PDA

View Full Version : Modern Day Descendants of the Goths?



Fionn
Sunday, July 30th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Are there any people living today in Europe that are the direct descendants of the Goths? I realize that there are probably very many people who are partially descended from them since the Goths invaded and settled different parts of Europe and mixed with other peoples. This is something I've always wondered about.

Oskorei
Sunday, July 30th, 2006, 09:27 AM
Were I live, we are called Götar, and the town is called Göteborg/Gothenburg. ;)

Not certain about the genetic relations though, my impression is that the Goths were a rather small tribe so we Götar are probably not 100% Goth-descended exactly.

Oswiu
Sunday, July 30th, 2006, 10:02 AM
I'd love to know more about their last days as a recogniseable entity in the Crimea. Surely there are enough placenames and historical references, and even local traditions, to pinpoint where exactly they lived, and thus which modern populations there have most link with them? Can't any of our Russian or Ukrainian members help find something? Or even our new Circassian member? Maybe there are even a few Turks or Tatars reading?

vingul
Sunday, July 30th, 2006, 11:03 PM
Were I live, we are called Götar, and the town is called Göteborg/Gothenburg. ;)

Not certain about the genetic relations though, my impression is that the Goths were a rather small tribe so we Götar are probably not 100% Goth-descended exactly.

The connection, if any, between the Gautar/Götar and the Goths is heavily debated (e.g.: the Goths spoke an East-Germanic dialect, and there is so far no evidence that any Germanic language but North-Germanic was ever spoken in southern Scandinavia), and if indeed they were the same, or somehow closely related, the historical movements of the Ostrogoths and Visigoths eastwards and southwards suggest that descendants of these historical Goths now live in such places as Spain, Italy, the Ukraine, and elsewhere, not in Götaland.

Loki
Sunday, July 30th, 2006, 11:31 PM
The modern descendants of the Goths can be found among the Spanish and Northern Italians. Southern Sweden contains the mother population from which the Gothic tribes diffused and became a migrating identity. Sweden is ultimately the womb of most of the Germanic nations.

Janus
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 01:20 AM
After they lost their power and empires they slowly mixed with the local population in the areas where they lived and so where more or less assimilated racially.Even today you can find some influence in Spain or in Ukraine aswell.Some intereresting traditions in those regions are still remains of them.
The modern Götland has almost no connection to the Goth except that almost all Germanic tribes eventually came from Skandinavia.The people there were called Gaethar and were already mentioned in the Beowulf so they were quite different from the Goths.

vingul
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 10:11 AM
The people there were called Gaethar and were already mentioned in the Beowulf so they were quite different from the Goths.

The Proto-Germanic form was *gautaz, pl. *gautôz, the ON form gautr, pl. gautar. The OE form, gêat, pl. gêatas (pronounced ~/'jæut(as)/ or ~/'jæatas/), derives diachronically from the Proto-Germanic form (*au > /æu/, /æa/ (êa), as in *aust- > êast), and was thus probably a part of the traditional Anglian, Saxon or Jutish vocabulary, pre-5th century. It seems less likely that they were referring to their contemporaries, the continental Goths (PG *gutaniz).

Euclides
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 02:15 PM
The modern descendants of the Goths can be found among the Spanish and Northern Italians. Southern Sweden contains the mother population from which the Gothic tribes diffused and became a migrating identity. Sweden is ultimately the womb of most of the Germanic nations.

Surnames that ends in Ez and Es in Spain and Portugal are considered fom visigothic origins, an example is Gonzalez ( Gonçalves in Portugal ):

'' The mountainous borders of Spain contain the origins of the prestigious surname Gonzalez. The earliest forms of hereditary surnames in Spain were the patronymic surnames, which are derived from the father's given name, and metronymic surnames, which are derived from the mother's given name. The surname Gonzalez is made up of two elements: "Gonzalo," a personal name thought to be derived from the Visigothic "Gundesaelf," meaning "battle elf," and "-ez," the Spanish patronymic suffix.

Spelling variations include: González, Gonzalez, Gundisalvez, Gonsalviz, Gonzálvez, Gonzalvez, Gonçalve, Gonzales, Gonzalo, Gozalo, Monsalve, Monsabre, Gosalviz, Gosalvez, Goçalez, Gunzáloz, Gunzaloz, Galbis, Gálvez and many more.
First found in Castile, where the name originated in Visigothic times.

Some of the first settlers of this name or some of its variants were: Among the early explorers of the New World were Alonso and Gil González de Avila, brothers who travelled with the conquistador Hernán Cortés to Mexico.''

source : Swyrich Corporation

Euclides
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 03:03 PM
One genetic marker of visigothic/germanic/scandinavian invasion in Spain is the haplogroup I. Remember that also the Suebi established Spain and Portugal carring the I haplogroup.This germanic migrations would also include Germanic forms of R1b.Haplogroup I originated in Gravettians, there were later mutations of I resulting in subhaplogroups...one variation exists among the basques since glacial times ( much time before visigothic invasions ).

vingul
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 03:30 PM
One genetic marker of visigothic/germanic/scandinavian invasion in Spain is the haplogroup I. Remember that also the Suebi established Spain and Portugal carring the I haplogroup.This germanic migrations would also include Germanic forms of R1b.Haplogroup I originated in Gravettians, there were later mutations of I resulting in subhaplogroups...one variation exists among the basques since glacial times ( much time before visigothic invasions ).

According to Semino et al. 2004 (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v75_Semino.pdf), I1a, the subclade which accounts for nearly 100% of hg I in Scandinavia, is present in Catalans at 3.1% and in Portuguese at 1.3%. It was, however, not found among Andalusians, which is interesting in light of what we know about Visigothic influence in the region. Present-day Southern Sweden is ~40% hg I, btw.

Æmeric
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 09:11 PM
Surnames that ends in Ez and Es in Spain and Portugal are considered fom visigothic origins, an example is Gonzalez ( Gonçalves in Portugal ):


This might be true in Spain or Portugal. But there are many Indians & Mestizos in the New World who have names ending in Ez who have no relationship to the Visigoths. From my own experience from living in Arizona & California the most common surnames among Mexicans are Martinez, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Lopez, Gomez & Garcia.

Stolem
Monday, July 31st, 2006, 09:25 PM
My homeland Kashubia(Pomerania) in today´s northern Poland was
the first settlement of the Goths outside of Scandinavia.
In the village Wesiory(county Karthaus/Westpreussen) which belonged to my noble family in former times is a gothic cementery from 1.-2.century.
I think that not all goths moved away to the Black Sea.

Southern Jarl
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 01:20 AM
This might be true in Spain or Portugal. But there are many Indians & Mestizos in the New World who have names ending in Ez who have no relationship to the Visigoths. From my own experience from living in Arizona & California the most common surnames among Mexicans are Martinez, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Lopez, Gomez & Garcia.

Yes, those are very common names in Latin America. And I agree that most of those who carry such surnames have nothing to do with the Visigoths, but still it could be possible for some mestizos to have minimal Visigothic influence. After all, surnames come from the paternal line, and we all know that miscegenation was originally between Spanish (those who carried such surnames and might have had some Visigothic blood) men and Indian women.

Euclides
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 02:54 PM
This might be true in Spain or Portugal. But there are many Indians & Mestizos in the New World who have names ending in Ez who have no relationship to the Visigoths. From my own experience from living in Arizona & California the most common surnames among Mexicans are Martinez, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Lopez, Gomez & Garcia.

The things are not simple...Many Portuguese and Spaniards with surnames ending in ez/ es don´t have the haplogroup I ( what doesn´t means that they don´t have visigothic ancestry...). But also in Iberia peninsula, some males with surnames not ending in ez/es have the I haplogroup.For example:in Galicia the surname Castro ( that is tipically from north Iberia ) is found among males that are R1b1, but also some Castro are I1b2 ( basque variation of ''I'').The actual origin of the name is known in so much a family that was headed by a German nobleman, came to the Iberian peninsular in 884. ''Castro'' is the name of ancient celtic or pre-celtic circular fortified areas, each possessing one or several concentric walls, preceded generally by their corresponding moat (or defensive ditch) and situated mainly on the top of mountains,and there are at least 20 towns of various sizes from very small villages to larger towns and cities in Spain and Portugal which start with the name of Castro, and it´s also used by converted jewish families...
Garcia is the most common surname among Spaniards ( about 4% of population), so it´s also possible that we have not all the Garcias carring the same Y haplogroup....
Anyway, the genetic impact of germanic migrations to Iberia pensinsula in total population ,is considered small than the Muslim domination.

Because surnames in Europe come from the paternal lineage, and because in south America most miscigenations were between caucasian males/ colored woman, haplogroup I also can be found among mestizo mexicans and in other parts of latin america.

Aistulf
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 07:42 PM
Don't forget about the Cossacks, there are quite strong indications that they have considerable amounts of Gothic ancestry too. It's also found in some terms they use, like «атаман» [ataman; as in ‘Hauptman’].

Here
Sunday, August 27th, 2006, 04:40 AM
This might be true in Spain or Portugal. But there are many Indians & Mestizos in the New World who have names ending in Ez who have no relationship to the Visigoths. From my own experience from living in Arizona & California the most common surnames among Mexicans are Martinez, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Lopez, Gomez & Garcia.


that's the reason why I hate Mexicans, Amerindian Mexicans (30% of the mexicans with non Spanish blood at all) stole Spanish names and use it for them, if they were so proud of their heritage why they didn't use their indian names??

Bolivians and people from Jujuy (which means Bolivian or it should mean) have Spanish surname but they are even more pure native americans than the MExicans (about 70%) how do they get their names?.

ANyway, in Buenos Aires and Montevideo you'll find lots of people with that surnames whose surnames came right from their parents or grandparents (who are or were Spanish). You find totally europid families (many of them blonde and light-eyed) with those surnames.

But when I see totally native or mestizo people (like almot all the Mexicans) use them, it angers me because they or took it from the Spanish conqueers four centuries ago, or they have an ancestry with that surname but they are half amerindians.

I guess the same happen with british surnames and black people. There are also many blacks in L. American countries like Dominican Republic, COlombia etc who took Spanish surnames. The same happen with Portuguese surnames took it by the blacks in Brazil.

Do the Native Americans in the Us have english surnames too? :|

Æmeric
Sunday, August 27th, 2006, 03:40 PM
Do the Native Americans in the Us have english surnames too? :|

In the eastern U.S. Native Americans have Europid surnames but most Indians in the East have significant European ancestry & the eastern Indians are realtively few. Most Indians live in the West. Some have Europid surnames, others have indigenous surnames. Many Native Americans in New Mexico, Arizona & California have Spanish surnames. This is because of the influence of the Spanish missions in the 18th century.

Most Negroes in the U.S have Europid surnames. Probably the most common surname among Blacks is Jackson. Washington is another common surname among Blacks.

norskdeutschami
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 06:14 AM
Well did they die out? Or were the Goths a tribe that eventually integrated?

I know from some vague knowledge of the Goths, that their language is long extinct, but has close ties to old english (not shakespearean rather english dating back to 500ad) old high/low franconian, and german.

norskdeutschami
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 06:22 AM
In the eastern U.S. Native Americans have Europid surnames but most Indians in the East have significant European ancestry & the eastern Indians are realtively few. Most Indians live in the West. Some have Europid surnames, others have indigenous surnames. Many Native Americans in New Mexico, Arizona & California have Spanish surnames. This is because of the influence of the Spanish missions in the 18th century.

Most Negroes in the U.S have Europid surnames. Probably the most common surname among Blacks is Jackson. Washington is another common surname among Blacks.
Yes, and the Europid surnames are often translations of their tribal names in their native tongue, some common indian surnames around here are "comes-in-the-night","gopher","walker", ect. Lots to do with animals and verbs in any case.

Right you are and if you have just met a black man, you can almost guarantee that he has a british surname (which can get extremely monotonous), not to mention all of the guys and girls tend to have the first same names. What I find funny is the added "La" at the beginning of names, as if it would sound more cultured, and therefore better. Some of my favourites would be "Latasha, Latoya, Lashanda, Lawanda, Latony ect." It is the most rediculous Negroe naming trend.

And as he said the south US is almost always Spanish surnames and most typically these few "Ramirez,Gonzalez,Rodrigeuz" ect. There are of course lots more but those are the ones you hear time and time again.

Galaico
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 11:59 AM
Well did they die out? Or were the Goths a tribe that eventually integrated?

I know from some vague knowledge of the Goths, that their language is long extinct, but has close ties to old english (not shakespearean rather english dating back to 500ad) old high/low franconian, and german.
I don't know for the Ostrogoths, but the Visigoths in Spain merged with the native Hispano-Roman population, creating what we know as the Hispano-Gothic population. Goths (and Suebi/Swebes) in Spain represented 10%-15% of the population.

I don't think Old English had any ties with Gothic, as both were different extremes of the Germanic family (one West Germanic, and the other East Germanic).

Some words have survived from Gothic in the Spanish language, apart of the given names (that are quite a lot), most of them make reference to war and peace, not strange for a war-like people like the Goths. Here's a list with some war words:

Spanish (probable origin) - English
Albergue (Herberge) - similar to Hostel
Bandera (Bandi) - Flag
Barón (Baro) - Baron
Guardar (Wardon) - to guard
Guerra (Werr-) - War
Orgullo (Urguol) - Pride
Tregua (Triggwa) - Truce
Yelmo (Helmus) - Helmet

Jkl
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 07:40 PM
Probably I´m one modern day descendant of the Goths. I´m from Castilla León in Spain (where most visigoths stablished) and as far as I know all my ancestors are fully Spanish. I´m blond, blue eyed and I have quite nordic facil features (I was classified in the past as Hallstat Nordic, which I think it is Gota Type). My grand father was also very blond and blue eyed.

I know some people here who are quite nordic looking also. I know there are many blond-blue eyed in Spain but not all have quite nordic facial features.

Yes, We descendants of the Visigoths still exist...

Galaico
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 09:21 PM
Probably I´m one modern day descendant of the Goths. I´m from Castilla León in Spain (where most visigoths stablished) and as far as I know all my ancestors are fully Spanish. I´m blond, blue eyed and I have quite nordic facil features (I was classified in the past as Hallstat Nordic, which I think it is Gota Type). My grand father was also very blond and blue eyed.

I know some people here who are quite nordic looking also. I know there are many blond-blue eyed in Spain but not all have quite nordic facial features.

Yes, We descendants of the Visigoths still exist...
You damned Germanic invaders... we, Romanised Celtiberians should take the revenge ;) .

According to my genealogy I also have Gothic and Frankish ancestors, not sure about Suebi but probable. But I identify myself with my Romanised Celtiberian ancestors, who make up the greatest part of my ethnic origins (~85%?), and my phenotype shows no foreign influence :) .

Jkl
Thursday, August 31st, 2006, 11:27 PM
We visigoths came to Spain to improve the hispanorromanic race...:)

I guess that I also have Iberian, Celtic and Roman blood also...

Martinez
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006, 06:03 AM
that's the reason why I hate Mexicans, Amerindian Mexicans (30% of the mexicans with non Spanish blood at all) stole Spanish names and use it for them, if they were so proud of their heritage why they didn't use their indian names??

Bolivians and people from Jujuy (which means Bolivian or it should mean) have Spanish surname but they are even more pure native americans than the MExicans (about 70%) how do they get their names?.

ANyway, in Buenos Aires and Montevideo you'll find lots of people with that surnames whose surnames came right from their parents or grandparents (who are or were Spanish). You find totally europid families (many of them blonde and light-eyed) with those surnames.

But when I see totally native or mestizo people (like almot all the Mexicans) use them, it angers me because they or took it from the Spanish conqueers four centuries ago, or they have an ancestry with that surname but they are half amerindians.

I guess the same happen with british surnames and black people. There are also many blacks in L. American countries like Dominican Republic, COlombia etc who took Spanish surnames. The same happen with Portuguese surnames took it by the blacks in Brazil.

Do the Native Americans in the Us have english surnames too? :|


The Europeans forced the Indians to take Spanish names. The Indians didn't take them because they wanted to. The Europeans forced Indians to get baptized into the Catholic church and at that moment they gave them new Spanish names. The Indians who refused were killed. The reason the Europeans did this was because of money. They forced the Indians to regularly pay a type of offering to the Catholic Church, in the name of God. They had all sorts of fees that they required, even when someone died. They had to pay for the salvation of that person's soul. The reason the Europeans conquered those lands in the first place was because they wanted the gold that the Indians owned. They took it back to Europe and used it to build things over there.

When the Europeans changed the names of the Indians, it caused alot of heartache, especially for future generations, because Indians lost a part of themselves. Imagine not knowing your real name and there's nothing you can do to find it or get it back.

--Martinez

Oswiu
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006, 12:35 PM
The Europeans forced the Indians to take Spanish names. The Indians didn't take them because they wanted to. The Europeans forced Indians to get baptized into the Catholic church and at that moment they gave them new Spanish names. The Indians who refused were killed. The reason the Europeans did this was because of money. They forced the Indians to regularly pay a type of offering to the Catholic Church, in the name of God. They had all sorts of fees that they required, even when someone died. They had to pay for the salvation of that person's soul. The reason the Europeans conquered those lands in the first place was because they wanted the gold that the Indians owned. They took it back to Europe and used it to build things over there.

When the Europeans changed the names of the Indians, it caused alot of heartache, especially for future generations, because Indians lost a part of themselves. Imagine not knowing your real name and there's nothing you can do to find it or get it back.

--Martinez
Gods...

Many thanks, Martinez, for this highly original and groundbreaking interpretation!

I suddenly feel so GUILTY.
What can I do to get rid of this feeling? I know! I'll ensure the collective suicide of my own race! That should extirpate the guilt. :thumbup

Oh, somebody's already started it... :~(

Klegutati
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 01:17 PM
I would say that many Eastern Europeans.. Goth in proto-Germanic is Gautaz "pourer's of semen". This means that they started many cultures. However, not just one single group of people of Europe is descended from the Goths. This is because Europe is definately diverse.:P No one will know for sure if a person is of Gothic descent. Only by DNA will we know...:thumbup

fast_tot
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 07:01 PM
It's so stupid, when someone, who isn't Germanic is finding out illusory Germanic ancestors, 'cause it's cool to think, that only the Germanics are the "highest race" and every moron wants to belong to the "highest race". Why not to say - i'm a blond, blue-eyed Spaniard or Croat or Kaschubian? Aren't there nordics among Slavs, Celts, romance people like the French? Eh?
Why just looking for something Germanic in everyone who looks nordic?
And for me, as a half-German, it's so ridiculous when some Slavs are speaking here about their mythical "germanic ancestry".
Be pride of yourself! Your languages are thousand times more archaic then even German, which is the most archaic Germanic language. Every linguist will confirm you that. The race of Poles, Belorussians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians isn't darker or less Europid as the race of Germans or Austrians, you were heathens for a much longer time than the Germanics, and preserved your ancient, pre-christian culture for a much longer time than the Germanics.
For every Germanic, respecting himself, your behaviour is a subject of laughter.

Klegutati
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 08:15 PM
It's so stupid, when someone, who isn't Germanic is finding out illusory Germanic ancestors, 'cause it's cool to think, that only the Germanics are the "highest race" and every moron wants to belong to the "highest race". Why not to say - i'm a blond, blue-eyed Spaniard or Croat or Kaschubian? Aren't there nordics among Slavs, Celts, romance people like the French? Eh?
Why just looking for something Germanic in everyone who looks nordic?
And for me, as a half-German, it's so ridiculous when some Slavs are speaking here about their mythical "germanic ancestry".
Be pride of yourself! Your languages are thousand times more archaic then even German, which is the most archaic Germanic language. Every linguist will confirm you that. The race of Poles, Belorussians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians isn't darker or less Europid as the race of Germans or Austrians, you were heathens for a much longer time than the Germanics, and preserved your ancient, pre-christian culture for a much longer time than the Germanics.
For every Germanic, respecting himself, your behaviour is a subject of laughter.

Actually, I am part Pennsylvanian Dutch..;)

fast_tot
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Actually, I am part Pennsylvanian Dutch..;)
I didn't mean you. There were some Spaniards and Kaschubs in this thread who claimed they might have had germanic ancestors because they are nordic. Awful bosh. I see thousands of ethnic Russians, who are nordic so much, you won't make difference between them and Scandinavians, but they are Russians and don't have any Germanic ancestors and the most important is that being nordic doesn't mean being a worthy man at all and this doesn't even mean that they aren't a piece of shit (not Russians, but any nordic, doesn't matter). Every person, especially a man, who's just over-stressing his racial "superiority", which is a full nonsence, all the time is just a self-enamoured narcissist and i see a lot of such people in some threads, who are just praising the nordic race all the time or are playing up their own "nordishness". I hate them all. I am rassist only in the sence i find exclusively white women beautiful, redheads especially, but it's all the same to me, whether a man is a white or a Negro.
If he's a good Negro, I'll like him. Maybe the Gods, who are dead already, were more similar to the Whites, than to the others, but it doesn't make the Whites Gods. We, the modern Whites, are the same beggarly two-legged as every other race in this beggarly world. And "protecting our race and the future for the white children" is a piece of shit. When our race was strong and had great culture, we never thought in such stupid categories.
It's the ideology of the Philistines, Buergers and housewifes.
Before "14 words" were "4 K" - Kinder, Kleider, Kirche, Kueche. Pure cretinism.

nätdeutsch
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Actually, I am part Pennsylvanian Dutch..;)

me too!


dutch was a corruption of the word "deutsch" meaning german, by ignorant Englishmen.

fast_tot
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 10:04 PM
me too!


dutch was a corruption of the word "deutsch" meaning german, by ignorant Englishmen.
No, it's just 'cause in the times that name was given to them, the Dutch were German and spoke a German dialect;)


Gods...

Many thanks, Martinez, for this highly original and groundbreaking interpretation!

I suddenly feel so GUILTY.
What can I do to get rid of this feeling? I know! I'll ensure the collective suicide of my own race! That should extirpate the guilt. :thumbup

Oh, somebody's already started it... :~(

The commentary of Martinez was quite correct and you are [...], who evidently has nothing to be proud of, besides his so called "race".
He never mentioned, that the Whites should commit a collective suicide. What was done by the European invaders in both Americas is the greatest international crime and genocide in the history and Martinez just answered to another ignoramus why do the native Americans have european names.
And the fact is, that you, westerners, never feel guilty about anything.
Really, what for? You don't care, you're the superior race!:thumbup

nätdeutsch
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 10:07 PM
No, it's just 'cause in the times that name was given to them, the Dutch were German and spoke a German dialect;)

not what i was told, and ive been to Lancaster many times.

they were from switzerland and germany

fast_tot
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 10:16 PM
not what i was told, and ive been to Lancaster many times.

they were from switzerland and germany
Who was from Switzerland and Germany? The Dutch???
I mean, when a people was first called Dutch, that people was a part of the Holy Roman Empire and were considered Germans, so Dutch meant both Hollaender and latter Germans and it's highly possible, that when in 1648 Netherlands became independant the name Dutch was left to the Hollaender and the other Germans were since then called just "Germanics" (germans).
Holland or Netherlands aren't the names of a people, it's just a territory, where a German tribe lived.

nätdeutsch
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 10:18 PM
the pennsylvania dutch were german/swiss, and called dutch as a corruption of deutsch.

trust me on this one.

Southern Jarl
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 03:45 AM
The commentary of Martinez was quite correct and you are [...], who evidently has nothing to be proud of, besides his so called "race".
He never mentioned, that the Whites should commit a collective suicide. What was done by the European invaders in both Americas is the greatest international crime and genocide in the history and Martinez just answered to another ignoramus why do the native Americans have european names.
And the fact is, that you, westerners, never feel guilty about anything.
Really, what for? You don't care, you're the superior race!:thumbup

Clearly you haven't read much of what Oswiu has written on this forum. Anyways, "greatest genocide in the history"? Well, that accusation would certainly demand a more elaborate answer, don't you think? So, from your perspective, we westerners have put the whole continent to the sword? Well, we certainly have subdued it by force, as all succesful conquerors have done throughout history. Yes, we have been detrimental to their regional cultures and hindered their development, and yes, many natives were unfairly slaughtered during the conquest- but from there to turn it into "the greatest genocide"? How is the colonization of the Americas radically different from other population movements throughout history?
Oh, bear in mind that most of the natives who died as a consequence of the European arrival did so because of disease. Biological warfare? I seriously doubt that.
And finally, "Westerners never feel guilty about anything"??! I thought that we were living under a "culture of guilt". Everything that went wrong after interacting with other cultures is now seen as the Westerners fault. At least that's the impression I get after reading some History books or articles and after watching documentaries on the subject.

fast_tot
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 10:15 AM
Clearly you haven't read much of what Oswiu has written on this forum. Anyways, "greatest genocide in the history"? Well, that accusation would certainly demand a more elaborate answer, don't you think? So, from your perspective, we westerners have put the whole continent to the sword? Well, we certainly have subdued it by force, as all succesful conquerors have done throughout history. Yes, we have been detrimental to their regional cultures and hindered their development, and yes, many natives were unfairly slaughtered during the conquest- but from there to turn it into "the greatest genocide"? How is the colonization of the Americas radically different from other population movements throughout history?
Oh, bear in mind that most of the natives who died as a consequence of the European arrival did so because of disease. Biological warfare? I seriously doubt that.
And finally, "Westerners never feel guilty about anything"??! I thought that we were living under a "culture of guilt". Everything that went wrong after interacting with other cultures is now seen as the Westerners fault. At least that's the impression I get after reading some History books or articles and after watching documentaries on the subject.
Clearly you haven't read the post of Martinez and haven't got the scoffing intonation of Oswiu. The were no accusations in the Martinez' post, but the answer was just about to deride the degenerative natives.

>How is the colonization of the Americas radically different from other >population movements throughout history?

Not a sole people or tribe were exterminated by the Russians - a white european folk - during the 1200 years' history of their state - excluding jewish tyrannic Hazaria which was totally destroyed be the grand duke Swiatoslaw in the 9th century.
Moreover, not a sole people under Russian rule forgot their native language or even their religion. In the 21 century, when the Finns and Estonians have been Christian for 8 centuries already (being once conquered and converted by our German knights and Swedish jarls), their Fennic relatives Mari are still heathens (as well as the tribes of Siberia).
Being called "a prison of nations", Russia has invented written languages for tens of folks and was the only colonial Empire, where the colonies were more prosperous than the ethnic Russian emperial center.
Most of the nations were not conquered by the Russians (though would be conquered anyway), but asked Russia to become the part of the Empire in order to be protected from the Turcs (Georgia, Armenia, Moldova), Persians (Georgia, Armenia), Djungars (Kazakhs, Uighurs), Chinese (Uighurs, Mongols), Poland (former old-russian territories of Ukraine).
Only the Tatars, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Chechens and the Daghestans were conquered. Baltic nations and Finland were conquered not as a result of the wars with them, but as a result of the wars with their Lords - Germans and Swedes. Among european nations only Poland was divided with Germans by force, being a rival country to Russia during all it's history (because of the religious cretinism of both).
I'm not accusating anyone, i'm just appealing to the responsibility for one's words.

Euclides
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 02:54 PM
Not a sole people or tribe were exterminated by the Russians - a white european folk - during the 1200 years' history of their state - excluding jewish tyrannic Hazaria which was totally destroyed be the grand duke Swiatoslaw in the 9th century..


Don´t be sarcastic...if not a entired tribe was exterminde by Russians it´s only because it was almost impossible.

----------------------------------------
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v47/ai_17108614

No less than genocide - Chechnya, Russia

National Review, June 26, 1995 by Anthony Daniels


WHILE Bill Clinton was disporting himself with Boris Yeltsin in Moscow, General Balkhovitin, Deputy Commander of the Frontier Troops in the Caucasus Military District, was preventing the distribution of medical supplies to the 100,000 or so Chechens who have taken refuge in the town of Khasavyurt in neighboring Daghestan. He gave instructions that a large consignment of medicines from Jordan should be impounded at the Azerbaijani border with Daghestan, at the same time ordering the arrest of those who tried to collect the medicines. The need of the refugees for medical supplies is obvious enough. The Daghestani authorities, under pressure from the Russians, have provided little help for them. The local hospitals will not treat them. They have been housed ad hoc in school buildings, abandoned factories, and homes belonging to Chechens who live in Khasavyurt. Most of the refugees arrived in Daghestan with only the clothes they stood up in. The overcrowding is startling. There are 160 refugees living in half of Khasavyurt School No. 11. On the school walls hang murals of Soviet soldiers doing the goosestep. Twenty people from the village of Binoi are crowded into a room barely 12 feet by 10. When I told them that I represented a human-rights organization, they laughed bitterly. The violation of a few abstract principles did not adequately describe what they had suffered. An old lady turned her face to the wall. She was refusing to eat, hoping to die. She had lived through the deportation of the entire Chechen population by Stalin in 1943, and the Russians had destroyed her home again: and now they were even holding a parade in Grozny to celebrate their victory over fascism. Who would wish to continue to live in such a world? Everyone compared the Russians to the Nazis. They were perpetually drunk; they looted everything they could, and destroyed with gunfire things they could have easily carried lest their officers order them to do so. Wherever we went in Khasavyurt, people spoke passionately about the terror unleashed by the Russian army, about its brutality and bestiality. Even allowing for the traditional enmity of the Chechens toward the Russians, whose domination they have been resisting for three centuries, the eyewitness stories were so consistent in tone that it was impossible to disbelieve in their fundamental truthfulness. Cattle were slaughtered; no one had so much as a chicken left. Doors were booby-trapped. A woman protested when three soldiers dragged her daughter off, and her legs were strafed by machine-gun fire. Refugees fleeing from the Russian army were likewise strafed and bombed, and one man had seen two refugee vehicles destroyed by fire from a jet fighter. At Samashki, one woman had seen the men of the place led away; stragglers were run down and squashed by tanks. The houses were looted and burned. The soldiers mocked those whom they did not shoot. Helicopters hovering over the villages had broadcast demands for the surrender of all guerillas. The bombardment of the villages had begun soon afterward, and many children had been buried in the rubble. One nursing mother had lost a child, crushed by a falling roof; her breast milk had dried up afterward, and her baby had died for lack of any substitute. She cried as she narrated this, in a room in which there was a picture of the infant Lenin on the wall. No one has yet thought to remove the icons of Lenin in the Russian periphery. In that same room, all the children were malnourished and severely infected with scabies. They were not permitted to mix with the local children -- there was no medicine to cure it. On and on went the stories, of extortion and cruelty, of killing and looting. The Russians would not allow the Chechens to bury their dead without payment of a large fee; often they came to houses and threatened to kill the inhabitants unless a payment (preferably in dollars) was forthcoming. It was a threat they carried out often. The Russians had hoped that the refugees would return to Chechnya for Victory Day, so that they might persuade a gullible world that everything had returned to normal, and that the ``police action'' in the North Caucasus was over. Some refugees had attempted to go home, but they had turned around again immediately because of the complete destruction of their property and the continuation of the war. For once, the word genocide seemed scarcely an expression of generalized paranoia. Of course, the refugees had many theories to explain the catastrophe which had overwhelmed them. The war was about oil, or oil pipelines; or it was the means by which the Russians found accommodation for their troops returning from Germany, with the conscripts who had previously occupied the barracks being sent to the war and the vacated barracks then accommodating the troops from Germany. And of course the Russians could not allow themselves to be defeated militarily by a tiny nation (a compromise being counted as a defeat), for military might has long been the guarantee of Russian greatness. Without the sheer brute power to overwhelm its neighbors, Russia would be of little account in the world: its foreign trade is less than Belgium's, its political traditions are uniformly disastrous, and its material civilization is repellent. Yet it also has a belief in its mission civilisatrice. For many years, the historical fiction was taught that the Caucasus was incorporated into Russia peacefully, at the wish of the local people. But the old hatreds subsist, and I was told by one nationalist that a Caucasian kills a Russian as a ratcatcher kills a rat -- itself an attitude to make one tremble. Meanwhile, the Chechen refugees uniformly expressed their contempt for President Clinton. In their eyes, his appearance in Moscow was craven and cowardly. It was the moral equivalent of paying the Dane-geld. And ``if once you have paid him the Dane-geld/You never get rid of the Dane.''

-----------------

Georgia More to Blame for Stalinist Genocide — Russian Envoy to Ukraine
Created: 20.04.2005 15:46 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:46 MSK


MosNews

Russian ambassador to Ukraine, former Russian PM, Viktor Chernomyrdin, said Georgia is more to blame for genocide of Ukrainians than Russia.

Speaking to journalists, the ambassador said that since Joseph Stalin was originally from Georgia, accusations of mass repressions should be directed at that country, Lenta.Ru reported.

Chernomyrdin was asked whether Russia acknowledged the genocide of the Ukrainians by the Soviet leadership. “If we speak about terror in the times of the USSR, as a result of that, the number of Russians killed was far greater than that of Ukrainians. We still cannot answer to our people for that. If anyone is to receive claims, address them to Georgia, the ’father of nations’ Joseph Stalin was from that country,” the ambassador replied.

Historians estimate that some seven million people died during the 1932-33 famine, which Ukrainians say was deliberately started by the then Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Under his policy of forced collectivisation of agriculture, farmers in Ukraine — known as the “bread basket” of the USSR — were stripped of all their produce, leaving millions of people with virtually no food to survive

burkish
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010, 10:02 AM
It's so stupid, when someone, who isn't Germanic is finding out illusory Germanic ancestors, 'cause it's cool to think, that only the Germanics are the "highest race" and every moron wants to belong to the "highest race". Why not to say - i'm a blond, blue-eyed Spaniard or Croat or Kaschubian? Aren't there nordics among Slavs, Celts, romance people like the French? Eh?
Why just looking for something Germanic in everyone who looks nordic?
And for me, as a half-German, it's so ridiculous when some Slavs are speaking here about their mythical "germanic ancestry".
Be pride of yourself! Your languages are thousand times more archaic then even German, which is the most archaic Germanic language. Every linguist will confirm you that. The race of Poles, Belorussians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians isn't darker or less Europid as the race of Germans or Austrians, you were heathens for a much longer time than the Germanics, and preserved your ancient, pre-christian culture for a much longer time than the Germanics.
For every Germanic, respecting himself, your behaviour is a subject of laughter.

Yeah well what are you gonna do about ignorant people. I'm Swedish myself and I think this stereotype about being blond, blue-eyed and tall has gone way too far. I carry "the viking marker" in my DNA, same haplogroup as the Goths which is I1a but I'm 1,73m, blue-eyed and have middle brown hair. I mean of course there are some differences in the scandinavian appearances apart from other germanic people but I wouldn't make it that simple.

ejarln
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010, 04:37 PM
Thank god,fast_tot this crazy russian was banned.

Arne
Sunday, March 14th, 2010, 01:27 PM
Are there any people living today in Europe that are the direct descendants of the Goths? I realize that there are probably very many people who are partially descended from them since the Goths invaded and settled different parts of Europe and mixed with other peoples. This is something I've always wondered about.


Yes!
Routes: Sweden->Gotland
-> Poland
->Ukraine->Balkan
->Italy
->Spain
It is a part of the genetic Y-DNA Haplogroup I - seperated into Subgroups.
Their languages nower days are germanic, romanic and slavic. Genetic also mixed with other Haplogroups, or developed a new form of Hg I by influences of other Hgs.
Västar and Östar Götar in South Sweden and
the Isle Gotland
Väster Götar/ Gautes- West Goths
---> Gothalonia=> Catalania- NE Spain, Baleares
and also some regions of the rest northern Iberia, Spain and Portugal,
and in Italy- not big enough to develope a special region or ethnic group
Östar Götar/ Gautes- East Goths
---> Krimgoths- died out, only individual ancestries there existing
---> Moldavians and Croatians are romans/ slavs in linguistic, but genetic more germanic east goths
like some regions of Slovenia and Italy, but Slovenians and Serbians are more genetic Slavs, Bosniaks just Croatians mixed with Hgs of the Nearer East and Asia (Turkeys)

Angelcynn Beorn
Wednesday, March 17th, 2010, 11:31 PM
For all talk of the I haplogroup, is there actually any concrete evidence to say that the Goths were all carrying the I haplotype?

Arne
Saturday, May 15th, 2010, 07:43 PM
the pennsylvania dutch were german/swiss, and called dutch as a corruption of deutsch.

trust me on this one.

because

dutch

is the old german word for german, becaus german in german just is

deutsch

;o)


For all talk of the I haplogroup, is there actually any concrete evidence to say that the Goths were all carrying the I haplotype?

in short : yes
with more : it is the typical haplogroup of the ancient goths and nordic tribes of the region in southern scandinavia where they came from, there are several sub- classes of course in that haplogroup, which belong to them, like others to the ancient norwegians, etc.
for all ancient european people there are 3 hg with several sub- classes. of course the sub- classes are more important for several tribes or folks, and within treks and mixing of course other hgs joined into the tribes, but the point is, that you can just find the ancient hg between the todays descendant... but for the exactly infos there a lot of other websites... this here is no scientific forum for human evolution I thoght, so that I just took that short one. sorry, if it was objectionably , unbelievable or sth. ;o(

Myrkwid
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010, 09:15 PM
The most gothic region in Spain is the city of Segovia - not Gautalaina! In old visigothic tide, 200000 goth people settled in this region. There is a lot of gothic culture in northern Castillia, Asturias and the north. Only the galicians aren't goth's - they are suebians.

celticastrian
Saturday, October 23rd, 2010, 12:49 PM
You wanna see goths check out the aristocracy in spain Juan Carlos is a direct descendent of the visigothic king Pelayo who saved Asturias from the moors.

Monsalvez
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 11:49 PM
You wanna see goths check out the aristocracy in spain Juan Carlos is a direct descendent of the visigothic king Pelayo who saved Asturias from the moors.

I do not think so. Juan Carlos is a Borbon, they come from France and, as far as I know, they are not linked with the old aristocracy descent of goths (as Isabella I of Castile, for example). However, the princess of Asturias, a common woman from the people, is quite nordid.

http://www.hispanosnet.com/fotos_famosos/letizia_ortiz/letizia_ortiz_2.jpg

The goth blood is not in the aristocracy, but in the people. Here are "normal" people, that you can see on the street of any spanish city.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8796/prophoto1251134216.jpg

Spanish mountaineer, famous because he died in the Himalayas recently.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6351/retratofv.jpg

Fernando Villaamil, naval officer, designer of modern destroyer ships, that died heroically in Santiago de Cuba in 1898 against the Americans.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5810/orfeo2.jpg

Actress.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4348/mariosimon.jpg

Coach.

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2952/albaceteprensanoticias2.jpg

Football player.

Well, I could put lots of photos, but I am sure it is not really necessary :)

PD: Oh, there has been a slight problem and one photo cannot be seen, so I take the opportunity to show more interesting examples. They are not full blood gothics, probably they are mainly celtic and iberian, but the goth heritage is important too.

Daughters of the princess (remember, a plebeian woman):

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4897/prinicipeseinfantas.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5353/arturoperezreverteporta.jpg

Pérez Reverte, a very famous writer.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3971/xabialonsoy.jpg

Football player.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5557/daviddegea.jpg

Goalkeeper.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6939/elenasalgado1.jpg

Economy Minister of the Kingdom of Spain.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5794/bibianaaidojurandosucar.jpg

Ex-minister.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6579/fernandotorres03y.jpg

Football player.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/5273/juanvanhalenacedo.jpg

Politician.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7185/pjavierclemente011.jpg

Coach.

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/787/pilarrubiol.jpg

TV presenter.

kingdans
Monday, November 22nd, 2010, 12:15 AM
in short : yes
with more : it is the typical haplogroup of the ancient goths and nordic tribes of the region in southern scandinavia where they came from, there are several sub- classes of course in that haplogroup, which belong to them, like others to the ancient norwegians, etc.
for all ancient european people there are 3 hg with several sub- classes. of course the sub- classes are more important for several tribes or folks, and within treks and mixing of course other hgs joined into the tribes, but the point is, that you can just find the ancient hg between the todays descendant... but for the exactly infos there a lot of other websites... this here is no scientific forum for human evolution I thoght, so that I just took that short one. sorry, if it was objectionably , unbelievable or sth. ;o(

Arne, haplogroup I is not *typical* necessarily of people in Scandinavia. By the Nordic Bronze Age when the Germanic identity first developed, the Scandinavian and North German populations were already comprised of different haplogroups, mostly I, R1b, and R1a.

If a person belongs to haplogroup I, particularly with M253, it stands to reason that they are Germanic. But if a person is Germanic, it does not necessarily mean that they are haplogroup I.

In my opinion, the Goths would have carried several haplogroups. Haplogroup I certainly would have been among those, but so would R1b and R1a. I agree that a Spanish person belonging to haplogroup I is probably a descendant of a Germanic tribe, either the Goths, the Vandals, or the Seubi. But I do not agree that the Goths' only haplogroup would have been haplogroup I.

Angelcynn Beorn
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:06 PM
in short : yes

In short - No.

You haven't provided any evidence at all, and it's likely that the R Haplotypes were common amongst the Goths, as they are amongst their descendants.

wittwer
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:26 PM
Arne, haplogroup I is not *typical* necessarily of people in Scandinavia. By the Nordic Bronze Age when the Germanic identity first developed, the Scandinavian and North German populations were already comprised of different haplogroups, mostly I, R1b, and R1a.

If a person belongs to haplogroup I, particularly with M253, it stands to reason that they are Germanic. But if a person is Germanic, it does not necessarily mean that they are haplogroup I.

In my opinion, the Goths would have carried several haplogroups. Haplogroup I certainly would have been among those, but so would R1b and R1a. I agree that a Spanish person belonging to haplogroup I is probably a descendant of a Germanic tribe, either the Goths, the Vandals, or the Seubi. But I do not agree that the Goths' only haplogroup would have been haplogroup I.

Don't forget that according to the latest studies, R1b probably wintered over in the current Basque (between France & Spain and contains the largest R1b grouping, by percentage, in the world) region during the last Glacial Millenium. It then moved North, then West and East settling along the Baltic coast and further inland following the retreat of the glaciers. So the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were only returning to their genetic cradle, so to speak, while intermingling with the I and R1a haplogroups along the way... ;)

Angelcynn Beorn
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010, 06:34 PM
Don't forget that according to the latest studies, R1b probably wintered over in the current Basque (between France & Spain and contains the largest R1b grouping, by percentage, in the world) region during the last Glacial Millenium. It then moved North, then West and East settling along the Baltic coast and further inland following the retreat of the glaciers. So the Visigoths and Ostrogoths were only returning to their genetic cradle, so to speak, while intermingling with the I and R1a haplogroups along the way... ;)

That's rather an old take on things. The current view is that R1b and R1a were brought into Europe by invaders during the neolithic.

wittwer
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 03:15 PM
That depends on how far back one wishes to go. We could go all the way back to the cradle of humanity in Africa. It's just the matter of picking the cut off point... ;)

Angelcynn Beorn
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 03:22 PM
That depends on how far back one wishes to go. We could go all the way back to the cradle of humanity in Africa. It's just the matter of picking the cut off point... ;)

Not really. It either entered Europe during the Neolithic or it didn't, and if it did then the viewpoint of R1b repopulating Europe from Iberia after the last ice age is wrong. It isn't a matter of perspective.

Midgård
Monday, December 6th, 2010, 05:44 PM
Not all Goths/Geats left sweden.http://www.europeinns.com/sweden/sweden.jpg

Karpaten Befreier
Saturday, November 19th, 2011, 04:24 AM
The Gothlanders are most likely Goths. Spaniards, Northern Italians, and Romanians have their fair share of Gothic blood- Visigoths (Spain), Ostrogoths (N. Italy), and Gepids and some other Gothic tribes (Romania).

Jens
Thursday, May 10th, 2012, 08:57 PM
Goths did not die out. The Visigoths took over the entire Iberian Peninsula, except a piece of the Basque Country, and remained there until the muslim invasion of 711 A.D. Many of the converted and mixed with the invaders and were later driven out, their descendants now reside in Northern Africa. Others remained in Spain in Leon and Castile and formed the new Spanish states that led the Reconquista. They are somewhat diluted, but they definitely have Gothic blood.

The Ostrogoths were invited into the Roman Empire while it was still pagan. They settled in what is now Southeastern Europe, Anatolia, and Italy. They are also very mixed into the local populations and no longer distinguishable, but they did not die out, they conquered and were then slowly culturally assimilated over many centuries.

Jens
Saturday, May 12th, 2012, 03:05 AM
I can't reply to PM's yet, but I received one bringing up the important point that the Visigoths were only around 100,000 people in a Roman Empire of 10 million. So I will add a reply here here. I would like to point out that the Visigoths did, in fact, concentrate their population on the Iberian Peninsula, which was not very densely populated, and also already mixed with many Celtic, Basque, Carthaginian, and Latin people, and, while they certainly mixed, they didn't do it all at once. As the dominant social group I feel fairly confident in asserting that they had access to resources and wealth that others did not, which would have allowed for their population to expand when others did not over hundreds of years, and that they do make up a significant part of Spanish ancestry. Not in certain regions like around Bilbao perhaps. I'm afraid there's not really any way I can prove it though.

Th main point stand. They did not die, they were not conquered and exterminated, miscegenation is not death. That is why so many people don't see it as any sort of threat.

Hugi
Wednesday, August 15th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Toulouse was once the capital city of a Wisigothic kingdom under kings Wallia (418), Theodoric I (418-451), Thorismond (451-453), Theodoric II (453-466), Euric (466-484) and Alaric (484-507). The Wisigoths left numerous -ingos > -ens placenames (= German -ingen) around Toulouse - Estantens, Escatalens, Escalquens, etc. - and telltale names such as Goudourvielle and Goudourville < Gothorum villa 'the villa of the Goths'.

Catterick
Thursday, April 7th, 2016, 12:21 PM
The ancient Goths disappeared everywhere with their last ethnic communities, not unmixed, in the Black Sea region. There is some confusion as to whether these more recent Goths were a remnant of the same people though at least they spoke an East Germanic language.

Vindir
Sunday, August 13th, 2017, 10:17 PM
Yes Visigoths did settle from the Vth century in some parts of Spain definitely (presence of visigothic art in architecture, churchs, graves attest it) but we hardly know today how important was their input into the local population. They were Arians Christians, different religion from Vatican church. Did they only mix with each others aryan christians or did they mix quickly with locals who were mainly celtiberes and romans ?

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/96/996-004-76443350.jpg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_Kingdom

They have lost their power during the VIIIth century because they have lost against the arab conquest but they kept their faith and stayed there nevermind the presence of muslims there.

They kept after that a kingdom in Northern Iberia called Kingdom of Asturias though :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Kingdom_of_Asturias_814.svg/1280px-Kingdom_of_Asturias_814.svg.png

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Asturias

Þoreiðar
Tuesday, August 15th, 2017, 11:52 AM
Did they only mix with each others aryan christians or did they mix quickly with locals who were mainly celtiberes and romans ?
The Visigothic Code, a set of laws written by Visigothic kings in the mid-7th century, gives some indication of the situation at the time:

76 LAWS OF THE JUDGES. [BOOK III]

FLAVIUS RECESVINTUS, KING.

II. It shall be as Lawful for a Roman Woman to Marry a
Goth, as for a Gothic Woman to Marry a Roman.

The zealous care of the prince is recognized, when, for the
sake of future utility, the benefit of the people is provided for;
and it should be a source of no little congratulation, if the
ancient law, which sought improperly to prevent the mar-
riage of persons equal in dignity and lineage, should be abro-
gated. For this reason, we hereby sanction a better law;
and, declaring the ancient one to be void, we decree that if
any Goth wishes to marry a Roman woman, or any Roman
a Gothic woman, permission being first requested, they shall
be permitted to marry. And any freeman shall have the
right to marry any free woman; permission of the Council
and of her family having been previously obtained.

Judging from this text, it seems clannish marriage practices were gradually going out of vogue by this time, but also that there were in fact laws in place to prevent marriage between the Gothic population and the Roman population in previous times (in reference to the "ancient law" that is described). How common interethnic marriages actually were, even after the laws regarding marriage were softened up, is harder to say. But I suppose if there weren't much opposition to interethnic marriages among the population, the king would hardly see the need to produce any law regarding it.

Randy
Sunday, August 20th, 2017, 05:28 AM
The Europeans forced the Indians to take Spanish names. The Indians didn't take them because they wanted to. The Europeans forced Indians to get baptized into the Catholic church and at that moment they gave them new Spanish names. The Indians who refused were killed. The reason the Europeans did this was because of money. They forced the Indians to regularly pay a type of offering to the Catholic Church, in the name of God. They had all sorts of fees that they required, even when someone died. They had to pay for the salvation of that person's soul. The reason the Europeans conquered those lands in the first place was because they wanted the gold that the Indians owned. They took it back to Europe and used it to build things over there.

When the Europeans changed the names of the Indians, it caused alot of heartache, especially for future generations, because Indians lost a part of themselves. Imagine not knowing your real name and there's nothing you can do to find it or get it back.

--Martinez

Yes but did Amerindians even have a estabished names? In the sense that we do with surnames and given names?

Vindir
Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017, 03:49 PM
The Visigothic Code, a set of laws written by Visigothic kings in the mid-7th century, gives some indication of the situation at the time:

76 LAWS OF THE JUDGES. [BOOK III]

FLAVIUS RECESVINTUS, KING.

II. It shall be as Lawful for a Roman Woman to Marry a
Goth, as for a Gothic Woman to Marry a Roman.

The zealous care of the prince is recognized, when, for the
sake of future utility, the benefit of the people is provided for;
and it should be a source of no little congratulation, if the
ancient law, which sought improperly to prevent the mar-
riage of persons equal in dignity and lineage, should be abro-
gated. For this reason, we hereby sanction a better law;
and, declaring the ancient one to be void, we decree that if
any Goth wishes to marry a Roman woman, or any Roman
a Gothic woman, permission being first requested, they shall
be permitted to marry. And any freeman shall have the
right to marry any free woman; permission of the Council
and of her family having been previously obtained.

Judging from this text, it seems clannish marriage practices were gradually going out of vogue by this time, but also that there were in fact laws in place to prevent marriage between the Gothic population and the Roman population in previous times (in reference to the "ancient law" that is described). How common interethnic marriages actually were, even after the laws regarding marriage were softened up, is harder to say. But I suppose if there weren't much opposition to interethnic marriages among the population, the king would hardly see the need to produce any law regarding it.

Very informing historical source, thank you Þoreiðar.

Considering DNA I am not sure but I read once 23andme Iberian eventually considers visigothic origins within the category.

Just found this, that could be related to Visigoths :

Germanic haplogroups in Iberian population by region today ;

Aragon : about 18%
Extremadura : about 15%
Majorca : about 12%
Galicia : about 11%
Valencia : about 10%
Asturias : about 8%
Northwest Castille : about 6%
West Andalusia : about 6%
North Portugal : about 5%
East Andalusia : about 2%
Northeast Castille : <1%
Catalonia : <1%
Basque country : <1%
South Portugal : <1%

Above 10% is great input IMO even though not sure if that comes from Visigoths or not.

Source : The genetic legacy of religious diversity and intolerance: paternal lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula.

-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19061982
-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/figure/fig1/

Juthunge
Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017, 06:27 PM
Just found this, that could be related to Visigoths :

Germanic haplogroups in Iberian population by region today ;

Aragon : about 18%
Extremadura : about 15%
Majorca : about 12%
Galicia : about 11%
Valencia : about 10%
Asturias : about 8%
Northwest Castille : about 6%
West Andalusia : about 6%
North Portugal : about 5%
East Andalusia : about 2%
Northeast Castille : <1%
Catalonia : <1%
Basque country : <1%
South Portugal : <1%

Above 10% is great input IMO even though not sure if that comes from Visigoths or not.

How did you even arrive at those percentages from the percentages given in the figure of that study?

The only Y-haplogroups that are mostly - but by no means, entirely so - exclusive to Germanics or indicative of Germanic ancestry, are I1, R1b-U106 and R1a-Z284. Since neither I nor R1b are broken down enough to even discern the relevant subclades in that, very old, study, it's impossible to tell us anything about Germanic ancestry. But I know from other studies, that none of these subclades are of any consequence in Spain.

Besides that, Y-Haplogroups are a very bad indicator of actual ancestry. If you have a small, mostly male, invader population living among a larger settled population, Y-haplogroup replacement could happen very fast via polygamy and exclusion of native men from reproduction.

But the autosomal genetics would become less and less invader-like because already in the first mixed generation, the offspring would only be half-invader. If that man mixes with another of those more numerous local wives, he'd still be of an invader-haplogroup but already only a fourth invader in overall ancestry.

That's precisely what happened in Iberia during the Bronze age, when the Y-DNA became overwhelmingly Steppe-like(most subclades of R1b) but without changing the modern Spanish DNA very much from their pre-Bronze Age ancestors.

During the Germanic invasion of Spain, not even such Y-DNA replacement happened so the actual genetic of it seems to be about zero.

Spjabork
Thursday, August 24th, 2017, 09:45 PM
The only Y-haplogroups that are mostly - but by no means, entirely so - exclusive to Germanics or indicative of Germanic ancestry, are I1, R1b-U106 and R1a-Z284. [...] I know from other studies, that none of these subclades are of any consequence in Spain.But how can this be? There came at the minimum 250k Goths to the Iberian peninsula. And the local population at that time would ot have exceeded 5 million, so that the Goths were 5 percent. Did they dissolve into thin air?

Besides that, Y-Haplogroups are a very bad indicator of actual ancestry. If you have a small, mostly male, invader population living among a larger settled population, Y-haplogroup replacement could happen very fast via polygamy and exclusion of native men from reproduction.

But the autosomal genetics would become less and less invader-like because already in the first mixed generation, the offspring would only be half-invader. If that man mixes with another of those more numerous local wives, he'd still be of an invader-haplogroup but already only a fourth invader in overall ancestry.
The Goths are entirely different from the Normans, though. The Normans were truly a small, mostly (actually almost exclusively) pack of male invaders. The Goths though in fact were not that small in number, and they were not gangs of juveniles with too much testosterone, but they migrated as complete, compact nations. Which means they brought their wives (and even children) with them, and what is more, they did not much interbreed with the locals at first, which also was until 585 not allowed, because only then the Goths in Spain became catholic. That means: after the same time-span within which we know for sure the Normans were already romanized, we know for sure that the Goths in Spain were not.

Still after they became catholic, which finally meant they could (and certainly did) interbreed now with locals, they ruled for another 130 years as distinct ethnic group.

During the Germanic invasion of Spain, not even such Y-DNA replacement happened so the actual genetic of it seems to be about zero.
That would be very strange and surprising indeed.

Juthunge
Friday, August 25th, 2017, 10:35 PM
But how can this be? There came at the minimum 250k Goths to the Iberian peninsula. And the local population at that time would ot have exceeded 5 million, so that the Goths were 5 percent. Did they dissolve into thin air?

How do we know either of this? A local population of 5 million seems halfway credible, but there never were 250k Goths migrating to Spain. Where did you get the latter number?

Even for the well-organised Romans it was impossible to travel with armies that size. To sustain 250k people on the move is a logistic nightmare even today, let alone in the early medieval. It's all speculation of course but in the opinion of any historian of the last 150 years, at the most 50.000 Goths travelled to Spain. Perhaps 10.000 of them grown men and warriors.

Already Delbrück realised this in the late 19th century (http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Delbrück,+Hans/Geschichte+der+Kriegskunst/2.+Teil.+Die+Germanen/2.+Buch.+Die+Völkerwanderung/4.+Kapitel.+Zahlen):


Wenn Zahlen in der Weltgeschichte häufig so sehr unsicher überliefert sind, so haben sie dafür den Vorteil, daß sie sich gegenseitig kontrollieren. Die vielfach in die Geschichte eingeschwärzten phantastischen Zahlen fallen, sobald man eine einzige vergleichbare gefunden hat, die wirklich zuverlässig ist. Wenn die Goten bei Adrianopel höchstens 15000 Mann stark gewesen sind, so sind damit die sämtlichen in die Hunderttausende gehenden Zahlen der Heere der Völkerwanderung gestrichen.
Denn es ist unzweifelhaft, daß die Westgoten eines der zahlreichsten und mächtigsten der germanischen Wandervölker waren. Weder die Ostgoten, noch die Vandalen, noch die Burgunder, noch die Langobarden, weder Radagais, noch Odoaker können wesentlich stärker gewesen sein, ja sie müssen sogar meist erheblich schwächer gewesen sein.
Es ist möglich, daß an der Schlacht Teile des westgotischen Volkes nicht teilgenommen haben, ein Bruchteil war sogar nördlich der Donau zurückgeblieben. Diese aber wurden ersetzt durch die Ostgoten, die sich ihren Stammesgenossen angeschlossen hatten.


The Goths are entirely different from the Normans, though. The Normans were truly a small, mostly (actually almost exclusively) pack of male invaders. The Goths though in fact were not that small in number, and they were not gangs of juveniles with too much testosterone, but they migrated as complete, compact nations. Which means they brought their wives (and even children) with them, and what is more, they did not much interbreed with the locals at first, which also was until 585 not allowed, because only then the Goths in Spain became catholic. That means: after the same time-span within which we know for sure the Normans were already romanized, we know for sure that the Goths in Spain were not.

Still after they became catholic, which finally meant they could (and certainly did) interbreed now with locals, they ruled for another 130 years as distinct ethnic group.

The Normans probably came directly from Scandinavia or strongly Scandinavian influenced colonies in Britain, so they were largely pure, to a relatively small area. That even they didn't leave a large genetic or cultural footprint, makes the case all the more clear for the Visigoths.

But 50.000(maximum) people is a drop on the hot stone among a population of 5 million natives or more, especially if you consider that genetically those Goths wouldn't have been anywhere near being genetically purely Germanic/northern European.

So, whether they mixed in Spain from the beginning or not plays little role, if they were already mixed when arriving there.

They travelled from the Baltic shore to the Ukraine, then to the Balkan, then to Italy, then to southern France, then to Iberia.
Often they sustained huge losses but raidly filling up their numbers again. That would have been impossible without accepting others(yes, often other Germanics but still) into their ranks.


That would be very strange and surprising indeed.

Literally zero would be extreme, yes but you get the idea.