Would Scandinavia look like sub-Saharan Africa if not for them being given civilization by continental Europeans?

Would Scandinavia look like sub-Saharan Africa if not for them being given civilization by continental Europeans?

No since its in a diffrent climate.

Would it look like a cold, grassy, wet, sub-Saharan Africa then?

No, the vikings had already invented the wheel.

The vikings used iron and steel unlike niggers and they lived in wooden house and not mud hut unlike niggers.

they had sea-worthy boats, that is an immutable divergence.

Would continental Europe look like Sub-Saharan Africa if not for them being given civilization by Near Easterners?

Would Near-East look like Sub-Saharan Africa if not them being given civilization by the aliens?

Why do people hate on mud as a building material so much? I'm not even an Afritard apologist but mud is objectively good.

When your living in a baking oven, wood is rubbish insulation compared to mud. You see this in practically every culture that lives in dry hot environments. Also.

>Implying Sub-Saharan Africans didn't hav metallurgy.

No, the hut in your pic is an example of a small building for germanic settlements. Notice for instance, the roof of the long house visible in the background of the picture. Germanic buildings were more sophisticated then sub-saharan huts particularly if we're talking about viking era scandinavia. Furthermore

What would have happened if civilisation was never spread to scandinavia? Lets say it was never spread to Germanic people as a whole - the issue with Germania pre-civilisation was that their lands were overpopulated so they had to keep moving around - their populations were not large though, they were too small to build civilisations and big cities, but large enough to overpopulated/overburden the land with their way of life. They were organised into clans spread apart from one and other which were themselves made up of settlements spread apart from one and other, for this reason. But they still needed to migrate eventually and so bumped up against the territories of other clans.

Agriculture allows populations to grow large enough for cities and civilised life - Germanic people had agriculture, but they lived in endless forests, and didn't have the manpower to deforest the land enough for large enough agricultural settlements to support civilisation.

What would eventually happen if civilisation wasn't introduced to them by already civilised people is that they would eventually start pushing each other out of germania and/or start teaming up into big groups. This would be exasperated by outside cultures invading and attacking them. And actually all of these things did happen - Germanic tribes for almost all of their recorded history were attacking rome and gaul, eventually conglomerated into bigger groups like suebi, franks, goths, lombards, alemanni etc and started to get pushed out of their territory by hun invasions.

well then I would say the Sami are your best approximation they are aboriginal in the sense they were in scandinavia firs.

so what would happen if indo-europeans never spread to scandinavia and it was just the indigenous hunter gatherers? they would possibly never have horses, so thats an important thing to consider. They would probably not spread as far outside of scandinaiva as germanic people did.

Everything would look like sub-saharan Africa had it not been civilized

>every culture looked like sub-saharan africa pre-civilisation

> sami are indegenous
Wrong
Sami are at most indegenous to the far north but their arrival in scandinavia as a whole comes thousands of years after the germanics

If by Near Eastern you mean Anatolians then yes.

>so what would happen if indo-europeans never spread to scandinavia and it was just the indigenous hunter gatherers?


They were farmers in some parts of Scandinavia.

This, the people that were to be called/become the "germanics" reached the south of Scandinavia before the forerunners of the Sami reached the north

They used iron though, Bantu expansion is largely related to their iron usage.
Sumerians did this, Norse took it from them.

>continental Europeans invented civilization

Actually they are pretty much descendants of Mesolithic Scandinavians, and they switched to Uralic language and culture very late in history, probably during Late Antiquity or Early Medieval.

Their languages show tons of signs of non-Uralic, non-Indo-European substrate, especially in placenames and words related to life and landscape.

They didn't invent it but they perfected it

Scandinavia GOAT

Explore China, USA, Britain

gg wp we win

Civilization is never perfected dweeb.

vikings were civilized merchants, if it weren't for their lack of genocidal tendencies everyone would be speaking vikingnese right now

Looks like Scandinavians perfected it to me desu senpai

>Australia

How the fuck

Can you say anything more stupid?

This is the list now by the way, yours looks at least a few years out of date

also how the fuck did the UK rise .005 while everyone else only rose .001-.002, even China only rose .003

The one I posted is adjusted for inequality

>Sumerians did this, Norse took it from them.

They're not even contemporaries

Would aliens look like Sub-Saharan Africa if not for them being given civilization by Xenu?

PIEs weren't the first farmers in yurop.

>given civilization
>given

Did Rome just sail up and offload a bunch of science, art, cities and bureaucracy? Did they take no part in their own civilizing?

It also seems strange to suggest there was no civilization in Scandinavia, prior to Continental Europeans.

>It also seems strange to suggest there was no civilization in Scandinavia

Which is funny since we have have like visible proof of it since their range of land has a climate supportive of preserving their signs of existence.

Also people really love to strip all agency in these type of things like Scandi's HAD to be coerced into Christianity or the Kongo Kingdom with Catholicism and Islam for Africans that made trade contact with Muslim traders.

>Would Scandinavia look like sub-Saharan Africa if not for them being given civilization by continental Europeans?

What is this idea of "giving" civilization or "stealing" inventions. It's always butthurt Italians and Sinoboos who go >muh europeans stole gunpoweder and >muh northern europeans were given our civilization. Newsflash it's called TRADING and INTERACTION between different peoples. No one took or gave anything.

The reason why there isn't that much (relatively) archeological sites and ruins in Scandinavia that pre-date Christianity is that most of everything was built with wood. Nordic countries do not have easily malleable materials that are also durable, like for example marble. Wood rots, marble doesn't. Getting rock in Scandinavia is hard and it's almost impossible to shape.

What we have are not so impressive ruins made by stacking "close enough" stones together. Here for example is the foundation of a wall of a castle built in Finland in the 8th century.

Sami's are just as aboriginals as Finns. Their minority rights is more of an political thing which was lobbied by Finns into the EU. Sami's and Finns come from the same group of people that got separated between the forests of modern day Finland. What became modern Finns lived in Western Finland and what became Samis lived in Northern Finland. The separation happened when a small group of indoeuropeans arrived in western Finland.

False. As stated before Sami's and Finns come from the same people. There has been a continuous settlement in Finland since the stone age and no signs of outward settlement thus Finns and Samis are descendants of people who have lived in the modern are of Finland for several millenia.
cont

Again, false. The closer Sami's get to Finland the more similar their language to Finnish is. It is obviously that when Sami's spread out to Norway, Sweden and the Kola peninsula their language continued to change due to meeting new people.

There's a lot of misinformation about the Finno-Ugrics because 99% of the research done to advance of our knowledge of them is done in Finland. Contemporary sites like wikipedia do not like foreign sources and thus the articles are extremely outdated and represent ideologies abandoned in the 60's, sometimes even in the 18th century.

and the example

and some paving.

It should be quite obvious from these pictures that the Nordics mainly used wood, and this combined with the lack of easily obtainable hard material such as marble leaves us with shabby remains that are hard to tell apart from just normal rocks.

Oh and the cemetery of this 'castle' was built in the 7th century.

Pirunlinna, the "imp's castle" also reminds the unaware of just rocks but are actually the remains of a wall built somewhere around 3th - 7th century. In the 20th century the wall was ~170cm high but it has suffered.

Liedon vanhalinna, the old castle of Lieto has signs of defensive fortifications from three different distinctive periods, the first signs being from 1000-500 BC. Several arrowheads have been found from the site which would imply that it was used as a defensive fortification.

The fortification was still up and running during the Northern Crusades when it was used as a Swedish base for operations when converting Finns. After the building of Turunlinna, the first modern anglo-saxon style castle in Finland, it was abandoned and not much remains.

But it is clearly indicates that yes, there was civilization and people living in the Nordics before "Europeans gave them civilization". (almost everything here that applies to Finland, applies to other Nordics as well. Especially Sweden)

underrated post

cChinese dollarinos for aussie steel and coal.