How did Germanics go from being barbarian savages to becoming the pinnacle of human civilization?

Heh, people of Middle East, China, India, Greece built civilizations while Germanic people were living at the level of simple African tribe.

Literally carl gauss single handily surpasses all the mathematicians of those civilizations combined

And his work wouldn't be possible with the mathematicians of those civilizations.

What a terrible argument does that mean credit of Einsteins work should go to Euclid for introducting axiomatic geometry

You can't say the work of either of them is "superior". That's subjective. You can't judge it by the same standards.

>Heh, people of Middle East, China, India, Greece built civilizations while Germanic people were living at the level of simple African tribe.
that is just not true, and I'm disappointed that someone could spread such falsehoods without regards to history at all

the Nordic Bronze age was comparatively advanced
people lived in houses, had farming, and advanced bronze/metal working
people were clothed and shod and lived their lives

the idea that Germanic peoples were just savages is ahistorical and mindboggingly wrong
the anti-German sentiment on this board is reaching silly levels

>people lived in houses, had farming, and advanced bronze/metal working
people were clothed and shod and lived their lives

Same in West Africa. Not good enough my friend

you're changing the goal post
you said they were living at the level of simple African tribes
which implies straw/mud huts of hunter-gatherers with bones in their noses

Even Africans had iron working by this point LMAO

>the idea that Germanic peoples were just savages is ahistorical and mindboggingly wrong
Unlike in China, Middle East, or Mediterranean, we're not seeing any great cities and settlments over in Germanic territory.

Hell or in Western-Northwestern Europe. The only thing that comes close to civilization there are continental Celts.

that's because the civilization that exists in north-western europe is a product of the fertile crescent for the most part
it migrated north-westward with the technologiees of animal husbandry and farming

you mistake me for some euro-centrist, I think

I am only trying to refute the idea that the Germanic peoples were on the level of mud/straw hut hunter-gatherers
I am not saying that were the torchbearers of civilization

They finally provoked an enemy they couldn't defeat and, after countless deaths, surrendered to the Allies and were rebuilt over roughly half a century into something greater.

Our population grew.

You countering his shitty hyperbole with your own though.

War and migrations, and trade with the romans. They began to serve in the roman army as auxillaries and some tribes allied with rome. By the time of the sacking of rome pretty much the entire roman army was german. And the southern germanic settlements were heavily influenced by roman culture very early on.

A solid demarcation between germanic and roman society isn't entirely accurate, there was flow and overlap between the two. The romans influenced the germans in civilisation, the germans influenced the romans in fashion, customs and lifestyle.

Originally germanic people lived in egalitarian societies where the basic unit of society was the clan (not the tribe). They believed in distributing all the land and possesions of the clan equally among the families. The clans were divided up into smaller extended families who lived on their own farmsteads a distance away from one and other, rather then villages in the traditional sense.

Then the chieftans became more central in germanic society and they became more materialistic and started to structure leadership heirarchies based on roman leadership hierarchies. They copied the romans by waging their own campaigns. The tribe became more import then the clan. By the time of the migration era there were bigger units of society then single tribes. The visigoths, suebi etc were technically not tribes, but tribal confederations or nations.
define pure germanic

so what? Also I'm pretty sure sub-saharan africans didn't have agriculture or the wheel

so what? what exactly is your point? western civilisation developed in the mediterranean and the fertile crescent, for good reasons

>define pure germanic

All those regions I mentioned are less than 50% Germanic. Hell, just look at how Anglos look on average. It's obvious they're not fully Germanic. Most studies put them around 30% Germanic only.

>Hell, just look at how Anglos look on average. It's obvious they're not fully Germanic. Most studies put them around 30% Germanic only.

only american muh heritage fags think of british people as germanic. You also didn't define pure germanic. How do you define who is and isn't germanic? apart from language, nationality and culture

With the help of the English and French mostly, the English for the industrial technology imports to the Ruhr in the early 19th century and Napoleon for his abolition of various german feudal policies.

For reference:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ruhr#Second_half_of_the_19th_century_.E2.80.93_industry_booms

>You also didn't define pure germanic. How do you define who is and isn't germanic?

Phenotypes and genetics. Austrians are too mixed with Celts, Italians and Slavs, therefore they're not as Germanic as Scandinavians. Even if we go by language only Anglos are still mongrels though, because their language has strong French and Latin influences

The invention of the heavy plough making it possible for urbanization

reminder that the middle east has been the pinnacle of human civilization for longer than all other regions

Too bad the south is beaten by those "snowniggers", you must be really retarded to get beaten by a snownigger don't you, couldn't you handle the cold or something? So I hope you like your colluseum, meanwhile I enjoy modern snownigger tech. Snowniggers are best niggers.

why do germans have square heads?

Stay jelly you latin mongrel

This desu

Peter Frost and hbdchick write about it. I personally am a fan of his eugenics theory.

1). Thousands of years of cold climate living. This selected for pro-civilizational traits (ie: future-time orientation).

2). Christianity dissolving germanic tribal ties.

3). "The War on Murder" as Frost puts it throughout the Middle Ages was a process of genetic pacification in Europe. The Church inflicted relentless death penalties for violent males effectively weeded them out of the gene pool. Even the ones that weren't executed had limited chance for social improvement and reproduction. The violent male went from hero to zero.

>The last millennium has seen three overlapping trends in Western societies with respect to unlawful violence.

>The first one began in the 12th century with the rise of strong States and a growing determination, with the consent of the Church, to punish the “wicked” so that the “good” may live in peace. By the late Middle Ages, the courts were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0 % of all men of each generation, with an equal number dying while awaiting trial. There was correspondingly a shift in the cultural environment. The violent male went from hero to zero; even if he didn’t pay the ultimate penalty, his opportunities for social advancement were now much more constrained.

>The second trend was a steady drop in the homicide rate throughout most of Western Europe. In England, this rate fell by over a hundred-fold between the 12th and 19th centuries (Eisner, 2001).

>evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/06/how-pacification-of-europe-came-to-end.html

>evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/06/making-europeans-kinder-gentler.html

The meds started civilization but they still weren't pacified enough to keep it going. Perhaps they left the cold too early. Even today, Greeks and Italians are so argumentative and loud like blacks.

>And so began the war on murder. From the 12th to 17th centuries, capital punishment became steadily more prevalent. We see this in an increasing willingness to use it not only for murder but also for other crimes (rape, abortion, infanticide, lèse majesté, theft, counterfeiting, etc.). We also see this in the use of ‘exemplary’ punishment: drawing and quartering, breaking on the wheel, and burning. Beginning in the 13th and 14th centuries, we see cases of a murderer being buried alive in a casket placed underneath the victim’s casket (Carbasse, 2011, p. 53).

>Then, after the 17th century, the war on murder began to go into reverse. It had been largely won, and public sympathy now shifted to the condemned man. In England, the homicide rate fell by over a hundred-fold between 1300 and 1900 (Eisner, 2001). Europeans were becoming kinder and gentler, and this pacification of social relations would make possible much of what we call modernity: the expansion of the market economy; a growing freedom to live among total strangers; the rise of the individual as an autonomous, self-maximizing being, and so on.

>equality index
Whoa there Sven. Guess dem oil gibs are good at creating a cucked populi.

The pinnacle of civilisation is France and Britain, neither of which are Germanic.

Germanics are nigger tier, always have been and still are.

>anglo-saxons
>not germanic

>britain
>not germanic

>franks
>not germanic

>Germancis
You mean Anglo-Saxons.

>implying France is Frankish

Anglo-Saxons are the underclass of England serving their Norman masters. English culture is in every one of its positive aspects essentially French.

Normans were literally Scandinavian

Normans were literally Norman.

Actually not even, a large portion of them came from other parts of France, and are only collectively referred to as Norman for the sake of convenience (although only recent years, in England they were originally referred to simply and logically as French).

how can snownigger ever recover?