PDA

View Full Version : Which Countries Are Germanic?



Pages : [1] 2

matt
Tuesday, August 5th, 2003, 07:46 PM
Which countries counts to the germanic countries?

Austria, Germany, Switzerland(?), The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden - that's all? (They've got very similar-sounding languages)
Is England also "a little bit" germanic, because of similar words? But it differs very in gramar...

:cheer

Nordgau
Tuesday, August 5th, 2003, 08:22 PM
Which countries counts to the germanic countries?

Austria, Germany, Switzerland(?), The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden - that's all? (They've got very similar-sounding languages)
Is England also "a little bit" germanic, because of similar words? But it differs very in gramar...

:cheer

You summed up most Germanic Countries in Europe, defined as countries where a Germanic language is spoken. To make it complete: from Switzerland only the German part, then also Flanders, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, several border regions to Germany and Austria (Alsace, Southern Tyrol). And not as last: Iceland! (Which country could be today more Germanic than this glorious little country?)

England is without doubt a Germanic country and English is from its roots and fundaments, from its structure, grammar and verbs a Germanic language, though there are quite many words from French and Latin origin.

New Germanic countries overseas: USA (at least still in parts), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa (in the parts where the whites still resist against the black threat).

Götterschicksal
Thursday, August 7th, 2003, 02:25 PM
Which countries counts to the germanic countries?

Alle? Also gut!

http://www.verbix.com/imag/map_germanic_languages.gif

Deutsche Stämme und Dialekte - Karte 1914 (http://www.coletta.de/kolonien/Die%20deutschen%20Staemme%20und%20Dialek te%20xxl.jpg)

Germany, Switzerland (deutsche Kantonen), Austria (and old austrian-german cities in the balkans, such as the Banat), Luxemburg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Great Brittian (and parts of Celtic countries such as Dublin, Ireland - an old Viking fort), Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finnland (small parts of swedish settlers), Iceland, France (Elsaß-Lothringen und Normandy - settled by Vikings), there are so many more germanic people spread around the world...

Then there are countries that speak germanic languages and germanic settlers in foreignlands like Amerika and Canada, Afrikaaners, Australians, Newzeelanders (etc.).

berserkergrrl
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 10:24 PM
I happened upon this info reading the dictionary :-O Look up Indo European language and there is a chart,yes England is included :D

symmakhos
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004, 02:28 AM
There is also this excellent site:


http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=738

green nationalist
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Alle? Also gut!

http://www.verbix.com/imag/map_germanic_languages.gif

Deutsche Stämme und Dialekte - Karte 1914 (http://www.coletta.de/kolonien/Die%20deutschen%20Staemme%20und%20Dialek te%20xxl.jpg)

Germany, Switzerland (deutsche Kantonen), Austria (and old austrian-german cities in the balkans, such as the Banat), Luxemburg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Great Brittian (and parts of Celtic countries such as Dublin, Ireland - an old Viking fort), Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finnland (small parts of swedish settlers), Iceland, France (Elsaß-Lothringen und Normandy - settled by Vikings), there are so many more germanic people spread around the world...

Then there are countries that speak germanic languages and germanic settlers in foreignlands like Amerika and Canada, Afrikaaners, Australians, Newzeelanders (etc.).
Ireland has many Viking towns, and Our language is predominantly Englis, however we are not a germanic country, our official language is Irish and most of our celtic nationalist people would be aghast at the thought of us being refered to as english as is suggested on your map

Angelcynn
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 04:21 AM
Ireland has many Viking towns, and Our language is predominantly Englis, however we are not a germanic country, our official language is Irish and most of our celtic nationalist people would be aghast at the thought of us being refered to as english as is suggested on your mapAgreed. But then you aren't celtic either. The celtic past is something you and the Scotch decided on a couple of hundred years ago to gain access to a literary and artistic reputation you wouldn't otherwise (and don't) deserve. Real Irish and Scotch history is dull and bovine and utterly mundane. That's why they decided to make it 'celtic'.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 02:10 PM
Which countries counts to the germanic countries?

Austria, Germany, Switzerland(?), The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden - that's all? (They've got very similar-sounding languages)
Is England also "a little bit" germanic, because of similar words? But it differs very in gramar...

:cheer
I would say that the Germanic countries of the "Old World" include Germany,Austria,the German cantons of Switzerland,Flanders and the German part of Belgium,the Netherlands,Sweden,Norway,Denmark,Icelan d,the Faroes and England.
A note on England: England isnt just "a little bit Germanic" they are Germanic and no less than any of the other peoples. Modern English developed out of Middle English which in turn developed out of Old English which is remarkably similar to modern German and Dutch in both vocabulary,syntax and grammar.
It is only the coming of William the Bastard in 1066 that Norman French words were introduced into the English word hoard and even those words are not words in every day useage by the common folk. The core of English vocabulary is pure Germanic with next to no Celtic loan words.
People forget that England owes its very existence to the German tribes which started to colonise and conquer it from the fifth century onwards.
It is this Germanic blood and inheritance which sets England apart from Scotland,Wales and Ireland.
One should also consider if in the "New World the countries of Canada,the USA,New Zealand and Australia shoudl be consiedered Germanic as the core original immigrant colonialist population is of Germanic descent.Apart from the fact that they speak English, a Germanic tongue.

Milesian
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:22 PM
Agreed. But then you aren't celtic either. The celtic past is something you and the Scotch decided on a couple of hundred years ago to gain access to a literary and artistic reputation you wouldn't otherwise (and don't) deserve. Real Irish and Scotch history is dull and bovine and utterly mundane. That's why they decided to make it 'celtic'.

LOL! You shouldn't make your jealousy so glaring, nor be so ungrateful. Especially when it was some of these so-called dull, bovine and mundane peoples who had to educate your benighted ancestors when they were first washed up on British shores :D

Anyway, it's ironic that Tolkein basically made your same claims, except he was reffering to England. That was why he created the whole Middle-Earth mythology. He said that there is much culture associated with the soil of England, but not much with the English themselves which is why they have had to borrow Celtic tales such as King Arthur to use as their own and have usurped the name of the previous Celtic inhabitants for themselves now - British ;)

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 12:08 AM
Here is my list:

Australia
Austria
Denmark
England
Germany
Iceland
Northern Italy
Norway
Scotland
South Africa
Sweden

Honourable mention:
Argentina (many Germans went here after WW2, much German blood)
Canada
Czechoslovakia
Finland (A few Swedish immigrants, many Finnish people seem Germanic)
Ireland- (If they're celtic they're germanic)
Northern Poland (which still has some Geman descendants leftover from Prussia)
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia may have some good Germanic blood as well
Hungary may also still have some Germanic blood left...
United States

Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic? What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg?

Non Germanic Europeans:

France
Spain
Portugal
Italy (except the north, old Tyrol)
Russia
Poland (except old Prussia)
Croatia
Bosnia & Herzogovina
Slovenia

Generalizations. What do you think?

Hagalaz
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 12:21 AM
You forgot some of the smaller countries like switzerland and luxembourg... and what about the netherlands?

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 01:16 AM
I'm not sure about the composition of the people living there:


Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic? What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg?

Nordraserei
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 01:57 AM
Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic? What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg?
I've always heard they are Germanic. You also forgot to add the Irish in the group of non-Germanic Europeans.

Southern Jarl
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 03:02 AM
Honourable mention:
Argentina (many Germans went here after WW2, much German blood)


Actually, there are some Germans over here, but not that many... I know a few of them, and they're generally good folk.
Also, there are many who have German surnames, but some are so heavily mixed with the typical Romance locals or Slavs, that they're not "particularly" German. I've seen also amerind in some mixes, and we also have the ones who claim to be German but in fact are of Jewish origin. :thumbdown
However, you'd be right if you said that Germanic blood and influence is considerable over here (specially in the high spheres of society).
Other than German, English blood is also strong. I probably should add Swiss to the list too. We have elements from other Germanic countries, but these are considerably small. Many of these are, also, greatly mixed.
Personally, I have a, once again, "considerable" amount of Germanic blood, though I'm not a typical example, for my main part of Germanic blood is Swedish, and then English, plus a minimal amount of Norman, German and possibly Swiss blood. I came to Skadi (found it after searching for "Germanic" or something Germanic on the web) because of my partial Germanic heritage, though I feel I have no right to consider myself "Germanic". Ah, the eternal quest for identity.
Anyway, thanks for the honourable mention!:)

maskedhate
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:23 AM
Argentina (many Germans went here after WW2, much German blood)


Argentina have some germanic elements, but the majority of population is composed by spaniards/italians descendants (and we can knw it just walking in the streets), so we can call Argentina a Romance pred. country

Siegfried
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:42 AM
Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic?

The Dutch are Germanic. Belgium has a Romance south and a Germanic north. Swiss has a considerable German community alongside significant Romance communities.


What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg?

Liechtenstein is Germanic, and has Allemannic roots. Luxembourg is Germanic with an encroaching Romance element.

Triglav
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic? What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg?
Another memorable NordicPower88ism. :fpopcorn:


What would the Viennese painter say? :bwhitler

Zyklop
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Czechoslovakia isn´t a country since some years now.

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Czechoslovakia isn´t a country since some years now.

Well if you want to be picky about the name...:P

Siegfried
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 03:00 PM
I am surprised South Africa hasn't been mentioned yet. There is also a Germanic community in former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) which is de facto being repressed and persecuted by the racist government there.

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 03:07 PM
I have a, once again, "considerable" amount of Germanic blood, though I'm not a typical example, for my main part of Germanic blood is Swedish, and then English, plus a minimal amount of Norman, German and possibly Swiss blood. I came to Skadi (found it after searching for "Germanic" or something Germanic on the web) because of my partial Germanic heritage, though I feel I have no right to consider myself "Germanic".

Why not?
"Germanic" doesnt mean "German". :)
The Normans were also Germanic (French nobility which originated from Danish and a few Swedish and Norwegian viking conquerers).


The Viking colony of the Seine, largely Danish, had Rolf (Rollo/Rollon) as leader from around AD 887. He was the son of a Norwegian jarl. Without doubt, it was under his impetus that, from around the start of 10th century, the Scandinavians became attracted to the idea of settling on a long term basis in the area. In AD 911, Rollo started negotiations with the king, Charles the Simple, in order to formalise the Norman sovereignty which already existed de facto in the lower Seine territories. This resulted, in the same year, in the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, in which the Frankish king gave up to the Vikings a territory corresponding roughly to the eventual French départements of Seine-Maritime and Eure.

http://www.viking.no/e/france/contribution.html

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Argentina have some germanic elements, but the majority of population is composed by spaniards/italians descendants (and we can knw it just walking in the streets), so we can call Argentina a Romance pred. country

That's what I figured of course, that's why Argentina only gets an honorable mention. But it kinda seems like an ideal place to live, based on the climate, location, and environment anyway.

GreenHeart
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 03:26 PM
I am surprised South Africa hasn't been mentioned yet. There is also a Germanic community in former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) which is de facto being repressed and persecuted by the racist government there.

:-O Can't believe I forgot them! :|

Southern Jarl
Thursday, October 27th, 2005, 07:50 PM
Why not?
"Germanic" doesnt mean "German". :)
The Normans were also Germanic (French nobility which originated from Danish and a few Swedish and Norwegian viking conquerers).


Thanks, I know this, but I meant that I don't claim to be Germanic as I have non - Germanic blood (Romance) too. Back in my post I was talking about my Germanic side - not my entire heritage.

Rhydderch
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Australia
Austria
Denmark
England
Germany
Iceland
Northern Italy
Norway
Scotland
South Africa
Sweden

Honourable mention:
Argentina (many Germans went here after WW2, much German blood)
Canada
Czechoslovakia
Finland (A few Swedish immigrants, many Finnish people seem Germanic)
Ireland- (If they're celtic they're germanic)
Northern Poland (which still has some Geman descendants leftover from Prussia)
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia may have some good Germanic blood as well
Hungary may also still have some Germanic blood left...
United States

Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic? What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg?I'm not not sure why you accept Australia, Northern Italy and Scotland as Germanic without hesitation, but you are unsure of the last five, even the Dutch. I can understand why one might see Flemish and Swiss people as not very Germanic in comparison to Danes or Swedes, but they are almost certainly more Germanic than the English, at least culturally.

How could Scots and Australians be more Germanic than the Dutch? The Dutch, at least those of the Northern half of the country, would surely be as Germanic as North Germans.

Aptrgangr
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 09:27 AM
Thanks, I know this, but I meant that I don't claim to be Germanic as I have non - Germanic blood (Romance) too. Back in my post I was talking about my Germanic side - not my entire heritage.



So how can your Subrace be Nordid?

Wayfarer
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 11:34 AM
I'm not not sure why you accept Australia, Northern Italy and Scotland as Germanic without hesitation, but you are unsure of the last five, even the Dutch.

How could Scots and Australians be more Germanic than the Dutch?

I think if you read her post more carefully you would know she never said she thought the Scots and Australians are more Germanic than the Dutch, she asked if they were Germanic also. Her question has been answered.
The Dutch are, most Belgians are (Flemish), 65% of the Swiss are, nearly all the folk from Lichtenstein are, as for Luxembourg im not to sure i think its mixed German/French but im not too sure.

Rhydderch
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 01:10 PM
I think if you read her post more carefully you would know she never said she thought the Scots and Australians are more Germanic than the Dutch If you read my post more carefully you can see I never claimed she said that :D

In fact, If I had read her post less carefully I may not have noticed the implications that logically follow from it ;)

Wayfarer
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 01:33 PM
If you read my post more carefully you can see I never claimed she said that :D

How could Scots and Australians be more Germanic than the Dutch? Qo Rydderch ;)

So who was that question directed to?

You quoted her post saying how you cant understand how she accepts some Germanic countries as Germanic and not others, then you pose the question how can Scots and Australians be more Germanic than the Dutch.

the "logical implication" is that since noone made that claim and you are replying to her post then the assumption is the question must have been posed to her.

Zuid-Vlaming
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Here is my list:

Non Germanic Europeans:

France
Spain
Portugal

(...)

"France" doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as the "french folk". I will never understand how the concept of "France" can be used in a völkisch context (the "peuple français" subsection is nonsense. "french-speaking germanics" section would make much more sense).

How can you select parts of Italy, and on the same time, count France as a whole non-germanic ? France which includes Southern Flanders, Elsass ?

:oanieyes

Rhydderch
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 05:15 PM
So who was that question directed to?NordicPower88 of course. You see, if she questions whether the Dutch are Germanic, but Australians etc. are without doubt accepted, then it follows that the latter must be more strongly or certainly Germanic. She didn't state anything explicitly, but it's a logical implication.
So basically I'm saying 'why question the Dutch, and not those other two?'.

Besides, my question also had a rhetorical side to it; in other words, Australians and Scots could not be more Germanic than the Dutch.

Nordgau
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 05:30 PM
[...] as for Luxembourg im not to sure i think its mixed German/French but im not too sure.

The folkish-cultural basis of modern Luxemburg is fully German, the French element there is a cultural superstratum.

The territory of Luxemburg was larger in former days than the Grand Duchy is today and consisted of Francophone areas, but this French western part was cut off in 1839 and became the Belgian province of Luxembourg (which it still is today). With the Arel area, Belgium even got a little part of the German eastern part.

Wayfarer
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 05:39 PM
NordicPower88 of course. You see, if she questions whether the Dutch are Germanic, but Australians etc. are without doubt accepted, then it follows that the latter must be more strongly or certainly Germanic. She didn't state anything explicitly, but it's a logical implication.
So basically I'm saying 'why question the Dutch, and not those other two?'.

Besides, my question also had a rhetorical side to it; in other words, Australians and Scots could not be more Germanic than the Dutch.
I thought you said that you never claimed she said that the Australins and Scots are more Germanic than the Dutch. Now your implying she did. And if she never said anything explicitly then why make assumptions. You do seem to contradict yourself often.

I mean I just questioned how Germanic Luxembourg is, that doesnt mean i think its less Germanic than other Germanic countries. It just means I didnt know.
i think your making assumptions too quickly. You know maybe she just wasnt sure? Ever think of that?

Wayfarer
Friday, October 28th, 2005, 05:40 PM
The folkish-cultural basis of modern Luxemburg is fully German, the French element there is a cultural superstratum.
The territory of Luxemburg was larger in former days than the Grand Duchy is today and consisted of Francophone areas, but this French western part was cut off in 1839 and became the Belgian province of Luxembourg (which it still is today). With the Arel area, Belgium even got a little part of the German eastern part.

Thanks for informing us on that. I had always wondered what the relationship was between Luxembourg and the Belgian province that has the same name.

Rhydderch
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 04:31 AM
And if she never said anything explicitly then why make assumptions.I've made no assumptions. I'm just puzzled why someone would be unsure of whether the Dutch are Germanic, especially if they do not question other nations who are not very Germanic at all.

I'm actually a little puzzled as well that you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at :) I think the meaning I intend by certain expressions is perhaps a little different to what you would mean if you used the same expression.


I mean I just questioned how Germanic Luxembourg is, that doesnt mean i think its less Germanic than other Germanic countries. It just means I didnt know.Yes, and there is no great mystery to that; as I said earlier, I can fathom why someone might be unsure of how Germanic the Swiss and Flemish are, and Luxembourg is similar in that it is more peripheral, and of course French is widely spoken there as a second language too.

But apparently you were questioning whether Luxembourg is completely Germanic-speaking; I didn't get the impression that NordicPower88 was unsure if the Dutch were completely Germanic-speaking, but I could be wrong. She included Northern Italy as Germanic, so it didn't seem to be on linguistic grounds.


You know maybe she just wasnt sure? Ever think of that?Yes, she wasn't sure, and that's what I thought from the start.

Erzherzog_Bernd
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 11:28 AM
Personal note - Red


Here is my list:

Australia - Not entirely conclusive
Austria - Yes
Denmark - Yes
England - Not in my opinion (No)
Germany - Yes
Iceland - Don't know enough about them to state for sure, so let's just make it a "yes"(Assuming that they are more Norwegian perhaps)
Northern Italy - Yes(some)
Norway - Yes
Scotland - No
South Africa - Yes
Sweden - Yes

Honourable mention:
Argentina - No
Canada - No
Czechoslovakia - Definately not.
Finland - No
Ireland - No
Northern Poland - Last I heard they got rid of the majority of Germans, even the architecture doesn't seem Germanic in Origins anymore. So I doubt it, No.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia - No
Hungary - No
United States - Definately not (Hotch potch)

Question: Are the modern 1)Dutch, 2)Belgian, and 3)Swiss people Germanic? What about 4)Lichtenstein and 5)Luxembourg?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes (Majority of the country is, the rest is French)
4. Yes
5. Yes

Non Germanic Europeans:

France - Agreed
Spain - Definately agree
Portugal - Agree even more then just "definately"
Italy - See Spain and Portugal.
Russia - Agreed, fully
Poland - Agreed
Croatia - Agreed
Bosnia & Herzogovina - Agreed
Slovenia - Once again agreed

Generalizations. What do you think? What I think won't be liked by the mere faint hearted :) Interesting topic nontheless.

æþeling
Saturday, October 29th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Bernd.

Why do you say that Australia is not conclusively Germanic, but England is definately not? Surely if England is not, then Australia is not either?

Erzherzog_Bernd
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Bernd.

Why do you say that Australia is not conclusively Germanic, but England is definately not? Surely if England is not, then Australia is not either?

Very true, Perhaps I was leaning towards a more diplomatic answer there. Just for the sake of clarity though, Australia is by no means a British nation. They're just like America a mixture of nations. You have slavs, Norwegians, Danish, Swedish, German, british etc etc in there. So that's why I state non-conclusive, unless of course you can show me without any doubt that Australia is more British then any other? In that case then, I agree Australia is not a Germanic Nation. South Africa on the other hand have far more Afrikaaners (Dutch and the likes) Then English speaking people, Thus they are Germanic and not non-Germanic because of the English Element.

æþeling
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by Bernd Von Ueber
Very true, Perhaps I was leaning towards a more diplomatic answer there. Just for the sake of clarity though, Australia is by no means a British nation. They're just like America a mixture of nations. You have slavs, Norwegians, Danish, Swedish, German, british etc etc in there. So that's why I state non-conclusive, unless of course you can show me without any doubt that Australia is more British then any other? In that case then, I agree Australia is not a Germanic Nation. South Africa on the other hand have far more Afrikaaners (Dutch and the likes) Then English speaking people, Thus they are Germanic and not non-Germanic because of the English Element.


I am not sure of the exact percentage today, but in 1930 the white population of Australia was 95% Anglo, Scottish, Welsh, Irish decended. Greeks possibly account for the largest non-British/Irish element. I cannot envisage the figure being substantially less today.

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 06:32 PM
The English are most definitely Germanic nation, and are culturally and racially closely related to the Dutch, Frisians, North Germans and Danes. Of course there are other non-Germanic influences in England, too, but so are there in Germany.

Linguistically, English is also a West-Germanic language.

The Dutch are one of the most Germanic of all nations, being made up of three Germanic tribes: the Franks, Saxons and Frisians. The ancient tribe of the Batavi lived in the region in Roman times.

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 06:46 PM
Here is my view:

Here is the file... edit it at your leasure, and repost if you have a different view. :D

Siegfried
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Nice idea, but I don't fully agree with your presentation. Why do you think Luxembourg is racially not at all Germanic? Also, Switzerland is linguistically not fully Germanic; Romance tongues are spoken in some regions.

Lissu
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:16 PM
Nice idea, but I don't fully agree with your presentation. Why do you think Luxembourg is racially not at all Germanic? Also, Switzerland is linguistically not fully Germanic; Romance tongues are spoken in some regions.Agreed. Also Sweden and Norway are not fully Germanic.

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Agreed. Also Sweden and Norway are not fully Germanic.

How so? :scratch:

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Nice idea, but I don't fully agree with your presentation. Why do you think Luxembourg is racially not at all Germanic? Also, Switzerland is linguistically not fully Germanic; Romance tongues are spoken in some regions.

Both of these were a typo-mistake on my part - I intended to list Switzerland as linguistically partially Germanic, and Luxembourg as racially partially Germanic. :)

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:21 PM
By the way, I think with "Fully" we should think of 85% plus, maybe... nothing is ever 100%.

palesye
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:22 PM
And Germany is not 100% linguistically & ethnically Germanic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbs

palesye
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:23 PM
By the way, I think with "Fully" we should think of 85% plus, maybe... nothing is ever 100%.

Well, then forget what I wrote above. ;) Sorbs are too tiny minority...

Siegfried
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:40 PM
How so? :scratch:

She's probably referring to the Lapps. :icon1:

palesye
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:42 PM
He's probably referring to the Lapps. :icon1:

Northern Norway has a lot of Finnish immigrants. I guess there are many Finns in Sweden too.

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 07:45 PM
Northern Norway has a lot of Finnish immigrants. I guess there are many Finns in Sweden too.

Sure, but the Finnish immigrants to Norway are more recent, I think. The Swedish element of Finland is older, and more established (along the coastal regions of Finland).

Lissu
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 08:04 PM
By the way, I think with "Fully" we should think of 85% plus, maybe... nothing is ever 100%.Well then, you should erase Finland out of your excel ;) Finland has only 6% Swedish speakers, and some 90% of them speak as good Finnish than Swedish. And most of them has no Swedish roots, perhaps some 20% of them have though.


He's probably referring to the Lapps. I'm referring to Saami people, yes, and Kvens and Finns.


Sure, but the Finnish immigrants to Norway are more recent, I think. The Swedish element of Finland is older, and more established (along the coastal regions of Finland).Norway doesn't have many Finnish immigrants I believe. But there are Kvens in Northern part of Norway who have lived there for a very long time. Also the Saami minority is the biggest in Norway and stretches quite south. Sweden has a massive amount of Finnish immigrats, about half a million as far as I know + their children. And in Northern parts of Sweden there are a very old Finnish minority, even though during the last centuries they are largely assimilated to Swedes.

palesye
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 08:12 PM
Norway doesn't have many Finnish immigrants I believe. But there are Kvens in Northern part of Norway who have lived there for a very long time. Also the Saami minority is the biggest in Norway and stretches quite south. Sweden has a massive amount of Finnish immigrats, about half a million as far as I know + their children. And in Northern parts of Sweden there are a very old Finnish minority, even though during the last centuries they are largely assimilated to Swedes.

I thought Kven = Norwegian Finn? :icon1:

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 08:13 PM
Well then, you should erase Finland out of your excel ;) Finland has only 6% Swedish speakers, and some 90% of them speak as good Finnish than Swedish. And most of them has no Swedish roots, perhaps some 20% of them have though.

Sure, but some people in Finland, today speaking Finnish as mother tongue, and regarded as ethnic Finns, have partial Germanic heritage historically. This is especially true in the western coastal areas. Thus my assertion would still be valid, IMO.


SHE's referring to Saami people, yes, and Kvens and Finns.

This does not really count... these groups are not regarded as ethnic Norwegians.

Lissu
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 08:15 PM
Sure, but some people in Finland, today speaking Finnish as mother tongue, and regarded as ethnic Finns, have partial Germanic heritage historically. This is especially true in the western coastal areas. Thus my assertion would still be valid, IMO.



This does not really count... these groups are not regarded as ethnic Norwegians.Kvens not ethnic Norwegians? Hmmm... How many centuries or millenias does that need :icon1:

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Kvens not ethnic Norwegians? Hmmm... How many centuries or millenias does that need :icon1:

Hmmm... admittedly I don't know much about them. :redface:

Any Norwegians wish to clarify?

palesye
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 08:19 PM
I'm not Norwegian but as far as I know Kvens live in Northern Norway from the beginning of 18th century. I guess it's long enough.

Æmeric
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 09:15 PM
How can South Africa be predominately Germanic? I believe non-whites makeup about 85 to 90 percent of the population there.

Siegfried
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 09:28 PM
How can South Africa be predominately Germanic? I believe non-whites makeup about 85 to 90 percent of the population there.

I agree it would be more at place in the 'honourable mention' category. According to the CIA World Factbook, only 9.6% of the population there is White.

Huzar
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 09:49 PM
I agree it would be more at place in the 'honourable mention' category. According to the CIA World Factbook, only 9.6% of the population there is White.


Yes, you're right. Though, we must remember that south africa is an advanced country (different from any other country of the black continent) ; rich, advanced and wealthy south africa is the WHITE south africa ; there is a rapid emigration of whites from the country : until some years ago, the % was 13,4, while now is 9,6%. When ALL whites will leave the country, south africa will return gradually to the atavic standard of any other confinant nation : underdevelopment, ethnic wars, aids etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc..................................... ............

Loki
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 09:58 PM
How can South Africa be predominately Germanic? I believe non-whites makeup about 85 to 90 percent of the population there.

True; I think it should be specified as "White South Africa" - as there is a distinct White community in South Africa which is of predominantly Germanic heritage. I believe it is said to be over 80% Dutch-German, with more Germanic ancestry listed such as Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. The largest non-Germanic contributor to this population is French (which is in itself partially Germanic), at around 8% of the pop.

Above is talking about the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. There is an English-speaking section too, which is predominantly of English, Irish and Scottish heritage.

Wilhelm777
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 10:03 PM
I'm not Norwegian but as far as I know Kvens live in Northern Norway from the beginning of 18th century. I guess it's long enough.

The Kvens have been in Norway for hundreds of years. Even the Norwegian/Icelandic sagas say that it was actually Kvens whom established the Norway. Kven called Norr hiked around the mountains (had a few clashes, few drinks and so on..) and started a kingdom by his name, Norway. This ofcource is from the old sagas and how much of them is really reliable is another thing ;) . Here's how the story goes:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ice/is3/is302.htm

There was a king named Fornjot, he ruled over those lands which are called Finland and Kvenland; that is to the east of that bight of the sea which goes northward to meet Gandvik; that we call the Helsingbight. Fornjot had three sons; one was named Hler, whom we call Ægir, the second Logi, the third Kari; he was the father of Frost, the father of Snow the old, his son’s name was Thorburnri; he (Thorburnri) had two sons, one was named Norr and the other Gorr; his daughter’s name was Goi. Thorburnri was a great sacrificer, he had a sacrifice every year at midwinter; that they called Thorburnri’s sacrifice; from that the month took its name. One winter there were these tidings at Thorburnri’s sacrifice, that Goi was lost and gone, and they set out to search for her, but she was not found. And when that month passed away Thorburnri made them take to sacrifice, and sacrifice for this, that they might know surely where Goi was hidden away. That they called Goi’s sacrifice, but for all that they could hear nothing of her. Four winters after those brothers vowed a vow that they would search for her; and so share the search between them, that Norr should search on land, but Gorr should search the outscars and islands, and he went on board ship. Each of those brothers had many men with him. Gorr held on with his ships out along the sea-bight, and so into Alland’s (1) sea; after that he views the Swedish scars far and wide, and all the isles that lie in the East salt sea; after that to the Gothland scars, and thence to Denmark, and views there all the isles; he found there his kinsmen, they who were come from Hler the old out of Hler’s isle, (2) and he held on then still with his voyage and hears nothing of his sister. But Norr his brother bided till snow lay on the heaths, and it was good going on snow-shoon. After that he fared forth from Kvenland and inside the sea-bight, and they came thither where those men were who are called Lapps, that is at the back of Finmark. But the Lapps wished to forbid them a passage, and there arose a battle; and that might and magic followed Norr and his men; that their foes became as swine (3) as soon as they heard the war-cry and saw weapons drawn, and the Lapps betook themselves to flight. But Norr fared thence west on the Keel, (4) and was long out, so that they knew nothing of men, and shot beasts and birds for meat for themselves; they fared on till they came where the waters turned to the westward from the fells. Then they fared along with the waters, and came to a sea; there before them was a firth as big as it were a sea-bight; there was a mickle tilths, and great dales came down to the firth. There was a gathering of folk against them, and they straightway made ready to battle with Norr, and their quarrel fared as was to be looked for. All that folk either fell or fled, but Norr and his men overcame them as weeds over cornfields. Norr fared round all the firth and laid it under him, and made himself king over those districts that lay there inside the firth. Norr tarried there the summer over till it snowed upon the hearths; then he shaped his course up along the dale which goes south from the firth; that firth is now called Drontheim. Some of his men he lets fare the coast way round Mæren; he laid under him all withersoever he came. And when he comes south over the fell that lay to the south of the dalebight, he went on still south along the dales, until he came to a great water which they called Mjösen. Then he turns west again on to the fell, because it had been told him that his men had come off worsted before that king whose name was Sokni. Then they came into that district which they called Valders. Thence they fared to the sea, and came into a long firth and a narrow, which is now called Sogn; there was their meeting with Sokni, and they had there a mickle battle, because their witchcraft had no hold on Sokni. Norr went hard forward, and he and Sokni came to handstrokes. There fell Sokni and many of his folk.

2. After that Norr fared on into the firth that goes north from Sogn. There Sokni had ruled before in what is now called Sokni’s dale. There Norr tarried a long time, and that is now called Norafirth. There came to meet him Gorr his brother, and neither of them had then heard anything of Goi. Gorr too had laid under him all the outer land as he had fared from the south, and then those brothers shared the lands between them. Norr had all the mainland, but Gorr shall have all those isles between which and the mainland he passes in a ship with a fixed rudder. And after that Norr fares to the Uplands, and came to what is now called Heidmörk (5); there that king ruled whose name was Hrolf of the Hill; he was the son of Svadi the giant from north of the Dovrefell. Hrolf had taken away from Kvenland Goi, Thorburnri’s daughter; he went at once to meet Norr, and offered him single combat; they fought long together and neither was wounded. After that they made their quarrel up, and Norr got Hrolf’s sister, but Hrolf got Goi to wife. Thence Norr turned back to the realm which he had laid under him, that he called Norway; he ruled that realm while he lived, and his sons after him, and they shared the land amongst them, and so the realms began to get smaller and smaller as the kings got more and more numerous, and so they were divided into provinces.

æþeling
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by Loki
The English are most definitely Germanic nation, and are culturally and racially closely related to the Dutch, Frisians, North Germans and Danes. Of course there are other non-Germanic influences in England, too, but so are there in Germany.



Genetic surveys do show a somewhat marked difference between the English and Welsh. It would seem that most English are more related to Dutch, Danes, and northern Germans, than to Welsh, highland Scots, and Irish. There is a rough east-west gradient in ethno-racial origins in England. Of course substantial amounts of Britons were incorporated into the nacent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Racially though there were only slight difference. It is fair to say that if we were basing the criteria on race alone then indeed Germany, or at least the southern half, would only be a marginal member.

Culturally I would argue otherwise. I believe that the English have a lot in common with Danes and Dutch but we have a culture of our own and one that we share with our island neighbours, to an extent.


Linguistically, English is also a West-Germanic language.


I agree it is classed as such. I personaly, though, dont see it as such. Grammer wise it is still largely Germanic. Vocabulary wise it is not. Perhaps an Anglo branch on the Indo-European family tree would not be amiss?

Rhydderch
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 04:26 AM
Very true, Perhaps I was leaning towards a more diplomatic answer there. Just for the sake of clarity though, Australia is by no means a British nation. They're just like America a mixture of nations. You have slavs, Norwegians, Danish, Swedish, German, british etc etc in there. So that's why I state non-conclusive, unless of course you can show me without any doubt that Australia is more British then any other?As far as I know, the most numerous category in Australia (by ancestry, and in descending order) is English, then Irish, Scottish and Welsh. I think Germans are the next most, and are basically the only other group which have had a presence here from before 1900, but I'm not sure how far below Welsh they come. In any case they were never a large proportion of the population in this country.

Any other immigrants are recent, and Australia would only be a mixture of nations (other than those which are, or were in the 19th century, part of the United Kingdom) in the sense that most European countries are nowadays.


Genetic surveys do show a somewhat marked difference between the English and Welsh. It would seem that most English are more related to Dutch, Danes, and northern Germans, than to Welsh, highland Scots, and Irish.One (rather suspect) survey claimed to have found a marked difference between the English and Welsh. However, a more comprehensive one found a majority of English to be similar to the other inhabitants of the British Isles, except for (I think) three or four towns which had a significant proportion who were similar to Danes, North Germans etc. Interestingly enough, one such town was Llanidloes in Wales.

fenriSS_
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 03:52 PM
Some finn's moved to Norway at the 1500's, but not meany. The real immigration started in the 1700's.

Kvenenes immigration in Norway is devided into three major parts by the historicans. The first part between 1720 and 1820 is seen upon as the finnish farmercolonesation that started in Finland already at the 1500's. it was the beginning gouverned by the state, and Swedish gouvernments looked upon it as an important part of the "statebuilding in the north". At this time Nordkalotten an area without clear countryborders. The countryborder first came in 1751 (Sweden-Norway) and in 1826 (Norway-Russia). In 1751 was Finland a province under Sweden, and in 1826 under the Tsar in Russia..

Around the 1700's was most of the finnish and Swedish "lappmarkene" coloniced. Lappmarkene-the fertail farmer soil. Finnmark was next!

The rich riverdales and fjord's in vest-Finnmark like Lyngen, alta and Skjervæy. Especially Alta became the core for the kvenske immigrants in Finnmark.

I den tredje bosettingsfasen omkring 1890 tok innvandringen slutt og befolkningsmønstret stabiliserte seg i Finnmark. Årsakene var svikt i fisket, befolkningspress, Amerikafeber og vanskeligheter for innvandrere å få statsborgerskap og jord i Norge. En ny positiv utvikling i økonomi i de nordligste delene i Finland og Sverige gjorde at folk ikke trengte å flytte. Folketellingen i 1930 var den siste som registrerte kvenene som egen gruppe, og også den siste offentlige registrering av kvener i Norge.

In the third and final settler period around 1890 the immigrantion ended and the population pattern stabalised in Finnmark. The reasons were less fish, americafeber, pressure by the norwegian gouvernment and harder for the kvens to get statemembership and earth in Norway. A new positiv devolpment in Economy in the north area's of Finland and Sweden gave the kvens no reason to move.

I knew that some finn's moved to eastern Norway aswell. My grand grand dad on my mother side was half finnish..

Lundi
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 04:37 PM
The Faroese people are more heavily mixed with Celts than us, having had a lot more Celtic slaves and settlers during the Norse settlement period, plus the fact the islands where already settled quite heavily by Irish monks before Norwegian immigrants came there fleeing the tyranny of Harald I

æþeling
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Rydderch
One (rather suspect) survey claimed to have found a marked difference between the English and Welsh. However, a more comprehensive one found a majority of English to be similar to the other inhabitants of the British Isles, except for (I think) three or four towns which had a significant proportion who were similar to Danes, North Germans etc. Interestingly enough, one such town was Llanidloes in Wales.


Not one at all. Quite a few in fact:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/genetics_results_01.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008

The consensus would suggest that there is a gradual difference running from east-west and north to south of the Thames. In the British Isles three main Y chromosone types stand out. They are labelled as British, Germano-Dane, and Norwegian. The largest frequency would seem to be British as found in the Hg1 marker. How reliable or extensive these surveys are will always be under dispute. I have seen one that argues that the Welsh are Siberian. Given the contemporary literature, archaeology, and phenotype studies I believe that Germanic settlement in Britain was extensive. My own research came out with 250-300,000 settlers from c.AD450-650. This is probably at the small end given that we know the Visigoths and Vandals migrated in the hundred thousand range in a smaller period of time.

Lissu
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 09:26 PM
The Faroese people are more heavily mixed with Celts than us, having had a lot more Celtic slaves and settlers during the Norse settlement period, plus the fact the islands where already settled quite heavily by Irish monks before Norwegian immigrants came there fleeing the tyranny of Harald IVery true.

Besides, IMHO it is quite difficult, if not impossible to define some nation racially as Germanic, or Celtic or anything else. Nations can be defined subracially like Nordid, UP and so on though, this is obvious of course.

Linguistically and culturally defining something as Germanic is of course easy and also quite accurate.

GreenHeart
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 09:38 PM
The style of the chart is very good, and I like the setup since its a lot more concise than my list.
But I wonder why Germany, Scotland, and England are only considered racially partially Germanic but Netherlands is fully? I can't recall ever seeing a native englishman that doesn't look germanic in the face, granted there are a lot of immigrants there now though, which is really sad. :frown: Germans are also very blond and germanic looking. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of dutch people have black hair and odd facial features.

And also I think that celtic is racially the exact same as germanic, imo. I couldn't tell a difference between them.

But I think you already know my opinion since its posted on the Skadi thread. ;)
On skadi some people think that there is no such thing as Germanic, and such people do not get banned as they do here... :stop0000: :O

Loki
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 09:45 PM
On skadi they thought my thread was ridiculous... :icon12: and that there is no such thing as Germanic :stop0000: :O

Well Skadi's motto is "Germanic Racial, Cultural and Spiritual Preservation" ;) ,so the one who said that must have been drunk or something. :icon12:

Loki
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 09:50 PM
But I wonder why Germany, Scotland, and England are only considered racially partially Germanic but Netherlands is fully? I can't recall ever seeing a native englishman that doesn't look germanic in the face, granted there are a lot of immigrants there now though, which is really sad. :frown: Germans are also very blond and germanic looking. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of dutch people have black hair and odd facial features.


The North-Eastern areas of England I would consider fully Germanic racially. But Western England contains darker elements of the pre-Germanic (Welsh) population in more abundance.

Similarly, the Southern Germans are generally darker than their Northern cousins; where you live in Northern Germany most people may seem blond.. but the same is not true of far Southern Germany. Blondness in Germany decreases from North to South gradually (generally speaking).

Netherlands, in contrast, is almost exclusively of Germanic heritage - being made up historically of Batavi, Saxons, Franks and Frisians. Germanic people have lived in the Netherlands uninterruptedly since before Roman times... and therefore it is not surprising that the Netherlands is on average more blond than both Germany and England.

What would you say about this, Siegfried?

GreenHeart
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 10:40 PM
Although this post is based on the studies posted by Engledrihtenon Skadi.

The study used modern German DNA from Schleswig-Holstein and Saxony for the Angle and Saxon DNA. They had difficulties distinguishing it from Danish DNA.
Since the English people do share most of this DNA with modern Germans, it must mean that the German people have not changed much from the viking times.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/genetics_results_01.shtml



English and Dutch genes "almost identical": "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

I think I have to take back what I said about the Dutch, clearly the Dutch, English and Germans are all closely related, all connected by their Germanic blood.

Kalevi
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 11:43 PM
The Kvens have been in Norway for hundreds of years. Even the Norwegian/Icelandic sagas say that it was actually Kvens whom established the Norway.

Of course it's worth to mention that the word "Kven" in those times propably meant a member of a tribe living somewhere around Ostrobothnia and Tornio(Torneå) river valley. Later the old term shifted to mean the newer Finnish immigrants in northern Norway.

And about the "Germanic race": I think it needs a definition, since "Germanic" is an ethno-linguistic construct. If the Germans are only partially Germanic in race, I'm a bit out of ideas. :scratch:

Rhydderch
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005, 04:46 AM
Not one at all. Quite a few in fact:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/genetics_results_01.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008
The first link there (Blood of the Vikings) is the one I referred to as more comprehensive. They found three or four towns which had half or more of their population similar to the Continental Germanic area.

The rest of the links are actually three different reports on one survey (which I called 'suspect').


The consensus would suggest that there is a gradual difference running from east-west and north to south of the Thames. In the British Isles three main Y chromosone types stand out. They are labelled as British, Germano-Dane, and Norwegian. The largest frequency would seem to be British as found in the Hg1 marker. How reliable or extensive these surveys are will always be under dispute. I have seen one that argues that the Welsh are Siberian. Given the contemporary literature, archaeology, and phenotype studies I believe that Germanic settlement in Britain was extensive. My own research came out with 250-300,000 settlers from c.AD450-650. This is probably at the small end given that we know the Visigoths and Vandals migrated in the hundred thousand range in a smaller period of time.There is probably an east-west gradient, but I think there is good evidence that this is largely due (not entirely though, of course) to Bronze Age, and perhaps Neolithic migrations.

From the evidence I've seen, the migration doesn't really seem to have extended further than about A.D. 500. I'd be interested to know if there is any evidence that it continued longer. Bede, (and Alcuin, perhaps others too) for example, speaks of the invasion as if it all occured in the years around 449; while this must not be strictly true, I think it gives an indication that it did not extend for centuries, and that it was essentially a Post-Roman invasion; and I think by men who basically wanted to conquer the former Roman world in order to exploit its wealth (no doubt there were other factors too though); so I don't believe it was really any different to the other invasions of the late Roman Empire.

Continental invasions often seem to have occured in 'one go', with a large proportion of the tribe moving at once; this is probably because of the difficulty of travelling large distances overland in less formidable numbers. The Anglo-Saxon invasions were perhaps less of a concerted effort, and in any case a concerted effort would have been less necessary because Britain had split into a number of smaller kingdoms after the Romans left (or were booted out). So it may have been more sporadic, and with individual warbands conquering smaller kingdoms and ruling them independently.

Sigel
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005, 02:38 PM
I think I have to take back what I said about the Dutch, clearly the Dutch, English and Germans are all closely related, all connected by their Germanic blood.
Indeed they are. There is a loose category known as North Sea Germans; principally tribes who were close to North Sea and were the first Germanic people (pre-Viking) to use it to get around. A.K.A. Ingvaeones.

Their ‘cradle’ was actually the Baltic. They cut their teeth with seafaring technology there (Jutes and Angles), before turning their attention to the North Sea.

Nowadays we have a sharp linguistic divide between North Germanic (Scandinavian) and West Germanic (English, German, Dutch etc.). This divide did not exist prior to the Anglian exodus. The Angles spoke a dialect that had elements of both. Angles and Danes were neighbours and could easily converse.

I would not call Celts “Germanic”, as they are in fact “Celtic”. Anthropologically Celtic and Germanic zones have racial types in common, but the cultural and linguistic boundaries are clearly marked and were so even in Caesar’s time.

æþeling
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005, 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by Rydderch
The rest of the links are actually three different reports on one survey (which I called 'suspect').



Suspect because??




Originally Posted by Rydderch
There is probably an east-west gradient, but I think there is good evidence that this is largely due (not entirely though, of course) to Bronze Age, and perhaps Neolithic migrations.



This is not likely, There was a relatively large migration of possible Nordic types into the British Ises during the Bronze Age, although the size is disputed. During the Neolithic only agrarian farmersfrom Central Europe would have immigrated to Britain. These farmers are often seen as having haplgroups HG4 and possibly HG3 from the Ukrainian region. Neither though are particulary large.



Originally Posted by Rydderch
From the evidence I've seen, the migration doesn't really seem to have extended further than about A.D. 500. I'd be interested to know if there is any evidence that it continued longer. Bede, (and Alcuin, perhaps others too) for example, speaks of the invasion as if it all occured in the years around 449; while this must not be strictly true, I think it gives an indication that it did not extend for centuries, and that it was essentially a Post-Roman invasion; and I think by men who basically wanted to conquer the former Roman world in order to exploit its wealth (no doubt there were other factors too though); so I don't believe it was really any different to the other invasions of the late Roman Empire.



The arrival of the Wulfingas dynasty in the late 6th century, possibly from Sweden would seem to indicate continued immigration, albeit reduced. It is likely that the bulk of immigration peaked in the early 5th century, where it was blunted, by the British victory at Baddon. The population then increased from the mid-5th century onwards, which would suggest an increase in the Germanic population already in Britain, likely, as well as new arrivals possibly Saxons coming back from Gaul.


Originally Posted by Rydderch
Continental invasions often seem to have occured in 'one go', with a large proportion of the tribe moving at once; this is probably because of the difficulty of travelling large distances overland in less formidable numbers. The Anglo-Saxon invasions were perhaps less of a concerted effort, and in any case a concerted effort would have been less necessary because Britain had split into a number of smaller kingdoms after the Romans left (or were booted out). So it may have been more sporadic, and with individual warbands conquering smaller kingdoms and ruling them independently.

It seems likely that the Gothic migrations from the Baltic to the Black Sea were in waves rather than one mass migration, so there have been precedents. The Viking settlements in England occured in two stages, three if you count the Normans. The first in the late 9th century. The second after 1016.

Although evidence can be interpreted in many ways either way a large Germanic infusion into Britain , realistically, beyond doubt.

Rhydderch
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 04:47 AM
Suspect because??For a number of reasons, although it's particularly the reports which are suspect. They didn't give approximate percentages for any of the towns, unlike the Blood of the Vikings survey, and made strange suggestions such as Offa's dike being a genetic barrier, when in fact Derbyshire was the furthest west they went in England, and the Welsh towns were both in the far west of Wales. They also claimed that the English towns were indistinguishable from Frisians; one town surveyed by them, Southwell, was also included in the Blood of the Vikings survey; it did have one of the highest percentages of Continental similarity, but only approximately 50%. They didn't explain the results clearly; it just seems as though they had some sort of agenda, whether Welsh nationalist, as someone on a message board suggested of Mark Thomas (who was involved), or just that they wanted to create a stir in the media, is anyone's guess.


This is not likely, There was a relatively large migration of possible Nordic types into the British Ises during the Bronze Age, although the size is disputed.The archaeological record is apparently clear in that there were three different racial types involved, and these types are common (and I have observed this myself) among the modern English, particularly in the south-east. One of them, the Borreby type, is one of the commonest types there, I think probably commoner than the types associated with Anglo-saxon and Viking invasions.


During the Neolithic only agrarian farmersfrom Central Europe would have immigrated to Britain.A number of peoples probably entered Britain in the Neolithic, largely from the Mediterranean via Spain. It was the earliest Neolithic migrants who had a culture related to cultures in Central Europe.

I think I've also read that during the Neolithic, Borreby people spread down into Northern and Eastern France, and I'm suggesting that it's possible they also crossed over to Britain, but this is only my speculation, and I haven't seen any direct evidence for it.

I have to go but I'll reply to the rest soon.

æþeling
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 09:29 AM
Originally Posted by Rydderch
For a number of reasons, although it's particularly the reports which are suspect. They didn't give approximate percentages for any of the towns, unlike the Blood of the Vikings survey, and made strange suggestions such as Offa's dike being a genetic barrier, when in fact Derbyshire was the furthest west they went in England, and the Welsh towns were both in the far west of Wales. They also claimed that the English towns were indistinguishable from Frisians; one town surveyed by them, Southwell, was also included in the Blood of the Vikings survey; it did have one of the highest percentages of Continental similarity, but only approximately 50%. They didn't explain the results clearly; it just seems as though they had some sort of agenda, whether Welsh nationalist, as someone on a message board suggested of Mark Thomas (who was involved), or just that they wanted to create a stir in the media, is anyone's guess.



Some fair points. The problem with these surveys is that you pretty much read what you want. I still am firmly convinced, for reasons that I have said above, that the English migrations were substantial and extended.



Originally Posted by Rydderch
The archaeological record is apparently clear in that there were three different racial types involved, and these types are common (and I have observed this myself) among the modern English, particularly in the south-east. One of them, the Borreby type, is one of the commonest types there, I think probably commoner than the types associated with Anglo-saxon and Viking invasions.



We were talking of the Bronze Age though, remember?

For this period it seems that a Nordic type began to enter the British Isles, the Beaker invasion. Evidnce suggests three different routes. One through Cornwall, another through the Orkneys, and a third up from Germany.

As I understand it the re-settlement of Britain after 10,000BC was by a UP type. During the Neolithic these were largely replaced by a Mediterranean strain, with exception for places like Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. One from Iberia, often seen as the Megalith builders. And a final from Central Europe bearing agriculture. These in turn were largely replaced by Nordics in the Bronze Age.

The Borreby type is more common in Denmark and northern Germany. It is most likely associated with Germanic migrations into the British Isles. Although some skulls found do suggest a possible Bronze Age migration.

Rhydderch
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 11:28 AM
For this period it seems that a Nordic type began to enter the British Isles, the Beaker invasion. Evidnce suggests three different routes. One through Cornwall, another through the Orkneys, and a third up from Germany.But it's fairly well known that the Beaker folk were largely brachycephalic. Carleton Coon claims that there was also a dolichocephalic element, the Corded type, but that it was outnumbered by the others, Dinarics and Borrebies. He says that the Borreby type was the largest element among the migrants.

The racial affiliation of the Beaker Folk is apparently clear.

There was also an entry of Dinarics who seemed to be separate from the Beaker folk. This is perhaps the one you mention as coming through Cornwall, and I think it's possible that they preceded the Beaker folk, although they were a Bronze Age people.


As I understand it the re-settlement of Britain after 10,000BC was by a UP type. During the Neolithic these were largely replaced by a Mediterranean strain, with exception for places like Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. One from Iberia, often seen as the Megalith builders. And a final from Central Europe bearing agriculture. These in turn were largely replaced by Nordics in the Bronze Age. I agree on the UP type being the first major element. However, I've come to the conclusion that ancient 'invaders/migrants' generally settled on unoccupied land, rather than killing (except in battle) or expelling inhabitants and settling on their land, and so rather than replacing the UP population, they just conquered a wider area, and settled on available land, of which there must have been plenty in those days. I believe this is consistent with the fact that individual racial types are usually spread over many lands, and in mixture with other types.

There are a number of reasons why settling this way would be a lot more practical.

Also each invading group seems to have made a contribution to the modern population which can be observed in their phenotypes.

Rhydderch
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 01:02 PM
The arrival of the Wulfingas dynasty in the late 6th century, possibly from Sweden would seem to indicate continued immigration, albeit reduced.Is this the dynasty of East Anglia? I don't know that there is a great deal of certainty about the arrival of dynasties. However, in some cases, Anglo-Saxons were settled in Britain for quite some time before taking over the British kingdom in which they resided, so the founding of a dynasty isn't necessarily an indication of its time of arrival. For example, the British kingdom of Bryneich/Bernaccia was taken over by Ida, the leader of a group of Angles settled there, in 547, but it was apparently in the days of his grandfather that the group arrived.


It seems likely that the Gothic migrations from the Baltic to the Black Sea were in waves rather than one mass migration, so there have been precedents. The Viking settlements in England occured in two stages, three if you count the Normans. The first in the late 9th century. The second after 1016.The first Danish invasion/migration was probably more of a 'one go' situation, with the 'Great Army' (although some warbands entered separately from this). The second though was more of an imperialist invasion wasn't it, rather than a migration?


Although evidence can be interpreted in many ways either way a large Germanic infusion into Britain, realistically, beyond doubt.I guess it depends what you mean by large. I'd suggest 80-100 thousand, largely confined to the years 450-500, though relatively sporadic for most of this time. And of course it would depend on the number who migrated as one host; the larger each host, the more sporadic the migrations.

Loki
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 06:05 PM
I guess it depends what you mean by large. I'd suggest 80-100 thousand, largely confined to the years 450-500, though relatively sporadic for most of this time. And of course it would depend on the number who migrated as one host; the larger each host, the more sporadic the migrations.

This is pure speculation on your part. Historical research has confirmed what Bede has claimed, that is that 'Old England' (the current Jutland area of Denmark) was literally emptied of its inhabitants - almost all the Angles have moved over to Britain. And along with them, probably half of the Saxons (if not more) and some Frisians too. This must have been a great folk migration.

æþeling
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by Rydderch
Is this the dynasty of East Anglia?


It is a dynasty of East Anglia, yes. The Wulfingas/Uffingas were a dynasty of the Suffolk people. It is thought they were Swedish in origin and in 571 drove the Iclingas from Norfolk, who then retreated into Mercia and began the expansion of that kingdom.



Originally Posted by Rydderch
The second though was more of an imperialist invasion wasn't it, rather than a migration?



It was an invasion in the sense that Cnut invaded England in 1015 with his Norwegian broth-in-law Earl Erik of Lade. When Cnut became sole king of England in 1016 he proceeded to divide England into four military regions, the future earldoms, under Dano-Norse administrators. As for settlers certainly the higher classes were inflitrated by Dano-Norse nobles. The Huscarls were formed as Cnuts body guard and they would remain distinctly Anglo-Dane up until Hastings. I doubt it was imperialist in the sense of a land grab, such as the Norman conquest. England was in all but location a part of Scandinavia at that time and the peoples of England and Denmark, and to a lesser extent Norway, were linked. Cnut was in many ways asserting his right to rule the large Dano-Norse community that resided in England.



Originally Posted by Rydderch
He says that the Borreby type was the largest element among the migrants.


As I said this is perfectly possible. It could equally be that the Borreby types in Britain today are decended from Germanic immigrants. At the moment either is speculation.


Originally Posted by Rydderch
There was also an entry of Dinarics who seemed to be separate from the Beaker folk. This is perhaps the one you mention as coming through Cornwall, and I think it's possible that they preceded the Beaker folk, although they were a Bronze Age people.


Unsure of their racial affiliation other than the exploitation of tin begins at the time that these people began to enter Britain.

Anderson
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 06:43 PM
England not a Germanic country? That's a new one on me :~(

Plenty of genetic surveys suggest otherwise

æþeling
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Hi Anderson.

Depends what you mean by Germanic? If we take it as a genetic meaning, which your post suggests you do, then there is strong evidence for Germanic immigration into the British Isles. I also take the genetic surveys as showing that the English have strong links with people from northern Europe, particularly the Dutch and Danes. Indeed some surveys would suggest more similiarity between the English and Danes than between English and Welsh or Danes and Norwegians. As I explained to Rydderch, though, how you understand these surveys is choice.

If we take it as a linguistic-cultural meaning then, for me, things change. I dont see Celtic, Germanic, Slavic etc as really valid terms for describing modern European nations. Beyond that I dont really see Engand as Germanic. Once we were, yes. At one time we were all but Scandinavian. The Norman conquest changed that though. Our language is classed as West Germanic, and in grammar it is. In vocabulary though it is as much Latinised as Germanised. I also feel that England, like most nations, has evolved its own distinct culture. On top of the Germanic bed-rock we have strata of Norman-French, Renaissance, and the Enlightenment that have all combined to form something, well English. Nor are there particularly strong bonds between us and the "Germanic" nations. England is pretty much the odd man out at the party if you like. We are not German, nor French. We are English.

Loki
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 10:44 PM
Hi Anderson.

Depends what you mean by Germanic? If we take it as a genetic meaning, which your post suggests you do, then there is strong evidence for Germanic immigration into the British Isles.

'Strong evidence'? I think not. I think it is a fact.

Sigurd
Saturday, November 5th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Slovenia



I would say Southern Slovenia, yes, it's not Germanic. But the northernmost districts, which are the parts of Carinthia and Styria that Austria lost as a result of WWI, do show considerable Germanic traits, most of which show an Alpinid/Nordid admixture.

But apart from that a good list, that would have mostly been my choice, too.

æþeling
Sunday, November 6th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by Cyclone.
'Strong evidence'? I think not. I think it is a fact.


Is it? I would beg to differ. I believe that there was a large migration of Germanic people because the archaeological, contemporary literature, climatological evidence etc support this. The genetic surveys also seem, note seem, to indicate that there was as well. Blood of the Vikings was quite possibly the most extended genetic survey of the British Isles yet done. But it was, like most genetic surveys, specific in its locations. As I have said genetics is a very nacent subject when it comes to migratory patterns and you can read pretty much anything you want into it. I have read one study that suggests the Welsh are in fact Siberian, so you see my point I hope about how these surveys can be twisted to support whatever you want.

I believe that the genetic evidence on its own is plausible, although not convincing, and to be honest anything other than a blanket survey of the whole island is likely to leave doubt. I have only seen two studies that show large scale folk movements, and although I am convinced I would not claim them as fact without seeing more studies. Given the evidence from other areas though, as I have said above, the evidence for Germanic migration is overwhelming.

Loki
Sunday, November 6th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Is it? I would beg to differ.

I think you misunderstood me. ;) What I meant to say was, that ancient Germanic migration to Britain is a fact, which it is. It seems a bit superfluous and unnecessary to 'want to provide evidence in support of Germanic migration'. I mean, Jesus man, if that is not a fact, then you can just as well start requiring 'evidence' that native African people are in fact negroid, or that China is indeed populated by a Mongoloid people.

æþeling
Sunday, November 6th, 2005, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Cyclone
I think you misunderstood me. ;) What I meant to say was, that ancient Germanic migration to Britain is a fact, which it is. It seems a bit superfluous and unnecessary to 'want to provide evidence in support of Germanic migration'. I mean, Jesus man, if that is not a fact, then you can just as well start requiring 'evidence' that native African people are in fact negroid, or that China is indeed populated by a Mongoloid people.


I totally agree. As far as I know no one denies Germanic immigration into the British Isles, least of all me. The question is how much? You draw your own conclusions.

Rhydderch
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 12:23 AM
This is pure speculation on your part. Historical research has confirmed what Bede has claimed, that is that 'Old England' (the current Jutland area of Denmark) was literally emptied of its inhabitants - almost all the Angles have moved over to Britain. And along with them, probably half of the Saxons (if not more) and some Frisians too. This must have been a great folk migration.Bede says that 'Angulus' was 'said to remain empty ever since' the migration, and of course, it's fairly much speculation to assume that it was due to migration to Britain (besides the fact that he quite possibly didn't mean it was totally deserted). Britain was not the only destination of emigrants from these areas.

Judging by other ancient societies, probably more than half of the population among the early Germanic tribes would have been unfree, who were not fighting men, and would not have taken part in these migrations.

If population density was as high as in the Roman Empire (which is not likely), then the Angles and Saxons together would have numbered perhaps 400 thousand. Now let's say all Anglian freemen migrated (which again is not likely) and half of the Saxon freemen; together with some Frisians and Jutes, this might make about 170 thousand, of which perhaps a quarter migrated to Gaul. This then makes a maximum of about 130 thousand, so I believe 80-100 thousand is a reasonable estimate.

And I've explained why I think it was pretty much confined to A.D. 450-500.

Huzar
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 12:45 AM
I totally agree. As far as I know no one denies Germanic immigration into the British Isles, least of all me. The question is how much? You draw your own conclusions.


Difficult to say the precise number. From my university studies, i've read somewhat like 500.000/600.000 (not more) Anglo-Saxons and Jutes invaded british isles in the decades between 450 and 500 A.D.

Perhaps, the real problem is how many "pre-germanic" (Celtic/latin) still lived there at the moment of the conquest, and how many of them survived to the "ethnic cleasing" of the new invaders..........again, from what i know, at the time of the fall of roman empire, In England lived about 1 million of people ; several hundred of thousend died during the occupation, or escaped on the continent (and they funded a celtic area in Bretagne). The rest survived, but was Germanized, simply. So, entire England (and after, entire british isles) became part of Germanic cultural world. Although, if we pay attention to the origin, we can see that almost an half of english pop. is constituted by "germanized" celts (or celtic romans in some areas). Most recent genetic test have effectively confirmed a strong "celtic" presence in the veins of modern english population.

Rhydderch
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 02:07 AM
In England lived about 1 million of peopleModern estimates of population size in the Roman Empire indicate that Britain's population was closer to four million. For a time it may have even prospered by pulling away from Roman rule, so the population was probably not lower than in other parts of the Empire.

æþeling
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 08:14 PM
There is a fair amount of evidence that the population of Roman Britain was falling rapidly towards the end of Roman rule. If we accept a figure of 3-4 million, and given the arable land under cultivation as well as the fact that Britain was supplying at least a third of the Rhine armies grain, a higher figure is not likely. In 1066 England had a population of around 1.5 million. So obviously there had been decline. We know that urban settlements as opposed to villa settlements were being abandoned. There was famine and plague in the late 4th century. As well as the gradual stripping away of the 50,000 odd Roman forces and their support elements. True many soldiers stayed but equally many of the regular army were withdrawn particularly in the 380's. The Scot, Pict, and English raids must have taken there toll as well as devastated crop land. The Roman economy was also falling. I estimate that the Romano-British population had dropped by at least a third by the lated 6th century.

Evidence for large scale slaughter of the Romano-British is rare. We do have evidence of burning at places like Canterbury. But to accuse the Anglo-Saxons of ethnic cleansing is silly. It happened no where else on a large scale, there is no reason to believe so in England. The Romano-British did not slink away and their stiff resistance was what led to eastern England being thoroughly Germanised and England becoming a Germanic nation instead of the Latin culture re-surfacing as it did in France and Italy. I believe that the Romano-British elite would have fled. The rest would either have been taken as slaves, or lower free-men, Wessex provides evidence for this. Many though may have died in directly from famine and disease. I estimate that the modern English population is 60-70% decended from Anglo-Saxons overall. The figure would be higher, or lower, depending where in the country you were. If we take my figure of 250-300,000 Anglo-Saxon immigrants, add the Scandinavian settlement lets say 30-50,000, then a c.AD600 British population of 2 million. We should be able to see that the English wld ave bee able to increase at a steady rate. Evidence from Doomsday Book seems to show that a fair amount of land was being put under the plough as well as woodland clearance. Speculation for sure but in the absence of anything concrete, for me, a fair guess.

Loki
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 08:38 PM
Rhydderch, you estimate Britain's pre-Germanic population, as well as estimate the number of Germanic migrants during the Volkerwanderung's great Northwestern expansion.

On both counts, your arbitrary estimations are yours alone, and they don't mean anything in the real world. Sorry but I had to break the truth to you. :~( If you haven't noticed yet, the previously popular anti-Germanic viewpoints are going out of fashion these days.

Huzar
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Rhydderch, you estimate Britain's pre-Germanic population, as well as estimate the number of Germanic migrants during the Volkerwanderung's great Northwestern expansion.

On both counts, your arbitrary estimations are yours alone, and they don't mean anything in the real world. Sorry but I had to break the truth to you. :~( If you haven't noticed yet, the previously popular anti-Germanic viewpoints are going out of fashion these days.


Well, the truth is that is too difficult to give exact numbers. My personal estimations too, are theorical projections if it's for this. The pure logic tell me that Germanic invasions were numerically very consistent, cause the simple fact that they imposed their language on the entire nation. At the same time i think that pre-Germanic pop. wasn't exterminated (not physically at least, rather culturally) but simply Germanized. I think that a ratio of 50% - 50% between germanics and pre-germanics (mostly celts plus some latin element), is very reasonable. Obviously Germanics, constituted almost 100% of aristocratic elite and upper and medium social classes(plus a good % of lower class too). Pre germanics a large part of lower class.

Vordania
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 10:14 PM
True; I think it should be specified as "White South Africa" - as there is a distinct White community in South Africa which is of predominantly Germanic heritage. I believe it is said to be over 80% Dutch-German, with more Germanic ancestry listed such as Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. The largest non-Germanic contributor to this population is French (which is in itself partially Germanic), at around 8% of the pop.

Above is talking about the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. There is an English-speaking section too, which is predominantly of English, Irish and Scottish heritage.

Where did you get those figures from? Encarta gave the figures for the white population as follows:

50% Afrikaans (Mainly of Dutch origin, with substantial German, French and Scandinavian infusions)
40% English Speaking (ie British or Irish)
10% Portugeause (After the collapse of Portugeause rule in Angola and Mozambique in 1974-75, a large proportion of the white settlers moved to South Africa)

Loki
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 10:27 PM
I think that a ratio of 50% - 50% between germanics and pre-germanics (mostly celts plus some latin element), is very reasonable.

A good guess, I think. Although the distribution over the country is certainly not equal. Some areas are very Germanized, whilst many pockets containing almost purely pre-Germanic settlements have remained.

It is interesting to travel through England. I have noticed that, anthropologically, even neighbouring small villages can differ greatly. To me, it seems the most Nordid elements have settled in the towns, rather than small villages. Or it could be a gentrification of the towns, too. For example, the city of Lincoln itself seems more Nordid racially than the neighbouring small villages. This is my observation, at least.

Glenlivet
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 10:43 PM
Your observation is the opposite of what I have read.

"Parsons reviewed in 1920 the distribution of colouring in England and Wales, almost entirely confirming the pioneer work of Beddoe. He found that rural folk were on the whole fairer and urban people darker; Professor E. G. Bowen has shown that short dark people take better to urban life."

H.J. Fleure and M. Davies, A Natural History of Man in Britain, p. 188, The Fontana New Naturalist, Revised Edition, 1971.


I have noticed that, anthropologically, even neighbouring small villages can differ greatly. To me, it seems the most Nordid elements have settled in the towns, rather than small villages.

Rhydderch
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 11:04 PM
"Parsons reviewed in 1920 the distribution of colouring in England and Wales, almost entirely confirming the pioneer work of Beddoe. He found that rural folk were on the whole fairer and urban people darker; Professor E. G. Bowen has shown that short dark people take better to urban life."He's probably referring to cities, rather than towns. The reason for towns being more Nordid is, as I've said before, quite possibly due to the nature of Viking settlement; they often congregated in trading towns.

Jack
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 11:58 PM
My comments beside.


Here is my list:

Australia - Yes
Austria - Yes
England - Yes
Germany - Yes
Iceland - Yes
Northern Italy - Yes
Norway - Yes
Scotland - Questionable (Celt influence in the population, more Germanic than Ireland I think - could be wrong)
South Africa - the white population, yes
Sweden - Yes

Honourable mention:
Argentina (many Germans went here after WW2, much German blood) - No.
Canada - Mostly, yes.
Czechoslovakia - No.
Finland (A few Swedish immigrants, many Finnish people seem Germanic) - No. Definetly a western country though.
Ireland- (If they're celtic they're germanic) - Celtic does not equal Germanic. Unsure.
Northern Poland (which still has some Geman descendants leftover from Prussia) - Not really, no.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia may have some good Germanic blood as well
Hungary may also still have some Germanic blood left... - No.
United States - The white population, yes.

Question: Are the modern Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss people Germanic? What about Lichtenstein and Luxembourg? - Yes to the above, with exception of Switzerland being totally Germanic, which is a mix of French, Low German, Italian and some others.

Non Germanic Europeans:

France - Partly Germanic
Spain - No.
Portugal - No.
Italy (except the north, old Tyrol) - Unsure.
Russia - Definetly not.
Poland (except old Prussia) - No.
Croatia - Westernised Slavs. No.
Bosnia & Herzogovina - Definetly not.
Slovenia - No.

Generalizations. What do you think?

I've excepted the non-white populations from the countries listed in my estimation of them.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 12:28 AM
In 1066 England had a population of around 1.5 million. So obviously there had been decline.As far as I know, the population of the whole of Europe was considerably lower in Mediaeval than in Roman times; it probably has a lot to do with factors which set in after the barbarian conquests. I don't see any reason to believe that population density in late Roman Britain was any lower than elsewhere in the Empire; in fact Britain was exceptionally prosperous, perhaps even more so after the Romans left.


The pure logic tell me that Germanic invasions were numerically very consistent, cause the simple fact that they imposed their language on the entire nation.I think this is probably the main reason why people assume that the Germanic immigration must have been large. The language of invaders generally seems to replace that of the conquered when the former constitute the bulk of the ruling class, so that the conquered are basically an underclass, even if they are a large majority. Once a language is the sole language of government and administration, it usually replaces that of the conquered people. Examples are the Celts after their spread through Europe, and later the Romans.

So it's really a question of why English achieved such a position in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I believe it was an exceptional circumstance, and that the Britons probably constituted a majority of even the ruling class, as was probably the case with natives in other barbarian kingdoms in the former Roman Empire.


Obviously Germanics, constituted almost 100% of aristocratic elite and upper and medium social classes(plus a good % of lower class too). Pre germanics a large part of lower class.If that were the case, then it would sufficiently explain why their language became dominant, even if the invaders made up less than quarter of the population.

However, apart from theoretical and other considerations, there were also kings in the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms with Celtic names. For example early kings of Wessex all have Celtic names, including Cerdic, the founder. A remoter descendant in the 600's was called Cenwalh, which is English, but means something like 'bold Welshman/Briton'; a couple of later members of this line also have Celtic names.

A king of Sussex in the 600's was called Aethelwalh, which means 'noble Briton'.

Penda of Mercia has a Celtic name, as do many of his ancestors. One of his sons was Merewalh, meaning "illustrious Briton".

My opinion, based on evidence I've come across at various times, is that the early Germanic peoples had borrowed from the Romans a concept of citizenship, whereby individuals who had desplayed their loyalty (by military service) were entitled to the rights of a native Germanic. I think that they would also have taken on a Germanic name (though not discarding there native name), which they would generally have used when speaking to Germanic people, or using their language. This was the case with Roman citizens, for example St. Patrick's (from Latin Patricius) British name was Maewyn Succat, and the Apostle Paul's native Jewish name was Saul (from Hebrew Sha'ul).

Some could have been known more by one name than the other, which could explain why some members of a royal line have a Celtic name, while others are known by an English name, sometimes incorporating 'Briton'.

Other names (or at least one that I have in mind) are apparently a mixture of Celtic and Germanic elements, such as Caedbad, an early king of Lindsey. I believe this could be due to a later confusion of their British and English names.

æþeling
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by Rydderch
As far as I know, the population of the whole of Europe was considerably lower in Mediaeval than in Roman times; it probably has a lot to do with factors which set in after the barbarian conquests. I don't see any reason to believe that population density in late Roman Britain was any lower than elsewhere in the Empire; in fact Britain was exceptionally prosperous, perhaps even more so after the Romans left.



OK. This still does not stop the population of Britain being lower.;)

Nordgau
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 02:49 PM
Yes to the above, with exception of Switzerland being totally Germanic, which is a mix of French, Low German, Italian and some others.

Upper German.--I also wouldn't call Switzerland an ethnically mixed country in the proper sense. For me an ethnically mixed area is an area where different ethnicities live that no or only in an insufficient way clear borders between the different ethnic settlement zones can be drawn (as e.g. in the Banat, especially in former times).

Switzerland is rather divided into different egions where the ethnicities settle historically, with only few smaller areas along the ethnic borders being actually mixed zones. Only the Retoromanics in the Alps of Graubünden are really interfingered with the Swiss Germans and absorbed by them more and more

http://class.georgiasouthern.edu/german/geo/sui/sui-spr.jpg

android
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 02:20 PM
even the north of italy isnt really germanic, ridiculous

Loki
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 04:59 PM
even the north of italy isnt really germanic, ridiculous

Northern Italy has had strong Germanic blood contributions during the Volkerwanderung.

Huzar
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 05:50 PM
even the north of italy isnt really germanic, ridiculous

Yes, effectively northItaly can't be called really Germanic. Northern Italy is heavly mixed : Celtic-romance substantially, plus an important Germanic component, in the complex. Northern Italy is one of the most economically powerfull and dynamic european areas ; some say that, thanks the Germanic component in northitalian pop.

Hardwig
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 06:09 PM
Why some people like to say that German-Swiss is predominantly Nordic and Southern Germany not?

android
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 06:12 PM
I call northern Italy Dinaric
and I spoke to some of them, they really dislike Germans over there especially fat and drunk german tourists

Glenlivet
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 07:48 PM
Swiss Germans are more Nordid in the high-plain. The Nordid component is supposedly of more gracile build than that which is found in western and northern Germany. Nordid is also an important component along the rivers of Southern Germany but secondary to Alpinid and Dinarid together. Lundman (1943) said that Steiermark and Niederösterreich (Lower Austria) are rather remarkably Nordid and that the lower BLI and HLI is mainly through Westphalian colonists during the Middle Ages. So Scando-Nordids and Falids are not only found in NW Germany and Netherlands north of the river Rhine. There is also a strong Nordid component in certain regions of Central Europe.


Why some people like to say that German-Swiss is predominantly Nordic and Southern Germany not?

Huzar
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 07:59 PM
I call northern Italy Dinaric
and I spoke to some of them, they really dislike Germans over there especially fat and drunk german tourists


Well, if it's for this, southern germanic population too, share a strong Dinarid component (see south-Germany and Austria).

On your second statement........, well it seems to me some kind of "lowbrow portrait" of northitalian feelings, on the field, from yours (without offence:) )

Glenlivet
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 08:09 PM
That is true but there is also a strong Dinarid component in coastal regions of England. I have even seen strongly dinaricised Irish men and women. Sweden and Norway might be the only Northern European countries without an even a weak Dinarid component. Do you think it is wrong to say that most Austrians and Southern Germans are in physical appearance closer to Scandinavians and NW Germans/N Dutch than Northern Italians. Individual exceptions exist everywhere.


Well, if it's for this, southern germanic population too, share a strong Dinarid component (see south-Germany and Austria).

Hardwig
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Do you think it is wrong to say that most Austrians and Southern Germans are in physical appearance closer to Scandinavians and NW Germans/N Dutch than Northern Italians. Individual exceptions exist everywhere.Does this huge difference between North/Southern Germany exist yet? Do you have any personal experience on it? When you say "NW Germany" do you include Schleswig-Holstein? Why wouldn't NE Germany be Nordic too?

Glenlivet
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Not huge based on what I have read. Northern Germany is predominantly Nordid. In Southern Germany the Nordid element predominate only relatively to other (sub-) races (sometimes not even that).

I base what I have written about Central Europe on what I have read and not what I think. Anecdotal evidence has nothing to do with science. It is based on a small sample you see and an impression is influenced by your cultural background and similar factors. We also tend to see what we want to see. I was looking for Irish Brünns when I was in county Cork because I knew Coon had written they are common there. But when I came back home from my trip in southern Ireland I began thinking of other important elements which I have at the time neglected.

I include (one would think who would not but I understand that it is clearer in the case of Lower Saxony) Schleswig-Holstein in NW Germany. Schleswig-Holstein is like the Netherlands predominantly Scando-Nordid-Falid. BLI is nonetheless 79-81 through weak Alpinid influence and a small neotenisation of the Nordid stock. The fairly weak Insular (some say Atlanto-Mediterranid) mixed element in the (lower) Rhine country, separate the folk stock from the rest of NW Germany. Schleswig-Holstein is probably the most Nordid region of Germany.

NE Germans are probably even fairer but what I have understood depigmentation there is also because of East-Baltid. The coastal region of western and eastern Prussia is also largely low-skulled. It is because of many 16-17th century Dutch settlers. BLI (also through Middle Age colonisation not only by NW Germans but also Alpinid South Germans) and HLI is higher in NE Germany than in NW Germany. But the very sharp border of the percentage of blood allele q and HLI is between Germany and Poland. There is also a racial border in these characteristics between Germany west and east of the old Slavic border (Limes Sorabicus), but a much weaker one.


Does this huge difference between North/Southern Germany exist yet? Do you have any personal experience on it? When you say "NW Germany" do you include Schleswig-Holstein? Why wouldn't NE Germany be Nordic too?

Huzar
Sunday, November 20th, 2005, 09:08 PM
. Do you think it is wrong to say that most Austrians and Southern Germans are in physical appearance closer to Scandinavians and NW Germans/N Dutch than Northern Italians. Individual exceptions exist everywhere.


Sincerely, i think it's a clear exaggeration. Be logic : places like Austria, Switzerland and south-Germany are closer, geographically, to north-Italy than to Scandinavia, afterall. For example, i find absurd to state that Austria and north-eastern Italy (two confinant areas) are very different phenotypically speaking.

I admire Germanism and its great history. But frankly, i suspect that it has generated some uncorrect political interference with the anthropological field ; Some germanic anthropologists share a notable tendence to divide as much as they can germanic countries from Romance countries ; like we know, the worst mistake, it's to confuse "ethnicity" and "phenotype".
Sure, we're simple guys, and often we can do this error. But let me say a thing : i fear even expert anthropologists of the past weren't immune to
these stereotypes.


France, for example is a Romance/Latin country, culturally. Or, at least, many say so. But in phenotypical terms the things are different. The "northern look" is rather similar to a germanic population. Balkans are Slavic, but many think the opposite since they don't reseamble the russians. They're substantialliy of the same stock of their Greek and Albanian neighbours.


In few words, Glen, yes, there is a cultural/linguistic division between Italy and Germanic countries, but i dubt strongly, that northern Italy is, phenotipically, very different from Austria or Switzerland or other confinant regions.

Sigurd
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 03:15 AM
Well, if it's for this, southern germanic population too, share a strong Dinarid component (see south-Germany and Austria).


Ah, so I guess we should just cut Tyrol, Souhtern Tyrol and Bavaria out of the equation? Ban people like me because I was born there, because that would mean that thre was no chance of being Germanic? Of course, geneaology tells very different, but that doesn't count...?! :rofl:

Anyway Austrian population is 55% Nordish (35% Noric, 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic) so I think we can see it is predominant. Plus our Dinaric and Alpinid members of the society often show quite strong influences fo Nordic nature as well. ;)

Glenlivet
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 04:09 AM
McCulloch's numbers?



Anyway Austrian population is 55% Nordish (35% Noric, 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic)

Huzar
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 08:18 AM
Ah, so I guess we should just cut Tyrol, Souhtern Tyrol and Bavaria out of the equation? Ban people like me because I was born there, because that would mean that thre was no chance of being Germanic? Of course, geneaology tells very different, but that doesn't count...?! :rofl:

You're clearly misunderstanding my statement. I've simply said that those territories share a strong Dinarid component ; a component very common in northern Italy too. We could say exactly the same about the Alpinid type. That's all. I've never denied the germanic heritage of those zones.



Anyway Austrian population is 55% Nordish (35% Noric, 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic) so I think we can see it is predominant.

Sorry Sigurd, but Mc Culloch, isn't an antropologist. I don't consider too seriously anyone of his % tabs.



Plus our Dinaric and Alpinid members of the society often show quite strong influences fo Nordic nature as well. ;)



Sigurd, it's not necessary you "try" to see nordid influence everywhere : afterall there is no coincidence between ethnicity and phenotype. Imo, the Dinarid type is Germanic as much as the Nordid one.

Anyone here would state the opposite ?

Gesta Bellica
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 08:40 AM
Greetings to everyone.
As Northern Italian i don't consider my region as predominantly Germanic..but this doesn't exclude the fact that we have (had) a significative Germanic influence in our genetical and cultural heritage.
Sadly, most of this heritage is now lost, due to the fact that the 140 years old Italian state has strongly modified our reality, with Southern Italian immigration etc..
I can easily tell apart a Northern Italian from an Austrian or a Bavarian and i am pretty sure they can do the same, but strangely enough i have met foreign people that were not able to do so, maybe they were not interested in racial issues..but it's still a curious thing...
For example i remember that a finnish friend of mine that was living in Salzburg told me that she could recognize Italian tourists (mainly from Veneto and Lombardy region) only when they started to talk.

Huzar
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 09:25 AM
Greetings to everyone.
As Northern Italian i don't consider my region as predominantly Germanic..but this doesn't exclude the fact that we have (had) a significative Germanic influence in our genetical and cultural heritage.


Like i've said before Celtic-romance plus important Germanic component is the right answer



Sadly, most of this heritage is now lost, due to the fact that the 140 years old Italian state has strongly modified our reality, with Southern Italian immigration etc..


Well, don't be so pessimistic. Major part o fnorthItaly is still native !!;)





I can easily tell apart a Northern Italian from an Austrian or a Bavarian and i am pretty sure they can do the same, but strangely enough i have met foreign people that were not able to do so, maybe they were not interested in racial issues..but it's still a curious thing...


Sincerely, i'm not so sure. I'm northitalian like you, but i couldn't distinguish a native northitalian from an Austrian only on the basis of Phenotypical/somatic look. I repeat, Austrians and northeastern italians are very close each other geographically (indeed they're confinant), so it's not possible a big difference between the two. I think it's very logic.



For example i remember that a finnish friend of mine that was living in Salzburg told me that she could recognize Italian tourists (mainly from Veneto and Lombardy region) only when they started to talk.

Just what i think. Probably you can note some subtle differences between your countrymen and other nationalities, but to the eyes of a foreigner, often are invisible

For me, i'm from Piemonte ;) . Often piedmontese people are indistiguishable from french people.

Gesta Bellica
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 01:16 PM
Like i've said before Celtic-romance plus important Germanic component is the right answer

yeah but i would not dismiss pre-Celtic settlements, expecially in the great plains, where people have a darker complexion...



Well, don't be so pessimistic. Major part o fnorthItaly is still native !!;)

Hmm maybe in your region, but not in Lombardy as far as i see everyday.. :(



Sincerely, i'm not so sure. I'm northitalian like you, but i couldn't distinguish a native northitalian from an Austrian only on the basis of Phenotypical/somatic look. I repeat, Austrians and northeastern italians are very close each other geographically (indeed they're confinant), so it's not possible a big difference between the two. I think it's very logic.

Just what i think. Probably you can note some subtle differences between your countrymen and other nationalities, but to the eyes of a foreigner, often are invisible

For me, i'm from Piemonte ;) . Often piedmontese people are indistiguishable from french people.

Austrians have a lighter pigmentations, on average..surely Southern French people are closer to Italians than Austrians or Bavarians, as they are a blend of various subraces too.

Weg
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 02:58 PM
This thread is quite disturbing, especially that germanic list.


Honourabe mention :

Argentina (many Germans went here after WW2, much German blood)
...
Ireland- (If they're celtic they're germanic)
Hu? Celtic equates Germanic now? Since when? And Argentina...


Non Germanic Europeans:

France
Spain
Portugal
Italy (except the north, old Tyrol)
Russia
Poland (except old Prussia)
Croatia
Bosnia & Herzogovina
Slovenia
No kidding!... And what about a "Which Cows are not Horses" list? Have you ever been wondering if North Africa is Germanic? Could have Vandal remains there... ;)



How can you select parts of Italy, and on the same time, count France as a whole non-germanic ? France which includes Southern Flanders, Elsass ?

:oanieyes
I concur. I was wondering the same actually. France is not Germanic per se, but there are Germanic peoples. Maybe some Germanics have never heard about Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Moselle) or Flemish in Northen France (if you permit ;)). Yet, it's well known, even by non Germanics...

How can it be possible to have such a country as Argentina listed (Honourably Germanic... LOL) and Germanic-speakers in France literally dismissed? How can it be possible to question the germanity of Dutch, Flemish, Luxemburgish and Germanic Swiss people (whom are the majority in Swiss)?

Huzar
Monday, November 21st, 2005, 03:29 PM
This thread is quite disturbing, especially that germanic list.

I suspect majority of members here, having a own "personal" list of who and what is Germanic, and who and what isn't Germanic ; these "lists", sometimes, are based not on a real cultural knowledge, but by other factors, much more trivial..............(for ex. :"i like this thing, therefore this thing have to be Germanic": and visa-versa)




Hu? Celtic equates Germanic now? Since when?



This is an example of what i said before. For some reasons, some germanic people are fascinated by Celtic culture etc. , so, sometimes, they try to include it in the Germanic World, although isn't germanic.

Rhydderch
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005, 12:48 PM
As far as I know, the most numerous category in Australia (by ancestry, and in descending order) is English, then Irish, Scottish and Welsh. I think Germans are the next most, and are basically the only other group which have had a presence here from before 1900, but I'm not sure how far below Welsh they come. In any case they were never a large proportion of the population in this country.I read recently that in 1914 people of German origin accounted for a little over two percent of the population here.

OdinThor
Sunday, December 25th, 2005, 04:26 PM
Hu? Celtic equates Germanic now? Since when?

What is exactly the difference? I always looked at the celtic countries as at least nearly related to germanic countries.

Siegfried
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006, 06:16 PM
What is exactly the difference? I always looked at the celtic countries as at least nearly related to germanic countries.

They are closely related, yes, but not the same.

Huzar
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006, 07:41 PM
They are closely related, yes, but not the same.


I'd say less or more the same : there is a relation between the two, but still i see a distinct demarkation line.

Galaico
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 12:28 AM
Why is Italy divided into North and South to explain a possible Germanic influence, while Spain is definitely non-Germanic? By the way, I completely agree with this, Spain is non-Germanic.

But... did you know that about 10%-15% of the Spanish gene pool is made up by Gothic genes?

Did you know there's a region in NW Spain called Galicia, that has an important Germanic origin? This region has a Romance language, a Celtic folklore, and an important Germanic influence. A region of Celtic origin, after the fall of the Roman Empire about 200,000 Suebi settled in the province and were finally absorbed by the local population. In the 711, it was partially controlled by the Muslim invaders, but never successfully occupied, and finally freed 20 years later by Alfonso I (King of Asturias), who decided to re-settle in the province, the ethnic Visigoths who had fleed from central Castile after the Muslim occupation.
Most common haplotypes: R1b (56%) and I (32%), these percentages are very similar to those found in England or Denmark.

Witukind
Wednesday, January 4th, 2006, 01:59 AM
I concur. I was wondering the same actually. France is not Germanic per se, but there are Germanic peoples. Maybe some Germanics have never heard about Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Moselle) or Flemish in Northen France (if you permit ;)). Yet, it's well known, even by non Germanics...

How can it be possible to have such a country as Argentina listed (Honourably Germanic... LOL) and Germanic-speakers in France literally dismissed? How can it be possible to question the germanity of Dutch, Flemish, Luxemburgish and Germanic Swiss people (whom are the majority in Swiss)?

What about Normandy and Burgondy? And what about the Wisigoths in southern France (see Otto Rahn's "Luzifers Hofgesind"), and what about the (Salian) FRANKS, you know those people who gave their name to that country called France. What about the fact that most French first names are of Germanic origin? And the other fact that while the French language is mostly Latin-derived it uses a significant number of Germanic words while on the other hand there are almost no words coming from Celtic?

Weg
Friday, January 6th, 2006, 04:45 PM
What about Normandy and Burgondy?


Obvious Germanic adstratum. Now it depends on how you define "germanicity". (cf Leofric's thread)


And what about the Wisigoths in southern France (see Otto Rahn's "Luzifers Hofgesind"), and what about the (Salian) FRANKS, you know those people who gave their name to that country called France.

I do not deny this. I've already explained my position in my various posts. France is the result of a symbiosis, it's not purely Germanic and it's inegally Germanic. Some parts are more than others, and some are not at all.


What about the fact that most French first names are of Germanic origin?


I don't think a first name is enough to reveal someone's meta-ethnicity. I've ever seen negroes with Germanic first names e.g.


And the other fact that while the French language is mostly Latin-derived it uses a significant number of Germanic words while on the other hand there are almost no words coming from Celtic?

Never said anything else.

Blight
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 08:27 AM
Austrians have a lighter pigmentations, on average..surely Southern French people are closer to Italians than Austrians or Bavarians, as they are a blend of various subraces too.

This guy is austrian:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/noje/0506/15/ernst200.jpg

Austrians vary between almost pink complexion (which is not very common) to that of Ernst Kirschsteiger shown in the picture above (which is not etremely common either).
Most austrians fall somewhere in between these types.

I personally think they are, in general, a handsome people. My austrian grandfather was fair skinned, 192 tall and extremely blue eyed with blonde, curly hair and not a single hair on his body, but when exposed to the sun his skin turned dark brown like ginger-bread.

My austrian family typically have narrow faces but round skulls.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 01:53 PM
I don't think a first name is enough to reveal someone's meta-ethnicity. I've ever seen negroes with Germanic first names e.g.An individual's name is not an indication of his "meta-ethnicity", but the common personal names of a particular nationality are an indication of cultural influences in its history.

And it is certainly noticeable that most traditional French names are of Germanic origin, perhaps virtually all if names associated with Christianity are excluded. This is what I was saying earlier about the possibility of the Germanic peoples having borrowed some form of citizenship, and that someone who became a "citizen" would generally adopt a Germanic name.


Never said anything else.It appears that Gallo-Romance and the Frankish language were spoken alongside each other for quite some time in early France; a period of bilingualism, I have read. The influence of Frankish is apparent in the vocabulary and structure of French, particularly Old French.

Nevertheless, in my opinion the French are essentially descended from the Gauls of Roman times.

Here
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 08:06 PM
Argentina have some germanic elements, but the majority of population is composed by spaniards/italians descendants (and we can knw it just walking in the streets), so we can call Argentina a Romance pred. country

So Why German surnames are the common after Italian and Spanish?. And why like 20% of the people I kown have German surnames and like 90% do look Germans?

http://www.nursingtours.com/argentina-itinerary.html

BTW, Germans didn't begin to come in the WWII but in the XIX century with the thousands of Volga Germans and Bavarian.

Jäger
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 08:15 PM
So Why German surnames are the common after Italian and Spanish?. And why like 20% of the people I kown have German surnames and like 90% do look Germans?
The was about "predominantly" even if there are like 20% germans, it is a minority, so calling Argentinia a roman country is still right.

Huzar
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 09:42 PM
Nevertheless, in my opinion the French are essentially descended from the Gauls of Roman times.


I agree. To be more exact, ALL territories inhabited by Gauls before roman invasions, kept less or more intact their genes, From France to Italy.

maskedhate
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 10:06 PM
So Why German surnames are the common after Italian and Spanish?. And why like 20% of the people I kown have German surnames and like 90% do look Germans?

http://www.nursingtours.com/argentina-itinerary.html

BTW, Germans didn't begin to come in the WWII but in the XIX century with the thousands of Volga Germans and Bavarian.

Really not...


Inmigration to Argentina 1895-1946

Italians 1.476.725
Spaniards1.364.321
Poles 155.527
Russians 114.303
French 105.537
Germans 59.895
Portuguese 35.470
Yugoslavic 31.512
Czechs 25.024
English 19.525
Other 285.242

Here
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006, 01:54 AM
Really not...


Inmigration to Argentina 1895-1946

Italians 1.476.725
Spaniards1.364.321
Poles 155.527
Russians 114.303
French 105.537
Germans 59.895
Portuguese 35.470
Yugoslavic 31.512
Czechs 25.024
English 19.525
Other 285.242


Germans from the Volga where count as Russian most of the times. Only in the last decade of the 19th century German immigration from these Germans was over 70000. So those numbers change if you add the German Russians, oh and the lot of German Swiss. Swiss were the first one to arrive in the 19th century between 1850-1870 mostly. And that census you mention is since 1895. That exclude the first wave of immigrant between 1850-1895. And that's obviously because there were lots of Swiss and IRish in immigrants and were are the Irish in that numbers when a million of Argentines descend from Irish?. And why does this numbers don't show the Welsh immigrants that pobled and founded at least half of the towns in the South. They are not because the range of dates in that census. They came in the 19th century.

Most of them come in the late 19th century and that numbers are from the 20th century, so only reflects the Germans who come in the WWII.


Look at the dates from the first wave of German immigrants, It was in the 19th century, not the 20th.

http://comunidad.ciudad.com.ar/ciudadanos/herman/Volga/volga_eng.htm


http://www.webbitt.com/volga/so-amer.html

Here
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 07:36 AM
The was about "predominantly" even if there are like 20% germans, it is a minority, so calling Argentinia a roman country is still right.

Isn't Switzerland a predomaly German country?.

It's the most Germanic country after German imo.

And what about US?, I've heard that in the last census German was the greatest ehnic group but I think the percentage in the country is still low (less than the majority) because of the blacks and mexicans. An because many other white ethnics like Irish, British and Italians are high.

Jäger
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 09:36 AM
Isn't Switzerland a predomaly German country?.

It's the most Germanic country after German imo.

And what about US?, I've heard that in the last census German was the greatest ehnic group but I think the percentage in the country is still low (less than the majority) because of the blacks and mexicans. An because many other white ethnics like Irish, British and Italians are high. Not because of Italians. Germanic is not equal to white ethincs.
Germanic is not a race either, well it is race bound, but not a race in itself.

English are germanic, actually you can see who is considered as traditional germanic on this board. So it doesn't depend on germans only :D

Italians, Spaniards, etc. are romans, they might be "white", but their culture is roman.

And actually I don't know whether the USA is indeed germanic or not.
Germanic was first introduced to group a certain kind of people who speak a language of the same origin, so if they speak germanic they mostly are germanic, countrywise of course. Everyone can learn english ;) But if one country's language is grmanic it tells us that it was dominant and forced it on the immigrants etc.

Galaico
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 11:32 AM
That's right, Germanic is a meta-ethnic term, that means a cultural and linguistic term. According to this, Europe can be divided in meta-ethnicities such as Germanic, Romanic, Celtic, Slavic, Hellenic, etc.

I think that the Germanic countries are those who have as an indigenous language a Germanic one: Germany, Austria, Liechstein, the Netherlands, Flanders, Luxembourg, part of Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and England.

Huzar
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 01:39 PM
I think that the Germanic countries are those who have as an indigenous language a Germanic one: Germany, Austria, Liechstein, the Netherlands, Flanders, Luxembourg, part of Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and England.

Exact. If "Germanic" means indigenous language, then European/Germanic nations are about 11 :

Germany
Austria
Netherlands
Flanders
Switzerland(german part)
Danmark
Sweden
Norway
Iceland
England
Scotland (perhaps)

STOP. End of discussion.

If someone thinks ethnicity being something of greater than the language alone, well, then the subject is VERY complex...........

Leofric
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 02:50 PM
And actually I don't know whether the USA is indeed germanic or not.
Germanic was first introduced to group a certain kind of people who speak a language of the same origin, so if they speak germanic they mostly are germanic, countrywise of course. Everyone can learn english ;) But if one country's language is grmanic it tells us that it was dominant and forced it on the immigrants etc.

I'd like to offer my perspective on this as an American.

It is true that we have allowed a great number of immigrants from all over the world (although some were forced on us by the Crown starting back in 1619, but we stopped that immigration in 1808, twenty years after starting up our own federal government). But our base is and has always been Anglo-Saxon (from England, Scotland, and Ulster). We didn't even start getting a lot of Irish and German immigrants until the 1800s. Most of the Irish stayed in the Northeast, but the Germans have become the dominant non-British ethnicity of the nation. The immigration from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and Asia has been primarily in just the last 120 years or so, and most of the people from those groups are something of an underclass. The movers of American society (excluding the Jews, of course, who have attained a great deal of influence in every country in which they have been allowed in recent centuries) are still primarily the Anglo-Saxons (the Dutch and the Germans have assimilated fairly well into that group in many parts of the country, but certainly not in all areas). John F. Kennedy was an anomaly, for example, as an Irish Catholic (instead of a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) in the White House, and it struck folks as a bit exotic. Since his death, as before his inauguration, we have had only Germanic Protestants in the position.

The United States of America constitute an ethnic nation like any other — and we are ethnically Anglo-Saxon. We have a large number of non-English immigrants, most of whom are German. We do have many non-Germanic immigrants, but they are almost always perpetually stuck in the lower classes. English is our language because, for the most part, we brought it with us when we crossed the Atlantic. We did force it onto the other folks who came here, but the only ones who really took to English language and culture were the Germans and Scandinavians (though they retained sauerkraut and lutefisk respectively) — our fellow Germanics. The Italians and Slavs don't quite fit in and often still speak with a bit of an accent after three or more generations — they will always be foreigners.

We may have a lot of non-Germanic immigrants here (as they do in the UK, Canada, and Australia — we English have such longsuffering goodwill and hospitality), but we are definitely a Germanic nation.

Some interesting threads on this:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=35383
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43988
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17745

Æmeric
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 04:31 PM
And actually I don't know whether the USA is indeed germanic or not.
.
I would estimate the U.S. to be about 1/2 Germanic but I would include persons of Anglo-Celtic heritage in that number. There are some areas of the U.S. that are not Germanic like Great New York & Los Angeles but there are several Areas that are predominately Germanic such as the Midwest outside of Chicago & Detroit, The Prairie States, the Rocky Mountains, Washington State, Oregon. Germanic Whites are still a majority in the Southern States although there are pockets were negroes are a majority. There are still a few places in California were Germanic Whites are still a majority such as the counties north of San Francisco & Sacramento, North San Diego County & many of the suburbs around San Bernadino & Riverside. Germanic Whites make an overwhelming majority of the rural population & if the United States were ever divided among ethnic lines Germanics would get the lion's share of the country.

Sigurd
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 08:17 PM
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
Flanders
Switzerland(german part)
Danmark
Sweden
Norway
Iceland
England
Scotland (perhaps)

STOP. End of discussion.



Italy. Northern Part.

OdinThor
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 08:32 PM
Italy. Northern Part.

Do you mean Süd-Tirol?

Huzar
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 09:19 PM
Do you mean Süd-Tirol?


Sud-Tirol is not only germanic, but GERMAN.

For the rest of northern Italy, is not simple to classify exactly..........northwestern part (where i live. Torino:P ) is rather similar to central-southern France, while north-east is notably Mittel-European in appearence. In few words, Northern Italy is distinctly part of "Continental Europe" rather than the "mediterranean europe", but not Germanic. Some say Gallo-Roman or Celtic-Roman. Surely, a not simple definition...........

OdinThor
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 09:25 PM
Sud-Tirol is not only germanic, but GERMAN.
True. I have been there once. It felt like being home, no difference.



For the rest of northern Italy, is not simple to classify exactly..........northwestern part (where i live. Torino:P ) is rather similar to central-southern France, while north-east is notably Mittel-European in appearence. In few words, Northern Italy is distinctly part of "Continental Europe" rather than the "mediterranean europe", but not Germanic. Some say Gallo-Roman or Celtic-Roman. Surely, a not simple definition...........
Thanks. :thumbup Good to know. I am not that much into Italy.

Galaico
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 09:28 PM
Sud-Tirol is not only germanic, but GERMAN.

For the rest of northern Italy, is not simple to classify exactly..........northwestern part (where i live. Torino:P ) is rather similar to central-southern France, while north-east is notably Mittel-European in appearence. In few words, Northern Italy is distinctly part of "Continental Europe" rather than the "mediterranean europe", but not Germanic. Some say Gallo-Roman or Celtic-Roman. Surely, a not simple definition...........

I understand you. Is what I call "Atlantic Europe", not Germanic, not Nordic, not Central, and though close, not really Mediterranean. This ambiguous term could be applied to parts of France, parts of Padania, Wallonie, Cantabric Spain (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country), and perhaps Wales and Ireland.

Leofric
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 10:38 PM
Do you mean Süd-Tirol?
There are, just fyi, also other Germanophone areas in Italy, where Zimbrisch and Walscher — two varieties of German — are spoken.

Links on Zimbrisch:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbern
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=cim

Link on Walscher:
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=wae

Apparently Zimbrisch is the most conservative form of German in the world, often appearing to speakers of standard Modern High German as a kind of holdover from the Middle Ages.

Kind of groovy, I think.



Sud-Tirol is not only germanic, but GERMAN.
Point of clarification: 'German' is neither more nor less 'Germanic' than 'English' or 'Swedish' or 'Faroese' or 'Visigothic'. One could just as accurately say that Kent is not only Germanic, but English. I don't mean to imply, Huzar, that you meant otherwise — only to indicate to others who might be watching and get confused about what 'Germanic' means — it's a common misconception that 'German' is somehow more 'Germanic' or even that 'German' is the model and the copies are all 'Germanic', and I wouldn't want anyone to twist your words to fuel such a fallacious belief.

Marco Bianchi
Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 08:36 AM
In the lists, people put Italy in the non Germanic countries. Of course, totally agree. But South Tyrol apart, don't forget the 4% of Norics + 1% of Nordics= 5% Nordish in the other areas of North Italy.

As Himmler said "we have to protect and take back every single drop of Germanic blood in the world".

Weg
Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 11:16 AM
I can understand why one might see Flemish and Swiss people as not very Germanic in comparison to Danes or Swedes, but they are almost certainly more Germanic than the English, at least culturally.

I second that. I'd have not even listed England and Scotland as Germanic. Thinkink about it, I see little resemblance between those two nations and proper Germanic nations.

Thruthheim
Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 08:00 PM
I second that. I'd have not even listed England and Scotland as Germanic. Thinkink about it, I see little resemblance between those two nations and proper Germanic nations.

I think the English are Germanic, Mild deviations due to Norman(French) linguistical input. Scotland has more of a Celtic component, although, in this day and age, there is little difference between England and Scotland in terms of culture.

England, especially in the Centre, South, East and North is very germanic.

Weg
Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 09:03 PM
I think the English are Germanic, Mild deviations due to Norman(French) linguistical input. Scotland has more of a Celtic component, although, in this day and age, there is little difference between England and Scotland in terms of culture.

England, especially in the Centre, South, East and North is very germanic.

So far, I've visited several authentic Germanic countries : Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Alsace-Moselle; and I've been in England. Well, honestly I didn't feel the same in England than in the other places I named above. Add to that the fact that England is not that clean compared to Deutschland (the Groß Deutschland), the English gastronomy is poor, the mentality is not the same; there again, there's a noticeable difference I find.

Just a question of feeling, perception.

Thruthheim
Friday, March 3rd, 2006, 09:32 PM
So far, I've visited several authentic Germanic countries : Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Alsace-Moselle; and I've been in England. Well, honestly I didn't feel the same in England than in the other places I named above. Add to that the fact that England is not that clean compared to Deutschland (the Groß Deutschland), the English gastronomy is poor, the mentality is not the same; there again, there's a noticeable difference I find.

Just a question of feeling, perception.

Well all i could say is Deutschland, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Alsace-Moselle, may well be a variant of Germanic, they are all continental(Possily continental Germanic, could be descriptive) They are all connected, borderwise.

England is part of an Island, With it's own cultural affinity, which led to the Union of the Nations of this Island(s). The "Island Mentality" maybe?

I find Norway and Sweden are very different from Germany, Austria etc.
I also feel more at Home in N and S than i do in Germany and beneath.

Remember, Germanic is mainly a cultural term, The English aren't therefore equivalent to Germans. The English, being an amalgamation of peoples from Scandinavia, Holland, NorthWest Germany and Denmark moreover, With Celtic prior.

I also think general cultural terms in the West don't count for much anymore, we are more or less "Western".. Heathen religions in Germanic countries is not prevelant anymore, We don't speak Old Norse, Anglo Saxon etc.. We live in a bastardized form of Germano-Western culture, Mainly due to Globalisation and thus.

Thruthheim
Sunday, March 12th, 2006, 08:56 PM
LOL! You shouldn't make your jealousy so glaring, nor be so ungrateful. Especially when it was some of these so-called dull, bovine and mundane peoples who had to educate your benighted ancestors when they were first washed up on British shores :D

Anyway, it's ironic that Tolkein basically made your same claims, except he was reffering to England. That was why he created the whole Middle-Earth mythology. He said that there is much culture associated with the soil of England, but not much with the English themselves which is why they have had to borrow Celtic tales such as King Arthur to use as their own and have usurped the name of the previous Celtic inhabitants for themselves now - British ;)

Well, Our Anglo Saxon related Myths and Mythologies were pushed aside once the christianization came, And then after the Viking Period, the Normans further re-directed England from Scandinavia.

I don't see anyone would actually latch onto LotR as some ancient symbol of English culture, well, because it is new. I'ts just literaturely astounding and exceptionally creative works based largely on Anglo Saxon and Norse Mythologies.

Theudiskaz
Thursday, March 16th, 2006, 11:26 PM
A note on England: England isnt just "a little bit Germanic" they are Germanic and no less than any of the other peoples.


Yes sir! The English are thoroughly Germanic. Because of the Norman Conquest we lost much of our folk lore and Mythology. Tolkien lamented this more than once. All we have left of English mythology are allusions (there are many though) in Old English poems such as Beowulf and "Deor". And yes, Tolkien said that LOTR was meant to be a mythology for England. I greatly admire Tolkien, in fact he's probably my biggest idol because of his passion for and knowledge of everything Germanic. But LOTR, though some of the themes and motifs are Old English or Norse inspired and the Rohirrim are clearly based on the Anglo-Saxons, I don't think that the whole Mythology is very Anglo-Saxon. This may have been his intention in the beginning, but he certainly didn't try to reconstruct English Mythology or create Anglo-Saxon myths or legends. If he had it would have been very similar to Norse mythology. The references in Beowulf to the Waelsings and Sigemund are the same story as that of the Scandinavian Volsunga Saga and the German Lay of the Nibelungs. Deor alludes to the tale of Welund and Nidhad, which is the same as Old Nose Voelund and Nidud.

We also have remnants in English and even Appalachian Folklore of Old English Mythology like the stories of "Old Fire Drakeman" clearly based on Woden, and his daughters who seem to be a vague memory of the Anglo-Saxon "Waelcyrian". There are other examples. But the point is England lost its Folklore and much of its language due to the Normans and if this had not happened England would be much more conspicuously Germanic.

After the English Civil War the concept of the "Norman Yoke" became increasingly important to England's ethnic identity. To Anglophile intellectuals the overthrow of these "Norman" rulers symbolized England reclaiming its old Germanic identity. This English nationalism saw its climax in the Victorian Era. Anglo-Saxon Names were revived. We take it for granted that names which hadn't been used in almost a millenium, such as Edgar, Winston, Alfred, Godwin, Oswald, Stanley, and others are now fairly common. Several Poets such as Thomas Hardy and William Barnes attempted to purge the English language of French and classical influence. Ancient Germanic culture was very fashionable throughout northern Europe during this period, and the English, just like the Germans and the Scandinavians, looked to the Teutonic past to find the essence of what it meant to be "English" or "German" or "Norwegian". I have even read that there is a statue in the National Portrait Gallery portraying the young queen Victoria (I believe) as a Saxon maiden.

When world War I began the Germanic identity of England fell out of favor and was finished off for good by the end of WWII (although the Germans didn't seem to perceive this shift in identity, and some scholars now claim that the Germans had hoped all along that the English would eventually be won over and join their continental kinsmen in the Pangermanic Reich. A recent book called
The Germanic Isle, Nazi Perceptions of Britain during WWII was written on this very subject.)

So the English have had the misfortune of enduring 3 major events which have repressed their Germanicness: The Norman Conquest, WWI, and WWII.

P.S. The Germans even created a small S.S. unit of Britons during WW II. I can't remember what happened to these guys but this endeavor was short lived.

Rhydderch
Friday, March 17th, 2006, 12:55 AM
When world War I began the Germanic identity of England fell out of favor and was finished off for good by the end of WWII.

So the English have had the misfortune of enduring 3 major events which have repressed their Germanicness: The Norman Conquest, WWI, and WWII. Well actually, the English perception of themselves as Germanic also stems largely from political circumstances and progress in "culture" and the arts, and it came later. The English generally saw themselves as being of Celtic and "Saxon" origin but don't seem to have felt any particular kinship with Germanic countries; there seems to have been more of a perception of being a unique blend than of a "Germanic" identity.

But first there was a German dynasty which came to rule Britain (and continued intermarrying with Germans); then in the nineteenth century Germany increased in power, becoming a centre of science, anthropology and liberal theology. The last of which gave Man's self-confidence a good boost, and because Germany was at the forefront of all these studies and discoveries, and could use science to develop self-glorifying theories, there was a perception of the Germanic people being at the pinnacle of Mankind's development, the most evolved humans.
Not surpisingly, with all these new ideas pouring in from Germany, English "intelligentsia" largely wanted to be part of this, and it became politically correct to emphasise (often at the expense of all others) the Germanic contribution to English history. Then with the World Wars, the Germanic identity in England, always shallow, and fluctuating according to the fortunes of Germany, lost much of its popularity.


just like the Germans and the Scandinavians, looked to the Teutonic past to find the essence of what it meant to be "English"Which perhaps explains why they found the essence of "Englishness" so elusive.

Theudiskaz
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006, 03:10 PM
I agree with your statements about German culture affecting English culture because it was a center of learning and Progress in technology, philosophy, industry and warfare for some 2 hundred years. But I think you underestimate the Germanicness of England which has been there since the English arrived. Until the Norman Conquest the English without question saw themselves as closer to the continental Germans and the Scandinavians than to the Welsh or Scots. There was not a hint of Celtic identity. They didn't see themselves as a Celtic-Saxon mix. They saw themselves as the people chosen by God (or Fate) to conquer the British weaklings. They maintained connections with the "Eald Seaxe" and the Frisians well into the historical period as evidenced by similarities in the Old Saxon and Old English versions of the Genesis poem, and the Anglo-saxon missionaries who went to the homeland.

After the Norman Conquest the new overlords with their Romano-Gallic connections found it useful to remind the English that their dominion over Britain was not so easily won, by making the new national epic the story of King Arthur, for obvious reasons. This story became so popular in Medieval England that the Anglo-Saxon identity of majority was overwhelmed by the Romano-Gallic identity of the Norman ruling class.

nordbert
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 07:17 PM
Ostpreussen!! !! !! !! !!
nicht polen

Theudiskaz
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 07:27 PM
Ja, in der Tat! Einige von meinen Ururgrosseltern kamen aus Preussen und waren keine Slawen.

Penn ar bed
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 04:12 AM
What is exactly the difference? I always looked at the celtic countries as at least nearly related to germanic countries.
They are related as much as all indo-europeans are related.

And what's the difference between germanic and slavic countries? To me they seem to be clearly related...

Theudiskaz
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 05:03 AM
I really don't understand why anyone questions the Germanicness of England. To me it is a given. England as I have said many times previously has simply had the misfortune of losing much of its Germanic linguistic heritage. And the Norman conquest also seems to have taken away much of Anglo-Saxon mythology and folk lore, because the cultural orientation of the ruling class was essentially Romance. Until the Second World war no one questioned the Germanicness of England! This is such B.S. These people are not only denying the Germanicness of England, they're denying the Englishness of England!!:headbang



Thomas Hardy

The Pity Of It

I walked in loamy Wessex lanes, afar
From rail-track and from highway, and I heard
In field and farmstead many an ancient word
Of local lineage like "Thu bist," "Er war,"
"Ich woll," "Er sholl," and by-talk similar,
Nigh as they speak who in this month's moon gird
At England's very loins, thereunto spurred
By gangs whose glory threats and slaughters are.
Then seemed a Heart crying: "Whosoever they be
At root and bottom of this, who flung this flame
Between kin folk kin tongued even as are we,
Sinister, ugly, lurid, be their fame;
May their familiars grow to shun their name,
And their brood perish everlastingly."

Thruthheim
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 05:25 AM
I really don't understand why anyone questions the Germanicness of England. To me it is a given. England as I have said many times previously has simply had the misfortune of losing much of its Germanic linguistic heritage. And the Norman conquest also seems to have taken away much of Anglo-Saxon mythology and folk lore, because the cultural orientation of the ruling class was essentially Romance. Until the Second World war no one questioned the Germanicness of England! This is such B.S. These people are not only denying the Germanicness of England, they're denying the Englishness of England!!:headbang

Dont' worry mate.. People who dedicate their time to de-germanicizing England have a personal motive.

I can agree with some people's points, England isn't as Germanic as Scandinavia and Germany and the Netherlands. But is, still predominantly Germanic.

Anti-English feelings have extended to areas where they attack our identity and belonging to certain groups, this is usually by those who don't belong to the given group which is being questioned.

Thankfully, The de-germanicizing of England is only limited to a small handful of Internet warriors. :)

Theudiskaz
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 05:35 AM
I can agree with some people's points, England isn't as Germanic as Scandinavia and Germany and the Netherlands. But is, still predominantly Germanic.

Yes, but this relative lack of Germanicness is primarily linguistic. As far as culture this has happened fairly recently. England, like the US, is very capitalistic and with capitalism, whether one likes it or not, comes the erosion of culture, i.e. Globalisation. On the continent the destruction of indigenous folk ways hasn't come as far...yet.

Thruthheim
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 06:12 AM
Would be nice, in such an age of ever deculturalization and multiculturalism, that Constant whining over who is and who isn't Germanic stopped. We Germanics need to colaborate and unite over our racial/cultural and historical bonds. If we are ever going to hang onto our heritage, this is a necessity. We need to strengthen and unite.

Thruthheim
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 06:16 AM
Yes, but this relative lack of Germanicness is primarily linguistic. As far as culture this has happened fairly recently. England, like the US, is very capitalistic and with capitalism, whether one likes it or not, comes the erosion of culture, i.e. Globalisation. On the continent the destruction of indigenous folk ways hasn't come as far...yet.

I think also, the English language, no longer belongs to us English anymore, it's a world language, bastardized and has become so widespread that it only negates from it's original form.

Thruthheim
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 06:23 AM
I would also add, we are a nation of eccentrics, i don't think the charisma and personalities in England can be matched by any other Germanic nation.

Theudiskaz
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 06:26 AM
Would be nice, in such an age of ever deculturalization and multiculturalism, that Constant whining over who is and who isn't Germanic stopped. We Germanics need to colaborate and unite over our racial/cultural and historical bonds. If we are ever going to hang onto our heritage, this is a necessity. We need to strengthen and unite.
I agree. I am an enthusiastic Pangermanicist, we can still preserve the individual qualities of Germanic countries and promote Germanic unity simultaneously. In fact we must. I'm not a big fan of him, but David Duke, perhaps the foremost leader in "white nationalism", has said something to the effect of, "White Nationalism is a truly international movement". This applies to Germanic nationalism too, of course. This is the only way to reclaim our indigenous heritage from the racial and cultural nihilsm that has thus far gone unchecked. But it must include the acceptance, by the English themselves and other nations, of the English as an equally Germanic folk.

I was looking at the BNP website and was pleased to see that they see the English as categorically Anglo-Saxon, and thus Germanic.

Leofric
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 06:29 PM
England as I have said many times previously has simply had the misfortune of losing much of its Germanic linguistic heritage.
Actually, we haven't lost very much of our linguistic heritage at all — definitely no more than most of the Northern Germanic languages.

We have lost a lot of inflection, both in conjugation and declension. But that was already beginning well before 1066 (and is not even complete anyway), and has nothing to do with any Romance influence. It's an internal change, similar to the loss of inflection in Scandinavian languages.

In fact, we have retained more of certain aspects of our common Germanic linguistic heritage than most of the rest of the Germanics. Interdental fricatives are an example. Except for the insular Germanics and the folks in Dalarna (and maybe Jamtland?), interdental fricatives have disappeared from Germanic; that quintessential Germanic sound, gone now from most of the Germanic languages, is retained only in the languages of the North Sea islands, such as Icelandic and English, where it is still very prominent.

We have suffered some degradation of our phonotactic system, presumably due to Romance influence. So a word like knight is no longer CCVCC, but is instead CVC (if you count the diphthong as a single vowel). But our phonotactics are still very sufficiently Germanic, as anyone who has worked with automatic language recognition can tell you.

The most prominent non-Germanic element in our language is in our lexicon. But even there, the non-Germanic lexical items have not displaced the Germanic; they have merely supplemented it. Our lexicon is far larger than those of the other Germanic languages, and the reason for this is that we have basically two to three lexicons: one Germanic, one Romance, and one neo-Latin. These three can readily be seen in such trios as kingly-royal-regal. So all our lexical Germanicness is still present, even if it is, at times, latent.




"Er war,"
This sort of thing gets me mad sometimes. Lots of English speakers, including even the great Thomas Hardy apparently, think that German is inherently more Germanic than English. Well was is closer to the original form than war, and it's the Germans who have the "degraded" (if you can call it that) rhotacized form in the singular. This country farmer Hardy mentions is using a less conservative form than the London upper class. But don't worry, thiedischer, I know you didn't write the poem, and most of it is good and it's a great poem to bring up. It's just that that one point is such a sticking point for me.


I think also, the English language, no longer belongs to us English anymore, it's a world language, bastardized and has become so widespread that it only negates from it's original form.
This is a major problem that has to be fought against. For the moment, we find two Englishes. One is the English spoken by the ethnically English, or English English (which must not be confused with British English, one of its dialects). The other is the lingua franca used by the rest of the world, World English. When people talk about the predominance of English in the world and project that English will become the sole language of the West within a few centuries, it is misleading. The English they are talking about is not English English, it is World English. And World English is poised to destroy all our ancestral languages, even English English. That's why we must fight against it. English English is still very much ours. It is World English that does not belong to us, but has bastardized and is taking over the world. But we English have to understand that near-diglossic distinction in order to reject the supremacy of World English — otherwise we will continue thinking that there's no problem with "English" becoming the sole world language (as so many of our folk do).

Gaian Meroveus
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Comrades,

Australian, American[U.SA.], Argentinian, South African etc. are political *Nationalities and the racial makeup of their respective, individual inhabitants must be judged on an individual basis.
I was born in the U.S. though i am by virtue of un-corrupted blood - i am after all 1st generation-, fully north european by genetic heritage.

But in a typical day making my way along the walking/bicycle path that runs through my community i will see -to my great distaste- the faces of negroes; Mestizos and S. American Aboriginals; East Indians and Pakistanis; and all manner of Asiatics. Some of these people i am encountering are beyond my abilities to classify racially.

The U.S., Australia, S. Africa and the states of S. America are colonial entities without racial homogeny.


Un-fortunately sacred Europa can no longer claim any general degree of racial homogeneity predicated upon national origin. Particularly after the massive population shifts of the last hundred years.

For instance the term French.
French is not a race. The indigenous peoples of France have always belonged to varying sub-racial; ethnic; and linguistic groupings.

Disregarding of course the alien element, when regarding a crowd of Parisians you will find individuals exhibiting a wide range of phenotype.
There are the typical short, darkish, brachycephalic gallic types; the descendants of Old european celticised and later romanised Iberian types mixed with italic immigrants of the roman colonial period.

Along side these individuals you will find persons of the most exemplary, stereotypical Nordic type; the unreduced descendants of the Frankish, Allemannic, and other germanic tribes, and in the case of normandy: scandinavian settlers.

No one can make a valid claim that the French are a race, they are a *National group of varying racial affiliation and must be regarded as such.
This paradigm must be applied throughout Europe.

Germans are -by the most undiluted, apolitical definition- a complex of inter-related racial stocks sharing a common core set of values; and a common linguistic, cultural, and spiritual heritage.
The Germans have always ranged far and wide throughout Europe and beyond, often finding themselves greatly seperated from the germanic heartland, yet they remained -in most cases- Germans.
Why? Because germanness has traditionally been determined by bloodlines and not primarily by real estate.

The Volga Germans lived well within the territory of a Slavic State,
cut-off from the main germanic cultural areas for hundreds of years, yet retained their ethnic identity.

The contemporary regimes of the BRD would like the German people to forget this ancient tradition and define germanness as belonging to anyone who was born in the federal republic of Germany; has a reasonable faculty in the german language, and has ostensibly been indoctrinated into German culture.

Rubbish!!! Germanness is determined by blood alone and whoever relinquishes this supposition as inalienable to the German people is- in my estimation- no longer to be considered "German."

There is much controversial debate on the issue as to who is and isn't an acceptible member of the European Race. The Nordicist-medicist debate.
Once again we must resort to individual indentification in determining ones racial qualities particularly in the mediteranian countries.

One cannot broadly pronounce that the inhabitants of Greece; Italy or Spain are white or not white.
I have visited these countries and i can tell you from personal observation their exists much good Aryan blood amongst these people.
I have seen individuals in the north of Greece who could have passed for Danes.

Un-fortunately there are also many who's original Aryan family bloodlines have been submerged beneath layer upon layer of extra-european genetic infusions.
Ancient Greece and Rome were civisations that relied on the massive importation of slave labour from places outside of Europe including sub-Saharan Africa and western Asian.

To try and gloss over this historical reality would be irresponsible despite it's political implications for European Harmonisation.
Did all theses Negro slaves die without issue? Were they returned to the land of their origin after a required term of service...lol
I think not. They were assimilated into the surrounding european population.

Crudely put: "If you do not look European. You are Not European.
If your mothers parents and your fathers parents were not germanic; than you are not - by the traditional definition- German.

At least these are my thoughts.
But i am admittedly an uncompromising extremist.
I'm sure there will be many other points of view.


Best wishes,
_Gaian Meroveus.

Theudiskaz
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Crudely put: "If you do not look European. You are Not European.
If your mothers parents and your fathers parents were not germanic; than you are not - by the traditional definition- German.


I think that you are confusing German and Germanic. I am racially Nordid, I speak a (bastardised) Germanic language, I am of mostly Germanic (English and German) descent, my values and ideals are Germanic, and I identify myself as a Teuton, so I am Germanic, but not German. Anyone else who fits this description is Germanic, plain and simple.

Theudiskaz
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 09:32 PM
The most prominent non-Germanic element in our language is in our lexicon. But even there, the non-Germanic lexical items have not displaced the Germanic; they have merely supplemented it.

I thave not therewith. We have well many words forlorn! Some byspells are "daelniman" instead of New English "participate", "foresettan" instead of "propose". These are fully good words! Why don't Englishmen say "wordbook" instead of "dictionary" or "dight" instead of "compose". The list could be furthered yet.

I don't understand it. Why haven't the bookers of our speech thought out newwords, instead of nimming words from the tongues of other folks? We could easily overset the craftly words from Latin and Greekish into our own speech, browking souver English roots. Is this not right, mine Englesaxish friend?

Gaian Meroveus
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 09:40 PM
thiedischer]I think that you are confusing German and Germanic. I am racially Nordid, I speak a (bastardised) Germanic language, I am of mostly Germanic (English and German) descent, my values and ideals are Germanic, and I identify myself as a Teuton, so I am Germanic, but not German. Anyone else who fits this description is Germanic, plain and simple.

No, not at all:
Swede, Friesian, Anglo-Saxon, Bavarian, Flemming: we are all Germans!
We are all descended from german tribes.

The confusion arising from the use of the term: "German" stems from the un-fortunate circumstance that German has come to imply a a resident of the 'German' countries that coallesced out of the myriad of teutonic tribes that did not achieve a clearly defined nationhood until long after other germanic peoples such as the English and the Dutch had created a distinct *National identity.

We are all Germans seperated not by race but by slight variations of dialect, ethnic tradition, and by politics.


Best wishes,
_Gaian Meroveus.

Theudiskaz
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Well, if that is your understanding of the word "German", then I agree with you!:thumbup

Leofric
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 10:09 PM
Gaian Meroveus, you seem to want to consider certain countries non-Germanic becuase they are not homogenously Germanic. I'd like to point out that the thread is asking for countries that are predominantly Germanic. It seems to me that implicit in that is the idea that Germanic nationality does not coincide with political country boundaries, which is the very idea you advocate. So the United States, even though they are not a homogenously Germanic country, are still a predominantly Germanic country by virtue of the fact that the Germanic meta-ethnicity is the predominant meta-ethnicity in the country.

By the same token, France too could be predominantly Germanic (though I'm not saying it is), even though it is not nationally homogenous.

Also, I have some trouble with your reference to "sacred Europa." If you're referring to the land (and not the mother of Minos by Zeus), then I have to disagree with you perhaps. You see, you seem to imply with this that places like America or Australia are less sacred. But there's no reason why that should be. Our ancestors did not come from Europe — they invaded and claimed it, seizing it from its earlier inhabitants and making something worthwhile out of it. I don't think there's anything more or less sacred about that seized land than any other land that our people have claimed and improved.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you though that Germanicity is a matter of kinship rather than real estate.

Gaian Meroveus
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 11:00 PM
Comrades,

Please be aware that my maternal grandmother was a Schwab and i spent much time in her land in my formative years.
As a result i have assimilated the somewhat romantic philosophical nature of this tribe.
I often speak metaphorically and in inexact poetic terminology.
When i speak of a "sacred Europa" i am not invoking any judeo-christian connotation whatsoever. I personally adhere to the more tradition aryan spirituality of my ancestors.

You must forgive that i am not an academic and i hope everyone will soon become familiar with my posting style and personality so that these frequent pedantic arguments do not continue to arise.

As for the origins of my race? Ah hah... that's a sticky wicket.
A debate i am sure rages on in some other thread.

Leofric you are obviously a proponant of more traditional theories of indo-European origins such as Lord Refrews NDT ( neo-lithic dispersal or discontinuity theory) and the Kurgan theory postulated by Marija Gimbutas.
I do not share your enthusiasm for these notions.

I am an adherent of PCT ( Paleolithic continuity theory) which proposes that the appearance of the Indo-Euroipeans coincides with the first regional settlement of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the middle/upper paleolithic.

There exists only dubiously marginal evidence to suggest the Indo-Europeans evolved elsewhere and invaded Europe. These incursions were just expatriots returning home.

If there is not a thread dealing with this topic may i suggest we start one?
it is an infinitely fascinating and controversial subject.

Best wishes,
_Gaian meroveus.

Leofric
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 11:23 PM
If there is not a thread dealing with this topic may i suggest we start one?
it is an infinitely fascinating and controversial subject.
I agree.

Here are two threads that I found doing a quick search:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=27376
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=6980

Of these, I think the first is better. But if you know better sources for the PCT, please let us know. That first thread is probably a fine place to discuss it.

Nordgau
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 03:08 PM
Swede, Friesian, Anglo-Saxon, Bavarian, Flemming: we are all Germans!
We are all descended from german tribes.

The confusion arising from the use of the term: "German" stems from the un-fortunate circumstance that German has come to imply a a resident of the 'German' countries that coallesced out of the myriad of teutonic tribes that did not achieve a clearly defined nationhood until long after other germanic peoples such as the English and the Dutch had created a distinct *National identity.

A common German ethnic-national identity emerged already in the period around 1000 A.D. To clarify, I mean "German" only in the sense of Deutsch, not of "Germanic".

I'm not sure if you mean with "clearly defined nationhood" something fundamentally different than with "distinct national identity", but at every rate the formation of the Dutch or Netherlandic nation happened as a later, secondary dissociation from the German nation, and the Dutch identity was originally a "Low German" or simply "German" one (Nederduytsch, Duytsch etc.).

That "Dutch", as the actual English equivalent for Deutsch, was limited to the Netherlanders in the English language, with today's confusion around "German" and "Germanic", is not to be laid on our account. At least in German itself, there's no confusion of comparable extent between Germanisch and our own old national designation Deutsch.

Sub-identities like Bavarian and Saxon of course continued to exist until today as German tribal identities under the common, overarching folkish-national Germanness. But such regional or sub-national identities are no German specialty, on the other hand.


Yes, but this relative lack of Germanicness is primarily linguistic. As far as culture this has happened fairly recently. England, like the US, is very capitalistic and with capitalism, whether one likes it or not, comes the erosion of culture, i.e. Globalisation. On the continent the destruction of indigenous folk ways hasn't come as far...yet.

The situation isn't so fine here also. The problem is the consciously chosen identilessness of the "modern" German in his do-gooderist attitude, and for this dominating left-liberal spirit, Germanicness is also a prick, and they lavish scorn on the word and idea "Germanic" where they can.

If it comes to the presentation of the ancient Germanic peoples in popular media, connection between them and the present Germans are not further made, and one could come to the conclusion that those old folks have got as much to do with us as the lip plate Negroes ...

Gaian Meroveus
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 10:12 PM
Comrades,


Obfuscation does not equate with refutation of a postulation.

GM.


Best wishes,
_Gaian Meroveus.

Rhydderch
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 07:05 AM
They are related as much as all indo-europeans are related.

And what's the difference between germanic and slavic countries? To me they seem to be clearly related...I agree. In fact it's odd that many Germanic people see the Celts as close relatives, but don't so much see the Slavs as such. This is perhaps because the modern "Celtic" regions have never been powerful countries (who could step on their neighbours toes), and indeed both the modern and ancient Celtic regions are to a large extent no longer linguistically distinct as a group.

Rhydderch
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 07:29 AM
And the Norman conquest also seems to have taken away much of Anglo-Saxon mythology and folk lore, because the cultural orientation of the ruling class was essentially Romance.Actually this is what happened with the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The rulers (and their people) brought with them their traditions and mythology, and the British traditions were not what we might call part of the established or "state-sanctioned" culture, and so were not written down in England, and survived there only in oral tradition and folklore. And the Norman Conquest in turn simply toppled these Germanic traditions.


Would be nice, in such an age of ever deculturalization and multiculturalism, that Constant whining over who is and who isn't Germanic stopped.Perhaps. Come to think of it, for the sake of unity, maybe I'll just ignore the notion that the French are Germanic, and stop questioning it :D

Fionn
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Some on this thread have posted that they believe Scotland to be Germanic. Considering that Scotland was invaded by an Irish-Gaelic tribe called the Scotti, why couldn't one argue that Ireland is partly Germanic as well? The two countries are very similar in more ways than different, linguistically and genetically. Vikings, Normans, and English went to Ireland just as in Scotland. The way I see it, both of them are considered Germanic or neither.

soniconez
Wednesday, October 11th, 2006, 03:45 AM
What countries are Germanic? I was originally going to ask if France was Germanic...but I decided this is a better question to ask. I look forward to hearing your anwsers. There is an image on the map gallery that states what countries are Germanic, but some people commented on it and said its not accurate so can someone list them for me?

Oswiu
Wednesday, October 11th, 2006, 04:36 AM
'Countries' is a little misleading, as they may have several nations in them, some Germanic, some not, or one nation may be spread through several countries.
Let's just do it by peoples;
Icelanders, Faroe Islanders, Norwegians, Swedes [some in Finland too], Danes, Frieslanders, Englishmen, Scots [of the Lowlands, Shetlanders and Men of Orkney], Dutch, Low Germans [some in the Netherlands, Belgium, elsewhere], High Germans [in Switzerland, Austria, Southern Germany, northern Italy], Flemings, and then we come to debatable peripheral peoples like the French of the northeast and Normandy, formerly Norse settlements in the Hebrides or parts of coastal Ireland, or we can really stretch the definition and include some folk in lands that were once conquered by Germanic tribesmen in the Age of Migrations [i.e. just about everywhere in Europe! but most notably Lombardy, areas of Spain, elements of the Russian population, you name it]...

That's the old world, anyway.

As for the Colonies... Special mention should go to the Boers, for being a new nation of near enough pure Germanic stock, and thus the Colonials most true to Germandom. Britain's former colonies are naturally a more Celto-Germanic phenomenon at their foundation.

Tryggvi
Wednesday, October 11th, 2006, 05:03 AM
What countries are Germanic?
On Skadi, it nowadays seems to be Iran and North Korea. :D ;)

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 12:18 AM
'Countries' is a little misleading, as they may have several nations in them, some Germanic, some not, or one nation may be spread through several countries.
Let's just do it by peoples;
Icelanders, Faroe Islanders, Norwegians, Swedes [some in Finland too], Danes, Frieslanders, Englishmen, Scots [of the Lowlands, Shetlanders and Men of Orkney], Dutch, Low Germans [some in the Netherlands, Belgium, elsewhere], High Germans [in Switzerland, Austria, Southern Germany, northern Italy], Flemings, and then we come to debatable peripheral peoples like the French of the northeast and Normandy, formerly Norse settlements in the Hebrides or parts of coastal Ireland, or we can really stretch the definition and include some folk in lands that were once conquered by Germanic tribesmen in the Age of Migrations [i.e. just about everywhere in Europe! but most notably Lombardy, areas of Spain, elements of the Russian population, you name it]...


Id also remember parts of Poland, which was formerly Germany has a sizable Nordid/Germanic population.

For example, the Red Baron was born in what is now poland and was at least partly nordid:

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 12:26 AM
Id also remember parts of Poland, which was formerly Germany has a sizable Nordid/Germanic population.

For example, the Red Baron was born in what is now poland and was at least partly nordid:
They're just Germans, and just fall under Low, Middle and High German. Didn't you read my comments on how daft it is to think in terms of countries?
Unless you're getting at ancient East Germanic substrates in the Slavonic population there? They'd be equivalent to the Lombards or Visigothic Spaniards in my previous summary.

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 12:30 AM
They're just Germans, and just fall under Low, Middle and High German. Didn't you read my comments on how daft it is to think in terms of countries?
Unless you're getting at ancient East Germanic substrates in the Slavonic population there? They'd be equivalent to the Lombards or Visigothic Spaniards in my previous summary.

I just didnt have knowledge of what low, middle and high germans were. its better to think in terms of countries nowadays, since thats what people go by.

still, germanicness transcends country:D

I wouldent classify ALL of poland germanic, however, that would be stupid, just pointing out parts of poland were very germanic

Galaico
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 12:31 AM
What about Alsacians, are they Low or High Germans?

About Normandy, well, I remember an anecdote my father told me when he was sailing in a Danish ship, they arrived to Normandy (Cherbourgh I think it was), the French harbour officer went to talk with the officers in charge of the ship, two Danes and my father, after a while the French officer, who was small and dark pigmented, said to the two Danes: "Here we are Normans, we are Vikings like you", the two Danes, who were tall and Nordish looking, smiled at each other and answered "Yes, sure".

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:05 AM
I just didnt have knowledge of what low, middle and high germans were.
If I didn't know about things like that, I'd keep my mouth shut about it, and go and find out! You are a prolific poster here, it's a wonder you haven't taken advantage of what there is to offer on Skadi in terms of educating yourself -
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=46073
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=43884
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=67254
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=43508
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=44376


its better to think in terms of countries nowadays, since thats what people go by.
What sort of people? Wrong ones? ;)


What about Alsacians, are they Low or High Germans?
Elsass seems to be High German. Alemannisch.
Lotharingen is Middle German. Franks, so they are.
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=44373
Can any Germans tell me how these old tribal differences are thought of these days? Do Schwaben know they're Swabians and are they proud of it? How does a Plattdeutscher view his Low Germanness? Are these things of the past?

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:37 AM
If I didn't know about things like that, I'd keep my mouth shut about it, and go and find out! You are a prolific poster here, it's a wonder you haven't taken advantage of what there is to offer on Skadi in terms of educating yourself -
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=46073


excuse me?

I appreciate your willingness to help me, and to point me in the right direction, but If i am wrong, please try and be less condescending. I only had knowledge of High, middle and low as a linguistic device, know I know otherwise, so thanks.

however, since poland is no longer classified as part of high germany, it could be resourceful to also mention poland to give some current perspective, and for those who dont know the difference between the German "heights":D

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:43 AM
'Countries' is a little misleading, as they may have several nations in them, some Germanic, some not, or one nation may be spread through several countries.
Let's just do it by peoples;
Icelanders, Faroe Islanders, Norwegians, Swedes [some in Finland too], Danes, Frieslanders, Englishmen, Scots [of the Lowlands, Shetlanders and Men of Orkney], Dutch, Low Germans [some in the Netherlands, Belgium, elsewhere], High Germans [in Switzerland, Austria, Southern Germany, northern Italy], Flemings
Don't forget the Boer volk. :)

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:46 AM
since poland is no longer classified as part of high germany, it could be resourceful to also mention poland to give some current perspective,
But Germans were driven out of those lands, or at the very least forcibly Polonicised. You can't call even the western territories of the current state of Poland Germanic, as this is an ethnic term, and the ethnos was removed. They are historically Germanic, sure, but anyone who knows the story of the World Wars will know that.

and OOPS! How could I have forgotten the Boers!
:doh

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:49 AM
What exactly are British Kelts? To my knowledge Keltic is just a culture really, so the ethnic makeup can be anything - is it usually germanic for Britons?

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:50 AM
But Germans were driven out of those lands, or at the very least forcibly Polonicised. You can't call even the western territories of the current state of Poland Germanic, as this is an ethnic term, and the ethnos was removed. They are historically Germanic, sure, but anyone who knows the story of the World Wars will know that.

oh i certainly agree, and I believe that germany should take back the lost territories:D but refering to things in a historical context is no good when talking about current affairs or when refering to how things currently are, if that were true, we might refer to parts of Germany as the Holy Roman Empire..:D

we could just adopt a "prince-like" name for parts of poland, such as "The country formerly known as High Germany"....

Theudiskaz
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:51 AM
Don't forget the Boer volk. :)Ain't they just Dutch?;) ....But seriously, wouldn't you consider Afrikaners Dutch? Or are you using this word to describe the South Africans who are of both Dutch and English descent?

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 01:54 AM
Ain't they just Dutch?;) ....But seriously, wouldn't you consider Afrikaners Dutch? Or are you using this word to describe the South Africans who are of both Dutch and English descent?
One thing you shouldn't do is call an Afrikaaner (or a Boer, better) Dutch. They hate this. If you wanna really see their volatile temper in action, call them part English too. :P Personally, I refer to my Afrikaans heritage as "Dutch" - same thing to me.

Here is something to do with our recent attempt at self-determination: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9182

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 02:01 AM
What exactly are British Kelts? To my knowledge Keltic is just a culture really, so the ethnic makeup can be anything - is it usually germanic for Britons?
What do you mean?
British Celts either became Welsh, Cornish or Breton, or got absorbed into the newly forming AngloSaxon or [Irish Celtic] Scottish nations. There were no Germanics in the British Isles before the Romans and Romanised Britons invited them as mercenaries.

Ain't they just Dutch?;) ....But seriously, wouldn't you consider Afrikaners Dutch? Or are you using this word to describe the South Africans who are of both Dutch and English descent?
I'm sure our resident Low Franconians will affirm that much water has gone under the bridge since the two peoples were one. A nation is as much a common historical fate as a community of blood. It has a shared history, and from that - a common stereotype of behaviour and attitude. A few centuries on the Cape should be enough for that process to have produced something new.

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 02:04 AM
What do you mean?
British Celts either became Welsh, Cornish or Breton, or got absorbed into the newly forming AngloSaxon or [Irish Celtic] Scottish nations. There were no Germanics in the British Isles before the Romans and Romanised Britons invited them as mercenaries.
Well, I am curious as to what race the Kelts were originally. Whenever I ask this question, I get an answer equivalent to "they are a culture, not a race," which doesn't help much.


I'm sure our resident Low Franconians will affirm that much water has gone under the bridge since the two peoples were one. A nation is as much a common historical fate as a community of blood. It has a shared history, and from that - a common stereotype of behaviour and attitude. A few centuries on the Cape should be enough for that process to have produced something new.
Indeed. As I said, most Boers are very proud of their heritage and distinct identity. Others still think of themselves as the ancestors of expatriated Dutch.

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 02:17 AM
Well, I am curious as to what race the Kelts were originally. Whenever I ask this question, I get an answer equivalent to "they are a culture, not a race," which doesn't help much.
Hmmm. I see.
Celtic languages are defined as those which have lost IndoEuropean's initial P. In Irish, for example, Father/Pater is Athair.
This change occured on the Continent, before the Celts even set foot in Britain. God knows what they called themselves at the time, however - all talk of Celtic Europe is necessarily a backward looking thing.
So we have a sound shift. As for culture, you first see signs of something new and distinct with the Hallstatt culture. Then you see things shifting west with La Tene. Eventually we hit the historic period and the Greeks and Romans see Celts in almost all of Gaul, the British Isles, the Danube valley, Bohemia, parts of Iberia, and in Italy and Anatolia. In the process of expansion they must have picked up every racial type in their path. It seems fair to suppose that the initial bringers of Celticness were of the thus-named Keltic-Nordid type.

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 02:21 AM
It seems fair to suppose that the initial bringers of Celticness were of the thus-named Keltic-Nordid type.
This is what I had thought. The "Nordid" bit led me to believe the type is germanic. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 02:37 AM
This is what I had thought. The "Nordid" bit led me to believe the type is germanic. Thanks for the clarification. :)
Bear in mind how in both their earliest periods, the Germanics and Celts were next door neighbours. You could probably envision the River Main [on which stands Frankfurt am Main] as the border. There was never going to be any huge gulf subracially between the two original stocks, just that extra little Dinarid bit in the more southerly group. But then the Celts wandered westwards, and their eastern outposts were Germanicised, so now we are used to thinking of Far Western Europeans [perhaps originally Baskish in speech] as Celts, forgetting that they only became Celts by assimilation.

Theudiskaz
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 03:00 AM
There was never going to be any huge gulf subracially between the two original stocks, just that extra little Dinarid bit in the more southerly group.Don't forget the importance of the Faelid and Bruenn in the creation of a more robust distinctly Germanic Nordic look.:)

Kriegsberichter
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 07:04 AM
France isnt germanic, only a little bit. all european countrys have germanic ansestors. but in seweden, there are much more gemanic roots as in france, or spain. I mean that germany have for 80% germanic ancestors and Poland for 30 or 40%.

Loki
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 07:22 AM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=43508


This map provides legitimacy that the Dutch would be right to invade Northern Germany and take back what is rightfully theirs. ;)

Liberator Germaniae
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 08:19 AM
Well, I am curious as to what race the Kelts were originally.
[...]
As I said, most Boers are very proud of their heritage and distinct identity. Others still think of themselves as the ancestors of expatriated Dutch.

1. I have often heard Roman Provincial Archaeologists as saying that the Celts were the first wave of Germanic people that migrated into Western Europe. Apparently scientists nowadays regard both as being anthropologically related.

2. Those Afrikaners ("Boers", the English term "Dutchman" is derogatory and abusive) that still think of themselves as the descendants of expatriate Dutch only are probably the last ones to acknowledge their German Germanic roots. Having grown up in a country with a formerly strong Afrikaans community, I have always wondered how the lower classes of this group were not able to hide their anti-German attitude and nevertheless attend Church services of the `Nederduits [= ”Niederdeutsch”] Gereformeerde Kerk´ (Dutch Reformed Church). The `christian-national´ education in the (former) white government schools of the Apartheid systems (in South Africa and SWA/Namibia) also spent more time mystifying the Great Trek of the 1830´s as a second Exodus from Egypt rather than focussing on the Germanic roots of the Afrikaners. I found this preoccupation with matters that were Biblical, Jewish, Zionist and Israeli a but much. Instead, the Great Trek could have been compared more aptly to the treks of the Goths and others.

3. Those interested specifically in the German roots of Afrikaaners should consult Dr. J. Hoge´s book “German Personalia at the Cape 1652-1802:
"This publication attempts to give a complete list of those Germans who came to the Cape in the service of the Company during the period 1652 till 1806 and settled here, either remaining in the Company's service or making a living in one or other capacity after being discharged. Most of the data under each name have been gathered from the various manuscript sources in the Government Archives in Cape Town and the Archives of the Dutch Reformed Church. Relative completeness has been obtained, the researches in connection with the subject covering a great number of years.
The Germans who came from Switzerland have been classified separately, as well as the women immigrants.
A list of Germans who did not leave the service of the Company, neither married or settled here and consequently only appear in the Monsterrolle, has also been compiled. It comprises about 10,000 names. (In some years, especially during the second half of the 18th century, nearly all the members of the garrison and the majority of the artisans, wagon-drivers and stable-boys of the Company were Germans.) This section, however, has been omitted, with a few exceptions, for its addition would have made the present volume too voluminous. We hope to publish it at some future date.
Of the approximately 4,000 Germans whose names are contained in the present volume, only a very limited number - about a hundred, as far as we have been able to ascertain - left the Cape again.”
[I]Source: http://www.genealogy.co.za/Ancestry24.aspx?page=content/products/catalogue

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 02:10 PM
Don't forget the importance of the Faelid and Bruenn in the creation of a more robust distinctly Germanic Nordic look.:)
I always forget something! I can't juggle more than two balls at once!

I've yet to fully synch the anthropological stuff fully with the linguistic, archaeological and genetic data. Quite a juggling act.

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 03:01 PM
2. Those Afrikaners ("Boers", the English term "Dutchman" is derogatory and abusive) that still think of themselves as the descendants of expatriate Dutch only are probably the last ones to acknowledge their German Germanic roots. Having grown up in a country with a formerly strong Afrikaans community, I have always wondered how the lower classes of this group were not able to hide their anti-German attitude and nevertheless attend Church services of the `Nederduits [= ”Niederdeutsch”] Gereformeerde Kerk´ (Dutch Reformed Church).

I've never understood this myself - but then it was never something that prevailed in my family. One of my great grandmothers was a borreby German. What interested me was a passage I read in a history book of the Empire - a certain German general in the Boer Wars referred to himself as a "race patriot" when fighting back the Afrikaners in the name of the Empire. This struck me as hilarious - one germanic slaughtering other germanics, and calling himself a "race patriot." :D

Liberator Germaniae
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 03:30 PM
What interested me was a passage I read in a history book of the Empire - a certain German general in the Boer Wars referred to himself as a "race patriot" when fighting back the Afrikaners in the name of the Empire. This struck me as hilarious - one germanic slaughtering other germanics, and calling himself a "race patriot." :D

Do you remember his name? This is a very unusual case as the Anglo-Boer War, which should actually be termed "Engelse Oorlog" (English War), was an important factor in the deterioration of Anglo-German relations until WW I. Public opinion throughout German favoured the Boer cause, with one notable exception: the “Kölnische Zeitung” which is now registered as the “Kölner Stadtanzeiger”. :thumbdown

A similar case happened after the outbreak of WW I when troops of the Union of South Africa installed the former British consul of Lüderitzbucht in German-South West Africa as military administrator there in 1915. I remember from reading newspaper reports that he spoke German fluently and had the surname "Meyer" if I am not mistaken. Throughout wartime German-South West Africa there was much speculation about this `person´, who seemed to be of German descent or possibly a German Jew. He was responsible for the deportation by ship of the entire German civilian community of Lüderitzbucht for internment in Natal, where many died.

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 03:38 PM
Do you remember his name? This is a very unusual case as the Anglo-Boer War, which should actually be termed "Engelse Oorlog" (English War), was an important factor in the deterioration of Anglo-German relations until WW I. Public opinion throughout German favoured the Boer cause, with one notable exception: the “Kölnische Zeitung” which is now registered as the “Kölner Stadtanzeiger”. :thumbdown
Here he is: Alfred Milner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Milner,_1st_Viscount_Milner). Apparently, he was half English, half German, all idiot.


However, right until the end of his life, Milner would call himself a "British race patriot".

According to the history book in question, he said this with regard to the war against the Afrikaaner volk.


He was responsible for the deportation by ship of the entire German civilian community of Lüderitzbucht for internment in Natal, where many died.
He doesn't sound too different to this guy.

Liberator Germaniae
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Here he is: Alfred Milner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Milner,_1st_Viscount_Milner). Apparently, he was half English, half German, all idiot.

According to the history book in question, he said this with regard to the war against the Afrikaaner volk.

He doesn't sound too different to this guy.

Yes, I thought that you meant him, because the (Afrikaans) history book that I had at school (former Cape matric syllabus) mentioned that Milner "was born in Germany". I found this reference a bit curious and always wondered what the author was hinting at.

Only Milner´s paternal grandfather seems to have been partly German. Although being educated at Thübingen University he later studied in London and Oxford. He is said to have spoken with a slight German accent. What a paradox that such a man should call himself a "British race patriot", dreaming of a worldwide British Imperial parliament, with its seat in London, with delegates of British decent from the dominions Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. :thumbdown

Had he known what would become of South Africa he surely would have left the former Boer Republics in peace and ensured that they were never incorporated into the British Empire. :D

Pro-Alpine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 04:18 PM
Hungary is a bit Germanic(espically the western part). I myself got some southern German ancestry.

OneEnglishNorman
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 06:46 PM
France isnt germanic, only a little bit. all european countrys have germanic ansestors. but in seweden, there are much more gemanic roots as in france, or spain. I mean that germany have for 80% germanic ancestors and Poland for 30 or 40%.

Germany is 80% Germanic!

Well, it made me chuckle :)

Interesting, what is Germanic. The taller Med strains, who borrow colouring from native CMs would look Germanic. If you go too far back, then only the original language bearers from the East were Germanic.

Here
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Well, you know how wikipedia is It's a great source of information but sometimes it can became a little biased.

Anyway, here is the article about ethnic german i found in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_german

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Mentioning Poland is differnt to calling someone a Pole, this was actually quite insulting, and my Grandfather would kick your arse if you call him a Pole. So better pay attention whom you talk to, or take the advise of Oswiu to your heart.

i didnt call someone a pole, i mentioned poland. i hope your grandfather has no quarrels with that

SineNomine
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Had he known what would become of South Africa he surely would have left the former Boer Republics in peace and ensured that they were never incorporated into the British Empire. :D
I think post-colonial South Africa gave a whole new meaning to the words race patriotism. :)

Oswiu
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 11:49 PM
Hungary is a bit Germanic(espically the western part). I myself got some southern German ancestry.
Akh, more I forgot!!! :-O

Actually, though, I announced that I was numbering by peoples, so branches of the High and Low German speaking peoples that settled in Magyaroszag are already accounted for.
But I should have included them for completion's sake, NOT TO MENTION their fellows in Transylvania and Wallachia, or the Volga Germans...

Cluj Napoca was Kolozsvar, but was Klausenburg originally. Brasov was Kronstadt. Sighisoara was Schassburg, Sibiu was Nagy Szeben, but earlier Hermannstadt...


Poet Robert Browning talks about the 12th Century migration, invited by King Geza of the Magyars, and mythologised as the story of the Pied Piper;


And I must not omit to say
That in Transylvania there is a tribe
Of alien people that ascribe
The outlandish ways and dress
On which their neighbours lay such stress
To their fathers and mothers have risen
Out of some subterranean prison
Into which they were trepanned
Longtime ago in a mighty band
Out of Hamelin town in Brunswick land
But how or why, they don't understand.


Interesting, what is Germanic. The taller Med strains, who borrow colouring from native CMs would look Germanic. If you go too far back, then only the original language bearers from the East were Germanic.
What east, and who and when are you talking about? On first impressions it seems you have a seriously distorted idea of PIE and all that...

i didnt call someone a pole, i mentioned poland. i hope your grandfather has no quarrels with that
It wasn't Poland then. Not by a long shot. :doh

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 12th, 2006, 11:55 PM
It wasn't Poland then. Not by a long shot. :doh

current poland! we must be a few decades off, you and me :D

Fionn
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 12:08 AM
As far as linguistics go, this map can provide you with a pretty good idea of which countries/regions in Europe speak Germanic languages:

Green= where Germanic langauges are being spoken
Teal= Bilingual area where Germanic langauges are being spoken

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/languagemap.gif

nätdeutsch
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Solid red indicates that a majority of inhabitants speaks a Germanic language. Striped red indicates that a sizeable minority (more than 10%) speaks a Germanic language.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/800px-Germanic_language_zones_3.png

this seems off, because most countries in the world have a greater than 10% population that speaks english, especially europe only half of which is "redded" out...

Fionn
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 12:22 AM
this seems off, because most countries in the world have a greater than 10% population that speaks english, especially europe only half of which is "redded" out...

Yes, that is true. Therefore, I edited that out. :)

SineNomine
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Yes, that is true. Therefore, I edited that out. :)
Wouldn't it still be true though if we were speaking of the country's native language? English is not a native language in most countries, even though it is universally spoken (to an extent, lamentably so).

Oswiu
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 12:54 AM
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/languagemap.gif
That bit in Silesia always gets me. Was a specific area safely away from the Oder Neisse line deliberately planned as a place for Germans who didn't want to leave the new Polish state? Why is there nothing similar in Pommerania or the Polish part of East Preussen?

Fionn
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Wouldn't it still be true though if we were speaking of the country's native language? English is not a native language in most countries, even though it is universally spoken (to an extent, lamentably so).

I suppose. But it was still a rather misleading map and I think we should stick to discussing what countries are Germanic in Europe anyways so as to avoid anymore confusion. :)

Fionn
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 01:26 AM
That bit in Silesia always gets me. Was a specific area safely away from the Oder Neisse line deliberately planned as a place for Germans who didn't want to leave the new Polish state? Why is there nothing similar in Pommerania or the Polish part of East Preussen?

Well, I know most Germans were expelled or fled Pomerania due to the results of the Potsdam Conference after WWII. I think there are some German-speaking people still living in Silesia, though.

Oswiu
Friday, October 13th, 2006, 04:23 PM
I've opened a thread in the German national section for discussion of Lands and tribal territories, by the way. [Perhaps a more powerful mod than my self can put those relevant messages from here into it? :)]
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=79482

Oswiu
Monday, December 4th, 2006, 11:25 PM
I was bored and made this. Have I missed anybody out, or been inaccurate? http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3580/germaniaspectrumqe8.png
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3580/germaniaspectrumqe8.png

Here's something I forgot to reply to, many weeks ago;


http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=43508
This map provides legitimacy that the Dutch would be right to invade Northern Germany and take back what is rightfully theirs. ;)
Or does it rather not prove that they tried, and only took a tiny bit off the edge? :D

Rhydderch
Wednesday, December 20th, 2006, 04:54 AM
Well, I am curious as to what race the Kelts were originally. Whenever I ask this question, I get an answer equivalent to "they are a culture, not a race," which doesn't help much.In my opinion the Bronze Age people of Dinarid type were the Celts, while the Corded people were probably the ancestors of the Germanics.

Indeed the so-called Keltic-Nordid type is essentially just an altered Dinarid. The Iron Age people of this type are, in my opinion, predominantly Bronze Age Dinarid with a minority element of Megalithic Atlanto-Mediterraneans, who preceded them.

It seems to me that the Dinarids have the genes for a low vault and sloping forehead, but that the flattening of the occiput involves a raising of the vault to a more ordinary level. So when the genes for a round occiput are mixed with the usual Dinarid type of forehead and vault, it results in a low vault and prenounced slope of the forehead.

Weg
Thursday, December 21st, 2006, 09:35 AM
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/Adalwulf/languagemap.gif

I can see the guy who made this map never put a damn feet in France.

Jäger
Thursday, December 21st, 2006, 10:26 AM
I can see the guy who made this map never put a damn feet in France.
What Germanic language is missing from France?

Huzar
Thursday, December 21st, 2006, 05:04 PM
What Germanic language is missing from France?


WEg probably refers to influence of Francs in his country (like Longbards in Italy). But it's an ethnic /genetic influence, not linguistic.

Weg
Thursday, December 21st, 2006, 08:06 PM
What Germanic language is missing from France?

Nothing's missing, too much rather (Territore de Belfort is a Romance speaking area, not a Germanic one). I'd have expected something more accurate. As for this so called "bilingual area", lol. As if Alsacia wasn't bilingual...

Leofric
Tuesday, January 9th, 2007, 04:33 AM
Nothing's missing, too much rather (Territore de Belfort is a Romance speaking area, not a Germanic one). I'd have expected something more accurate. As for this so called "bilingual area", lol. As if Alsacia wasn't bilingual...
It might be good research, but often linguistic research like this doesn't reflect the majority of speakers. Dialectology has traditionally focused on what linguists call NORMS: non-mobile, older, rural, male speakers. Also, studies like this try to focus on the native linguistic variety rather than anything learned in school or at work (which is why they choose NORMS, since that lessens the likelihood of getting a prestige form instead of a native form). Could it be that all the NORMS in Alsace are still native speakers of German and that many of the NORMS in other areas are, as well?

I don't know whether it's accurate research or not, even given a possible restriction to NORMS, but it seems to me that it might be possible.

Of course, the restriction to NORMS can make dialectological maps like these seem blatantly inaccurate to anyone with common sense, but niche fields rarely yield to common sense. :)

Hagen-Hermann
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 02:35 PM
There were also a lot of German towns in Slovenia like Marburg, Pettau and Cilli. The Untersteiermark, which is a part of Slovenia today, was mainly settled by German people in the time of the KK Monarchy. In the year 1918 there lived more than 100000 German people in the area of the Republic Slovenia and also today there are more than 10000 German people left there. Most of the Slovenian people who are living next to the Austrian boarder where called Windische in the days of the KK Monarchy and the NS thought that they are a people between the Slavic and Germanic tribes.

Mr_Doctor
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 11:21 PM
most very germanic nations to me they are 2
netherlands
denmark

germanic nations

germany
austria
netherlands
denmark
sweden
norway
swiss (germanic area)


to me the rest dont resemble how a germanic behave or looks.......... is just my way of the the things

SineNomine
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007, 11:28 PM
And what of England? Never been to it?

Mr_Doctor
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:03 AM
england have celtic roots also ... once was part of roman empire..what i can say more about that

at least talking about linguistic origins..english arent germanic ..........english are just english

SineNomine
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:08 AM
Anglocentrists like myself might agree, but that isn't true. The English language does indeed have germanic roots (people often emphasize the role of French in English - it's important to note that the form of French they refer to is a medieval version of it, which is far more germanic than later latinicised versions).

As for ethnic roots, England has strong Anglo-Saxon/Norman components, both of which are germanic. With regards to the RE, almost all of Europe, including parts of Germany were under its control (later inherited by the diminished HRE), so that is irrelevant.

Leofric
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:08 AM
england once was part of roman empire..what i can say more about that
Actually, England was never a part of the Roman Empire. England didn't exist until a portion of Britain was peopled by the Germanic English.




at least talking about linguistic origins..english arent germanic ..........english are just english
Now this makes no sense whatsoever. If we're just talking about language, then the English are unquestionably Germanic.

Mr_Doctor
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:15 AM
As for ethnic roots, England has strong Anglo-Saxon/Norman components, both of which are germanic. With regards to the RE, almost all of Europe, including parts of Germany were under its control (later inherited by the diminished HRE), so that is irrelevant.

then if they have so strong germanic roots..from where you got those big amount of north and paleo atlantids ;)

SineNomine
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:19 AM
then if they have so strong germanic roots..from where you got those big amount of north and paleo atlantids ;)
Subraces =/= ethnicities (one can be a Russian nordid, but still not be germanic). But since you brought it up, Germany has significant Atlantid/North-Atlantid (and even alpinid) components itself. Does this make it less germanic? :| To my knowledge England is majority CM, just like Deutschland.

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:21 AM
As for ethnic roots, England has strong Anglo-Saxon/Norman components, both of which are germanic. With regards to the RE, almost all of Europe, including parts of Germany were under its control (later inherited by the diminished HRE), so that is irrelevant.

then if they have so strong germanic roots..from where you got those big amount of north and paleo atlantids ;)

:) If Paleo-Atlantids are unGermanic then so are Faelids. We have to draw the line somewhere. Mostly with language carriers.

Germanic to me is a mixture of things. There is no hard definition, I wager.

Waarnemer
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:25 AM
Subraces =/= ethnicities (one can be a Russian nordid, but still not be germanic). But since you brought it up, Germany has significant Atlantid/North-Atlantid (and even alpinid) components itself. Does this make it less germanic? :| To my knowledge England is majority CM, just like Deutschland.

from time to time subraces are bugger, a northatlantid or atlantid from england will still look english, while one from spain will look spanish, even so subraces don't match genetics

SineNomine
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:28 AM
from time to time subraces are bugger, a northatlantid or atlantid from england will still look english, while one from spain will look spanish, even so subraces don't match genetics
Perhaps because Spaniards are more tan in general? :) Essentially I agree though.

Mr_Doctor
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:33 AM
from time to time subraces are bugger, a northatlantid or atlantid from england will still look english, while one from spain will look spanish, even so subraces don't match genetics
__________________

i always noticed the same.
can be the local cm components wich are often mixed with a determinated subrace the one that would make the difference

Waarnemer
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:38 AM
Perhaps because Spaniards are more tan in general? :) Essentially I agree though.

nah, subraces are adaptations to a situation or perhaps its even more complex.. i just know a nordid from russia looks russian and not german because he simply would be nordid, it doesn't work that way, at least i think so

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/3071/catalunyawz0.th.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/my.php?image=catalunyawz0.jpg) if picture doesn't show up (http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/3071/catalunyawz0.jpg) http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6196/johannsenxd7wx5.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=johannsenxd7wx5.jpg)

atlantomediterranids from spain, they look spanish, and an atlantomediterranid woman from england (i think.. she is british though), she looks english, she could be from the western midlands..

SineNomine
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 12:45 AM
atlantomediterranids from spain, they look spanish, and an atlantomediterranid woman from england (i think.. she is british though), she looks english, she could be from the western midlands..
Hmm I wonder if the subraces undergo minor regional adjustments depending on where the individuals in question are over time. Also possible that English atlantids have some other subrace's blood in them. In general though I agree, it is usually possible to tell whether an an Atlanto-med, say, is English or Spanish looking.

Jäger
Wednesday, February 7th, 2007, 08:45 AM
Hmm I wonder if the subraces undergo minor regional adjustments depending on where the individuals in question are over time. Also possible that English atlantids have some other subrace's blood in them. In general though I agree, it is usually possible to tell whether an an Atlanto-med, say, is English or Spanish looking.
And don't forget the "more near" common descent! Population wise, I must have many relatives among the german people, even by going just a few centuries back to find a common "father".
In general I agree that maybe some slight admixtures change a little the look.
Agrippa called it the "national face", if I am not mistaken.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 8th, 2007, 10:53 AM
Also possible that English atlantids have some other subrace's blood in them.I think that's probably a major factor, there is likely to be influence from the most common types in a country. Another one is likely to be climate, and last but not least, culture and mentality seems to effect it quite a bit.

Bridie
Thursday, February 8th, 2007, 11:38 AM
last but not least, culture and mentality seems to effect it quite a bit.Ploise exploin? ;)

æþeling
Thursday, February 8th, 2007, 12:02 PM
I think we can look at a specific area, let’s say language, or political structure, and make a conclusion based on the strength of various influences, but I don’t believe it works in a holistic sense.

I personally don’t see the merit in lumping countries as Germanic, or Celtic, or Slavic. Except in a very few cases most nations have influences from a number of sources. England and Scotland are far more alike than Scotland is to Brittany or England is to Germany, yet Celticists would insist that Scotland is Celtic, but England isn’t, and Teutonists would insist the England is Germanic, but Scotland is not. In my opinion both stances are romantic fiction at best. It is, of course, possible to infer degrees of cultural links. North Wales and the Highlands have far more links to a Celtic culture, than say East Anglia, but Lothian has just as much evidence of Germanic settlements as Northumbria, or even Lincolnshire.

In the case of England we can focus on specific areas and see what they have to tell us.

In terms of language there is no doubt that Modern English is still rooted in its Ingvaeonic origins. There is evidence that Anglian dialects were as much influenced by Scandinavia as the Ingvaeone areas. The Norman Conquest certainly enhanced the vocabulary of English and speeded up some of the grammatical changes that had been taking place since the Danish settlements. Modern English is probably still closer to Frisian, Dutch, Low Saxon, and High German, than any other language family, but it is easily distinguished from German and Dutch, but also from French. Celtic languages have had an insignificant impact on English.

Genetically the consensus that is seemingly taking shape is that at least two thirds of the English population are descended from pre-Germanic settlers. Germanic settlement is, naturally, stronger along the eastern sea board and along the major river valleys. What we see in the formation of England is not the genocide of people, but rather of culture. Native Britons were largely incorporated into the English kingdoms, although we can say that in the east displacement was undoubtedly greater. When the English kingdoms began to expand westwards in the late 6th century they by and large conquered British populations instead of settling Germanic incomers, which is why the people of Shropshire and Somerset are more than likely to be related to the Welsh than they are to the people of Norfolk, Kent, or Lincolnshire.

In terms of political thought we can see in the classical liberalism of Mill, Hobbes, Bentham, Locke, and Jefferson, links to the freedom loving Germans of Tacitus. It’s not correct to speak of a democracy in Anglo-Saxon England, but we see a greater degree of de-centralised government than in probably any other state of the time. Personally I feel that individuality and the love of freedom is something that is common amongst all northern European peoples.

In short, for me, England today is an amalgamation of numerous influences. Principally our culture is a fusion of Germanic/Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French/Mediterranean, with the overlay of Renaissance, and Enlightenment, that have shaped most European societies. Genetically more of us are pre-Germanic, than Germanic, in origin, but we have lost that aspect of our identity, probably for good. These influences have formed the English nation, unique, and in no need of further labelling.