, and some of which I've read over the years to "keep up". History was, after all, not only my major, but also my passion to some degree. I didn't make any of this up or skew the interpretation.

You might be interested in some of the books I've mentioned, including those by Peter Heathers and Brian Ward Perkins, from Cambridge and Oxford, or Goldsworthy. If you don't have enough interest, you might just want to listen to the podcast which coincidentally just went up today and to which I posted a link, where the fall of Rome and the period of Late Antiquity is discussed by Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, and Patrick Wyman, a historian and archaeologist specializing in Late Antiquity. I assure you, not a smidgen of Italian ancestry in any of them, so perhaps you'll believe that they're being objective.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-insight/e/54794596?autoplay=true

 

[Northener]

I'm sorry you see it as an ethnic "pride" thing on my part, Northener, because I value your input, and respect your opinion. All I can do is assure you that it isn't. Some of my ancestry is from them, yes, but it's probably equally from people they conquered, and whom they then either killed, enslaved, or exiled. I hold no grudges. That was the way of the ancient world. They picked the wrong side, although hindsight is, of course, 20/20. I also assure you I see the warts of the Roman character and culture very clearly. I find nothing admirable in conquest, slavery, the gladiatorial contests etc. Nor do I find the posturing about how simple, noble, brave and honest they were very attractive. Some particular individuals I downright abhor as people, Sulla for one, Cato the Elder, I could go on and on.

Fwiw, I don't really start to "identify" with "my people", until the Middle Ages. That's, imo, when our "identity" was forged. If you've ever seen the cultural stuff I publish, Italians don't run around in Roman togas, re-fighting those old battles. Our celebrations center around our city-states of the Medieval and Renaissance times. They were extremely flawed as groups and individuals as well. I don't see anyone through rose colored glasses, including myself.

Be that as it may, Rome in those centuries represented the civilized "core", the place where a prosperous, sophisticated, complex culture, relatively safe within its borders, held sway. Its fall was calamitous for all Europeans within those borders, even if it is natural for all empires to fall. It took hundreds if not a thousand years and more to recover and re-attain some of those accomplishments and that standard of living. I feel the same about the Han versus the Mongolians etc. It's the cycle of history. It makes no difference if I share ancestry with the group I'm describing as the civilized "core" or not.

Facts, however, are facts, even if they might wound our pride a bit.

Everything I've written on the subject of the Roman Empire, its fall, and the well known process called "Romanization" comes from texts and papers by Anglophone scholars, both English and American, written within the last thirty or so years, some of which I studied at university, and some of which I've read over the years to "keep up". History was, after all, not only my major, but also my passion to some degree. I didn't make any of this up or skew the interpretation.

You might be interested in some of the books I've mentioned, including those by Peter Heathers and Brian Ward Perkins, from Cambridge and Oxford, or Goldsworthy. If you don't have enough interest, you might just want to listen to the podcast which coincidentally just went up today and to which I posted a link, where the fall of Rome and the period of Late Antiquity is discussed by Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, and Patrick Wyman, a historian and archaeologist specializing in Late Antiquity. I assure you, not a smidgen of Italian ancestry in any of them, so perhaps you'll believe that they're being objective.

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-insight/e/54794596?autoplay=true

Thanks Angela I will certainly listen too it!!!!
But be aware that civilized vs. barbarian is a kind of dehumanization. That’s why Caesar was proud to slaughter about 200000 barbarians, he spoke of 450000 killed, without a civilized ‘shame” it were after all ‘only’ barbarians you know.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Angela]

Thanks Angela I will certainly listen too it!!!!
But be aware that civilized vs. barbarian is a kind of dehumanization. That’s why Caesar was proud to slaughter about 200000 barbarians, he spoke of 450000 killed, without a civilized ‘shame” it were after all ‘only’ barbarians you know.....

Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

I completely take your point, and agree to some extent, with the quibble that the Romans didn't much care whether the people they conquered were "barbarians" or equally or more "civilized" than they themselves, i.e. the Greeks, the Parthians, etc. etc.

That has, however, indeed been used by Europeans in other times and places as a justification for conquest and virtual extermination, i.e. the Americas, with the "savages" of North America, as they called them, the indigenous Amazonian tribes in South America, all over Africa during the Imperialist Era etc. I'm sure you know the other examples of dehumanization being used to justify extermination.

Anyway, I forgot to mention, in case you didn't read about the podcast on the thread where I originally posted it, after the interview they spend the most time talking about the Anglo-Saxons, the Lombards, and the Huns, the first of whom are of particular interest to you, I think.

 

[Northener]

I completely take your point, and agree to some extent, with the quibble that the Romans didn't much care whether the people they conquered were "barbarians" or equally or more "civilized" than they themselves, i.e. the Greeks, the Parthians, etc. etc.

That has, however, indeed been used by Europeans in other times and places as a justification for conquest and virtual extermination, i.e. the Americas, with the "savages" of North America, as they called them, the indigenous Amazonian tribes in South America, all over Africa during the Imperialist Era etc. I'm sure you know the other examples of dehumanization being used to justify extermination.

Anyway, I forgot to mention, in case you didn't read about the podcast on the thread where I originally posted it, after the interview they spend the most time talking about the Anglo-Saxons, the Lombards, and the Huns, the first of whom are of particular interest to you, I think.

Thanks again for the link, I listened to it. Related to the topic the Germans migrated from the end of the Roman Empire in a different way, the Anglo Saxons way was a kind of chain migration the Longobards an elite migration.

So the impact in genetic sense of the Anglo Saxon kind of migration was bigger than the Longobard one.

The Iceland case belongs clearly to the Anglo Saxon type of migration.

One thing they debated about stays clearly odd. They link the Anglo-Saxon to the Low Lands. But the case is they compare not the roots but parts of the same stream!!!

Before the migration period the North Dutch did NOT belong clearly to the Germanic culture!

During the Roman period the Chauci came in to the most northeastern parts (nowadays Groningen and North Drenthe). This can be seen in pots and people.

But the real chance came with the impact of the Anglo Saxon and Nordic stream of the fifth and sixth century. Just like oversea in England. The had the highest impact on the coast and western parts of nowadays Friesland.

No they make over and over the same mistake, ‘hey the Anglo Saxons and the modern North Dutch resemble.’ Yes they do but not because the Anglo Saxons went to the Northern Lowlands and England likewise. Not because North Dutch went oversea in the fifth century!

From the big migration time onwards it's most probably that the highest social strata (jarls and karls) had a high A-S/Nordic component and in the thralls/laten/slaves there was a big "Bronze Age people" component.

By the way I’m a mix of light and some darkish features too. In nowadays genetic treats test this always goes ‘wrong’ with me they mostly detect me as: a red head, light eyes, light skin. In fact I’m dark blond with a slight reddish undertone, brown eyed moderate (burns but in the end I can get tanned) light skin.

So I guess I carry much reddish/ light genes but in the end some influences colored it somewhat darkish. So even natural selection as mentioned above in the Iceland case didn’t fully rule out some darkish features.....









Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Alcuin]

In terms of the Anglo-Saxons it's clear that they instituted a system where there was one level of "rights" as it were, economic, political etc., where the "native" inhabitants were of a much lower status. You surely don't doubt that? The documentation is crystal clear and well known. I shouldn't need to provide it if you've been interested in this subject for a while.

The same is true of the Lombards. Are we supposed to totally park our value systems at the door when discussing ancient groups, even ancient groups who probably contributed something to our ancestry?

I'm certainly free with my criticism of the Romans: the conquests, the slavery, the persecutions of Jews and Christians. I can and do acknowledge that this was the way of the ancient world, but that doesn't mean I approve it personally.

Why should the Lombards be exempt?

Indeed, it might be instructive to do a comparison of the two sets of conquerors in my area.

The Romans conquered the Celt-Ligures, my ancestors (and later mixed with them, of course), and Lombards then arrived, although the Lombards were probably fewer in number. The Romans brought increased wealth, a much higher standard of living, baths and clean water, a sophisticated system of laws which are the basis even today for much of European law, literacy, the arts, urban life, long distance trade and all its benefits, and even citizenship on an equal footing with Romans in a very short period of time.

After the Lombards and other invasion era tribes, there was widespread destruction of the roads and therefore of trade and the importation of goods, a vast decrease in average wealth except for the lords, and even for them, a vastly decreased standard of living, no clean water, no public baths, illiteracy, what minor arts there were under the heavy hand of the Church, widespread brigandage on the roads and therefore basically no travel, reduction to serfdom for the vast majority of the people, oh, and yes, trial by combat instead of Roman law! To some degree this was the case all over Europe. Surely you're aware of this?

What, are we supposed to celebrate that, even if they did contribute genetically to some degree? We'd have to be mad. This is not "ethnic" as you seem to think. For one thing, given the dozens of Lombard castles in my area and the names in my family tree I have no doubt I carry some of their ancestry, even if it's a minority. More importantly, no matter the era, no matter the groups involved, I'm always for the civilized "core" against the "barbarians" of the periphery. Of course, the people who were once the barbarians can then become the civilized core, as has indeed happened. Those are the cycles of history, yes?

The Early-Middle Ages weren't a time of universal egalitarianism? Well colour me surprised. One may as well ask why modern Italy didn't have universal suffrage until after the Second World War. Does pre-1945 Italy deserve our hatred, with its East African colonies, fascist government and votes-for-old-men-only electoral system? Our criticism, certainly; but worth our bile? No.

I asked a civil question from a dispassionate, impartial standpoint. Asking why you happen to be critical of the Lombards wherever they're mentioned is not in itself a defence of them, though I confess that I do not share such passionate disdain for long-gone tribes. This is a forum for the discussion of history, genetics, anthropology and the cultures of Europe. Amazingly, some people wish to ask people from other parts of Europe why they hold certain opinions about their nation and its peoples, and do so without any kind of agenda.

I accept that the Romans may have been greater architects and engineers (idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset) than the Lombards, but the unfortunate reality is that the Lombards not only contributed to the Italian gene pool but also played a major role in its evolution (ultimately for the better). The Migration Period has a bad reputation, a time of naked barbarians tearing down beautifully-crafted statues of ancient goddesses, as they sacked mighty temples that now lie in ruins - if they still stand at all. Whilst that may not be entirely fiction, it is also true to state that the modern West is rooted less firmly in Ancient Rome, and more in reinterpretations thereof by the Lombards, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Anglo-Saxons and Vandals who had flooded into Italy, France, Britain, Spain, Germany and North Africa.

 

[Rizla]

I wanted to delete my post because it was in the wrong thread, but I can't find the button. I must be blind....