Are they Italianized Slavs or Italianized Celts?

Are they Italianized Slavs or Italianized Celts?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They're just Italians

Doesn't the genetic data show they're the least Italian?

Celto-Slavicized Italics

>Sicily

Why don't Greeks have R1b?

Maybe, but they're still Italians. What matters is their culture, language, and identity, not what language their ancestors used to speak thousands of years ago. Even then, using your logic their Celtic/Slavic/whatever ancestors could be considered Celticised/Slavicised/whateverised versions of pre-existing populations in the region. It irritates me how people seem to believe the language in any region spoken prior to the current language in that region today is somehow indicative of that region's "true ethnicity", when in reality that region has probably seen numerous languages with minimal genetic change. It's all so arbitrary.

We are historically celts

But in the end we are italians and I'm ok with it

Greeks colonized Sicily before the arrival of the Gaulish Rape Train in the Balkans

Does this make them more or less subhuman?

I'm not talking about language, but genetics.

GAULS

>I'm not talking about language, but genetics.
My point still stands.

Originally Veneti were Slavic, but they became confederation of tribes

>Veneti were Slavic
Here we fucking go again.

Actually our language, culture and genes really separates us from other italians as a people (except maybe veneti), but at the same time we are italians. I can't imagine Friuli being part of a g*rmanic or a slav(e) country nor would I want to be part of them

We have bidets and therefore we are superior

Venetic was similar to Germanic in particular

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_language

Germanic-Celtic Slavs confirmed.

>Actually our language, culture and genes really separates us from other italians as a people
But you're still Italians. And if you don't want to consider yourself Italians because you're so different from the rest of Italy, then you can be your own thing. But you aren't "Italianized Celts". It's ridiculous and based off the assumption that the ethnicity of the people that used to live in that region thousands of years ago somehow defines what the people living there today are. Saying that you're "genetically Celtic" is a completely meaningless statement since the Celts of that region would have been genetically similar to the people that lived there before them. So they themselves were just "Celticized" pre-Celtic peoples. Using labels like "Celtic", "Germanic", "Slavic", etc. when it comes to genetics is fruitless.

The both.

What was the impact of Roman colonization upon Friuli in terms of genetics? Aquileia was fairly important city and Caesar had a lot of support in the region.

>since the Celts of that region would have been genetically similar to the people that lived there before them

Sketchy claim.

t. Baltshit

They weren't Baltic.

The Veneti were Italics. They are not the same Veneti from Britanny and they aren't the fucking Wends.

> But you're still Italians.
Did you read my post? That's what I said

>But you aren't "Italianized Celts". It's ridiculous and based off the assumption that the ethnicity of the people that used to live in that region thousands of years ago somehow defines what the people living there today are.
North italians look nothing like terroni, specially here. Celtic tribes inhabited most of north Italy, which was then latinised with roman expansion

>let me tell you about your country
Are you american, right?

Of course there are, but italianized Slavs are almost non-existent as far as I know. All I can recall is some Serbs living in southern Italy whose ancestors came there running from the Ottomans, but their numbers are so small. There are slavicized "Italians" in the Balkans ( Vlachs, as we call them ) who are either descendants of Romans ( along the coastline ) or descendants of romanized Illyrians. Welp, they all Slavshits now.

And as far as italianized Celts - yeah, of course there are, but also italianized Germanics ( Langobards, Goths etc. ), so this question is really misplaced. It's the culture and language that count here, and Italy is strictly Italian.

>Did you read my post? That's what I said
I wasn't directing that part at you, I was directing it at people who try to claim that you're actually Celts or Slavs or whatever.

>North italians look nothing like terroni, specially here. Celtic tribes inhabited most of north Italy, which was then latinised with roman expansion
The fact that northern Italians look different to southern Italians has little to do with the Celts.

>Are you american, right?
No

Can I get an answer to this?

The Venetic language is considered to have spread to the region of Friuli around the 6th century - mid-4th century BC. Unless there is evidence of a mass migration during this period, I would think it reasonable to assume that this expansion was similar to other cultural/linguistic expansions during this period in Europe, that is. primarily through acculturation and elite domination rather than mass migration and population replacement.

>Friuli
It was settled by Gaulish Carni, not by Veneti

Wasn't it a little bit of both? Carni in the mountains, Veneti to the south and then the Romans come and Latinize the region?

Veneti were present in Friuli. And we don't know for sure what the Carni were, they're typically considered Gaulish but others believe them to be Venetic.

>And we don't know for sure what the Carni were
We do
Livy said that the Carnutes were a apart of the Gaulish tribes that conquered Northern Italy, and Belenos, their principal god, was worshiped both in Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul so they're definetly Gaulish.

Not really. It's considered an italic language with some peculiarities of a germanic one.

They also thought that the Veneti were Gauls. But they aren't. They were Celticized Italians.

Genetically, what Veeky Forums consider Friulans?

That's not really too reliable. From a modern standpoint there is still debate. Yes, they are usually considered to be Gauls, but some consider them to be Venetic. And regardless, the Veneti were in Friuli anyway.

I'm fairly sure they didn't

>They also thought that the Veneti were Gauls
Livy clearly distinguished them from the Gauls

Anyway, modern Friulians speak a Gallo-Romance language of the Rhaeto-Romance family so there is no doubt about their origins.

Rhaetian? I'd imagine a region bordering Austria and Slovenia to take some linguistic influences from them.

Are Friulans the descendants of Romans like other Italians or not?

The question is to what extent did the Veneti live in Friuli?

>aking something you already know
They lived in the South as said

How much of Italy is made of the descendants of Gauls?

0%

>0%
>When we've been talking about the Gauls in Italy
>When the Umbri were thought to be Gauls
>When a lot of the North had Gauls in it

They were all replaced by pure blooded romans

Gonna need the proof user. Surely Italian genetics wouldn't be very different if that was true?

>Pure-blooded
>Gaul rape babies
You're a bit l8 m8

"No"

THEY WUZ SERBZ

Considering that Tito tried to claim it, I wouldn't be surprised.

But can anyone fucking tell me if they're Roman descendants or not?

Yeah no. Sl*vs are not welcome here.

Aren't Serbs Iranian ?

Serbs aren't even human.

Serbs are reptilian aliens like the Jews. They just aren't as successful.

No real influence. Aquileia was initially settled by a core of roman and venetic families, in a land previously inhabited by venetics and leftover rhaetians/euganei. Romans and venetics were fairly closely related people so it meant little, and Aquileia was razed down anyway.

Would you say Friuli are descendants of Romans at all?

>North italians look nothing like terroni, specially here. Celtic tribes inhabited most of north Italy, which was then latinised with roman expansion
We northerners look different because the south was intensively colonized by greeks user. And while there was indeed a strong celtic presence in the north-WEST, it didn't so much get latinized as it got bullied into leaving, outright genocided (in reprisal for allying with enemies of Rome at various points or just victimized during the german rampage of the cimbric war), or downright drowned in a sea of roman colonists.

Same as the rest of Italy I guess.
How do you even measure that? It's not like the romans had a specific genetic marker you can look for. I mean they were italics, so they'd sport r1b. It's not exactly rare in Europe.

>p*emontesi
Fuori

t. razza purissima e levissima