Those stormnigger and /pol/tards memes aside...

Every true redpilled /pol/itician knows this (and this ) . If you weren't from reddit you would know this too.

romance

>They had no civilization and were literally no worse than native americans.
This is complete fucking bullshit.

Indians built plenty of civilizations, domesticated animals, and discovered agriculture at least three different times on their own.

Yea Natives have made many contributions to the world but /pol/acks can't stand the idea of anybody that can't be made white through mental gymnastics so they ignore or minimize any of it.

Germanic people domesticated animals, had agriculture and cities

They adopted domestication, urbanization and agriculture from other areas, not developed on their own.

>Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Mesopotamians have thousands of years head start
>still get overtaken in every respect by Whitey

Embarrassing

>only count significant figures from 1400 onward
>only accomplishments from 1400 onward

wew lad

>German niggers taking credit for Anglo accomplishments

600 years is plenty of time.

He's right you know, the Thing was a very democratic system, /reddit/.

So I hate to say it, but, /pol/ was right again.

And I know for sure you fags come on here, don't even deny it /reddit/.

>3 million years of humans
>200,000 years of our species of human
>10,000 years of civilization of our species

>focus on the very last 600 because it gives you numbers you like

>They adopted domestication,

All indo-european languages were brought to europe by pastoral nomads, which means they had domesticated animals. That's who germanic people descend from

>urbanization and agriculture from other areas, not developed on their own.

Nobody has any idea whether or not they adopted urbanisation from other people, there's no way to know. Agriculture was developed in the middle east and spread to europe, but it was also developed independently in central europe. But since germanic people started as pastoralists and progressed to farming long after that spread of agriculture from the middle east, there's no way to know whether they adopted it from other people or developed it themselves

ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᓯᒪᓛᖅᑭᑦ?

>That's who germanic people descend from
That's who every Indo-European is descended from

>Nobody has any idea whether or not they adopted urbanisation from other people, there's no way to know.
It's just sheer coincidence they start building cities after contact with other settled societies.

>But since germanic people started as pastoralists and progressed to farming long after that spread of agriculture from the middle east, there's no way to know
Same deal.

Clubs are actually extremely effective weapons especially against well armoured foes like the romans. Simple and brutaly effective, given that germanic people lived in the forests, they would have been stupid NOT to utilise clubs. Even romans used them.

Nevertheless their main weapon was the spear

Forgot to post a pic and an excerpt to prove the evidence, "A thing (Old Norse, Old English and Icelandic: þing; German, Dutch: ding; modern Scandinavian languages: ting) was the governing assembly of a Germanic society, made up of the free people of the community presided over by lawspeakers. Its meeting-place was called a thingstead.

The Anglo-Saxon folkmoot or folkmote (Old English — "folk meeting", modern Norwegian; folkemote) was analogous, the forerunner to the witenagemot and a precursor of the modern Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Today the term lives on in the English term husting, in the official names of national legislatures and political and judicial institutions of Nordic countries and, in the Manx form tyn, as a term for the three legislative bodies on the Isle of Man."

>Germanic people domesticated animals, had agriculture and cities
So did Native Americans!

They tamed turkeys, and domesticated wolves and maize. There were several civilizations in North, South and Central America with cities. Cahokia had a population estimated at 40,000. The Aztec Mexico City had a population estimated at a quarter of a million.

What in the name of god am I reading, holy shit.

>All indo-european languages were brought to europe by pastoral nomads, which means they had domesticated animals. That's who germanic people descend from
Germanic people are descended from Neolithic farmers from Anatolia. Language isn't genetics.

>Nobody has any idea whether or not they adopted urbanisation from other people, there's no way to know
It was introduced by the Romans, fucking everyone knows that.

>it was also developed independently in central europe
No it wasn't, you idiot.

>there's no way to know whether they adopted it from other people or developed it themselves
What the fuck are you talking about? Agriculture was introduced to Germany by populations originating in Anatolia and moving up the Danube. We know this.

>That's who every Indo-European is descended from

What's your point? Their proto-germanic and even earlier ancestors had already domesticated animals

>It's just sheer coincidence they start building cities after contact with other settled societies.

Actually, scandinavia had the largest and most numerous sedentary settlements,
other settled societies were in central and southern europe. Nevertheless, there were cities all over germania 2,000 years ago which are still around to this day, so they are at least a thousand years older then originally thought

spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/mapping-ancient-germania-berlin-researchers-crack-the-ptolemy-code-a-720513.html

>there were cities all over germania 2,000 years ago
So centuries after Roman contact

>there were cities all over germania 2,000 years ago
>spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/mapping-ancient-germania-berlin-researchers-crack-the-ptolemy-code-a-720513.html
Those aren't cities you stupid fuck, they're just settlements. Nice work completely misinterpreting that article.

At least 2,000 years ago. Anyway, you have a prejudice and bias against ancient germanic people and likely other "barbarian" europeans and have no genuine interest in their history or learning about them, you're just determined to believe they're inferior

why are you so angry? you have some axe to grind, you don't have any genuine interest in history

I'm angry because you're a fucking idiot. Even for the kind of shit you get on Veeky Forums, this is fucking insane. There were no cities in Germany before the Romans. You don't know what a city is. You have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone with any interest in history should be fucking mad.

>A group of classical philologists, mathematical historians and surveying experts at Berlin Technical University's Department for Geodesy and Geoinformation Science has produced an astonishing map of central Europe as it was 2,000 years ago.

>The map shows that both the North and Baltic Seas were known as the "Germanic Ocean" and the Franconian Forest in northern Bavaria was "Sudeti Montes." The map indicates three "Saxons' islands" off the Frisian coast in northwestern Germany -- known today as Amrum, Föhr and Sylt.
>It also shows a large number of cities.
>It also shows a large number of cities.
>It also shows a large number of cities.
>It also shows a large number of cities.

You didn't read the article.

>I'm angry because you're a fucking idiot. Even for the kind of shit you get on Veeky Forums, this is fucking insane. There were no cities in Germany before the Romans. You don't know what a city is. You have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone with any interest in history should be fucking mad.

Ad hominem, childish tempermanet, can't handle new or different ideas without throwing a tantrum, not paying attention to any of the evidence thats presented to you. No you are not genuinely interested in history and can't handle historical discussions

All of Europe is a mix of aboriginal Europeans, Anatolian farmers, and Indo-Europeans, but Germaics have the most Indo-European DNA.

uh, yeah? Germanic kingdoms, with elected Kings, and elected regional chieftains sounds an awful lot more like a federal republic than a clusterfuck of city states.

and our legal system is 100% English common law...basically Germanic precedential oral law in written form.

so yeah. modern politics is far more Germanic than say, Grecian.

Those aren't cities. Those are place names on a map. They could be ritual centers, trading posts, earth forts, small settlements, fucking anything, but not cities, because there is no evidence for cities. Cities leave a lot of evidence.

user, do you have any fucking idea what you're trying to say here? Cities existing in Germany before the Romans would completely re-write everything we know about ancient Germany. I'm not going to accept something like that without evidence. There is no evidence. Cities leave evidence. You can't make a ridiculous claim like that without evidence to back it up.

You have no evidence and you're wrong. You're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what a city is.

like nearly everybody ever?

Whole point is that Indians were the exception to that, they independently developed civilization at least three times.

According to that image, the non-Indo-European speaking Basques have more Indo-European admixture than the Indo-European speaking Greeks. It doesn't make any sense.

Maybe the vandals fugged them.

Despite what Veeky Forums thinks, language and genetics are two different things.

>Those aren't cities. Those are place names on a map. They could be ritual centers, trading posts, earth forts, small settlements, fucking anything, but not cities, because there is no evidence for cities. Cities leave a lot of evidence.

The article clearly says cities. The map was drawn by ptolemy,
>An index lists 94 "poleis," or cities, noting their latitude and longitude accurately to within a few minutes.

He clearly meant to indicate them as cities.

>According to Vere Gordon Childe, for a settlement to qualify as a city, it must have enough surplus of raw materials to support trade and a relatively large population

>Towns and cities have a long history, although opinions vary on whether any particular ancient settlement can be considered a city. A city formed as central places of trade for the benefit of the members living in close proximity to others facilitates interaction of all kinds.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City

>Veritable hordes of Roman traders crossed the border to deal in amber, pomade, smoked fish and leather with their neighbors.

>These soldiers didn't have to struggle through wastelands and swamps to get there. "We were able to locate 11 settlements along the highway that started at Moers on the Rhine and reached as far as the Sambia peninsula in present day Kaliningrad," Kleineberg explains.

>Most Germanic sites appear to have been situated along rivers and at road junctions, indicated by the word "furd" included in many place names. "Lupfurdum," the predecessor to Dresden, for example, was located at a shallow, fordable spot along the Elbe River. Hanover, then "Tulifurdum," was a place where the Leine River could be crossed.

>Researchers believe Ptolemy's map now allows them to trace the path followed by amber traders from the Vienna area up to Gdansk Bay as well.

But Indians aren't just one people, they lived on two whole continents. One or a few group of people initially developed agriculture and the beginnings of civlisation and spread it everywhere else. Plus, we have no way of knowing whether they developed it on their own or whether migrants or traders introduced them to it

>whether they developed it on their own or whether migrants or traders introduced them to it
Migrants and traders from fucking where? There weren't any Mesopotamian farmers showing ancient Mesoamericans how to cultivate corn, or ancient Egyptians showing Andeans how to build cities.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. They count as cities because they traded? Is every village that lies along a road a city now?

Just face it, either Ptolemy was wrong or he's being misinterpreted. There were no cities in Germany. If there were cities dotting ancient Germany, we'd know. There would be solid archaeological evidence. You can't just base the existence of an entire urban civilization on an ancient map.

>Cities existing in Germany before the Romans would completely re-write everything we know about ancient Germany.

Not at all. All it would mean is that there were larger, more concentrated settlements then previously known.

It wouldn't rewrite the history of early germanic people, it would write their history - there is a massive dearth of knowledge about them because they didn't have writing, and we only know about them from what the romans and greeks wrote about them, and their exposure to them was almost entirely through conflicts, they didn't have much knowledge about the actual internal life of the germanic culture. And they were their enemies and clearly inciting propaganda and prejudice against them.

What it would do is challenge your prejudice that germanic people were primitive barbarians who were unable to build cities on their own, and that is a common prejudice, but thats the only reason why you would find it extraordinary. It would only rewrite history in the sense that it would rewrite the slander against germanic people from classical sources all the way to their own descendants up to today. It would not rewrite or challenge any well established evidence

Asia, and for all we know people from the middle east could have had contact with them. Its not outside the realm of possibility

>natural rights
>freedom
>Germanics

It would mean that Germany would be one of the cradles of civilization. It would be a huge discovery. It's wrong.

>Its not outside the realm of possibility
Yes it fucking is. Maize is native to the Americas. There were no old world crops in the Americas before the Columbian exchange. You just don't get anything, do you?

>They had no civilization and were literally no worse than native americans.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

The only migrations into America from Asia were by hunter-gatherers.

>Just face it, either Ptolemy was wrong or he's being misinterpreted.

Only because to you, it just can't be. Asserting it doesn't make it so

>It would mean that Germany would be one of the cradles of civilization. It would be a huge discovery. It's wrong.

The cradles of civilisation are 5 - 8,000 years old. That there were german cities 2,000 years ago doesn't make germania a cradle of civilisation. They didn't develop their own system of writing or have other trappings of civilisations. They were a warrior culture of militarised societies

I didn't misinterpret the article or ptolemy's map like you originally said, both he and the article clearly talk about cities in germania.

>That may now be changing. A group of classical philologists, mathematical historians and surveying experts at Berlin Technical University's Department for Geodesy and Geoinformation Science has produced an astonishing map of central Europe as it was 2,000 years ago.

> For the first time, a high-caliber team of experts in the field of surveying and mapping came together in a bid to solve the map's perplexing puzzle. The Berlin-based team pored over the recalcitrant data for six years, working together to develop a so-called "geodetic deformation analysis" that would help to correct the map's mistakes.

Do you know better then them?

>If there were cities dotting ancient Germany, we'd know. There would be solid archaeological evidence.

>Archaeological interest in the map will likely be correspondingly large.
>Historians don't have access to this kind of precision when it comes to German cities like Hanover, Kiel or Bad Driburg. The early histories of nearly all the German cities east of the Rhine are obscure, and the places themselves are not mentioned in documents until the Middle Ages. So far, no one has been able to date the founding of these cities.

So archeological interest in this is only just beginning, currently we don't even know about the early history of german cities.

There isn't even a proper history of early germanic people to rewrite

>There isn't even a proper history of early germanic people to rewrite
Because they were illiterate savages

as far as we know

And as far as we know there weren't flying car and dragons a thousand years ago.

Underrated post.
I think it would be strange to expect any form of crude democracy to only appear in Greece and not in other small tribal socities.

>greeks having more whg than Sardinians

I call bullshit

Sardinia is an island, maybe farmers arrive and replace the earlier inhabitants, because they were stuck and couldn't just be pushed to a nearby area.

>Nordics were literally niggers with clubs
>They had no civilization and were literally no worse than native americans
Not really, they were vastly superior to both niggers and native americans. They had metal tools and weapons, farming and architecture.

But yeah they cant compare with medditeranean and middle eastern civilizations.

1.) The plot of conan the barbarian isn't accurate
2.) The some of oldest civilizations have been discovered there:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeological_sites_by_country#Germany

>being this butthurt
wew lad

so, OP, what youre basicaly saing is, that scandinavians were human?

what a interesting wiew of things you got

>somali pirates kill innocent people
>OMFG fucking niggers :(
>vikings were killing innocent people and actively avoided enemy armies
>they were heroic people who never shunned from battle >:)

lmao scandinavian soldiers from later eras are more interesting than some shit eating bandits

Germanic ''cities'' were some shit strawhuts.

>They had metal tools and weapons
Just like Natives and africans.

Ancient Finns were mighty people.

They had metallurgy for one.

Means nothing, shoulders of giants...
no it isn't.

...

These threads are always beyond retarded on both sides.

There is nothing inferior about not having developed civilisation by X arbitrary time.

??

>le niggers are so fucking stupid they didn't develop any civilization xD
>aside from Kingdom of Kush and Nigeria but that doesn't fit my agenda so let's ignore it
>oh fug Nordics were even below them nevermind civilization doesn't matter braise Odin and listen to Amon Amarth xD

also the assumption itself is false 9 times out of 10

practicaly all cultures everywhere developed forms of technology and organisation, degrees of sophistication and complexity vary but this is a basic human tendency as inherent as fucking or fighting

what people seem to miss is specificaly the spontaneity of it, in the sense that its proceses occuring in a enviroment, that culture is almost a biological product, that every form of it is the manifestation of tendencies allready inherent, and that most human populations are basicaly just doing the same thing in variations

in other words its like making a value judgment about trees based on the fact theres different size trees, at the same time negating that the smaller ones are trees at all, since they arent sequoia and hence not even trying

Why can't you fucking read?

>bronze
pretty sure it was mainly copper

>Just like Natives and africans.
No, not really.

Metallurgy was like internet is now back in those days.
Indians have internet but they didn't develop it.

It is true - but ever since civilisation evolved from there power went north

>Commonlawniggers

Hallstatt and La Tène cultures were definitely a thing, and while you can't compare them with the Romans, obviously, their societies weren't that primitive. If you go north/east of the Frisian-Bavarian-Carpathian line, then yes, you're hitting completely savage areas with wild men and tribal societies and whatnot.

Depends on who. If we're talking about even late antiquity (1st -4th century), tribes in Scandinavia, Eastern Germany, Prussia, etc were an absolute shitfest of tribal savagery.
The guys leaving in West/South Germany had the whole La Tene culture thing + Roman influence, so yes they did have kingdoms and slightly bigger settlements and so on.

>non-English speaking Irish have more English ancestry than English-speaking Africans
woooooww

>they adopted ironworking, farming and construction techniques from their neighbours.
Oh wow would you look at that, it sounds like the same thing the West Coast Africans and Ethiopians did.

Non-Europeans also independently invented 90% of the shit Europeans invented before the 20th century or so, but the biased cunt who wrote this book didn't bother researching anything outside of the West.

Not really, they have about 34 WHG admixture.

And Spanish people have a lot, while according to that picture they have none.

>34

Meant 34%

Ireland is right beside England and they've been related since the Neolithic, while English-speaking Africans were a part of a colonial empire without any significant admixture with the English. The Basques on the other hand are thousands of miles away from the Indo-European homeland, which the Greeks are right beside. The Greeks speak Indo-European because they were taken over by Indo-European speakers who actually settled in Greece and became the elite culture there, while Basques were apparently isolated enough that they retained their own language. Your analogy makes no sense.

>non-English speaking Irish
kek

Western culture didn't rise in the East, or it wouldn't be called Western.

It rose in Gaul after the fall of Rome. Obviously with elements from various older civilisations.

[citation needed]

This notion of civilization is ridiuclous.

I hope you guys realize that almost all humans except basic hunter gatherers had civilization.

Nordics had metal working, they had more than clubs, however iron was rare.

However, consider this, for a Germanic man to own a helmet, the amount of infrastructure in place to allow that helmet to exist and be bought immediately proves that they had civilization. Someone had to mine the ore, using a pickaxe someone else had made, someone had to buy the ore, by bartering or perhaps with currency, someone had to smith the ore, using a variety of tools and a dedicated workshop, and then someone bought the helmet.

All of this requires civilization, a small band of nomadic primitives couldn't do this.

Remember the definition of civilisation simply means a complex society with social stratification and some control over nature. So basically any society with agriculture has civilisation.

Still kinda pleb if you compare them to the Ziggurats or the Pyramids.

I want to know something. What do you know about the birth of metallurgy? I've read some, I've been taught some, but I want the people of Veeky Forums to share their views and knowledge.

The basques are minority among enormous populations of Indo-Europeans. Meanwhile the Greeks are right next to Anatolia and the Levant.
>elite culture
The funny thing about elites is that they're small and tend to breed among themselves or with neighboring elites.
>thousands of miles away from the Indo-European homeland
Migrations. The fact that Spaniards and Sardinians have more Neolithic Anatolian ancestry than the Greeks is just as remarkable.

>your analogy makes no sense.
It wasn't even an analogy per se, merely pointing out the stupidity of assuming genetics from language.

Here are 27 books' worth of citations:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China

>in_China
the Chinese are honorary europeans