Is it possible that some ancient peoples still have bloodlines today?
For example, ancient Egyptians were ruled by the Greeks for 300 years, after that, the Romans for 600 years, and the Arabs for 500 years after that. Ethnically, are any Egyptians related to their pyramid building ancestor?
The same question goes for the Gauls, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, etc.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The Coptic people are the closest to the ancient Egyptians.
While I do not think there are any groups with Celtic Gaulish decent, the Occitains are the last decedents of the later Romano-Gauls.
Thanks Straya. You've given me more to look into
Maybe they all migrated north to Ireland?
yes
they are in egypt duh
Modern Egyptians are very closely related to ancient Egyptians. The various other nations that ruled over Egypt comprised an administrative and/or mercantile class that never amounted to more than 1% of the total population.
The modern French are very similar to Iron Age Gauls. They were acculturated, rather than displaced. This is the case with most ancient conquests, where a new ruling class moves in (in this case Romans then Franks), but the vast majority of the population is of original stock. In the case of the Roman conquest of Gaul, much of the Gallic aristocracy remained intact, and quickly became romanized.
Genetically, the modern French are pretty much identical to the population living within the borders of modern France going back as far as the early Bronze Age. For the most part, they're not very dissimilar from the Neolithic inhabitants either.
Will the modern Islamic immigrants have an affect on this? If it's similar to most historic migrations, then we've nothing to worry about, right?
I'm talking about actual French. Current immigrant communities not included.
And no, it's not similar, because historical migrations tended (and certainly, in the cases of the Romans and Franks) to involve the newcomers being of a dominant social status, rather than how Muslim immigrants to France today are of an inferior social status.
So your're saying, if current trends continue. it would have been more beneficial for the Umayyed Caliphate to have conquered France than what's going on now?
Well, that FUBAR's the timeline completely, so we can't say anything with accuracy.
But... assuming that the Kingdom of the Franks were conquered by the Moorish Umayyads, then it would have involved an almost negligible impact in terms of genetics, if that's what you're getting at.
Again though, how this scenario would play out over the following centuries is anybody's guess, and it would entail "France" not being a thing at all, and western Civilization either not existing, or being something totally bizarro compared to what exists on our timeline.
KEK rules it...
Modern Coptic Christians are ancient egyptians. Ancient egyptians adopted Christianity pretty quickly. Muslim Egyptians are also basically ancient egyptians but are more likely to have arab blood in them too. Coptic Christians did not mix with muslims or the children would legally be muslim
It's an interesting thought line to be sure. So which is preferable to you; a timeline with a predominantly white, but Muslim Europe, or the current status quo?
To expand on that, Maghrebi Arabs (Moors) are really no different than the pre-Arab, pre-Islamic inhabitants of the Atlas Mountains, even though they speak Arabic and consider themselves Arabs. And despite all the le ebin pol maymay's, modern Spaniards are basically indistinguishable from pre-Islamic conquest Iberians- the actual number of Moorish invaders was tiny compared to the native population.
The only times we see major population displacements is when the invaders bring with them some radically new material system- e.g. agriculturalists entering the territory of hunter-gatherers, or the European conquest of the Americas. There are exceptions to this, but they are rare.
Well, if ur not adverse to some red pills, there are several major families operating (not least of which is Windsor/Sachs-Coburg-Goethe) that directly trace their lineage well PAST Egypt/Khemet,....
That should get u started (hint, S-C-G is part of 1/13). Oh sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
Yes.
So you're implying that the waves of Germanic invaders (Gothic, Vandalic, and Lombard) had no discernible effect on the ethnic makeup of at least the Northern Italians?
So House Windsor wuz Kangz n shit?
Like I said, how things would play out beyond the 8th century is unknowable.
Maybe like 5%. That's just my guess, though. I'm not as familiar with post-Roman Italy.
You know what set Eygpt apart from all the other ancient civilizations at the time?
The Sun.
Egypt worshiped the sun and built their lives around it. They built their CALENDARS around it. Where everyone else used the moon. So what's more accurate for things like when to plant crops and harvest crops? Which direction the earth is actually moving in so they can notice other things related to it? How life actually grows and evolves?
It's funny how this one thing made them smarter than everyone else and I wonder what set this off? I think, Europeans may have moved in, hence you get those blond-haired, blue eyed pharaohs, and just by virtue of being slightly smarter they realized something was more stable about the Sun and they should build their civilization around that instead.
House of Windsor,... as in the Queen of England. Fukkin knob-end.
To expand on this...
>Maybe like 5%. That's just my guess, though. I'm not as familiar with post-Roman Italy.
One distinction I should add here is that the Germanic invasions/migrations were genuine MIGRATIONS of peoples, whereas the Arabian invasion of the Maghreb, and the Moorish invasion of Iberia were military endeavors.
I'm afraid to drop this redpill but I'll do it anyway: The Bogs.
fucking this
en.wikipedia.org
They look pretty much the same as modern Egyptians.
Very little genetic memory of the past.
The admixture with Arabs was too great during the Mohammedan conquests.