PDA

View Full Version : What is the Racio-Biological Identity of the Slavs?



Naro626
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, 08:05 PM
I would really like some input on this tribe or sub-group of peoples from all the differing positions out there...

I know that Poles are primarily a nation of Slavs, that the Slavs were seperately categorized from the Germans by Rome and that Russia has a high number of Slavs in the country.

My question is whether or not Slavs are Aryan. I know Hitler chastized the Russians and called them inferior but I can't remember reading him singleing out the Slavic Russians. Also I have seen many groups such as Stormfront and in The Holy Book of Hitler say that the Slavs are a vital tribe of Aryans...

What do you think my brothers?

Seppl
Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 07:19 AM
Yes, the Slavs are Aryan as much as the Germans are! Slav like German or French is a linguistic term not a racial qualification, although the above mentioned are also Aryan linguistically as well.
The Slavs comprise the following Sub-racial types in variying degrees according to which nationality, Being Nordic, Alpine,East-Baltic & Dinaric. For example the Poles are essentially of East-Baltic & Nordic blend pure types apearing in various districts of Poland.Croatia, for instance is mainly Dinaric and Nordic in blend.
Most Slavic people have light coloured eyes about 60 % of the present day population in Europe.
Servus,:cool

BodewinTheSilent
Monday, August 12th, 2002, 11:41 PM
The Slavs are Indo-Europeans, both culturally and linguistically. Racially, the early Slavs were predominantly Nordic, though there has been increased mixture and subsequent diversity, since then. For an excellent study of the subject, see the link below:

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VI7.htm

Ross
Friday, August 16th, 2002, 09:36 PM
How a Race (I'm talking about Slavs) who introduced Aryan/Indo-European culture/civilization/language to other european races can be NOT Aryan? The Slavs, who speak the language, which is the closest to the original IE language ARE the Aryan Race.

Slavs = Aryan Race, as this culture is associated exclusivly with Slavs.

Of course, now the original slavic type is mainly absorbed by the Baltic race, still Nordics of Russia, Whiterussia, Baltic States and Finland are of this ancient (= Aisto) type.

Ross
Friday, August 16th, 2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Heimdall
The Slavs are Indo-Europeans, both culturally and linguistically. Racially, the early Slavs were predominantly Nordic, though there has been increased mixture and subsequent diversity, since then. For an excellent study of the subject, see the link below:

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VI7.htm

PLEASE, DON'T!!!

Coon writes that Slavs were fully Nordic. What he doesn't STRESS is that they were of the Battle-Axe type.

Now most people who claim to be Slavs are not of the BA/evolved BA/mixed BA type.

But same with Germanics - only 5% of Germans are Nordic, and NO MORE than 50% sister types. Other are Dinaric, Alpine, Jewish :)

Ederico
Friday, August 16th, 2002, 10:11 PM
I do not get it Ross, how can you say that some Germanics are Jewish, they cannot be both, Jews are not even European in the first place.

Ross
Friday, August 16th, 2002, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalista
I do not get it Ross, how can you say that some Germanics are Jewish, they cannot be both, Jews are not even European in the first place.

Hello,

I'm always careful with the terminology. Not Germanics - GERMANS. German is a nationality, Germanic... well, might be a cultural notion too, but rather refers to the racial type Nordic/Fallish

Ederico
Friday, August 16th, 2002, 10:26 PM
To me no Jew is European and thus not German, obviously there will be Jews who would hold some Documents saying thay are of any European Nationality, but I do not consider them real Europeans, and I would rather not say that some Germans are Jews, rather you could say that some Jews are present in German Lands and have German Documents, but I would not consider Documents as a proof of Nationality. I would rather consider one's ancestry and sense of belonging.

Ross
Tuesday, August 20th, 2002, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Heimdall
The Slavs are Indo-Europeans, both culturally and linguistically. Racially, the early Slavs were predominantly Nordic, though there has been increased mixture and subsequent diversity, since then. For an excellent study of the subject, see the link below:

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VI7.htm

Coon is a loosy anthropologist (not MY opinion) and his TRoE is a shame of anthropology!

As for this: "Racially, the early Slavs were predominantly Nordic, though there has been increased mixture and subsequent diversity, since then" - SAME can be said about Germans. According to famous nazi german anthropologist - Guenter, in 30s no more than 45-50% of Germans were NORDISH, and only 5% - NORDIC.

Well, I can not quote the source, but german anthropologists evaluations before the WWII were that 35-40% of Russians/Whiterussians were NORDISH. According to Richard McCulloch there are 8% of Nordics in Russia...

Hellstar
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Ross


Russians/Whiterussians were NORDISH. According to Richard McCulloch there are 8% of Nordics in Russia...

No its around 40-60 % I cant remember correct. but i wrote about it somewhere else.

BodewinTheSilent
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Ross:

Coon is a loosy anthropologist (not MY opinion) and his TRoE is a shame of anthropology!

Whose opinion is it then? He's certainly a lot better than many other anthropologists.

As for this: "Racially, the early Slavs were predominantly Nordic, though there has been increased mixture and subsequent diversity, since then" - SAME can be said about Germans.

As you should have noticed by now, this thread isn't about Germans.

According to famous nazi german anthropologist - Guenter, in 30s no more than 45-50% of Germans were NORDISH, and only 5% - NORDIC.

Firstly, his name is Günther, and secondly, he didn't say that at all. What he did say, is that 6-8% of the German population is pure Nordic, whilst 45-50% is predominantly Nordic. He also said that 5% of Germans are Phalian. Günther's Nordic type isn't Nordish, it's Nordic. Nordic + Phalian = Central Nordish types.

Well, I can not quote the source, but german anthropologists evaluations before the WWII were that 35-40% of Russians/Whiterussians were NORDISH.

Why not?

Ross
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 01:28 AM
Whose opinion is it then? He's certainly a lot better than many other anthropologists.
======

Better? Whose opinion is it? :D

Well, for example, nobody supported his theories about Neo-Danubian and Borreby types. It's a long story.


======
As for this: "Racially, the early Slavs were predominantly Nordic, though there has been increased mixture and subsequent diversity, since then" - SAME can be said about Germans.

As you should have noticed by now, this thread isn't about Germans.
=======

And what of it, I wonder?
=======

Firstly, his name is Günther, and secondly, he didn't say that at all. What he did say, is that 6-8% of the German population is pure Nordic, whilst 45-50% is predominantly Nordic. He also said that 5% of Germans are Phalian. Günther's Nordic type isn't Nordish, it's Nordic. Nordic + Phalian = Central Nordish types.
========

I don't have German symbols available. "Ue" stands for this "ü" in his name. I pay some respect to him - trying to type his name correctly, so what's your problem?

About figures - could you please give a source?

Anyway, terminology is not that important, but... this thread is not about Germans?

=========
Why not?
=========
Indeed

BodewinTheSilent
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Ross:

Better? Whose opinion is it? :D

The same person whose opinion it was that he is lousey. ;)

Well, for example, nobody supported his theories about Neo-Danubian and Borreby types. It's a long story.

I don't agree with all his theories myself, such as the Atlanto-Mediterranean Megalith builders, but there is still much of value in his work. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

And what of it, I wonder?

This thread isn't about Germans. :)

I don't have German symbols available. "Ue" stands for this "ü" in his name.

That's no excuse. x_p

I pay some respect to him - trying to type his name correctly, so what's your problem?

Good, I'm glad to hear that, but you forgot the "h" in his name, as well. But then again, what's in a name, eh, Russ? ;)

About figures - could you please give a source?

Hans F. K. Günther, Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (Munich & Berlin: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1938) pp. 91-92.

Anyway, terminology is not that important, but...

I disagree, terminology is very important, especially in a complicated subject such as anthropology, it is important to understand what is being said.

this thread is not about Germans?

No, it isn't. I'm glad that you've realised that now. You learn quickly, I like that, there is hope for you yet. ;)

Indeed

Indeed. Why can't you post this study? Is it a state secret? Is Comrade Stalin going to have you hauled off to the gulag if you reveal its contents? :D

Ross
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 08:33 AM
I don't agree with all his theories myself, such as the Atlanto-Mediterranean Megalith builders, but there is still much of value in his work. You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
======
Frankly, his study of Slavs is poor - compare it even with Lundman...



And what of it, I wonder?

This thread isn't about Germans. :)

:)

I don't have German symbols available. "Ue" stands for this "ü" in his name.

That's no excuse. x_p

Why not?

I pay some respect to him - trying to type his name correctly, so what's your problem?

Good, I'm glad to hear that, but you forgot the "h" in his name, as well. But then again, what's in a name, eh, Russ? ;)

I guess I was too busy with "ue" :)


About figures - could you please give a source?

Hans F. K. Günther, Kleine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (Munich & Berlin: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1938) pp. 91-92.

And you sure with 6-8%? On the Net it's 5%.

And what is "predominatly Nordic" for Guenther?

And what study you're talking about?

GreenHeart
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 09:57 AM
"Russ" unfortunately never shows his sources, we are still waiting for his article as proof in the other thread - about the Aistos.......

If he would ever show me just once source, it would bring at least a shred of credibility to what he says, but he seems to like relying on hear-say. Maybe he has something to hide!! x_lol

Ross
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 10:25 AM
NordicPower88,

Article as a proof of another article... and after that, yet another article and so on. Great!

So what's your face width?

BodewinTheSilent
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 10:59 PM
I don't have German symbols available. "Ue" stands for this "ü" in his name.
That's no excuse. x_p
Why not?

Because you managed to produce an umlaut on the second attempt. ;)

I guess I was too busy with "ue" :)

Ah, that explains it. :)

And you sure with 6-8%? On the Net it's 5%.

Yes, I'm sure. The Net is wrong. I presume you are basing your claims on this pie chart:

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/bilder/misc-comgerm.gif

It does NOT come from any book by Günther, but from a Hitler Youth school book, and is merely based on Günther's work. The idiot who drew it up, couldn't even count properly: 50% + 20% + 20% + 8% + 5% + 2% = 105%. There can only be 100% of anything. The figures I gave are correct, and are direct from Günther himself.

And what is "predominatly Nordic" for Guenther?

That a person was of predominantly Nordic ancestry, and revealed in their phenotype, predominantly Nordic characteristics.

And what study you're talking about?

Well, I can not quote the source, but german anthropologists evaluations before the WWII were that 35-40% of Russians/Whiterussians were NORDISH.

Ross
Wednesday, August 21st, 2002, 11:17 PM
Because you managed to produce an umlaut on the second attempt.
======
copy-paste from your post :)

======
Yes, I'm sure. The Net is wrong. I presume you are basing your claims on this pie chart:

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/...isc-comgerm.gif
=======
Yeah, I saw it, but my source is a report on nazi racial policy (easy to find, actually)
=======
That a person was of predominantly Nordic ancestry, and revealed in their phenotype, predominantly Nordic characteristics.
=======
Like "Keltic" Nordic? Can be dark-bown, sub-brachy, with brown/green eyes?
=======
"I can not quote the source" - because I don't have it. The info comes from a russian article on variuos anthropological views on racial composition of russian, and evaluation was made right before the war, on purpose, probably by SS/Wehrmacht expeditions, probably by Guenther, as I recall he evaluated northern poles...

I'm looking for this info...

BodewinTheSilent
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 09:55 PM
That a person was of predominantly Nordic ancestry, and revealed in their phenotype, predominantly Nordic characteristics.
Like "Keltic" Nordic? Can be dark-bown, sub-brachy, with brown/green eyes?

Obviously, if they are not pure Nordic, then they must possess some non-Nordic phenotypical features, but they would still reveal some Nordic characteristics. It is referring to the genetic inheritance of the German people as a whole. Therefore, some individuals would show more Nordic characteristics than others.

Guenther, as I recall he evaluated northern poles...

Yes, in 1942 he toured the province of Danzig for 10 days, and stated that 4/5 of the Poles living in the north of that province were racially acceptable. Some were even taken away, and brought up in Germany, the so-called "Lebensborn" movement. However, so far as I am aware, he wrote no official report on the matter.

Ross
Thursday, August 22nd, 2002, 10:14 PM
Wow, you know a lot!

I've read (in a serious book) that Nazis were planning to assimilate northern groups of Russians and Whiterussians, ever heard about it?

BodewinTheSilent
Friday, August 23rd, 2002, 10:07 PM
Wow, you know a lot!

Yes, I do! :D

I've read (in a serious book) that Nazis were planning to assimilate northern groups of Russians and Whiterussians, ever heard about it?

I presume that you are talking about the Generalplan Ost memo (April 27, 1942), of Dr. Erich Wetzel.

http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm

Ross
Friday, August 23rd, 2002, 10:18 PM
Plan decided that it would be possible to Germanize about 50 per cent of the Czechs, 35 per cent of the Ukrainians and 25 per cent of the Byelorussians
=====
Don't you think it's *strange*? 35% of Ukrainians???

Ross
Friday, August 23rd, 2002, 10:50 PM
Heimdall,

Also, don't you know about racial standarts, employed by Nazis?

======
Those who had what Nazis defined as "Aryan" characteristics -- such as blue eyes, blond hair, a properly proportioned head, good behavior and above average intelligence -- were kidnapped from their parents and shipped to Germany for ultimate adoption by appropriate German families.
======

BodewinTheSilent
Sunday, August 25th, 2002, 12:05 AM
Don't you think it's *strange*? 35% of Ukrainians???

Strange in what way?

Also, don't you know about racial standarts, employed by Nazis?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Those who had what Nazis defined as "Aryan" characteristics -- such as blue eyes, blond hair, a properly proportioned head, good behavior and above average intelligence -- were kidnapped from their parents and shipped to Germany for ultimate adoption by appropriate German families.

This is not entirely accurate. Aryan simply meant a European, who was not of non-European racial ancestry, such as Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, etc. It implied no specifically Nordic phenotypical characteristics. All Nordics were Aryan, but not all Aryans were Nordic.

Hellstar
Sunday, August 25th, 2002, 12:17 AM
Aryan means Loyal and faithful toward his gods (feel free to interpetate that as you will) one who is noble and you show honour/respect, It derives from Sanskrit´Arya` by the root of "ri"
which means one who strike forward or above others:viking

Ross
Sunday, August 25th, 2002, 12:17 AM
Don't you think it's *strange*? 35% of Ukrainians???

Strange in what way?

===============

I thought Nazis were interested only in Nordics and ment that there are hardly 5% of them in Ukraine.

===============

Also, don't you know about racial standarts, employed by Nazis?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Those who had what Nazis defined as "Aryan" characteristics -- such as blue eyes, blond hair, a properly proportioned head, good behavior and above average intelligence -- were kidnapped from their parents and shipped to Germany for ultimate adoption by appropriate German families.

This is not entirely accurate. Aryan simply meant a European, who was not of non-European racial ancestry, such as Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, etc. It implied no specifically Nordic phenotypical characteristics. All Nordics were Aryan, but not all Aryans were Nordic.

==================
Well, doest it mean that Nazis didn't consider East-Baltics as Aryans, as, for example, only 25% of Whiterussians were considered as Aryans (assimilation)?

That's strange, as mostof Ukrainians are of (composite) Dnepr-Carpathian type, which is Dinaric+EB+Turkic/Mongol...

William the Conqueror
Friday, July 25th, 2003, 10:08 PM
How a Race (I'm talking about Slavs) who introduced Aryan/Indo-European culture/civilization/language to other european races can be NOT Aryan? The Slavs, who speak the language, which is the closest to the original IE language ARE the Aryan Race.

Slavs = Aryan Race, as this culture is associated exclusivly with Slavs.

Of course, now the original slavic type is mainly absorbed by the Baltic race, still Nordics of Russia, Whiterussia, Baltic States and Finland are of this ancient (= Aisto) type.

That's a rather cavalier interpretation isn't it, Ross? The Slavs (cultural & linguistic term) did not spread Indo-European any more than did the Celts or the Teutons. 'Aryan' is associated with India and Iran (and Eire, i.e. - Ireland), where the original Indo-Euros were not Slavic. Just because the 'Aryans' came from what are now Slavic nations (Ukraine & Southern Russia), and who in all probability are indistinguishable from modern Slavs racially, doesn't mean that they were Slavs (or indeed that Slavs originated Indo-European culture). Non sequitur, my lad.

Loki
Friday, July 25th, 2003, 10:28 PM
That's a rather cavalier interpretation isn't it, Ross?

Unfortunately, our friend Ross is not frequenting this site anymore. He is probably taking a vacation. ;) I wonder how the guy is doing, actually... haven't heard from him in a while.

Ross - if you are reading this per chance - can you contact me? I have accidentally lost your email addy, and I don't think you log in to check PM's anymore.

Tore
Saturday, July 26th, 2003, 12:49 AM
Unfortunately, our friend Ross is not frequenting this site anymore.

Tis a pity...

Ross's anthropological knowledge was second to none.

Tore
Saturday, July 26th, 2003, 03:13 AM
... and so was his pro-Slavic bias, his anti-Germanic hatred, and the low niveau of personal attacks he pulled against people that dared to disagree with him by denying Russia the status of an all-Nordish wonderland.

Such instances where the above behaviour was evident were largely provoked by over-zealous Third Reich enthusiasts who continually denigrated his people and his homeland, not to mention himself.

Luckily, however, their departure from the board has been witnessed as well.

Stríbog
Saturday, July 26th, 2003, 04:14 AM
Azdaja and I had already invited him back; he declined politely.

Ominous Lord Spoonblade
Saturday, July 26th, 2003, 04:32 AM
I guess Azdaja's and your legs didn't look sexy enough. :hehe

Kind regards,

- Thorburn

Well Thorburn, it seems that it is time for you to pull out the fishnets and stilettos!

:jaw

:D

executiona9
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 05:10 PM
Ive been studying Slavic people/countries for a long time now and I noticed a few patterns :

Southern Slavs (yugoslavians, bulgarians) are the darkest slavs ofcourse

Eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians etc) are the blondest slavs. I found both Russians and Ukrainians to be very blond.

Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks) are not as dark as Southern Slavs and not as blond as Eastern Slavs, they are sort of intermediate.

Im wondering who is the most Slavic? The Eastern or the Western Slavs? Do Eastern Slavs got their blondness from Finnic admixture or is it just typical slavic?

Awar
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 08:00 PM
Ive been studying Slavic people/countries for a long time now and I noticed a few patterns :

Southern Slavs (yugoslavians, bulgarians) are the darkest slavs ofcourse

I think it really depends on the area you're looking at. Of course, on average, we're the darkest Slavs, the tallest and the most good-looking babes live here :)

The southeastern area of south-Slavic speaking peoples is the darkest, and it has the most Greek DNA. The Bulgarians are a Slavo-Thracian people with minor Tatar-Bolgar influence ( mostly in the northeast areas ) ( there are also ethnic muslim Turks who live in southeastern Bulgaria ).

Serbia is a land of Slavs and Slavicized Illyrians and Thracians. The Serbs themselves, judging from the name and the origin of it are probably Iranians who were Slavicized at some point. The western Serbs are the lightest-pigmented, the southern are darkest.

What Coon wrote about Montenegro is fairly alright and accurate ( except his conclusions and some historical inaccuracies ).

Croatia is similar to Serbia, the inhabitants are a bit lighter pigmented, but they also have more Hun and Avarian originated Mongoloid influences ( the Hvar islanders carry a large ammount of Avar ancestry ).

Slovenia is the lightest pigmented of the bunch. The Slovenes are Slavs and Slavicized Celts mostly.


Eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians etc) are the blondest slavs. I found both Russians and Ukrainians to be very blond.

I think that the Eastern Slavs have assimilated the previous inhabitants of Eurasia, since IE languages weren't present in that area since time immemorial, it spread from the south.

But, you also have to take into account the most possible origins of Indo-European languages come from the north pontic coast, eastern Ukraine, southern Russia. The people who lived there were, if not the originators of all IE languages, then an important centre from which IE spread further.

Southern Russia also has the greatest concentration of the Eu19 'Aryan' genetic marker, and there is a significant population of nordic types there.


Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks) are not as dark as Southern Slavs and not as blond as Eastern Slavs, they are sort of intermediate.

More fantastic looking babes! AFAIK, the Czechs are the most 'west-european' according to DNA. McCulloch labeled Czechs as 100% Alpinid, but that's not nearly right.

In the western Slav category, there are also Lusatian Serbs, a w-slavic speaking people.


Im wondering who is the most Slavic? The Eastern or the Western Slavs? Do Eastern Slavs got their blondness from Finnic admixture or is it just typical slavic?

It's impossible to accurately say who is the most 'Slavic'. Slavs are more of a linguistic category, so it depends on the original area of IE and thus Slavic languages.

So, if the area of origination of Slavic languages is in Ukraine..then, the most well preserved original population of Ukraine is also the most 'Slavic'.

If the Slavic languages originated in the Novgorod area, then the population there is most 'Slavic', but then this leaves the pre-IE question open. The IE languages are known to develop in an area much more south than Novgorod, so the population there is probably largely pre-IE ( unless the population also originated in the south, and spread to the mentioned area, totally annihilating the existing pre-IE peoples ).

If the IE languages originated in the Balkans, then again, it opens the possibility that the inhabitants of the Ukraine-South Russia area were some sort of non-IE people, who adopted the Balkanian originated IE language, and then spread it on a large area in the form of Aryans, Celts, Germanics, Slavs...

executiona9
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 08:21 PM
I agree that the reason why southern slavs are the darkest is because they have absorbed a lot of illyrian and thracian blood and perhaps also some roman blood, thats what I have been thinking for a long time.
But I never heard of iranian people in the Balkans, that is completely new for me

Awar
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 08:31 PM
I wrote a lengthy post about it a long time ago.
I gotta warn you that the post doesn't represent my opinion, but just a compilation of what all I've read on the subject of Serbs and Croats being originally Iranian.

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4444

The Sarmatian/Iranian peoples lived in the pontic-caspian steppes, not in Iran or Persia.

Glenlivet
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Lundman (1946) wrote "i mellersta Ryssland enl. tabeller hos Bunak aa, håret är föga mörkare än Mellansverige, fastän ögonen äro vida mörkare."

Translation: in Central Russia according to tables by Bunak ad acta, the hair is very little darker than Central Sweden, although the eyes are much darker.

There is an overlap between types in Western Russia, Belarusia, the three small Baltic countries and Finland. We cannot be certain about every single case, whether it is out of Finnic admixture or not.

Bulgarians are not originally a Slavic people.

From a Nordicist preservation and assimilation perspective, Russians and Belarusians (and secondly Poles) are probably the most assimilable as for populations.

There are blonds (but of East Baltid derivation or lighter Dinarids) among South Slavs, but the the region is known for having mostly the very tall and lanky, brachycephalic and high skulled dark haired Dinarid sub race.

There is no one Slavic physical type, in Central Eastern Europe the Carpathid is common. In North Eastern Europe the Aistin (but with a greater concentration among the Baltic people) and East Baltid.



Ive been studying Slavic people/countries for a long time now and I noticed a few patterns :

Southern Slavs (yugoslavians, bulgarians) are the darkest slavs ofcourse

Eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians etc) are the blondest slavs. I found both Russians and Ukrainians to be very blond.

Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks) are not as dark as Southern Slavs and not as blond as Eastern Slavs, they are sort of intermediate.

Im wondering who is the most Slavic? The Eastern or the Western Slavs? Do Eastern Slavs got their blondness from Finnic admixture or is it just typical slavic?

executiona9
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 10:07 PM
``Bulgarians are not originally a Slavic people``

I know that the Bulgars were a turkic tribe, not slavic. But the Bulgarians speak a slavic language (how ironic)

Personally I think Bulgarians dont have much Bulgar blood, the Bulgars were probably only a rulers elite that ruled over the natives of Bulgaria. Bulgarians are mainly of slavic and thracian blood I think.

rusalka
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 10:27 PM
Personally I think Bulgarians dont have much Bulgar blood, the Bulgars were probably only a rulers elite that ruled over the natives of Bulgaria. Bulgarians are mainly of slavic and thracian blood I think.
I agree. Both Slavic and Turkic tribes had settled in Bulgaria between the 4th and 6th centuries but the remaining non-Slavic tribes who were much less in numbers were assimilated by the surrounding Slavic nations and culture. Before the Bulgarian Kingdom, the area was the Thracian and Moesian provinces of the Roman Empire and I think we can assume the natives were of Thracian origin.

Awar
Tuesday, March 16th, 2004, 11:56 PM
From a south Slavicist point of view, Turkic populations from Turkey and Azerbaijan are assimilable too. ;)

Awar
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 12:03 AM
``Bulgarians are not originally a Slavic people``

I know that the Bulgars were a turkic tribe, not slavic. But the Bulgarians speak a slavic language (how ironic)

Personally I think Bulgarians dont have much Bulgar blood, the Bulgars were probably only a rulers elite that ruled over the natives of Bulgaria. Bulgarians are mainly of slavic and thracian blood I think.

There are also suggestions that Bulgars who invaded the Balkans were a tribe that went through at least two assimilation processes before they got Slavicized.

There are sources that say the Bulgars in the Balkans were speaking an Iranian language, but they had Turkic names and gave Turkic toponyms.
Racially, they also seem to have been Europoid and Turanid. There was supposedly 15.000 of these Bolgars who were the elite, but quickly became assimilated by 2 million Slavic-speakers in the area.

Dorian
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 12:34 AM
Bulgarians get offended when I tell them Bulgars were Mongoloid Turkic speaking people from Altai, they tell me they were not Turkic but White Iranian people called Pamyrs. I mean Asparukh sounds a lot more Iranian than Turkic. I have also seen some Bulgar art where the people look Mongoloid so i'm not really sure. In any case I agree that there were too few Bulgars and that the Slavic tribes fully assimilated them keeping some traces of culture and of course the name Bulgar.

I don't know if it's true but Wikipedia says so too.

Awar
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 12:42 AM
There are probably as much Mongoloid-like individuals in Bulgaria as there are in Hungary, Romania, Serbia or Croatia.

Vojvoda
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 03:00 AM
Many now accept that the Bulgars (http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/KingListsEurope/EasternBulgaria.htm) are the descendants of the Huns. The ancestor of the Bulgars is Kobrat Han, who was the son of Irnek. Irnek was the son or grandson of Attila. So the Bulgars are directly descended from the Huns.

Awar
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 03:10 AM
Kobrat is just a word-game for Bratko :D

Vojvoda
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 04:39 AM
Oni su bugarizovani Srbi :D

RedEgosyntonicSun
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 06:19 AM
I'm speechless !

You, people know so much
about my origins
I just want to write here one big
mongolo-huno-turkico-irano-pamyro-
-tataro-thraco-slavico-serbo-etc...

~ БЛАГОДАРЯ ~ *

*Thank you
;)

Triglav
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Slovenia is the lightest pigmented of the bunch. The Slovenes are Slavs and Slavicized Celts mostly.


:suspect

Rather Slavs and Slavicised Illyrians. There were 2 waves of Slavic invasion, so the population is (anthropologically) largely Slavic.

The theories advocating that the heartland of the Slavs was in the Balkans actually point to Slovenia.

The Celtic infusion isn't negligible, though, but Celtic is mainly a cultural designation the more it is geographically removed from the hub in today's Southern Germany (which on the other hand isn't too far away).

Triglav
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 07:54 AM
Oni su bugarizovani Srbi :D

Buggered Serbs? :D

old aryan
Wednesday, March 17th, 2004, 08:00 AM
I'm speechless !

You, people know so much
about my origins
I just want to write here one big
mongolo-huno-turkico-irano-pamyro-
-tataro-thraco-slavico-serbo-etc...

~ БЛАГОДАРЯ ~ *

*Thank you
;)
K......I don't know for sure, but I think that I've just been insulted:( :guinness :guinness :guinness :guinness :pizza :pizza :guinness (Happy St. Paddy's Day!!!!!):D :-O :-O :-O :-O ....ooops.........sorry...wrong thread:~(

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 06:28 AM
I wasn't sure where to put this.

I have been reading a new book on Hitler and it has quite a lot of information on lebensraum. I don't think taking other people's land for the benefit of one people is at all morally correct but I have one question.

Why do Slavs have so much space while Germanics and Celts have so little in comparison?

Freydis
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 06:40 AM
Define Slavs and their space. Define Germanics and Celts and their space. State their relative populations.

Rassenpapst
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 06:41 AM
Why do Slavs have so much space while Germanics and Celts have so little in comparison?
Do they? Russia is large but Germanics have much space in North America and Australia.

SineNomine
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 06:43 AM
What is one to do with liebensraum, if I may ask? :)

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 06:57 AM
Do they? Russia is large but Germanics have much space in North America and Australia.

The Germanic Colonies are far from Germanic. They were discovered and inhabited by Germanics but with massive amounts of European immigration most are made up of non-Germanic genes. America, in particular, is a good example of a cesspool of European DNA. Not many can trace their ancestry back to one culture/people/race entirely.

Also, I am talking about native populations, not colonial populations or the results of migration patterns.


Define Slavs and their space. Define Germanics and Celts and their space. State their relative populations.

Celts

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Chwe_Chenedl_Geltaidd.png

Slavs

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7347/680pxslaviceuropess3.png

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/9739/651pxslaviclanguagesjk4.png

Germanics

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Germanic_europe_small.png

Freydis
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:04 AM
Thank you, Elysium.

But we have to take into consideration, what is the value of such space? It's too cold for many, I would say. (Speaking of Russia). But I think there is a difference between the "Northern" and Southern Slavs that is more distinct than that between Germanic groups. Such land area allows for it. I would really put them in different categories (Southern and Northern Slavs, and further divide Northern Slavs into Eastern and Western Slavs) altogether.

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:11 AM
Thank you, Elysium.

But we have to take into consideration, what is the value of such space? It's too cold for many, I would say. (Speaking of Russia). But I think there is a difference between the "Northern" and Southern Slavs that is more distinct than that between Germanic groups. Such land area allows for it. I would really put them in different categories (Southern and Northern Slavs, and further divide Northern Slavs into Eastern and Western Slavs) altogether.

Wouldn't you also say Swedes differ from the English as well? There is even quite a bit of difference between Austrians and Germans even though they're right next to each other.

I just think it is strange that the the Slavs, who don't play a massive role in European history (upon until very recent times), have such a big population and big realm when centuries ago these two factors were considered what makes a group of people "great".

The Lawspeaker
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:14 AM
I think that the EU could help us out: we as European nations should bring to what is the 1938 situation in Eastern Europe.
Not only that.. Alsace Lorraine should be handed over to Germany, same goes for Eupen-Malmedy. And Germany should regain all the territory that she lost after 1939. (Sudetenland, East Prussia, Silezia).

The lands are German and they have always been German... and it will be up to the Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians to cede the territory that they have conquered.


After I have taken a shower I will write some more on this.

Freydis
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:16 AM
I didn't say there was no difference, I just said there was probably a greater difference (imo) between the aforementioned Slavic groups. I've been around all three and would say they have different "typical" temperments.

A big realm isn't really that good when it consists mostly of nothing.

Don't play a massive role in European history.. exactly how far back is "very recent times"? the 20th century? If so, I assure you, you are wrong.

MockTurtle
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:19 AM
I wasn't sure where to put this.

I have been reading a new book on Hitler and it has quite a lot of information on liebensraum. I don't think taking other people's land for the benefit of one people is at all morally correct but I have one question.

Why do Slavs have so much space while Germanics and Celts have so little in comparison?


I'm not sure what you mean by 'why'. They occupy the territory because they settled it historically and tried to protect it against invasion, as most people tend to do. Hitler apparently felt that the territory his people occupied at that time was insufficient for their long-term needs, and so lebensraum was necessary in his perspective...

Soten
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:27 AM
The Celtic area I think should also include France...most French are primarily the descendants of Gauls. The Celts were largely pushed out of Central Europe by the Germanic tribes and undoubtedly many in say Germany for example have many, many Celtic ancestors as well.

I know, as can be seen from the maps, that the Slavic tribes did like to roam about quite a bit. I don't have a definite answer, but I would have to assume that the Slavs were not held back by too many strong non-Slavic tribes, especially in their route to the South. Also, I wonder if many of the Slavic tribes didn't simply absorb other non-Slavic tribes. Again my best example would be the Balkan region. I believe there were many other tribes in that area before the Slavs such as the Illyrians and so forth. I bet those other tribes were absorbed into larger Slavic tribes and adopted their culture.

PS. I would also consider Romanians to be "Slavic" in some sense as well as the Hungarians. The Hungarians are mixed with the Huns and took on the Finno-Ugric language they speak today. And I think, I may be wrong, that the Romanians were Slavic until the Romans started sending people there to retire. Either way, I do think that there must have been other tribes in the Balkan area that still form alot of the substrata on which the Southern Slavs have placed their cultures. I wish I knew the names of those tribes...probably old Roman and Greek texts will have the names.

MockTurtle
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:37 AM
America, in particular, is a good example of a cesspool of European DNA.

Just out of curiosity, why do use the word 'cesspool.' Certainly, during the 'First Great Wave' of immigration (1890-1920) a considerable amount of non-Germanics went to the US, but how does this justify the term cesspool?

Keep in mind that even a good portion of those people that the US government considers to be 'European' are actually not, and many that are classified as such I wouldn't consider them to be...

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:40 AM
I didn't say there was no difference, I just said there was probably a greater difference (imo) between the aforementioned Slavic groups. I've been around all three and would say they have different "typical" temperments.

A big realm isn't really that good when it consists mostly of nothing.

Don't play a massive role in European history.. exactly how far back is "very recent times"? the 20th century? If so, I assure you, you are wrong.

I didn't mean to say that they played no role but I do not realise that they played any influential or dominating role like other Europeans had up until the Soviet Union. Russia very rarely had much influence over non-Slavic areas which is not something Germanics, Italics/Latins, or Celts share.

I was thinking that their land mass and population might be the reason why they had not since it is very hard to defend and introduce new things to (technology, ideas, etc.).


Just out of curiosity, why do use the word 'cesspool.' Certainly, during the 'First Great Wave' of immigration (1890-1920) a considerable amount of non-Germanics went to the US, but how does this justify the term cesspool?

Keep in mind that even a good portion of those people that the US government considers to be 'European' are actually not, and many that are classified as such I wouldn't consider them to be...

Let's not debate over which term is more appropriate. All I mean to say is that Americans and America are a mixture of peoples, who are also mixed themselves.

MockTurtle
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:48 AM
Let's not debate over which term is more appropriate. All I mean to say is that Americans and America are a mixture of peoples, who are also mixed themselves.

Okay, but are you implying that other countries (England, France, Switzerland, etc.) have not been historically and are not contemporaneously also a 'mixture of peoples'? Angles and Saxons, for instance, though relatively similar from a broader perspective, are obviously different tribes and would qualify as a 'mixture' on some level.

Anywho, I think you could be right that perhaps geography has inhibited Slavic history to some extent. But, then again, this is not necessarily the case: England is an 'island nation' and historically turned itself outwards in order to spread its influence around the globe, whereas Japan is likewise an island nation but possesses a history radically different from the English in terms of expansion...

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:53 AM
Okay, but are you implying that other countries (England, France, Switzerland, etc.) have not been historically and are not contemporaneously also a 'mixture of peoples'? Angles and Saxons, for instance, though relatively similar from a broader perspective, are obviously different tribes and would qualify as a 'mixture' on some level.

Anywho, I think you could be right that perhaps geography has inhibited Slavic history to some extent. But, then again, this is not necessarily the case: England is an 'island nation' and historically turned itself outwards in order to spread its influence around the globe, whereas Japan is likewise an island nation but possesses a history radically different from the English in terms of expansion...

Yes, other countries have mixed populations but not to the same degree America has. For example, England has a mixture of different types of Germanics (and also some Celts). Two types of Germanics is very different to a mixture of Germanic, Slavic and Italic.

Your analogy with Japan is quite right. They worked in a complete opposite to England in certain ways. England influenced other peoples while other peoples (mainly the Chinese) influenced Japan heavily in terms of culture, language, and tradition.

MockTurtle
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 07:59 AM
Yes, other countries have mixed populations but not to the same degree America has. For example, England has a mixture of different types of Germanics (and also some Celts). Two types of Germanics is very different to a mixture of Germanic, Slavic and Italic.

Actually England (and the British Isles generally) also has an Italic element that dates back to earlier invasions. But anyways I understand your point...

Beornulf
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 08:03 AM
The Germanic Colonies are far from Germanic. They were discovered and inhabited by Germanics but with massive amounts of European immigration most are made up of non-Germanic genes. America, in particular, is a good example of a cesspool of European DNA. Not many can trace their ancestry back to one culture/people/race entirely.

I don't think you could say the same for countries like New Zealand and Australia. Most of the New Zealand inhabitants are from England and Scotland and secondarily Dutch, German, French, Irish and Welsh along with a minute number of Croats.

In fact I'd say it's more likely that New Zealand has a higher demographic with West Euro vs South or East Euro than most countries in Europe.

For example someone of Italian and English ethnicity would generally be hard to come by.

Of course there is considerable Pacific Island and Maori blood in some people but it's generally easy to trace in most cases.

In regards to Slavic areas being larger I think a lot would have to do with constant wars between Western European nations and also the terrain and general size of the east. Germanic and Celtic countries can hardly be expected to build settlements over oceans.

Bridie
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Actually England (and the British Isles generally) also has an Italic element that dates back to earlier invasions. But anyways I understand your point...Are you speaking of influences left behind in the British Isles from Roman occupation? Because from what I know, when the Romans left the Isles, they pretty much all left (most were only military anyway) as it was never the Romans' intention to colonise the area... and not much interbreeding between the native Britons (considered inferior and distinctive from Romans) and Romans (the privileged, elite class) occurred. From all that I've read, intermarriage and interbreeding between the two groups was quite taboo, and as such, any Roman "genetic" influences left behind in the British Isles ;) are thought to have been negligible.

The Romans were a great influence culturally, but not physiologically.



I don't think you could say the same for countries like New Zealand and Australia.Exactly what I was thinking. The USA is quite distinctive from other British post-colonist countries I think... US history is unique to the US. One shouldn't make the mistake of just assuming that other New World countries are the same as the USA just because the USA is so well known to the rest of the world and countries like Australia and New Zealand aren't.

Soldier of Wodann
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 10:06 AM
I wasn't sure where to put this.

I have been reading a new book on Hitler and it has quite a lot of information on lebensraum. I don't think taking other people's land for the benefit of one people is at all morally correct but I have one question.

Why do Slavs have so much space while Germanics and Celts have so little in comparison?

Because they live in very, very poor land, mostly in the east. Quite inhospitable (as history has shown, they've quite often been starving), especially beyond the Urals. They probably have quite a bit less arable land than Germanics do. Mongols had quite a big empire, indeed the largest, but it was not worth all too much because it contained the aforementioned lands, which no one really wanted.

Elysium
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 12:10 PM
When I said colonies I was referring to all the colonies having mixed populations but America having the most mixed. Australia and New Zealand, and maybe Canada have a lesser-degree of European (and non-European) mixes between Germanics but it still exists.

If most of the land is "unusable" then why is it not given to more progressed peoples who can make use of the land? I know that you don't just "give up" land but could it not be sold or something? I'm sure Germany could do with a bit more land since they have the technology to make use of bad land which more than the Slavic states could. The technological gap between European nations is much less distinctive nowadays but there is still cost involved and Central European countries have much more money, generally, than East European countries.

PeterThaGreat
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Let's not debate over which term is more appropriate. All I mean to say is that Americans and America are a mixture of peoples, who are also mixed themselves.

Not really, the American Germanics are mainly mixed with Celts, lot of Irish mixture but the recent non-germanic immigrant Guinea's/Dagos/Wops (Sicilians), Polish and other Slavonics, Greeks & Jews have mainly kept to themselves in urban ghettoes. Religion too played a major role in this, catholics, Jews and Protestants were pretty much segragated from each other. The above mentioned newly arrived groups were referred as "white etnics". What you are insisting abvout the mixture might be a true after a 150 years but it certainly ain't reality for today.

The Hillman
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 01:39 PM
The Celtic area I think should also include France...most French are primarily the descendants of Gauls. The Celts were largely pushed out of Central Europe by the Germanic tribes and undoubtedly many in say Germany for example have many, many Celtic ancestors as well.

At the very least the map should include the region of Gallaecia in Spain.

I would argue against the notion that "Celticity" is a matter of ethnic composition. In my view, it is a matter of culture and collective awareness. Whether that includes the French, I'm not certain.

Vingolf
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Because they live in very, very poor land, mostly in the east.
Do they?


Quite inhospitable (as history has shown, they've quite often been starving), especially beyond the Urals.
Economic history clearly demonstrates that the poorest countries tend to control the largest reservoirs of natural resources.

Midvinterblot
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Not really, the American Germanics are mainly mixed with Celts, lot of Irish mixture but the recent non-germanic immigrant Guinea's/Dagos/Wops (Sicilians), Polish and other Slavonics, Greeks & Jews have mainly kept to themselves in urban ghettoes.

This makes absolutely no sense at least in Michigan where I was raised. To say the Poles lived in ghettos is profoundly false. The largest population of European descent here is German followed by Irish and Polish. I assure you Poles did not live in ghettos during their time of immigrating and certainly not in any less developed areas than Germans or the Irish lived in. Poles brought life to a once beautiful city here named "Hamtramck." A very cultural city as well, with even street signs written in Polish not to mention the Polish markets and restaurants. It has a very European feel to it... or it had. Now sadly it's been overrun with Arabs and Blacks and most Poles have moved out of the area.

Soten
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Yeah, the Poles did live in urban areas but not in anything I would consider ghettos. Certainly there were Polish parts of cities and towns but there were also Irish and German parts of those same towns and cities. The Italians, Greeks, and Jews may have lived in areas of cities that could be seen as more ghetto-like but even they didn't live in real ghettos quite like the Blacks did and still do.

And with that said there were also many Poles and other Eastern Europeans who lived in rural areas as well. The small town where my family lived had many Poles, Russians, and Lithuanians who lived and worked just like their Swiss, Irish, English, German, and Scots neighbors. And that was back from the late 1800's to the present.

MockTurtle
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 09:11 PM
Are you speaking of influences left behind in the British Isles from Roman occupation? Because from what I know, when the Romans left the Isles, they pretty much all left (most were only military anyway) as it was never the Romans' intention to colonise the area... and not much interbreeding between the native Britons (considered inferior and distinctive from Romans) and Romans (the privileged, elite class) occurred. From all that I've read, intermarriage and interbreeding between the two groups was quite taboo, and as such, any Roman "genetic" influences left behind in the British Isles ;) are thought to have been negligible.

The Romans were a great influence culturally, but not physiologically.


It's true that the influence (genetically speaking) is quite small, but it is still present, and can be observed in certain individuals very easily. I wasn't trying to say that the presence was large, just that whole nations are usually much more complex than the OP seemed to be implying. This is true for England and other 'Old World' nations just as it is for more recents ones like America (or Canada, Austrailia, etc.)...

And, just as with the British Isles, the Italic element in the US is also quite small. Non-Nordish immigration into the US didn't even begin until the 1890's, and after the Immigration Act of 1924 it was virtually cut off entirely. McCulloch's racial charts of US history indicate this pretty clearly.

Anyhow, my main point was just that it's not really accurate to characterize America (or other 'new world' colonies, for that matter) as some sort of 'chaotic mishmash'. US history proves this to be completely false. One of the reasons for this is because Americans formerly kept high standards of industry and self-reliance -- there was no welfate state, and so only the most diligent could even manage to keep up. Thus, even though America may have been infused with a variety of racial influences from Europe (again almost exclusively northwestern), these were largely 'cherry-picked' on the basis of ability, at least before the turn of the 20th century. Even the Nazis believed this to be true...

Angelcynn Beorn
Thursday, December 6th, 2007, 03:32 AM
When I said colonies I was referring to all the colonies having mixed populations but America having the most mixed. Australia and New Zealand, and maybe Canada have a lesser-degree of European (and non-European) mixes between Germanics but it still exists.

Is Russia a pure country then? When did this happen?

Accodring to the demographics the Russian population is actually only roughly 75% ethnically Russian with most of the rest being various Asiatic and Finnic minorities.

In comparison to the white populations of say Australia and New Zealand, i would say the Anglo-Saxon element is at least as dominant there. In America and Canada, it really is the last century of liberalism that has done all the damage. In the 19th century north America was still overwehlmingly Germanic, and still by quite a large majority, Anglo-Saxon.

The reasons for the growth of Slavic countries aren't that hard. In the age of imperialism Europeans had an almost unassailable advantage in technology over the rest of the world. This combined with a population explosion - probably brought along by the increased understanding of hygene and medicine in Europe - led to all of the European powers expanding outwards. Those on the western shores hit the sea and founded huge overseas empires. Those on the east of Europe, ie Russia, started spreading east and absorbing all of the smaller tribal lands of northern Asia.

Fast forward several hundred years and you have the situation we see today. South America speaks Spanish or Portugese even though its population is a bastardisation of almost every strain of people on the planet. North America, South Africa, and the antipodes are full of hundreds of millions of Englishmen, Celts, Germans, and a few other assorted Europeans. And northern Asia is owned by Russia, even though only a few major cities of it are heavily settled with Russians, and most of it is dense forest settled by scattered bands of Mongoloid herdsmen and hunters.

Oswiu
Sunday, December 9th, 2007, 10:54 PM
Are you speaking of influences left behind in the British Isles from Roman occupation? Because from what I know, when the Romans left the Isles, they pretty much all left (most were only military anyway) as it was never the Romans' intention to colonise the area... and not much interbreeding between the native Britons (considered inferior and distinctive from Romans) and Romans (the privileged, elite class) occurred. From all that I've read, intermarriage and interbreeding between the two groups was quite taboo, and as such, any Roman "genetic" influences left behind in the British Isles ;) are thought to have been negligible.

The Romans were a great influence culturally, but not physiologically.
If I may ask, Bridie, what on Earth ARE you reading? What's this 'taboo' nonsense?
It wasn't just people from by the Tiber that ended up serving in the military here, you know. People from all over the Imperivm came, not least Germanics. And traders and engineers and civil servants too. Many never went home again. So it's not 'two groups' that we're dealing with here. As an already diverse group, the incomers are hardly going to have been able to justify any apartheid once the Britons had learnt Latin enough to mix with them.

I imagine you've heard that 'Britaniculi' reference from the Vindolanda texts, and are basing your 'inferior' idea on that? Think of this then - the British in India thought themselves unquestionably superior. Were there no half-castes produced in all the time they ruled there? Orwell describes an almost fully fledged class of such types. Did no Brit in America ever sleep with, or even marry, a squaw? Once Caracalla made all freemen 'citizens' things must have gone on even more. The Romans were there for around 350 years, after all.

Soten
Sunday, December 9th, 2007, 11:16 PM
If I may ask, Bridie, what on Earth ARE you reading? What's this 'taboo' nonsense?
It wasn't just people from by the Tiber that ended up serving in the military here, you know. People from all over the Imperivm came, not least Germanics. And traders and engineers and civil servants too. Many never went home again. So it's not 'two groups' that we're dealing with here. As an already diverse group, the incomers are hardly going to have been able to justify any apartheid once the Britons had learnt Latin enough to mix with them.

I imagine you've heard that 'Britaniculi' reference from the Vindolanda texts, and are basing your 'inferior' idea on that? Think of this then - the British in India thought themselves unquestionably superior. Were there no half-castes produced in all the time they ruled there? Orwell describes an almost fully fledged class of such types. Did no Brit in America ever sleep with, or even marry, a squaw? Once Caracalla made all freemen 'citizens' things must have gone on even more. The Romans were there for around 350 years, after all.

This may be going too far off the main topic of this thread but I really want to know the answer to this question. Does anyone know exactly what people the Romans brought with them? From where did those servants and engineers and also soldiers come from? I know the Romans drew up whole regiments from specific areas. I have seen some genetic studies done that seem to show that atleast some must have been African and some Middle Eastern. I would also guess a lot of Iberians came to the Isles then because Iberia was a huge recruiting ground for the Roman Legions.

Thanks. :)

Oswiu
Sunday, December 9th, 2007, 11:41 PM
This may be going too far off the main topic of this thread but I really want to know the answer to this question. Does anyone know exactly what people the Romans brought with them? From where did those servants and engineers and also soldiers come from? I know the Romans drew up whole regiments from specific areas. I have seen some genetic studies done that seem to show that atleast some must have been African and some Middle Eastern. I would also guess a lot of Iberians came to the Isles then because Iberia was a huge recruiting ground for the Roman Legions.

There's a good site that goes into the inscriptions found at various Roman sites, and these often include the nature of the local troops in the legion or cohort title.

http://www.roman-britain.org/main.htm
http://www.roman-britain.org/maps/settlement_index.htm

Here's a bit on the make up of the army:
http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_menu.htm

Most non Italians seemed to be in the irregular auxiliary units:
http://www.roman-britain.org/military/british_irregulars.htm

More Germanics than I even thought here, actually, though with many others, notably Gauls and Sarmatians, and Syrians.... :(;)

As for Near Eastern and North African traces you mention, these are most likely far older than the Roman invasions anyway, dating to post Ice Age recolonisation, the spread of agriculture and Atlantic coast sailing in the early metal ages.