PDA

View Full Version : How Germanic Are the Balkans?



Falcon
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 06:46 PM
The Goths came out from Southern Sweden and settled in these areas before attacking the Roman Empire.
In fact, they helped found many civilizations for which the Slavs take credit.
But, today are they a significant part of these populations or have their genes
disappeared like the genes of Aryans in India?

Leonhardt
Sunday, October 16th, 2011, 07:28 PM
The Goths moved from Yugoslavia to Northern Italy and Spain, some onto North Africa also. I do not know if any stayed behind. According to the Wiki map, some Goths ended up in Turkey. It also claims many Meds could be partially Vandal. Should not forget the Alans tagging along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans

There were small Germanic tribes in Yugoslavia and Ukraine prior to WWII.
Also, the Galatians in Turkey were Celtic.

Karpaten Befreier
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 02:38 AM
I will use the word German instead of Germanic in my question because it sounds better in the plural form.

To begin, during the time of the Dacians, various tribes and peoples lived in the region, the predominant being Dacians (which are usually classified as Thracian but nothing is certain), Scythians, Celts, and Germans. After the Roman conquest of parts of Romania, the conquest's main purpose being looting and thus did not leave a great legacy on the people, many parts that remained independant of Roman control began having a greater Germanic community, mainly of the Gothic type. These Goths also moved into the Transilvania region, and alongside the Carpii (whom most scholars consider to be a Dacian people), made the Roman troops pull out of Dacia and the few settlers alongside them (in 272 AD). Afterwards, when the Huns came, the main body of people still remained Gothic until the Sklavenii people, a Slavonic people, moved in. From then on, there is a long and twisted history in this country. In around the 12th century the Vlachs arrive from the Balkans and bring the Romanian language with them, though they have little impact on the population. From then on there are plenty of Germanic settlers (mainly in the Transilvania region, but clusters can also be found outside).

From what I have seen of Romanians, they look mostly like their Slavic kin to the north, especially the Ukrainians. Afterwards, it gets preety hard to sort them into a place, but they show many Dinaric/Celtic/Germanic traits in the general population, for my experience.

So, how Germanic are they?

Ĉmeric
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 04:51 PM
Ethnic Romanians are not Germanic. They might have some Germanic ancestry (Ostrogoths) but they seem to be mostly influenced by the Romans - Romanian is a Romance language - and by the Byzantine Greeks. Not to mention Tatar-Mongol influences during the Middle Ages & 500 years of Turkish rule. And the Gypsy heritage.

Karpaten Befreier
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 05:01 PM
Ethnic Romanians are not Germanic. They might have some Germanic ancestry (Ostrogoths) but they seem to be mostly influenced by the Romans - Romanian is a Romance language - and by the Byzantine Greeks. Not to mention Tatar-Mongol influences during the Middle Ages & 500 years of Turkish rule. And the Gypsy heritage.

The Daco-Roman theory is rubbish. Romanised Illyrians, by the name of Vlachs, migrated to Romania during the Bulgarian rule in Romania and thus spread the Latin language. For example, if Romans were left in the area after the withdrawal, how come there is not a single word in Romanian of Gothic origin? The two would have definetly mingled. Instead, if the language actually came in the area after Gothic was no longer spoken, but a Slavonic language instead, Gothic words could not have been passed on.

The Byzantine Greeks connection is just religion (except in the Dobruja region where they have Greek blood). Some Finns are Orthodox too, that doesn't make them Greek.

The Tatar-Mongol influence wasn't too big on the population. Maybe some will ahve their genes, but even so, they will be more European than Asian. Romania would have been at the very fringe of their empire, so I doubt there would have been too much mixing.

Towards the south (and once again especially in Dobruja), the people will have some Turkish blood, but by the time you get to Northern/mid Wallachia, little mixing would have occured. Romanians, being Christian, would have found mating with a Muslim like mating with a dog, and Turks would have found mating with Romanians like doing so with a pig.
As for the gypsies... Romanian gypsies might have a Romanian heritage because many are too white to be only Indian nomads. But I doubt any self-respecting Romanian would have sh*gged one, or would have let one do so to hime/her. Europeans were Xenophobic after all.

Aeternitas
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 05:23 PM
During the latest centuries and up to today, Germanic settlers in Transylvania - mostly, but also in other regions - were almost exclusively ethnic Germans. They are technically a separate group from Romanians and recognized as ethnic minorities. They have their own political representatives, a political party etc. A lot of them immigrated to Germany or Austria. They should be considered separately from Romanians per se like German South Tyrolians or Alsatians should be considered separately when discussing how Germanic the Italians or French are. That of course if one talks about ethno-genetic heritage and not what passports say.

Romanians themselves have a largely Romance culture, there is some Slavic influence but generally they are grouped with the Romance meta-ethnicity and identify as Latin. What the Goths left behind was not durable enough to make much of a difference today. No Romanian in their right mind identifies as "Gothic".

Gypsies in Romania are also not "white" by any stretch of imagination. Gypsies had a separate status up until the 1800s. Relationships between Gypsies and Romanians were rare due to regulations and difference in status. Marriage between free people and Gypsies would result in losing one's freedom which was quite discouraging. Sometimes mixing happened nonetheless and the children resulting from the relationship would remain free. Slavery of the Gypsies was abolished in the 19th century.

Karpaten Befreier
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 05:31 PM
During the latest centuries and up to today, Germanic settlers in Transylvania - mostly, but also in other regions - were almost exclusively ethnic Germans. They are technically a separate group from Romanians and recognized as ethnic minorities. They have their own political representatives, a political party etc. A lot of them immigrated to Germany or Austria. They should be considered separately from Romanians per se like German South Tyrolians or Alsatians should be considered separately when discussing how Germanic the Italians or French are. That of course if one talks about ethno-genetic heritage and not what passports say.

Romanians themselves have a largely Romance culture, there is some Slavic influence but generally they are grouped with the Romance meta-ethnicity and identify as Latin. What the Goths left behind was not durable enough to make much of a difference today. No Romanian in their right mind identifies as "Gothic".

Gypsies in Romania are also not "white" by any stretch of imagination. Gypsies had a separate status up until the 1800s. Relationships between Gypsies and Romanians were rare due to regulations and difference in status. Marriage between free people and Gypsies would result in losing one's freedom which was quite discouraging. Sometimes mixing happened nonetheless and the children resulting from the relationship would remain free. Slavery of the Gypsies was abolished in the 19th century.

Romance is a language group, not an ethnic group. It does not neccessarily mean your ancestors were Roman colonisers, it just means that you speak a Latin language. The culture of Romania (with the exeption of the language), is predominantly Slavic and resembles that of their neighbours. As for the Transilvania Saxons, many of them were assimilated into the Romanian culture, especially the ones that left the Transilvania region and moved into areas such as Bacau or established cities such as Cimpulung-Muscel, which was a former capital of Wallachia. No, as a culture, Romanians are not Germanic, but I am refering to their ancestry. How Germanic is it?

Aeternitas
Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 09:12 PM
The Saxons were a privileged class in Transylvania until the 19th century while the majority of Romanians were not, so mixing was discouraged in this case too. Of course leaving Transylvania was a different matter since the regions outside of it had other rules. The numbers of Transylvanian Saxons, who remained in Transylvania, got largely reduced after WWII cause of immigration.

I think Romanians are Romanized Dacians with considerable Slavic influence. Culture is part of what makes a (meta-)ethnicity but yes, not the only factor. IMO actually the cultural influences from Germans have been more significant than whatever the Goths or other Germanic groups left behind genetically.

Karpaten Befreier
Saturday, December 10th, 2011, 09:02 PM
I think Romanians are Romanized Dacians with considerable Slavic influence. Culture is part of what makes a (meta-)ethnicity but yes, not the only factor. IMO actually the cultural influences from Germans have been more significant than whatever the Goths or other Germanic groups left behind genetically.

Ah.. well maybe that's where we differ: I don't believe they're Romanised Dacians. If they were to be so, Dacian words would have been left around for certain (there are about 100 supposed Dacian words in the Romanian language) alongside Gothic words as they would have been in contact for a few hundred years. This is a problem that should concern those Germanics who don't like the German minorities being mistreated in Poland on land that was originally German, because Transilvania Saxons are also getting marginalised on land that originally belonged to them and Hungarians.

Of what I've seen in Romanians-sorry if I'm getting into the anthropology section now- they have too predominant features: Dinaric (probably from the Dacians) and Baltid (probably from the Slavs). Afterwards, in the very south (and especially Dobruja for historical reasons) they will look more like Medittaraneans (after the Dinaric and Baltid component), but in other regions many Germanic (Nordid)/Celtic (Alpine&Atlandid) traits will be found, sometimes even more so than the Dinaric, but usually not the Slavic.

I'm just asking because Romania, or what would later become Romania, has had a sizeable Germanic (from different groups of course) population for centuries. Even in the time of the Dacians, and this was not a monocultural society (it had Dacians, Celts, Germanic, Scythians, etc...) many of the people were from Germanic tribes such as the Bastarnae. Then the Goths had control of the area (I mean as the majority of the population, not neccesarily always politically) until the Slavs moved in in the 5th and 6th centuries (and they were probably all asimilated). So, that's quite a while.

Unregistered
Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 04:55 AM
I heard that Goths, mainly Ostrogoths and Visigoths, along with the Normans, had a long migration/pillaging route throughtout the Balkans and even had outposts and settlements there. I'm curious as to how many NATIVE Balkaners (Greeks, Albanians, Romanians) are actually the descendents of these Germanic peoples.

One last thing is were the Illyrians, Thracians, and Dacians Celtic? If so, that explains why the descendents of those people, the Albanians and Romanians, have Alpinid-Dinaric features.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IllyrianethnogenesisS.jpg