Germanic history

atta unsar, thu in himinam
weinah namo theins

...

...

>goths
>visigoths
>tribal

...

I read a book about the Goths, apparently it was a denomination of Germanic invaders who were adamantly resistant to assimilating into classical civilization, while Vandals would become entranced with Roman comforts like baths the Goths would never keep any profession except being in the military or a ruler/administrator of some sort. And their constant migrations were caused by these professions becoming unavailable, the Romans also tended to believe they were less likely to be corrupt compared to native Romans(this pattern reoccurs with accounts of the Varangian guard in Constantinople). Also all Germanic tribes believed women had magic/prophetic powers.

Celts and Germanics were the most matriarchal and as proto-feminist as IE societies got. The most patriarchal people were in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

>Celtic women were distinct in the ancient world for the liberty and rights they enjoyed and the position they held in society. Compared to their counterparts in Greek, Roman, and other ancient societies, they were allowed much freedom of activity and protection under the law.
>This greater respect for women eroded steadily through the centuries. Contact with the Romans took its toll, as did the advent of Christianity. The Romans 'induced' a more hierarchical structure in what was originally a more egalitarian society by selecting loyal chiefs and promoting their power by supplying them with wealth--and in all hierarchical societies, women's status tends to decline. Women's status deteriorated further through the Roman practice of educating the sons, and not the daughters, of chieftains, to prepare them for rule.
>Tacitus wrote: Upon the Suiones, border the people Sitones; and, agreeing with them in all other things, differ from them in one, that here the sovereignty is exercised by a woman. So notoriously do they degenerate not only from a state of liberty, but even below a state of bondage.

Not much has changed since then.

To be fair, Tacitus never traveled this far north himself. That part is based on what he heard from the other tribes. Sounds a bit embellished.

The Suiones also kept all their weapons locked up, because armed idle young men were a danger to themselves and others.

youtube.com/watch?v=4ztOV2wrrkY

most maps get sweden wrong during the viking age

Reminder Germanics are African tier niggers and all great white things were made by western europeans

western europeans were nude painted savages during the early iron age.

Aesthetic painted savages with iron that later shaped the world ftfy
Don't talk back scandinigger

Celts were more advanced than Germanics

Gothic is one of the coolest languages around
it's very similar to proto-Germanic, by far the most archaic of the Germanic languages
the other Germanic languages aren't attested until hundreds of years later as Gothic is from like 400AD while Old English, Old High German and Old Norse are all mostly attested from like 1000+

only problem with Gothic is that aside from Wulfilas's Bible the corpus is practically nonexistent compared to the great literary languages of Norse, English and German

>Germans and Nords look extremely different
>light blue vs dark blue/brown eyes
>platinum blonde vs dirty blonde\brown
>tall and lanky vs short and muscular
>lazy and creative vs productive and efficient
>cucked to the extreme vs less cucked
>arrogant delusional autism vs spergy autism
>everyone is on anti-depressants vs no one on anti-depressants
>feminine singy songy language of extreme beauty and grace vs harsh everyone sounds angry in a low voice language
>vikings vs Charlemagne

These differences are most noticeable if you walk the border of Denmark and Germany

Western European Gauls were for all intents and purposes in the Medieval era while N(e)rds, Slav(e)s, and M*ds were all in the Iron Age.

>inb4 Scandi niggers claim Germany is a N(e)rdic nation and not a Western European nation.
Daily reminder the Western European descends from the mountains of Switzerland, a hyper-evolved creature capable of building and maintaining modern civilization.

>germans

>platinum blonde
>light blue
Come on now.

>Celts and Germanics were the most matriarchal and as proto-feminist as IE societies got.

So not matriarchal at all.

To add to this.
>In Frankish law, calling a woman a whore, was fined, more than any insult directed at a man.
>Property rights: “#2.11 If a Lombard while living has handed over some of his daughters in marriage and other daughters remain at home unmarried (in capillo), then all of the daughters shall equally succeed as heirs to his substance as if they were sons.” >Tacitus stated that the Germans “conceive that in woman is a certain uncanny and prophetic sense: and so they neither scorn to consult them nor slight their answers” and that they revered many women ancestors.
>The ancient Germanic peoples discerned a divinity of prophecy in women and regarded prophetesses as true and living goddesses. In the latter half of the 1st century AD Veleda was regarded as a deity by most of the tribes in central Germany and enjoyed wide influence.[3]
>According to Fell, women were "near equal companions to the males in their lives, such as husbands and brothers, much more than in any other era before modern time".[1][2] This equal status prevailed until the Norman Conquest of 1066, at which point a military society re-envisioned women as unimportant.[1][2]

...

Literally none of those is collectively true.

too early to be germanic, who were still confined to scandinavia when it was made

those were Scandinavian traits. you (I missed matched) mixed up the trait sides.
>those aren't absolute
I am not talking about absolutes but general trends.

To be fair, English are distinct from Nordics as well. That's like comparing Frenchmen and Italians

it wouldn't be, rome was a stagnating empire and europe became global superpower due to rivalry and wars between different countries

>>In Frankish law, calling a woman a whore, was fined, more than any insult directed at a man.
There is no such thing as" Frankish Law", there are the Salian Law, the Ripuarian, and the Chamavian Law. Furthermore, the Salian Law countain no such prohibitions, in the contrary women weren't allowed to have land.

Also, Franks were polagmous, and Meds(Afro-Asiatic) thus they were Patriarchal unlike Gayropeans who are currently getting bullied out of existence by based Patriarchal Meds(Afro-Asiatic).

Why do Germanics deny their ancestor were in fact gays?
They should reject homophobia and christianity equally

>Also, Franks were polagmous, and Meds(Afro-Asiatic)

Also, Franks were polygamous, and racially Med(Afro-Asiatic)*

fixed

I agree France has always been an African country. French came from Ethiopia.

Alright I'll ask in hopes of getting a non-meme answer since I'm genuinely interested in the topic, when did the first true Germanic people and cultures form? What did they look like? theres so much shitposting about the subject that Im not sure if they just sprung from the ether in Northern Europe or are just rapebabies of Indo-European and the Original inhabitants of Northern Europe

Moroccan please.

>The most patriarchal people were in the Mediterranean
Objectively wrong, pre-Indo-European Mediterraneans were very matriarchal and worshipped an "earth mother".

so where exactly did the germanics come from? ive always heard they originate from the south of jutland and my family is traced back untill 989 in friesland (frisia in the netherlands northeastern side) where we still live
no hate please

t. Marija Cuckbutas

t. butthurt farmercuck

Nah, I'm U106 with W as my mtDNA. I cluster only with Eastern Euros, Finns and North Europe.

>Title XXX. Concerning Insults.
>3. If any one, man or woman, shall have called a woman harlot, and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 1800 denars, which make 45 shillings.

Titutili 30.3 was made to avoid honor killing, in the Med race, women are the property of Medmen, if you say that "x woman is a whore" you are indirecly insulting her owner of cuckold.

>France
A colonial state established by Afro-Asiatics.

>French
French(light haired) are descended from Native Celto-Germanics who were conquered and ensclaved by Franks(dark haired and brown eyed).

I've been reading up on this for a while, and while there are a few theories, this one seems to be the most accepted:
>The Nordic Bronze Age culture (red) forms around 1500 BC, mostly Proto-Europeans but with a high level of Indo-European cultural influence
>Some level of indo-european migration and mixing likely took place, but unlike further south, where the male population was completely replaced by the IE, most of the Proto-European men remained up here.
>Around 1000-750 BC, people from the Nordic Bronze Age culture migrated south and formed the Jastorf Culture(purple).
>During the next one and a half millenia the Germanic tribes slowly expand, pushing the proto-balts east and the celts west
>At it's height about 350 AD, Magna Germania stretched between the Rhine, the Carpathian mountains and the Danube.

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted the Roman Empire to survive, just that it would have been good for it to weather the Huns and the Migration Period. I'm not really a fan of Rome and it collapsing doesn't bother me.

As for what the "proto-proto-germanic" peoples of the nordic bronze age looked like, it's mostly guesswork.
It's reasonable to assume that they were nearly 100% light-haired and blue-eyed, like Tacitus writes about their descendants 1500 years later.
But other than that, there's not much to go on. Their clothes don't remain intact very long.

Some theorise that they had fairly colourful clothes, at least the upper classes, which looks nice.

You are a superior BALTIC specimen regardless of haplogroup which originates in people more similar to you than Germanics anyway.

Some imagine something more drab. I don't know which one is the most likely. Generally, high status=colorful clothes, low status=brown, grey clothes, but that requires the culture to be fairly civilised. Dyes are hard to come by.

...

...

>You are a superior BALTIC specimen
My ancestors :)

This theory is a bit out of date. The replacement of the pre-IE male population in Scandinavia was just as bad as it was in other parts of Europe. I2 was the dominant haploshit in Scandinavia prior to the arrival of Corded Ware culture, while I1 was brought from somewhere in central Europe to Scandinavia with either R1a or R1b, but probably R1b since it the first I1 sample found in Scandinavia was dated to 1400 BC.

Comparative Proto-Germanic reconstruction posits the Germanic substrate hypothesis, which would suggest that Germanic languages (and perhaps society) is derived from a creole; perhaps the result of Indo-European and non-IE interactions in the Northern European region.

Of course this isn't a wholly satisfactory answer though. Hence why the gaps were historically filled by some with ideas of a lost Thulé or Hyperborea; this is of course more guess-work due to gaps in knowledge derived from comparative mythology.

Maybe we could find some ancient language in the Middle East that matches the Germanic substrate since the genetic substrate is Middle Eastern?

Not a germanic but why do the English cherish King Arthur in their popular mythology and culture more anglo-saxon figures like hengist and horsa or beowulf?

Semites were the noblity of the Proto-Germanics, Hitler can be considered as a remnant of this nobility.

what the fuck

Gallo-Moroccan

That is very cool and makes sense. The LBK farmers(Germany) were Semitic while the Cardial farmers(Italy) were Vasconic and possibly related to Caucasus people albeit remotely.

The Semitic theory also explains táwros which was loaned from Trypillians
>Akin to Proto-Semitic *θawr- (“bull, ox”); may be borrowed from or into, or possibly both from a common unknown source.

R1a tribes(ancestors of Aryans: Balts, Slavs, Indians, Iranics) invade Central Europe, picking l1 haplogroup with them on the way -> they go to Scandinavia from N. Poland and Baltic region by boats -> R1a and l1 conquers l2 natives of Scandivia -> Some time later R1b from Elp Culture rapes Scandianvian R1a, l2 and l1.

My Germanic ancestors born from gangrape :)

Why do you think that I1 came with Corded Ware? The oldest I1 sample from Scandinavia is from 1400 BC which coincides much better with the growing presence of R1b in Scandinavia and influence from Beaker-derived cultures like Elp culture.

Wasn't l1 ancestor of all Scandi clades the same as rest of CWC?

It could have remained in western/central European Corded Ware populations and then been brought to Scandinavia after mixing with R1b Bell Beaker populations.

Dutch have 4 times more I1 than R1a and their R1a is mostly recent Scandinavian and Slavic German influence while their I1 is as old and diverse as I1 can be.
The association between I1 and R1a is very weak.

So did l1 come with R1b? Or was it native? Because there WERE some natives, the same ones that painted arrival of big boats.

R1a is rare, I guess I1 came from Germanics whereas R1b came from the Bellbeaker, which is the bulk of our ancestry, but we did get some indirect Corded-Ware admixture from the Germanics invading from Jutland into the Netherlands.

I think it's something BB picked up when they expanded northeast from Netherlands to lands which CW had mostly ignored some centuries earlier.

Edel Nordafrikaner*

Once upon a time, Europe was inhabited by Sardinian-like people, never lacking food nor water and with no need to build shetlers, they were living in a state of bilssful ignorance. Meanwhile, Afroasiatic men, pressured by the ruthless and harsh temperature of the desert were heroically struggling against it and invented agriculture, city buildings, and metalurgy in their struggle against nature. After winning their struggle, these hardened yet peaceful Afro-Asiatic men decided to explore the land surrounding lands. During their exploration they encountered natives, they named these natives "Europeans" (from AA Ereb) and decided to enlight these naive yet bright fellows now know as Europeans. Since their encounter went well, Europeans invited Afro-Asiatic men to settle in Europe.

Sadly, peace nerver last! When Sard, the king of Europe, was celebreting his 45th birthday, he was attacked by ferocious blond-haired blue-eyed man-like beasts. After his death, Europe spiralled into chaos and these monstrosities used that time to take over Europe and enslave the Native Europeans. But evil will never triumph, a few Afroasiatic men filled with righteous anger decided to keep fighting in the name of liberty and on behalf of their Sardinian-like kinsmen. They fought well and fiercefully and never turned their back in battle. After countless battles, they finally managed to claim back their land, Europe, and naturally became its nobility and ruling class as a reward for liberating the Europeans.

After the liberation of Europe, Afroasiatic men had to chose between slaughtering the remaining blond-haired beasts or sparing their lives, Afroasiatic men were naturally full of compensation so they chose the later, and decided to enlight these beasts. END.

So Netherlands is the origin of Germanics with l1 being majority, R1b being minority? Battle Axe was R1a for sure.

>with no need to build shetlers
with no need to build shelters*

>the land surrounding lands
the surrounding lands*

>Afroasiatic men were naturally full of compensation so they chose the later
Afroasiatic men were naturally full of compassion so they chose the latter*

There are a certain amount of haplogroups associated with the Germanic people but I don't think we are the urheimat of our people, but rather Jutland. I think the reason why Scandinavians proper (Swedes and Norwegians) are a bit different is because they have far more Battle Axe (R1a) descendence while we are more like the Bellbeakers of England with additional Germanic migrations later.

Please take your pills Yassin

>So Netherlands is the origin of Germanics with l1 being majority, R1b being minority?
I1 being dominant in Scandinavia today doesn't mean that it also had to have been dominant in the Netherlands, despite this being the likely point of origin for its dispersal to Scandinavia. Factors like the founder effect could be responsible for it becoming so dominant in Scandinavia while remaining relatively uncommon in the Netherlands.

>the Salian Law countain no such prohibitions,
Fucking brainlet
>He who calls a free woman a prostitute and cannot prove it (called straho in the Malberg gloss) shall be liable to pay eighteen hundred denarii (i.e., forty-five solidi).

>mfw all Celts and Germanics are bunch of cucks
I'd rather stay irrelevant Slav then

I talked about this law here and explained why it is not a women-friendly law

i'm triggered by how shitty that axe looks

Fortunately adel doesn't even mean nobility. The primary meaning of adel is adult, someone married. That's why Libra - sign of setting sun - is called Odala. It is not about "princes" as dumbies translate, but about married people.

Frenchmen and Italians are exactly the same.

Germanic spirit or the essence of the culture is from Paleo-Europeans, people who predated the traditional "nordics".
The Paleo-Europeans of Scandinavia did however have blonde hair, blue eyes, light skin, and were tall.
Their culture, boats, warfare, gods, etc. would form the core of what would become Germanic culture.

Retarded post.

>picking l1 haplogroup with them on the way
The I1 haplogroup found in Scandinavia today did not exist in the time of the Indo-Europeans. It evolved from a previous I2. which was the only haplogroup found in Paleo-Europeans, in Scandinavia and everywhere else.
I1 came from a single man who came to dominate a tribe, then that tribe came to dominate the indo-europeans, or at least take all the Indo-European women.

explain

>It evolved from a previous I2.
I2 and I1 share a common ancestor 30k years ago. Some individuals belong to I* but they are very rare.
I1 was for the longest time the obscure one of the brothers maybe thousands of times less common which got a lucky break in the copper-bronze age.
Germanic spirit is basically IE spirit. Historically it was pretty much about killing people which is an activity IE excel at compared to pre-IE.
Culture, boats, warfare, gods even more so. You're trying to mythologize the people who were in most ways the losers without knowing the first thing about them.

>I2 and I1 share a common ancestor 30k years ago.
They share a descent from J, the Jewish Haplogroup, but that's either here nor there.
However it seems like I1 is a breakaway from I2 more so than a total isolated descendent from J.
We find I2 in Scandinavia dating before I1 was prominent, then I2 declines, R1b rises (indo-European invasion) then after that we see the rise of I1 out of nowhere nearly wiping out I2 and severely reducing R1b and R1a.
>Germanic spirit is basically IE spirit
That's a load of bology.
Look at the languages even, Germanic languages have I think a liberal estimate is 40% of influence from pre-Indo-European proto-Nordic language.
Indo-Europeans did not have boats, nor did they use them for religious purposes, the Paleo-Europeans did, and what do we see in Scandinavia? Much greater emphasis on boats, the sea, ships, and other things. Almost no Chariots in Scandinavia and where there are Chariots they are found in Denmark, not in Sweden and Norway. Less horse reverence and more reverence for bears and wolves, animals native to Scandinavia but not to the steppe, at least the wolves the Nordics revere are not Mongolian/Altaic steppe wolves. Ravens are the same way, found in Northern European climates.
Think about how many places are named after Odin and how many places are named after Thor.
Many places named after Odin in the South of the Germanic cultural world, Germany and it's surrounding areas. While Odin as a name is non-existent in Scandinavia.
Yet Thor is the most prominent, places and people bearing the name of Thor, less so in Germany.
Odin is very Indo-European, Thor while sharing similarities with Indo-European deities seems to have his origin in Scandinavia, unlike Odin.
Of course this would be subject to syncretism so it is hard to tell, but Scandinavia is closer to Finland than it is to Germany in regards to culture and religion, at least it was before 400 A.D.
We can even see this in the genetics

Look at places where the vikings settled and remained isolated. Iceland somewhat, Faroe, Orkneys, lands untouched by others or cleared from armies.
I think the vikings in Faroe encountered no natives because a scottish king wiped the isles clean of its few natives.
Anyway, these places where the vikings settled are more Paleo-European and less Indo-European.
two possibilities
The Indo-European or Yamnaya DNA in Scandinavia was not present in the viking age and before.
Or
Paleo-European DNA found it's way into Northern European island populations somehow.

>losers
is that why their haplogroup dominates Scandinavia? Is that why their haplogroup is the haplogroup of the vikings?
Funny thing is, suppose I'm wrong about them being Paleo-European in regards to their primary genetic composition.
That's even worse for Indo-Europeans because it means I1 men took R1b and R1a women in droves.
You know what we can infer from that?
Paleo-Europeans conquered Indo-Europeans.

Hunter Gatherer society was much rougher and much more warlike than Pastoralist society.
Keep in mind the Indo-European tribes who were successful were the ones who mixed with Hunter Gatherers and also retained their Siberian Hunter Gatherer identity, as opposed to the Indo-Europeans who mixed with farmers or other Pastoralists.

both I1 and R1b were in Europe before the arrival of Indo-Europeans and Anatolian farmers.

>is that why their haplogroup dominates Scandinavia? Is that why their haplogroup is the haplogroup of the vikings?
>Hunter Gatherer society was much rougher and much more warlike than Pastoralist society
You're so clueless

>The Paleo-Europeans of Scandinavia did however have blonde hair, blue eyes, light skin, and were tall.
Nope. They were robust and swarthy. Like pic related.

Origins

Nope.

The oldest blondes in Europe are Hunter Gatherers from Scandinavia. This whole page is completely wrong because European Hunter Gatherers had blue-eyes - Western, Eastern and Northern.

And the elite have kept their bloodlines for 10000 years.

>land dissapearing from north west, you head from there south east.